It's time to end the "imperial episcopate." What do you think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BartholomewB said:
Does he say that? I must look again. I thought he was arguing for the abolition of auxiliary bishops, leaving just the one diocesan bishop in each diocese.
Click to expand...
He said he thought that bishops should simply be called “Father”, though looking again, he does give the example of “Father Chaput, Archbishop of Philadelphia.” So he does retain the word in that sense. It seems the author’s bigger beef is with titles like “Your Excellency.”

I think it’s a non-issue, though. Yes, plenty of lay people agonize over which way to properly address a written letter depending on whether it’s to a bishop, archbishop, or cardinal. But I’d venture to guess that very few bishops get greeted with such titles in their day-to-day interactions. Most of the time it’s, “Hey, Bishop!”. 😜

I don’t see a lot of people saying, “Greetings, Your Excellency,” while taking a knee, grasping the bishop’s hand, and kissing his ring. People just don’t do that anymore. Again, it’s just not an issue.
 
Last edited:
That’s irrelevant.

Besides, the cardinals are not called the “princes” of the Church because of the Hebrew.

The point is for bishops not act like “princes” in the imperial sense. That’s the point of contrasting the fatherly role of leader, which was the role of the original bishops.
The term Prince of the Church is today used nearly exclusively for Catholic cardinals. However, the term is historically more important as a generic term for clergymen whose offices hold the secular rank and privilege of a prince (in the widest sense) or are considered its equivalent. In the case of cardinals, they are always treated in protocol of Catholic countries as equivalents of royal princes.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Cardinal (Catholic Church) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
I did. When I was about 20 years old and a zealous new convert. When I met the then Primate of Canada, I genuflected on my left knee and kissed the ring. Got a photo with him too. He was considered papabile last election so I was hoping… 😛

Its funny that no one ever talks about this being an issue in the East. It is still fairly widespread, I believe, to greet bishops, and even priests, as one would venerate an icon of Christ: triple bow / crossing.
 
Last edited:
Joe_5859 said:
Yes, plenty of lay people agonize over which way to properly address a written letter depending on whether it’s to a bishop, archbishop, or cardinal. But I’d venture to guess that very few bishops get greeted with such titles in their day-to-day interactions. Most of the time it’s, “Hey, Bishop!”. 😜
Click to expand...
I have never yet had the opportunity to meet a bishop face to face. I wonder what I would say to him if we were formally introduced. I don’t think it would be “Hey, bishop!”
 
Last edited:
The Church is a monarchy, so Prince is a perfectly appropriate title.
 
I’ve met a few. I don’t think I said “Hey, Bishop”, though. It was more like, “Hello, Bishop.” 🙂
 
I disagree.

The Church is not called to be worldly.

But then again, you might have to define your terms.

Christ in the true “King” and so his ministers are true “stewards,” Peter/the Pope being the chief steward. So we can use political language in that sense. But many people want the Middle Ages brought back, when the Popes lorded over his own land and had as many secular interests as spiritual. And I disagree that that’s what Christ intended when he founded his Church.
 
Last edited:
“Your Eminence” is strictly for cardinals, I believe. It might be a sin to address a mere bishop that way.
 
twf said:
I did. When I was about 20 years old and a zealous new convert. When I met the then Primate of Canada, I genuflected on my left knee and kissed the ring. Got a photo with him too. He was considered papabile last election so I was hoping… 😛
Click to expand...
That would have been fun. 🙂
twf said:
Its funny that no one ever talks about this being an issue in the East. It is still fairly widespread, I believe, to greet bishops, and even priests, as one would venerate an icon of Christ: triple bow / crossing.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, that’s kind of true. I recall being at the ordination of a bishop and it was the Eastern bishop’s attire that stood out the most. I don’t see anyone making this argument for the Eastern Catholics or even the Orthodox. I’m pretty sure anyone who did would be ignored. 😁
 
I don’t know that it would be a sin unless the person was doing it deliberately out of malicious purposes.

But yes it’s:
  • Cardinal: Your Emminence
  • Arch/Bishop : Your Excellency
  • Patriarch: Your Beatitude
  • Pope: Your Holiness
 
There’s nothing wrong with clericalism. And quite frankly the Church of the Middle Ages >>>>>>>>>> the Church of today. The Church has been in decline since the 1960s and the fact that Modernism has taken over is the primary culprit.
 
There’s nothing wrong with clericalism. And quite frankly the Church of the Middle Ages
Click to expand...
Then we probably don’t have much in common with re: this discussion.

Again, maybe you’re defining clericalism in your own way. And you’d have to explain what you mean about the Middle Ages. I’m thinking mostly about the corruption and secular concern. I don’t want Borgia Popes anymore.
 
I’d rather have a Borgia Pope than a Church whose membership has fallen into heresy.
 
If there were a Borgia Pope in this day and age – what with the Pope in the spotlight all the time – I’m telling you there’d be great schism and apostasy. Many would flee the Church.

(Just as many flee over the current scandals.)
 
Last edited:
My thoughts exactly. Though I did find a lot of the points in the article interesting, I have these same concerns.

I also take issue to throwing out titles, because they are proper to one’s office and a sign of respect.

And the “finery” contributing to the scandal? Give me a break. I think ridiculous to use the abuse scandal to push one’s opinion on clothing.

That being said, I do think the writer made some interesting points and I didn’t disagree with as much as I thought I would.
 
Last edited:
There already is mass apostasy. If heretics flee the Church, then that’s addition by subtraction.
 
So anyway, I don’t want the corruption of the Middle Ages. If you do, that’s your call.
 
Indeed. In centuries past, your average Catholic probably had very little idea of what the Pope was doing. Now, we can follow him on Twitter. A pope like that in today’s day would be catastrophic. We need holy popes more than anything else.
 
I used to read First Things online every month, but I kind of drifted away after Fr. Richard John Neuhaus died. The magazine pretty soon lost its sharp edge after that, I found. I hadn’t seen this article by Jay Scott Newman until now. His phrase “the imperial episcopate” reminds me of the expression “Constantinian Christianity,” coined, I believe, by John Howard Yoder back in the sixties, in books such as The Christian Witness to the State and Discipleship as Political Responsibility. I never read any of Yoder’s books, so my idea of what exactly he meant by “Constantinian Christianity” is necessarily a bit hazy, but it occurs to me to wonder whether Jay Scott Newman’s ideas about the episcopate may perhaps owe something to Yoder’s influence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top