Bishop

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...

Etymology

(Anglo-SaxonBiscop, Busceop, GermanBischof; from the Greekepiskopos, an overseer, through Latinepiscopus;Italianvescovo; Old Frenchvesque; Frenchévêque).

Overview

Bishop is the title of anecclesiastical dignitary who possesses the fullness of thepriesthood to rule adiocese as its chiefpastor, in due submission to theprimacy of thepope.

It is ofCatholicfaith that bishops are of Divine institution. In thehierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those ofpriests anddeacons; in thehierarchy ofjurisdiction, byChrist's will, they are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of theChurch, under the direction and authority of thesovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but, not annihilate them. They are the successors of the Apostles, though they do not possess all the prerogatives of the latter. (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, ch. iv; can. vi, vii. SeeAPOSTOLIC COLLEGE.) The episcopate is monarchical. By the Will ofChrist, the supreme authority in adiocese does not belong to acollege ofpriests or of bishops, but it resides in the singlepersonality of the chief.

The subject will be treated under five heads:

Historical origin

The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of theApostolic Fathers relating to the primitiveecclesiastical hierarchy. They are most easily found in the work of von Dunin-Borkowski, on the latest researches concerning the origin of the episcopate (Die Neuren Forschungen uber die Anfange des Episkopats, Frieburg, 1900). The Apostolic and consequently the Divine origin of the monarchical episcopate has always been contested but especially so sinceProtestantism put forward thedoctrine of a universalChristianpriesthood. At the present day,rationalistic andProtestant writers, even those who belong to theAnglican Church, reject the Apostolic institution of the episcopate; many of them relegate its origin to the second century. Loning attempts to prove that originally there were several different organizations, that someChristian communities were administered by a body ofpresbyters, others by acollege of bishops, others again by a single bishop. It is the last named form of organization, he declares, which has prevailed (Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristentums. Halle, 1889). Holtzmann thinks that the primitive organization of the churches was that of the Jewishsynagogue; that acollege ofpresbyters or bishops (synonymous words) governed the Judaeo Christian communities; that later this organization was adopted by theGentile churches. In the second century one of these presbyter-bishops became the ruling bishop. The cause of this lay in the need of unity, which manifested itself when in the second centuryheresies began to appear. (Pastoralbriefe, Leipzig, 1880.) Hatch, on the contrary, finds the origin of the episcopate in the organization of certain Greek religious associations, in which one meets withepiskopoi (superintendents) charged with the financial administration. The primitiveChristian communities were administered by acollege ofpresbyters; those of thepresbyters administered the finances were called bishops. In the large towns, the whole financial administration was centralized in the hands of one such officer, who soon became the ruling bishop (The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, Oxford, 1881). According to Harnack (whose theory has varied several times), it was those who had received the special gifts known as thecharismata, above all the gift of public speech, who possessed all authority in the primitive community. In addition to these we find bishops anddeacons who possess neither authority nor disciplinary power, who were charged solely with certain functions relative to administration and Divine worship. The members of the community itself were divided into two classes: the elders (presbyteroi) and the youths (neoteroi). A college ofpresbyters was established at an earlydate atJerusalem and in Palestine, but elsewhere not before the second century; its members were chosen from among thepresbyteroi, and in its hands lay all authority and disciplinary power. Once established, it was from this college ofpresbyters thatdeacons and bishops were chosen. When those officials who had been endowed with the charismatic gifts had passed away, the community delegated several bishops to replace them. At a later date theChristians realized the advantages to be derived from entrusting the supreme direction to a single bishop. However, as late as the year 140, the organization of the various communities was still widely divergent. The monarchic episcopate offers its origin to the need ofdoctrinal unity, which made itself felt at the time of the crisis caused by theGnostic heresies.

J.B. Lightfoot, who may be regarded as an authoritative representative of theAnglican Church, holds a less radical system. The Primitive Church, he says, had no organization, but was very soon conscious of the necessity of organizing. At first the apostles appointeddeacons; later, in imitation of the organization of thesynagogue, they appointedpresbyters, sometimes called bishops in theGentile churches. Theduties of thepresbyters were twofold: they were both rulers and instructors of the congregation. In theApostolic age, however, traces of the highest order, the episcopate properly so called, are few and indistinct. The episcopate was not formed from the Apostolic order through the localization of the universal authority of the Apostles, but from the presbyteral (by elevation). The title of bishop originally common to all came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them. Within the period compassed by the Apostolic writings, James, the brother of the Lord, can alone claim to be regarded as a bishop in the later and more special sense of the term. On the other hand, through especially prominent in theChurch ofJerusalem, he appears in the Acts as a member of the body. As late as the year 70; no distinct signs of episcopal government yet appeared inGentileChristendom. During the last three decades of the first century, however, during the lifetime of the latest surviving Apostle, St. John, the episcopal office was established inAsia Minor. St. John was cognizant of the position of St. James atJerusalem. When therefore, he found inAsia Minor manifold irregularities and threatening symptoms of disruption, he not unnaturally encouraged in theseGentile churches an approach to the organization, which had been signally blessed and hadproved effectual in holding together the mother-church ofJerusalem amid dangers no less serious. The existence of a council or college necessarily supposes a presidency of some kind, whether this presidency be assumed by each member in turn, or lodged in the hands of a singleperson. It was onlynecessary, therefore, to give permanence, definiteness, stability to an office the germ of which already existed. There is no reason, however, for supposing that any direct ordinance was issued to the churches by St. John. The evident utility and even pressing need of such an office, sanctioned by the mostvenerated name inChristendom, would be sufficient to secure its wide though gradual reception. The earliest bishops, however, did not hold the position of independent supremacy which was and is occupied by their later representatives. This development is most conveniently grasped in connection with three great names: Ignatius,Irenaeus, andCyprian, who represent as many successive advances towards the supremacy ultimately attained. By Ignatius the bishop is regarded as the centre of unity; toIrenaeus he is the depositary of primitivetruth; toCyprian, he is the absolute vicegerent of Christ in things spiritual (Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry, 181-269, in his commentary onSt. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, London, 1896).

Catholic writers agree in recognizing the Apostolic origin of the episcopate, but are much divided as to the meaning of the terms which designate thehierarchy in theNew Testament writings and theApostolic Fathers. One may even ask if originally these terms had a clearly defined significance (Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche bis zum Jahre 175, Mainz, 1904). Nor is there greater unanimity when an attempt is made to explain why some churches are found withoutpresbyters, others without bishops, others again where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops, sometimespresbyters. This disagreement increases when the question comes up as to the interpretation of the terms which designate other personages exercising a certain fixed authority in the earlyChristian communities. The following facts may be regarded as fully established:

During the first three centuries, the entirereligious life of thediocese centered around theperson of the bishop. Thepriests anddeacons were his auxiliaries but they worked under the immediate direction of the bishop. In large cities, however, likeRome, it was soon foundnecessary to hand over permanently to thepriests anddeacons certain definite functions. Moreover, as a result of the spread ofChristianity outside the great centres of population, the bishop gradually left to otherecclesiastics the administration of a fixed portion of thediocesan territory. In the East, at firstbishoprics were created in all districts where there was a considerable number ofChristians. But this system presented great inconveniences. To distant or rural localities, therefore, theChurch sent bishops, who were only the delegates of the bishop of the city, and who did not possess the right of exercising the most important powers of a bishop. Such bishops were known asChorepiscopi or rural bishops. Later on, they were replaced bypriests (Gillman, Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient, Munich, 1003). The establishment ofparishes from the fourth and the fifth century on gradually freed the bishops from many of their original charges; they reserved to themselves only the most important affairs, i.e. those which concerned the whole diocese and those which belonged to thecathedral church. However, above all other affairs, the bishops retained the right of supervision and supreme direction. While this change was taking place, the Roman Empire, nowChristian, granted bishops other powers. They were exclusively empowered to take cognizance of the misdemeanors ofclerics, and every lawsuit entered into against the latter had to be brought before the bishop's court. TheEmperor Constantine often permitted allChristians to carry their lawsuits before the bishop, but this right was withdrawn at the end of the fourth century. Nevertheless, they continued to act as arbitrators, which office the earliestChristians had committed to them. More important, perhaps, is the part which theRoman law assigns to the bishops as protectors of the weak and oppressed. The master was permitted to legally emancipate his slave in the bishop's presence; the latter had also the power to remove young girls from immoral houses where theirparents or masters had placed them, and to restore them to liberty. Newly born infants abandoned by theirparents were legally adjudged to those who sheltered them, but to avoid abuses it was required that the bishop should certify that the child was a foundling. TheRoman law allowed the bishops theright to visitprisons at their discretion for the purpose of improving the condition ofprisoners and of ascertaining whether the rules in favour of the latter were observed. The bishops possessed great influence over theChristian emperors, and though in theEastern Church these intimate relations betweenChurch and State led to Casaropapism, the bishops of the West preserved in a great measure their independence of the Empire (Löning, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts,Strasburg, 1878, I, 314-331; Troplong, De l'influence du christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, Paris, 1842, new ed., 1902).

The authority of the bishop was even greater after the barbarian invasions; among the Germanic peoples he soon became an influential and powerful personage. He inspired confidence and commanded respect. He was beloved for he protected the young and the weak, he was the friend of thepoor, was accustomed to intercede on behalf of the victims ofinjustice, and especially on behalf oforphans andwomen. Through his influence, in many spheres, he became the real master of the episcopal city. The only functionaries whose authority was comparable with that of the bishop were the dukes and the counts, representatives of the king. In certain districts the preeminence showed itself clearly in favour of the bishop; in some cities the bishop became also count. InFrance, as a general rule, this state of affairs did not continue, but inGermany many bishops became temporal lords or princes. Finally, the bishop acquired an extensivecivil jurisdiction not only over hisclergy but also over thelaity of hisdiocese (Viollet, Histoire des institutions politiques de laFrance, Paris, 1890, I. 380-409). Such an exalted position was not without its difficulties. One of the gravest was the interference of the lay authority in the election of bishops. Until the sixth century theclergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighbouring bishops. Undoubtedly, theChristian Roman emperors sometimes intervened in these election, but outside the imperial cities only, and generally in the case of disagreement as to the properperson.

As a rule they contented themselves with exercising an influence on the electors. But from the beginning of the sixth century, this attitude was modified. In the East theclergy and theprimates, or chief citizens, nominated three candidates from whom themetropolitan chose the bishop. At a later date, the bishops of theecclesiastical province assumed the exclusive right of nominating the candidates. In the West, the kings intervened in these elections, notably inSpain and Gaul, and sometimes assumed the right of directnomination (Funk, "Die Bischofswahl im christlichen Altertum und im Anfang des Mittelalters" in "Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen", Paderborn: 1897, I, 23-39; Imbart. de la Tour. "Les élections épiscopales dans l'ancienne France", Paris, 1890). This interference of princes and emperors lasted until the quarrel about Investitures, which was especially violent inGermany, where from the ninth to the eleventh centuriesabbots and bishops had become real temporal princes. (SeeINVESTITURE.) TheSecond Lateran Council (1139) handed over to the chapter of thecathedral church the sole right of choosing the bishop, and thislegislation was sanctioned by theDecretals (Decretum Gratiani. P. I., Dist. lxiii, ch. xxxv; ch. iii. De causa possessionis et proprietatis, X, II, xii; ch. liv, De electione et electi potestate, X, I, vi; Friedberg, Corpus Juris Canonici, Leipzeig, 1879-81, I, 247, II, 95,276) The bishops of theMiddle Ages acquired much temporal power, but this was accompanied by a corresponding diminution of their spiritual authority. By the exercise of the prerogative of the primacy theHoly See reserved to Itself all the most important affairs, the so-calledcausae majores, as for instance thecanonization ofsaints (ch. i, De reliquiis X, III, xlv; Friedberg, II, 650), the permission to venerate publicly newly discoveredrelics, theabsolution of certain gravesins, etc. Appeals to thepope against the judicial decisions of the bishops became more and more frequent. Thereligious orders and the chapters ofcathedral and collegiate churches obtained exemption from episcopal authority. Thecathedral chapter obtained a very considerable influence in the administration of thediocese. Thepope reserved also to himself thenomination of manyecclesiastical benefices (C. Lux. Constitutionum apostolicarum de generali beneficiorum reservatione collectio et Breslau, 1904). He also claimed theright to nominate the bishops, but in the German Concordat of 1448 he granted the chapters theright to elect them, while in that of 1516 he permitted the King ofFrance to nominate the bishops of that nation. Subsequently theCouncil of Trent defined therights of the bishop and remedied the abuses which had slipped into the administration ofdioceses and the conduct of bishops. The council granted them the exclusive right of publishingindulgences; it also impressed upon them theobligation of residence in theirdioceses, theduty of receivingconsecration within three months after their elevation to the episcopate, of erectingseminaries, of convoking annualdiocesansynods, of assisting at,provincial synods, and of visiting theirdioceses. It also forbade them to cumulatebenefices, etc. The same council diminished exceptions from episcopal authority, anddelegated to the bishops some of therights which in the past theHoly See had reserved for itself. Subsequent pontifical acts completed theTridentine legislation, which is still valid.Protestantism and at a later date theFrench Revolution destroyed all temporal power of the bishops; thenceforth they were free toconsecrate themselves with greater earnestness to theduties of their spiritual ministry.

Present legislation

Two classes of bishops must be distinguished, not with regard to the power of order, for all bishops receive the fullness of thepriesthood but with regard to thepower of jurisdiction: thediocesan bishop and thetitular bishop or, as he was called before 1882 theepiscopusin partibus infedelium. The former is here considered. Those belonging to the second class cannot perform any episcopal function without the authorization of thediocesan bishop; for astitular bishops there have no ordinaryjurisdiction. They can; however, act asauxiliary bishops, i.e. they may be appointed by thepope to assist adiocesan bishop in the exercise ofduties arising from the episcopal order but entailing nopower of jurisdiction. (SeeAUXILIARY BISHOP.) Such a bishop is also calledvicarius in pontificalibus, i.e. a representative in certain ceremonial acts proper to thediocesan bishop, sometimes suffragan bishop,episcopus suffraganeus. In the proper sense of the term, however, the suffragan bishop is thediocesan bishop in his relations with themetropolitan of theecclesiastical province to which he belongs, while the bishop who is independent of anymetropolitan is called an exempt bishop,episcopus exemptus. Thetitular bishop may also be coadjutor bishop when he is appointed to assist an ordinary bishop in the administration of thediocese. Sometimes he is incorrectly calledauxiliary bishop. He possesses some powers ofjurisdiction determined by the letters Apostolic appointing him. Often also, notably in missionary countries, the coadjutor bishop is namedcum jure successionis, i.e. with the right of succession; on the death of thediocesan bishop he enters on the ordinary administration of thediocese.

TheCouncil of Trent determined the conditions to be fulfilled by candidates for the episcopate, of which the following are the principal: birth in lawful wedlock, freedom from censure and irregularity or any defect in mind, purity of personalmorals, and good reputation. The candidate must also be fully thirty years of age and have been not less than six months inHoly orders. He ought also to have thetheological degree of Doctor or at least be a licentiate intheology or canon law or else have the testimony of a public academy or seat of learning (or, if he be a religious, of the highest authority of his order) that he is fit to teach others (c. vii, De electione et electi potestate, X.I. vi; Friedberg, II, 51. Council of Trent. Sess. XXII, De ref., ch. ii). The Holy Office is charged with the examination ofpersons called to the episcopate, with the exception of the territories subject to theCongregation of the Propaganda or to the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, or of those countries where thenomination of bishops is governed by speciallaws andconcordats ("Motu Proprio" ofPope Pius X. 17 December, 1903; "acta sanctae Sedis, 1904, XXXVI, 385). We have said that theDecretals recognize the right of thecathedral chapters to elect the bishop. This right has long been long withdrawn and is no longer in force. In virtue of the second rule of the Papal Chancery the choice of bishops belongs exclusively to thepope (Walter, Fontes juris eccesiastici antiqui et hodierni, Bonn, 1861, 483) Exceptions to this rule, however, are numerous. InAustria (with the exception of someepiscopal sees), inBavaria, inSpain, inPortugal and inPeru, the Government presents to thesovereign pontiff the candidates for the episcopate. It was so inFrance, and in several South American Republics before the rupture or denunciation of theconcordats between the states and theApostolic See. By the cessation of theseconcordats such states lost all right of intervention in thenomination of bishops; this does not, however prevent the Government in several South American Republics from recommending candidates to thesovereign pontiff. Thecathedral chapter is authorized to elect the bishop in severaldioceses ofAustria,Switzerland,Prussia, and in some States ofGermany, notably in theecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine. The action of the electors, however, is not entirely free. For example, they may not choosepersons distasteful to the Government (Letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State to the Chapters ofGermany, 20, July 1900; Canonist Contemporain, 1901, XXIV, 727). Elsewhere thepope himself nominates bishops, but inItaly the Government insists that they obtain the royalexequatur before taking possession of theepiscopal see. In missionary countries thepope generally permits the "recommendation" of candidates, but this does not juridically bind thesovereign pontiff, who has the power to choose the new bishop frompersons not included in the list of recommended candidates. InEngland the canons of thecathedral select by a majority of the votes, at three successive ballots, three candidates for the vacantepiscopal see. Their names, arranged in alphabetical order, are transmitted to thePropaganda and to thearchbishop of the province, or to the senior suffragan of the province, if the question is one of the election of anarchbishop. The bishops of the province discuss the merits of the candidates and transmit their observations to thePropaganda. Since 1847 the bishops are empowered, if they so desire, to propose other names for the choice of theHoly See, and a decision of thePropaganda (25 April, 3 May, 1904) confirms this practice (Instruction ofPropaganda, 21 April, 1852; "Collectanea S. C. de Propagandâ Fide", Rome, 1893. no. 42; Taunton, 87-88). Analogous enactments are in force inIreland. The canons of thecathedral and all theparishpriests free from censure and in actual and peaceful possession of theirparish or unitedparishes, choose in a single ballot threeecclesiastics. The names of the three candidates who have obtained the greatest number of votes are announced and forwarded to thePropaganda and to thearchbishop of the province. Thearchbishop and the bishops of the province give theHoly See their opinion on the candidates. If they judge that none of the candidates is capable of fulfilling the episcopal functions no second recommendation is to be made. If it is a question of thenomination of a coadjutor bishop with the right of succession the same rules are followed, but the presidency of the electoral meeting, instead of being given to themetropolitan, his delegate, or the senior bishop of the province, belongs to the bishop who asks for the coadjutor (Instruction ofPropaganda, 17 September, 1829, and 25 April, 1835; "Collectanea," nos. 40 and 41). InScotland, where there is no chapter of canons, they follow the rules as inEngland; and when there is no chapter, the bishops ofScotland and thearchbishops ofEdinburgh and Glasgow choose by a triple ballot the three candidates. The names of these latter are communicated to theHoly See together with the votes which each candidate has obtained. At the same time is transmitted useful information about each of them according to the questions determined by thePropaganda (Instruction of thePropaganda, 25 July, 1883; "Collectanea". no. 45). In theUnited States of America thediocesan consultors and the irremovable rectors of thediocese assemble under the presidency of thearchbishop or the senior bishop of the province, and choose three candidates, the firstdignissimus, the seconddignior, and the thirddigmus. Their names are sent to thePropaganda and to thearchbishops of the province; thearchbishop and the bishops the province examine the merits of the candidates proposed by theclergy and in their turn, by a secret ballot propose three candidates. If they choose other candidates than those designated by theclergy, they indicate their reasons to thePropaganda. In the case of thenomination of a coadjutor with right of succession, the meeting of theclergy is presided over by the bishop who demands a coadjutor. If it concerns a newly created diocese, the consulters of all thedioceses from whose territory the newdiocese was formed and all the irremovable rectors of the new diocese choose the three candidates of theclergy. Finally, if it is a matter of replacing anarchbishop or of giving him a coadjutor with right of succession all themetropolitans of theUnited States are consulted by thePropaganda (Decree ofPropaganda, 21 January, 1861, modified by that of 31 September, 1885; Collectanea, no. 43). InCanada by adecree of 2 December, 1862, theChurch still follows the rules laid down by thePropaganda on 21 January, 1861, for theUnited States (Collectanea. no. 43; Collectio Lacensis 1875, III, 684, 688). Every three years the bishops must communicate to thePropaganda and to themetropolitan the names of thepriests they think worthy of episcopal functions. In addition, each bishop must designate in a secret letter threeecclesiastics whom he believes worthy to succeed him. When a vacancy occurs, all the bishops of the province indicate to thearchbishop or to the senior bishop thepriests whom they consider recommendable. The bishops then discuss in a meeting the merits of each of thepriests recommended, and proceed to thenomination of the candidates by secret vote. The acts of the assembly are transmitted to thePropaganda. In Australia, a method similar to that in use in theUnited States is followed. Two differences, however, are to be noted: first the bishops still signify every three years, to themetropolitan and to thePropaganda the names of thepriests whom they consider worthy of the episcopal office. Second, when thenomination of a coadjutor bishop is in question, the presidency over the assembly of consultors and irremovable rectors belongs not to the bishop who demands a coadjutor, but to themetropolitan or to the bishop delegated by him (Instruction ofPropaganda, 19 May, 1866, modified by thedecree of 1 May, 1887; Collectanea, no. 44).

Whatever the manner of hisnomination, the bishop possesses no power until hisnomination has been confirmed by theHoly See, whether in consistory or by pontifical letters. Moreover, he is forbidden to enter on the administration of hisdiocese therefore taking possession of hissee by communication to thecathedral chapter the letters Apostolic of hisnomination (Const."Apostolicae Sedis", 12 October, 1869, V, i; "Collectanea", no. 1002). From this moment, even before hisconsecration, the new bishop is entitled in hisdiocese to allrights ofjurisdiction. He is required to make the prescribed profession offaith in the first provincial synod held after his elevation (Council of Trent, Sess., XXV, De ref., ch. ii). Finally, he isobliged within the space of three moths to receive episcopalconsecration. The right of consecrating a bishop belongs to thesovereign pontiff, who generally permits the newly elected to beconsecrated by three bishops of his own choice. However, if theconsecration takes place inRome, he must select acardinal or one of the majorpatriarchs residing atRome. If however, his ownmetropolitan is at that time inRome, he would beobliged to choose him. Theconsecration ought to take place on aSunday or on the feast of an Apostle, by preference in thecathedral church of thediocese or at least within theecclesiastical province (Council of Trent, Sess., XXIII, De ref., ch. ii). Beforeconsecration, the bishop must take anoath of fidelity to theHoly See. (For the formula of thisoath for the bishops of theUnited States of America see "Acta et Decreta conc. Plen. Balt., III",Baltimore, 1886. Appendix, 202.) Consecration by a single bishop would not be invalid but would be illicit. However, the bishops of South America have the privilege of beingconsecrated by one bishop assisted by two or threepriests, if it prove difficult for them to obtain three bishops (Letters Apostolic ofLeo XIII "Trans Oceanum", 18 April 1897; "Acta Sanctae Sedis", 1896-97, XXIX, 659). Episcopalconsecration has the effect of giving to the bishop the full powers of Order. (SeeHoly Orders.)

Rights and powers of the bishop

The bishop possesses, as already stated, the powers of order andjurisdiction. The power of order comes to him through episcopalconsecration, but the exercise of this right depends on hispower of jurisdiction. Thesacerdotalordination performed by every dulyconsecrated bishop is undoubtedly valid, yet the bishop can ordain only in conformity with the enactments of canon law. Only the bishop can confer major orders. The question has been discussed, as to whether thepope could delegate to apriest, for example theabbot of amonastery, the power to ordain adeacon. The bishop is the only ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, can. vii). Ecclesiastical law has reserved certain benedictions andconsecrations to him, viz., those which are performed with holy oil. The following functions are reserved to the bishop: the dedication of a church, theconsecration of an altar, ofchalices andpatens, and generally of the articles serving for the celebration of Holy Mass, the reconciliation of adesecrated church, the benediction of bells, the benediction of anabbot, the benediction of theholy oils, etc. A bishop is forbidden to exercise thePontificalia — i.e. to perform episcopal functions in another diocese — without the consent of the ordinary, i.e. the proper bishop (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, De ref., ch. v).

Besides the power of order, bishops possess that ofjurisdiction; they have theright to prescribe for the faithful the rules which the latter must follow in order to obtaineternalsalvation. Thepower of jurisdiction is of Divine origin, in the sense that thepope is held to establish in theChurch bishops whose mission it is to direct the faithful in the way ofsalvation. The bishops have then in theirdioceses an ordinaryjurisdiction, limited, however, by therights that thepope can reserve to himself in virtue of his primacy. But thisjurisdiction is independent of the will and consent of thefaithful, and even of theclergy. In certain important matters, however, the bishop must at times seek the advice, at other times the consent, of thecathedral chapter. In certain countries where chapters are not established, the bishop is bound to consult in some specified cases theconsultores cleri dioecesani, ordiocesan consultors (Third council ofBaltimore, nos. 17-22, 33, 179). On the other hand, certain classes ofpersons, especially the regulars properly so called, are exempt from episcopal authority, and certain matters are removed from the bishopsjurisdiction. Moreover, he has no power against the will of a superior authority, i.e. thepope, the councils, whether general, plenary, or provincial. The Bishop possess also other important powers through "delegated"jurisdiction which is accorded to him either by law, whether written or established through theRoman Congregations. The last namedjurisdiction he exercises in the name of theApostolic See (see below). Certain writers attribute to the bishop a third kind ofjurisdiction which they call "quasi-ordinary"jurisdiction, but there are wide differences as to the definitions of this kind ofjurisdiction. Several writers (such as: Wernz, II, 10; Bargilliat, "Praelect. ju. can.", Paris, 1900, I, 164; and amoung the older canonists, Boix, "De princep. juris canonici", Paris, 1852, 530) think that this distinction is useless; thejurisdiction known as quasi-ordinary is nothing else than an ordinary or delegatedjurisdiction granted by written law or by custom.

It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold theirjurisdiction directly fromGod or from thesovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of theChurch, which seems to demand that there should be no power in theChurch not emanating immediately from thesovereign pontiff. Authors who hold the contrary opinion say that it is during the episcopalconsecration that bishops receive fromGod theirpower of jurisdiction. But habitually before theirconsecration the bishops have already all powers ofjurisdiction over theirdioceses (Bargilliat, I, 442-445). Another question also discussed is whether thepotestas magisterii, or teaching authority, is a consequence of the power of order or ofjurisdiction (Sägmüller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Frieberg, 1900-04, 24-25). Whatever the conclusion, teaching authority will here be ranked among the powers ofjurisdiction. The teaching authority of the bishop and his governing authority (potestas regiminis) will now be successively considered, the latter comprising the legislative,dispensative, judicial, coercive, and administrative powers.

Teaching authority

ByDivine law bishops have theright to teachChristian doctrine (Matthew 28:19; Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch. iv;Encyclical ofLeo XIII, "Sapientiae christianae", 10 January, 1890; "Acta Sanctae Sedis": 1890, XXXII, 385). At the same time, theobligation of instructing the faithful either personally or, if hindered, through otherecclesiastics is incumbent upon them. They are bound also to see that in theparish churches theparishpriests fulfil the requirements of preaching and teaching which theCouncil of Trent imposes on them (Sess. V, De ref., ch. ii; Sess. XXIV, De ref. ch. iv). The bishop must also supervise the teaching ofChristian doctrine in theseminaries, as well as in secondary and primaryschools (Conc. Balt. III, nos. 194 sqq.; Const. "Romanos pontifices", 8 May, 1881; op. cit., Appendix, 212). In virtue of this right of superintendence, and because of the intimate relations which exist between instruction andeducation, the bishop is empowered to forbid attendance at undenominationalschools, at least in those districts whereCatholicschools exist, and where attendance at the formerschools is dangerous. In virtue of the same right he will very often be bound to erectCatholicschools or favour their establishment (Third Council ofBaltimore, nos. 194-213). No one is allowed to preachChristian doctrine without the consent of the bishop, or at least without hisknowledge if it is a question of exempt religious preaching in their own churches (Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref., ch., ii; Sess. XVIV, De ref., ch. iv). The Bishop has power to supervise writings published or read in hisdiocese; works regarding thesacred sciences are subject to hisapprobation; he may forbid the reading of dangerous books and newspapers. He exercises a special control over the publications of thesecular clergy, who are bound to consult him before undertaking the direction of newspapers or of publishing works even upon profane matters (Const. ofLeo XIII, "Officiorum et munerum", 25 January, 1897; Vermeersch, "De probitione et censura liborum", 4th ed., Rome, 1906). He has the right of special supervision over the manuals used ineducational establishments, and as far as possible he will encourage the publication of good books and good newspapers (Third Council ofBaltimore, nos. 210,220, 221, 225, 226). The bishop is theInquisitor natus or protector of thefaith for hisdiocese. He has not, it istrue, theright to define, outside anecumenical council, controverted questions with regard tofaith andmorals, but when a heated discussion arises in hisdiocese, he can impose silence upon the parties concerned while awaiting a decision from theHoly See. If anyone, however, denies a point ofdoctrinedefined by theChurch, even though it be all exempt religious, the bishop will have the power to punish him (Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref., ch. ii; Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch, iii). He must likewise guard the faithful of hisdiocese against dangeroussocieties condemned by theHoly See (Third Council ofBaltimore, nos. 244-255).

Governing authority

(1) Legislative Power

The bishop can enact for hisdiocese thoselaws which he considers conducive to the general good. Though he is not bound to convoke a synod for this purpose, his legislative power is not absolute. He cannot legislatecontra jus commune, i.e. enact a law contrary to the general law of theChurch, written or established by custom, or to the decisions of general, plenary, or provincial councils. This is on the principle that an inferior cannot act contrary to the will of his superiors (ch. 11, "De electione et electi potestate", I, iii, in the Clementines; Friedberg, II, 937) He can, however, enactlawsjuxta jus commune, i.e. he can urge the observance of provisions of the common ecclesiastical law by penalizing the violation of the same (ch. ii. De constitutionibus, VI, I, ii; Friedberg, II, 937). He can determine the common ecclesiastical law, i.e. he can permit or forbid that which thecommon law neither forbids nor permits with certitude, and can apply to the particular needs of hisdiocese the general enactments of the pontificallaws. Many writers say that the bishop has also the power to enactlawspraeter jus commune, i.e. to regulate those matters concerning which the common ecclesiastical law is silent; or at least particular points unforeseen by thecommon law. In any case, if the bishop wishes to add to the enactments of thecommon law (and the same principle is valid when it is a question of applying to the needs of his own diocese a general law of theChurch), he must take care to make no enactment on matters which thecommon law, in the intention of the supreme legislator, has completely regulated. Thecommon law implicitly forbids any episcopal action in such matters. Thus, e.g., the bishop cannot introduce new irregularities. In hisdiocesan legislation the bishop must not go beyond the purpose intended by the common ecclesiastical law. Thus, the latter forbids theclergy to take part in games of chance (ludi aleatorii), the aim of thelaw being to, condemn thelove of lucre and to avoidscandal; at the same time the bishop cannot forbid in private houses other games which are not games of chance. On the other hand, if it be a matter concerning which thecommon law is silent, the bishop may take allnecessary measures to prevent and put and end to abuses and to maintainecclesiastical discipline. He must abstain, however, from imposing on hisclergy extraordinary charges andobligations, and from unusual innovations. The legislative power of the bishoppræter jus commune, is, therefore, far from being absolute. (Chaeys-Bouuaert, De canonicâ cleri sæcularis obedientiâ, Louvain, 1904, 69-77). Canonical writers discuss the right of the bishop to abrogate a local custom contrary to the enactments of the common ecclesiastical law. He probably has not the right, provided that the custom be juridical, i.e. a reasonable one and legitimately prescribed this custom obtains only because of pontifical consent, it does not belong to the bishop to act contrary to the will of thepope. The power of grantingdispensations is correlative to the legislative power. The bishop may, therefore, dispense with regard to alldiocesanlaws. He may also dispense, in particular cases only, from thelaws of provincial and plenarysynods; anydispensation of theselaws would be almost impossible, if it werenecessary on all such occasions to convoke a fresh provincial orplenary synod. The bishop however, cannot dispense from enactments that relate directly to himself, and imposeobligations upon him, or from enactments that accordrights to a third party. The bishop cannot dispense fromlaws made by thesovereign pontiff. To this there are, however, some exceptions. In certain matters, the written law or custom has granted this right to the bishop. He may also dispense from suchlaws in virtue of an expressly delegated power, or even sometimes in virtue of the consent, presumed or tacit, of thesovereign pontiff. These cases in reality are determined by custom. Canonical writers also admit that a bishop may grant adispensation, when there is adoubt whether adispensation is required, though in such a case it may be a question whether anydispensation at all is requisite (Bargilliat, I, 483-491)

(2) Judicial Power

This power is exercised in two ways: without legal apparatus (extra judicialiter) or in a judicial process (judicialiter). In hisdiocese the bishop is judge in the first instance in all trials, civil and criminal that pertain to theecclesiastical tribunal, unless thepersons be exempt from his authority, or the matters reserved for other judges; such. e.g., are the process ofcanonization reserved to thepope or the misdemeanors of avicar-general, which fall under the cognizance of thearchbishop. (Ch. vii, De officio judicis ordinarii, VI, I, xvi; Friedberg, II, 988; Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., ch. xx.) Inecclesiastical trials he must conform to the general or special provisions of thelaw. (For matrimonial trials see "Instructio de judiciis ecclesiasticis circa causas matrimoniales" in "Acta et decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis III", Appendix, 262; for trials ofecclesiastics see the Instruction of thePropaganda, "Cum Magnopere", which reproduces substantially the Instruction of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 11 June, 1880, op. cit., 287; see also S. Smith, "New procedure in criminal and disciplinary causes of ecclesiastics", 3d ed., New York, 1898.) The bishop has also judicial power which he exercisesextra judicialiter bothin foro externo (publicly) andin foro interno (inconscience). He has the power to absolve his subjects from allsins and censures not reserved to theHoly See. Moreover, theabsolution from a censure inflicted by anecclesiastical judge is always reserved for the latter or to his superiors (Bull, "Sacramentum Poenitentiæ" 1 June, 1741 in "Benedicti XIV, Bullarium",Venice, 1775, I, 22; Const."Apostolicæ Sedis", "Collectanea S.C.P.", 1002). On the other hand, the bishop may reserve to himselfabsolution from certainsins (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, "De poenit.", ch. vii; ThirdPlenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 124, 127)

(3) Coercive Power

The right to punish is anecessary consequence if theright to judge. Formerly the bishop could and did inflict even corporal punishments and fines. These are no longer customary even forecclesiastics. The usual penalties for thelaity are censures; forecclesiastics, religious exercises, confinement for a time in amonastery. (ThirdPlenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 72-73), degradation to an office of less importance (privatio officii ecclesiastici), and censures, especially suspension. The bishop may inflict suspensionex informatâ conscientia, i.e. on his personal responsibility, and without observing any legal formality, but in cases foreseen by thelaw (Instruction ofPropaganda, 20 October, 1884; Conc. Balt. in, Appendix, 298). To the coercive power of the bishop belongs also the right of issuing certain commands (præcepta) i.e. of imposing on a particular ecclesiastic specialobligations sanctioned by certain penalties (Constitution, "Cum Magnopere" nos. 4 and 8). He has also the lawful power to remove the penalties inflicted by him. Bishops call also grantindulgences:cardinals 200,archbishops 100, and bishops, 50 days'indulgence (Decree of Congregation of Indulgences, 28 August, 1903; Acta Sanctæ Sedis. XXXVI, 318).

(4) Administrative Power

The matters to which the administrative power of the bishop extends can only be briefly indicated here:

Bishops have also a "delegatedjurisdiction" which they exercise in the name of theHoly See; this power is granted to thema jure orab homine. Ecclesiastical law frequently accords to bishops delegated powers; but it would be wrong to say, for instance, that every power ofdispensation granted by a general law of theChurch is a delegated one. Such power is perhaps quite as often an ordinary power. But when thelaw accords apower of jurisdiction to the bishop,tanquam Sedis apostolicæ delegatus, it is a delegated power that he receives. (See, for example, Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref. ch., I, ii; Sess. VI, De ref., ch. iii; Sess. VII, De ref., ch. vi, viii, xiv, etc). Writers do not agree as to the nature of the power accorded to the bishop also as a delegate to theApostolic See,etiam tanquam sedis apostolicæ delegatus. Some maintain that it is in this case the bishop has at the same time both ordinary and delegated power, but only relative to suchpersons as are subject to hisjurisdiction. (Reiffenstuel, Jus canonicum universum, Paris, 1864, tit. xxix, 37); others contended that in this case the bishop has ordinaryjurisdiction with regard to his subjects, and only a delegated one with regard to those who are exempt (Hinschius, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts,Berlin, 1869, I, 178; Scherer, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts, Graz, 1886, I, 421, note 36); others maintain that the bishop has the same time both an ordinary and a delegated power over his subjects, and a delegated power over those who are exempt (Wernz, II, 816); finally, others see in this formula only a means of removing any obstacles which might prevent the bishop from using the power accorded to him (Santi, Praelect. jur. can., New York, 1898, I, 259). The delegated powersab homine are at the present of very geat importance especially in missionary countries. The Apostolic Penitentiary grants those which are only concerned with the forum ofconscience. The others are granted by theCongregation of the Propaganda. They are calledfacultates habituales, because not granted for a determined individual case. These faculties are no longer accorded only to the bishop in his ownperson but to the ordinaries, that is to say, to the bishop, to his successor, to the administratorpro tem of thediocese, and to thevicar general, to vicars apostolic, prefects, etc. (Declaration of the Holy Office, 26 November, 1897, 22 April, 1898, 25 June, 1898, 5 September, 1900; Acta Sanctæ Sedis, 1897-98, XXX, 627, 702; 1898-99, XXXI, 120; 1900-01, XXXIII, 225). As a general rule the bishop can subdelegate these powers, provided that the faculties do not forbid it (Holy Office, 16 December, 1898; Acta Sanctæ Sedis, 1898-99, XXXI, 635). For further information see Putzer-Konings, "Commentarium in facultates apostolicas" (5th ed., New York, 1898). On the other hand, the bishop can always ask theHoly See for such delegated powers as arenecessary in the administration of hisdiocese. The bishop is also the ordinary and habitual executor of thedispensations which theHoly See grantsin foro externo, i.e. for public use or application.

Obligations of the bishop

In describing therights of bishops we have already in great measure indicated what theirobligations are. All their efforts must aim at preserving thetruefaith and a high moral tone among the people; they attain this end by good example, by preaching, by daily solicitude for the good administration of thediocese, and byprayer. Bishops, in effect, are bound by theDivine law to implore the help ofGod for the faithful committed to their care. Canon law has determined more fully thisobligation, and imposes upon the bishops theobligation of celebratingMass for the faithful of theirdioceses (missa pro grege) everySunday, on the feast days ofobligation and on the abrogated feast days (Const.Leo XIII "In supremâ", 10 June, 1882; "Collectanea, S.C.P.", no. 112). The bishop is bound to take special care of theeducation of youth and of the training of hisclergy; he must exercise continual vigilance over the latter and assist them with his counsels. TheChurch has imposed as specialobligations upon bishops thecanonical visitation of thediocese and the holding of an annualdiocesan synod. The bishop is bound to visit each year the greater part of hisdiocese either personally or, if prevented, through his delegates. This visit will permit him to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXXIV, De ref., ch. iii). The ThirdPlenary Council of Baltimore grants the bishop three years for making this visitation (Acta et decreta, no 14). TheCouncil of Trent ordered that an annualdiocesan synod should be held (Sess. XXIV, De ref. ch. ii). At present, theHoly See no longer urges the strict observation of thislegislation (Santi Praelect. Jur. can., I, 360) The Third Council ofBaltimore decreed that the bishop should take counsel with thediocesan consultors whenever he wished to convoke a synod (Acta et decreta, no. 20) It is then unnecessary for the synod to assemble every year. However in missionary countries theHoly See desires that thesesynods should be rather frequent and dispenses the bishop from the observation of the formalities difficult to fulfill, e.g. the convoking of allecclesiastics who ought to be present at the synod (Letter ofPropaganda to the Bishop ofMilwaukee, 19 July, 1889, "Collectanea, S.C.P." no. 117). It is evident, finally, that the bishop cannot fulfill theduties of his office unless he observes thelaw of residence. The bishop isobliged to reside in hisdiocese and it is proper that he should be in the episcopal city on the principal feast days of the year. He cannot be absent from hisdiocese for more than three months, except for grave reason approved of by theHoly See (Council of Trent. Sess. VI, De ref., ch. i; Sess. XXXIII, De ref., ch. i;Benedict XIV, "Ad universae christianae", 3 September, 1746; Letters ofPropaganda, 24 April and 24 August 1861; "Collectanea, S.C.P.", nos. 103, 105).

The bishop has alsoobligations regarding theHoly See. Throughout his entire administration he must conform to the general legislation of theChurch and the directions of thepope. In this respect two specialobligations are incumbent upon him: he must pay theVisitatio ad limina Apostolorum, and present theRelatio de statu diocesis, i.e. he must visit the shrines of Sts. Peter and Paul atRome and present a report on the condition of hisdiocese. In the time of Paschal II (1099-1118), onlymetropolitans were bound to pay this visit. TheDecretals imposed thisobligation upon bishop whoseconsecration thepope reserved to himself (C. iv, "De electione et electi potestate"; X, I, vi; c. xiii, "De majoritate et obentia" X, I, xxxiii; c. iv, "De jurejurando", X, II, xxiv; Friedberg, II, 49, 201. 360). It has become general since the fifteenth century, andSixtus definitely ruled in favour of thisobligation (Bull, "Romanus Pontifex", 20 December, 1585; "Bullarum amplissima collectio", ed. Cocquelines, Rome, 1747, IV, iv, 173). According to thisBull the bishops ofItaly and the neighbouring islands, ofDalmatia and Greece, must make the visitad limina every three years; those ofGermany,France,Spain,England,Portugal,Belgium,Bohemia,Hungary,Poland, and the islands of the Mediterranean Sea every four years; those of other parts ofEurope, of North Africa, and the isles of the Atlantic Ocean situated to the east of theNew World, every five years; those of other parts of the world every ten years. The bishops ofIreland, in virtue of a privilege of 10 May, 1631, are bound to pay this visit only every ten years. Even in the case of more recently erected sees the years are counted from 20 December, 1585, date of the aforesaidBull (Instruction ofPropaganda, 1 June, 1877; Collectanea, S.C.P.", no. 110). The bishops must pay this visit personally and for this purpose are allowed to absent themselves from theirdioceses. The bishops ofItaly for four months, other bishops for seven months. TheHoly See sometimes dispenses a bishop from theobligation of paying this visit personally, and permits him to send, as his delegate, apriest of hisdiocese, especially one of those who have been promoted to a high office (dignitates), or apriest of thediocese sojourning atRome, or even the agent of the bishop in that city, if anecclesiastic. While this visit, as stated above, ought to be paid the third, fourth, fifth, or tenth year, the rule suffers frequent exceptions in practice (Wernz, II, 914). TheVisitatio Liminum includes a visit to thetombs of St. Peter andSt. Paul, an audience with the Holy Father, and a written report which the bishop ought to present to the Congregation of the Council (Congregatio specialis super statu ecclesiarum also calledConcilietto) according to the formula ofBenedict XIII in 1725 (A. Lucidi, De Visitatione saerorim Liminum, 5th ed., Rome, 1883).

Bishops subject to thePropaganda present this statement to the latter congregation (the proper formula is in "Acta Sanctae Sedis", 1891-92; XXIV, 382. "Collectanea", no. 104). In addition they ought also to send every five years, a report to thePropaganda according to the formulary drawn up by this congregation 24 April, 1861 (Collectanea, no. 104). Thisobligation had formerly been all annual one (Decrees ofPropaganda, 31 October, 1838, 27 September, 1843, and 23 March, 1844; Collectanea, nos. 97-99; Third Council ofBaltimore, no. 14).

Finally, mention may be made of certain privileges enjoyed by bishops. They do not fall undersuspensions andinterdicts,latæ sententia, i.e. incurredipso facto, unless express mention of them is therein made; those who are guilty of assaults upon them are punished with anexcommunication reservedspeciali modo to thesovereign pontiff; they possess the right of having a domesticchapel and enjoy the privilege of thealtare portabile, orportable altar, etc.

Non-Catholic use

The title of bishop is still retained in certainProtestant churches. For its use in theAnglican Church see Sir R. Phillimore. "Ecclesiastical Law in the Church of England" (new ed., 1895; F. Makeower, "Verfassung der Kirche von England" (1894), and the "Encycl. Britannica" (9th ed.), III, 788-789; cf., also O. J. Reichel. "A Short Manual of Canon Law" (The Sacraments), London, 1896, 283-'298. For its use in the nationalProtestant Churches ofDenmark and Sweden, see articles treating of those countries, and for its history and use in the Evangelical churches ofPrussia and theEuropean continent, Jacobson-Friedberg in "Real-Encycl. f. prot. Theol. und Kirche" (3d ed., 1897), III, 246-247. For its use inProtestant churches of theUnited States seeBAPTISTS,METHODISTS,MORMONS. The antiquities and constitution of the Greek episcopate are treated by J. M. Heineccius in "Abbildung der alten und neuen griechischen Kirche" (Leipzig, 1711), and in Milasch-Pessic, "Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche" (Germ. tr. of 2nd ed., Mostar, 1905); the actual conditions of the Greek episcopate,Catholic and Orthodox (Schismatic), are described in Silbernagl-Schnitzer, Verfassung und gegenwartiger Bestand samtlicher "Kirchen des Orients" (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1904),passim.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT