Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
This canon makes evident that no city, region, or province was to have neither prominence nor preëminence. The autonomy of the city-church found in the New Testament was intended to be carried forward on a regional level. Schaff underscores this fact when he states:
I noted in a previous post that the NT church did not have nor was their an intention to establish even this hierarchy born of pragmatism. However, the Nicene fathers are to be commended for attempting to maintain a "level playing field" from one region to another.
Also, there is wisdom given that the commending bishops could overrule the metropolitan's disapproval, if they deemed it unjustified. This is similar to the authority given in the U.S. government for the legislative body to override an executive veto.
1 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, pp. 275-276
This canon makes evident that no city, region, or province was to have neither prominence nor preëminence. The autonomy of the city-church found in the New Testament was intended to be carried forward on a regional level. Schaff underscores this fact when he states:
The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing, yet in such tone, that Antioch, as the third capital of the Roman empire, already stands as a stepping stone to the ordinary metropolitans.1
I noted in a previous post that the NT church did not have nor was their an intention to establish even this hierarchy born of pragmatism. However, the Nicene fathers are to be commended for attempting to maintain a "level playing field" from one region to another.
Also, there is wisdom given that the commending bishops could overrule the metropolitan's disapproval, if they deemed it unjustified. This is similar to the authority given in the U.S. government for the legislative body to override an executive veto.
1 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, pp. 275-276
No comments:
Post a Comment