www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Finally!

From today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

"It was a wonderful, prayerful experience," Metropolitan Basil Schott of the Byzantine Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, said of the Mass. "Everyone will take encouragement from the words of the Holy Father."

Schott summed up Ratzinger's message as "three C's."

"It was about certainty of faith, about charity and about being catholic, in the sense of universal," he said.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05115/494018.stm

It would have been nice if he had worn a klobuk and veil. But I guess he wanted to stand out in the crowd of Eastern Catholic hierarchs!

Christos Voskres!

Ung-Certez

I was quite sure that I had seen a close-up of Metropolitan Basil Schott during the televised Inaugural Mass. A question from an ignorant RC: Why would he not wear the klobuk and veil? Is that not the tradition of the Ruthenian Church?

Martin

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette in its article says, "Ratzinger had drawn fire in the past for referring to Protestant bodies as 'ecclesial communities' rather than churches."

I have to ask why anyone would "draw fire" with such a reference. Vatican Council II in its official decrees refers to Protestant bodies with this exact term. For all those who have said that the man is against the "spirit of Vatican II" here's proof that he's right in line with what the Council taught.

BOB

> I was quite sure that I had seen a close-up of Metropolitan
> Basil Schott during the televised Inaugural Mass. A question
> from an ignorant RC: Why would he not wear the klobuk and veil?
> Is that not the tradition of the Ruthenian Church?

Martin,
The klobuk is part of the monastic habit; a monk or nun is invested with it at his or her tonsure and no one but a monk or nun may wear a klobuk.

In the Orthodox Church, all bishops are monks; therefore, all bishops wear a klobuk. This is NOT the case among Ruthenians, who in the USA have RC style celibacy rules, and I believe it also not the case in the old world among some groups of Byzantine Rite Catholics. In the Orthodox Church, it is the custom not to ordain to the subdiaconite a man who is neither married nor a monk (although lately some jurisdictions have begun ordaining non-monastic celibate priests, but it's still uncommon, but even when someone who is not a monk is elected a bishop (as sometimes happens to widowed priests), the bishop-elect must become a monk before being ordained a bishop.

Byzantine-Rite Catholics have lost the traditions in many places.

Photius

But Metropolitan Basil is a monk. So are Eparchial Bishop William of Van Nuys and Eparchial Bishop John of Parma. Bishop John is the only one who wears klobuk and veil. I guess it has been left up to the choice of the hierarch.

Ung-Certez

Good evening.

Actually, Metropolitan Basil is a friar, not a monk. Bishop William and Bishop John were friars when the were ordained priests, but both left their religious communities and became members of the secular clergy.

Bishop William was a Franciscan (O.F.M.), as is Metropolitan Basil, but he left the Franciscans and became a member of the secular clergy in 1996.

Bishop John had been a member of the Third Order Regular of St. Francis (T.O.R.), but became a member of the secular clergy in 1987.

Peace,
Charles

The Byzantine Franciscan Monastery in Sybertsville PA have had many "monks" who were given permission to serve as parish priests in both the Ruthenian and Ukriainian Archeparchies since their inception going back to 1947.

Is it not the case with Bishops William, John and Metropolitan Basil?

Ung-Certez

Ung-Certez,

What you say makes sense. I understand that traditions may be different among the Byzantine Rite Churches, but in the Roman Catholic Church, bishops who are ordinaries of dioceses can retain their religious community affiliations. For example, Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston is a Capuchin Franciscan who continues to wear his Franciscan habit.

If Bishop John of Parma left his religious community to become an eparchial clergyman (or was simply a T.O.R. Franciscan), why would he wear klobuk and veil?

Martin

P.S.: And I agree that in the Ruthenian Church, Byzantine Franciscan friars could be considered "monks."

Good evening.

Franciscans are not monks, they are friars. There is a real distinction between monastics and friars. Among other things, friars are "in the world"; the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Carmelites are three examples of orders of friars. The Benedictines and their off-shoots, the Cistercians of both observances, are monks. In recent decades, the western monastic orders have re-emphasized the fact that a monastic vocation is not necessarily a vocation to holy orders. Being a monk is a distinct calling.

Metropolitan Basil remains a Franciscan friar, but he is not subject to the superiors of his Order. Bishops John and William were released from their vows as friars and were incardinated into the secular clergy of their respective eparchies.

Indeed, the Franciscan Friars of Sybertsville have served as parish priests in both the Ruthenian and Ukrainian metropolia (plural?), but they remain(ed) Franciscans and are/were subject to their religious superiors in those things which pertain(ed) to their lives as friars and to the respective (arch)eparchs in those things which pertain(ed) to their ministry in parishes and other eparchial duties.

I remember meeting Father Theodore Weneck, OFM, when he was, I believe, temporary administrator of St. Vladimirs UGCC in Hempstead, NY. Yes, that was over 40 years ago.

The Sybertsville Franciscans have a website:
http://www.rpmwebworx.com/holydorm/index.html

and they do call their house Holy Dormition Friary.

Priests depart from religious orders and transfer to the secular clergy for any number of reasons (and I am not privy to any of them). There is one UGCC bishop north of the border who was once a Basilian. If my memory serves me well, Patriarch Lubomyr was ordained for the secular clergy (Stamford, I believe) and later became a Studite Monk.

Peace,

Charles

An aside. To follow up on Charles' comments. At one time, in the Latin Church (and I believe in our Churches, as well), a priest who was a monk or a member of a religious order no longer identified himself as such subsequent to his episcopal ordination. This was intended to assure that the new bishop would be free of any conflict of obedience, between that owed to his religious superiors and that required of him in his episcopal capacity and, additionally, a concern that the hierarch might exercise undue influence within his house by virtue of his episcopal rank.

The matter was put to rest with the latest edition of the Latin Code:

As to our Code, while the bishop remains a member of his institute, order, etc., he is restricted as to his exercise of any participation in it:

Many years,

Neil

PS - anyone know the official abbreviation used by the Studites for the name of their order?

Martin,

You make an interesting point, which has application to most of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. It's something that came up recently on another forum, where I was describing the distinctions between secular and monastic clergy and explaining to someone that our hierarchs could be chosen from celibate secular clergy, as well as from monastics. In using the example of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, I pointed out that we have had hierarchs from both and suddenly realized that I needed to acknowledge that we now have a hierarch from a third source - as Archbishop Cyril is a member of the Missionary Society of Saint Paul, a non-monastic religious order.

Historically, the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches haven't really had a tradition of "religious orders" as does the Latin Church, rather having had only secular (or patriarchal/eparchial) clergy or monks.

However, the concept of religious orders has gradually come to exist within our Churches, deriving in the first instance from those Latin institutions that have become affiliated with us and have committed people and resources to the priestly care of our peoples. One can argue, ceaselessly and without resolution, about the motivation behind this - whether it was rooted in Roman-inspired paternalism and control, contributing to latinization, or whether it was inspired by a real and meaningful desire to give comfort and support to our Churches. Reality is that both are probably true to some degree, varying by time, place, and circumstance. I think, though, that we would be hard-pressed today to ignore the sacrifices (often literal) of the many Jesuit, Franciscan, Redemptorist, and Marian priests, among others, who have served our peoples.

So, while we historically only knew priests outside the patriarchal/eparchial clergy as monks, we can't ignore the fact that there is indeed another category of presbyters, the religious order priest, which has now become a part of our structure - albeit by joinder rather than inherent. With the exception of those few home-grown orders that now exist within the various Churches, they tend to be a somewhat fluid phenomenon. Most are quasi-autonomous provinces of their parent Latin order, versus being fully integrated into our Church structures. Yet, we think of them as our own and, so, must give them recognition as what they are - not try to make them into something they are not.

May the memory of the many priests (and other religious) of these orders who have been martyred in the care of our peoples be eternal and thrice-blessed.

Many years,

Neil

PS Someone on another forum questioned me recently about the fact that His Eminence Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil, CSSR, Major-Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars, is a Redemptorist. While familiar with the Redemptorist involvement with the Byzantine Slav Churches, particularly the Ukrainians, I had to admit that I wasn't aware of them as being involved with or having any particular commitment to the Oriental Churches. Does anyone have any insight into this? A quick perusal of Redemptorist sites offered no clues. Incognitus? (Seems like your kind of question ).

Here's a crazy idea in regards to Eastern Catholic hierarchs...

Personally, I do not like bishops keeping connections to any orders/communites they may have belonged to while a priest. I'm not saying friendships, etc. should be severed, but initials after names should be dropped and there should be no involvement in the activities of their former communities. They have but one responsibility - the See and faithful over which they have jurisdiction.

If a secular priest / friar / missionary is selected to become a bishop tonsure him as a monk prior to his ordination to the episcopate. This could help cut previous ties.

Stopping now before I slip into rant mode...

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

KO63AP,

That is what is done among our Orthodox brethren when a secular priest becomes a hierarch.

I'm a bit uncertain though why you feel the necessity for this symbolic break. I can understand the reasoning - conflict of obediences - that triggered the former rule of practice vis-a-vis those elected from religious orders. I am, however, glad of the change that happened because I see it as an affirmation of the important contribution by religious order clergy, as well as a publicly visible reminder of that. Further, I think that the change reflects a realization that the days of weak bishops who would kowtow to their orders of origin are gone. As well gone are the days when the idea that one had become a bishop would give him clout to interfere with his order.

That said, I can't see the rationale for your suggestion, unless it's intended as a symbolic return to the concept of a monastic bishopric. I have no problem with that, but it would be a fiction, so .... why bother?

Many years,

Neil

I thought I read in the 1983 Latin Code of Canon Law that upon election a (Latin rite) bishop is automatically conferred a Doctorate of Divinity (D.D.), but browsing the Code just now, I can't find that. Maybe it's in the V2 docs...

Anyway, if this is true, does it hold for Eastern bishops as well? I see Metropolitan Basil is listed as OFM and DD, but his bio doesn't mention he earned the DD...

Any insights?