Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library

Council of Nicea I

IntraText CT - Text

  • EXCURSUS ON THE TRANSLATION OF BISHOPS.
Previous - Next

Click here to hide the links to concordance

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.(1) 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.(2) 
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.(3)
 
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,(4) 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. 293, 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."(1)
 
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.(2)
 
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 vacantmetabasis  ; 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."(3) 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."(4) 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."(1)
 
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.(2)
 
 



Previous - Next

Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library

Best viewed with any browser at 800x600 or 768x1024 on Tablet PC
IntraText® (V89) - Some rights reserved by EuloTech SRL - 1996-2007. Content in this page is licensed under a Creative Commons License