Wait...My Diocese has no Bishop!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kathleen18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cookie-san said:
You have a Vicar General.
Click to expand...
The office of vicar general ceases when there is no bishop. The VG is the representative (ie vicar) of the bishop (we’re talking about a diocese here). If there is no bishop, then there is no one for him to represent.

They won’t have a vicar general until after they have a bishop.
 
There is a difference (at least technically, if not always practically in terms of the powers possessed by the officeholder) between an “apostolic administrator” and a “diocesan administrator.”

The Pope can (and occasionally does) appoint an “apostolic administrator” when he transfers a bishop or when one has his resignation (or “resignation”) accepted but it is more common for certain priests of the diocese to elect a “diocesan administrator” when a diocesan see is vacant.

Dan
 
This.

I remember when we were between Bishops, I was on the RCIA Prep team, the sermon given by our Administrator at the Rite of Welcome was one of the best I’ve ever heard.

He said “if you plan to be a bad Catholic, do not bother joining the Church. We already have enough bad Catholics. Be a good Catholic.”
 
That’s like a school w/o a principal. A job w/o a boss.

Throw a party!
 
Bon_Croix said:
That’s like a school w/o a principal. A job w/o a boss.

Throw a party!
Click to expand...
Actually, the Church does anticipate such an attitude—and canon law prevents it.

When the See is vacant, no changes are allowed.

Canon Law was composed to prevent exactly that sort of attitude of “there’s no bishop, so we do what we want” or “the cat’s away, the mouse will play.” Far, far, from it.

I’ve been through a few of these (sede vacante) and they’re anything but fun, believe me. There are lots and lots of things that cannot be done, and the restrictions far outweigh any sense of being free to do as we please. Believe me, it’s exactly the opposite.
 
Out of curiosity, what are some examples of common things you’d normally be able to change with ease under a bishop but can’t without one?
 
mVitus said:
Out of curiosity, what are some examples of common things you’d normally be able to change with ease under a bishop but can’t without one?
Click to expand...
Quite a long list.

Pastors cannot be appointed.

Seminarians cannot be “called to orders” (given permission by the bishop to be ordained)—this applies to both candidates for priest and deacon.

No parishes can be established, closed, merged, etc. Granted, this is not always a timely need that can’t wait a few months, but still, it cannot be done.

Only a bishop can consecrate the Oil of Chrism.

There is no Vicar General. There are no vicars of anything, since there’s no bishop to represent. The exception is that the Judicial Vicar keeps his post, so that justice does not suffer a delay.

No new project can be started. So if there’s a need for a new high school, that has to wait until there’s a bishop (unless the previous bishop already did start the project).

Many of these things might seem to some people to be “not a problem.” Each one individually might not amount to much in terms of a burden if there is a delay, but when one considers how often each of these issues comes up in a diocese collectively, they do start to pile-up after a while.

For some of these, there are ways to work around them. If a parish pastor dies, the diocese administrator can appoint a parish administrator, just for example. And if the diocese is without a bishop for a certain time, the administrator can do things that he otherwise could not do at first.
 
couldn’t a lack of Chrism be a problem if there’s no bishop around Holy Week? or is enough of it consecrated at the Chrism mass that there’s no possibility of running out?
 
Maximilian75 said:
couldn’t a lack of Chrism be a problem if there’s no bishop around Holy Week? or is enough of it consecrated at the Chrism mass that there’s no possibility of running out?
Click to expand...
Every diocese has a good idea of “how much is enough” for every year. And it’s probably safe to say that every one always has a little more than what’s strictly needed for an annual supply.

This isn’t really a “big deal” all by itself.

The diocese can ask an auxiliary bishop (if there is one) consecrate the Oils, or a retired bishop, or a neighboring one. It’s just a bit awkward when it’s not the diocesan bishop who presides at the Chrism Mass.

Again, it’s one of those things that can be solved; but when a diocese is being constantly confronted with “little problems” that need work-around solutions or temporary solutions, they become collectively burdensome; despite the fact that each one individually might not amount to much at any given moment.
 
They are milestones in the process to receiving the sacraments, not sacraments themselves.
 
FrDavid96 said:
It is to be applied very strictly. At least with regard to those who are at least 14.
Click to expand...
Is that age set by canon law or by a diocesan bishop? Also, can one younger also get all three Sacraments of initiation at once? I ask because I had something similar happen twice in my family.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
It is to be applied very strictly. At least with regard to those who are at least 14.
Click to expand...
Is that age set by canon law or by a diocesan bishop? Also, can one younger also get all three Sacraments of initiation at once? I ask because I had something similar happen twice in my family.
Click to expand...
Someone younger, but at least the age of reason (ie 7) actually “should” get all 3 at once. The Sacraments should not be delayed for arbitrary reasons. One who is 7 is eligible for First Communion and Confirmation, and so should receive both immediately after baptism.

There is some room here for children. For example, I recently baptized a 7 year old. Together with the parents, I decided that it would be better to wait for First Communion so that the child can take part in the classes (which would be necessary anyway) and receive with his peers in the spring. Likewise for Confirmation which is scheduled for us a few weeks later. That only applies because the child is close enough to age 7 to be somewhat “borderline” when it comes to age-of-reason.

Remember that First Communion and Confirmation require academic preparation. The recipient must understand what they mean. So either formal classes or home study are legitimate requirements (not an undue delay).

When discussing those over the age of 14, they should be academically prepared for all 3 at once. This is in contrast to baptizing an infant based on the faith of the parents.

Yes, this is defined in canon law, but it is more clearly explained in the RCIA statutes (which are a form of special law).
 
FrDavid96 said:
Someone younger, but at least the age of reason (ie 7) actually “should” get all 3 at once.
Click to expand...
Thank you. This has been a thread full of good information. That explains why my two older one (around 13-14 at the time) took the RCIA path. I can’t remember the exact age. The only dispensation the got was from the classes for logistic reasons, but they did get all the education and training another way. The rites remained the same for both of them; enrollment, scrutinies, and of course, the Holy Saturday Mass with reception into the Church, First Communion and Confirmation.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
Someone younger, but at least the age of reason (ie 7) actually “should” get all 3 at once.
Click to expand...
Thank you. This has been a thread full of good information. That explains why my two older one (around 13-14 at the time) took the RCIA path. I can’t remember the exact age. The only dispensation the got was from the classes for logistic reasons, but they did get all the education and training another way. The rites remained the same for both of them; enrollment, scrutinies, and of course, the Holy Saturday Mass with reception into the Church, First Communion and Confirmation.
Click to expand...
It’s a strange thing.

The RCIA program is clear that the already-baptised should NOT be received into the Church at the Easter Vigil Mass. Nevertheless, that’s become the almost-standard practice in the U.S.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top