www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology consecration of a Bishop?

How many Bishops are needed to perform the consecration of a Bishop? (In bother the Orthodox and Catholic traditions)

Generally three in the Byzantine tradition. But during the times of Soviet persecution in the Ukrainian Catholic Church obviously that was often impossible so only one bishop would consecrate out of necessity.

Hello:

Canon Law establishes three as the normal minumum for the Latin rite. All attending bishops are encouraged to co-consecrate a bishop-elect.
If there is serious need to have a consecration by less than the minimum three, a special dispensation from the Holy See is required.

Shalom,
Memo.

Forget the Holy See stuff, Memo. The canonical NORM for EASTERN Churches, which is not dependent upon anything that Rome says or does, is for ALL the bishops of a province to ORDAIN a new bishop, but that a minimum of three is required, subject to OIKONOMIA in cases of emergency. And should a bishop be ordained by fewer than the canonical minimum, he should seek by submission of a Synodikon to receive the endorsement of all the other bishops.

The Holy See enters into this not at all, and not all Eastern Churches are in communion with the Holy See. The ordination of bishops is rightly the purview of each particular Church, and no other particular Church should interfere with it.

My understanding is that all candidates for episcopal consecration must receive the approval of the Holy Father. This also applies to the consecrator who may not perform a consecration without a papal mandate. If this mandate is not there, then both the consecrator and consecrated are automatically excommunicated reserved to the Holy Father. I believe this applies to both the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, like it or not.
Silouan

1. Not all Eastern Churches are in communion with Rome.

2. Not all Eastern Churches in communion with Rome need to get permission to ordain bishops. The patriarchical Churches elect bishops and ordain them, the ordination taking effect immediately. A pro forma submission of a synodicon is then submitted to Rome.

An interesting question, never satsifactorily answered, is why the Bishop of Rome never sends a synodicon to the bishops in communion with him upon his election to the Holy See. Does he think that he's better than the rest? Or that somehow, he has no need to explain to his bretheren the faith he holds and proclaims? And while we're at it, it's not only contrary to Tradition to commemorate one's self, it's also tacky. So why is the Bishop of Rome the only bishop in the entire world who commemorates himself in the liturgy? Just asking.

3. In major archepiscopal and metropolitan Churches in communion with Rome, a list of three candidates is submitted to the Holy See, from which one name is selected. This parallels the role fulfilled by the Emperor in Byzantine times in regard to the selection of candidates for Patriarch of Constantinople, but has no parallel in ecclesiastical useage.

4. The process whereby the Bishop of Rome appoints all the bishops of the Latin Church (let alone of Eastern Churches outside of the arbitrarily drawn boundaries of the ancient patriarchates) is only about a century old, and is a profoundly uncanonical innovation, hardly consistent with the principles of conciliarity outlined at Vatican II.

Overall, then, I think we can say current Catholic practice with regard to the ordination of bishops (with the exception of the useages of the Catholic patriarchical Churches) is uncanonical and deeply in need of reform. On that basis, I'll stick with my original assertion that who and how bishops are elected and consecrated by ecclesiae sui juris is not the business of the Church of Rome or its bishop.

Dear Stuart,

With respect to the presentation of three candidates for selection reflecting the imperial prerogative of the Byzantine Emperor - so what?

There are many practices the Church, East and West took from the Imperial Courts, including the "Vicar of Christ" title once sported by the Emperor.

Even the ecclesial titles were taken from secular Roman government administration, including "liturgy."

And ultimately who decides what is canonical? Do decisions of Councils remain in an historic vaccum? Does not the Church of succeeding generations not have the responsibility of interpreting them?

Your argument doesn't hold water on 'canonical' grounds but on the grounds of "the current practices are shoddy and can be better."

And I agree.

Alex

Dear Stuart,

All Eastern Churches in communion with Rome do need to have papal assent to the elections made by the patriarchal or major archiepiscopal synods. In the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches,canons 180 through 189 concern the election of bishops. Canon 182, paragraph 3: "Unless particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff states otherwise, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is to examine the names of the candidates and compile a list of the candidates by secret ballot, which is to be transmitted through the patriarch to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff."
Canon 185: "If the one elected is not on the list of candidates, the patriarch is immediately to notify the Apostolic See of the completed election in order to obtain the approval of the Roman Pontiff...."

By coincidence, today the Holy See announced the papal assent to a canonical election of the Maronite Patriarchal Synod made during its June meeting.

As for the commemoration of the Pope in the liturgy, the Pope does not commemorate himself. He uses the formula "for me, your unworthy servant". Likewise, in the Latin Church, bishops say the same in regard to themselves in the liturgies which they celebrate.

The nomination of all bishops in the Latin Church by the Pope is not "only about a century old." This process developed over several centuries and even at the beginning of the 18th century, 90 percent of the bishops of the Latin Church were appointed by the Pope. Elections by cathedral chapters were previously the norm in many countries, e.g., Germany, Switzerland, England. Swiss cathedral chapters still propose three names to the Pope, but he does have the right to name someone not on the chapter`s list. The first bishop in the United States, John Carroll, was elected by the U.S. clergy, the only election ever permitted in the U.S.

Other than direct elections by cathedral chapters, several governments claimed the right to approve or reject papal nominess, e.g. Spain and Portugal to name two. Happily, most governments have ended their interference in episcopal nominations.

As for the process being uncanonical, I would disagree. Everything involved in the nomination of bishops of the Latin Church is in accord with Code of Canon Law and is therefore canonical.

Peace,

Charles

[ 09-12-2002: Message edited by: Charles Bransom ]

[ 09-12-2002: Message edited by: Charles Bransom ]