Articles Published

Faculty to Celebrate Sacraments in Another Rite

Dr. Mathew John Puthenparambil

 (Published in IUSTITIA, Vol. 16, No. 1. June 2025,Pages 108-116)

Dr. Mathew John Puthenparambil, a native of Rajapuram, Kerala, was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Bijnor in 1998. He holds a Master’s degree in Sociology and a Doctorate in Canon Law from Urban University in Rome. Having served the diocese in various capacities, he now teaches both Eastern and Latin Canon Law at several seminaries. Dr. Puthenparambil is currently a resident staff member at St. Ephrem’s Theological College in Satna.

 

Abstract

According to the mind of the Church, every priest must celebrate the sacraments within his own rite and is forbidden from doing so in another rite without proper authorization. Priests of a particular Church sui iuris are intended to serve that same Church. Should a genuine need to work outside his rite arise, the priest is required to obtain a Bi-ritual faculty directly from the Apostolic See to make such a celebration lawful. 

 

Five keywords: Bi-ritual Faculty, Apostolic See, Rite, Pastoral Care, Minister

 

1. Introduction

Every Catholic is obliged to know, preserve and faithfully practice the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage proper to their own Church sui iuris-whether they are in their proper territory or abroad. The Second Vatican Council teaches that, “All Eastern Christians should know and be certain that they may and should always preserve their own lawful liturgical rites and way of life” (OE 6).[1] Clerics and religious have a serious obligation to preserve and observe their own rite. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says, “Other Clerics and members of institutes of consecrated life are bound to observe faithfully their own rite and to acquire always a greater knowledge and more complete practice of it” (CCEO c. 40§2). One should love and respect his Church sui iuris. He should love his Church more than anyone else and be ready to celebrate the sacraments with love and joy according to the liturgical norms of his Church sui iuris.

These days, there is a tendency among priests to think that, when they celebrate the sacraments - especially the Holy Eucharist - they should do so in the rite of the people. We must understand that when sacraments are celebrated, we cannot choose the rite of the faithful with whom we are celebrating; rather, the priest must celebrate in his own rite only. There is no option for the priest to choose between his own rite and that of the faithful. One should not think that since sacraments are administered for the faithful, we must celebrate in their rite. While celebrating the sacraments, the ministers and all members of the faithful must show great reverence and due care. Liturgy belongs to the Church, not to any individual’s personal taste or creativity. Therefore, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything given in the liturgical book (CIC c. 846 §1; CCEO c. 674 §1.  

2. Celebrating Sacraments in His Own Rite

Both Codes- the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) and the Code of Canon Law (CIC) - clearly state that a minister can celebrate the sacraments only in his own rite. CIC says, “The ministers are to celebrate the sacraments according to their own rite” (CIC c. 846 §2). The CCEO states, “The minister should celebrate the sacraments according to the liturgical prescript of his own Church sui iuris, unless the law establishes otherwise or he himself has obtained a special faculty from the Apostolic See” (CCEO c. 674 §2).

This is a liturgical law and therefore must be interpreted in the context of liturgy. The law speaks only about the sacraments, not about sacramentals. The CCEO gives an exception - “unless the law establishes otherwise or he himself has obtained a special faculty from the Apostolic See.” The CCEO does not contain any canon that permits a minister to celebrate the sacraments in another rite. Therefore, we must obtain a special faculty from the Apostolic See to celebrate sacraments in a rite other than the rite of the minister.[2]

3. Indult from the Apostolic See

An indult is a temporary favour granted by a competent superior.  It may be a dispensation, a permission, a faculty, etc.[3] This is permission obtained from the Apostolic See is to celebrate the sacraments in another rite. This authorization is understood as an administrative act which removes a limitation placed by a juridical norm and accords the recipient with the capacity to act legitimately. It may allow an action which a prohibitive law otherwise forbids, or it may allow an action which a permissive law grants, provided that this permission is obtained. In both cases, it grants the ability to act according to the law.[4] This can be called an Apostolic Indult to celebrate the sacraments in another rite or a bi-ritual faculty.

This concession is reserved to the Apostolic See. Therefore, the head of a Church sui iuris, eparchial bishop or a major superior cannot grant this indult. They have no authority to give this faculty. When there is a genuine need, we can approach the Apostolic See for this faculty. There are so many priests from Eastern Churches and Eastern rite Religious Institutes engaged in pastoral and missionary activities in the Latin Dioceses in India as well as outside India. Surely, these priests should obtain bi-ritual faculty from the Apostolic See. When a Latin Bishop invites an Oriental priest to work in his diocese, it is the responsibility of the oriental priest to obtain bi-ritual faculty. 

The Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, in its letter addressed to Cardinals and Bishops worldwide, Prot. N. 199/2024, dated November 22, 2024, writes, “The fact of reserving this special concession to the Apostolic See makes it clear that ‘bi-ritualism for clerics represents an indult, justifiable when there are real and manifest pastoral needs, not to satisfy devotions or personal interests with regard to a particular liturgical tradition’.”[5] The priority of every priest must be to serve his faithful by celebrating the sacraments in his own rite.

The Dicastery for the Eastern Churches is competent to grant bi-ritual faculty. In order to secure this faculty, the cleric himself must submit the following documents to the Dicastery:

1. A letter from the cleric requesting the bi-ritual faculty for a single rite in addition to his own.
2. A letter of request from the Hierarch (Eparchial Bishop, Exarch, or other equivalent in law) or Ordinary in whose circumscription the applicant will exercise ministry in the rite other than his own. This letter must contain:
   a) The pastoral destination of the priest in the ecclesiastical circumscription.
   b) The preparation of the priest to celebrate the rite for which the faculty is requested.
   c) A statement from the community of the priest’s proper rite certifying that this ministry takes priority over that which he exercises on behalf of other faithful.
3. A letter of consent from the Ordinary or Hierarch of the priest’s own rite.

The bi-ritual faculty is granted only to individuals, not to groups of priests. It is never given permanently but only for a maximum period of five years. It is not renewed automatically but requires a new rescript from the Dicastery, submitted before the expiration of the previous indult.[6]

However, obtaining a bi-ritual faculty does not constitute insertion into the Church in which one has obtained the faculty. A priest of an Eastern Church sui iuris cannot exercise his ministry exclusively, or even predominantly, in the Latin Church.[7] The only exception to this norm is when there is an abundance of priests in the Eastern Church; after making an agreement for fidei donum service with a Latin Ordinary, priests of the Eastern Church may be permitted to serve in a Latin diocese for a maximum period of five years.[8]

If the faithful of the Eastern Churches are entrusted to a Latin Bishop for pastoral care, he may request the head of that particular Church sui iuris for priests to serve those faithful. If the head of that Church sui iuris is unable to provide priests, the Latin Ordinary may request the Dicastery for the Eastern Churches to grant the bi-ritual faculty to one of the priests in his diocese to minister to the Eastern faithful.[9] The priest who receives the faculty should be given proper training in the liturgy, theology, spirituality, and discipline of that Eastern Church.

It is the responsibility of the diocesan/eparchial bishop to care for the faithful of another Church sui iuris when they have no ordinary of their own and pastoral care is entrusted to him.[10] The territory of the Latin Church is not extended over all of India. The Latin Church has no jurisdiction in the territory of nine Syro-Malabar mission eparchies - Adilabad, Bijnor, Chanda, Gorakhpur, Jagdalpur, Rajkot, Sagar, Satna and Ujjain.[11] There are Latin faithful in all these eparchies, having migrated mainly from Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in search of better job. Latin Catholics are entrusted to Syro-Malabar bishops for the pastoral care in these eparchies. It is the responsibility of these Eparchial bishops to provide pastoral care for the Latin faithful in the Latin rite (cf. CCEO c. 678§2). Preferably, eparchial bishops should invite Latin priests from other Latin dioceses and appoint them, after making a contract with their respective bishops, to care for the Latin faithful. Eparchial Bishops cannot ask Syro-Malabar priests to celebrate sacraments for Latin faithful in Latin rite without a bi-ritual faculty. Bishops do not have the power to grant bi-ritual faculties to priests. If an eparchial bishop thinks that his own priest should care for the Latin faithful of his eparchy, he can request the Dicastery for the Eastern Churches to grant the bi-ritual faculty to one of his priests for this purpose.

4. Automatic Bi-ritual Faculty

There are hundreds of priests incardinated into Latin dioceses from other Churches sui iuris, especially from the Syro-Malabar Church. Likewise, there are priests incardinated into some Eastern eparchies who originally belonged to the Latin Church. The indult of the Apostolic See is necessary for the liceity of the ordination of ministers belonging to another Church sui iuris and for admission to the novitiate in an institute of consecrated life of another Church sui iuris (CCEO c. 451).[12] This permission is called Adaptation of Rite. It grants the faculty to conform to the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony on another Church sui iuris. The persons who receive the indult do not change their ascription in their original Church but rather maintain membership in the original Church.[13] By the fact that candidates are ordained for another Church sui iuris with the indult of Adaptation of Rite, they receive the faculty to celebrate the sacraments in the new rite. At the same time, they can also celebrate sacraments in their original rite.[14]

It is to be obtained from the Dicastery for the Eastern Churches. The candidate and the concerned Ordinary / Superior must write to request to Dicastery for the Eastern Churches. The consent of the proper own Ordinary/Hierarch (if candidate belongs to Eastern sui iuris Church), the full name of the candidate, date of birth, place of residence and baptism certificates are to be included in the documents.[15] 

5. Occasional Celebration without Faculty

We speak of the bi-ritual faculty as the authorization to celebrate sacraments in another rite on a regular basis. On the other hand, to celebrate sacraments occasionally-especially the divine Eucharist - when visiting another Church sui iuris, the permission of the Apostolic See may be presumed.[16]

6. Bi-ritual Faculty for Concelebration

We have already seen that a head of the Church sui iuris, eparchial bishop or major superior has no power to grant bi-ritual faculty to any priest. However, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches has given a provision for priests to concelebrate with priests of another Church sui iuris. The Code says, “For a just cause and with the permission of the eparchial bishop, Bishops and presbyters of different Churches sui iuris can concelebrate, especially to foster love and to manifest the unity of the Churches. All follow the prescripts of the liturgical books of the principal celebrant, avoiding any liturgical syncretism whatever, and preferably with all wearing the liturgical vestments and insignia of their own Church sui iuris” (CCEO c. 701). There is no parallel canon in the CIC. Eparchial bishops can give this permission for a just cause. Just cause need not be interpreted strictly; the reason does not have to be grave. It can simply be aimed at promoting unity and a spirit of communion among the different Churches sui iuris.[17] For example, for the ordination of a bishop, priests from different Churches sui iuris may concelebrate; or national/regional celebration, priests of various rites may come together. On such occasions, permission from the eparchial bishop can be presumed validly to concelebrate.

In such a concelebration, the principal celebrant must follow the liturgical text of his own rite. All other concelebrants follow the liturgy of the principal celebrant: The Code says, “… All follow the prescripts of the liturgical books of the principal celebrant, avoiding any liturgical syncretism whatever…”(CCEO c. 701). The canon prefers that all concelebrants wear the liturgical vestments and insignia of their own Church sui iuris. The Code says, “…preferably with all wearing the liturgical vestments and insignia of their own Church sui iuris” (CCEO c. 701). This variety in the celebration of the Divine Eucharist - different vestments and insignia while following the principal celebrant’s liturgy - is an excellent expression of the communion theology of Vatican Council II.[18] Liturgical insignia are visible signs of ecclesiastical office and ministry, used during worship to manifest the order, hierarchy, and symbolism of the Church.

7. Ordination by a Bishop of Another Church sui iuris

A bishop of a particular Church sui iuris, including the Latin Church, can ordain only those who belong to his Church sui iuris. Merely having the bi-ritual faculty does not permit a bishop to ordain anyone from another Church sui iuris.

A deacon may be incardinated into his diocese, but if he belongs to another Church sui iuris, the bishop cannot ordain him. A bishop of the Latin Church cannot licitly ordain a candidate of an Eastern rite; in similar way, a bishop of an Eastern Church cannot ordain a candidate of the Latin rite or any other Eastern Church different from his own.

A candidate for the diaconate or priesthood must be ordained by a bishop of his own Church sui iuris. For example:

• A candidate who originally belongs to the Syro-Malabar Church, even if he is studying for a Latin diocese, must be ordained by a Syro-Malabar bishop.
• A candidate who belongs to the Latin Church but is studying for a Syro-Malabar eparchy, even if domiciled in that eparchy, must be ordained by a Latin bishop.

8. Obtaining Apostolic Indult to Ordain

A bishop can lawfully ordain a candidate of another Church sui iuris only with an Apostolic Indult. “An eparchial bishop cannot ordain a candidate subject to him who is ascribed to another Church sui iuris without the permission of the Apostolic See; however, in the case of a candidate who is ascribed to a particular Church and has a domicile or quasi-domicile within the territorial boundaries of the same Church, the patriarch can also grant this permission” (CCEO 748 §2). The CIC gives a similar norm in can. 1015 §2. It says: “He (bishop) may not, however, without an Apostolic Indult lawfully ordain a subject of an oriental rite.”

If a bishop ordains a candidate without an Apostolic Indult, the ordination will be valid but illicit. Even if a Latin bishop is the proper bishop of the candidate because the candidate has domicile in his diocese, the bishop must still obtain an Apostolic Indult to ordain him if he belongs to an Oriental Church, and vice versa. This norm originates from the Council of Trent and conforms to Vatican Council II, which urges respect for the Eastern rites and the safeguarding of their traditions.[19]

A Latin bishop cannot ordain a Syro-Malabar candidate even if that candidate was baptized in the Latin Church by a Latin priest, according to the Latin liturgy, and grew up in the Latin rite. The Code states, “The practice, however long standing, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another Church ‘sui iuris’, does not bring with it membership of that Church” (CIC c. 112 §2; also cf. CCEO c. 38).[20] Similarly, an Eastern bishop must obtain an Apostolic Indult to ordain a Latin candidate studying for his eparchy.

However, if a Latin candidate is ascribed to a Patriarchal/Major Archiepiscopal and has domicile or quasi-domicile within the territorial boundaries of that Church, the patriarch can grant permission (CCEO c. 748 §2). For example, a Syro-Malabar bishop in India can obtain this indult from the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church to ordain a Latin candidate in India. Conversely, a Latin bishop must obtain this indult from Apostolic See to ordain a Syro-Malabar candidate. A bishop who is originally from the Syro-Malabar Church but serves in a Latin diocese can ordain candidates of both the Latin and Syro-Malabar Churches without any indult and vice versa.

9. Conclusion

A priest, by his ordination within a particular Church sui iuris, has the sacred duty to celebrate the sacraments according to the liturgical tradition of his own rite. This fidelity is not merely an external observance but springs from a genuine love and reverence for his Church, which has nourished his faith and vocation. Our rites are treasures handed down from the Apostles through centuries of prayer, discipline, and sacrifice; to neglect them risks diminishing the richness of the Church’s diversity.

If I, as a priest, fail to celebrate the sacraments in my own rite, who will preserve and hand on this heritage to the faithful entrusted to me? At the same time, the Church, in her wisdom, provides for pastoral situations where the faithful of another rite may need sacramental care. In such cases, charity must be united with obedience: if there is a genuine and proven need to celebrate the sacraments in another rite in a stable manner, the proper path is to obtain the bi-ritual faculty from the Apostolic See, thereby ensuring that pastoral needs are met while the unity and integrity of each rite are fully respected.

---

[1] Cf. John D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, Saint Maron Publications, New York, 1992, p. 446.

[2] Cf. Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, Saint Maron Publications, New York,1996, p. 388.

[3] Cf. Augustine Mendonça, Commentary for the Private Use of Students, St. Paul University, Ottawa, 2005, p. 14

[4] Cf. Augustine Mendonça, Commentary for the Private Use of Students, p. 130.

[5] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, Letter Addressed to Cardinals and Bishops, Prot. N.199/2024, Dated November 22, 2024, p. 1.

[6] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 2.

[7] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 2.

[8] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 2.

[9] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 2.

[10] Cf. John D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, p. 445.

[11] Cf. Mathew John Puthenparambil, Role of the Laity in the Diocesan Curia: A Comparative Study of the Latin and the Eastern Codes, Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, 2015, p. 4. Except Adilabad, all these eparchies were bifurcated from eight Latin dioceses and Adilabad was bifurcated from the eparchy of Chanda.

[12] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 4.

[13] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 5.

[14] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 4.

[15] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 5.

[16] The author of this article made a request to the Apostolic See for bi-ritual faculty to celebrate the Latin rite Mass when he visits Latin diocese. The Apostolic See has given the reply dated 02 October 2014 in the following words: “…. In fact, bi-ritual faculties are intended for the cause of a priest who foresees the need to carry out regular pastoral ministry in another rite for a specific period with the approval of the relevant Bishop of that rite. When, on the other hand, celebrating in another rite is an occasional matter, especially when concelebration is concerned, the permission of the Holy See is to be presumed…”

[17] Cf. Varghese Koluthara, “Concelebration of Bishops and Priests of Different Churches Sui Iuris” in John D. FARIS and Jobe Abbas, A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Vol. 1, Wilson & Lafleur Ltee, Chambly, 2019, p. 1266.

[18] Cf. Varghese Koluthara, “Concelebration of Bishops and Priests of Different Churches Sui Iuris,” p. 1267.

[19] Cf. Dominic Le Tournean, “Orders” in Angel Marzoa, Jorge Miras and Rafael Rodrigues-Ocana, Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. III/I, Wilson& Lafleur, Montreal, 2004, p. 915; OE 105.

[20] Cf. Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, Grants of Bi-ritualism, p. 5.  

The Office of the Vicar General[1]

A Comparative Study of the Eastern and the Latin Codes 

{Cf. Mathew John Puthenparambil, “The Office of the Vicar General: A Comparative Study of the Eastern and the Latin Codes, In Ephrem’s Theological Journal, Vol. 19 (March 2015), pp. 42-54}

Introduction

The office of the vicar general[2], one of the obligatory offices in the diocesan curia, is the most important office after the office of the diocesan bishop. He is the pre-eminent official of the diocesan curia[3]. In administrative matters of the diocese, he is the personal representative of the diocesan bishop. According to the regula iuris, one who acts through another is as if he did it himself (qui facit per alium est perinde, ac si faciat per se ipsum)[4].  He is closely associated with the diocesan bishop and assists him in the governance of the entire diocese. He is the closest collaborator of the diocesan bishop and his authority extends throughout the territory of the diocese[5].

Appointment of the Vicar General

The Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church Christus dominus states that the bishop must appoint a vicar general, the pre-eminent official of the diocesan curia, who is to assist him in the governance of the diocese. We read in the document: “In the diocesan curia the office of vicar general is preeminent” (CD 27). The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores speaks about the appointment of the vicar general in following words: “The Bishop must appoint a Vicar general, the pre-eminent official of the diocesan curia, who is to assist him in the governance of the diocese”[6].   

There was no obligation for the bishop to appoint a vicar general under the 1917 Code. It was made optional (cf. 1917 CIC c. 366). The Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati also recommended the appointment of a vicar general if the proper governance of the diocese required it. It states: “Whenever the proper government of the eparchy demands it, a syncellus is to be appointed by the bishop, to help him in the entire territory with ordinary jurisdiction” (CS c. 432 § 1). Therefore, it was not an obligatory office for the Eastern Churches under the  Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati. The Directory for the Bishops Ecclesiae imago takes it one step further and speaks of the possibility of appointing more than one vicar general for a diocese[7]. “The vicar general, whose office is the highest in the diocesan curia (CD 27), is appointed wherever, in the bishop’s judgment, the proper government of the diocese would require it, and indeed several vicars general may be appointed (ES 1, 14)”[8]. The Code Commission wanted to remove the option of appointing the vicar general and wanted to follow the spirit of the conciliar teaching[9].

The diocesan bishop must appoint a vicar general in his diocese to assist him. It is obligatory for him to appoint a vicar general even though the diocese/eparchy is very small[10]. “In each diocese the diocesan bishop is to appoint a vicar general to assist him in the governance of the whole diocese…” (CIC c. 475 § 1; cf. CCEO c. 245).  As a general rule only one vicar general is to be appointed in a diocese. More than one vicar general may be appointed in the Latin dioceses if the size of the diocese is very big, the number of the faithful or other the pastoral reasons suggests (cf. CIC c. 475 § 2)[11]. But there is no provision in the Eastern code to appoint more than one protosyncellus in an eparchy[12]. If pastoral circumstance permits, one or more syncellus[13] may be appointed (cf. CCEO c. 215 § 2) in eparchies.

The vicar general is freely appointed by the diocesan bishop. As the vicar general is very closely associated with the bishop it is necessary that the bishop must be very free to appoint or remove him from the office. Therefore, the bishop has full freedom to appoint any priest who has the required qualifications for the office of vicar general. He can be appointed for a determinate or indeterminate time[14]. The codes do not speak explicitly about the appointment of the vicar general ‘ad tempus’ but at the same time it does not prohibit either. Such an indication is a proof of its possibility[15]. A coadjutor or auxiliary bishop is appointed as vicar general for an indeterminate time (cf. CIC c. 406 § 1; CCEO c. 215 § 2)[16]. When there are two auxiliary bishops one may be appointed as the vicar general and the other one as episcopal vicar or both of them could be appointed as vicars general in the Latin dioceses. Since there cannot be two protosyncelli in an eparchy of the Eastern Churches, one is to be appointed as protosyncellus and the other as the syncellus (cf. CCEO c. 215 § 2). The vicar general must make a promise to carry out the office faithfully. He has also the obligation to observe secrecy as per the direction of the bishop (cf. CIC 471; CCEO 244 § 2)[17].   

Qualifications of the Vicar General 

Since the office of the vicar general is an ecclesiastical one and above all the most important office in the diocese, the bishop cannot appoint just any priest to this office. Certain qualifications prescribed by the code are to be considered while appointing someone to this highest office in the diocese. First of all to be promoted to an office, a person must be suitable, that is, possessed with those qualities required by law for that particular office (cf. CIC c. 149 § 1; CCEO c. 940).

For every ecclesiastical office, the person who holds the office need not be a priest. But in the case of the vicar general, both codes clearly state that he must be a priest (cf. CIC c. 478 § 1; CCEO c. 247 § 2)[18]. The requirement of priestly order is very essential for the vicar general because he exercises a potestas sacra et vera episcopalis since he is the alter ego[19] of the bishop in authority and responsibility[20]. CCEO specify that the protosyncellus must be a celibate priest[21]. Again the CCEO specifies that the protosyncellus must be a priest ascribed to the same eparchy if possible[22]. The CCEO states: “…if possible, they should be from the clerics ascribed to the eparchy;…” (CCEO c. 247 § 2). The prior prohibition of appointing a member of religious order or institute has not been repeated in CIC and CCEO[23]. Therefore, the vicar general could be a priest belonging to a religious order/institute, or incardinated to another diocese or even a priest belonging to another Church sui iuris (cf. CCEO c. 247 § 4).

The vicar general must be not less than thirty years of age at the time of his appointment. Canonists are divided on the opinion whether he must have completed the age of thirty or he must have begun his thirtieth year since the wording of the canon ‘annos nati non minus triginta’ is not very clear[24]. The reason for keeping this age is that one should reach the adequate human maturity before he assumes the office of vicar general which involves great responsibility[25]. Though the law prescribes that the vicar general should not be less than thirty years old, the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores issued in 2004 states that when possible, it is preferable that the vicar general should be forty years old or more[26]. Another qualification recommended for the vicar general is that he holds a doctorate or licentiate or at least he must be an expert in some sacred sciences such as theology, canon law and so on. He must be known for his sound doctrine, integrity, prudence and practical experience[27]. It states:

The diocesan bishop should appoint a Vicar general or as episcopal Vicars priests who are doctrinally sound, trustworthy, esteemed by the presbytarate and in public opinion. They should be wise, honest and morally upright, with pastoral and administrative experience, capable of establishing a good human rapport with others and competent in dealing with diocesan affairs[28]. 

A person related by blood to the diocesan bishop up to the fourth degree cannot be appointed as vicar general (cf. CIC c. 478 § 2; CCEO c. 247 § 3). In CIC c. 478 § 2 it is not very clear whether the fourth degree is inclusive. Canonists are again divided on this matter whether the fourth degree is inclusive or not[29]. When we look into CCEO it is very clear that the fourth degree is inclusive (cf. CCEO c. 247 § 3). This is to safeguard bishop’s own freedom in taking decisions as well as to maintain objectivity and integrity in assessing and deciding on matters which concern the good of the diocese[30]. This also helps to prevent favouritism or nepotism in the diocese. As a general rule, the judicial vicar shall not be appointed as vicar general unless the diocese is very small or the diocese has very few marriage cases (cf. CIC c. 1420 § 1; CCEO c. 1086 § 1). The canon penitentiary also cannot be appointed as vicar general (cf. CIC c. 478 § 2)[31].

Place of the Vicar General among the Clergy 

While they are in office, priests who hold the office of the vicar general enjoy all the rights and privileges immediately subordinate to diocesan bishop. CCEO states: “The protosyncellus and the syncelli who are presbyters have the privileges and insignia of the dignity next to that of the bishop during their function (durante munere)” (CCEO c. 250)[32]. The precedence of the protosyncellus over all others, a provision given in the Moto proprio Cleri sanctitati, is removed in CCEO. There is no parallel canon in the Latin code, but it is natural that the vicar general would enjoy precedence immediately after the diocesan bishop in the Latin Church also.

The Powers of the Vicar General   

The power of the vicar general is understood as a faculty to perform an act. Power of governance (potestas regiminis) is the public power ordained towards the governance of others. The power of governance is distinguished as legislative, executive and judicial (cf. CIC c. 135 § 1; CCEO c. 985 § 1). The power of the vicar general is described in CIC c. 479 § 1 as follows:

In virtue of his office, the Vicar general has the same executive power throughout the whole diocese as that which belongs by law to the diocesan Bishop: that is, he can perform all administrative acts, with the exception however of those which the Bishop has reserved to himself, or which by law require a special mandate of the Bishop.

We see a similar expression of CIC c. 479 § 1 in CCEO c. 248 § 1:

Unless it is expressly provided otherwise by common law, the protosyncellus throughout the whole eparchy and syncelli within the limits of the office conferred on them have the same executive power of governance as the eparchial bishop, excepting those things that the eparchial bishop has reserved to himself or to others or that by law require his own special mandate, so that if this mandate is not obtained, the act for which the mandate is required is null.

According to CIC c. 131 § 1 and CCEO c. 981 § 1, the ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself. Ordinary power is by law itself attached to an office. Therefore, a person cannot have ordinary power without an office. The power of the vicar general is ordinary, attached to the office[33]. The ordinary power of governance can be either proper or vicarious (cf. CIC c. 131 § 2; CCEO c. 981 § 2). Proper power is exercised in one’s own name (nomine proprio) while vicarious power is exercised in the name of another (nomine at vice alterius) as a substitute as collaborators[34]. The power of the vicar general is vicarious, exercised in the name of the diocesan bishop[35]. 

In virtue of his office the vicar general has the same executive power in the entire diocese as that which belongs to the diocesan bishop. According to CIC c. 136 and CCEO c. 986, the vicar general can exercise executive power over his subjects even when he is outside his diocese or when the faithful are away from the diocese. He can also exercise his power over travelers who are actually living in the diocese. The very purpose of the office of vicar general reveals that he has to assist diocesan bishop in the governance of the entire diocese (cf. CIC c. 475 § 1; CCEO c. 245). This confirms his executive power throughout the diocese over persons and things. It is the responsibility of the vicar general to extend his help to the diocesan bishop in governing the diocese[36].

The vicar general can exercise executive power and can also perform all administrative acts. He can issue general executory decrees, that is, decrees which define more precisely the manner of applying a law or which urge the observance of the law. Executive power of the vicar general is also performed by issuing administrative acts through which laws are applied to individual persons or group of persons. He can issue singular decrees and precepts and grant rescripts which contain privileges and dispensations. The diocesan bishop usually grants privileges, the vicar general shares with diocesan bishop the power to grant most of the dispensations especially with regard to the impediments of marriage[37]. The vicar general is a local ordinary in the diocese (cf. CIC c. 134 § 2; CCEO c. 984 § 2) and he is also an Ordinary in a diocese of the latin Church[38]. 

The diocesan bishop, if he wishes, can reserve certain powers to himself or to another priest other than the vicar general. In that case the vicar general has no power in dealing with those matters. But the authority of the vicar general should not be limited to such an extent that the office itself is modified. Reservation of powers shall be exceptional otherwise it shall be contrary to the law which defined the positions so that the vicar general could function as the alter ego of the diocesan bishop[39].

The vicar general should be convoked to the diocesan synod[40] and he has the obligation to attend the same (cf. CIC c. 463 § 1; CCEO c. 238 § 1) since his role in the diocese is very significant. The diocesan bishop is bound to visit his diocese in whole or in part each year so that at least every five years he will have visited the entire diocese. If the diocesan bishop is legitimately impeded, the vicar general may carry out the pastoral visit to parishes provided he receives the delegation from the bishop (cf. CIC c. 396 § 1; CCEO c. 205 § 1).

While granting or refusing of favour the vicar general has to keep in mind the principles of governance. “A favour refused by the diocesan bishop cannot, without the Bishop’s consent, validly be obtained from his vicar general or episcopal Vicar, even though mention is made of the refusal” (CIC c. 65 § 3; cf. CCEO c. 1530 § 1). Therefore, the vicar general cannot grant a favour which was denied by the diocesan bishop without obtaining the bishop’s consent first. This is to avoid contradictions and conflicts in the diocese. The vicar general cannot validly grant a favour which was denied by the episcopal vicar unless the denial is mentioned in the petition (cf. CIC c. 65 § 2; CCEO c. 1530 § 2)[41].

The office of the vicar general is neither another centre of authority nor a collegial body responsible for the governance of the diocese. Even though the diocesan bishop extends his authority by permitting another person to act in his own name, he remains ultimately the responsible person for all affairs of the diocese[42]. Therefore, the vicar general must report all important matters of the diocese to the diocesan bishop. The diocesan bishop must be informed of important acts and decisions that the vicar general has taken already and are under consideration. He should not act against the will and intention of the diocesan bishop as he is hierarchically subordinated to him. Canons of both codes state that he should not act against the will and mind of the diocesan bishop (cf. CIC c. 480, CCEO c. 249).

Cessation of Office of the Vicar General

The office of the vicar general can be lost in various ways. It can be lost either by the expiry of the period of their mandate, by resignation from the office or by removal from the office (cf. CIC c. 481 § 1; CCEO c. 251 § 1). If the vicar general was appointed for a determined time, the office ceases upon expiry of the term. But the office does not cease automatically on the date at the end of the term[43]. Loss of an office by the lapse of a determined time or by the reaching the age determined by law takes effect only from the moment when the competent authority has intimated it in writing (cf. CIC c. 184; CCEO c. 965 § 3). Therefore, the diocesan bishop has to notify the vicar general in writing. If the diocesan bishop does not inform him in writing, the vicar general continues in office.

The vicar general can resign from the office for a just cause. Any person who is responsible for himself (sui compos) can resign freely from his office for a just cause (cf. CIC c. 187; CCEO c. 967)[44]. He has to submit his resignation to the diocesan bishop in writing or orally in the presence of two witnesses (cf. CIC c. 189 § 1; CCEO c. 969)[45]. CIC does not speak of the acceptance of the resignation made by vicar general (cf. CIC c. 481 § 1). Therefore, there are authors who say that it need not be accepted by the diocesan bishop; upon the communication the resignation takes effect[46]. But the parallel canon in CCEO states that the resignation of the protosyncellus needs to be accepted by the eparchial bishop, “renunciatione ab Episcopo Eparchiali acceptata” (CCEO c. 251 § 1). Since CCEO speaks of the acceptance by the eparchial bishop and since the office is the most important one in the diocese it is to be accepted by the diocesan bishop even in the Latin Church (cf. CIC c. 17). Unless and until it is accepted it has no effect. If the diocesan bishop does not accept the resignation of the vicar general within three months of submission it lacks all force (cf. CIC c. 189 § 3; CCEO c. 970 § 1). 

As the vicar general is freely appointed by the diocesan bishop, he can also be removed freely by the diocesan bishop unless he is a coadjutor or auxiliary bishop (cf. CIC c. 477 § 1; CCEO c. 247 § 1). He can be freely removed for a just cause and not necessarily for a grave reason. The diocesan bishop need not observe any procedure for the removal, but he should respect the natural equity and justice and also the right of a person to a good reputation[47]. In order to be effective the diocesan bishop should issue the decree of removal in writing to the vicar general[48]. There is no obligation for the diocesan bishop to follow a prescribed procedure[49]. If the vicar general is appointed for a determined period of time a grave cause is necessary to remove him from the office (cf. CIC c. 193; CCEO c. 975 § 1)[50] .

A) Loss of Office When Diocese is Vacant:

Loss of office of the vicar general of CIC is little different from protosyncellus of CCEO. Loss of office as per CIC is simple, compared to CCEO. When a diocese is vacant the vicar general loses his office (cf. CIC c. 481 § 1). CIC c. 417 states that the diocese becomes vacant by the death of the diocesan bishop, by his resignation accepted by the Apostolic See, by transfer to another See or by deprivation notified to the bishop. It is not at the moment when See becomes vacant he loses his office, but when he is notified of the vacancy of the See, he loses his office (cf. CIC c. 481 § 1; CCEO c. 224 § 1 and 2).  All the decisions taken by the vicar general prior to the notification he received of the vacancy of the diocese have effect even if those decisions were taken after the actual vacancy of the diocese (cf. CIC c. 417; CCEO c. 224 § 2).  If the vicar general is a coadjutor bishop, when diocese is vacant he immediately becomes the diocesan bishop if he has already taken possession of his office lawfully (cf. CIC c. 409 § 1)[51]. The Second Vatican Council wished that when the See is vacant the auxiliary bishop, if there is one, becomes the administrator of the diocese. The Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church states: “It is indeed desirable, unless there are grave reasons to the contrary, that the responsibility of governing the diocese during the vacancy of the See should be entrusted to the auxiliary bishop, or if there are several, to one of them” (CD 26)[52].  If the vicar general is an auxiliary bishop he retains the powers of the vicar general when the diocese was occupied. If he is not appointed or elected as the administrator, he can exercise the same powers under the authority of the administrator (cf. CIC c. 409 § 2). 

B) Suspension of the Diocesan Bishop:

If the diocesan bishop is suspended from the office, the power of the vicar general is suspended. However a bishop who holds the office of the vicar general continues in office and exercises the power while the diocesan bishop is suspended (cf. CIC c. 481 § 2, CCEO c. 251 § 3)[53]. The reason behind this norm is the intrinsic relationship between the diocesan bishop and his vicar general. The power possessed by the vicar general is vicarious. Therefore, unless he has episcopal dignity, his power is suspended when the bishop is suspended from office. The office of the diocesan bishop can be suspended through canonical penalties[54].

According to CCEO the protosyncellus does not cease from his office always when the eparchy becomes vacant. Some exceptions are treated in CCEO c. 224 § 1. It states:

Upon the vacancy of the eparchial See, the protosyncellus and the syncelli immediately cease from office unless they are: 1° ordained bishops; 2° constituted in the eparchy of the patriarch; 3° constituted in an eparchy located within the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church, until the administrator of the eparchy takes canonical possession of his office. 

C) An Ordained Bishop Does Not Cease from the Office:

The recommendation of the Second Vatican Council is that when the diocese is vacant the auxiliary bishop, if there is one, becomes the administrator of the diocese. It was not incorporated in the legislation in CCEO and therefore, a priest could be appointed or elected as the eparchial administrator upon the vacancy of the eparchial See (cf. CCEO c. 225 § 1). Nevertheless, if the protosyncellus was an ordained bishop he does not cease from the office but retains ‘ex iure’ his office and enjoys the powers which he enjoyed earlier. He exercises his authority under the new eparchial administrator (cf. CCEO c. 224)[55].

D) Protosyncellus of the Eparchy of the Patriarch:

When the patriarchal See becomes vacant, the eparchy of the patriarch also becomes vacant. The senior bishop according to the episcopal ordination among the bishops of the patriarchal curia or, if there is nobody, the senior bishop of the permanent synod becomes the administrator of the patriarchal Church (cf. CCEO c. 127) and he automatically becomes the administrator of the eparchy of the patriarch. In this situation a priest who is the protosyncellus of the eparchy of patriarch does not lose his office[56].

E) Protosyncellus of an Eparchy inside the Proper Territory:

The priest who is a protosyncellus of an eparchy constituted inside the proper territory of the patriarch does not lose his office until the eparchial administrator is appointed by the patriarch within a month of useful time from the vacancy of the eparchy and takes canonical possession of his office (cf. c. 220 § 3°, 224).

F) Protosyncellus of an Eparchy outside the Proper Territory:

A priest who is appointed as the protosyncellus immediately ceases from the office upon the vacancy of the eparchy.  He loses his office not at the moment of vacancy of the eparchy, but at the moment he receives notification. He exercises his authority validly until he receives the notification of the vacancy of the eparchy[57]. 

Conclusion

The vicar general has ordinary vicarious power and he is also the local Ordinary in the diocese/eparchy (cf. CCEO c. 984 § 2; CIC c. 134 § 2). As the office of the vicar general is an important office in the diocese, both codes prescribe certain qualifications for those who hold the office. He has to co-operate with the bishop and work according to the mind and will of the bishop. The most important difference between CIC and CCEO is that there can be more than one vicar general in a Latin diocese, whereas only one protosyncellus in an eparchy.  

                                 

                                                                                                         Dr. Mathew John Puthenparambil

---

[1] Vicar general is identical with the protosyncellus of the Eastern code (CCEO). It was the custom in the east that bishops were appointed from among the monks and these bishops continued to maintain their monastic life by taking another monk as companion and secretary. This companion shared the same room or cell with the bishop. They had a close relationship with each other as they lived together in the same cell. He received the name of synkellos which means one who lives in the same cell.  Thus he became the first person in the eparchy after the bishop, cf. Victor J. Pospishil, Code of Oriental Canon Law: Law on Persons, p. 187; George Nedungatt, “Glossary of the Main Terms Used in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches”, in The Jurist 51 (1991), p. 457.

[2] The word vicar comes from the Latin ‘vicis’, hence vice means instead, deputy, the man who takes the place- vicem agree. 

[3]  Cf. Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores (22 February 2004), no. 178, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 2004 (Hereafter it will be cited as Apostolorum successors).

[4] Cf. Roland-Bernard Trauffer, “Diocesan Governance in European Dioceses Following the 1983 Code: An Initial Inquiry”, in James K. Mallett (ed.), The Ministry of Governance, Canon Law Society of America, Washington DC 1986, p. 193.

[5] Cf. Communicationes 5 (1973), pp. 226-227;  Pio Vio Pinto (a cura di), Commento al Codice di Diritto Canonico, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 2001, p. 279.

[6] Apostolorum successores 178.

[7] Cf. Sacred Congregation for Bishops, Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Ecclesiae imago (22 February 1973), no. 201, Publications Service of the Canadian Catholic Conference, Ottawa 1974, p. 102 (Hereafter it will be cited as Ecclesiae imago).

[8] Ecclesiae imago 201.

[9] Cf. Communicationes 13 (1983), p. 118.

[10] Cf. Apostolorum successores 178; Velasius De Paolis, “De vicario episcopali secundum decratum Concan. Oecum. Vatican II ‘Christus Dominus’”, in Periodica 56 (1967), pp. 311-312.

[11] Cf. Apostolorum successores 178.

[12] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Diocesan and Parish Structures: A Comparison of Selected Canons in the Codex Iuris Canonici and Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”, in Studia canonica 33(1999), p. 378.

[13] Syncellus is the term used in CCEO for episcopal Vicar of the Latin Church. 

[14] Cf. Augustine Mendonça, “The Structural Components of the Diocesan Curia”, in Canonical Studies 16 (2002), p.  114.

[15] Cf. Roch Page, Les Églises particulières, vol. 1, Les Éditions Paulines, Montréal 1985, p. 95.   

[16] Cf. Ecclesiae sanctae 1, 13. 

[17] Cf. Gianluca Marchetti, La curia come organo di partecipazione alla cura pastorale del vescovo diocesano, in Periodica 89  ( 2000), pp. 381-382.

[18] Cf. Apostolorum successores 178.

[19] Cf. Communicationes 5 (1973), p. 226.

[20] Cf. William W. Bassett, “The Office of Episcopal Vicar”, in The Jurist 3 (1970), pp. 308-309.

[21] There are married priests in some of the Eastern Catholic churches (cf. CCEO cc. 373- 375).

[22] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Diocesan and Parish Structures: A Comparison of Selected Canons in the Codex Iuris Canonici and Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”, p. 379.

[23] According to c. 367 of 1917 Code, the vicar general must be a priest of the secular clergy unless the diocese has been committed to a religious institute. Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati also said the same thing in c. 433 § 1.

[24] Cf. Luigi Chiappetta, Il codice di diritto canonico, vol 1, Edizione Dehoniane Bolongna, Bologna, 2011, p. 583.   

[25] Cf. Arulselvam Rayappan, “The Office of Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar”, in Canonical Studies 16 (2002), p. 153.

[26] Cf. Apostolorum successores 178.

[27] Cf. Davide Mussone, L’ufficio del vicario generale  nel codice di diritto canonico del 1917 e del 1983, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 2000, p. 92. 

[28]  Apostolorum successores 178.

[29] Cf. Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal ordering of Particular Churches”, in John P. Beal - James A. Coriden - Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 2007, p. 632; John A. Alesandro, “The Internal Ordering of the Particular Churches”, in James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green and Donald E. Heintschel (eds), The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 1991, p. 389.

[30] Cf. Augustine Mendonça, “The Structural Components of the Diocesan Curia”, p. 123.

[31] There is no office of canon penitentiary in CCEO. 

[32] There is no parallel canon in CIC 1983.

[33] Cf. Julio García Martín, Le norme generali del Codex Iuris Canonici, Ediurcla, Roma 1999, p. 484.

[34] Cf. John M. Huels, The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry, Quincy, Franciscan Press, 1995, pp. 20-21; George Nedungatt, “Authority of Order and Power of Governance”, in Kanon 14 (1998), p. 77.   

[35] Cf. James A. Coriden, An Introduction to Canon Law, Revised edition, New York, Paulist 2004, p. 92;  Luigi Chiappetta, Il codice di diritto canonico, vol. 1, p. 585 ; L. Restrepo, “Vicarius”, in Periodica 74 (1985), pp. 273-300.

[36] Cf. Arulselvam Rayappan, “The Office of Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar”, in Canonical Studies, 16 (2002), p. 160.

[37] Cf. Arulselvam Rayappan, “The Office of Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar”, pp. 160-161.

[38] According to CCEO the protosyncellus is not a hierarch but only a local hierarch. CCEO c. 984 § 1 states: “Besides the Roman Pontiff, the following are hierarchs: first of all a patriarch, a major archbishop, a metropolitan who presides over a metropolitan Church sui iuris, and an eparchial bishop as well as those who succeed them in interim governance in accord with the norm of law”. Paragraph 3 of it further says, “Major superiors in institutes of consecrated life who have been endowed with ordinary power of governance are also hierarchs but not local hierarchs”. CIC c. 134 § 1 states: “ In law the term Ordinary means, apart from the Roman Pontiff, diocesan bishops and all who, even for a time only, are set over a particular Church or a community equivalent to it in accordance with Can. 368, and those who in these have general ordinary executive power, that is, Vicar general, and episcopal Vicars; likewise, for their own members, it means the major superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, who have at least ordinary executive power”.

[39] Cf. John D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, Saint Maron Publications, New York 1992, p. 521; Arulselvam Rayappan, “The Office of Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar”, p. 161.

[40] Eparchial assembly is the equivalent term used for diocesan synod in CCEO.  

[41] Cf. Ecclesiae sanctae 1, 14; Joseph P. Penna, “The Office of Episcopal Vicar”, in CLSA Proceedings 52 (1990), p. 116.

[42] Cf. Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 633.

[43] Cf. Victor George D’Souza, “Cessation of Office of a Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar: Toward Refinement of Canon 481 § 1”, in Studies in Church Law 2 (2006), p. 372.

[44] Cf. Davide Mussone, L’ufficio del vicario generale nel Codice di diritto canonico del 1917 e del 1983, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000, p. 182.

[45] Cf. Paul L. Golden, “Retraction of Resignation from Office”, in Arthur J. Espelage (ed.), CLSA Advisory Opinion 2001-2005, Canon Law Society of America, Washington 2006, p. 73.

[46] Cf. Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 634. 

[47] Cf. Randolph R. Calvino and Nevin J. Klinger, Clergy Procedural Handbook, Canon Law Society of America, Washington 1992, p. 122; Luigi Chiappetta, Il codice di diritto canonico, vol. 1, p. 582.

[48] Cf. Victor George D’Souza, “Cessation of Office of a Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar: Toward Refinement of Canon 481 § 1”, p. 373.

[49] Cf. Arulselvam Rayappan, “The Office of Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar”, p. 168.  

[50] Cf. Antonio Viana, “The Diocesan Curia”, in Ángel Marzoa - Jorge Miras - Rafael Rodriguez-Ocaña (eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. 2, Midwest Theological Forum, Chicago 2004, p. 1119.

[51] According to CCEO, upon the vacancy of the eparchial See, the coadjutor bishop becomes administrator by law itself until he takes possession of the eparchy by enthronement (cf. CCEO c. 222). 

[52] Cf.  Ecclesiae Sanctae I, 13.

[53] Cf. Davide Mussone, L’ufficio del vicario generale nel codice di diritto canonico del 1917 e del 1983, p. 207.

[54] Cf. Augustine Mendonça, “The Structural Components of the Diocesan Curia”, p. 140.

[55] Cf. Marco Brogi, “Eparchies and Bishops”, in George Nedungatt (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code: A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome 2002, p. 236.

[56] Cf. Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, Saint Maron Publications, New York 1996, p. 228.

[57] Cf. John D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, pp. 490-491.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Role of Diocesan Finance Officer

A Comparative Study of Eastern & Latin Codes

(Cf. Mathew John, “The Role of the Diocesan Finance Officer; A Comparative Study of the Eastern and Latin Codes”, in Justitia, vol. 5, no. 1 (June 2014), pp. 101-118).

1. The Introduction

There must be a person in every diocese to manage the finance under the direction of the bishop. The office of finance officer is also one of the obligatory offices in every diocese (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1; CCEO c. 262 § 1)[1]. This is one of the stable offices. The finance officer and finance council are the two offices which assist the bishop in the administration of the temporal goods of the diocese. There are four purposes for having a finance officer and a finance council for the diocese. The first purpose is decentralization, that is, the bishop is free from ordinary temporal administration. The second purpose is expertise, that is, use is made of the service of the experts. The third purpose is transparency, that is, the bishop is free from suspicion of dishonest dealing. The fourth reason is freedom, that is, the bishop is free from temporal administration and can have more time for pastoral ministry[2]. 

2. The Appointment of the Finance Officer

In the early Church, the Apostles appointed seven deacons who were of good repute to serve the table so that they could be free for prayer and ministry of the Word (cf. Acts 6: 1-6). During the first five centuries the deacons, archdeacons and archpriests managed the administration of the temporal goods of the diocese[3]. The office of the finance officer arose when the Church obtained a public status in the Roman Empire and its right to own property was recognized by the civil authority. Bishops were relieved from the temporal responsibilities and it afforded them the freedom to fulfil their spiritual and pastoral responsibilities.

The office of the finance officer is not optional but mandatory now under CIC and CCEO. The reason for a separate finance officer is that the bishop as the head of the diocese should be relieved from the temporal administration in order to be free to devote all his efforts to the pastoral aspects of his official duties[4]. Therefore, the legislator expects that the bishop must appoint a finance officer. He must personally appoint the finance officer. The vicar general or the episcopal vicar does not have the authority to appoint a finance officer (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1; CCEO c. 262 § 1)[5]. According to CCEO if the bishop, after having been given a warning, has failed to appoint a finance officer, the metropolitan of the Patriarchal Church has the power to appoint a finance officer (cf. CCEO c. 133 § 1, 6°). Even if the metropolitan appoints a finance officer, he does not acquire any power over the finance officer whom he has appointed (cf. CCEO c. 945).

3. The Manner of Appointment

The finance officer carries extensive responsibilities and therefore the bishop must take the utmost care in selecting a person for this office[6]. Therefore, before appointing a finance officer, the bishop must consult two bodies, that is, the College of Consultors and Members of Finance Council (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1; CCEO c. 262 § 1). The bishop has to consult these two bodies separately. They must be convened according to the norm (cf. CIC c. 166; CCEO c. 948), unless particular or proper law has established differently[7]. It must be convoked formally and the bishop must seek out the opinion of each member of both groups in a face-to-face meeting[8]. Asking the advice individually and not in a group may be necessary in cases where there is great difficulty and cost involved in bringing a large consultative body together, or due to great distances or the urgency of an issue. There should be an atmosphere of open discussion and free exchange of opinions in the meeting. All members must be given sufficient information regarding the persons presented. This consultation would include a discussion of the candidate, and his qualifications, character, family life, ecclesial life, etc. This consultation should be as thorough as possible, as he is playing an important role in the financial management of the diocese[9]. However the bishop need not obtain the consent of either of these two bodies. Consultation with these two bodies is essential to the extent that if he neglects it or does not follow the procedure required by the law, the appointment of the finance officer will remain invalid[10].  

During the vacancy of the diocese if the finance officer (who is a priest) is elected as the diocesan administrator, he cannot continue as the finance officer as these two offices are incompatible (cf. CIC c. 152; CCEO c. 942). Therefore, a new interim finance officer is to be elected by the finance council (cf. CIC c. 423 § 1; CCEO c. 225 § 2). If the term of the finance officer comes to an end during the vacancy of the  diocese, the diocesan administrator can appoint a new finance officer as he has the rights and obligations of the bishop (cf. CIC c. 427 § 1)[11]. According to CCEO, an eparchial administrator cannot appoint a finance officer during the vacancy of the eparchy. It is the right of the Patriarch, if the eparchy is in his proper territory, to appoint a new finance officer after consulting the bishops of the patriarchal curia, if there are any, or after consulting the permanent synod. If the eparchy falls outside the proper territory of the Patriarch, the finance officer is elected by the college of consultors (cf. CCEO c. 232 § 3)[12].  

4. The Qualifications

The qualifications of the finance officer are twofold: professional and personal. The law has no qualifying statement regarding the state of life of the finance officer. The CCEO states that the finance officer must be a member of the Christian faithful (cf. CCEO c. 262 § 1). The Latin term used in canon is christifidelis. Therefore, the finance officer can be a cleric, religious, or a lay person of either gender[13]. As per CCEO, he must be a Christian and need not be a catholic[14]. According to Green, since the finance officer holds an ecclesiastical office, the candidate must presumably be a catholic[15]. The CIC does not say anything of this sort. We have to apply the general norm that in order to promote a person to an ecclesiastical office he must be in communion with the Church (cf. CIC c. 149 § 1). He need not be in full communion with the Church[16]. Though appointing a non-catholic as the finance officer is not against the law, a catholic is to be preferred, as far as possible, since his role is very important in the diocese. There are many who argue that bishops, priests and religious are to be freed from the general duties of day-to-day administration so that they can devote their time and energy to the Word of God and to the administration of Sacraments[17]. Moreover the office of finance officer does not require the potestas ordinis. From the wordings of the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores it seems that a priest is not expected to be appointed as the finance officer. It says: “The finance officer, who may be a permanent deacon or a lay person, must possess extensive experience in the administration of financial affairs. He must have a good knowledge of civil and canonical legislation concerning temporal goods and of any legal agreements with the civil authority concerning the ecclesiastical goods”[18]. Traditionally, priests are appointed as finance officers. It is time to change our mindset and to accept a lay person as the finance officer. It is an open secret that clerics are often not trained for financial administration. They are basically trained for the spiritual care of souls. There are many lay persons who are experts in the field of finance management. They could be appointed as the finance officer and priests could easily engage themselves in pastoral works. Appointing a lay person as the finance officer may be advantageous for dioceses where there is a shortage of priests or for mission dioceses where many priests are required for the evangelization. Here, in these situations, a suitable lay person can function as the finance officer and leave priests free for pastoral works.

The most important qualities of the finance officer are summarized in one sentence, in both Codes: he must be an expert in financial matters and outstanding in integrity/honesty (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1; CCEO c. 262 § 1)[19]. Though it is a simple sentence, it is an important sentence and its meaning is manifold. Honesty must be evident in everything that he does. Unless he is an honest person, the bishop and finance council members will not trust the accounts he presents. His honesty must be evident in all his actions. He must be sincerely accountable to the bishop and to the members of the finance council as well. Unless they receive a sincere and clear picture of the financial situation of the diocese, they may not be able to plan for the future. He must not only have true skills in financial matters and have the ability to comprehend the breadth of the temporal holdings of the diocese, but also be able to supervise others for the purpose of accomplishing the common goal[20]. The bishop may not be an expert in financial matters; therefore, he may have to depend on the finance officer. If the finance officer does not have a basic knowledge of canon law or in administration of temporal goods, he should be given basic training. 

In CIC there is no reference to civil law expertise although this quality might be very useful for the finance officer.  Whereas the finance officer of the eparchy should be an expert in civil law as he is one of the members of the finance council who are to be experts in civil laws whenever it is possible (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 1).

Both CIC and CCEO say that those who are related to the bishop up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity cannot be appointed as members of the finance council (cf. CIC c. 492 § 3; CCEO c. 263 § 3). Since the finance officer according to CCEO is an ex-officio member of the finance council, he cannot be closely related to the bishop. According to CIC 1983, the finance officer need not be a member of the finance council by virtue of his office. A close relative of the bishop is not prohibited from functioning as the finance officer if he is not a member of the finance council. Even though there is no prohibition in CIC, it is wise and prudent to avoid appointing a close relative of the bishop as the finance officer since the general intent of the Code is to avoid any appearance of nepotism in the governance of the diocese[21].

5. The Term of Office

The office of finance officer is more stable than any other office in the diocese. Like vicar general or episcopal vicar, the finance officer does not cease from office when the diocese becomes vacant. Since it is a stable office, the CIC prescribes that he must be appointed for five years (cf. CIC c. 494 § 2). This is the only office in the diocesan curia for which CIC prescribes the term of office. After the completion of five years, the appointment can be renewed (cf. CIC c. 494 § 2). Each renewal must be for five years[22]. There is no limit on the number of terms for which the finance officer can be re-appointed. The CCEO does not prescribe the term of office, but leaves it to particular law of each Church sui iuris (cf. CCEO c. 262 § 2). The particular law of each Church sui iuris can decide whether such an appointment is renewable or not upon the expiration of the time, the number of renewals, etc.

6. Removal from Office

The finance officer enjoys a certain stability because of the nature of his responsibilities. Like the vicar general or the episcopal vicar, he cannot be removed from the office ad nutum episcopi[23]. He cannot be removed only for a just reason, but there should be a grave reason for the removal from the office prior to the expiration of his term (cf. CIC c. 494 § 2; CCEO c. 262 § 2)[24]. The law does not define the grave reason but it is to be assessed by the bishop after consulting the college of consultors and members of the finance council[25]. The bishop losing faith in the finance officer could be considered a grave reason[26]. Even if there is a very grave reason for removing the finance officer, the bishop cannot remove him freely but he has to consult the college of consultors and members of the finance council prior to the removal (cf. CIC c. 494 § 2; CCEO c. 262 § 2)[27]. This is the one office in the diocese where the bishop has to follow a procedure to remove the person whom he has appointed. The consultation is to be done in separate meetings with both groups[28]. The bishop need not explain the reason in detail, if it is very confidential or to protect the good name of the finance officer. At least he has to present the matter in a summary form. This consultation is not only for legality but also for validity [29]. The bishop himself judges the seriousness of the reason. There is no other specific process for the removal, but exigencies of justice and equity are to be considered. When he removes the finance officer, he has to see that the diocese does not suffer in any way due to his removal.   

The diocesan administrator can remove the finance officer after consulting the college of consultors and members of the finance council (cf. CIC c. 427 § 1) in the Latin Church[30]. Though the finance council has the right to elect a new finance officer if the finance officer is elected as the diocesan administrator (cf. CIC c. 423 § 1), the council has no power to remove the finance officer. In the Eastern Churches, the patriarch with the consent of the permanent synod can remove a finance officer of an eparchy inside his territory. Only the Apostolic See can remove a finance officer of an eparchy in all other cases (cf. CCEO cc. 231 § 2, 232 § 2).  

7. Resignation from Office

The finance officer can resign from his office. He has to submit his resignation in writing to the bishop or express his intention of resignation before two witnesses (cf. CIC c. 189 § 1; CCEO c. 969). Acceptance of resignation is not required since it is not specified in the Codes. The finance officer should continue in office till his resignation is accepted by the bishop. If he arbitrarily relinquishes the office and as a consequence if any damage takes place, he is bound to make restitution (cf. CIC c. 1289; CCEO c. 1033).   

8. The Functions of the Finance Officer 

The functions of the finance officer are summarized in one canon in CIC c. 494 § 3-4.

It is the responsibility of the financial administrator, under the authority of the Bishop, to administer the goods of the diocese in accordance with the plan of the finance committee, and to make those payments from diocesan funds which the Bishop or his delegates have lawfully authorized (§ 3).

At the end of the year the finance administrator must give the finance committee an account of income and expenditure (§ 4). 

The canon prescribes three functions of the finance officer. They are: 1) to administer the goods of the diocese according to the plan of the finance council, 2) to make payments from the diocesan funds which the bishop or his delegates have lawfully authorized, and 3) to prepare a financial report to be submitted to the finance council. 

The CCEO c. 262 § 3 is broader in its description of the functions of the finance officer.

Under the power of the eparchial bishop, who is to determine in greater detail the rights and relationships of the eparchial finance officer to the finance council, the eparchial finance officer is to administer the temporal goods of the eparchy, to oversee the administration of the ecclesiastical goods throughout the eparchy, to provide for their preservation, safety and increase, to supply for the negligence of local administrators and to administer the goods that lack an administrator designated by the law.

The CCEO prescribes five functions for the finance officer in the canon. They are 1) to administer the temporal goods of the eparchy, 2) to supervise the administration of ecclesiastical goods[31] in the entire eparchy, 3) to provide for their preservation, safety and increase, 4) to compensate for the negligence of local administrators, and 5) to administer the ecclesiastical temporal goods which lack an administrator designated by the law. The finance officer exercises his office under the direction and supervision of the bishop because the bishop is the head and legal representative of the juridical person, the diocese. There should be a close and mutual understanding between them. Since the bishop is busy with the pastoral activities of the diocese, he entrusts the administration of the temporal goods to the finance officer. The most important responsibility of the finance officer is to administer the temporal goods under the authority of the bishop (sub auctoritate Episcopi). First and foremost he should realize that he is not the real administrator, but he does it on behalf of the bishop. While the finance officer administers the temporal goods of the diocese, it is the responsibility of the bishop to keep vigilance over the administration of all ecclesiastical goods. It is to be noted that the finance officer has no role over the temporal goods belonging to other juridic persons such as provinces or houses of Religious Congregations, Societies of Apostolic life, etc., as they have their own administrators.

8. 1. The Functional Difference in CIC and CCEO

There is a difference in the functions of finance officer in CIC and CCEO. The CCEO offers a slightly more detailed job description of the finance officer than does the CIC. The finance officer of CIC, while exercising his power under the bishop, has to function “secundum rationem a concilio a rebus oeconomicis definitam”[32]. The Coetus “De Sacra Hierarchia” in its sixth session thought of making the finance officer the president of the finance council (“Consilium de rebus oeconomicis, cui praeest oeconomus, vere peritus...”). But later they decided to have the bishop as its president and to separate the finance officer from the finance council[33]. He has to function according to the budget determined by the finance council and meet the expenditures authorized by the bishop or the person deputed by him[34]. He is not even a member of the finance council according to CIC. He just follows the direction of the finance council. He functions like an accountant. Therefore, his role is limited. On the other hand, CCEO does not state explicitly that the finance officer has to follow the plan of the finance council. Since he is an ex-officio member of the finance council, he has an important role to play in the finance council. He is also involved in the decision making process. Therefore, greater responsibility is invested on the finance officer under CCEO. He is fundamentally responsible to the bishop and not to the finance council. The bishop has to determine in detail the rights and relationship of the eparchial finance officer to the finance council.

One of the functions of the finance officer in CIC is “to make those payments from diocesan funds which the Bishop or his delegates have lawfully authorized” (CIC c. 494 § 3). He just follows the directions of the bishop and the finance council. He has no freedom to make any other payments which the bishop or his delegate has not authorized. He has to follow the policy of the diocese. The finance officer under the CCEO has more freedom with regard to this matter since the law does not limit his power as in CIC. Therefore, he has greater freedom to make use of his discretion and prudence when handling the finance of the diocese.

8. 2. Responsibilities in General 

There are many functions for the finance officer to carry out for the benefit of the diocese. The jurisdiction of the finance officer is not limited to a particular area but he has to supervise the administration of the temporal goods of the entire diocese (cf. CIC c. 494 § 3; CCEO c. 262 § 3). While administering the temporal goods of the diocese, he has to perform his responsibilities with the diligence of a good householder (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1; CCEO c. 1028 § 1). He has to supervise the temporal goods of juridic persons subjected to the bishop[35].  He has to exercise vigilance so that no goods entrusted to his care are in any way lost or damaged. If it is necessary, he can arrange insurance contracts (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1, 1°; CCEO c. 1028 § 2, 1°). He has to ensure that the ownership of the ecclesiastical goods is safeguarded in ways which are valid in civil law (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1, 2°). He has to observe the laws, both canon and civil, and laws imposed by the founder, donor or legitimate authority. He has to see that no damage comes to the Church from the non-observance of civil law (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1, 3°; CCEO c. 1028 § 2, 2°). He has to collect the return of goods and income accurately and on time, preserve what is collected and use them  as per the intention of the founder or lawful norms (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1, 4°; CCEO c. 1028 § 2, 3°). He has to see that the interest which is due on a loan or mortgage is paid in time and also the sum of the capital (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1, 5°; CCEO c. 1028 § 2, 4°). With the consent of the bishop he can profitably invest the money which may be left over after expenses and can be usefully set aside for the purpose of the Church (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1, 6°; CCEO c. 1028 § 2, 5°). He has to maintain accurate records of income and expenditure (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1, 7°; CCEO c. 1028 § 2, 6°). He also has to preserve records and documents of property, and deposit authentic copies of them in the diocesan archive (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 1, 9°; CCEO c. 1028 § 2, 8°). He has to observe meticulously, as per Church principles, the civil law pertaining to the labour and social policies in the employment of workers (cf. CIC c. 1286, 1º; CCEO c. 1030, 1º). He has to pay a just and decent wage to those who work for the diocese. Their salary must be for their needs and those of their dependents, if they have any (cf. CIC c. 1286, 2º; CCEO c. 1030, 2º). In every diocese there are many juridic persons such as seminaries, parishes, etc. The administrators of ecclesiastical goods, if they are not lawfully withdrawn from the power of governance by the bishop, must make an annual report of their administration to the local ordinary (cf. CIC c. 1287 § 1; CCEO c. 1031 § 1). As a supervisor of the temporal goods, he must check these reports and can intervene if some kind of negligence is found. He has to write up an accurate inventory of movable and immovable goods with a description and estimate of their values (cf. CIC c. 1283, 3°; CECO c. 1026, 2). One copy of it is to be kept in the office of the finance officer and the other copy is to be preserved in the diocesan archive. If there is any change that takes place affecting property or patrimony, it is to be marked on both copies (cf. CIC c. 1283, 2°; CECO c. 1026). Having an inventory will help him to function in a systematic way as well as guiding his successors to function in the office.

While he has to fulfil many functions, he is prohibited from doing certain things while administering the temporal goods. He cannot act validly beyond the limits and procedures of ordinary administration unless the bishop has given him a written consent (cf. CIC c. 1281 § 1; CCEO c. 1024 § 1). The limit of the ordinary administration should be specified in diocesan laws. He is also prohibited from making donations from the movable goods that do not belong to the stable patrimony, unless it is for a just cause of piety or charity. These donations must be in moderate amounts and according to legitimate custom (cf. CIC c. 1285; CCEO c. 1029). He should not initiate or contest a law suit in civil court in the name of the diocese without the written permission of the bishop (cf. CIC c. 1288; CCEO c. 1032)[36]. This permission of the bishop is not for validity, but only for lawfulness. He shall not sell or lease ecclesiastical goods to himself, unless they are of little value, or to his relatives up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity without the written[37] permission of the bishop (cf. CIC c. 1298; CCEO c. 1041). The purpose of this norm is to safeguard the good reputation of the finance officer. If he sells valuable things to his close relatives, even if sold for a high price, people may misinterpret this. As per the law, he has no authority to make policy for the diocese or authorize expenditures but he has to just follow the decisions of the finance council and of the bishop.

8. 3. Multiplying the Finance of the Diocese

The finance officer has not only to preserve, protect and increase the temporal goods of the diocese but also has to take every effort to multiply the fund of the diocese. He has to discover different ways and means to increase the fund. The dioceses in mission countries may be in need of financial support from outside. Therefore, he has to take initiatives to approach various funding agencies which support the dioceses financially for evangelization and social developmental works in the diocese. When he receives offerings from different sources, he should apply them for the purpose for which the offering was made. He should never change the purpose of the donor. The intention of the donor must be respected and most carefully observed (cf. CIC c. 1267 § 3; CCEO c. 1016 § 1). Once he has received temporal goods from various sources, they become the goods of the diocese.

He has to make sure that all the resources of the diocese are properly used. He should see that income is generated from within the diocese as far as possible. For example, if a diocese has agricultural land, it has to be utilized properly for income generation for the diocese. He has to see that all resources of the diocese are used properly in view of raising funds. While making efforts to increase the wealth, he should not take imprudent risk with the funds of the diocese such as investing it in an unauthorized bank or share market, etc. There should be an investment policy for the diocese[38]. He should not be like the servant in the parable who buried the one talent given to him by the master (cf. Mt 25: 14-30). Due to his negligence the diocese should not be harmed financially. 

8. 4. Taking Care of Public Juridic Persons

The bishop must carefully supervise the administration of all the goods that belong to public juridic persons subject to him. It is the responsibility of the bishop to have vigilance over the administration of the ecclesiastical goods within the boundaries of his diocese and which have not been removed from his power of governance. The bishop does not administer the temporal goods of public juridic persons, but only supervises their administration. He fulfils his function through pastoral visits and the inspection of public juridic persons[39]. He has to ensure that the general principles of administering the goods of the Church are observed according to universal and particular laws (cf. CIC c. 1276 § 1; CCEO c. 1022 § 1)[40]. He need not do it by himself, but can entrust his responsibility of vigilance to the finance officer (cf. CIC c. 1278). If the finance officer is entrusted with this task, he has to oversee the administration of the temporal goods of public juridic person subject to the bishop. The bishop can appoint the finance officer as the administrator of a public juridic person, if there is no administrator by law or documents of foundation or by its own statutes (cf. CIC c. 1278)[41]. In that case the role of the finance officer must be clearly specified.

In certain dioceses, there may be foundations or other kinds of public juridic persons which were established without having any financial administrators. According to CCEO, the finance officer is the administrator of the temporal goods which lack an administrator designated by law (cf. CCEO c. 262 § 3). He need not have a special appointment for it. This responsibility is not entrusted to the finance officer of the CIC by law. As per CIC, if an administrator is not appointed for a public juridic person by law or by the documents of foundation or by its own statutes, the ordinary is to intervene and appoint a suitable person as the administrator for a term of three years (cf. CIC c. 1279 § 2). In this case, the bishop can appoint the finance officer as the administrator, instead of appointing another person, for such public juridic persons when it is deemed appropriate (cf. CIC c. 1278)[42].

8. 5. Preparing a Report of His Administration

The finance officer must prepare a report of his administration including a statement of income and expenditures. According to CIC, this report is to be submitted to the finance council at the end of the year (cf. CIC c. 494 § 4) as he is responsible to the finance council. The report is to be presented only once a year. CCEO, however, says that the finance officer has to submit this report to the bishop through the finance council. He has to submit it every year and as often as it is requested by the same bishop (cf. CCEO c. 262 § 4). Therefore he is not bound to present the report to the members of the finance council. It is to be observed that the finance council does not have a right to demand a report from the finance officer nor has the finance officer an obligation to submit a report to the finance council according to CCEO. The bishop has to study this report with the help of the members of the finance council (cf. CCEO c. 262 § 4). Since the finance officer is an ex-officio member of the finance council, he is present at the finance council meeting.

8. 6. Presenting the Accounts to the Faithful in the Diocese

The finance officers, in both CIC and CCEO, are bound to render an account to the faithful each year. There are some differences between CIC and CCEO in this regard.  We read in CIC: “Administrators are to render accounts to the faithful concerning the goods which the faithful have given to the Church, in accordance with the norms to be laid down by particular law” (CIC c. 1287 § 2). The CCEO says: “According to the manner determined by the particular law, an administrator of the ecclesiastical goods is to render as account publicly concerning the goods offered to the Church, unless the local hierarch establishes otherwise for a grave reason” (CCEO c. 1031 § 2). Both CIC and CCEO do not prescribe the method of publishing this account, but both Codes leave it for the legislation of particular law. According to CIC, he is to give the account of the goods given by the faithful only. During the revision process there was a discussion about presenting the whole account to the faithful including returns on investment, sales of property, other sources of income, etc. It was found that in certain cases it would be praiseworthy but sometimes it could harm the Church. Finally it was decided not to present the complete account to the faithful, but only what they contribute to the Church[43]. Therefore, the bishop can decide the mode of presenting the account to the faithful. As per CCEO, the finance officer has to present an account of the temporal goods received by the Church from all sources, that is, not only the offerings of the faithful made to the Church but also the contributions made by non-Christians, donations given by funding agencies, etc. According to Nedungatt, the income from farm, agriculture, investment, etc., does not come under ‘goods offered to the Church’[44] and therefore, there is no obligation to present these accounts. As in CIC, particular law is to be legislated regarding the manner of publication of the account to the faithful. Even if there is a particular law, the local hierarch need not follow the particular law, if there is a grave reason, and he can decide whether to make an exception[45]. This should be seen only as an exception, in a particular context.

9. Conclusion

The office of Diocesan Finance officer is an ancient office. Bishops are to be free from the temporal administration of the diocese, so that they may have the time and energy for their pastoral functions. Therefore, the law obliges him to appoint a finance officer. Therefore, we see the seriousness of the office. It is one of the stable offices in the diocese. The bishop is not so free in the appointment of a finance officer of his choice. Before appointing the finance officer, he is bound by obligation to consult the college of consultors and the members of the finance council (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1; CCEO c. 262 § 1). If he neglects to consult these two bodies, his act would remain invalid. The law demands certain qualifications for the finance officer. The bishop can remove the finance officer, not for a just reason alone but only for a grave reason. Again the bishop has to consult the college of consultors and the members of the finance council prior to the removal. The finance officer may resign from the office if he so desires. While resigning, he should see that the diocese does not suffer in any way because of his resignation.

The finance officer has many functions to fulfil. Primarily, he has to administer the temporal goods of the diocese under the authority of the bishop. There is a minor functional difference between CIC and CCEO. According to CIC, the finance officer has to function under the direction of the finance council (cf. CIC c. 494 § 3), whereas this is not specified in CCEO. The finance officer in CIC is directly responsible to the finance council, but the finance officer in CCEO is responsible to the bishop.

---

[1] Cf. Marie Breitenbeck, “The Requirements for Experts in Church Law”, in The Jurist 50 (1990), 272.

[2] Cf. George Nedungatt, Laity and Church Temporalities: Appraisal of a Tradition, Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore 2000, 242.

[3] Cf. John J. Myers, “The Diocesan Fiscal Officer and the Diocesan Finance Council”, in CLSA Proceedings 44 (1982), 181.

[4] Cf. Victor J. Pospishil, Code of Oriental Canon Law; The Law on Persons, St. Mary’s Ukrainian Catholic Church, Philadelphia 1960, 192.   

[5] Cf. Frederick C. Easton, “The Appointment of the Diocesan Finance Officer”, in Kevin E. McKenna - Lawrence A. Dinardo - Joseph W. Pokusa (eds), Church Finance Handbook, Canon Law Society of America, Washington D. C. 1999, 127.    

[6] Cf. Adrian Farrelly, “The Diocesan Finance Council: Functions and Duties according to the Code of Canon Law”, in Studia Canonica 23 (1989), 165.  

[7] Cf. Communicationes 14 (1982), 146.

[8] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, in The Jurist 56 (1997), 711.  

[9] Cf. Adrian Farrelly, “The Diocesan Finance Council: Functions and Duties according to the Code of Canon Law”, 164-165. 

[10] Cf. Marco Brogi, “Eparchies and Bishops”, in George Nedungatt (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code: A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome 2002, 239.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[11] Frederick C. Easton says that during the vacancy of diocese it is the finance council who elects the temporal finance officer in case the office becomes vacant (cf. Frederick C. Easton, “The Appointment of the Finance Officer”, 129). 

[12] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Diocesan and Parish Structures: A Comparison of Selected Canons in the Codex Iuris Canonici and Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”, in Studia Canonica 33 (1999), 375.

[13] Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981), 128; Luigi Chiappetta, Il Codice di Diritto Canonico: Commento giuiridico-pastorale, vol. 1, Third edition, Third edition, Edizione Dehoniane Bolongna, Bologna 2011, 604.

[14] Cf. John D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, Saint Maron Publications, New York 1992, 534. 

[15] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, 724.

[16] Cf. Nicholas Cafardi, “Religious Affiliation of the Diocesan Financial Officer”, in K. W. Vann - Lynn Jarrell (eds), Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 1992, Canon Law Society of America, Washington D. C. 1992, 73.

[17] Cf. Marie Breitenbeck, “The Requirements for Experts in Church Law”, in The Jurist 50 (1990), 273; Adrian Farrelly, “The Diocesan Finance Council: Functions and Duties according to the Code of Canon Law”, p. 166; Charles J. Ritty, “Changing Economy and the New Code of Canon Law”, in The Jurist 26 (1966), 483.  

[18] Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores 192.

[19] Cf. Joseph T. Martin De Agar, A Handbook on Canon Law, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, Montréal 1999, 90.

[20] Cf. Frederick C. Easton, “The Appointment of the Finance Officer”, 128. 

[21] Cf. Marie Breitenbeck, “The Requirements for Experts in Church Law”, 273; John A. Alesandro, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, in James Coriden - Thomas J. Green - Donald E. Heintschel (eds), The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 1991, 399.

[22] Cf. Communicationes 5 (1973), 228; Luigi Chiappetta, Il Codice di Diritto Canonico: Commento giuiridico-pastorale, vol. 1, Third edition, 604; Francesco Coccopalmerio, “The Chancellor, Other Notaries and the Archives”, in Ángel Marzoa - Jorge Miras - Rafael Rodriguez-Ocaña (eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. 2, Midwest Theological Forum, Chicago 2004, 1177. 

[23] Cf. John J. Myers, “The Diocesan Fiscal Officer and the Diocesan Finance Council”, 186; Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, in John P. Beal - James A. Coriden - Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law,  651.  

[24] Cf. Mario Marchesi, Il Laico e l”amministrazione dei beni nella chiesa”, in Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale 2 (1989), 339. 

[25] Cf. Marie Breitenbeck, “The Requirements for Experts in Church Law”, 274.

[26] Cf. Adrian Farrelly, “The Diocesan Finance Council: Functions and Duties according to the Code of Canon Law”, 165.

[27] Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981), 128; Charles Torpey, “Offices of the Diocesan Curia Interrelationships and Creative Possibilities”, in CLSA Proceedings 45 (1983), 115.

[28] Cf. Luigi Chiappetta, Il Codice di Diritto Canonico: Commento giuiridico-pastorale, vol. 1, Third edition,  604.

[29] Cf. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Governance Structures within the Catholic Church, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, Montréal 2002, 231; Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, 652.

[30] Cf. John A. Alesandro, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, 400.

[31] CIC c. 1257 § 1 describes ecclesiastical goods as “all temporal goods belonging to the universal Church, to the Apostolic See or to other public juridic persons in the Church”. According to CCEO c. 1009 § 2, “all temporal goods which belong to juridic persons are ecclesiastical goods”. The goods of a private juridic person are not considered as ecclesiastical goods.

[32] Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981), 126-127. 

[33] Cf. Communicationes 24 (1992), 53-54.

[34] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Diocesan and Parish Structures: A Comparison of Selected Canons in the Codex Iuris Canonici and Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”, in Studia Canonica 33 (1999), 381.

[35] Cf. Marie Breitenbeck, “The Requirements for Experts in Church Law”, 273.

[36] CCEO does not specify the need for written permission of the bishop. Therefore, oral permission is sufficient. 

[37] CCEO does not demand a written permission as in CIC.

[38] Cf. John D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, 537.

[39] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, 708.  

[40] Cf. Frederick C. Easton, “The Appointment of the Diocesan Finance Officer”, 130.   

[41] Cf. John A. Renken, “Penal Law and Financial Malfeasance”, in Studia Canonica 42 (2008), 10-11.

[42] Cf. John J. Myers, “The Diocesan Fiscal Officer and the Diocesan Finance Council”, 187.

[43] Cf. Communicationes 12 (1980), 421.

[44] Cf. George Nedungatt, Laity and Church Temporalities: Appraisal of a Tradition, 240.

[45] Cf. Ibid. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possible Offices of the Laity in the Diocesan Curia:

A Comparison of CCEO and CIC

It is published in:

Mathew John Puthenparambil, “The Possible Offices of the Laity in the Diocesan Curia: A Comparison of CCEO and CIC”, in Eastern Legal Thought, Vol. 11 (2015), pp. 129-148.    

Introduction

In today’s situation, the laity have specialized in all fields such as science, politics, economics, commerce, and so on. There are many lay persons who are well versed in ecclesiastical subjects such as Sacred Scripture, theology, canon law, and so on. They have the right and duty to work so that the divine message of salvation may be made known to all and freely accepted[1]. They are entrusted with this mission and apostolate by virtue of their baptism and confirmation. The Church provides them with many roles for their active involvement. They shall witness to Christ in the world. Being members of the one Church clerics, religious and laity have to co-operate with each other in the apostolate. No one can carry out the apostolate effectively in isolation. The laity must not carry out their apostolate separated from the clergy and clergy should not see the laity as solely the object of their pastoral care. Clergy and the laity need each other. It is the priest who celebrates, but the whole body offers; it is he who teaches but all bear witnesses; it is he who has the care of souls but all have the mission to the apostolate[2]. Clergy and the laity must consider each other, as Paul says, “subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5: 21)[3]. Lay persons can play an important role in the curia. The Church cannot be fully active without the co-operation of the laity. They can bring more professional qualifications, experience, and personal talents to certain offices especially as the finance officer, as members of finance council, defender of the bond, promoter of justice, and so on, than do their clergy counterparts.

Role of the Lay Persons in the Church

In the early Church, there was no difference between the Apostles and the common people. The Apostles considered the common people as their fellow workers (cf. 2 Tim 1: 6). The faithful gathered under the leadership of the Apostles to elect a substitute for Judas. They cast their votes and elected Mathias as the substitute (cf. Acts 1: 26). It was not a consultative but a deliberative vote. We see the role of the common people in electing seven deacons. The twelve Apostles called together the whole community of the disciples and asked them to select among themselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom. The whole community chose these seven deacons (cf. Acts 6: 1-6). Again in the Acts of the Apostles, we see that the elders of the community joined with the Apostles to solve various problems in their community (cf. Acts 15: 1-6). The believers are asked to choose a judge to solve the problems among them (cf. 1 Cor 6: 4-5). All these instances point out the important role of the laity in decision making in the primitive Church. There was no distinction between clergy and laity. They all felt as if they were the different parts of the same body (cf. Rom 12: 5).

When we study the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, we see that they gave much importance to lay participation, especially for the election of bishops in the West and in the East. Sometimes, the consent of the people was sought. Ambrose was elected as the bishop of Milan by lay persons[4].  The Didache also reports the role of the laity in the election of bishops in the early Church. Clement of Rome, Origen, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, and so on, stressed the role of the laity, especially their role in choosing the bishops[5].

The lay persons even participated in the various councils held in the first millennium. A few lay persons participated in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea held in the year 325[6]. When we come to the second millennium, we see a shift in the role of the laity in the participation of governance of the Church. Participation of the lay persons in the process of the election of bishops was slowly minimized. With the Council of Trent, the participation of the laity in the election was completely prohibited and the Church became more clerically oriented. The First Vatican Council also did not give any importance to the laity. They were not given due importance in the previous legislations, the 1917 Code and the Cleri sanctitati. The role of the laity was understood in reference to the clergy. The perception of the role of the laity was negative and they did not have much involvement in tria munera Christi.

The role assigned to the laity prior to the Second Vatican Council was very little. It was the Second Vatican Council that gave a positive outlook toward the laity. The laity are described as those faithful who are neither in Holy Orders nor those who belong to a religious state sanctioned by the Church (cf. LG 31).  Unlike the 1917 Code and the Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati, the Second Vatican Council considers the people of God in three categories, that is, clerics, religious and the laity. 

There are no separate categories of the people of God in the Church. All the faithful have equal status. There are different functions for different people, but these differences do not make them superiors or inferiors, slave or freeman. The laity are presented as a part of the Church. They too have their rights and duties in the Church. They are no more considered as only the objects of the ministry of the clergy. Everything which has been said concerning the people of God applies equally to the laity (cf. LG 30). By incorporation into Christ and into the Church, they share in the threefold mission of Christ, that is, priestly, prophetic and kingly missions (cf. LG 31; AA 2). It also speaks of the various rights and duties of the lay persons in the Church (cf. LG 33; AG 21; GS 62; GE 3; PO 9).

Paul VI speaks of the role of the laity in field of evangelization in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi (cf. EN 70). In the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, John Paul II speaks of the vocation and mission of the lay person in the Church and in the world (cf. CL 9, 14, 15, 23, 25, 33)

In his allocution to the Code Commission in 1965, Paul VI asked them to give a more active role to the laity in the Code[7]. The CIC and CCEO are the attempt to translate the theology of the Second Vatican Council into juridical language. As John Paul II says, the Codes are in tune with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council[8]. Both Codes have a positive approach to the laity.

One of the important differences we observe in CIC and CCEO is that CIC divides the christifideles into two categories, that is, clerics and laity (cf. CIC c. 207 § 1). Following the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (cf. LG 31), CCEO divides the christifideles into three categories, that is, clerics, religious and the laity (cf. CCEO c. 399). Religious are considered as a separate group in CCEO, whereas according to CIC, religious are not a separate group, but they either belong to the group of clerics or to the laity.  While CIC uses the phrase ‘obligations and rights’, CCEO prefers the phrase ‘rights and obligations’ of the laity as it wants to give priority to ‘rights’ of the laity. 

Lay Persons Cooperate in the Power of Governance

The Codes do not say that lay persons have no capacity to exercise the power of governance, but say that they can only cooperate (potest cooperari) with clerics in exercising this power (cf. CIC c. 129 § 2; CCEO c. 979 § 2). They cooperate in the power of governance only when they are authorized to do so, either by law or by personal delegation. They too have active involvement in the power of governance. It is to be kept in mind that not any lay person can cooperate in the power of governance but only those who have the required qualifications such as communion with the Church, moral qualities, academic qualifications, required age, and so on, as per the law. 

The laity also participate in tria munera Christi.  The participation of the laity in tria munera Christi is not in the way that ordained persons participate. There is an essential difference between ministerial priesthood and common priesthood. The laity too share the priesthood of Christ in their own way (cf. LG 10). They share the sanctifying mission of Christ especially by participating and celebrating the sacraments. Lay men (vir laici) can receive the stable ministries of lector and acolyte. Though these are ministries in the Latin Church, they are minor orders in the Eastern Churches. Lay persons (laici) can receive temporal assignment as lector. They also function as commentator, cantor, and so on, in the Church.  They function as the extra-ordinary ministers of baptism; can be delegated to receive matrimonial consent, can administer sacramentals, and so on. They do participate in the prophetic mission of Christ. They can be authorized to preach in non-Eucharistic celebrations; can teach catechism, and so on. They do participate in the kingly mission of Christ. Though they do not have legislative power, they have a consultative role in councils and synods. They also participate in the executive power in the curia. As judge in the tribunal, they participate in judicial power too.

Lay Persons in the Curia

Our concern of this article is the role of the laity in the eparchial/diocesan curia. The lay persons can take up various offices in the curia such as the offices of the chancellor, finance officer, members of the finance council, one of the judges in the collegiate tribunal, defender of the bond, promoter of justice, advocates, procurators, and notary. Priesthood is required only for the offices of the vicar general, judicial vicar, episcopal vicar, and moderator of the curia. Out of these four, the last two offices are optional in the curia.

Lay Person as the Chancellor

Every diocese should have a chancellor. It is mandatory for the bishop, under both Codes, to appoint a chancellor (cf. CIC c. 482 § 1; CCEO c. 252 § 1). There is a fundamental difference between CIC and CCEO with regard to the office of the chancellor. According to CCEO, a lay person cannot be appointed as chancellor validly but only a cleric (cf. CCEO c. 252 § 1).  According to CIC, a lay person of either sex can be appointed to the office of the chancellor. Power of ordination is not involved in the office. The appointment could be for definite or indefinite period of time. The bishop need not consult anyone prior to the appointment. If it is required, the chancellor could be given an assistant, known as the vice-chancellor (cf. CIC c. 482 § 2; CCEO c. 252 § 2). Since he has to do a clerical job, a lay person can be appointed and clerics need not spend their time and talent for this office in the Latin Church. Only a trustworthy lay person should be appointed to the office as he has to deal with many confidential matters of the diocese.

The bishop has to appoint a lay person who has the required qualification as per the law. The most important qualification, as required by both Codes, is that the chancellor must be a person of unblemished reputation and above all suspicion (cf. CIC c. 483 § 2; CCEO c. 253 § 2). These are very essential qualities as the reason is very self evident. A lay person will have better experience in the management of administrative affairs. Besides these basic qualities, other qualities such as knowledge of canon law[9], archive management, and so on, are to be considered prior to the appointment. Even after the appointment, they could be given training in these fields. The bishop can remove the chancellor from the office, but with due regard to justice and equity (cf. CIC c. 485; CCEO c. 255). The chancellor is free to resign from the office. 

The chancellor has a variety of functions in the curia. The bishop may assign him many more duties other than what is prescribed in the Codes as principal duties. To write down the acts of the curia, dispatch them when it is required and to conserve the documents in the curia are his prime duties (cf. CIC c. 482 § 1; CCEO c. 252 § 1). There are various departments in the curia. It is the chancellor who takes care of the documents of all these departments. The bishop has to direct the chancellor regarding the nature of documents which are to be preserved for future reference; surely documents which have civil and juridic value are to be kept safe. He has to counter sign all the documents that come from the local ordinary, even though it does not invalidate the document if he does not. He has to closely collaborate with the vicar general and the moderator of the curia, if there is one. Since he is the one who takes care of the documents, he takes care of the archives of the diocese as per the direction of the bishop. Right of entry to the archives is restricted to the bishop and the chancellor alone. Only these two persons have the key to the archive. Therefore, he takes care of the key to the archive and ensures that no unauthorized person enters into the archive (cf. CIC c. 487 § 1; CCEO c. 257 § 1). He maintains the documents in the archive as per the law. He also provides documents to those who ask for them legitimately. Though the bishop is the one who takes care of the secret archive, the chancellor may be entrusted the care of it. In that case, besides preserving the documents, he has to remove the documents after the expiration of the time limit, as per the law (cf. CIC c. 489 § 2; CCEO c. 259 § 2). He also takes care of the historical archive in the curia (cf. CIC c. 491 § 2).

The chancellor and vice-chancellor are ipso iure notaries of the curia (cf. CIC c. 482 § 3; CCEO c. 252 § 3) and even notaries “par excellence”[10]. There can be more than one notary for a diocese. The chancellor remains always the principal notary of the diocese[11]. The chancellor is ipso iure secretary of the curia in the Latin Church (cf. CIC c. 482 § 3). The role of the secretary is neither stated in the canon nor found in other places of the Code. However the word et indicates the difference of meaning. The notary is the one who carries out the functions described in the CIC c. 484 and the secretary is the one who maintains the documents of the curia[12]. The office of the secretary involves overseeing the good ordering of curial administrative tasks in close collaboration with the vicar general and the moderator of the curia[13]. As the secretary of the curia, he can arrange periodical curia meetings. He can convoke the meeting of the members of the curia with the approval of the moderator, if there is one, or of the bishop. The CCEO does not mention that the chancellor is the ipso iure secretary of the curia.

Lay Person as the Finance Officer

Another office the lay person can assume in the curia is the office of the finance officer. It is an ancient office in the diocese. Bishops are to be free from the temporal administration of the diocese, so that they may have the time and energy for their pastoral functions. Therefore, the law obliges him to appoint a finance officer. CCEO specifically states that if the eparchial bishop fails to appoint a finance officer, the metropolitan of the Patriarchal Church has to intervene and appoint a finance officer (cf. CCEO c. 133 § 1, 6º). It shows the seriousness of the office. It is one of the stable offices in the diocese.

Normally, priests are appointed as finance officers especially in India. It is time to change our mindset and to accept a lay person as the finance officer. It is an open secret that clerics are often not trained for financial administration. They are basically trained for the spiritual care of souls. There are many lay persons who are experts in the field of finance management. They could be appointed as the finance officer and priests could easily engage themselves in evangelization and pastoral works. Appointing a lay person as the finance officer may be advantageous where there is a shortage of priests or for mission dioceses where many priests are required for the evangelization. Here, in these situations, a suitable lay person can function as the finance officer and leave priests free for pastoral works.

The bishop is not so free in the appointment of a finance officer. Before appointing a finance officer, he is bound by obligation to consult the college of consultors and the members of the finance council (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1; CCEO c. 262 § 1). It must be convoked formally and the bishop must seek out the opinion of each member of both groups in a face-to-face meeting[14]. If he neglects to consult these two bodies, his act would remain unlawful. The law demands certain qualifications for the finance officer. The principal qualification of the finance officer is that he should be an expert in financial matters and outstanding in integrity/honesty (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1; CCEO c. 262 § 1)[15]. The demand for this qualification is self explanatory. The CCEO specifically states that he must be a member of the Christian faithful (cf. CCEO c. 262 § 1), whereas the CIC does not mention anything of this sort. According to CCEO, a person related to the bishop up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity cannot be appointed as the finance officer, but there is no such prohibition in CIC. According to CIC, the finance officer is to be appointed for the period of five years (cf. CIC c. 494 § 2). CCEO does not prescribe any time limit, but leaves it to the particular law of Churches sui iuris (cf. CCEO c. 262 § 2).  According to the particular laws of the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Church, the finance officer is appointed for the period of three years[16]. The bishop can remove the finance officer, not for a just reason alone but only for a grave reason. Again the bishop has to consult the college of consultors and the members of the finance council prior to the removal. The finance officer may resign from the office if he so desires. While resigning, he should see that the diocese does not suffer in any way because of his resignation.

The finance officer has many functions to fulfil. Primarily, he has to administer the temporal goods of the diocese under the authority of the bishop. There is a functional difference between CIC and CCEO. According to CIC, the finance officer has to function under the direction of the finance council (cf. CIC c. 494 § 3), whereas this is not specified in CCEO. The finance officer in CIC is directly responsible to the finance council, but the finance officer in CCEO is responsible to the eparchial bishop.

The jurisdiction of the finance officer is extended to the entire diocese. While administering the temporal goods, he has to follow both civil and canon law. He maintains a proper account of income and expenditures of the goods of the diocese. He has to make all due payments and maintain a proper inventory of movable and unmovable goods. He is not only a just administrator or accountant, but has to try to multiply the fund of the diocese using appropriate means. He also takes care of the goods of public juridic persons which are under the governance of the bishop. He prepares a report of his administration. There is a slight difference in presenting this report in CIC and CCEO. According to CIC, he submits this report to the finance council at the end of the year. CCEO prescribes that the finance officer has to submit the report to the bishop through the finance council every year and as often as it is requested. The finance officer also has to prepare a budget of income and expenditure each year (cf. CIC c. 1284 § 3, CCEO c. 1028 § 3). The Code of Particular Law of the Syro-Malabar Church states that the annual account prepared by the finance officer shall get the approval of the finance council and the college of eparchial consultors (cf. Art. 210 § 3).

He is bound by obligation to present an account to the faithful of the diocese every year. Again there is a difference between CIC and CCEO with regard to this presentation. According to CIC, he has to present the account concerning the goods given by the faithful (cf. CIC c. 1287 § 2), but for CCEO it must be the account of all sources (cf. CCEO c. 1031 § 2). The manner of publishing this account is to be legislated in particular law, according to both Codes. The finance officer functions under the diocesan administrator during the vacancy of the diocese. CCEO alone states that the finance administrator must render an account of his administration during the vacancy of the eparchy to the new bishop, and after submitting this report he ceases from the office unless the new bishop confirms him in office (cf. CCEO c. 232 § 4). 

Lay Persons in the Diocesan Finance Council

The finance council is another area where lay persons can assume the office. This is the only council which is a part of the curia. The bishop has a serious obligation to establish a finance council in his diocese. While composing it, he should give due representation to lay persons on the council. Without any doubt, we say that lay persons may be more suitable for this office. For better functioning of the council, it is to be composed of lay persons and clerics. It may not be prudent to appoint only lay persons in the finance council.

According to CIC, the bishop is free to appoint suitable lay persons to this council; he need not consult anyone prior to the appointment. But CCEO demands bishop to consult the college of eparchial consultors before appointing members of the finance council.

According to CIC, the finance council is to be composed of at least three persons and the maximum number of the council is to be decided by the bishop (cf. CIC c. 492 § 1). The CCEO does not mention the minimum or maximum number of members. It can be legislated in the particular law of each Church sui iuris. According to CIC, the members of the finance council are appointed for five years. CCEO leaves this matter to the particular law of Church sui iuris. The members could be re-appointed. The bishop may remove any of its members before the expiration of the term only for a grave reason. The members have the right to renounce the office for a serious reason.

The most important qualification for the members of the finance council is that they are to be truly experts in matters of finance and civil law (cf. CIC c. 492 § 1; CCEO c. 263 § 1). They also should be persons of outstanding integrity and well-known for their love for the Church and its apostolate[17]. Those who are related to the bishop up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity are prohibited from being members of this council (cf. CIC c. 492 § 3; CCEO c. 263 § 3).

The bishop has to preside over the council. It has many functions to fulfil. It is the finance council which prepares the budget for the diocese under the guidance of the bishop (cf. CIC c. 493; CCEO c. 263 § 5). It reviews the report of the finance officer regarding his administration (cf. CIC c. 494 § 4; CCEO c. 262 § 4) and the report sent by other administrators such as parishes, shrines, and so on (cf. CIC c. 1287 § 1; CCEO c. 1031 § 1). Another very important role of the council is to elect an interim finance officer, if the finance officer has been elected or appointed as the diocesan administrator when the diocese falls vacant (cf. CIC c. 423 § 1; CCEO c. 225 § 2). The bishop has to consult the finance council on a few occasions. They have to give counsel to the bishop for the appointment and removal of the finance officer (cf. CIC cc. 494 § 1, 494 § 2; CCEO cc. 262 § 1, 262 § 1), for the administration of major important acts (cf. CIC c. 1277; CCEO c. 263 § 4), before the investment of endowment capital (cf. CIC c. 1305; CCEO c. 1049), before diminishing a will (cf. CIC c. 1310 § 2; CCEO c. 1054 § 2), and before imposing a tax in the Latin Church (cf. CIC c. 1263). Though basically it is a consultative body, on rare occasions the bishop requires its consent to act validly. The members have to give their consent to the bishop to perform the acts of extra-ordinary administration (cf. CIC c. 1277; CCEO c. 1036 § 1), for alienation of property (cf. CIC c. 1292 § 1; CCEO c. 1036 § 1), and before imposing a tax in the eparchies (cf. CCEO c. 1012 § 1). When the bishop asks consent of the members of the finance council, he cannot vote or break the tie[18]. Therefore, this body plays a prominent role in the administration of the diocese. The Code of Particular Law of the Syro-Malabar Church says that the annual account of the eparchy prepared by the finance officer shall get the approval of the finance council (cf. Art. 210 § 3). Because of its major role in the diocese, preferably, there should be a few clerics also on the finance council. It is not advisable that it be composed entirely of the laity.    

Lay Person as Judge in the Tribunal

The judiciary is also a part of the curia. The bishop is the judge in the diocese. He entrusts his judicial power to the judicial vicar and other judges. Therefore, the power of the judicial vicar is the ordinary vicarious power. The bishop has the right to reserve certain cases to himself. An appeal against the decision of the judicial vicar cannot be lodged with the bishop as they both constitute one tribunal (cf. CIC c. 1423 § 1; PB 124 § 3; CCEO c. 1067). There are collegiate tribunals and sole judge tribunals. The collegiate tribunal is the normal practice in the Church and the other is an exception. When there are not a sufficient number of qualified tribunal personnel, several bishops of the same region can erect a common tribunal with the proper permission from the competent authority. The bishops of the Latin Church have to obtain this permission from the Apostolic See and the bishops of the Eastern Churches from the Patriarch/metropolitan. The CCEO alone provides another provision that the bishops of different Churches sui iuris of the same territory can erect a common tribunal. Thus, there can be a common tribunal for the Latin and the Eastern eparchies in the same territory (cf. CCEO c. 1068 § 1). 

All the tribunal offices could be occupied by lay persons except the office of the judicial vicar. Thus, lay persons can be appointed as judge, defender of the bond, promoter of justice, advocates, procurator, notary, and so on. A collegiate tribunal is composed of three judges. One of these three judges could be a lay person while the other two judges must be clerics (cf. CIC c. 1421 § 2; CCEO c. 1087 § 2).

The tribunal personnel have certain obligations. All those who work in the tribunal have to fulfil their duties faithfully and properly. The CIC says that they have to take an oath for this (cf. CIC c. 1454), whereas CCEO asks only that they make a promise (cf. CCEO c. 1112).  They also have serious obligations to maintain secrecy of their knowledge (cf. CIC c. 1455 § 1; CCEO c. 1113 § 1). They are forbidden to accept any gift in the form of any kind, cash, etc., from any person involved in the trial (cf. CIC c. 1456; CCEO c. 1114). They are asked to be impartial toward the parties. They should not have any personal interest in the trial. Therefore, they shall not take up the cases of their close relatives, friends, enemies, etc. (cf. CIC c. 1448 § 1; CCEO c. 1106 § 1). They are also asked to avoid delay in handling cases as far as possible (cf. CIC c. 1453; CCEO c. 1111). The tribunal personnel can be punished with penalties for the abuse of their office (cf. CIC c. 1457; CCEO c. 1115). 

It is the right of the bishop to appoint judges who could be either male or female. He can appoint many lay judges in a tribunal. If possible, every tribunal shall have a few lay judges. Lay judges also should be involved in matters affecting lay persons.

Under CIC 1917 and the Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati, no lay person could be appointed judge in the tribunals. After the Second Vatican Council there was a shift that lay persons were permitted to function as judges[19]. To appoint a lay person as judge, the bishop should obtain proper permission. Bishops of the Latin Church get this permission from the Bishops’ Conference (cf. CIC c. 1421 § 2) while bishops of the Eastern Churches get permission from the Patriarch/metropolitan of the Church sui iuris. Bishops of the other Churches sui iuris have to get permission from the Apostolic See (cf. CCEO c. 1087 § 2). It is good to have a lay judge, along with other two clerical judges, in the collegiate tribunal as he understands family problems better. Appointing judges of both sexes is to be encouraged as far as possible. A judge may be removed for a grave reason and at the same time he also has the freedom to renounce his office. 

Besides the moral qualifications, the academic requirement is very important for judges. They should have at least a licentiate in canon law (cf. CIC c. 1421 § 3; CCEO c. 1087 § 3). A mere degree is not sufficient, but they should have thorough knowledge of law and jurisprudence. They should be persons who update their knowledge from time to time. The CCEO exclusively mentions that they should be persons of prudence and should have zeal for justice (cf. CCEO c. 1086 § 4). They are to be of good repute (integra fama). Good reputation presupposes that no one can reasonably point out against the person any allegation[20].  To be faithful to the law is an important responsibility of judges. They should be  pastors to the parties when they approach them. As far as possible, they have to try to reconcile them together when they demand annulment. Fixing the terms of controversy, instruction of the parties and witnesses, evaluation of the documentary proof, obtaining moral certitude, giving judicial sentence, etc., are their other functions.

Lay Person as Defender of the Bond or Promoter of Justice

Lay persons can also hold the offices of defender of the bond and promoter of justice in the tribunal. The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores also recommends that lay persons be appointed to these offices[21]. Priests need not be appointed to these offices as lay persons can easily function in these areas. More lay persons should be trained and appointed as per the need. The defender of the bond is essential for the declaration of the nullity of sacred ordination, and nullity or dissolution of marriage cases (cf. CIC c. 1432; CCEO c. 1096). The promoter of justice is appointed for the maintenance of justice in a diocese and he has to act in the penal and contentious cases. A lay person cannot be involved in the cases of penal trials of clerics accused of sexual abuses, and cases of more grave delicts reserved to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. They could be appointed ad universitatem causarum or ad singulas causas. One person cannot hold these two offices in the same cases. The qualifications for both these offices are the same. They should be persons of unimpaired reputation, prudence and zeal for justice[22]. Like judges, they too should have at least a licentiate in canon law (cf. CIC c. 1435; CCEO c. 1099 § 2). They can be appointed for definite or indefinite periods of time. The bishop can remove them for a just cause. 

The defender of the bond and the promoter of justice have the right to inspect the judicial act, they have the right to be present at the trial, and they have the right to be heard. The defender of the bond can intervene in documentary proof, in Ratum et non-consumatum process, in cases of privilege of the faith, etc. He also has a say in the nullity of sacred ordination. The promoter of justice has an obligation to protect the common good (cf. CIC c. 1430; CCEO c. 1094). He plays an important role in the penal process.

Lay Person as Advocate in the Tribunal

The advocate is a person who protects the rights of the parties during canonical processes[23]. He provides advice and technical assistance, in preparing the evidence for annulment cases[24]. A party, if he so desires, can appoint an advocate and a procurator on his behalf. These are optional offices, not mandatory. A judge also may appoint an advocate if the situation so requires (cf. CIC c. 1481; CCEO c. 1139). Normally, there can be only one advocate and one procurator for a party. They should be persons of good repute. Having a degree in canon law is not essential (cf. CIC c. 1483; CCEO c. 1141), but the advocate should have a good knowledge of it. Like any other official in the tribunal, he too can be removed. The advocate has to give technical and juridical advice to the parties. He can examine documents and proofs; can be present at the time of examination of parties; can provide supplementary questions to the judge, etc.

Lay Person as Notary in the Tribunal  

The office of the notary is an essential part of the tribunal. There can be more than one notary in a tribunal. He, also known as magister actorum[25], is a technician for the judicial proceedings who draws up acts with technical skill[26]. He can be appointed for all cases or for a single case. He cannot function as the judge, defender of the bond or promoter of justice in the same case. He only needs the moral qualification of an unimpaired reputation and of being above suspicion, and no academic qualification is required of him. A lay person cannot function in a case which could involve the reputation of priests, and according to CCEO even of deacons. A lay person is forbidden to function as notary in cases of more delicts reserved to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 

The main responsibility of the notary is to be present at the time of examination of parties and witnesses. He has to note down all the acts faithfully without any alteration (cf. CIC c. 1567 § 1; CCEO c. 1248 § 1) and authenticate it with his signature (cf. CIC c. 1437 § 1; CCEO c. 1101 § 1). 

Conclusion

We have seen that the Second Vatican Council has given due importance to, and promoted the role of the laity in the Church. The Codes of the Latin as well as of the Eastern Churches have incorporated the spirit of the Second Vatican Council into legislations. The role and functions of the laity are be encouraged and supported, not to fill the vacancy of the clerics but to have them as participants in the administration of and the building up of the diocese.  As the diocese is composed of clerics, religious and laity, ideally speaking, the diocesan curia should be composed of all the sections of the people of God. The CCEO clearly speaks of the persons who belong to the eparchial curia (cf. CCEO c. 243 § 2) whereas CIC does not. It is composed of various officials such as vicar general, episcopal vicar, chancellor, finance officer, members of the finance council, judicial vicar and judges, defender of the bond, promoter of justice, notaries, etc. The offices of vicar general, episcopal vicar, and judicial vicar can be held by priests alone under both Codes and lay people are capable of holding other offices in the curia.  As members of the curia, they too have the same functions as clerics having an office in the curia. The CCEO norms are broader in scope with regard to the role of the laity in the Church. According to CIC the lay person can take up only those offices which are permitted by the law. In CCEO lay persons can take up any ecclesiastical office except those offices which the law prohibits or reserves to the clergy alone[27]. Let lay persons also feel that they too are fully part of the eparchy/diocese.

Dr Mathew John PUTHENPARAMBIL

---

[1] Cf. Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium (21 November 1964), no. 33,  in AAS  57 (1965), p. 30; English translation in Austin Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, Costello Publishing Company, New York 1996, p. 390 (Hereafter it will be cited as LG).

[2] Cf. Yves M. J. Congar, Priest and Layman, P. J. Hepburne-Scott (Trans.), Darton Longman, London 1962, p. 99.

[3] In this article, the biblical passages are cited from The Holy Bible: The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 2011.

[4] Cf. Philip Schaff - Henry Wace (eds), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 2, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Michigan 1979, p. 113.    

[5] Didache, Chapter 15: 1, in William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, p. 4.   

[6] Cf. Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, From the Original Documents to the Close of the Council of Nicea A. D. 325, vol. 1, AMS Press, New York 1972, pp. 270-271.

[7] Cf. Paul VI, “Allocutio ad E. Mos Patres Cardinales et ad Consultores Pontificii Consilii Codici Iuris Canonici Recognoscendo” (20 November 1965), in AAS 57 (1965), p. 985.

[8] Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Sacrae disciplinae legis, in AAS 75/2 (1983), p. viii.

[9] Cf. Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores (22 February 2004), no. 179, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 2004, p. 194 (Hereafter it will be cited as Apostolorum successores).

[10] Cf. Alberto Perlasca, “La Funzione notarile del cancelliere e degli altri notai della curia”, in  Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale 14 (2001), p. 133; Dennis W. Morrow, “The Chancellor as Archivist”, in CLSA Proceedings  50 (1988), p. 222. 

[11] Cf. Ernest Caparros - Hélène Aubé (eds), Code of Canon Law Annotated, Second edition, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, Montréal 2004, p. 401.

[12] Cf. Francesco Cocopalmerio, “The Chancellor, Other Notaries and the Archives”, in Ángel Marzoa - Jorge Miras - Rafael Rodriguez-Ocaña (eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. 2, Midwest Theological Forum, Chicago 2004, p. 1138.  

[13] Cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores 179.

[14] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, in The Jurist 56 (1997), p. 711.  

[15] Cf. Joseph T. Martin De Agar, A Handbook on Canon Law, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, Montréal 1999, p. 90.

[16] Code of Particular Law of the Syro-Malabar Church, Article 13, Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Curia, Mount St. Thomas, 2013; The Code of Particular Canons of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, Can 104, Major Archiepiscopal Curia, Catholicate Centre, Trivandrum 2012.   

[17] Cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorom seccessores 192.

[18] Cf. Pontifical Council for Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Authentic Interpretation De superiore eiusque consilio (5 July 1985), in AAS 77 (1985), p. 771. 

[19] Cf. Pietro L. Frattin, “Lay Judges in Ecclesiastical Tribunals”, in The Jurist 28 (1968), pp. 177-184.

 [20] Cf. Zenon Grocholewski, “Problemi attuali dell’attività giudiziaria della Chiesa nelle cause matrimoniali”, in Apollinaris 56 (1983), pp. 153-156. 

[21] Cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores 180. 

[22] Cf. Harmon D. Skillen, “Officials of the Tribunal: Terminology, Qualification, Responsibility”, in CLSA Proceedings 45 (1983), p. 51.  

[23] Cf. J. Bajada, “The Tribunal’s Advocate: A Minister of Truth and Justice”, in Forum 5 (1994), p. 71.

[24] Cf. Marilyn R. Vassallo, “Lay Advocates: Collaborative Bridge between Tribunals and Parishes”, in CLSA Proceedings 68 (2006), p. 190.    

[25] Cf. Francisco J. Ramos, I Tribunali Ecclesiastici: Costituzione, Organizzazione, Norme Processuali, Millenium Romae, Rome 1998, p. 153.

[26] Cf. Ernest Caparros - Hélène Aubé (eds), Code of Canon Law Annotated, Vol. 4, p. 1121. 

[27] Cf. Jean Gaudemet, “The Lay People”, in George Nedungatt (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code: A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome 2002, p. 340; Jobe Abbass, “The Incomparable Canons on the Role of the Laity”, in CLSA Proceedings 71 (2009),  p. 35.   

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

Role of Laity in Diocesan Finance Council

A Comparative Study of Latin and Eastern Codes

This article is published: cf. Mathew John Puthenparambil, in The Living Word: Identity and Witness, vol. 119 (No. 4), July-August  2013, pp. 257-274. (Published from (St. Joseph’s Pontifical Seminary Carmelgiri, Aluva).

Introduction

Traditionally, priests are appointed as members of the Finance Council. However, now lay people, who are outstanding in the requisite knowledge, prudence and integrity, can be appointed as members in the Finance Council. The Diocesan Finance Council forms a part of the diocesan curia. It is the only collegial body which is a part of the diocesan curia. In general, it is a consultative body of the diocesan bishop with regard to the temporal goods of the diocese[1]. The bishop is obliged to constitute (constituendus est) a Finance Council in his diocese[2]. The Finance Council in its present form is the effect of the reformation of the Second Vatican Council[3]. While composing it, he should give due representation to lay persons on the council. Without any doubt, one can say that lay persons will be more suitable for this office. This work is a search for the role of the laity in the Diocesan Finnace Council according to CIC and CCEO.  

1. The Appointment of Lay Persons as Members

There was an institution called the council of administrators in CIC 1917 as well as in the Motu proprio Postquam apostolicis litteris. This council was to be established in all dioceses. It was composed of two or more suitable men who were experts in economic and legal matters. It would advise the bishop and sometimes the bishop was required to obtain its consent (cf. 1917 CIC c. 1520; PA c. 263). It is this council that opened the way for the institution of the Finance Council  in its present form[4].

The CIC 1917 required the ordinary to consult the cathedral chapter or the diocesan consultors before appointing members to the administrative council. After 1917, the diocesan consultors themselves were appointed as the council of administration in many dioceses and they were consulted on temporal matters. According to CIC 1983 the diocesan bishop can freely select and appoint its members. The Finance Council is a good area where the diocesan bishop can involve the participation of the laity in the governance of the diocese. By appointing lay persons to the Finance Council the diocesan bishop can implement the teachings of the Second Vatican Council which says that lay persons who are outstanding in requisite knowledge, prudence, and integrity are capable of being experts or advisors who are to be heard (cf. LG 33; CD 10; AA 20)[5]. There are many lay people who are experts in financial matters and therefore, they will be able to advise the diocesan bishop in a proper and fitting manner. It is important that he receives counsel from experts. There are lay persons who are working in various financial enterprises. Their service shall be used for the welfare of the diocese.

According to CIC the diocesan bishop is not bound to consult anyone prior to the appointment of the members[6]. On the contrary, CCEO asks the eparchial bishops to consult the college of consultors before appointing members (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 1). Particular laws of a Church sui iuris can be legislated to establish any other procedure for selecting the members of the Finance Council, possibly by election, in which case the eparchial bishop has to confirm the election (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 1). Since the members of the Finance Council  are part of the diocesan curia each of them should be given an appointment letter[7].

2. President of the Finance Council  

The diocesan bishop has to preside over the Finance Council as he is the chief administrative person in the diocese. Even though he is its president, he is neither a member, nor does he vote in a consultative or deliberative context. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts has clearly stated that the diocesan bishop cannot even break the tie[8]. The CIC alone gives a provision that a diocesan bishop can delegate another person to preside over the Finance Council (cf. CIC c. 492 § 1)[9]. He can delegate his vicar general or any other priest to preside over the meetings of the Finance Council. He may delegate even a lay person to preside since presiding over the Finance Council is not a distinctly priestly function requiring the power of orders for its valid exercise[10]. Presiding over the meeting includes calling the meeting, approving the agenda, taking care of proper recording of the minutes and acts of the meeting, etc.,[11]. Whenever he needs to get the consent of the members of the Finance Council or to consult them, as per the requirement of the law, it is advisable that he himself presides over the meeting[12]. The provision for delegating another person is not given in CCEO and therefore the eparchial bishop remains as the president of the Finance Council[13]. Even though he is the ex-officio president of it, there is nothing wrong with the protosyncellus or any other person presiding over its particular sessions. According to the CCEO, the finance officer is included in the Finance Council  ipso iure (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 2)[14]. 

3. The Number of Members

According to CIC, the Finance Council is to be composed of at least three persons (cf. CIC c. 492 § 1). The members do not represent any category of the people as in the case of the Presbyteral Council (cf. CIC c. 497) or Pastoral Council of the diocese (cf. CIC c. 512 § 2). The Code does not prescribe the maximum number for the council. It is the diocesan bishop who decides the maximum number considering the size of the diocese and the extent of work to be done. A larger body is always better to make more appropriate decisions especially in the areas of extra-ordinary administration, alienation of diocesan property, etc. At the same time it is not advisable to have too many members on the Finance Council as there can be too many opinions and deliberations. Whatever may be the number of the members, an odd number may be preferable, as in some cases there can be vote in the council and it will make the decision clearer. 

Nothing is mentioned in CCEO regarding the minimum or maximum number of members of the council. It is left to the discretion of the eparchial bishop depending upon the particular situation of his eparchy. According to the Motu proprio Postquam apostolicis litteris[15], it was composed of two or more suitable men (cf. PA c. 263 § 1). Particular law can be made regarding the minimum and maximum number of members on the Finance Council . There must be at least two or more as the word “some” is used in the canon. It is better that the council should consist of at least three persons as a college must consist of at least three [16].

4. The Qualifications of Members

The general qualifications for any ecclesiastical office are to be considered, besides the qualifications mentioned particularly for the members of the Finance Council. The members of the council must be Christian faithful (christifidelibus), but need not always be Catholics[17]. Therefore, it could be composed of clerics alone, religious alone, laity alone or a mixture of two or three categories. According to CCEO the members of the Finance Council  need not be Christian faithful, but can be non-Christians as the term ‘persons’ is used in the canon[18]. It says: “The eparchial bishop is to erect a Finance Council  consisting of a president, who is the eparchial bishop himself, and of some suitable persons who are expert, if possible, also in canon law …” (CCEO c. 263 § 1). The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores gregis[19] says that it is appropriate to entrust the finance administration of the diocese to the individuals who are competent as well as honest, so that it can become an example of transparency for other similar Church institutions (cf. PG 45).

An important qualification mentioned is that they must be truly experts in financial matters as well as in civil law; this is required of them as they are to counsels the bishop on extraordinary administration, taxation, diminishing the will, alienation of diocesan property, etc. This is to assure appropriate professional expertise and distinctive ecclesial service in areas such as budgeting, insurance, construction, auditing, etc., and to enable the diocesan bishop to protect the Church’s financial patrimony as effectively as possible[20]. Specialization in civil law is not an essential quality for the members of the Finance Council in CCEO. The eparchial bishops are asked to appoint persons who are experts in financial matters, and only if possible they must be experts in civil law (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 1). 

Another quality mentioned only in CIC is that they should be of outstanding integrity (cf. CIC c. 492 § 1). They are to be noted for their integrity which will help the diocese in its dedication to principles of administrative honesty and forestall any implications of scandal in relation to the patrimony of the Church[21]. Though it is not mentioned in CCEO, it is presumed that Finance Council members must be known for their honesty. The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores adds another quality: the members of the Finance Council are to be renowned for their love for the Church and its apostolate[22]. It again says: “In those places where the permanent diaconate has been instituted, steps should be taken to arrange the participation of the deacons in Finance Council s, according to the charism of their order”[23].

The members of the Finance Council should stand for truth and justice. If they disagree with a certain idea of the bishop, they should be able to express it in a polite manner. According to Bennett, the so called ‘yes-men’ or ‘rubber stamp’ appointment would appear to be a violation of the intent of the law[24].  

According to the canon, a person who is related to the diocesan bishop up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity cannot be a member of the Finance Council (cf. CIC c. 492 § 3; CCEO c. 263 § 3). Therefore, a bishop cannot appoint his brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, aunts and their spouses as members of the Finance Council. This is to prevent the possibility of nepotism and favouritism[25]. In a similar way, two persons from the same family or close relatives as members is to be avoided as far as possible on the Finance Council. As close relatives of the diocesan bishop are avoided, it is better to avoid the close relatives of the finance officer too. These will help the smooth function of the Finance Council.

5. The Term of Office and Resignation from Office

The members of the council are appointed for a period of five years (cf. CIC c. 492 § 2). The duration of five years may be connected with the office of the finance officer which is also for five years as per the Latin Code (cf. CIC c. 494 § 2). The appointment can be renewed again once they complete the term in office[26]. The CCEO does not speak of the duration of the Finance Council. Therefore, particular law can specify the period of duration. The members of the Finance Council may resign from office for a just cause (cf. CIC c. 187; CCEO c. 967). They have to communicate their intention of resignation to the diocesan bishop either in writing or expressing it in front of two witnesses (cf. CIC c. 189 § 1; CCEO c. 969). Both Codes say nothing about acceptance of the resignation being required, and therefore it takes effect immediately.

6. Removal from the Finance Council  

The diocesan bishop can remove any member from the council before the expiration of his term only for a grave reason (cf. CIC c. 193 § 2; CCEO c. 975 § 1)[27]. Both Codes do not specify the grave reasons for removal. Therefore, the diocesan statute can specify them. There is no particular procedure to be followed to remove a member from the council.  There is no requirement for the bishop to consult the college of consultors or members of the Finance Council prior to the removal of a member. While removing a person, the bishop has to observe justice and equity. A decree of removal must be communicated in writing for the validity of the action (cf. CIC cc. 192, 193 § 4; CCEO c. 974 § 1-2). Since the members of the Finance Council are appointed after consulting the college of eparchial consultors in the Eastern Churches (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 1), it is advisable that the eparchial bishop consult the college of eparchial consultors before the removal, even though CCEO does not demand this. 

7. Statutes for the Finance Council  

The diocesan bishop is free to make statutes for the Finance Council . He can define the concrete rights and duties of the members in the statutes. If the bishop considers it necessary he can create an office of the secretary for the Finance Council to take accurate minutes of the meetings. His other duties are to be prescribed in detail in the statutes. He may be appointed by the bishop himself or elected by the members of the Finance Council. The secretary need not be a member of the Finance Council; he could be any other person like the bishop’s office secretary, chancellor, etc. All these are to be specified in the statutes. 

 8. The Functions of the Members

The diocesan financial council is an essential part of the diocese and it plays an important role in the diocese. As a council they assist the diocesan bishop to administer the temporal goods of the diocese. The law does not allow the diocesan bishop always to act alone. He has to listen to the Finance Council on important matters of financial administration (cf. CIC c. 1277; CCEO c. 263 § 4). In certain cases, he has the obligation to consult the Finance Council and in a few other cases he has to get the consent of the council for the administration. If the diocesan bishop is asked to get the consent of the members of the Finance Council, his acts are invalid if he does anything without the consent of the Finance Council . In the same manner, if he is asked to consult the Finance Council, his acts are invalid if he does not consult them (cf. CIC c. 127 § 2; CCEO c. 934 § 2). When consent is required, an absolute majority of those present must be secured[28]. When the bishop asks consent of the members of the Finance Council, he cannot vote or break the tie[29]. Asking consent or consulting the members should not be seen as merely a formality but it is a serious responsibility of the bishop. All the members of the Finance Council have a serious obligation to give their opinions sincerely (cf. CIC c. 127 § 3; CCEO c. 934 § 4). The bishop has the moral obligation to follow the opinions of the members, especially if all or a majority of them have the same opinion. 

The CCEO alone says that the eparchial bishop who asks the consent or consults the Finance Council should provide necessary information in advance. He should also see that they are given sufficient freedom to express their opinions to him (cf. CCEO c. 934 § 3).  When they receive the agenda well in advance they are given sufficient time to reflect on the topic, and if needed they can even consult experts confidentially without breaching the secrecy, before they attend the meeting.  It will be praiseworthy if bishops of the Latin Church also take the spirit of this canon of CCEO and provide the agenda to the members of the Finance Council in advance. 

8. 1. Giving Counsel for the Appointment and Removal of the Finance Officer

The members of the Finance Council have a serious obligation to give counsel to the diocesan bishop when asked. Before appointing a finance officer, the members of the Finance Council are consulted by the diocesan bishop (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1; CCEO c. 262 § 1). This consultation is essential to find out the best person for the office. The bishop may not have complete knowledge of a particular person whom he wishes to appoint. When he discusses with them he gets more information regarding the candidate. Therefore, there must be a thorough consultation so that the right person may be selected.   

In similar way, if the bishop wants to remove the finance officer before the expiration of his term of office, he has to consult the Finance Council (cf. CIC c. 494 § 2; CCEO c. 262 § 1).  A bishop cannot remove the finance officer according to his whims and fancies and therefore he has to consult the members before executing his decision. Without consulting the Finance Council, he cannot remove him even if there is a grave cause. The members of the Finance Council have the right to know the reason for the removal. If they are not convinced of the reasons presented by the bishop, they should advise him not to remove him from the office[30].

8. 2 Giving Counsel for Major Important Acts  

The diocesan bishop is obliged to consult the members of the Finance Council for the administration of more important acts.  The CIC demands that the diocesan bishop consult also the college of consultors (cf. CIC c. 1277; CCEO c. 263 § 4). The Code does not describe what are ‘the acts of administration of major importance’ (CIC) or ‘the more important acts concerning financial matters’ (CCEO). A major act for a poor diocese could be a minor act for a rich diocese. The evaluation of administrative acts of major importance is not absolute, but only relative[31]. We have to understand these terms in the circumstance of each diocese.  Therefore, the diocesan bishop has to clearly specify in diocesan laws a list of acts that would come under major importance in his diocese[32].  Once he has specified the acts of major importance in his diocese, he has to consult the Finance Council before administering these major important acts.  

8. 3 Giving Counsel before the Investment of Endowment Capital

Law demands that money and other movable goods which are assigned as an endowment must be deposited in a safe place approved by the ordinary. They must be invested in the best interest of the foundation as soon as possible with an express and individual mention of the obligation, in accordance with the prudent judgment of the ordinary. Depositing in a savings bank account or in any other short term deposit is not to be considered as an investment[33]. Since it is a delicate transaction, the bishop has the obligation, before investing, to consult experts and necessarily the members of the Finance Council and the interested parties (cf. CIC c. 1305; CCEO c. 1049)[34]. Therefore, when a bishop consults them on this matter, they should express their opinions sincerely.

8. 4 Giving Counsel before Diminishing the Will

The Ordinary has the power to diminish a will in an equitable manner under the following conditions: 1) the fulfillment of the obligation established in the foundation has become impossible due to reduced income, 2) the impossibility is not due to the fault of the administrator, and 3) after hearing the interested parties and the members of the Finance Council (cf. CIC c. 1310 § 2; CCEO c. 1054 § 2)[35]. The will of the founder must be respected as much as possible while diminishing it. As a general principle reduction of the obligations of celebrating the Holy Mass cannot be diminished by the diocesan bishop, but only by the Apostolic See[36]. For all other cases, before doing so he has to consult the members of the Finance Council as well as the interested parties. The interested party could be the administrators of the public juridic person in whose favour the will was made. If the members of the Finance Council do not find a sufficient or a just reason they have the obligation to express this to the bishop.

8. 5 Giving Counsel/Consent for Taxation

The diocesan bishop has the authority to impose a tax which is moderate and proportionate to their income, on public juridic persons subject to him as means of raising funds for the needs of his diocese. He can also impose an extra-ordinary and moderate tax on physical and juridical persons when there is a grave need. Before imposing a tax, he has to follow the procedure for the same. According to CIC, he needs to consult the members of Finance Council and presbyteral council to impose a tax in the diocese (cf. CIC c. 1263)[37]. Before giving advice they should study the need to impose a tax, how it is going to affect physical and juridic persons, etc. The Finance Council members are aware of the income of each juridic person as they are reviewing its annual report and therefore this consultation is very useful to the bishop. The CCEO is more strict in this regard. It says that eparchial bishop has to obtain the consent of the Finance Council to impose a tax (cf. CCEO c. 1012 § 1). A tax on physical persons can be imposed only according to the norms of particular law of each Church sui iuris (cf. CCEO c. 1012 § 2). There is no obligation for the bishop to consult the Presbyteral Council as is the case in CIC. 

Kennedy says that if a tax is going to be annual or regular, a single consultation may not be sufficient. According to him the bishop has to consult again when a tax is collected for a second time[38]. My view is that if the bishop discusses with the members of the Finance Council his intention of collecting a tax every year, he need not consult again in the following year. 

8. 6 Giving Consent for Acts of Extraordinary Administration 

There are two types of administration, ordinary and extraordinary. According to Kennedy the acts of ordinary administration are those which occur regularly or whose financial consequences are moderate while acts of extra-ordinary administration are those which occur irregularly or whose financial consequences are considerable[39]. As a general principle, a diocesan bishop should have the consent of both bodies, that is, the members of the college of consultors and the Finance Council  for any acts of extra-ordinary administration (cf. CIC c. 1277; CCEO c. 1036 § 1)[40]. Codes do not define what are the acts of extra-ordinary administration. According to Farrelly, purchase of land, construction of a new building, acceptance or refusal of a gift or bequest, opening of a new cemetery, establishing a school or any other parochial institution, investment of any kind of capital whether liquid or stable, etc.,  are some of the examples traditionally considered as acts of extraordinary administration[41]. Alienation is not considered as an extraordinary administration as it is a special category[42]. The amount can vary from country to country. An ordinary act of a diocese in a developed country can be an extra-ordinary act for a diocese in an undeveloped country. Therefore, the Bishops’ Conferences for the Latin Church and Synod of Bishops of the Patriarchal Church or the Apostolic See for other Eastern Churches are asked to establish criteria for extraordinary administration for each country and for Churches sui iuris (cf. CIC c. 1277; CCEO c. 1036 § 1)[43]. 

8. 7 Giving Consent for the Alienation of Property

According to Morrisey, alienation is any act by which the ownership of the property is transferred to another person[44]. If the diocesan bishop wishes to alienate property within the minimum and maximum limits decided by the Bishops’ Conference for the Latin Church and Synod of Bishops of the Patriarchal Church or Apostolic See for other Eastern Churches, the consent of the members of the Finance Council and the college of consultors is required (cf. CIC c.1292 § 1; CCEO c. 1036 § 1)[45]. If the amount exceeds the maximum amount decided by the Bishops’ Conference or Synod of Bishops, an extra permission from the Apostolic See for the Latin Church or the Patriarch with consent of the permanent synod for the Eastern Churches is required in addition to the consent of the members of the Finance Council (cf. CIC c.1292 § 2; CCEO c. 1036 § 2)[46]. The members of the Finance Council shall not give their consent for alienation of goods unless they have been informed precisely both about the economic condition of the juridic person as well as the detailed report of previous alienations which have already taken place (cf. CIC c. 1292 § 4; CCEO c. 1038 § 1)[47]. They also should study the purpose of the alienation. They should see whether there is a just cause, urgent necessity or any other advantage for alienating the property of the diocese. Since it really affects the financial situation of the diocese, the members of the Finance Council must seriously study and reflect before giving their consent. There is a provision in law that if a bishop alienates ecclesiastical goods without the prescribed permission or consent he can be punished with just penalty. If the members of the Finance Council are not consulted the action of the bishop is invalid and therefore, he can be punished according to the gravity of the offence (cf. CIC c. 1377; CCEO c. 1449).

Besides giving consent and counsel to the diocesan bishop, the Finance Council has the following important functions to fulfill.

8. 8 Preparation of the Diocesan Budget

According to CIC c. 493 and CCEO c. 263 § 5, it is the responsibility of the Finance Council to prepare every year the budget for the whole diocese under the direction of the diocesan bishop[48].  The budget involves the income and expenditures foreseen for the following year. It has a number of meanings: it is a balance sheet or statement of estimated receipts and expenditures; it is a plan for the co-ordination of resources and expenditures; it is the amount of money that is available for or assigned to a particular purpose[49]. The budget must be a plan for the resources and expenditure of the whole diocese. The preparation of the budget is not an easy task for the members of the council. They have to see the actual income and also foresee the possible income for the financial year in order to plan out the possible expenditures. The allotment of the money must be based on priority. It will help the members of the Finance Council, if the diocesan bishop presents his vision and the various needs of the diocese in order of priority before the members of Finance Council prepare the annual budget. Preparations of the budget not only include allocation and distribution of income, but also raising of funds[50]. The CIC explicitly says that the budget is to be prepared under the direction of the diocesan bishop (cf. CIC c. 493). It is understood in CCEO that the budget is prepared under the direction of the eparchial bishop as he himself is always the president of the Finance Council (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 1)[51].  

8. 9 Review of the Annual Report

The Finance Council has to examine the report of the finance officer every year regarding his administration. This report has to include the income and expenditures of the past year (cf. CIC c. 494 § 4; CCEO c. 262 § 4)[52]. The manner in which the reports are prepared is to be decided by the diocesan bishop. He can even prescribe a format for this report. According to CIC, this report is sent to the Finance Council and the Finance Council examines it. As per CCEO the report is sent to the diocesan bishop and he examines it through the Finance Council. In both cases, it is the Finance Council that examines this report and approves the report of receipts and expenses of the past year. When they go through the report, naturally they have every right to ask for clarifications from the finance officer. They can give suggestions and corrections to the finance officer. Each one is to take his responsibility seriously in reviewing the report.

The Finance Council has also to examine the reports sent by the administrators of ecclesiastical goods to the local Ordinary. Thus, administrators of parishes, shrines, hospitals, etc., are to send a report to the diocese. The CIC expressly mentions that the administrator has to pass this report to the Finance Council for the inspection (cf. CIC c. 1287 § 1)[53]. The diocesan bishop and the Finance Council come to know the income of such juridic persons from the report. Though CCEO does not say anything about it, the eparchial bishop can pass it to the Finance Council for better understanding and co-ordination.  

8. 10 The Election of an Interim Finance Officer

During the vacancy of the diocese, if the finance officer is elected / appointed as the diocesan administrator, a new finance officer is to be elected. The offices of the finance officer and the diocesan administrator are considered to be incompatible and cannot therefore be held by the same person. Though the diocesan administrator has the right of the diocesan bishop, he has no right to appoint a finance officer. It is the responsibility of the members of Finance Council under the presidency of the diocesan administrator to elect an interim finance officer (cf. CIC c. 423 § 2; CCEO c. 225 § 2). A great responsibility of electing a suitable person as the finance officer is entrusted to the Finance Council. They should elect a person with all qualities required by the law. This is one of the rare instances in both Codes where we see that a consultative body (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 4) exercises executive power of appointment. 

Conclusion

In certain dioceses, there is no participation of lay persons in the Finance Council. If a particular bishop does not appoint lay persons in the Finance Council, in spite of having many experts in the diocese, it is against the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. The whole Finance Council need not be composed of lay persons, but at least a few could be lay persons. If the finance officer is a cleric, it is always praiseworthy that at least a few lay persons are appointed as the members of the Finance Council. On the other hand, if the finance officer is a lay person, all the members of the council should not be lay persons; a few clerics are to be included.

[1] Cf. Kevin M. McDonough, “The Diocesan and Pastoral Finance Council ”, in Kevin E. McKenna - Lawrence A. Dinardo - Joseph W. Pokusa (eds), Church Finance Handbook, Canon Law Society of America, Washington D. C. 1999, p. 140.

[2] Cf. Mauro Rivella (ed.), Partecipazione e corresponsabilità nella Chiesa, Ancora, Milan 2000, p. 171.

[3] Cf. Luigi Chiappetta, Il Codice di Diritto Canonico: Commento giuiridico-pastorale, vol. 1, Edizione Dehoniane Bolongna, Bologna 2011^3,  p. 599. 

[4] Cf. John J. Myers, “The Diocesan Fiscal Officer and the Diocesan Finance Council ”, in CLSA Proceedings 44 (1982),  p. 182. 

[5] Cf. Angelo Vizzarri, “Consiglio diocesano per gli affari economici”, in Monitor Ecclesiastcus 119 (1994), p. 400. 

[6] Cf. Mario Marchesi, “Il Laico e l’amministrazione dei beni nella chiesa”, in Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale 2 (1989), p. 339.  

[7] Unlike the Presbyteral Council or Pastoral Council, there are no ex-officio members in a Finance Council. All members are to be appointed. It is opportune to appoint the vicar general/protosyncellus as a member of the Finance Council (cf. Mauro Rivella (ed.), Partecipazione e corresponsabilità nella Chiesa, p. 173). 

[8] Cf. AAS 77 (1985), p. 771; Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, in The Jurist 56 (1997), p. 715.  

[9] Cf. Communicationes 24 (1992), p. 65.

[10] Cf. Communicationes 24 (1992), p. 53; Francesco Coccopalmerio, “The Chancellor, Other Notaries and the Archives”, ”, in Ángel Marzoa - Jorge Miras - Rafael Rodriguez-Ocaña (eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. 2, Midwest Theological Forum, Chicago 2004, p. 1169; Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, p. 711. 

[11] Cf. John J. Myers, “The Diocesan Fiscal Officer and the Diocesan Finance Council ”, p. 183.

[12] Cf. Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal ordering of Particular Churches”, ”, in John P. Beal - James A. Coriden - Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 2007,  pp. 646-647.

[13] Cf. Marco Brogi, “Eparchies and Bishops”, in George Nedungatt (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code: A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome 2002, p. 240.

[14] Cf. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Codice di Diritto Canonico: E leggi complementari commentato, Coletti a San Pietro, Rome 2004, p. 382.

[15] The Motu proprio Postquam apostolicis is comprised of 231 canons on religious, 70 canons on Church property and 34 canons providing definitions of certain canonical terms. It was promulgated for the Eastern Catholic Churches on 9 February 1952 and acquired legal force on 21 November 1952.

[16] Cf. George Nedungatt, Laity and Church Temporalities: Appraisal of a Tradition, Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore 2000, p. 242.

[17] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, p. 714.  

[18] Cf. George Nedungatt, Laity and Church Temporalities: Appraisal of a Tradition, p. 243. 

[19] Cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores gregis (16 October 2003), in AAS 96 (2004), pp. 825-924; English translation in Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Exhortations, Carmel International Publishing House, Trivandrum 2005, pp. 3-120.

[20] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, p. 715; Solomon Amanchukwu Amatu, The Role of the Finance Council  in the Administration of a Diocese in the Light of the 1983 Code of Canon Law [cc. 492 and 537], Pontificia Università Lateranense, Rome 1990, pp. 99-100.

[21] Cf. Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 647.

[22] Cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores (22 February 2004), no. 192, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 2004; Ecclesiae imago 135.

[23] Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores 192.  

[24] Cf. Augustine P. Bennett, “The Practical Effect on the Fiscal Administration of Church Finances of Book Five: The Law Regarding Church Possessions”, in CLSA Proceedings 42 (1980), p. 176.

[25] Cf. Thomas J. Green, “Shepherding the Patrimony of the Poor: Diocesan and Parish Structures of Financial Administration”, p. 715.

[26] Cf. Mauro Rivella (ed.), Partecipazione e corresponsabilità nella Chiesa, p. 174.

[27] Cf. Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 648.

[28] Cf. Myriam Wijlens, “Juridic Acts”, in John P. Beal - James A. Coriden - Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 2007, p. 181.

[29] Cf. Pontifical Council for Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Authentic Interpretation De superiore eiusque consilio (5 July 1985), in AAS 77 (1985), p. 771. 

[30] The members of the college of consultors are also consulted prior to the appointment and removal of the finance officer (cf. CIC c. 494 § 1-2; CCEO c. 262 § 1-2).

[31] Cf. Communicationes 12 (1980), p. 414.

[32] Cf. Francis G. Morrisey, “Ordinary and Extraordinary Administration: Canon 1277”, in The Jurist 48 (1988), p. 717.

[33] Cf. Robert T. Kennedy, “The Temporal Goods of the Church”, in John P. Beal - James A. Coriden - Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore  2007 p. 1519.

[34] Cf. René Metz, “The Temporal Goods of the Church”, in George Nedungatt (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code: A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome 2002, p. 709.

[35] Cf. Jobe Abbass, “The Temporal Goods of the Church: A Comparative Study of the Eastern and Latin Codes of Canon Law”, in Periodica 83 (1994), p. 690.

[36] There are some exceptions for diminishing the Mass intentions by the diocesan bishop (cf. CIC c. 1308; CCEO c. 1052). 

[37] Cf. Communicationes 5 (1973), p. 95.

[38] Cf. Robert T. Kennedy, “The Temporal Goods of the Church”, in John P. Beal - James A. Coriden - Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 2007, p. 1463.  

[39] Cf. Ibid., pp. 1478-1479.

[40] Cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores 192; Francis G. Morrisey, “Ordinary and Extraordinary Administration: Canon 1277”, in The Jurist 48 (1988), p. 717.

[41] Cf. Adrian Farrelly, “The Diocesan Finance Council : Functions and Duties according to the Code of Canon Law”, in Studia Canonica 23 (1989), p. 157.

[42] Cf. Communicationes 12 (1980), p. 396.

[43] The Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI) has decided that an expenditure of Rs 4,00, 000/ or more is to be considered as extra-ordinary administration. Nothing is mentioned in the particular laws of the Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church regarding the extra ordinary administration.

[44] Cf. Francis G. Morrisey, “The Alienation of Temporal Goods in Contemporary Practice”, in Studia Canonica 29 (1995), p. 295; Benjamin Fiiriter, The Temporal Goods of the Particular Church in the 1983 Code: Acquisition, Admission and Alienation, Pontificia Univeresitas Urbaniana, Rome 2009, pp. 126-127. 

[45] The Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI) has established Rs 1,00, 000/ as minimum and Rs 10,00, 000/ as maximum amount for alienation for the Latin Church in India. For the Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church: “Alienation of property exceeding Rs 10 Lakhs up to 10 Crores, is to be done with the consent of the Finance Council and eparchial consultors. An amount exceeding Rs 10 Crores upto 50 Crores, needs the permission of the Major Archbishop with the consent of the Permanent Synod, and for an amount exceeding 50 Crores, the permission of the Major Archbishop with the consent of the Synod of Bishops” (cf. Synodal News, Bulletin of the Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church, 17 (2009), Major Archiepiscopal Curia, Kochi 2009, p. 48).

[46] Cf. Nuntia 13 (1981), p. 9; Jobe Abbass, “The Temporal Goods of the Church: A Comparative Study of the Eastern and Latin Codes of Canon Law”, in Periodica 83 (1994),  p. 686.  

[47] Cf. Austin P. Bennet, “The Practical Effect on the Fiscal Administration of Church Finances of Book Five: The Law Regarding Church Possessions”, in CLSA Proceedings 42 (1980), p. 178.

[48] Cf. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Governance Structures within the Catholic Church, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, Montréal 2002, p. 231; Marie Breitenbeck, “The Requirements for Experts in Church Law”, in The Jurist 50 (1990), p. 269. 

[49] Cf. Adrian Farrelly, “The Diocesan Finance Council: Functions and Duties according to the Code of Canon Law”, p. 154.

[50] Cf. Ibid.

[51] According to CIC c. 492 § 1, the diocesan bishop can delegate someone to preside over the Finance Council .

[52] Cf. George Nedungatt, Laity and Church Temporalities: Appraisal of a Tradition, p. 243.

[53] Cf. Martin Igwemezie Uzoukwu, The Diocesan Finance Committee and the Finance Officer (Canons 492-494), Pontificia Universitas Urbaniana, Rome 1991, p. 96.   

                                                                              5

                                                

                                              The Office of Protosyncellus[1]

(This article is Published: cf. Mathew John Puthenparambil, “The Office of Protosyncellus”, in Eastern Legal Thought, Vol. 9 & 10 (2010-2011), pp. 111-123).

Introduction

The office of the protosyncellus is the highest office in an eparchy after the office of eparchial bishop. He is the pre-eminent official of the eparchial curia. He has to get closely associated with eparchial bishop and assist him in the governance of the entire eparchy. There is a juridical obligation for eparchial bishop to appoint a protosyncellus. There cannot be two  protosynceli even if the eparchy is too large in number or size.  

1. Origin and Appointment of Protosyncellus

It was the custom in the east that bishops were appointed from among the monks and these bishops continued to maintain their monastic life by taking another monk as companion and secretary. This companion shared the same room or cell with the bishop. He had a great influence in local Church. He often represented the Bishop in ecclesiastical affairs. They had a close relationship with each other as they lived together in the same cell and thus he became the first person in the eparchy after the bishop[2].

The Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati recommended the appointment of a protosyncellus if the proper governance of the eparchy recommended it. “Whenever the proper government of the eparchy demands it, a syncellus is to be appointed by the bishop, to help him in the entire territory with ordinary jurisdiction” (CS can. 432 § 1)[3]. Therefore it was not an obligatory office under Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati.  

The document of Vatican Council II, Decree on the Pastoral office of Bishops in the Church, says that bishops must appoint a protosyncellus, the pre-eminent official of the eparchial curia, who is to assist him in the governance of the eparchy. “In the diocesan curia the office of vicar general is preeminent”[4]. The Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops speaks about the appointment of the protosyncellus. It says: “The vicar general, whose office is the highest in the diocesan curia (CD 27), is appointed wherever, in the bishop’s judgement, the proper government of the diocese would require it, and indeed several vicars general may be appointed (ES 1, 14)”[5]. 

Eparchial bishop has to appoint a protosyncellus in his eparchy to assist him in the governance of the entire eparchy. It is obligatory for eparchial bishop to appoint a protosyncellus even though the eparchy is very small[6]. “In each eparchy a protosyncellus is to be appointed who, endowed with ordinary vicarious power in accord with the norm of common law, assists the eparchial bishop in governing the whole eparchy” (can. 245). Only one protosyncellus can be appointed in an eparchy[7].

Protosyncellus is freely appointed by the eparchial bishop. As the protosyncellus is very closely associated with the eparchial bishop, it is necessary that eparchial bishop must be free to appoint or remove him. Therefore eparchial bishop has full freedom to appoint any priest who has got required qualifications as the protosyncellus.

Protosyncellus can be appointed for a determinate or indeterminate time[8]. The code does not speak explicitly about the appointment of the protosyncellus ‘ad tempus’ but at the same time it does not prohibit either. Such an indication is a proof of its possibility[9]. Coadjutor or auxiliary bishop is appointed as protosyncellus for an indeterminate time. Eparchial bishop cannot appoint them for determinate time unless there are two auxiliary bishops in the eparchy. When there are two auxiliary bishops one may be appointed for determinate time and at the completion of the term the second auxiliary bishop could be appointed as protosyncellus.

One who is appointed as protosyncellus must make a promise to carry out the office faithfully in the manner determined by the law or by the eparchial bishop. He has also the obligation to observe secrecy in the manner determined by law or by the eparchial bishop (can. 244 § 2).  

2. Qualifications of Protosyncellus

Since the office of the protosyncellus is an ecclesiastical and above all the most important office in the eparchy, the eparchial bishop cannot appoint any person to this office. Certain qualifications prescribed by the code are to be considered while appointing one to this highest office in the eparchy. The general requirements needed for a person to an ecclesiastical office are given in can. 940. It says: “To be promoted to an office, a person must be suitable, that is, endowed with those qualities required by law”. The qualities required for the protosyncellus are given in can. 247 § 2. For some offices, the person need not be a priest. But in the case of protosyncellus code clearly says that he must be a priest. The requirement of priestly order is very essential for protosyncellus because he exercises a potestas sacra et vera episcopalis since he is the alter ego of the bishop in authority and responsibility[10]. The protosyncellus must be a celibate priest. The particular law of Church sui iuris can make provision to appoint a married priest to this office. The protosyncellus must be a priest ascribed to the same eparchy if possible[11]. The prior prohibition of appointing a member of religious order or institute has not been repeated in CCEO[12]. Therefore the protosyncellus could be a priest belonging to a religious order/institute, or ascribed to another eparchy or even a priest belonging to another Church sui iuris (can. 247 § 4). The law recommends the eparchial bishop to appoint priest ascribed to the same eparchy as protosyncellus. The law says: “…if possible, they should be from the clerics ascribed to the eparchy;…” (can. 247 § 2).  The protosyncellus must be not less than thirty years of age at the time of his appointment. Canonists are divided on the opinion whether the candidate must have completed the age of thirty or he must have begun the age of thirty since the wording of the canon ‘annos nati non minus triginta’ is not very clear[13]. The reason for keeping this age is that one should reach the adequate human maturity before he assumes the office of protosyncellus that involves great responsibility[14]. Though the law prescribes that protosyncellus should not be less than thirty years old, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops issued in 2004 says that when possible, it is preferable that protosyncellus should be forty years old or more[15]. Another qualification of protosyncellus is that he holds a doctorate, licentiate or expertise in some sacred science. The last qualification prescribed by the common law is that he should have personal qualities of sound doctrine, uprightness, prudence and practical experience[16]. The same Directory speaks, “They should be wise, honest and morally upright, with pastoral and administrative experience, capable of establishing a good human rapport with others and competent in dealing with diocesan affairs”[17]. 

A person related by blood to the eparchial bishop up to the fourth degree (brother, first cousin, nephew or uncle) cannot be appointed as protosyncellus. This is to safeguard bishop’s own freedom in taking decisions as well as to maintain objectivity and integrity in assessing and deciding on matters which concerns the good of the eparchy[18].  This also helps to prevent favoritism or nepotism in the eparchy. Canon says: “The office of protosyncellus or syncellus is not to be conferred on the blood relatives of the eparchial bishop up to the fourth degree inclusively” (can. 247 § 3). As a general rule, the judicial vicar shall not be appointed as protosyncellus unless the eparchy is very small or the eparchy has very few marriage cases (can. 1086 § 1)[19].

3. Place of Protosyncellus among the Clergy

While they are in office, priests who hold the office of protosyncellus enjoy all the rights and privileges immediately subordinate to episcopal dignity. “The protosyncellus and the syncelli who are presbyters have the privileges and insignia of the dignity next to that of the bishop during their function (durante munere)” (can. 250). The precedence of the protosyncellus over all others, a provision given in Cleri sanctitati, is removed in CCEO. But it is natural that the protosyncellus would enjoy precedence immediately after the eparchial bishop in the eparchy.

4. Powers of Protosyncellus  

The power of protosyncellus is understood as a faculty to perform an act. Power of governance (potestas regiminis) is defined as the public power ordained towards the governance of others. The power of governance is distinguished as legislative, executive and judicial (can. 985 § 1). The power of protosyncellus is described in can. 248 § 1. It says:

Unless it is expressly provided otherwise by common law, the protosyncellus throughout the whole eparchy and syncelli within the limits of the office conferred on them have the same executive power of governance as the eparchial bishop, excepting those things that the eparchial bishop has reserved to himself or to others or that by law require his own special mandate, so that if this mandate is not obtained, the act for which the mandate is required is null.

According to can. 981 § 1, the ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself. Ordinary power is by law itself attached to an office. Therefore a person cannot have ordinary power without an office. The power of the protosyncellus is ordinary, attached to the office[20].

The ordinary power of governance can be either proper or vicarious (can. 981 § 2). Proper power is exercised in one’s own name (nomine proprio) while vicarious power is exercised in the name of another (nomine at vice alterius) as a substitute as collaborators[21]. Power of the protosyncellus is vicarious, exercised in the name of eparchial bishop. 

As we have already seen that the power of governance is distinguished as legislative, executive and judicial (can. 985 § 1). Legislative power refers to the issuance of laws and precepts for the People of God under his care in accordance with the norms of law. Executive power is the administration of laws of the Church in the exercise of his office. Judicial power is the power possessed by judges and exercised according to the law. The eparchial bishop has got all these three powers. He cannot delegate his legislative power to anyone. Usually he exercises his executive power through protosyncellus and syncellus, and judicial power through judicial vicar. In virtue of his office the protosyncellus has the same executive power throughout the eparchy as that which belongs to the eparchial bishop. According to can. 986, the protosyncellus can exercise executive power over his subjects even when he is outside his eparchy or faithful are away from the eparchy. He can also exercise his power over travellers who are actually living in the eparchy. The very definition of protosyncellus tells that he has to assist the eparchial bishop in the governance of the entire eparchy (can. 245). This confirms his executive power throughout the eparchy over persons and things. It is the responsibility of the protosyncellus to extend his help to the eparchial bishop in governing the eparchy[22].

Protosyncellus can exercise executive power and he can also perform all administrative acts. He can issue general executory decrees i.e., decrees which defines more precisely the manner of applying a law or which urge the observance of the law. Executive power of protosyncellus is also performed by issuing administrative acts through which laws are applied to individual persons or group of persons. He can issue singular decrees and precepts and grant rescripts which contain privileges and dispensations. The eparchial bishop usually grants privileges, the protosyncellus shares with eparchial bishop the power to grant most of the dispensations especially with regard to the impediments of marriage[23]. Protosyncellus is also local hierarch in the eparchy (can. 984 § 2)[24]. 

The eparchial bishop, if he wants, can reserve certain powers to himself or to another priest other than protosyncellus. In that case the protosyncellus has no power in dealing with those matters. But the authority of the protosyncellus should not be limited to such an extent that the office itself is modified. Reservation of powers shall be exceptional otherwise it shall be contrary to the law which defined the positions so that the protosyncellus could function as the alter ego of the eparchial bishop[25].

Protosyncellus requires a special mandate from the eparchial bishop to perform certain executive powers which are reserved to eparchial bishop by common law or particular law of a Church sui iuris. “Within the context of the executive power of governance, those things that in common law and particular law of a Church sui iuris are attributed by name to the eparchial bishop are understood to belong only to an eparchial bishop and an exarch, excluding the protosyncellus and the syncelli except by special mandate” (can. 987).

The protosyncellus should be convoked to the eparchial assembly and he has the obligation to attend the same (can. 238 § 1) since his role in the eparchy is very significant. The eparchial bishop is bound to visit his eparchy in whole or in part each year so that at least every five year he will have visited the entire eparchy. If the eparchial bishop is legitimately impeded, the protosyncellus can go for the visit provided that he gets the delegation from the bishop (can. 205 § 1). All actions legitimately taken by the protosyncellus have effects until he receives certain notification of vacancy of eparchial See (can. 224 § 3).

While granting or refusing of favour, the protosyncellus has to keep in mind the principles of governance. “A favour denied by a higher authority cannot be validly granted by a lower authority, unless the higher authority has expressly consented” (can. 1530 § 1). Therefore, protosyncellus cannot grant a favour which was denied by the eparchial bishop without obtaining bishop’s consent first. This is to avoid contradictions and conflicts in the eparchy. Another principle is that “A favour denied by one authority cannot be validly granted by another equally competent authority or a higher authority if no mention of the denial is made in the petition” (can. 1530 § 2). Therefore, the protosyncellus cannot validly grant a favour which was denied by the syncellus unless the denial is mentioned in the petition. In the same way eparchial bishop also cannot validly grant a favour which was denied by the protosyncellus or syncellus unless the denial is mentioned in the petition[26].

The office of protosyncellus is neither another centre of authority nor a collegial body responsible for the governance of the eparchy. Even though the eparchial bishop extends his authority by permitting another person to act in his own name, he remains as ultimately responsible person for all affairs of the eparchy[27]. Therefore, the protosyncellus must inform all the important matters of the eparchy to the eparchial bishop. The eparchial bishop must be informed of important acts and decisions that the protosyncellus has taken already and are under consideration. He should not act against the wish of the eparchial bishop. Canon says: “…They are [protosyncelli] never to act against his [eparchial bishop’s] intention and mind” (can. 249).

5. Loss of Office

The office of the protosyncellus can be lost in various ways. It can be lost either by cessation of the office or by resignation from the office or by removal from the office.  Canon says: “The protosyncellus and syncelli cease from office with the expiration of the determined period, by resignation accepted by the eparchial bishop, or by removal” (can. 251 § 1). If the protosyncellus was appointed for a determined time the office ceases upon expiry of the term. But the office does not cease automatically on the date at the end of the term[28]. “Loss of an office by the lapse of a determined time or by the reaching the age determined by law takes effect only from the moment when the competent authority has intimated it in writing” (can. 965 § 3). Therefore the eparchial bishop has to notify the protosyncellus in writing. If the eparchial bishop does not inform him in writing, the protosyncellus continues in office based on the above mentioned canon.

The protosyncellus can resign from the office for a just cause. Any person who is responsible for himself (sui compos) can resign freely from his office for a just cause (can. 967)[29]. He has to submit his resignation to the eparchial bishop in writing or orally in the presence of two witnesses. “To be valid, a resignation must be made in writing or in the presence of two witnesses, to the authority to whom it pertains to make canonical provision of the office in question; unless acceptance is needed, it takes effect immediately” (can. 969). The resignation of the protosyncellus needs to be accepted by the eparchial bishop as it is said expressly in the canon, “renunciatione ab Episcopo Eparchiali acceptata” (can. 251 § 1)[30]. Unless and until it is not accepted it has no effect. Law does not explicitly say that acceptance of resignation is to be communicated in writing[31]. If the eparchial bishop does not accept the resignation of the protosyncellus within three months of submission it lacks all force (can. 251 § 1). 

As the protosyncellus is freely appointed by the eparchial bishop, he can also be removed freely by the eparchial bishop. “The protosyncellus and syncelli are freely appointed by the eparchial bishop and can freely be removed by him, without prejudice to can. 215, §§1 and 2” (can. 247 § 1). He can be freely removed for a just cause and not necessarily for a grave reason. The eparchial bishop need not observe any procedure for the removal, but he should respect the natural equity and justice and also the right of a person to a good reputation[32]. In order to be effective the eparchial bishop should issue the decree of removal in writing to the protosyncellus[33].  

6. Loss of Office When See is Vacant

Protosyncellus exercises authority of the eparchial bishop vicariously and, therefore he loses his office unless he is an ordained bishop, as a general rule, when eparchy becomes vacant. “The eparchial see becomes vacant by the death, resignation, transfer or privation of the office of the eparchial bishop” (can. 219). The protosyncellus does not cease from his office always when the eparchy becomes vacant. Some exceptions are treated in can. 224 § 1. It says: “Upon the vacancy of the eparchial See, the protosyncellus and the syncelli immediately cease from office unless they are: 1° ordained bishops; 2° constituted in the eparchy of the patriarch; 3° constituted in an eparchy located within the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church, until the administrator of the eparchy takes canonical possession of his office” (can. 224). 

An Ordained Bishop Does Not Cease from the Office: The Vatican Council II wished that when the eparchial See is vacant the auxiliary bishop, if there is one, becomes the administrator of the eparchy. Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church says: “It is indeed desirable, unless there are grave reasons to the contrary, that the responsibility of governing the diocese during the vacancy of the see should be entrusted to the auxiliary bishop, or if there are several, to one of them”[34]. It was not incorporated in the legislation and therefore a priest could be appointed or elected as eparchial administrator upon the vacancy of the eparchial See (can. 225 § 1). Nevertheless, if the protosyncellus was an ordained bishop he does not cease from the office but retain ‘ex iure’ his office and enjoys the powers which he enjoyed earlier. He exercises his authority under the new eparchial administrator[35].

Protosyncellus of the Eparchy of the Patriarch: When the patriarchal See becomes vacant, the eparchy of the patriarch also becomes vacant. The senior bishop according to the episcopal ordination among the bishops of the patriarchal curia or, if there is nobody, the senior bishop of the permanent synod becomes the administrator of the patriarchal Church (can. 127) and he automatically becomes the administrator of the eparchy of the patriarch. In this situation a priest who is the protosyncellus of the eparchy of patriarch does not lose his office[36].

Protosyncellus of an Eparchy inside the Proper Territory: The priest who is a protosyncellus of an eparchy constituted inside the proper territory of the patriarch does not lose his office until the eparchial administrator is appointed as per can. 220 § 3° and takes canonical possession of his office.

Protosyncellus of an Eparchy outside the Proper Territory: A priest who is appointed as the protosyncellus immediately ceases from the office upon the vacancy of the eparchial See.  He loses his office not at the moment of vacancy of the eparchy, but at the moment of notification he receives. The authority he exercises is valid till he gets the notification of the vacancy of the eparchy[37].

Suspension of the Eparchial Bishop: If the eparchial bishop is suspended from the office, power of the protosyncellus, if he is a priest, is suspended. However a bishop who holds the office of protosyncellus continues in office and exercises the power while an eparchial bishop is suspended (can. 251 § 3)[38]. The reason behind this norm is the intrinsic relationship between the eparchial bishop and protosyncellus. The power possessed by the protosyncellus is vicarious. Therefore unless he has episcopal dignity, his power is suspended when the bishop is suspended from the office. The office of the eparchial bishop can be suspended through canonical penalties[39]. If the protosyncellus places juridic acts during the period of suspension, those acts may be considered valid but unlawful[40].

7.  Auxiliary or Coadjutor Bishop as Protosyncellus

The general rule is that protosyncellus is freely appointed by the eparchial bishop. The only exception to this legislation is that when there is a coadjutor bishop in an eparchy, he is to be appointed as protosyncellus or when there is an auxiliary bishop, he is to be appointed as protosyncellus. When there are two or more auxiliary bishops in an eparchy, one auxiliary bishop is to be appointed as protosyncellus and the other is to be appointed as syncellus (can. 215 § 1-2)[41]. 

As the eparchial bishop has no choice of appointing a coadjutor or auxiliary bishop as protosyncellus, in the same way he cannot remove the coadjutor bishop from the office of protosyncellus. He may remove an auxiliary bishop from the office of protosyncellus but has to appoint him as syncellus[42].  

A protosyncellus who is an auxiliary bishop does not lose his office when the eparchial See is vacant (can. 224 § 1).

Conclusion

The protosyncellus has ordinary vicarious power and he is also local hierarch in the eparchy. As it is very important office in an eparchy, the common law prescribes certain qualifications for those who hold the office. He has to co-operate with eparchial bishop and work according to the mind and will of the eparchial bishop.

                                  

                                                                                           

[1] Protosyncellus is identical with the vicar general in Latin Church.

[2] George Nedungatt, “Glossary of the Main Terms Used in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches”, in The Jurist, 51 (1991), p. 457.

[3] English translation of Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati is taken from Victor J. Pospishil, Code of Oriental Canon Law: The Law on Persons, Ford City, St Mary’s Ukranian Catholic Church, 1960.

[4] Christus Dominus 27.

[5] Ecclesiae imago 201.

[6] Velasius De Paolis, “De vicario episcopali secundum decratum Concan. Oecum. Vatican II ‘Christus Dominus’”, in Periodica, 56 (1967), pp. 311-312.

[7] Thomas J. Green, “Diocesan and Parish Structures: A Comparison of Selected Canons in the Codex Iuris Canonici and Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”, in Studia canonica, 33 (1999), p. 378; There can be more than one vicar general in a diocese of the Latin Church (can. 475 § 2 of CIC 1983).

[8] Augustine Mendonça, “The Structural Components of the Diocesan Curia”, in Canonical Studies, 16 (2002), p. 114.

[9] Roch Pagé, Les Églises particulières, vol. 1, Montréal, Les Éditions Paulines, 1985, p. 95.

[10] William W. Bassett, “The Office of Episcopal Vicar”, in The Jurist, 3 (1970), pp. 308-309.

[11] Green, “Diocesan and Parish Structures: A Comparison of Selected Canons in the Codex Iuris Canonici and Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”, p. 379.

[12] Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati prohibited appointing a non-eparchial priest as protosyncellus (CS can. 433 § 1).

[13] Luigi Chiappetta, Il codice di diritto canonico, vol. 1, 2^nd edition, Roma, Edizioni  Dehoniane, 1996, p. 602.   

[14] Arulselvam Rayappan, “The Office of Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar”, in Canonical Studies, 16 (2002), p. 153.

[15] Apostolorum successores 178.

[16] Davide Mussone, L’ufficio del vicario generale  nel codice di diritto canonico del 1917 e del 1983, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000, p. 92. 

[17]  Apostolorum successores 178.

[18] Mendonça, “The Structural Components of the Diocesan Curia”, p. 123.

[19] Canon penitentiary also cannot be appointed as vicar general as per can. 478 § 2 of CIC 1983.

[20] Julio García Martín, Le norme generali del Codex Iuris Canonici, Roma, Ediurcla, 1999, p. 484.

[21] John M. Huels, The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry, Quincy, Franciscan Press, 1995, pp. 20-21; George Nedungatt, “Authority of Order and Power of Governance”, in Kanon, 14 (1998), p. 77.   

[22] Rayappan, “The Office of Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar”, p. 160. 

[23] Ibid., pp. 160-161.

[24] Local hierarch is the term used in CCEO for local Ordinary. Vicar general is Ordinary and local Ordinary as per can. 134 § 1-2 of CIC 1983. But protosyncellus is only a local hierarch and not a hierarch as per can. 984 § 1-2 of CCEO.  

[25] John D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, New York, Saint Maron Publications, 1992, p. 521.

[26] Joseph P. Penna, “The Office of Episcopal Vicar”, in CLSA Proceedings, 52 (1990), p. 116; Ecclesiae sanctae I  14.

[27] Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, in John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 2003, p. 633.

[28] Victor George D’Souza, “Cessation of Office of a Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar: Toward Refinement of Canon 481 § 1”, in Studies in Church Law, 2 (2006), p. 372.

[29] Mussone, L’ufficio del vicario generale nel Codice di diritto canonico del 1917 e del 1983, p. 182.

[30] The corresponding can. 481 of CIC 1983 does not speak of acceptance of the resignation of the Vicar General.

[31] Paul L. Golden, “Retraction of Resignation from Office”, in Arthur J. Espelage (ed.), CLSA Advisory Opinion 2001-2005, Washington, Canon Law Society of America, 2006, p. 37.

[32] Randolph R. Calvino and Nevin J. Klinger, Clergy Procedural Handbook, Washington, Canon Law Society of America, 1992, p. 122; Chiappetta, Il codice di diritto canonico, p. 601.

[33] D’Souza, “Cessation of Office of a Vicar General and Episcopal Vicar: Toward Refinement of Canon 481 § 1”, p. 373.

[34] Christus Dominus 26.

[35] Marco Brogi, “Eparchies and Bishops”, in George Nedungatt (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code: A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Rome, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2002, p. 236.

[36] Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, 2^nd Revised edition, New York, Saint Maron publications, 1996, p. 228.

[37] Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, pp. 490-491.

[38] Mussone, L’ufficio del vicario generale nel codice di diritto canonico del 1917 e del 1983, p. 207.

[39] Mendonça, “The Structural Components of the Diocesan Curia”, p. 140.

[40] Chiappetta, Il codice di diritto canonico, p. 226.

[41] Christus Dominus 26; Apostolorum successores 71-72.

[42] Penna, “The Office of Episcopal Vicar”, p. 118.

                                                                                     4

                                             The Notion of Eparchy and Bishop in Oriental Code

(This article is Published: cf  Mathew John Puthenparambil, “The Notion of Eparchy and Bishop in Oriental Code”, in Journal of St Thomas Christians, vol. 22, no. 2 (April-June 2011), pp. 40-57)

Introduction

In this article I would like to explain the notions of eparchy and eparchial bishop. The eparchy and eparchial bishop are like two sides of the same coin. There is a certain profound identity between the eparchy and its bishop, which prevents the precedence of one over the other. The eparchy and eparchial bishop constitute one thing.  Eparchial bishop has no existence without an eparchy and eparchy is incomplete without an eparchial bishop.

The first part of this article explains the origin of the term eparchy. The Vatican Council II has defined eparchy. When we analyse this definition we see two important elements. Eparchy is a portion of the People of God and it is entrusted to a bishop to shepherd with the cooperation of priests. The manner of erection of the eparchy, the competent authority to erect, modify and suppress the eparchy are also explained in the first part.  The second part of this article explains the notion of bishops in the Church. There are two types of bishops in the Church, eparchial and titular bishops. Designation of bishops, office of pastoral ministry of bishops, the rights, duties and obligations of eparchial bishops are explained in detail in this second part of this article.

1. 1 Notion of an Eparchy[1]  

Emperor Constantine divided the Empire into four prefectures. These four prefectures were again divided into dioceses, which were subdivided into eparchies. By the year 297 AD, Emperor Diocletian rearranged these divisions. He divided the empire into different dioceses each one of them further divided into numerous provinces, which were called eparchies. Later, in order to indicate the ecclesiastical area of the local Church entrusted to the governance of a bishop, the West adopted the term diocese and the East accepted the term ‘eparchy’[2]. The word ‘eparchy’ comes from two Greek words: epi means over and archia means ruling[3]. The word ‘eparchy’ was used ecclesiastically for the first time in the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. It is very clearly mentioned in canon two of the Council of Constantinople[4]. 

1.     2 Notion of Eparchy in the Vatican Council II

The Vatican Council II defined eparchy in terms of the People of God. It says: “A diocese is a section of the People of God entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy so that, loyal to its pastor and formed by him into one community in the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes one particular church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active”[5]. This definition was drawn up from Dogmatic Constitution on the Church which said about the eparchy as a portion of the People of God assigned to the eparchial bishop, over which he exercises his pastoral office and not over other Churches or the Church universal. Eparchies are constituted after the model of the universal Church. The universal Church exists in eparchies[6].

The Vatican Council II viewed the eparchy as the essential form of the Church, containing and representing the reality of the Church in its entirety-Holy, Catholic, Apostolic-excepting its universality, just as when water is divided, each drop will contain the whole substance of water. The eparchy is 1) A portion of the People of God, 2) Entrusted to the pastoral care of a bishop and his presbyterate. They gather the faithful through the exposition of the Gospel and the celebration of the Eucharist (can. 177 § 1). The faithful are in communion with the universal Church by being in communion with the bishop [7].

1. 3 Notion of Eparchy in the Canonical Legislation

The code gives the definition for the eparchy in the following words: “An eparchy is a portion of the People of God that is entrusted to a bishop to shepherd, with the cooperation of the presbyters, in such a way that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him through the Gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ truly exists and is operative” (can. 177 § 1).

The canon defines eparchy as a “portion of the People of God”, that is, a group of the faithful. These faithful are not considered only as a set of persons bound together by certain common interests, nor even as an association of faithful united by the bond of charity. Common interest and reciprocal charity do not suffice for the constitution of an eparchy; there is something more-the action of the bishop. By an act of the competent ecclesiastical authority, these faithful are entrusted to the pastoral care of an eparchial bishop, assisted by his priests[8]. The bishop gathers the portion of the People of God in the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and the Eucharist. In every eparchy the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative[9]. The eparchy is not a mere administrative division of the universal Church. The role of the eparchial bishop is presented not in terms of his power but of his shepherding or pastoral ministry[10].

1. 4 Constitutive Elements of an Eparchy

1) Eparchy is a portion of the People of God: This is the dominant theological-canonical construction, in light of which the various provisions for intra-ecclesial relationships are formulated. It is to be noted that in the first schema of Christus Dominus the eparchy was defined as pars quaedam dominici gregis which was not liked by the Council Fathers as it might indicate that the particular Church is a quantitative fraction of the universal Church. So the term populi Dei portio was preferred. Thus, the eparchy is a community of the faithful of different categories of faithful such as laity, sacred ministers: deacons, priests and bishops[11] and not a subdivision of the universal Church. The emphasis is on the community of the faithful rather than on the criterion of territory[12], even though it is determinative and the territorial factors such as domicile and quasi-domicile have a bearing on the legal status of believers. The eparchy is established for the full care of the souls of this portion of the faithful[13].

2) Eparchy is entrusted to a bishop to shepherd with the co-operation of the presbyterium. The bishop is the visible principle and foundation of its unity[14]. He has ordinary, proper and immediate power for the exercise of his pastoral ministry[15]. The eparchy is to be nurtured by him with the co-operation of the presbyterium, through the Gospel and the holy Eucharist. Thus the bishop governs and represents the eparchy and acts in the communion of Churches[16]. It is the responsibility of the eparchial bishop to gather the people in Holy Spirit through the proclamation of Gospel and the celebration of the Eucharist. Authority of the bishop in this area is not simply a responsibility entrusted to him, but a fundamental part of his role as eparchial bishop. When the People of God are so gathered and animated, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is truly present and fully active[17].

1. 5 Manner of Erecting an Eparchy

Eparchies are not to be understood as subdivisions of the universal Church bifurcated for the purposes of administrative convenience. In other words the universal Church is not a federal union of eparchies after the model of civil states. It is rather a communion of different eparchies (Corpus Ecclesiarum) in which subsists its configuration and fullness. The relationship between the universal Church and eparchies is a mystery and cannot be compared to that which exists between the whole and the parts in a purely human group or society[18]. Eparchies are erected based on either of the following two factors[19].

Territoriality: As a rule, that portion of the People of God which constitutes an eparchy is to have a specific geographic territory so that it comprises all the faithful who live in that territory. It is the general and primary criterion of division of eparchies[20]. Christians living in a precisely defined area are formed into a community whose spiritual head is the eparchial bishop. Territoriality is not a constitutive element of an eparchy, but a determining element of the portion of the People of God. Territorial dwelling place (domicile or quasi-domicile) determines a person’s pastor and hierarch[21]. Territory is the normal criteria for the distinction of eparchies. However, there is a provision to erect a new eparchy in the same territory since territory alone cannot be considered as the only criterion to distinguish one eparchy from other eparchies[22].

Personality: In addition to territoriality, the eparchy is circumscribed according to one or more personal factors. The criterion of membership in a Church sui iuris[23] is a factor which can be taken into consideration in the formation of an eparchy. An eparchy can be established for a community of faithful belonging to a Church sui iuris, for example, the eparchies of Kalyan, Chicago in USA etc.  An eparchy can be erected also on the basis of language, ethnic group, land of origin etc. An example of eparchy erected on the basis of ethnic group would be the archeparchy of Kottayam which was erected only for the Knanaya Community[24]. Thus the same geographic territory can fall within the jurisdiction of different eparchial bishops like eparchies/dioceses in Kerala[25].

1. 6  Erection, Modification and Suppression of an Eparchy

In every eparchy the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active[26]. Therefore it enjoys certain stability. When we erect a new eparchy we are creating a new Church. Therefore eparchies are erected only for a serious reason. The patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops is competent to erect an eparchy within the territorial boundaries of his Church[27]. Prior to the erection of an eparchy he should have consulted the Apostolic See. Viability of the community, personnel and financial resources are to be taken into consideration when a new eparchy is erected[28]. If there are faithful belonging to his Church sui iuris living outside the proper territory, he can only propose to the Apostolic See to erect an eparchy for those faithful.

Patriarch after having obtained the consent of the synod of bishops and after consulting the Apostolic See can modify an eparchy. Modification of an eparchy can be done in two ways. It can be done by changing the boundaries or changing the hierarchical status i.e., elevating en eparchy into an archeparchy. Outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarch, only the Apostolic See is competent to   modify an eparchy[29].

In a similar way the patriarch has the right to suppress an eparchy inside the territorial boundaries of his Church after getting the consent of the synod of bishops. He cannot suppress an eparchy without consulting the Apostolic See even if he has obtained the consent of synod of Bishops. Suppression of an eparchy is to be done only for serious reasons[30]. Only the Apostolic See can suppress an eparchy outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.

 1. 7 Intervention of the Roman Pontiff in an Eparchy

Conflicts between bishops and the Apostolic See are not a recent phenomenon in the Church. The reasons for the disputes and the form and frequency of papal interventions have differed greatly. Rome had conflicts with Cyprian, Arian and many other bishops in the past[31]. The Roman Pontiff can intervene directly and immediately in any eparchy without recourse to any juridical process, and his decision is subject to further review by no one, not even an ecumenical council. From the definition of papal primacy in Vatican Council I, it follows, from a canonical point of view at least, that the Roman Pontiff can appoint, transfer, restrict, suspend, or excommunicate any bishop[32]. Likewise he is free to conduct an apostolic visit in any eparchy.

2. 1 Notion of Bishops

There are two types of bishops in the Catholic Church. They are eparchial bishops and titular bishops. All those bishops to whom eparchies are entrusted for the governance are called eparchial bishops and other bishops (to whom an eparchy has not been entrusted) are called titular bishops[33].

2. 2 Notion of Eparchial Bishops

The canon very clearly describes the notion of an eparchial bishop. “The eparchial bishop, to whom the eparchy has been entrusted to shepherd in his own name, governs it as the vicar and legate of Christ; the power which he exercises personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although by the supreme authority of the Church its exercise is ultimately regulated and can be circumscribed within certain limits in view of the benefit of the Church or of the Christian faithful” (can. 178). This canon has direct reference to Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium no. 27) and Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church (Christus Dominus no. 8). The canon emphasizes by using the phrases vicar and legate of Christ (can. 178)[34] that eparchial bishop functions not as the representative of the Roman Pontiff but as the representative of Christ. He is the chief shepherd of the eparchy. He has to shepherd the people entrusted to him by his example of personal holiness, simplicity of life, charity, humility, his pastoral solicitude etc. His power of governance is exercised in three sphere of activity i.e., legislative, executive and judicial.  

By divine right, the eparchial bishops as the successors of the Apostles enjoy proper, ordinary and immediate powers which are necessary to govern the eparchy[35]. Proper power means in so far as the bishop exercises the authority in his own name by virtue of his office as successor of Apostles, not as a representative of Roman Pontiff. Ordinary power is that power which is attached to an office by law itself[36]. The office of bishop is of divine law itself and the power flowing from episcopacy is ordinary[37]. Immediate Power means bishop exercises his power on behalf of the faithful entrusted to his care without any intermediary[38]. The power of eparchial bishop can be restricted by the Roman Pontiff to himself or to some other authority like patriarch, major archbishop or metropolitan[39]. For example, dispensation from the canonical form for the celebration of marriage is reserved to the patriarch inside the proper territory of his Church sui iuris or to the Apostolic See (can. 835). The former law, Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati, reserved many powers to the Roman Pontiff and the eparchial bishop acted in many cases only in virtue of the faculties delegated to him. The present arrangement reflects the post-conciliar documents which accorded broad powers to the eparchial bishops[40].

2. 3 Notion of Titular Bishops

We have seen that titular bishops are those bishops to whom eparchies have not been entrusted for the pastoral care. There are different kinds of titular bishops. Some titular bishops assist the eparchial bishop as coadjutor or auxiliary bishops; others are in no way directly related to an eparchy like papal legates, bishops of patriarchal curia, bishops of Roman Curia, retired bishops etc. In the past all titular bishops were given titles of eparchies in the middle east and which were once residential Sees[41]. They were called titular as they had been given the title (name) of a once existing eparchy[42].

The titular bishop can hold any office in the Church except the office of an eparchial bishop. He does not govern an eparchy as vicar and legate of Christ with proper power. The munus pastorale does not belong to a titular bishop properly[43].  The code has given a negative definition to the titular bishop. It says: “Bishops to whom no eparchy has been entrusted for governance in their own name, no matter what other function they exercise or have exercised in the name of the Church, are called titular bishops” (can. 179). The appointment of titular bishops is up to the Apostolic See or synod of bishops in the case of patriarchal Church[44]. All titular bishops except those who are already resigned from office also have serious obligation to attend the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church (can. 104 § 1). The following are the five types of titular bishops.

Coadjutor Bishops: When circumstances so suggest, patriarch with consent of synod of bishops may appoint a coadjutor bishop in any of the eparchies inside the proper territory of his Church sui iuris. Patriarch cannot appoint a coadjutor bishop in his eparchy. A coadjutor bishop has the right to succession to the eparchial bishop to whom he is assigned. “In more serious circumstances, even of a personal nature, a coadjutor bishop can be appointed ex officio with the right of succession and endowed with special powers” (can. 212 § 2). Coadjutor bishop is appointed in the cases where the eparchial bishop suffers from personal limitations, such as age, sickness etc[45]. Their rights and duties are given in canons and in their letter of appointment. The coadjutor bishop does not become eparchial bishop immediately when an eparchy becomes vacant[46]. When the eparchial See is vacant he becomes the eparchial administrator automatically and he becomes eparchial bishop only after the enthronement (cann. 189 & 222)[47]. If there is a coadjutor bishop in an eparchy, the eparchial bishop is obliged to appoint him as protosyncellus (can. 215 § 1).

Auxiliary Bishops: At the request of the eparchial bishop one or more auxiliary bishops can be appointed to assist him in the pastoral work of the eparchy (can. 212 § 1). Auxiliary bishop is the principal co-worker of the eparchial bishop and he is appointed when the size of the eparchy or the number of faithful are too large for the eparchial bishop to minister alone adequately[48]. The right and obligations of the auxiliary bishops are formulated in the common law (can. 213 § 3)[49]. When there is only one auxiliary bishop in an eparchy he is to be appointed as protosyncellus and when there are two or more auxiliary bishops one is to be appointed as protosyncellus and others as syncelli (can. 215 § 2).

Bishops of the Patriarchal Curia: The code makes the provision for the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Churches to appoint maximum number of three bishops to assist patriarch in the administration of the affairs of his Church[50]. Provision is to be made for their support by the patriarch and synod of bishops[51]. “The patriarch can see that certain bishops, though not more than three, are elected for the patriarchal curia by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church according to the norms of cann. 181 § 1 and 182-187 as long as provision is made for their support; he confers on them an office with a residence in the patriarchal curia….” (can. 87).

Bishops of the Roman Curia, Nuncios etc.: Roman Pontiff may appoint some bishops in Roman Curia as prefect of a Congregation, secretary etc. He may also appoint certain bishops as nuncio in various countries. All those bishops also come under the category of titular bishops.

Resigned and Retired Bishops: Bishops who completed the age of seventy-five or who are having poor health are requested to submit their resignation from office (can. 210). A bishop who was an eparchial bishop of a particular eparchy holds the title of bishop emeritus of that particular eparchy (can. 211 § 1). An auxiliary bishop or coadjutor bishop who has resigned from the office also holds the title of emeritus of the office they previously carried out (can. 218).

2. 4 Designation of Bishops

Designation of bishops in the Church is very important. It includes several distinct steps like papal approval of the candidates, election of the bishop inside the territorial boundary, appointment of the bishop outside the proper territory of the patriarchal Church by Roman Pontiff etc.

2. 5 Election of Bishops[52] and Canonical Provision

It is the exclusive right of the members of the synod of the bishops of patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church to propose candidates to the episcopacy (can. 182 § 1).  They will have to collect the information and documents that are necessary to demonstrate the suitability of the candidate. Qualifications for a bishop are mentioned in can. 180. Six qualities are narrated in the canon. 1) The virtues of solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls and prudence are quite general, but can be considered as fundamental to any consideration of a man for the episcopate. 2) In so far as the notion of legitimacy of birth is not included in the Code, it is not mentioned as a requirement for the episcopate; the code has added the requirement of a good reputation[53]. 3) An episcopal candidate cannot be bound by any marriage bond. Thus, a widower or one who has had his marriage annulled can be admitted to the episcopate. 4) The minimum age to become a bishop is thirty-five. In Cleri sanctitati the required age for the candidate of episcopacy was thirty (CS can. 394 § 1). According to the suggestion of the Study Group the age was raised to thirty-five in the code[54]. The patriarch could conceivably dispense from this age requirement[55].  5) The candidate must have been ordained to the priesthood for at least five years. This requirement is based upon the need for a certain amount of pastoral experience prior to assuming the responsibility of the episcopate. Patriarch has the right to grant dispensation from this norm also.  6) To be suitable for the episcopate the candidate must possess a doctorate or master’s degree in sacred science or at least have expertise in some sacred science[56].

If a bishop considers it necessary he may consult with priests and other christian faithful who are outstanding in prudence and christian life to know their opinions about the candidate (can. 182 § 1). Then he will have to inform the patriarch of his finding before the convocation of the synod of bishops. If the patriarch, after adding his own opinion, deems it appropriate, he sends the proposal to the members of the synod (can. 182 § 2). Synod of bishops will have to prepare a list of candidates by secret ballot and the patriarch shall submit the list of the candidates to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff (can. 182 § 3). The code does not fix any minimum or maximum number of names that may be presented to Roman Pontiff for his assent[57]. Once the assent of the Roman Pontiff is obtained it is valid until it is revoked explicitly (can. 182 § 4). The revocation can be done by Apostolic See itself or on the request of the synod of bishops[58].

For an election of a bishop, two-third of the members of the synod are obliged to attend the synod which is validly convoked (can. 183 § 1). Bishops are free to elect one candidate whom they consider worthy and suitable before all others (can. 183 § 2). There is no obligation for bishops to elect only those candidates who are already approved by Roman Pontiff[59]. In the election of a bishop for a specific office, an absolute majority (more than half) is required in the first three ballots (can. 183 § 3). If there is a tie between the candidates in the third ballot, the senior according to the priestly ordination is to be declared elected. If both of them are ordained on the same day, the senior in age is to be declared elected (can. 183 § 4). If nobody has got absolute majority or tie in the third ballot, the fourth ballot is done between those two candidates who received the greater number of votes in the third balloting (can. 183 § 3). If there is a tie between the candidates in the fourth ballot, the senior according to the priestly ordination is to be declared elected. If both of them are ordained on the same day, the senior in age is to be declared elected (can. 183 § 4). 

If the one elected has already received the assent of the Roman Pontiff and accepts the election, the Apostolic See is to be notified of the election and the day of proclamation (can. 184). If the one elected has not received the assent of the Roman Pontiff, the patriarch is to seek the assent from the Roman Pontiff (can. 185 § 1) and the result of the election cannot be published before getting the assent of the Roman Pontiff[60]. In all cases, without getting the assent of the Roman Pontiff, patriarch or major archbishop cannot ask the consent of the one already elected[61].

The procedure for episcopal election by letter is possible if the synod of bishops cannot be convened. The patriarch assisted by two bishops who function as tellers could conduct the election by correspondence but patriarch has to consult the Apostolic See (can. 186 § 1).

To exercise an ecclesiastical office one requires canonical provision. No ecclesiastical office can be acquired validly without canonical provision. Therefore, patriarch is to issue the letter of canonical provision to the bishop elect within ten days of the proclamation of the election (can. 86 § 3).

2. 6 Appointment of Bishops by Roman Pontiff

In the case of appointing an eparchial, coadjutor or auxiliary bishop outside the territorial boundary of the patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church, the synod of bishops, observing the procedures for the election of bishops inside the territorial boundary, elects at least three candidates and proposes them through the patriarch or major archbishop to the Roman Pontiff for the appointment (can. 149)[62]. The decision of the Roman Pontiff is communicated to the patriarch[63]. It is to be noted that Roman Pontiff is not bound to choose one of the presented candidates for the appointment[64]. The list of candidates (terna) sent to the Roman Pontiff is to be kept very secret till the Roman Pontiff appoints one as he has the freedom to appoint anyone outside the terna as bishop[65]. In all other Churches other than patriarchal and major archiepiscopal Churches bishops are appointed by Roman Pontiff[66].

2. 7 Profession of Faith and Promise of Obedience

Prior to the episcopal ordination the candidate is to make a profession of faith and a promise of obedience to the Roman Pontiff and to the patriarch or major archbishop. “Before episcopal ordination the candidate is to make the profession of faith and promise of obedience to the Roman Pontiff and, in patriarchal Churches, also a promise of obedience to patriarch in those matters in which he is subject to the patriarch in accord with the norm of law” (can. 187 § 2). Making a promise of obedience to the Roman Pontiff is a sign of full communion with the catholic Church and therefore the episcopal candidate is obliged to make this profession of faith. A bishop who belongs to the patriarchal Church is bound to make a promise of obedience to the patriarch in those matters in which he is subject to the patriarch according to the norm of law. Every bishop is obliged to obey those laws and directives which common law determines as having binding force over him. For example, liturgical laws of the patriarchal Church have the force of law everywhere in the world (can. 140 § 2). Therefore all the bishops including the bishops outside the territorial boundary are obliged to observe them.  

Bishops who do not belong to patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church are obliged to make a promise of obedience only to the Roman Pontiff and there is no obligation for them to make a promise of obedience to the head of their sui iuris Church[67].

2. 8 Episcopal Ordination

Canon 25 of the Council of Chalcedon held in the year 451 states that the person elected to the episcopate must be ordained bishop within three months of the election unless the period of delay has been caused to be extended by some unavoidable necessity[68]. He has to take canonical possession of the eparchy within another three months. Within six months from the day of proclamation one had to take possession of an eparchy.  If a particular candidate did not receive the episcopal ordination or report to the eparchy within the required time, the patriarch may deprive him of his office[69].

The code makes it clear now that a priest promoted to the episcopacy must receive episcopal ordination within three months from the day of proclamation if it is a case of election or from the receipt of apostolic letter if it is a case of appointment (can. 188 § 1). Within four months from the day of episcopal election or appointment bishop has to take canonical possession of the eparchy (can. 188 § 2). If the bishop elect is detained by a legitimate impediment, he is dispensed from the requirement ipso iure. For example, if the bishop elect is admitted to a hospital, the tempus utile is suspended and begins to run the day he is able to exercise his right[70].

Episcopal ordination is conferred by three bishops except in the case of extreme necessity. The second and third bishops can be of other Church sui iuris other than that of the principal minister if two bishops from the same Church cannot be present (can. 746 § 2). One elected or appointed as bishop must receive episcopal ordination from Roman Pontiff, patriarch, metropolitan or a bishop designated by patriarch or major archbishop (cann. 86 § 1, 2° and 159, 1°). Any other bishop is forbidden to confer episcopal ordination without a lawful mandate (can. 745).

2.     9 Enthronement of Eparchial Bishops  

The manner in which the ordained bishop is to assume the governance of an eparchy is determined in can. 189. The code retains the liturgical act of enthronement as the means by which the bishop takes canonical possession of the eparchy. During the time of drafting of the canon there was a proposal to eliminate the use of the term ‘enthronement’ as it is inappropriate for modern usage. But the proposal was rejected as the term confirms to the liturgical books of many Churches sui iuris[71]. The letter of canonical provision conferred by the Roman Pontiff or patriarch must be publicly read out during the liturgical ceremony (can. 189 § 1). A record of the enthronement is to be drawn up by the chancellor and it is to be signed by eparchial bishop, chancellor of the curia and at least two witnesses. It is to be preserved in the archive of the eparchial curia (can. 189 § 2). The bishop cannot involve in the governance of the eparchy, either personally or through others, unless and until he takes canonical possession through enthronement. Canon does not prohibit to retain and exercise his office in the eparchy that he was holding at the time of his appointment (can. 183 § 3). 

There is no liturgical celebration for taking procession of the office of co-adjutor and auxiliary bishops. Co-adjutor bishop is obliged to present his letter of canonical provision to the eparchial bishop and to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor. Auxiliary bishop need not present his letter of canonical provision to the college of consultors, but only to the eparchial bishop in the presence of the chancellor (can. 214).

Conclusion

Eparchy and bishop are closely connected to each other as both have no existence separately. An eparchy whether it is territorial or personal is entrusted to an eparchial bishop for the governance. He governs the eparchy not as the representative or delegate of Roman Pontiff, but as the vicar and emissary of Christ. For this reason his authority and power in the eparchy cannot undergo any limitation except reserved to the Roman Pontiff or to patriarch. Roman Pontiff freely nominates and appoints bishops in universal Church normally. If it is a patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church, synod of bishops elects bishops for the eparchies within the territorial boundaries of the Church with the approval of the Roman Pontiff. If there is a pastoral need there can be a coadjutor or auxiliary bishops to assist the eparchial bishop. For the purpose of pastoral governance the eparchy is divided into various parishes based on territory, language, rite etc. and entrusted to pastors.                                                                           

---

[1] Diocese is the equivalent term for eparchy in Latin Code.

[2] Luigi Sabbarese, “De Eparchiis et de Episcopis”, in Pio Vito Pinto (ed.), Commento al codice del canoni delle Chiese orientali, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2001, p. 163. 

[3] Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, 2^nd revised edition, New York, Saint Maron Publications, 1996, p. 206.

[4] Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Washington, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, p. 31.  

[5] Vatican Council II, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, Christus Dominus, 28 October 1965, no. 11, in AAS, 58 (1966), p. 677; English translation in Austin Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, Bombay, St Paul Publications, 1997, p. 509

[6] Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, no. 23, in AAS, 57 (1965), p. 27; English translation in Austin Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, Bombay, St Paul Publications, 1997, p. 342.

[7] Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, p. 206.

[8] Marco Brogi, “Eparchies and Bishops”, in George Nedungatt (ed.), A Guide to the Eastern Code: A Commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Rome, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2002, p. 228.

[9] Joseph W. Pokusa, “Dioceses, Parishes, Pastors, and Pastoral Care”, in The Jurist, 67 (2007), p. 159.

[10] John A. Renken, “Particular Churches and Their Groupings”, in John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 2003, p. 507.

[11] Gianfranco Ghirlanda, “La chiesa particolare: natura e tipologia”, in Monitor ecclesiasticus, 115 (1990), p. 558. 

[12] José Luis Gutiérrez, “Personal Prelatures”, in Ernest Caparros and Hélène Aubé (eds), Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2^nd edition, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, 2004, p. 315.

[13] De Rose Andrew, The Church as Communion in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, Rome, Pontificia Università Urbaniana, 1995, p. 17.

[14] Joseph Kaduppil, “Eparchy: A Theologico-Canonical Reality”, in Christian Orient, 25 (2004), p. 115.

[15] James K. Mallett, “Diocesan Structure and Governance”, in CLSA Proceedings, 42 (1980), p. 152.

[16] Marco Brogi, “Norms on Eparchies and Bishops”, in Jose Chiramel and Kuriakose Bharanikulangara (eds), The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: A Study and Interpretation, Alwaye, St Thomas Academy for Research, 1993, pp. 108-109.

[17] Gerard Sheehy et al. (eds), The Canon Law: Letter & Spirit, London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1995, p. 210. 

[18] Sebastian Karambai, Structures of Decision-Making in the Local Church, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 2001, p. 20.

[19] Luigi Sabbarese, La constituzione gerarchica della Chiesa universale e particolare, Città del Vaticano, Urbaniana University Press, 1999, p. 59.

[20] Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Governance Structures within the Catholic Church, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, 2000, p. 179.

[21] Renken, “Particular Churches and Their Groupings”, p. 509.

[22] James Arampulickal, The Pastoral Care of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Migrants, Rome, Pontificia Università Urbaniana, 1993, p. 30.

[23] The term Church sui iuris is explained in can. 27 of CCEO. It says: “A community of Christian faithful, which is joined together by a hierarchy according to the norm of law and which is expressly or tacitly recognized as sui iuris by the supreme authority of the Church, is called in this code a Church sui iuris”.

[24] Pius X, Apostolic Letter, In Universi christiani, 29 August 1911, in Directory 2005: Archeparchy of Kottayam, Kottayam, The Archeparchial Curia, 2005, pp. 30-31.

[25] H. G. Bowen, “Diocese (Eparchy)”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967, p. 871.

[26] Christus Dominus 11.

[27] George Nedungatt, “The Patriarchal Ministry in the Church of the Third Millennium”, in The Jurist, 61 (2001), p. 24.

[28] John D. Faris, The Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, New York, Saint Maron Publications, 1992, p. 405.  

[29] Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, p. 206.

[30] Kaduppil, “Eparchy: A Theologico-Canonical Reality”, p. 129.

[31] Patrick Granfield, “The Church Local and Universal: Realization of Communion”, in The Jurist, 49 (1989), p. 467.

[32] Karl Rahner, The Episcopate and the Primacy, New York, Herder and Herder, 1962, pp. 34-35.

[33] Sabbarese, “De Eparchiis et de Episcopis”,  p. 229.  

[34] Lumen gentium 27.

[35] Thomas J. Green, “The Pastoral Governance Role of the Diocesan Bishop: Foundations, Scope and Limitations”, in The Jurist, 49 (1989), p. 482.

[36] R. A. Kearney, The Principles of Delegation, Washington, The Catholic University of America, 1929, p. 50.

[37] Velasius De Paolis, “De significatione verborum iurisdictio ordinaria, delegata, mandata, vicaria’’, in Periodica, 54 (1965), p. 514.

[38] Arrieta, Governance Structures within the Catholic Church, p. 207.

[39] Christus Dominus 8.

[40] Paul VI, Apostolic Letter, Episcopalis potestatis, 2 May 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 385-390.

[41] Thomas Pazhayampallil, Pastoral Guide, vol. 3, 3^rd edition, Bangalore, Kristu Jyoti Publications, 2004, p. 591. 

[42] Myriam Wijlens, “Bishops and Their Relationship to a Local Church: A Canonical Perspective”, in The Jurist, 66 (2006), pp. 230-231.

[43]  Ibid., p. 230.

[44] Thomas C. Anslow, “Titular Bishops as an Institution according to the Annuario Pontificio”, in The Jurist, 58 (1998), p. 125.

[45]  Arrieta, Governance Structures within the Catholic Church, p. 211.

[46] The coadjutor bishop, if he has already taken possession of his office, automatically becomes the diocesan bishop when diocese becomes vacant in Latin Church, according to can. 409 § 1 of CIC 1983.

[47] Thomas J. Green, “Diocesan and Parish Structures: A Comparison of Selected Canons in the Codex Iuris Canonici and Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”, in Studia canonica, 33 (1999), p. 373.

[48] Michael Smith Foster, “The Role of Auxiliary Bishops”, in The Jurist, 51 (1991), p. 424; Christus Dominus 25-26.

[49] Nothing is mentioned in the code of an auxiliary bishop being endowed with any special rights or obligations. Canon 403 § 2 of CIC 1983 indicates that an auxiliary bishop can be endowed with special faculties.

[50]  Francis Elavathingal, Patriarchal and Major Archiepiscopal Curias in the Eastern Catholic Legislations Based on CCEO Canons 114-125, Rome, Pontificium Institutum Orientale, 2002, pp. 9-10;  Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, p. 208.

[51] George Nedungatt, “Bishops of the Patriarchal Curia and Their Appointment”, in Eastern Legal Thought, 5 (2006), p. 29. 

[52] The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops in Latin Church except in a few dioceses in Germany, Austria and Switzerland where the chapters of canons elect episcopal candidates and their election is confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. Also, the president of the French Republic has the right to designate the bishops of Strasbourg and Metz. See René Metz, “Papal Legates and the Appointment of Bishops”, in The Jurist, 52 (1992), pp. 259-284.

[53] Nuntia, 27 (1988), pp. 9-10 and 16; Faris, The Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, p. 417.

[54] Nuntia, 9 (1979), p. 8; Nuntia, 19 (1984), p. 53.

[55] Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, p. 209.

[56] Nuntia, 9 (1979), p. 8; Faris, The Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, p. 418.

[57] Marco Brogi, “Characteristics of the Eparchial Structure in the New Law for the Oriental Churches”, in Clarence Gallagher (ed.), The Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, Rome, Mar Thoma Yogam, 1991, p. 61.

[58] Joseph Khoury, “La scelta dei vescovi nel Codice dei canoni dei delle Chiese Orientali”, in Apollinaris, 65 (1992), p. 87.

[59] Nuntia, 9 (1979), p. 10.

[60] Jose Chiramel, “Synodal System: The Eastern Way of Church Government”, in Tanima, 2 (1994), p. 25.

[61] Brogi, “Norms on Eparchies and Bishops”, p. 111.

[62] Nuntia, 2 (1976), p. 44.

[63] Francis John Marini, The Power of the Patriarch, New York, Saint Maron Publications, 1998, p. 219.

[64] Marco Brogi, “Nomine vescovili nelle Chiese orientali cattoliche”, in Kanon, 7 (1985), p. 130; John D. Faris, “The Synod of Bishops and Council of Hierarchs in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches”, in Studies in Church Law, 2 (2006), p. 140.

[65] Marini, The Power of the Patriarch, p. 220. 

[66] Nuntia, 23 (1986), pp. 9-10.

[67] Faris, The Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, p. 430.

[68] Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 98.

[69] Faris, The Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, pp. 430-431. 

[70] Sabbarese, “De Eparchiis et de Episcopis”, p. 175. 

[71] Nuntia, 23 (1986), p. 16.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              3

                                                                                                         

                            The Office of the Chancellor

    

(This article is Published: cf. Mathew John Puthenparambil, "The office of the Chancellor", in Ephrem’s Theological Journal, vol. 15 (March, 2011), pp. 55-64)  

Introduction  

The office of the chancellor is one of the mandatory offices in every eparchy. In order to be appointed to the office of chancellor of an eparchy, the person must be either a priest or a deacon. In Latin Church, a lay person could be appointed as the Chancellor of the diocese.  The primary function of the chancellor is to maintain the eparchial curial records.    

1. Origin and Appointment of Chancellor

The word ‘chancellor’ comes from the Latin term cancellarius which means doorkeeper.  In the ancient Roman world the cancellarius was the doorkeeper at the grill of the Roman law court who eventually assumed the duties of secretary to the magistrate. Bishop’s chancery was developed in the twelfth century and in the course of time chancellor became the responsible person for signing and preserving the letters of the bishop. After the Council of Trent chancellor was recognized as the principal notary of the bishop and as such the authenticator of legitimate documents. He also became the custodian of eparchial archives. The office of the chancellor was incorporated into legislation for the first time in 1917 code[1]. Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati also retained the office of chancellor (CS can. 439).

The canon says: “In the eparchial curia, a chancellor is to be appointed who is to be a presbyter or a deacon. His principal obligation, unless established otherwise by particular law, is to see that the acts of the curia are drawn up and dispatched, and that they are conserved in the archives of the eparchial curia” (can. 252 § 1). Office of the chancellor is mandatory in the eparchial curia. Eparchial bishop is obliged to appoint a chancellor. Appointment of the chancellor could be for a definite or indefinite period of time[2].

2. Vice-chancellor

When it is necessary a vice-chancellor could be appointed to help chancellor. “If it is deemed necessary, the chancellor may be given an assistant, who is to be called vice-chancellor” (can. 252 § 2). Whatever is said in common law regarding chancellor is applicable to the vice- chancellor.

3. Qualifications of Chancellor

There is not much expressly stated in law other than that the chancellor must be a priest or a deacon. The law says: “In the eparchial curia, a chancellor is to be appointed who is to be a presbyter or a deacon….” (can. 252 § 1). Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati did not allow a deacon to be appointed chancellor. It says: “In every curia the bishop shall appoint a chancellor, who must be a priest, …”(CS can. 439 § 1).

Chancellors and notaries, according to can. 253 § 2, are to be of unblemished reputation and above all suspicion. This qualification seems to be a very important requisite for a chancellor’s appointment because from the very nature of his position as a testis qualificatus for the authentication of the documents, the affixing of his signature to a written act or instrument makes it acceptable for the furnishing of full proof in the ecclesiastical forum[3]. If they are not persons of good character they can manipulate in the curia as they are officials who declare the authenticity of juridical documents[4]. Another quality that appears to be needed for the chancellor from the nature of his office is that he must have the characteristic of being neat and systematic[5]. The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops issued by the Congregation for Bishops in 2004, speaks of another quality that chancellor must have canonical ability and experience in management of administrative affairs[6]. He must be a person who can keep secrecy as he often works with curial documents that may deal with subject matter of a secret nature[7].

In cases involving the reputation of a cleric[8], the notary must be a priest (can. 253 § 2).  Therefore, notaries who are not priests cannot deal in cases of a deacon, priest and bishop. Such cases include the removal or transfer of a pastor, a laicization process for a cleric, imposition of penalty on a cleric etc[9].

4.  Responsibilities of Chancellor

The principal duty of the chancellor is to gather, arrange, conserve the documents in the eparchial curia and dispatch them when it is required (can. 252 § 1). All these responsibilities are to be done in a systematic way. There are various departments and heads in the eparchial curia. It is the duty of the chancellor to collect all the documents in order to arrange and safeguard them in the curia. It is preferable that the chancellor is a qualified person in arranging the documents in a systematic way, like registering the document with individual identifying number, preparing the inventory etc[10]. 

The canon omits the former legislation “to arrange them in chronological order, and to make an index of the same” (CS can. 439 § 1) in the present legislation. In many cases such a systematic arrangement according to the chronological order may be imprudent and it may not be the most efficient system today[11].

The canon does not prescribe which ‘acts of the curia’ are to be drawn up and preserved in the archive (can. 252 § 1). Some other canons in the code give guidance in this regard. For example, can. 774 § 1 states that documents relating to ordination are to be recorded in a special book to be kept in the archive of the eparchial curia. After the consecration of a church, a document is to be drawn up for the preservation in the archive of the eparchial curia (can. 871 § 2). Upon the completion of the enthronement, a document is to be drawn up and signed by the eparchial bishop along with the chancellor and at least two witnesses and it is to be preserved in the eparchial curia (can. 189 § 2). From these examples we indirectly understand some of the acts of the curia[12]. The code gives the provision to make particular laws with regard to the additional duties of the chancellor, if required (can. 252 § 1). If particular laws are not enacted in a particular Church sui iuris, the chancellor has no other duties other than specified in common law[13].

When the eparchial bishop issues decrees or documents, it is the duty of the chancellor to countersign it as a legal witness to the bishop’s signature. In the same manner, the chancellor should countersign the appointments done by the eparchial bishop. In general, any decree that comes from the eparchial bishop is to be countersigned by the chancellor[14].

4. 1 Chancellor and Vice-chancellor as Notaries

Chancellor and vice-chancellor are ipso iure notaries of the curia and no special letter of appointment is needed for the appointment to that office. “The chancellor as well as the vice-chancellor are by virtue of the law itself notaries of the eparchial curia” (can. 252 § 3)[15]. 

Duties of Notary: Duties of the notaries are given in can. 254. It prescribes three duties.

i) It is the responsibility of the notaries to prepare documents related to decrees, decisions or other acts of the curia. Such documents are considered public ecclesiastical documents and enjoy the accompanying juridic effect (can. 254, 1°).

ii) They have to prepare faithfully the minutes of the meetings or record the events that took place in the eparchial curia. The document is to be signed with day, month and year. Notary’s signature on such a document authenticates it[16]. Certain judicial procedures require the signature of the notary for validity (can. 1101 § 1). 

iii) They have to furnish acts or documents to those who legitimately request them, and declare copies made of them to confirm to the original (can. 1101 § 1). Notaries are authorized to show to those who legitimately request the documents. Interested parties have the right to obtain an authentic copy of documents, personally or by proxy, which are by their very nature public and that concern their own personal status (can. 257 § 2). The chancellor and notaries are forbidden, without the permission of the judge, to furnish a copy of the juridical acts and documents that have been acquired for the process (can. 1133 § 2).

5. Categories of Archives

In terms of function, we see three types of archives. They are general archive, historical archive and secret archive[17]. The code does not speak of historical archives[18]. Every eparchial curia should have a general archive as well as a secret archive. The archives must be well protected from the attack of insects and natural phenomenon like moisture, direct sunlight etc.

5. 1 General Archive

 In view of protecting the archives, the access to the archives is restricted. The archive is to be locked and only two persons- eparchial bishop and chancellor- can hold the keys to the archive. No one can enter into the archive without the permission of eparchial bishop or the permission of protosyncellus[19] along with the chancellor. The canon says: “The archive of the eparchial curia is to be locked and the key kept by the eparchial bishop and the chancellor; no one is permitted to enter it without the permission of the eparchial bishop alone or the protosyncellus along with the chancellor” (can. 257 § 1).

Persons enjoy the right to obtain authentic copies of documents from the archives which are by their nature public and regard their personal status. Public documents are documents such as certificates of baptism, Chrismation, marriage, ordination, letters of appointment etc. The interested party can make the request either personally or through a proxy for such kind of documents from the archive[20]. The document may be in the form of an authentic written copy or a photocopy. The document in question must be public by nature and pertain to the individual’s own status[21]. We read in the code: “Interested parties have the right to receive, personally or by proxy, an authentic copy of the documents that are of the nature public and that concern their own personal status” (can. 257 § 2).

Documents to be Kept in the General Archive: The canon describes the contents of the archive very generally as “documents pertaining to the affairs of the eparchy” (can. 256 § 1).  A few canons specify certain documents and records which must be maintained. For example, the special book in which the names of those ordained, name of ordaining bishop, place and date of the sacred ordination are recorded is to be kept in the archive (can. 774 § 1). A document is to be drawn up regarding the consecration or blessing of the cathedral church and other churches and it is to be preserved in the archive (can. 871§ 2). There is an obligation to keep a copy of the document of foundation in the archive (can. 1055). Administrators of temporal goods must maintain an inventory of property, updating it as needed, a copy of which they are to preserve in the eparchial archive (can. 1028, 8°).

The authority who admits a candidate for sacred ordination should obtain certain documents like written declaration of the candidate before the reception of the sacred order that he freely receives the Holy Order (can. 761), certificate of baptism and Chrismation with holy myron (can. 769, 1°), written consent of the wife if the candidate is married (can. 769, 2°), certificates of completed studies (can. 769, 3°), conduct certificate from the rector/superior (can. 769, 4°), testimonial letter of the parish priest of the parish where the name of the candidate to the ordination was made known (can. 771 § 1), etc. All these documents are to be preserved in general archive (can. 769 § 2).

The following records are also to be preserved in the archive: Record of consecration and canonical possession of eparchial bishop, canonical possession of Apostolic administrator, minutes of the election of the eparchial administrator, record of the pastoral visitation of the eparchial bishop, quinquennial report of the bishop, report of eparchial synod, appointment of curial members, appointment of members of the college of consultors, appointment of finance officer and finance council members, appointment of priests, directors of various apostolates, erection of a seminary, erection of a parish, erection of religious houses, permission for building a church, permission for alienation of the property, blessing of a cemetery, etc[22]. 

Files of clerics should contain academic records, record of ordination, letters of assignment, funeral directives, last will, photographs, special award or letters of achievement, etc. Files of ascription and licit transfer of priests, resigned, laicized or went on leave of absence are also to be preserved in the archive[23]. 

Pope John Paul II says that the historical patrimony is to be kept in archives or also in libraries and everywhere entrusted to competent curators lest testimonies of this kind be lost[24]

Documents can be removed from the archive only for a short time. Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati gave three days time to keep it back in the archive the document that was taken out. Unless there is a real necessity it shall not be taken out. In order to remove a document one needs to get permission either from eparchial bishop or from protosyncellus along with chancellor. Canon says: “It is not permitted to remove documents from the archive of the eparchial curia except for a brief time and with the permission either of the eparchial bishop alone or the protosyncellus along with the chancellor” (can. 258). General permission can be given to a person who needs to obtain certain documents regularly.

5. 2 Secret Archive

Every eparchial curia will have certain documents which must be preserved separately with utmost care either because of the nature of the document or because it is prescribed by common law. While the principle is not expressly enunciated, we can recognize in the canons on secret archives a means of protecting a person’s reputation and right to privacy. Therefore it is the obligation of the eparchial bishop to have a secret archive in the curia for this purpose[25]. A distinct secret archive may be located in the curia, or there may be a secret safe within the general archive. This archive must be completely closed, locked and it should be one that cannot be removed easily[26].  

Key to Secret Archive: Unlike the general archive, the secret archive shall have only one key. Only the eparchial bishop can have the key to the secret archive and only he can enter into the secret archive. Eparchial bishop may dispense from this law (can. 1538 § 1) and he may give key to his protosyncellus or chancellor so that when it is very necessary, protosyncellus or chancellor may enter into the secret archive in his absence to see the document for a legitimate reason[27]. When see is vacant the eparchial administrator is to hold the key and he shall not open it except in a case of true necessity (can. 260 § 2). It is forbidden for the eparchial administrator to remove, destroy or alter documents of the archive when see is vacant[28]. 

Documents Kept in Secret Archive: The common law prescribes that certain documents are to be preserved always in secret archive. Penal procedures involving a question of morals: Till ten years, description of the case and the definitive sentence are to be kept in secret archive for ten years. After ten years, only a summary of the case and the definitive sentence are to be retained in the archive (can. 259 § 2). The common law says that unless there is a contrary determination in a rescript of the Apostolic See or of the patriarch or of local hierarch within the limits of their competency, a dispensation granted in the internal non-sacramental forum is to be preserved in the secret archive (can. 799). The special marriage register in which marriages that are secretly celebrated are recorded is to be kept in the secret archive (can. 840 § 3). The acts of the investigation, the decrees of the hierarch who initiated and concluded the investigation, and everything that preceded the investigation are also to be kept in the secret archive if they are not required for the procedure for imposing penalties (can. 1470).

Though it is not obligatory, there are various places in the code where it may be presumed that secret archive is to be made use to keep many other documents like rescripts of dispensation from impediments and irregularities to orders (cann. 767-768), the decree of dismissal of a monk or a religious (can. 501), documents relating to the loss of clerical state by invalidity, penalty or dispensation (cann. 394-398) etc[29].

The list of documents that are to be preserved in the secret archive is not exhaustive. Eparchial bishop may place other reports, documents, or information like personal records, psychic reports into the secret archive when the right to a good reputation and confidentiality is a danger of being violated, and to lessen the possibility of scandal. Once it is placed in the secret archive the documents would be secure and confidential.

Removal of Documents from Secret Archive: No document can be removed from the secret archive unlike the general archive (can. 260 § 3). Taking photocopy of the document also is prohibited since it would be equivalent to removal since the intent of the norm is not simply to preserve the original but to avoid dissemination of the information contained in the document[30]. There may be, however, circumstances when this access is necessary. Nevertheless, if necessary warrants it, the eparchial bishop may permit certified copies to be made for legitimate confidential use. In such cases, however, the copies should be returned, as soon as possible, to the chancellor for filing or destruction[31]. A distinction is to be made between documents which are to be placed in secret archive by common law and documents placed at the discretion of the eparchial bishop. The documents placed at the discretion of the eparchial bishop can be removed by him from the secret archive[32].

5. 3 Destruction of Archival Documents

The law requires that certain documents from the secret archive are to be destroyed after certain period of time. After ten years of closing the case, only the summary along with the definitive sentence are retained in the secret archive and acts of the case are destroyed[33]. If the guilty person dies, the entire files are to be destroyed including the definitive sentence of the case and not even a summary is to be preserved[34]. “Each year, the procedural acts for inflicting penalties in matters of morals are to be destroyed whenever the guilty parties have died, or after ten years have passed from the end of the case. A brief summary of the facts and the text of the definitive sentence or decree are to be retained” (can. 259 § 2).      

6. Removal of Chancellor from the Office 

The chancellor exercises his office ad nutum episcopi, that is, at the discretion and will of the bishop[35]. According to can. 255, eparchial bishop can freely remove the chancellor from the office. ‘Freely’ does not mean that he can remove arbitrarily but he has to follow canonical norms as in the case of removal from any other office and also the principles of equity[36]. The decree of removal must be issued in writing for validity (can. 974 § 2). Even though the eparchial bishop can remove the chancellor freely, the eparchial administrator during the vacancy of the eparchy cannot remove chancellor or notaries without the consent of the college of eparchial consultors (can. 255). The eparchial administrator may appoint a new chancellor if that office becomes vacant during his time of administration. It would be prudent from his side that he appoints a chancellor for the time being as long as the eparchial See is vacant and also only after consulting with the college of eparchial consultors[37].

Conclusion

Though the office of chancellor is not very important office in the curia, it is an essential office as there should be someone to record the acts of the curia, authenticate it etc. One of the principal functions of the chancellor is drawing and dispatching the acts of the curia. The word “acts” refers to written documents which are drawn to establish proof. To formulate a document the chancellor needs experience and expertise in language, method of forming and canonical knowledge.            Often the chancellor is both notary and archivist in many eparchies.

                                                                                     

---

[1] John A. Alesandro, “Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, in James Coriden, Thomas J. Green and Donald E. Heintschel (eds), The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 1994, p. 392.

[2] Barbara Anne Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, in John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 2003, p. 638.

[3] John Edward Prince, The Diocesan Chancellor: An Historical, Synopsis and Commentary, Washington, The Catholic University of America, 1942, p. 48. 

[4] Jose Porunnedom, “Office of the Chancellor, Chancery and Archives”, in Canonical Studies, 16 (2002), p. 175.

[5]  Prince, The Diocesan Chancellor: An Historical, Synopsis and Commentary,  p. 49.

[6] Apostolorum successores 179.

[7] Prince, The Diocesan Chancellor: An Historical, Synopsis and Commentary, p. 49.

[8] Can. 483 § 2 of CIC 1983 speaks only cases involving the reputation of priests.

[9] John D. Faris, Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, New York, Saint Maron Publications, 1992, p. 527.

[10] Porunnedom, “Office of the Chancellor, Chancery and Archives”, p. 176.

[11] Alesandro, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 392; Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, p. 525. 

[12] Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 636.

[13] Porunnedom, “Office of the Chancellor, Chancery and Archives”, p. 174.

[14] Prince, The Diocesan Chancellor: An Historical, Synopsis and Commentary, p. 84.

[15] Can. 482 § 3 of CIC 1983 says that the chancellor and vice-chancellor are automatically notaries and secretaries of the curia. Chancellor and vice-chancellor do not become secretaries of eparchial curia automatically in CCEO.

[16] Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 637.

[17] The Pastoral Function of Church Archives, no. 2.

[18] CIC 1983 speaks of historical archive in can. 491 § 2.

[19] According to can. 487 § 1 of CIC 1983, it is the moderator of the curia who is responsible along with chancellor.

[20] C. Van De Wiel, “The Ecclesiastical Archives: Historical Background and Current Legislation”, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 61 (1985), p. 138.

[21] Sharon L. Holland, “Archives: In Service of Culture and Learning”, in The Jurist, 46 (1986), p. 626.

[22] Higinio Velarde, “Chancery Procedures and Formularies”, in Philippine Canonical Forum, 6 (2004), pp. 252-253. 

[23] Ralph E. Wiatrowski, “Clergy Records”, in CLSA Proceedings, 58 (1996), p. 348. 

[24] Pastor bonus 101 § 2.

[25] Luigi Sabbarese, “De Eparchiis et de Episcopis”, in Pio Vito Pinto (ed.), Commento al codice del canoni delle Chiese orientali, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2001, p. 231.

[26] Kevin E. McKenna, “Confidential Clergy Matters and the Secret Archives”, in Studia canonica, 26 (1992), p. 202; Holland, “Archives: In Service of Culture and Learning”, p. 630.

[27] Alesandro, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 397.

[28] De Wiel, “The Ecclesiastical Archives: Historical Background and Current Legislation”, p. 138; Holland, “Archives: In Service of Culture and Learning”, p. 630.

[29] McKenna, “Confidential Clergy Matters and the Secret Archives”, pp. 202-203.

[30] Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, p. 531; Alesandro, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 397.

[31] Alesandro, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 397.

[32] Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, pp. 531-532; Alesandro, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches”, p. 397.

[33] McKenna, “Confidential Clergy Matters and the Secret Archives”, p. 202; Holland, “Archives: In Service of Culture and Learning”, p. 630.

[34] Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, p. 531.

[35] Velarde, “Chancery Procedures and Formularies”, p. 229.

[36] Porunnedom, “Office of the Chancellor, Chancery and Archives”, p. 173.

[37] Roch Pagé, Les Églises particulières, vol. 1, Montréal, Les Éditions Paulines, 1985, 101. 

2

The Role of the Laity in Governance of the Diocese

in Syro-Malabar Church sui iuris

(This paper was presented  on the occasion of Syro- Malabar Heritage Day in the presence of His Beatitude George Cardinal Alenchery, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Religious and Seminarians in Divino Amore, Rome on 21 October 2012)

1. Introduction

The Church cannot be active without the co-operation of the laity. They are entrusted with a mission by virtue of their baptism and confirmation. In the early Church they had prominent roles in decision making process. When clericalism entered into the Church, slowly the role of the laity was minimized. The Second Vatican Council gave much emphasis to the laity.

2. Participation of the Laity in Decision Making in the Past 

The laity were involved actively in all decision making processes from the beginning of the Church. We see this fact in the New Testament especially in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Chapter 15) and in the letters of St. Paul (cf. I Cori 5: 3-5; Rom 16: 1- 23), in the teachings of early Fathers of the Church and of the various Councils of the Church. Laity had an important role in the election of bishops in the Church from the beginning of the early Church in the west as well as in the east.  

3. The Laity in the Teachings of the Second Vatican Council

It was the Second Vatican Council that brought a radical change in the understanding of the laity in the Church. Four of its documents namely, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People Apostolicam actuositatem, Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity Ad gentes divinitus and Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes speak of the role of the laity in the Church and in the world.  The Lumen gentium teaches:

Besides this apostolate which belongs to absolutely every Christian, the laity can be called in different ways to more immediate cooperation in the apostolate of the hierarchy, like those men and women who helped the apostle Paul in the Gospel, labouring much in the Lord (cf. Phil 4-3; Rom 16: 3 ff.). They have, moreover, the capacity of being appointed by the hierarchy to some ecclesiastical offices with a view to a spiritual end (LG 33).

Fathers of the council well understood that unless pastors promote the role of the laity, they would remain in the same position as in the past. Therefore, the pastors are asked to make use of the talents of the laity for the service of the Church. We read in Lumen gentium:

The pastors, indeed, should recognize and promote the dignity and responsibility of the laity in the Church. They should willingly use their prudent advice and confidently assign duties to them in the service of the Church, leaving them freedom and scope for acting. Indeed, they should give them courage to undertake works on their own initiative (LG 37). 

  4. Rights and Obligations of the Laity as per Canon Law

There are specific rights and obligations for the laity besides the rights and obligations common to all faithful (cf. CCEO cc. 7- 26. The specific rights and obligations of the laity are as follows: Right for liberty; right for the involvement in liturgical celebrations; right for theological formation; right for marriage and family life; obligation for evangelization; right for promoting inter-catholic relation; right for holding an office in the Church; and right for remuneration (cf. CCEO cc. 399- 409).   

5. Possible Roles for the Laity in Governance of the Diocese

The whole world knows that the laity of the Syro-Malabar Church, whether in India or in abroad, are highly involved in parish activities. They actively participate in palliyogam in all our parishes. But the sad fact is that hardly we see them in any decision making bodies in diocesan level, like diocesan curia, marriage tribunal, and other high offices. We know that the Second Vatican Council has provided ample opportunities for them for the active participation in the governance of the diocese. Let us see some of the possible offices laity can hold in the diocesan level.

A) Participation in Diocesan Curia: As per the canon law, lay people can be appointed in diocesan curia. They can serve as the Finance Officer of the diocese (cf. CCEO c. 262 § 1) and also as members of Diocesan Finance Council (cf. CCEO c. 263 § 1). Those lay people who are distinguished for their competence in finance and civil matters may be appointed. We have a number of persons who are experts in this field. We do not see any of them having an office in diocesan curia and participating in its meetings.

B) Office in Ecclesiastical Tribunals: All the judges of the ecclesiastical tribunal need not be clerics. There is a provision for lay people to function as judges in a collegial tribunal (cf. CCEO c. 1087 § 2). They can also function as the Defender of the Bond, Promoter of Justice (cf. CCEO c. 1099 § 2), Advocates (cf. CCEO c. 1141), Auditors, Notaries, etc. in marriage tribunals. We need to train them for this work.

C) Heads of Various Commissions of the Diocese: Lumen gentium no. 33 says that laity have the capacity of being appointed to some ecclesiastical offices (cf. LG 33). They may hold the offices as diocesan directors of education apostolate, health apostolate, youth apostolate, Family apostolate, etc. It will be praiseworthy, if a lay person, may be a retired headmaster or a principal, is appointed as the co-operative manager of our schools.

6. Theological Formation

According to Gaudium et spes no. 62, laity should be encouraged for higher education in theological subjects and other ecclesiastical disciplines (cf. GS 62). If they have the required qualifications, they can obtain a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authorities to teach sacred science (cf. CCEO c. 404 § 2). There are lay persons who teach ecclesiastical sciences in Catholic universities and theological faculties today. There are lay persons from various parts of the world doing higher studies in Rome, whereas we do not see any lay person from Syro-Malabar Church doing higher studies in Ecclesiastical subjects. It is the right time for us to reflect over it. 

7. Involvement in Evangelization

Laity and their role in the missionary activity of the Church are frequently referred in the Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity Ad gentes divinitus (cf. also LG 35, EN 70). The Syro-Malabar Church is known for giving birth to thousands of missionaries all over the world. What about the lay missionaries in our Church? Ad Gentes no. 41 says: “Lay people should co-operate in the Church’s work of evangelization and share in its saving mission both as witnesses and living instruments...” (AG 41).

8. Conclusion

The role of the laity in the Church is complex. They co-operate in priestly, kingly and prophetic mission of Christ along with the Church’s sacred ministers.  They can be entrusted with certain ecclesiastical offices and roles that do not require the exercise of power of governance. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the clerics to promote them and to get their involvement for the governance of the diocese; otherwise they will remain always in consultation bodies as today. 

                     Fr Mathew John Puthenparambil

1

The Rights and Obligations

of the Faithful

of a Church sui iuris

Migrants in Particular

Prepared By

Fr. Mathew John Puthenparambil

  

Chapter 1

 Church Sui iuris & Rite

1. Is Catholic Church a communion of Churches?

“The holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government. They combine into different groups, which are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular churches or rites. Between those churches there is such a wonderful bond of union that this variety in the universal church, so far from diminishing its unity, rather serves to emphasizes it” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 2).

2. What is a Church sui iuris?

A Church sui iuris is explained in Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches as follows: “A community of Christian faithful, which is joined together by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which is expressly or tacitly recognized as sui iuris by the supreme authority of the Church is called in this code a Church sui iuris” (CCEO can. 27).

“The holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government. They combine into different groups, which are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular churches or rites” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 2).

3. How many Churches sui iuris are there in the Catholic Church?

There are 23 Churches in Catholic Church. Out of these 23 Churches, 22 Churches are Eastern Catholic Churches and only one is Western (Latin) Church. Eastern Catholics are only about 20 million whereas Latin Catholics are about 980 million. Eastern Churches are also known as Oriental Churches.

Ukrainian Church with more than five million Catholics is the largest Eastern Catholic Church. The Syro-Malabar Church with nearly four million Catholics is the second largest. The other Eastern Catholic Churches with more than a million people are the Maronite, Romanian and Melkite Churches. Some Churches have just a few thousand Catholics.

There are also Eastern Churches that do not accept the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. The Marthoma Church, Jacobite Church and many other Churches in Eastern Europe and west Asia do not accept Pope as the successor of St Peter and his primacy. Therefore, they are not in communion with Rome and therefore they are not Catholics. There are 150 million people in Eastern Churches that are not in communion with Rome.

4. Do all these 23 Churches have equal rights and Dignity?

“These individual churches both Eastern and Western, while they differ some what among themselves in what is called “rite”, namely in liturgy, in ecclesiastical discipline and in spiritual tradition, are none the less all equally entrusted to the pastoral guidance of the Roman Pontiff, who by God’s appointment is successor to Blessed Peter in primacy over the Universal Church. Therefore these churches are of equal rank, so that none of them is superior to the others because of its rite. They have the same rights and obligations, even regard to the preaching of the Gospel in the whole world (cf. Mk. 16: 15), under the direction of the Roman Pontiff” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 3).

“Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future  and to foster them in every way” (Sacrosanctum concilium no. 4).

Therefore, the Catholic Church teaches that all these 23 Churches are equal and have equal rights and dignity.

5. What is a Rite?

“A rite is a liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage, differentiated by the culture and the circumstances of the history of peoples, which is expressed by each Church sui iuris in its own manner of living the faith” (CCEO can. 28 § 1).

A rite is not merely the manner of celebrating the Eucharist. Faithful of a particular Church have a liturgy, theology, spirituality and discipline of their own, and these are manifested in the manner of living their faith. We can say that Church is a moral person and rite is the moral quality of that person. Therefore we do not say that we belong to a rite, but we say that we belong to a Church sui iuris.

6. Do people have a right and obligation to worship in their own Rites?

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says: “The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescription of their own Church sui iuris and to follow their own form of spiritual life in accord with the teaching of the Church” (CCEO can. 17). 

The Code of Canon Law (for Latin Church) says: “Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church; they also have the right to follow their own form of spiritual life, provided it is in accord with Church teaching” (CIC can. 214). 

“If he (diocesan bishop) has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal vicar” (CIC can. 383 § 2).

7. Is there any duty to preserve and protect one’s Church (Rite)?

“Provision must be made therefore everywhere in the world to protect and advance all these individual churches. For this purpose, each should organize its own parishes and hierarchy, where the spiritual good of the faithful requires it” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 4).

“For the Catholic Church wishes the traditions of each particular church or rite to remain whole and entire, and it likewise wishes to adapt its own way of life to the needs of different times and places” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no 2).

“All members of the Eastern Churches should be firmly convinced that they can and ought always preserve their own legitimate liturgical rite and ways of life, and that changes are to be introduced only to forward their own organic development. They themselves are to carry out all these prescriptions with the greatest fidelity. They are to aim always at a more perfect knowledge and practice of their rites, and if they have fallen away due to circumstances of times or persons, they are to strive to return to their ancestral traditions. Those who by reason of their office or apostolic ministry have frequent dealings with the Eastern Churches or their faithful should be instructed as their office demands in theoretical and practical knowledge of the rites, discipline, doctrine, history and character of the members of the Eastern Churches” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 6). 

 “The rites of the Eastern Churches, as the patrimony of the whole church of Christ in which shines forth the tradition coming down from the Apostles through the Fathers, and which, in its variety, affirms the divine unity of the Catholic faith, are to be observed and promoted consciously” (CCEO can. 39).

“Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to take earnest care to guard faithfully and observe exactly their own rite, nor are they to allow changes to be made in it except by reason of its organic progress; they are nonetheless to keep in mind mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians” (CCEO 40 § 1).

“Also, the other Christian faithful are to foster the knowledge and appreciation of their own rite and are bound to observe it everywhere unless an exception is provided by the law” (CCEO can. 40 § 3).

8. What is the duty of the Local Ordinaries towards the faithful of other rites?

“…where there are believers of different rites, the bishop of that diocese should make provision for their spiritual needs either by providing priests of those rites, or special parishes, or by appointing episcopal vicars, with the necessary faculties. If necessary, such a vicar may be ordained bishop” (Christus Dominus 23).

“If he (diocesan bishop) has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal Vicar” (CIC can. 383 § 2).

“As often as the good governance of the diocese requires it, the diocesan Bishop can also appoint one or more episcopal Vicars. These have the same ordinary power as the universal law gives to a Vicar general, in accordance with the following canons. The competence of an episcopal Vicar, however, is limited to a determined part of the diocese, or to a specific type of activity, or to the faithful of a particular rite, or to a certain group of people” (CIC can. 476).

“An eparchial bishop of any Church sui iuris, even of the Latin Church, is to inform the Apostolic See on the occasion of the quinquennial report, about the state and needs of the Christian faithful who, even if they are ascribed in another Church sui iuris, are committed to his care” (CCEO can. 207).

“Regarding the pastoral care of the faithful of the Eastern Rites who are living in Latin-Rite Dioceses, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Conciliar Decrees Christus Dominus, n. 23,3 and Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 4, the Latin Rite Ordinaries of such Dioceses are to provide as soon as possible for an adequate pastoral care of the faithful of these Eastern Rites, through the ministry of priests, or through parishes of the rite, where this would be indicated, or through an Episcopal Vicar endowed with the necessary faculties, where circumstances would so indi cate (cf. Christus Dominus, 23,3; Code of Canon Law, canons 383 § 2; 476; 518). This latter may have even Episcopal rank should this be determined as fitting (Christus Dominus 23, 3). Where circumstances would so indicate, the Apostolic See will establish a proper hierarchy for such faithful” (Letter of Pope John Paul II to the Bishops of India, dated 28th May, 1987, nn. 3-4). 

“Where there are numerous migrants of the same language, whether settled down or continually in arrival there may be erected a personal parish which can be conveniently defined by the local ordinary” (Pastoralis migratorum cura, Motu proprio of Pope Paul VI, 15 august 1969, no. 33 § 1).

9. Can people change their Church sui iuris (rite)?

“No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See” (CCEO can. 32 § 1).

“No one is to presume to induce in any way the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris” (CCEO can. 31).

“A person who, ascribed to any Church sui iuris, including the Latin Church, and exercising an office, a ministry or another function in the Church, has presumed to induce any member of the Christian faithful whatsoever to transfer to another Church sui iuris, contrary to can. 31 is to be punished with an appropriate penalty” (CCEO can 1465).

“Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized members of any non-Catholic church or community who come to the fullness of Catholic communion, must retain each his own rite wherever he is, and follow it to the best of his ability, without prejudice to the right of appealing to the Apostolic See in special cases affecting persons, communities or districts” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 4).

10. How do people usually get membership in a Church sui iuris?

“A son or daughter who has not yet completed fourteen years of age is ascribed by virtue of baptism to the Church sui iuris to which his or her catholic father is ascribed; or if only the mother is Catholic; or if both parents are of the same mind in requesting it, to the Church sui iuris of the mother, without prejudice to particular law enacted by the Apostolic See” (CCEO can. 29 § 1).

For example, if both parents belong to Syro-Malabar Church, then the child must belong to Syro-Malabar Church and if both parents belong to Latin Church, then the child must belong to Latin Church. If both parents are of different Churches then child must belong to the Church of the father, unless both parents give consent for the other way.

11. Can a person change his Church (rite) at the time of his/her marriage?

“A wife is free to transfer to the Church of the husband in the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris” (CCEO can. 33). Therefore, it is clear that a man cannot change his Church whereas according to Latin Law a man also can change his/her Church at the time of  his marriage (CIC can. 112 § 1,2°).

For example, if a Latin man wants to marry a Eastern woman, he can transfer to Eastern Churches and if a Eastern man wants to marry a Latin woman he cannot change his Church (he can marry a Latin woman and will have to remain in the Eastern Church). Eastern as well as Latin woman can change her Church and join the Church of her husband.

12. Does a Catholic get membership in another Church sui iuris automatically?

“The practice, however long, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of an autonomous ritual Church, does not bring with it membership of that Church” (CIC can. 112 § 2).

“Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain ascribed in their own Church sui iuris” (CCEO can 38).

No one can get membership in another Church sui iuris automatically. By the fact a person was baptized in another Church sui iuris and is an active member of that Church, he or she does not get membership in that Church. Even if a person practices his faith in that Church sui iuris for his whole life, he does not become a member in that Church. For example, a child of a Syro-Malabar couple was baptized according to the Latin rite and educated in Latin Church. Still the child (person) is a member of Syro-Malabar Church for ever.

Chapter 2

 The Syro-Malabar Church

1. When & how did Christianity come to India?

Christianity in India owes its origin to St Thomas, one of the Apostles of Jesus. According to the tradition St Thomas came to India by sea and landed at Cranganore (Kodungallur) on the Kerala coast in 52 AD. He preached Gospel to the high caste families of Kerala, many of whom received the faith. He founded seven Christian communities at Palayur, Cranganore, Kokkamangalam, Kottakavu (Parur), Quilon, Niranam, and Chayal. The St Thomas Christians are also known as Marthoma Christianikal.

2. What do we know about the early history of St Thomas Christians?

The early period span more than three hundred years - from the beginning till the arrival of the East Syrians on the scene. We do not know much about this period. It is presumed that the Church founded by St Thomas flourished as a genuinely Indian Church.

3. When and how was the Syro-Malabar hierarchy restored?

Pope Leo XIII decreed in 1887 the separation of jurisdiction of St Thomas Catholics from that of the Latins. The Pope erected two vicariates apostolic for St Thomas catholics; Thrissur and Kottayam. However the Pope appointed two Latin Bishops, Bishop Adolf Medlycott an Ango-Indan, and Bishop Charles Levingne, a French Jesuit as the vicar Apostolic respectively. As a result of the continued plea for native Indian Bishops, the Pope decreed in 1896 the erection of three vicariates for St Thomas christians- Thrissur, Ernakulam and Changanassery. John Menachery, Louis Pazheparambil and Mathew Makil were appointed bishops respectively.

Pope Pius X erected a fourth vicariate in 1911, the vicariate of Kottayam for the Southists or Knanites, an endogamous community among the St Thomas Christians. They came to be the decedents of the East Syrian Christians who migrated from Persia along with Knai Thoma in AD 345. The descendents of the original community of St Thomas Christians are known as Northists.

Finally, Pope Pius XI formally reconstituted the Syro-Malabar hierarchy in 1923, although it was along the lines of the Latin model.

4.  What is the development of Syro-Malabar Church?

On 21 December, 1923, the Syro-Malabar Hierarchy was established with Ernakulam as the Metropolitan See and Trichur, Changanacherry and Kottayam as suffragans. In 1956 Changanacherry was raised to the status of a Metropolitan See. On December 16, 1992, Pope John Paul II raised the Syro-Malabar Church to the status of Major Archiepiscopal sui iuris Church with the See of Ernakulam-Angamaly. Mar Antony Paidyara, the then Metropolitan of Ernakulam was appointed its Major Archbishop with Mar Abraham Kattumana as the Pontifical Delegate who discharged the duties of the Major Archbishop. Archbishop Kattumana died unexpectedly during his visit to Rome in April 1995 and Mar Padiyara was given the powers of the Major Archbishop. In November 1996 Cardinal Padiyara resigned from his office as Major Archbishop. In his place Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil, C.Ss.R. was appointed as the Apostolic Administrator. In December 1998 he was appointed Major Archbishop by the Pope. In February 2001 Archbishop Vithayathil was created a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II.

5.  How many dioceses are there in Syro-Malabar Church today?

At present there are five Archdioceses - Ernakulam-Angamaly, Changanacherry, Trichur, Tellicherry and Kottayam and 11 dioceses. They are Bhadravathi, Belthangady, Irinjalakuda, Kanjirapally, Kothamangalam, Idukki, Mananthavady, Palai, Palghat, Thamarassery, and Thuckalay within the proper territory of the Major Archiepiscopal Church.  There are 11 dioceses outside the proper territory. They are Adilabad, Bijnor, Chanda, Gorakhpur, Jagdalpur, Kalyan, Rajkot, Sagar, Satna, Ujjain and the St Thomas diocese of Chicago in the United States of America. Altogether there are five archdioceses and twenty-two dioceses in Syro-Malabar Church.

6. What is the status of Syro-Malabar Church today?

It is one of the 22 Eastern Churches sui iuris in Catholic Communion with its own particular characteristics expressed in worship, spirituality, theology and disciplinary laws. 

It is a Major Archiepiscopal Church with nearly four million Catholics and is the second largest Church sui iuris among the Eastern Catholic Churches. There are 36,74,115 faithful, with 7, 252 priests (3, 617 diocesan and 3,635 religious), and 34,769 women religious and 4729 men religious.

Chapter 3

 Personal Parishes

1. What is a parish? 

A parish is a definite community of the Christian faithful established on a stable basis in an eparchy, whose pastoral care is committed to a pastor (CCEO can. 278)

2. What is a personal parish?

A personal parish is a parish erected on the basis of language, nationality or ascription to another Church sui iuris or even on some other clearly distinguished basis. Example for a personal parish is a parish erected only for the faithful of Syro-Malabar Church in a Latin diocese.

“As a general rule, a parish is to be territorial, that is to embrace all Christ’s faithful of a given territory. Where it is useful, however, personal parishes are to be established, determined by reason of the rite, language or nationality of Christ’s faithful of a certain territory, or on some other basis” (CIC can. 518).

“Provision must be made therefore everywhere in the world to protect and advance all these individual churches. For this purpose, each should organize its own parishes and hierarchy, where the spiritual good of the faithful requires it” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 4).

3. Can a person/group start Syro-Malabar Mass  centres in a Latin diocese?

No one can start Syro-Malabar Mass centres without the permission of the diocesan bishop in a Latin diocese. It is the right of the diocesan bishop to establish personal parishes or Mass centres in his diocese.

4. What happens if somebody starts a Syro-Malabar Mass centre in a Latin diocese without proper permission?

If somebody starts a Syro-Malabar mass centre in any Latin diocese without proper permission it would be a willful disobedience to the diocesan bishop.  If the bishop does not give permission no one can start Mass centres forcefully and if somebody starts such Mass centres then it would be a violation of the Church law. 

5. Can there be two or more dioceses/parishes in the same territory?

There can be more than one diocese/parish in a particular territory.

6. Is there an obligation to take membership in a personal parish?

When a person is baptized or received into the Catholic Church he/she does not become ‘a member at large’, but is ascribed (enrolled) in one of the twenty-three Churches sui iuris. He/she cannot opt out of it, but has to live as a member of that Church. By becoming a member of a parish of a different Church sui iuris and attending mass of that Church sui iuris, one does not become a member of that Church sui iuris. The Syro-Malabar Catholics, for example, who are registered members of a Latin parish and attend Mass of the Latin rite, do not lose membership in Syro-Malabar Church and become members of Latin Church.

If there is a personal parish established for the faithful of that rite, then faithful have an obligation to take membership in the personal parish. Parish priest of the personal parish shall be their proper pastor. Only he will have jurisdiction over the faithful of that Church sui iuris. Bishop of that diocese will be their proper Bishop until a Syro-Malabar diocese is erected. For example, Syro-Malabar parishes are erected in Delhi. Syro-Malabar faithful must take membership in Syro-Malabar parish in Delhi and parish priest of that Syro-Malabar parish will be their proper pastor. Archbishop of Delhi shall be their proper bishop and the Syro-Malabar parishes will be under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Delhi.

7. What happens if one does not take membership in a personal parish?

It is the obligation of the faithful that they take membership in personal parish when it is erected in a particular place. They cannot remain in their old parish without the required permission. If one does not take membership, he/she will not have any right in the parish.

If one does not take membership in personal parish and remains in Latin parish, his or her marriage cannot be blessed by Latin Parish priest validly unless he or she gets an apostolic indult from Rome.

Even if a personal parish is not erected in a particular diocese and if there is a chaplain appointed for the faithful of that Church sui iuris, the faithful must make use of this privilege.

Chapter 4

Jurisdiction and Proper Territory

1. What is jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction is the power of governance. 

2. What is the proper territory of Syro-Malabar Church?

It is a fact that the archbishop of the St Thomas Christians had jurisdiction or power of governance over the whole of India. He used to sign: “Metropolitan Bishop of the see of St Thomas and the whole Church of the Christians of India”. However, when the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was restored in 1923, the jurisdiction of Syro-Malabar Church was confined to the area between the rivers of Pampa in the south and Bharathapuzha in the north of Kerala. By the decrees of the Apostolic See of 1953 and 1955, the territory of the Syro-Malabar Church was extended to the whole of Kerala and to the territories of the Latin dioceses of Mangalore, Chikmangalore, Mysore and Coimbatore. Its former all-India jurisdiction was not restored to the Syro-Malabar Church even though it is elevated to the status of a major archiepiscopal Church.  Therefore, the limited proper territory of the Syro-Malabar Church comprises the combined territories of the metropolitan provinces of Ernakulam, Changanassery, Thrissur and Thalassery.

3. What is the jurisdiction outside proper territory?

The territories of eleven mission dioceses of the Syro-Malabar Church are not its proper territory. They are outside proper territory. The Major Archbishop and the synod of Bishop do not have the power of governance over these dioceses. They are extraterritorial dioceses of the Syro-Malabar church. Bishops of these dioceses are members of the synod.

4. What is the concern of the Syro-Malabar Church for her migrants?

The Syro-Malabar Church has no jurisdiction over the migrant catholics who live outside proper territory, in the Latin dioceses of India and abroad. “It is the right and the obligation of the patriarch to seek appropriate information concerning the Christian faithful who reside outside the territorial boundaries of the Church over which he presides even through a visitor sent by himself with the assent of the Apostolic See” (CCEO can 148 § 1). “When the visitation is completed, the visitor is to send a report to the patriarch, who, after discussing the matter in the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, can propose suitable measures to the Apostolic See, with a view to providing everywhere in the world for the protection and enhancement of the spiritual good of the Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides, even through the erection of parishes and exarchies or eparchies of their own” (CCEO can. 148 § 3). Only the Apostolic See has the right to erect dioceses for migrants outside the proper territory of the Syro-Malabar Church. The Syro-Malabar Bishops Synod has constituted a commission for the pastoral care of the emigrants in India and abroad, with Bishop Gregory Karotemprel as its Chairman. Apostolic See has appointed Bishop Gratian Mundadan CMI as the Apostolic Visitator in India in 2006: (a) to visit those areas of India where there is no Syro-Malabar jurisdiction; (b) to interact constitutively with the Latin hierarchy relative to these area; (c) to observe and thereby identify the diverse needs of the Syro-Malabar faithful in terms of pastoral care; (d) to evaluate what is necessary by way of devising necessary canonical and other structures, with counsel about the manner in which these should be implemented; and (e) to report accordingly to the Major Archbishop and pertinent Synodal Committee. 

Chapter 5

 Grades of Churches sui iuris

1. What is Grade of Churches?

There are at present twenty-two Churches sui iuris in the Eastern tradition. All these twenty-two Eastern Churches are divided into four grades (categories) of Churches sui iuris in a descending scale of ecclesial autonomy. They are Patriarchal Church (CCEO cans 55-150), Major Archiepiscopal Church (CCEO cans 151-154), Metropolitan Churches (CCEO cans. 155-173) and Other Churches sui iuris (CCEO cans 174-176).

2. What is a Patriarchal Church?

The first and highest grade of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris is the Patriarchal Church. It is headed by a Patriarch, who has power over metropolitans, bishops, and other Christian faithful of his Church. He is considered as the father and head of the Church over which he presides. In legislative and judicial matters the synod of bishops of the Patriarchal Church is the highest authority. In most executive matters the Patriarch is the highest authority. Patriarch does not have direct powers over his entire Patriarchal Church, because his powers are indirect. He will have direct powers only in his diocese where he is an eparchial bishop.

The Patriarch can exercise his powers validly only within the territory, and outside the territory it is exercised by the Pope. He can make pastoral visits to the dioceses outside his territory. He can transfer metropolitans and bishops for serious reasons but needs the consent of the synod. The Patriarch can issue decrees, instructions and encyclical letters (CCEO can. 82 § 1). Patriarchs proceed over all bishops and metropolitans.

There are six Patriarchal Churches in the world today. They are Coptic Church, Syrian Church, Maronite Church, Armenian Church, Chaldean Church and Melkite Church.

3. What is a Major Archiepiscopal Church?

The Second Vatican Council stated: “What has been said concerning patriarchs applies also, in accordance with law, to Major Archbishops who preside over an entire particular Church or rite” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 10). “What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to Major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter” (CCEO can. 152). Accordingly, a Church headed by a Major Archbishop has the same structure and the same autonomy as that of a patriarchal Church. The chief difference is that the election of a Major Archbishop needs confirmation by Pope, in order to assume office while the Patriarch elected only requests for an ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff (Cf. CCEO can. 153 § 2-3).

There are four Major Archiepiscopal Churches in the world today. They are Syro- Malabar Church, Syro-Malankara Church, Romanian Church and Ukrainian Church. 

4. What is a Metropolitan Churches sui iuris?

Metropolitan Churches sui iuris are immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff, unlike those Metropolitan Churches that are actually provinces of some Patriarchal or Major Archiepiscopal Church. As its name implies, a Metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by a Metropolitan. He is appointed by the Roman Pontiff and assisted by Council of Hierarchs (Cf CCEO cans 155-173).

5. What is Other Churches sui iuris?

Churches that are neither Patriarchal nor Major Archiepiscopal nor Metropolitan sui iuris but entrusted to a hierarch to preside over according to Code of Canons of Eastern Churches as well as the particular law established by the Roman Pontiff belong under the caption “Other Churches sui iuris” (CCEO can. 174). Such Churches may consist of one or more ecclesiastical circumscriptions, like an eparchy or an exarchy. These Churches have the lowest degree of ecclesial autonomy, hardly higher than that of any other diocese or eparchy. These are presided over by a bishop or an equivalent hierarch (Cf. CCEO cans.174-176).

Chapter 6

Major Archbishop of Syro-Malabar Church

1. Who is the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church?

The Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church is the Metropolitan of the See of Ernakulam-Angamali and he presides over the entire Syro-Malabar sui iuris Church as FATHER and HEAD. His Beatitude Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil is the present Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church.

2. Is it obligatory that he must be the bishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly?

It is obligatory that whoever is elected as Major Archbishop must be the eparchial bishop of archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly and also the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of Ernakulam-Angamaly.

3. Who elects Major Archbishop?

Major Archbishop is elected by the Synod of Bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church according to the Law and Roman Pontiff confirms the election (Cf. CCEO can. 153).

4. Is it obligatory to commemorate Major Archbishop in Divine Liturgy?

“The patriarch must be commemorated in the Divine Liturgy and in the Divine praises after the Roman Pontiff by all the bishops and other clerics according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books” (CCEO can. 91). Therefore, it is obligatory to commemorate patriarch/ Major Archbishop in the Divine Liturgy and in divine praises after the Roman Pontiff by all the bishops and other clerics everywhere in the world according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.

5. How is Major Archbishop addressed officially?

He is addressed officially as His/Your Beatitude.

6. Who was the first Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church?

Cardinal Antony Padiyara was the first Major Archbishop of Syro-Malabar Church.

Chapter 7

 Synod of Bishops

of Syro-Malabar Church

1. What is Synod of Bishops of Syro-Malabar Church?

The Synod of Bishops is the assembly of all the Bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church. Literally it means in its Greek verbal form to travel in company, to have fellowship with, to accompany or to walk together along the same path and in its noun form it signifies an assembly or gathering especially for deliberation. In the ecclesiastical sense the word synod means the assembly of heads of Churches, regularly or canonically convoked to deliberate and legislate on religious affairs. The synodal system of Church structure evolved from the college of apostles who took important decisions collegially. The very being of Church is communion and the synodal structure expresses this ecclesiology of communion with its various principles of autonomy, unity in diversity, equality and the right of every Church to grow and develop which has been very much emphasized in the Second Vatican Council. The Synod of Bishops canonically convoked and presided over by the Patriarch/Major Archbishop constitutes the supreme authority of a particular Church.

2. What is the nature of the Synod?

The synod of Bishops of Syro-Malabar Church is the legislature, superior tribunal and the electoral college of this Church as per canon 110 § 1, 2 & 3.

3. What is the competence of the Synod?

The synod is competent to (1) to enact laws as per canon 110 §1, (2) to administer justice as the superior tribunal (3) to conduct the election of the Major Archbishop, Bishops, and candidates for offices mentioned in Can. 149 (can. 110 §3); (4) to accept the resignation of the Major archbishop after having consulted with the Roman Pontiff, unless the Major archbishop approaches the Roman Pontiff directly (can. 126 § 2) (5) and to act in other matters according to the norms of the common law and the particular law.

4. Who are the members of Synod?

All and solely the ordained Bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church whether eparchial, titular or emeritus, constituted inside or outside the territorial boundaries of the Syro-Malabar Church, excluding those mentioned in cc. 953 §  1, 1433 and 1434 are members and they enjoy deliberate vote in the synod.

5. Who can convoke and preside over the Synod?

Only the Major Archbishop can convoke and preside over the Synod (CCEO can. 103).

6. Is there obligation for Bishops to attend the synod?

All the bishops lawfully called to the synod are bound by serious obligation to attend the same, except those who have already resigned from the office (CCEO can. 104 § 1).

7. What is the frequency of the Synod?

The synod must be convoked at least once a year (CCEO 106 § 2, Particular Law article no. 7. 2.1)

8. How does the synod elect Bishops?

It is the exclusive right of the members of the synod of the bishops of patriarchal/ major archiepiscopal Church to propose candidates to the episcopacy (can. 182 § 1).  They will have to collect the information and documents that are necessary to demonstrate the suitability of the candidate. If a bishop considers it necessary he may consult with priests and other christian faithful who are outstanding in prudence and christian life to know their opinions about the candidate (can. 182 § 1). Then he will have to inform the Major Archbishop of his finding before the convocation of the synod of bishops. If the Major archbishop, after adding his own opinion, deems it appropriate, he sends the proposal to the members of the synod (can. 182 § 2). Synod of bishops will have to prepare a list of candidates by secret ballot and the Major archbishop shall submit the list of the candidates to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff (can. 182 § 3). Once the assent of the Roman Pontiff is obtained it is valid until it is revoked explicitly (can. 182 § 4).

Bishops are free to elect one candidate whom they consider worthy and suitable before all others (can. 183 § 2). There is no obligation for bishops to elect only those candidates who are already approved by Roman Pontiff. If the one elected has already received the assent of the Roman Pontiff and accepts the election, the Apostolic See is to be notified of the election and the day of proclamation (can. 184). If the one elected has not received the assent of the Roman Pontiff, the patriarch is to seek the assent from the Roman Pontiff (can. 185 § 1) and the result of the election cannot be published before getting the assent of the Roman Pontiff.

9. What is the method of appointing Bishops in outside proper territory?

In the case of appointing an eparchial, coadjutor or auxiliary bishop outside the territorial boundary of the patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church, the synod of bishops, observing the procedures for the election of bishops inside the territorial boundary, elects at least three candidates and proposes them through the patriarch or major archbishop to the Roman Pontiff for the appointment (can. 149). The decision of the Roman Pontiff is communicated to the patriarch. It is to be noted that Roman Pontiff is not bound to choose one of the proposed candidates for the appointment.

Chapter 8

Sacraments

1. Which is the proper Church for baptism?

“Outside the case of necessity, baptism is to be celebrated in a parish church with due regard for legitimate custom” (CCEO can. 687).

2. Is it obligatory to baptize the child in a personal parish?

If there is a personal parish erected then baptism is to be done in that personal parish.

3. Can a Syro-Malabar couple take their child to a parish of another Church sui iuris to baptize their child?

If there is no personal parish for Syro-Malabar faithful, then faithful can take their children to their proper Latin parish.  Even if a Latin priest/Latin deacon baptizes the children according to the Latin rite liturgy, the children remain as members of Syro-Malabar Church.

4. Can a Latin parish priest bless the marriage of two Syro-Malabar faithful?

The Latin parish priest can bless the marriage of two Syro-Malabar faithful provided that there is no personal parish established and therefore these people come under his jurisdiction.  If there is a personal parish for those faithful then the Latin priest cannot bless the marriage validly without a proper delegation from parish priest of the personal parish of the couples.

5. Can a Latin Deacon bless the marriage of Syro-Malabar faithful?

A Latin deacon may be delegated to bless a marriage of two Latin faithful, but if one of them is a Syro-Malabar faithful then no deacon can bless the marriage validly. Though Latin deacon has the power to bless marriage of two Latin faithful, he has no power to bless a marriage if one of them or both parties belong to the Syro-Malabar Church. If such marriages are blessed by Latin deacons even if these couples are members of Latin parish it will be invalid.

6. Can the Patriarch/Major Archbishop bless marriages everywhere in the world?

“By the law itself, the patriarch is endowed with the faculty personally to bless marriages everywhere, as long as at least one of the parties is ascribed to the Church over which he presides, observing the other requirements of the law” (CCEO can. 829 § 3)

7. Can a person take partner from other Churches sui iuris without permission from Local Ordinaries?

A person does not require permission from his/her local Ordinary to take partner from any other Church sui iuris. 

8. Is it obligatory to change rite at the time of marriage?

There is no obligation to transfer one’s Church (rite) at the time of marriage. It is only an option given by the Church. In Eastern Catholic Churches only the wife is given the freedom to transfer to husband’s Church sui iuris (CCEO can. 33) whereas in Latin Church, both wife as well as husband are given freedom to transfer to the Church sui iuris of partner’s Church (CIC can. 112 § 1, 2°). If they do not change their rites, the couples will have to follow and preserve their respective rites.   

9. Can a catholic receive sacraments from Orthodox/Jacobite priests?

“If necessity requires it or genuine spiritual advantage suggests it and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is permitted for Catholic Christian faithful, for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers, in whose Churches these sacraments are valid” (CCEO can. 671 § 2).

“Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to the members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to the members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned” (CIC can. 844 § 2). 

10. Can the faithful fulfil Sunday obligation of attending Mass on Saturday?

“In order for the Christian faithful to fulfill this obligation more easily, the useful time runs from the evening of the vigil until the end of the Sunday or feast day” (CCEO can. 881 § 2). 

 “The obligation of participating in the Mass is satisfied by one who assists at Mass wherever it is celebrated in a catholic rite, either on the holy day itself or on the evening of the previous day” (CIC can. 1248 § 1).

11. Can the faithful fulfil Sunday obligation of attending Mass in another Church sui iuris?

“With due regard for the right and obligation to observe everywhere their own rite, lay persons have the right to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the prescripts of the liturgical books” (CCEO can.403 § 1).

The obligation of participating in the Mass is satisfied by attending Mass wherever it is celebrated in any Catholic rite. However faithful are encouraged to attend Sunday Mass in their own parish church. 

Chapter 9

 Fasting and Abstinence 

1. What is the law on fasting and abstinence in Eastern Catholic Churches?

Regarding fasting and abstinence Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches does not prescribe any law. It says: “On the days of penance the Christian faithful are obliged to observe fast or abstinence in the manner established by the particular law of their Church sui iuris” (CCEO can.882). The Syro-Malabar bishops Synod has made particular laws for fasting and abstinence (Cf Articles 157-159 of Particular Laws of the Syro-Malabar Church, Synodal News, Vol.11, May 2003).

2. Which are the days of fasting in Syro-Malabar Church?

“The following are the days fixed for fasting: fasting is obligatory on the first day of Lent and on Good Friday. It is recommended on all Fridays in Lent” (Article 158).

3. What is the manner of observing fast?

“On days of fasting only one full meal may be taken” (Article 157 § 1).

4. Which are the days of abstinence in Syro-Malabar Church?

“Abstinence is obligatory on all Fridays except the Friday/s between Christmas and Epiphany and the first Friday after Easter” (Article 159 § 1).

“Abstinence is recommended on all days of Lent, period of Annunciation, all days of Moonnunombu, Ettunombu, and Pathinanju nombu” (Article 159 § 2).

5. How do we observe abstinence?

“Abstinence is observed by abstaining from meat and meat products” (Article 157 § 2).

Chapter 10

 Significant Dates

AD 52         Arrival of St Thomas the Apostle in Kerala

AD 72         Martyrdom of St Thomas the Apostle near Mylapore, Chennai  

AD 345       Arrival of Thomas of Cana in Kerala

AD 1599     The Synod of Diamper (Udayamperur)

AD 1653     The Coonan Cross Oath

AD 1896     Erection of three Syro-Malabar vicariates- Thrissur, Ernakulam and      Changanassery

AD 1911     Erection of the fourth vicariate- Kottayam for the Southists (Knanites)

AD 1923     Restoration of Syro-Malabar Hierarchy

AD 1962     Malayalam translation of Qurbana was introduced

AD 1969     Archbishop Joseph Parecattil was created as the first cardinal of the Syro-Malabar Church

AD 1986     Beatifications of Kuriakose Chavara and Alphonsa Muttathupadathu

AD 1990     Promulgation of Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches

AD 1992     A Pontifical Commission visits the Syro-Malabar Church

AD 1992     Elevation of Syro-Malabar Church into Major Archiepiscopal Church, Appointment of Antony Padiyara as the first Major Archbishop, and appoints Archbishop Abraham Kattumana as Pontifical delegate to Syro-Malabar Church with all powers of a Major Archbishop.

AD 1995     Archbishop Abraham Kattumana dies in Rome

AD 1996     Fr Varkey Vithayathil C. S.s. R. was appointed as Archbishop, Apostolic Administrator of Syro-Malabar Church and Eparchial Administrator of the Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly

AD 1998     Decree revoking the reservation of liturgical matters

AD 1999     The first General Assembly of the Syro-Malabar Church at Mount St. Thomas, Kakkanad.  

AD 1999     Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil appointed as the second Major Archbishop

AD 2000     Death of Cardinal Antony Padiyara, the first Major Archbishop,                                 Beatification of Mariam Thressia

AD 2001     Major Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil was created Cardinal, and Erection of the first Syro-Malabar diocese outside India- diocese of St Thomas, Chicago

AD 2004     Erection of Malayattoor Kurisumudy as an international Shrine in honour of St Thomas the Apostle

AD 2004     Decree revoking the reservation to elect Bishops

AD 2006     Beatifications of Kunjachan and Euphrasia

AD 2008     Canonization of Alphonsa Muttathupa-dathu, the first woman saint from India