Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 17: On the Chorepiscopi
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
We have spoken of the distinction and office of those clerics who even at this time have their place in the Church; now it has seemed good to add something about the chorepiscopi, whose name and office was of old in use, but now seems almost to have perished.
The chorepiscopi, then, were of old certain priests who in villages or little towns bore the care of souls in place of the bishops, as parish priests now generally do. And they were called chorepiscopi either (as Damasus indicates in letter 3) as it were bishops of the country places — for chora in Greek signifies a town and a region — or rather (as the Council of Neocaesarea, canon 13, and of Antioch, canon 8, teach) as it were vicars of the bishop, or vicars of the bishops, or set in the place of bishops; for chora can also signify a place. Now chorepiscopi of this kind could not ordain priests and deacons, nor anoint the foreheads of the faithful with chrism, nor consecrate temples or altars. Almost all the other things they could do which bishops do, as can be known from the Council of Ancyra (canon 12), and of Antioch (canon 10), and the Second of Seville (canon 7); likewise from Damasus (in letter 3), Leo (letter 86, elsewhere 88), and John III (in the letter to the bishops of Germany and Gaul).
But here a question occurs: whether it was ever lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain subdeacons. For in the Council of Antioch (canon 10) it is asserted in express words that this was lawful for them. But on the contrary, that this was by no means lawful for them, Pope Damasus (in letter 3) affirms in equally express words. The other Councils and Pontiffs cited above deny that it is lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain priests or deacons; of subdeacons and the other orders they say nothing expressly.
I answer: there were certain chorepiscopi who had truly received episcopal consecration, but were called chorepiscopi because they had no proper church of their own, but ministered in another’s diocese — such as at this time are certain titular bishops, who are also wont to be called suffragans. But there were other chorepiscopi who were nothing else than priests, but (as we said) represented the bishop in some manner in villages and country places, or even little towns. Of the former the Council of Antioch seems to speak, as Damasus too noted in letter 3; for the canon begins thus: “Chorepiscopi who have received the imposition of hands from bishops, and are ordained as bishops,” and so on — where the Council speaks not of all chorepiscopi, but only of those who were consecrated by several bishops, after the rite of pontiffs. Besides, in the same canon the Council permits these chorepiscopi not only to ordain subdeacons absolutely, but also to be able to ordain priests and deacons, if the bishop of the place permit it; from which it certainly follows that these chorepiscopi were true bishops. Moreover, at the end of that canon, where we read “a chorepiscopus is to be ordained by the bishop of the place,” it treats not of the same chorepiscopi, but of that other kind. For the Council wished to establish a law that henceforth a chorepiscopus be ordained by one bishop, and accordingly be a priest, not a bishop. And of this kind of chorepiscopi Damasus speaks in letter 3, when he says that it is not lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain subdeacons.
But the other Councils and Fathers, who deny that it is lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain deacons, and say nothing of subdeacons, seem to have understood subdeacons too under the name of deacons, since each is a sacred order, and they are often called by the same name among the ancients. And if it can be evidently shown that it was sometimes granted to chorepiscopi of the second kind to ordain subdeacons, it must be said that this was a privilege and a certain dispensation — such as also was, in certain places, that priests, in the bishop’s absence, should confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, as Ambrose writes of the priests of Egypt (in the commentary on chapter 4 of the epistle to the Ephesians). And so much of the distinction and office of clerics.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. De Chorepiscopis. Diximus de distinctione et officio Clerico¬ rum eorum, qui etiam hoc tempore locum suum habent in Ecclesia; nunc addendum visum est aliquid de Chorepiscopis, quorum nomen et officium olim in usu erat, nunc autem pene interiisse videtur. Igitur Chorepiscopi dicebantur olim pres¬ byteri quidam, qui in pagis, aut oppidulis curam animarum gerebant loco Episcopo¬ rum, ut nunc fere Parochi faciunt. Diceban¬ tur autem Chorepiscopi, vel, ut Damasus in¬ dicat in epist. 3. quasi villarum Episcopi. Nam y»pv. Graece oppidum ac regionem si¬ gnificat. Vel potius, ut concilium Neocaesa- riense canone 13. et Antiochenum can. 8. docent, quasi Vicarii Episcopi, vel Vicarii Episcoporum, seu loco Episcoporum consti¬ tuti ; yjupv. enim locum etiam significare po¬ test. Porro ejusmodi Chorepiscopi non pote¬ rant Presbyteros et Diaconos ordinare, nec Chrismate fidelium frontes inungere, nec templa, aut altaria consecrare. Caetera fere omnia praestare poterant, quae praestant Epis-' copi, ut cognosci potest ex Concilio Ancy¬ rano, can. 12. et Antiocheno, can. 10. et Hispalensi II, can. 7. item ex Damaso in epist. 3. Leone epist. 86. alias 88. et Joanne III, in epistola ad Episcopos Germaniae et Galliae. Sed quaestio hoc locb occurrit. An Sub- diaconos ordinare Chorepiscopis aliquando licuerit. Nam in Concilio Antiocheno can. \ 0. id eis licuisse disertis verbis asseritur. Contra autem, id eis minime licuisse, Dama¬ sus Papa in epist. 3. aeque disertis verbis affirmat; Concilia et Pontifices caeteri supra citati negant licere Chorepiscopis Presbyte¬ ros vel Diaconos ordinare ; de Subdiaconis, caeterisque ordinibus nihil expresse dicunt. Respondeo, quosdam fuisse Chorepisco¬ pos, qui vere Episcopalem consecrationem acceperant, sed Chorepiscopi dicebantur, quod non haberent propriam Ecclesiam, sed in aliena Dioecesi ministrarent, quales sunt hoc tempore Episcopi quidam Titulares, qui et Suffraganei dici solent. Alios vero Cho¬ repiscopos fuisse, qui nihil aliud, nisi Pres¬ byteri essent, sed, ut diximus, in pagis, ac villis, seu etiam oppidulis, Episcopum aliquo modo repraesentarent. De prioribus loqui vi¬ detur Concilium Antiochenum, ut etiam Da¬ masus annotavit in epist. 3. nam ita incipit Canon : « Chorepiscopi, qui manus imposi¬ tionem ab Episcopis acceperunt, et, ut Epis¬ copi, sunt ordinati etc. » ubi non de omni¬ bus Chorepiscopis loquitur Concilium, sed de illis tantum, qui a pluribus Episcopis, ritu Pontificum sunt consecrati. Praeterea in eodem canone Concilium non solum his CAPUT XVIII. 453 Chorepiscopis permittit, ut Subdiaconos ab¬ solute ordinent, sed etiam ut Presbyteros et Diaconos ordinare possint, si id Episcopus loci permiserit, ex quo certe sequitur eos, Chorepiscopos veros Episcopos fuisse. Porro in fine illius canonis, ubi legimus (Chorepiscopus ab Episcopo loci ordinandus est) non de iisdem Chorepiscopis agitur, sed de illo altero genere. Voluit enim Concilium legem statuere, uf, deinceps Chorepiscopus ordinetur ab uno Episcopo, et proinde Pres¬ byter sit, non Episcopus. De quo genere Chorepiscoporum loquitur Damasus in epist. 3. cum dicit, non licere Chorepiscopis ordi¬ nare Subdiaconos. Csetera autem Concilia et Patres, qui ne¬ gant, Chorepiscopis licere ordinare Diaco¬ nos, et de subdiaconis nibil dicunt, videntur nomine Diaconorum etiam Subdiaconos accepisse, cum sit uterque sacer ordo, et ssepe apud veteres eodem nomine appellen¬ tur. Quod si evidenter ostendi possit, con¬ cessum aliquando fuisse Chorepiscopis se¬ cundi generis, ut Subdiaconos ordinarent; dicendum erit, id fuisse privilegium et dis¬ pensationem quamdam, qualis etiam fuit quibusdam in locis, ut presbyteri, absente Episcopo, Confirmationis Sacramentum ex¬ hiberent, ut Ambrosius scribit de Sacerdoti¬ bus iEgypti, in commentario cap. IV. epis¬ tolae ad Ephesios. Atque haec de distinctione et officio Clericorum.