What if a layman was consecrated a bishop but was not yet a priest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bben15
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no requirement that the Cardinals vote for a Cardinal. It is widely believed that Giovanni Battista Montini, then Archbishop of Milan and later elected Pope Paul VI in 1963, received votes in 1958 even though he wasn’t yet a Cardinal. If the Cardinals knew of a holy and competent layman that they felt God wanted to be Pope, they could vote for him.

Also, one is not ordained a Cardinal. It is a honorary title granted by the Pope.
Don’t know where you get that idea cause no one will ever know, that’s why they destroy the votes!!! Your just guessing at all this A Cardinal is ordained, first a Priest then a Bishop. So he is validly ordained and not just a layman. God Bless, Memaw.
 
Don’t know where you get that idea cause no one will ever know, that’s why they destroy the votes!!! Your just guessing at all this A Cardinal is ordained, first a Priest then a Bishop. So he is validly ordained and not just a layman. God Bless, Memaw.
No. A man is normally - but not always - ordained a priest and then a bishop, and then years later possibly granted the honorary title of Cardinal. However, the Pope is not bound by the rule that all Cardinals must be bishops. Several Cardinals created by John Paul II were never ordained bishop. Cardinal Bartolucci is a living example of a Cardinal who is not a bishop.

There is nothing to stop a Pope who desired to do so from creating a layman as Cardinal.
 
Or even a laywoman. Think about that.
Actually, canon law only allows men to become cardinals.

Can. 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
 
Actually, canon law prohibits non-women from becoming cardinals.

Can. 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
Yes, but as we have just pointed out, the Holy Father can dispense from disciplinary Canon Law, and just as the requirement for a cardinal to be a bishop is disciplinary, so is the requirement for them to be men. It is not inherently an ordained office.
 
No. A man is normally - but not always - ordained a priest and then a bishop, and then years later possibly granted the honorary title of Cardinal. However, the Pope is not bound by the rule that all Cardinals must be bishops. Several Cardinals created by John Paul II were never ordained bishop. Cardinal Bartolucci is a living example of a Cardinal who is not a bishop.

There is nothing to stop a Pope who desired to do so from creating a layman as Cardinal.
Nothing except they don’t do it that way anymore.
The point that I as making is that all Cardinals are “ordained” Priests and Bishops before becoming Cardinals… not laymen! God Bless, Memaw
 
Yes, but as we have just pointed out, the Holy Father can dispense from disciplinary Canon Law, and just as the requirement for a cardinal to be a bishop is disciplinary, so is the requirement for them to be men. It is not inherently an ordained office.
What he “can” do and what he does do are two different things.
 
Now your really getting way off base. name one of those too!!! Male priesthood is infallible! God Bless, Memaw
As we have pointed out to you, cardinals are not necessarily bishops or priests or deacons at all. It is hypothetical and there has never been a case in Church history where a woman was named a cardinal. But there is nothing to prohibit it except the will of the Holy Father (which is a strong prohibition indeed)
 
As we have pointed out to you, cardinals are not necessarily bishops or priests or deacons at all. It is hypothetical and there has never been a case in Church history where a woman was named a cardinal. But there is nothing to prohibit it except the will of the Holy Father (which is a strong prohibition indeed)
As I have pointed out to you, there are no Cardinals today that were not already ordained before they were named a Cardinal. and NO woman can be ordained for anything. If there is nothing to prohibit it then tell me please why hasn’t it ever been done!!! And only Cardinals are able to elect another Pope and that’s just the way it is. Lets don’t get carried away. God Bless, Memaw
 
It was done in the Middle Ages. Pope Innocent was consecrated a bishop before he became a priest. It wasn’t until a month into his Papacy that he was ordained a priest. My question is: Was he a valid bishop? Could he confer confirmation and Holy Orders before he was ordained a priest? 🙂
Any baptized Catholic male can become a Pope. The Pope does not have to be ordained actually. Soooo…the answer is yes you can become a bishop (of Rome) without being a priest first.
No no no, let’s not get confused here. Any baptized male can be elected pope. But he cannot be installed as pope until he is ordained a bishop. The pope, by default is the Bishop of Rome.

Therefore, he must be ordained a deacon, then a presbyter, then a bishop. Only when he is ordained bishop does he become Bishop of Rome, Successor to St. Peter, Pontiff of the Universal Church.

Innocent and Celestine were both consecrated religious, but they were not clerics. They were elected to the papacy, but they could not exercise the office of Bishop of Rome until they received the three orders of Holy Orders. I believe there may have been other religious who were elected to the papacy and were not clerics. These two are famous.

Innocent was pope, but he was not Pontiff or Vicar of Christ until he received Holy Orders. Without Holy Orders, he does not have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction requires ordination. Universal jurisdiction requires that the man be Bishop of Rome. He must have received the order of episcopus.
 
As I have pointed out to you, there are no Cardinals today that were not already ordained before they were named a Cardinal. and NO woman can be ordained for anything. If there is nothing to prohibit it then tell me please why hasn’t it ever been done!!! And only Cardinals are able to elect another Pope and that’s just the way it is. Lets don’t get carried away. God Bless, Memaw
Now it’s your turn. Name one!
 
No no no, let’s not get confused here. Any baptized male can be elected pope. But he cannot be installed as pope until he is ordained a bishop. The pope, by default is the Bishop of Rome.

Therefore, he must be ordained a deacon, then a presbyter, then a bishop. Only when he is ordained bishop does he become Bishop of Rome, Successor to St. Peter, Pontiff of the Universal Church.

Innocent was pope, but he was not Pontiff or Vicar of Christ until he received Holy Orders. Without Holy Orders, he does not have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction requires ordination. Universal jurisdiction requires that the man be Bishop of Rome. He must have received the order of episcopus.
That is current law, but that is not how it was before 1975. Witness the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
CIC 1917:
Can. 219. Romanus Pontifex, legitime electus, statim ab acceptata electione, obtinet, iure divino, plenam supremae iurisdictionis potestatem.
This canon does not mention anything about the episcopal character.

Of course it was different in Innocent’s time as well. As I pointed out with Pope-Elect Stephen, the law in effect at that time was not the law in effect later on, and that law was not in effect after 1975.
 
Nothing except they don’t do it that way anymore.
The point that I as making is that all Cardinals are “ordained” Priests and Bishops before becoming Cardinals… not laymen! God Bless, Memaw
I just told you that Cardinal Bartolucci is not a bishop. He was created Cardinal by Benedict XVI and is still alive.
 
Hello. 🙂 If a layman was consecrated a bishop, but he was not yet a priest, would he be a valid bishop? Would he be able to perform confirmations and confer Holy Orders?

God bless you for answering my question. :blessyou:
The question is a bit of an oxymoron, as anyone consecrated as bishop is also both priest and deacon. A bishop simply has the fullness of the order. As in the whole enchilada.
 
That is current law, but that is not how it was before 1975. Witness the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

Originally Posted by CIC 1917
Can. 219. Romanus Pontifex, legitime electus, statim ab acceptata electione, obtinet, iure divino, plenam supremae iurisdictionis potestatem.

This canon does not mention anything about the episcopal character.

Of course it was different in Innocent’s time as well. As I pointed out with Pope-Elect Stephen, the law in effect at that time was not the law in effect later on, and that law was not in effect after 1975.
Actually, it does mention the episcopal character.
It says “The Roman Pontiff, legitimately elected…”

The very word “Pontifex” refers to a bishop (literally a high priest).

He isn’t the pope until he is, in reality, a pontifex–it doesn’t matter which time period.
 
The question is a bit of an oxymoron, as anyone consecrated as bishop is also both priest and deacon. A bishop simply has the fullness of the order. As in the whole enchilada.
Yes.

It’s worth noting that the Church’s understanding has developed over time. Vatican II made clear that the fullness of ordination is conferred upon a bishop. While the Church’s discipline is that only priests are suitable candidates to be nominated as bishops, in the rare event that a layman is ordained a bishop (but not first a priest) he still receives the fullness of ordination, and the fullness of the Episcopate.

One way this is expressed in concrete terms is with regard to the election of a Pope. Under the previous rules promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1904, if the one elected was not a priest or bishop, he was to be “ordained” a priest and “consecrated” a bishop. Blessed (soon to be Saint) John Paul II specifically changed that to say that he is immediately ordained a bishop. There are 2 changes here:
  1. He eliminated the requirement to be “ordained a priest” before bishop
  2. He specifically says “ordained” a bishop, not “consecrated” a bishop.
Here is the 1904 Conclave rule
90. Quod si electus nondum sit Presbyter vel Episcopus, a Decano Collegii Cardinalium ordinabitur et consecrabitur
www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/vacante.htm

Here are the 1996 Conclave rules
  1. After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops. He thus acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church.
If the person elected is not already a Bishop, he shall immediately be ordained Bishop.

Quodsi electus charactere episcopali careat, statim ordinetur Episcopus.
  1. When the other formalities provided for in the Ordo Rituum Conclavis have been carried out, the Cardinal electors approach the newly-elected Pope in the prescribed manner, in order to make an act of homage and obedience. An act of thanksgiving to God is then made, after which the senior Cardinal Deacon announces to the waiting people that the election has taken place and proclaims the name of the new Pope, who immedi- ately thereafter imparts the Apostolic Blessing Urbi et Orbi from the balcony of the Vatican Basilica.
If the person elected is not already a Bishop, homage is paid to him and the announcement of his election is made only after he has been solemnly ordained Bishop.

Look again at the 2 sentences

1904 (Pius X) Quod si electus nondum sit Presbyter vel Episcopus, a Decano Collegii Cardinalium ordinabitur et consecrabitur.

1996 (John Paul II) Quodsi electus charactere episcopali careat, statim ordinetur Episcopus.

I’ve left both quotes in the original Latin to show that this isn’t just a matter of the translator’s choice of words. There’s clearly a transition here.
 
My favorite story of this type is about Pope Fabian.

Apparently, just after the former pope had died, Fabian came into Rome as a stranger and a tourist when a dove landed on his head in the sight of all the people who were assembled to elect a new pope. They took this as a sign and proclaimed Fabian the new pope. Didn’t matter that he was just a layman (I assume he was at least a Christian!).

(Lesson learned: when in Rome, be careful what flies over your head.)

I think the dove was simply attracted to Fabian’s fabulous Pompadour. Wait, maybe I’m confusing him with the other historical Fabian…
 
That is current law, but that is not how it was before 1975. Witness the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

This canon does not mention anything about the episcopal character.

Of course it was different in Innocent’s time as well. As I pointed out with Pope-Elect Stephen, the law in effect at that time was not the law in effect later on, and that law was not in effect after 1975.
Actually the canon does mention it. It specifically says “Pontiff”. Only a bishop can be the Pontiff. This goes back to Peter. Peter was the Pontifex (bridge builder). The Bridge Builder is to teach, govern and sanctify the universal Church. Only a bishop can teach, govern and sanctify. And only the Bishop of Rome can teach, govern and sanctify the universal Church.

You can be elected, which makes you the “pope elect” for lack of a better term. But until you’re ordained, you’re not the Pontiff.

Wherever you read this the writer is seriously mistaken. As I said above, to the best of my knowledge, there have been two non-clerics elected to the papacy. They were not laymen in the strict sense of the term, because they were consecrated religious. They are canonically lay, but not part of the laity. They were ordained following the election. There may have been others in the early Church that I may not know about. I know that Innocent and Celestine were both ordained bishops with the fullness of the priesthood.
I just told you that Cardinal Bartolucci is not a bishop. He was created Cardinal by Benedict XVI and is still alive.
Let’s not confuse things here. A cardinal has nothing to do with Holy Orders. The cardinal is a prince of the Church. The pope can elevate any man to be a cardinal. We have had many cardinals who were laymen, deacons and priests, not to be confused with the Cardinal Deacon and the Cardinal Priest. Those are different ranks.

Carinal is a rank, not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

It is not true that the pope MUST be elected by the cardinals. That’s a later development, but it is not doctrine or moral law.

For the first 400 years of the Church’s history, give or take a few decades, the pope was elected by the Diocese or Rome, not by cardinals from around the world. The conclave with cardinals as we know it today is a much later development. This can be changed at any time the pope. Every pope has the authority to dictate the process for the election of his successor and by whom.

I should like to mention one important fact about the Code of Canon Law of 1917, because there seems to be a great attachment to the Code of 1917 in Traddom. The Code of 1917 was the first time that Canon Law was organized as we know it today. But it was not meant to be binding for all time. In fact, we have had laws promulgated by previous popes that that had a much longer lifespan than the Code of 1917. The Code of 1917 was replaced in 1983. It’s lifespan was only 66 years. That’s not a very long time given the age of the Church. The current code is already halfway there.

I mention this, because people in Traddom often refer to it as the alpha and the omega of Church law, which was not the case at all. The Church has had law since the first century. It simply gets codified in 1917. Therefore, the Code of 1917 become very famous because it was a novelty in Church history. Rather than having many laws floating around, as of 1917, we have it systematized. It served as the template for future versions of the law. It was never the mind of the Church that it be static and remain as it was forever. Law evolves.

This is important in understanding how a pope is elected, because the election is governed by law. However, the office is governed by revelation. While there can be many ways of electing a pope, the office can only be occupied by a validly ordained bishop as revealed in the Gospels. The law cannot change that part.

PS. Fabian was a Catholic. Only a Catholic can be pope, not just any Christian. There are many Christians, but they are not eligible because they’re not Catholic, even if they are validly and licitly ordained bishops as is the case with the Orthodox and the Old Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top