Author Topic: Do you have to be a priest to be a bishop? (Read 1253 times)

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** June 18, 2020, 01:27:07 AM »

This is a two part answer. According to Canon Law;

Can. 378 §1. In regard to the suitability of a candidate for the episcopacy, it is required that he is:
1/ outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him suitable to fulfill the office in question;
2/ of good reputation;
3/ at least thirty-Five years old;
4/ ordained to the presbyterate for at least Five years;
5/ in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.
§2. The definitive judgment concerning the suitability of the one to be promoted pertains to the Apostolic See.
Can. 379 Unless he is prevented by a legitimate impediment, whoever has been promoted to the episcopacy must receive episcopal consecration within three months from the receipt of the apostolic letter and before he takes possession of his office.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1D.HTM

Also with respect to the election of the Pope Canon Law has this to say;

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** June 18, 2020, 07:13:59 AM »

It was my understanding that the episcopacy is the fullness of the priesthood (and is described as such in the form of the consecration); therefore, it seems to me that one would have to be a priest first.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 18, 2020, 07:21:55 AM »

Quote from: moneil on June 17, 2020, 10:20:25 PM

Tylenda, J. N. (2003). Saints and Feasts of the Liturgical Year (pp. 269–270). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

One would assume that someone would have to be ordained a deacon first (as it is one of the major orders), than a priest, than consecrated a bishop.

Diaconate is considered to be contained within the priesthood. So a man could be ordained a priest without having first been ordained to the diaconate.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** June 18, 2020, 07:25:49 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on June 18, 2020, 07:13:59 AM

It was my understanding that the episcopacy is the fullness of the priesthood (and is described as such in the form of the consecration); therefore, it seems to me that one would have to be a priest first.

This is the common opinion of theologians, but there are some who disagree, arguing that the priesthood is contained within the episcopacy just as the diaconate is contained within the priesthood. But that is the minority opinion, so a man consecrated without first having been ordained would be considered doubtful. That is why when you hear of a priest being consecrated a bishop through some valid line while having been ordained by a doubtful line, the bishop/priest must be considered positively doubtful. There are a few such in the Thuc lineage, where the episcopal consecration was done by one of the clearly valid lines but the man had first been dubiously ordained.

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** June 18, 2020, 07:27:45 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 18, 2020, 07:25:49 AM

This is the common opinion of theologians, but there are some who disagree, arguing that the priesthood is contained within the episcopacy just as the diaconate is contained within the priesthood. But that is the minority opinion, so a man consecrated without first having been ordained would be considered doubtful. That is why when you hear of a priest being consecrated a bishop through some valid line while having been ordained by a doubtful line, the bishop/priest must be considered positively doubtful. There are a few such in the Thuc lineage, where the episcopal consecration was done by one of the clearly valid lines but the man had first been dubiously ordained.

Thanks Lad.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Do you have to be a priest to be a bishop? (Read 1253 times)

poche

Re: Do you have to be a priest to be a bishop?

2Vermont

Re: Do you have to be a priest to be a bishop?

Ladislaus

Re: Do you have to be a priest to be a bishop?

Ladislaus

Re: Do you have to be a priest to be a bishop?

2Vermont

Re: Do you have to be a priest to be a bishop?