Difference Between a Diocese and an Archdiocese, and Bishop and Archbishop?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Geographical size.

A bishop and an archbishop have the same authority.
 
Both a diocese and an archdiocese are headed by a bishop, but an archdiocese is more important. An archbishop is the head of an ecclesiastical province, which compromises several dioceses. Usually, archdioceses are large metropolitan areas, and traditionally, only archbishops are named Cardinals. As the name suggests, an Archbishop is a bishop, but he is the bishop of an archdiocese.
 
Marie5890 said:
America has many archdioceses, but only a few cardinals. Being an archbishop does not mean one will be named a cardinal.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say all archbishops are Cardinals. I meant that most Cardinals are archbishops.
 
Relatively larger size and some very limited extra territorial powers characterize an archdiocese/archbishop.
 
Archbishops are bishops of larger dioceses called archdioceses. Most archdioceses have smaller dioceses attached to them within what is known as an ecclesiastical (another word for church) province. The archbishops of such archdioceses have the rank of a Metropolitan while the bishops in those dioceses are called suffragan bishops. Other than honorary role of precedence over procession and presiding over meetings of bishops, he may also be required to supervise the faith in the suffragan dioceses or step in if any of them falls vacant. Archdioceses without suffragans are known as independent archdioceses and are normally in smaller countries such as the Archdiocese of Singapore and the Archdiocese of Luxembourg.

More details on bishops, etc at this link.
 
The Archdiocese / Archbishop is also the “appeals court” for a tribunal from a regular (suffragan) diocese.

Lay Catholics rarely see the judicial arm of the Church unless they are involved with an annulment.
 
There can also be archbishops who have been given that designation as a “personal title.” One of our past bishops was named an archbishop many years before our diocese was designated an archdiocese.
 
dixieagle said:
Was then the Diocese of Mobile-Birmingham; is now the Archdiocese of Mobile.
Click to expand...
According to records, Mobile was elevated to be a Metropolitan archdiocese on the same day when a metropolitan archbishop was appointed. Archbishop Liscomb may have been an archbishop-elect a few months before the diocese was officially elevated to become an archdiocese. You mentioned years though. His precedessor Archbishop May was promoted to be Archbishop of St Louis when he was still Bishop of Mobile-Birmingham. Again the gap was only a few months. If you are referring to another archbishop, let me know.

I am not an expert on episcopal appointments or have personal knowlege of Mobile. I checked it out because the title of archbishop is not a personal title but always attached to an archdiocese. A bishop is always a bishop of a diocese and an archbishop is an archbishop of an archdiocese. There is no bishop or archbishop who holds title on his own merits without the title of a dicoese or archdiocese.

There is however such a person as a titular bishop. Take Archbishop May for instance. He started off as his episcopal career as the auxiliary bishop of Chicago before he took over Mobile-Birmingham. As a bishop, he must have the title of a diocese. He however cannot take on the title of Chicago as that was at that time already held by his boss, Cardinal Cody. He was therefore given the title of a diocese that no longer exists, what is called a titular see.

This is a normally diocese which no longer function as a diocese, mostly because it has fallen to non-Catholics. In fact, these bishops used to be called bishops in infidel regions. This would include dioceses in Northen Africa after the Muslim conquests and in modern-day Turkey after the Turks took over what was then Greek-speaking Asia Minor. In the case of Auxliary Bishop May, he was given the title of Titular Bishop of Tagarbala, but he himself may not know where it was. Some titular bishops have told me that.😉

I guess when the first bishop was driven out of his diocese after an invasion, he could not minister to his flock and occupied his time by assisting another bishop. The title of his diocese was retained and the Catholic church today has over 2,000 of them to issue out to titular bishops and archbishops, most of whom are auxiliary bishops and bishops working in the Vatican. All nuncios, for instance, are titular archbishops.

It is all very interesting but from this history, you can see there is no personal title as all bishops take on the title of a diocese. If you let me know the name of the bishop, I may be able to check it out for you.
 
jimkhong said:
I am not an expert on episcopal appointments or have personal knowlege of Mobile. I checked it out because the title of archbishop is not a personal title but always attached to an archdiocese. A bishop is always a bishop of a diocese and an archbishop is an archbishop of an archdiocese. There is no bishop or archbishop who holds title on his own merits without the title of a dicoese or archdiocese.
Click to expand...
Actually, the title “Archbishop” can be granted ad personam. It happens most often with curial officials, but it can happen elsewhere.

As for Mobile, have a look here. 🙂
 
malphono said:
Actually, title title “Archbishop” can be granted ad personam. It happens most often with curial officials, but it can happen elsewhere.

As for Mobile, have a look here. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing it out, malphono. Such a archbishop still have the title of his diocese as the Archbishop-Bishop of xxx. He cannot not have the title of an diocese. And he would already been a bishop. I am not aware of any bishop ad personam, do you know?

Rereading the earlier post, maybe I did miss something out there. Also, your second line did not appear in the post, must be some technical glitch. Checked out the link. Yes, you are right Tooley attended Vatican II as archbishop. I guess he would be ranked at the end of the archbishop’s procession. Thanks for the correction.
 
jimkhong said:
Thanks for pointing it out, malphono. Such a archbishop still have the title of his diocese as the Archbishop-Bishop of xxx. He cannot not have the title of an diocese. And he would already been a bishop. I am not aware of any bishop ad personam, do you know?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand the question. The title “Archbishop” can be granted ad personam precisely because it’s an honorific. IOW, there is no ordination involved. A bishop, OTOH, is ordained to the episcopacy, and is always named bishop of a place, even if it’s a titular See.
 
malphono said:
I’m not sure I understand the question. The title “Archbishop” can be granted ad personam precisely because it’s an honorific. IOW, there is no ordination involved. A bishop, OTOH, is ordained to the episcopacy, and is always named bishop of a place, even if it’s a titular See.
Click to expand...
Has there been any archbishop ad personam who is not a bishop? I could be wrong but I am not aware of any.
 
jimkhong said:
Has there been any archbishop ad personam who is not a bishop? I could be wrong but I am not aware of any.
Click to expand...
No, there couldn’t be. Ordination to the episcopacy is a prerequisite. The honorific “Archbishop” can only be conferred on an ordained bishop.
 
jimkhong said:
According to records, Mobile was elevated to be a Metropolitan archdiocese on the same day when a metropolitan archbishop was appointed. Archbishop Liscomb may have been an archbishop-elect a few months before the diocese was officially elevated to become an archdiocese. You mentioned years though. His precedessor Archbishop May was promoted to be Archbishop of St Louis when he was still Bishop of Mobile-Birmingham. Again the gap was only a few months. If you are referring to another archbishop, let me know.

I am not an expert on episcopal appointments or have personal knowlege of Mobile. I checked it out because the title of archbishop is not a personal title but always attached to an archdiocese. A bishop is always a bishop of a diocese and an archbishop is an archbishop of an archdiocese. There is no bishop or archbishop who holds title on his own merits without the title of a dicoese or archdiocese.

There is however such a person as a titular bishop. Take Archbishop May for instance. He started off as his episcopal career as the auxiliary bishop of Chicago before he took over Mobile-Birmingham. As a bishop, he must have the title of a diocese. He however cannot take on the title of Chicago as that was at that time already held by his boss, Cardinal Cody. He was therefore given the title of a diocese that no longer exists, what is called a titular see.

This is a normally diocese which no longer function as a diocese, mostly because it has fallen to non-Catholics. In fact, these bishops used to be called bishops in infidel regions. This would include dioceses in Northen Africa after the Muslim conquests and in modern-day Turkey after the Turks took over what was then Greek-speaking Asia Minor. In the case of Auxliary Bishop May, he was given the title of Titular Bishop of Tagarbala, but he himself may not know where it was. Some titular bishops have told me that.😉

I guess when the first bishop was driven out of his diocese after an invasion, he could not minister to his flock and occupied his time by assisting another bishop. The title of his diocese was retained and the Catholic church today has over 2,000 of them to issue out to titular bishops and archbishops, most of whom are auxiliary bishops and bishops working in the Vatican. All nuncios, for instance, are titular archbishops.

It is all very interesting but from this history, you can see there is no personal title as all bishops take on the title of a diocese. If you let me know the name of the bishop, I may be able to check it out for you.
Click to expand...
I see that your assumption has been corrected by another poster. The link provided was excellent, written by our current Archbishop, who did a good job of explaining the different “types” of Archbishop. Archbishop Toolen had provided long service in an era of widespread anti-Catholicism in the deep South; I would imagine that played a part in his being named an Archbishop ad personam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top