Observations from Calvin’s Institutes, 4.7.3, entitled “The proud titles of the latter Roman bishops not yet known in the early period.”
1. The term “Primate” is a term vaunted around in the Papacy. In short, it is a term that grew legs and has a history.
2. Cyprian’s correspondence with Cornelius reveals the terms “brother,” “fellow bishop,” and “colleague.”
The Council of Carthage and the Africans in general forbad the title “prince of priests” and “first bishop” but only “bishop of the prime see.”
3. An examination of the records at this time will reveal that the Roman bishop was content with the appellation “brother.”
4. The Roman structure multiplied names and titles, accruing and growing prideful and arrogant through the centuries, using such terms as “supreme pontiff” and “sole head of the church.”
5. In older days, had the bishop of Rome assumed these titles, “stout-hearted men” would have “suppressed his folly.”
6. Jerome is cited by Calvin. “If authority is sought, the world is greater than a city. Why do you proffer me the custom of one city? Why do you vindicate the claims of a mere handful, from whom has arisen an arrogance contrary to the laws of the church? Wherever a bishop may be, at Rome, or Grubbio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, he is of the same merit and he same priesthood. Power of wealth and lowliness of poverty do not make a higher or lower bishop.” Jerome’s Letters (cxlvi.1.2).
These are Calvin’s. We offer our observations from them.
1. Jerome noted in earlier posts we’ve made that Presbyter and Deacon were the two ancient offices of the church. In this respect, it is biblical. We noted that Calvin spoke without impugnment of godly bishops in their “ancient offices.” Bishop, as something different, was an historic outgrowth. Rome’s dragoons continue their evil obstinacy and have grown wickedly worse since Calvin’s days.
2. The claim to universal headship over the Christ’s Churches was explicitly denied by Gregory the Great, known as Gregory 1 (540-604). He affirmed that if anyone would claim such, it’s arrogance would entitle one to the sobriquet “Antichrist.” To Gregory the Great, Benedict XVI is an "Anti-Christ." Confessional Catholics of the Reformation Churches have been saying this--rightly--for centuries.
3. Calvinism brought the Presbyterians and Reformed Churches closer to the ideals of the ancient churches of Christ. The Lutherans did the same, although Norwegian and Danish expression retained episcopacy.
4. Anglicans, caught in their political and religious unity-questions, a national church, under Elizabeth, were unable to reform the role of the ancient bishop. To that degree, Anglicanism in England failed. Bishops being appointed by Kings and Queens—as is still done in England—with historical agendas, national policies, and little learning was a failed policy. Anglican still bark like kicked and barking poodles when these matters, for reform, are raised.
5. Calvin himself, without the title, served as a bishop of Geneva, or a key leader.Presbyterians and the Reformed have their “bishops,” that is their “leaders” of presbyters. It is not institutional, but it exists. Consider R.C. Sproul, James M. Boice and others. The same applies for other faith bodies. “Leaders” arise. It’s in the nature of things. They can deny it all they like, but seminaries, like Westminster are essential monasteries (with differences) with men functioning as Bishops or Abbots (Presidents).
6. Connectional-ism and wider governance is and was a feature of the early church for local churches. Titus functioned as a Bishop over Crete, though not by that name. Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians have this right re: a wider body exercising governance over local churches. Acts 15, among other texts, make this clear. Baptist, Pentecostal and Congregational polities are not acceptable.
7. Apostolic and tactile succession of bishops is another failure of the post-Restorationist Bishops of England. Actually, it was an "admin" tool to reign in dissenters. Freedom was not optional in those days. Having Rowan Williams lay his dirty hands on an ordinand does nothing to authenticate Christ’s witness, work and ministry in an ordinand.
8. The Anglican ordinal needs revision so that Bishops are made to be equals among their Presbyters, a “first among equals.” The Presbyter should be the thinker and the Bishop should be the one doing the “leg work.” He should be the servant of the Presbyters and College of Presbyters, doing “their bidding.” This actually was the case in Celtic Christianity, prior to the Roman invasion of Canterbury in the 590’s. The Brits should have stuck with their ancient and effective Celtic model...the Celts were effective missionaries, not just in the Isles, but to the Continent.
9. Modern Anglicans aren’t up to all this. They’re mired and enslaved, especially in the West, in their continuing obsessions too many to enumerate here. It’s pretty funny to watch Bishop N. Thomas Wright carrying on about the non-Western (and some Western) bishops who did not attend Lambeth 2008, but attended the GAFCON Conference in Jerusalem, 2008. Sheer unreformed Anglican imperialism, as if other bishops aren’t the equal of Canterbury. The holdover of Erastianism.
10. Don't miss Jerome's point above. He speaks of bishops from two small Italian towns, Reggio and Grubbio, as being equal with Rome and Constantinople. Bishop Scott Clark (he's called Dr. Clark in the Reformed world) is every bit the Bishop as that fool in Canterbury or this "thing" they call Archbishop Bob Duncan (with no doctorate at all). We need more monasteries like Westminster California with Abbots like Dr. Godfrey and Bishops like Dr. Clark. The ACNA Bishops don't impress us at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment