What is the difference between 'consecration' and 'ordination' of a bishop?

[Claire_from_DE]

On another thread someone mentioned “Episcopal consecrations after 1968 are questionable as they stop consecrating Bishops and only ordained.”

What does this mean? I thought there are three levels of ordination (deacon, priest, and bishop). If a bishop is ‘ordained’ in a ceremony approved by the Catholic church isn’t that a real sacrament and isn’t he a real bishop?

Is this an idea held by most traditional Catholics?

 

[Filioque]

It means nothing. There are those around who would make baseless arguments. The Episcopacy, (Office of the Bishop) is the fullness of the priesthood. The term Consecration of a bishop and Ordination have both been used at various times in the history of the Church. there are many who latch on to the idea that there is only one way that you can express the Catholic Faith, and that is the way they do.

Bishops prior to and after 1968 are bishops. Even if you called it the “Ordering” of Bishops, (which they would also object to) it would express the intention of the Church to elevate a man to the Episcopacy. The term is not often used in the USA, however it is yet another way of expressing the same concept. It is attractive to some people to take a very narrow interpretation of their world, and if anything does not fall in line with what they are comfortable with they condemn it. Many of the people who take the position you mentioned also reject the Papacy of Pope Benedict, saying that he was “Ordained” by the post 1968 rites so he is not a bishop, therefore not the Pope. Hog-wash!

 

[Just_Lurking]

What does this mean? I thought there are three levels of ordination (deacon, priest, and bishop).

Traditionally, the three levels of major or sacred orders were subdeacon, deacon, and priest. Being elevated to a bishop was considered similar to being elevated to a monsignor or an archbishop - It was a higher office, but not a higher level of the sacrament. This was never definitive teaching, but just the mainstream theological opinion.

This is why the Catholic Church traditionally used the term “consecration” instead of “ordination” to refer to the elevation ceremony for a bishop. It wasn’t until Vatican II that the Catholic Church definitively taught that bishop was indeed the full and final level of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[Legionary90]

Traditionally, the three levels of major or sacred orders were subdeacon, deacon, and priest. Being elevated to a bishop was considered similar to being elevated to a monsignor or an archbishop - It was a higher office, but not a higher level of the sacrament. This was never definitive teaching, but just the mainstream theological opinion.

This is why the Catholic Church traditionally used the term “consecration” instead of “ordination” to refer to the elevation ceremony for a bishop. It wasn’t until Vatican II that the Catholic Church definitively taught that bishop was indeed the full and final level of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

I’m sorry, but what you have said is wrong. The subdiaconate was considered a MINOR order, not a major order. The three major orders were and still are diaconate, presbyteriate, and episcopate.

 

[Filioque]

Well in the West, prior to the supression of the Minor Orders and the Sub-diaconate by Pope Paul VI, the Sub-diaconate was a Major Order. In the East it has always been from the diaconate up. The Church sees the Episcopacy (Bishop) as the fullness of the priesthood. The priest and deacon share in the priesthood of the Bishop, however they only share in certain aspects of it. A priest can offer mass, forgive sins, baptize, wittness and bless a marriage as his ordinary jurisdiction when he has been given faculties to do so by a bishop or religious superior, a priest may confirm, when special faculties are granted to him. A deacon may marry and baptize. A priest or Deacon may not ordain, only a bishop does so, and a bishop (within his own diocese) confirms at the ordinary minister of the Sacrament.

So while we see what looks like three orders, deacon, priest, and bishop, in reality they are different grades of the same order.

 

[AJV]

On another thread someone mentioned “Episcopal consecrations after 1968 are questionable as they stop consecrating Bishops and only ordained.”

What does this mean? I thought there are three levels of ordination (deacon, priest, and bishop). If a bishop is ‘ordained’ in a ceremony approved by the Catholic church isn’t that a real sacrament and isn’t he a real bishop?

Is this an idea held by most traditional Catholics?

I think what n4mgr meant was that the changes after 1968 render the ordination invalid. While there is a distinction between “ordination” and “consecration” (as Just Lurking mentioned above), it would be peculiar to argue that changing from consecration to ordination rendered it invalid - and if that IS what the poster meant, then I’m interested to hear the reasoning .

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’m sorry, but what you have said is wrong. The subdiaconate was considered a MINOR order, not a major order. The three major orders were and still are diaconate, presbyteriate, and episcopate.

From the 1918 canon law:

Canon 949. In the canons that follow, by the name of major orders or sacred orders are understood presbyterate, diaconate, and subdiaconate; while minor orders are acolyte, exorcist, lector, and doorkeeper.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Traditionally, the three levels of major or sacred orders were subdeacon, deacon, and priest. Being elevated to a bishop was considered similar to being elevated to a monsignor or an archbishop - It was a higher office, but not a higher level of the sacrament. This was never definitive teaching, but just the mainstream theological opinion.

This is why the Catholic Church traditionally used the term “consecration” instead of “ordination” to refer to the elevation ceremony for a bishop. It wasn’t until Vatican II that the Catholic Church definitively taught that bishop was indeed the full and final level of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Wrong.

First the Latin use is NOT the entire tradition of the Catholic Church, which is bigger than just the Latin Rite.

Pope Pius XII defined that the sub-diaconate was a MINOIR order, and the three major orders (as they have ever been in the East) are Deacon, Priest (or Presbyter) and bishop.

In the Byzantine tradition, including those Catholics that follow it, “cheirothesia” is used for the minor orders of reader and subdiaconate (which are conferred outside the Divine Liturgy), as well as lesser blessings for different ministries. “Cheirotonia” is used for Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, which orders are ALWAYS conferred during the Divine Liturgy.

 

[bpbasilphx]

So while we see what looks like three orders, deacon, priest, and bishop, in reality they are different grades of the same order.

---

**Wrong.

They are three DIFFERENT orders. The ordinand receives the Mystery of Holy Orders for the Diaconate, then for the Presbyterate, then for the Episcopate.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

Wrong.

First the Latin use is NOT the entire tradition of the Catholic Church, which is bigger than just the Latin Rite.

Pope Pius XII defined that the sub-diaconate was a MINOR order, and the three major orders (as they have ever been in the East) are Deacon, Priest (or Presbyter) and bishop.

In the Byzantine tradition, including those Catholics that follow it, “cheirothesia” is used for the minor orders of reader and subdiaconate (which are conferred outside the Divine Liturgy), as well as lesser blessings for different ministries. “Cheirotonia” is used for Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, which SEPARATE orders are ALWAYS conferred during the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Just_Lurking]

In the Byzantine tradition, including those Catholics that follow it, “cheirothesia” is used for the minor orders of reader and subdiaconate (which are conferred outside the Divine Liturgy), as well as lesser blessings for different ministries. “Cheirotonia” is used for Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, which orders are ALWAYS conferred during the Divine Liturgy.

Cheirotonia was used for Deaconess as well, which was also conferred during the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Pope Pius XII defined that the sub-diaconate was a MINOIR order, and the three major orders (as they have ever been in the East) are Deacon, Priest (or Presbyter) and bishop.

Catholic theologians don’t view Sacramentum ordinis as a definition of the sacramentality of the episcopate. For example, in Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi by Karl Rahner, in the article Bishop, III. Theology, 2. Sacramentality of the Episcopate by Joseph Lecuyer, it says:
In the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum ordinis of 1947 (D 2301) it is assumed that episcopal consecration is a sacrament and not just a sacramental, though this is not formally decided.
The fathers of the Second Vatican Council didn’t view Sacramentum ordinis as a definition either, as the issue was the subject of a major battle between conservatives and liberals at the council, eventually leading to a written survey of all the participants. The doctrine was eventually defined (for the first time) in Lumen Gentium 21.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Cheirotonia was used for Deaconess as well, which was also conferred during the Divine Liturgy.

I was deliberately being silent about this so as not to confuse the issue, but since the same word is used for a Female Deacon (cheirotonia), the ordination takes place at the same point of the Divine Liturgy as for a Male Deacon, many of the prayers are identical, especially the one actually conferring the order (“Divine Grace, which heals that which is infirm and supplies that which is lacking ordains the most devout ____ Name to be a _____”), which prayer is used for Deacon, Priest, and Bishop but not for the minor orders and promotions, it would seem to me that the Diaconissate is a major order as well.

To see the Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic Ordination rites, go here:

anastasis.org.uk/ordinations.htm

While it does not give the rite for ordaining a Bishop, the opening prayer (“Divine Grace…”) is the same.

Oddly enough, the other prayers are much shorter.

 

[Filioque]

Wrong.

They are three DIFFERENT orders. The ordinand receives the Mystery of Holy Orders for the Diaconate, then for the Presbyterate, then for the Episcopate.

I assume you take the position from St. Robert Bellarmine. Which is not supported by the Angelic Doctor, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, or Scotus. who write that the episcopacy is only an extension and complement of the priesthood.

The arguements presented by St. Thomas Aquinas, are as follows,

(a) The Sacrament of Orders is inteneded principally for the consecration of the Eucharist, for the Sacrifice of the Mass. But as far as the consecration of the Eucharist is concerned, a bishop or even the Supreme Pontiff himself has not greater power than that of a priest. Nothing is greater among the sacraments and in divine worship than the consecration of the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is the end of the other sacraments, in this it contains the Author of grace.

(b) the episcopacy adds to the simple priesthood the power of ordaining, confirming and governing a diocese. Thus the episcopacy, in what it adds to the simple priesthood, very probably is not an order distinct from the priesthood but is its extension and most perfect complement.

Fr. Regenald Garrigou-Lagrange the renowned Dominican Thomast, writes in “The Priesthood and Perfection”, pp 92-3, “This is confirmed by the Council of Trent, for in its list of orders it names only seven, and omits the eepiscopacy…”

in the next paragraph he replies to the objectin that the Episcopacy raises one to a special character, or another order thus…

“For this special power, it is sufficient that the episcopacy should be an intrinsic complement of the Sacrament of Orders. Thus, by episcopal consecration, a special character is not conferred, but the priestly character is extended in a real and physical way to higher functions, just as in the ordination of a priest the priestly character of consecrating is extended to the power of absolving by the words: “Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven” … Very probably the episcopacy is not an Order stricly so called, nor a sacrement distinct from the priesthood, bu the fullness of the priesthood.”

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and others support the Thomast opinon that the Sacrament of Orders is just that, one sacrament, and not three distinct sacraments, while modern Sacramental theologians write that the Sacrament is composed of those men ordained to the Diaconate, Priesthood and Episcopacy, Trent and the majority of the writers, (that I have read, or have been mentioned in Herve, Prummer and other writers of Dogmatic and Sacramental Theology that I was taught in the seminary (I must admit most of the writers I read were published prior to Vatican II) support the position I was trained in, ie the deacon and priest share in the priesthood of the Bishop, who holds the fullness of the Sacrament. We see something akin to this in the position held by some Orthodox Churches who deny the validity of the sacraments of a priest who is not licensed to function by a bishop, the antimension being a visible sign of his ability to serve the liturgy.

While the position is not held universally, (St. Robert Bellarmin as noted above) it does seem to be, or at least prior to Vatican II have been the majority opinon.

Edited for typos, and not content.

 

[Filioque]

In the Byzantine tradition, including those Catholics that follow it, “cheirothesia” is used for the minor orders of reader and subdiaconate (which are conferred outside the Divine Liturgy), as well as lesser blessings for different ministries. “Cheirotonia” is used for Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, which orders are ALWAYS conferred during the Divine Liturgy.

While true in the Byzantine tradition, in the Latin RIte the Sub-deacon, Deacon, Priest, and Bishop could not be admitted to any of these ranks of the clergy outside of the Mass. While it is not a de fide matter how the sub-diaconate is classified, (Minor or Major Order) it is interesting to see the differences in how it was/is regarded over time, and in both the East and the West. Some of the history is covered in the "Original Catholic Encyclopedia, which can be read online here at Catholic Answers.

I did omit, for reasons of space the section from the CE on Orders which (in my opinon) support my previous posting.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Yikes!

I understand about the pope or bishops not having any more power than a priest when celebrating the eucharist.

Can it be said that bishops have the fullness of the priesthood? Would this be equivalent to the office of apostle in the early church?

Whether one calls the ceremony consecration or ordination, does the church have the authority to make changes in the way the ceremony/sacrament is done if the person to be made bishop is present, the consecrating/ordaining bishops are present, it is done according to the present church regulations, and the intent is there?

I ask this because when Matthias was selected to fill the place of Judas the procedure was much different than the present ordination of bishops. So, if the way the sacrament is celebrated can change, why would there be controversy about the way present bishops are ordained? We know the sacrament of penance/reconciliation/confession has undergone a lot of changes. Why not orders?

 

[AJV]

So, if the way the sacrament is celebrated can change, why would there be controversy about the way present bishops are ordained? We know the sacrament of penance/reconciliation/confession has undergone a lot of changes. Why not orders?

The argument revolves around the form and essential words of the Ordination. To give a brief summary of the changes.

In Baptism, the essential words of the Trinitarian formula remain unchanged.
In Confirmation, the essential words were changed, but to the Bynzantine forula (with a small addition)
In the Eucharist, the words “qui pro vobis tradetur” were added, and “mysterium fidei” removed. This is not cause a substantial change in the formula.
In Penance, the preceding prayer was changed, but the essential words “Ego te absolve, etc.” are retained.
For the Anointing for the Sick, it was changed from "Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam, indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti…"to “Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam adiuvet te Dominus gratia Spiritus Sancti, ut a peccatis liberatum te salvet atque propitius alleviet.” This is somehwat debated, but in the end, is not too contrary.
Matrimony can be expressed in a variety of forms, with consent. Even prior to the Council, there were variations in the form from regions and dioceses.

Now for Holy Orders. The essential words and form were defined relatively recently by Pius XII in 1947. Now, in the revised liturgy, the essential words as defined by Pius XII for the priesthood and diaconate are mostly retained (with minor corrections in accordance with early texts). However the essential words, and the whole form, for the Episcopate has been changed to a new Prayer. Certain groups argue that this new Prayer is invalid as it fails to meet the criteria mentioned by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis for a valid form.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Can it be said that bishops have the fullness of the priesthood? Would this be equivalent to the office of apostle in the early church?

From a recent Vatican document (see here):

The Second Vatican Council is itself interested in the priesthood, especially in regard to two debates: in these two principal fields, it is interesting to see which points of its discussion continue that of the early Church.

1. The first debate was about the nature of the priesthood. The Council has responded by beginning with the sacramentality of the episcopate, as the source of collegiality.

In other words, it hastens to recognize that the bishops were not just simple priests with superior power over other priests merely for the sake of making someone a delegate, either of the Pope or of the community. Rather, the consecration which they receive inserts them into the mystery of the apostolic succession and brings about in them a change in being. The Council designated this change as “ontological” at the precise level of the “munera”, the messianic works of Christ and his Church.

… The concrete exercise of these duties demands more of a bond of communion, or to state the principle clearly in canonical terms, ordination itself confers a “Sacred Power” distinctively all its own, a sacramental power to build up the Church ( in contrast to the power of post-enlightened society, where there is a sense of competition between various interest groups).

 

[Filioque]

The Church does have some latitude over the ceremonies surrounding the Sacraments. After all our Lord did not wear a maniple, or offer the prayers of the Canon of the Mass in Latin. Over the centuries some of the ceremonies developed which expressed more fully what the Apostles taught. If there was only one way to express our Faith liturgically, then the Eastern Rite Liturgies and Sacraments would be invalid, and the other Latin Rites, both present and past would also be suspect because they don’t follow exactly as the website illuded to in the original post seems to claim.

All authorized rites for dispensing the Sacraments within the barque of Peter are of equal validity, Eastern and Western. Some may have more detailed ceremonial, but they do not have any more “power” or efficacy. A bishop consecrated (ordained or ordered) in a Catholic Church, with the Mandate of the Pope, be it in the Maronite, Melkite, Roman (Traditional or Novus Ordo) or any other rite, is just as much a bishop as any other bishop or the Pope himself. His jurisdiction, or what responsibilities he has as a bishop, to rule over a diocese or other authority to function as a bishop do not effect the validity of his episcopacy,

One of the problems with some of these websites is they have a limited understanding of both the history and development of the Liturgy. Prior to the legalization of the Church by Constantine, there were controversies, however there was not the liberty to devlelop elaborate rites, nor to converse openly between theologians. While it is argued that if St. Peter was to return to earth today, he would recognize the Liturgy, (Eastern, or Western, modern or TLM) it is not the same for some who do not simply prefer the TLM, but hold it to be the only true expression of the Catholic Faith. It is not that these early liturgies were deficient, but that there are those today who only recognize as valid what they are accustomed to.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Being elevated to a bishop was considered similar to being elevated to a monsignor or an archbishop - It was a higher office, but not a higher level of the sacrament.

**This is a very poor analogy.

A Latin priest is elevated to the status of a domestic prelate (with the style “monsignor”) by mere papal rescript.

To make a bishop requires the laying on of hand during the Eucharistic Sacrifice by at least three other bishops ideally (though there are examples of solo consecrations, and even rubrics in the traditioinal pontifical about how this was to be done).

The Episcopate IS a higher level of Sacrament of Orders. When a priest celebrates Mass or any Sacrament, he does so as the Bishop’s delegate, not by his priestly powers.

The idea that Presbyter and Bishop are the same order is a PROTESTANT idea, not a Catholic one.**