Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T01:34:53.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Unit of Pastoral Care in the Early Church

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

S. L. Greenslade
S. L. Greenslade*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When, in modern ecumenical converse, it is suggested that a non-episcopal church may do well to take episcopacy into its system, there is bound to be discussion of the theology of episcopacy, of whether or not the bishop is of the esse of the Church, is necessary to its being, necessary for the perpetuation of orders and sacraments, and of the nature and significance of apostolic succession. But that is not all. Besides these high doctrinal problems, there will be questions about bishops as facts of history. Fear of prelacy may cast doubt upon their being even of the bene esse of the Church. Frequently, however, there is a genuine interest in the pastoral potentialities of episcopacy. While it is claimed that the ministers of non-episcopal churches do in fact exercise episkope over their parishes or congregations, it is freely allowed that, for good pastoral and evangelistic reasons (and not solely for the sake of what is sometimes called mere administration), the modern trend has been strongly towards the appointment of ministers to an office involving supervision of larger areas and of other ministers, whether the former are called moderators, superintendents, chairmen, general secretaries, what you will—even bishops. But if such men are meant to exercise a pastoral office, how can it be secured that they do not degenerate into ‘mere administrators’?

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 2: Papers read at the second winter and summer meetings of the Ecclesiastical History Society , 1965 , pp. 102 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 103 note 1 Kemp, E. W., Counsel and Coment, 1961, 223 Google Scholar: ‘the modern Anglican acceptance of suffragans as a normal part of the organization of the Church makes nonsense of the Doctrine Commission’s argument for episcopacy.’ Telfer, W., The Office of a Bishop, 1962, 190: ‘to consecrate a man without intention that he shall occupy a see involves a departure from the primitive conception of the bishop’s office.’ In a note he adds: ‘If suffragan bishops were replaced by archpriests with license to confirm ... the true nature of the bishop’s office would cease to be confused in the minds of the people.’Google Scholar

page 104 note 1 McArthur, A. A. in Studia Patristica, IV (1961), 304 Google Scholar; Hatch, E., The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, Bampton Lectures 1880, 5th ed. 1895, 79.Google Scholar

page 106 note 1 Telfer, op. cit. 93-4. Justin’s picture, as I interpret it, resembles that given a generation or so later by Tertullian, , Apology xxxix Google Scholar, where again I see the integration of pastoral functions, including discipline, under the bishop. If Tertullian’s probati seniores are not bishops, or do not include the bishop at any such gathering, Cyprian brought about a very considerable change—as has sometimes been argued. The difficulty is that both Justin and Tertullian are addressing Apologies to the world outside, and are not precise enough about the ministry for our present purpose.

page 108 note 1 For Cappadocia see Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 1937. 175-91, 429-34.Google Scholar

page 109 note 1 For Italy see Lanzoni, F., Le Diocesi d’Italia, 2 vols, 1927.Google Scholar

page 110 note 1 In Studia Patristica, iv, 512-17, and again in The Office of a Bishop c. 5, Dr Telfer argues from the high number of sees in North Africa at an early date that the Ignatian monarchical episcopacy of limited territorial extent ‘was carried into the West more fully along the African shore, in the first instance, than in Europe’ (Office, 102). I am not at present disposed to accept the argument, since I doubt whether he has given sufficient weight to the unusual density of cities in North Africa and to the high number of sees in southern Italy (though the dates of their foundation are admittedly unknown). But his suggestion deserves further study, and I am far from claiming that all these early dioceses coincided with civitates.

page 113 note 1 On the development of parishes see Imbart de la Tour, Les paroisses rurales du IVe au XIe siècles, 1900 (mainly for France), the article Paroisses rurales in Cabrol-Leclercq, DACL, 1938 (with useful bibliography), and more briefly, G. W. O. Addleshaw’s booklet, The Beginnings of the Parochial System, 1953.

page 115 note 1 On chorepiscopi:

F. Gillmann, Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient, 1903;

T. Gottlob, Der abendländische Chorepiskopat, 1928;

and the articles Chorévêques in DACL and Chorbischof in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum.

page 117 note 1 In Counsel and Consent, 225-8.