Traditional religious vs. diocesan priests?

[life_pilgrim]

I know a religious congregation that have problems with some dioceses. This congregation teaches communion by kneeling and other old practices of the church while many dioceses teach communion by the hand because of many reasons.

Some members of this congregation attended a mass celebrated by the bishop but when communion came, they knelt and the bishop commanded them to stand up. They refused to receive communion by standing. They stood up and left. (This happened not only once.) Many people even priests said that this congregation is disrespectful to the bishop.

Who is right then? The religious members who followed faithfully their charism? Or the bishop who has the authority over the diocese?

I hope they can find reconciliation between one another. This congregation does not exist anymore in this diocese. They are also attributed disobedient to the bishop.

 

[TiggerS]

My two pence. I think that obedience to one’s Bishop is superior to asserting (in defiance of him) one’s preference on a matter that is neither of Faith nor Morals but a liturgical point of view and preference, choice. If on receiving Holy Communion, the Bishop instructed them to stand, then I think they should stand in obedience to rightful authority in The Church. If there objection was a very strong one, then simply not attend the Bishop’s Mass again but choose some other venue where one was more free to express one’s preferences.

TS

 

[JReducation]

If the event happened as reported here, both sides are wrong.

BISHOP’S SIDE:

1. The minister of holy communion may not deny anyone communion unless they are public sinners.
2. There is nothing wrong with kneeling for communion.
3. Bishops do not have authority over the internal practices of religious institutes, if said institute is of pontifical right.

RELIGIOUS SIDE:

1. The Bishop is the highest authority in his diocese. His rules for liturgy in his diocese, celebrated in his churches, trump the rules of the religious institute.
2. Religious have an obligation to deal peacefully and respectfully with the Ordinary of the diocese, even when they disagree.
3. Religious may not challenge the Ordinary of the diocese in his territory. They only have jurisdiction in their religious houses and their property.

Having said all the above, the religious should not attend the bishop’s mass, if there is a difference of opinion on how to receive communion between them. The devotion to receiving the Eucharist on their knees or on the tongue does not authorize them to be disrespectful and leave. This calls attention to self. The devotion to the Eucharist is in conflict with their lack of respect for the celebrant of the Eucharist.

Just as an FYI, the vow of obedience in religious life, only includes the bishop in matters that pertain to his diocese, not in matters that pertain to the religious life. In those matters, the founder, the superior and the constitution of the religious institute demand the full obedience of the religious.

Religious, in any diocese have to know the limits of the bishop and their own limits. The bishop, on the other hand, owes the religious in his diocese respect to their rule, constitution, founder and major superior. The relationship is one of mutual respect.

In this case, if the religious were denied communion, because they were kneeling, they should have presented their complaint to their superior. It is the role of the major sueprior to discuss these matters with the bishop and reach an agreement. If an agreement can’t be reached, the major superior has the right to pull his or her religious out of any diocese on a moment’s notice. They need not ask for permission to leave, only to enter a diocese.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[truevaticanii]

My two pence. I think that obedience to one’s Bishop is superior to asserting (in defiance of him) one’s preference on a matter that is neither of Faith nor Morals but a liturgical point of view and preference, choice. If on receiving Holy Communion, the Bishop instructed them to stand, then I think they should stand in obedience to rightful authority in The Church. If there objection was a very strong one, then simply not attend the Bishop’s Mass again but choose some other venue where one was more free to express one’s preferences.

TS

Except, for some of the religious congregations, the bishop has no jurisdiction over the congregation’s priests… so he has as much authority over them as the Archbishop of New York has over the priests in the Archdiocese of Chicago…
the bishop who denied them Communion for kneeling was disobeying the Holy See in doing so, for even the GIRM states that no one who receives Communion while kneeling is to be rejecting Holy Communion (and the priest who does not want them to kneel for Communion must address them pastorally outside of Mass, not during Mass–the bishop should not interrupt Holy Mass to do such a thing)… Also, according to the Holy See, in all dioceses in the world, even if the norm is to stand, the right to kneel for Communion remains in all regions… any Catholic can kneel for Communion in any diocese in the world… when the Holy See allowed the US to change their norm to kneeling, the Holy See said that they could use this norm so long as the people were still able to kneel in peace “and not in pieces” (to quote Francis Cardinal Arinze)… I received Holy Communion my bishop while kneeling, and he didn’t think anything of it… What the bishop could have done would be to take it up with the congregation or the specific priests outside of Holy Mass… that way the matter could go to the Holy See if necessary… and the matter would have been resolved in a much better fashion…

I have heard many stories, and I know of times where people have been yelled at for kneeling (on one occasion, the girl finally stood up and went straight to her pew–crying–scandalized)…

The Pope loves kneeling so much that he has made it so that you MUST receive kneeling from him…

why not kneel? why not show total subjection to Christ? total humility, total surrender??? I don’t see what the bishop would have against that… especially when the congregation has this as part of their charism (in a way)…

youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8
youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM&feature=related

“The Catechism of The Council of Trent
The Mass Is The Same Sacrifice As That Of The Cross
We therefore confess that the Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself, once only, a bloody Sacrifice on the altar of the cross.”

this woman (in a black shirt behind another woman in a black shirt (shown between 0:18 and 0:26) was forced to stand… youtube.com/watch?v=j0yfdbxr7qM
…image of her being forced up: renewamerica.com/images/columns/abbott060420b.jpg

youtube.com/watch?v=nNz9VFl788I&feature=related

 

[truevaticanii]

If the event happened as reported here, both sides are wrong.

BISHOP’S SIDE:

1. The minister of holy communion may not deny anyone communion unless they are public sinners.
2. There is nothing wrong with kneeling for communion.
3. Bishops do not have authority over the internal practices of religious institutes, if said institute is of pontifical right.

RELIGIOUS SIDE:

1. The Bishop is the highest authority in his diocese. His rules for liturgy in his diocese, celebrated in his churches, trump the rules of the religious institute.
2. Religious have an obligation to deal peacefully and respectfully with the Ordinary of the diocese, even when they disagree.
3. Religious may not challenge the Ordinary of the diocese in his territory. They only have jurisdiction in their religious houses and their property.

Having said all the above, the religious should not attend the bishop’s mass, if there is a difference of opinion on how to receive communion between them. The devotion to receiving the Eucharist on their knees or on the tongue does not authorize them to be disrespectful and leave. This calls attention to self. The devotion to the Eucharist is in conflict with their lack of respect for the celebrant of the Eucharist.

Just as an FYI, the vow of obedience in religious life, only includes the bishop in matters that pertain to his diocese, not in matters that pertain to the religious life. In those matters, the founder, the superior and the constitution of the religious institute demand the full obedience of the religious.

Religious, in any diocese have to know the limits of the bishop and their own limits. The bishop, on the other hand, owes the religious in his diocese respect to their rule, constitution, founder and major superior. The relationship is one of mutual respect.

In this case, if the religious were denied communion, because they were kneeling, they should have presented their complaint to their superior. It is the role of the major sueprior to discuss these matters with the bishop and reach an agreement. If an agreement can’t be reached, the major superior has the right to pull his or her religious out of any diocese on a moment’s notice. They need not ask for permission to leave, only to enter a diocese.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I do wonder what they mean by “religious”… they could have very well just been a part of a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right… which makes the situation a little more difficult…

 

[bpbasilphx]

How one receives communion, whether kneeling, standing, or sitting, or in the hand or on the tongue, are NOT teachings.

These are disciplines and practices.

No TEACHING (that is, doctrine) of the Church is affected by any of these.

 

[truevaticanii]

How one receives communion, whether kneeling, standing, or sitting, or in the hand or on the tongue, are NOT teachings.

These are disciplines and practices.

No TEACHING (that is, doctrine) of the Church is affected by any of these.

agreed.

 

[JReducation]

I do wonder what they mean by “religious”… they could have very well just been a part of a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right… which makes the situation a little more difficult…

Whether they are a religious order. religious congregation, society of apostolic life, secular order or society of apostolic life, if they are of pontifical right, the bishop has no jurisdiction over their internal formation.

However, when they are on the bishop’s turf, they must comply. If they can’t comply, they must refer the matter to their major superior whose job it is to communicate with the bishop. They may not take any action on their own, especially to create a scene.

In your post above you mentioned

Except, for some of the religious congregations, the bishop has no jurisdiction over the congregation’s priests…

Just a slight correction here. Bishops have no authority over any man or woman in religious life, if that person belongs to an institute of pontifical right. It can be a priest, brother or sister. A bishop does have authority over religious of diocesan right, even if they are priests. Diocesan congregations must submit to the authority of the bishop in whatever diocese they find themselves, even on matters of community life, prayer, dress, etc.

The bishop and the religious in this case should have avoided the conflict in public. The usual step for a bishop is to write a letter to the major superior expressing his concerns. If the major superior insists that his/her religious must kneel for communion and the bishop does not want it, the bishop has the right to ask them to leave his diocese or they have the right to leave.

This is an interesting point that every lay person should know. Even when the bishop is wrong, he’s right. Bishops have certain rights that cannot be denied to them. One of them is to ask someone or a group to leave his diocese, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons. They do not have the right to appeal.

The rule of law is simple, where there’s the bishop, there’s the Church. Therefore, the bishop takes precedense over the religious, even if the religious are right. He’s more important to the Church than they are. In the end, the Church looks at every Catholic as dispensable, except a bishop. It makes no difference if it’s a religious, priest, deacon or lay person. The bishop is more necessary for the existence of a local Church. That’s why we have bishops who are ordinaries of non-existent dioceses. As long as these dioceses have a bishop, even though the inhabitants died out hundreds of years ago, the diocese is alive. The bishop is its only member, but that does not matter. I make this point to demonstrate how seriously the Church takes the ministry of the bishop.

We have to be careful, because even when a bishop is wrong, the Holy See and the Rota prefer to have a group leave a diocese than enter into a conflict with the local bishop. In cases like this the Vatican would have told the religious to avoid the bishop’s mass and be done with it. Frankly, so would I.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

In the end, the Church looks at every Catholic as dispensable, except a bishop. It makes no difference if it’s a religious, priest, deacon or lay person. The bishop is more necessary for the existence of a local Church. That’s why we have bishops who are ordinaries of non-existent dioceses.

I wonder if you meant this quite as it first read to me: “The Church looks at every Catholic as dispensable, except a bishop”? Or do you mean that a diocese per se cannot exist without a Bishop while it can exist with only the Bishop?

That’s why we have bishops who are ordinaries of non-existent dioceses.

I am afraid that I don’t understand if a Bishop constitutes a diocese.

 

[JReducation]

I wonder if you meant this quite as it first read to me: “The Church looks at every Catholic as dispensable, except a bishop”? Or do you mean that a diocese per se cannot exist without a Bishop while it can exist with only the Bishop?
I am afraid that I don’t understand if a Bishop constitutes a diocese.

1. A bishop is indispensible. Apostolic succession only exists through bishops. Without bishops there is no apostolic succession, therefore, no Church.
2. The rest of us cannot transmit Apostolic Succession. Therefore, if you took away the rest of the Catholic population, but kept the bishops, you still have the Church. The Church is built upon the Apostles, not the faithful, the clergy or the religious. These all have a role in the life of the Church, but they do not give the Church her apostolic life. That comes from the bishop alone, regardless of how sinful he is. His sins have nothing to do with it. It is his ordination that is important here.
3. A bishop must be the head of a Church. Those bishops who are not the heads of a living diocese are assigned to diocese where the faithful no longer exist. This are dioceses that existed once upon a time. For different reasons they became extinct, people died, wars, people migrated, etc. Those dioceses are kept alive by assigning a bishop to them. Those bishops, such as auxiliary bishops, bishops who work in the Vatican and other bishops who are not leading a currently living diocese are assigned to these extinct dioceses. This keeps the diocese alive, even though its only member is the bishop who is assigned to it. Since there are not faithful in that diocese, this bishop is free to serve as an auxiliary in another diocese or as a beaurocrat in some administrative position. We refer to these bishops as Titular Bishop of (insert name) Diocese. For example, Patmos no longer exists. But it was a dioceese when John the Apostle was alive. Somehwere in the world there is a Titular Bishop of Patmos. He would be the successor the the Apostle John who was the first bishop to that dioocese.

We have to be very careful when we condemn, judge and cirticize bishops. Because without them, we have no Catholicism. Observe that the Orthodox have valid and legal sacraments. They are not heretics or schismatics. They are in a state of schism. But they are not schismatic, because they did not create the schism. This was created by our anscestors who bickered over different points and the bishops of the East walked. Those who walked were schismatics. But thety are long dead. Their children and their children’s children are not guilty of what happened 1000 years ago. They were born into this situation of separation from Rome. But they have never been separated from the Apostles. Even those first Orthodox bishops who walked, had legitimate and valid ordinations. They were legitimate successors to the Apostles, even if they were heretics or schismatics. They did not lose their effects of their ordination to the episcopal state. Then in turn ordained valid bishops to succeed them and son on, all the way to today.

When we Catholics condemn our bishops and foster chalenging them at every turn, we run the risk of breaking communion with the only people on earth who can keep us connected to the Apostles. No matter how wrong they may be, they are the successors and only they can ordain other bishops. Without bishops we have no more ordinations. Without ordinations we have no sacraments. This is what happened to the Protestants. Once they eliminated validly ordained bishops, because many of the bishops of the time were less than holy men, they shot themselves in the foot. They no longer have churches. They are ecclesial communities, not real Churches. Only the Catholics and the Orthodox have real Churches, because we have bishops. You need an apostle to have a Church.

This is why in cases as the one that the OP references, the Vatican is reluctant to engage in a battle of power with a bishop. The bishop has to commit a grave violation of law or cause grave scandal before the Vatican engages in a confrontation. The Sacred Congregation for Bishops and the Sacred Congregation for the Faith are the first stop for these cases. They decide whether the matter is serious enough to engage with a bishop or if it’s better to simply admonish him. To alienate a bishop can be disastrous. A bishop can do what the Eastern bishops did. He can walk and start his own Church. That’s dangerous.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[yosupman]

This was a very unfortunate situation. If the religious order is very stalwart in keeling, the Bishop would have known this before he went to celebrate mass for them. If the bishop was on the religious orders turf, he was wrong for making them stand. If the religious order was on his turf, like at a diocesan church, or Cathedral, then the religious should have stood. This isn’t about canon law at all. It’s about common sense.

Sometimes on these responses I see virtual “white papers” quoting church documents, canon law, bible quotes.

This situation isn’t rocket science.

 

[JReducation]

This was a very unfortunate situation. If the religious order is very stalwart in keeling, the Bishop would have known this before he went to celebrate mass for them. If the bishop was on the religious orders turf, he was wrong for making them stand. If the religious order was on his turf, like at a diocesan church, or Cathedral, then the religious should have stood. This isn’t about canon law at all. It’s about common sense.

Sometimes on these responses I see virtual “white papers” quoting church documents, canon law, bible quotes.

This situation isn’t rocket science.

This was poor judgment on both parts and it could have been avoided. The OP does not say where the mass took place. Let’s assume that it takes place on the bishop’s turf. The first time that you go you learn your lesson. You either avoid the bishop’s mass or you stand. Both sides could take their concern to the major superior and be done with it. I can’t see why people want to make this so complicated.

I agree about the virtual white papers. We are very quick to get angry or be disappointed and whip out the bible and canons. Half of the time it’s not necessary. As you said, just use common sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

This was poor judgment on both parts and it could have been avoided. The OP does not say where the mass took place. Let’s assume that it takes place on the bishop’s turf. The first time that you go you learn your lesson. You either avoid the bishop’s mass or you stand. Both sides could take their concern to the major superior and be done with it. I can’t see why people want to make this so complicated.

I can’t help the feeling that there is much more to this story than was posted in the OP.

The venue is one, but I have to assume that it was on the “bishop’s turf” else (a) the bishop would have been invited to the religious house and the superior of the house would have been involved in the first place, and (b) the “walk out” would have been meaningless.

But even if on the “bishop’s turf” it doesn’t make much sense. We know that, irrespective of his personal preferences, a bishop is not to refuse a kneeling communicant, (much less discipline anyone who employs that posture), so why would he, particularly if the communicants are religious? There has to be something else involved.

It seems to me this story has more holes than Swiss cheese, and the last line of the OP makes me wonder if this “congregation” is even legitimate.

 

[JReducation]

I can’t help the feeling that there is much more to this story than was posted in the OP.

The venue is one, but I have to assume that it was on the “bishop’s turf” else (a) the bishop would have been invited to the religious house and the superior of the house would have been involved in the first place, and (b) the “walk out” would have been meaningless.

But even if on the “bishop’s turf” it doesn’t make much sense. We know that, irrespective of his personal preferences, a bishop is not to refuse a kneeling communicant, (much less discipline anyone who employs that posture), so why would he, particularly if the communicants are religious? There has to be something else involved.

It seems to me this story has more holes than Swiss cheese, and the last line of the OP makes me wonder if this “congregation” is even legitimate.

I agree with you. Because there is no reason why something as simple as receiving communion should blossom into a public power struggle. In the end, that’s what it seems like. The bishop wants them to stand. The return for another mass with the bishop. Why? He makes the same demand. They walk out. Why go in the first place unless you intended to make statement?

The bishops was wrong to ask them to stand. We already agree on that.

But the religious were wrong for putting themselves in that position the second time around. I can’t believe that you’re a religious in a diocese and you don’t know your bishop. I am not a diocesan priest. I’m a Franciscan. But I know my bishop’s likes and dislikes. When I have to deal with the diocese, which is almost every week, I know when to tread gingerly, when to feel confident and when to avoid completely. It takes a whole month to figure these things out. Give me a break.

The worse part is that you can bet tomorrow’s lunch money that someone is going to pull out every liturgical document and every canon to argue this on this thread. And it’s not worth it. It’s more interesting to just chit chat, rather than argue about it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

PS. Just went back and looked at the last two sentences of the OP. Why has this congregation been labeled disobedient to the bishops? Why are they no longer in that diocese? Did they leave or were they asked to leave? That’s interesting.

 

[truevaticanii]

Whether they are a religious order. religious congregation, society of apostolic life, secular order or society of apostolic life, if they are of pontifical right, the bishop has no jurisdiction over their internal formation.

However, when they are on the bishop’s turf, they must comply. If they can’t comply, they must refer the matter to their major superior whose job it is to communicate with the bishop. They may not take any action on their own, especially to create a scene.

In your post above you mentioned

Just a slight correction here. Bishops have no authority over any man or woman in religious life, if that person belongs to an institute of pontifical right. It can be a priest, brother or sister. A bishop does have authority over religious of diocesan right, even if they are priests. Diocesan congregations must submit to the authority of the bishop in whatever diocese they find themselves, even on matters of community life, prayer, dress, etc.

The bishop and the religious in this case should have avoided the conflict in public. The usual step for a bishop is to write a letter to the major superior expressing his concerns. If the major superior insists that his/her religious must kneel for communion and the bishop does not want it, the bishop has the right to ask them to leave his diocese or they have the right to leave.

This is an interesting point that every lay person should know. Even when the bishop is wrong, he’s right. Bishops have certain rights that cannot be denied to them. One of them is to ask someone or a group to leave his diocese, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons. They do not have the right to appeal.

The rule of law is simple, where there’s the bishop, there’s the Church. Therefore, the bishop takes precedense over the religious, even if the religious are right. He’s more important to the Church than they are. In the end, the Church looks at every Catholic as dispensable, except a bishop. It makes no difference if it’s a religious, priest, deacon or lay person. The bishop is more necessary for the existence of a local Church. That’s why we have bishops who are ordinaries of non-existent dioceses. As long as these dioceses have a bishop, even though the inhabitants died out hundreds of years ago, the diocese is alive. The bishop is its only member, but that does not matter. I make this point to demonstrate how seriously the Church takes the ministry of the bishop.

We have to be careful, because even when a bishop is wrong, the Holy See and the Rota prefer to have a group leave a diocese than enter into a conflict with the local bishop. In cases like this the Vatican would have told the religious to avoid the bishop’s mass and be done with it. Frankly, so would I.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Makes sense. Thank you.

 

[truevaticanii]

I agree with you. Because there is no reason why something as simple as receiving communion should blossom into a public power struggle. In the end, that’s what it seems like. The bishop wants them to stand. The return for another mass with the bishop. Why? He makes the same demand. They walk out. Why go in the first place unless you intended to make statement?

The bishops was wrong to ask them to stand. We already agree on that.

But the religious were wrong for putting themselves in that position the second time around. I can’t believe that you’re a religious in a diocese and you don’t know your bishop. I am not a diocesan priest. I’m a Franciscan. But I know my bishop’s likes and dislikes. When I have to deal with the diocese, which is almost every week, I know when to tread gingerly, when to feel confident and when to avoid completely. It takes a whole month to figure these things out. Give me a break.

The worse part is that you can bet tomorrow’s lunch money that someone is going to pull out every liturgical document and every canon to argue this on this thread. And it’s not worth it. It’s more interesting to just chit chat, rather than argue about it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

PS. Just went back and looked at the last two sentences of the OP. Why has this congregation been labeled disobedient to the bishops? Why are they no longer in that diocese? Did they leave or were they asked to leave? That’s interesting.

It is important to realize that we do not want to make a war of Holy Communion… that’s why…

the first time, the bishop should not have reprimended them during Holy Communion (this may cause scandal, this makes an unjust war out of something holy, etc.)… it also causes the order to seem to be disobedient (and as Cardinal Arinze so kindly pointed out, it is not disobedience to choose to kneel)…

the second time, if the order knew that they would be reprimended for kneeling, they should have gone about finding a way to avoid a conflict… they then seemed to make war of something holy, and they did cause themselves to seem to display disobedience…

If I were of the order, I would have gone to Holy Communion kneeling the first time, stood up when told… then, they could have taken measures to their superior asyou suggested, then the superior could have taken the matter to discuss it with the bishop, and if the problem remained, the matter can go to the apostolic nuncio and then to the Holy See if necisarry (I know someone who worked for an archdiocese who had to deal with many matters in this way)…

I’m sure, had the bishop and the members of the order discussed things peacfully–the first time–outside of Mass, then the problem could have easily been resolved…

 

[JReducation]

It is important to realize that we do not want to make a war of Holy Communion… that’s why…

the first time, the bishop should not have reprimended them during Holy Communion (this may cause scandal, this makes an unjust war out of something holy, etc.)… it also causes the order to seem to be disobedient (and as Cardinal Arinze so kindly pointed out, it is not disobedience to choose to kneel)…

the second time, if the order knew that they would be reprimended for kneeling, they should have gone about finding a way to avoid a conflict… they then seemed to make war of something holy, and they did cause themselves to seem to display disobedience…

If I were of the order, I would have gone to Holy Communion kneeling the first time, stood up when told… then, they could have taken measures to their superior asyou suggested, then the superior could have taken the matter to discuss it with the bishop, and if the problem remained, the matter can go to the apostolic nuncio and then to the Holy See if necisarry (I know someone who worked for an archdiocese who had to deal with many matters in this way)…

I’m sure, had the bishop and the members of the order discussed things peacfully–the first time–outside of Mass, then the problem could have easily been resolved…

Everything you say is true. I will add one more thing for the benefit of those who do not know this.

The lines between religious and bishops are very clearly drawn by Church law and by doctrine.

1. Bishops have no jurisdiction inside a religious community.
2. Religioius have no jurisdiction in a bishop’s diocese.

Therefore, neither has any rights in the territory of the other. Just look at the Notre Dame issue. The bishop won, but he lost. He won the support of other bishops and thousands of Catholics. But everyone failed, because the questionable action did not take place in the diocese. It took place on the campuse of Notre Dame, where the Holy Cross Brothers are the final authority, not the bishop.

The territory of a bishop and a religious community co-exist side by side, like the United Nations and New York City, or the Vatican and Rome, or an embassy and its host city. The one does not have authority over the other.

That’s why these issues must be dealt with through dialogue. When you use power, you lose. In this case, even though the bishop’s request was wrong, the pope will support him for one single reason. Religious do not have the right of citizenship in the Church. Lay people do, but we do not. We are citizens only in our religious houses and on the poperty of of our orders. We do not have rights before bishops, even when they break the law. We cannot appeal to Rome. All we can do is leave his diocese. On the other hand, Rome has complete and absolute rights over us. That’s Pontifical Right.

The only time that Rome will take my side over a bishop is if the bishop asks me to sin. Asking me to receive communion standing and on my hand is not asking me to sin. The bishop is not even denying me my rights. Because I’m a religious. I have no rights outside of my religious house and property, as you lay people do. I have to do what I’m told, almost blindly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jeanannemarie]

Dear JRed, After reading this thread up to this point I have learned much about bishops that I did not know. I found it all very interesting ,especially the many important points concerning apostolic succession and the life of the Church. Thank you for the information. I tend to feel dismayed with my bishop often, but thanks to your efforts, I promise to renew respect and redouble my prayers for him. With this being the “year of the priests” I pray every morning for all seminarians, priests, and the Holy Father. I have never prayed specifically for my bishop, but will begin to do so in the morning and every morning hereafter.

 

[JReducation]

Dear JRed, After reading this thread up to this point I have learned much about bishops that I did not know. I found it all very interesting ,especially the many important points concerning apostolic succession and the life of the Church. Thank you for the information. I tend to feel dismayed with my bishop often, but thanks to your efforts, I promise to renew respect and redouble my prayers for him. With this being the “year of the priests” I pray every morning for all seminarians, priests, and the Holy Father. I have never prayed specifically for my bishop, but will begin to do so in the morning and every morning hereafter.

Since Christmas is comming, you may want to put together your own spiritual bouquet for him. A daily or weekly prayer or a communion, rosary, etc. It’s very important for our spiritual lives that we learn to serve. Only the person who knows how to serve can correct. To serve is to give the other what they need. If your bishop needs your prayers, that’s a service.

Our lives should not be about confrontations, worries and anxieties over the weaknesses that we perceive in others. Afterall, all of us are capable of great sin. If this were a competition on who could sin more, who would win, you or your bishop? I don’t know. I do know one thing, the success of our spiritual journey is not guarranteed by our reactions to the sins of others. It is guarranteed by our fidelity to the faith, even when others appear not to have any faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jeanannemarie]

Oh, yes, I so agree with the above post, JRed. Now, please, tell me how to do a spiritual bouquet or where to find out how one does so. I have a note book of my daily prayer intentions to keep track of things and always a Novena or two going. I can incorporate this new idea that you have suggested. I added the bishop under my daily prayer for the priests this morning. I feel very bad that it never occurred to me to do so until your post. I find that reading “Introduction to a Devout Life” by St. Francis de Sales on a regular basis is a good way to keep on track and avoid unwise behaviours.