Diocese

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(Latin diœcesis)

A Diocese is the territory or churches subject to thejurisdiction of abishop.

Origin of term

Originally the termdiocese (Gr.dioikesis) signified management of a household, thence administration or government in general. This term was soon used inRoman law to designate the territory dependent for its administration upon a city (civitas). What in Latin was calledager, orterritorium, namely a district subject to a city, was habitually known in the Roman East as adiœcesis. But as theChristian bishop generally resided in acivitas, the territory administered by him, being usually conterminous with the juridical territory of the city, came to be known ecclesiastically by its usual civil term,diocese. This name was also given to the administrative subdivision of some provinces ruled bylegates (legati) under the authority of the governor of the province. Finally,Diocletian designated by this name the twelve great divisions which he established in the empire, and over each of which he placed avicarius (Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1903, V, 1, 716 sqq.). The original term for local groups of the faithful subject to abishop wasekklesia (church), and at a later date,paroikia, i.e. the neighbourhood (Lat. porœcia, parochia). TheApostolic Canons (xiv, xv), and theCouncil of Nicæa in 325 (can. xvi) applied this latter term to the territory subject to abishop. This term was retained in the East, where the Council of Constantinople (381) reserved the worddiocese for the territory subject to a patriarch (can. ii). In the West alsoparochia was long used to designate an episcopal see. About 850Leo IV, and about 1095Urban II, still employedparochia to denote the territory subject to thejurisdiction of abishop.Alexander III (1159-1181) designated under the name ofparochiani the subjects of abishop (c. 4, C. X, qu. 1; c. 10, C. IX, qu. 2; c. 9, X, De testibus, II, 20). On the other hand, the present meaning of the worddiocese is met with in Africa at the end of the fourth century (cc. 50, 51, C. XVI, qu. 1), and afterwards inSpain, where the termparochia, occurring in the ninth canon of the Council of Antioch, held in 341, was translated by "diocese" (c. 2, C. IX, qu. 3). See also the ninth canon of the Synod of Toledo, in 589 (Hefele, ad h. an. and c. 6, C. X, qu. 3). This usage finally became general in the West, thoughdiocese was sometimes used to indicateparishes in the present sense of the word (seePARISH). In Gaul, the wordsterminus,territorium,civitas,pagus, are also met with.

Historical origin

It is impossible to determine what rules were followed at the origin of theChurch in limiting the territory over which eachbishop exercised his authority. Universality ofecclesiastical jurisdiction was a personal prerogative of the Apostles; their successors, thebishops, enjoyed only ajurisdiction limited to a certain territory: thus Ignatius wasBishop ofAntioch, andPolycarp, ofSmyrna. The firstChristian communities, quite like the Jewish, were established in towns. The converts who lived in the neighbourhood naturally joined with the community of the town for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries. Exact limitations of episcopal territory could not have engrossed much attention at the beginning ofChristianity; it would have been quite impracticable. As a matter of fact, the extent of the diocese was determined by the domain itself over which thebishop exercised his influence. It seems certain on the other hand, that, in the East at any rate, by the middle of the third century eachChristian community of any importance had become the residence of abishop and constituted a diocese. There werebishops in the country districts as well as in the towns. Thechorepiscopi (en chora episkopoi), or ruralbishops, werebishops, it is generally thought, as well as those of the towns; though from about the second half of the third century their powers were little by little curtailed, and they were made dependent on thebishops of the towns. To this ruleEgypt was an exception; Alexandria was for a long time the only see inEgypt. The number ofEgyptian dioceses, however, multiplied rapidly during the third century, so that in 320 there were about a hundredbishops present at theCouncil of Alexandria. The number of dioceses was also quite large in some parts of theWestern Church, i.e. in SouthernItaly and inAfrica. In other regions ofEurope, eitherChristianity had as yet a small number of adherents, or thebishops reserved to themselves supreme authority over extensive districts. Thus, in this early period but few dioceses existed in NorthernItaly,Gaul,Germany, Britain, andSpain. In the last, however, their number increased rapidly during the third century. The increase of the faithful in small towns and country districts soon made itnecessary to determine exactly the limits of the territory of each church. The cities of the empire, with their clearly defined suburban districts, offered limits that were easily acceptable. From the fourth century on it was generally admitted that every city ought to have itsbishop, and that his territory was bounded by that of the neighbouring city. This rule was stringently applied in the East. AlthoughInnocent I declared in 415 that theChurch was not bound to conform itself to all the civil divisions which the imperial government chose to introduce, theCouncil of Chalcedon ordered (451) that if acivitas were dismembered by imperial authority, theecclesiastical organization ought also to be modified (can. xvii). In the West, theCouncil of Sardica (344) forbade in its sixth canon the establishment of dioceses in towns not populous enough to render desirable their elevation to the dignity of episcopal residences. At the same time many Western sees included the territories of severalcivitates.

From the fourth century we have documentary evidence of the manner in which the dioceses were created. According to theCouncil of Sardica (can. vi), this belonged to the provincial synod; theCouncil of Carthage, in 407, demanded moreover the consent of theprimate and of thebishop of the diocese to be divided (canons iv and v). The consent of thepope or the emperor was not called for. In 446, however,Pope Leo I ruled that dioceses should not be established except in large towns and populous centres (c. 4, Dist. lxxx). In the same period theApostolic See was active in the creation of dioceses in theBurgundian kingdom and inItaly. In the latter country many of the sees had no othermetropolitan than thepope, and were thus more closely related to him. Even clearer is his rôle in the formation of the diocesan system in the northern countries newlyconverted toChristianity. After the first successes ofSt. Augustine inEngland,Gregory the Great provided for the establishment of twometropolitan sees, each of which included two dioceses. InIreland, the diocesan system was introduced bySt. Patrick, though the diocesan territory was usually coextensive with the tribal lands, and the system itself was soon peculiarly modified by the general extension of monasticism (seeIRELAND). InScotland, however, the diocesan organization dates only from the twelfth century. To theApostolic See also was due the establishment of dioceses in that part ofGermany which had been evangelized bySt. Boniface. In theFrankish Empire the boundaries of the dioceses followed the earlier Gallo-Roman municipal system, though the Merovingian kings never hesitated to change them by royal authority and without pontifical intervention. In the creation of new dioceses no mention is made ofpapal authority. TheCarlovingian kings and their successors, the Western emperors, notably the Ottos (936-1002), soughtpapal authority for the creation of new dioceses. Since the eleventh century it has been the rule that the establishment of new dioceses is peculiarly a right of theApostolic See.St. Peter Damian proclaimed (1059-60) this as a general principle (c. 1, Dist. xxii), and the same is affirmed in the well-known "Dictatus" ofGregory VII (1073-1085). Thepapal decretals (seePAPAL DECRETALS) consider the creation of a new diocese as one of thecausœ majores, i.e. matters of special importance, reserved to thepope alone (c. 1, X, De translatione episcopi, I, 7; c. 1, X, De officio legati, I, 30) and of which he is the sole judge (c. 5, Extrav. communes, De præbendis et dignitatibus, III, 2). A word of mention is here due to the missionary or regionarybishops,episcopi gentium,episcopi (archiepiscopi)in gentibus, still found in the eleventh century. They had no fixed territory or diocese, but were sent into a country or district for the purpose of evangelizing it. Such wereSt. Boniface inGermany,St. Augustine inEngland, andSt. Willibrord in theNetherlands. They were themselves the organizers of the diocese, after their apostolic labours had producedhappy results. Thebishops met with in somemonasteries of Gaul in the earlierMiddle Ages, probably in imitation ofIrish conditions, had no administrative functions (see Bellesheim, Gesch. d. kath. Kirche in Irland, I, 226-30, and Lôning, below).

Creation and modification of dioceses

We have noticed above that after the eleventh century thesovereign pontiff reserved to himself the creation of dioceses. In the actual discipline, as already stated, all that touches the diocese is acausa major, i.e. one of those important matters in which thebishop possesses no authority whatever and which thepope reserves exclusively to himself. Since the episcopate is of Divine institution, thepope isobliged to establish dioceses in theCatholicChurch, but he remains sole judge of the time and manner, and alone determines what flock shall be entrusted to eachbishop. Generally speaking, the diocese is a territorial circumscription, but sometimes thebishop possesses authority only over certain classes ofpersons residing in the territory; this is principally the case in districts where both the Western and the Eastern Rite are followed. Whatever, therefore, pertains to the creation or suppression of dioceses, changes in their boundaries, and the like is within thepope's exclusive province. As a general rule, the preparatory work is done by the Congregation of the Consistory, byPropaganda when the question relates to territories subject to this congregation, and by the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs when the establishment of a diocese is governed byconcordats, or when thecivil power of the country has theright to intervene in their creation. We shall take up successively (1) the creation of new dioceses (2) the various modifications to which they are subject, included by canonists under the termInnovatio.

Creation of dioceses

Strictly speaking, it is only in missionary countries that there can be question of the creation of a diocese, either because the country was neverconverted toChristianity or because its ancienthierarchy was suppressed, owing to conquest by infidels or the progress ofheresy. Regularly, before becoming a diocese, the territory is successively a mission, aprefecture Apostolic, and finally avicariate Apostolic. TheCongregation of Propaganda makes a preliminary study of the question and passes judgment on the opportuneness of the creation of the diocese in question. It considers principally whether the number ofCatholics,priests, and religious establishments, i.e. churches,chapels,schools, is sufficiently large to justify the establishment of the proposed diocese. These matters form the subject of a report toPropaganda, to which must be added the number of towns or settlements included in the territory. If there is a city suitable for the episcopal see, the fact is stated, also the financial resources at the disposal of thebishop for the works of religion. There is added, finally, a sketch, if possible accompanied by a map, indicating the territory of the future diocese. As a general rule, a diocese should not include districts whose inhabitants speak different languages or are subject to distinctcivil powers (see Instructions ofPropaganda, 1798, in Collectanea S. C. de P. F., Rome, 1907, no. 645). Moreover, the general conditions for, the creation of a diocese are the same as those required for dividing or "dismembering" a diocese. Of this we shall speak below.

Modification (innovatio) of dioceses

Under this head come the division (dismembratio) of dioceses, their union, suppression, and changes of their respective limits.

Division or dismemberment of a diocese

This is reserved to theHoly See. Since thepope is the supreme power in theChurch, he is not bound to act in conformity with the canonical enactments which regulate the dismemberment ofecclesiastical benefices. The following rules, however, are those which he generally observes, though he is free to deviate from them. — First, to divide a diocese, a sufficient reason must exist (causa justa). The necessity, or at least the utility, of the division must be demonstrated. There is sufficient reason for the subdivision of a diocese if it be too extensive, or the number of the faithful too great, or the means of communication too difficult, to permit thebishop to administer the diocese properly. The benefit which would result to religion (incrementum cultus divini) may also be brought forward as a reason for the change. In the main, these reasons are summed up in the one: the hope of forwarding the interests ofCatholicism. Dissensions between inhabitants of the same diocese, or the fact that they belong to different nations, may also be considered a sufficient reason. Formerly, the mere fact that the endowment of a diocese was very large — a case somewhat rare at the present day — formed a legitimate reason for its division.

The second condition is suitability of place (locucongruus). There should exist in the diocese to be created a city or town suitable for the episcopal residence; the ancient discipline which rules that sees should be established only in important localities is still observed.

Third, a proper endowment (dos congrua) is requisite. Thebishop should have at his disposal the resourcesnecessary for his own maintenance and that of theecclesiastics engaged in the general administration of the diocese, and for the establishment of acathedral church, the expenses of Divine worship, and the general administration of the diocese. Formerly it wasnecessary that in part, at least, this endowment should consist in lands; at present this is not always possible. It suffices if there is a prospect that the newbishop will be able to meet thenecessary expenses. In some cases, the civil government grants a subsidy to thebishop; in other cases, he must depend on the liberality of the faithful and on a contribution from theparishes of the diocese, known as the cathedraticum.

Fourth, generally for the division of a diocese the consent of the actual incumbent of thebenefice is requisite; but thepope is not bound to observe this condition.John XXII ruled that thepope had theright to proceed to the division of a diocese in spite of the opposition of thebishop (c. 5, Extrav. common., De præbendis, III, 2). As a matter of fact, thepope asks the advice of thearchbishop and of all thebishops of theecclesiastical province in which the diocese to be divided is situated. Often, indeed, the division takes place at the request of thebishop himself.

Fifth, theoretically the consent of thecivil power is not required; this would be contrary to the principles of the distinction and mutual independence of theecclesiastical andcivil authority. In many countries, however, the consent of thecivil authority is indispensable, either because the Government has pledged itself to endow the occupants of the episcopal sees, or becauseconcordats have regulated this matter, or because a suspicious government would not permit abishop to administer the new diocese if it were created without civil intervention (see Nussi, Conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis, Rome, 1869, pp. 19 sqq.). At present, the creation or division of a diocese is done by a pontificalBrief, forwarded by the Secretary of Briefs. As an example, we may mention theBrief of 11 March, 1904, which divided theDiocese of Providence and established the newDiocese of Fall River. The motive prompting this division was theincrementum religionis and themajus bonum animarum; theBishop ofProvidence himself requested the division, and this request was approved by theArchbishop ofBoston and by all thebishops of thatecclesiastical province. The examination of the question was submitted toPropaganda and to theApostolic Delegate at Washington. Thepope then created,motu proprio, the new diocese, indicated its official title in Latin and in English, and determined its boundaries, which correspond to political divisions, and, finally, fixed the revenues of thebishop. In the case before us these consist in a moderate cathedraticum to be determined by thebishop (discreto arbitrio episcopi imponendum). According to the practice ofPropaganda, all thepriests who at the time of the division exercised the ministry in the dismembered territory belong to theclergy of the new diocese (Rescript of 13 April, 1891, in Collectanea S. C. de P. F., new ed., no. 1751).

Union of dioceses

As in the case of the division of a diocese, the union of several dioceses ought to be justified by motives of public utility, e.g. the small number of thefaithful, the loss of resources. As in the case of division, thepope is influenced by the advice ofpersons familiar with the situation; sometimes he asks the advice of the Government, etc. It is a generally recognized principle in the union ofbenefices, that such union takes effect only after the death of the actual occupant of the see which is to be united to another; at least when he has not given his consent to this union. Though thepope is not bound by this rule, in practice it must be taken into account. The union of dioceses takes place in several ways. There is, first, theunio œque principalis orœqualis when the two dioceses are entrusted for the purpose of administration to a singlebishop, though they remain in all other respects distinct; each of them has its owncathedral chapter, revenues,rights, and privileges, but thebishop of one see becomes thebishop of the other by the mere fact of appointment to one of the two. He cannot resign one withoutipso facto resigning the other. This situation differs from that in which abishop administers for a time, or even perpetually, another diocese; in this case there is no union between the two sees. It is in reality a case of plurality ofecclesiastical benefices; thebishop holds two distinct sees, and hisnomination must take place according to the rules established for each of the two dioceses. On the contrary, in the case of two or more united dioceses, the election or designation of the candidate must take place by the agreement of thosepersons in both dioceses who possess the right of election or of designation. Moreover, in the case of united dioceses, thepope sometimes makes special rules for the residence of thebishop, e.g. that he shall reside in each diocese for a part of the year. If thepope makes no decision in this matter, thebishop may reside in the more important diocese, or in that which seems more convenient for the purposes of administration, or even in the diocese which he prefers as a residence. If thebishop resides in one of his dioceses he is considered as present in each of them for those juridical acts which demand his presence. He may also convoke at his discretion two separate diocesansynods for each of the two dioceses or only one for both of them. In other respects the administration of each diocese remains distinct. There are two classes of unequal unions of dioceses (uniones inœquales): theunio subjectiva orper accessorium, seldom put into practice, and theunio per confusionem. In the former case, the one diocese retains all itsrights and the other loses itsrights, obtains those of the principal diocese, and thus becomes a dependency. When a diocese is thus united to another there can be no question of right of election or designation, because such a dependent diocese is conferred by the very fact that the principal diocese possesses a titular. But the administration of theproperty of each diocese remains distinct and the titular of the principal diocese must assume all theobligations of the united diocese. The second kind of union (per confusionem) suppresses the two pre-existing dioceses in order to create a new one; the former dioceses simply cease to exist. To perpetuate the names of the former sees the newbishop sometimes assumes the titles of both, but in administration no account is taken of the fact that they were formerly separate sees. Such a union is equivalent to the suppression of the dioceses.

Suppression of dioceses

Suppression of dioceses, properly so called, in a manner other than by union, takes place only in countries where the faithful and theclergy have been dispersed bypersecution, the ancient dioceses becoming missions, prefectures, orvicariates Apostolic. This has occurred in the Orient, inEngland, theNetherlands, etc. Changes of this nature are not regulated by canon law.

Change of boundaries

This last mode ofinnovatio is made by theHoly See, generally at the request of thebishops of the two neighbouring dioceses. Among the sufficient reasons for this measure are the difficulty of communication, the existence of a high mountain or of a large river, disputes between the inhabitants of one part of the diocese, also the fact that they belong to different countries. Sometimes a resettlement of the boundaries of two dioceses isnecessary because the limits of each are not clearly defined. Such a settlement is made by aBrief, sometimes also by a simpledecretum or decision of the Congregation of the Consistory approved by thepope, without the formality of aBull orBrief.

Different classes of dioceses

There are several kinds of dioceses. There are dioceses properly so called andarchdioceses. The diocese is the territorial circumscription administered by abishop; the archdiocese is placed under thejurisdiction of anarchbishop. Considered as a territorial circumscription, no difference exists between them; the power of theirpastors alone is different. Generally, several dioceses are grouped in anecclesiastical province and are subject to the authority of themetropolitanarchbishop. Some, however, are said to be exempt, i.e. from anyarchiepiscopaljurisdiction, and are placed directly under the authority of theHoly See. Such are the dioceses of theecclesiastical province ofRome, and several other dioceses orarchdioceses, especially inItaly, also in other countries. The exemptarchbishops are called titulararchbishops, i.e. they possess only the title ofarchbishop, have no suffraganbishops, and administer a diocese. The term "titular archbishop", it is to be noted, is also applied tobishops who do not administer a diocese, but who have received with the episcopalconsecration a titulararchbishopric. For the better understanding of this it must be remembered thatarchdioceses and dioceses are divided into titular and residential. Thebishop of a residential see administers his diocese personally and is bound to reside in it, whereas thetitularbishops have only an episcopal title; they are not bound by anyobligations to the faithful of the dioceses whose titles they bear. These were formerly calledbishops orarchbishopsin partibus infidelium, i.e. of a diocese or archdiocese fallen into the power of infidels; but since 1882 they are calledtitularbishops orarchbishops. Such are thevicars Apostolic,auxiliary bishops, administrators Apostolic,nuncios, Apostolic delegates, etc. (see TITULAR BISHOP). Mention must also be made of thesuburbicarian dioceses (diœceses suburbicariœ), i.e. the six dioceses situated in the immediate neighbourhood ofRome and each of which is administered by one of the sixcardinal-bishops. These form a special class of dioceses, the titulars or occupants of which possess certain specialrights andobligations (seeSUBURBICARIAN DIOCESES).

Nomination, translation, renunciation, and deposition of a bishop

The general rules relating to thenomination of a residentialbishop will be found in the articleBISHOP. They are applicable whatever may have been the cause of the vacancy of the diocese, except in the case of a contrary order of theHoly See. TheChurch admits the principle of the perpetuity ofecclesiastical benefices. Once invested with a see thebishop continues to hold it until his death. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Thebishop may be allowed by thepope to resign his see when actuated by motives which do not spring from personal convenience, but from concern for the public good. Some of these reasons are expressed in the canon law; for instance, if abishop has been guilty of a grave crime (conscientia criminis), if he is in failing health (debilitas corporis), if he has not the requisiteknowledge (defectus scientiœ), if he meets with serious opposition from the faithful (malitia plebis), if he has been acause ofpublic scandal (scandalum populi), if he is irregular (irregularitas) — c. 10, X, De renuntiatione, I, 9; c. 18, X, De regularibus, III, 32. Thepope alone can accept this renunciation and judge of the sufficiency of the alleged reasons. Pontifical authorization is alsonecessary for an exchange of dioceses between twobishops, which is not allowed except for grave reasons. The same principles apply to the transfer (translatio) of abishop from one diocese to another. Canonical legislation compares with the indissoluble marriage tie the bond which binds thebishop to his diocese. This comparison, however, must not be understood literally. Thepope has the power to sever the mystical bond which unites thebishop to his church, in order to grant him another diocese or to promote him to anarchiepiscopal see. Abishop may also be deposed from his functions for a grave crime. In such a case thepope generally invites thebishop to resign of his own accord, and deposes him only upon refusal. As theHoly See alone is competent to try the crime of abishop, it follows that thepope alone, or the congregation to which he has committed thebishop's trial (Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, thePropaganda, sometimes theInquisition), can inflict this penalty or pronounce the declaratory sentence required when thelaw inflicts deposition as the sanction of a specified delinquency. Finally, thepope has always the right, strictly speaking, to deprive abishop of his diocese, even if the latter is not guilty of crime; but for this act there must be grave cause. After the conclusion of theConcordat of 1801 withFrance,Pius VII removed from their dioceses all thebishops ofFrance. It was, of course, a very extraordinary measure, but was justified by the gravity of the situation.

Administration of the diocese

Thebishop is the general ruler of the diocese, but in his administration he must conform to the generallaws of theChurch (seeBISHOP). According to theCouncil of Trent he is bound to divide the territory of his diocese intoparishes, with ordinaryjurisdiction for their titulars (Sess. XXIV, c. xiii, De ref.), unless circumstances render impossible the creation ofparishes or unless theHoly See has arranged the matter otherwise (ThirdPlenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 31-33). Thebishop needs also some auxiliary service in the administration of a diocese. It is customary for each diocese to possess a chapter of canons in thecathedral church; they are the counsellors of thebishop. Thecathedral itself is the church where thebishop has his seat (kathedra). Thepope reserves to himself the right of authorizing its establishment as well as that of a chapter of canons. In many dioceses, principally outside ofEurope, thepope does not establish canons, but gives as auxiliaries to thebishop other officials known asconsultores cleri diœcesani, i.e. the most distinguished members of the diocesanclergy, chosen by thebishop, often in concert with hisclergy or some members of it. Thebishop is bound to ask the advice of those counsellors, canons or consultors, in the most important matters. The canons possess, in some cases, theright to nullify episcopal action taken without their consent. Theconsultores cleri diœcesani, however, possess but a consultative voice (Third Plen. Council ofBaltimore, nos. 17-22; Plen. Cone. Americæ Latinæ, no. 246. — SeeDIOCESAN CONSULTORS). After thebishop, the principal authority in a diocese is thevicar-general (vicarius generalis in spiritualibus); he is thebishop's substitute in the administration of the diocese. The office dates from the thirteenth century. Originally thevicar-general was called the "official" (officialis); even yetofficialis andvicarius generalis in spiritualibus are synonymous. Strictly speaking, there should be in each diocese only onevicar-general. In some countries, however, local custom has authorized the appointment of several vicars-general. The one specially charged with the canonical lawsuits (jurisdictio contentiosa), e.g. with criminal actions againstecclesiastics or with matrimonial cases, is still known as the "official" it must be noted that he is none the less free to exercise the functions ofvicar-general in other departments of diocesan administration. A contrary custom prevails in certain dioceses ofGermany, where the "official" possesses only thejurisdictio contentiosa, but this is a derogation from thecommon law. For the temporal administration of the church thebishop may appoint anœconomus, i.e. an administrator. As such functions do not requireecclesiastical jurisdiction, this administrator may be alayman. The choice of alayman fully acquainted with thecivil law of the country may sometimes offer many advantages (SecondPlenary Council of Baltimore, no. 75). In certain very extensive dioceses thepope appoints avicarius generalis in pontificalibus, orauxiliary bishop, whoseduty is to supply the place of the diocesanbishop in the exercise of those functions of the sacred ministry which demand episcopal order. In the appointment of thisbishop thepope is not bound to observe the special rules for the appointment of a residentialbishop. Thesetitularbishops possess nojurisdiction by right of their office; the diocesanbishop, however, can grant them, e.g., the powers of avicar-general.

The common ecclesiastical law contains no enactments relating to therights and powers of the chancellor, an official met with in many dioceses (seeDIOCESAN CHANCERY). TheSecond Plenary Council of Baltimore (no. 71) advises the establishment of a chancery in every diocese of theUnited States. The chancellor is specially charged with the affixing of the episcopal seal to all acts issued in the name of thebishop, in order to prove their authenticity. He appears also in the conduct ofecclesiastical lawsuits, e.g. in matrimonial cases, to prove the authenticity of the alleged documents, to vouch for the depositions of witnesses, etc. Because of the importance of his functions, the chancellor sometimes holds the office ofvicar-generalin spiritualibus. By episcopal chancery is sometimes understood the office where are written the documents issued in the name of thebishop and to which is addressed the correspondence relating to the administration of the diocese sometimes also the term signifies thepersons employed in the exercise of these functions. The taxes or dues which the episcopal chancery may claim for the issuing of documents were fixed by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i, De ref.); afterwards byInnocent XI (hence their nameTaxa Innocentiana), 8 Oct., 1678; finally byLeo XIII, 10 June, 1896. The fiscal of thebishop, also known aspromotor orprocurator fiscalis, is the ecclesiastic charged with attending to the interests of the diocese in all trials and especially with endeavouring to secure the punishment of all offences cognizable in theecclesiastical tribunals. An assistant, who is called fiscal advocate (advocatus fiscalis), may be appointed to aid this officer.

Formerly the diocese was divided into a number of archdeaconries, each administered by anarchdeacon, who possessed considerable authority in that part of the diocese placed under hisjurisdiction. TheCouncil of Trent restricted very much their authority, and since then the office of thearchdeacon has gradually disappeared. It exists at the present day only as an honorary title, given to a canon of thecathedral chapter (seeARCHDEACON). On the other hand, the ancient office ofvicarii foranei,decani rurales, orarchipresbyteri still exists in theChurch (seeARCHPRIEST;DEAN). The division of the diocese into deaneries is notobligatory, but in large dioceses thebishop usually entrusts to certainpriests known as deans or vicars forane the oversight of theclergy of a portion of his diocese, and generally delegates to them special jurisdictional powers (Third Plen. Council ofBaltimore, nos. 27-30). Finally, by means of the diocesan synod all theclergy participates in the general administration of the diocese. According to thecommon law, thebishop is bound to assemble a synod every year, to which he must convoke thevicar-general, the deans, the canons of thecathedral, and at least a certain number ofparishpriests. Here, however, custom and pontifical privileges have departed in some points from the general legislation. At this meeting, all questions relating to the moral and theecclesiastical discipline of the diocese are publicly discussed and settled. In the synod thebishop is the sole legislator; the members may, at the request of thebishop, give their advice, but they have only a deliberative voice in the choice of theexaminatores cleri diœcesani, i.e. theecclesiastics charged with the examination of candidates for theparishes (Third Plen. Council ofBaltimore, nos. 23-26). It is because the diocesanstatutes are generally elaborated andpromulgated in a synod that they are sometimes known asstatuta synodalia. In addition to the generallaws of theChurch and the enactments of national or plenary andprovincial synods, thebishop may regulate bystatutes, that are often real ecclesiastical laws, the particular discipline of each diocese, or apply the generallaws of theChurch to the special needs of the diocese. Since thebishop alone possesses all the legislative power, and is not bound to propose in a synod these diocesanstatutes, he may modify them or add to them on his own authority.

Vacancy of the diocese

We have already explained how a diocese becomes vacant (see V above); here it will suffice to add a few words touching the administration of the diocese during such vacancy. In dioceses where there is a coadjutorbishop with right of succession, the latter, by the fact of the decease of the diocesanbishop, becomes the residentialbishop or ordinary (q.v.) of the diocese. Otherwise the government of the diocese during the vacancy belongs regularly to the chapter of thecathedral church. The chapter must choose within eight days avicar capitular, whose powers, although less extensive, are in kind like those of abishop. If the chapter does not fulfil thisobligation, thearchbishop appointsex officio avicar capitular. In dioceses where a chapter does not exist, an administrator is appointed, designated either by thebishop himself before his death, or, in case of his neglect, by themetropolitan or by the seniorbishop of the province (seeADMINISTRATOR).

Conspectus of the diocesan system of the Catholic Church

The accompanying table of the diocesan system of theChurch shows that there are at present throughout the world: 9patriarchates of the Latin, 6 of theOriental Rites; 6suburbicarian dioceses; 163 (or 166 with the Patriarchates ofVenice,Lisbon, andGoa, in realityarchdioceses)archdioceses of the Latin, and 20 of theOriental Rites; 675 dioceses of the Latin, and 52 of theOriental Rites; 137vicariates Apostolic of the Latin, and 5 of theOriental Rites; 58 prefectures Apostolic of theLatin Rite; 12 Apostolic delegations; 21abbeys or prelaturesnullius diœcesis, i.e. exempt from thejurisdiction of the diocesanbishop. There are also 89 titulararchdioceses and 432 titular dioceses.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT