While it is difficult to dispute that from the latter part of the first century to the Reformation the entire church was governed under an episcopal structure and that a succession of bishops was seen as a sign of the unity of the church and apostolic teaching, there were significant reasons why the Reformers grew uncomfortable with apostolic succession as it had come to be practiced in the medieval Roman church.
Some of the problems were pure historical accident. As the Roman empire faded in power and faced outside threats, people looked to the bishop of Rome for leadership and some of those bishops acted admirably under pressure. But the result was that the Bishop of Rome became a political as well as spiritual figure and as a result, much intrigue surrounded the selection of successors to the office.
The Donation of Constantine, a document which purportedly gave the Bishop of Rome full authority over significant lands held by the Roman empire and over all other bishops, did cause papal power to be consolidated. Unfortunately, the document was exposed as a forgery in the 15th century, just prior to the Reformation. And not all who ascended to the chair of Peter were necessarily worthy of the role or title to say the least. When coupled with the indulgence controversy, the well known abuses of power by bishops and popes, it is not difficult to see why suspicion of apostolic succession grew to a rejection of it.
But it is also possible that the succession of Bishops as understood by the early church is somewhat different from the view of succession that had grown in the middle ages. If so, rejection of the latter view does not require rejection of the former.
In the first place, Paul gave Timothy very clear guidelines for who should be allowed to assume leadership in the church in I Timothy 3:2-7. Such requirements as - being the husband of but one wife (not necessarily celibate), not greedy, not a new convert, able to teach - cannot be applied to many who have held ecclesiastical office in general, much less the papal tiarra. The sins that plagued the Papacy in the middle ages are well enough documented, not the least of which was the divided papacy between Rome and Avignon and the violent intrigue that surrounded it. Whatever the early fathers meant by succession, it could not have meant the power struggles and corruption that marked the papacy during much of the middle ages.
And in fact, there is evidence it did not. Gregory Nazianzen in the fourth century wrote regarding the means of selection of leadership:
"Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely." Oration 21:8
Note that he suggests the leader who succeeds another, follows in both office and piety. Two tests, not one. Note as well "the people" have a place in the selection. While it is not necessarily the case that such a statement advocates pure democracy, there is at least an advocating of the consent of the people, and an acknowledgment that the office of Bishop had already become a point of contention to the level of bloodshed and oppression.
Cyprian likewise refers to the "suffrage of the entire people" in the selection of church leadership, "a bishop is appointed into the place of one deceased, when he is chosen in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people, when he is protected by the help of God in persecution, faithfully linked with all his colleagues, approved to his people by now four years' experience in his episcopate" Letter 54:6
This is a clear statement of collegiality in both the selection and exercise of leadership. Cyprian also makes it clear that the people are not to be forever bound to a bishop who is unworthy of the role, but have the right of recall:
"On which account a people obedient to the Lord's precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones. Epistle LXVII:3
Most telling of all is Jerome's statement which clearly indicates that the "apostolic" role of a bishop is NOT the same as the role of the apostles themselves and that apostolic authority is dependent on not merely the holding of an office, but the continuation of apostolic teaching.
"I know that a difference must be made between the apostles and all other preachers. The former always speak the truth; but the latter being men sometimes go astray....It is for these virtues that I and others have left our homes, it is for these that we would live peaceably without any contention in the fields and alone; paying all due veneration to Christ's pontiffs--so long as they preach the right faith--not because we fear them as lords but because we honour them as fathers deferring also to bishops as bishops, but refusing to serve under compulsion, beneath the shadow of episcopal authority, men whom we do not choose to obey. I am not so much puffed up in mind as not to know what is due to the priests of Christ. For he who receives them, receives not them but Him, whose bishops they are. But let them be content with the honors which is theirs. Let them know that they are fathers and not lords, especially in relation to those who scorn the ambitions of the world and count peace and repose the best of all things." Letter 82:7, 82:11
So there are three attitudes that are seen in the early church that are not so easy to find in the practice of the Roman church at the time of the Reformation, ideas which certainly gave the Reformers reason to resist the abuses of the church at that time. First, the consent of the people was a normal part of the selection of leadership. Second, apostolic office was tied to the continuation of apostolic teaching, and third, there was the possibility of recall of those who went astray. In other words, position alone is not apostolicity. Merely holding an office of bishop does not in itself make one a legitimate successor to the apostles, at least not permanently.
In our day there are clear examples of why this must be so. The ordination of an openly homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church here in the United States can hardly be seen as compliant with the requirements for leadership Paul wrote to Timothy, nor with any historical precedent in the early church. No matter what ceremonial rite was used, no matter how organized the ordaining body is, one who is not apostolic in teaching and behavior cannot bconsiderre apostolic in authority. Likewise, the doctrinal excesses of individuals like John Spong militate against the views of the Early church expressed above.
But lest any question be entertained that such problems are not also evident in the Roman church at present, one need only to explore the history of Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen who in 1986 sanctioned masses for homosexual groups, was mildly rebuked by the church and then later reinstated. One only needs to look at the cover up of sexual abuse by the diocese of Boston to understand why it is absolutely essential to view apostolic succession as the early church viewed it.
Holding a position is not enough. According to at least some of the early church authorities, one must be of apostolic character and hold to apostolic teaching to truly be in a line of apostolic succession. So while the early church taught that one cannot be a truly "apostolic" leader who "succeeds no one", the converse is also true, one cannot be a truly apostolic leader by succession of office alone, but only if he is a successor in teaching and upholding of the apostolic faith. Such a structure is perhaps most closely associated with the Eastern Orthodox view, but even there, perfection is hardly apparent.
The Reformers rejected the excesses of the middle ages and rightly so. But what they rejected was perhaps not the true teaching of the apostles and the early church. The unfortunate response was to completely dismantle the pattern of church government by which bishops were held accountable to each other and continuity was maintained. Protestant church autonomy and resistance to state control of reformed movements bred fragmentation of organizational unity and as a result doctrinal unity also became problematic.
My purpose is not to tear down various church traditions or pit them against each other, but to open dialog from a different vantage point. Perhaps it will one day be possible to see the role of Bishops as a symbol of the unity of the church and the unity of its teaching, but only if all sides recognize the ways in which they each have drifted from the early church pattern.
No comments:
Post a Comment