It is currently Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:31 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 Bishops without jurisdiction 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Bishops without jurisdiction
Some data which I have been meaning to post for a while.

Quote:
In vain has been sought, whether Willibrord appointed subordinate bishops within the borders of Friesland. Of course it was by no means intended with this research to find back bishops with a specific see, like the decrees of the Church determine as such. These have certainly never existed. Not one establishment, by the way, could come in mind for that in the Friesland of that time. Duurstede had developed itself early into a center of trade. Nijmegen also, which already earlier, played a part in the time of the Romans. But none of these two agglomerations will have been able to make a claim to the title of << city >>, and could thus not serve as Episcopal city either. Duurstede, by the way, lay close in the neighbourhood of Utrecht. When Bede announces then, that Willibrord consecrated several bishops as co-operators in the evangelization, this is circumscribed as follows: The solution of Willibrord must be placed into the context of the old ecclesiastical practice, which was especially known in the eastern Church, and which also found it’s translation in the old Church of Gaul: << the wandering bishops >> or << countrybishops >>, who did not have a residence as a see, but whose << residence >> about spread itself across the whole area. (Translated from: Bij Het Eeuwfeest, Sint Willibrord, Dr. M. A. Erens, O. Praem., St. Norbertus’ Drukkerij, P.V.B.A. Tongerlo. - 1939)

-

Albert’s first visit concerned his bosom friend Werrik and his abbey, for whom he had obtained from the pope the long attempted privilege of the mitre.

The benedictine Cænobium Laubiense, consecrated to Saint Peter, and situated upon the Samber, not far from Thuin, was constructed around 654 by the penitent, Saint Landelinus [ †686 ], and brought to high flourishing by Saint Ursmarus [ †713 ]. Meaningful men guarded the young foundation; after Ursmarus, who picked up the staff in 689 (1) and laid it down, broken by the labouring and the years, in 712, Saint Ermine [ 712-737 ] and Theodulf [ †776 ] shepherded. These three were chorepiscopi, cloisterbishops. Successor was abbot Ansus (Anson) [ 776-800 ], the oldest leodian writer known to us.

(1) Annales Laubienses, in MGH. SS. IV, 12.


(Translated from: Sint Albertus Van Leuven, J. Meerbergen, Pr., Antwerpen – Vlaamsche Boekcentrale, 1935)


From my old friend Vince Sheridan:
Quote:
The crosier symbolizes the bishop as "shepherd of the flock", i.e., particularly the community under his canonical jurisdiction, however, according to the Caeremoniale Episcoporum any bishop, whether or not assigned to a functional diocese, also uses a crosier when conferring sacraments and presiding at liturgies. Further reference is made by Nabuco, that non-ordinaries used the crozier "as a sign of pastoral solicitude." (Nabuco, Pont. Rom. Exp. 1:38)

Mitre- Nabuco ( Pont. Rom. Exp. 1:40) also says that the miter and crozier are "correlative," and thus, it would seem that one requires the other. And as mentioned, the rubrics occasionally demand the use of the crozier in order for a bishop to properly carry out a particular rite.

Also as outlined in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, during the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, all bishops, whether ordinaries, auxiliaries or titulars, are solemnly invested with the ring, the miter and the crozier.

Now, no distinction is made in conferring these - ( ring, miter and crozier) on the basis of possessing, or not possessing ordinary jurisdiction. In the rite these items are all treated as the liturgical vesture and accoutrements proper to the episcopal order.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Bishops without jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Some data which I have been meaning to post for a while.

Quote:
In vain has been sought, whether Willibrord appointed subordinate bishops within the borders of Friesland. Of course it was by no means intended with this research to find back bishops with a specific see, like the decrees of the Church determine as such. These have certainly never existed. Not one establishment, by the way, could come in mind for that in the Friesland of that time. Duurstede had developed itself early into a center of trade. Nijmegen also, which already earlier, played a part in the time of the Romans. But none of these two agglomerations will have been able to make a claim to the title of << city >>, and could thus not serve as Episcopal city either. Duurstede, by the way, lay close in the neighbourhood of Utrecht. When Bede announces then, that Willibrord consecrated several bishops as co-operators in the evangelization, this is circumscribed as follows: The solution of Willibrord must be placed into the context of the old ecclesiastical practice, which was especially known in the eastern Church, and which also found it’s translation in the old Church of Gaul: << the wandering bishops >> or << countrybishops >>, who did not have a residence as a see, but whose << residence >> about spread itself across the whole area. (Translated from: Bij Het Eeuwfeest, Sint Willibrord, Dr. M. A. Erens, O. Praem., St. Norbertus’ Drukkerij, P.V.B.A. Tongerlo. - 1939)

-

Albert’s first visit concerned his bosom friend Werrik and his abbey, for whom he had obtained from the pope the long attempted privilege of the mitre.

The benedictine Cænobium Laubiense, consecrated to Saint Peter, and situated upon the Samber, not far from Thuin, was constructed around 654 by the penitent, Saint Landelinus [ †686 ], and brought to high flourishing by Saint Ursmarus [ †713 ]. Meaningful men guarded the young foundation; after Ursmarus, who picked up the staff in 689 (1) and laid it down, broken by the labouring and the years, in 712, Saint Ermine [ 712-737 ] and Theodulf [ †776 ] shepherded. These three were chorepiscopi, cloisterbishops. Successor was abbot Ansus (Anson) [ 776-800 ], the oldest leodian writer known to us.

(1) Annales Laubienses, in MGH. SS. IV, 12.


(Translated from: Sint Albertus Van Leuven, J. Meerbergen, Pr., Antwerpen – Vlaamsche Boekcentrale, 1935)


I don't understand, John: what was the point you were trying to make with the above quote? How does this relate to the subject of this thread? Confused minds need to know.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:11 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bishops without jurisdiction
Dear Ken, I had no point at all, it was literally just data that I had been sent some months ago and had forgotten about, and came across it and decided to share it on the idea that others may find it useful. The first text illustrates that at some point in Friesland there were legitimate bishops without sees of their own or attachment to the sees of others, something I have never heard of and which I'd want to research further before accepting. Perhaps these were, in principle, something like Vicars Apostolic (i.e. essentially delegates of the Holy See with episcopal orders)?

The second text seems to be about a specific monastery which was ruled by Abbots who had episcopal orders, something which I would think is entirely unremarkable and I don't know why it was translated. So I must be missing something.

Vince was replaying via email to a comment I had made on here about our own traditional bishops, that they ought not to use the symbols of jurisdiction, such as the mitre and crosier. He is pointing out that these do not necessarily signify jurisdiction. That is, that their general signification is jurisdiction, but that the Church has allowed their use to those without any jurisdiction, so we cannot criticise the traditional bishops for doing the same. It's a good point, although I still maintain that the problem is real - that is, many, even perhaps most, of us think that our traditional bishops carry some authority, when they simply have none at all. The exceptions are Bishop Pivarunas within the CMRI (i.e. over his order, of nuns and priests and brothers) and Bishop Fellay over the members of the SSPX. But in both cases their authority is not in any way intrinsically connected with their episcopal orders. Of course, neither has any authority at all over any of the laity.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:53 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.