No, auxiliary bishops are not Ordinaries. There is only one Ordinary per diocese, and while he can delegate certain functions to auxiliary bishops, if auxiliaries exercise such powers, it’s by virtue of the delegation, not by virtue of ordinary power.There are certain things in a diocese that only the local ordinary may allow. I know the local ordinary refers to the Diocesan Bishop. In dioceses that have auxiliary Bishops, do those auxiliary Bishops also count as local ordinaries that can grant those specific permissions which need approval of the local ordinary?
Hello,There are certain things in a diocese that only the local ordinary may allow. I know the local ordinary refers to the Diocesan Bishop. In dioceses that have auxiliary Bishops, do those auxiliary Bishops also count as local ordinaries that can grant those specific permissions which need approval of the local ordinary?
Can. 134 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, by the title of *ordinary *are understood in the law diocesan bishops and others who, even if only temporarily, are placed over some particular church or a community equivalent to it … as well as those who possess general ordinary executive power in them, namely, *vicars general *and episcopal vicars; likewise, for their own members, major superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right who at least possess ordinary executive power.
An auxiliary bishop has no power of governance in a diocese, and so would not be a local ordinary, unless he is appointed vicar general or episcopal vicar. This should happen:§2. By the title of *local ordinary *are understood all those mentioned in §1 *except *the superiors of religious institutes and of societies of apostolic life.
So, the normal course of affairs would be such that an auxiliary bishop would be a local ordinary.Can. 406 §2. Unless the apostolic letter has provided otherwise and without prejudice to the provision of §1, a diocesan bishop is to appoint his auxiliary or auxiliaries as vicars general or at least as episcopal vicars…
But wouldn’t that mean that if a priest is a vicar general, that he too would be considered a local ordinary?Hello,
Great question. According to the Code of Canon Law, with my emphasis:
An auxiliary bishop has no power of governance in a diocese, and so would not be a local ordinary, unless he is appointed vicar general or episcopal vicar. This should happen:
So, the normal course of affairs would be such that an auxiliary bishop would be a local ordinary.
Dan
Yes, it does and he certainly is.But wouldn’t that mean that if a priest is a vicar general, that he too would be considered a local ordinary?
OK, Dan,Hello,
Can. 134 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, by the title of ordinary are understood in the law diocesan bishops and others who, even if only temporarily, are placed over some particular church or a community equivalent to it … as well as those who possess general ordinary executive power in them, namely, vicars general and episcopal vicars; likewise, for their own members, major superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right who at least possess ordinary executive power.
Dan
If only I could imbed a “donate” button in all of my posts, I’m sure the donations would … trickle in, at best.OK, Dan,
If you could consider this request, payment for your expertise via bitcoins of gratitude…
Could you comment briefly on the part I bolded? I mean, if a religious order priest has a Major Superior “ordinary”, what is his relationship to the local ordinary in the diocese where he works? Could the local ordinary prevent him from taking a position in that geographical diocese? Could the local ordinary bring about the removal of a religious priest from working in a diocese where he already is employed?
I realize the great majority of these situations are handled diplomatically, quietly resolved between the local ordinary and major superior, with a little compromise, as people try to get along, respecting both sides. But just wondering, if push came to shove…
(If you get a paying customer for consultation, feel free to ignore this mooching time-waster…)
Can. 682 §1. If it concerns conferring an ecclesiastical office in a diocese upon some religious, the diocesan bishop appoints the religious, with the competent superior making the presentation, or at least assenting to the appointment.
So, in these scenarios, the religious priest is doubly at risk of getting canned, you could say. Note that the law speaks of the diocesan bishop, although this is a function that could be delegated to another local ordinary.§2. A religious can be removed from the office entrusted to him or her at the discretion either of the entrusting authority after having informed the religious superior or of the superior after having informed the one entrusting; neither requires the consent of the other.
The context of these two canons (cc. 678-683) has other insights worth checking out: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P29.HTMCan. 679 When a most grave cause demands it, a diocesan bishop can prohibit a member of a religious institute from residing in the diocese if his or her major superior, after having been informed, has neglected to make provision; moreover, the matter is to be referred immediately to the Holy See.
Thank youIf only I could imbed a “donate” button in all of my posts, I’m sure the donations would … trickle in, at best.
It depends on what the religious order priest is doing. If it is a “diocesan” position, then the diocesan officials are able to hire and fire at will. Such is the case for parish priests (pastors and vicars). The general norm is:
So, in these scenarios, the religious priest is doubly at risk of getting canned, you could say. Note that the law speaks of the diocesan bishop, although this is a function that could be delegated to another local ordinary.
If we are talking about a position, let’s say, of “vocation director” for the Discalced Carmelites, the diocesan officials would have no say whatsoever. This is something internal to the order and so the local ordinary has nothing to do with it, except to safeguard that autonomy (see c. 586).
It is possible for a diocesan Bishop (this is a matter of particular gravity so I would think that the Bishop should not delegate this task…although he could) to forbid residence:
The context of these two canons (cc. 678-683) has other insights worth checking out: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P29.HTM
Hope this is helpful.
Dan