----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Crockett <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I may have to appeal to the Authority of the Elastic Doc on this, but the
seat
> of an Archbishop would, by definition, be a metropolis--no matter what its
> actual size or population--and the only thing that would be
> important--essential--for his office would be the presence of suffragan
> Bishops subservient him.
>
> no?
In theory, but not necessarily _in re_. C 376, following a long established
custom, defines 'diocesan' bishops and says all others are 'titular.' In
practice, the latter term is used for any bishop who is not appointed to
serve in a diocese, either as its head or as an auxiliary (no right of
succession) or coadjutor (right of succession). These usually serve in some
administrative or diplomatic function. Some of them are named archbishops,
e.g., higher level Curial officials, Papal Nuncios and Apostolic Delegates
(=ambassadors of the Holy See). Titular bishops are given the title to a
diocese or see ('sedes') that is no more except in name. These are usually
cities no longer extant. So there is a 'metropolis' only in theory, not in
fact. Likewise for suffragan bishops. True metropolitans would have them in
fact; they are not a requirement for one's being designated an archbishop. I
don't have an _AP_ on the shelf to do even a cursory bit of research, but my
suspicion would be that the sees which are used for titular archbishops
likely had suffragan bishops at some point in their history. The Curia is
good at keeping score of such niceties.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|