Talk:Episcopal polity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, an attempt to organize information in articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board.

This article is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is a bit outside of my main areas of knowledge. Please repair errors of fact or nuance. Mkmcconn 06:01 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

I've made some edits based on my understanding of conciliar hierarchy and apostolic succession; hope I've remained NPOV, please correct if not.

I do have a question about this sentence:

It was this practical eminence in the East that was acknowledged, first by the Council of Constantinople 381, and then ecumenically by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, so that the Patriarch (pre-eminent father) of the church under New Rome's domain was for all practical purposes the Bishop of Constantinople.

I had always thought that the Council of Constantinople was the Second Ecumenical Council, and that Chalcedon was either the third or fourth ecumenical council. The above seems to imply that Chalcedon was ecumenical, but Constantinople was not. Are these different interpretations of the scope of those councils, or... ? Wesley 15:48 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

I'm unsure, but it appears to be an issue of contention, because Rome had no representative at Constantinople. The only article (article 38) that Rome raised particular objection to, was concerning the authority of Caesar to grant primacy within his realm. So, apparently (and I'm not completely sure how this works, in a Roman Catholic understanding), article 38 over-reaches the claim of ecumenicity by making Christ subordinate to Caesar, and the whole church subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, overturning (as Rome sees it(?)) the Apostolic order. I might be overstating things due to lack of thorough understanding. But, it does appear from reading the scorching rebukes by Pope Gregory I, that this is basically correct (or at least, a perverse reading of statements to that effect). I will certainly yield to Catholics and Orthodox on any of these points, who are bound to speak with better familiarity and nuance. Mkmcconn

Based on quick online research, the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to acknowledge it as an ecumenical council because its decrees were eventually accepted in both East and West, even though there was no delegate from Rome present. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm. I have heard that there are cases when Rome accepted a council but took exception to one or two canons within it, and the article 38 you mention may very well be an example of that; in fact, this statement seems to bear that out:

The council's dogmatic authority in the western church was made clear by words of Pope Gregory I: "I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel...." The bishop of Rome's approval was not extended to the canons, because they were never brought "to the knowledge of the apostolic see". Dionysius Exiguus knew only of the first four -- the ones to be found in the western collections. Pope Nicholas I wrote of the sixth canon to Emperor Michael III: "It is not found among us, but is said to be in force among you". (http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm) Context shows that the additions made to the Nicene Creed are the main thing that Gregory I was accepting.

Looking at the canons of the council itself at http://www.orthodoxa.org/orthodoxie/droit%20canon/2econcileGB.htm, it appears that Constantinople did not replace Rome in honor, but was given the place of second highest honor after Rome. I believe this is what I remember hearing elsewhere as well. The issue with Rome was really whether the Pope could overrule all the other patriarchs, or whether things needed to be worked out and agreed upon in council. The filioque clause dispute wound up being the final straw, when neither side would back down. Or at least that's how I understand the Orthodox perspective, and I know that some Orthodox would see it in at least slightly different light. Wesley 16:25 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

It's a very interesting history, not easy to interpret. I notice that the Catholics place blame not on people, but on the difficulties caused by language. I do think that you are right, that the Orthodox now preserve the same understanding as Constantinople then: that Rome is not replaced or demoted, nor is apostolic authority replaced. But, Gregory (at least) and perhaps Leo before him, were concerned that this is what had been done in principle even if not in spirit, and that the groundwork had been laid for the appearing of the antichrist (at least, I think that's what can be concluded from sentences such as those following, from among many, many like them):

Gregory to Constantina Augusta:

But, when this my brother with new presumption and pride calls himself universal bishop, having caused himself in the time of our predecessor of holy memory to be designated in synod by this so proud a title, though all the acts of that synod were abrogated, being disallowed by the Apostolic See,- ... etc.

Gregory to Sabinianus:

I suspect, however, that thou hast not all considered with what cunningness this has been done by our aforesaid brother John. For it is for this purpose that he has done it; that the Lord Emperor might be obeyed, and so he [John] himself might seem to be confirmed in his vanity, or that I might not obey him [the emperor], and so his [the emperor's] mind might be irritated against me.

Gregory to John the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople:

For all that was foretold is come to pass. The king of pride is near, and (awful to be said!) there is an army of priests in course of preparation for him, inasmuch as they who bad been appointed to be leaders in humility enlist themselves under the neck of pride. ... For, since the pride of the devil was the origin of our perdition, the humility of God has been found the means of our redemption. ... What, then, can we bishops say for ourselves, who have received a place of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride of the enemy himself? Mkmcconn

Contents 1 Roman Catholic view of Orthodox apostolicity 2 Episcopalian government in the Orthodox and other Catholic traditions 3 Name problem 4 The "other denominations" section 5 Not a history article 6 Major Copy-Edit 7 Merger discussion

[edit] Roman Catholic view of Orthodox apostolicity

I don't think that the RCC holds that it exclusively has the apostolic succession. The RCC does recognize the sacramental validity of the ordinations of the orthodox churches, including the sacramental validity of the bishops of the orthodox churches, which would make them legitimate successors of apostles. The contention then is not on the apostolicity of the orthodox bishops but instead on the schism between the two churches. Pmadrid 05:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Episcopalian government in the Orthodox and other Catholic traditions

There should be some discussion of this, but it is outside my area of expertise. Fishhead64 15:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing. There is episcopal government in Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but Episcopalian is always a reference to the ECUSA or other Anglican provinces. --Vaquero100 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name problem

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I would interpret "Episcopalian church governance" to mean the specific polity of ECUSA.

I cant find a vote here. But to say that Episcopalian and episcopal are interchangeable is absurd. The proper term for the general concept is episcopal. Episcopalian is always a reference to an Anglican Church. No Catholic would ever confuse these terms. --Vaquero100 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Hence my tagging of a merge proposal with episcopal (which, perhaps, should be retitled episcopal church governance or episcopal ecclesiology. Anything specifically relevant to ECUSA should be merged with that article. Fishhead64 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree: The new title of the merged article should be Episcopal church governance (I like the term ecclesiology, but it's much broader than the polity, or structure of government, which is the subject treated in this article). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Episcopal polity would be the best title; and, accordingly, Presbyterian polity, and Congregationalist polity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be my choice, too, but we would definitely need redirects from "___ governance". Mangoe 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with a couple of caveats. "Episcopalian" means PECUSA and usually a member thereof. I also tend to prefer "polity" over "governance" but I think this is perhaps a reflection of the anglican (me) seeing the matter in a sacramental light which doesn't apply to congregationally governed churches as a rule.

"Ecclesiology" and "governance" should not be combined. Different episcopal polity churches have radically different ecclesiology. (Indeed, I think you would be hard-pressed to get just the Anglicans to agree on ecclesiology.) Mangoe 01:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "other denominations" section

There are still traces of a Roman Catholic bias in this article, but I particularly see some POV issues in the discussion of other Protestant denominations. Do the Lutherans really describe their polity as "Synodical"? It's a bit hard to tell whether this is actually different from the semi-presbyterian polity of the Episcopal Church. The passage about Methodist polity is more concrete at least but comes across to me as a bit dismissive. Mangoe 11:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a history article

This is turning into a history of events leading up to the Great schism and now has little to do with polity per se. Almost everything in the first section needs to go elsewhere. Mangoe 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that I disagree about the significance of the historical tensions, for understanding what "episcopal polity" means. I think that the history section should not expand, but it should stay. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mark, episcopal polity is intimately bound up with conciliar authority, and the ancient ecumenical councils are crucial for understanding the derivation of both. Fishhead64 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not getting any better. What I see is an article justifying the episcopal authority of the Catholic Church, with intermittent attempts by others to curb some of the more egregiously POV statements. At the very least, this article should start by explaining episcopal polity in the abstract, and then discuss the variations among the various episcopal churches, and then maybe the historical development (which of course would have to be balanced by presentation of an Orthodox POV). Right now it still sounds too much like something from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Mangoe 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, either in your assessment of the article, or in your evaluation of its presentation. There's nothing especially Roman Catholic about the history. In fact, as I read it, it tells the story pretty much as all sides would, that invest history with any doctrinal significance. Honestly, you cannot be informative about what episcopal polity is without this history. Episcopacy is a polity based on history! — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. All polities have some historical basis, and I think the Presbyterian polity article shows a reasonable balance between history and structre. The problem with this article is that it doesn't explain how the episcopacy works in the abstract, so (for instance) J. Random Baptist wouldn't find out much from this article. Mangoe 00:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The difference between these two conceptions of authority in the church is less a matter of organizational structure, than it is a difference in understanding of where authority comes from in terms of history. Episcopal polity is authority transmitted as history (tradition is authority concerning the word of God); Presbyterian authority is transmitted through history (tradition is a vehicle, the word of God in Scripture is authority).

You could go so far, rhetorically, as to say that Episcopacy is history; on the basis of the central principal of episcopal succession. This is not like Presbyterian polity, which claims continuity with the apostles primarily by principle of fellowship with them in the Gospel. Authority resides in this, and not in historical continuity, for Presbyterianism. A man with the credentials of unbroken continuity, who has broken fellowship with the apostles in the Gospel once delivered by them, discredits his authority as an ordained servant of Christ. Likewise, Presbyterianism is able to deny the authority of a church with the credentials of Apostolic succession, if through that tradition of ordination it departs from the apostolic teaching in Scripture. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not go so far; you are making a category error. The episcopacy involves an element of historical transmission in its Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican forms. I can't speak for the Lutherans and the Methodists, but it would not surprise me that they would disagree. But in any case, it remains that succession is only an element and not the whole thing. The article is failing to be encyclopedic precisely because its present intent is primarily a justification of Roman Catholic claims. There is a place for such claims within the article, but prior to that it must explain the episcopal system in terms that apply to all the episcopally organized churches. Neutrality demands such a neutral characterization. Mangoe 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that the article is a "justification of Roman Catholic claims". If this is how you read history, I wonder why you are not Roman Catholic. I certainly don't read history that way. Neutrality does not mean that relevant issues and facts should be discarded when they seem to be useful to one perspective, but useless to another. This is the opposite of "neutrality". I don't think you would go so far as to say that the history is irrelevant to understanding what "episcopal" means in the East, compared to "episcopal" in Rome.

I'll grant that saying "episcopacy is history" is going too far; but I'm sure you don't miss the point that, in comparison to Presbyterianism (which you cited as comparable), episcopacy as such is concerned with history in a way that Presbyterianism simply is not.

The foundational idea is that authority derived from the bishop. How the bishop is supposed to have this authority is an issue of history, not of abstract principles concerning structure. There are examples of churches that have adopted a hierarchical system of government, of rank or status, of preferment in decision-making, of prelacy - but not having a concept of episcopal authority as foundational, they will inevitably differ from episcopal polity. It isn't as simple as saying, "a is ruled by bishops", "b is ruled by bishops", "episcopal polity is rule by bishops", "a and b have the same polity". I suppose you can start with something almost that simple, but the reason this statement is a half-truth is an issue of the governmental significance of history, which needs to be explained.

You also speak of "the episcopal system" and recommend that this "system" should be discussed in terms that apply to all "episcopally organized churches". This is backward. There is a scheme of organization under bishops, a structure that appears also in some churches that do not have "the episcopal system". The role of bishops in Methodism is important, for example, but their polity is quite distinct from an episcopal system - for reasons that they themselves will cite, to explain why they prefer to call their system of government "connectionalism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Church history makes non-Catholics uncomfortable as the reality of the papacy is something most would rather forget, deny, avoid, hide from. However, the Bishop of Rome IS a bishop. Episcopal polity cannot be understood without the history of the Church including Conciliarism and its complement in the papacy. Church history (and the episcopate) did not begin with Henry VIII.

If you have a problem with a specific statement in the article, say so. Challenge it.

If you have other things to say about Anglicanism, go nuts. --Vaquero100 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, when I start going on about the historical argument, I go after it from an Orthodox point of view, which drives Roman Catholics nuts. But that's not the point.

The problem is that the article doesn't explain episcopal polity! Right now it's largely written for Roman Catholics whom it assumes are sufficiently catechized to know the basics of how bishops function in the church, but who need some help refuting Orthodox and Anglican arguments against papal supremacy.

I haven't had time to be sufficiently bold, and at the moment my inclination would be to scrap almost the whole article and explain how the polity functions rather than visit any of the history. I had hoped that someone who could speak for the Orthodox/Catholic positons better than I can would take the hint, but I guess that's not going to happen. Mangoe 20:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you should feel completely free to explain more clearly how episcopal polity works. But as for the history, it should be improved, and not neglected. The explanation of what episcopal government is, and how it works in practical terms, is in the versions of the story as they tell it, because history is their explanation of what is transmitted through the power of ordination, and how that authority is ordered into a system of government in the church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Two points

1. The desire for a lengthy history of apostolic succession expressed above suggests to me that there is motivation to write separate article(s) about the history of apostolic succession, or to move that material to the Apostolic succession article.
2. I really hope that someone finds the time to write (at least) stub sections about the doctrine and theology of episcopal polity, as I tend to agree with the comments above that it is lacking. What would be good sources to start with?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Copy-Edit

The major edit by "129.74.202.244" is mine. It took so long, I timed out of WP before saving it. Anyway, do not be too alarmed. This was largely copy-editing and reorganization.

It is organized now somewhat historically and somewhat by Churches reflecting the history of Xtianity rather than jumping around from past to present, this church to that.

As noted before, I changed the references to Byzantium to Constantinople. This reflects the approach of contemporary historians. The town of Byzantium was actually never Christian since it was re-developed into Constantinople as Christianity was being adopted. Western historians have had the bad habit (from today's point of view) of calling the Eastern Roman Empire "Byzantine" in order to avoid referring to it as "Roman." Some of this was guilt for the sack of Rome by the West and the failure to rescue it from the Ottomans. "Byzantine" in the West came to mean strange, convoluted, archaic, bizarre, nonsensical. However, the "Byzantines" always called themselves "Romans."

I tried to remain true to the meaning of the prior text. However, there was some vague wording which as I made more specific, may reflect my Catholic perspective, particularly in the era before the Great Schism. The prior text in explaining the primacy that accrued to Constantinople between the fifth and eleventh centuries, seemed to me unclear about whether it replaced Rome's role in the East as the see of last appeal or matched it or what. I know Rome has always claimed that role, but am not sure if the East ceased to recognize this before 1054 or oly after. Perhaps it is a false question somehow. Anyway, you Easterners help us out.

BTW, I am glad we cleared up the "Episcopalian" thing. Does this need to remain an Anglican page now that this misnomer is cleared up?

Also, have done nothing with "other denominations" as am not too qualified. --Vaquero100 17:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This still needs an Anglican overhaul. Right now Anglicanism is just a footnote. Mangoe 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that later today. Fishhead64 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger discussion

I am glad someone proposed a merger with Episcopal. It should be done without delay as the topics and content overlap too much. Also you might notice that Episcopal is weak or confusing as regards Catholic and Orthodox episcopal polity. There is a heavy US bias in the discussion of Methodism, that would be made stronger by the merger, but that could be fixed by some deletions and a source of non-US facts. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

2 months have gone by since the merger proposal. It is definitely time to do it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge in progress. I looked at the 'What links here' report and concluded that the page Episcopal should go to a disambiguation page. A large fraction of the links were intended to go to Episcopal Church in the United States of America not to Episcopal at all. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

MERGE COMPLETE - that is the end of what I can do today. Apart from simply cutting and pasting the material, the biggest change to this article is probably the increased emphasis on the historic episcopate. I hope I struck a reasonable balance. There may be more tidying to do, and the article certainly needs more clear, authoritative contributions, to improve the flow and coverage, so please Be Bold. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that I did some additional writing and editing to smooth the merge. I also removed the Template:Expert. Use this diff to see all the changes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)