Auxiliary bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tannhauser_1509
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tannhauser_1509

Guest
What, precisely, is the relationship of auxiliary bishops to the diocesan bishop and also to the presbyterate and laity within the diocese? And why has the Church developed the practice of ordaining bishops to serve as auxiliaries to the local ordinary? Do auxiliary bishops exist outside the Latin church?

Admitting that I’m not well informed on the issue, it seems odd that a diocesan bishop would appoint auxiliaries to the episcopacy.

Thanks for any responses!
 
PaulfromIowa said:
He is essentially an assistant bishop:
Click to expand...
I am aware. Why appoint multiple bishops, instead of dividing a diocese and creating new ones? It just seems weird to have multiple men bearing episcopal authority within one diocese, no disrespect or opposition to canon law intended.
 
Dmitri77 said:
Yes it does…really…really weird. :cool:
Click to expand...
Since you’ve chimed in, Dmitri, I’d like to glean some information from you as an Orthodox.

How do Orthodox bishops handle their jurisdictional responsibilities when they preside over large ecclesiastical districts?
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
Since you’ve chimed in, Dmitri, I’d like to glean some information from you as an Orthodox.

How do Orthodox bishops handle their jurisdictional responsibilities when they preside over large ecclesiastical districts?
Click to expand...
In much the same way. We have auxiliary bishops who act as assistants and are often being groomed to be a diocesan bishop some day. Often times they will be made bishop of a suburb of the see. So the bishop of Detroit’s auxiliary bishop is the bishop of Dearborn Heights. Kudos for picking up on what I was referring to in my prior post. 👍
 
Dmitri77 said:
In much the same way. We have auxiliary bishops who act as assistants and are often being groomed to be a diocesan bishop some day. Often times they will be made bishop of a suburb of the see. So the bishop of Detroit’s auxiliary bishop is the bishop of Dearborn Heights. Kudos for picking up on what I was referring to in my prior post. 👍
Click to expand...
As nice as it sometimes sounds, to have a single bishop presiding in one diocese, I just don’t believe the early bishops could have anticipated a place like America where cultures meet in such a confusing manner and where the need for pastoral diversity is so immense.

As an example, I was watching an interview with the late Francis Cardinal George, in which the cardinal said his own Archdiocese of Chicago facilitates the celebration of Mass in 26 different languages!
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
As nice as it sometimes sounds, to have a single bishop presiding in one diocese, I just don’t believe the early bishops could have anticipated a place like America where cultures meet in such a confusing manner and where the need for pastoral diversity is so immense.!
Click to expand...
That’s a good point.
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
I am aware. Why appoint multiple bishops, instead of dividing a diocese and creating new ones? It just seems weird to have multiple men bearing episcopal authority within one diocese, no disrespect or opposition to canon law intended.
Click to expand...
Except it isn’t really separate independent episcopal authority. It’s really a sharing in the authority of the one Ordinary, said sharing being exercised within such limits and for such tasks as granted by the Ordinary. Also, where else would a young bishop get his training wheels?
 
Having auxiliary bishops is a ubiquitous practice throughout all Apostolic Christianity. How much of what they do is contingent upon why they were created an auxiliary; it could be anything from an honor to having a diocese that’s too large to be administered by one bishop. One reason an auxiliary is appointed is to assist with sacramental administration (confirmations and ordinations) as well as the bureaucratic (some large dioceses have provinces each under the auspices of an auxiliary).
Tannhauser_1509 said:
As nice as it sometimes sounds, to have a single bishop presiding in one diocese, I just don’t believe the early bishops could have anticipated a place like America where cultures meet in such a confusing manner and where the need for pastoral diversity is so immense.
Click to expand...
One bishop does preside in a diocese (auxiliaries are subordinate). What was probably meant was having a singular bishop in a diocese. While I am not necessarily a proponent of a strict and exclusive understanding of one city-one bishop, that is untrue about the bishops of antiquity. In the first half of the first millennium of the Church the Patriarch of Alexandria (a crossroad of the world) would make sure the Syrian community would have a Syrian priest, the Greeks have a Greek priest, etc. The Patristic era bishop was not only informed about the Christians within their see but saw to their needs.
Tannhauser_1509 said:
As an example, I was watching an interview with the late Francis Cardinal George, in which the cardinal said his own Archdiocese of Chicago facilitates the celebration of Mass in 26 different languages!
Click to expand...
That is one of many of the points of a liturgical language.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Except it isn’t really separate independent episcopal authority. It’s really a sharing in the authority of the one Ordinary, said sharing being exercised within such limits and for such tasks as granted by the Ordinary. Also, where else would a young bishop get his training wheels?
Click to expand...
Thank you for that clarification, TR. I’m a new Catholic, so bear with me.
 
MorEphrem said:
One reason an auxiliary is appointed is to assist with sacramental administration (confirmations and ordinations) as well as the bureaucratic (**some large dioceses have provinces **each under the auspices of an auxiliary).
Click to expand...
In principle yes, but in my experience these are usually referred to as vicariates. 😉
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
I am aware. Why appoint multiple bishops, instead of dividing a diocese and creating new ones? It just seems weird to have multiple men bearing episcopal authority within one diocese, no disrespect or opposition to canon law intended.
Click to expand...
Why? Our Archdiocese has 2 Auxiliaries.
The Archbishop is busy…he’s over a huge geographic area, and one Auxiliary is very Pastoral, and the other is fluent Spanish. They each have similar yet, somewhat diverse roles. It’s great to not have to “share” a Confirmation Mass, so for example with several parishes. Each community can have their own celebration without hundreds of kids present. When I was Confirmed eons ago, there were 700 kids there. I can tell you, it was not terribly memorable.

There is PLENTY of work to do. Honest.
 
pianistclare said:
Why? Our Archdiocese has 2 Auxiliaries.
The Archbishop is busy…he’s over a huge geographic area, and one Auxiliary is very Pastoral, and the other is fluent Spanish. They each have similar yet, somewhat diverse roles. It’s great to not have to “share” a Confirmation Mass, so for example with several parishes. Each community can have their own celebration without hundreds of kids present. When I was Confirmed eons ago, there were 700 kids there. I can tell you, it was not terribly memorable.

There is PLENTY of work to do. Honest.
Click to expand...
Tarpeian Rock has already made a helpful clarification to my bewilderment. Others’ posts have helped, as well.
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Except it isn’t really separate independent episcopal authority. It’s really a sharing in the authority of the one Ordinary, said sharing being exercised within such limits and for such tasks as granted by the Ordinary. Also, where else would a young bishop get his training wheels?
Click to expand...
 
pianistclare said:
Wow…so basically, you don’t want or need my response.
Great.
How nice of you to say so. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not. What. I. Said. :o

I was just saying that TR’s clarification was helpful. Please don’t burst into virtual tears! You’ll only make me feel like a horrible person 😊

Maybe, possibly, potentially, perhaps, I could have been gentler in my response to you. But the past is in the past… Please forgive me if I’ve offended you. God bless!
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
I thought I’d get an Easterner to sympathize with that statement :rolleyes:

God bless, Dmitri!
Click to expand...
Since much of Christianity was lost to the Moslem. There are many ancient historical see’s that were
Lost . Including St Augustines
Many Auxillary Bishops represent those see’s in to honor their memory and pray for their reconversion.
 
gus said:
Since much of Christianity was lost to the Moslem. There are many ancient historical see’s that were
Lost . Including St Augustines
Many Auxillary Bishops represent those see’s in to honor their memory and pray for their reconversion.
Click to expand...
The Annuario Pontificio lists almost 2,400 titular sees. Though auxiliary bishops don’t usually take their titular see with too much seriousness, it certainly would be nice if they were able actually to take hold of them in the future.
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
The Annuario Pontificio lists almost 2,400 titular sees. Though auxiliary bishops don’t usually take their titular see with too much seriousness, it certainly would be nice if they were able actually to take hold of them in the future.
Click to expand...
It’s honorary. And serves as a memorial.
We should never forget
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top