Vestments of the rite he is celebrating.
Thats what i thought, and thats what makes the most sense, i think, but I could swear that i read somewhere that they wore their own vestments. Which really didnt make any sense to me. Do you happen to know which document states clearly that they wear the vestments of the rite they are celebrating, so that i can see it legally put down?
Priest can be truly bi-ritual – they wear the vestments of the liturgy they are celebrating. You are confusing this with deacons who are NOT bi-ritual. While they can get the cognizant ordinarys’ permission to take part in liturgies, they are not “bi-ritual” and I believe they still wear their western vestments.
Yeah i didnt mean anything about deacons. So amybe i read something about the deacons and didnt realize it was discussing deacons not priests. I remember someone saying priests always keep the vestments of their rights, but that poster must have just been confused or mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.
Not true. While the bi-ritual status of a deacon is different from that of a priest (doesn’t require permission from Rome) a deacon with permission to serve in more than one ritual Church is, in fact, bi-ritual and wears the vestments proper to the Church in which he is serving. I know this because I am one! I serve both the Latin Church (in which I was ordained) and the Melkite Church where I serve with the permission of both my Latin Rite and Melkite bishops. And, of course, I wear Latin vestments when serving the Latin Church and Byzantine style vestments when serving the Melkite Church.
You were probably thinking of the Oriental Code of Canon Law which says this
I think this is different from priests who have bi-ritual facilities. It seems to concern those who do not, but wish to concelebrate or just reason. But I’ll leave it up to the canonists of the forum to interpret it.
You are correct: if a bishop/priest/deacon does not have bi-ritual faculties he must wear the vestments of his own ritual Church. Note that this does not apply to the pope who may wear the vestments of whatever Church he wishes (usually corresponding to what he is celebrating).
I will certainly concede the matter about the vestments – as I said I was far from sure.
I did some googling, and came across this exact question on a Byzantine Catholic forum.
Hmmm…I certainly do exist, and I’m one of many bi-ritual deacons. I do agree (and stated) that bi-ritual deacons are different from bi-ritual priests in that deacons do not require permission from Rome to be bi-ritual. However, if they do not have the blessing from both bishops then they must wear the vestments of the ritual Church in which they were ordained. With the blessing they are then, by definition, bi-ritual since they wear the vestments of the two Churches that are involved. That is, after all, the definition of bi-ritual.
A couple of small corrections. Deacons, like priests, are “extensions” of the bishop and receive their authority to function (called faculties) from the bishop. Both priests and deacons are permitted to preach by virtue of their ordination, although this can be limited by the bishop.
And you’d be correct – I am a Latin Rite deacon who happens to have bi-ritual faculties (I do preach at the Divine Liturgy and that requires faculties). So, in point of fact, I am bi-ritual.And I would suggest you are a Latin Rite Deacon and not a “bi-ritual” Deacon.
He’s arguing the point because thats what Spiller does. Thats pretty much it.
Then i thank you very much for your clarifications and your help answering my question.
Because I have been told by two priests that deacons are not bi-ritual. I have also heard Fr. John Trigilio mention there is no such thing. Further, look at the process a priest undergoes to become bi-ritual compared to what a deacon goes though to receive permission to take part in another liturgy.
And i’ve been told by priests that hell is “more of a feeling of God’s abscence” than a physical place. What do you know, priests can be wrong.