Historical precedent - the "transfer" of bishops to "new dioceses"

[Chris_McAvoy]

Christus resurrexit!

I have noticed from time to time that certain bishops have been transferred between different dioceses in the United States for reasons which seemed to me to be illegimate or unfounded. I have long wondered what sort of tradition was behind this practice.

I long ago remember reading of a circumstance in pro-consular Africa around the 5th century in which there the canons against the transfer of bishops to new dioceses were upheld as a method of revolving evils and schisms of that time period pertaining to donatism.

After recently recalling a scandal which had ensued within the Antiochian Orthodox church during November of 2010 in which there was much cause to decry them as being heterodox I was reminded of potential problems existing in my own backyard - the Latin Church.

I was reminded of the great sadness and chaos that the Diocese of Harrisburg, PA was thrown into when Bishop Kevin Rhoades, one of the finest I’ve yet to encounter, was forced to move to the Diocese of South Bend, IN. At the time it seemed to me to be unnecessary and bringing about more harm than good, now I have cause to suspect that my beliefs were quite founded in the Holy tradition of the Church.

the 1st (and 2nd) canons of the Council of Sardicia forbid under threat of total excommunication the transfer of bishops and with merciless frankness elucidate the constantly ignored true reason for such transfers:

“It is not so much the foul custom as it is the exceedingly injurious corruption of affairs that must be rooted out from the very foundation, in order that no Bishop be allowed to change from a small city to another city. For the pretext offered in excuse of this is evident on account of which such things are undertaken. For so far no Bishop has ever been found to have attempted to change from a larger city to a very small city. Hence it has to be concluded that such persons have to be regarded as motivated by an ardent sense of greed. And that they prefer to be slaves to conceitedness, so as to succeed in seemingly acquiring greater authority. All men, therefore, like this, so that such villainy ought to be the more sternly avenged. For we deem that not even laymen ought to associate witli such persons.”

Even more mercilessly does the 2nd canon of this Council condemn the “intrigues and artifices” of those bishops who, in self-justification, plead some sort of desire of the people, but, in fact, it is a crowd whom they have bribed. Such bishops are subjected by the canon to an unusually strict punishment: “We therefore deem such intrigues and artifices to be punishable once for all, so that no such offender will be considered to merit even lay communion in the end.” Zonaras concludes from this that the canon does not even number such bishops among Christians.

The 48th canon of Carthage even more absolutely speaks agains the transfer of bishops and confronts them with the repetition of baptism or consecration. The 5th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council solemnly prescribes that all these “canons established by the holy fathers be observed with full force.”

Concerning some of the sources, the details you can read for yourself here:

Bishop Mark seeks transfer to OCA

Rights of bishops who have wrongly been deprived of their sees

Now of course what can I expect from a Church Communion that has 5 anti-patriarchs of Antioch, 1 real Patriarch of Antioch and refuses to resolve such internal inconsistency. This is another addition to my long list of un-traditional practices currently plagueing the Latin Church.

throughout most of the history of the Catholic church, bishops were elected from the local diocesan clergy, by laity and clergy alike. The Bishop of Rome had no direct role whatever in those elections.

However, because of the communion that existed, and still exists, among all the local churches, or dioceses, both with one another and with the diocese of Rome and its bishop, the pope was subsequently informed of the results of these elections as a matter of courtesy and protocol.

It was not until the 19th century, however, that the popes began to claim the exclusive right to appoint bishops throughout the Catholic world, including major cities like New York. Although the pope has exercised this prerogative ever since then, it is hardly traditional.

First of all, the canons point to the existence of the tightest and most indissoluble bonds which tie a bishop to his diocese. Because of their indissolubility, the Fathers of the Church liken them to the bonds of matrimony, and for this reason, they call a bishop who does not have a diocese a widower (Fourth Ecumenical Council, #25). Already from the fourth century, we encounter the interpretation of the Apostle’s words, “the unity of husband and wife” applied to the bishop in the sense that, by bishop’s wife, we are to understand his diocese which he cannot exchange under any circumstances. In the West, Blessed Jerome, for example, mentions this interpretation, and in the East, Bishop Ecumenus and Blessed Theophilact of Bulgaria speak about it. This natural interpretation of the Apostle’s words indicates how the ancient Church regarded the relationship of the bishop with his diocese. On the other hand, the unlawful occupation by a bishop of another’s see is often called adultery in ancient Church records.

 

[ANNE_2]

The Code of Canon Law has been updated with Council of Vatican II.
I truthfully don’t know even if the Code existed in 343 AD at the Council of Sardicia.

You can find the updated Code on the Vatican Web site.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

It does include: transfers, resignations, removals, etc.

There are several other documents on the Vatican web site if the current Code does not answer your questions.

Neither the Pope, nor the Bishop is required to report to us.

 

[Phemie]

Often bishops are placed in small dioceses to do specific jobs and are then moved to a larger diocese with more responsibility.

That was the case with our former bishop who, when he was first ordained, was given our small diocese to lead (35,000 Catholics, 26 parishes spread over a geographical area three times the size of Italy). After several years another diocese was added to his charge, and in that diocese he had to deal with the fall out from historical sexual abuse.

After four years, our diocese was suppressed and the parishes divided between 3 dioceses based on civil boundaries. Nine of those parishes were added to the second diocese our bishop was shepherding, and that diocese was renamed. After four years shepherding that expanded diocese, our bishop was transferred and installed as bishop of a 10 times larger diocese in another part of the country.

 

[laszlo]

Jesus Christ established a living Church, accommodating to the changing world. For this reason he gave binding and loosing power to His vicar (Matt 16:16) and to the college of bishops (Matt 18:18).

No lay person or member of lower clergy got power ever to judge the decision of the hierarchy.