It was announced today that Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the resignation of 76-year-old Bishop Ercole (Lupinacci) of Lungro for reasons of age.

No successor was named. Instead, Archbishop Salvatore Nunnari, Metropolitan Archbishop of Cosenza-Bisignano, was appointed Apostolic Administrator sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis, meaning that he will govern the Eparchy until a new Bishop is installed or until the Holy See decides otherwise.

Background: The Eparchy of Lungro and the Italo-Albanian Church

The Eparchy of Lungro is one of the two eparchies of the Italo-Albanian Church, an Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris. The Eparchy of Lungro covers continental Italy, while the Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi covers Sicily. The ancient Monastery of Santa Maria di Grottaferrata near Rome is also part of the Italo-Albanian Church.

The Eparchy of Lungro was founded in 1919 by Pope Benedict XV. The territory of the eparchy is 493 km² (190 sq. miles). There are 32,900 Catholics out of a total population of 33,000, served by 41 priests.

The Eparchy of Lungro consists of 29 parishes, of which 25 are in the civil province of Cosenza in the region of Calabria. There are two more parishes in the civil province of Potenza in the region of Basilicata. Finally, there is one parish in the civil province of Pescara in the region of Abruzzo, and one parish in the civil province of Lecce in the region of Puglia (Apulia).

Even though most of the parishes of the Eparchy of Lungro are in the civil province of Cosenza, the Eparchy is not part of the Ecclesiastical Province of Cosenza-Bisignano, but immediately subject to the Holy See.

Background: Archbishop Salvatore Nunnari

Archbishop Salvatore Nunnari, 71, is a native of Reggio Calabria. He became Bishop of Sant'Angelo dei Lombardi-Conza-Nusco-Bisaccia in 1994 and has served the archdiocese of Cosenza-Bisignano since 2004. He is the Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province of Cosenza-Bisignano, which also includes the Diocese of Cassano all'Jonio, the Archdiocese of Rossano-Cariati, and the Diocese of San Marco Argentano-Scalea.

Some comments

It is perhaps unusual for a Roman Catholic Archbishop to be made Apostolic Administrator of an Eastern Catholic Eparchy. However, the nearest Eastern Catholic Bishop would be the Bishop of Piana degli Albanesi in Sicily, so perhaps it makes more sense to chose the nearest Roman Catholic Archbishop for the task.

I think Archbishop Nunnari deserves thanks for taking on this added responsibility, and prayers are needed both for the Apostolic Administator and for the process of selecting a successor to Bishop Ercole as Bishop of Lungro.

Sources:

Holy See Press Office

CNEWA - The Italo-Albanian Catholic Church

Official Eparchial Website

Italian Wikipedia

Annuario Pontificio 2010

Well, according to a communicate of Italian Episcopal Conference, Permanent Council, dated last Jan 29, "it is going on an analysis of restructuring the Italian-Albanian Church in Italy"

Actually the Italian-Albanian Church is (up to) now structured in three independent bodies:

- the Abbazia of Grottaferrata (Gottaferrata Abbey), which Abbot is Mons Emiliano Fabbricatore (72), but since 1994 it is under the papal delegate Mons Pio Tamburrino (Latin Archbishop of Foggia)

- the Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi (Sicily island), which Eparch is Mons Sotìr Ferrara (72,5), but since June 6, 2010 it is under the Apostolic Legate Mons Pio Tamburrino (Latin Archbishop of Foggia)

- the Eparchy of Lungro, which Eparch Mons Ercole Lupinacci (76,5) now retired and it is under the Apostolic Administrator Mons Salvatore Nunnari (Latin Archbishop of Cosenza, the main town near Lungro)

It is possible that no new Eparch has been appointed in Lungro waiting for the retirement of Mons Sotir Ferrara in order to organize a global restructuring of the whole Italian-Albanian Church

There could well be sensible reasons for this development, including a possible restructuring of the Italo-Greek Church and a more firm structure for the recently-developed Ukrainian Greek-Catholic presence in Italy, which should have some formal relationship with the Italo-Greeks.

However, I am only too well aware that for several centuries the Italo-Greeks were denied their own episcopal jurisdiction and subjected to the Latin jurisdiction; it was only in the twentieth century that this situation was remedied. So the possibility of having the two Eparches both under Latin jurisdiction now rather makes me nervous.

Fr. Serge

Jemi - The Portal of Albanians has published a protest of Luigi Boccia about that nomination (automatic translation of italian):

Well, I know a bit the situation there, and I can say that the Vatican decision was probably the right one: I will say no more, because if I cant commend I shall be silent.

I actually hope for the appointment, in a near future, of a single bishop for all the Italo-Albanians, a strong shepherd that could see over the narrow borders of the small villages of Lungro and Piana, a shepherd that could win the narrow-mindedness, the continuous quarrels among the parishes, a shepherd that could bring the Byzantine tradition out from the mountains of Sicily and Calabria...

No, I'm completely sure that in the yesterday Vatican decision is not at all to be read as Latin vs. Byzantine, but on the contrary a restructuring is the only way to make survive the Italo-Albanian Church. Of course there will be surely someone that "looking only at his own little garden" will be unpleased...

Still, allowing the eparchial priests to elect an administrator would avoid all appearances of Latin hegemonic pretensions!

Well, I am writing from Sicily and I can confirm that our “Greek” (i. e. Byzantine Catholic) Church here is undergoing one of the worst moments of its difficult history: the problem is not only that it is now put under two Latin bishops.
To give you just a taste of what is going on here, consider that one of the first decisions of the two bishops that govern (since June 2010) our Sicilian Eparchy was to order one of our best priests, Father Nicola Cuccia, which has been the pastor of the Greek parish of Contessa E. for more than 17 years now, to move to a different, distant town, Palazzo Adriano, appointing him pastor of the "Greek" parish there; all this, without any motivation at all.
This decision was adopted on the 27th of July and was intended to become effective on the 1st of August. After a few days the two bishops let us know that it was “freezed” for a few weeks. Now it seems that it will become effective on the 29th of August. Interesting to note that papas Nicola is married, has a daughter still in high school and his father, for whom he is responsible, is more than 80 years old.
What I mean is: it does not seem just an issue of Latin hegemony; I may be a pessimist but it looks to me like the final solution of the "Greek" problem in Sicily is under way.
In conclusion the prayers and the solidarity of the Byzantine Catholic everywhere in the world are urgently needed.

Prayers for our Italo-Albanian brethren

Many years,

Neil

On a side note, the Arberesh or Italo-Albanians have long been under-represented here. So, I was delighted to notice that, among our newest members, is another Italo-Albanian Catholic from Italy.

Many years,

Neil

Christ is in our midst!!

Sadly it sounds like the Latin canon law giving a priest only two six year terms in a parish. The problem I see is that the whole attitude doesn't begin to understand that the Eastern parish doesn't function that way. So many Eastern priests of my acquaintance can spend their entire career in one place--they grow along with their people and that is a very important part of their pilgrimage together.

Lord save Your people. (And spare us from the heavy hand of men with miters who don't "get it.")

Bob

Actually, the relevant Latin canon reads as follows:


In other words, a pastor (parochus) is normally appointed without any time limit. The practice of appointments with time limits should be the exception, but in the United States, sadly, it appears to have become the norm.

There is a very interesting article here in which Father Michael Orsi argues, I think convincingly, that terms (time limits) for pastors are part of "the real reason for the vocation crisis."

By the way, it is worth noting that Saint Jean-Marie Vianney, the patron saint of pastors in the Latin Church, was Curé (pastor) of Ars for more than 40 years. I wonder what his impact would have been if he had been limited to two six-year terms at Ars?

In fact, there is nothing authentically "Latin" about appointing pastors for six-year terms. Rather, it appears to be a product of a modern management philosophy which is alien to the Church.

These laws that force bishops to retire and priests not to serve as pastors of a parish for more than a certain number of years, are because of the way Modernism and Secularism has been imposed on the Catholic Church. The priest is viewed as another worker, another bureaucrat just as those of the government or the military who are moved from place to place so that they do not develop links to the community where they minister.

The village of Contessa Entellina is known also for the recent fights between the Byzanten and the Latin parishes (both under the same Eparchy) and Papas Nicola, who I met once personally, is the hero of the Byzantine tradition.
I perfectly agree that a bishop cannot bear this kind of fights in his eparchy, but it is also important know who is right and who is wrong.

I am surprised to hear that pastors are appointed on definite terms anywhere. Indeed, it must me specific to the USA.

We also have Parish Priests appointed for definite terms down under.

LC:

Very interesting. Ther term limits I mention were taught in our canon law seminar just before the 1983 Code went into effect. Is what you cite from the revision that I've heard was made some time later?

The pastor who served us from 1987 to 2001 asked if his time could be "reset" when he finished building our new parish church, but it wasn't to be. We only had the most recent transfer because of a death on the other side of the diocese. The bishop sent our pastor there and moved another priest here in July.

Bob

In general parish priests in the San Antonio Diocese are appointed for six year terms. They generally are allowed to serve two six year terms at the same parish. However, for sometime now priests, who are completing 12 years may be reappointed for indefinite terms at their current parish. It generally appears that the priests appointed for indefinite terms have made some significant contribution to the parish such as building a new church and are probably not going to be available for another 12 years at a different parish. I also understand that a priest must want the indefinite appointment as well.

Bob,

As far as I can tell, canon 522 has not been revised since it was promulgated in 1983.

The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law provides useful information about this canon. It points out that it is based on the Second Vatican Council's Decree Christus Dominus 31:


While canon 522, in accord with Christus Dominus, makes indefinite appointments of pastors the norm, it allows the Bishops' Conference to make provision for time-limited appointments. This is what the (U.S.) National Conference of Catholic Bishops almost immediately did, in a decree promulgated on September 24, 1984:


Obviously, while this decree allows six-year terms for pastors, it does not impose them. Therefore, a diocesan bishop is free to make indefinite appointments if he so chooses. Also, there is nothing in the decree to suggest that a pastor can only have his term renewed once. In fact, the decree allows a pastor to be reappointed several times.

I don't know what the situation was in the United States before the 1983 Code. The 1917 Code distinguished between "removable" and "irremovable" pastors, a distinction which the Second Vatican Council wanted to remove (see above).

Now, you say that you learnt about six-year terms just before 1983? Perhaps in the United States the practice was to appoint "removable" pastors for six-year terms? I don't know, but if this were the case, it might explain the speed with which the Bishops' Conference adopted the decree on six-year terms in 1984. It suggests that the bishops wanted to continue with business as usual, notwithstanding the fact that both Christus Dominus and the 1983 Code of Canon Law tried to make indefinite terms for pastors the norm and limited terms the exception.

Having said all that about pastors and whether they should be removable or not, the bishop clearly has a duty to consider the good of the whole diocese or eparchy. Therefore, he sometimes has to make decisions which may be unpopular locally, even forcing the removal of a popular pastor (following canonical procedures).

I don't think it is reasonable to say that the removal of one pastor, however popular, is "one of the worst moments" in the history of the Italo-Albanian Church. If that were true, then the Italo-Albanian Church should count itself lucky. (I only mention that the Churches of Bruges and Trondheim have recently seen their bishops retire after they admitted sexually abusing children.)

The current structures of the Italo-Albanian Church may need some rethinking. They may have been adequate when they were established in 1919 and 1937, but today they seem hopelessly inadequate. At the momement, the two Italo-Albanian eparchies only have jurisdiction over specific villages in Sicily and southern Italy, and a few personal parishes in the cities (Palermo, Cosenza, Lecce). The eparchial bishops have no jurisdiction over the Italo-Albanian faithful who have moved away from their native villages to the large cities of Naples, Rome, Florence, Milan, Turin, etc.

Clearly, with people moving away from the countryside and into the cities to look for education and work, limiting the Italo-Albanian Church to a few villages in the mountains of Sicily and Calabria is a recipe for disaster. Also, with two very small eparchies and a limited number of hieromonks, it may be difficult to find suitable candidates for the episcopate. This is probably why the Italian Bishops' Conference is currently studying the structures of the Italo-Albanian Church. I would like to think that our friend "antv" is right and that some form of reorganization can bring new life to this small, but important Eastern Catholic Church.

It is a most strange set up in Italy where the Eparchies have land borders with Latin diocese. One crosses the road to enter the Monastery (also a castle) at Grottaferrata and one leaves the Diocese of Frascati and enters the Exarchate. The same with the eparchies in the south.

The Italo-Albanian eparchies look a little bit strange on a map because they consist of a patchwork of towns and villages surrounded by Latin dioceses! However, the good thing is that the principle of "one city, one Bishop" is being followed.

Thats a principal that is causing problems. Personally I like the way it is in many countries where you look after your own flock where ever they are. Many of the people from the south live and work in the north these days. They only head south for Christmas, Pascha and major family events.

For anyone wanting to see, graphically, what LC is describing:

go here,

click on Calabria, then on Lungro, to see the Eparchy of Lungro degli Italo-Albanese in Calabria

then, back button (or use the 'return' button at lower left) and

click on Sicilia, then on Piana, to see the Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi in Sicily
back button again

click on Lazio, then on Santa Maria di Grottaferrata, to see the Territorial Monastery & Exarchial Abbey of Santa Maria di Grottaferrata

Many years,

Neil

Thanks Neil. It's even worse than I realised. I did not realise the 2 eparchies were a patchwork of enclaves.

Paul,

Truthfully, I think it's even a bit worse than it looks on those maps. I used to have a link (that I can't find now) to a map which showed a bit more detail and there were these tiny pinpoints - scattered hither and yon in both eparchies.

Many years,

Neil

Not only the 2 eparchies were a patchwork of enclaves, but them include in the enclaves also some Latin rite Parishes (who are under a bishop of Byzantine rite !!)
On the contrary, in the main Italian towns as Roma, Milano, Torino ecc -where the by far larger majority of Italo-Albenians live- there are indeed Byzantine liturgies in Greek with relevant Eastern clergy, but almost completed separated from the two Eparchy (well, formally speaking it should be the Eparch of Lungro to take care of not-insular Italy, but this only on the paper).
For example the Italian Byzantine priest who now celebrate in Greek in Milan has been ordained priest in 2009 by a Romanian Eastern-Catholic bishop (who has thousands and thousands of immigrates in Italy without that the Italian Episcopal Conference has even realized that these people need a pastoral): this happens when the "state of fact" is completely unrelated from the organization though in the 30s: now we have two little provincial low-profile always-contentious eparchies in empty mountain villages, and the lack of any structured Byzantine pastoral elsewhere in Italy.

Thus I consider that the "area model" for Eparchies no longer can work. I hope in not-area models like the Ruthenians or Ukrainian in the US.

Grottaferrata used to have it's own Latin parishes until they got rid of them all in the early 1920s. It does look like the whole situation for the Greek Church in Italy needs a good cleaning up.

H.B. Gregorios III (it seems that is the way he want to be called, as the Patriarchate staff corrected my translation to French of his name in some news I translated and sent) wrote an article about the Patriarchal jurisdiction and he says the Church is above all an assembly of faithful and the Patriarch is above all the Pastor of his people, before being an administrator of a bonded territory. He makes reference to the Ghassanid "ethnarcate", a non-territorialy Eparchy, whose Bishop followed the movements of that Arab nomad people, the first beduinic tribe to be converted to Christianism, from which my family descend. Those Eparchies existed in the antiquity in a perfectly canonical manner.

Ciao a tutti!
Concerning the retirement of bishop Ercole Lupinacci from the Eparchy of Lungro, can someone mention what is, according to the CCO) the standard procedure in this cases?

Let's pray deeply for the italo-albanian church!

Welcome to the Forum, our Arberesh brother,

The following are the principal provisions of the CCEO as regards the resignation of bishops from eparchial sees, such as that of Lungro, which are not constituent jurisdictions of patriarchal, major-archepiscopal, or metropolitan Churches sui iuris. As you can see, Canon 234 is what has been invoked in this instance.

Canon 210

1. An eparchial bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age or who, due to ill health or to another serious reason, has become less able to fulfill his office, is requested to present his resignation from office.

2. This resignation from office by the eparchial bishop is to be submitted to the patriarch if it is the case of an eparchial bishop exercising authority inside the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church; in other cases, it is submitted to the Roman Pontiff; ...

Canon 211

1. An eparchial bishop, whose resignation from office was accepted, obtains the title of eparchial bishop emeritus of the eparchy he governed and can retain a residence in the eparchy
itself unless in certain cases due to special circumstances other provisions are made by the Apostolic See ...

Canon 219

The eparchial see becomes vacant at the death, resignation, transfer or privation of office of the eparchial bishop.

Canon 221

Except for the vacant eparchial sees mentioned in can. 220, in other cases of a vacant eparchial see, the following are to be observed in addition to cann. 225-232 and without prejudice to cann. 222 and 223: (1) the metropolitan, or otherwise the one who, according to the norm of can. 271, 5, presides over the college of eparchial consultors, is to inform the Apostolic See as soon as possible of the vacancy of the see and, if it is an eparchy of a patriarchal Church, the patriarch; (2) until the appointment of an administrator the governance of the eparchy, unless otherwise provided by the Apostolic See, transfers to the auxiliary bishop or, if there are several, to the one senior by episcopal ordination or, if there is no auxiliary bishop, to the college of eparchial consultors. They govern the eparchy with that authority which common law accords to a protosyncellus; (3) the college of eparchial consultors must elect an administrator of the eparchy according to the norm of the canons on elections within eight days from the reception of the news of the vacancy of the eparchial see; for validity of the election, an absolute majority of the votes of the members of this same college is required; (4) if within eight days, the administrator of the eparchy has not been elected or if the one elected lacks the conditions required in can. 227, 2 for the validity of the election, the appointment of an administrator of the eparchy devolves to the metropolitan or, if none exists or he is impeded, to the Apostolic See; (5) the administrator of an eparchy legitimately elected or appointed immediately obtains authority and does not need any confirmation. As soon as possible he is to inform the Apostolic See of his election or of his appointment by the metropolitan and, if he belongs to a patriarchal Church, also the patriarch.

Canon 228

1. When the see is vacant there are to be no innovations.

2. Those who temporarily care for the governance of the eparchy are prohibited from doing anything which could be prejudicial to the eparchy or episcopal rights. They themselves and all other persons are specifically prohibited from removing, destroying or altering any documents of the eparchial curia either personally or through another.

Canon 229

The administrator of the eparchy has the same rights and obligations as the eparchial bishop, unless the law provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

Canon 234

1. The governance of an eparchy, whether occupied or vacant, is sometimes entrusted by the Roman Pontiff to an apostolic administrator due to serious and special reasons.

2. The rights, obligations and privileges of the apostolic administrator are determined by his letters of appointment.

Canon 235

The eparchial assembly assists the eparchial bishop in those things which regard the special needs or advantage of the eparchy.

Canon 236

The eparchial assembly is convened as often as circumstances warrant it in the judgment of the eparchial bishop after he has consulted the presbyteral council.

Many years,

Neil

I would like to point out that the italo-albanian Church is not recognized as a sui iuris Church. So far, the Bishop of Lungro had no supervisor from the Holy Seat. However, in the future it would be necessary or to create an italo-albanian Metropolitan Church (but three Eparchies would be necessary) or to appoint a Apostolic Delegate.

In this scenario, the application of Canon 221 would have been still possible? I mean, once the college of eparchial consultors elects an Eparchial Administrator, it would still require the control of an Apostolic Delegate appointed by the Hole See.

Could you please tell me which was the procedure for resignation of bishops from eparchial sees before the CEEO was approved (1990)?
Thanks to the Irish brother for his clarification.

N.

My brother,

It is not necessary that there be a Metropolitan See for a Church sui iuris to exist - and, in fact, several of the Byzantine Rite Churches sui iuris are of eparchial status. In the instance of the Italo-Greico-Albanians, there are effectively 3 separate Churches sui iuris, since there is no designated primatial hierarch among the 3 jurisdictions; however, for purposes of enumerating such Churches, it is deemed as one. (It's not the only such Church to have this unusual circumstance; for instance, the Ruthenians effectively constitute 2 separate Churches sui iuris, 1 in Europe and 1 in the US).



Both the Eparchies of Lungro and Piana are immediately subject to the Holy See.

In the instance of Lungro, the Vatican has effectively usurped the provisions of Canon 221 by the appointment of an Apostolic Administrator sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis (not leaving any time for the kind of situation that resulted when the Russian presbyterate elected an administrator a few years ago and the Vatican found itself playing catch-up by subsequently appointing Bishop Joseph Werth as Ordinary, lest the Russians got too enamored of the idea that they might exercise rights under the CCEO).

Likewise, the appointment of an Apostolic Legate to Piana and a Papal Delegate to the Exarchic Abbey (which was already subject to the Metropolia of Rome) pretty much assures that the former will not be internally administered upon the retirement at 75 of Kyr Sotir. As to the Abbey, the monastic community would ordinarily elect a successor on the retirement of its Abbot - that process can certainly be abrogated as well.

Many years,

Neil

My brother,

As memory serves, prior to the CCEO, the procedure was essentially the same, just not defined on paper as clearly. The consultors would elect an administrator and submit names to Rome (can't remember for certain whether they'd go to the Oriental Congregation or that of the Bishops, but I think the former) and Rome would appoint - in the case of stand-alone jurisdictions such as these or jurisdictions beyond the patriarchal territory in the case of the patriarchal Churches.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Brother,
thank you very much for your clarification. Your comments are extremely interesting.

Canon 174 and 175 affirm that for our Church, which is not Metropolitan, there should be an Apostolic Legate even when there will be a new Bishop. This, de facto, means that we will loose our independence. Furthermore, if the Apostolic Legate will be a Latin Bishop as it should be supposed, this means that we will be subject to Latins once again after 100 years of Eparchy and independence.

It is not a good scenario. Can the Vatican send us a Apostolic Legate of our rite? As far as I know he should be of Italian nationality.

Thank you for your help.

Luigi

Luigi, my brother,

Ah, now I understand from whence you've drawn your conclusions. I should have thought of those Canons previously.

Canons 174-176 of the CCEO relate specifically to the Churches sui iuris of eparchial status (and, by interpretation to the free-standing or exempt eparchies outside the historical territory of a Church sui iuris that is of Metropolitan or higher status).

The Canons establish the dependency of those Churches on the Apostolic See. However, the 'hierarch' referenced therein is the eparch of the jurisdiction (or the exarch, etc, if an eparchy has not been established).

The reference in C. 176 to 'delegate of the Apostolic See' does not refer to an Apostolic Delegate. It means nothing more than the status that any diocesan bishop or archbishop holds in relation to the Apostolic See - he is delegated the episcopal oversight of his canonical jurisdiction by the Apostolic See and acts for it in exercising that.





That said, the Vatican always has the prerogative to appoint an Apostolic Visitator or Delegate in instances where it considers it necessary for some reason (regretably, often for one that is not immediately transparent to those looking in from outside - sometimes for reasons that are all-too-obvious). Such appointments have been made to metropolia, archdioceses, dioceses, archeparchies, eparchies, exarchates, monasteries, and other canonical jurisdictions and institutions - including religious orders and seminaries. (It has happened in recent history in both Latin and Byzantine jurisdictions - a couple of Melkite eparchies come to mind immediately.)

Now, no one can reasonably argue that there are never instances in which the Apostolic See's spiritual and administrative responsibility to exercise general superintendency over its constituent canonical jurisdictions might require doing so. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to presume that the reasons for doing so should always be made publicly known - considerations of trust and confidentiality effectively argue that such is not always in the best interests. However, in cases such as this, where the continued viability of a Church sui iuris is threatened - particularly a small, relatively powerless one with a recent history of having suffered under Latin rule - one might indeed hope for some consideration being given to how the matter is addressed.

Certainly, the appointment of an Apostolic Visitator, Delegate, or Administrator of the same ritual tradition as the Church, albeit not of the Church itself, would be the ideal.

The sole hierarch of the Albanian Greek-Catholic Church is presently an Apostolic Administrator. His Grace Hil (Kilbashi), OFM is Byzantine, but of the Croatian Greek-Catholic Church.

The Bielorusian Greek-Catholic Church presently has an Apostolic Visitator ad nutum Sanctae Sedis for Greek-Catholics in Belarus and another for Belarusan Greek-Catholics Outside Belarus. Those positions are both held by non-hierarchs and are, thus, without ordinary jurisdiction and the Church's parishes and missions are alieni iuris, under the law of another; that is, they are canonically subject to the local Latin Ordinaries within whose geographic jurisdictions each is situated. One of the two Apostolic Visitators, Mitred Archpriest Alexander (Nadson) - in London - is himself a Belarusian Greek-Catholic; the other, Mitred Archimandrite Sergius (Gajek), MIC, is Byzantine, but not of the Belarusian Greek-Catholic Church.

In both recent (last decade and a half or so) instances of an Apostolic Visitator for Melkite eparchies that I can recollect, the appointees have been other Melkite hierarchs. However, there was a very recent, short-lived, and unpublicized instance of a Latin (non-hierarch) appointed to perform an apostolic visitation of a Melkite eparchy, but that appears to have been a matter of fact-finding; it did not involve jurisdictional superintendency.

So, yes, a Visitator or Delegate of your Rite, albeit not of your Church, is certainly possible and would be the ideal. Would it necessarily have to be one of Italian nationality? No, whether of your Rite or the Latin Rite, there is no such requirement (and it would be difficult, although not necessarily impossible) to find someone of your Rite - but not of your Church - who is an Italian by nationality.

Many years,

Neil

(thank you for signing your name, I much prefer being able to address people by name - it helps reduce the depersonalized nature of the computer screen and enhances the sense of community here)

Our Melkite Eparchy of Brazil is currently under an apostolic visit. The responsable is a Latin hierarch, Mgr. Fernando Guimarães, Bishop of Garanhuns. He is only investigating, not managing.

The Bishop of Garanhuns, Dom Fernando Guimarães, is a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the "Supreme Court" of the Catholic Church). So an Apostolic Visit by Dom Fernando is a bit like an investigation by a Supreme Court Justice. That sounds rather serious.

Ciao Neil,
thank you for your reply.
Actually, Canon 175 makes reference to can. 159, nn. 3-8. The rights mentioned in can. 159 are those typical of a metropolia. For this reason, one may say that these rights can not be appointed to a Bishop (who should be controlled by the Metropolitan) but they should be appointed to a Gerarc of higher status nominated by the Holy See.

L.

Luigi,

You give too much credit to the drafters of the CCEO in the care that they would have taken to assuring that the text and its references read precisely as they should.

For all intents and purposes, C. 159, nn 3-8, as those apply to eparchial bishops, would read as follows (with the italicized text in parentheses having no applicability and the remainder applying as equally to an eparch as it would to any diocesan bishop - Eastern or Western). Note that n. 6 has no application whatsoever to eparchs (unless the eparchy had a jurisdiction subordinate to it - an exarchate, for instance).



Remember, also, that the Italo-Albanian Church sui iuris is but one of several Churches sui iuris that are of eparchial status and none of those with sitting eparchs (including your Church until these events) has been superintended by any Delegate or Visitator, such as you envisage, except for periods and in circumstances as have been discussed previously. I can assure you that if any such system were in place as a permanent structure, it would be widely known and would have been the subject of endless and hostile commentary on these and other fora.

Many years,

Neil

Here the text of the fist letter of Mons Munnari, the new (Latin) Apostolic Administrator "sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis" of the Eparchy of Lungro : http://www.jemi.it/images/stories/files/nunnari26Agosto.pdf

Here an extract poorly translated in English by myself:
"...I came among you sent by the pastoral concern of the Holy Father with the task of "performing, being above the parties, a deep check of the situation of the Eparchy in order to offer an objective outline of the situation and to start a process of renewing to prepare the way to the new pastor" (from the Letter of the Congregation of the Oriental Churches).

In the decree of appointment to Apostolic Administrator "sede vacante ad nutum Sancte Sedis", I have been en-powered of the mandate to "take the pastoral govern in the name of the Roman Pontiff with the same rights of the Bishop of the Eparchy, and I shall comply with the norms of the Canons 228-230 of the CCEO, and I shall demand the respect of what provided for in canon 232 par 1 of the same CCEO."

I ask to all patience and full collaboration for my -not easy- task.
I appoint Archymandrite Donato Oliverio delegated "ad omnia" and I confirm all the other positions. I also confirm the Presbiterial, Pastoral and Economic Affair Councils.

In particular I ask to the dear brothers in the priesthood to ride over the difficulties and the misunderstandings to built together the ecclesiastic communion which is the foundation of the communion of the presbyters.
It is my will to meet as soon as possible each single priests.
....
Lungro, 21/08/2010"

It is clear - reading from the first letter of the Apostolic Administrator - that the reason is to reorganize the Eparchy or to... desintegrate it (it is also a form of reorganization...).

antv,

Thank you for the link and translation. A paraphrase ...





In fairness to the Administrator, I don't think that is as clear as you suggest. His words suggest a careful review, but don't suggest to me that he intends to necessarily reorganize. I think his words were carefully chosen, a mix of fraternity and reality. For now, we can only wait to see what comes of this.

Many years,

Neil

Because someone will ask, the following are the CCEO Canons referenced in the Letter of the Oriental Congregation:

Canon 228
§1. When the see is vacant there are to be no innovations.

§2. Those who temporarily care for the governance of the eparchy are prohibited from doing anything which could be prejudicial to the eparchy or episcopal rights. They themselves and all other persons are specifically prohibited from removing, destroying or altering any documents of the eparchial curia either personally or through another.

Canon 229
The administrator of the eparchy has the same rights and obligations as the eparchial bishop, unless the law provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

Canon 230
Unless otherwise lawfully provided:

1° the administrator of an eparchy has the right to an appropriate remuneration to be established by particular law or determined by lawful custom and which is to be taken from the goods of the eparchy;

2° the other income accruing to the eparchial bishop during the time when the eparchial see is vacant is reserved to the future eparchial bishop for the needs of the eparchy, observing the prescriptions of the particular law which define the manner in which the income must be spent.

...

Canon 232
§1. When the eparchial see is vacant the eparchial finance officer carries out his office under the authority of the administrator of the eparchy. The administration of the ecclesiastical goods which on account of the vacancy of the eparchial see do not have an administrator reverts to him, unless the patriarch or college of eparchial consultors have provided otherwise.

Many years,

Neil