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

There are various grades of Monsignor. Jeffrey Steenson, the first ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, is an example of someone who was not consecrated as a Roman bishop but functioned as an ordinary.

 

I was going to post about Steenson, but Fr. Shane took the words right out of my mouth. Yeah the Ordinariate is the most notorious case of this presbyterian theology. Jeffrey Steenson was literally an RC priest, who was given ordinary jurisdiction by Benedict XVI, and he ran the US Ordinariate having all the administrative capacities of a bishop:



And if you thought that Steenson has all the visual marks of a bishop in that picture, you wouldn't be off the mark.

By the way, the newly assigned ordinary of the Australian branch of the Ordinariate is also just a priest. As was the previous one. Yup.

New head for Ordinariate (March, 2019)
https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/new-head-for-ordinariate-in-australia/​

"Pope Francis appointed Canadian priest Fr Carl Reid the second Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross on 26 March – a role he will take up in August.

Pope Francis has also accepted the resignation of Msgr Harry Entwistle, who has served as leader of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross since it was established in 2012."​

---

In another post (I'm still researching it) I'll talk about how it seems that the medieval Abbots were given all attributes of a bishop, including the ability to ordain their own priests. They exhibited all the visual marks of bishop, and could even wear mitres.

The idea that Romanism is "high church" is ludicrous.

 

An abbott or a friar given the ability to ordain. There are references to the former in the Denzinger collection of papal and conciliar decrees, and to the latter in The Travels of Marco Polo.

 

There appears to be a lot of misunderstanding of the RCC going on in this thread.

The RCC at times has not recognized the office of Bishop as a separate order because of the understanding of Holy Orders being a sacrament and leaving an indelible mark on the soul. One is ordained as a deacon or priest but not as a bishop seeing as a bishop is consecrated. The indelible mark is the sign of the priesthood which is fully realized through episcopal consecration. (Also the graphic is misleading. The "minor orders" have never been viewed as truly part of Holy Orders as there is no ordination involved.)

Superiors of Religious Orders (Abbots, Abbesses), whether ordained or lay, have been recognized as ordinaries of their communities for nearly as long as there have been Abbots and Abbesses. From the time religious orders started having large numbers of priests up until Vatican II it was the norm for Abbots and religious superiors to receive episcopal consecration and ordain priests for their communities. They were not viewed as bishops though as their jurisdictional authority was limited to their own community and not a diocese (in these cases it was not a rejection of the episcopacy but merely a distinction of terms). That is not to say an Abbot could not also be an acting bishop as a great number of Abbots were given authority over a diocese and a few were elected as pope.

You are correct that the requirement for a consecration of this kind is a joint action of the Pope and all the Bishops. From what I've seen that is exactly what is happening. I don't take it as he's saying bishops are optional but that all the other ordinaries are invited to join their prayers as well as has been the tradition.

 

In Anglican theology, while we retain the language of consecration, we also teach that a bishop is ordained.

While we also believe that holy orders lay an indelible mark, it makes sense that in Roman theology the highest order is the priesthood — to perform the atoning sacrifice of the mass. Since we believe that is against Catholic teaching, we don’t view the priesthood as the highest. Our doctrine of holy orders revolves around the bishop. The priests are his vicars. “Where is the bishop, there is the Church.” -St. Ignatius

I’m sorry but this is incorrect. In Pre-Vatican 2 theology, the entrance into holy orders was the rite of tonsure. That’s indicated in the graphic.

Some Abbots were bishops, but not all Abbots were bishops. However all abbots, whether bishop or not, had the capacity even as priests to ordain other priests.

So it is very clear where John Calvin and the presbyterians got their theology.

 

Occam, I think would dearly love to take his razor to all this 'spiritual' religious ecclesiastical, one-upmanship.

Here is how Jesus Christ seemed to view the whole notion of 'church hierarchy',

It's all very well having oversight and a clear 'line of command' in the church on earth but all this discussion of who can do what and who should be at the top of the pyramid of higher-anarchy is just so much froth on the head of Christ's 'true religion' actual beer.

Sorry about the alegory, I forgot you yanks don't know what proper beer really should be like, with your weak, cold, fizzy, pale, tasteless, frothy, American mouth-wash. I'm talking Real Ale here. A fulfilling Mild or a tasty hoppy or yeasty Bitter.
.

 

Now we know what "ales" Tiffy!

Tiffy, you'd better get scriptural and be like Jesus: drink wine, not ale!

 

Scripture gives a poor guide on the issue of Beer. Worse even than your American stuff.

 

You should have been born in Germany. At least then you would appreciate how much better lagers can be than ales. (Or so I am told by one of my friends, who spent a few years stationed there. I am not a beer snob, although I do rather enjoy the Belgian quad sometimes served by the local microbrew.)

 

I find Lager much too cold, acidic and fizzy. It upsets my digestion. I prefer a nice pint of room temperature, Mild and Bitter, AKA (Friend & Mother in law).

 

Something interesting happened re: this topic recently. Pope Francis instructed all bishops of the world that they had to run all religious establishments by him. Previously they were under the illusion that they were in charge of their own dioceses on this topic. I am not sure how or why people thought the RC bishops had an independent authority; didn't the prior 1000 years of RC history show them that their bishops are just Papal envoys, and not bishops in the Patristic and Anglican sense? I guess the people were still coping that Roman Catholicism isn't what it actually is.





On this thread,
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/vcz3j2/pope_changes_canon_law_to_prevent_bishops_from/

People are saying things like,

"Bishops are glorified parish priests in fancy dress as far as Rome is concerned."

 

This is reminiscent of the transition from republic to empire in ancient Rome, when the regional proconsuls were made into legates of the emperor, who held proconsular authority in all provinces. There's an aspect of this that goes back to Innocent III or even Gregory VII, but in the past two centuries especially we have witnessed an acceleration in the transformation of the Papacy from the "constitutional monarchy" envisioned by medieval writers to "absolute monarchy". In no sense has Francis been a deviation from this tendency, despite his other differences with his nearest predecessors.

 

Oh yes, it still resembled a constitutional monarchy as late as Bellarmine’s day (late 1500s). It has only gone downhill since then, especially with Vatican I and the 1800s Popes, who were far more imperious than Pope Francis ever has been.

But the truth is, it has been a foregone conclusion even since the 1400s, when short-lived Conciliarism was made into a “heresy”. So there’s no going back now, sadly.

 

Agreed. I suppose one could roughly date the zenith of papal power to the era immediately preceding the European Revolutions (1789-1848).

 

This entire thread is undermined by the assumption that Anglicanism necessarily teaches a jure divino episcopacy.
Certainly a great many Anglicans do, but a great many Anglicans do not, and have not since the English Reformation.
Like many things in the English Reformation, Episcopacy was handled as a matter of good order, not theoretical perfection.
Hugenots ordained by other presbyters were received into Anglican ministry without reordination.
Hooker praises Calvin for his forming of a church polity suitable for the Genevan situation.
As shown above, many respected Anglicans have come from the opposite perspective.
In the end we can see on this issue, as with many others, even "confessional", "conservative" Anglicans can disagree.
Compare perhaps the understanding of episcopacy put forward in the Tractarian movement and that set forth in the Reformed Episcopalian movement.

 

Jure divino episcopacy is taught in the 1662 ordinal, implied in the Articles, and taught by almost all of the Reformation Divines. It's a majority teaching, which after the 16th century becomes nearly unanimous. We can discuss that topic in a thread if you wish.

But anyway, this thread isn't about that, but merely about whether episcopacy is a separate order, or not. And as Thomas Cranmer teaches in the 1550 Ordinal,

It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ's church; bishops, priests, and deacons.

 

“There hath been” doth not mean “there shall be”. I believe we have had this debate before, but I have never come across anything in the official formularies or writings of the English Reformers to suggest that they endorsed in de jure episcopacy. The English Reformers made clear in their correspondence that they all accepted the validity of the ministry of the Continental Protestant churches, both Lutheran and Reformed.

 

I was researching this further, and found even more shocking references. Check out the papal bull "Sacrae religionis" by Boniface IX (dated Feb. 1, 1400):

"We ... grant ... [to] the same abbot [of the Monastery of SS. Peter and Paul the Apostles and of St. Osith the Virgin and Martyr, of the Order of Canons Regular of St. Augustine, in Essex in the diocese of London], and [to] the abbots of the same monastery who are his successors for the time being in perpetuity, to have the power freely and licitly to confer on all professed canons, present and future, all minor orders, as well as the subdiaconate, the diaconate, and the presbyterate, at the times established by the law, and that the said canons promoted in this way by the said abbots are able to serve freely and licitly in the orders so received, notwithstanding any conflicting constitutions, apostolic and others, whatsoever, put forth to the contrary and reinforced with any degree whatever of firmness." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer, no. 1145)


Similarly, see the bull "Gerentes ad vos" by Martin V (dated Nov. 16, 1427):
-it confers on the abbot of the Cistercian monastery at Altzelle in Upper Saxony the license and faculty "of conferring on each of the monks of the same monastery and on persons subject to you, the abbot, all holy orders, without in the least requiring a license to do this from the diocesan of the place, notwithstanding any constitutions and ordinances, apostolic and
otherwise, to the contrary." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer, no. 1290)


Innocent VIII, "Exposcit tuae devotionis" (dated Aug. 29, 1489):
-it confers on Abbot John of Citeaux and on "the four other aforesaid abbots of La Ferte, Pontigny, Clairvaux, and Morimond, and to their successors [authority] freely and licitly . . . to confer lawfully upon any monks so ever of the said order, as religious of the aforesaid monasteries whom you shall find qualified therefor, the orders of the subdiaconate and the diaconate." ((Denzinger-Schonmetzer, no. 1435)


An Italian researcher in the 1930s writes that the diaconate was conferred by abbots in Rome at least as late as 1662, with the apparent knowledge and approval of the pope:
-Corrado Baisi, Il ministro straordinario degli ordini sacramentali (Rome, 1935), pp. 16-24


Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1955), writes that,
-(1) either the popes of the 15th century "were victims of the erroneous theological opinions of their times"; or (2) "a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the orders of diaconate and presbyterate." (p. 459)
-a 1962 text argues that IF indeed the popes were just guilty of error, then the whole Church fell into idolatry, by treating as ordained those who were mere laymen. (Alban Baer, art. "Abbot, Ordination by," in H. Francis Davis, Aidan Williams, Ivo Thomas, and Joseph Crehan, eds., A Catholic Dictionary of Theology, 1 (London, 1962), 4.)


As late as the 1949 edition of the Rituale Cisterciense contains an order for the ordination of a subdeacon and deacon! (See Denzinger-Schonmetzer, p. 352).


The famous document "Exsultate Deo" of Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Nov. 22, 1439) says of ordination: "The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. (ordinarius minister huius sacramenti est episcopus)."


The 1917 RC Code of Canon Law has the canon 951, which makes the point that a consecrated bishop is the ordinary minister of holy ordination, but it contemplates an extraordinary minister who may lack the "mark" of a bishop (charactere episcopali careat) but who "may receive either from the law (a jure) or from the Apostolic See by a special indult the authority (potestatem) to impart certain orders" (Codex juris canonici Pii x Pontificis Maximi [Rome, 1923], p. 264)


The references were gathered from Arthur Carl Piepkorn, The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination (1969), https://media.ctsfw.edu/Text/ViewDetails/9121

 

If I understand this correctly, an extraordinary minister could ordain, but could not confer jurisdiction. In other words, an abbot with special dispensation to do so could ordain a priest, but not a bishop. This means that presbyteral ordination is not an alternate means to preserving the succession, which would still stop with the last bishop in the line.