www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Italo-Albanian Bishop Retires

LC:

Very interesting. Ther term limits I mention were taught in our canon law seminar just before the 1983 Code went into effect. Is what you cite from the revision that I've heard was made some time later?

The pastor who served us from 1987 to 2001 asked if his time could be "reset" when he finished building our new parish church, but it wasn't to be. We only had the most recent transfer because of a death on the other side of the diocese. The bishop sent our pastor there and moved another priest here in July.

Bob

In general parish priests in the San Antonio Diocese are appointed for six year terms. They generally are allowed to serve two six year terms at the same parish. However, for sometime now priests, who are completing 12 years may be reappointed for indefinite terms at their current parish. It generally appears that the priests appointed for indefinite terms have made some significant contribution to the parish such as building a new church and are probably not going to be available for another 12 years at a different parish. I also understand that a priest must want the indefinite appointment as well.

Bob,

As far as I can tell, canon 522 [vatican.va] has not been revised since it was promulgated in 1983.

The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law[/i] [amazon.com] provides useful information about this canon. It points out that it is based on the Second Vatican Council's Decree [i]Christus Dominus 31 [vatican.va]:

While canon 522, in accord with Christus Dominus, makes indefinite appointments of pastors the norm, it allows the Bishops' Conference to make provision for time-limited appointments. This is what the (U.S.) National Conference of Catholic Bishops [usccb.org] almost immediately did, in a decree promulgated on September 24, 1984:

Obviously, while this decree allows six-year terms for pastors, it does not impose them. Therefore, a diocesan bishop is free to make indefinite appointments if he so chooses. Also, there is nothing in the decree to suggest that a pastor can only have his term renewed once. In fact, the decree allows a pastor to be reappointed several times.

I don't know what the situation was in the United States before the 1983 [i]Code. The 1917 Code distinguished between "removable" and "irremovable" pastors, a distinction which the Second Vatican Council wanted to remove (see above).

Now, you say that you learnt about six-year terms just before 1983? Perhaps in the United States the practice was to appoint "removable" pastors for six-year terms? I don't know, but if this were the case, it might explain the speed with which the Bishops' Conference adopted the decree on six-year terms in 1984. It suggests that the bishops wanted to continue with business as usual, notwithstanding the fact that both Christus Dominus and the 1983 Code of Canon Law tried to make indefinite terms for pastors the norm and limited terms the exception.

Having said all that about pastors and whether they should be removable or not, the bishop clearly has a duty to consider the good of the whole diocese or eparchy. Therefore, he sometimes has to make decisions which may be unpopular locally, even forcing the removal of a popular pastor (following canonical procedures).

I don't think it is reasonable to say that the removal of one pastor, however popular, is "one of the worst moments" in the history of the Italo-Albanian Church. If that were true, then the Italo-Albanian Church should count itself lucky. (I only mention that the Churches of Bruges and Trondheim have recently seen their bishops retire after they admitted sexually abusing children.)

The current structures of the Italo-Albanian Church may need some rethinking. They may have been adequate when they were established in 1919 and 1937, but today they seem hopelessly inadequate. At the momement, the two Italo-Albanian eparchies only have jurisdiction over specific villages in Sicily and southern Italy, and a few personal parishes in the cities (Palermo, Cosenza, Lecce). The eparchial bishops have no jurisdiction over the Italo-Albanian faithful who have moved away from their native villages to the large cities of Naples, Rome, Florence, Milan, Turin, etc.

Clearly, with people moving away from the countryside and into the cities to look for education and work, limiting the Italo-Albanian Church to a few villages in the mountains of Sicily and Calabria is a recipe for disaster. Also, with two very small eparchies and a limited number of hieromonks, it may be difficult to find suitable candidates for the episcopate. This is probably why the Italian Bishops' Conference is currently studying the structures of the Italo-Albanian Church. I would like to think that our friend "antv" is right and that some form of reorganization can bring new life to this small, but important Eastern Catholic Church.

It is a most strange set up in Italy where the Eparchies have land borders with Latin diocese. One crosses the road to enter the Monastery (also a castle) at Grottaferrata and one leaves the Diocese of Frascati and enters the Exarchate. The same with the eparchies in the south.

The Italo-Albanian eparchies look a little bit strange on a map because they consist of a patchwork of towns and villages surrounded by Latin dioceses! However, the good thing is that the principle of "one city, one Bishop" is being followed.

Thats a principal that is causing problems. Personally I like the way it is in many countries where you look after your own flock where ever they are. Many of the people from the south live and work in the north these days. They only head south for Christmas, Pascha and major family events.

For anyone wanting to see, graphically, what LC is describing:

go here [chiesacattolica.it],

click on Calabria, then on Lungro, to see the Eparchy of Lungro degli Italo-Albanese in Calabria

then, back button (or use the 'return' button at lower left) and

click on Sicilia, then on Piana, to see the Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi in Sicily
back button again

click on Lazio, then on Santa Maria di Grottaferrata, to see the Territorial Monastery & Exarchial Abbey of Santa Maria di Grottaferrata

Many years,

Neil

Thanks Neil. It's even worse than I realised. I did not realise the 2 eparchies were a patchwork of enclaves.

Paul,

Truthfully, I think it's even a bit worse than it looks on those maps. I used to have a link (that I can't find now) to a map which showed a bit more detail and there were these tiny pinpoints - scattered hither and yon in both eparchies.

Many years,

Neil

Not only the 2 eparchies were a patchwork of enclaves, but them include in the enclaves also some Latin rite Parishes (who are under a bishop of Byzantine rite !!)
On the contrary, in the main Italian towns as Roma, Milano, Torino ecc -where the by far larger majority of Italo-Albenians live- there are indeed Byzantine liturgies in Greek with relevant Eastern clergy, but almost completed separated from the two Eparchy (well, formally speaking it should be the Eparch of Lungro to take care of not-insular Italy, but this only on the paper).
For example the Italian Byzantine priest who now celebrate in Greek in Milan has been ordained priest in 2009 by a Romanian Eastern-Catholic bishop (who has thousands and thousands of immigrates in Italy without that the Italian Episcopal Conference has even realized that these people need a pastoral): this happens when the "state of fact" is completely unrelated from the organization though in the 30s: now we have two little provincial low-profile always-contentious eparchies in empty mountain villages, and the lack of any structured Byzantine pastoral elsewhere in Italy.

Thus I consider that the "area model" for Eparchies no longer can work. I hope in not-area models like the Ruthenians or Ukrainian in the US.

Grottaferrata used to have it's own Latin parishes until they got rid of them all in the early 1920s. It does look like the whole situation for the Greek Church in Italy needs a good cleaning up.

H.B. Gregorios III (it seems that is the way he want to be called, as the Patriarchate staff corrected my translation to French of his name in some news I translated and sent) wrote an article about the Patriarchal jurisdiction and he says the Church is above all an assembly of faithful and the Patriarch is above all the Pastor of his people, before being an administrator of a bonded territory. He makes reference to the Ghassanid "ethnarcate", a non-territorialy Eparchy, whose Bishop followed the movements of that Arab nomad people, the first beduinic tribe to be converted to Christianism, from which my family descend. Those Eparchies existed in the antiquity in a perfectly canonical manner.

Ciao a tutti!
Concerning the retirement of bishop Ercole Lupinacci from the Eparchy of Lungro, can someone mention what is, according to the CCO) the standard procedure in this cases?

Let's pray deeply for the italo-albanian church!

Welcome to the Forum, our Arberesh brother,

The following are the principal provisions of the CCEO as regards the resignation of bishops from eparchial sees, such as that of Lungro, which are not constituent jurisdictions of patriarchal, major-archepiscopal, or metropolitan Churches sui iuris. As you can see, Canon 234 is what has been invoked in this instance.

Canon 210

1. An eparchial bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age or who, due to ill health or to another serious reason, has become less able to fulfill his office, is requested to present his resignation from office.

2. This resignation from office by the eparchial bishop is to be submitted to the patriarch if it is the case of an eparchial bishop exercising authority inside the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church; in other cases, it is submitted to the Roman Pontiff; ...

Canon 211

1. An eparchial bishop, whose resignation from office was accepted, obtains the title of eparchial bishop emeritus of the eparchy he governed and can retain a residence in the eparchy
itself unless in certain cases due to special circumstances other provisions are made by the Apostolic See ...

Canon 219

The eparchial see becomes vacant at the death, resignation, transfer or privation of office of the eparchial bishop.

Canon 221

Except for the vacant eparchial sees mentioned in can. 220, in other cases of a vacant eparchial see, the following are to be observed in addition to cann. 225-232 and without prejudice to cann. 222 and 223: (1) the metropolitan, or otherwise the one who, according to the norm of can. 271, 5, presides over the college of eparchial consultors, is to inform the Apostolic See as soon as possible of the vacancy of the see and, if it is an eparchy of a patriarchal Church, the patriarch; (2) until the appointment of an administrator the governance of the eparchy, unless otherwise provided by the Apostolic See, transfers to the auxiliary bishop or, if there are several, to the one senior by episcopal ordination or, if there is no auxiliary bishop, to the college of eparchial consultors. They govern the eparchy with that authority which common law accords to a protosyncellus; (3) the college of eparchial consultors must elect an administrator of the eparchy according to the norm of the canons on elections within eight days from the reception of the news of the vacancy of the eparchial see; for validity of the election, an absolute majority of the votes of the members of this same college is required; (4) if within eight days, the administrator of the eparchy has not been elected or if the one elected lacks the conditions required in can. 227, 2 for the validity of the election, the appointment of an administrator of the eparchy devolves to the metropolitan or, if none exists or he is impeded, to the Apostolic See; (5) the administrator of an eparchy legitimately elected or appointed immediately obtains authority and does not need any confirmation. As soon as possible he is to inform the Apostolic See of his election or of his appointment by the metropolitan and, if he belongs to a patriarchal Church, also the patriarch.

Canon 228

1. When the see is vacant there are to be no innovations.

2. Those who temporarily care for the governance of the eparchy are prohibited from doing anything which could be prejudicial to the eparchy or episcopal rights. They themselves and all other persons are specifically prohibited from removing, destroying or altering any documents of the eparchial curia either personally or through another.

Canon 229

The administrator of the eparchy has the same rights and obligations as the eparchial bishop, unless the law provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

Canon 234

1. The governance of an eparchy, whether occupied or vacant, is sometimes entrusted by the Roman Pontiff to an apostolic administrator due to serious and special reasons.

2. The rights, obligations and privileges of the apostolic administrator are determined by his letters of appointment.

Canon 235

The eparchial assembly assists the eparchial bishop in those things which regard the special needs or advantage of the eparchy.

Canon 236

The eparchial assembly is convened as often as circumstances warrant it in the judgment of the eparchial bishop after he has consulted the presbyteral council.

Many years,

Neil