According to the New Advent Encyclopedia, permanent coadjutors can have a titular archiepiscopal see. However, bishops without the archiepiscopal title can have coadjutors, as well as archbishops can. So, theoretically, a diocesan bishop who is “only” a bishop could have a titual archbishop as a coadjutor. Has this ever happened? If so, how was the etiquettal problem resolved?
There is a number of diocesan bishops who have the personal title of archbishop. Is it just a title or does it give any prerogatives? How is the etiquettal problem resolved between him and diocesan bishops who are “only” bishops and between him and archbishops who are metropolitan?
Do diocesan bishops who are archbishops receive a strictly personal archiepiscopal title or do they need a titular archiepiscopal see? If the latter is true, what happens with their obligation to go to their titular see if it should be restored from titular to true metropolitan?
How is the etiquettal problem resolved between a diocesan who is a Cardinal and archbishops, particularly metropolitans, particularly his own metropolitan if they aren’t Cardinals?
What if the auxilliary bishop becomes a Cardinal and the diocesan isn’t? He is exempted from the diocesan’s governance as to his own person, but what about performing episcopal functions?
How is the problem of jurisdiction resolved if a diocesan ordinary becomes the chairman of the conference of bishops? Does he have any jurisdiction over his very own metropolitan?
How is the problem of jurisdiction resolved between auxilliary bishops with no delegated jurisdiction and ordinary priests who have such jurisdiction (prelates)? Can a priest with curial dignities and functions ever have any jurisdiction over an auxilliary?
How is the problem of jurisdiction resolved for bishops who belong to certain religious orders? Do they fall under the jurisdiction of the order superiors who are not ordained bishops but “only” priests (e.g. a bishop who lives in an abbey to ordain priests for the monastery - as the abbot who is just a priest can’t validly ordain anyone to anything)?
The Canon Law says Cardinals need to be at least priests. Does it mean the Pope couldn’t create a deacon or a layman a Cardinal without changing the Canon Law first, if his authority is supreme, full and immediate? Any deacons created Cardinals after Cardinal Antonelli? Who was the last layman (i.e. no Holy Orders) created Cardinal?
Deacons seem to be able to have jurisdiction in the church because they have Holy Orders. People who have jurisdiction can become quasi-ordinaries even if they aren’t bishops. Does it mean deacons can become quasi-ordinaries, grant dispensations, delegate priests or deacons to witness marriages etc?
Can a deacon ever become a prelate without priestly orders?
Where does it say married permanent deacons aren’t bound by the continence which generally binds the clergy? Or is it assumed that, if celibacy doesn’t apply, neither does continence?
May permanent deacons wear the same frock as priests wear?
The Pope’s supreme immediate full authority means everyone’s bound by his decision. But does it mean that he can also confer any sacrament at all anywhere at any time on anyone? Can anyone in the church ever issue a decision binding the Pope anyhow - directly or indirectly?
What would happen if a sinful Pope did something to which latae sententiae excommunication or suspension is attached (breaking the seal of confession, absolving an accomplice in a certain sin etc)? Can he be excommunicated this way? Would he really beout of the Church if it happens? Who could welcome him back?
Who can excommunicate a bishop except the Pope? I’ve heard about a Cardinal (probably Tisserand, but I’m not sure) excommunicating a bishop during a conclave, but I don’t know on the basis of wha authority.
What if it occured that a Pope’s orders are invalid - let’s say someone in the line of succession had a marriage declared null in error, was “ordained” by an impostor, had a faulty dispensation from an irregularity, was unable validly to confer orders or some such? Or does the Holy Spirit’s guidance warrant that something like this won’t happen?
What if a once-married priest or bishop had had a faulty declaration of marriage nullity or faulty dispensation from ratum et non consummatum in a marriage actually consummated and it turned out he had a spouse in a valid marriage?
What do they do if it turns out that a whole line of apostolic succession has been invalid (invalid orders in one bishop in the line)? Does it mean lots of invalid (and thus non-sacramental) marriages on the way? Do they trace everyone down that line to ordain him afresh?
If someone’s spouse is presumed dead, he can remarry. When the supposedly dead spouse shows up alive after all those years, is a nullity trial needed for the second marriage?
I’ve been told that if someone’s supposedly dead spouse shows up alive, declaration of nullity of the second marriage is still needed. So what, are the newly reunited spouses supposed to live like a brother and sister until the second marriage is declared null and void even though it so obviously can’t be valid? Do they sin if they immediately resume sexual relations?
What if a missing spouse is presumed dead, a new marriage is granted because it’s believed the spouse is dead, and then the “dead” one returns, but it proves the first marriage was invalid. Is the second marriage valid or are both invalid and it’s up to the person to decide which of the two marriages to convalidate?
What do they do if a married man discovers that his declaration of nullity of Holy Orders had been invalid?
In current practice, coadjutors (generally) are not given titular sees. Prior to that, it was normal for coadjutors of bishops to be bishops of titular sees and for coadjutors of archbishops to be archbishops of titular sees.
Personal titles are honorary. I know of no etiquette problems. (FYI, there are suffragan archdioceses.)
Personal title generally - although it used to be more common to be assigned a titular archdiocese. There is no such obligation (and its quite rare to have a titular see restored to an active one).
First, its a rare situation. Second, I don’t know of any etiquette problems that it would cause.
Again, a very rare situation (actually no examples come to mind at all). As with all auxiliary bishops, his activities as an auxiliary would be coordinated with his ordinary.
Chairmen of Conferences of Bishops have no jurisdiction per se.
I know of no cases of the first. As to the latter, I think the answer is “no”, but I can’t think of a specific rule which says so.
Bishops, by their episcopal consecration, are no longer bound to a religious order. They may, of course, continue to follow the rules of the order voluntarily as it fits their particular situation. In modern cases that I’m aware, the ordinary of the diocese generally performs the ordinations for a monastery - even if they have “member(s)” that are bishops.
By the very act of creating a cardinal that wasn’t a priest, the pope would be altering the law (as is his right). I don’t know immediately who the last non-priest cardinal was - but in the mid-1960’s the cardinals who were not bishops at that time were consecrated bishops. (There are however a few living non-bishop cardinals now.)
I don’t see any immediate limitation on a deacon becoming an prelate, but I don’t know of any examples of it either.
see 10
I don’t see an immediate answer in canon law.
Canon 288 removes the obligation of Canon 284 for permanent deacons, “unless particular law states otherwise”.
Yes, subject to the limits of validity of the sacrament (he can’t rebaptize someone, for example). No.
Such extremely obscure possibilities simply aren’t covered by canon law directly, The appropriate tribunals (and ultimately the pope) would have to decide such cases.
Bishops are normally consecrated by at least 3 bishops. All 3 lines would have to be invalid for the consecration to be invalid.
The provisions of Canon 1707 make that quite unlikely. The related questions (21 and 22) would have to be handled as extraordinary exceptions.
A declaration of nullity of an ordination is extraordinarily rare. I know of only 1 case that has even been filed in modern times (and it was rejected). (For the question to be relevant, both the ordination to the deaconate and the priesthood would have to be nullified and then reversed.)
I know… But does it mean the same penalties, i.e. he couldn’t do anything in the church? If he were forbidden from exercising any powers of governance, he wouldn’t even be able to override the Canon Law or remit his own excommunication anyhow. As he has no superior, there would be a problem here. Anyway, this is purely theoretical, as I can’t really see a pope doing something with excommunication attached.
Oops, sorry - meant to say Canon 1333p3#1. “This prohibition never affects: 1) any offices or power of governance which are not within the control of the Superior who establishes the penalty;”
Given that there is no superior in that case, I think it abrogates the penalty.
Congrats on superb answers, you are a true scholar! For trivia’s sake, Cardinal Antonelli, Secretary of State to Bl. Pius IX, was the last cardinal I can think of who was not a priest (I think he was a deacon).
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
