How many different types of bishops are there?

[ajpirc]

I’ve heard of Bishop, Archbishops, Auxiliary Bishops, Titular Bishops, etc. Could someone please explain what the differences are between these and if there are any more types of bishops? Why can’t a bishop just be a bishop?

 

[Godfollower]

I’ve heard of Bishop, Archbishops, Auxiliary Bishops, Titular Bishops, etc. Could someone please explain what the differences are between these and if there are any more types of bishops? Why can’t a bishop just be a bishop?

Not to worry; a bishop is just a bishop.

A bishop who is assigned to run a diocese (“bishop” means “overseer”), he is a diocesan bishop, known as the Bishop of Wherever. He will automatically have various rights and duties by virtue of having become a diocesan bishop (e.g., he has to care for the priests of that diocese, and he can appoint pastors to parishes within that diocese, etc.).

If he happens to be assigned to an archdiocese instead of a diocese (that difference being one of size, importance, or history), then he’s an archbishop, known as the Archbishop of Greater Wherever.

If he resigns/retires (and the resignation/retirement is accepted by the Pope), then he becomes Bishop Emeritus of Wherever.

If he’s assigned to another bishop’s diocese to help out, he’s an auxiliary bishop. That’s sort of like an assistant bishop; he has all the powers of the bishop, but he does not have the right of succession to that diocese. He’s simply the Auxiliary Bishop of Wherever.

If he’s assigned to another bishop’s diocese to help out and it’s understood that he will be the next bishop of that diocese when the current one leaves, then he’s the coadjutor bishop of that diocese. Then everyone knows he’s the next Bishop of Wherever.

Coadjutor bishops and auxiliary bishops are described in the Code of Canon Law and have certain rights and duties associated with their positions.

A bishop who is not assigned to care for a particular diocese is called a titular bishop: he has the title and powers of a bishop but not a diocese to go with them (and therefore lacks the powers associated with being a diocesan bishop: he can’t appoint a pastor of a parish, since he doesn’t have any parishes).

 

[chevalier]

Bishop ordinary is the bishop who runs a diocese titled to his name.
Auxiliary bishop is a bishop that helps the bishop ordinary in running his diocese.
Coadjutor bishop is an upgraded auxiliary bishop.

Titular bishop is a bishop who gets a titular diocese (one that doesn’t exist in practical terms). Auxiliary bishops and other non-ordinary bishops are, as a rule, titural bishops. They are bishops of something (other than being auxiliary bishops of a real diocese), they just don’t have any powers associated with it.

Metropolitan is a bishop that runs a province composed of one or more dioceses. In the Roman Catholic Church, he is always an archbishop. However, not all archbishops are metropolitans. An archbishop is a bishop that either runs an archdiocese (and a metropolitan bishop always runs an archdiocese) or has a personal title (meaning he is an archbishop but his diocese is not an arch- one or he doesn’t even have a real diocese but is a completely titular archbishop, such as some in the Vatican curia), except a couple of cases of permanent archdioceses that are not metropolitan dioceses (and may be subject to another archdiocese).

A suffragan bishop is the ordinary bishop of a diocese within a metropolitan province.

A retired bishop is called a bishop emeritus.

Then you also have diocesan administrators who may or may not be bishops but administer a diocese on a temporary basis. Vicars apostolic administer vicariates apostolic, which are similar units to dioceses, and are typically titular bishops (but don’t have to be). There are also personal or even territorial prelatures, which are typically but not necessarily run by a titular bishop.

Some abbots are also consecrated bishops.

 

[ajpirc]

Thank you Godfollower and chevalier for the help.

chevalier, you mentioned vicars general; I think Pope Benedict XVI has two to help with the administration of the Diocese of Rome. I think one has jurisdiction over Vatican City and the other over the city of Rome. Would they be considered Auxiliary?

 

[Godfollower]

Thank you Godfollower and chevalier for the help.

chevalier, you mentioned vicars general; I think Pope Benedict XVI has two to help with the administration of the Diocese of Rome. I think one has jurisdiction over Vatican City and the other over the city of Rome. Would they be considered Auxiliary?

Every diocesan bishop is required to appoint at least one vicar general to assist in running the diocese. They must be priests or bishops; if bishops, they are either auxiliary or coadjutor. They have almost all of the power that the diocesan bishop has. The bishop can also appoint episcopal vicars, which have similar powers but are limited to specific areas – e.g., the episcopal vicar for Ruthenian Rite faithful, or what have you.

Vicars general and episcopal vicars must be priests; they can be bishops. When the diocesan see becomes vacant, they lose their powers unless they also happen to be bishops.

 

[ajpirc]

Because Coadjutor, Emeritus, and Auxiliary Bishops are, of course, Bishops, are they allowed to participate in an Ecumenical Council or even just give their opinion at a local council?

 

[Godfollower]

Because Coadjutor, Emeritus, and Auxiliary Bishops are, of course, Bishops, are they allowed to participate in an Ecumenical Council or even just give their opinion at a local council?

I believe so; they’re bishops, like any other.

 

[Erich]

If he happens to be assigned to an archdiocese instead of a diocese (that difference being one of size, importance, or history), then he’s an archbishop, known as the Archbishop of Greater Wherever.

If he’s assigned to another bishop’s diocese to help out, he’s an auxiliary bishop. That’s sort of like an assistant bishop; he has all the powers of the bishop, but he does not have the right of succession to that diocese. He’s simply the Auxiliary Bishop of Wherever.

I would add that if he’s assigned to another archbishop’s archdiocese to help out, he’s still only an auxiliary bishop (i.e. not an “auxiliary archbishop”).

That said, If he’s assigned to another archbishop’s archdiocese to help out and it’s understood that he will be the next archbishop of that diocese when the current one leaves, then he’s the coadjutor archbishop of that diocese.

Interestingly, our archdiocese now has both a retired archbishop and a retired auxiliary bishop; the web site lists the former as “Archbishop Emeritus” and the latter as “Retired Bishop” (i.e. not as “Bishop Emeritus”).

 

[ajpirc]

Does the Archbishop have any authority over the Suffragan Bishops in his Eccleseastical Province?

 

[Godfollower]

Does the Archbishop have any authority over the Suffragan Bishops in his Eccleseastical Province?

Hmm. Well, not all archbishops are metropolitans; in fact, some archbishops are suffragans (two examples: the Archdiocese of Brindisi-Ostuni is subject to the Archdiocese of Lecce; and the Archdiocese of Athens is immediately subject to the Holy See).

As for powers over the suffragan bishops, canon law says the following:

Can. 436 §1. In the suffragan dioceses, a metropolitan is competent:

1. to exercise vigilance so that the faith and ecclesiastical discipline are observed carefully and to inform the Roman Pontiff of abuses, if there are any;

1. to conduct a canonical visitation for a cause previously approved by the Apostolic See if a suffragan has neglected it;

1. to designate a diocesan administrator according to the norm of cann. 421, §2, and 425, §3.

§2. Where circumstances demand it, the Apostolic See can endow a metropolitan with special functions and power to be determined in particular law.

§3. The metropolitan has no other power of governance in the suffragan dioceses. He can perform sacred functions, however, as if he were a bishop in his own diocese in all churches, but he is first to inform the diocesan bishop if the church is the cathedral.

CIC ¶ 436.

 

[MarkThompson]

Does the Archbishop have any authority over the Suffragan Bishops in his Eccleseastical Province?

What Godfollower said above is, of course, correct. In practice, the Metropolitan has no day-to-day authority whatsoever over his Suffragans, and cannot “boss them around” in any way.

 

[adrift]

If there is an abuse, and you report it to the Bishop. Would the next person to go to be the Archbishop if the Bishop does nothing to correct the abuse?

 

[MarkThompson]

If there is an abuse, and you report it to the Bishop. Would the next person to go to be the Archbishop if the Bishop does nothing to correct the abuse?

No, the Metropolitan (Archbishop) has no power to do anything. Theoretically, he could petition the Holy See for authority to conduct a visitation of your diocese, but you might as well petition to get struck by lightning, that’ll probably happen first.

 

[Godfollower]

If there is an abuse, and you report it to the Bishop. Would the next person to go to be the Archbishop if the Bishop does nothing to correct the abuse?

(I’m assuming that you’re talking about an abuse during Mass).

No. First you talk to the priest in question. If that fails, you talk to the pastor of the parish. If that fails, you go to the bishop of the diocese. If that fails, you go to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If that fails, then (theoretically) you talk to the Pope.

If that fails, you’re just wrong.

 

[MarkThompson]

(I’m assuming that you’re talking about an abuse during Mass).

No. First you talk to the priest in question. If that fails, you talk to the pastor of the parish. If that fails, you go to the bishop of the diocese. If that fails, you go to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

If we are talking about liturgical abuses, it would be the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, not the CDF.

 

[Godfollower]

If we are talking about liturgical abuses, it would be the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, not the CDF.

That would’ve been my guess, too. But check this out:

Delicts against the faith as well as graviora delicta committed in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other Sacraments are to be referred without delay to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which “examines [them] and, if necessary, proceeds to the declaration or imposition of canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law”.

[Redemptionis Sacramentum](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...0423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter VIII) (English) ¶ 179.

It’s the same in Latin:

Delicta contra fidem necnon graviora delicta in Eucharistiae ceterorumque sacramentorum celebratione commissa sine mora deferenda sunt ad Congregationem de Doctrina Fidei, quae ea «cognoscit, atque, ubi opus fuerit, ad canonicas sanctiones declarandas aut irrogandas ad normam iuris, sive communis sive proprii, procedit».

Redemptionis Sacramentum (Latin) ¶ 179.

 

[adrift]

(I’m assuming that you’re talking about an abuse during Mass).

No. First you talk to the priest in question. If that fails, you talk to the pastor of the parish. If that fails, you go to the bishop of the diocese. If that fails, you go to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If that fails, then (theoretically) you talk to the Pope.

If that fails, you’re just wrong.

Thanks. The Bishop has failed to answer. I have written him again in case it was just over looked. The event was during Holy Thursday mass. It horrified me but maybe it was allright. I asked for clarification. I did ask the priest first.

My mom wrote the Pope and he turned it back to the Bishop

 

[adrift]

That would’ve been my guess, too. But check this out:

[Redemptionis Sacramentum](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...0423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter VIII) (English) ¶ 179.

It’s the same in Latin:

Redemptionis Sacramentum (Latin) ¶ 179.

What are Delics? How do you know if it is graviora delicta?

 

[MarkThompson]

That would’ve been my guess, too. But check this out:

[Redemptionis Sacramentum](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...0423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter VIII) (English) ¶ 179.

It’s the same in Latin:

Redemptionis Sacramentum (Latin) ¶ 179.

Right, but that’s in the section concerning steps for the diocesan ordinary to take. So this part doesn’t have to do with getting the error corrected (since, as the ordinary, he could correct it himself), but with beginning the canonical process for “imposition of canonical sanctions” against the guilty priest [EDIT – or layman, actually].

 

[MarkThompson]

What are Delics? How do you know if it is graviora delicta?

A delict is an ecclesiastical crime. They are dealt with in the Code of Canon Law. The graviora delicta concerned here are mentioned in no. 172 of RS, although things like revealing the contents of someone’s confession would also be embraced within “graviora delicta committed in the celebration . . . the other Sacraments.” In any event, what is referred to here are true crimes against the faith, not humdrum abuses.