www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Presov and Mukachevo eparchies have new bishops

Here is a link to see some more photos of this event:

http://www.grkatpo.sk/fotoalbumy/?zobrazit=album&id=12

It is evident from the photos that there was one ceremony, apparently Latin (rite), in which all these priests were made bishops.

The Orthodox/Byzantine rite ceremony of consecrating a bishop is, of course, different from the Latin rite ceremony. Was anyone from this board there? Can anyone fil in the gaps? Is this all that happened?

Was Axios sung? Were the professions of faith made? It looks like they were pre-vested before they were consecrated, except for the omofor mitre and staff (and surely panagia).

Tony

I recently saw a similar ceremony on EWTN on one of their shows that was about a day in the life of the Vatican. It included the consecration of 12 bishops by the Holy Father, including 1 Byzantine Catholic bishop (but I never figured out who it was since they never mentioned the names).

In that documentary, the liturgical celebration to consecrate these bishops was according to the Latin rite. There was no Axios that I recall (I guess the Latins don�t do one like we do). There were professions of faith (they may, however, done them together rather than individually). The men to be ordained as bishops entered wearing priestly, but not hierarchical vestments. I remember the coverage of a special table upon which lay 12 sets of bishop�s vestments arranged in a neat row. One of the photos [grkatpo.sk] on the site mentioned by Tony shows something similar. After ordination they were vested in the vestments proper to a bishop (I sincerely doubt that Rome would ever allow someone to vest in anticipation). If I remember correctly the Holy Father did not vest them himself but delegated the vesting.

Many years to the new bishops! Eis Polla eti, Despota!

I would have expected the scenario the Administrator mentions above or similar. However one of the photos [grkatpo.sk] shows the BCs in procession with sakkos and palitsa, these vestments in this combination are only used by bishops.

They surely could have been awarded the palitsa as priest or archimandrite, but not the sakkos. So, I am baffled, by what the photos show they were partly vested when they walked in. Perhaps part of the ceremony was taken separately.

Tony

So our Metropolitan Basil was there...
Was he a co-consecrator? Or does the Pope alone suffice for these consecrations?

Dear Lemko,

That is a fascinating question!

Especially given the canon that a bishop is consecrated by "two or three bishops."

There is nothing boring about our Ruthenian brothers, to be sure!

Alex

Where is the Church that the Bishops are celebrating the Eastern Liturgy at the end? Is that in the Vatican?

Dmitri

As I am sure you know, according to Canon I [ccel.org] of the Holy Apostles and the normative usage of the Orthodox/Byzantine Church, "two or three bishops" are required to consecrate another bishop.

The chapel at the "Russicum" in Rome.

The problem here seems to be the difference in vestments between the Latin and Byzantine Churches. In the Latin Church, bishops do not wear any vestments different than those of a priest, except the mitre, pectoral cross, zucchetto and crosier. In the case of metropolitan-archbishops, the pallium is added. In our church, the bishops' vestments include the sakkos, omophorion, etc., etc. (we know what they are).

In the Latin Rite ceremony, the bishops to be ordained would be wearing already, the chasuble, stole, alb, etc and after consecration, would then receive the mitre, pastoral staff, cross, zucchetto. What the pictures seem to depict, is that our bishops-to-be made use of the sakkos as the chasuble, to be uniform in ceremony with the candidates of the Latin Church. For the sake of the ritual being used, they were vested in the omophor, mitre, panagia, crosier, etc, at the same time as their brothers of the Roman Church were given their episcopal insignia.

Rather than an issue of taking any of the rituals/ceremony in advance, it appears that one concession was make, in order to accommodate the Latin ritual - the wearing of the sakkos as the chasuble (which in a sense, is the Byzantine bishop's chasuble) and the giving over of the other episcopal garb at the time when this occurs in the Roman ritual. Normally, our bishops are consecrated after they have removed their phelonions, wearing only the stichar, epitrachil, cuffs and the epigonation (pallitsa). The sakkos is given with the other episcopal vestments, but this practice was probably seen as awkward in the Roman liturgy, so they were asked to simply don the sakkos beforehand.

This again, can only be seen as making sense in the context of the Roman ritual which was being celebrated.

About co-consecrators: I'm not sure if, in multiple consecrations (as was the case), there are separate co-consecrators for the various candidates or if the same are used for all. It would appear that the Holy Father would have been assisted by two (most likely cardinal) co-consecrators. Perhaps for each ordinandi, various co-consecrators could be used, but the answer for this one will have to come from one who was present or has direct information.

Fr. Joe

In the documentary that I viewed there were approximately 20 bishops participating. All twenty bishops laid hands upon each of the new bishops. Each of the candidates was brought before the Holy Father for ordination and then returned to his place. Once all twelve were ordained by the Holy Father and back in their places the 20 or so participating bishops laid hands upon each of the candidates (in a neat and orderly manner).

Friends,

I think Fr. Joe has hit the nail on the head, it seems that this is all about uniformity with and accomodation to the the Roman Rite.

This seems to betray the very call that Rome (the Pope and the Eastern Congregation) makes for the Eastern Catholics to recover their authentic rites, customs, etc.

Tony

Dear Administrator,

I'm just wondering why some of these things are issues at all.

I know that our Ukie Catholic people would be irked if their bishops were consecrated by the Pope and at St Peter's, but not all.

Does that obtain among the Ruthenians as well, or in some circles?

Finally, is Tony an Eastern Catholic? I don't see a reference to his Church in his bio.

So, the way I figure it, "Silence gives consent" and he is a Catholic!

Alex

I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Byzantine Catholic. If you want to know more you are welcome to contact me.

In our ritual, the main consecrator recites the prayers, while the two co-consecrators hold the Gospel Book, while simultaneously imposing their hands also. If my memory is correct, this act is also part of the Roman ritual. Not having seen the ceremony at St. Peter's, I don't know if or who held the Gospel. I would imagine that somehow, the Gospel book was extended over the candidates' heads while the Holy Father prayed and imposed hands. Or, was this eliminated due to the Pope's health condition?

It has become a practice in the post-concilliar Roman Church, for all those present at an ordination, that hold the same rank of orders, to impose their hands, after the ordaining prelate has done so and recited the prescribed prayers. At a priestly ordination, all priests present go around and impose hands, at an episcopal consecration, the bishops do the same. This is meant to symbolize the unity of the priesthood and episcopacy, and those others who impose hands are not seen as actually having any function in the ordination itself. It can be confusing however.

At the ordination of these bishops, even if not implicitly acted out together with the Holy Father, two of those bishops who joined in the secondary laying on of hands, should be considered on paper at least, as the co-consecrators. As I mentioned, in both the Roman and Byzantine rituals, there are normally three consecrators, the two "co-consecrators" holding the Gospel Book over the candidate's head. This is at least my understanding of the complex issue.

A question is: Were there two assisting bishops who held the Gospel at some point during the service, extended either over the individual candidates or the groups as a whole, while the Pope acted in the role of principal consecrator?

We're beginning to get to the core of the matter.

Fr. Joe

Without access to the Roman Pontifical in front of me, I'm not sure if the holding of the Gospel Book is conjoined to the actual moment of ordination by the principal consecrator or if this takes place during some of the preceding prayers. It may be the latter, but we need someone who knows how the Latin ritual is preformed to let us know. We do know that in our ritual, the Gospel is held during both the actual words of consecration and the adjoining prayers.

In the Latin Rite, there are no "words of ordination" per say, but merely the "laying on of hands" with silent prayer for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Other prayers and formula are recited before and after. Our ordinations all have the prescribed formula, "The Divine Grace . . . " as well as other prayers.

I would be rather sure though, that in any case, two of the bishops present, who either simultaneously, immediately thereafter or later on impose their hands, would be considered the legal co-consecrators (on the documentation). It is a matter of canon law however, that the so-called "lines of apostolic succession" derive from the principal consecrator, who is almost always, the senior hierarch present. I don't think there is such a thing as "secondary lines" derived through the co-consecrators, as are identified by some groups who go to great lengths to show their apostolicity. Am I correct on this one?

Fr. Joe