Can a bi-ritual priest become both an Eastern bishop and a Latin Bishop?

[Milestone]

I don’t mean at the same time, but are both possibilities for the bi-ritual priest? And what does it mean to be bi-ritual? Does the bi-ritual priest belong to two churches or rites?

 

[edward_george]

There really isn’t such a thing as being “bi-ritual.” One can only belong to one particular ritual church. A priest could have faculties to offer the liturgy of another church, but he does not become a member of both. Thus, a Bishop could be “bi-ritual” in the sense of having the ritual faculties to offer the liturgy of a church other than his own, but he would still belong to his own church. Fulton Sheen had faculties in the Ruthenian Church, as i recall, and there are photos of him celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the full vestments of a Byzantine Bishop.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[kkollwitz]

I can’t imagine a bishop being the bishop of more than one diocese regardless of rites.

 

[babochka]

Bishop Nicholas Elko was the Byzantine Catholic bishop of Pittsburgh. He later served as the auxiliary bishop of the Latin diocese of Cincinnati. As far as I know, he is the only Eastern-rite bishop to have served as a bishop of a Latin-rite diocese.

 

[Mongo]

I don’t mean at the same time, but are both possibilities for the bi-ritual priest? And what does it mean to be bi-ritual? Does the bi-ritual priest belong to two churches or rites?

No, all bishops and priests have a particular jurisdiction within a particular church. A priest or bishop may be biritual but he is still subject to a particular bishop within a particular church. He might become a bishop of that particular church, and none other.

 

[Mongo]

There really isn’t such a thing as being “bi-ritual.” One can only belong to one particular ritual church. A priest could have faculties to offer the liturgy of another church, but he does not become a member of both. Thus, a Bishop could be “bi-ritual” in the sense of having the ritual faculties to offer the liturgy of a church other than his own, but he would still belong to his own church. Fulton Sheen had faculties in the Ruthenian Church, as i recall, and there are photos of him celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the full vestments of a Byzantine Bishop.

-Fr ACEGC

I think I recall pope Benedict presiding over a byzantine liturgy. Is that true or just my imagination?

 

[edward_george]

I think I recall pope Benedict presiding over a byzantine liturgy. Is that true or just my imagination?

I don’t know if he did or not, but John XXIII did during the Second Vatican Council. As Pope, however, he would have jurisdiction over all the Churches. The reason a “bi-ritual” priest couldn’t be Bishop over a Diocese in the Latin Church and an Eastern Church is that he can’t belong to two Churches at once, and so can’t have jurisdiction over a Diocese in two Churches.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[M-Dent]

The Bishop of Manchester, Bishop Libasci is bi-ritual and celebrates the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church. He is a blessing to our diocese.

 

[babochka]

I think I recall pope Benedict presiding over a byzantine liturgy. Is that true or just my imagination?

This is correct, but the liturgy was Vespers.

 

[Culurecatholic]

Bishop Nicholas Elko was the Byzantine Catholic bishop of Pittsburgh. He later served as the auxiliary bishop of the Latin diocese of Cincinnati. As far as I know, he is the only Eastern-rite bishop to have served as a bishop of a Latin-rite diocese.

Bishop Nicholas has an interesting history. He was a “ladder-climber” when he was a Rusin/Ruthenian priest. He was among the ones who “discovered” the “scandal” of Bishop Daniel Ivancho. He “turned him in.” For that, he was “rewarded” by being made bishop for the Rusins/Ruthenians in America. He was a notorious latinizer, confusing “Americanism” with latinization. He couldn’t understand the difference. He saw to the destruction of iconostasis’ in Byzantine/Rusin/Ruthenian churches and supplementing them with Latin-style altars and other decorations. Eastern-style icons were out; western-style pictures and statues were in. Eastern devotions were out; western ones were in. The rosary supplanted things like Vespers, etc., and the Presanctified during Lent was replaced by the Stations. He thought this would make the Byzantine/Greek/Rusin/Ruthenian Church look more “American.” Yet, he was the only bishop who insisted that he be invested in the middle of a church when celebrating a hierarchical (“pontifical”) liturgy. Many said it was not because he was “vosy” (meaning Eastern) but because of his ego. He persecuted priests and seminarians who were “vosy.” There were raids in the rooms of seminarians to search through their stuff, and if hidden icons or holy-cards that weren’t western were found in their possession, they were expelled. Finally, enough clergy (and laity) were outraged to the point where they kept reporting him to the Vatican. Another rebellion (the one in the 30’s that created the break-away Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic church) was coming close to fruition. The Vatican dismissed him from his episcopacy. He spent a few years in Rome as a nameless paper-pusher and then was shipped back to America, “downgraded” to an auxiliary Roman-Rite bishop (since he loved everything so Roman) and remained there until he died. Elko was denied his dying wish of having a Byzantine hierarchical funeral in a Byzantine Catholic parish ceremony (including his home parish) because of how he almost destroyed the Rusin/Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic church in America. Instead, he was given a Roman/pontifical funeral and interned without any fame or recognition. Other than his infamy in the Byzantine Catholic church, he’s forgotten. You reap what you sow.

 

[babochka]

Bishop Nicholas has an interesting history. He was a “ladder-climber” when he was a Rusin/Ruthenian priest. He was among the ones who “discovered” the “scandal” of Bishop Daniel Ivancho. He “turned him in.” For that, he was “rewarded” by being made bishop for the Rusins/Ruthenians in America. He was a notorious latinizer, confusing “Americanism” with latinization. He couldn’t understand the difference. He saw to the destruction of iconostasis’ in Byzantine/Rusin/Ruthenian churches and supplementing them with Latin-style altars and other decorations. Eastern-style icons were out; western-style pictures and statues were in. Eastern devotions were out; western ones were in. The rosary supplanted things like Vespers, etc., and the Presanctified during Lent was replaced by the Stations. He thought this would make the Byzantine/Greek/Rusin/Ruthenian Church look more “American.” Yet, he was the only bishop who insisted that he be invested in the middle of a church when celebrating a hierarchical (“pontifical”) liturgy. Many said it was not because he was “vosy” (meaning Eastern) but because of his ego. He persecuted priests and seminarians who were “vosy.” There were raids in the rooms of seminarians to search through their stuff, and if hidden icons or holy-cards that weren’t western were found in their possession, they were expelled. Finally, enough clergy (and laity) were outraged to the point where they kept reporting him to the Vatican. Another rebellion (the one in the 30’s that created the break-away Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic church) was coming close to fruition. The Vatican dismissed him from his episcopacy. He spent a few years in Rome as a nameless paper-pusher and then was shipped back to America, “downgraded” to an auxiliary Roman-Rite bishop (since he loved everything so Roman) and remained there until he died. Elko was denied his dying wish of having a Byzantine hierarchical funeral in a Byzantine Catholic parish ceremony (including his home parish) because of how he almost destroyed the Rusin/Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic church in America. Instead, he was given a Roman/pontifical funeral and interned without any fame or recognition. Other than his infamy in the Byzantine Catholic church, he’s forgotten. You reap what you sow.

Wow. For a self-proclaimed atheist, you certainly have strong opinions on this matter. I’m well aware of the history of Bishop Nicholas and his influence in my church. I just didn’t think it necessary to rehash all this information in order to answer the question at hand. You say he’s forgotten, but he does still hold the distinction of being the only man who has served as bishop in both a Byzantine Catholic Eparchy and a Latin diocese.

 

[dochawk]

My understanding is that all bishops are “omniritual” by nature.

Generally, a bishop is responsible for the spiritual care and nurturing of all the ritual groups in his diocese.

American bishops not only did a poor job of this, but outright persecuted the easterns in their spiritual care, leading to the historical anomaly of Rome raising eastern bishops and even sui juris churches within the boundaries of existing bishops.

By historical norms, the bishops in North America should have been caring for and protecting the minority ritualistic in their care, and arranging for the training of clergy in those rituals.

Instead, we have today’s bizarre situations and conflicts . . .

[And the Orthodox have it even worse in this regard, with the overlapping jurisdictions coming not from attempts at pastoral repair, but from competing claims {Constantinople and Moscow both claim it as their canonical territory: Constantinople from church counsels giving it jurisdiction “elsewhere”, and the RO by sending missionaries to Alaska}, and others simply having faithful, bishops, and priests . . .]

AMDG

hawk