Why doesn't the US have a Primate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximilian75

Guest
I know that other countries (Canada, Poland, Ireland) have a Primate, something I have heard approximated to a “head bishop”. Why doesn’t the US have one?

Primate (bishop) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
It is not a state power… just authority over the bishops of their region.
 
When I go to the pharmacy, they give me my medication in Metric. I have never gotten pills using Imperial or US Standard.
 
I wonder if it might be that the US started out as mission territory. But this is totally a guess.
 
But weren’t Ireland and Canada as well? Poland, as its continental, really wouldnt fit into this category IMO
 
There’s Cardinal DiNardo, who as President of the USCCB is close.
 
yes, but these other countries have papally appointed primates, whereas I believe the USCCB President is elected from the members…
 
Correct. But I would imagine that if the Pope did not agree with the election of the Council President, he could ensure his dismissal, and by the Pope not disputing the legitimacy of the Council, it might be argued that Papal approval constitutes his appointment of sorts?
 
I guess, but they’re still different on a pretty fundamental level IMO…
 
Again, I think you are correct.

But at even a base level, there is much similarity, with the exception of the infusion of democracy, which is what makes the Council so unique to the US while still having a figurehead.
 
Yeah… It may be just a US thing as to why we don’t have one, but that still doesent explain why other big Catholic regions (Brazil, the Phillipines, etc) dont have them.
 
i’d’ve have to have understand what a primate is

in the USA we have altar servers, lay eucharistic ministers, deacons, priests, monsignors, bishops, archbisiops & cardinals
 
Last edited:
i read that link entirely;

thank you for that ; “primate” is an irrelevant title
 
Primates in the Latin Church rarely have any real primacy of jurisdiction (aside from the normal canonical prerogatives of being an ordinary and metropolitan within his local diocese / Province). It’s strictly a primacy of honour.
The Primate of Canada has no real authority outside of the archdiocese of Quebec (as ordinary) and the province of Quebec (as metropolitan). With the advent of national episcopal conferences, the elected president exercises more of a real primacy.
Incidentally, the archbishop of Santo Domingo is the Primate of the Americas… so technically that see has primacy over all the sees of the USA as well.
 
Yes, most (all?) of those archbishops are metropolitans who exercise primacy within an ecclesiastical Province. A national Primate typically has primacy among a group of provinces within a nation.
 
It’s not irrelevant. Primacy of honour matters in the Church as a matter of tradition. When our archdiocese (Vancouver) celebrated its 100th anniversary, the Primate of Canada was invited to celebrate a special Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top