Bishops

[Matthew_Holford]

This has long been a touchy point for the EC Patriarchs, and some of the order has to do with the idea, under the older Code of Canon Law, of the degree to which the cardinals “participated in the Pope’s supreme power” and were his advisors. At Vatican II, after the first few sessions, with the intervention of Maximos IV, the Patriarchs of the greater sees, when seated, were placed opposite the cardinals to avoid them being de-ranked.

However, for all the documents, Patriachs, unless they had a cardinalatial rank, they signed after the Cardinals, and no distinction was made between Eastern and Western.

I know that this is a very touchy subject for ECs. I held the belief for a long time that cardinals were higher ranking than EC Patriarchs. I held that view for so long that I couldn’t really say how I developed it. I also felt it was supported by the rank given to EC Patriarchs given a cardinalate. Although EC Patriarchs are always made cardinal-bishops when given a cardinalate they rank below the 6 Latin cardinal-bishops. However, from another thread I started on here I became convinced that EC Patriarchs should outrank cardinals because EC Patriarchs are the primates of sui iuris Churches whereas as cardinal is basically an honorary title in the Latin Church. Then I recently read that an EC hierarch submitted a proposal during the recent Synod for the Middle East that EC Patriarchs should outrank cardinals. Yet, Canon 58 of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches says: “Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.” It’s all very confusing. Has the Pope issued any special norms in this regard?

The reason why I thought there was a difference between eastern and western patriarchs is that eastern ones are the heads of sui iuris Churches and western ones had only the same authority in their see that any (arch)diocesan (Arch)Bishop has in his See.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I’ll see if I can hunt up some for you.

I’d be very grateful if you could do that.

Noonan’s The Church Visible also contains a precedence chart but it is quite inaccurate in the details - particularly egregious is the “absolute precedence” rule he applies for liturgical functions.

What is your personal opinion of Noonan’s book? I’ve often thought of buying it but I hear a lot of mixed reviews about it.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I think you are spot on here. The authority to grant faculties lies with the ordinary. In a diocese that is the bishop of the diocese which excommunication would remove. In religious orders/communities it also lies with the ordinary which is the religious superior.

So if the granting of faculties came through episcopal ordination then every religious superior would need to be a bishop.

Thank you for that. I hadn’t even gone as far down the thought process that major religious superiors are ordinaries too and that most of them don’t have the episcopal order so as you rightly point out that would, according to runningdude’s contention, mean most religious superiors would not be able to grant faculties.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

For example, the Archbishop of Westminster has precedence over the other bishops of the UK (unless they are cardinals, of course, and he isn’t) which was granted in Si qua est - like a primate but not. Essentially, it was to ape the old position which Canterbury enjoyed.

Do you know of any Church document that makes provision for this?

In 1850, the Catholic Hierarchy was re-established in England and Wales. Westminster was the sole province at first. In 1911, two more provinces were created. The Catholic Encyclopaedia on the New Advent website states that from that time the Archbishop of Westminster became the “chief metropolitan” and enjoyed the privileges of being entitled to wear his pallium throughout England and Wales and not just in his province and to have his archiepiscopal cross carried before him throughout England and Wales. I don’t know if this still applies as the article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia on the New Advent website is ca. 100 years old.

Often, he will take precedence as up until now all Archbishops of Westminster since the restoration of the hierarchy have been made cardinals.

 

[runningdude]

I think you are spot on here. The authority to grant faculties lies with the ordinary. In a diocese that is the bishop of the diocese which excommunication would remove. In religious orders/communities it also lies with the ordinary which is the religious superior.

So if the granting of faculties came through episcopal ordination then every religious superior would need to be a bishop.

Thank you for that. I hadn’t even gone as far down the thought process that major religious superiors are ordinaries too and that most of them don’t have the episcopal order so as you rightly point out that would, according to runningdude’s contention, mean most religious superiors would not be able to grant faculties.

I concede I am partially mistaken. I did not have religious superiors in mind when. I am not familiar with how faculties work in the case of religious orders.

My contention about a bishop being able to grant illicit faculties I believe still applies, if the excommunicated bishop in question (poor fictional character) declared himself head of an illicit diocese. I may have been a little sloppy expressing that. He would then be a schismatic in addition to whatever got him sacked in the first place However, I may be mistaken about schismatics having any sort of faculties. It get pretty darn complicated at this level. I will try to double check and post my sources.

I am very confident though that offering confession a is a right of ordination to the episcopate. A bishop can always perform valid absolution, even if illicitly.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I concede I am partially mistaken. I did not have religious superiors in mind when. I am not familiar with how faculties work in the case of religious orders.

My contention about a bishop being able to grant illicit faculties I believe still applies, if the excommunicated bishop in question (poor fictional character) declared himself head of an illicit diocese. I may have been a little sloppy expressing that. He would then be a schismatic in addition to whatever got him sacked in the first place However, I may be mistaken about schismatics having any sort of faculties. It get pretty darn complicated at this level. I will try to double check and post my sources.

I am very confident though that offering confession a is a right of ordination to the episcopate. A bishop can always perform valid absolution, even if illicitly.

The idea that an excommunicated bishop can issue illicit faculties seems to be a convoluted argument. Basically, if an excommunicated bishop issued illicit faculties then they would in themselves be worthless. Of course, a bishop may attempt to issue faculties if he were going down the road of schism. This brings into mind the situation with Archbishop Lefebvre. With regards to confession bishops and priests, in good standing or not, generally have the faculty, granted by universal law, to hear confessions. I think this applies in urgent situations such as the penitent being in danger of death and no other bishop or priest being available. This is done not to preserve the rights of the cleric but for the benefit of the faithful. I don’t think bishops/priests who’ve been excommunicated or who are under some other canonical penalty or laicised could hear routine confessions on Saturday afternoon.

Similarly they may be able to administer other sacraments to persons in imminent danger of death, e.g. baptism, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and Communion as Viaticum.

I think it’s also important to bear in mind that many of a priest’s faculties derive from universal law rather than directly from his Ordinary.

 

[runningdude]

The idea that an excommunicated bishop can issue illicit faculties seems to be a convoluted argument. Basically, if an excommunicated bishop issued illicit faculties then they would in themselves be worthless. Of course, a bishop may attempt to issue faculties if he were going down the road of schism. This brings into mind the situation with Archbishop Lefebvre. With regards to confession bishops and priests, in good standing or not, generally have the faculty, granted by universal law, to hear confessions. I think this applies in urgent situations such as the penitent being in danger of death and no other bishop or priest being available. This is done not to preserve the rights of the cleric but for the benefit of the faithful. I don’t think bishops/priests who’ve been excommunicated or who are under some other canonical penalty or laicised could hear routine confessions on Saturday afternoon.

Similarly they may be able to administer other sacraments to persons in imminent danger of death, e.g. baptism, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and Communion as Viaticum.

I think it’s also important to bear in mind that many of a priest’s faculties derive from universal law rather than directly from his Ordinary.

I believe it was Archbishop Lefabvre who original sparked my interest in this. I’m having a bought of insomnia right now, so I haven’t yet looked up my sources yet. In the mean time, this is the best explanation I found so far…

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...bTIROQ&t=1&usg=__rSxSokHwuWN5O7QVGtaXB2zTaRc=
“illicit facilities”

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I believe it was Archbishop Lefabvre who original sparked my interest in this. I’m having a bought of insomnia right now, so I haven’t yet looked up my sources yet. In the mean time, this is the best explanation I found so far…

Perhaps this may help, reading it might resolve your insomnia, although writing it has not helped mine

A priest is usually granted a pagella of faculties. If the priest is incardinated in a particular church (titular patriarchate/archdiocese/diocese, territorial prelature, territorial abbacy, vicariate apostolic, prefecture apostolic, or permanently established apostolic administration), personal prelature, institute of consecrated life, or a society of apostolic life which has the faculty to incardinate priests, he is granted his pagella of faculties by his ordinary (titular patriarch/archbishop/bishop, territorial prelate, territorial abbot, vicar apostolic, prefect apostolic, apostolic administrator, personal prelate, or major religious superior) and retains those faculties unless revoked. Thus, the death, retirement, transfer, or removal from office of their ordinary will not revoke their faculties.

If a priest is appointed to serve in a particular church, personal prelature, institute of consecrated life, or a society of apostolic life which has the faculty to incardinate priests, he retains his pagella of faculties for as long as he is in the service of that particular church, personal prelature, institute of consecrated life, or a society of apostolic life which has the faculty to incardinate priests.

 

[AJV]

Do you know of any Church document that makes provision for this?

In 1850, the Catholic Hierarchy was re-established in England and Wales. Westminster was the sole province at first. In 1911, two more provinces were created. The Catholic Encyclopaedia on the New Advent website states that from that time the Archbishop of Westminster became the “chief metropolitan” and enjoyed the privileges of being entitled to wear his pallium throughout England and Wales and not just in his province and to have his archiepiscopal cross carried before him throughout England and Wales. I don’t know if this still applies as the article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia on the New Advent website is ca. 100 years old.

Often, he will take precedence as up until now all Archbishops of Westminster since the restoration of the hierarchy have been made cardinals.

As I mentioned Si qua est

vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2003%20%5B1911%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf

however, the privilege of the archiepiscopal cross has essentially been rendered null by the revised Ceremonial of Bishops and Pontificalis Ritus.

 

[AJV]

I know that this is a very touchy subject for ECs. I held the belief for a long time that cardinals were higher ranking than EC Patriarchs. I held that view for so long that I couldn’t really say how I developed it. I also felt it was supported by the rank given to EC Patriarchs given a cardinalate. Although EC Patriarchs are always made cardinal-bishops when given a cardinalate they rank below the 6 Latin cardinal-bishops. However, from another thread I started on here I became convinced that EC Patriarchs should outrank cardinals because EC Patriarchs are the primates of sui iuris Churches whereas as cardinal is basically an honorary title in the Latin Church. Then I recently read that an EC hierarch submitted a proposal during the recent Synod for the Middle East that EC Patriarchs should outrank cardinals. Yet, Canon 58 of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches says: “Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.” It’s all very confusing. Has the Pope issued any special norms in this regard?

I am not 100% sure of the ranking system within the Patriarchal territory. I *believe *the meaning of the canon essentially is:

In the Patriarchal territory, the Patriarch will outrank all others, but in certain events (e.g. Papal events in Rome), the Roman system of precedence will be followed (essentially the order I gave above, which dates from 1965).

Hence the clause for the special norms of precedence. This would be an improvement over the 1957 regulations, which ranked cardinals above Patriarchs even in the Patriarchal territory.

I cannot point directly to a recent document that outlines this form of precedence - I am sure, though, that one must exist because the order followed in recent times (for example, during the last Papal funeral, and during prior Episcopal Synods) was the order that I had given above, vis

Cardinal Bishops
Cardinals who are Patriarchs
Cardinal Priests
Cardinal Deacons
Patriarchs
Archbishops
Bishops

My suggestion if you want to know the document is to write to Rome, either to the CDW or perhaps better (especially if you know Italian) the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Pontiff, and they’ll probably be able to tell you.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

My suggestion if you want to know the document is to write to Rome, either to the CDW or perhaps better (especially if you know Italian) the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Pontiff, and they’ll probably be able to tell you.

Thanks for that advice. Doesn’t the Secretriat of State also deal with ceremonial/precedence?

I don’t know Italian; does that reduce my chances of a reply?

Do you think they would respond to such a request?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

As I mentioned Si qua est

vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2003%20%5B1911%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf

however, the privilege of the archiepiscopal cross has essentially been rendered null by the revised Ceremonial of Bishops and Pontificalis Ritus.

Thanks for the document AJV. As you know Si qua est is in there could you please, please point me to the page (if you can remember it) I’m not 100% sure what I’m looking for and its 700+ pages long.

 

[lon]

Thanks for the document AJV. As you know Si qua est is in there could you please, please point me to the page (if you can remember it) I’m not 100% sure what I’m looking for and its 700+ pages long.

I ran a quick search on the phrase ‘si qua est’ in the document and came up with page 553. I don’t know latin so I don’t know if this is what you are looking for, but fyi.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I ran a quick search on the phrase ‘si qua est’ in the document and came up with page 553. I don’t know latin so I don’t know if this is what you are looking for, but fyi.

Ion thank you so very much, that’s exactly what I wanted! Now, I just have to get it translated into English.

 

[MarkThompson]

Ion thank you so very much, that’s exactly what I wanted! Now, I just have to get it translated into English.

The relevant quote (this is what you were interested in?) says of the Archbishop of Westminster: “He shall enjoy first place over the other two Archbishops [sc. of Birmingham and Liverpool] and in fact the use of the pallium and cathedra and the privilege of being preceded by a cross in all Anglia and Cambria.” (“Primo gaudebit loco super aliis duobus Archiepiscopis nec non pallii et cathedrae usu atque praeferendae crucis privilegio in universa Anglia et Cambria.”)

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The relevant quote (this is what you were interested in?) says of the Archbishop of Westminster: “He shall enjoy first place over the other two Archbishops [sc. of Birmingham and Liverpool] and in fact the use of the pallium and cathedra and the privilege of being preceded by a cross in all Anglia and Cambria.” (“Primo gaudebit loco super aliis duobus Archiepiscopis nec non pallii et cathedrae usu atque praeferendae crucis privilegio in universa Anglia et Cambria.”)

Thanks Mark. I did put it through Google’s Latin translator - not perfect by any means but you can pick out the gist. Thanks for translating the actual bit that I wanted. Just wish I could read Latin.

 

[runningdude]

Perhaps this may help, reading it might resolve your insomnia, although writing it has not helped mine

haha, quickly fell asleep after my last post, so I didn’t get a chance to take this oppurtunity

A priest is usually granted a pagella of faculties. If the priest is incardinated in a particular church … and retains those faculties unless revoked. Thus, the death, retirement, transfer, or removal from office of their ordinary will not revoke their faculties…

Redundancy of faculties is a good thing!

 

[runningdude]

Perhaps this may help, reading it might resolve your insomnia, although writing it has not helped mine

Haha, I fell asleep soon after I posted, so I didn’t get to take this opportunity

A priest is usually granted a pagella of faculties. If the priest is incardinated in a particular church … Thus, the death, retirement, transfer, or removal from office of their ordinary will not revoke their faculties.

Redundancy is a good thing! So many different faculties provided by so many sources to cover nearly every situation. I found one of my source (Old Catholic Encyclopedia), and your point this does indeed seem to be the case.

Read first part:

Faculties expire by the death of the grantor, his removal from office or loss of jurisdiction (certain distinctions, however, are to be borne in mind, as below); by the death of the privileged one; by lapse of time, when they are granted for a definite period;…

Missed second part

Faculties granted absolutely (not revocable at will) by one possessing ordinary jurisdiction, and gratiœ factœ (i.e., the delegate is a necessary executor), do not expire at the death of the grantor;

When it is stated that faculties are “revocable at our will or judgment”, they expire with the death of the grantor; when given in the name of the Holy See, a diocese, etc., they continue in force after the death of the pope, bishop, etc

I only glanced the article (I think it was this one) before, and it is a pretty hefty read. “http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05748a.htm”

The idea that an excommunicated bishop can issue illicit faculties seems to be a convoluted argument. Basically, if an excommunicated bishop issued illicit faculties then they would in themselves be worthless.

YES! they are useless - as a said earlier, someone who would accepted, or maybe more accurately attempted to accept them would probably be excommunicated himself for schism.

With regards to confession bishops and priests, in good standing or not, generally have the faculty, granted by universal law, to hear confessions. I think this applies in urgent situations such as the penitent being in danger of death and no other bishop or priest being available. This is done not to preserve the rights of the cleric but for the benefit of the faithful…

I do believe this is true. My point, so I don’t end up totally hijacking this thread , was simply that that Bishops, have a lot of authority we’re not always aware of. Based on this conversation and double checking the Catholic Encyclopedia, I guess its more by virtue of the Office of Bishop or Ordinary than episcopal ordination alone.

Other things I said I believe do still apply, such a bishop could theoretically start his own diocese unilaterally, and assume these rights, but under today’s rules he’d probably be a schismatic.

ooh, so confusing!

 

[Spirithound]

I thought it was diocesan Bishops who granted faculties. That would suggest the right to grant faculties comes with an office, i.e. diocesan Bishop, rather than through episcopal ordination. If, as you say the right to grant faculties comes with episcopal ordination, that would mean auxiliary Bishops, retired Bishops, and other titular Bishops could grant faculties and I don’t believe they can. Excommunication would surely take away a Bishop’s authority to grant faculties.

My contention about a bishop being able to grant illicit faculties I believe still applies, if the excommunicated bishop in question (poor fictional character) declared himself head of an illicit diocese. He would then be a schismatic in addition to whatever got him sacked in the first place However, I may be mistaken about schismatics having any sort of faculties.

I am very confident though that offering confession a is a right of ordination to the episcopate. A bishop can always perform valid absolution, even if illicitly.

Think of the question this way: Who is the bishop granting the faculties to? Is it to his own priest? Or to someone else’s? Granting faculties to another bishop’s priest would be a terrible intrusion on the ordinary’s authority in his own diocese, right? So, a bishop must only grant faculties to his own priests. How does he get priests? By ordaining them, or inheriting them, through a diocese, or religious order, whether it was previously-established, or he establishes it himself, thereby committing schism.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Think of the question this way: Who is the bishop granting the faculties to? Is it to his own priest? Or to someone else’s? Granting faculties to another bishop’s priest would be a terrible intrusion on the ordinary’s authority in his own diocese, right? So, a bishop must only grant faculties to his own priests. How does he get priests? By ordaining them, or inheriting them, through a diocese, or religious order, whether it was previously-established, or he establishes it himself, thereby committing schism.

Only the ordinary may grant faculties within his own diocese. There are bishops who are not ordinaries. They are curial bishops in the Vatican and auxilary bishops in dioceses.

So this shows that the granting of faculties does not come with episcopal ordination. My earlier example of religious superiors being ordinaries also shows this.