Aux Bishop who outranks his Ordinary

[phil19034]

That being said, the general rule is that a Cardinal who is not a diocesan bishop is to live in Rome (c. 356), thereby limiting the possible conflicts…

Well, except for retired archbishops (who are Cardinals), they often stay put. For example, Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua both lived in Philadelphia (at the seminary) while their successor was the Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia.

However, Cardinal Rigali moved to the Diocese of Knoxville to live with the Bishop of Knoxville. Cardinal Rigali, while technically Archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia, acts as Aux Bishop of Knoxville

Go figure

 

[twf]

You make good points. Major archdioceses can no longer assume that they’ll get a Cardinal… while obscure smaller dioceses may.

 

[phil19034]

It is still a very odd situation. Even if the archbishop, as ordinary, has greater authority in that particular archdiocese, the cardinal auxiliary bishop technically outranks him in precedence.

But not inside the boundaries of his archdiocese.

 

[phil19034]

I’m inclined to agree that notions of rank and precedence are rarely helpful in the Church

The rank of precedence in the Church is helpful when bishops are lining up to process into Mass or some other liturgical event. The precedence lets them automatically know who stands where in the line.

And who sits where when they attend state dinners, etc.

But otherwise, as far as the day to day work of the Church, it doesn’t matter.

 

[dochawk]

AFAIK, the office of a cardinal doesent add that much to the power of a cleric. He is still outranked by his Ordinary by virtue of his auxiliary nature.

And to really mix things up, for some purposes that go above my head, the byzantine Metropolitan of Pittsburgh outranks every single Roman Catholic bishop, archbishop, and cardinal in the US, being the head of a sui juris church . . .

hawk

p.s., I think it’s all of North America, or event the Americas, but I"m not certain. I don’t think Canada, Mexico, or South America has a sui juris Catholic church . . .

 

[twf]

By all rights, I certainly think that he should outrank cardinals and metropolitans of the Latin Church… but does he really? I’ve seen convincing arguments that patriarchs outrank cardinals, but in practice, as it currently stands, does that actually apply to primates of Eastern Churches who hold the rank of metropolitan?

Speaking of precedence within the Americas, the Archbishop of Santo Domingo in the DR holds the title of “Primate of the Americas”, but the current archbishop is not a cardinal (though the emeritus is) and thus would be outranked by any cardinals in the Americas.

 

[dochawk]

By all rights, I certainly think that he should outrank cardinals and metropolitans of the Latin Church… but does he really?

It depends upon which standard of precedence is used.

This is the vatican; you didn’t think they’d only have one way, did you?

Also, there is a trend among Eastern patriarchs (the real ones, not the substitutes for the Orthodox) and Major Archbishops to turn down the appointment as a cardinal, as it is fundamentally intrinsic to the Latin Church, and not even appropriate for these outsiders to be part of that.

hawk

 

[twf]

I know the Melkite Patriarch has refused the red hat.

Do you know of any concrete example of the American Byzantine Metropolitan taking precedence over Latin Cardinals? Just curious.

 

[phil19034]

Maximilian75:

AFAIK, the office of a cardinal doesent add that much to the power of a cleric. He is still outranked by his Ordinary by virtue of his auxiliary nature.

And to really mix things up, for some purposes that go above my head, the byzantine Metropolitan of Pittsburgh outranks every single Roman Catholic bishop, archbishop, and cardinal in the US, being the head of a sui juris church . . .

hawk

p.s., I think it’s all of North America, or event the Americas, but I"m not certain. I don’t think Canada, Mexico, or South America has a sui juris Catholic church . . .

I thought the Byzantine Archbishop in Pittsburgh was an Archbishop, not a Major Archbishop?

 

[phil19034]

Also, there is a trend among Eastern patriarchs (the real ones, not the substitutes for the Orthodox) and Major Archbishops to turn down the appointment as a cardinal, as it is fundamentally intrinsic to the Latin Church, and not even appropriate for these outsiders to be part of that.

FYI - There are 4 Major Archbishops in the Church

The 3 are Cardinals, only the current Ukrainian one isn’t, but the previous one (who died this last summer) was

Major Archdiocese of Ernakulam–Angamaly, India 🇮🇳 (Syro-Malabar Rite)

The major archbishop is Major Archbishop Raphael Thattil, elected in 2024.

www.gcatholic.org

Major Archdiocese of Fagaras and Alba Julia, Romania 🇷🇴 (Romanian Rite)

The major archbishop is Major Archbishop Claudiu-Lucian Pop, elected on 5 November 2025.

www.gcatholic.org

Major Archdiocese of Kiev–Galicia, Ukraine 🇺🇦 (Ukrainian Rite)

The major archbishop is Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, elected in 2011.

www.gcatholic.org

Major Archdiocese of Trivandrum, India 🇮🇳 (Syro-Malankara Rite)

The major archbishop is Cardinal Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal, elected in 2007.

www.gcatholic.org

 

[otjm]

I believe it was Avery Dulles who was made a Cardinal, but not ordained bishop. And that was at his request.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Apparently Cardinal Chavez is my father’s cousin.

 

[runningdude]

Doesn’t matter. The bishop has definitive authority over liturgical matters in the diocese.

 

[OldCAFMember]

However, Cardinal Rigali moved to the Diocese of Knoxville to live with the Bishop of Knoxville. Cardinal Rigali, while technically Archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia, acts as Aux Bishop of Knoxville

How does he act as auxiliary bishop? I know that he assists with confirmations, etc., but that’s a long way from acting as auxiliary bishop. Is he in charge of any area, or have any authority in the chancery?

 

[tafan2]

twf:

Even if the archbishop, as ordinary, has greater authority in that particular archdiocese, the cardinal auxiliary bishop technically outranks him in precedence.

By your logic, the office of cardinal and the whole notion of precedence should be done away with completely. Yet that isn’t the case.

What is this notion of “precedence” you keep mentioning? There is a hierarchy of the clergy church, not a precedence. And the hierarchy itself is a rather flat organizational structure : pope, bishop, priest, deacon.
Being a cardinal simply makes you a member of the clergy of the Roman Diocese. It has nothing to do with precedence. Certainly it is a title given to people for distinction, and it has practical purposes. But it confers no precedence, to my knowledge.

 

[tafan2]

Yes, and he likely had Jesuit superiors who were not cardinals. It did not change anything.

 

[tafan2]

That is a rather limited view of a bishop’s authority.

 

[twf]

Liturgical precedence… ever seen a procession of clerics at solemn masses? They process in a particular order determined by precedence. If in Rome with the cardinals in attendance, the Cardinal-Bishops take precedence over the Cardinal-Priests, for example. Within a province, the metropolitan takes precedence over other bishops. Yes it is a thing. Is it critical to our faith? Of course not… but it has a long tradition.

 

[tafan2]

Well, I am not for sure if there are absolute rules for liturgical precedence. I would assume that if they exist, they take into account a cardinal being of a lower order in the hierarchy than a bishop. If the only issue is liturgical issues, I really don’t see a problem at all with having a auxiliary bishop or priest being a cardinal and his bishop not being a cardinal.

 

[runningdude]

I am addressing only on the relevant aspect of the bishop’s authority. There is no conflicting authority regarding the issues in @Maximilian75 's post.