Bishops Cathedra Rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter ktfranke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes you’re right. However liturgical rubrics nor doctrinal precedent hints at it. I haven’t found a reference in the GIRM, which is how my question came to be
 
The GIRM is the General Instructions for the Roman Missal. It’s not supposed to be a catch all document for all kinds of Masses. Pontifical Masses have their own rubrics, although admittedly I’m not sure what would cover that in the OF. As for doctrinal precedent, I can’t imagine what doctrine would cover this. Doctrine states there are bishops and the Pope, but how brother bishops deal with each other beyond Christian charity is beyond the scope of doctrine.
 
As an aside, it seems very impractical that some 2500 bishop ordinaries around the world effectively report directly to the Pope. It basically renders that reporting relationship almost meaningless in any practical sense. Metropolitan Archbishops, as you say, retain some of their ancient rights of local primacy… but it’s much diminished. I think Pope Francis has moved in the right direction by giving metropolitans more authority over abuse investigations of suffragan bishops. The ancient model of a true local primacy and a true local synod seems, I think, to be more effective in terms of practical accountability. This model is lived by the Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
The Order of Precedence doesn’t mention anything about granting access to a Cathedra.

BTW - I’ve seen MANY masses in the United States where it wasn’t followed to the letter.

I’ve seen Cardinals out of order, I’ve seen bishops out of order, I’ve seen Monsignors mixed in with regular priests, I’ve seen vicars coming before pastors, etc.

 
Last edited:
The bishop has a permanent cathedra for when when he comes in every byzantine parish.

While a priest would never use it, if it’s movable, St. Nicholas tends to use it after liturgy every year when he visits.

🤣

(which means he uses it more often than the bishop).
 
Sorry about the wait… sure, and I’ve read through the Roman Pontifical as well, which covers pontifical masses. Because it is unanswered in both the GIRM and the Roman Pontifical, maybe it remains unanswered?
I include doctrine as a viable analytical resource as the theology associated may provide reason for this question. While the doctrine of the faith solely outlines theology and not liturgy, it takes theology to formulate liturgy.
 
For sure. Guidelines don’t necessarily indicate the actual practice of the guidelines. It does pain me though when processionals are entirely out of order
 
Of course in practice they report to one of the Holy See’s congregations. It is also not something that is done on a daily basis. A bishop does enjoy considerable autonomy in the governance of his diocese. The metropolitan has little oversight of his suffragans.
 
Sure, hence the need for a papal nuncio. I agree that the archbishops role is mainly ceremonial.
 
From the Ceremonial of Bishops comes the answer!

Apart from the cases provided for by law, only the diocesan bishop or a bishop he permits to use it, occupies this chair.

In practice, any bishop who comes into another bishop’s territory will have asked permission to do stuff (even if only informally or indirectly) and use of the cathedral will typically go along with this. the same is also true for auxiliaries / coadjutors. In theory the diocesan bishop could refuse but in reality that’s not going to happen.

A footnote to the text cross references later paragraphs about synods, suggesting that whoever presides over a synod can use the cathedra. Curiously, the same footnote also cross-references canon Can. 463 § which refers to inviting as observers to the diocesan synod other ministers or members of Churches or ecclesial communities which are not in full communion which could suggest that a non-Catholic bishop or could be permitted to use the cathedra… 🍿
 
Wow this is what I’ve been looking for! Thanks! Also, the last clause you mentioned is intriguing. Enabling non-catholic bishops to theoretically sit at the cathedra “pursuant to the bishop’s permission” is very odd, but is captivating.
 
Now the “cases provided for by law” throws me off… are there instances where this “law” is defined?
 
ktfranke said:
Now the “cases provided for by law” throws me off… are there instances where this “law” is defined?
Click to expand...
The stuff in the footnote.
ktfranke said:
Also, the last clause you mentioned is intriguing. Enabling non-catholic bishops to theoretically sit at the cathedra “pursuant to the bishop’s permission” is very odd, but is captivating.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it definitely allows for that but, on its face at least, that’s what it seems to be suggesting. Probably somebody’s nice ecumenical idea; probably not a good idea to do it…
 
ktfranke said:
When a Metropolitan Archbishop is in any of his suffrage sees, he should be the main celebrant due to his hierarchy.
Click to expand...
This is just anecdotal, but when my archbishop visits his suffragan dioceses, he does, in fact, sit in the cathedra.
phil19034 said:
Metropolitans don’t even automatically run their suffragan dioceses anymore when a suffragan diocese doesn’t have a bishop.
Click to expand...
Again, just anecdotal, but my archbishop, was appointed Apostolic Administrator of a suffragan see when their bishop had to go away for treatment. This was just last Fall, FYI.

Perhaps we are returning to more involvement of Metropolitans in their provinces under Pope Francis.

Deacon Christopher
 
Diaconia said:
Again, just anecdotal, but my archbishop, was appointed Apostolic Administrator of a suffragan see when their bishop had to go away for treatment. This was just last Fall, FYI.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a little different. In that situation, he’s functioning as bishop. So that makes total sense.
Diaconia said:
Perhaps we are returning to more involvement of Metropolitans in their provinces under Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
Possibly.
 
Last edited:
This is interesting! Is this due to the archbishop’s authority, or did he ask permission from the diocesan bishop (Apostolic Administrator not included)?
 
I imagine it also varies province by province. In our province, 3 of the 4 suffragan bishops are former priests of the archdiocese, and at least two of them are former Vicars General who served under the current Archbishop. That would give the Archbishop a lot of personal influence I would think…
 
I think you’re on to something! While our bishops typically come from the province, they don’t always come from the archdiocese itself. In fact, our bishop (San Angelo) came from Austin, and Austin’s bishop came from us. San Antonio is our Archdiocese, and the Archbishop was an auxiliary in Chicago. Regardless, the Archbishop, as usual, consecrated all of the province’s bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top