EXCURSUS ON THE TRANSLATION OF BISHOPS.

There are few points upon which the discipline of the Church has so 

completely changed as that which regulated, or rather which forbade, 

the translation of a bishop from the see for which he was consecrated 

to some other diocese. The grounds on which such prohibition rested 

were usually that such changes were the outcome of ambition, and that 

if tolerated the result would be that smaller and less important sees 

would be despised, and that there would be a constant temptation to 

the bishops of such sees to make themselves popular with the 

important persons in other dioceses with the hope of promotion. 

Besides this objection to translation, St. Athanasius mentions a 

spiritual one, that the diocese was the bishop's bride, and that to desert 

it and take another was an act of unjustifiable divorce, and subsequent 

adultery.() Canon XIV. of the Apostolic Canons does not forbid the 

practice absolutely, but allows it for just cause, and although the 

Council of Nice is more stringent so far as its words are concerned, 

apparently forbidding translation under any circumstances, yet, as a 

matter of fact, that very council did allow and approve a translation.() 

The general feeling, however, of the early Church was certainly very 

strong against all such changes of Episcopal cure, and there can be no 

doubt that the chief reason why St. Gregory Nazianzen resigned the 

Presidency of the First Council of Constantinople, was because he had 

been translated from his obscure see Sasima(not Nazianzum as 

Socrates and Jerome say) to the Imperial City.()

From the canons of some provincial councils, and especially from 

those of the Third and of the Fourth Council of Carthage, it is evident 

that despite the conciliar and papal prohibitions, translations did take 

place, being made by the authority of the provincial Synods, and 

without the consent of the pope,() but it is also evident that this 

authority was too weak, and that the aid of the secular power had often 

to be invoked.

This course, of having the matter decided by the synod, was exactly in 

accordance with the Apostolic Canon(no. xiv.). In this manner, for 

example, Alexander was translated from Cappadocia to Jerusalem, a 

translation made, so it is narrated, in obedience to heavenly revelation. 

It will be noticed that the Nicene Canon does not forbid Provincial 

Councils to translate

bishops, but forbids bishops to translate themselves, and the author of 

the tract De Translationibus in the Jus Orient.(i. , Cit. Haddon. Art. 

"Bishop," Smith and Cheetham, Dict. Chr. Antiq.) sums up the matter 

tersely in the statement that  h   

 metabasis   

 kekwlutak  , ou    mhn   

 h    metaqesis  : i.e., the thing 

prohibited is "transmigration"(which arises from the bishop himself, 

from selfish motives) not "translation"(wherein the will of God and the 

good of the Church is the ruling cause); the "going," not the "being 

taken" to another see. And this was the practice both of East and West, 

for many centuries. Roman Catholic writers have tried to prove that 

translations, at least to the chief sees, required the papal consent, but 

Thomassinus, considering the case of St. Meletius having translated 

St. Gregory of Nazianzum to Constantinople, admits that in so doing 

he "would only have followed the example of many great bishops of 

the first ages, when usage had not yet reserved translations to the first 

see of the Church."()

But the same learned author frankly confesses that in France, Spain, 

and England, translations were made until the ninth century without 

consulting the pope at all, by bishops and kings. When, however, from 

grounds of simple ambition, Anthimus was translated from Trebizonde 

to Constantinople, the religious of the city wrote to the pope, as also 

did the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, and as a result the 

Emperor Justinian allowed Anthimus to be deposed.()

Balsamon distinguishes three kinds of translations. The first, when a 

bishop of marked learning and of equal piety is forced by a council to 

pass from a small diocese to one far greater where he will be able to do 

the Church the most important services, as was the case when St. 

Gregory of Nazianzum was transferred from Sasima to Constantinople, 

 ?eta  ,s215> esis  ; the second when a 

bishop, whose see has been laid low by the barbarians, is transferred to 

another see which is vacant,  metabasis  ; and the third 

when a bishop, either having or lacking a see, seizes on a bishopric 

which is vacant, on his own proper authority 

 anabasis  it is this last which the Council of Sardica 

punishes so severely. In all these remarks of Balsamon there is no 

mention of the imperial power.

Demetrius Chomatenus, however, who was Archbishop of 

Thessalonica, and wrote a series of answers to Cabasilas, Archbishop 

of Durazzo, says that by the command of the Emperor a bishop, 

elected and confirmed, and even ready to be ordained for a diocese, 

may be forced to take the charge of another one which is more 

important, and where his services will be incomparably more useful to 

the public. Thus we read in the Book of Eastern Law that "If a 

Metropolitan with his synod, moved by a praiseworthy cause and 

probable pretext, shall give his approbation to the translation of a 

bishop, this can, without doubt, be done, for the good of souls and for 

the better administration of the church's affairs, etc."() This was 

adopted at a synod held by the patriarch Manuel at Constantinople, in 

the presence of the imperial commissioners.

The same thing appears also in the synodal response of the patriarch 

Michael, which only demands for translation the authority of the 

Metropolitan and "the greatest authority of the Church."() But, soon 

after this, translation became the rule, and not the exception both in 

East and West.

It was in vain that Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the East 

raised his voice against the constant translations made by the secular 

power, and the Emperors of Constantinople were often absolute 

masters of the choice and translations of bishops; and Thomassinus 

sums up the matter, "At the least we are forced to the conclusion that 

no translations could

be made without the consent of the Emperor, especially when it was 

the See of Constantinople that was to be filled."

The same learned writer continues: "It was usually the bishop or 

archbishop of another church that was chosen to ascend the patriarchal 

throne of the imperial city. The Kings of England often used this same 

power to appoint to the Primatial See of Canterbury a bishop already 

approved in the government of another diocese."()

In the West, Cardinal Bellarmine disapproved the prevailing custom of 

translations and protested against it to his master, Pope Clement VIII., 

reminding him that they were contrary to the canons and contrary to 

the usage of the Ancient Church, except in cases of necessity and of 

great gain to the Church. The pope entirely agreed with these wise 

observations, and promised that he would himself make, and would 

urge princes to make, translations only "with difficulty." But 

translations are made universally, all the world over, today, and no 

attention whatever is paid to the ancient canons and discipline of the 

Church.()