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

But I think that we are agreeing that "diocese" traditionally was the term used both East and West in the "old country" for the normal territorial structure. "Eparchy" was an exceptional structure and not made to supercede or even equal the local diocesan bishop's territorial authority.

For example, in relations with the local government, the territorial bishop always took the lead. The bishop of an eparchy only got involved if a member of his flock/rite was involved. The territorial diocesan bishop was the normal voice and standard-bearer of the Church.

Now, in the America's, they used and still use "eparchy" for the Eastern Rite Catholics (in most cases?) but none of the Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions have used or do use that term (eparchy).

I interpret it at best to mean that at one time Rome saw the Eastern Rite Catholics as "special cases" or "minority rites" in a majority Latin Rite land whose territorial bishops would all and always be Latin.

I'm willing to concede that Rome now may view them all (dioceses and eparchies) as equals in North America, but the name "eparchy" does not give that implication. If they have equal territorial authority, then they should all properly be called "dioceses."

If they want to maintain the title "eparchy" for historical reasons or reasons of tradition, that's fine by me, but the name "eparchy" clearly implies that the bishop of such does not have the same normal territorial perrogatives as a "diocesan" bishop.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

I don�t think that is an accurate understanding. The switch from the use of the terms �archdiocese� and �diocese� to �archeparchy� and �eparchy� (about 10 years ago) was a purposeful one. It was part and parcel of the getting rid of all Latin terminology and replacing it with Byzantine terminology.

I do agree that it can be confusing. It would have been better (IMHO) to have kept the terms archdiocese and diocese. I can appreciate the restoration of all things Byzantine but sometimes concessions need to be made. Even most unchurched North Americans have an idea of what a diocese is. Few, I think, would have any inking of what an eparchy is.

I think this is a distinction without a difference, and one peculiar to the English language, at that.

In eastern Europe, all Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic "dioceses" are called in the various Slavic languages, "Yeparkhiya", "Eparkhiya".

Even in the USA, the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese first named itself "Karpatorusskaja Pravoslavnaja Greko-katolicheskaja Eparkhija" and the old Russian Metropolia in its Russian-language documents referred to its "Severnoamerikanskaya Eparkhiya".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05484a.htm

The Catholci Encyclopedia maintains that eparchy was orginally what we now call a province(metropolia) and that the Russian CHurch did call its diocese eparchies.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05676b.htm

Interesting article on Exarchs as well.

This usage appeared several times before then, e.g., in the 1960s, although obviously the use of "(arch)diocese", particularly under Metropolitan Stephen Kocisko, came to be normative.

If my memory isn't warped, you would see in the title page of the 1960s "green book" and "gray book" something about "the inter-eparchial liturgical commission of the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and the Eparchy of Passaic".

Correct. Both terms were in use to a certain extent. Passaic often used the term �Eparchy� while Pittsburgh almost always used the term �Archdiocese� (after it became one).