R
Richard_Lamb
Guest
I just read in another forum that Bishops were originaly chosen democratically rather than appointed. Is this true?
Where can I find info in this?
Where can I find info in this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Fr. Greeley (among others) has referenced this in several articles. Let me find a reference for you.
John
John
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
How about going to the source:Fr. Greeley (among others) has referenced this in several articles. Let me find a reference for you.
John
1 Timothy, 1-
Titus 1, 1-91 This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
6 He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment. 3
7 He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap.
This, the earliest Church document on the subject shows selection of bishops by co-option – that is, bishops like Timothy and Titus were empowered to select other bishops.1 Paul, a slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ for the sake of the faith of God’s chosen ones and the recognition of religious truth,
2 in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began,
3 who indeed at the proper time revealed his word in the proclamation with which I was entrusted by the command of God our savior,
4 to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior.
5 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,
6 on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.
7 For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain,
8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled,
9 holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
H
Hesychios
Guest
When the Apostles were engaged in church planting, they left disciples to tend the local flocks, these can be considered the first bishops. The process remained the same wherever the frontier of the church happened to be, in mission lands the bishops are sent to the people.
But that phase has not typically lasted very long in any one place. If the faith has taken hold, within a few generations the local church would elect it’s bishop from the most worthy candidates they could find.
History is chock full of examples of the local churches choosing their bishops. That is one reason why it was necessary to bring three bishops (at least) from outside to do the consecrating, if three relatively local bishops could not be found willing to consecrate the man it was a danger sign.
In a later phase of church history princes and kings monopolized the choices of bishops. That tended to be the case for many hundreds of years. I believe the practice took root in deals the Pagan chieftains and kings cut when they considered converting. Pagan chieftains and kings typically either doubled as the chief priests or controlled the selection of temple priests in their nations. The process of converting to Christianity was a dangerous political move which could easily backfire, so they made demands. Bishops and Abbots were chosen by kings from their noble subjects for centuries, and when they conquered other territories, kings were not generally reluctant to unseat the native bishops in favor of more “trustworthy” ones.
In very late western European history, the Popes gained control of the choosing process through Concordats with the local civil authorities, this happened at differing times across Europe but the process accelerated rapidly during and after the reign of Napoleon. For a long period, in Papal elections kings controlled the votes of the Cardinals from their own countries even in conclave.
In Orthodox countries the choice of bishops is once again done through Synods, but the process is much more controlled than in the early church. The Orthodox churches are organized regionally, like the Episcopal Conferences in the RC, and the bishops in the regional/national Synod choose the new bishops to add to their number. They may or may not involve some clergy and laypersons as well depending upon rules they set for themselves.
But that phase has not typically lasted very long in any one place. If the faith has taken hold, within a few generations the local church would elect it’s bishop from the most worthy candidates they could find.
History is chock full of examples of the local churches choosing their bishops. That is one reason why it was necessary to bring three bishops (at least) from outside to do the consecrating, if three relatively local bishops could not be found willing to consecrate the man it was a danger sign.
In a later phase of church history princes and kings monopolized the choices of bishops. That tended to be the case for many hundreds of years. I believe the practice took root in deals the Pagan chieftains and kings cut when they considered converting. Pagan chieftains and kings typically either doubled as the chief priests or controlled the selection of temple priests in their nations. The process of converting to Christianity was a dangerous political move which could easily backfire, so they made demands. Bishops and Abbots were chosen by kings from their noble subjects for centuries, and when they conquered other territories, kings were not generally reluctant to unseat the native bishops in favor of more “trustworthy” ones.
In very late western European history, the Popes gained control of the choosing process through Concordats with the local civil authorities, this happened at differing times across Europe but the process accelerated rapidly during and after the reign of Napoleon. For a long period, in Papal elections kings controlled the votes of the Cardinals from their own countries even in conclave.
In Orthodox countries the choice of bishops is once again done through Synods, but the process is much more controlled than in the early church. The Orthodox churches are organized regionally, like the Episcopal Conferences in the RC, and the bishops in the regional/national Synod choose the new bishops to add to their number. They may or may not involve some clergy and laypersons as well depending upon rules they set for themselves.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.