Last week’s post examined the seventh principle that influenced the 1983 Code, namely, protection of subjective rights. Today’s post discusses the eighth principle, which concerns territoriality.
Territoriality refers to the principle that ecclesiastical jurisdiction and authority are ordinarily exercised within a defined geographical area or territory. Territoriality in canon law means that a person’s rights, duties, and ecclesiastical status—especially regarding jurisdiction—are determined by the territory in which they live or operate.
The Church divides the world into specific territorial units—ecclesiastical provinces, dioceses, including those equivalent to it: territorial prelature and territorial abbacy, an apostolic vicariate and an apostolic prefecture, and an apostolic administration (Cann. 368-371), and parishes—and the authority of bishops and parish priests is tied to these boundaries. Everyone physically present within that territory — regardless of nationality, rite, or origin — is ordinarily subject to the local ecclesiastical authority and its laws. Hence, it is foundational in the organisation and governance of the Catholic Church.
The traditional method for determining jurisdiction in the Church has always been through geographical territory. It draws from the Roman law’s maxim: “Extra territorium ius dicenti impune non paretur. idem est, et si supra iurisdictionem suam velit ius dicere.” (Outside the territory, one who is declaring the law is not obeyed with impunity. And the same is true if he wishes to declare the law beyond his own jurisdiction) (Justinian Digest, 2.1.20; cf. Justinian Code, 3.3.2).
The principle of territoriality goes back to the early Church, appearing in the first Council of Nicaea of 325 AD (Can. 6). The First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD put it in clear terms: “Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone…; and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited, bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business” (Can. 2).
The principle was reinforced by the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD (Can. 17) and Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 AD (Can. 9). Gratian Decree reiterated that no priest should “encroach on the boundaries or rights of another parish” (C.13 q.1 c.1). The Council of Trent (1545–1563) reinforced the territorial system of dioceses and parishes to ensure pastoral order and sacramental discipline (Session 23, chapter 1; Session 7, de reformation, chapter 2).
The 1917 Code of Canon Law formally codified the principle of territoriality as the basis of ecclesiastical organisation. Dioceses and parishes were defined by territory as a rule. Personal jurisdictions of parishes based on the diversity of the language or nationality of the faithful found in the same city or territory were allowed only by an apostolic indult (Can. 216 §4 CIC 17). In light of increased mobility in the twentieth century, the principle of territoriality was set to be revised for the new Code.
The eighth principle in the revision of the 1917 Code reads: “The principle of territoriality in the exercise of ecclesiastical government is to be revised somewhat, for contemporary apostolic factors seem to recommend personal jurisdictional units. Therefore, the new Code is to affirm the following principle: generally speaking, the portions of the people of God to be governed are to be determined territorially; however, if it is advantageous, other factors can be admitted as criteria for determining a community of the faithful, at least along with territoriality.”
The 1983 Code restated the rule of territoriality, but removed the need for an apostolic indult for parish personal jurisdictions. Canon 372 states, “§1. As a rule, a portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other particular church is limited to a definite territory so that it includes all the faithful living in the territory. §2 Nevertheless, where in the judgment of the supreme authority of the Church it seems advantageous after the conferences of bishops concerned have been heard, particular churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or some other similar reason can be erected in the same territory.”
Canon 518 reads: “As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason.”
One can now identify three categories of personal jurisdictions, that is, jurisdictions not restricted to a territory. The first is a personal prelature, composed of deacons and priests of the secular clergy, which the Holy See establishes after consultation with the Episcopal Conferences involved (Cann. 294-297). The purpose of a prelature is “to promote a suitable distribution of presbyters or to accomplish particular pastoral or missionary works for various regions or for different social groups” (Can. 294). As of today, there is only one canonically erected personal prelature in the world, the Opus Dei.
The second is the ordinariate, where membership is by enrolment rather than geography. Here, there is a personal ordinariate, such as the one created for groups of Anglicans entering full communion with Rome, allowing them to retain elements of their Anglican liturgical, spiritual, and pastoral patrimony, while being fully Catholic and subject to the Pope. Another is the military ordinariate (formerly called a military vicariate), a particular church erected by the Holy See to provide for the spiritual care of the faithful of the armed forces, under the authority of a prelate who exercises quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Military Ordinariates are equivalent to dioceses (Spirituali militum curae, Art. I §1).
The third is personal parishes based on the diversity of the language or nationality of the faithful. However, the law is restrictive when it comes to establishing an Eastern Rite parish within a Latin diocese. The fundamental principle is that every Eastern Catholic faithful has the right to preserve his or her own rite(Can. 214 CIC 17; Cann. 28-29 Eastern Code). Therefore, when Eastern Catholics are present in significant numbers in the territory of a Latin diocese, the Church has an obligation to provide them with proper pastoral care in their own rite. Establishing a parish requires prior consultation with the Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, cooperation with the patriarch, major archbishop, metropolitan, or eparch who governs that Eastern Church sui iuris, and the availability of a priest to celebrate in that rite (a priest in the Latin rite requires an apostolic indult to celebrate in the Eastern rite) (Can. 372 §2). There is the Maronite Eparchy in Ibadan.
The geographical territory, which has always determined one’s Ordinary, domicile, and quasi-domicile, is increasingly challenging in Nigeria. The next post will examine this.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
