THE MCJ

...that's not saying there was anything special about the Bishop of that particular city or anything like that ;-)

I think he just happened to be the closest one. Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, they were all further off, so Rome got to deal with the problem... ya think? {G}

that's not saying there was anything special about the Bishop of that particular city or anything like that

The other four were Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. You know, Jerusalem -- whose first bishop, St. James, was head of the council recorded in Acts 15 and delivered the council's final rulings... despite the presence of one St. Peter.

:-)

pax,
LP

Excuse me for repeating myself, but please remember: these are not "well meaning people who disagree with us". They are fanatics, True Believers who have raped, and are murdering the Episcopal Church to achieve their goal, that being the social acceptance of sexual perversion.

The homosexualists have made it clear that if the Anglican Communion won't die with them, then to hell with the Anglican Communion. If by some miracle, TEC came to itself and reversed course, Susan Russell and her girlfriend would stay with the Episcopal Church? No, the goal is clear, and anything that stands in the way... well... I'm sure they will make opposition illegal as soon as they can.

See http://www.creeds.net/ specifically The Second Ecumenical Council aka The First Council of Constantinople AD 381... http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt pages 179 forward on Maximus the Cynic, to wit:

"CANON IV. CONCERNING Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid."

Now there's an incursion into another Province by a Council, the very Council that said geographical boundaries should be respected. FYI, the infamous canon is actually Canon II of that Council (The Second Ecumenical Council) "CANON II. THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers. NOTES. ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II. No traveller shall introduce confusion into the Churches either by ordaining or by enthroning. Nevertheless in Churches which are among the heathen the tradition of the Fathers shall be preserved." It is patently obvious that Fathers at the Council did not violate their own understanding of their own canons when they deposed and UN-bishop-ed Maximus from Constantinople.

So the infamous Canon II citations by Schori et alia are ripped out of proper context and re-interpreted to suit their arguments. That from the great "contextualistas" who would make context the alleged rationale for their misadventures! (Surely God sits above the heavens and laughs in derision at their "logic" and "reasoning" as He does the other scoffers.) The context for Canon II is an orthodox bishop adhering to the faith within his own diocese. ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC clearly does not meet that criterion for non-intervention. That can be established on the basis of deeds as well as words too numerous to enumerate here. But see http://walkingapart.us/tiki-index.php for a listing of such matters. Live by the canons, be deposed by the canons, PB. IT's a package deal.

You're funny. Don't you understand that the package deal only applies to reasserters? There is NO package deal of consistency for revisionists. Silly man, Trix are for Revisionist Rabbits.

We discuss same-sex issues because that is what is before us; homosexualist ideology is the particular heresy in vogue, but it is, of course, all of a part with the fundamental human problem: Not Thou, O God, but Me. Better to rule in hell - if there were a hell and God wasn't all-loving and wouldn't think of sending a good, good, GOOD person like me there anyway - then reign in heaven, though certainly I can rule in heaven anyway, since I deserve it; I.Am.Worth.It. They say that on TV all the time, so it must be true, eh!

In all seriousness, as a Catholic, I certainly reject the other sexual perversions in play, as do many of the protestant and Orthodox folks who converse here. But those perversions are not on display, prancing about looking for a television camera before which to preen.

I can't believe no one has posted Hillaire Belloc's "Pelagian Drinking Song" yet:

Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.

No, he didn't believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.

Then came the bishop of old Auxerre
Germanus was his name
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall --
They rather had been hanged.

Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.

Now the faith is old and the Devil bold
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.

And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!

	-- Hillaire Belloc

Yeah, I've read about Jerusalem -- but that Jerusalem church disappeared in 70 AD, forever, and afterwards there arose in its place a gentile church that was so negligible in its status and prestige that its bishop was a mere suffragan to the Archbishop of Caesarea, until its long-serving bishop, Juvenal, but adroit maneuvering and switching sides in the nick of time over the space of some 40 years, managed to get his negligible see promoted to a patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon, along with Constantinople, in 451. Not a happy precedent, either one.

I still think that jettisoning the Prayer of Humble Access is the biggest symptom of that very thing.

At any rate, the basic point was that "Rome is a patriarchate" doesn't equal "Rome has universal ordinary jurisdiction". Personally, I've got no problems with Rome as a patriarchate, or even with Rome having primacy of honor among coequal patriarchates. But, of course, neither do the Orthodox. It's the claims of papal supremacy (and its concommitant consequences), which I don't find in either Scripture or patristic Tradition, which mean I'm an anglocatholic rather than a Roman Catholic.

pax,
LP

Not so, for

(a) the Church of the East does not use, and never has used, the Liturgy of St. James. It uses the Liturgy of SS Addai and Mari, which may well be derived from the Aramaic liturgy of Third Century Edessa, and even, behind it, of Antioch, plus the Sixth-Century liturgies of "Nestorius" and "Theodore of Mopsuestia"

(b) the Liturgy of St. James is a Fourth-Century liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, originally compiled in Greek and later put into Aramaic. Its anaphora may well have been composed, or at least redacted, by St. Cyril of Jerusalem during his long episcopate (349-386), but it is no more (nor less ) "apostolic" than those of St. Basil, St, john Chrysostom and the like

And it's news to me that Pella is in Anatolia. It must have had the mobility of the Holy House of Loretto at one time, to hop, skip and jump from Transjordania up north.

The Assyrians have as much or a slittle to do with Jerusalem as the do with Carthage or Constantinople. Their history has been tragically glorious enough not to be improved by sticking feathers plucked from other birds into their own plumage. LP,

You are, I gather, a scholar (as well as the nephew of a late great Yale scholar who told me a memorable remark about his religious position in 1975 -- "I am a Lutheran, but I do not intend to die a Lutheran. As yet I have not been able to decide whether to become Orthodox or Catholic."), and so you would do well to read two Anglican books on the position of the papacy vis-a-vis other sees and churches in the early centuries: the learned T. G. Jalland's *The Church and the Papacy* (1944) and Dom Gregory Dix's provocative and posthumous *Jurisdiction in the Early Church: Episcopal and Papal* (1975).

If you are looking for some scripture to undermine papal authority, dont look to Acts 15, my friend. AboutCatholics.com says this:

"Acts 15 gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered St. Peter's authority final."

Here is St. Peter's speech at Jerusalem:

7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."(Acts 15) Also, LP, the Pentarchy only begins in the late 5th Century as Prof. Tighe has pointed out. The claims of Rome extend all the way to Jesus and Peter.

"And upon this Pentarchy I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

Oh wait...

BTW--where is the Pentarchy now? How many of those five patriarchates even exist anymore?

This notion that some ancient British (OR Gaulic) Church existed independent of Rome's authority has been aptly described by the redoubtable Edwin Tait as "the Orthodox (or Anglo-Catholic) equivalent of the Baptist 'Trail of Blood' theory."

the other diane--Mark's favorite ;-)

obituary,

I wish I knew. :)

peace,

Zach

Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered St. Peter's authority final.

Even so, you could perhaps bring this point up in a discussion about Scriptural precedent for papal infallibility (though you'll have to take Gal 2 into account in that discussion - though that's doable with the properly nuanced understanding of ex cathedra.)

But my point was not about teaching authority, but rather about universal ordinary jurisdiction -- i.e. that to judge from Scripture, it is the bishop of Jerusalem, not the "first pope", who has final authority and say at that council, despite the fact that Peter, Paul and Barnabas (and other unnamed elders) all have their say. And though, in his summary, James does mention Peter's speech, he highlights only Peter's experience of God's action (v. 14) but turns to Scripture to find teaching authority (v. 15-18). Most tellingly, though, it is his (James') own authority and judgement which announces and confirms the council's results ('ego krinw', v. 19).

Now, I don't know if this goes so far as to "undermine papal authority"... but I think it does show at the very least that "papal authority", particularly jurisdictional authority, is not being exercised in one of the key moments in the apostolic Church where we would expect to see it in action. Granted, absence of evidence is not evidience of absense... but the Council of Jerusalem certainly doesn't support papal claims to universal ordinary jurisdiction, even if it doesn't "refute" them either.

Pentarchy only begins in the late 5th Century as Prof. Tighe has pointed out.

But again, my point wasn't to "disprove" the authority of the bishop of Rome so much as to point out that the anecdote's mention of Rome doesn't demonstrate either universal ordinary jurisdiction or papal supremacy (which are the points of contention between Rome and the East as well as anglocatholics) but rather simply shows Rome exercising patriarchal influence in the West, which isn't a point of contention. These Western bishops' consultation with Rome doesn't prove that Rome is more than a patriarchate any more than Eastern bishops' consultation with Constantinople would prove that the bishop of Constantinople was the "pope".

W.T. - thanks for the refs; I'll add them on my far-too-long "books I should" read list with Eno's _Rise of the Papacy_ (which, I'm ashamed to admit, I've got still packed in a moving box somewhere). You know, you'd do a great service to all the readers on the Anglican lists to which you contribute if you'd post some topical bibliographies... I"d love, for example, to see your bibliography on the Anglican orders issue, with which issue I know you're fully conversant.

pax,
LP

If I recall correctly it took a while for Rome to accept this status.

And hereby hangs a tale. I can't wait for Dr. Tighe to weigh in. ;-)

the other diane, resisting the urge to hum a few bars of, "Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople"

Diane queried...

"BTW--where is the Pentarchy now? How many of those five patriarchates even exist anymore?"

All of them.

Dr. Tighe, I concur with LP – you’re one of the gems of the blogosphere.

And, of course, we papists have never read the passage you cite before. We've never had it thrown at us, either. So, you are right--it is a slam-dunk. There goes the entire case for Petrine jurisdictional primacy! What were we thinking, lo these 2000 years?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but man, does this stuff get old.

Anyway ... thank you for your closing, and may you also have a blessed and Christ-filled day. :-)

Diane the "Roman" (Does this toga make my tuchas look big?)

Pelagius just suffered for being ahead of his time! :-)

LP is correct to point out that Acts 15 is not a slam dunk for universal jurisdiction. More importantly though; I think that Acts 15 demonstrates perfectly the way our own preconceived notions and expectations color our reading and interpretation.

The Catholic reads Acts 15 and says, “Aha! Papal universal jurisdiction; Peter’s decision carried the day.” The non-Catholic reads Acts 15 and says, “Aha! James had the last word, so much for universal jurisdiction.” Luke’s coverage is simply too superficial to conclusively decide one way or the other.

My personal opinion on what happened in Acts 15 is this: The “Judaizing” party was followers of James (per Gal 2:12) and said that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised. Paul disagreed. Paul went to Jerusalem and took the matter before the Apostles, the same as all his teachings, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain (Gal 2:2). The matter was debated and discussed. Peter spoke and gave his opinion on the matter, favoring Paul. Those in council considered what Peter said and heard further confirmation from Paul and Barnabas of the good things done amongst the Gentiles. Then James, the leader of the opposition party, having been convinced in favor of Paul gave his reasons in order that his followers would be convinced as well. In a similar manner, in Galatians 2 we find Paul listing James first followed by Cephas and John in the order of those who gave the “right hand of fellowship” as a means to emphasize to the “Judaizing” party that even their leader agreed with Paul.

While we commonly call the events of Acts 15 the “Council of Jerusalem” it was not set up along the same lines as later Councils. This was a gathering of men who had known each other for years and had labored and built up the Church together. There were no strict rules of procedure and protocol as in modern parliaments. Peter and James learned together at the feet of Christ; both were Apostles. In your own lives, if you are friends with your boss and have know him for years then the way you interact is colored by that. Even though he is your superior you still disagree on some things. If your boss is a true friend then he will labor to convince you instead of just mandating. And after having been convinced would there be anything unusual in then stating the reason you changed your mind? That is the situation in Acts 15. Peter did not need to stand up and threaten James with excommunication if he did not change his position. Those holy men were able to come to the truth in peace and without schism. That we could all be so humble.

Okay, let's start by saying such an entity as "the British Church" is very problematic. You have the original Romano-British church, from whence the likes of St. Patrick derived, and which definitely had Continental connections. You then had a missionary effort in Scotland/North of England/West coast of England and Wales from the Irish Church and a separate missionary effort arising from Augustine in Canterbury through the South and East of England, meeting roughly in the middle, with huffing and puffing about who had jurisdiction where for what reason - and politics got involved too. That's what the Synod of Whitby was about. Let me just, for the record, say that as a native Irishwoman I don't believe in the nice modern airy-fairy vaguely New Ageish notion of an indigenous 'Celtic Church' which floated about being all 'hello trees, hello sky' and wet as a haddock's bathing-costume, ordaining women and being all warm'n'fuzzy, until the mean ol' Big Bad Wolf of Rome stomped all over it and made them submit.

"tdunbar: the see of Constantinople was given patriarchal status by the Second Ecumenical Council, and placed second in rank behind Rome. I believe this was entirely due to its secular status as second capital of the Empire, though some post hoc justifications to do with St. Andrew were attempted.

If I recall correctly it took a while for Rome to accept this status."

It took Rome a long while to accept, and that rather offhandedly in 534, that the Constantinopolitan council of 381 was "an ecumenical council" -- entirely understandably, since it had been convoked merely as a synod of the eastern portions of the Roman Empire. In 382 a similar western local council was held in Rome, which accepted the Nicene Creed as modified by or at the previous years' council in Constantinople, but rejected that council's attempt to put Constantinople on a parity of sorts with Rome, going on to insist that Rome owed its primacy to "the divine voice" and not to the decrees of any council; and it rejected out of hand the eastern council's proposed solution to the schism in Antioch (between "Nicenes" and "ultra-Nicenes") that had been going on for 30 years by that point. Leo the Great insisted that there were only three ecumenical councils: Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon, and he rejected, explicitly, Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which again tried to give Constantinople a kind of coequality with Rome and, tacitly, the promotion of Jerusalem to patriarchal status. The letter in which the "Formula of Hormisdas" (519) was embedded made mention of only three councils as well. It was in Justinian's reign that Rome began to cease to object to Constantinople and Jerusalem's de facto status, but it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 that Rome ratified a canon giving the number of patriarchates as five and their order as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Also, for a very long time Rome regarded the whole notion of "patriarchates" as an Eastern affectation, and not at all relevant to its own self-conception. The first Roman mention of Rome as a "patriarchate" comes in 642 (as "Patriarch of Rome") under Pope Theodore I (a Greek born in Jerusalem), and it is notorious that Rome never regarded the title as significant, even after adopting it. And, of course, Benedict XVI, with that quiet candor that seems a hallmark, dropped the patriarchal title entirely shortly after becoming pope.

"Totally separate" seems a bit strong. The Celts rejected certain practic