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

Alex,
I put it back for you.

I just find it strange that some Orthodox people that are the most critical of the Byzantine Catholic Churches happen to be ex-Byzantine Catholics..... So I tend to ignore most of their "opinions".

As for Fr Joe, he is great and I am glad here is here!

I do not understand what Tony is trying to say when he talked about how we argue with the Orthodox about Orthodoxy and no I do not think this is worthy of a thread. Its nonsense.

On another note;

I do not know what religious affiliation you claim Herb but as catholics the Pope is more than just Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West, or as you put it Latin Patriarch....

He is also the Head of the Universial Church and as Alex said, I would drop everything if the Pope ever called me for anything!

David

its been one of those days!

David,

The ritual for consecrating a bishop according to Byzantine Catholic rites and usages is surely available to you or whomever is interested. You are free to research that and if I have deceived you, post it here.

Whether or not this was ritually correct does not seem to be a matter of opinion, unless ritual correctness is indeed no more than opinion.

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas!

(A sidenote to the Adminstrator: Do I not qualify for some sort of forum recognition for getting people excited and involved? ).

That's fair ball, esteemed Father in Christ!

I know that in our Ukie Catholic Church no bishop would want to "win friends and influence (his own) people" by having himself consecrated at Rome etc.

I think it has already been said that many bishops did, in fact, lay hands on the new bishops during the consecration. So that's not an issue.

The issue is having Eastern bishops consecrated by the Patriarch they are, in fact, in communion with, but whose own liturgical/ritual tradition is distinct.

If the new Eastern Catholic bishops voluntarily opted to be consecrated by the Pope, and somehow I doubt that their hand was forced in any way, then how is that "Roman domination?"

And I doubt that the Ruthenian bishops are Latinized. I have yet to meet or hear from a Ruthenian who is Latinized in the classical sense, and good for them. If anything, the Ruthenians set an example for all Eastern Catholics in terms of maitaining the "Orthodox ethos" in their theoria and praxis as "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

The simple fact that the Pope consecrated the bishops does not, immediately, imply that domination is at work or Latinization. It only implies something practical from the "in communion with Rome" part of the title.

I've seen this Pope serve the Divine Liturgy in the Ukrainian Church where he has donned Eastern vestments et alia. And we liked that. And why shouldn't he? Isn't that part of the "In Communion" thing as well?

It just sometimes seems to me that our Orthodox brothers like to see Latin domination where there really is none.

If you have information to the contrary, please feel free to present it for discussion.

Have I ever walked away from a discussion to attack Latinisms in our Church? But let's just be sure we have one in our gun-sights before we pull the trigger!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

David,

Perhaps in one sense you are right, although I am reading more into your post than is written there (but you set the precedent). It is no one's business, other than Rome's and the particular Church in question what the ECs do. What is however baffling is the insistence by some to call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and yet disregard standard Orthodox liturgical practice.

Perhaps what you have witnessed among former BCs who are now Orthodox is not so much that they are "the most critical" but rather much more familiar with BC usage and therefore more qualified to talk about it as it is something that they know about. Those who were never BC would likely not be as familiar with them. Is that so far fetched?

Tony

Dear Tony,

You make yet another great point!

It is because you were "Orthodox in communion with Rome" before that you know what you are talking about now.

Your concern and love for the Church you left is evident still and I thank God for that!

Alex

If Rome had mandated that the Byzantine Catholic Church alter the rite of ordination of a bishop that is used in our Church then I would agree with Tony. But that is not what has happened and so I disagree with him. Fr. Joe�s explanation is assuredly the correct one. From my point of view it seems that the accommodations here are to ensure good liturgical flow rather than to the Latin rite. I do not think that this accommodation violates the spirit of recovery of authentic patrimony is the ritual used was not ours. Methinks that Tony may be creating a mountain where there is none. I am not overly concerned about the seemingly minor accommodations. A better issue, IMHO, is the appropriateness of using the Roman Liturgy / Ritual to consecrate a Byzantine. Another possible issue here (and maybe even a more important one) is one of jurisdiction. One can argue that the pope is our temporary patriarch until full communion is established with Constantinople. But logically he should have given us to the pastoral care of a Byzantine Catholic patriarch until such communion is fully established. That would speak very loudly to the East.

In another post:
What�s wrong with that? Byzantine Catholics who post here do not always post accurate things about our Church and you, along with numerous others, properly correct them. It is only appropriate that when our Orthodox members post incorrect information about Orthodoxy that they will be challenged.

In another post:
Tony is correct and I agree. Our goal is to witness Orthodoxy to its fullest within Catholic communion.

Father, Bless!

I disagree with this. The Eastern Catholic Churches do not claim to be a bridge to anyone. This notion was popular for quite a long time but finally died at Balamand (even though The Balamand Agreement itself died! ) I think that Orientale Lumen�s call for respect for Orthodoxy and to learn of her treasures is something that was long overdue in the RCC.

I think, however, that Fr. Thomas has hit the heart of the matter. Is it appropriate for Byzantine Catholic bishops to be ordained by the Roman Catholic patriarch? There are those would rightly be suspicious that this is another sign of Roman superiority (and with just cause). My personal opinion is that, yes, it is appropriate since we are not currently in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople (whose responsibility this should be) but that it was improper to use the Roman ritual to do the consecrations. It would have been far better for the Holy Father to celebrate the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and do the consecrations according the Byzantine ritual. Or, as I noted above, maybe the best thing all around would be to ask a Byzantine Catholic patriarch to consecrate these bishops.

Fr. Thomas is also correct that co-consecrators should have been used (but we have no information regarding this in this case).

-

I thank Fr. Joe for his clarification on the laying on of hands in his earlier post.

-

In another post:
I disagree. I welcome the concern that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has shown to us during his reign. He seems to have embarked upon a course of gently reminding Rome that she should treat us as she would treat the rest of Orthodoxy when full communion is re-established. In this way he is preparing the ground to provide the direct pastoral care he would when he again becomes our patriarch. All of Orthodoxy has a right and, to an extent, a responsibility to be concerned about our status.

When the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church was established by His-All Holiness, the late Benjamin I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in the late 1930�s the good patriarch did not mandate any liturgical reforms to remove latinizations. I remember the filioque being taken in the Slavonic liturgies of that diocese by some of the older members as late as the early 1980s. Over the years and with great pastoral sensitivity the bishops of the Johnstown Diocese have gradually eliminated most of the latinizations and restored the liturgy to a more authentic Ruthenian recension. The OCA (formerly the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church) did the exact same thing except that they started in the 1890�s and restored the Russian, rather than Ruthenian, tradition. [On a totally unrelated note I can still remember singing the paschal stichs at the OCA parish from the Blue Sokol.]

The restoration of our authentic patrimony will take several generations.

Dear Friends:

Going back to the original subject of this thread, below was the news account of the Bishops' consecration by Catholic World News, emphasis mine:

In a related account by Zenit, "the Pope bestowed on the bishops the symbols of their ministry: the ring, sign of fidelity; the miter, symbol of holiness; and the staff, symbol of the shepherd."

The full account by Zenit is at:

Http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=29536

In one of the photos linked to us by Tony, the Pope was flanked by two other Bishops, presumably Cardinals.

AmdG

May the Lord God bless all of you!

Well, whatever the current self-understanding of the Eastern Catholic Churches is in relation to Rome, I think the bottom line here, rhetoric aside, is that the most likely Orthodox reaction would be to look at the pictures and say "this could be us." That is, no amount of dialogues, promises, agreements, and reassurance that Eastern practices will be respected and promoted can satisify Orthodoxy's fear that they will lose their Eastern identity if communion with Rome is achieved, given such events as this.

Respectfully,

Priest Thomas

Administrator,

Your above quote of my post, while complete in itself, should not be understood in isolation from the conversation or the rest of the paragraph. I start that paragraph with the concession that perhaps DavidB is correct. BCs like all have the freedom of self-determination, even individually.

So, if DavidB or anyone else will not stand for this event be observed and commented on according to accepted Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic practices, that is fine, he can make that decision. I am merely stating the obvious, that he has the right to his opinion, as I have a right to mine. That we disagree does not have to become offensive.

Tony

Administrator,

Again, let us not fall into the practice of taking things out of context. I was responding to Alex (please go back and look) where he was apparently questioning the propriety of a non-Catholic commenting on a Catholic internal matter. I simply pointed out that the same is very, very common here and if Catholics do not want their issues, events, etc, commented on by non-Catholics they should apply reciprocity. Otherwise, there is duplicity.

I am hugely in favor of correct information and documentation, etc, and I am known to go to lengths to obtain this and I respect that highly in others. Hearsay does not fall into this category, neither does opinion. These latter seem fair game for dispute then, always with Christian charity.

Again, you know that like many, if not most, posters here I have a good working knowledge of many aspects of BC life, in my case this was impacted by my time at BC Seminary, etc. My observations about the liturgics employed were not meant to be offensive. Anyone who knows me knows that I love the Carpatho-Russian people and traditions and I have many dear friends in the BC Church. It only follows that I have solicitude for the BCs and the BC Church; if I did not I would not be here.

I wonder if those who have made the conclusion that I have an ax to grind would make the same conclusion about present clergy and hierarchs of the BC Church who are pained to see liturgical and other anomalies and are trying to correct them.

Tony

Good afternoon. Just a couple of clarifications. The two principal co-consecrators were Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, Substitute of the Secretariate of State, and Archbishop Antonio Maria Veglio, Secretary of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. All other bishops present who imposed hands are also considered co-consecrators. I am not certain how many there were, but I would guess more than one hundred.

In the ritual of episcopal ordination, a/k/a consecration in the Roman Church, the sacrament is conferred by the imposition of hands and by the recitation of a prayer of consecration.

The imposition of hands is done in silence, first by the principal consecrator, then by the two principal co-consecrators, and then by all of the other co-consecrators.

The Book of the Gospels is held over the head of each ordinand by two deacons and the principal consecrator begins the prayer of consecration alone. The consecrator and all of the co-consecrators recite the following part together: "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name." Then the principal consecrator continues the prayer to the end.

I hope that the above is helpful.

Peace,

Charles

P.S.: In a previous post I was asked if I knew which rite was used for the consecration of Archbishop Antonin Drapier in Mossul. I do not know, but I assume that it would have been the rite of the principal consecrator, who was Chaldean. If I can locate the information, I will post it. I apologize for not posting sooner, but I have been under the weather for the past couple of weeks.

I agree Fr. Thomas� conclusion but not necessarily with his take on this case. Dialogues, promises, agreements and reassurance are all very nice but ultimately it is the actual behavior that counts. Rome has made vast improvement in not only the way she treats us but also in how she looks at the East. I think that the EP�s polite reminders of treating us better has a lot to do with this. In all honesty, I think that we Byzantine Catholics are ourselves more of a stumbling block to the restoration of our patrimony and, thereby, to a fuller expression of Orthodox witness than Rome is. We too often blame Rome for what we have ourselves chosen to do to ourselves.

Regarding Byzantine bishops being consecrated in Rome according the Roman ritual I am not overly bothered by it mostly because I am very much of the mind that there should only be one bishop to a city and no overlapping patriarchates. In an ideal world, all Christians in Rome (Latin, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc.) would be subject to the local bishop just as all Christians in Constantinople, Jerusalem or Moscow (Latin, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc.) would be subject to the local bishop (in this example, of course the local bishop is also a patriarch). There is, of course, the problem of the most numerous tradition swallowing up the tradition with the least number of members. I am also less bothered because I know there probably would have an ethnic brouhaha if the Ukrainian Cardinal Archbishop of Kiev had done it since there is some ethnic tension between both the Slovaks and Carpathians and the Ukrainians.

Turning the question around a bit, can anyone speak to a more appropriate way these consecrations should have occurred?

Should they have been done in the �home court� of each eparchy without papal involvement? Maybe by the national council of bishops of each country (which is mixed Byzantine and Latin)?

Should they have been done by a Byzantine patriarch?

--

Tony,

Thanks for the clarification. I think I still must disagree somewhat. I do believe that individuals and groups have right of free self-determination. Society (and in this case the Church) also has a right and a responsibility to bring to light issues that need to be addressed. I welcome input from all of Orthodoxy so long as it is given in brotherly love.

Might I make a suggestion on the way you compose your posts? Many of them read as if you are purposely being sarcastic and pointing the numerous faults of the Byzantine Catholic Church. It often seems like you intend for people to take them out of context. This may be due to your writing style or, more probably, to the fact that this form of communication lacks the emotive qualities of speech and facial expression. Maybe you can go the extra mile in composing your posts in such a way that people will not see you as always going on the offensive? Like it or not you are not in the same position as the cradle Orthodox who participate here. Any criticism of Byzantine Catholicism you offer must be well thought out and substantiated and presented without a hint of judgmentalism. Otherwise it will be seen as bitterness. There is a huge difference between a critique from you and one coming from our own bishops. They are our leaders. You are not. You are, of course, always a brother and you will always be a member the family.

Admin

Blahoslovy, Father:

Your fair comment is certainly a fair comment, imo.

For me the bigger question is not how they got ordained, but Who got ordained!

IMO, the liturgical-crime is perhaps the least of our problems. Clearly he symbolism of what went on at the ordination was...questionable in its implications. (Although there were I am sure, other factors to be considered, but IMO one could respond to those factors and still have a proper licit ordination.)

As far as the question of "Who got ordained?", is concerned, well, as I posted earlier, if the symbolism of the vestments that they wore signified anything, to me it was a sign of hope (since they were proper Orthodox episcopal vestments, as opposed to the rather "ecclesio-politically" charged Uniate ones). It gives me reason to hope that these will be proper Orthodox Bishops with an Orthodox ethos and consciousness.

And for this I will happy to overlook any illiceity in their ordination rites.

I don't think anyone here, least of all we Orthodox in Communion with Rome, would say that the present ecclesial arrangement between the "Eastern Catholic" Autonomous Churches and the Vatican is ideal, ultimate, carved in stone, sufficient, or even satisfactory, much less any kind of exemplar for a future re-establishment of Communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Communions. (Which is why some of the Patriarchs, including the Patriarch of the Latin Church, is addressing this issue.)

By the way, Father, it would certainly be helpful, if you drop a line to such as the Congregation for Christian Unity and the Congregation for Eastern Churches to let them know what the Orthodox reaction to this is. If nothing else it would lend support to the voices of the Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome.

yours with Reverence,

Herb

They could have gone over the border and had Patriarch +Lubomyr consecrate them. Really, a Holy Synod should ultimately have elected them and a Patriarch with his Holy Synod should have consecrated them.

Dear Administrator:

If they had asked me, which to my utter surprise they didn't, I would have suggested something like...

Ordination by the chief Hierarch of their Autonomous Church.

The Pope could be 3rd or 4th consecrator to honour the Churches of the ordinandi and acknowledge that they were Confessor Churches.

If the ordinandus were to be the Chief Hierarch of the Church, then the Pope should not take part at all, but rather, after the Ordination, exchange with him their mutual Professions of Faith.

The ordination should have taken place in their home country, after all, it is for the people of their Church. The people would be all the more honoured if the Pope just flew in for that.

No Latin bishops involved in the actual ordination itself. They are honoured and welcome guests from one of our Sister Churches and we value as precious our Communion with them, but this is a matter of our Church. After all, an Autonomous Church is an Autonomous Church.

What would the Latin's think if a bunch of our OicwR hierarchs started ordaining all their people in our rite?

The Service should be according to the Archieratikon, naturally. I would say, "it goes without saying", but alas that is far from the truth...

He should NOT be made a cleric of another Church after the ordination. Therefore, the Cardinal thing is right out! If they want to give him a vote in the next Latin Consistatory - just give him a special permission.

And keep those good vestments!

just a few rogue thoughts off the top of my head.

Christ is born!

Herb