www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Is there a such thing a biritual deacons?

My husband has wanted for a long time to become a deacon, but we are Byzantine Ruthenians attending a Latin Rite parish. Is it possible for my husband to be sponsored by our Latin Rite parish to become an Eastern Rite deacon, and then serve in our Latin Rite parish? Or could he somehow become biritual and get ordained as a Latin Rite deacon? Is there any precedent for our situation?

It is best to contact the vocation directors of both dioceses, to see what they advise.

But strictly speaking, in my understanding, deacons do not receive bi-ritual faculties. With the permission of his Roman bishop, and the Byzantine bishop, a Roman deacon may serve or assist at a Byzantine Liturgy, and vice versa. [Since a Byzantine deacon never functions on his own, unlike the Roman deacons who can function without a priest at marriages, baptisms, benedictions etc. the idea of 'faculties' is somewhat different in the two Churches.]

However, it is normal for someone to serve in the parish, and diocese that sponsored him.

But, of course, it would be worth contacting the vocation directors of both dioceses, to see what they advise.

Tammy,

I would follow Father Elias' recommendation and contact the vocation director for the Eparchy of Van Nuys, Fr. Robert Pipta. His email is on this page: https://www.byzcath.org/van/vannuys.htm
I do not think that the Latin parish can sponsor him. Since he is Byzantine, only Bishop William could accept him as a candidate, assign him to a program of formation, and ordain him. After ordination it is between the deacon and the bishops involved as to how and where he will serve. Our own Fr. Deacon Ed is a LAtin deacon serving a Melkite parish, perhpas he can share his thoughts?

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Tammy, after your husband is ordained for service to his Eparchy he can, with the permission and blessing of his own bishop, also request the Latin bishop to also receive him for service.

Deacons don't get "faculties" in the sense of a priest who receives faculties to marry, hear confessions, preach, etc. Rather a deacon receives a blessing to serve and preach by the bishop of the other ritual tradition.

Roman deacons also have significantly different liturgical roles (for example they can marry and baptize) so the Latin bishop may require some training before being allowed to serve in a Latin parish.

As mentioned before, your husband should approach the Eparchial representative, present himself as a candidate and ask for guidance in this matter.

The question is, why would your husband WANT to be a deacon serving both churches? The whole concept of bi-ritualism is anathama to the eastern church as a whole. The scripture clearly says that one cannot serve to masters. In this case, two spiritualities. If your husband was truely eastern, he would not even feel comfortable functioning in the role of a latin deacon. If he does, perhaps he should consider a cannonical change of rite to the latin church. We do not need intermingleing of spiritualities in our churches. It causes confusion and corruption and scandle to our sister Orthodox churches. Pray, search your soul, consult your spiritual director, and choose ONE. You will be doing yourself, your family, and the Church a favor.

Then again you may the case as in my parish.

We had some seminarians from the local Latin Seminary that would attend Divine Liturgy on Sundays and Holy days.

When one was ordained a Deacon he would REGULARLY show up at our parish complete with Latin vestments and would serve as "our deacon" during Divine Liturgy.

Nothing was ever said or done about.

Yes, I did post a few questions about it on this forum and was told to be grateful that someone was interested in our church!

Why should we worry about this now???

mark

If your husband was truely eastern, he would not even feel comfortable functioning in the role of a latin deacon.

There are several deacons in the Eastern Rites that would take objection to this statement. They are either Latins serving the Eastern Rite, of Eastern Rite serving the Latins. One posts on here.

Athanasius,

If not for many generous Latin priests going through the trouble of gaining bieccelsial faculties many Byzantine parishes would not have a Divine Liturgy. In a perfect world everyone would serve his own Church but since the world is imperfect we make do. Statements like "if he were truly eastern" have no place on this forum and you owe Tammy an apology. If a priest or deacon needs/wants biecclesial faculties that is for a man and his bishop to decide.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

//If not for many generous Latin priests going through the trouble of gaining bieccelsial faculties many Byzantine parishes would not have a Divine Liturgy. In a perfect world everyone would serve his own Church but since the world is imperfect we make do.//

Lance,

The Orthodox Churches do not having a bigger Western counterpart as does the Eastern Catholics to rely on for extra clergy. They have to supply their own clergy and financially support their own parishes, mission, and other communities. They are solely on their own. No priest; no parish.

Maybe we have grown too accustomed to relying on others to supply our clergy where we haven�t. One late Benedictine Byzantine Catholic monk stated that their own monastery, Holy Trinity in Butler, was almost killed off when their monastic clergy were taken to serve parishes. Several Orthodox churches have a good number of missions, whereas our church, which relies on many bi-ritual clergy, is closing churches. You think that with all those extra clergy we would be ahead. But we aren�t. Many of our clergy are retiring much later because there is nobody to take their place. Parishes are merging. Why?

Our church is much larger than some Orthodox ones, but have less seminarians studying for the priesthood. We can kill off monasteries, borrow clergy from other churches (at their loss), and merge and close parishes. How do you suggest that we deal with such imperfections? I know of no other church that has to rely on others to exist than our own. Why have we failed where others have suceeded?

Borrowing = debt

Joe

Joe,

You state:
1. "No priest; no parish."

Not true. Many Orthodox parishes do not have a priest of their own. They are forced to rely on the closest priest, which is often no that close, and as a result only have Divine Liturgy once a month. Others have only a deacon and celebrate Typika with Holy Communion.

2. "...our church, which relies on many bi-ritual clergy, is closing churches... Parishes are merging. Why?"

Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is, is the second oldest county in the country after Dade County, Florida. Is it any wonder that parishes will need to be closed or merged? The people just aren't there. I would imagine the situation is similar in the rest of the PA/NJ/OH Byzantine cradle.

3. "Our church is much larger than some Orthodox ones, but have less seminarians studying for the priesthood."

Other than ACROD, who are we larger than? Not the GOA, AA, or OCA. None of which are enjoying a surplus of seminarians or priests themselves. And as of this fall we have seven seminarians, six of them for the Metropolia.

4. "How do you suggest that we deal with such imperfections? I know of no other church that has to rely on others to exist than our own. Why have we failed where others have suceeded?"

Joe, I don't know the answers. I know things aren't perfect and we mangaed so far. I believe we will continue to do so. When in school a Latin priest told me the Byzantine Catholic Church would be gone in 10 years, that was 20 years ago. Others told my priest the same thing when he was a kid. He is 73. I do not know that we have failed or that others have suceeded. I think we all struggle, some have a better time of it than others.

5. "Borrowing = debt"

That is one way to look at it. Another is Sharing = Communion

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

Relying on bi-ritual priests to fill the void is a sign of being needy. I know this might not sound charitable, but it is. We also built into our mindset that a parish can only exist if there is a priest. No priest; no Mass. When a bi-ritual priest or deacon serves our church, his own church goes unserved. The Latin church too is experiencing clergy shortages. From a raw critique of our ability to serve our own, can we imagine if there were no bi-ritual priests? The reality of our dire situation would be felt more. Borrowing clergy from monasteries and other churches only masks that crisis. It is kind that Latin bishops allow their own clergy to help serve us. But when we get used to them being there for awhile, we get comfortable that needs are being met and then eventually set ourselves up for a dramatic downfall if they are ever called back. Many of our parishes are surviving on borrowed time. As for your priest friend�s calculations, one only has to go back twenty years to see that our church membership was double what it is today. Our highpoint in church membership was in the mid-50s. Then we stopped growing.

The same church that makes demands for self-sufficiency from its new monastic communities is not able to live by its own rules. Here is a lesson: when faced with a sink or swim situation, one will become creative in addressing shortfalls. Don't we save more when times are rough? The vocation and community is made to be attractive by its own merits. When our problems are masked over by crisis solutions, we spend more time away from addressing the crisis below and fail to become creative in finding real solutions. When we do it is usually too late. We have models of monastic communities and parishes where demands of self-sufficiency and identity are met. They prosper. Just compare the Milwaukee and Lincoln Latin churches as another example. Milwaukee was ready to rely on crisis solutions to fill their parishes; Lincoln relied on orthodoxy and has a full seminary and mandatory celibacy. Identity is the second factor after self-sufficiency.

It will be a rude awakening when the clergy shortage gets so great that most, if not all, the Latin hierarchs begin to call their bi-ritual priests back where they are needed more.

Joe

Athanasius -
I know of a priest who would be quite offended to hear he is "anathama" by being biritual! I haven't heard of anyone trying to excommunicate him for it, either.... My husband IS "truly Eastern;" he absolutely HATES it that we are stuck in an area where there are no Eastern Rite parishes around. However, he still feels the calling to the diaconate and is trying to answer that calling as best he can in our circumstances.

J Thur -
It is unfair to impose Orthodox limitations on the Byzantine Catholics. We have been in communion with Rome for centuries. With that communion comes certain privileges and resources. The Orthodox have chosen not to obtain that communion and therefore do not have access to those privileges and resources. Communion with Rome has also given us certain restrictions, such as the ban on married clergy in the United States. I think it's only fair that the Latin Rite "lend" us some of their clergy in exchange for that restriction.
Of course, this is assuming the biritual clergy's primary rite is Latin with the secondary rite being Byzantine. I don't think you can make that assumption. The biritual priest I know is first Byzantine, second Latin.

Slava Isusu Christu!

I've been through the same issues myself, but realize that there is no perfect Church. A wonderful consolation is that The Catholic Church under whatever form will always be with us and our children. Let us be grateful to have the Mysteries and move on. Good and holy families are the seedbed for vocations; let's nurture and support Catholic and Orthodox families; and pray for and encourage the young to find a vocation in God's Vinyard.

In Christ,


Robert

//It is unfair to impose Orthodox limitations on the Byzantine Catholics.//

I wouldn�t call them �limitations.� I was only comparing the different situations each church finds themselves in. One has to solely rely on themselves; the other doesn�t. I bring up new monastic communities because in order for them to exist they have to establish self-sufficiency. They cannot rely on the outside in order to remain a community. Receiving gifts is one thing and, of course, earning income from some type of business (selling homemade food items or icons or books). In the past, the church has basically relied on monastic clergy to fill the vacancies � at the expense of the monastic community. The demand for self-sufficiency didn�t work both ways. The limitations that our monastic communities (new ones) have to live by should also be the ones our church must live by. We fool ourselves when we think we solved the priesthood problem by borrowing clergy from elsewhere. Do the math. When one church community gains/borrows a priest, another church community loses/loans a priest. This is akin to those parishes who think they are growing in real terms when they receive parishioners from other Catholic communities. There is no real net growth. Its all a numbers shuffle.

//Communion with Rome has also given us certain restrictions, such as the ban on married clergy in the United States. I think it's only fair that the Latin Rite "lend" us some of their clergy in exchange for that restriction.//

That is a poor solution to the problem.
Joe

Tammy, I wasn't intentionally personally attacking your husband. I am however, attacking the idea of bi-ritualism. We are in Communion with the Roman church, not (ideally) subject to it. This is because our spirituality, our traditions, our very theology in many ways are different. They are so different that to co-mingle them causes confusion. I know of a Latin priest who in fact is an Archimandrite for an eastern church. He is so very latin that his byzantine parish is full of latinizations. His parish is a laughing stock to many "orthodox" byzantines, both priests and laity. Yes, many of his latinizations go unnoticed such as his insistence on elevating the Diskos from the Holy table at the epiclesis. This is perscribed in the rubrics of the Latin mass as necessary for transubstantiation. I don't believe he does any thing intentionally but he is what he is and HE is a Latin (formally trained as such). Our churches must remain separate yet equal. Bi-ritualism will result in what has happened to many of our ethnic cultures in the USA. They enrich the lives of the two who marry but the children end up with diluted heritages from both parents. A few generations later, there is no mother tongue, no traditional foods or customs. It is all lost to assimilation. Even the Byzantine catholic church today is a product of the whimsical fancies of its current clergy. Look at the recent developments toward Orthodoxy and their being coincident with the newer generation of priests. The old guard, the American Byzantine Catholic generationn of priests are retiring or dieing. The trend may very well change again in the next 30 yrs. Yes, I believe we will always have the byzantine catholic church. For Rome, we are like a family heirloom. But we will never be a true, autonomous Church as long as we hang on to the apron strings of "mother Rome" and co-mingle our clergy and all that that leads to.
In Christ,
Athanasius