JISCMail - MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives

On 17 Feb 2007, at 10:55, John Briggs wrote:

medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Scott Carson wrote:

On 17 Feb 2007, at 10:27, John Briggs wrote:

1) Yes, consecration of a bishop is a sacrament.

Consecration to the episcopacy is not, in itself, a Sacrament. Holy
Orders is the Sacrament, episcopacy is a gradus within Holy Orders.
The term "consecration" is perhaps misleading in this instance. While
it is true that the Sacraments have been counted in different ways in
different times, there is no evidence that the episcopacy was ever
counted as a Sacrament distinct from some other putative sacrament
of, say, presbytery or deaconry.

But consecration to the episcopacy is not, in itself, not a sacrament. Saying "Yes, consecration of a bishop is a sacrament" is less misleading than saying "No, consecration of a bishop is not a sacrament."

If wishes were horses you'd have a real derby winner there. What counts as "less misleading" depends entirely upon the context, and what you wrote was quite misleading. What was needed was a clear statement that the episcopacy is a gradus within the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and that is precisely what I wrote. It is fatuous to suggest that what I wrote was more misleading than what you wrote, especially when you could just as easily have written what I wrote if you had wanted to.