An old article, but a principle I generally support. Bishops should, generally, be elected by the cathedral chapter of canons or diocesan presbyterial senate, probably from among their own number, and ordained by the archbishop of the province and co-consecrators from the nearest dioceses. They should not change dioceses (that ring is a wedding ring!) and there should be no notion of promotion.
Presbyters changing parishes is a bit less problematic as technically the "parish" is not a theological unit; priests belong to the dioceses as a whole sort of like the bishop and are his "hands" to use as needed to bring the sacraments to various locales.
Still, we can't be absolutist. Obviously, even in the early church there was sometimes movement between Sees (Peter from Antioch to Rome, for example) and sometimes it makes sense for a Pope to be elected from the bishop of another diocese, etc.
I'd tend to think that's "more okay" if the guy is moving up to a jurisdiction that includes his former jurisdiction; like, if a bishop is promoted to archbishop in the same province, archbishop to primate of his nation, a metropolitan to patriarch of his sui juris church or rite, a bishop to the papacy, etc, then there is less of a sense that he's "deserting" his former "bride" because he's still related directly to it in some hierarchal sense.
Presbyters changing parishes is a bit less problematic as technically the "parish" is not a theological unit; priests belong to the dioceses as a whole sort of like the bishop and are his "hands" to use as needed to bring the sacraments to various locales.
Still, we can't be absolutist. Obviously, even in the early church there was sometimes movement between Sees (Peter from Antioch to Rome, for example) and sometimes it makes sense for a Pope to be elected from the bishop of another diocese, etc.
I'd tend to think that's "more okay" if the guy is moving up to a jurisdiction that includes his former jurisdiction; like, if a bishop is promoted to archbishop in the same province, archbishop to primate of his nation, a metropolitan to patriarch of his sui juris church or rite, a bishop to the papacy, etc, then there is less of a sense that he's "deserting" his former "bride" because he's still related directly to it in some hierarchal sense.
1 comment:
Peter is a special case; he's an apostle, not a bishop. Note that Constantinople II deposed St. Gregory the Theologian from the see of Constantinople because of his transfer from the backwater see of Sasima. John Chrysostom was from Antioch, but I'm pretty sure he was never a bishop there.
Certainly, though, this principle gets an emphatic "Yes" from me.
Post a Comment