Bishops

[Brendan]

Only the ordinary may grant faculties within his own diocese. There are bishops who are not ordinaries.

I would also add that the Holy See may also grant faculties.

This occurs with the College of Cardinals. They are granted, by their office, faculties to say Mass and hear confessions in any diocese.

The Holy See also grants faculties by default in extremis. Canon Law, for example, provides faculties to hear confessions in times where there is a grave chance of death. A priest may hear the confession of a dying man in a highway accident regardless of what diocese he is in. That is a function of the universal faculty granted by the Holy See. In this circumstance, even a laicized priest may hear the confession.

 

[runningdude]

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.

At this point, I speak in technicalities, many of which have no practical application

Even the curial bishops have a titular diocese, so they are “ordinaries” of dioceses that exist at least on paper. When acting in the name of Holy See, they are acting on faculties given directly from the Pope. When acting in the name of their office, they are acting on privileges/faculties granted to their titular see!

I’m not sure if auxiliary bishops are still given a separate formal titular see, or if they are directly attached to the diocese in which they serve, but they are only allowed to function within the diocese with the implicit consent of the actual ordinary of the diocese (except in the case of a co-adjudicator or others who’s faculties come from the pope).

The ordinary of a diocese, with sufficiently grave reason, suppress the faculties of another bishop, even the auxiliary, to preach, speak or publicly perform the sacraments in this diocese. This would, for instance, prevent our friend the excommunicated bishop from publicly claiming to act in the name of the Catholic Church, or otherwise protect the faithful of the diocese from errant teaching.

---

So to bring some relevance back to the original topic, I would image that “precedence” has to do with helping to distinguish to the public which bishops have authority over whom. Thus I believe the local ordinary should always be first, as he is generally the first and foremost Shepard of the faithful in the diocese, followed by the other ranks as discussed elsewhere in this thread.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

At this point, I speak in technicalities, many of which have no practical application

Even the curial bishops have a titular diocese, so they are “ordinaries” of dioceses that exist at least on paper. When acting in the name of Holy See, they are acting on faculties given directly from the Pope. When acting in the name of their office, they are acting on privileges/faculties granted to their titular see!

I’m not sure if auxiliary bishops are still given a separate formal titular see, or if they are directly attached to the diocese in which they serve, but they are only allowed to function within the diocese with the implicit consent of the actual ordinary of the diocese (except in the case of a co-adjudicator or others who’s faculties come from the pope).

The ordinary of a diocese, with sufficiently grave reason, suppress the faculties of another bishop, even the auxiliary, to preach, speak or publicly perform the sacraments in this diocese. This would, for instance, prevent our friend the excommunicated bishop from publicly claiming to act in the name of the Catholic Church, or otherwise protect the faithful of the diocese from errant teaching.

---

So to bring some relevance back to the original topic, I would image that “precedence” has to do with helping to distinguish to the public which bishops have authority over whom. Thus I believe the local ordinary should always be first, as he is generally the first and foremost Shepard of the faithful in the diocese, followed by the other ranks as discussed elsewhere in this thread.

Titular bishops are not ordinaries. They hold their see in name only. Very often their see is the name of a place that no longer exists. Even if it does exist the titular bishop has no power of governance over the place. Titular bishops are given a titular see because it is the tradition, with a small ‘t’, of the Catholic Church that every bishop must have an episcopal title, e.g. Bishop of somewhere. But, a titular bishop has no presbyterate and thus no priests to whom he could grant faculties. Secular priests are granted faculties by their ordinary, who will be a diocesan bishop or those equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop, e.g. prelate nullius, vicar apostolic, etc. Regular priests are granted their faculties by their ordinary, who will be their major religious superior who will probably not be a bishop.

 

[Pregustator]

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.

Anglia and Cambria = England and Wales.

 

[runningdude]

Titular bishops are not ordinaries. They hold their see in name only. Very often their see is the name of a place that no longer exists. Even if it does exist the titular bishop has no power of governance over the place. Titular bishops are given a titular see because it is the tradition, with a small ‘t’, of the Catholic Church that every bishop must have an episcopal title, e.g. Bishop of somewhere. But, a titular bishop has no presbyterate and thus no priests to whom he could grant faculties. Secular priests are granted faculties by their ordinary, who will be a diocesan bishop or those equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop, e.g. prelate nullius, vicar apostolic, etc. Regular priests are granted their faculties by their ordinary, who will be their major religious superior who will probably not be a bishop.

Ordinarily speaking, no, they do not exercize ordinary authority over their see. However it is real authority, though day to day administration is handled by an auxiliary. I do believe that when installing such prelates, they do still at least symbolically take the cathedral of the see in cases where the see still exists. And in the off chance, some extraordinary situation arises, they would be derelict if they didn’t help handle it.

The situation is similar to the vicar general/auxiliary bishop handling the day to day affairs of Rome for the Pope. No one denies that the Pope is in fact the the Bishop of Rome, though obviously too busy handling the affairs of the whole world .

 

[MarkThompson]

Ordinarily speaking, no, they do not exercize ordinary authority over their see. However it is real authority, though day to day administration is handled by an auxiliary. I do believe that when installing such prelates, they do still at least symbolically take the cathedral of the see in cases where the see still exists. And in the off chance, some extraordinary situation arises, they would be derelict if they didn’t help handle it.

The situation is similar to the vicar general/auxiliary bishop handling the day to day affairs of Rome for the Pope. No one denies that the Pope is in fact the the Bishop of Rome, though obviously too busy handling the affairs of the whole world .

Titular sees do not have any territory, and they do not have cathedrals. The See of Rome is a real territorial see, like New York or London.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Ordinarily speaking, no, they do not exercize ordinary authority over their see. However it is real authority, though day to day administration is handled by an auxiliary. I do believe that when installing such prelates, they do still at least symbolically take the cathedral of the see in cases where the see still exists. And in the off chance, some extraordinary situation arises, they would be derelict if they didn’t help handle it.

The situation is similar to the vicar general/auxiliary bishop handling the day to day affairs of Rome for the Pope. No one denies that the Pope is in fact the the Bishop of Rome, though obviously too busy handling the affairs of the whole world .

As Mark says there’s no cathedral for an auxiliary to take. There’s no taking of canonical possession; no installation in a cathedra; only ordination if not yet a bishop. The Ceremonial of Bishops recommends that the auxiliary be welcomed in the diocese he’s going to serve by some form a liturgy. They’re called titular sees for a reason - they exist in title only. Even the 6 Latin Cardinal-Bishops no longer have any authority over their suburbicarian sees. The Vicars General of Rome and the Vatican are exceptional cases because, as you pointed out, the Pope has so many other matters to deal with. Having said that it need not be that exceptional as Canon Law gives a Vicar General the same executive powers as the Bishop of a diocese limited only to the extent that the Bishop allows. So any Vicar General who enjoys the episcopal order could, with his Bishop’s consent, exercise probably as much executive power in the diocese as the Bishop himself.

 

[MarkThompson]

As Mark says there’s no cathedral for an auxiliary to take. There’s no taking of canonical possession; no installation in a cathedra; only ordination if not yet a bishop. The Ceremonial of Bishops recommends that the auxiliary be welcomed in the diocese he’s going to serve by some form a liturgy. They’re called titular sees for a reason - they exist in title only. Even the 6 Latin Cardinal-Bishops no longer have any authority over their suburbicarian sees. The Vicars General of Rome and the Vatican are exceptional cases because, as you pointed out, the Pope has so many other matters to deal with. Having said that it need not be that exceptional as Canon Law gives a Vicar General the same executive powers as the Bishop of a diocese limited only to the extent that the Bishop allows. So any Vicar General who enjoys the episcopal order could, with his Bishop’s consent, exercise probably as much executive power in the diocese as the Bishop himself.

If memory serves, I have read that one of the following three things was formerly true – but I couldn’t remember which and I couldn’t confirm any of them with a bit of searching:

1. It was forbidden for titular bishops to visit the cities of their titular sees;
2. It was forbidden for cardinal-bishops to visit their suburbicarian sees; or
3. It was forbidden for cardinals to visit their tituli.

Are you aware if I’m remembering correctly on any of those?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If memory serves, I have read that one of the following three things was formerly true – but I couldn’t remember which and I couldn’t confirm any of them with a bit of searching:

1. It was forbidden for titular bishops to visit the cities of their titular sees;
2. It was forbidden for cardinal-bishops to visit their suburbicarian sees; or
3. It was forbidden for cardinals to visit their tituli.

Are you aware if I’m remembering correctly on any of those?

1. I’m afraid I don’t know the answer.
2. Cardinal bishops were the actual bishops of their suburbicarian sees. On 15th April 1910 Pope St Pius X issued a motu proprio (Apostolicæ Romanorum Pontificum) saying they had to have an assistant bishop to relieve them from the burden of looking after their suburbicarian see along with their other responsibilities. On 1st February 1915 Pope Benedict XV issued an apostolic constitution (Ex actis tempore) revoking Pope St Pius X’s regulation and putting the cardinal bishops back in direct charge of their suburbicarian sees. On 11th April 1962 Pope Blessed John XXIII issued a motu proprio (Suburbicariis sedibus) decreeing that the suburbicarian sees were to be ruled by bishops with complete and independent ordinary power; cardinal bishops were only to retain the title of the see.
3. On 15th April 1969 Pope Paul VI issued a motu proprio (Ad hoc usque tempus) abolished all administrative and governmental privileges cardinal priests and cardinal deacons had had over their titular churches and deaconries. Their only function was to promote their wellbeing by their advice and protection.

As for 2. And 3. I cannot see how this would have prevented the cardinals from visiting their sees, titles or deaconries.

 

[MarkThompson]

I suspect I was misremembering, then. Thanks!

 

[Matthew_Holford]

You’re welcome.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As Mark says there’s no cathedral for an auxiliary to take. There’s no taking of canonical possession; no installation in a cathedra; only ordination if not yet a bishop. The Ceremonial of Bishops recommends that the auxiliary be welcomed in the diocese he’s going to serve by some form a liturgy. They’re called titular sees for a reason - they exist in title only. Even the 6 Latin Cardinal-Bishops no longer have any authority over their suburbicarian sees. The Vicars General of Rome and the Vatican are exceptional cases because, as you pointed out, the Pope has so many other matters to deal with. Having said that it need not be that exceptional as Canon Law gives a Vicar General the same executive powers as the Bishop of a diocese limited only to the extent that the Bishop allows. So any Vicar General who enjoys the episcopal order could, with his Bishop’s consent, exercise probably as much executive power in the diocese as the Bishop himself.

But the Vicar General derives his authority from the actual Bishop of that See, it is not his power that he wields.

1. It was forbidden for titular bishops to visit the cities of their titular sees;

I have heard of this one but do not recall where from.

 

[runningdude]

1. It was forbidden for titular bishops to visit the cities of their titular sees;
2. It was forbidden for cardinal-bishops to visit their suburbicarian sees; or
3. It was forbidden for cardinals to visit their tituli.

#1 Might makes sense, if its one of those Sees that exist in name only. In which case, it might be a case of safety, or maybe an allusion to the teaching of Jesus to shake one feet at a city that rejects the apostle. I’m only making this up, but that would be my guess.

I was unaware of the term “suburbicarian” to describe a Cardinal with a symbolic See that still exists, so I referred to them possible incorrectly as “titular”. Oops if the caused any confusion .

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

#1 Might makes sense, if its one of those Sees that exist in name only. In which case, it might be a case of safety, or maybe an allusion to the teaching of Jesus to shake one feet at a city that rejects the apostle. I’m only making this up, but that would be my guess.

No the reason would be is that it is not an actual diocese any longer and is in the territory of another bishop’s diocese who would be the ordinary. The auxillary bishop is not the ordinary.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I was unaware of the term “suburbicarian” to describe a Cardinal with a symbolic See that still exists, so I referred to them possible incorrectly as “titular”. Oops if the caused any confusion .

No confusion caused it is only the six Latin cardinal bishops who have a suburbicarian see. There are seven of these sees. The Dean always has Ostia as well as the one he had before he became Dean. All other bishops who are not the actual bishop of an archdiocese or diocese are called titular.

 

[runningdude]

I found clarification for some of my points. The Bishop, by virtue of his ordination to the fullness of the priesthood, can always celebrate any sacrament validly (save marriage ), if not licitly. An excommunicated bishop for instance, may always grant absolution, even in cases where “supplied jurisdiction” might not apply. He himself needs no external faculties, though whether he himself can grant such faculties to a priest is highly unlikely.

If he attempted to grant faculties to a priest without them, it would be a grave act of schism, since he would be assuming the role of an Ordinary with no authority from the Church to do so. I don’t know if his particular little assumed “diocese” would have valid jurisdiction initially, but over a few generations jurisdiction does appear to become valid, (as happened in say the Polish National Catholic Church).

Basically, I think I may have been confusing the fullness of the bishop’s priesthood, with the authority as Ordinary of a diocese or particular Church. The sacramental bishop needs no external faculty to celebrate a sacrament, but only someone with Ordinary jurisdiction can extend faculties for confirmation and absolution to presbyters (ie regular old priests). Of course universal law also confers many faculties to active priests in good standing automatically .

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I found clarification for some of my points. The Bishop, by virtue of his ordination to the fullness of the priesthood, can always celebrate any sacrament validly (save marriage ), if not licitly. An excommunicated bishop for instance, may always grant absolution, even in cases where “supplied jurisdiction” might not apply. He himself needs no external faculties, though whether he himself can grant such faculties to a priest is highly unlikely.

If he attempted to grant faculties to a priest without them, it would be a grave act of schism, since he would be assuming the role of an Ordinary with no authority from the Church to do so. I don’t know if his particular little assumed “diocese” would have valid jurisdiction initially, but over a few generations jurisdiction does appear to become valid, (as happened in say the Polish National Catholic Church).

Basically, I think I may have been confusing the fullness of the bishop’s priesthood, with the authority as Ordinary of a diocese or particular Church. The sacramental bishop needs no external faculty to celebrate a sacrament, but only someone with Ordinary jurisdiction can extend faculties for confirmation and absolution to presbyters (ie regular old priests). Of course universal law also confers many faculties to active priests in good standing automatically .

I may, of course, be wrong because I don’t know where you have clarified your points. All bishops and priests can validly administer certain sacraments to a person in danger of death even if they’ve lost their faculties, been laicised, etc. because ordination can never be “undone”. So, if for example, someone was close to death and no bishop or priest in good standing was available in time I think any bishop or priest can baptise, confirm, anoint, hear a final confession, and give Viaticum. These things are pastoral for the benefit of the faithful rather than some privilege for the sacred minister.

I agree that perhaps you have gotten mixed up about what ordination in its three degrees (deacon, priest, bishop) brings to a sacred minister and what he may be able to do by virtue of an ecclesiastical office he holds. For example, all deacons and priests can witness on marriage on behalf of the Church but the right to do so belongs to the Parish Priest and for any other cleric to witness the marriage of a Parish Priest’s subjects the Parish Priest must give his permission. Although, as we both probably are aware, this may not always happen in practice.

 

[Spirithound]

So, if for example, someone was close to death and no bishop or priest in good standing was available in time I think any bishop or priest can baptise, confirm, anoint, hear a final confession, and give Viaticum.

In fact,

Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

The canon on confession is clear that even if a priest with faculties is present, any priest whatsoever absolves validly. The canons for the other sacraments seem less clear on whether a priest under some sort of ecclesiastical penalty gives the sacrament validly if an approved priest is present.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

Can. 1003 §1. Every priest and a priest alone validly administers the anointing of the sick.

§2. All priests to whom the care of souls has been entrusted have the duty and right of administering the anointing of the sick for the faithful entrusted to their pastoral office. For a reasonable cause, any other priest can administer this sacrament with at least the presumed consent of the priest mentioned above.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

In fact,

Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

The canon on confession is clear that even if a priest with faculties is present, any priest whatsoever absolves validly. The canons for the other sacraments seem less clear on whether a priest under some sort of ecclesiastical penalty gives the sacrament validly if an approved priest is present.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

Can. 1003 §1. Every priest and a priest alone validly administers the anointing of the sick.

§2. All priests to whom the care of souls has been entrusted have the duty and right of administering the anointing of the sick for the faithful entrusted to their pastoral office. For a reasonable cause, any other priest can administer this sacrament with at least the presumed consent of the priest mentioned above.

I do confess to not checking the law before posting but rather relying on my fallible memory. I assumed the Church would prefer a priest in good standing if one were available. Moral of this tale: check the sources.