Robert,
the importance of the bishop became paramount following the writings of Ignatius, as he saw the bishop as the antidote to the divisive schisms & heresies in the church. He called for unity, & placed the unity not in the Scriptures which contained God’s teachings through the prophets and apostles (thus the teachings of Christ), but in the person of the local bishop, who were faithful at the time. His very persuasive & very impressive tour & letters had a massive effect. Unfortunately he did not foresee heretical bishops. That record is easily seen and read.

In similar ways I am sure that people have tried to argue with you about each of the Roman doctrines that you have espoused in that last post, however I doubt if you will be open to reasoning them through. There are plenty of other threads on this forum that have chewed over the fat of these arguments, so I will simply say “I have issues with aspects of what you have said on episcopacy, re-marriage, baptism and the Lord’s Supper” and leave it at that.

While so very droll, minister :) it did understate the very healthy balance we have between congregational autonomy and episcopal oversight (ie the rector is nominally independent only as long as the parish is paying its way).

Hi Angus,
even if the parish is a provisional parish, once the curate in charge is placed in the parish, (unless I have read Sydney’s Church Administration Ordinance incorrectly) he has the same rights of tenure as the full parish rector. Provisional parish status affects the congregational choice of minister, and how the Bishop appoints someone to a parish.

Robert Denham - 06 July 2008 09:51 PM

even if the parish is a provisional parish, once the curate in charge is placed in the parish, (unless I have read Sydney’s Church Administration Ordinance incorrectly) he has the same rights of tenure as the full parish rector.

Hi Robert. I have no reason to doubt you there. I guess the point I was trying to make (though I can see now it was very well disguised) was that our ministers aren’t “popes” because I’d presumed them to be answerable to either the congregations that support them or to the diocese who sustains them from diocesan funds. However, I can see now that there must be the occasional rector in residence who isn’t wanted by either the congregation or the diocese but thankfully I’ve not been exposed to that unhappy scenario. Anyhow, I guess all this is OT to this thread.

Angus Johnson - 06 July 2008 10:22 PM

I guess the point I was trying to make (though I can see now it was very well disguised) was that our ministers aren’t “popes” because I’d presumed them to be answerable to either the congregations that support them or to the diocese who sustains them from diocesan funds.

Hi Angus
Just to clarify, I think the Archbishop who likened Sydney rectors to popes had his tongue gently planted in his cheek at the time.  I.e., he wasn’t only commenting on the structural autonomy of the parish but was also having a friendly dig at the attitudes of some of the rectors towards their bishop!
Bob

Dear Robert ( Denham) do you honestly believe one bishop could have swayed the governmental structure of an international church..given human attitudes to authority? (and) !

If it had been congregationalist in structure, there would have been a record in history of a revolt against Ignatius’ ideas.

Just as there would have been a record of dissent if infant baptisnm and confession were man made inventions...after all the Lord had promised that the Holy Soirit would lead His Church into all TRUTH.>

I don’t think Mr Denham was positing a fully congregationalist or presbyterian initial structure; rather, that a mixed polity was extant whereby power/influence were variously excercised.

Moreover, payment of titular regard to a position of honour needn’t necessarily entail viewing oneself as fully bound by compulsion thereunto.  In any event, allowance has to be made for hyperbole and instrumental arguments.

Dear Michael could you simplify , your last paragraph… I only have two degrees and speak Welsh and English...plainer Anglo-Saxon please.

Robert ian Williams - 08 July 2008 07:32 AM

Dear Michael could you simplify , your last paragraph…

I’ll try to do so by 18:00 AEST today (09:00 BST, if I recall my Time Zones correctly.)

I only have two degrees and speak Welsh and English.

Which is still far better than I (who lacks any degrees and, due partly to the Semantic Pragmatic aspects of my Autism, tends to lapse into spouting poorly digested barbarous jargon with inadequate regard to the context.)

Robert ian Williams - 08 July 2008 07:32 AM

Dear Michael could you simplify , your last paragraph…

As promised, my attempt to do so follows.

Otherwise stated, it seems to my fuzzy recollection that while appeal to the honour of particular sees (of which Rome was predominant; albeit cf. ‘Canon’ XXVIII of Chalcedon) was frequent amongst patristic circles, such appeal was generally enthymemic and rhetorical rather than formally conclusive in nature (which development owes somewhat more to Hildebrandine readings of Gelasius I.)

Michael Canaris - 08 July 2008 06:43 PM

Robert ian Williams - 08 July 2008 07:32 AM

Dear Michael could you simplify , your last paragraph…

As promised, my attempt to do so follows.

Otherwise stated, it seems to my fuzzy recollection that while appeal to the honour of particular sees (of which Rome was predominant; albeit cf. ‘Canon’ XXVIII of Chalcedon) was frequent amongst patristic circles, such appeal was generally enthymemic and rhetorical rather than formally conclusive in nature (which development owes somewhat more to Hildebrandine readings of Gelasius I.)

Dear Michael
I’m glad you didn’t try to complicate it! :-)
Bob

Were you trying to be funny Michael.

Not to my recollection