S
Spirithound
Guest
So I’ve been thinking, if a diocese is populous enough that it seems to require one or more auxiliary bishops along with the Ordinary to run it properly, why not create another diocese out of it?
Also think of the expense it would take to have a duplicate of everything that goes into a diocese.Sometimes it is a way to get the person who will be the new Bishop up to speed. Also like all of us Bishops age and with age often comes an inability to do all the work required of the Bishop, so…that is my understanding.
What you are describing would probably be more accuratley applied to a coadjutor bishop. That is what is going on in Cincinnati right now, for example. As Archbishop Pilarczyk approaches the 75, Schnurr was named Coadjutor Archbishop. That basically means he’s next in line for that diocese once Pilarczyk retires (this August, or thereabouts).Sometimes it is a way to get the person who will be the new Bishop up to speed. Also like all of us Bishops age and with age often comes an inability to do all the work required of the Bishop, so…that is my understanding.
Peace, Marduk!Simply put, it is against one of the most ancient canon laws to take away a jurisdiction or portions of a jurisdiction of a bishop. A diocese may be enlarged, and eventually become an Archbishopric or a Metropolitan See, to include surrounding episcopal sees, but the original basic dioceses would and must remain. Canon 431-3 of the Latin Code states that only the Supreme authority of the Church my “alter” a jurisdiction, but as far as I know, that only involves the expansion of a jurisdiction, not the reduction of it.
A bishop’s jurisdiction is part of what are called “acquired rights.” Not even the Pope, according to Canon law, can harm the acquired right of another.
Blessings,
Marduk
Hi Spirithound,So I’ve been thinking, if a diocese is populous enough that it seems to require one or more auxiliary bishops along with the Ordinary to run it properly, why not create another diocese out of it?