I've seen the following quote attributed to St. John Chrysostom : >The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path. Where did he say this?

Earlier this year, as part of the effort to normalize relations between the Vatican and China, the [*New York Times*](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/world/asia/china-catholics-vatican.html) reported that the Vatican asked one of its bishops to step down to make way for a state-approved individual. This individual had been previously excommunicated from the Church, perhaps simply for acting as a bishop without papal approval (per [Canon 1382](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P52.HTM)) . It seemed strange to me that someone could go straight from being excommunicated to being a bishop, so I looked up the qualifications for bishops, and found [Canon 378](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P1C.HTM) , which says that suitable candidates "must": > 1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfil the office in question; > > 2° be held in good esteem; > > 3° be at least 35 years old; > > 4° be a priest ordained for at least five years; > > 5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law... On the surface, numbers 1, 2, and 4 seem to be a bit tricky to apply to an excommunicated Catholic, except perhaps in the case of #4, if we're allowed to count years of service as a priest prior to excommunication. However, Canon 378 goes on to say, in §2: > The definitive judgement on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See. My question, then, is – **does the pope have the ability to disregard any or all of the requirements of Canon 378 with respect to the qualifications of bishops, in order to appoint someone of his choice?** That is, should §2 be read as saying that the pope may waive the age requirement, or the years of service requirement, at his own discretion? Or does his "definitive judgement" apply only to the more subjective requirements, like qualifications #1 and #2? I realize too that there are some circumstances in which the Pope can simply "violate" Canon Law, since he has the authority to amend it anyway, but I don't know if this is such an area.

Apart from the specious Pastorals, does Paul or any other NT author discuss "Bishops"? When do they first appear in history?

I've read reference to a "High Bishop." Scripturally speaking, does such a thing exist?

Which U.S. bishops are unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality and LGBT ideology?

Do we have any indication from original sources, or secondary sources, how many of the Bishops who participated at Nicaea I were married?

Must a man first be a priest before being consecrated a bishop? In other words: Who exactly can receive episcopal consecration?

According to [*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*](https://ia800507.us.archive.org/3/items/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma-pdfdrive/Fundamentals%20of%20Catholic%20Dogma%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf) (in reference to John 21:15-17): > "Feed" in ancient and biblical language means, in its application to human beings, rule or govern (cf. Acts 20:28). And Acts 20:28: > Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (*Douay-Rheims*) QUESTION: What are some ancient (or Old Testament) references which demonstrate the linguistic equivalence of the terms "to feed" and "to govern (or rule)"?

In researching my answer for [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35389/does-catholicism-confound-the-role-of-elder-and-priest) I started to think about the doctrine that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles as being a bit unfair to the other folks. For instance, if St. James who wrote the epistle wasn't the brother of John or Jude, but actually a third James or a fourth James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem, would his Episcopacy necessarily have been conferred on him by the Apostles or just by virtue of who he was. Or were the elders the first successors of the 12 apostles regardless of their functions as presbyters?

Bishop Strickland was recently deposed by Pope Francis, ostensibly because he tweeted something about the Pope "undermining the deposit of faith". Is that a technical term or just a euphemism for heresy? Is it licit, under the auspices of Vatican I, to suspect that the Pope could be doing such a thing?

Was the split caused by political, doctrinal, different canons, linguistic differences, or other? And what was the name of the Church before the split, if there was any? Or were there many loosely organized churches instead? Bishopries independent of each other were scattered throughout the Mediterranean region in the early centuries. What determined whether they aligned with the Greek Orthodox, or the Roman Catholic church? And was the choosing to go one direction or the other amicable, or traumatic? Note that some of the ancient Councils of bishops were very hostile with bishops bringing their own Body Guards!. Is the splitting of denominations as simple, as some suppose, merely attributed to the difference in language: the Latins congregating in the west, and the Greek-speaking ones joining the East?

What was the denomination of Bishop Heahmund from? If he is a Catholic bishop how did priestly celibacy work in that era? *(The Vikings TV series shows him with multiple relationships)*

Are there rules in place that a pope must follow when he wishes to excommunicate a bishop? If so, what are they; or where may they be found?

Who consecrated Heahmund as the Bishop of Sherborne , What was his Apostolic Lineage?

One [option](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23290/why-are-there-differences-in-the-greeting-of-the-mass?rq=1) for the liturgical greeting at the beginning of the Mass is: >Priest: The Lord be with you. > >[or Bishop: Peace be with you.] > >All: And with your spirit. The phrase "The Lord be with you / And with your spirit." is used in other parts of the Mass too without that difference. - Where does this difference between bishop and "ordinary" priest come from? - Are there theological and/or historical reasons?

My question stems from considering the content found in https://www.facebook.com/MiraclesTruth/photos/a.268944276778281/1277844892554876/?type=3 regarding an unnamed bishop and the correction given to him by the hand of Pope St. Pius X--- > As Pope, St. Pius X had to correct and reprimand several bishops and priests who had fallen into heresy or were flirting dangerously close to that edge. Some of the French prelates who supported the Sillon (a precursor to modern Liberation Theology) were particularly problematic. >One bishop who had been reprimanded continued to act against the Catholic Faith. Pope Pius X called him to Rome. When the bishop entered he made the customary genuflection before the Pope and waited to be acknowledged so he could rise. Pope Pius X remained busy at his desk ignoring the bishop for three quarters of an hour. This was a small penance which the saintly pontiff was imposing. >At last, Pope Pius raised his eyes and looked the bishop directly in the eyes, holding his gaze steady and stern. Without a word he rose and walked over to the kneeling figure. Then he greeted him: "Good morning, your Excellency." Before the Bishop could arise, Pope Pius X swiftly removed the zucchetto from the Bishop’s head and placed it on the edge of his desk. He then dismissed him, >"Have a good day, Father." >And that was the end of the meeting. No more words had to be spoken. QUESTION: Can a Catholic bishop be deprived of his ecclesiastical rank as bishop without being defrocked? If so, does (anyone know with certainty) if the manner in which the bishop's *zuchetto* was taken by the pope suggest that the former was no longer a bishop? Thank you.

The following question is a bit of a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95177/on-bishops-who-refused-to-sign-henry-viiis-oath-of-succession . In an article "The Cardinal Martyr of England" found here: [**Catholic Culture**](//www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8669), it is stated (under Persecution and Consolation) > In May 1532, Thomas More resigned the chancellorship, and in June, Fisher preached against the divorce and in defense of the Church's independence. In August, Archbishop Warham of Canterbury died, and Thomas Cranmer, one of Henry's minions, was nominated at once for the post. QUESTION: Prior to Henry VIII's break with the Roman Catholic Church, did he (and if so, to what extent) have any say in the bishops that Rome appointed to his Realm? e.g., did Henry himself "nominate" Thomas Cranmer to the Pope to replace the deceased Archbishop Warham? If so, how long had such a practice been taking place? *Remark:* In 1532, Clement VII was pope. He is sometimes referred to as "the most unfortunate of the popes."

The 1534 Oath of Succession made Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, heir to the throne rather than Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. The oath also recognized the king as supreme head of the church in England, thus formalizing Henry’s break with Rome. **Question**: Besides the Bishop of Rochester (St. John Fisher), were there any other bishops who refused to sign the Oath of Succession? (I suspect he may have been the only one.) According to [**My Catholic Life**](https://mycatholic.life/saints/saints-of-the-liturgical-year/june-22-saints-john-fisher-bishop-and-martyr-and-thomas-more-martyr/) : > All the bishops of England, save Fisher and two others, lost their courage and acquiesced, without a fight, to Henry VIII’s takeover of the Catholic Church in England. Their weakness brought to a sudden, crashing end a thousand years of Catholicism in England. The "two others" are not named; however, I am a little skeptical, as I can never recall having read of any bishop other than St. John Fisher who adamantly opposed Henry's oath. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this.

**If 95% of Catholic bishops today can trace their line of apostolic succession through Cardinal Scipione Rebiba; who are the 5% remaining lineages traced through?** > [Who was Scipione Rebiba?](http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art385.htm) > > Sicilian-born Scipione Rebiba would be remembered no more than any other sixteenth-century bishop of the Roman Catholic Church did he not boast a particular historical distinction which arose long after his death. Over ninety-five percent of the bishops serving the Church today trace their line of apostolic succession through this cardinal. This is the so-called ***Rebiban Succession***, and it descends through numerous bishops to every pope elected since 1724. In truth, Scipione Rebiba wasn't particularly zealous in consecrating bishops, but some of his successors were.

The following question has been motivated by the post https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94736/what-teachings-do-all-catholic-schools-share I recall having read something many years ago specifying that parents have the responsibility to provide their children with a Catholic education (i.e., enroll them in a Catholic school for years ago, home school was not legally an option); and, if for some reason they were not able to, and were intending to send them to a public school, a special dispensation needed to be obtained from their bishop. As far as I can recollect, the above is the gist of what I read; though, I have often tried to find this again in writing and have been unable to. Question: **Does anyone know if such a promulgation has ever been made? Since it refers to *all* Catholic parents, I imagine that what I had read was referring to something included in a papal decree.**