Bishops and post Protestant reformation ordinations

[tablecorner]

I did like to ask and clarify many thoughts that has been tickling my brain.

1. What happens to a bishop when he retires, does his spiritual abilities (ie exorcism) specific to his office change? Or is it once a bishop, forever a bishop til death in a spiritual sense.
2. only bishops can ordain priests correct?
3. if Martin Luther was just a priest and not a bishop , he could not ordinate any priests to do the sacraments? Does this mean the whole of Protestantism DO NOT have the ability to confect anything?
4. Because God is involved, and the holy spirit goes wherever it wants to, is there a chance that God does allow the changing of the substance in a protestant wafer outside the Catholic church?
5. the ministerial priesthood allows the anointing of the sick as mentioned in the book of James. If a non denominational protestant were to use oil for the sick , would not that be superstitious? Building upon the fact that most of the protestants i know are quite Gnostic and opposed to matter, preferring to pray directly to God.

 

[PioBenedict]

Hi!

1. A bishop who retires does not have a diocese, but retains all the faculties otherwise. Ordination leaves an “indelible” mark on the soul that cannot be removed simply by leaving public ministry.
2. Only a bishop can ordain priests or deacons.
3. That is correct about Martin Luther, but it is important to realize that not all Protestants spiritually descend from him. The English Reformation (which produced the Anglican and Episcopal Churches) involved several bishops leaving the Catholic Church in favour of another. Those bishops were capable of ordaining priests and bishops so that Apostolic succession could have hypothetically continued in the Anglican Church, however, later reforms changed the ordination rite and intent so Apostolic succession was extinguished.
4. God certainly could perform a miracle outside a Catholic Church, but He usually chooses to work inside His Church as the primary means of Grace.
5. I would categorize Protestant uses of annointing in this context as genuine attempts to follow the Scriptures, even if they are missing the context of the Sacrament. I would not consider this superstition.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

What happens to a bishop when he retires, does his spiritual abilities (ie exorcism) specific to his office change?

You don’t have to be a bishop to perform exorcisms. Any priest can do it, but canon law requires the priest have his bishop’s permission to do it, and to follow other rules. This is to guard against abuses.

Depending on the circumstances of a bishop’s retirement, he might or might not have permission to perform exorcisms. This is considered important, as the efficacy of the exorcism is thought to depend in part on its being authorized by the Church. But his faculties are not in issue.

 

[commenter]

Depending on the circumstances of a bishop’s retirement, he might or might not have permission to perform exorcisms. This is considered important, as the efficacy of the exorcism is thought to depend in part on its being authorized by the Church.

Another way to express this is that humility and obedience are part of the spiritual “armor” of the exorcist.

 

[commenter]

Re 3, 4, 5 of the original post best to simply say we can’t know all the ways God can act. We can cite how the Catholic Church understands, and acknowledge He acts in other ways too.

That does not mean accepting inaccurate practice or doctrine in the RCC.

 

[JerryZ]

To your 1 question. Typically Bishops do not perform exorcism they choose 1 priest who is sent to Rome where he undergoes training. The requirements are very extensive. He could however perform the exorcism himself if he so chooses. It is a very involved process that may require strength a retired Bishop may not have.

1. Correct
2. The Whole of Protestantism does include other branches apart from Lutheranism. None of them possess “Valid Apostolic Succession” therefore they cannot confect anything. Plus they have turned away from the Orthodox understanding of the Sacraments.
3. No this will not happen. The protestants don’t understand the true meaning of the Eucharist.

To anoint the sick one needs “Chrism Oil” and unless they were to take it from a Catholic church there is no way for them to confect it. It is not like you go out and get some Extra Virgin Oil and you are good.
Also only a priest or a deacon can anoint the sick therefore a Protestant Pastor does not possesses the faculties to do so.

Peace!

 

[fredystairs]

@JerryZ

I do not believe that a deacon can anoint the sick in the sacrament. I think it has to be a priest or bishop.

Pax

 

[OddBird]

Protestant minister here.

Does this mean the whole of Protestantism DO NOT have the ability to confect anything?

From a Catholic perspective, certainly not.

Interestingly my own Reformed tradition (though it would be different for Lutherans and Anglicans) does not see sacraments as “confecting” anything. It is weary of thinking about sacraments being effective ex opere operato; it sees them rather as being the meeting of God’s Word and the human faith which believes it – so we don’t actually confect anything, and there could be a debate whether in this understanding, a sacrament has an objective actualization at all, or whether it depends on its reception by the individual believer.

Because God is involved, and the holy spirit goes wherever it wants to, is there a chance that God does allow the changing of the substance in a protestant wafer outside the Catholic church?

My tradition does believe in Real Presence but not in transsubstantiation (although I think a case could be made for Calvin actually being quite close to the Aquinian position on what happens at consecration). The way my church usually defines it is that through the Holy Spirit, we really partake of the Blood and Body of Christ of which the species are signs.

So, even admitting God would operate that way outside the Church, I’m not sure anything would happen when this is not even the actual intent of most ministers who celebrate the Eucharist (there are of course exceptions).

If a non denominational protestant were to use oil for the sick , would not that be superstitious?

We do use oil for the sick. I’m not seeing that as superstitious. Even from a completely Protestant perspective, it’s simply biblical.

 

[Inquiry]

I think the only Sacraments a Deacon can perform are ones that do not require the minister of the Sacrament to be ordained. Baptism can be performed by anyone, though it should only be done by laypeople in emergencies. For marriage, the bride and groom are the ministers of the Sacrament and the Deacon is just officiating as a representative of the Church.

The original role of the Priest was to stand in for the Bishop when he could not be there himself. The original role of the Deacon was to take care of other community matters so that the Bishop didn’t have to.

 

[Gorgias]

I do not believe that a deacon can anoint the sick in the sacrament. I think it has to be a priest or bishop.

That’s correct.

 

[commenter]

fredystairs:

I do not believe that a deacon can anoint the sick in the sacrament. I think it has to be a priest or bishop.

That’s correct.

The key phrase is bolded. All Christians can minister with oil. It’s not superstition, just a beneficial practice outside the sacrament.

If it’s done by the parent, it might, in a sense, be related to the sacrament of Matrimony.

There can be ambiguity if people act like a Pretend Priest, which does happen…but I think most of us can make the distinction between the proper minister acting sacramentally, and a non-Priest acting respectfully outside the sacrament.

Regarding Protestant ministers, they can’t act in the role of Catholic priest, but they can be used by God in some other way.

 

[Gorgias]

The key phrase is bolded. All Christians can minister with oil. It’s not superstition, just a beneficial practice outside the sacrament.

Sure. Anyone can use a sacramental. However, I would suggest that it’s counter-productive to do so. After all, the average Catholic-in-the-pews doesn’t understand the Anointing of the Sick, to the point that their own references to it typically are as “a blessing” and not a sacrament.

If we recommend that deacons (and/or laypeople) impose blessed oil, merely as a sacramental, I would suggest that this would take on the appearance of the “anointing of the sick” to many, and would be a negative development among the faithful.

I think most of us can make the distinction between the proper minister acting sacramentally, and a non-Priest acting respectfully outside the sacrament.

From my experience, I’d have to say I disagree. Just sayin’…