Metropolitans East and West

[twf]

I get the impression that while the “Patriarch” of the Latin Church, the Pope, may exercise more direct personal authority over his particular church than Eastern Catholic patriarchs do over theirs, the reverse is true when it comes to metropolitans. I’ve been led to believe that Eastern Catholic metropolitans exercise a real jurisdiction over the other bishops of their province, while Latin metropolitans, at least in modern times, seem to function more as of a “first among equals” somewhat akin to the modern Eastern Orthodox view of “chairman of the board” primacy. A couple years ago, a neighbouring (Latin) diocese received a new bishop. He was not ordained by the metropolitan (though the metropolitan was in attendance) but rather by the Apostolic Nuncio. This strikes me as odd and I imagine that in an Eastern jurisdiction, it would be the metropolitan?

Am I, in general, correct? If so, why do you think this is?

 

[Hesychios]

Am I, in general, correct? If so, why do you think this is?

Ultramontanism.

 

[Vico]

I get the impression that while the “Patriarch” of the Latin Church, the Pope, may exercise more direct personal authority over his particular church than Eastern Catholic patriarchs do over theirs, the reverse is true when it comes to metropolitans. I’ve been led to believe that Eastern Catholic metropolitans exercise a real jurisdiction over the other bishops of their province, while Latin metropolitans, at least in modern times, seem to function more as of a “first among equals” somewhat akin to the modern Eastern Orthodox view of “chairman of the board” primacy. A couple years ago, a neighbouring (Latin) diocese received a new bishop. He was not ordained by the metropolitan (though the metropolitan was in attendance) but rather by the Apostolic Nuncio. This strikes me as odd and I imagine that in an Eastern jurisdiction, it would be the metropolitan?

Am I, in general, correct? If so, why do you think this is?

Pope, Patriarch, and Metropolitan rule over a specific diocese (their see) in addition to their churches. There are two hierarchies of power: ordinary and juridical. The power of jurisdiction extends to legislation, judgement, and administration. The ordinary power is preeminent over the power of jurisdiction. (See CIC canons 333, 375, and 381, 591.)

A Latin Metropolitan is a residential Archbishop, whereas the Apostolic Nuncio is a non-resident and may be an Archbishop. The Latin metropolitan has no authority to intervene on his own in the affairs of his suffragan dioceses.

Supreme Pontiff

CCEO Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Patriarchial Eastern Churches

CCEO Canon 56
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.

CCEO Canon 78

1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases.
2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.

CCEO Canon 79
The patriarch represents the patriarchal Church in all its juridic affairs.

Metropolitan Eastern Churches

CCEO Canon 157

1. The power which a metropolitan possesses according to the norm of law over the bishops and other Christian faithful of the metropolitan Church over which he presides, is ordinary and proper, but personal; thus, he cannot constitute a vicar for the entire metropolitan Church sui iuris nor delegate his power to a certain person for all cases. 2. The power of the metropolitan and the council of hierarchs is validly exercised only within the territorial boundaries of the metropolitan Church sui iuris.
2. The metropolitan represents the metropolitan Church sui iuris in all its juridic affairs.

Other Eastern Churches

Canon 190
The eparchial bishop represents the eparchy in all its juridic affairs.

 

[twf]

Vico: Thank you for the elaboration on the role of metropolitans in the East. My question remains though…why did it come to pass that the authority of metropolitans in the West has so greatly diminished over the course of time? As I said in my original post, the metropolitan of a Latin ecclesiastical province seems to exercise something more akin to EO style “chairmain of the board” primacy than Catholic primacy.

Hesychios: There may be some truth to your comment; that being said, the reality is that the diminished authority of the local metropolitan has the result of only INCREASING the autonomy of the local bishop. There are approximately 2000 local Ordinaries in the Latin Church…and in practice they more or less are accountable only to the Pope, who hardly intervenes in the day-to-day affairs of obscure Latin dioceses in the far corners of the world. Meanwhile, Eastern metropolitans are exercising real and substantial jurisdiction over their bishops…

 

[malphono]

I get the impression that while the “Patriarch” of the Latin Church, the Pope, may exercise more direct personal authority over his particular church than Eastern Catholic patriarchs do over theirs

This is true and results from different ecclesiological models, that of the West being hierarchical and that of the East & Orient being Synodal.

the reverse is true when it comes to metropolitans. I’ve been led to believe that Eastern Catholic metropolitans exercise a real jurisdiction over the other bishops of their province, while Latin metropolitans, at least in modern times, seem to function more as of a “first among equals” somewhat akin to the modern Eastern Orthodox view of “chairman of the board” primacy.

The authority of Western metropolitans seems to have diminished in tandem with the near dissolution (all but on paper) of the Primatial Sees. It seems to me that [post=7817302]Hesychios[/post] may be on target as to the “why” of both.

A couple years ago, a neighbouring (Latin) diocese received a new bishop. He was not ordained by the metropolitan (though the metropolitan was in attendance) but rather by the Apostolic Nuncio. This strikes me as odd

All things being equal, personally, I wouldn’t think of it as being “odd” since a Papal Nuncio (or an Apostolic Delegate) is really an ambassador. As such, he will follow the instructions given by his superiors.

I imagine that in an Eastern jurisdiction, it would be the metropolitan?

Might or might not be the case. I know of several Oriental bishops who were ordained to the episcopacy in Rome according to the Latin Rite. I’d not be surprised if there were Byzantine bishops as well. Anyway, the Papal Nuncio scenario for an Eastern or Oriental bishop isn’t all that far-fetched.

My question remains though…why did it come to pass that the authority of metropolitans in the West has so greatly diminished over the course of time? As I said in my original post, the metropolitan of a Latin ecclesiastical province seems to exercise something more akin to EO style “chairmain of the board” primacy than Catholic primacy.

the reality is that the diminished authority of the local metropolitan has the result of only INCREASING the autonomy of the local bishop. There are approximately 2000 local Ordinaries in the Latin Church…and in practice they more or less are accountable only to the Pope, who hardly intervenes in the day-to-day affairs of obscure Latin dioceses in the far corners of the world. Meanwhile, Eastern metropolitans are exercising real and substantial jurisdiction over their bishops…

Certain of the functions of the Primatial Sees (and, similarly, the Metropolitan Sees within them) have, for better or worse, (and I think it’s for the worse, but never mind that) passed to the post-conciliar “national bishops conference” establishments. I suppose that’s done in the name – or the illusion – of “democracy” or some such thing. The rest of the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees seem to have passed back to Rome.

 

[twf]

malphono:

Certain of the functions of the Primatial Sees (and, similarly, the Metropolitan Sees within them) have, for better or worse, (and I think it’s for the worse, but never mind that) passed to the post-conciliar “national bishops conference” establishments. I suppose that’s done in the name – or the illusion – of “democracy” or some such thing. The rest of the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees seem to have passed back to Rome.

Is this not, at least in theory, closer to the Eastern synodal model? I still maintain that as a result, at least in practice, individual Latin bishops have only seen an increase in autonomy, but I would personally like to see a certain degree of real authority returned to the metropolitans and primates, as in the East.

 

[malphono]

malphono:

Is this not, at least in theory, closer to the Eastern synodal model? I still maintain that as a result, at least in practice, individual Latin bishops have only seen an increase in autonomy, but I would personally like to see a certain degree of real authority returned to the metropolitans and primates, as in the East.

I don’t see it as such. For all practical purposes, there’s really no increase in “autonomy” due to the weakening of the Primate or the Metropolitan. Those functions passed either to the “bishops conference” or back to Rome itself. An individual diocesan bishop is no more autonomous now than he would have been in pre-conciliar days.

The Primatial Sees were, at one time, (read: when they meant something more than mere words on paper) interesting in that they did reflect a certain amount of the Synodal model. Perhaps that was the last vestige of it in the Latin Church, and perhaps that’s one of the reasons (maybe the principal reason?) for their demise. the whole idea doesn’t quite fit in with the hierarchical model, and, as the expression goes, “all roads lead to Rome” …

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios: There may be some truth to your comment; that being said, the reality is that the diminished authority of the local metropolitan has the result of only INCREASING the autonomy of the local bishop. There are approximately 2000 local Ordinaries in the Latin Church…and in practice they more or less are accountable only to the Pope, who hardly intervenes in the day-to-day affairs of obscure Latin dioceses in the far corners of the world. Meanwhile, Eastern metropolitans are exercising real and substantial jurisdiction over their bishops…

I think that this is because the central authority model does not work very well.

The Vatican (read: Pope) has full responsibility for the selection of bishops in the western church, although in fact any one person would be hard pressed to know so many people very well. So the selection process has become institutionalized.

A priest candidate gets good grades in college, and goes to Rome for further studies. These people become familiar with members of the Curia there and vice versa. Later, back home they have something of an edge for having studied in Rome, and when they are named as candidates “so-and-so already knows that lad, he’s a good fellow. really bright”, and the system can be ‘worked’ in this way. Get good grades in a good school, go to Rome and get noticed. Make dad proud.

As for the reason, it has to be more complicated than we can discuss here in an equitable manner. However I will say that, historically, the local churches became dominated by the local nobility and royalty subsequent to Europe being converted. This was an abusive in the east-west-north-south, basically all over.

In the west one can see the investiture controversy as symptom of that. The power of the Papacy was promoted and enhanced as an antidote to many of these problems as a reform.

The real substantial changes came, I think, when the Papacy began concluding concordats with governments in Europe. I don’t know when this began, but probably the most significant one was with Napoleon. Usually this resulted in the Pope being given the right to name bishops in a country as one of the terms.

I am working from memory, so I can’t make any references right now, but one can read about these things in any library.

The concordat with France was significant because the hierarchy of the church in France was closely associated with the old regime and the rich aristocracy, and during the French Revolution the church was swept away along with the Monarchy in a very bloody episode. Napoleon came to power after the French revolution had just about run it’s course. I recall reading that the government reduced the number of dioceses in France from 150 (or something like that) to fifty, consolidating them into compact and geographically sensible operations. The government also assumed ownership of church property, and the famous cathedrals became national treasures.

Napoleon wanted to curry favor with the rural Catholics and win their support and allegiance. The locals did not love or trust the old bishops and probably didn’t care to see them come back, but they trusted the Pope, who was far away and had a certain mystique. Napoleon granted the Pope the right to name the bishops of France in return for agreeing to the other changes the French government had made to the church organization.

Different processes were at work in different countries, but the result was the Vatican eventually got the right to name bishops in most place across Europe, and remolded the church.

Another example would be in Britain, which lost it’s church altogether under Elizabeth. When Catholicism was finally allowed to function legally once again, the Pope gave them bishops and laid out the diocesan boundaries. I don’t think there was a concordat involved.

When Holland finally allowed Catholicism to be legally followed, the Pope named new bishops for the country, bypassing the local recusant church entirely. The church had survived underground during the Protestant suppression with it’s own Metropolitan line intact, but the Pope did not recognize them.

By the time Pius IX was Pope, most bishops in Europe owed their appointments to the Vatican.

 

[Vico]

Vico: Thank you for the elaboration on the role of metropolitans in the East. My question remains though…why did it come to pass that the authority of metropolitans in the West has so greatly diminished over the course of time? As I said in my original post, the metropolitan of a Latin ecclesiastical province seems to exercise something more akin to EO style “chairmain of the board” primacy than Catholic primacy.

…

The metropolitan archbishop is one bishop with jurisdiciton over his see within the Latin Catholic Church which has the Supreme Pontiff as the Head. The metropolitan archbishop may have auxillary bishops within his see (ecclesiastical province). The norm is that one diocesan bishop rules over a see.

Maybe you are thinking of the situation of a metropolitan archbishop with suffragan dioceses each with their own diocesan bishop. The metropolitan archbishop does not have those sees, only his own see.

 

[Vico]

I left something out of the last post: there is a difference in the eastern Catholic Churches between the powers of the Metropolitan in a Metropolitan Church sui iuris and the Metropolitan of a Patriarchal or Major Archepiscopal Church. In the case of the Patriarchal or Major Archepiscopal Churches the Metropolitans role is not fixed but rather the rights and obligations are determined by competent authority.