Bishops Cathedra Rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter ktfranke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

ktfranke

Guest
In any diocese, it is, of course, the sole right of the bishop to use his cathedra, and no other priest or suffragan bishop. However, does the bishop’s immediate superior (the ecclesiastical archbishop) have the authority to use the cathedra? Or at that, does the pope? Just food for thought.
 
Last edited:
I think the only bishop to whom he would have to concede the use of his cathedra is the pope. A metropolitan has some oversight of his province but he is not a diocesan bishop’s immediate superior. All diocesan bishops are accountable to the pope. In general, I do not think a metropolitan has the right to sit in the cathedra in another bishop’s cathedral. A diocesan bishop may concede that right to him if he wishes. An alternative that can, and has happened, is that a temporary similar chair of significant importance (once called a throne) is set up for the visiting metropolitan. I did say ‘in general’ because there are individual cases where a metropolitan may, indeed, have the right to sit in the cathedra, and this would usually because of some privilege granted to him by the Holy See.

For example, I live in England & Wales. The Archbishop of Westminster can obviously use the cathedra in Westminster Cathedral. However, although he does not actually possess the title of ‘primate’ I believe the Holy See has granted various privileges to that office. He can wear the pallium throughout England and Wales and not just in his own province of Westminster. Similarly, the archiepiscopal cross can be carried before him throughout England and Wales and not just in his province. And, remembering the privileges were granted prior to Vatican II, he can say Mass at the throne in any cathedral in England and Wales. I would understand that to mean he can use the cathedra in any English or Welsh cathedral without the prior consent of the resident bishop.
 
I am sure that when a bishop of equal or higher rank, especially higher rank, visits a second, temporary throne can be set up. I know, normally, a visiting bishop would use the faldstool.
 
It still wouldn’t be called a throne though. The point isn’t rank, per se, but the fact that the diocesan bishop is the bishop of that diocese. The throne represents his authority over that diocese, not simply that he’s a high rank, and a higher ranked bishop, higher though he may be, is not the bishop of that diocese. I imagine the bishop would then give permission to that visiting bishop to celebrate Mass from the throne, and then the bishop of that diocese would participate in the choir.
 
Thanks for the insight. Our diocese has a small cathedral, and so episcopal conservations are done at a much larger venue, typically a coliseum. While vespers are done in the cathedral, I have not seen an example of a metropolitan assuming a suffragan bishops cathedra.
 
This makes sense. My only assumption in this case is that the visiting bishop is of higher ecclesiastical rank.
 
ktfranke said:
In any diocese, it is, of course, the sole right of the bishop to use his cathedra, and no other priest or suffragan bishop. However, does the bishop’s immediate superior (the ecclesiastical archbishop) have the authority to use the cathedra? Or at that, does the pope? Just food for thought.
Click to expand...
I might be mistaken, but in practice, I generally can’t see this happening unless it is the Pope.

I’ve saw it happen in Philadelphia when Pope Francis prayed Saturday mass in our Cathedral. The Pope used the cathedra and Archbishop Chaput & Archbishop Emeritus Cardinal Rigali sat in special chairs that were placed in the sanctuary.

Besides the Pope, only other time I could possibly see this happen (in real life) is if a Cardinal or another bishop was previously a priest or bishop from the diocese he was visiting - and still remained very popular inside his former diocese.

Otherwise, what typically happens is when the bishop lets another bishop use his cathedra, the ordinary bishop is not present during the mass.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
It seems that in your case, being in an archdiocese, it makes sense that the only superior to then archbishop Chaput was Pope Francis. However, I am in the Diocese of San Angelo, a suffragan of San Antonio. My question stems from the fact that my bishop is under the ecclesiastical authority of Archbishop Siller. And it is the authority of the metropolitan to pray the mass in any of his the dioceses in his province, should he be in attendance. I am unsure whether or not he explicitly has the authority to assume the cathedra in any cathedral of his province, or whether the diocesan bishop must allow the archbishop to sit there.
 
ktfranke said:
It seems that in your case, being in an archdiocese, it makes sense that the only superior to then archbishop Chaput was Pope Francis. However, I am in the Diocese of San Angelo, a suffragan of San Antonio. My question stems from the fact that my bishop is under the ecclesiastical authority of Archbishop Siller. And it is the authority of the metropolitan to pray the mass in any of his the dioceses in his province, should he be in attendance. I am unsure whether or not he explicitly has the authority to assume the cathedra in any cathedral of his province, or whether the diocesan bishop must allow the archbishop to sit there.
Click to expand...
I think this is similar to when a Cardinal visits. The bishop of the diocese typically doesn’t give up his seat.

In practice, I could only see this happening at a funeral for a member of the clergy (if the Archbishop was a close friend of the deacon/priest/bishop who died), OR if a very popular Metropolitan Archbishop (typically a Cardinal) was visiting.

For example:
  • if the Archbishop of New York was visiting the Cathedral in Albany, perhaps then it would happen.
  • Or if the Archbishop of San Antonio was a Cardinal, then I think it might happen. But when the Metropolitan Archbishop isn’t a Cardinal, I really don’t see it happening unless it made sense for pastoral reasons (i.e. he is very popular in your diocese because he used to be a priest or bishop in your diocese, etc.).
 
Last edited:
ktfranke said:
And it is the authority of the metropolitan to pray the mass in any of his the dioceses in his province, should he be in attendance.
Click to expand...
BTW - I’ve been at Masses when the chief celebrant of a Mass was another bishop. When attending those Masses, the bishop of the diocese still sat in his cathedra, but wearing his choir robes instead of Concelebrating.

It is my opinion, that if your Metropolitan Archbishop was visiting your Cathedral for Mass (with your bishop present), your bishop would most likely sit on his Cathedra, but in his choir robes, while the Archbishop celebrated Mass from the Chair the priests use when celebrating mass at the Cathedral.

HOWEVER - your bishop COULD let the Archbishop use his Cathedra - but I don’t think he has to.
 
Last edited:
Right. In your example, Cardinal Dolan is the Metropolitan Archbishop of New York, of which Albany is a suffragan. I think that assuming honorific titles as being the determining factor is a dangerous assumption. Because he is the Archbishop, I assume he has the authority to assume the cathedra of his suffragan bishops.
 
And I was aware of the diocesan bishop sitting in choir when another bishop is celebrating. This is probably most common with Auxiliary Bishops and their corresponding Diocesan Bishop. However, pursuant to it being the metropolitan archbishop, I am curious whether he blatantly has the authority to use the cathedra, basically without permission. Obviously the diocesan bishop would be aware of the Archbishop’s attendance in the diocese, however does the archbishop have the authority to assume the cathedra without the diocesan bishops permission?
 
ktfranke said:
I am curious whether he blatantly has the authority to use the cathedra, basically without permission. Obviously the diocesan bishop would be aware of the Archbishop’s attendance in the diocese, however does the archbishop have the authority to assume the cathedra without the diocesan bishops permission?
Click to expand...
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you… I don’t believe the Metropolitan Archbishop has a right to the Cathedra (at least in the Latin Church) without the suffragan bishop’s approval.

No bishop (except the Pope) has the power to overrule a bishop in his own diocese. The role of Metropolitan Archbishops (in the Latin Church) is essentially non-existent today because of modern communications. The only time I’m aware of Metropolitan Archdiocese coming into play is for appeals to rulings of Canon Law (and that’s really just the tribunal and not the Archbishop himself). Metropolitans don’t even automatically run their suffragan dioceses anymore when a suffragan diocese doesn’t have a bishop.
 
ktfranke said:
Right. In your example, Cardinal Dolan is the Metropolitan Archbishop of New York, of which Albany is a suffragan. I think that assuming honorific titles as being the determining factor is a dangerous assumption. Because he is the Archbishop, I assume he has the authority to assume the cathedra of his suffragan bishops.
Click to expand...
But Cardinal Dolan is a Cardinal. If the Archbishop of Philadelphia was at the Cathedral in Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh is a suffragan diocese of Philadelphia), I doubt he would sit in the Cathedra (unless he was a Cardinal - or previously a bishop or priest in Pittsburgh)
 
Last edited:
I understand what you’re saying. Here is how my initial question came to fruition. It is rule in ecclesiastical hierarchy that those of higher authority are either to preside or sit in choir. When a Metropolitan Archbishop is in any of his suffrage sees, he should be the main celebrant due to his hierarchy. Same is true with cardinals, they either sit in choir or preside, unless another cardinal or the pope is presiding. With this being the case, as they are encouraged to preside, shouldn’t they attain the symbol of their authority?? I understand that they are equal in the episcopate, however in maintaining traditions, the archbishop is still the ecclesiastical superior.
 
And while being Cardinal is an honorific step up, he still is an archbishop. Yes he would have supremacy in the liturgy, however my focus is on the ecclesiastical province.
 
ktfranke said:
I understand what you’re saying. Here is how my initial question came to fruition. It is rule in ecclesiastical hierarchy that those of higher authority are either to preside or sit in choir. When a Metropolitan Archbishop is in any of his suffrage sees, he should be the main celebrant due to his hierarchy. Same is true with cardinals, they either sit in choir or preside, unless another cardinal or the pope is presiding. With this being the case, as they are encouraged to preside, shouldn’t they attain the symbol of their authority?? I understand that they are equal in the episcopate, however in maintaining traditions, the archbishop is still the ecclesiastical superior.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Metropolitan Archbishop or a visiting Cardinal SHOULD be the main celebrant due to the hierarchy. But that doesn’t mean he needs to sit on the Cathedra.

The ordinary of the diocese still has the right to sit on his Cathedra while attending the Mass in Choir.

The Cathedra is the symbol of the ordinary’s authority. When the Metropolitan or a Cardinal prays the mass, he still says “Francis our Pope and [ordinary’s name] our Bishop”

The Metropolitan would not use his name in the mass, when visiting one of his suffrage sees.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I just thought of it as an intriguing question as, while relatively unnecessary in the modern church, it seems unanswered in church doctrine.
 
Because it’s not a question of doctrine. It’s a question of liturgy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top