Archdiocese and Diocese

  • Thread starter Thread starter harinkj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

harinkj

Guest
What is the difference between an archdiocese and a diocese? Is it just size? Or do all dioceses belong to an archdiocese? Also, what are the bishops in an archdiocese or diocese who are called auxiliary bishops? :hmmm:
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
40.png
harinkj:
What is the difference between an archdiocese and a diocese? Is it just size? Or do all dioceses belong to an archdiocese? Also, what are the bishops in an archdiocese or diocese who are called auxiliary bishops? :hmmm:
  • Kathie :bowdown:
An archbishop or metropolitan, in the present sense of the term, is a bishop who governs a diocese strictly his own, while he presides at the same time over the bishops of a well-defined district composed of simple dioceses but not of provinces. Hence none of these subordinate bishops rule over others. These bishops are called the suffragans or comprovincials. The archbishop’s own diocese is the archdiocese. The several dioceses of the district form the archiepiscopal, or metropolitan, province. Per Catholic Encyclopedia

Auxillary bishops are those subordinate bishops allowed for and approved by the Apostolic See. The only difference between a diocese and an archdiocese is the size (population) and importance of the episcopal territory.
 
In simpler terms, each bishop/diocese has an archbishop/archdiocese that it remains independent of, but is technically still under. The only time this really has any effect is when the bishop of a diocese dies or is transfered, in which case the ruling archbishop then runs the diocese until a new bishop is installed.

Josh
 
Vatican II:
An archbishop or metropolitan, in the present sense of the term, is a bishop who governs a diocese strictly his own, while he presides at the same time over the bishops of a well-defined district composed of simple dioceses but not of provinces. Hence none of these subordinate bishops rule over others. These bishops are called the suffragans or comprovincials. The archbishop’s own diocese is the archdiocese. The several dioceses of the district form the archiepiscopal, or metropolitan, province. Per Catholic Encyclopedia

Auxillary bishops are those subordinate bishops allowed for and approved by the Apostolic See. The only difference between a diocese and an archdiocese is the size (population) and importance of the episcopal territory.
Actually, the dioceses in the Western Church are gathered into groups known as Ecclesiastical Provinces. This would appear to be based on the system of provinces that made up the Roman Empire in the days of the early Church. Each deocese has a bishop who governs it. One of these dioceses is named as the Metropolitan or arch (i.e.chief) diocese. this corresponds roughly to a provincial or state capital. The bishop of this archdiocese is called an archbishop or, normally, metropolitan but it is important to remember that the archbishop is metropolitan over the other dioceses of the province. The choice of one of these dioceses as the Archdiocese usually historic e.g. it might have been the first one in the territory. For thre record, there exist archdioceses which are not Metropolitan Sees and even Metropolitan archdioceses which have do dioceses under them but these are peculiarities.

If a diocese is large the bishop may ask for assistance and he will be given and auxiliary bishop who is named as titular bishop of some extinct diocese so that he is free to assist the Bishop of the diocese who needs the help.
 
40.png
threej_lc:
In simpler terms, each bishop/diocese has an archbishop/archdiocese that it remains independent of, but is technically still under. The only time this really has any effect is when the bishop of a diocese dies or is transfered, in which case the ruling archbishop then runs the diocese until a new bishop is installed.

Josh
Not quite. The diocese who has lost the bishop selects someone to run the diocese during the time it is sede vacante (empty seat). This is usually an auxilliary bishop (if there is one) but it could be any priest.

The archbishop (metropolitan) has no direct authority over any of the sees that are in his province. His primary responsibility is to call the bishops of the province when something that affects all of them is discovered. The sole exception to this is that the metropolitan bishop is always authorized to carry his crozier with the “hook” part facing outward in any diocese of his province. This is normally the right of the bishop of that diocese and all other bishops carry the crozier with the crook facing in.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
. . . The archbishop (metropolitan) has no direct authority over any of the sees that are in his province. …
Deacon Ed
Yes and to elaborate just a bit.

If the diocesan college of consultors fails to elect a diocesan administrator, only then can the archbishop (metropolitan) name one according to canon 421.

Otherwise canon 436 provides him to inform the Roman Pontiff of any abuses in the suffragan diocese, conduct the canonical visitation if neglected by that bishop after approval from the Apostolic See. The canon says he possesses no other power of governance within the suffragan dioceses.

He does have certain other liturgical privileges in a suffragan see, so that he can perform sacred functions there, usually first informing its bishop.

He can also be delegated special duties by the Apostolic See in relation to the suffragan dioceses. Metropolitans from the Latin Rite have no jurisdiction over Metropolitans or eparchs (bishops) of the Eastern Churches, and vice versa, without special delegation from the Apostolic See.

If the Metropolitan is also a cardinal, he has faculties to hear confessions throughout the world. But even then, he would need delegation to validly assist at a wedding in one of the suffragan sees.
 
One other point about an archbishop.

The ‘symbol’ of the Archbishop is the Pallium, a white collar with generally black crosses on it.

The Archbishop may wear his Pallium anywhere within his Province,(not just his own diocese), but not outside of it.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
I’m still confused.
MJ,

As Charles said, “can’t imagine why” :rolleyes:

Let me offer a succinct response to Kathie’s question, avoiding citation to the outdated o/l Catholic Encyclopedia and to Canon Law.
40.png
harinkj:
What is the difference between an archdiocese and a diocese? Is it just size? Or do all dioceses belong to an archdiocese?
Kathie,

An archdiocese is NOT a collection of dioceses.
  • An archdiocese is an archdiocese.
  • A diocese is a diocese.
A diocese is ordinarily headed by a bishop; an archdiocese by an archbishop. (Occasionally, a diocese is headed by a bishop who holds the title of “archbishop ad honorem” or “archbishop ad personam”, indicating that the title was conferred on him as an honorific or personal title, because of service to the Church, rather than because he heads an archdiocese).

It is incorrect to speak of a diocese or its bishop as being “under”, “in”, or “belonging to” an archdiocese or archbishop.

Most archdioceses are also metropolitan sees, in which case the archbishop is, technically, called a metropolitan archbishop. A metropolitan see (a/k/a metropolitanate, metropolia, metropolis) is the principal jurisdiction (or See) within an ecclesiastical province.

An ecclesiastical province generally consists of a metropolitan archdiocese and one or more dioceses (in rare instances, some also include another archdiocese that isn’t a metropolitan archdiocese). The other Sees (usually dioceses) within the ecclesiastical province were, historically, referred to as suffragn (or dependent) Sees and the bishops of those Sees were said to be suffragn to the metropolitan archbishop.

In practical terms, however, suffragn is, today, essentially an anachronistic holdover from an earlier era, when a metropolitan archbishop exercised actual authority. For more than a century, the practical relationship between a metropolitan archbishop and the bishops of the dioceses in the same ecclesiastical province has been essentially only collegial.

Before advances in communication and transportation technology made it possible for Rome to contact or be contacted by almost any hierarch within a matter of hours, metropolitans exercised considerable jurisdictional authority over their suffragns. That’s now solely a matter of historical interest and the role of metropolitan is essentially honorific, having very limited authority with respect to his suffragns. A metropolitan’s rights are:
  • to have the place of precedence over any hierarch (other than a patriach or a papal legate) in any procession or ecclesiastical function within a suffragn diocese at which he happens to be in attendance
  • to display or have his symbol of office (e.g., his archepiscopal crozier) borne before him when participating in any ecclesiastical function within a suffragn diocese. (Ordinarily, a hierarch - other than a patriarch or papal legate - has no right to display the signs of his jurisdictional authority outside of his own territorial bounds)
  • to convoke a provincial council once in every three years, which his suffragns are bound to attend, for the purpose of non-binding discussion relative to issues and/or problems common to two or more of the jurisdictions within the province
  • to lead his suffragns in their visits made every five years to the Holy See (i.e., the dicennial ad limina visits) to report on the state of their jurisdictions
  • to afford a tribunal to hear appeals made to it from decisions that were originally rendered in the tribunals of his suffragn jurisdictions, and
  • to name the vicar capitular of a suffragn diocese which is sede vacante or without a bishop, but only if the chapter of the suffragn diocese failed to do so within the required 8 days after the death of its bishop
40.png
harinkj:
What are the bishops in an archdiocese or diocese who are called auxiliary bishops?
They are bishops named by Rome to assist the archbishop or bishop in his task of administering his archdiocese or diocese. In large jurisdictions, each auxiliary may be responsible for oversight of a geographic area, called a deanery. He serves as a resource for the pastors and priests who serve parishes within the deanery and keeps the archbishop or bishop advised of needs, issues, concerns.

In very large jurisdictions which operate multiple services, such as a school system, social service agencies, or a health care system, an auxiliary may be appointed as the superintendent, director, or administrator of the services.

In jurisdictions with a large population of ethnic faithful who are recent immigrants, an auxiliary (perhaps of the same ethnicity) may be designated specific responsibility to oversee the pastoral needs of and ministry to those faithful.

Many years,

Neil
 
Irish Melkite:
An archdiocese is NOT a collection of dioceses.
  • An archdiocese is an archdiocese.
  • A diocese is a diocese.
A diocese is ordinarily headed by a bishop; an archdiocese by an archbishop. (Occasionally, a diocese is headed by a bishop who holds the title of “archbishop ad honorem” or “archbishop ad personam”, indicating that the title was conferred on him as an honorific or personal title, because of service to the Church, rather than because he heads an archdiocese).

It is incorrect to speak of a diocese or its bishop as being “under”, “in”, or “belonging to” an archdiocese or archbishop.

Most archdioceses are also metropolitan sees, in which case the archbishop is, technically, called a metropolitan archbishop. A metropolitan see (a/k/a metropolitanate, metropolia, metropolis) is the principal jurisdiction (or See) within an ecclesiastical province.

An ecclesiastical province generally consists of a metropolitan archdiocese and one or more dioceses (in rare instances, some also include another archdiocese that isn’t a metropolitan archdiocese). The other Sees (usually dioceses) within the ecclesiastical province were, historically, referred to as suffragn (or dependent) Sees and the bishops of those Sees were said to be suffragn to the metropolitan archbishop.

In practical terms, however, suffragn is, today, essentially an anachronistic holdover from an earlier era, when a metropolitan archbishop exercised actual authority. For more than a century, the practical relationship between a metropolitan archbishop and the bishops of the dioceses in the same ecclesiastical province has been essentially only collegial.

Before advances in communication and transportation technology made it possible for Rome to contact or be contacted by almost any hierarch within a matter of hours, metropolitans exercised considerable jurisdictional authority over their suffragns. That’s now solely a matter of historical interest and the role of metropolitan is essentially honorific, having very limited authority with respect to his suffragns. A metropolitan’s rights are:
  • to have the place of precedence over any hierarch (other than a patriach or a papal legate) in any procession or ecclesiastical function within a suffragn diocese at which he happens to be in attendance
  • to display or have his symbol of office (e.g., his archepiscopal crozier) borne before him when participating in any ecclesiastical function within a suffragn diocese. (Ordinarily, a hierarch - other than a patriarch or papal legate - has no right to display the signs of his jurisdictional authority outside of his own territorial bounds)
  • to convoke a provincial council once in every three years, which his suffragns are bound to attend, for the purpose of non-binding discussion relative to issues and/or problems common to two or more of the jurisdictions within the province
  • to lead his suffragns in their visits made every five years to the Holy See (i.e., the dicennial ad limina visits) to report on the state of their jurisdictions
  • to afford a tribunal to hear appeals made to it from decisions that were originally rendered in the tribunals of his suffragn jurisdictions, and
  • to name the vicar capitular of a suffragn diocese which is sede vacante or without a bishop, but only if the chapter of the suffragn diocese failed to do so within the required 8 days after the death of its bishop
Very succinctly put Neil. I might add that the Archdioceses without suffragens are usually created for political reasons. Here our Metropolitan See is Sydney, the oldest in Australia and also located in the largest city in Australia. One of its suffragens was Goulburn a small country town south west of Sydney. When our articial capital was created at Canberra within the territory of the Diocese of Goulburn it was inevitable that the seat of the diocese would ultimately transfer there. For historical reasons it was then renamed Canberra and Goulburn (although contrary to usual practice in conjoined sees there is no co-cathedral in Goulburn, the former cathedral having been reduced to the status of parish church). Because the See of the Capital could not be seen as being lowe thatn Sydney it was elevated to an Archdiocese but as it fell within the bounds of the Province of Sydney it could not act as a Metropolitan See. Accordingly it is directly under the authority of Rome being neither Metropolitan nor Suffragen.
 
Thank you Neil. You explained it very well. :clapping:

Kathie :bowdown:
 
Thanks Neil, well done.

Can a diocese change to an archdiocese or revert back?
 
I was wondering what is the difference between a Bishop and an ArchBishop, a Diosce and an ArchDiosce? And other than electing a Pope is there any diffrence between the previous two and a Cardnail? Thanks and God bless.
 
Montie Claunch:
I was wondering what is the difference between a Bishop and an ArchBishop, a Diosce and an ArchDiosce? And other than electing a Pope is there any diffrence between the previous two and a Cardnail? Thanks and God bless.
Sorry to be a bit rude, but to help you on your way in RCIA here are some spelling corrections:

Archbishop
Archdiocese
Diocese
Cardinal

A bishop is the highest office in the Sacramental Ministry. Even the Pope is technically, only a Bishop (but successor to an Apostle, however still just a Bishop). An Archbishop used to have some authority in the surrounding diocese’s this was symbolised by his wearing the Pallium in his own territory. However recently, this has been reduced to mostly ceremonial duties. A cardinal is part of the senate of the Church and advises the Holy Father. Aside from titles, and a few special perogatives, they are only Bishops (unless they on their appointment choose to remain priests)…

Someone might make it clearer for you. 👍
 
**For an answer to the questions it may be helpful to review:

See Posts 10 & 11**
 
I remember reading somewhere a couple of years ago that the Holy See was wanting to “'expand” the duties of the archbishops once again to include more supervision of the suffragen sees around him.

This supposedly comes in the wake of the sex abuse scandel. Sorry, but I can’t find the source, since it’s been a couple of years.
 
40.png
muledog:
I remember reading somewhere a couple of years ago that the Holy See was wanting to “'expand” the duties of the archbishops once again to include more supervision of the suffragen sees around him.

This supposedly comes in the wake of the sex abuse scandel. Sorry, but I can’t find the source, since it’s been a couple of years.
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.
 
40.png
muledog:
I remember reading somewhere a couple of years ago that the Holy See was wanting to “'expand” the duties of the archbishops once again to include more supervision of the suffragen sees around him.

This supposedly comes in the wake of the sex abuse scandel. Sorry, but I can’t find the source, since it’s been a couple of years.
The Archbishop as Metropolotin still has the right of vigilance over his suffrage Sees. However, this is very rarely used and only in the gravest of all circumstances. In the context of today I would say that an Archbishop would not excercise his authority over a bishop unless he were a serial killer or worse.
 
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.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top