T
ThomasAquinas25
Guest
Ok I know this sounds like simple question. Yet again one of those not address in RCIA. What is the difference between a bishop and archbishop?
Thanks!
Thanks!
- Status
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
in terms of holy orders: no difference.
in terms of responsibility: A Bishop runs a diocese under the oversight of an Archbishop. An Archbishop in addition to running his diocese (the archdiocese), may has oversight responsibility for one or more dioceses, and has no one except the Vatican overseeing him.
in terms of responsibility: A Bishop runs a diocese under the oversight of an Archbishop. An Archbishop in addition to running his diocese (the archdiocese), may has oversight responsibility for one or more dioceses, and has no one except the Vatican overseeing him.
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
T.A.Stobie:
Actually, it’s not accurate to say that a bishop runs a diocese under the oversight of an archbishop.
An Archdiocese is NOT a collection of smaller dioceses. An archdiocese is an archdiocese. A diocese is a diocese.
It is incorrect to speak of a diocese and its bishop as being “under” or “in” or “belonging to” an archdiocese. Some archdioceses are metropolitan archdioceses and, as such, constitute the principal jurisdiction of a province, within which (within the province, not within the archdiocese) are the archdiocese, one or more dioceses, and (occasionally) one or more other archdiocese(s).
For more than a century, the practical relationship between a metropolitan and other bishops in a province has been essentially only collegial. The term “suffragn” is essentially an anachronistic holdover from an earlier era, when a metropolitan exercised actual authority.
A diocese is ordinarily headed by a bishop; an archdiocese by an archbishop. Occasionally, you will encounter a diocese headed by a hierarch who holds the title of archbishop ad honorem or ad personam (i.e., conferred on him as an honorific or personal title, because of his service to the Church).
Many archdioceses are also metropolitan sees, in which case the archbishop is, technically, styled “metropolitan archbishop”. A metropolitan see (or metropolitanate or metropolis) is the principal see within an ecclesiastical province and the other sees (usually dioceses, but occasionally an archdiocese*) within the province are referred to as suffragn sees and their bishops (or archbishops) are said to be suffragn to the metropolitan archbishop.
*For instance, in France, the Archdioceses of Avignon and Aix are suffragn to the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Marseille.
At one time, particularly before advances in communication and transportation technology made it possible for Rome to contact or be contacted by almost any hierarch within a matter of hours, metropolitans exercised considerable jurisdictional authority over their suffragns. That is now solely a matter of historical interest and the role of metropolitan is essentially honorific, having very limited authority with respect to his suffragns. A metropolitan’s rights are:
Thomas and Thomas,
Actually, it’s not accurate to say that a bishop runs a diocese under the oversight of an archbishop.
An Archdiocese is NOT a collection of smaller dioceses. An archdiocese is an archdiocese. A diocese is a diocese.
It is incorrect to speak of a diocese and its bishop as being “under” or “in” or “belonging to” an archdiocese. Some archdioceses are metropolitan archdioceses and, as such, constitute the principal jurisdiction of a province, within which (within the province, not within the archdiocese) are the archdiocese, one or more dioceses, and (occasionally) one or more other archdiocese(s).
For more than a century, the practical relationship between a metropolitan and other bishops in a province has been essentially only collegial. The term “suffragn” is essentially an anachronistic holdover from an earlier era, when a metropolitan exercised actual authority.
A diocese is ordinarily headed by a bishop; an archdiocese by an archbishop. Occasionally, you will encounter a diocese headed by a hierarch who holds the title of archbishop ad honorem or ad personam (i.e., conferred on him as an honorific or personal title, because of his service to the Church).
Many archdioceses are also metropolitan sees, in which case the archbishop is, technically, styled “metropolitan archbishop”. A metropolitan see (or metropolitanate or metropolis) is the principal see within an ecclesiastical province and the other sees (usually dioceses, but occasionally an archdiocese*) within the province are referred to as suffragn sees and their bishops (or archbishops) are said to be suffragn to the metropolitan archbishop.
*For instance, in France, the Archdioceses of Avignon and Aix are suffragn to the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Marseille.
At one time, particularly before advances in communication and transportation technology made it possible for Rome to contact or be contacted by almost any hierarch within a matter of hours, metropolitans exercised considerable jurisdictional authority over their suffragns. That is now solely a matter of historical interest and the role of metropolitan is essentially honorific, having very limited authority with respect to his suffragns. A metropolitan’s rights are:
- to have the place of precedence over any hierarch (other than a patriach or a papal legate) in any procession or ecclesiastical function within a suffragn diocese at which he happens to be in attendance
- to display or have his symbol of office (e.g., his archepiscopal crozier) borne before him when participating in any ecclesiastical function within a suffragn diocese. (Ordinarily, a hierarch - other than a patriarch or papal legate - has no right to display the signs of his jurisdictional authority outside of his own territorial bounds)
- to convoke a provincial council once in every three years, which his suffragns are bound to attend, for the purpose of non-binding discussion relative to issues and/or problems common to two or more of the jurisdictions within the province
- to lead his suffragns in their dicennial ad limina visit to the Holy See to report on the state of their jurisdictions
- to afford a tribunal to hear appeals made to it from decisions taken in the first instance in the tribunals of his suffragn jurisdictions, and
- to name the vicar capitular of a suffragn diocese which is sede vacante, if the chapter of the suffragn diocese has failed to do so within the required 8 days after the death of its ordinary
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
The equivalent of a diocese or archdiocese in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches sui iuris is, respectively, an eparchy (headed by an eparch) or an archeparchy (headed by an archeparch). The title of metropolitan is common to both the East and West; however, a metropolitan archeparch in the Eastern Churches retains and is able to exercise much more of his jurisdictional authority than his Western counterparts.
The cardinalate is not an office of jurisdiction; rather, it is an honorific. Some archbishops and some bishops are cardinals and there are a few cardinals who aren’t bishops. Not all cardinals who are bishops or archbishops are involved with dioceses or archdioceses; some head agencies, secretariats, etc within the Curia, the central administrative and governmental structure for the Church and the Vatican State.
The six dioceses that surround the city of Rome, called “the Suburbican Sees”, are always headed by the six members of the College of Cardinals who are designated as Cardinal-bishops. Although, historically, the largest and most important archdioceses (and occasional dioceses) usually are headed by cardinals, none is guaranteed that status (for instance, the present Archbishop of Boston is not a cardinal, although his four predecessors were and Boston is considered one of the most important archdioceses in the US).
Besides archdioceses and dioceses, there are a number of other jurisdictional entities, most of which are headed by persons of the order of bishop, but some of whom are otherwise styled during their tenure in the exercise of the jurisdiction’s office. These (and, in parentheses, the style usually accorded to the office of the incumbent) include:
Neil
The cardinalate is not an office of jurisdiction; rather, it is an honorific. Some archbishops and some bishops are cardinals and there are a few cardinals who aren’t bishops. Not all cardinals who are bishops or archbishops are involved with dioceses or archdioceses; some head agencies, secretariats, etc within the Curia, the central administrative and governmental structure for the Church and the Vatican State.
The six dioceses that surround the city of Rome, called “the Suburbican Sees”, are always headed by the six members of the College of Cardinals who are designated as Cardinal-bishops. Although, historically, the largest and most important archdioceses (and occasional dioceses) usually are headed by cardinals, none is guaranteed that status (for instance, the present Archbishop of Boston is not a cardinal, although his four predecessors were and Boston is considered one of the most important archdioceses in the US).
Besides archdioceses and dioceses, there are a number of other jurisdictional entities, most of which are headed by persons of the order of bishop, but some of whom are otherwise styled during their tenure in the exercise of the jurisdiction’s office. These (and, in parentheses, the style usually accorded to the office of the incumbent) include:
- apostolic administration (apostolic administrator)
- apostolic exarchate (exarch) (Eastern Churches)
- apostolic prelature (prelate)
- archeparchial exarchate (exarch) (Eastern Churches)
- catholicosate (catholicos) (Eastern Churches)
- exarchial monastery (abbott vere nullius dioecesis) (Eastern Churches)
- major archbishopric (major archbishop or archeparch) (Eastern Churches)
- military ordinariate (archbishop or bishop)
- mission sui iuris (superior)
- ordinariate (archbishop or bishop) (Eastern Churches)
- patriarchal exarchate (exarch) (Eastern Churches)
- patriarchate (patriarchate) (Eastern Churches)
- personal prelature (prelate)
- territorial abbey (abbott vere nullius dioecesis)
- territorial prelature (prelate)
- vicariate apostolic (vicar apostolic)
- vicariate patriarchal (patriarchal vicar) (Eastern Churches)
Neil
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
Actually the pope in one of his more recent writings wrote about the oversight responsibilities of an metropolitian Archbishop over the suffragn bishops assigned to suffragn dioceses under his metropolitian area.
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
T.A.Stobie:
Do you happen to have a document title or a citation? I’m curious to read this, because it runs counter to what has been long-established practice.
Many years,
Neil
Tom,
Do you happen to have a document title or a citation? I’m curious to read this, because it runs counter to what has been long-established practice.
Many years,
Neil
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
It was in the last six months as I remember reading it on the Vatican News Service posts (which are only kept for a week) on the Vatican’s web site. I am not sure to which document it was referring.
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
Well, I glanced at the Vatican’s site and did not see it.
I did check Pastores gregisbut there was no reference to it, so I may have misread something.
I did check Pastores gregisbut there was no reference to it, so I may have misread something.
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
Tom,
I’ll check with a friend of mine who closely monitors all Vatican documentation/action regarding the episcopacy and see if he can come up with it. Will let you know what I find out - will probably be a couple of days.
Many years,
Neil
I’ll check with a friend of mine who closely monitors all Vatican documentation/action regarding the episcopacy and see if he can come up with it. Will let you know what I find out - will probably be a couple of days.
Many years,
Neil
S
Servulus
Guest
You may be referring to “Pastores Gregis”, issued on 16 October, 2003. There is mention made there about restoring
“. . . vitality to the ancient institution of Ecclesiastical Provinces, in which the Metropolitan is an instrument and sign both of fraternity between the Bishops of the Province and of their communion with the Roman Pontiff.”
Hope that helps.
“. . . vitality to the ancient institution of Ecclesiastical Provinces, in which the Metropolitan is an instrument and sign both of fraternity between the Bishops of the Province and of their communion with the Roman Pontiff.”
Hope that helps.
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
Tom,
I just looked at Pastores Gregis where there is mention of restoring vitality to meetings of the bishops within a province:
Many years,
Neil
I just looked at Pastores Gregis where there is mention of restoring vitality to meetings of the bishops within a province:
however, this seems to encourage what was already intended to be there, a collegial meeting to discuss the likely common pastoral concerns among the dioceses and archdioceses in a metropolitan province, not to accord any particular authority to the metropolitan.
Many years,
Neil
T
ThomasAquinas25
Guest
Thanks Fellas! The only reason I ask this… is the diocese that I am in (Diocese of Birmingham and Alabama) is considered a suffragan of the Archdiocese of Mobile. Yet how can you have a Diocese for an entire state that is under the oversight of a city within that state. I do understand this though. Thanks for your speedy answers guys!
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
Actually the name of your Diocese is the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama. Here is its website: bhmdiocese.org/
Your diocese covers some of the counties of Alabama, the rest are in the Archdiocese of Mobile.
The “in Alabama” is to distinguish from the other Diocese(s) of Birmingham. I am in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas (which distinguishes it from the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph (which covers the Missouri side of the metro area)
T
ThomasAquinas25
Guest
T.A.Stobie:
Noted. However why is it I never hear anything of our Archbishop. no letters, nothing? Any letters read to our parsh are only from our bishop (Who by the way totally rocks! Way to go Bishop Foley!)
O
OhioBob
Guest
To everybody who posted:
Yoy! Great answers!
I had some questions about that myself.
Now I feel enlightened.
Thanks.
Blessings.
Yoy! Great answers!
I had some questions about that myself.
Now I feel enlightened.
Thanks.
Blessings.
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
Each Bishop is responsible for his Diocese. You may see both bishops get together and produce a statement for Alabama as a whole. For instance, recommending that the Alabama legislature and government do something or avoid doing something. But that about all I would expect.Noted. However why is it I never hear anything of our Archbishop. no letters, nothing? Any letters read to our parsh are only from our bishop (Who by the way totally rocks! Way to go Bishop Foley!)
Have you put Bishop Foley in the “Excellent Bishops of the Church” thread?
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
T.A.Stobie:
Tom is right - the older Diocese of Birmingham (England) has the right to the name by virtue of antiquity and there is an ancient canonical precept that there not be two bishops in a city, which (in addition to the practical aspects of distinguishing between two same-named places) somehow has gotten interpreted to mean that there not be two dioceses by the same name. This is solved by adding “of” plus the name of the state/province/county etc (never the country, of which I’m aware) to one of them; the other (almost inevitably the elder See, gets to retain the name in simple form).
In the US, when Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris share a diocesan site in common with each other, or a Latin diocese, the diocese is named for its patronal saint, with the geographic name appended. (This holds true even though most Eastern dioceses are styled as “Eparchy” or “Archeparchy”, which would obviously avoid the name confusion issue).
Thus, in Chicago, you have:
Archdiocese of Chicago (Latin)
Eparchy of Saint Nicolas of Chicago (Ukrainian)
Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago (Syro-Malabarese)
In the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the practice is to add the phrase “of the (fill in the name of the sui iuris Church)”. So, for example, in Aleppo, Syria (which must be among the cities within which canonical jurisdictions are most frequently erected), you have:
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Maronites
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Armenians
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Melkites
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Chaldeans
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Syrians
Vicariate Apostolic of Aleppo (Latin) (they always get the name, if it comes down to us or them
).
Many years,
Neil
Tom,
Tom is right - the older Diocese of Birmingham (England) has the right to the name by virtue of antiquity and there is an ancient canonical precept that there not be two bishops in a city, which (in addition to the practical aspects of distinguishing between two same-named places) somehow has gotten interpreted to mean that there not be two dioceses by the same name. This is solved by adding “of” plus the name of the state/province/county etc (never the country, of which I’m aware) to one of them; the other (almost inevitably the elder See, gets to retain the name in simple form).
In the US, when Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris share a diocesan site in common with each other, or a Latin diocese, the diocese is named for its patronal saint, with the geographic name appended. (This holds true even though most Eastern dioceses are styled as “Eparchy” or “Archeparchy”, which would obviously avoid the name confusion issue).
Thus, in Chicago, you have:
Archdiocese of Chicago (Latin)
Eparchy of Saint Nicolas of Chicago (Ukrainian)
Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago (Syro-Malabarese)
In the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the practice is to add the phrase “of the (fill in the name of the sui iuris Church)”. So, for example, in Aleppo, Syria (which must be among the cities within which canonical jurisdictions are most frequently erected), you have:
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Maronites
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Armenians
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Melkites
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Chaldeans
Archeparchy of Aleppo of the Syrians
Vicariate Apostolic of Aleppo (Latin) (they always get the name, if it comes down to us or them
).Many years,
Neil
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
Tom,
You don’t hear anything about the Archbishop because he isn’t “yours”. Bishop Foley is “yours”. Birmingham is not subject to Mobile - read up - you missed something.
Actually, Bishop Foley has quite an excellent rep. Of course, I may be prejudiced.
Many years,
Neil (Foley)
no relation, though
You don’t hear anything about the Archbishop because he isn’t “yours”. Bishop Foley is “yours”. Birmingham is not subject to Mobile - read up - you missed something.
Actually, Bishop Foley has quite an excellent rep. Of course, I may be prejudiced.
Many years,
Neil (Foley)
no relation, though
S
StJeanneDArc
Guest
You know, I’ve wondered about this for a long time, as well. I’ve read the postings and still don’t understand. I used to live in the Archdiocese of New Orleans and now I live in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston. Does New Orleans rank higher? Or is the designation Archdiocese a hold-over from past times? I know in terms of population New Orleans may have a smaller number of Catholics, but only because Houston has grown so huge so recently.
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
An Archbishop is consider to be of higher dignity (more respect) than a Bishop.
In terms of the diocese (archdiocese) itself, I do not believe they rank each other unless one is suffragn to the other.
A diocese is normally headed by a Bishop. An archdiocese by an Archbishop.
In terms of the diocese (archdiocese) itself, I do not believe they rank each other unless one is suffragn to the other.
A diocese is normally headed by a Bishop. An archdiocese by an Archbishop.
- Status