The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W., Ramon, PeaceBeToAll
5,982 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 246 guests, and 55 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,388
Posts416,719
Members5,982
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
"Eparch" is effectively the western equivalent of "bishop", "metropolitan" is the equivalent of an "archbishop" and "patriarch" is the rough equivalent of "cardinal"? Is that accurate?

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Welcome to the forum, Talon.

Eparch is equivalent to a Diocesan Bishop in the West
However, Bishop is sometimes used in the East as well
And not every Eastern Bishop is an Eparch
- only a Bishop who heads an Eparchy or Diocese

Archeparch would be the equivalent of a Diocesan Archbishop
Again, though, Archbishop is sometimes used in the East
And the same considerations apply as mentioned above

Metropolitan is a title used in both East and West -
Not every Archbishop is a Metropolitan,
But every Metropolitan is an Archbishop
In the East, a Metropolitan exercises additional powers of jurisdiction
In the West, most jurisdictional powers of Metropolitans have been dispensed with in the most recent edition of Canon Law

Patriarch and Cardinal are not equivalents
A Patriarch (in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches) is the ruling hierarch of a Church sui iuris

A Patriarch (in the Latin Church) is an honorific title, not one of jurisdiction.

A Cardinal is (usually) an Archbishop or Bishop or (rarely) a Priest. It is an honorific title, not one of jurisdiction.

Does that help?

Many years,

Neil

Last edited by Irish Melkite; 04/13/14 09:40 PM. Reason: clarify

"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Welcome to the forum, Talon.

Hi Neil. Thank you for the welcome.

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Eparch is equivalent to a Diocesan Bishop in the West
However, Bishop is sometimes used in the East as well
And not every Eastern Bishop is an Eparch
- only a Bishop who heads an Eparchy or Diocese

...As opposed to a bishop who heads...??

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
In the East, a Metropolitan exercises additional powers of jurisdiction.

Say more about that? In the West, archbishops of very large archdioceses are often made cardinals simply by virtue of their governing a very large archdiocese. Does the status of Metropolitan in the East follow along similar lines, or are you speaking of something different?

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Patriarch and Cardinal are not equivalents
A Patriarch (in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches) is the ruling hierarch of a Church sui iuris

Right. But there - well...I guess I'm thinking of Orthodoxy. Nevermind... grin

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
LOL - somehow I knew there'd be follow-up questions biggrin - especially since, as I look back, I wasn't as clear as I might have been.

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Eparch is equivalent to a Diocesan Bishop in the West
However, Bishop is sometimes used in the East as well
And not every Eastern Bishop is an Eparch
- only a Bishop who heads an Eparchy or Diocese

Quote
...As opposed to a bishop who heads...??

Hmm, let's see how to best explain

Eparch is always a title, while Bishop is both a title and the fullness of the Mystery (Sacrament in the West) of Holy Orders.

A priest, in East or West, is ordained (more often phrased in the West as 'consecrated') as a Bishop

Subsequently, that Bishop may be:

(1) named Bishop/Eparch of the Diocese/Eparchy of

(2) named (in the East) Exarch (an Exarchate is a canonical jurisdiction that has not, as yet, been elevated to the status of an Eparchy - and may never be - because of the numbers of faithful or parishes)

or (in the West) Apostolic Administrator or Vicar Apostolic (an Apostolic Administration or Vicariate Apostolic is, again, a jurisdiction that has not yet been elevated to the status of a diocese - and may never be - for same reasons)

(3) named an Auxiliary Bishop, usually one who assists an Archbishop, but occasionally one who assists a Diocesan Bishop (if the diocese is large in numbers or geographically spread out). The terminology 'Auxiliary Bishop' is more common in the West than East (where you might encounter any of several alternative terms, but the idea is the same)

(4) assigned to head an office or agency of the Church - a national or international agency that is responsible to a Patriarch (East) or to the Vatican/Pope (West) - or to be an Apostolic Delegate (the Vatican diplomatic corps)

So, not all Bishops (or Archbishops) have jurisdictional authority. Archbishops are less likely to fill the roles in (2), but it happens on occasion; they are very unlikely to be assigned the roles in (3), but it has happened on a rare occasion; they often fill the roles in (4).

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
In the East, a Metropolitan exercises additional powers of jurisdiction.

Quote
Say more about that? In the West, archbishops of very large archdioceses are often made cardinals simply by virtue of their governing a very large archdiocese. Does the status of Metropolitan in the East follow along similar lines, or are you speaking of something different?

In the West, most Archbishops who head an Archdiocese are also Metropolitans (often referred to as Metropolitan Archbishops) - and some will, or are traditionally, named Cardinals.

Historically, a Metropolitan or Metropolitan Archbishop in the West exercised a degree of oversight with regard to Dioceses which were suffragn (or subordinate) to him. The last edition of the Latin Code significantly reduced the authority of Metropolitans, essentially leaving them only an honorific capacity.

In the East, Metropolitans or Metropolitan Archbishops/ Archeparchs generally have jurisdictional oversight of the suffragn Eparchies. (There are some differences between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox as to how these are structured, but the concepts are essentially the same.)

(There are also a very few Metropolitan Archeparchies that have no suffragn jurisdictions - despite being designated as Metropolia, but the explanation of that is in Terminology 201 - the advanced course biggrin )

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Patriarch and Cardinal are not equivalents
A Patriarch (in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches) is the ruling hierarch of a Church sui iuris

Quote
Right. But there - well...I guess I'm thinking of Orthodoxy. Nevermind... grin

Not sure where you're headed with this - my comments as to Patriarchs focused on Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. There are differences with regard to our Orthodox brethren - the Eastern Orthodox principally, who have several hierarchs who are titled as Patriarch. All of the Oriental Orthodox have only a single Patriarch per Church - except for our Armenian brothers.

But, Patriarchs are not equivalent to Cardinals in any instance - a Patriarch, regardless of his Church - has authority over a canonical jurisdiction.

A Cardinal's authority over a canonical jurisdiction is exercised by virtue of him being the Archbishop of a place. The additional title is, as it were, frosting on the cake. His authority over his jurisdiction/archdiocese is no greater than that of any Bishop or Archbishop who heads up a diocese but is not a Cardinal.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Quote
A Cardinal's authority over a canonical jurisdiction is exercised by virtue of him being the Archbishop of a place. The additional title is, as it were, frosting on the cake. His authority over his jurisdiction/archdiocese is no greater than that of any Bishop or Archbishop who heads up a diocese but is not a Cardinal.

Cardinals also have certain personal jurisdiction because of the their cardinalatial status.

They can, for instance, to hear confessions anywhere in the world. Bishops also have this authority, but the local bishop can forbid its use to a bishop, but not to a Cardinal.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by JBenedict
They can, for instance, to hear confessions anywhere in the world. Bishops also have this authority, but the local bishop can forbid its use to a bishop, but not to a Cardinal.
I've read somewhere a while back that it is the norm for cardinals to ask permission from the local bishop to do this.

Blessings

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Talon,

A good place to see some of these relationships set down in black and white is David Cheney's Catholic Hierarchy [catholic-hierarchy.org] site.

David, who is a forum member and posts here on occasion, is a Latin Catholic whose site chronicles a massive amount of data relative to the present day and historical development of Catholic jurisdictions, as well as the lines of apostolic succession for individual Catholic hierarchs, both Latin and Eastern/Oriental. Over the last couple of years, David has done an excellent job of introducing Eastern and Oriental Catholic terminology into listings of our jurisdictions and hierarchs on his site. He's also made it much easier to locate the jurisdictions than was possible previously when they were buried within the many hundreds of Latin jurisdictions. As a frequent user of his site, I'm very grateful to David for these efforts, as are many others, I'm sure.

And, today just happens to be his birthday. So, David, if you see this thread, happy birthday and may God grant you many years, my friend.

Neil

Last edited by Irish Melkite; 04/15/14 04:23 AM. Reason: clarity

"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
Neil,

I just wanted to add a few of my own observations regarding RC usage:
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Eparch is equivalent to a Diocesan Bishop in the West
Yes, except that the commonly-used term in the West is "ordinary"--with the exception that an ordinary is not necessarily a bishop (as I was surprised to find out when they created the Anglican Ordinariates a few years back, and some of the "ordinaries" they appointed were not bishops).


Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
A priest, in East or West, is ordained (more often phrased in the West as 'consecrated') as a Bishop
FWIW, Sacramentum Ordinis recommended getting away from using the term "consecration" for the ordination of a bishop, for just the reason you stated (namely, that it is the fullness of Holy Orders, not a different sacrament).

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Subsequently, that Bishop may be named ... (in the West) Apostolic Administrator or Vicar Apostolic (an Apostolic Administration or Vicariate Apostolic is, again, a jurisdiction that has not yet been elevated to the status of a diocese - and may never be - for same reasons)
FWIW, his grace, Bishop John Bura, is currently serving as Apostolic Administrator for the UGCC eparchy of St. Josaphat in Parma, which means the term is definitely used in the ECCs (even though it would *never* be used in the EOCs).


Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
[He might also be] named an Auxiliary Bishop, usually one who assists an Archbishop, but occasionally one who assists a Diocesan Bishop (if the diocese is large in numbers or geographically spread out). The terminology 'Auxiliary Bishop' is more common in the West than East (where you might encounter any of several alternative terms, but the idea is the same)
Another term that is used in the West is "coadjutor." When Bishop (now Abp.) Thomas Wenski first came to Orlando, he served for one year as Coadjutor to Bishop Norbert Dorsey (RIP) before being named Ordinary. (I think the difference is that coadjutor is not a permanent position.)


Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Patriarch and Cardinal are not equivalents
A Patriarch (in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches) is the ruling hierarch of a Church sui iuris
A term that is closer in meaning to patriarch in the Western Church is primate, which means the "first bishop" of a particular nation. (I must confess I've never known the rationale of why some countries have primates and some do not.)


Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
A Cardinal's authority over a canonical jurisdiction is exercised by virtue of him being the Archbishop of a place. The additional title is, as it were, frosting on the cake. His authority over his jurisdiction/archdiocese is no greater than that of any Bishop or Archbishop who heads up a diocese but is not a Cardinal.
Yes, and those cardinals (as well as archbishops and bishops) who hold only curial positions are typically made "prelates nullius," meaning they are made heads over ancient churches that no longer exist (apparently, there are enough of these to go around!).


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
A coadjutor bishop is basically an auxiliary bishop, with the following distinctions:
(1) Auxiliary bishops are requested by the local ordinary, whereas coadjutor bishops may be appointed by a higher authority (i.e., Patriarch/Synod).
(2) Coadjutor bishops have a right of succession when the local ordinary is impeded in his duties.
(3) Coadjutor bishops have a natural vote in the Synod, whereas auxiliary bishops not necessarily so.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Patriarch and Cardinal are not equivalents
A Patriarch (in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches) is the ruling hierarch of a Church sui iuris

Quote
Right. But there - well...I guess I'm thinking of Orthodoxy. Nevermind... grin

Quote
Not sure where you're headed with this - my comments as to Patriarchs focused on Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. There are differences with regard to our Orthodox brethren - the Eastern Orthodox principally, who have several hierarchs who are titled as Patriarch. All of the Oriental Orthodox have only a single Patriarch per Church - except for our Armenian brothers.

But, Patriarchs are not equivalent to Cardinals in any instance - a Patriarch, regardless of his Church - has authority over a canonical jurisdiction.

A Cardinal's authority over a canonical jurisdiction is exercised by virtue of him being the Archbishop of a place. The additional title is, as it were, frosting on the cake. His authority over his jurisdiction/archdiocese is no greater than that of any Bishop or Archbishop who heads up a diocese but is not a Cardinal.

Hi Neil. Yeah, I was essentially just trying to draw what might have been "4th grade" parallels as best I could and understood the nature of each office. I chose cardinal for the patriarchal parallel not because of perceived "perfect fit", but because, in the West, as you know, there is no higher authority than cardinal before you reach the pope himself. Thus...

Thanks for the link to David's website! Will definitely check it out when I get the time to do so...

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by mardukm
I've read somewhere a while back that it is the norm for cardinals to ask permission from the local bishop to do this.

Probably a simple matter of etiquette/"internal" deference.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
FWIW, Sacramentum Ordinis recommended getting away from using the term "consecration" for the ordination of a bishop, for just the reason you stated (namely, that it is the fullness of Holy Orders, not a different sacrament).

Which is interesting to me precisely for that reason - It's my understanding that, like Baptism and Confirmation (Chrismation), a man can receive Holy Orders only one time in life. Ergo, since a man is ordained to the priesthood, it's not technically correct to say that he is then "ordained" to the episcopate, as if he has received the Sacrament a second time...?

Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Another term that is used in the West is "coadjutor." When Bishop (now Abp.) Thomas Wenski first came to Orlando, he served for one year as Coadjutor to Bishop Norbert Dorsey (RIP) before being named Ordinary. (I think the difference is that coadjutor is not a permanent position.)

It's been my (somewhat limited) experience that the title "co-adjutor" is a "discrete" way of essentially saying, "The bishop you have been assigned to 'assist' is under investigation by Rome, and you're there to either assist directly in the investigation 'on the ground', or to simply replace the ordinary after the investigation is over, so learn all you can now before you're on your own," etc.

grin

(To be sure, I don't want to be unduly casting aspersions on anyone, so please, all, viz a viz the example above, be aware that my word on this is not "gospel.")

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Actually, I didn't get into some of these distinctions because of an old theory of mine that sometimes a question is just a question and that one can overload the inquirer with minutiae (something of which I'm often guilty). But, as the cat is out of the bag ...

While a Diocesan Bishop is indeed an Ordinary (though whether that's common-usage depends on the person with whom one is speaking; to the typical layman, I'd suggest that 'Ordinary' is less common), there are, as Deacon Richard described, also Ordinaries who may or may not necessarily be bishops and who do not head a diocese, such as:

those who head the Anglican Ordinariates - which are both geographical and personal in jurisdiction. This means that the Ordinary has jurisdiction over all persons (personal jurisdiction) who have entered the Catholic Church from the Anglican Church and who are resident in the geographic area (geographic jurisdiction) over which the Ordinary has authority (e.g., Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham - which encompasses England and Wales).

those who head Ordinariates for Eastern Catholics - which are also geographical and personal in jurisdiction. These are NOT Eastern Catholic jurisdictions. They are jurisdictions in which a Latin (who is always a Bishop in modern times and always additionally heads a Latin diocese) exercises personal jurisdiction over only those Eastern Catholics residing in a specific geographic area (usually a country) in which their own Church sui iuris has no hierarch. These types of Ordinaries are usually only appointed in instances where there are significant number of Eastern Catholics but dispersed among a number of among different Churches sui iuris - no one of which has enough faithful to have its own canonical jurisdiction erected (e.g., Ordinariate for Eastern Catholics in Argentina - which has personal jurisdiction of Eastern Catholics resident in Argentina, except for Melkites, Maronites, Ukrainians, and Armenians, all of whom have their own hierarhs and jurisdictions)

those who head Military Ordinariates, usually Bishops, who exercise personal jurisdiction of all members of the military of the country for which the ordinariate was erected.

---------------------------------------

Apostolic Administrator, in the case of Bishop John, is not the same as an Apostolic Administrator of an Apostolic Administration. Bishop John is, in effect, a locum tenens, the temporary administrator of an established canonical jurisdiction - the Eparchy of St Josaphat in Parma of the Ukrainians.

The sole Apostolic Administration (as a canonical entity) among the Eastern Churches is that of Albania Meridionale (Southern Albania - which is the only canonical jurisdiction of the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church sui iuris

---------------------------------------

Coadjutor Bishops are Auxiliary Bishops but, unlike Auxiliary Bishops, have authority to act on their own in the administration of the jurisdiction to which they are appointed. The scope of their authority is specified in their appointment. They do not, however, share precedential rank with the incumbent.

Appointment of a Coadjutor may be requested by an incumbent, as well as made by higher authority without such a request being made. A Coadjutor usually, but not always, has the right of succession; if not so specified in his appointment, it is not automatic.

-------------------------------------

I would disagree with Deacon Richard on comparing Primates to Patriarchs. A Patriarch's is a ruling hierarch. A Primate is an honorific position.

-------------------------------------

In his final comment, I believe Deacon Richard intended to speak of Titular Bishops. Auxiliary Bishops and any other Bishop who does not head a canonical jurisdiction has title to a (generally) ancient see, one that no longer exists, usually because there is no longer a presence of Catholic faithful there.

Prelates Nullius are a different thing. They are 'prelates of no place' or 'no diocese', meaning that the place over which they hold jurisdiction does not belong to any diocese and is directly subject to the Holy See. Such prelates, who need not be bishops, are also called territorial prelates.

I believe that the sole territorial prelacy in the East, at present, is the Territorial Abbey & Exarchic Monastery of Santa Maria of Grottaferrata.


Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Another term that is used in the West is "coadjutor." When Bishop (now Abp.) Thomas Wenski first came to Orlando, he served for one year as Coadjutor to Bishop Norbert Dorsey (RIP) before being named Ordinary. (I think the difference is that coadjutor is not a permanent position.)

Originally Posted by Talon
It's been my (somewhat limited) experience that the title "co-adjutor" is a "discrete" way of essentially saying, "The bishop you have been assigned to 'assist' is under investigation by Rome, and you're there to either assist directly in the investigation 'on the ground', or to simply replace the ordinary after the investigation is over, so learn all you can now before you're on your own," etc.

Coadjutor Bishops are most commonly appointed in instances where the Ordinary of the place is impaired by health issues. Such instances as you describe are more commonly undertaken by an Apostolic Visitator, who is often not a Bishop.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
Originally Posted by Talon
Which is interesting to me precisely for that reason - It's my understanding that, like Baptism and Confirmation (Chrismation), a man can receive Holy Orders only one time in life. Ergo, since a man is ordained to the priesthood, it's not technically correct to say that he is then "ordained" to the episcopate, as if he has received the Sacrament a second time...?

I don't believe this is correct. In Catholic theology, the sacrament of Holy Orders imparts an indelible mark on the soul, but there are multiple Holy Orders. A man can be ordained a deacon only once, a priest only once, and a bishop only once. However, in each case, he receives the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5