Do Anglicans have the minor orders of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper (porter), like in the Catholic Church (cf. Council of Trent ses. 23 ch. 2 ), and the major order of deacon? (I know they claim to have the priesthood .)

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

It’s often claimed that only bishops can could ever validly ordain priests. This is certainly true for modern Catholic practice. I recall reading somewhere though that priests ordaining other priests is recorded or even approved of at points during the Middle Ages. I’ve been unable to verify this claim by my own research. Is there any evidence for Presbyterian ordination prior to the era of the reformation?

I noticed in a comment that Lutherans have apostolic succession I figured this was a purely Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox thing is there a comparable Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Lutheran world?

Why does the Catholic Church legislate a minimum age for receiving Holy Orders?

I was reading in another question, and I've heard it said before, that in the early church (Apostolic era), there was not a clear-cut distinction between Deacon, Priest and Bishop in the sacrament of Holy Orders. So I suppose that if an apostle laid his hands on you and gave you holy orders, you became equal to the apostle in fundamental power and teaching authority. Priests were considered the equal to bishops and deacons. Perhaps all of that is just a myth in which case please correct me with sources. If not, I'm wondering when and how (and why) the church evolved it's theology of Holy Orders such that there is the threefold distinction between Deacon, Priest and Bishop. This is a history question, so anyone is welcome to answer. But if I absolutely *must* scope it down, then please keep it to the Catholic view only

Presumably all the original apostles received holy orders directly from Christ at some point (as far as I'm aware this is not explicitly recorded in the new testament). However Paul converted to Christianity after Jesus had ascended into heaven. He also claims to be an apostle. But to truly be an apostle he needs to have received holy orders so that he is placed in the apostolic succession. It doesn't seem possible that he received holy orders directly from Christ, because Christ was chilling up in heaven at the time and so was unavailable to lay hands on Paul. Did Peter or one of the other twelve give Paul holy orders? When did it happen? Scoping to everyone except for Protestants: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and any other church which recognises the sacrament of Holy Orders and the concept of apostolic succession are welcome to answer, Protestants please remain silent.

FMS' answer to What are the positions relative to each other in the Catholic church's clerical hierarchy? mentioned a twofold hierarchy in the Church, that of **order** and that of **jurisdiction**. Given examples from the secular world, it is a bit easier to understand what is meant by *jurisdiction*. The question is, what is meant by *order* and how did its usage come about? **Note:** Please note @curiousdannii's comment that Anglicans also have a three fold order of ordination and a book called the Ordinal. Perhaps the answer will speak to the Anglican meaning so long doing so will not make this post off-topic.

The Catholic Church maintains that it does not have the authority to ordain women. I.e., the Church *can't* ordain women. It's assumed then that God set a precedent or gave a mandate to ordain *only men*. According to the Church, in what way, how, and when was this mandate or precedent given? What [sound] theology and Patristic writing supports the Church's interpretation of that mandate and/or precedent? --- To clarify: I'm looking for the justification the Catholic Church does/might give, which I expect is supported by Patristic writings, theology, and scripture.

When researching for an answer, I wanted to provide a link to Pope Bl. Pius IX . He was ordained Bishop *28 Oct 1919* by *Principal Consecrator*: Archbishop Aleksander Kakowski † Archbishop of Warszawa {Warsaw}. I was surprised to see other two *Principal Co-Consecrators*. Isn't one Bishop enough to ordain and consecrate a candidate a Bishop? *The question* What is the purpose of the *Principal Co-Consecrators*? In Church history, what is the explanation for having, and the history behind having *Principal Co-Consecrators*? Who decreed it and when?

What does the Anglican church require from potential ordination candidates as far as education and background? In particular, how would they handle a candidate from a different Protestant background who came along seeking to be ordained? Obviously I would expect the candidate is expected to agree with some statement of faith covering key doctrinal distinctions, but would they also be required to undergo education in an Anglican institution? Are there set timelines for such proceedings?