The crozier is a sign of authority, so even an active bishop does not use it outside his jurisdiction. So and auxiliary bishop does not use it. He does, however, have the option of wearing the mitre of not. He always wears the zuchetto and pectoral cross.
Once a bishop, always a bishop. One is still a bishop upon retirement, not only “considered” one. However, in practice most retired bishops wear a mitre only on more solemn or public occasions, and not so much when they routinely celebrate daily Mass, especially if they celebrate frequently in a parish or chapel at which they reside.
As pointed out by a previous poster, lay cardinals have disappeared nowadays and have been for about a century. Prior to that, even the lay cardinals were clerics. At that time, unlike now, entrance to the clergy began with the tonsure, which was followed by the so called “minor orders” (porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte). So the lay cardinals had often just received tonsure, and maybe some or all of the minor orders. They could not obviously wear the Mass vestments, and at that time no non-bishop, including Cardinals, could wear a pectoral cross. However they could preside at liturgical celebrations in full “choir dress”, with some modifications regarding blessings and such, depending what it was and which “order” they had received.
Only (arch)diocesan (arch)bishops carry a crozier. It’s a symbol of their authority. Retired, coadjutor, auxiliary, titular, etc. (arch)bishops can’t use one. (Arch)bishops cannot use one outside their own arch(diocese). (I’m not sure if a metropolitan can use one throughout his province.) The mitre is part of the liturgical vestments of all bishops (and abbots), so they may always use one.
Most cardinals (cardinal-bishops, cardinal-priests, and cardinal-deacons) are bishops. One or two are priests. Cardinals who are bishops may obviously wear episcopal vestments. I’m unsure about those few cardinals who are priests. The Pope may have granted them the right to wear episcopal vestments; abbots are normally priests and they use similar vestments to bishops including crozier, mitre, and pectoral cross.
I’m pretty sure that when auxiliary bishops do things with the authority of the diocese, like make pastoral visits to parishes and confirm people, they are permitted to carry a crosier.
I believe that’s correct, but I think it applies to any “guest” bishop, and not only auxiliaries . If memory serves, such a “guest” bishop (or auxiliary) who is allowed use of a crozier should bear it with the crook facing inward, to signify that he has no pastoral jurisdiction. Notice that the crozier in the top photo in the first link is clearly facing inward.
Yes, I think you’re right.
If an archbishop does have the right to use the crozier throughout his metropolitan province, he only does so if he is the principal celebrant. When I attended the episcopal ordination of Bishop McGrattan, an auxiliary bishop of Toronto, Archbishop Collins of Toronto was in attendance, but did not carry the crozier. Bishop Fabbro of London was the principal consecrator, and he did carry the crozier.
I have attended a Mass celebrated by a visiting bishop, who did not carry his crozier. He was not acting as an agent of the Ordinary, only as a guest of the pastor. He did wear the mitre.
This is one of the things that was commonly taught, like the former ‘rule’ of genuflections to bishops having to be on the left knee, and was quite widespread (it is even mentioned in the old Catholic Encyclopedia article, with reference to abbots). In reality, there is no explicit statement that gives this rule in either pre or post conciliar legislation - only some rubrical authors, and the basis for the statement was somewhat flawed. Technically, although many do observe the custom of carrying the crosier in this way, the crosier should always be carried facing outward.
AJV, what is the rule concerning which bishops may the crozier? Is it primarily a symbol of a bishop’s authority over his see? Do those bishops, who are not ordinaries of sees, carry one as a courtesy extended to them by the bishop who is the ordinary of the see in which they may be celebrating a liturgy?
When our Metropolitan-- Archbishop Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of Houston–installed our bishop, he vested in cope, mitre and crozier. After the installation part of the Mass, he went to sacristy, removed the cope and mitre and came back out in choral dress. He sat with the other non-concelebrating bishops. Interestingly enough, the Papal Nuncio–Archbishop Sambi-- concelebrated the Mass with Bishop Flores.
I always thought it sort of funny that such a rule would be in canon law. The only person that can appoint a cardinal is the Pope and his authority supercedes canon law. So if the Pope wants to elect a priest, a deacon, a lay man or woman to cardinal, he can. Since cardinal is an honorary office, it could be anyone, I don’t even know if they would have to be Catholic
Hi,I always thought it sort of funny that such a rule would be in canon law. The only person that can appoint a cardinal is the Pope and his authority supercedes canon law. So if the Pope wants to elect a priest, a deacon, a lay man or woman to cardinal, he can. Since cardinal is an honorary office, it could be anyone, I don’t even know if they would have to be Catholic
This is not really true at all.
As other poster’s have mentioned in the thread, it is restricted to those who have some sort of jurisdiction, or at least precedence - thus, by bishops in their dioceses, legates in the territory to which they are sent (informing the Ordinary, if possible), etc. and to visiting bishops to whom it is granted
As other posters have mentioned in the thread, it is restricted to those who have some sort of jurisdiction, or at least precedence - thus, by bishops in their dioceses, legates in the territory to which they are sent (informing the Ordinary, if possible), etc. and to visiting bishops to whom it is granted