 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 750 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 03:14 am |
|
The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Current and historical information about its bishops and dioceses
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 683 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 05:56 am |
|
Awesome web site! Thanks for sharing that Rose! 
|
|
|
left coast mystic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | La Honda, California USA |
| Posts: | 167 |
| First Name: | Marcee | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nondenominational charismatic, Presbyterian, long-time lover of the RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 03:40 am |
|
So how does a person become an archbishop, and how does that position differ from a bishop? Also, is it first decided to make a specific diocese into an archdiocese, and then whoever is name the bishop there must become an archbishop? Or is it that if an archbishop is named to head a diocese it then becomes an archdiocese?
And where do cardinals fit into all this? Must you be a bishop, then an archbishop, before becoming a cardinal? What does a cardinal do? And why do people sometimes say, for instance "John Cardinal Newman" rather than "Cardinal John Newman"?
Just wondering..... Marcee
____________________
Godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim. 6:6)
In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and trust shall be your strength. (Isa. 30:15)
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 750 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 03:58 am |
|
 We'll have to wait for the experts to answer all of that.
Anyway, in regards to Archbishop and Bishop - Archbishops are over more territory - I think. For instance, all of Alabama use to be under the Diocese of Mobile. Then, they made the Diocese of Birmingham, and that gained a bishop and the bishop in Mobile became an Archbishop.
The Ruthenian Diocese of Pittsburgh is called the Ruthenian Archeparcy of Pittsburgh -(which we are part of) the Archbishop is Metropolitan Basil - there are three other bishops under him, should be four. Metroplitan is a ranking higher than an Archbishop.
But then, the Eparcy of Newton - the Melkite diocese that my husband serves - covers all of the US, it is the only one, and we have Archbisop Cyril. Now the Melkites have their own Patriarch. The diocese is divided into regions and those are taken care of by Archimandrites which is a bit higher than a Monsiegnor.
Now the Marionites - Fr. Richard Sadd here in B'ham is a Chorbishop - he does about everything the Marionite bishop does, filling in when the bishop can't be there. I don't think he can do ordinations and few other things.
So yah, when my husband became a deacon - talk about getting checked out - all three diocese did background checks on him. 
Honestly, I have been in the Catholic Church since '79 - I still don't have it figured out.  I don't understand the Eastern Rites, much less the Latin  All I can say for sure, it is a very ancient way of doing things, that has worked for - well over the greatest part of 2000 years.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 04:42 am |
|
So how does a person become an archbishop, and how does that position differ from a bishop? Also, is it first decided to make a specific diocese into an archdiocese, and then whoever is name the bishop there must become an archbishop? Or is it that if an archbishop is named to head a diocese it then becomes an archdiocese?
An archdiocese is usually a large metropolitan area (whence the designation of the archbishop as “metropolitan”), with more of the faithful to tend, plus a certain amount of authority over the bishops of the surrounding (“suffragan”) dioceses; as such, it entails greater responsibility than a diocese. Ordinarily one must be a bishop first, to gain experience. Then those deemed worthy may be appointed to an archbishopric as they become available.
If a diocese is to be raised to the level of archdiocese, usually the incumbent bishop will be made archbishop, as happened recently with the (now) archdiocese of Houston. However, there is no hard and fast rule that this be done; the pope may dispose of his bishops as he sees fit.
An example of the latter would be that Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, formerly Bishop Burke of a lesser diocese (I forget which one), was not created a cardinal upon his accession to the see of St. Louis as is traditionally done. However, upon a vacancy, just a few weeks ago he was appointed to be head of the Roman Rota (the Church’s highest tribunal), in which position he will become a cardinal. It appears, then, that Pope John Paul II had in mind promoting him again after he had some experience as an archbishop, for he is still relatively young, and Benedict XVI has honored this intention.
And where do cardinals fit into all this? Must you be a bishop, then an archbishop, before becoming a cardinal? What does a cardinal do?
A cardinal is not a “higher rank” of bishop or something above a bishop. Instead, a cardinal is a “civil servant” of the Vatican City State, analogous to the US President’s cabinet of ministers, each one charged with a specific duty. Not all cardinals work in the Vatican; some remain as archbishops, such as the Cardinal Archbishops of Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. These may be seen as “senior” archbishops, an honorific for bishops in much the same way as the title “monsignor” is for priests. (However, the title “monsignor” or “monseñor” is in many regions of the world, such as Italy and the Hispanic countries, used as the personal title of a bishop. The priestly “monsignor” would then be “archpriest.” Also, on occasion, a cardinal who is in charge of a major archdiocese is summoned to Rome to take charge of a curial position for which he is deemed qualified. In this case, the charge of an archdiocese may be considered to be a “holding place” for a worthy man while a vacancy is awaited in a particular post.)
The position of cardinal does not require that the person be a bishop. There are, and have been throughout history, priests and deacons who are cardinals. Theoretically, even a layman can be created a cardinal, although I do not recall this ever happening. An example of a priest cardinal is the American Avery Cardinal Dulles, a well-known theologian. For him, the title is honorific.
Only bishop cardinals under the age of 80 can vote in a conclave. Also, those cardinals not assigned to a real diocese are assigned a “titular” diocese, according to the names of the ancient sees of the suburbs of Rome or other now non-existent dioceses around the world. And if one is a bishop, it is customary, though not required, that one be raised to the rank of archbishop when created cardinal.
The tradition of referring to a cardinal in the form “John Cardinal Newman” is based on traditional European honorifics for noblemen (for instance, “James, Earl of Kent”). The form “Cardinal John Newman” has some currency in the contemporary world, but it is not officially used by the Church.
Did I leave out anything? I won’t even attempt to sort out the Eastern Catholic titles; you will have to make do with Pani Rose. 
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 05:04 am |
|
left coast mystic wrote: So how does a person become an archbishop, and how does that position differ from a bishop? Also, is it first decided to make a specific diocese into an archdiocese, and then whoever is name the bishop there must become an archbishop? Or is it that if an archbishop is named to head a diocese it then becomes an archdiocese?
And where do cardinals fit into all this? Must you be a bishop, then an archbishop, before becoming a cardinal? What does a cardinal do? And why do people sometimes say, for instance "John Cardinal Newman" rather than "Cardinal John Newman"?
You had asked a similar question in this thread so I won't repeat the difference between a bishop and an archbishop here.
Yes, the principle diocese of a province is known as an "archdiocese" and the bishop of that diocese becomes an archbishop. An archbishop carries the primacy of honor in the dioceses of his province (called suffragan dioceses), and it is his responsibility to install new bishops in those dioceses, ordaining them if they are not already bishops. He is also the leader of the group of bishops of his province when they make their "ad limina" visit to the pope to report on conditions in their dioceses.
The archbishop is the primary liason between the Vatican and the dioceses of his province. He compiles a list of potential bishops from among the priests in his province, and recommends those who may be appointed to positions within the Church curia.
A "cardinal" is a prince of the Church. His primary responsibility besides running his own diocese is to be an elector in the choosing of a new pope. Otherwise, he is just an archbishop (even if his diocese is not an archdiocese). Cardinals head all of the departments in the Vatican, essentially making up the pope's cabinet. They are his principle advisors, and carry on his duties in his absence. Like bishops and archbishops, cardinals are appointed at the pleasure of the Holy Father. Bishops, archbishops, and cardinals all have the fullness of Holy Orders, meaning that an archbishop may have additional responsibilities, but he is not more of a bishop than a regular bishop.
By law, a bishop must submit his resignation at age 75, although the pope may choose to delay acceptance. A cardinal is no longer permitted to be a papal elector once he reaches his 80th birthday. However, they are still bishops, still archbishops, and still cardinals. The number of cardinals who can be papal electors is capped by law at 120.
One does not have to be a bishop before an archbishop, or an archbishop before a cardinal. It is all at the pleasure of the Holy Father. By "pleasure" I mean it is his exclusive choice. In fact, the pope himself does not need to be a bishop before he becomes pope, although if he isn't one, he will be ordained immediately and when he steps out on the balcony, he will be the Bishop of Rome. And the Bishop of Rome is the only bishop of a diocese who is not himself selected or at least approved by the pope. He is also the only bishop who is not required to retire at age 75.
And finally, the tradition of placing the title "cardinal" before the last name is ancient. I don't know if anyone knows why it is done that way; I certainly don't!
|
|
|
left coast mystic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | La Honda, California USA |
| Posts: | 167 |
| First Name: | Marcee | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nondenominational charismatic, Presbyterian, long-time lover of the RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 06:31 am |
|
Thanks, guys. There's so much to learn! And Rose, my head would be permanently spinning to be in an Eastern Rite diocese with different names for positions than are used in most of the church.
Marcee
____________________
Godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim. 6:6)
In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and trust shall be your strength. (Isa. 30:15)
|
|
|
Current time is 10:10 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
