Father John A. Hardon, S.J. Archives
|Return to: Home > Archives Index > Papacy Index|
An Analysis of Anglican Concepts of the Papal Magisterium from the First Through the Tenth Lambeth Conference
THE PAPAL MAGISTERIUM: TRADITIONAL AND DEVELOPED VIEWS (1930 TO 1948)
by Burns K. Seeley
In this chapter, we will analyze Anglican works dealing with the papacy written between 1930 and 1948. One of these is especially important for the purpose of our study since its author Trevor Jalland dismissed many of the earlier held Anglican concepts of the papal magisterium. Attention will also be paid in the chapter to documents issued by the Eighth Lambeth Conference which, due to the intervention of World War II, was not held until 1948.
1. Doctrine in the Church of England
In 1938, a report of a commission of scholars appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York was published.  The commission membership was purposely selected to represent in equal proportions moderate Anglo-Catholic, moderate Evangelical and moderate Liberal (Latitudinarian) points of view. The commissions assigned task was to note areas of doctrinal agreement in the Church of England, and to seek ways of removing or decreasing existing differences.
The reports title, Doctrine in the Church of England, reveals that the report was not intended to be an authoritative presentation of the doctrine of the Church of England. It was meant only to reflect various doctrinal views held within, but not necessarily by, the Church.
With respect to the papacy, the commission members found themselves, at least, sharing a common attitude.
We are united in holding that the Church of England was right to take the stand which it took in the sixteenth century and is still bound to resist the claims of the contemporary papacy. 
This being only the collective judgment of the commission, there was no implication that the pro-papal views of men such as Spencer Jones and S. Herbert Scott were not at least tolerated in the Church of England. Although they certainly represented a radical change from the views prevailing since the days of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.
The commissions references to the claims of the contemporary papacy, and another reference to the rejection by the Eastern Churches of the developed form  of Roman Catholic teaching on papal authority, implied a belief that these were unknown in the early Church. We have seen however that abundant evidence to support these claims existed in the early centuries.
2. Henry Edward Symonds
An Anglican work on the relationship of the episcopate to the papacy appeared in 1939. Its author, Henry Edward Symonds, was a member of the Community of the Resurrection which Charles Gore co-founded. Educated at Oxford, Symonds was ordained in 1904. He was headmaster of St. Johns College, Johannesburg from 1920 to 1921 and later taught at Queens College, Oxford. In addition to the above mentioned book, he also wrote The Council of Trent and Anglican Formularies (1933).
Paralleling the thinking of N.P. Williams, Symonds in his work on the Roman see asserted that Peter occupied the pre-eminent position among the Apostles, but only as their leader or primate, not as their ruler.  This conclusion, however, contrasted with that held by Jones and Scott and, as we have seen, Lacey and Turner also perceived scriptural evidence capable of supporting a Petrine primacy of authority over the Apostles.
According to Symonds, the Church of Rome as well enjoyed no more than a primacy of leadership. This was said to be due principally to Peter and Pauls connection with Rome and to the Citys secular greatness. It was pointed out that what was only an acquired prestige or honor was later interpreted by the papacy as a divinely willed authority over the Church.
In an evaluation of patristic literature, Symonds held that Tertullians De Pudicitia did not reveal a papal assertion of primatial jurisdiction over the Church. The allusion to Pope Callistus (217-222) in the work was thought to represent no more than the claim of any other bishop possessing apostolic succession.  This was believed true because the popes claim to alter the Churchs penitential discipline was based upon being the successor of Peter. This, according to Symonds, did not mean an assertion to be the only successor of Peter, but only one of several Petrine successors. That is, all bishops possessing apostolic succession were said to be regarded by the pope as successors of Peter. 
This interpretation was derived from Tertullians words to the pope. Tertullian asked Callistus if he thought the power to bind and to loose granted to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19 was diverted to himself, that is for every Church closely connected with Peter.
If Callistus was not asserting a unique authority as Symonds believed, it seems strange that he should have unilaterally altered the Churchs penitential system. Actually, the key to Tertullians understanding of the popes claim lies in the meaning of Tertullians association of the papacy with every Church closely connected with Peter.
Now with reference to your decision, I ask: how do you come to usurp the prerogatives of the Church? If it is because the Lord said to Peter, Upon this rock I will build my Church, to thee I have given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven; do you for that reason presume to have diverted the power of the binding and loosing to yourself, that is for every Church closely connected to Peter? What a fellow you are, subverting and wholly changing the obvious intention of the Lord, who conferred this on Peter personally! He says, on thee will I build my Church and I will give the keys to thee, not to the Church. 
It will be recalled that the Montanist Tertullian believed genuine Church authority was confined to men called pneumatici who were thought to be filled with the Holy Spirit in a way that Catholics were not. Catholics, instead, were referred to as psychici or animal-men. The true Church therefore was the Montanist Church as opposed to the Catholic. With this in mind, it can be seen that Tertullian reprimanded the pope for usurping power for himself, properly belonging to the Montanist pneumatici, to be used for all Churches closely connected with Peter. In other words, the pope was accused of usurping power to be used over those Churches in communion with the See of Peter, that is, over the Catholic Church.
The context of Tertullians words consequently, does not suggest that every Church closely connected with Peter means every Church, or rather every bishop, possessing apostolic succession. The pope alone was accused of falsely claiming a divinely authorized primacy of authority over the Catholic Church.
In the case of Cyprians De Unitate, Symonds conceded that the disputed passage about deserting the Chair of Peter might well be authentic. He who opposes and resists the Church, he who deserts the Chair of Peter on whom the Church is founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?  Still, the author believed that it meant no more than the chair of Peter was the equivalent of the universal episcopate. 
In another work, however, Cyprian clearly identified the chair of Peter with the See of Rome.
After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by the heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the Apostle, to whom unbelief cannot have access. 
Since the chair of Peter is identified here with the See of Rome, it is more than probable that it also means this in the De Unitate, especially when the latter work contains no evidence to the contrary. There is nothing in it suggesting that the chair of Peter means the episcopate in general. In this connection, it will be recalled that Edward Benson used language indicating his belief that the chair of Peter in the De Unitate meant the See of Rome and the papacy in particular. It was for this reason that he said their term was a forgery. 
Symonds held that prior to the Council of Nicaea (325), the Bishops of Rome enjoyed no more than a primacy of honor. Evidence supporting this contention was found in the examples of Cyprian and Firmilian, both of whom refused to heed Pope Stephens doctrine on Baptism. The author noted in this connection that all the Churches of this era listened to Rome when it spoke, but it was not necessarily obeyed. 
This disobedience, however, should not be taken as proof of absence of a divinely authorized papal primacy of jurisdiction. Disobedience may mean (and usually does) the refusal to obey legitimately constituted authority. The Israelites, for instance, constantly disobeyed God in Old Testament times, yet few Anglicans on this basis would deny the legitimacy of Gods claims over his people.
Symonds believed that Augustine recognized in Peter only a primacy of leadership among the Apostles, not one of dominion.  But Augustines belief in the primacy of jurisdiction of the pope, as the successor of Peter, naturally implied a parallel belief in Peters primacy of jurisdiction. 
It was acknowledged by Symonds that Augustine regarded the pope as the successor of Peter, and that the Church of Rome was that in which the leadership of the apostolic chair had always flourished. Moreover, the See of Rome was said to have always kept the faith from the time of Peter. But it was maintained that Augustine would admit no more than this. 
When the Popes, or their supporters, make any further Papal claims, Augustine seems to remain neutral and aloof. He does not answer the Papal language of Innocents letter (i.e., Ep. 29), nor correct the phrases of the Roman cleric. Like many others, he was glad to let them have their say, provided that the Pope was on his side. Nor had he any love for controversy with those who were of the household of faith. No word of his should break the unity of the Church, which was almost the first article of his belief, and of which Rome was the most conspicuous upholder. 
To say that Augustine was content to remain silent about unwarranted claims for papal primacy, as long as the pope was on his side, was tantamount to ascribing dishonesty to the saint. But what is more important is the fact that Augustine did answer the language of Innocents letter in which juridical primacy was claimed. He said that the pope wrote in the manner that was right and proper for the pontiff of the apostolic see.  This explains why he did not correct the pontiffs phrases.
Following the presentation of Augustines view on the papacy, Symonds discussed those of Cyril of Alexandria. He said that Cyril acknowledged Pope Celestine as the chief bishop of Christendom.
So far we see S. Cyril recognizing Celestine as the chief bishop of Christendom, whose advice he seeks and whose leading he expects even for the bishops of the East. But he bases all this on ecclesiastical custom, with no mention of any prerogatives inherent in the See of Peter. 
The popes primacy was said to be essentially one of honor, not of jurisdiction, deriving from ecclesiastical custom rather than from any authority inherent in the See of Peter.
It is true that Cyril referred to the custom of appealing to the papacy, but he did not explicitly state the basis of the custom. Consequently the possibility of a prerogative inherent in the Roman see should not be ruled out.
For silence is good when there is no danger, and it is better to live a quiet than a troubled life. But God demands vigilance of us in these things, and the long-established custom of the Churches advises us that things of this sort ought to be communicated to your holiness. Being brought to necessity, I write thoroughly, and I also declare that Satan confounds all things at present, raging against the Churches of God, and also subverting all people everywhere who can walk in the right faith. 
The long-established custom to appeal to the papacy in matters regarding the faith. If decisions or judgments for the Church were sought, rather than merely advice, then a divine prerogative attached to the See of Peter would be the logical basis of the custom. It is difficult to imagine that the various parts of the Catholic Church would customarily seek papal decisions, if they did not also believe they were backed by a divine guarantee of orthodoxy.
Symonds, however, maintained that Cyril sought only papal advice, even though Celestine interpreted it as an appeal for a decision. 
The key words in Cyrils appeal are Greek font missing. Prior to the Byzantine period they normally meant to strike or beat what seems right. This of course makes no sense. During the Byzantine period, however, in which Cyril wrote, these words also meant to decree or ordain what seems right. It is this meaning which best fits the context of Cyrils letter.
I was unwilling to openly sever communication with him until I had laid all the facts before you. Deign therefore to decree what seems right, whether we ought to communicate at all with him, or to tell him plainly that no one communicates with a person who holds and teaches as he does. 
In response, Celestine decreed that Nestorius was to teach the orthodox faith and to repudiate his heresy. If not, he was to be excommunicated. Cyril was appointed by the pope to carry out the sentence in the name of the See of Peter. 
Further evidence that Cyril believed in the jurisdictional primacy of the papacy is found in the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus. It will be recalled that Celestine directed the council to put into effect those things concerning Nestorius and his doctrine which the pope had already decreed for the security of the whole Church. 
Following the reading of the popes directive to the council, Cyril endorsed its contents. Let those things which were defined (decreed) by the most holy Celestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect ( ).  The evidence indicates that Cyril believed that the pope had authority to settle matters of faith for the whole Church. The only logical basis for such a belief was an additional belief that this authority was of divine origin.
Symonds conceded that the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo appeared to imply a belief in a divinely authorized primacy of jurisdiction for the papacy. However, he thought that a closer examination revealed that this was actually not the case.  Still, Symonds concluding remarks about the letter indicate that his first opinion actually prevailed. At this point he wrote that in any case the letter and its contents could not claim the binding force proper to statements of faith passed by the council. 
Advocates of the Church of Romes doctrine of the papacy have not claimed that the statements in the letter indicating belief in papal primacy were officially promulgated for acceptance by the Church. The importance of the letter lies in the fact that it reveals the commonly accepted attitude of the early undivided Church towards the papacy, especially in this instance, that of the Church in the East. This same attitude, noted in our analysis of Dennys book, was detected in the councils proceedings as well. Its prevalence at the council explains the reason for the bishops subscription to the Tome.
Earlier Symonds presented evidence from the writings of Augustine and Cyril as proof that they did not adhere to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal primacy. Yet their statements, being of a private nature, could not of themselves, claim any binding force either. The reason they were presented by the author was because they were thought to reflect the belief of the early undivided Church. However, there is no reason to suppose that these statements have greater intrinsic worth than those declared by the bishops at Chalcedon.
We have observed that Symonds found scriptural support for a divinely ordained Petrine primacy of leadership among the Apostles, as opposed to a primacy of rule over both the Apostles and the Church. The early Church Fathers were thought to ascribe a similar primacy to the papacy, only in this instance it was of ecclesiastical origin.
3. Claude Beaufort Moss
In 1943, an Anglican textbook on systematic theology was published which dealt in part with papal authority.  It was written by Claude Beaufort Moss. Educated at Oxford and Trinity College, Dublin, Moss was ordained priest in 1915. Besides parish work, he taught at Chichester Theological College (1926-1928) and St. Boniface College (1930-1939). He was particularly interested in Anglican unity with the Orthodox and the Old Catholics, as the titles of some of his books reveal: The Old Catholic Churches and Reunion (1931), The Orthodox Revival (1833-1933) (1933), The Old Catholic Movement (1948), and The Church of England and the Seventh Council (1957).
In his textbook, Moss viewed papal primacy as the result of a movement originating from within the episcopate. What began as a primacy of honor was said to have developed into an unwarranted primacy of authority which a large portion of Christianity regarded as divinely ordained.
The author said that the basis for the legitimate primacy of honor was the fact that Rome was the imperial capital and that the Roman see was the only one founded by two Apostles. Both of their tombs were also located there. It was further noted that the Roman Church had kept itself free from the heresies and theological controversies which plagued the Churches of the East. This too was thought to have added to the prestige of the papacy. 
The first significant step in the development of the monarchial supremacy of the papacy was held to have occurred during the pontificate of Damasus (366-384). Moss wrote that it was at this time that the Roman emperor granted western bishops the right to appeal to the Bishop of Rome when condemned by their own provincial synods. 
In fact, however, a similar right was granted earlier to both western and eastern bishops by canon 3 of the Council of Sardica (342).
But if a bishop has had sentence pronounced against him in some action, and thinks he has good cause for the sentence to be reconsidered, let us, if it pleases you, do honor to the memory of the holy Apostle Peter: let letters be written to the Bishop of Rome, either by those who have conducted the examination or by the bishops living in the nearest province; if he decides that the sentence must be reconsidered ( ) let him appoint judges; but if he concludes that the case is such that it is inexpedient to reopen old wounds by raking up the past, his decision shall stand confirmed. 
The canon states that the basis for the popes juridical primacy is his connection with Peter. There is no inference here or elsewhere in the conciliar proceedings that papal authority derived from imperial fiat.
Moss believed that after the reign of Damascus, the next major step in the development towards papal supremacy was to be found in the issuance of papal decretals  which were letters of direction and advice to other bishops in response to their questions. The first one was written by Pope Siricius (384-399) in 385.
Actually, the only thing new about the decretals was their legal style. There was substantially no difference between these and early papal letters. Stephens response in 256 to Cyprians inquiry about heretical Baptism is a case in point.  Pope Clements counsel to the Corinthian Church in the first century may also be a reply to a request. 
Leo Is claim of universal jurisdiction in the fifth century was held by Moss to be the next principal step in the development of the Roman Catholic papal primacy.  Yet, it will be recalled, as in the case of Clement that the actual exercise of papal authority over the Church occurred right from the very early days of the Church. Pope Victors threat in the second century to excommunicate the Asiatics is another instance of this sort.  Both of these examples suggest the existence of the jurisdictional primacy of the papacy.
An explicit claim of papal jurisdictional primacy prior to Leo was made by Innocent I in 417.
For you have decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the apostolic see, since all who are set in this place desire to follow the very apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this name has emerged ( ).
I congratulate you, therefore, dearest brothers ( ) that you ask for a decision which may benefit all the Churches of the world together ( ) 
In addition to Innocents doctrine, similar papal teaching existing two centuries earlier was attested to by Tertullian and Firmilian. 
Moss maintained that Leos claim for papal primacy was never recognized by the Eastern Churches.  It will be recalled, however, that the eastern bishops at Chalcedon described Leo in terms which reflected their belief in his assertion. He was called the interpreter of the voice of Peter, charged by Christ with the custody of the Church.  Even Symonds, who did not accept Leos claim, admitted that this piece of evidence could be interpreted as supporting Leos position. 
The culminating point in the development of papal primacy, Moss noted, was the proclamation of the new dogmas of the Infallibility and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction of the Pope. 
Actually, only their form was new, not their substance. Innocent I, for example, declared that he had divinely authorized power to settle definitively questions of doctrine for the whole Church.  In effect, he claimed to be able to settle points of doctrine for all time in the name of Christ. This teaching also implicitly contained belief in the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Non-Roman Catholics may assert that the imposition of papal authority over Churches in the East by Clement and Victor in the first and second centuries was unwarranted. Nevertheless, the fact that they did not indicates that the popes regarded themselves as more than patriarchs of the West. They obviously believed that they had authority in the East as well, which implied a belief in the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the pope existing many centuries before the First Vatican Council.
It was acknowledged by Moss that the later Fathers taught that the popes were the successors of Peter, but he asserted that modern critical scholarship established this belief to be false.  Evidence to this effect was not presented, however. Nor is it clear what was meant by the later Fathers, since patristic belief that the popes were Peters successors was at least as early as Irenaeus in the second century. 
Moss did not believe that Peter was placed by Christ over the other Apostles. He pointed out for instance that two of the three Petrine texts, appealed to by the Church of Rome in support of their doctrine, were never interpreted by the Fathers in the Roman Catholic sense. These were Luke 22:31-33 and John 21:15-17. The Fathers were thought to equate these passages only with Peters restoration from his fall. 
Ambrose (c.339-397), however, interpreted both passages in the Roman Catholic sense. In his Exposition on Psalm 43, he said that Peter was set over the Church, thus implying over the Apostles as well. This was said in reference to Luke 22:31-33.
Peter is sifted, as he is driven to deny Christ. He falls into temptation, speaking like a man full of chaff ( ) and by those temptations, he was worthy that Christ should intervene for him. ( ) At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church. And so the Lord indicted beforehand that which happened later, namely that He should choose him as shepherd of His flock; for He said to him, When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. 
In his Exposition on Luke, Ambrose made reference to John 21:15-17.
There is no doubt that Peter therefore believed because he loved, and loved because he believed. Consequently he is also made sad, because he is asked yet a third time: Lovest thou me? For he about whom there is a doubt is questioned, but the Lord is not in doubt, and He was asking the question, not in order to get information, but in order to teach him whom He was leaving for us, as a vicar of His love, seeing that He was to be raised into heaven. For thus you find Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? likewise Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee, and Jesus says Feed my lambs. In full self-awareness, Peter testifies to a love not assumed for the occasion, but long since known to God. For who else is there that could easily make this profession about himself? And for that very reason, he alone of all men makes it: He is placed before all men; for love is greater than all. 
Peter was described as Christs vicar, who alone of all men was placed before all men. This parallels the statement in the Exposition on Psalm 43 that Peter was set over the Church.
John Chrysostom also interpreted the Johannine text in a manner similar to that of Ambrose.
After that great fall (for there is no sin equal to denial), after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor, and entrusted him with the care of the universal Church, and what is more than all, he showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the Apostles, for He saith, Peter, lovest thou me more than these? 
Peter was said to be entrusted with the care of the universal Church.
The Lucan text also had the same meaning for Chrysostom as for Ambrose. 
So far was he (i.e., Peter) beyond all vainglory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. ( ) For observe, they were 12, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as having been put in charge of them; for to him Christ had said, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. 
We see that Peter alone had the same power to ordain as had all the Apostles collectively. He also was placed in charge of them.
No Father before the fourth century, according to Moss, linked Matthew 16:17-19 with the See of Rome.  Yet, we already noted that Cyprian did so in the third century. In his Epistle 59 he clearly identified the chair of Peter with the Roman see.  And in his earlier version of the De Unitate he spoke of the chair of Peter as that upon which the Church was built,  which was a reference to the Matthean text. Moss, however, thought that Cyprians references to the chair of Peter meant only the episcopal office common to all bishops. 
Even if no Father during the first three centuries linked Matthew 16:17-18 with Rome, this in itself should not cast doubt upon the authenticity of Roman Catholic claims about the papacy. Otherwise, the fact that no Father, prior to the fourth century, explicitly taught that the Son of God was of the same substance as the Father should also raise doubts about the authenticity of the traditional teaching of the Holy Trinity.
Moss maintained that there was no New Testament evidence showing that Peter, the first among the Twelve, had the right to command the others. Nor was there any indication that he was to occupy a position similar to that claimed by the modern papacy.  Lacey, on the other hand, who also rejected the Roman Catholic position, believed that the Petrine texts were at least capable of a Roman Catholic interpretation. 
It was not until the fourteenth century, according to Moss, that any clear teaching existed to the effect that communion and obedience to the papacy was necessary for salvation. 
It will be remembered, however, that Jerome in the fourth century asserted that those who were not in communion with the pope perished.
I am in communion with your beatitude (i.e., with Pope Damasus), that is with the chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whoever shall eat the Lamb outside this house is profane. If any not be with Noah in the ark, he shall perish in the flood. 
Cyprian too wrote to Pope Cornelius that the enemies of the bishops, being rebels against the Catholic Church, were in danger of the vengeance of future judgment. The reason given for their heresies and schisms was that there was one bishop in the Church who was not obeyed. Later in the letter it became clear that the one bishop was he who sat in the chair of Peter, the principal Church, the Church of Rome, to which unbelief could not have access.  Thus we see that, in the third century, it was held that those who did not obey the Roman pontiff were in danger of the vengeance of future judgment.
Moss views of the papacy to a large extent reflected those of Edward Denny. At the very most, the early popes were thought to enjoy only a primacy of honor which the Church bestowed upon them. Peter, also, was thought to have no more than a primacy of honor. In sum, it was held that the evidence of Scripture and the Fathers did not support the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal primacy.
4. Trevor Jalland
A historical study of the papacy, The Church and the Papacy,  was published in 1944. Earlier, it had the distinction of being delivered at St. Marys, Oxford, as the 1942 Bampton Lecture in theology.  Its author, Trevor Jalland, was born in 1898 and educated at Oxford University, where he later taught. Ordained priest in 1923, he was active in parish work as well as in teaching. Among his other published writings were This Our Sacrifice (1933) and The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great (1941).
Regarding the identity of the rock in Matthew 16:17-19, Jalland in his work on the papacy concurred with the conclusion of Spencer Jones. He pointed out that Jesus, speaking in Aramaic, designated both Peter and the rock as kěphắ (rock), thereby intentionally equating the two. It was upon this immutable rock that the foundations of the Church were to rest, against which neither the forces of death or evil could ultimately prevail. 
The gift of the keys was interpreted as meaning that Peter was appointed as steward or major-domo over the Church; not merely as a porter as some supposed. In virtue of this office, he was commissioned to administer the royal substance which meant the administrative authority over the Church. Significantly, Jalland added that Peter was also given legislative authority over the Church. He is to hold the place of final arbiter or referee, and from his decisions there will lie no appeal. 
The author thought it erroneous as well to suppose that the gift of the keys was indicative of the power of absolution, which Peter shared with the other Apostles. The gift of the keys designating Peter as the Churchs final arbiter was held to be distinct from the power of binding and loosing. 
Concurring with both Jones and Turner, Jalland noted that Mark, Luke and John portrayed Peter as the most prominent Apostle. Luke 22:31-32  was thought to indicate at the very least a personal commission of initiative and leadership. John 21:15-17  was held to reveal no less than a personal commission as guardian of the entire Church. 
Paul was thought to have regarded Peter in a special light. Jalland said that the Apostle believed that Peters voice in theological matters was decisive.  With respect to Pauls verbal chastisement of Peter,  Jalland thought that this reflected the great concern of Paul for the possible scandal resulting from one whose actions were regarded as normative. It was noted that Paul glossed over a similar defect in Barnabas because his actions were not as significant. 
With respect to the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the author maintained that although James was the councils chairman, Peter was its doctrinal arbiter. It was pointed out that it was Peter, not James, who was responsible for the decision favoring Pauls attitude towards the Gentile mission. 
Jalland concluded that throughout the New Testament it was only Simon the rock who was regarded as possessing a certain finality, and from whose decision there would seem to lie no appeal. 
The author also found no reason to doubt the tradition that Peter was associated with the Church of Rome and was martyred there. This teaching was thought to be implicit in I Clement and therefore at least as early as A.D. 96. It was noted that in the middle of the second century Dionysius of Corinth explicitly stated that Peter and Paul lived and died in Italy. For textual reasons, Jalland said this meant Rome.  It was pointed out that shortly thereafter Irenaeus spoke of Peter and Paul as the founders and builders of the Roman see. 
Jalland asserted that the high regard for the Church of Rome held by early Christians such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus had nothing to do with its location in the imperial capital, since the latter was held in low esteem by the early Church.  Evidence to this effect was said to be found in the Apocalypse and in the writings of Tatian, Hippolytus and Tertullian.
The author also held that during the second century the primatial center of the Church was unquestionably at Rome and was accepted as a matter of practical convenience.  The meaning, however, of practical convenience was not explained.
The primacy of the Roman see was said not to be questioned at first. But when it eventually was, on several occasions, Jalland said that it became necessary to demonstrate that the Roman primacy rested upon the traditional and, as we believe, historical connexion of the Roman see with St. Peter ( ). 
In reply to those who directed attention to the fact that there was no trace in the second century of any appeals to the Petrine texts, Jalland declared that there was also a silence concerning Trinitarian texts. It was pointed out that prominence was not given to the latter until the third century, the same time that appeals to the Petrine texts were apparently first made. The author also declared that, during the second century, oral tradition was the primary source of doctrine in the Church, not its partial commitment to writing. It was noted that it was not until the close of the second century that certain writings began to acquire canonical status. Consequently, it was not thought surprisingly that there were no explicit appeals to the Petrine texts before the third century.
It was observed, however, that second century writings revealed the Roman see to be the doctrinal norm of Christianity. The works of Ignatius and Irenaeus were cited as examples. 
Jalland held that if Tertullian actually referred to a recitation of Matthew 16:17-19 by Pope Callistus  in his work on modesty, it would be the earliest recorded instance of the texts use by a pope. But Jalland did not believe that this was the case. If it were, he asked, why did Tertullian employ such obvious irony?
In response to this, it will be recalled that Tertullian asked the pope why he usurped the prerogatives of the Church. Was it, he inquired, because of Christs promise to Peter in Matthew 16? Tertullian then said that Callistus completely changed Christs obvious intention to grant the promise to Peter only, not to his successors. If Tertullian did not believe that Callistus appealed to the Matthean text as the basis of his claims for primacy, why then was the pope accused of perverting the texts meaning? In light of this consideration, it seems best to conclude that Tertullians writing does represent at least one of the earliest recorded instances of the use of a Petrine text by a pope to support his primacy.
As the result of Maurice Bevenots scholarship, Jalland was fully convinced that there were at least two genuine versions of Cyprians De Unitate: one supporting papal primacy and the other lending support to episcopal primacy. 
In the original version, Jalland noted that Cyprian argued that Pope Cornelius was the heir of Christs promise to Peter, and that only he had divine authority in rendering disciplinary judgments.  Here we see a striking similarity to Cyprians Epistle 59 to Cornelius. In the writing, Cyprian asserted that the reason that heresies and schism arose was because Gods priest (i.e., bishop) was not obeyed. He was the one priest in the Church who, for the time, was judge instead of Christ.
Jalland believed that Cyprians statement in the De Unitate that the primacy was given to Peter did not mean that the Roman see as the heir of Petrine primacy possessed any superiority or pre-eminence with respect to other sees. It meant only that Peter had a certain authority to take the initiative which was thought to accord with the New Testament description of Petrine authority. 
It seems strange that this should be held to be the New Testament view, since the author maintained earlier that the New Testament described Peter as the Churchs final arbiter, having administrative and legislative authority over the Church as well. 
It will be recalled that Cyprians Epistle 59 spoke of those who sailed to the chair of Peter, the principal Church, which was the source of episcopal unity. Jalland thought that this referred only to the origin of the episcopate in the Western Church.  In fact, however, Cyprian meant the whole Catholic Church.
In the first place, there was no explicit or implicit indication in the letter that only the episcopate in the West was meant. In the second place, earlier in the same work Cyprian spoke of bishops and rebels against the whole Catholic Church. He then said that the pope was the one bishop in the Church who was judge in Christs stead, and added that if the whole brotherhood would obey him, according to divine teaching, no one would be able to disturb the college of bishops.  Obviously the entire Catholic episcopate was meant. Consequently, there is no valid reason to suppose that the reference to the See of Rome as the origin of the unity of all Catholic bishops.
Jalland noted that the prelates at the Council of Sardica (342), writing to Pope Julius, said that bishops from all the provinces should report to their head, that is, to the See of Rome.
This will appear best and fittest, that the priests of the Lord from all provinces should report to the head, that is to the see of Peter the Apostle. 
It was believed that this expressed principally the attitude of bishops from central Europe (Illyricum) and also that of a few from Italy, Spain and Gaul.  These only were said to attend the council. But the council documents reveal that eastern bishops were present as well; for example, those from Cyprus, Arabia, Egypt, Palestine and Greece.  We see therefore that the view that the bishops from all the provinces should report to the pope their head, was expressed by representatives of both the East and the West.
Jalland did not question the fact that Ambrose believed in Petrine primacy. Yet it was thought to be a belief only in primacy of taking the initiative. Evidence to this effect was thought to be found in the saints work on the Incarnation  where reference was made to a primacy of faith, not of rank.
(Peter) assumed the primacy: undoubtedly a primacy of confession, not of honor; a primacy of faith, not of rank. That is to say, Now let no one surpass me. 
Ambroses work was written in 381, the same year that the Council of Chalcedon declared that the Bishop of Constantinople had privileges of honor after the Bishop of Rome because it was the new Rome.  It is an established fact that Ambrose was aware of the proposed plan to denounce Maximus the Cynic at the council.  Therefore, he may also have been aware of either the proposed or actual passage of the canon about the privileges of honor of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. If so, his words in the work on the Incarnation may have been a commentary on the subject, pointing out that the primacy of Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, was based on his confession of Christ, not upon the honor of secular Rome. That is, it was a primacy based upon Peters faith, not upon the rank of the worldly Rome among other imperial cities.
We have already noticed in connection with Moss work that Ambrose wrote in his Exposition on Psalm 43 (A.D. 397) that Peter was set over the Church by Christ and that he was appointed the shepherd of Christs flock.  This clearly indicated more than a primacy of taking the initiative.
Jalland conceded that Ambrose taught that the primacy of the papacy itself was more than one of honor, and even more than a primacy of faith. Particular reference was made to Ambroses Epistle 11, written on behalf of the Council of Aquileia (381) to the emperor. 
Your Grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman world, and that of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all mankind the privileges of sacred communion. 
Jalland did not say what he meant by more than a primacy of faith. Perhaps he meant that Ambrose believed that the pope had more than a magisterial primacy, meaning that he had an overall juridical primacy as well.
It was observed that Jerome spoke of the pope as the successor of Peter and that the See of Peter was that upon which the Church was built. Furthermore, those out of communion with the Church of Rome were not in the Catholic Church.  Here clearly was an admission that Jerome taught the traditional Roman Catholic doctrine of papal primacy. According to Jalland, Optatus of Mileve, writing in 370, held the same view of the papacy which had generally prevailed in North Africa since the time of Tertullian in the early third century.  Optatus wrote that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the head of the Apostles. It was the Roman see where unity for all was preserved. One would be a schismatic and sinner if he established a see in opposition to the See of Rome.  Again we see reflected a belief that the papacy had a divinely authorized primacy of jurisdiction.
Jalland did not agree with Anglican scholars such as Denny and Symonds that the African Church in Augustines time believed in the ultimate doctrinal and jurisdictional authority of councils rather than of the papacy. Instead, he said that the African Church shared the same conviction with the rest of the Church to the effect that local doctrinal and jurisdictional judgments, in order to have universal validity, must in some measure be confirmed by the papacy. 
It was pointed out, for example, that the African bishops requested Innocent I for a decision concerning Pelagianism which would benefit the whole world, which in fact the pope acknowledged and fulfilled. 
The author noted that Augustine in some places called Peter the rock upon which the Church was built,  thus indicating a belief in a Petrine primacy of jurisdiction. But in other places, he said that Peter was only the first one built upon the Rock who was Christ. Furthermore, it was held that Augustine said that the power of the keys was not given to Peter alone and consequently Peters primacy was one of privilege, not of office. 
It is true that in places Augustine interpreted the rock in Matthew 16:17-19 to be Christ. But this tells us nothing about his attitude towards Petrine primacy. In his Retractions, he said that he was not sure which interpretation of the rock was correct. Here he was dealing principally with the problem of scriptural exegesis, not with whether Peter had a primacy of jurisdiction.
It is also true that Augustine commonly wrote that the gift of the keys was not limited to Peter. But in these instances he identified the keys with the power of binding and loosing which all the Apostles clearly received.  He did not identify them with the authority of final arbitration. Again, the question of a Petrine primacy of jurisdiction was not raised in this context, as far as Augustine was concerned.
Inasmuch as in Augustines mind the power of the keys was first given to Peter, then to the others, this indeed represented a primacy of privilege rather than of office. But once more, it tells us nothing about Augustines views, if any, about a Petrine primacy of jurisdiction.
Actually, his belief in the juridical primacy of Peter can be seen in his Psalm Against the Donatist Party and in his Against the Letter of Manichaeus. In the former work, Augustine pointed out to the Donatists that in order to be grafted back into the Catholic Church it would be necessary to be in communion with the See of Peter, the rock which hell did not conquer.
Number the priest (bishops) even from that see of Peter, and in that order of fathers see who to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. 
In the latter work, Augustine declared that it was the succession of bishops from the chair of Peter, the Apostle charged with feeding the Lords sheep, which kept him in the Catholic Church.
The succession of priests (bishops) keeps me from the very see of Peter the Apostle (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate. 
In these two instances we see that Augustine believed the Catholic Church depended upon Peter (and his successors) for its integrity. This implied a primacy of office, the office of universal jurisdiction.
Jalland observed that many scholars detected an anomalous inconsistency in Augustines teaching about the Churchs norm in matters of doctrine.  At times, he was thought to teach the superiority and finality of the decrees of general councils. And at other times, he was thought to teach the superiority and finality of the papal magisterium.
Jalland believed that this was only an apparent inconsistency. He said that Augustine did not develop any clear-cut theory on Church authority. His writings were held to reflect little more than a series of obiter dicta based on personal experience of ecclesiastical practice in North Africa. 
We have seen , however, in our analysis of Dennys concepts of the papacy that Augustine clearly held the Bishop of Rome to be the Churchs ultimate arbiter and teacher of doctrine. We saw that his doctrine of Church councils did not clash with this view. Both councils and the papacy were means for declaring the Churchs teaching. But the former, including general councils, were not regarded as possessing finality within themselves.
Jalland noted that in the fifth century, Empress Pulcheria and her husband, Marcian, referred to Pope Leo as having the oversight and leadership in the divine faith, thereby indicating their belief in the primacy of the papal magisterium. 
The final pages of Jallands book were devoted to discovering to what degree Anglicans could accept the doctrine contained in the Vatican I constitution Pastor Aeternus (i.e., The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ). It was thought, for example, that no Anglican should object to create one universal Church containing pastors and teachers until the end of the world. 
In what was believed to parallel Anglican teaching, Jalland said that the council did not categorically declare that the episcopate was a divine institution.  Nevertheless, chapter three of the constitution clearly stated that the episcopate was appointed by the Holy Spirit.
( ) bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the Apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds the particular flock assigned to them ( ). 
It can be seen, therefore, that Vatican I did teach that the episcopate was a divine institution.
Jalland noted that the Church of England, in contrast to the council, had no official interpretation of the role played by Peter in the primitive Church. However he thought that Anglicans, in loyalty to the evidence of Scripture, could not deny Peters reception from Christ of a certain preference over the other Apostles. The author stated that Peter in his own person and not only on account of his faith, was appointed to become the visible foundation of the Church.  Whether this was meant to be the equivalent of the conciliar doctrine of a Petrine primacy of jurisdiction was not said.
The Vatican council taught that the Roman pontiffs were the divinely willed successors of Peter.  Jalland pointed out that here too Anglicanism had no official position. But he believed that it could be reasonably conceded from the evidence of the sub-apostolic age that the popes were the inheritors of Peters primacy by virtue of divine providence. This evidence was held to be no less trustworthy than Scripture. 
The third chapter of Pastor Aeternus, according to Jalland, spoke of the principatus of the Roman Church over all other Churches. This, he said, no doubt meant the later Roman Catholic concept of supremacy or immediate jurisdiction, rather than its less exaggerated use by the Fathers. Consequently, at first sight at least, this concept was held to be unacceptable to Anglicans. 
Actually, the third chapter spoke of the principatus of ordinary power over the other Churches rather than the principatus over the others. A standard English translation of the conciliar documents translated principatus as preeminence rather than supremacy. The Roman Church holds the preeminence of ordinary power over all the other church ( ). 
The Fathers, however, did believe in a papal primacy of jurisdiction over the Church. This we have already noted on several occasions. 
The immediate and ordinary jurisdiction of the papacy over the Church, Jalland said, was also rejected by Anglicans in general. Although he noted that in the past men such as James I (1566-1625) and John Bramhall (1594-1663) the Archbishop of Armagh, believed that Anglicanism repudiated only the civil jurisdiction of the papacy over Christianity. The author pointed out, however, that Article thirty-seven of the Thirty-nine Articles denied the popes spiritual jurisdiction as well.
At the time of the English Reformation the papacy was said to be regarded more as a political than as an ecclesiastical institution. For that reason Jalland thought that it may have seemed natural to reject the spiritual claims of the papacy. But, since the dust of the late medieval controversy has been settled, there is less hindrance to a more generous recognition of the strictly spiritual functions of the Roman see. 
It was observed also that Vatican I held that the pope was the supreme judge of all Christians in ecclesiastical matters and that his decisions were not subject to further appeal.  Jalland acknowledged that this was the teaching of the papacy from at least the fifth century. Still, he believed that this doctrine was not accepted by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
It will be recalled, however, in our analysis of Dennys book that both councils provided evidence of an acceptance of the primacy of the papal magisterium. Throughout their proceedings references were made, for example, to papal doctrinal judgments which were subsequently subscribed to by the bishops. Acceptance of the magisterial primacy of the papacy was also found in the Chalcedonian letter to Leo.
In the pre-Nicene period, Jalland acknowledged that there were signs that papal judgments were regarded by the Church as having general validity. Furthermore, they possessed a universal significance which not even the imposing machinery of an ecumenical council could normally ignore.  It was maintained too that it was not clear in the early Church whether ecumenical councils owed their authority to the fact that they expressed the will of emperors or that they were afterwards confirmed by the papacy. 
Jalland observed that Vatican I taught that the Roman see always claimed a magisterial primacy which the unbroken custom  of the Church approved. The council added that this was proclaimed by ecumenical councils, especially those represented by both the East and the West. 
The author stated that there was, in fact, more evidence for the general acceptance of the magisterial primacy of the papacy in the early Church than was recognized by the majority of Anglican historians.  However, he asserted too that there were occasions in the post-Nicene period when this primacy was challenged on account of caesaropapism. Therefore he could not concede that there was an unbroken custom of the Church deferring to papal claims.
It is true that there have always been those in the course of Christian history who have rejected papal authority. But by the same token there have always been those who have accepted it, particularly those who remained in communion with the See of Peter. In this sense then it can be said that there is an unbroken custom in the Church of appealing to the papacy for definitive doctrinal judgments which reflects belief in the magisterial primacy of the papacy.
Jalland stressed that in proclaiming the doctrine of papal infallibility there was no intention by Vatican I to teach the personal inerrancy of the pope or that popes could define new dogmas. It was noted that the council taught instead that when the pope defined doctrine to be received by the whole Church, he taught only what was in the deposit of faith, and this he did by the special assistance of the Holy Spirit.
It was also pointed out that the council did not teach that the infallibility of the Church was either dependent upon or derived from that enjoyed by the pope. Rather it taught only that the popes infallibility in defining doctrine was co-extensive with that of the Church. 
The council taught too, Jalland said, that the ex cathedra judgments of the pope were irreformable in themselves and not subject to the consent of the Church. That is, they were held not to be subject to the subsequent consent of the Church. Significantly, therefore, the author thought that the council did not rule out the necessity of papal definitions being dependent upon the prior consensus of the Church which kept the original deposit of faith infallibly intact.  It was noted, however, that the council failed to define the nature of the infallible Church which the pope was bound to consult in order to teach infallibly.
It remains true that the ultimate dependence of the Roman see in issuing a definition on the consensus of the Church, as judge of the consistency or inconsistency of a particular dogma with the original depositum or paradosis of the Christian revelation, is recognized in some sense even in the Vatican Constitution (Pastor Aeternus), and that thus we are once more referred back to the precondition of the infallibility of the Church. ( ) The crucial defect of the Constitution Pastor Aeternus lies in the fact that it attempted to define that the Pope was the infallible organ of the Churchs infallibility without first re-examining the question of the precise sense in which such a characteristic could rightly be ascribed to the Church. 
Actually, the constitution made it clear that the pope was obliged to consult only Scripture and apostolic tradition, contained in the writings of the Fathers and holy orthodox doctors, before teaching definitively in matters of faith or morals. This ruled out the absolute necessity of consulting the episcopate, for example, although the council noted that at times popes did in fact seek episcopal advice and opinion.  Therefore, there was no need to define the infallibility of the Church before the doctrine of papal infallibility could be properly understood.
Inasmuch as Jalland believed that papal infallibility was dependent upon the prior consensus of the Catholic Church, he sought to determine a proper definition of the Catholic Church. He said that Roman Catholics normally held it to be confined to those Churches in communion with the See of Rome, although he noted that some Roman Catholic scholars held that the outer limits of the Catholic Church were somewhat blurred. It was observed that M.J. Congar went so far as to say that although the Roman Catholic Church was the Una Ecclesia, dissident Christian bodies were in varying degrees elements of the Church. 
It should not be forgotten, however, that as early as the third century the Church of Rome held heretical Baptism to be valid, thus implying that all those validly baptized were members of the Church. Consequently, Congar taught nothing essentially new.
Jalland noted further that Congar distinguished between Protestant and Eastern Orthodox communities. The former were said to be only elements of the Church, while the latter were held to constitute true, but incomplete, ecclesial realities which in some sense could be called Churches.  The basis of Congars distinction was said to be the fact that the Orthodox had real sacraments and therefore a real hierarchy.
Jalland said that this distinction between an authentic and an unauthentic hierarchy was also shared by the Anglican scholar A.H. Rees. Rees was said to hold that certain schisma could not be regarded as schisma from the Catholic Church in the fullest sense of the term. The parties to such were held to remain in the Church in virtue of their sustained communion with a Catholic hierarchy, rather than because of their Baptisms or their orthodox faith. 
It should be carefully noted, however, that Congar and Rees were not both saying precisely the same thing. Congar stated only that the Orthodox, having a genuine hierarchy, possessed true but incomplete ecclesial realities which in some sense could be called Churches. But this was said in comparison to the Roman Catholic Church which was called the Una Ecclesia, that is, a Church in the fullest qualitative sense of the word. Rees, on the other hand, wrote that all Churches in schism with one another and possessing genuine hierarchies were full and authentic parts of the Catholic Church.
Congar in effect distinguished between a Church which was fully Catholic and one which was not, not on the basis of the possession of a genuine hierarchy, rather it was on the basis of the possession of the papacy.
Jalland was of the opinion that Rome did not necessarily hold such a position. He maintained that when there were rival claimants to the papacy, those embracing one claimant or the other did not regard the opposition as altogether outside the Catholic Church.  The implication was that the papacy was not regarded as essential to the Catholic Church, whereas a genuine hierarchy was.
Communion with the Roman see might be in a state of suspense, owing to the support given to a bishop who was held by the other party to be no true occupant of that see, yet communion with a real hierarchy remained ( ) 
Actually, the belief that the opposition party was not altogether outside the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the question of whether communion with the papacy was essential to belong to the qualitative fullness of that Church. At its lowest ebb, such a belief expressed only the view that each side was part of the Catholic Church by virtue of having validly baptized members.
Jalland thought that until divided Christianity was restored on the basis of a real hierarchy, that is on the basis of the historic episcopate, the actual limits of the Church could not be defined. Consequently, until that time there must of necessity be some imprecision regarding the matter of Church membership. Since a reunited Church with its essential Catholic episcopate was not a present reality, Jalland said the Church as it then existed was not absolutely infallible. 
In accordance with the authors understanding of the Vatican I doctrine of papal infallibility, it logically followed from the views just presented that the modern papacy could not be infallible since there was no infallible Church to consult. We have seen, however, that the council taught only that popes must consult the deposit of faith, as contained in Scripture and apostolic tradition, before defining doctrine.
Jalland, in effect, believed that Vatican I subscribed to a modified form of Gallicanism since he held that papal definitions were subject to the prior, rather than the subsequent, collective judgments of the episcopate. This episcopate, according to the author, was not limited to those bishops in communion with the Church of Rome, rather it included the bishops of all Churches with genuine hierarchies. Presumably this meant the entire historic episcopate.
In our analysis of Jallands concepts of papal primacy, we noticed that he believed Peter was uniquely entrusted by Christ with the authority of the keys. This was taken to mean that Peter was the Churchs final arbiter, possessing administrative and legislative power over the Church as well.
The Bishops of Rome were held to be the divinely authorized inheritors of Peters primacy. But in the last analysis, this meant that the pope was not the Churchs final arbiter, rather he was the ultimate spokesman of the Church, reflecting the infallible consensus of the universal episcopate.
Outside of Jones and Scott who fully accepted the Church of Romes position on the papacy, Jalland was the first Anglican scholar cited in our study to believe in a divinely authorized primacy of authority for the papacy. This position also surpassed those expressed, explicitly and implicitly, in the Lambeth Conferences.
5. The Eighth Lambeth Conference (1948)
The first Lambeth Conference to be held since 1930 convened in 1948. Its president was Geoffrey Fisher who was born in 1887 and educated at Oxford. Ordained to the priesthood in 1913, he served as headmaster at Repton School from 1914-1932. In 1932, he was consecrated Bishop of Chester and became Bishop of London in 1939. He was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1945, remaining in that position until his retirement in 1961.
It will be recalled that the 1930 Conference discussed the proposed Church of South India which sought to unite Anglicans, Methodists, and a former union of Congregationalists and Presbyterians into one regional Church. Its actual inauguration occurred in 1947 with a portion of its presbyters not receiving episcopal ordination. Moreover, there was no agreement with the Anglican Communion as a whole on points of doctrine. The effect of this arrangement was to leave the newly formed body out of communion with the Churches of Anglicanism.
Inasmuch as the Church of South India had no plans to ultimately terminate communion with non-episcopal Churches, bishops at the 1948 Conference said that the newly formed Communion ought to consider such action. The prelates also wanted to know whether the Church of South India intended always to have non-episcopally ordained clergy. 
In the conference encyclical, it was stated that a substantial minority of Anglican bishops were concerned that the South India bishops and clergy ordained at the inception of the new Church, and subsequently, might not have valid orders. The basis for this concern was the suspicion that the faith and practice of the Church of South India might have rendered the orders invalid.
The encyclical also made it clear that in the future the bishops did not want any portion of the Anglican Communion merging with other traditions to find itself out of communion with the rest of Anglicanism, as had the Anglicans in the Church of South India.
As can be seen, all of these conference actions sought to retain the historical episcopate and an episcopally ordained ministry in ecumenical mergers involving parts of the Anglican Communion. Not all of the conference bishops, however, believed that the historic episcopate was absolutely essential for the well-being of the Catholic Church. This was clearly indicated in the report of a conference committee.
We are convinced that the right guidance ( ) is to be found in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilaterial as a basis for negotiation and in the claim of The Appeal to All Christian People of 1920 that the episcopate can alone provide a ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body.
The statement of the Lambeth Appeal of 1920 accords fully with the Preface to the Ordinal, under which all the Churches of the Anglican Communion have retained episcopal ordination as a necessary condition for the exercise within themselves of the ministry of the Church. But this unity in practice has not ruled out a certain diversity of interpretation. Some, holding episcopacy to be the esse of the Church. ( .)Others, while holding firmly that episcopacy is the normal method for the transmission of ministerial authority, yet ( .) recognize ( ) [non-episcopal] ministries as true ministries and their sacraments as true sacraments. Yet others hold shades of opinion intermediate between these views. It is clear that in any scheme for reunion or intercommunion all these views must be recognized and allowed for. 
It is clear, therefore, that the Anglican Communion was not thought to have a definitive position on the place of the historic episcopate in the Church. While the Anglican Communion had generally required non-episcopate, it did not also require that they believe with Anglo-Catholics that it was of the esse of the Church. Consequently, individual members would be free to believe that clergy without benefit of ordination by the historic episcopate were not essentially different from those who were.
The only mention of the Roman Catholic Church in either the encyclical or the resolution of the 1948 Conference had to do with mixed marriages. Anglicans were warned against marrying Roman Catholics because the Church of Rome required the children of such unions to be reared in that Church.
A committee report repeated what earlier conference committees said about the ecumenical movement and about the Roman Catholic Communion. It affirmed that there could be no genuine Christian unity which did not include the great Latin Church of the West. 
The report also noted that the papal encyclical Mortalium Animos  made it quite clear that Romes concept of reunion was for non-Roman Catholics to submit to the papacy. This condition, the report said was impossible for Anglicans to accept.  It was observed that not only did Anglicans differ with Roman Catholics regarding the papacy, but there were also grave disparities in faith and practice. For these reasons, the committee thought that there was no present possibility for any hopeful approaches towards intercommunion. No mention was made of specific differences of faith and practice other than those dealing with the papacy.
It can be seen that this conference did not alter in any visible way the attitude towards papal primacy expressed in the previous conferences. Consequently, there was no evidence of an acceptance of the more liberal views of the papacy found in Jallands book.
The stress of the conference fathers on the historic episcopate reflected at least two theological concepts prominent in Anglicanism. One, concurring with Roman Catholic doctrine, insisted that the historic episcopate was uniquely essential to the Church. The other held that the historic episcopate did not essentially differ from other categories of ordained clergy. It can be seen once more therefore that the belief in the inherent difference of the historic episcopate, voiced by the authors cited in our study, was not shared by the entire Anglican Communion.
In this chapter we saw that Symonds, Moss and Jalland held that Peter enjoyed at least a divinely willed primacy of leadership among the Apostles. But this was not interpreted by Symonds and Moss to be a primacy of rule or command. Jalland, on the other hand, thought that Peter was the Churchs supreme arbiter whose decisions were final and binding. Peter was also thought to be the supreme legislator and administrator of the Church.
Both Symonds and Moss asserted that the primacy of the papacy was only one of honor derived from the unique association of two Apostles with Rome and also from the secular greatness of the city. However, Jalland was convinced that the Bishop of Rome actually enjoyed a primacy of authority derived from Peter the chief Apostle. This was held to include a magisterial primacy as well. But in the process of describing of the popes primacy, it became apparent that the pontiff was actually thought to be subject to the authority of the universal episcopate.
Jallands association of a divinely authorized magisterial primacy with the papacy differed significantly from the positions assumed by most of the other authors noted in our study. At the same time, Jallands teaching represented no more than a development within the tolerated limits of traditional Anglican attitudes towards the papacy. In other words, the author did not concede to the papacy a magisterial primacy free from the prior consensus of the universal episcopate, that is, an episcopate which extended beyond the borders of the Roman Catholic Church. Here in fact was a development of the Anglo-Catholic Branch Theory of the Church, as held, for example, by Pusey. In the last analysis, therefore, the primacy of the Churchs magisterium was actually held to reside in the universal episcopate.
Jallands views also differed significantly from those of Jones and Scott, since these men endorsed the Roman Catholic doctrine of the primacy of the papal magisterium. Their views could perhaps be best described as radical insights into the nature of papal authority rather than as logical developments of the traditional Anglican attitudes towards the papal magisterium.
Footnotes Chapter IV
What's New Site Index
Home | Directory | Eucharist | Divine Training | Testimonials | Visit Chapel | Hardon Archives
Adorers Society | PEA Manual | Essentials of Faith | Dictionary | Thesaurus | Catalog | Newsletters