www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ritual Faculties

CIX!

Dear all,

a curious thought popped into my head. In the Latin rites, a priest may have biritual faculties (Roman + one other), where he has permission to celebrate the Mysteries in more than one rite.

Does such a need to have permission to celebrate another rite exist in the East? I'm tempted to think it doesn't because I've never heard of it, but I'll defer to those more learned than I.

Would a ByzCath/Orthodox priest, for example, need permission to regularly celebrate Armenian Vespers or Liturgy (to use a random example) for a community of priestless Armenians? My instinctive response would be "no, he can go ahead as he sees fit".

Extending the idea in an Eastern direction, could an Byzantine Orthodox priest celebrate the Coptic Liturgy of St Mark on St Mark's day? Pro devotione of course.

Let's take this further - could an eastern priest then also celebrate (on occasion) ANY of the historical eastern and western rites? If I were an Eastern Catholic/Orthodox priest, could I (pro devotione, as the Latins say) celebrate (as an experiment) a reconstructed Syriac-Chinese Assyrian Liturgy, as might have been done along the days of the Silk Road? Could I also on certain days of the year celebrate the
Sarum, Trondheim, York or Celtic rites?

I recall Bp Kallistos of Diokleia saying in his book that any rite in history, being part of the tradition of the Church, could be resurrected and used by any priest.

I'm on a flight of fancy, bear with me.

Yours,

Edward

I know an OCA priest who used to be Byzantine Catholic. He claims that he went to a Byzantine Seminary, but stopped at the diaconate because he was being urged to become bi-ritual in the Latin rite. Later on, he went to St. Vladimir's, then was ordained into the Antiochean Archdiocese. He jumped to the OCA after about 10 or more years with the Antiocheans.

He was adamantly opposed to bi-ritualism, and saw it as a further erosion of the ideal of pursuing Orthodoxy on its own terms alone. He also appears to be against relativism, which is what many Orthodox accuse the Roman Church of, when they have bi-ritual priests.

My guess is that it is unlikely that a priest totally trained and educated in Byzantine traditions would want to become bi-ritual, because there is plenty to keep him occupied without doing so. The Byzantine churches in the U.S. suffered greatly with creeping latinization, and are still recovering.

Edward:

I rather doubt that an Orthodox priest would do any of these things since the Liturgy in any of the other Eastern Churches would not keep him in communion with the rest of his Church. And my experience has been that the Byzantine Orthodox do not go beyond their own Church's life. I would have to say, too, that this stance has to do with the whole experience of Christ for them: theology, tradition, the Liturgy all form one whole. The priest, being the delegate of his bishop, would not take it on himself to be the delegate of another bishop not in communion with his bishop. Communion is not only with the Lord, though that is the primary focus, but it is also linked to the community in which we find ourselves. Theologically, I don't think that an Orthodox priest would break his communion with his bishop in order to help a community not in communion with his own bishop.

The idea of a Catholic priest, on the other hand, being able to have bi-ritual faculties comes from our experience of being in communion with other Churches sui juris. So a priest can be granted permission to serve/celebrate the Liturgy of another Church sui juris by a bishop of that Church and with the permission of his own bishop--and probably even needs permission from Rome to have such faculties. (Help me out here, brother Catholic priests who may have such faculties.) A Catholic priest can also concelebrate, as far as I know, the Liturgy of any Church sui juris that is in communion with Rome, though what the exact rules are I am not fully familiar with.

Perhaps what I'm trying to get, as far as where a priest stands and what he is delegated to do is better expressed in part of the greeting I wrote for our new pastor when he was sent to us:

The primary, fundamental task of Catholic Christian life is building an on-going relationship with Jesus Christ. The Fathers of the Church call that communion—a word with Latin roots that roughly translates “coming into union.” We just finished (the Liturgy) the most perfect way that we do that—participation in and reception of Our Lord Himself, in Holy Communion. These same Latin roots underlie the word “community” which suggests that we have a “common unity”—something in common.

What we have in common is the Catholic faith that we share and that we live together. One of the most important parts of being a Catholic is that we are not a community built around the personality of one man as some other Christian communities are. We are the Church: what the Fathers call a community of persons standing around their bishop and celebrating the Eucharist. That is, incidentally, one of the earliest definitions of what the Catholic Christian community was all about. Since the bishop cannot be in all places at one time to celebrate the Eucharist, he sends trusted leaders to parishes to stand in his place. The pastor we have is the bishop's delegate to us—someone trusted by Bishop Joseph (Adamec, of Altoona-Johnstown) to provide us with leadership and nourishment.

So today, it is my distinct honor and privilege to formally welcome Fr. Mark Begly into our midst. Fr. Mark, on behalf of the parish community and the parish council, I welcome you on all the levels you come into our midst. I welcome you as the bishop's delegate. I welcome you as our leader and the one to whom we will turn for guidance and nourishment. I welcome you as our brother in Christ by Baptism and Confirmation, one who shares the life of the Trinity and one who walks the pilgrim way with us. I welcome you as the one who stands in our midst in persona Christi--in the Person of Christ--because of your ordination.

I think that the most important thing to remember in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is that a priest is ordained for the purpose of serving the community that his bishop sends him to and within the Church that his bishop is in communion with. He doesn't find himself ordained and then off to do his thing wherever the Spirit moves him to go or with whomever he feels called to serve. And if a priest doesn't have communion--common unity of faith--with another community, he doesn't lead them in Liturgy. I don't think he would even attempt to lead them in non-liturgical prayer because of the confusion and possible scandal that might result in the minds of those inovlved, both of his own and the other community.

BOB

I think that our brother Bob has hit the nail on the head.

The priest is a "man chosen by God from among the people to serve the people in the things that pertain to God". (St. Paul, no less.)

Thus, the priest is called to serve as the vicar of the bishop in serving the bishop's people. The use of 'bi-ritualism' came about when us poor Eastern folks needed help when we were without priests. The permission to do so must come from Rome who alone can allow a priest of one bishop to go and help out the people of another bishop who is in dire need.

The idea of doing this as a response to one's desire to "experience" the rituals sounds like a noble educational venture, and has been embraced by many. (In seminary, we did "re-create" liturgies in various 'rites' but it was within the context of Liturgics 201. And when we did the Tridentine Liturgy, most of the participants had no clue about the Latin! But us old coots did!!!)

But in the context of "real Church" with 'real people', this is not a trivial matter. God's people should be served by priests of their own persuasion (cf St. Paul above). If there is no priest available, then another validly ordained priest may serve the people as an 'extraordinary circumstance'. [This also applies to both Catholic or Orthodox priests serving a Catholic or Orthodox person who is in danger of death or who is in serious circumstances. I cannot even conceive of an Orthodox priest withholding absolution from a dying Roman Catholic because of "the rules"; and the same for an RC priest. It's what being a priest is all about: saving the souls of those who approach.]

Personally I DON'T think it's a good idea to allow a lot of the bi-ritual thing. Why? Because a priest really has to be a part of the community to adequately serve the people sacramentally. It's NOT just 'ritual'. And there are many well-intentioned folks who wish to 'help out' the Eastern Churches, but are solidly grounded in the West and who - without being aware of it - co-transmit Western ideas/mindsets while serving. Better a lay reader to lead the service.

Secondly, the idea of 'bi-rituals' tends to emphasize the notion that the sacraments are 'magic' in themselves (evoked by the priest of whatever jurisdiction!) and are not the essential 'leitourgia', i.e., the action of the community , i.e., the parish community. While one can suggest that the presence of the "other-Church-validly-ordained-priest" is necessary for the validity of the sacraments (and this is probably true), I'm not sure that it sends the right message; we need to focus on the "praying community/parish under a bishop" and only secondarily on the minister who serves them.

In sum: a priest may only celebrate according to his incardinated-church ritual; he may participate in the rituals of other 'sui juris' churches, but ONLY in his own rite's vestments and only as a 'guest'. (I.e., it's not dress-up time.)

A bi-ritual priest enjoys the privilege of using the rituals of another sui-juris church, with the consent of that church's bishop. He is, of course, subject to all the requirements of that sui-juris church. The ultimate authority for this privilege is from Rome, which may grant it or revoke it at any time. Getting 'faculties' in one Eastern Church does NOT grant authority to use rituals from another Church. (I.e., a Byzantine bi-ritual may not celebrate Armenian just because he had some soujook for dinner the night before. He needs a separate dispensation.)

I hope this helps.

Christ is Risen!!

But remember the present situation in the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolia. Because we have no vocations and our hierarchs refuse to ordain married men, 1/3 of our parishes are administered to by bi-ritual priests. This situation will only continue until we become nothing by a "Rite" within the Roman Church. Unless we restore a married clergy, we will not grow as a "sui juris" Eastern Particular Church. Sad but true.

Ung-Certez

Jim,

You would think so, but unfortunately we hear from time to time of those Byzcath priests who seek bi-ritual faculties to help in the Latin parishes since there isn't enough work for them to do in their own. Can you imagine? I know of several Bible front churches that got started with only a few families and grew to gigantic churches after much labor in the harvest. Again it is unfortunate that some of our own priests still think that evangelization and growth is only for other church communities. I was listening to my New Testament on tape in the car and today's Matthew reading was about the parable of the talents. The guy who came back with the one and only talent his master gave him really got reprimanded like heck. Maybe our bishops should mandate from their lackluster-don't-know-evangelization-squat presbyters a 500-page essay and commentary on Matthew's parable and how that should reflect on their own ministry - or lack thereof. Really! Sometimes I wonder if our Lord's parables are ever read.

But how can we convince those Byzcath priests to consider going beyond the call of 'maintenance' duty? beyond the call of being ho-hum parish sitters? to go forth commissioned to bring the Gospel to new people? How can we let them know that there IS work to be done in our own church?

Dear friends:

The Antiochian Orthodox Church as you know has a "Western Rite", some former Episcopalian priests have permission to say a western liturgy in their parishes but outside them they have to celebrate the Byzantine liturgy, and as far as I know only those priests coming from episcopalianism are allowed to celebrate for their missions, but not all Antiochian priests can celebrate the "Western Rite."

I know that there have been cases among the Oriental Orthodox (Ethiopians and Indians, for example) in which priests have had to serve mixed communities, but I am not sure about it.

A Byzantine Orthodox priest might not celebrate the Coptic or Armenian liturgies simply because he is not in communion with those Churches.

In the Catholic Church, maybe the figure of a bi-ritual priests is necessary, a bi-ritual Roman priest who celebrates the Byzantine liturgy for you is much better than having a Roman priest celebrating the Roman mas in your parishes, I think.

Here for example, Roman priests are often requested to celebrate masses for Maronite and Melkite faithful (and they do not bother in learning the byzantine liturgy). The case you mention about the former Byzcath priest who was asked to be bi-ritual doesn't surpise me, here I know about a Maronite parish which had to host and offer Roman masses for local Western faithful too.

In Romania there is an Armenian Catholic community that has been without priests for years, and instead of sending a Greek catholic priests (an option that would seem more logical), they have been placed under the Roman ordinary which sends Hungarian Roman priests who celebrate the modern mass in Hungarian!

In this case the situation in America is better than in other places where Eastern catholics are left alone and gradually absorbed into the mainstram Roman Church.

Hello all,
Correct me if I err but I remember reading that the Western rite priests of the Antiochian Orthodox church are bi-ritual. If I remember correctly this was mandated by their church.

I think having priests with bi-ritual faculties is very useful and wise and it does not necessarily impede the function of a good pastor. Most such men feel sincerely called by God to serve and they care about the traditions they work with very deeply and prepare as best they can for the responsibility. Ironically it is the Latin church with the highest ratio of communicants to priests that seems to be providing priests to the other churches.

We may ask more and more of our priests but the fact is there is a limited amount of money to support these individuals and we shouldn't be surprised if they take a day job to help keep the lights on. Some priests (at least among the Orthodox) find work as hospital chaplains and other similar functions so I don't think it's such a stretch that one may find useful service assisting another particular church.

Of course having said all that I agree that it is preferable to have priests of ones own jurisdiction if at all possible.

Michael

CIX!

Dear all,

Thanks for the thoughts! MInd, I'm not talking about biritualism in the sense of Latin+Eastern! I'm talking about Eastern+Eastern! Say, Byzantine+Armenian or Byzantine+Coptic... be it either in the Orthodox or Catholic fold.

A further example, if a huge community of (for example) clergyless Ethiops decided they wouldn't mind being in communion with (say) the local OCA bishop, would it be possible for them to keep their rite? The mono-ritualism of the Byzantine Orthodox church bugs me in a way, as there seems to be a view that any rite that isn't the Byzantine is somehow suspect (a sort of Praestans Ritus Graecae).

The clerics celebrating the motley of rites on occasion would of course commemorate their own usual bishops, so could an Orthodox/ByzCath priest, in theory, use another rite on occasion, commemorating his own bishop, for the good of souls? All secluso scandalo of course.

Another example. An Armenian is dying and a ByzCath priest is the only one around to anoint him. The ByzCath priest knows the Armenian ritual well enough to adminster it in the Armenian rite. Could he and should he do so?

I realise I'm being quite fuzzy and running the whole gamut of possibilities here, from occasional to regular celebration.

Dear Friends,

Certainly, the ability to celebrate in other Eastern Rites depends on whether a priest is in communion with their Churches . . .

The Russian Orthodox Church (Niconian) had the situation of Old Believers coming into Communion with it and so organized them as "Yedinovertsy" or "United Believers."

There were priests, and some New Martyrs have even been glorified as saints, who were "Biritual" and served in both New and Old Rite parishes.

In those cases, "biritual" really meant serving the same Liturgy using a different "usage" as obtains in the Roman Church where there are many usages of the same basic Latin Rite.

So Dr. John's point on the centrality of the church community to which one belongs is crucial here.

And everything must be done with the blessing of the bishop . . .

Alex

Well, Cantor Joe, all jurisdictions have their problems when it comes to obtaining qualified clergy. At least our bi-ritual priests went to seminary. The same cannot necessarily be said for some of the jurisdictions outside Rome (The OCA comes to mind, but there are probably others.), where even though they may allow married clergy, they STILL have difficulty getting vocations. And their celibate clergy is often very scarce, which leads to a severe shortage of best candidates for the position of bishop. (For those who don't know already, most Orthodox jurisdictions require celibate bishops.) So it goes.

J Thur:

My brother, I wouldn't beat up on our clergy for lack of the same type of evangelical enthusiasm that builds these mega-churches in the U.S.

Our priests are the products of our seminaries. They have been formed to do and be as they are. We have some that by force of personality or personal holiness draw people in and parishes sometimes grow. But many seem to be afraid to go beyond the boundaries of their training. And I don't mean that as a mean-spirited criticism; just an observation made from experience over time.

I've met some guys who have the gift of building new parishes. They seem to get things off the ground, then are moved, and someone comes to keep things going. Same seems to be the case of men who have the gift of organization who come to build a parish a new physical plant and then move on to the next one.

I think we all need to do some serious discussion and soul-searching to recover the spirit of evangelization that the Holy Father is calling us to acquire. Is it that we are more concerned with observing the minute details of traditions and missing Tradition--the dynamic, ongoing life of the Holy Spirit lived in the Church? We were challenged this Lent with our own enthusiasm for telling others about the treasure we have in Christ and in His Church. I must admit I haven't brought that many people in by personal invitation. Yet there are street-corner preachers stopping through my neighborhood weekly once the weather gets a little better. Sometimes I feel a little ashamed, but I tell myself that's how we Catholics and Orthodox do it. Or is that why some of our communities are dying and we can't get young men to commit to being our leaders? Are we lip service or are we on fire? My own answer and example scares me a lot, especially when I consider Our Lord's warning about being lukewarm.

BOB

Theophan,

Please re-read my post. I wrote:

"... it is unfortunate that SOME [emphasis mine] of our own priests still think that evangelization and growth is only for other church communities."

Thanks.

I totally agree with Cantor Joe with regard to the missing missionary emphasis in the Byzantine Church. An inventory of the churches within the U.S. metropolias will reveal very few missions. It would be awful if it turned out that clergy were more concerned about encroaching on Latin territory than in getting the Message out.

Jim, it's not just the clergy who have this mentality. Every few messages I read on this board I see something about how attractive the Byzantine "Rite" is to some Roman Catholics, how "we need to get the word out to our fellow Catholics," etc., and our church bulletins have messages directed at RCs explaining how our masses fullfil the "Sunday obligation for all Catholics", etc. Our idea of "mission" is apparently to change the patrimony of those who already have the Faith.

And if by chance an authentic unchurched inquirer shows up, our pamphlets and greeters invariably couch everything we do in terms of its Roman Catholic equivalent. "We have icons instead of statues"; "we have Liturgy instead of Mass"; "we bow instead of genuflect"; "we make the sign of the Cross from right to left instead of left to right" -- as if Joe Brown from the Church of God in Christ or Melissa Arbogast who's never even been baptized would have any idea of what a "Mass" is or what a "genuflection" or the "sign of the Cross" is.

How about telling people -- without any reference to RC anything! -- from our own perspective:
1) Who God is & what we believe about God, the Trinity, Jesus Christ;
2) That Jesus founded a Church and we are that Church;
3) That God loves us and out of love we worship Him !