Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/553

 PARISH

501

PARISH

III. History. — The first Christian communities were founded in cities and the entire Divine service was carried on by the bishop and his clergy; the few faith- ful outside the cities went to the city or were visited from time to time by clerics from the presbyteries. In the fourth century we find in the villages groups sufficiently large to be served by a resident clergy. Canon 77 of Elvira (about a. d. 300) speaks of a dea- con in charge of the people {diaconus regens plebem). In the East at a very early period the churches of the cities and of the country districts were organized; the Council of Neoca!sarea, about 320 (can. 13), speaks of country priests and bishops of villages, the "chorepis- copi", who had a subordinate clergy. Such churches and their clergy were originally under the direct ad- ministration of the bishop; but soon they had their own resources and a distinct administration (Council of Chalcedon, 451, can. 4, 6, 17). The same change took place in the West, but more slowly. In proportion as the counUw districts were evangelized (fourth to sixth centuries), churches were erected, at first in the vici (hamlets or villages), afterwards on church lands or on the property of private individuals, and at least one priest was appointed to each church. The clergy and property depended at first directly on the bishop and the cathedral; the churches did not yet correspond to very definite territorial circumscriptions: the centre was better marked than the boundaries. Such was the church which the councils of the sixth and seventh century call ec.clesia rusticana, parochilana, often dioecesis, and finally parochia. By that time most of these churches had become independent: the priest administered the property assigned to him by the bisho]3, and also the property given directly to the church by the pious faithful; from that moment the priest became a beneficiary and had his title. More plentiful resources required and permitted a more nu- merous clergy. The devotion of the faithful, espe- cially towards relics, led to the erection of numerous secondary chapels, oraloria, basilicce, marlyria, which also had their clergy. But these lituli minores were not parishes; they depended on the principal church of the viciin, and on the archpriest so often mentioned in the councils of the sixth and seventh centuries, who had authority over his own clergy and those of the oratories.

These secondary churches emphasize the parochial character of the baptismal churches, as the faithful had to receive the sacraments and pay their tithes in the la.tter. The monasteries in turn ministered to the people grouped around them. From the eighth cen- tury parochial centres multiplied on the lands of the churches and the monasteries, and the villce or great estates of the kings and nobles. Then the villce were subdivided and the parish served a cer- tain number of vill(E or rural districts, and thus the parish church became the centre of the religious and even the civil life of the villages. This condition, es- tablished in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, has scarcely varied since, as far as concerns the parochial service. As benefices, however, parishes have under- gone many vicissitudes, owing to their union with monasteries or chapters, and on account of the inex- tricable complications of the feudal order. Parish churches had ordinarily attached to them schools and charitable works, especially for the poor enrolled on the malricula, or list of those attached to the Church. In the episcopal and other cities the division into parishes took place much more slowly, the cathe- dral or the archipresbyteral church being for a long time the only parochial church. However numerous the city churches, all depended on it and, properly speaking, had no flock of their own. At Rome, as early as the fourth century, there was a quasi-paro- chial service in the "titles" and cemeterial churches (Innocent I to Decentius, c. 5, an. 416). It is only towards the close of the eleventh century that sepa-

rate urban parishes began; even then there were limi- tations, e. g. baptism was to be conferred in the cathe- dral; the territories, moreover, were badly defined. The chapters turned over to the clergy of the churches the parochial ministry, while the corporations (guilds) insisted especially on the granting of parochial rights to the churches which they founded and supported.

All manuals of canon law have a chapter on the parish and the parish priest; the commentators of the Decretals treat the subject in Book III, tit. v, De prwhendis, and tit. xxix, De parockis et alienis parochianis: Bouix, De parocho (Paris, 1867) ; Ferraris, Prompta bibliotkeca, s. v. Parochia; Sagmuller, Lehrbuch des hath. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1909). §§ 58, 100; Thomassin, P. I. I. ii, c. 21 sq. ; Imbart de la Tour. Les paroisses rurales du JV' au VI' siicle (Paris, 1900); Les6the, La Paroisse (Paris, 1908); Taunton, Law of Ike Church (London. 1906), s. v.

A. BOUDINHON.

In English-speaking Countries. — In the United States and English-speaking lands generally (with the exception of Ireland, Canada, and possibly California), it has not been found advisable as yet to erect canonical parishes. The districts confided to priests having the cure of souls are technically desig- nated as missions or quasi-parishes, though in common parlance the word parish is employed. The establish- ment of canonical parishes in these countries was not found possible, owing either to the devastation wrought in the so-called Reformation period or to the fact that, as new lands were slowly evangelized and settled, circumstances did not allow the establishment of the Church's parochial system as prescribed in her canon law.

A. The Missions or Quasi-Parishes. — Certain churches are designated by the bishop which are to be regarded as parish churches (ad inslar paraciaruni). Over these churches are placed priests provided with the nece.s.sary faculties. They are designated mission- ary rectors, or quasi-parish priests, though famiUarly referred to as pastors or parish priests. A certain dis- trict around each church is then more or less definitely marked out by the bishop, within the limits of which the pastor is to exercise jurisdiction over the faithful and have care of ecclesiastical buildings. Within the limits of such missions or quasi-parishes, the bishop may institute new ecclesiastical divisions when such action becomes advisable. If the parish be held by members of a religious order, the bishop is not thereby constrained to entrust the newly-formed district to regulars. The institution of new quasi-parishes in English-speaking countries proceeds generally along the same lines as those prescribed by Church law for the erection of canonical parishes. Consequently, the bishop can erect a new parish by way of creation, union, or division. If the territory in question has not yet been assigned to any parish church, the institution is said to be by way of creation. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the bishop can proceed to such action in virtue of his powers as ordinary of the diocese. In creating such new parish, he is bound to provide as far as possible for the proper support of the new in- cumbent. In English-speaking countries there is no necessity of recurring to the civil power for the crea- tion of a new parish. When the bishop establishes new quasi-parishes by way of division, he is not re- quired to observe all the formalities prescribed by law for the dismemberment of canonical parishes. He must, nevertheless, act on the advice of his consultors, and after hearing the opinion of the pastor whose ter- ritory is to be divided. It is obvious that a division which would cripple or impoverish the church would not be in the best interests of religion, yet the bishop can proceed to such dismembering even against the will and advice of the pastor. In that case, however, an appeal against the decree of the ordinary can be lodged with the metropolitan or the Holy See. It is to be noted that, while very specific reasons are laid down in canon law according to which a bishop may divide parishes, yet our bishops are not limited to such