I’m asking because I here’d he was.
My understanding is the he is a dual rite Jesuit.
Wikipedia states he is a Jesuit and that he is bi-ritual, meaning he can celebrate both Roman and Maronite Masses.
One is never really bi-ritual, although that is the term we all use.
Of course, one can argue that the Pope is multi-ritual, theoretically. He would be the only one though …
Priests can only be of one church, but that can be granted faculties in another church by a bishop of that other church.
I believe Father Mitch is Polish by birth, and probably raised a Latin Catholic. So if I had to guess I would stake a claim that he was still a Latin Catholic with Maronite faculties.
However, it sometimes happens that a man will be canonically transferred (due to pressing need, or some other serious reason), in which case he could be a Maronite with also Latin faculties.
I have heard him say that the above is his situation.
+Father has shared he has permission as a Latin Rite priest to also celebrate as a priest in the Maronite Rite . . .
[RIGHT]. . . all for Jesus+[/RIGHT]
A Jesuit who is ordained to the Latin Church, as most are, can be granted faculties in another Church This is the case with Father Pacwa;
Priests of the Society who are specifically ordained to the service of an Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church (an example being the Society’s former Superior General, who was ordained to the service of the Armenian Catholic Church sui iuris) are ordained according to the Rite of that particular Church, but they are subsequently accorded bi-ritual faculties in the Latin Rite. It is a requirement of their membership in the Society, regardless of whether or not they will ever serve according to the Latin Rite. The renowned Eastern theologian, Mitred Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, is one such, as was the Servant of God, Father Walter Ciszek, SJ.
Jesuits who were initially ordained as Latins and subsequently accepted to the Society’s ‘Eastern Province’ are, at that subsequent time, accorded the faculties of the Church which they will serve.
The third grouping is of Jesuits who are ordained as Latins but subsequently accorded bi-ritual faculties in another Church by a hierarch of that Church upon approval of a request made to the priest’s Jesuit superior but are not ascribed to the Eastern Province - because it isn’t expected that they will exclusively or principally serve a non-Latin Church. I suspect that Father Pacwa falls into this category.
I have read lots of articles saying he was Maronite but celebrated the Latin Mass also.
I even seen a list of Maronites and he was on it , so maybe he is?
It’s very confusing
How can I download you moving cartoon figures? God bless:thumbsup:
Just caught your post.
They are part of the “smilies” you can chose from when you make a post. If you look at the bottom of those faces you will see a link that say “more”. Click on then and you have more options!
No, he wouldn’t.
Any bishop could wind up being such… including Russian Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox bishops who have WRO parishes… when they are entrusted with the care of faithful of another rite.
Were it not for separate agreements, the Archbishop of Anchorage would have faithful of at least 4 Churches Sui Iuris besides the Roman. There are Ruthenians, but we have a parish. There are Ukrainians, Chaldeans, Greeks, Melkites, and Russians, as well - the latter three with Orthodox parishes that have had some members translate to the Catholic church.
As would the Diocese of Fairbanks.
I was referring to Catholics under the Pope for one thing.
Anyway, for a Roman Catholic Archbishop to have the care of people of other ritual traditions does not make that archbishop multi-ritual.
Same Church, different rite. To be in “another Church” one would cease to be Catholic. The Maronite rite is a part of the Catholic Church.
In fact, very few bishops have bi-ritual faculties.
The Maronite Rite is served by the Maronite Church. The Maronite Church is a Church sui iuris (‘of its own law’), as such it is one of 23 such within the Catholic Communion - including the Latin or Roman or Western Church (whichever one chooses to term it).
It does when he establishes parishes of their native rite. As is the case for Russian Catholics everywhere, and certain Byzantine Catholics in the US of various churches sui iuris.
In the US, we have only 12 or so of the Churches Sui Iuris represented with parishes… to my knowledge
Chaldeans, Romanians, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Slovenians, Copts, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Maronites, Syrians, and Romans.
We have bishops from far fewer: Chaldeans, Romanians, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Maronites and Romans…
In the US, there are parishes of Armenians, Chaldeans, Copts, Croats, Ethiopians, Hungarians, Italo-Albanians, Maronites, Melkites, Romanians, Russians, Ruthenians, Slovaks, Syriacs, Syro-Malankara, Syro-Malabarese, and Ukrainians.
No Byzantine parish in the US, except those of the Russians, are subject to Latin ordinaries and 2 of the 4 Russian ones are subject to the spritual omophor of a Byzantine Eparch. All of the other Byzantines with actual parishes of faithful are subject to Eparchs of the Byzantine Metropolia by terms of decrees long since in force or by virtue of canonical erection in the case of the Italo-Albanians. The Copts and Ethiopians are the only Orientals presently without a hierarch.
But, no - the responsibility for pastoral care does not make a Latin bishop - or any bishop - multi-ritual. That he is charged with pastoral care of the faithful of other Churches merely gives him canonical authority over the temple, its presbyters, and its faithful.
It does not imbue him with ritual authority and, although he may preside at a Divine Liturgy or may concelebrate it (as may any priest, without faculties), he must do so in the vesture of his own Church - unless he has faculties in the other Church.
He can only be accorded such faculties by the Oriental Congregation technically, although Patriarchs have effectively, on some few occasions, effectively deemed themselves to have the authority to do so and no one has, as yet, challenged that. Virtually no Latin bishops have such faculties. The Servant of God Fulton Sheen is perhaps the best known to have had such and it is fairly well-established that Cardinal Richard Cushing had such.
When a Latin priest who has bi-ritual faculties is subsequently ordained to the episcopate, he may not thereafter exercise those faculties without approval to do so.
Actually, it is the other way around. He is of the Latin Rite but has permission to celebrate Mass in the Maronite Rite.
He is a member of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) of the Latin rite with faculties in the Maronite church.