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

Is attending a priestly ordination, bishop's consecration, or religious profession an indulgenced act (pious work)?

I know that the major reformers like Martin Luther, Zwingli, John Calvin, etc. were Roman Catholic priests that became Protestant. According to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, priests can't ordain other priests, only bishops can ordain priests. The question is: Did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli have the authority to ordain ministers like elders, presbyters, and deacons since they weren't bishops but rather priests?

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 am slightly confused about foreordination. What I thought I had understood was that foreordination is happening in the premortal life retro-causally because of the faith and good choices in this life. That's how I used to understand Alma 13, since it talks about how the foreordination happens due to the foreknowledge of God and their faith and good works (which I assumed means in this life due to the close proximity of mentioning foreknowledge??). This all makes sense for me considering God's foreknowledge of our mortal life and our ignorance of the premortal due to the veil. It is in line with what I think to understand from D&C, that the elect are elect because they don't harden their hearts, not that they don't harden their hearts because they are elect. However when I look up foreordination on the church website, I am lead to understood a foreordination is result of faith and good choices in premortal life. Which has me scratching my head because Alma 13:5 explicitely calls out choices that would be made. So, which is it? Maybe both?

**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.

Back in 1874, the American Protestant theologian, John W. Haley wrote one of the definitive works which defended the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. In his book, he argued: > ...with fitting deference, we may ask whether after all the texts from > Corinthians and Timothy may not have been intended for a local and > specific, rather than a general, application...(Haley, Alleged > Discrepancies of the Bible, p. 310) When the Apostle Paul says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man . . ." (1 Tim. 2:12), he is using the present active indicative form of the verb "permit" (ἐπιτρέπω). Scholars point out that it could be translated, "I am not permitting . . . ." So, the question is how to take the verb "I do not permit..." Should it be translated either as a temporal present ("I do not presently permit") or as a timeless present ("I am never permitting")? Only the context of 1 Timothy and the Pauline corpus and the church tradition can determine which the Apostle intends. If it is a temporal present, than the Apostle Paul is not laying down the law for the whole church forever by not permitting women here to teach or have authority over men. Tertullian (d. 225) was an ecclesiastic writer who became a Montanist. The movement, as pointed out here , had women involved in every aspect of leadership. He wrote concerning women: > It is not permitted for woman to speak in the church, nor is it > permitted for her to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer [the > eucharist], nor claim for herself a share in any masculine function -- > not to mention any priestly office. (On the Veiling of Women, chapter 9) On the surface, the above quote appears to be a drag down knock out illustration from the early church that demonstrates a solid tradition against women's ordination. But, what defines a masculine function? It is only in the last century that we have allowed changes to be made in our understanding. For example, as recently as 1910, almost no college would permit a woman to study medicine, law, engineering, accounting, upper level math or science. These disciplines were considered “unfeminine.” Women also could not sue in court, serve on juries, vote in national elections, or run for elected office. Likewise, Origen (ca. 185-250) writes on 1 Timothy 2: > The women should keep silence in the churches...If the daughters of > Philip prophesied, at least they did not speak in the assemblies; for > we do not find this fact in evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, much > less the Old Testament... (Fragments on 1 Corinthians) However, one could make the case that Tertullian and Origen were simply making theological applications to accommodate and reflect the culture of their day. Plutarch, in his essay “Advice to Bride and Groom” speaking of the virtuous woman says that: > ... her speech...ought to be not for the public, and she ought to be > modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders, > since it is an exposure of herself; for in her talk can be seen her > feelings, character and disposition. Pheidias made the Aphrodite of > the Eleans with one foot on a tortoise, to typify for womankind > keeping at home and keeping silence. For a woman ought to do her > talking either to her husband or through her husband, and she should > not feel aggrieved if, like a flute-player, she makes a more > impressive sound through a tongue not her own. Also Livy, in recreating a speech for Marcus Cato for a late first century B.C. audience, has Cato state: > If each man of us, fellow citizens, had established that the right and > authority of the husband should be held over the mother of his own > family, we should have less difficulty with women in general; now at > home our freedom is conquered by female fury, here in the Forum it is > bruised and trampled upon...What kind of behavior is this? Running > around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s > husbands! Could you not have asked your husband the same thing at > home? (Livy 34:2,9) One might argue that the Apostle Paul had a desire to be culturally current to the fallen nature of the society around him – *i.e.* *to be all things to all people*. The reality of the first century world being that because of the fall, there is a curse upon women. Perhaps it was not necessary for Paul to demand women’s emancipation because that would go against God’s order of preservation following the curse of the fall? However, if a culture, such as ours, has already changed towards allowing women equality, than it might be fine to adapt to the changing culture around us. In this view, the curse that fell upon women as the result of the fall is reflected in Aristotle’s natural observation that “the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female [is] subject [to him]” (Pol. 1254.b.13–15). Aristotle also writes that “the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female” (Pol. 1259.b.2–3, b.10).  If this is true, than the order of creation related by Paul, in his letter to Timothy might be done in order to highlight the consequences of the curse upon females as an aspect of the order of the fall. For example, in the Genesis account, there are two descriptive facts which, when combined, combine as an issue in God's decree. Paul's comments should be read in the context of this post-fall statement: *I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.* (Gen. 3:16b). In examining early Reformation church tradition, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther’s friend, Matthias Flacius (1520-1575), thought that men rather than women should preach and minister, but considered this a human arrangement rather than divine command. He thought that order was at least partly to be based on the attitude of the whole community so long as there was fear of God in what was done. Also, the popular Lutheran theologian, Johann Gerhard (1621-1668), saw 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 as a rejection of the matriarchal ways of some sects, rather than as an absolute rule. (See "Ordination of Women" LCUSA, p. 33) Despite this exegetical view, a common view among traditional Lutherans is to not ordain women. This also appears to be the case with Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the late Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote: > I am far from convinced by many of the current arguments advanced in > favor of women priests; but at the same time a number of the arguments > urged on the other side now appear to me a great deal less conclusive > than they did twenty years ago. > > What I would plead is that we Orthodox should regard the matter as > essentially an open question. Let us not imagine that in this area > everything is clarified and finally settled; for manifestly it is not, > either for us Orthodox or for other Christians. One point deserves to > be underlined at the outset. On the subject of women and the > priesthood, there exists as yet no pan-Orthodox statement, possessing > definitive Ecumenical authority." - Bishop Kallistos Ware in "Women > and the Priesthood" edited by Thomas Hopko" (1999, St Vlad's Press, p. > 7). Is women's ordination a "closed" question in Catholicism, in a way that is more locked up than in Eastern Orthodoxy or traditional Lutheranism? What is the general survey, of pre-Vatican 2 Catholic tradition, for interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12 in a cultural/time bound manner that would be similar to the views expressed by Johann Gerhard (1621-1668), Matthias Flacius (1520-1575) & the inerrantist theologian John Haley (late 19th century)?

Does the ability to validly consecrate Eucharist come from our baptism? Does ordination add an extra power not given in baptism? Or is ordination simply the act of setting aside a baptized person for special training so that the Eucharist is done reverently and in order? In an emergency, could any baptized Christian, male or female, stand at the altar, recite the words of institution over bread and wine, and the Eucharist would be valid. Correct? Also, could any baptized Christian pronounce absolution for any other baptized Christian in confession?

It's standard for boys growing up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) to receive certain priesthood offices at [defined age milestones](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/63753/31636) . How does ordination to priesthood offices work for male converts who are already above the "standard" ages for ordination? - Do they just not receive the offices that they "missed"? In other words, a 25-year-old convert will never receive any priesthood office but an 18-year-old one will become an Elder since 18 is the age of ordination to Elder. Similarly, a 17-year-old will receive no ordination upon conversion (since he missed the window to become a Priest at 16) but will become an Elder at 18. - Do they receive the offices immediately (e.g. a convert over 18 would receive Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Elder all in one marathon ordination session on the day he converts)? - Do they receive the offices gradually over a period of months or years as they mature in the faith, earning promotions? If so, are these promotions based on a standard time-in-grade (e.g. a newly converted adult Deacon will become a Teacher after six weeks of being a good Deacon and staying out of trouble), or is advancement based on personal/individualized spiritual progression (so one convert might blast up the ranks in a few weeks while another might still be working toward Teacher years after he converted). I'm mostly interested in how it is actually done in practice, either official guidelines or informal "this is how we do it" standards. I can't imagine that a 50-year-old former Catholic would be ordained to the bottom-most office (Deacon) and then spend the next two years hanging out with 12 and 13 year old boys in the Deacons' Quorum (or would he?). If there are formal rules or commandments on exactly when converts receive each office that are generally followed closely, I will accept that as an answer.

Why would a church choose to ‘commission’ female as pastors and ‘ordain’ male pastors? Is there a difference?

My son has shown an interest in the priesthood. He seems to have the right psychosexual and behavioral characteristics. Among other reasons, notably, he has no interest in physically intimate relationships (with either men or women, a psychological phenomenon associated with *schizoid* personality - not a derogatory term); and he has the strongest sense of right or wrong of most anybody I've ever known, including either of his parents. A gift of the Spirit, if you will. However, since grammar school he has had an IEP (Individual Education Plan, a learning disability) in language acquisition. Schools at all levels have waived his foreign language requirements. He works so hard, but English is tough enough. He excels at other subjects. All seminary schools I've looked at in the US promote, and it appears to me require, language instruction in Latin and Greek. This seems a practical impossibility for him. I know there are priests and educators on this site. Does anyone know if such languages are required (in the US)? Would having an IEP make a difference? Are other countries different? (It seems to me granting Presbyter status through a Holy Order in a developing region would not involve such a requirement.) Edit 2021: Oh, I'm glad this reappeared. My son is now 13. Really, not much has changed, but I'm more confident that he will not have "psychological issues" per se. He still has an IEP for language, but I think we'll try French in high school and see how it goes. (We live in an area with lots of Hispanics; there will be too many "gunners" for him to be successful in Spanish.)

I'm constructing a survey of Anglican worshippers in England. One of the questions asks about _ordination-status_, with the following options: * I am ordained * I am a curate * I am a licensed lay-person * I am an unlicensed lay-person For worshippers in the Church of England, are these categories: * **comprehensive** (_everyone_ is described by _one_ of them) * **exclusive** (_no-one_ is described by _two_ of them)?

In what ways does "priesthood" get used within Catholic tradition and theology? Besides "ministerial" and the "universal priesthood of all believers," does the concept show up in any other forms? What are these forms? Are these metaphorical priesthoods or substantive orders?

In the Roman Catholic Church, priests are sometimes laicized, either at their own request or as a punishment. It's unclear to me who exactly in the Roman Catholic has the power to laicize a priest, but in practise this seems to be done exclusively through the Vatican. Although this is rarer, Catholic bishops have been laicized as well; indeed, Fernando Lugo, Bishop of San Pedro, was laicized voluntarily in order to run for President of Paraguay, serving in this office from 2008 to 2012. Again, it seems that a bishop can't be laicised without the approval of the Pope. In either case, it is believed that ordination makes a permanent indentation on the priest's or bishop's soul; the laicisation does not annul the ordination, rather it makes it illicit for the priest or bishop in question to administer the sacraments. But that's the Roman Catholic Church. What about the **Eastern Orthodox Church**, about which I know much less? I've read that, **in the case of an Eastern Orthodox priest but not a bishop**, his diocesan bishop has the power to laicise him. Although Eastern Orthodoxy has its own convoluted structure of archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, etc, the difference with Roman Catholicisim is that all Eastern Orthodox bishops are equal, at least in principle. Thus there isn't really any higher (earthly) authority to which to refer the matter, and so the diocesan bishop has the final say. Morevover, the ordination of a priest is not understood to make a permanent indentation on his soul, and therefore laicization returns him to the lay state in the fullest sense. Have I got that right? **Now what about the case of an Eastern Orthodox bishop?** My ignorance here touches on two things: 1. **Who, if anyone, has the authority to laicize an Eastern Orthodox bishop?** 1. **What would such a laicization be understood to accomplish?** If all bishops are essentially equal, who has the authority to laicize one? I suppose several bishops might have such authority, but how many exactly are required, and why that many and no fewer? The only potential example I can think of is the **Great Moscow Synod** , where Patriarch Nikon was deposed by several other patriarchs. But it's not totally clear to me whether he was returned to the state of being a simple monk in the Roman Catholic sense - i.e. he was forbidden from carrying out the duties of a priest or bishop - or whether it was understood that his status as a bishop was completely annulled.

Requirements for ordination vary across denominations. Baptists and Pentecostals, for example, will ordain people without even a high school diploma, whereas many of the more liturgical denominations require masters and doctoral level degrees before one can even preach. How then, is one able to assess the academic qualifications of ordained clergy across denominations? In other words, is there a resource that would assist one in gauging the stringency of the qualification process before one is allowed to serve as preist, minister, or pastor? And, what common requirements for ordination can be compared across denominations, so as to be able to compare similiar qualifications across denominational lines.

In the Book of Acts the Sacraments of Confirmation of baptized Catholic were confer thru the episcopal powers of the Apostles who had received or bestowed upon the power of a Bishop. The manifestations of the baptized Catholic who received confirmation upon laying of the hands of the Apostle are speaking in tongues and they were described as "filled by the Holy Spirit". The numerous passages on the phrase "filled by the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts are the following: Acts8:14-17, Acts4:31, Acts6:5, Acts9:17 Acts19:6, etc. The Apostles "filled with the Holy Spirit" at Pentecost bestowed upon the power as Bishop can administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit to every baptized beliver who had repented. In Acts8;14-17 Peter and John "lay hands" and the believer was "filled by the Holy Spirit." However in Acts10:44-47 even the mere words of Peter is enough to poured out the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Does Mary possessed the same episcopal dignity or maybe higher because She is the Queen of the Apostles? The the passages in the gospel Luke shows that Mary can confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit by Her mere greetings. >"For he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be "filled with the Holy Spirit", even from his mothers womb. (Luke1:15) > >"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit". (Luke1:41) We can see that Mary's mere voice thru greetings can confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit even before the Pentecost happen. The Theotokos overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and bearing the Logos can be seen like the Apostles as capable of conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Does Mary possessed an episcopal dignity to "lay hands" to confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit to common priesthood and ministerial priesthood? If Mary is a Virgin Priest, and not just a methapor priest but really an ordained Priest, then She is worthy and had an authority from above to confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room. Is Mary really became a Virgin, Priest, the Mystery of Visitation showed Mary is not only a Priest but a Bishop for confirming St.Elizabeth and St.John the Baptist.

We find this entry in the Wikipedia: "Theodora of Alexandria was a saint and Desert Mother who was married to a prefect of Egypt. In order to perform penance for a sin she committed, she disguised herself as a man and joined a monastery in Thebaid. Her true identity as a woman was discovered only after her death." Of late, there have been heartening news of transgender citizens gaining due acceptance in different walks of life. Though the Catholic Church has always been against ordaining women as priests, it is not known if such taboo exists in the case of transgender faithful. My question therefore, is: was any transgender person ever ordained as a Catholic priest ?

I understand that the current canonical age for Catholic ordination is 25 years . Was the minimum previously 30 years? The documentation of a priest's ordination in 1775 shows that the diocese spent some time examining the age of the applicant. At issue was whether he, a "cleric of minor orders", was old enough to join "the Order of the Presbyter". A note up front on the document reads "older than 30 years". In letters, the applicant declared that he was 31 years of age, while one official noted that he appeared more like 24. In the end he was ordained. The example is from the historic archives of Durango, RGHC AHAD-120, p. 561.

**When did it become the norm for church leaders to get a formal Christian education and why did that process begin?** When I say formal education I'm **not** talking about the mentor/mentee style that Jesus did with his disciples. I'm talking about the following scenario: - A person independently enrolls in a Bible School/Seminary/Divinity school - They get a degree - They apply for pastor jobs and get hired as a pastor somewhere The reason I ask is because the aforementioned process isn't implied anywhere in scripture. The idea of it had to have come from somewhere and for some reason. --- Similar to this question , but I'm not asking whether or not this practice is supported by Scripture—I'm asking when it started and why it started.

What is seen to actually occur if a female were to be the subject of laying on of the hands in ordination? The CCC 1577 states that "...the ordaination of women is not possible". What (in the Catholic view) would actually happen if a validly ordained Bishop attempted to ordain a female to ministry? Would the Holy Spirit refuse to flow through and into the women, thus not marking her indelibly with the spiritual character of a priest? Or would the spirit flow, but be disagreeable to catholic doctrine?