My understanding, which I cannot document at the moment, is that St.
Peter's is in fact not a cathedral, if one is asking about its canonical
status, because Vatican City is not a diocese. It is a basilica
(canonically, I mean), an honor which the current Pope has awarded to a
great number of churches of varyi8ng canonical status (from parish church,
to conventual church, to cathedral).
This does not, however, answer the question of what the canonical status of
St. Peter's IS, nor whether this precision is a post-Tridentine development
(assuming that I'm even right . . . ).
It is my understanding that, at least in the post-Tridentine church, no
diocese may have more than one cathedral unless it is a double
diocese--really, two dioceses the ordinaries of which are, as a matter of
habit, the same person. IN my own state, South Bend and Fort Wayne,
Indiana, constitute a double-diocese with (if I recall properly) two
cathedrals. In other dioceses, there is sometimes a proto- or pro-
Cathedral, then the Real Thing.
Again, forgive me for being modern. More information from canon law
specialists on this stuff would be interesting.
Patrick Nugent.
>Forgive me for 'an intelligent(?????) guess', without checking in a
>reference book, but mightn't Rome be a case, if indeed St John Lateran (seat
>of Bishop of Rome) and St Peter's are considered?
>
>George
|