"ordaining" a bishop

[Montie_Claunch]

Who “ordains” (not sure if that would be the right word) a bishop? Could it be another Bishop, or would it have to be an archbishop or someone higher in the laddar of command or could a priest do it? And how does the sacrament preformed? Holy oil? Incence? Thanks and God bless.

 

[batteddy]

Bishops are ordained by other bishops through the laying of the hands.

 

[MusicMan]

I believe that when a priest becomes a bishop, he is not “ordained” a bishop, but rather “consecrated” a bishop.

 

[puzzleannie]

only a bishop has the fullness of holy orders, priest and deacons participate in ordination but yes a bishop is ordained.

 

[Didi]

The three orders are deacon, priest and bishop, thus Holy Orders (plural).

 

[CARose]

I had the opportunity to recently attend the ordination of Bishop Calvo of Reno. It was great!

There was his Archbishop from San Francisco presiding and the Cardinal from Los Angeles was present, along with MANY Bishops there to also confer the laying of the hands on him.

It was an incredible ceremony wherein he demonstrated his obedience to his superiors, his union with his peers and received the obedience from his priests and diocesan laity.

There were over 3,000 people in attendance, and the Ordination Mass lasted over 2 1/2 hours.

If you have the opportunity to attend such an event, I highly recommend it!

CARose

 

[MusicMan]

I was certain when I posted that the proper term for a priest becoming a bishop was “consecrated” and not ordained. Someone pointed out that I was wrong and after some further checking, it turns out that I was indeed, wrong.

Are there other denominations out there that claim to have an Order of Bishops that use the word “consecrate” instead of “ordain”? Could it be our Lutheran brothers and sisters? Episcopalians?

 

[gelsbern]

MusicMan:

I was certain when I posted that the proper term for a priest becoming a bishop was “consecrated” and not ordained. Someone pointed out that I was wrong and after some further checking, it turns out that I was indeed, wrong.

Are there other denominations out there that claim to have an Order of Bishops that use the word “consecrate” instead of “ordain”? Could it be our Lutheran brothers and sisters? Episcopalians?

Actually I believe you were perfectly correct, that a bishop is consecrated, there is no ordaining that happens, if one reads through the rite of consecration of a bishop as compared to the rite of the ordination of a priest. I don’t know where people are getting this line that it’s an ordination, a bishop is already ordained.

Have a read here.

newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm

I. CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP

The consecration of a bishop marks the plenitude of the priesthood, and it is probable that on this account the “Pontificale Romanum” places the ceremony of episcopal consecration immediately after that of the ordination of priests…

The section is way too long to post it all.

Also this might help a lot of people too.

newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm

NUMBER OF ORDERS

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, can. 3) defined that, besides the priesthood, there are in the Church other orders, both major and minor (q.v.). Though nothing has been defined with regard to the number of orders it is usually given as seven: priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers. The priesthood is thus counted as including bishops; if the latter be numbered separately we have eight; and if we add first tonsure, which was at one time regarded as an order, we have nine. …

 

[bellesjoy]

Our Bishop refers to the event as his ordination to the episcopacy.

Furthermore, the CCC refers to the 3 degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders under the heading of “Episcopal ordination…” in paragraph 1554:

“…Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders.”

and in paragraph 1559:

“…the lawful **ordination **of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome,…”

You will see the words “ordination”, “consecration” and “conferred” used thoughout the coverage of the topic.

Hope this helps clear things up.

 

[gelsbern]

Wow, I had not idea that the new catechism changed holy orders too.

I am going to have to dig deeper and find out what else they changed.

 

[Chatter163]

The pre-VII usage was to say that bishops were consecrated, but the forms after the Council use the word ordained, as well.

 

[jbuck919]

I believe the change in terminology, which is all that it was, was made to underscore that the episcopacy is one of the major orders, like the diaconate and the priesthood, where it is said that men are ordained. The Anglican communion still says “consecrate,” and most other non-Catholic non-Orthodox denominations do not ordain to a higher level than minister at all (some have purely administrative “bishops”).

 

[Chatter163]

I believe the change in terminology, which is all that it was, was made to underscore that the episcopacy is one of the major orders, like the diaconate and the priesthood, where it is said that men are ordained. The Anglican communion still says “consecrate,” and most other non-Catholic non-Orthodox denominations do not ordain to a higher level than minister at all (some have purely administrative “bishops”).

Actually, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, the current norm for the Episcopal Church in this country, calls the form the Ordination of a Bishop, following Roman usage. The Church of England does the same.

But the change was intended to clarify some older texts, which conceived of the episcopacy as the fullness of the priesthood, and listed the major holy orders as the subdiaconate, diaconate and priesthood.

 

[gelsbern]

Chatter163:

Actually, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, the current norm for the Episcopal Church in this country, calls the form the Ordination of a Bishop, following Roman usage. The Church of England does the same.

But the change was intended to clarify some older texts, which conceived of the episcopacy as the fullness of the priesthood, and listed the major holy orders as the subdiaconate, diaconate and priesthood.

You are correct and after more searching it does seem that there was a language change in many different places. I wonder though about the “fullness of the priesthood” thing though. It seems here we are lacking priests, and ever since Vatican II there seems to be a lessening of the status of the priesthood. Some priests never ever become bishops, and to me, it is unfair to say they are not experiencing the fullness of the priesthood. I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but it seems demeaning to priests, as if they need to become bishops to reach the fullness of the priesthood, and that is something I would have to disagree with.

Then again, it could be just plain old semantics, and I have always been anti-semantic

 

[mosher]

gelsbern:

You are correct and after more searching it does seem that there was a language change in many different places. I wonder though about the “fullness of the priesthood” thing though. It seems here we are lacking priests, and ever since Vatican II there seems to be a lessening of the status of the priesthood. Some priests never ever become bishops, and to me, it is unfair to say they are not experiencing the fullness of the priesthood. I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but it seems demeaning to priests, as if they need to become bishops to reach the fullness of the priesthood, and that is something I would have to disagree with.

Then again, it could be just plain old semantics, and I have always been anti-semantic

Every priest knows that he does not hold the fullness of Holy Orders. It is not demeaning and it is not problematic unless pride in is the way of the person who is a priest. The priest is an extension of the Bishop. We also need to clarify that there is only a shortage of priests in the so called “first world” countries. In nearly every other part of the world there is an abundance of priests. The problem here is not the role of the priest but rather that no parents seem to encourage their sons to seek a vocation that they may have - in some cases the parents work to suppress that vocation.

A priest friend of mine had a parishioner come up to him upset about mass times. He felt that the mass was too late in the morning at his mission church. The priest explained that he could not be in two places at one and that if there were more priests the problem would be solved. The parishioner asked why there were not enough priests. My friend asked the gentleman how many sons he had. The parishioner stated that he had four. My friend then asked how many of his sons were in the seminary. The parishioner said, “Oh, I think I understand.” I often hear parents encourage their children to jobs that make good money for various motives but I very rarely hear a parent encourage their child to know their vocation first and then do in that vocation was the Lord needs him to do.

 

[Chatter163]

…and ever since Vatican II there seems to be a lessening of the status of the priesthood. Some priests never ever become bishops, and to me, it is unfair to say they are not experiencing the fullness of the priesthood. I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but it seems demeaning to priests, as if they need to become bishops to reach the fullness of the priesthood, and that is something I would have to disagree with.

But this is precisely why the terminology was changed after VII, so as not to give that impression.

One erroneous term that makes my skin crawl is “lay deacon.” :crying:

 

[MusicMan]

What is a “lay deacon?”

It seems like we’ve changed our outlook on Orders since the Second Vatican Council. Major Orders used to be subdeacon, deacon, priest, and then when one became a bishop, they were consecrated as a bishop. Now, with the supression of subdeacons in the West, the Major Orders consist of deacon, priest, and bishop. As such, our terminology would change.

Deacon Greg, it makes sense to me that as a member of the SST, you would think in more “pre-Vatican II terms,” however, I must ask the question about which Orders your Synod utilizes… does your Synod consider Orders to be subdeacons, deacons, and priests, or deacons, priests, and bishops?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think “fullness of the priesthood” can be looked at in two different ways.

On the one hand, priesthood can be viewed in terms of offering sacrifice, in which case every priest possesses the fullness of the priesthood.

On the other hand, on the bishop possesses full authority and power to within his diocese to teach, preach, and sanctify. A presbyter, for instance, cannot ordain at all and can only absolve sin or confirm if granted faculties. A presbyter can (or is it could? - I don’t know if it’s still done) be ordained a priest simplex without authority to preach. Viewed from this perspective, presbyters do not possess the fulness of the priesthood.

Whether one chooses to view this distinction as one of ordination to a new order (which seems to be the post-VII language) or as consecration to a new role as overseer (episcopus), those differences in power and authority remain. Just as I do not feel demeaned when someone points out that I’m “only” a member of the priesthood of all believers and not a ministerial priest, I see no reason for a presbyter to take offense at his order being described as lacking the fullness of the priesthood.

 

[gelsbern]

MusicMan:

Deacon Greg, it makes sense to me that as a member of the SST, you would think in more “pre-Vatican II terms,” however, I must ask the question about which Orders your Synod utilizes… does your Synod consider Orders to be subdeacons, deacons, and priests, or deacons, priests, and bishops?

I have sent off a quick email to my bishop to get his take on the matter, I have also sent it off to a couple other members of the Synod. Since we use the Ignatian form of Church heirarchy, we view the bishop as the local pastor, with priests and deacons serving him. However, I don’t think that quite answers the question here, and so I am waiting for an official response. I have an idea that the answer will be that it will be “subdeacon, deacon, priest” even though we don’t have any subdeacons at this point. I will get back with you with what the response is. Who knows, I may be wrong, it won’t be the first time.

Now I also want to respond to the phrase “fullness of the priesthood”. I think that a better term would be “fullness of the apostolic ministry” since a bishop has full faculties to ordain others and therefore can go out and not only preach the Word of the Lord, but can leave those in his wake who can continue on doing so, just as the apostles did. So for me, I prefer the term “fullness of the apostolic ministry” over “fullness of the priesthood”