The head bishop

[LutheranDK]

As far as I know (I used to be Lutheran) only the church of Sweden, and her daughter the church of Finland claim Apostolic succession.

Well, a little bit of nuance is required

I also think that only the Swedish Church (didn’t know about Finland! Guess you learn something new every day ) claims both episcopal and presbyterial succession, and thus, has full apostolic succession, because in Sweden, as opposed to in Denmark and Germany, some of the RC bishops converted, and thus, passed on both presbyterial and episcopal succession.

They appearently take great pride in this, which has led to what might be described as a very High Church way of doing things - and, ironically enough, this has caused GREAT harm to actual Lutheran Christendom in Sweden.

However:

All Lutheran churches, to my knowledge, has maintained presbyterial succession - which is the passing on of the office of priest/pastor from one pastor to a successor.
Do y’all follow what I mean? In other words: I’m willing to grant that there are no Lutheran bishops in Denmark (there ARE a bunch of pagans who call themselves by that title…and one or two ACTUAL Christians among them!), but there are many Lutheran pastors, all of whom (except “women pastors”, which is, of course, an oxymoron) have presbyterial succession.

Finally: I won’t say with absolute certainty that the Swedish church IS the only church which has preserved apostolic succession. I don’t know about the English Lutherans, because one can’t rule out, without knowing more about them, that an Anglican bishop at one time or another became Lutheran - and thus: passed on Apostolic Succession.

 

[anthony022071]

1. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. If the head bishop is to be judged, it is a collegial deliberation that must involve the head bishop himself, and never apart from him.
2. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his jurisdiction. The head bishop cannot be judged by any person or group of persons, but can be incriminated by virtue of the law itself (i.e., Sacred Tradition).
3. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his jurisdiction. The head bishop cannot be judged by any one or any thing on earth.

I believe the only Catholic options are #4 and #5. Some non-Latins might accept #3. Some real hard-liners might include #6 (certainly, #6 is the preferred perspective of anti-Catholics in their judgment of the Catholic Church). Personally, I accept #4.

Where is the pope in these options? The pope is the final court of appeal. A head bishop cannot be judged without the consent of the pope.

Pope Julius to the Eusebians,on his admitting Athanasius and Marcellus to communion:
“For if really, as you say, they did some wrong, the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus. You should have written to all of us, so that justice might have been decreed by all. For it was Bishops who were the sufferers; and it was not obscure Churches which have suffered, but Churches which Apostles in person ruled. With regard to the Church of Alexandria in particular, why were we not consulted? Do you now know that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and thus for what is just to be defined from hence? If, therefore, a suspicion of this sort fell upon the bishop of that place, it was necessary to write to the Church here [Rome]. But now, though you gave us no information, but have done as you pleased, you ask us to give our agreement, though we have not ourselves condemned. These are not the statutes of Paul, these are not the traditions of the Fathers; this is another rule, a new custom. I beseech you to bear willingly what I say, for I write for the common welfare, and what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you.”

Council of Sardica:
Canon III. – If a bishop has been condemned, and he thinks he has a good cause, let his judges, or (if they will not) the bishops of the neighboring province, write to the Roman bishop, who will either confirm the first decision or order a new trial, appointing the judges himself. (On the motion of Gaudentius, bishop of Naissus in Dacia, it was added that when any bishop had appealed to Rome, no successor should be appointed until the matter had been determined by the bishop of Rome.)

Canon VII (V). – Further, if, after condemnation by the bishops of the region, a bishop should himself appeal and take refuge with the bishop of Rome, let the later deign to write to the bishops of the neighboring province to examine and decide the matter. And if the condemned bishop desires the Pope to send a priest a latere, this may be done. And if the Pope shall decide to send judges to sit with the bishops, having authority from him who sent them, it shall be as he wills. But if he thinks the bishops alone suffice, it shall be as his wisdom shall think fit.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num51.htm

 

[Allyson]

Where is the pope in these options? The pope is the final court of appeal. A head bishop cannot be judged without the consent of the pope.

Pope Julius to the Eusebians,on his admitting Athanasius and Marcellus to communion:
“For if really, as you say, they did some wrong, the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus. You should have written to all of us, so that justice might have been decreed by all. For it was Bishops who were the sufferers; and it was not obscure Churches which have suffered, but Churches which Apostles in person ruled. With regard to the Church of Alexandria in particular, why were we not consulted? Do you now know that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and thus for what is just to be defined from hence? If, therefore, a suspicion of this sort fell upon the bishop of that place, it was necessary to write to the Church here [Rome]. But now, though you gave us no information, but have done as you pleased, you ask us to give our agreement, though we have not ourselves condemned. These are not the statutes of Paul, these are not the traditions of the Fathers; this is another rule, a new custom. I beseech you to bear willingly what I say, for I write for the common welfare, and what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you.”

Council of Sardica:
Canon III. – If a bishop has been condemned, and he thinks he has a good cause, let his judges, or (if they will not) the bishops of the neighboring province, write to the Roman bishop, who will either confirm the first decision or order a new trial, appointing the judges himself. (On the motion of Gaudentius, bishop of Naissus in Dacia, it was added that when any bishop had appealed to Rome, no successor should be appointed until the matter had been determined by the bishop of Rome.)

Canon VII (V). – Further, if, after condemnation by the bishops of the region, a bishop should himself appeal and take refuge with the bishop of Rome, let the later deign to write to the bishops of the neighboring province to examine and decide the matter. And if the condemned bishop desires the Pope to send a priest a latere, this may be done. And if the Pope shall decide to send judges to sit with the bishops, having authority from him who sent them, it shall be as he wills. But if he thinks the bishops alone suffice, it shall be as his wisdom shall think fit.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num51.htm

Ummm…I thought Mardukum meant the Pope by “Head Bishop,” as in ‘the Pope is the head of all the bishops.’ Hence the question of his being judged by his brothers, etc.

God Bless,
R.

 

[anthony022071]

Ummm…I thought Mardukum meant the Pope by “Head Bishop,” as in ‘the Pope is the head of all the bishops.’ Hence the question of his being judged by his brothers, etc.

God Bless,
R.

Mardukm was asking about the authority of a head bishop within his territory or jurisdiction.

The pope has jurisdiction over the whole Church. He is not limited by regional territory.

 

[Allyson]

Interesting. Now the poll must be reconsidered by me. Or maybe not…

So if that is the case, then who are the hard-liners that he refers to in reference to # 6 in the OP? Hence you might see why I thought he meant the Pope.

Or you might refer to this quote

I meant Pope - that would be normative for Latin Catholics. But to Eastern and Oriental Catholics, it would not necessarily mean the Pope, but their own Patriarch or Metropolitan head.

So I guess I SHOULD clarify that by “head bishop” I mean the “head bishop of the universal Church” (i.e., the Pope).

Blessings,
Marduk

God Bless,
R.

 

[anthony022071]

Apostolic Canon 34 states:
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent;
But each bishop may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it.
But neither let him who is first do anything without the consent of all, for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

This canon is understood by the Oriental Orthodox to have been established by the Apostles themselves. I do not know about the Eastern Orthodox. I have always assumed the Catholic Church accepts it in its full sense as do the Oriental Orthodox.

That canon goes on the assuption that the clergy and the laity are united in the true faith and in charity,with no disagreements on doctrine,and no conflicts of intrest. But that state of affairs rarely exists in the Church. There are always heretics,dissenters,
and people who are more concerned to jealously guard and advance their assumed rights and regional traditions rather than to follow the teachings of the Church of Rome. So it is would be irresponsible for a bishop to always wait for the consent of the clergy and laity when he makes a decision. Unanimity is no good if it means unanimity of heresy or dissent or regional pride which refuses to be taught by the Church of Rome. The clergy and the laity cannot always be trusted to make sound decisions for themselves,because people are always looking to empower themselves and to have more wiggle room in relation to the hierarchy.

I meant Pope - that would be normative for Latin Catholics. But to Eastern and Oriental Catholics, it would not necessarily mean the Pope, but their own Patriarch or Metropolitan head.

So I guess I SHOULD clarify that by “head bishop” I mean the “head bishop of the universal Church” (i.e., the Pope).

The pope is not limited by territory. His territory is the whole world,and he has jurisdiction over the whole Church.

 

[vladika]

The Head Bishop is called Metropolitan in the Orthodox Church.