Archdiocese and Diocese

  • Thread starter Thread starter harinkj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BillyT92679:
The Metropolitan could keep tabs on less orthodox Dioceses in his Province.
Click to expand...
Whether such an option is exercised or not, it already exists as you describe it.
40.png
frommi:
But that would go against the theology of the church. Each diocese is a “church”, it’s not ‘under’ any other church or bishop.

The Bishop is the Bishop of his diocese, end of story.
Click to expand...
Based upon this oversimplified conclusion, the Church’s theology would be at odds with its Law:Can. 436 §1. In the suffragan dioceses, a metropolitan is competent:

1/ to exercise vigilance so that the faith and ecclesiastical discipline are observed carefully and to inform the Roman Pontiff of abuses, if there are any;

​
 
The duty of vigilance in canon 436 §1 is different from the power of jurisdiction. It does not involve the power to intervene and place acts of power. *It is canon 436 §2 which speaks to that situation, when the Apostolic See, because circumstances demand it, endows the metropolitan with special functions and powers which it determines.

*True, the diocesan bishop enjoys “all ordinary, proper, and immediate power” for shepherding his particular church (canon 381 §1). (Particular church means diocese in context.)

That is not the end of it. The diocesan bishop is always immediately and directly subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. By virtue of the apostolic constitution,* Pastor bonus*, certain of his powers have been delegated to the various dicasteries of the Roman curia.

Remember canon 333 §1: “The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, not only has power in the universal Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groupings of churches by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.”

As canon 331 says of this Bishop of the Roman Church, “By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise.”
 
Can a diocese change to an archdiocese or revert back?

At least in the U.S., all archdioceses started as dioceses. Following the Revolutionary War, the Vatican created the Diocese of Baltimore and established John Carroll as the first Bishop in 1784. All dioceses in the U.S. were broken off from Baltimore, or other dioceses which were broken off from Baltimore. Many, of course, became archdioceses.

For example, here in Nebraska, we were part of the province of Dubuque, Iowa, until 1945 when Omaha was raised from a diocese to an archdiocese with Lincoln and Grand Island as suffagran sees in the province of Nebraska.

Could an archidocese be changed to a diocese? I am not sure. I don’t know of any examples, but I do know that in some cases the see city of a diocese has moved when the population shifted.

Another midwest example: The Diocese of Leavenworth, Kansas was established in 1877. In 1891, the see was transferred to Kansas City, KS. In 1897, it moved back to Leavenworth where it stayed until 1947, when the see moved back to Kansas City. In 1952, it was elevated to an Archdiocese. catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dkcks.html (If there is anybody who could fill in the details of all those moves, I’d like to hear them).
 
A secular analogy might help.

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so my analogy might not be perfect, but… the U.S. Supreme Court has its Chief Justice (who is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years he may have served), yet the Associate Justices don’t “report to” the Chief Justice.

Similiarly, at a more local level, a county which has several civil/criminal/family/juvenile district courts is likely to also have an administrative judge (or judges) with the authority to preside over legal proceedings and make legally-binding decisions under administrative law. Yet, the various civil/criminal/family/juvenile district court judges don’t “report to” the administrative judge(s).
 
40.png
msproule:
Whether such an option is exercised or not, it already exists as you describe it.

Based upon this oversimplified conclusion, the Church’s theology would be at odds with its Law:Can. 436 §1. In the suffragan dioceses, a metropolitan is competent:

1/ to exercise vigilance so that the faith and ecclesiastical discipline are observed carefully and to inform the Roman Pontiff of abuses, if there are any;

​
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct… but, in actuality, the Metropolitan has not used authority over suffragans in over a thousand years. Primarily his authority was to guarantee that suffragan Bishops actually lived in their Sees, something that was actually not too common.

What I am talking about is something beyond mere vigilance, but an actual ability to “veto” decisions of the Suffragan if absolutely necessary. Obviously, this veto could be overriden by Rome, or Rome could let the decision stand. Something akin to a Federal Court of Appeals, with Rome being the Supreme Court. I’m talking if a Suffragan Bishop promotes something that is ambiguous at best, heterodox at worse.
 
Glennon P:
Following the Revolutionary War, the Vatican created the Diocese of Baltimore and established John Carroll as the first Bishop in 1784. All dioceses in the U.S. were broken off from Baltimore, or other dioceses which were broken off from Baltimore.
Click to expand...
Almost, but not quite.
Irish Melkite:
The canonical jurisdiction of Baltimore was erected 220 years ago as the Prefecture Apostolic of the United States of America and erected as the Diocese of Baltimore 5 years later.

It’s proud history includes being the mother diocese to those of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Bardstown (now Louisville), Charlestown, Wilmington, Richmond, Alexandria, and Washington, and the grandmother to innumerable others, erected from territory ceded from its daughters. Effectively, every See on the Atlantic coast from Atlanta (GA) north to Portland (ME) eventually traces its origins back to Baltimore. Going west, its jurisdictional genealogy stretches as far as the Archdioceses of Portland (OR) and Seattle (WA).

Other than the Sees in California, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, and those descended from them (although some of those gained some territory from Baltimore’s descendents), there are virtually no Latin jurisdictions in the US that don’t trace back to Baltimore.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BillyT92679:
I’ve always felt that the Metropolitan of the Province should have more authority. The Holy Father cannot be everywhere at all times overseeing everything. Plus this would be a good stab at collegiality while maintaining hierarchy.

The Metropolitan could keep tabs on less orthodox Dioceses in his Province.
Click to expand...
Billy,

My feelings exactly! I think, especially in our day and time, that this extra “oversight” would be a good thing for the Church. It might keep small things from getting out of control, and would bring more cohesion to the suffragen sees and the provinces.
 
Our “family tree” goes something like this:

Our current diocese (Lafayette, Indiana) was spawned off of the Fort Wayne, Indiana diocese, which was originally part of the Indianapolis diocese, which in turn was originally the Vincennes diocese, which came from the Baltimore diocese.

Baltimore > Indianapolis > Fort Wayne > Lafayette
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top