Roman Catholicism denying that Episcopacy as a separate order (basically Presbyterianism)

So I've been asked to start a discussion about the Roman Catholic theology of holy orders, specifically their denial that the episcopacy is a separate holy order. They will only accept the priest as the highest order.

Indeed, I will show that Roman history has cases where the Pope has allowed priests to conduct ordinations. This makes Roman Catholic holy orders essentially indistinguishable from Presbyterians and Baptists. By contrast, Anglican tradition teaching that Episcopacy is jure divino, makes it a far better keeper of the Ancient Church. (I won't discuss Rome making holy orders into a sacrament, which is a gross violation of the Early Church in its own right.)

So, what is the classic Roman doctrine of holy orders? This famous diagram captures it:



This captures the traditional RC doctrine of seven holy orders. The five 'minor' orders: Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Subdeacon. And the two 'major' orders (the real ones): Deacon, culminating in Priest.

A bishop in the RC scheme is seen as a "the fullness of the priesthood", namely a priest which has the complete set of the rights granted to him from the Pope, such as a right to ordain, and to confirm. A bishop is not a separate 'thing', as in the Anglican tradition.

If this was the RC doctrine, then we should expect to find instances where regular priests were allowed to do things like wear the mitres of a Bishop (without being one). We should expect to find instances where regular priests make ordinations (just like in Presbyterians and the Baptists do).

And indeed we do. Here is a passage from the travels of Marco Polo, written in the 1200s:

"... when they [Marco Polo & his companion] had been thus honourably conducted to Acre they proceeded to the presence of the Pope, and paid their respects to him with humble reverence. He received them with great honour and satisfaction, and gave them his blessing. He then appointed two Friars of the Order of Preachers to accompany them to the Great Khan, and to do whatever might be required of them. These were unquestionably as learned Churchmen as were to be found in the Province at that day—one being called Friar Nicolas of Vicenza, and the other Friar William of Tripoli. He delivered to them also proper credentials, and letters in reply to the Great Khan's messages, and gave them authority to ordain priests and bishops, and to bestow every kind of absolution, as if given by himself in proper person"

The Travels of Marco Polo, chapter 12, https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10636/pg10636.html
Written 1271-1295

I don't need to tell you all that this is undoubtedly where the Presbyterians and Baptists got their belief that holy orders essentially consists of Deacons and Presbyters. And that their 'elders' could ordain others, without any bishops whatsoever. In the traditional Roman theology, a bishop is just a Pope's servant, a kind of super-charged priest who does the Pope's bidding. Just one more example of how far the Roman communion strayed from anything like apostolic Christianity.

 

The current Romish catechism mentions the Episcopacy, Presbyterate, and Diaconate as three seperate orders, here.

To the best of my knowledge, Episcopal succession has been the norm in Roman doctrine and practice since early times.

 

Yes, in Vatican II, the Roman church has adopted many things which actually seem to be very Anglican. They even had Anglican advisors present at the council. The liturgy became vernacular (although the Novus Ordo is awful), Rome became 'in' the Church of Christ rather than 'the' Church of Christ, and the Holy Orders was completely rebuilt from scratch, from the 7 orders ending in priest, into 3 orders of deacon/priest/bishop just like Anglicans have had for centuries.

That being said, Vatican 2 is not considered to be a 'doctrinal' Council, so it cannot be that they adopted any new doctrines there. Furthermore, even if these doctrines were officially adopted, they fly in the face of at least 1000 years of prior Roman teaching about holy orders, including that diagram in my OP from the 1950s, which clearly defined holy orders as the 7 ending in priest. To contradict that (very old) teaching with something new and foreign that appeared in the 1960s would indicate a contradiction in the Magisterium and thus would undo the Roman church altogether. So there's no way for them to formally and completely come toward the Anglican doctrine of bishops as a separate rank within the Holy Orders, without serious internal calamity.

 

This is correct. The episcopacy is not an ‘Order’ in RC ecclesiology. According to Aquinas (Suppl. IIIa, Q. 37, art. 2; Q. 40, art. 5), Orders relate to the Eucharist, and there are 7 such Orders:
1. Priest - Consecrates
2. Deacon - Assists priest in consecration
3. Subdeacon - “”
4. Acolyte - “”
5. Reader - Assists priest in dispensation
6. Doorkeeper - “”
7. Exorcist - “”

I’ll have to check Denzinger, but my understanding is that there were some instances that the Roman Church officially acknowledges from the Middle Ages in which abbots ordained (other) priests.

Also, in the same part of the Supplement to the Tertia Pars of the Summa, Aquinas further says the following Q. 36, art. 2:

“A priest exercises a twofold action: the one, which is principal, over the true body of Christ; the other, which is secondary, over the mystical body of Christ. The second act depends on the first, but not conversely. Wherefore some are raised to the priesthood, to whom the first act alone is deputed, for instance those religious who are not empowered with the care of souls. The law is not sought at the mouth of these, they are required only for the celebration of the sacraments; and consequently it is enough for them to have such knowledge as enables them to observe rightly those things that regard the celebration of the sacrament. Others are raised to exercise the other act which is over the mystical body of Christ, and it is at the mouth of these that the people seek the law; wherefore they ought to possess knowledge of the law, not indeed to know all the difficult points of the law (for in these they should have recourse to their superiors), but to know what the people have to believe and fulfill in the law. To the higher priests, namely the bishops, it belongs to know even those points of the law which may offer some difficulty, and to know them the more perfectly according as they are in a higher position.”

So Aquinas believes the distinguishing mark of a bishop is the knowledge of Holy Scripture, and in his treatment of the Eucharist in the Tertia Pars proper there is very little emphasis given to the notion of “sacrifice”. What Aquinas does have to say on the subject sounds rather more like Anglicanism than Roman Catholicism to me.

The situation in the pre-Nicene Church was rather fluid as far as Orders are concerned, and it is very difficult to make any hard-and-fast universal deductions from what those sources tell us. I do think we can know with some degree of confidence that there was a distinction between priests and deacons, that the local congregations had some say in who these people were, and that bishops/elders/overseers came out of the “college” of those ordained to the priesthood, either by election or lot. It is not clear who actually did the ordaining in every case. In any event by some point in the second century I think regular order had pretty much solidified around episcopal succession as it was known throughout the late classical and medieval periods, and with which Anglicans are still familiar today. If Aquinas’ treatment represents a legitimate crystallization or further refinement of the earlier tradition, not only does the RC Church have no basis to declare Anglican Orders “invalid”, but Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian Orders would appear to be just as safe from criticism, from the standpoint of validity. The argument for episcopacy then turns out to be properly theological, not merely pragmatic, and not based solely on Tradition: per Aquinas, the purpose of the office of bishop, the Church’s highest office, is to be the guardian of Holy Scripture, the Church’s highest authority. That is as simple, clear, and direct as it gets.

 

I am fairly sure this continues amongst Anglican monastics. It is my understanding that an Abbot is equal to a bishop in this usage.

 

I found this article which may be of some benefit to the discussion. It would be a good idea to double-check the primary sources, though. I think the main sources mentioned are in Denzinger but I’m not 100% sure.

 

This paper on the validity of Lutheran orders contains all the Denzinger references to papally-sanctioned medieval ordinations by those of presbyteral rank. I have double-checked the references with my copy of Denzinger and they are accurate. Enjoy:

https://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/PiepkornValidity.pdf

 

I guess the Biblical question is whether episkopos is a synonym for presbyteros. I don't think they are because Paul, in Titus 1:5, seems to be using presbyteros as a local pastor for a given church, not an episkopos or elder/overseer. (Though two verses later he uses episkopos (overseer), so I don't know.)

I think in the ancient Church, which at that time was mainly house-churches or at least very small congregations, it was understood that each congregation would require its own pastor and not simply oversight from a centralized episkopos. This is more a matter of practice and logistics than theology per se, granted, but still: whether you refer to the person as pastor or priest or presbyter, it seems clear to me that this office existed almost from the very first.

 

Lancelot Andrewes makes an amazing point when arguing with a French protestant that the episcopacy is of divine right. He says that the words episkopos and presbyteros in the New Testament don't describe holy orders, but functions. But that doesn't answer whether there are actual divisions in the holy orders of the New Testament, and to understand those, he says we should rather look at the divisions and ranks of the clergy instituted in the New Testament. For example the twelve apostles: that's what we would later call bishops. The 72: these would later be called presbyters. Their attendants: they would later be called deacons.

So if you look at episkopos/presbyteros/diakonos, the resulting picture is somewhat messy. But if you look at The Twelve, The Seventy Two, and their Attendants, then you have a very clean and neat picture of the three-fold ministry, right there in the New Testament. Over time, the role occupied by The Twelve and their successors would be called episkopos, and even if a presbyter "oversaw" something he still wouldn't be given the title of an episkopos, to make things easier to understand for the churches. Etc.

That's an amazing find. Here are the relevant passages on the medieval ages, and they're as shocking as one would expect:

 

It seems that the official Roman position is something to the effect that the rank of the Order does not determine any difference with regard to the power to ordain between priests and bishops. Theoretically that power is received with ordination to the priesthood is conferred. What is not so conferred automatically is jurisdiction, which must, so the theory goes, in all cases be papally granted. In general, that jurisdiction has, of course, been restricted to bishop. The exceptions, however, are quite interesting.

 

That's quite an interpretation. I have always thought that when Jesus sent out the 12, and later the 70, they were common laity being pointed out by Him and sent out to do a task for a few days. These things happened quite long before the crucifixion; when Jesus chose the 12 they were regular fishermen and laborers. The 70 were followers, disciples, not even specifically 'chosen' per se to be followers but people who were attracted to Jesus' ministry. Jesus had not yet breathed upon them and said, "receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22), so they were not yet specially anointed for ordained ministry. And what attendants? I see no mention of "attendants" in Luke 9 or Luke 10. It seems fantastical to me to suppose that these events present a "clean and neat picture of the three-fold ministry." In all my 60+ years I have never heard this hypothesis until today.

 

I found it here: https://www.anglican.net/works/lanc...three-epistles-of-peter-moulin-answered-1647/ I only briefly skimmed through it so I'm sure many details were lost. I forget where he mentions those who would end up becoming the "deacons" but yes the big thrust of his analysis is to separate the three-fold ministry of the New Testament from the functional titles of episkopos, presbyteros, diakonos.

It reminds me of a verse in St. Paul's epistle to Ephesians, 4:11:
"And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors"

From this some modern Presbyterians and other Evangelicals had tried to derive actual holy orders. But all the rest of us who are sane in the head, can see pretty plainly that these are all functional titles, and no ranks of holy orders were intended in them. Bishop Andrews seems to have applied the same logic to the episkopos/presbyteros/diakonos labels, and it made sense to me, at least back when I first looked through it.

 

I've found some more medieval Roman theologians openly denying episcopacy as a separate order:

William of Auvergene
-"Episcopacy is not an order, but an honor"

Jean Gerson:
-"bishops do not possess a different power of order from that of priests, but they possess the same power in a more perfect measure"

Durandus:
-"Episcopacy is not an order strictly distinct from the simple priesthood, but the distinction between is of perfect and imperfect"

Found in John Davenant's treatise of Justification:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IqLOrPH2FX8C&pg=PA437#v=onepage&q&f=false


Gratian (1142 AD) denies that Episcopacy is a separate order;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23573133?seq=1
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2265.1962.tb00287.x


And finally, Marsilius of Padua (1300s) talks about priests and even Monarchs being able to conduct ordinations:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679031?seq=1
-"In the Church, according to the "Defensor Pacis", the faithful have these two great powers — the elective and the legislative. They nominate the bishops and select those who are to be ordained. The legislative power is, in the Church, the right to decide the meaning of the old Scriptures; that is the work for a general council, in which the right of discussion and voting belongs to the faithful or their delegates. The ecclesiastical power, the priesthood, comes directly from God and consists essentially in the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remit sins, or, rather, to declare them remitted. It is equal in all priests, each of whom can communicate it by ordination to a subject legitimately proposed by the community." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09719c.htm

 

Well, Stalwart, that raises an interesting question. The Roman church maintains that the episcopacy is not a separate order (bishops are just 'priests-Plus'). But I've been made to understand that the Anglican churches maintain otherwise, that the episcopacy is a separate order. Are you teaching something that is anti-Anglican?

 

No, because we don't derive our theology of 'the church' from Rome.

What I am saying, is that this idea of Rome having a more 'high church' theology is a myth. In actual fact, the actual Roman theology of 'the church' is very low-church on the same rank with the presbyterians. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Calvin took his teachings directly from the medieval theologians.

By contrast, Anglican view of 'the church', with a separate divine rank of episcopacy, emerges as far more high church than that of Rome. While their liturgies sometimes have had more smells and bells, their actual doctrine of the church has always been a souped up Presbyterianism.

 

Er...point of order, squire.

The Roman Church believes in limbo, the eternal virginity of Mary, the infallibility of the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra, anyway), and lots of other stuff that would probably cause a good Scotch Presbyterian to spontaneously combust. Of course both Calvin and Knox (and Cranmer, come to that) learned their theology from medieval theologians. Whom else could they have learned it from? They were products of their time. Their teachers were men in the line of Aquinas and Duns (who it must be said would not have recognized the Catholic Church of later ages, either in doctrine or practice).

 

Right, I'm not saying that all of their doctrines are similar (although many others are, such as double-predestination; but that's for another time). Here I'm only talking about the one startling similarity, how Romans have the Presbyterian doctrine of the church.

But that's the genius of the Anglican mindset: we took our doctrine directly from the church fathers. Instead of Aquinas, St. Augustine. Instead of the presbyterian notions of Marsilius of Padua and Gratian, we went to St. Ignatius of Antioch, "where is the bishop, there is the church".

One could make this case in many other doctrines where we substantially differed from the Calvinists and the Romans; but in the matter of Church Order, there's been a myth of Anglicanism being a lite Romanism, and that in our ecclesiology we largely just share the Roman system (they have bishops, we have bishops, right?). So in this thread, we are seeing that there's nothing lite about authentic Anglicanism; and that our doctrine of the church is different from the Roman. Ours are the apostolic Bishops, the Pillars of the Church; while theirs are souped up presbyters in fancy hats, appointed by only one actual bishop in all the world; the bishop of Rome.

 

Oh, I agree, obviously -- the Anglican episcopacy has always struck me as being closer to the early church's practice than anything that came out of the Roman church. I'm just not sure this difference is doctrinal so much as (for want of a better word) historical. England is an island nation, and both its politics and religion were far more provincial than its European bretheren, particularly in the late antiquity/early Medieval period. The English church had a chance to develop and grow organically in a way the Roman church didn't (for all kinds of reasons). The Roman Catholic church is a microcosm of Medieval and Renaissance European politics as much as it is an expression of Christian theology and practice.

 

Here is a recent case of episcopacy being optional in the Roman view of the church.

The recent intent of Pope Francis to "consecrate Russia to the Virgin Mary" has made a few rounds on the internet. The idea is that if "The Pope and the Bishops of the World" consecrate Russia to Mary that she will save the world, or some such. But I don't think that many people have looked too closely at the specific letter Pope Francis had sent out. I looked at it, because I knew that the requirement was for it to be the Pope along with all the bishops. How can that treat episcopacy as optional, you may ask? Well take a look for yourselves:



The text says: "The Holy Father intends to invite each Bishop, or equivalent in law".

The episcopacy, you see, is a legal structure in Romanism. That's all it is. As I discussed above, the Popes at multiple times in RC history freely dispensed with it if needed, and allowed priests to perform ordinations. Ie. the roman catholic church is a prototype of Presbyterianism.

 

What is equivalent in law to a Roman Bishop?