Protestant bishops

[awsiukiewicz]

I realize that outside the Catholic Church there is no valid Priesthood much less Bishops,my question is how do protestant ministers deem themselves Bishops,I’m not referring to Lutherans or Episcopal I’m certain that they are elected albeit from their respective parishioners or fellow clergy which we know to be invalid lacking Apostalic succession although I’m sure they argue this point to some degree,my question is to the usual nondenominational group that have business cards printed and such and typically avail themselves of clerical vestments from Catholic bookstores,usually without the most basic appreciation or vague understanding of the significance,I must also admit that it disturbs me to see nondenominational preachers wearing the Roman Collar,any thoughts ?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I realize that outside the Catholic Church there is no valid Priesthood much less Bishops,my question is how do protestant ministers deem themselves Bishops,I’m not referring to Lutherans or Episcopal I’m certain that they are elected albeit from their respective parishioners or fellow clergy which we know to be invalid lacking Apostalic succession although I’m sure they argue this point to some degree,my question is to the usual nondenominational group that have business cards printed and such and typically avail themselves of clerical vestments from Catholic bookstores,usually without the most basic appreciation or vague understanding of the significance,I must also admit that it disturbs me to see nondenominational preachers wearing the Roman Collar,any thoughts ?

I beg your pardon? There assuredly are valid priests and bishops outside the Catholic Church. The various venerable Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome, the Polish National Catholic Church…not to also reference the Utrecht succession…all have valid priests and bishops.

The “Roman Collar” is not what is used by Catholic priests universally anymore than its use indicates that the wearer is a Catholic cleric. I’m not sure I understand why you are disturbed.

I am also not sure why you have chosen to post this in the Traditional Catholicism forum rather than the Non Catholic Religions forum.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Because the titles of Bishops, Deacons and Presbyters are named in Scripture, many Christian denominations or even congregations use such titles for their leaders. It’s common in many black churches to have Bishop So-and-So lead the worship services. I don’t think it has much to do with apostolic succession; I think it has to do with Biblical titles.

Why do they wear collars? No idea. Some do, some don’t.

 

[Kielbasi]

“Bishop” is a title out of the bible of course, but some of our protestant friends don’t see it as an apostolic succession but instead as a title of function (overseeing a number of churches in a diocese).

 

[andrewstx]

A lot of black preachers like to call themselves bishops, with not an idea of AS. The United Methodist church has ministers that call themselves bishops, but they too do not subscribe to AS.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I think TD Jakes is a Bishop.

 

[DaveBj]

In the denomination in which I grew up, there used to be three levels of ministry – exhorters, licensed ministers, and ordained ministers. At some point, and not at all recently, they changed their terminology, and “ordained ministers” became “bishops.”

 

[jcwit]

I can tell you this, the Amish have religious leaders the call Bishops.

 

[ltwin]

I realize that outside the Catholic Church there is no valid Priesthood much less Bishops,my question is how do protestant ministers deem themselves Bishops.

There are different ways. Often,there are formal processes of election or appointment. In the American Episcopal Church, for example, diocesan conventions consisting of clerical and lay representatives elect a bishop from among several qualified candidates and this choice is “ratified” by a majority of the standing committees of the other Episcopal dioceses. After the election, the bishop-elect is ordained.

my question is to the usual nondenominational group that have business cards printed and such

Even churches that do not use the formal title of “bishop” acknowledge that there is a biblical office of bishop. Our English word “bishop” comes from the Greek word episkopos (from where we get “episcopal”) and literally means “overseer.” Thus many Protestant denominations term their highest officials either “bishops” or “superintendents.”

However, other Protestants consider the office of bishop or overseer as synonymous with the “elder(s)” of a local church. In Scripture, episkopos and presbyteros (literally “elder”) are used interchangeably for the same office. Therefore, many Protestant churches consider any pastor of a church to be a bishop, whether they are called that or not.

Whenever “overseers” are mentioned in the Bible, there is no mention of them possessing anything remotely like Apostolic Succession. Therefore,you would expect low church Protestants to divorce the concept of bishop (which is biblical) from the concept of Apostolic Succession (which is foreign to their ecclesiology).

 

[Novocastrian]

I realize that outside the Catholic Church there is no valid Priesthood much less Bishops,my question is how do protestant ministers deem themselves Bishops,I’m not referring to Lutherans or Episcopal I’m certain that they are elected albeit from their respective parishioners or fellow clergy which we know to be invalid lacking Apostalic succession although I’m sure they argue this point to some degree,my question is to the usual nondenominational group that have business cards printed and such and typically avail themselves of clerical vestments from Catholic bookstores,usually without the most basic appreciation or vague understanding of the significance,I must also admit that it disturbs me to see nondenominational preachers wearing the Roman Collar,any thoughts ?

For information purposes:

The Church of England claims to maintain the historic catholic episcopate in unbroken succession through the reformation (and through various European episcopal churches). They’re “elected” by cathedral chapters at the command of the sovereign, though the actual selection is made by a Crown Nominations commission. They’re then consecrated by three bishops (including the Archbishop of the relevant province). It’s a pretty mediaeval system in both good and bad ways!

 

[Picky_Picky]

For information purposes:

The Church of England claims to maintain the historic catholic episcopate in unbroken succession through the reformation (and through various European episcopal churches). They’re “elected” by cathedral chapters at the command of the sovereign, though the actual selection is made by a Crown Nominations commission. They’re then consecrated by three bishops (including the Archbishop of the relevant province). It’s a pretty mediaeval system in both good and bad ways!

Although it is perhaps worth adding that the selection is itself a kind of indirect election, since the nominations commission is itself formed from members of both clergy and laity elected at both national and diocesan level. (All this relates to the appointment of diocesans; suffragans is different).

 

[GKC]

For information purposes:

The Church of England claims to maintain the historic catholic episcopate in unbroken succession through the reformation (and through various European episcopal churches). They’re “elected” by cathedral chapters at the command of the sovereign, though the actual selection is made by a Crown Nominations commission. They’re then consecrated by three bishops (including the Archbishop of the relevant province). It’s a pretty mediaeval system in both good and bad ways!

Mutatis mutandis, the same is the case throughout all Anglican-dom (AFAIK).

And not all folk are compelled to affirm the words of Apostolicae curae; so, apostolic succession.

 

[reagent6]

For information purposes:

The Church of England claims to maintain the historic catholic episcopate in unbroken succession through the reformation (and through various European episcopal churches). They’re “elected” by cathedral chapters at the command of the sovereign, though the actual selection is made by a Crown Nominations commission. They’re then consecrated by three bishops (including the Archbishop of the relevant province). It’s a pretty mediaeval system in both good and bad ways!

The Church of England might have historical succession however in ordinations their intention is not to do what the Catholic Church does- i.e. they do not intend fidelity or obedience to the Pope or to the teachings of the magisterium. It is my understanding that this lack breaks their claim of apostolic succession.

I am not denigrating the Church of England or its members in any way.

 

[paulrxp]

For information purposes:

The Church of England claims to maintain the historic catholic episcopate in unbroken succession through the reformation (and through various European episcopal churches). They’re “elected” by cathedral chapters at the command of the sovereign, though the actual selection is made by a Crown Nominations commission. They’re then consecrated by three bishops (including the Archbishop of the relevant province). It’s a pretty mediaeval system in both good and bad ways!

Actually wonder how this works. The Eastern Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, even though they are not in full communion with Rome. I thought the Anglicans and their apostolic succession was a different matter because it wasn’t due to Schism . Also
Pope Leo’s Papal Bull Apostolicae Curaepapalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm nullified the consecrations of Bishops due to changes that were made in the 1600’s in how Bishops were consecrated.

The ordination women priests will certainly complicate claims to apostolic succession, Even the Eastern Orthodox who believed the Anglican apostolic succession was valid during the early 1900’s, will probably have to reexamine the things that have changed with the priesthood.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The Church of England might have historical succession however in ordinations their intention is not to do what the Catholic Church does- i.e. they do not intend fidelity or obedience to the Pope or to the teachings of the magisterium. It is my understanding that this lack breaks their claim of apostolic succession.

I am not denigrating the Church of England or its members in any way.

The problem is that your definition would break the claim to apostolic succession of the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Actually wonder how this works. The Eastern Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, even though they are not in full communion with Rome. I thought the Anglicans and their apostolic succession was a different matter because it wasn’t due to Schism . Also
Pope Leo’s Papal Bull Apostolicae Curaepapalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm nullified the consecrations of Bishops due to changes that were made in the 1600’s in how Bishops were consecrated.

The ordination women priests will certainly complicate claims to apostolic succession, Even the Eastern Orthodox who believed the Anglican apostolic succession was valid during the early 1900’s, will probably have to reexamine the things that have changed with the priesthood.

1500s rather than 1600s, I think. It was the ordination of priests in particular under the Edwardian Ordinal that the Pope thought invalid. Indeed the matter of the ordination of women complicates things, although there are of course Anglicans untouched by this (aren’t there, GKC?).

 

[GKC]

1500s rather than 1600s, I think. It was the ordination of priests in particular under the Edwardian Ordinal that the Pope thought invalid. Indeed the matter of the ordination of women complicates things, although there are of course Anglicans untouched by this (aren’t there, GKC?).

Yep. Some folks around here know 'em, too. Or at least one of 'em.

Apostolicae curae involved the question of the Edwardine Ordinal, in part (form) and the issue of sacramental intent (always to considered together here), but only concerned the priesthood, derivatively, since the point (as is normally considered; see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) was related to the break in the episcopacy, at ++Parker’s consecration.

Having mentioned Clark, I will balance the issue by recommending the (superior, IMO) works of Fr. J.J. Hughes, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. As is customary, me being a creature of custom.

 

[GKC]

Actually wonder how this works. The Eastern Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, even though they are not in full communion with Rome. I thought the Anglicans and their apostolic succession was a different matter because it wasn’t due to Schism . Also
Pope Leo’s Papal Bull Apostolicae Curaepapalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm nullified the consecrations of Bishops due to changes that were made in the 1600’s in how Bishops were consecrated.

The ordination women priests will certainly complicate claims to apostolic succession, Even the Eastern Orthodox who believed the Anglican apostolic succession was valid during the early 1900’s, will probably have to reexamine the things that have changed with the priesthood.

The “consecration” of female bishops will certainly affect the claim to apostolicity. The priesthood, not so much, directly.

I am always dubious as to the question of any Orthodox definitively expressing a favorble opinion on the Anglican orders issue, but folks do occasionally surprise me. I think the Orthodox tend to say the sort of things about Anglicans that they say about RC orders.

 

[GKC]

The Church of England might have historical succession however in ordinations their intention is not to do what the Catholic Church does- i.e. they do not intend fidelity or obedience to the Pope or to the teachings of the magisterium. It is my understanding that this lack breaks their claim of apostolic succession.

I am not denigrating the Church of England or its members in any way.

You have a part of the answer there, by reference to the question of intent, which is often overlooked. But the point is not intent to obey the Pope (not required for sacramental validity in transmitting orders) or to the teachings (ditto), the specific issue (along with sacramental form) is that of sacramental intent, the intention facere quod facit ecclesia, to do what the Church does in the sacramental action, as expressed by the minister of the sacrament.

Of course, Anglicans have their own opinion on the matter (and the form, and the intent).

 

[exnihilo]

I must also admit that it disturbs me to see nondenominational preachers wearing the Roman Collar,any thoughts ?

My understanding, and someone more knowledgeable than me can correct this, was that the clerical collar we see today comes from the Church of Scotland in more modern times. I also believe the chasuble Catholic priests wear today comes from a poncho worn in the Roman Empire. While I understand completely your feelings on this we must be careful because styles of dress come from culture. In as much as the collar in some places may be more associated with Catholic priests it could even be considered a good thing that non-denominational preachers wish to emulate Catholicism.