Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/765

This page needs to be proofread.




cours adress<! aux juifs et utile aux chr<5tiens pour Ics confiriner dans leur foi" (Lyons, 17S,S); "Aper(;u nouveau d'un plan dY'ducation oatholifiue" (Lyons 1814); " Udllcxions intdiessantes sur le '(Ifinio du cliristianisnie' " (Turin, LSI.")); "Precis al)i(5g(S dcs veritds, qui distinguent le culte <'atholi<nic de toutes les sectes clir^lioiuie.s ct avoudcs par I'^glise de !■" ranee" (Lyons, IS17); " Kxpliciition de la lettre encyclique du pape Hoiiolt XIV sur les usures" (Lyons, 1822); "Dissertations pliilosopliii|ucs, his- tori<iues et th^ologiques sur la religion catholique" (Lyons, lS:5(i). De Manne, "Nouveau dictionnaire des ouvrages anonyines," attributes to him an "Essai sur le jeu eonsid^rd sous le rapport de la morale et du droit naturel" (Paris, 1835). D'Alen^on in Diet, de thiol, cath,

Thom.\s Walsh.

Archangel. See .\xgkl.

Archbishop {^kpx<-tTrl<rKoito^,arch,iepiscopufi). 1. — In THE Catiiomc Chuuch an archbishop or metro- politan, in the present sense of the term, is a bishop who governs a diocese strictly his own, while he pre- sides at the same time over the bisliops of a well- defined district composed of simple dioceses but not of provinces. Hence none of these sulxirdinate bishops rule over others. These bishops are called the suf- fragans or comprovincials. The archbishop's own diocese is the archdiocese. The se\'eral dioceses of the district form the archiepiscopal, or metropolitan, province.

Historical Origin. — Some wTiters wTongly point to .Sts. Timothy and Titus, the disciple-s of St. Paul, as to the first archbishops in the Church. Probably they were metropolitans in the wider of the term, one for .\sia Minor, the other for the island of Crete. But it remains impossible to a,ssign the exact date when archbisliops, as we now use the term, were first appointed. It is true that metro- politans are mentioned as a well-known institution in the Church by the Council of Niciea (325) in its fourth, fifth, and si.xth canons, and by the Council of .\ntioch (341) whose seventh canon is a classical pjissage in this matter. It reads: "The bishops of everj' province must be aware that the bishop pre- siding in the metropolis has charge of the whole province; because all who have business come to- gether from all quarters to the metropolis. For this reason it is decided that he should, according to the ancient and recognized canon of our fathere, do noth- ing beyond wliat concerns their respective dioceses and the districts belonging thereto", etc. l?ut it caimot be denied that even at this period the term "metropolitan" was used indiscriminately for all higher ranks alxive the simple episcopate. It wius thus applied also to patriarchs and primates. The same mvist be said of the term "archbishop" which does not occur in the present meaning before the sixth centurj', although the office of archbishop or metropolitan in the stricter sense, indicating a hierarchical rank above the ordinary bi.shops but below the primate and patriarch, was already sub- stantially the same in the fifth century as it is to-day. A peculiar condition obtained in .■Africa, where the archiepiscopal office wius not attached to a certain see, the metropolis, but where it alwaj-s devolved upon the senior bishop of the province, whatever see he might occupy. He was called "the first or chief bishop", or also "the bishop of the first or chief see".

JnRisDicTTOx. — The jurisdiction of the archbishop is twofold, episcopal and archiepiscopal. The first extends to his own diocese exclusively and com- prises the rights and powers of the fullest govern- ment of the diocese, clergj- and laity, spiritual and temporal, except as re-stricled by Church law. I'n- less such restriction be clearly stated in law, the I.— 44

presumption is in favour of the episcopal authority. The contrary holds in regard to the archiepiscopal authority. It extends to the province and the suf- fragan bishops only in ius far as it is explicitly stated in the law. Where the law is silent, the presumption is against the archbishop, lie it remembered, now- ever, that a rightfully established and approved cu.s- tom obtains the force of law. Archiepiscopal juris- diction, being liermanently attached to the office as such, is ordinary jurisdiction, not merely delegated or vicarious. It reaches immediately the suffragan bishops, and mediately the faithful of their dioceses. However, it has not always been the same eitlier in regard to time or place. While the metropolitan otiice was everj'where the same in character, tlie extent and measure of its right and power would be greatly modified bj' local conditions, particular laws and customs, and sometimes by papal privileges. .\ltliougli many of rights are mentioned in different places of the Corpus Juris Canonici, yet there never was a uniform law to define them all in detail. In former times the archbishop's jurisdic- tion was far more ample than it is at present. The metropolitan could confirm, con.secrate, and transfer the bisliops of his province, accept from them the oath of allegiance and fidelity, summon them singly or collectively to his metropolis (even outside of"^ a council) at his pleasure, cite the .suffragans into his court in civil and criminal trials, give tliein leave of absence from their dioceses and letters commendatory in their travels, allow them to of church prop- erty, regulate the Church calendar of the province by fixing and announcing the date of Easter, administer the surtragan dioceses in of vacancy, and, finally, receive ap[X!;ils lodged with him from any part of his province. But this extensive power of archbishops later on greatly restricted, especially in the Latin Church, by several of the popes, and lastly by the Council of Trent. The charge made by the Jan- senists that the popes curtailed the rights of arch- bishops in order to increase and strengthen their own claim of universal primacy, is best refuted by the fact that the metropolitan authority, in its struggles against encroaching primates and pa- triarchs or rival metropolitans, found no stronger support than that given by the Holy See. On the other hand, Rome had also to defend the native or acqviired rights and privileges of suffragan bishops against usurping claims of their metropolitans. That the Holy See did not exceed its powers is further proved by the fact that the Council of Trent re- stricted tlie rights of metropolitans even more than the popes had done. In the Catholic Churches of Asia and Africa the former metropolitan office is to-day merged in the iiatriarchal office. The arch- bishops under those patriarchs ha\e no province nor archiepiscopal jurisdiction, but only hold the rank or archiepiscopal dignity. But in Austria, Hungary, Houmania, Servia, and Herzegovina the Catholics of the different Oriental rites, Ruthenians, (ireeks, and Annenians, still have archbishops in the proper sense, who retain a large portion of their former jurisdic- tion, more than those of the Latin Rite. Since the Council of Trent the rights of an archbishop in the Latin Church may be described as follows: (1) In regard to his suffragan bishops the metro|x>litan may com|)el them to assemble in provincial council even,- tlirce years, and to attend faithfully to their episcopal duties, in particular those of residing regu- larly within their own diocese, of holding diocesan synods, and of maintaining dioce.san .seminaries (where clerical candidates cannot otherwise receive an ecclesiiustical training). In the provincial coun- cil the archbishop is invested with all the rights of the presiding officer, but his voice counts no more than that of any of his suffragans. Modern practice has it also that when the archbishop's warning is not