Liturgical authority of a metropolitan bishop

[SMHW]

What sort of authority does a metropolitan archbishop have over those dioceses which are in his province but not in the archdiocese?

It is my understanding that the archbishop can set general liturgical and sacramental directives for his province but that a diocesan bishop is free to either accept those policies by default or to make his own policies which differ from those of the archbishop.

 

[centurionguard]

What sort of authority does a metropolitan archbishop have over those dioceses which are in his province but not in the archdiocese?

It is my understanding that the archbishop can set general liturgical and sacramental directives for his province but that a diocesan bishop is free to either accept those policies by default or to make his own policies which differ from those of the archbishop.

Somewhat confusing and I could be wrong. It was my impression that an Archbishop out-ranked the decisions of a diocesan bishop. This rarely happens.

For a more accurate decription See Decree Concerning Pastoral Office Of Bishops In The Church (“CHRISTUS DOMINUS”): vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html

Also see DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM section 25 ('Concerning Bishops Powers") vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

[
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;

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

3/ 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.](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1J.HTM)

Essentially an archbishop has no real authority over any other diocese than his own. The only right he really has is to say Mass or perform a sacrament in any church.
And he can appoint a diocesan administrator if an empty diocese fails to elect one.

He is charged with reporting any abuses that take place under his jurisdiction but that would be rare.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Somewhat confusing and I could be wrong. It was my impression that an Archbishop out-ranked the decisions of a diocesan bishop.

An Archbishop has no real authority over another diocese. An archbishop exists to provide basic order on a regional level and to help the Holy See address any regional problems. But in-and-of-itself, being an archbishop carries with it no additional power or authority.

 

[centurionguard]

An Archbishop has no real authority over another diocese. An archbishop exists to provide basic order on a regional level and to help the Holy See address any regional problems. But in-and-of-itself, being an archbishop carries with it no additional power or authority.

I really don’t see a difference in the actual term Metropolitan over the term Archbishop.
are they not essentially the same? See: newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm

 

[malphono]

I really don’t see a difference in the actual term Metropolitan over the term Archbishop.
are they not essentially the same? See: newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm

There is a difference, subtle as it may be.

The title Metropolitan is always territorial, meaning the holder is the head of an ecclesiastical province, whereas the title Archbishop can be (and frequently is) personal. It often happens that pro-nuncios and other Vatican officials, e.g., are Archbishops, but the are not Metropolitans.

As further illustration, we have the example of Archbishop Burke who was, but no longer is a Metropolitan, yet remains an Archbishop.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I really don’t see a difference in the actual term Metropolitan over the term Archbishop.
are they not essentially the same? See: newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm

As far as I’m aware there is no difference.

 

[PacoG]

I really don’t see a difference in the actual term Metropolitan over the term Archbishop.
are they not essentially the same? See: newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm

We discussed this sometime back. An Archbishop heads an Archdiocese. A Metropolitan heads a Province.

Generally, all metropolitans are archbishops, but not all archbishops are metropolitans. For example, the archbishop of the Galveston-Houston Archdiocese is also the metropolitan of the Galveston-Houston Province (which basically covers East and South Texas). On the other hand, the Archbishop of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) is not a Metropolitan. There is no Winnipeg Province.

In short, there are two entirely different entities which a Metropolitan Archbishop heads. He is bishop of his own archdiocese and he is the metropolitan of a province. For example, a few weeks ago Cardinal diNardo, the metropolitan archbishop of Galveston-Houston, celebrated Mass at the Basilica of Nuestra Senora de San Juan del Valle, which is located in the Diocese of Brownsville (one of suffragans in the Galveston-Houston Province). When celebrating that Mass, the Cardinal was acting as a Metropolitan. He was vested with his pallium–the sign of metropolitical authority. As Metropolitan, he has faculties to celebrate Mass anywhere in the Province and wear the pallium anywhere in the Province and he doesn’t need to ask permission of the local ordinary to say Mass. However, if Archbishop Gomez of San Antonio were to say Mass at the same basilica, he would need permission from Bishop Pena of Brownsville. Further, he couldn’t wear the pallium (as he can only wear it in his province–San Antonio).

There are also titular archbishops. They are appointed to head a suppressed or a diocese that has become extinct. Then they are assigned to other duties in the curia or in the papal diplomatic service.

Finally, there are archbishops who have received the personal title of archbishop. These types of archbishops are archbishops in name only.

 

[centurionguard]

We discussed this sometime back. An Archbishop heads an Archdiocese. A Metropolitan heads a Province.

Generally, all metropolitans are archbishops, but not all archbishops are metropolitans. For example, the archbishop of the Galveston-Houston Archdiocese is also the metropolitan of the Galveston-Houston Province (which basically covers East and South Texas). On the other hand, the Archbishop of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) is not a Metropolitan. There is no Winnipeg Province.

In short, there are two entirely different entities which a Metropolitan Archbishop heads. He is bishop of his own archdiocese and he is the metropolitan of a province. For example, a few weeks ago Cardinal diNardo, the metropolitan archbishop of Galveston-Houston, celebrated Mass at the Basilica of Nuestra Senora de San Juan del Valle, which is located in the Diocese of Brownsville (one of suffragans in the Galveston-Houston Province). When celebrating that Mass, the Cardinal was acting as a Metropolitan. He was vested with his pallium–the sign of metropolitical authority. As Metropolitan, he has faculties to celebrate Mass anywhere in the Province and wear the pallium anywhere in the Province and he doesn’t need to ask permission of the local ordinary to say Mass. However, if Archbishop Gomez of San Antonio were to say Mass at the same basilica, he would need permission from Bishop Pena of Brownsville. Further, he couldn’t wear the pallium (as he can only wear it in his province–San Antonio).

There are also titular archbishops. They are appointed to head a suppressed or a diocese that has become extinct. Then they are assigned to other duties in the curia or in the papal diplomatic service.

Finally, there are archbishops who have received the personal title of archbishop. These types of archbishops are archbishops in name only.

I’m beginning to understand in more depth what is meant by a metropolitan province which is always officiated by an Archbishop. In that case my country Canada is broken down into "eighteen Ecclesiastical provinces with most of these ecclesiastical provinces for a total of 62 dioceses broken down into a minimum of four dioceses with one being in each ecclesiastical province being an Archdiocese.
The Canadian cities of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver have the largest Catholic Ecclesiastical provinces with each having five or more dioceses.
See the following: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_dioceses_in_Canada

In the United States there are thirty-two Eccesiastical provinces for a total of 195 dioceses. See the following: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_Catholic_dioceses_of_the_United_States

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

There is a difference, subtle as it may be.

The title Metropolitan is always territorial, meaning the holder is the head of an ecclesiastical province, whereas the title Archbishop can be (and frequently is) personal. It often happens that pro-nuncios and other Vatican officials, e.g., are Archbishops, but the are not Metropolitans.

As further illustration, we have the example of Archbishop Burke who was, but no longer is a Metropolitan, yet remains an Archbishop.

Whoops, forgot about those.