The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
The Cub, P H, Hardrada, DMP, Kyrie Eleison
5601 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (1 invisible), 66 guests, and 428 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,725
Posts411,828
Members5,601
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Bi-ritual bishops? #416727
02/17/17 01:41 PM
02/17/17 01:41 PM
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 19
Northern Virginia
P
Percy Gryce Offline OP
Junior Member
Percy Gryce  Offline OP
Junior Member
P

Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 19
Northern Virginia
I've identified three currently active Catholic bishops who are bi-ritual:

Gerhard Feige, Magdeburg
Joseph Werth, Novosibirsk
Peter Libasci, Manchester, NH

Are there others?

Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Percy Gryce] #416728
02/18/17 05:36 AM
02/18/17 05:36 AM
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2
Metro NYC Area
A
Adriaticnyc Offline
Junior Member
Adriaticnyc  Offline
Junior Member
A

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2
Metro NYC Area
Dear Percy

Past good holy deeds with bi-ritual bishops:
Venerable Fulton Sheen of Blessed Memory was bi-ritual and assisted the Melkite pastor in AL when the Latin-rite Bishop of Birmingham AL became an administrative stumbling block. The Divine Liturgy was on national television.


mbw
Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Percy Gryce] #416729
02/18/17 01:20 PM
02/18/17 01:20 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 556
Brooklyn, NY USA
Economos Roman V. Russo Offline
Member
Economos Roman V. Russo  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 556
Brooklyn, NY USA
The Italo-Greek-Albanian bishops of Lungro (Calabria) and Piana degli Albanesi (Sicily) are bi-ritual in that they have jurisdiction over both Greek and Latin Catholics in their territories. Kyr Giorgio Demetrio Gallaro (Piana) and Kyr. Donato Oliverio (Lungro). Similarly the Archimandrite of Grottaferrata had such jurisdiction.

Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Percy Gryce] #416735
02/21/17 12:39 AM
02/21/17 12:39 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,427
Rain drenched California
G
griego catolico Offline
Member
griego catolico  Offline
Member
G

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,427
Rain drenched California
It looks like Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, becomes multi-ritual based on his office.
There are photos of him wearing a Maronite jibbee, a Byzantine omophorion, and a video which shows him wearing Armenian liturgical vestments.

Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Economos Roman V. Russo] #416756
02/23/17 04:26 AM
02/23/17 04:26 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Fatherhood
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Nelson Chase  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Fatherhood
Originally Posted by Economos Roman V. Russo
The Italo-Greek-Albanian bishops of Lungro (Calabria) and Piana degli Albanesi (Sicily) are bi-ritual in that they have jurisdiction over both Greek and Latin Catholics in their territories. Kyr Giorgio Demetrio Gallaro (Piana) and Kyr. Donato Oliverio (Lungro). Similarly the Archimandrite of Grottaferrata had such jurisdiction.


Very interesting.

Last edited by Nelson Chase; 02/23/17 04:26 AM.
Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Percy Gryce] #416763
02/23/17 06:19 PM
02/23/17 06:19 PM
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 301
Portugal
F
Filipe YTOL Offline
Member
Filipe YTOL  Offline
Member
F

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 301
Portugal
Not quite what you mean, but the bishops of Milan and of Braga can celebrate both Novus Ordo and, respectively, the Ambrosian and Braga usage/rite.
In Braga at least this applies to all the clergy as well, although none of them actually do celebrate the Braga rite, unfortunately...

Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Percy Gryce] #417094
06/11/17 06:47 AM
06/11/17 06:47 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
State of Washington
P
Protopappas76 Offline
Member
Protopappas76  Offline
Member
P

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
State of Washington
Over dinner, a certain very eminent Eastern Catholic Jesuit made the following points about "bi-ritualism" (Some, I presume to be tongue-in-cheek)

1. Every deacon is multi-ritual "as long as he knows what he's doing - of course, most of them don't!"

2. Priests must have faculties to serve in a different ritual tradition since they are patristically understood to be "extensions of the bishop" and liturgically preside only in the absence of "the bishop of that altar." (One of the notable exceptions is that a priest never loses the faculties of the ritual tradition in which he was ordained even when incardinated in a jurisdiction of a different ritual tradition.)

3. And bishops cannot be bi-ritual since bishops are "theologically married to the local Church over which they preside." And with very few notable exceptions, local Churches (eparchies and dioceses) belong to one liturgical tradition. (Yes, a few exceptions exist - the three Italo-Greek jurisdictions, as well as the Ethiopian eparchies, but rules are not disproved by exceptions) However, to me, the best part was when he added: "So, a bi-ritual bishop would be like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young wearing a mitre!"

Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Protopappas76] #417099
06/12/17 05:40 PM
06/12/17 05:40 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
ajk Offline
Member
ajk  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
Originally Posted by Protopappas76
Over dinner, a certain very eminent Eastern Catholic Jesuit made the following points about "bi-ritualism" (Some, I presume to be tongue-in-cheek)

1. Every deacon is multi-ritual "as long as he knows what he's doing - of course, most of them don't!"

All clergy, in particular, should know what they're doing. Bishops should not be ordaining those who do not know what they're doing. The standard of what should be done is not the particular whim or idiosyncrasy of the priest; others concelebrating, and deacons are addressed as brother and concelebrant by the priest, should be evaluated accordingly.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
2. Priests must have faculties to serve in a different ritual tradition since they are patristically understood to be "extensions of the bishop" and liturgically preside only in the absence of "the bishop of that altar." (One of the notable exceptions is that a priest never loses the faculties of the ritual tradition in which he was ordained even when incardinated in a jurisdiction of a different ritual tradition.)
Makes perfect sense considering the relationship of the presbyter to his bishop.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
3. And bishops cannot be bi-ritual since bishops are "theologically married to the local Church over which they preside." And with very few notable exceptions, local Churches (eparchies and dioceses) belong to one liturgical tradition. (Yes, a few exceptions exist - the three Italo-Greek jurisdictions, as well as the Ethiopian eparchies, but rules are not disproved by exceptions) However, to me, the best part was when he added: "So, a bi-ritual bishop would be like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young wearing a mitre!"
Just the opposite, I'd say, and it's because ecclesiology supersedes ritual. If, for instance, a byzantine rite congregation is under the pastoral care of a latin rite bishop, and the needs of the flock and the discretion of the bishop so determined, it would be proper for the bishop to function in accordance with that rite. I recall reading that this was done in the aftermath of the 19th c emmigrations.

As an analogy -- allowing that analogies can have some rough spots -- I think of the this in terms of military ranks. NCOs (and warrant officers ?) -- deacons -- do not have branch designations (like rites). Commissioned officers -- presbyters -- are assigned to branches ( infantry, armor, artillery, ordnance etc.) -- rites, ritual churches -- and they even wear, as part of the uniform, the branch designation. But the general officer-- bishop -- is ... a general ; the branch designation -- rite -- is dropped when he gets the star because he is a general officer properly belonging, in a sense, to all branches because he is the overseer (episcopus) of all.


Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: ajk] #417108
06/14/17 06:48 AM
06/14/17 06:48 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
State of Washington
P
Protopappas76 Offline
Member
Protopappas76  Offline
Member
P

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
State of Washington
Being "under the pastoral care of a latin rite bishop" is both an anomally (at best) and an ecclesiastical aberration. We are Churches not rites and bishops cannot belong to two Churches at the same time without destroying the patristic and conciliar teaching: "one bread, one cup, one altar, one bishop and one Lord..." A eucharistic community is ecclesial by nature, "wherever the bishop is there is the Church." It follows then that if one belongs to the Ruritanian (or whatever) Greek Catholic Church governance by the hierarch of another Church would defy the conciliarity of the Chuch as repeatedly defined by numerous Church Councils. The history of placing Eastern Catholic communities under the colonial thumb of another Church and attempting to separate us from our own synods is a very sad period of American and Canadian Church history from which we Eastern Catholics still have not recovered.


PS Re: Your analogy regarding flag officers: Having spent 26 years as a military officer, may I say that your may possibly be true of the Army but is not quite true of the Air Force or even the Navy (differences between line officers and non line officers, and even among line officers). Company grade and field grade officers often serve outside of their 'career field' and flag officers (at least in the Air Force) continue to wear what you call "branch insignia." But, since this is not a military site (most of the time :-) let's leave it there.

Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Protopappas76] #417110
06/14/17 02:07 PM
06/14/17 02:07 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
ajk Offline
Member
ajk  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
Originally Posted by Protopappas76
Being "under the pastoral care of a latin rite bishop" is both an anomally (at best) and an ecclesiastical aberration.
And then there's "One City, One Bishop, One Church." The emmigration is a fact. The solution evolved and will continue to do so.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
We are Churches not rites and bishops cannot belong to two Churches at the same time without destroying the patristic and conciliar teaching: "one bread, one cup, one altar, one bishop and one Lord..." A eucharistic community is ecclesial by nature, "wherever the bishop is there is the Church."
True for both viewpoints. If anything it puts theology, ecclesiology, above custom, tradition, ritual, rite. Is there an ecclesiological study that even deals significantly with ritual, rite? The intrinsic theology is an ecclesiology of "a Church of many Churches" where each "local church" is catholic: it has, while in necessary communion with the other churches, a theological autonomy. Whether the bishop wears a latin or byzantine miter (apart from good order and judgement in doing so, etc.) is of considerably less significance.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
It follows then that if one belongs to the Ruritanian (or whatever) Greek Catholic Church governance by the hierarch of another Church would defy the conciliarity of the Chuch as repeatedly defined by numerous Church Councils.
CCEO Canon 38: "Christian faithful of Eastern Churches even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain enrolled in their own Church."

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
The history of placing Eastern Catholic communities under the colonial thumb of another Church and attempting to separate us from our own synods is a very sad period of American and Canadian Church history from which we Eastern Catholics still have not recovered.
"colonial thumb ," please, move on already. Again, there's also "One City, One Bishop, One Church."

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
PS Re: Your analogy regarding flag officers: Having spent 26 years as a military officer, may I say that your may possibly be true of the Army but is not quite true of the Air Force or even the Navy (differences between line officers and non line officers, and even among line officers). Company grade and field grade officers often serve outside of their 'career field' and flag officers (at least in the Air Force) continue to wear what you call "branch insignia." But, since this is not a military site (most of the time :-) let's leave it there.

Yes, I had the Army in mind as the partial list of branches I gave would apply. (I didn't think the other services even had branches in the same sense.) I specified "branch designation" not badges.

Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Percy Gryce] #417117
06/15/17 11:34 PM
06/15/17 11:34 PM
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,157
Washington, PA
Fr. Deacon Lance Offline
Moderator
Fr. Deacon Lance  Offline
Moderator
Member

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,157
Washington, PA
Historically, Constantinople had Latin parishes and Rome had Byzantine parishes, so there is certainly precedent for members of one ritual Church to be under the jurisdiction of the bishop of a different ritual Church.

As to being biritual, if one indeed knows how to serve in two different rites and is permitted to do so one is biritual. Biritual priests who become bishops do not lose that faculty. I know of at least two cases of this in the US and one of them will be serving at the Uniontown pilgrimage his year.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: ajk] #417122
06/17/17 08:23 AM
06/17/17 08:23 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
State of Washington
P
Protopappas76 Offline
Member
Protopappas76  Offline
Member
P

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
State of Washington
Originally Posted by ajk
[quote=Protopappas76] Being "under the pastoral care of a latin rite bishop" is both an anomally (at best) and an ecclesiastical aberration.
And then there's "One City, One Bishop, One Church." The emmigration is a fact. The solution evolved and will continue to do so.

Evolved? Was the imposition of a Latin crusader hierarchy on the Melkites an evolution as well? "The emmigration is a fact." No kidding! But the destruction of our relationship with our own holy synods belies the very guarrantees made to us in the restoration of communion with Rome.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
We are Churches not rites and bishops cannot belong to two Churches at the same time without destroying the patristic and conciliar teaching: "one bread, one cup, one altar, one bishop and one Lord..." A eucharistic community is ecclesial by nature, "wherever the bishop is there is the Church."
You canot remove a local Church from its

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
It follows then that if one belongs to the Ruritanian (or whatever) Greek Catholic Church governance by the hierarch of another Church would defy the conciliarity of the Chuch as repeatedly defined by numerous Church Councils.
CCEO Canon 38: "Christian faithful of Eastern Churches even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain enrolled in their own Church."

I do not know about the other Eastern Catholic Chrches, but may I point out that the CCEO was foisted upon the Melkite Church despite the strenuous objections of both our holy synod and our patriarch.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
The history of placing Eastern Catholic communities under the colonial thumb of another Church and attempting to separate us from our own synods is a very sad period of American and Canadian Church history from which we Eastern Catholics still have not recovered.... "colonial thumb ," please, move on already. Again, there's also "One City, One Bishop, One Church."

"Move on" from what? May I remind you that the Eastern Catholics in the United States and Canada lost over half a million people because of Latin bigotry and intolerance? Have we forgotten what happened to Saint Alexis Toth and others? Have we forgotten the imposed latinizations? Have we forgotten the attempts to separate us from our own holy synods and patriarchates? Have we forgotten imposed celibacy upon our clergy? Appointed instead of elected bishops? etc. etc. etc. All which run contrary to the promises made to us in 1724 and, I presume, to most of the other Eastern Catholic Churches as well. It's a matter of ecclesial integrity promised us and the healing of the wounds of division within the Church of Antioch and the One Body of Christ purposely caused by "foreign" agents both political and ecclsiastical. Rome is "primus inter pares" not "Roma uber alles." "True Communion is about brotherhood, Communion is about equals, not about submission" -Archbishop NEOPHYTOS [Edelby]. True Communion requires "the courage to be ourselves." Archbishop JOSEPH [Tawil]

Last edited by Protopappas76; 06/17/17 08:26 AM. Reason: typos
Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Protopappas76] #417125
06/18/17 12:39 AM
06/18/17 12:39 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
ajk Offline
Member
ajk  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
Originally Posted by Protopappas76
... the imposition of a Latin crusader hierarchy... Latin bigotry and intolerance ...
Flamboyant rhetoric = 0 constructive content.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
We are Churches not rites and bishops cannot belong to two Churches...
After saying this your arguments then proceed as though the rite was the dominant factor. Consider again "One City, One Bishop, One Church," a well-established ideal. Apart from jurisdiction issues, a place (city) should have just one bishop, and those gathered around the bishop, of whatever rite, belong to the church in that place and should expect and be entitled to the preservation of their ritual tradition on an equal basis. Exactly then, one is not the bishop of a rite but of a church, and so functions according to the ritual needs and expectations of the members of that church. That's what being a church not a rite means.

Originally Posted by ajk
CCEO Canon 38: "Christian faithful of Eastern Churches even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain enrolled in their own Church "
Originally Posted by Protopappas76
I do not know about the other Eastern Catholic Chrches, but may I point out that the CCEO was foisted upon the Melkite Church despite the strenuous objections of both our holy synod and our patriarch.
If the Melkites have unique issues with the code, that should be explored in another thread. If not CCEO Canon 38 then what? How would you have preferred the emigrant situation have been handled regarding the establishment of a hierarchy; what's the best pastoral care for an isolated eastern rite people?

The point here, however, is a response to the over-the-top pronouncement of the erudite Jesuit: In theology does the function, the charism of the bishop, from whom all ministries flow for that church, supersede rite? The self-evident answer to me is, yes.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
... Rome is "primus inter pares" ...
Not (simply) in any legitimate Catholic theology, eastern or western.


Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: ajk] #417130
06/20/17 03:24 AM
06/20/17 03:24 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
State of Washington
P
Protopappas76 Offline
Member
Protopappas76  Offline
Member
P

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 87
State of Washington
Constructive content? Since when isn't it constructive to stand up for the vision of "equal Churches" and the promises made in the 1724 restoration of communion between the Church of Antioch and the Church of Rome?

I never said that "rite was the dominant factor" The totality of the tradition of a particular Church is the dominant factor; of which, by every definition, the Sacred Liturgy is the most important element (as even Vatican II points out) for it is both "summit and fount." "Liturgy is not what we do, but who we are." "A Church can no more be separated from its rite, than the heart can be separated from the body." The liturgical rite of a Church and its canons, patristic tradition etc. is inseparable fthey are constituve parts of a Church.

As an Orthodox Christian Church in the communion of the Catholic Church, we do not see the Catholic Church as some kind of monolithic monarchical pyramid, but rather as "Churches in communon with one another as equals whose bond is found in the love of Chrst." In all charity, Father Deacon, there is nothing new here. As a Melkite, this is how our reunion was promised, this is how our reunion was effected, and this is how our communion remains.

In this, like the Holy Synod, I too confess that "I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation."

In regards to "primus inter pares" you wrote: "Not (simply) in any legitimate Catholic theology, eastern or western." Oh? Please look again at the previous quote of our Holy Synod. If the synodal statement " I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops" isn't "Primus inter pares" then explain to me what is. And if we are neither "legitimate" nor "eastern" then I just might begin to take offense.

Father Deacon, my advice is the same as that of that great theologian Lucy, who said: "Lighten up, Charlie Brown."

Last edited by Protopappas76; 06/20/17 03:33 AM. Reason: typos
Re: Bi-ritual bishops? [Re: Protopappas76] #417132
06/20/17 05:18 AM
06/20/17 05:18 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
ajk Offline
Member
ajk  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,978
MD
By all means, and be sure to follow your own advice.

The utterances of a Synod are just that. If they are in communion with Rome as professed then those utterances are in full accord with the utterances of Rome and all the Churches in communion with Rome. That is what communion means.

With no disrespect to the Holy Synod, I find a statement like "I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches..." a pious platitude. Do they believe as some Orthodox that there is no grace outside that diversity that identifies as Orthodoxy. Do they believe that Catholics that switch to Orthodoxy must be (re-)baptized?

You mentioned Vatican II. Does the Synod not profess as Vatican II states:
Quote
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM

In believing "everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches" does it not also believe everything the Catholic Church teaches?

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
I never said that "rite was the dominant factor" ...
Nor did I say you did. Read closely what I wrote:
Quote
..your arguments then proceed as though the rite was the dominant factor.



Originally Posted by Protopappas76
In regards to "primus inter pares" you wrote: "Not (simply) in any legitimate Catholic theology, eastern or western." Oh? Please look again at the previous quote of our Holy Synod. If the synodal statement " I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops" isn't "Primus inter pares" then explain to me what is.
Read the quote and just what it says not what you want to read into it. What it says is correct:

1. The bishops are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
2. The Bishop of Rome is first among the bishops.

The quoted words say nothing explicitly about equality. So they can't have the force of Primus inter pares , Latin for first among equals. There's nothing wrong with Primus inter pares when properly applied and understood but you have misapplied its meaning. In reference to the Petrine ministry, Primus inter pares is NOT a sufficient statement of Catholic ecclesiology. That Catholic meaning in part are the words of Vatican II quoted above. Does the Synod teach otherwise?

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
And if we are neither "legitimate" nor "eastern" then I just might begin to take offense.
OK, but I have no idea what this is referencing.

This is a fine dialogue but getting off topic. That being the case, however, I refer here to what I wrote in several past threads, for instance, Taking Our Charge to Be Eastern Seriously and Papal infallibility and If this be true . From the last:
Originally Posted by ajk
A Failure of our Church ?

To effectively articulate why, as eastern, orthodox Christians we are, and why one should be Catholic – we, who are living (though perhaps rather imperfectly) the desired unity.


Page 1 of 2 1 2

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1
(Release build 20190129)
PHP: 7.1.32 Page Time: 0.027s Queries: 15 (0.007s) Memory: 2.6506 MB (Peak: 2.7718 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2019-09-18 07:58:39 UTC