www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Bishop's Jurisdiction

Does a given bishop's jurisdiction remain over an individual layperson for their entire life? For example, I am a member of the Eparchy of Van Nuys. If I moved to Philadelphia, would Bishop William Skurla still be my bishop, or would I now be under the Bishop of the Eparchy of Pittsburgh? My husband says that whichever Bishop you are under when you come into the Catholic faith is your bishop for life. But it seems to me that if you move out of his geographical jurisdiction, you would belong to someone else; how else could he properly govern his people if they are spread out all over the world?

I guess my husband is seeing it as a family relationship - you don't trade in your parents if you move out of state. I'm seeing it as a government relationship - if you move to a new state, you are now under the rule of a different governor, senators, etc.

Does anyone out there know how it works?

Tammy,

if you moved to Philly, you would be in the eparchy of Passaic.

One's relationship with the Catholic Church is established through a Particular Church, aka, eparchy or diocese, which of course has a definite geographical area. I would not classify the relationship strictly in familial or in governmental terms. The bishop is a shepherd, so maybe a shepherd analogy might make the relatioship clearer. Granted it's not a perfect analogy. If a sheep happens to cross the fence into another flock, that sheep is normally under the care of that shepherd. So the relationship of the faithful (except in certain circumstances) to the Bishop would change with a move into a different eparchy. However, like a family the Bishop remains Father to the "new" faithful under his care.

Deacon John:
Thank you for the info. So basically, I was right in that we would belong to the Bishop whose geographical territory we live in.
Tammy

Dear Tammy,

Technically, at any location there is only one bishop who has that location as part of his territory. In the west, these are always the Latin diocesan bishops. These bishops truly have a geographically-defined territory with boundaries.

That is why all of the Byzantine Catholic "jurisdictions" in North america are really eparchies. An eparchy, in the truest sense, doesn't have a territory, but may be assigned an area in which it operates and ministers. An eparchy is a way of caring for a minority flock of a different rite who coexist alongside the majority rite's territorial dioceses. This is an old pattern used in the old world. An eparchy overlaps with one or more diocesan territories and technically its bishop does not sit on the council/synod as a voting memeber.

This is the model, but there are plenty of digressions from the model. I apologize if my explanation is less than 100% clear.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

It is interesting that the word in Latin for "bishop" really meant "mayor of a city" in the Roman civil division and did define territory.

For this reason, in the Celtic lands, it was the abbot himself who had administrative power while bishops only had a liturgical role of primacy to play.

The reason? There were no cities as yet in those lands and the monasteries were the focus of administrative life for the Church there.

Also, off-topic completely, the Scots' surname "MacNab" means "Son of the Abbot."

The Celtic monasteries allowed their monks to be married . . .

Alex

Andrew,

From where did you draw this distinction? The CCEO does not make it. The term Eparchy is used because they felt it was a more Eastern term than Diocese, even though all Orthodox use that term as far as I am aware. Eastern Eparchies are terrtitorially defined even though they may overlap with Latin Dioceses or other Eastern Eparchies. Eastern Catholic bishops also have a vote in the Episcopal Conferences in which they are members (except for votes concerning Latin Liturgy or Discipline) while at the same time retaining voting rights in their own Church's Synod or Council of Hierarchs.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Dear SbDn Lance,

The oft-repeated maxim and the clear model from the holy canons is "one city, one bishop" with the word "ruling" in parenthesis before the word bishop.

Exactly as the term "ep archion" implies. It is not the standard administrative unit but a special one established for situations exactly like those encountered in the Americas, with numerous minority Rites overlapping a majority (Latin) Rite.

Two examples are in Southern Italy and Sicily where there are two Byzantine Rite (Greco-Albanian) Eparchies who have no territorial authority, but do have authority over their Byz. Rite flocks and buildings. They report directly to the Pope but do not elect Popes.

Some of the eparchs in N. America may be voting members of their respective synods/councils, but, again, there are many digressions from the model.

In Christ,
Andrew

The Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic eparchies in North America are complete eparchies (dioceses), have defined geographic territories, and are totally equivalent to the Latin dioceses in authority over Christians. The Latin Church has never been ruled as the �native Church� for North America. While the principal does violate the �one city, one bishop� principle there is no subjugation of Easterners to Latin dioceses or bishops. It is not a special unit created for the governance of minorities.

I don't understand your point, eparchies do not elect the Pope, ie, the Bishop of Rome, Cardinals of the voting age do. Not even the arch/bishops of Latin dioceses elect the Bishop of Rome, unless they are Cardinals.

Andrew,

ISTM, that what you are describing is a "personal prelature", ie, a special institution in the Catholic Church which is headed by a Ordinary/prelate whose membership is international and trans-diocesan, but whose members are subject to the local Ordinary in whose geographic diocese they reside. The personal prelature developed after Vatican II, though its contemplation precedes the Council. The only personal prelature that I am aware is in existence is that of Opus Dei, the "work" started by St Josemaria Escriva.

Andrew,

I still do not understand on what you are basing you statements. For better or worse, since the Unions, the "one city, one bishop" rule has gone out the window in the Catholic Church. Overlapping jurisdictions are the norm now. The model for a diocese and an eparchy are the same, there are no digressions. For further clarification I post the definitions of jurisdictions from the Code of Canon Law and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Please note that diocese and eparchy are described identically.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

From the Code of Canon Law

Can. 368 - Particular Churches, in which and from which the one and only catholic Church exists, are principally dioceses. Unless the contrary is clear, the following are equivalent to a diocese: a territorial prelature, a territorial abbacy, a vicariate apostolic, a prefecture apostolic and a permanently established apostolic administration.

Can. 369 - A diocese is a portion of the people of God, which is entrusted to a bishop to be nurtured by him, with the cooperation of the presbyterium, in such a way that, remaining close to its pastor and gathered by him through the Gospel and the Eucharist in the Holy Spirit, it constitutes a particular Church. In this Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ truly exists and functions.

Can. 370 - A territorial prelature or abbacy is a certain portion of the people of God, territorially defined, the care of which is for special reasons entrusted to a prelate or an abbot, who governs it, in the manner of a diocesan bishop, as its proper pastor.

Can. 371 �1. A vicariate apostolic or a prefecture apostolic is a certain portion of the people of God, which for special reasons is not yet constituted a diocese, and which is entrusted to the pastoral care of a vicar apostolic or a prefect apostolic, who governs it in the name of the Supreme Pontiff.

�2. An apostolic administration is a certain portion of the people of God which, for special and particularly serious reasons, is not yet established by the Supreme Pontiff as a diocese, and whose pastoral care is entrusted to an apostolic administrator, who governs it in the name of the Supreme Pontiff.

Can. 372 - �1. As a rule, that portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other particular Church is to have a defined territory, so that it comprises all the faithful who live in that territory.

�2. If however, in the judgement of the supreme authority in the Church, after consultation with the Episcopal Conferences concerned, it is thought to be helpful, there may be established in a given territory particular Churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality.

Can. 373 - It is within the competence of the supreme authority alone to establish particular Churches; once they are lawfully established, the law itself gives them juridical personality.

From the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches

Can. 155 - �1. A metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by a metropolitan of a determined see who is appointed by the Roman Pontiff and assisted by a council of hierarchs according to the norm of law.

�2. It is solely the right of the supreme authority of the Church to erect, modify, suppress and define the territorial boundaries of metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

Can. 177 - �1. An eparchy is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted for pastoral care to a bishop with the cooperation of the presbyterate so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and the Eucharist , it constitutes a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ truly present and operative.

�2. In the erection, modification, and suppression of eparchies within the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church, can. 85, �1 is to be observed; in other cases the erection, modification and suppression of eparchies is solely within the competence of the Apostolic See.

Can. 311 - �1. An exarchy is a portion of the people of God which, becasue of special circumstances, is not erected as an eparchy, and which is established within territorial or other kinds of limits and is committed to an exarch.

�2. In the establishment, modification, and suppression of an exarchy which is located within the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church, can. 85, �3 is to be observed. The establishment, modification and suppression of other exarchies is belongs to the Apostolic See alone.

Apparently, from what is posted, the Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome have thrown out the canonical norm on this one.

I'm not saying that that is a bad thing. We do need to realize that the canons of the first seven councils (which establish what I have described earlier) never envisioned or dealt with a situation such as the North American one.

The Orthodox in North America, have also "bent the canon" on this one, in that their jurisdictions overlap, although all of the same Rite, thus making things considerably simpler. There are 14 Orthodox bishops with jurisdiction in New York City.

Thanks for pointing out the Western developments relating to the Eparchies. My only tounge-in-cheek question is then, "Why do they still call them "eparchies" and not "dioceses?"

In Christ,
Andrew

I think some of the non-Byzantine ones are actually called dioceses--for instance, the Syriac Catholic diocese of Union City, NJ and the Maronite diocese of Brooklyn.

I may be wrong.

LatinTrad

Dear Andrew,

That's because they want to leave the appearance of still being Eastern . . .

I'm still not letting you off the hook about your last post, you know . . .

But have a nice day!

Alex

Or why do the Roman Uniates (Eastern Catholics) now prefer the Greek term eparchy while the Orthodox cling to the Latin term diocese?