 |
What's the difference between I don't understand what
elevates a bishop to the title
of archbishop....Is it
something the bishop does?? or
what....
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
"An archbishop or metropolitan, in the present sense of the term, is a bishop who governs a diocese strictly his own, while he presides at the same time over the bishops of a well-defined district composed of simple dioceses but not of provinces. Hence none of these subordinate bishops rule over others. These bishops are called the suffragans or comprovincials. The archbishop's own diocese is the archdiocese. The several dioceses of the district form the archiepiscopal, or metropolitan, province." http://www.newadvent.org/cathe n/01691a.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
Archbishops are technically higher ranking bishops and oversee a larger region than bishops. Plus, bishops can only move to churches on a direct diagonal from the one they are currently at. |
|
|
|
|
|
It's not necessarily what the bishop does, but the area he governs over. A bishop is responsible for all the souls in his diocese (or area he governs) and if that area is large enough, it's called an archdiocese. The title of archbishop simply refers to a bishop who resides over an archdiocese, thus having more people to watch over. It has no relation to the bishop's achievements, etc., but rather the are and population of the diocese he's in charge of. Hope that helped :] |
|
|
|
|
