Method of appointing bishops

[ZackMartin]

Hi

Just so I make sure I have my historical facts right: historically, if you go back far enough in history (medieval period and early church), Catholic Bishops were appointed in various ways, including appointment by the government and election by their diocese. As we move forward through history, it increasingly became the practice for them to be appointed by the Pope, and when we reach the modern period we find that has become a universal practice. Is that an accurate summary of the historical situation?

Moving on - are the current arrangements for the appointment of Bishops (i.e. by the Pope), something ordained by God which the Church can’t change, or something ordained by the Church which the proper authorities of the Church could decide to change in the future? Suppose they went back to that older method, of using elections?

Look at the usual practice in the Anglican Communion, which is for representatives of the priests and laity to elect the Bishop (I am talking outside of England, where they are technically appointed by the Crown) - and leaving aside the issue that Anglican orders aren’t recognised as valid by the Catholic Church, which isn’t directly relevant to this discussion - could the Catholic Church adopt such a system? Is it that God won’t allow it, or is that the Church doesn’t allow it today, but might change its mind in fifty years time?

A lot of disaffected Catholics - and I myself was raised as Catholic - would react positively to the idea of inserting a greater element of democracy into the Roman Catholic Church. Is there any reason in principle in Catholic theology why Bishops could not be elected by the priests and laity? (One could imagine maybe then that the Bishops elect the Cardinals, who elect the Pope, or something similar.)

It would seem to me - maybe I am wrong - that while the existence of the order of Bishops (including the special status of the Bishop of Rome) is necessary in Catholic theology, the particular methods currently employed of appointing them are a historical contingency, and could change in the future?

Thanks
Zack

 

[Rainaldo]

A lot of disaffected Catholics - and I myself was raised as Catholic - would react positively to the idea of inserting a greater element of democracy into the Roman Catholic Church.

Why would they react positively?

 

[1ke]

Possible? Yes
Likely? Absolutely not

 

[Khalid]

The method of choosing bishops - and even popes - are not dogmata, they are just administrative or organizational rules. Popes weren’t always elected by conclave, and I don’t believe that it is doctrine that they must always be; they could also be elected by acclaim (popular support), etc. Bishops, as you point out, weren’t always appointed by the Pope; and, it is not a doctrine of the Church that it is God-ordained for it to be that way in perpetuity. It is merely the current administrative method, unlike the organizational structure of Priests, Bishops, and Pope (the First Bishop: this is called “Episcopal polity” when practiced without a Pope), which is God-ordained.

I must point out, though, that religion is not democracy: it is autocracy. There is one God in heaven who rules over all; we do not decide what religion is, or how it is to be practiced, or what is to be believed; these things are revealed to us by the Divine Monarch, without asking for our assent - we’re not the Parliament to God’s King. Whether we like this or not is our problem, not God’s: we are to follow as little children the divine mandate, realizing that everything we have - including our very existence - comes from God. To repeat the cliche: Christianity is God coming down the mountain of eternity to man, and lifting him up; false religion is man attempting to blaze a trail up the mountain of eternity to God, like the Tower of Babel. Whether this is done out of democratic principles or not, matters not: truth is not democratic, and gets its objective nature not from a vote (or argumentum ad populum), nor from our thoughts and actions.

The Church organization reflects this Divine Government; there is one Pope who rules over all, etc.; our current forms of civil government do not reflect this, but, as a monarchist, I believe they should, that it is the most natural and beneficial form of governance.

 

[rfournier103]

Hi

Just so I make sure I have my historical facts right: historically, if you go back far enough in history (medieval period and early church), Catholic Bishops were appointed in various ways, including appointment by the government and election by their diocese. As we move forward through history, it increasingly became the practice for them to be appointed by the Pope, and when we reach the modern period we find that has become a universal practice. Is that an accurate summary of the historical situation?

Moving on - are the current arrangements for the appointment of Bishops (i.e. by the Pope), something ordained by God which the Church can’t change, or something ordained by the Church which the proper authorities of the Church could decide to change in the future? Suppose they went back to that older method, of using elections?

Look at the usual practice in the Anglican Communion, which is for representatives of the priests and laity to elect the Bishop (I am talking outside of England, where they are technically appointed by the Crown) - and leaving aside the issue that Anglican orders aren’t recognised as valid by the Catholic Church, which isn’t directly relevant to this discussion - could the Catholic Church adopt such a system? Is it that God won’t allow it, or is that the Church doesn’t allow it today, but might change its mind in fifty years time?

A lot of disaffected Catholics - and I myself was raised as Catholic - would react positively to the idea of inserting a greater element of democracy into the Roman Catholic Church. Is there any reason in principle in Catholic theology why Bishops could not be elected by the priests and laity? (One could imagine maybe then that the Bishops elect the Cardinals, who elect the Pope, or something similar.)

It would seem to me - maybe I am wrong - that while the existence of the order of Bishops (including the special status of the Bishop of Rome) is necessary in Catholic theology, the particular methods currently employed of appointing them are a historical contingency, and could change in the future?

Thanks
Zack

Possible? Yes
Likely? Absolutely not

Agreed. Absolutely no way this ever changes.

The method of choosing bishops - and even popes - are not dogmata, they are just administrative or organizational rules. Popes weren’t always elected by conclave, and I don’t believe that it is doctrine that they must always be; they could also be elected by acclaim (popular support), etc. Bishops, as you point out, weren’t always appointed by the Pope; and, it is not a doctrine of the Church that it is God-ordained for it to be that way in perpetuity. It is merely the current administrative method, unlike the organizational structure of Priests, Bishops, and Pope (the First Bishop: this is called “Episcopal polity” when practiced without a Pope), which is God-ordained.

I must point out, though, that religion is not democracy: it is autocracy. There is one God in heaven who rules over all; we do not decide what religion is, or how it is to be practiced, or what is to be believed; these things are revealed to us by the Divine Monarch, without asking for our assent - we’re not the Parliament to God’s King. Whether we like this or not is our problem, not God’s: we are to follow as little children the divine mandate, realizing that everything we have - including our very existence - comes from God. To repeat the cliche: Christianity is God coming down the mountain of eternity to man, and lifting him up; false religion is man attempting to blaze a trail up the mountain of eternity to God, like the Tower of Babel. Whether this is done out of democratic principles or not, matters not: truth is not democratic, and gets its objective nature not from a vote (or argumentum ad populum), nor from our thoughts and actions.

The Church organization reflects this Divine Government; there is one Pope who rules over all, etc.; our current forms of civil government do not reflect this, but, as a monarchist, I believe they should, that it is the most natural and beneficial form of governance.

Jesus appointed Peter to “Feed My sheep.” Jesus didn’t ask His followers who they preferred.

After the death of Judas, the APOSTLES drew lots to determine who the new 12th Apostle would be. The Apostles were the original “bishops”, and did not ask anyone else for suggestions.

If bishops and popes were “appointed” by other means in the past, it was a deviation from the was Jesus and the Apostles did it. There is biblical evidence of this in John 21:17 and Acts 1:26.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Zack,

Just so I make sure I have my historical facts right: historically, if you go back far enough in history (medieval period and early church), Catholic Bishops were appointed in various ways, including appointment by the government and election by their diocese. As we move forward through history, it increasingly became the practice for them to be appointed by the Pope, and when we reach the modern period we find that has become a universal practice. Is that an accurate summary of the historical situation?

The involvement of the Pope in episcopal appointments for the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches is different from his involvement in episcopal appointments in the Western Churches, this by virtue of the fact that the Pope is also the Patriarch of the Western (or Latin) Churches. In the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the Pope of Rome gives what is called an “assent” to the episcopal candidate who has been confirmed by that candidate’s own head bishop. In the Western Catholic Churches, the Pope of Rome is the head bishop who grants both confirmation and assent.

Also, in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the Synod offers a list of candidates, and the Pope of Rome gives his assent to that whole list, not to any particular person. The Pope has the prerogative to choose his own candidate for the list, but the Synod can challenge it. Afterwards, the Synod elects one bishop from that list of approved candidates. In the Western Church, the episcopal conference offers their candidates and the Pope chooses one…end of story.

Moving on - are the current arrangements for the appointment of Bishops (i.e. by the Pope), something ordained by God which the Church can’t change, or something ordained by the Church which the proper authorities of the Church could decide to change in the future? Suppose they went back to that older method, of using elections?

A lot of disaffected Catholics - and I myself was raised as Catholic - would react positively to the idea of inserting a greater element of democracy into the Roman Catholic Church. Is there any reason in principle in Catholic theology why Bishops could not be elected by the priests and laity? (One could imagine maybe then that the Bishops elect the Cardinals, who elect the Pope, or something similar.)

It would seem to me - maybe I am wrong - that while the existence of the order of Bishops (including the special status of the Bishop of Rome) is necessary in Catholic theology, the particular methods currently employed of appointing them are a historical contingency, and could change in the future?

It can certainly change to reflect the way the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches do it. Canonically speaking, however, I see only a remote possibility that such will occur. I think the most salient factor is the fact that the prerogative of confirming bishops rests with only one head bishop in the Latin Church (i.e., the Pope), while that same prerogative rests with several head bishops in the Eastern and Oriental Churches. That multiplicity of head bishops with real jurisdiction affords a process of election in the Eastern and Oriental Churches, while it is obviously different in the Latin Church, where there is only one head bishop with real jurisdiction.

If you are expecting more lay participation, I seriously doubt that will occur - the election of gay and female bishops does not exactly inspire confidence in the system of selection employed by the Episcopal Church. There is lay participation in episcopal elections in the Coptic Orthodox Church, but the society of Coptic Orthodox in general is more traditional. In Western society, I seriously doubt the idea of lay participation in episcopal elections will ever gain much traction.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[pablope]

Hi

Moving on - are the current arrangements for the appointment of Bishops (i.e. by the Pope), something ordained by God ordained by the Church which the proper authorities of the Church could decide to change in the future?

 

[thistle]

Hi

Just so I make sure I have my historical facts right: historically, if you go back far enough in history (medieval period and early church), Catholic Bishops were appointed in various ways, including appointment by the government and election by their diocese. As we move forward through history, it increasingly became the practice for them to be appointed by the Pope, and when we reach the modern period we find that has become a universal practice. Is that an accurate summary of the historical situation?

Moving on - are the current arrangements for the appointment of Bishops (i.e. by the Pope), something ordained by God which the Church can’t change, or something ordained by the Church which the proper authorities of the Church could decide to change in the future? Suppose they went back to that older method, of using elections?

Look at the usual practice in the Anglican Communion, which is for representatives of the priests and laity to elect the Bishop (I am talking outside of England, where they are technically appointed by the Crown) - and leaving aside the issue that Anglican orders aren’t recognised as valid by the Catholic Church, which isn’t directly relevant to this discussion - could the Catholic Church adopt such a system? Is it that God won’t allow it, or is that the Church doesn’t allow it today, but might change its mind in fifty years time?

A lot of disaffected Catholics - and I myself was raised as Catholic - would react positively to the idea of inserting a greater element of democracy into the Roman Catholic Church. Is there any reason in principle in Catholic theology why Bishops could not be elected by the priests and laity? (One could imagine maybe then that the Bishops elect the Cardinals, who elect the Pope, or something similar.)

It would seem to me - maybe I am wrong - that while the existence of the order of Bishops (including the special status of the Bishop of Rome) is necessary in Catholic theology, the particular methods currently employed of appointing them are a historical contingency, and could change in the future?

Thanks
Zack

Look where the Anglican method got them. Gay Bishops and female priests!

 

[DarkLight]

Part of the reason that the appointment of bishops was brought to Rome directly was to protect it from local interference. Not from the people typically, but from local governments.

 

[mcrow]

Look where the Anglican method got them. Gay Bishops and female priests!

This is just it. You get to many chefs in the kitchen and a bad dish comes out.