§ 1. The Pope, Patriarchs, and Archbishops are called Bishops. But although they differ in jurisdiction, otherwise their office is nearly equal and the same, and integrity of life is required of all. A few things must now be said concerning Bishops, for most have been explained above.
§ 2. Presbyters too were sometimes called by the name of Bishops. Aerius, because he was excluded from the Episcopate, denied that they were different offices; thus Epiphanius, heresy 75. Baronius discusses this copiously at the year of Christ 58, as does, from among the heretics, Saravia in On the Different Ranks of Ministers, especially from page 334. In the beginning the Apostles alone were Bishops and presbyters; finally, as the multitude of the faithful increased, they also made presbyters and Bishops, to whom they assigned διοικήσεις, or “administrations.”
§ 3. From this it is established that Bishops are to be appointed not by the people or by kings, but by the successors of the Apostles: the Pontiff, Archbishops, and Bishops. For although peoples or Princes were sometimes joined in the election, the primary right nevertheless belongs to the clergy and Bishops, not only that Bishops should consecrate them, but also designate them. The people often demanded a Bishop, even to the point of sedition; Nicephorus, book 1, chapter 30 of the Ecclesiastical History. This practice nevertheless endured for a long time in the Church. See Athanasius, On the Persecution, to the orthodox. The election of Ambrose was nearly the same; Theodoret, book 7. See Distinction 23, chapter Illud, and Distinction 64, chapter 1. On the election of Bishops see volume 4 of the Councils, part 1, pages 402, 571, 749, 729, and 630. Yet the greatest care was always taken that seditious elections be avoided; volume 2 of the Councils, part 2, page 405.
§ 4. Therefore, to guard against seditions, the right of nominating the Pontiff and Bishops was sometimes granted to good and deserving Emperors, as to Charlemagne about the year of the Lord 780 in the Roman Council, Distinction 63, chapter 22:
Pope Hadrian requested King Charles to come to Rome to defend the affairs of the Church. Charles, coming to Rome, besieged Pavia; and, leaving his army there, was honorably received at Rome by Pope Hadrian on the holy feast of the Resurrection. After the holy feast of the Resurrection he returned to Pavia and captured King Desiderius. Then, returning to Rome, he established a Synod there with Pope Hadrian in the Lateran Patriarchium, in the Church of the Holy Savior. That Synod was celebrated by 153 religious Bishops and Abbots. Pope Hadrian and the universal Synod handed over to Charles the right and authority of electing the Pontiff and ordering the Apostolic See. They also granted him the dignity of the Patriciate. Furthermore, the Synod determined that the Archbishops and Bishops throughout the several provinces should receive investiture from him; that unless a Bishop were approved and invested by the King, he should be consecrated by no one; and it bound with the chain of anathema whoever acted contrary to this decree and commanded that, unless he came to his senses, his goods be confiscated.
This too is established in many canons in which either the designation, the investiture, or the consent of the Emperor is required, such as chapters 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, and 28; but these were afterward abolished. Since the matter was badly administered by Emperors and Princes who regarded their own advantages rather than the good of the Church and the salvation of the people, the Church again asserted her liberty and conducted elections according to the ancient manner. For afterward there was a long dispute about this matter between the Pontificate and the Empire. Foreseeing this, the Romans in the time of Louis I elected Hadrian II without the presence of the Imperial legates, chapter 29; Louis himself approved it.
Afterward Henry IV, a most wicked trafficker in Bishoprics, extorted that authority in some manner from Paschal II while he was a captive; but the Roman Council resisted him, and the whole Empire stirred itself against the most criminal Emperor. The arrangement was no different in the East, where in 965 Phocas passed a law that Bishops should not be elected without the Emperor’s consent; thus book 4, title [omitted], of Eastern law.
The wealth of the Church, for which the avaricious ambition of courtiers panted, was the cause of so many contests. Phocas certainly thrust certain of his own ministers into Churches as Bishops, assigned them a certain allowance, and converted the remainder to his own rewards. Basil abolished this robbery and restored the privileges of the Church; but as the affairs of Greece always declined toward a worse condition, Alexius Comnenus shook all these things, while the Synod did not dare to resist. In Gaul also many things were granted to kings; in 1560 these were tempered with great moderation so that all things might not be in the power of one man.
§ 5. Great honor, nearly royal and sometimes greater, was shown to Bishops, especially when holiness adorned their dignity. The Emperor not only rose for Martin but even ministered to him. It is altogether fitting that a Bishop, as the public censor of morals and teacher appointed by God, be heard by all.
§ 6. The Episcopal office and its end is that the ministers of the Churches, the clergy, and the people of the diocese be governed rightly and in due order in spiritual matters. Therefore the same care which is broader in an Archbishop and Patriarch, and extends most broadly in the Roman Pontiff, is restricted in a Bishop to the administration of his own diocese.
- The care and solicitude of all the Churches and all the monasteries of his diocese pertain to the Bishop. 2. The instruction, government, correction, reformation, and censure of the clergy; jurisdiction in the external and internal forum; convocation of a Synod; consecration of the ornaments of a Church and dedication of the Churches themselves; preparation of chrism; confirmation; and other lesser matters, many of which are committed to others.
There are also others called Bishops, namely suffragans and Chorepiscopi. Those whom we now call suffragans are so called improperly. Antiquity called those men suffragans who administered their own dioceses under some Archbishop. Now those men are so called who properly and truly are Bishops and have Bishoprics assigned to them, but because these are held by Saracens, Turks, schismatics, or heretics, they dwell in another place and assist the Bishops of other places. For any Bishop may, with the Bishop’s consent, exercise Episcopal duties in another Bishopric.
Since they are therefore truly Bishops of cities situated in Greece and Asia, if any hope of preaching the Gospel in those places should shine forth, they are altogether bound to go there and seek their sheep, and in that case not to refuse death, provided that the danger has a sufficient reward. For it does not belong to a prudent Prelate to put himself in danger without cause and hope of spiritual advantage.
The service of these Bishops has been granted especially to Archbishops and Bishops in Germany because of the breadth of their jurisdictions. In this, however, I require that the princely Bishops themselves frequently consecrate priests and do other things which show that they have chosen assistants for themselves not from weariness with spiritual affairs but under the pressure of occupation. Chorepiscopi existed in antiquity and now persist in the Archbishopric of Trier, and, I do not know, perhaps in certain other places.
Concerning them there survives a letter of Damasus to the Bishops of Numidia. In it, first, he says that he found it decreed by his predecessors: 1. That nothing should be reserved for them by way of pardon except deprivation of the sacred ministry, which they rashly assumed, because they had been prohibited both by this holy See and by the Bishops of the whole world. 2. That they can presume nothing concerning the office of the supreme priesthood. 3. That they are presbyters, not Bishops. 4. That they were appointed of old because of care for the poor. 5. That they were cast down because they presumed unlawful things and performed things belonging only to Pontiffs. 6. That the flock was committed to them by certain Bishops languishing in idleness. 7. That such sluggish Bishops are like harlots. 8. That the Chorepiscopi are in no way Bishops. 9. That certain of them were nevertheless afterward truly created Bishops in certain places; for Damasus says this in the canon Esse, and it is also in the Council of Antioch, canon 10. 10. That they are called village Bishops, for χώρα means “country”; thus they are regional Bishops, for they are named not from a choir but ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας, “from the country.” 11. That if they disdain to be presbyters when they are not Bishops, they are nothing. 12. That those who confirm by their own hand that they are only presbyters can remain in their catalogue, while those who wish to be Bishops are to be deprived of every honor. 13. That it is not lawful for them to consecrate priests, deacons, or subdeacons; consecrate virgins; erect, anoint, or consecrate an altar; dedicate Churches; prepare chrism; sign the foreheads of the baptized with chrism; publicly reconcile any penitent even in the Mass; send formal letters; bless the people; enter the baptistery or sacristy before the Bishop; baptize or sign an infant in the Bishop’s presence; reconcile a penitent without the command of his own Bishop; consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in his presence unless he commands it; teach or salute the people in his presence; or exhort the congregation. You have been taught, both from the things above and from other enactments of the Fathers or sacred canons, that all these things are owed to Pontiffs alone.
Hence two things appear to be reprehended in them: first, the presumption of the Chorepiscopi; second, the negligence of Bishops who entrust their own labors to them.
§ 7. What their office was may be gathered from canon 54 of Nicaea:
Let the Bishop elect from the good religious men who dwell in the desert someone who is learned, of the best morals, the greatest and most understanding of all who are in that entire congregation, and who knows nothing about his own election. Those who belong to that congregation ought to present him. Let one Deacon of the congregation say with a loud voice: “We elect such a man as Co-Bishop”—perhaps Chorepiscopus—“who shall have complete authority over us,” so that all may know that he has been elected to that rank. The Bishop ought to recite over the man elected the customary prayer, bless him, and give him the names of all the Churches and monasteries which are under his authority, so that he himself may elect, as shall seem better to him, suitable men steadfast in their speech, whom he may place over Churches and monasteries.
Let him not impose the care of monasteries upon those who have care of Churches, nor join the care of Churches to those who are placed over monasteries. Let him bind them to the places given to them, and afterward go to visit the Churches and monasteries. If he finds that something is lacking in any Church or monastery, or abounds beyond what is needed, he ought to apply what is superfluous in one place where there is a deficiency; this ought to be done with the fear of God and for the edification of those places.
If there are few priests, he ought to increase their number from those who belong to that place. If there is no one among them from that town suitable to be ordained, he ought to take someone from the monasteries or Churches and take care that he be made a priest, so that prayer may be continual, the ministry of the altar may not cease, Churches may not be deprived of prayer and Mass, and Christians who have no pastor may not be like Gentiles in name and deed. Likewise, let him take care that in every town and small village there be someone who collects revenues for the Bishop according to the resources of each place and that they be brought to him. For it pertains to him to give alms to the poor and strangers and refresh needy priests, so that charity may remain among them.
§ 8. That the Chorepiscopus was less in dignity than the Archdeacon is established from canon 58:
When the Chorepiscopus and Archdeacon sit in the Church, no priest, Deacon of the Church, or cleric of any other rank shall dare to sit above them, except the Bishop, because these are as two hands and two wings with which the Bishop flies. But when the Bishop walks, whether in the Church or outside, the Archdeacon ought to be at his right, the Chorepiscopus at his left, and the Bishop between them, like a father in the midst of his sons. Whoever does not obey is excommunicated by the Synod.
§ 9. Nevertheless the name was not immediately abolished. For although they report that Chorepiscopi were not Bishops, except for a certain few, it is certain that they were presbyters even after the decree of Damasus; indeed, they again aspired to the Episcopal rank. For about the year of the Lord 566 John III wrote thus concerning them to the Bishops of Germany and Gaul:
It has been reported to the Apostolic See that a reprehensible and exceedingly inveterate usage, prohibited and utterly extirpated both by Saint Damasus and Saint Leo, Apostolic men, and by all the Bishops with synodal authority, has emerged and is again reviving. For certain Chorepiscopi—who were prohibited both by the aforesaid predecessors, the Fathers of the holy Apostolic men, and by the Apostolic men themselves or by us, as their decrees testify to this day—exceed their measure, convey the gift of the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands, and unlawfully perform other things which are owed only to Pontiffs; especially since none of the seventy disciples, whose likeness they bear in the Church, is read to have conveyed the gift of the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands. The book of the Acts of the Apostles teaches that to convey the Holy Spirit is the proper office of Apostolic men alone and of their successors.
Therefore, since these things are so clear, I have grave doubts concerning the second Epistle of Nicholas I which was brought to light through the labor of Cordesius.
§ 10. The diocesan Synod held at Dillingen in 1548 assigned to Chorepiscopi the office of Archdeacons and rural Deans; thus chapter 7; and it associates Archpriests with them. Therefore retaining the name Chorepiscopus is not contrary to the canons, provided that they do not exercise Episcopal functions, such as ordaining and similar things, but, content with their own office, keep within the prescribed limits.
But if one of those whom we now call suffragans is also employed in the government of some Bishopric, he can be called a Chorepiscopus and be a true Bishop: a Chorepiscopus in that diocese whose Bishop he assists, and a true Bishop of his own jurisdiction, access to which is denied to him.