Commemoration of the Pope

[dvdjs]

And what exactly is that supposed to mean, Marduk?

I am one of those “EO” who are “under” the Patriarch of Moscow …

I think that we all know that this is very different from the Catholic Church. The Pope is the Pope. Every Catholic, no matter what Rite they belong to, knows that.

Let’s not have any more cheap shots, Marduk.

indeed, Father.

First, I think it fair to say that every Orthodox Christian, no matter what jurisdiction they belong to, knows that MP is the MP. Second, Marduk’s remark was an apt, ironic response to the comments that provoked them. The reality is that the lived experience that Eastern Catholics have of the Pope is much closer to what you describe as your experience of the MP than the idea of drones lacking will adopting policies set before them.

That ugliness of the comments that provoked Markdum’s remark seems to have escaped your attention may be the cheapest shot of all on this thread.

 

[shdajeth]

We commemorate all our heirarchs, including "Benedict, Pope of Rome

 

[MrPip]

Wow! I really didn’t intend for this thread to become a discussion about how bishops are chosen or to devolve into an argument between Catholics and Orthodox.

Perhaps we can remember that it is Lent and approach each other in a spirit of penance, forgiveness, and, most of all, love.

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[MrPip]

The final decision rests with the Pope, and if he does not like the candidates he will send the list back and wait for one that suits him.

Also, some Eastern Catholic churches are so small there is no synod to speak of and the matter rest entirely in Rome. There are even some EC Sees that the Pope has decided to leave vacant. There is nothing to be done about it, the faithful have to accept that.

The Pope is also the codifier of the Canons, and he has the power to dispense with the canons or change them if necessary.
This is an extremely odd question. No one could answer such a question.

Why not ask if there are any Latin bishops who have a problem with it? Same issue, there is no reason why they should object.

It’s like asking if any generals have a problem saluting the President. Why should the Marines be any different from the Army and Air Force?

Eastern Catholic churches do not have a will of their own, they are under the Pope and follow the policies and practices set before them, sometimes with anxiety but often quite eagerly.

I thought I provided the context for the question that would have, I hope, made it not so “extremely odd”. Maybe I didn’t But then, I am sometimes prone to asking odd questions–guess it’s my old age and possible encroaching senility .

The question stems from a discussion elsewhere in which it was implied that Canon 209 of CCEO was an “imposed latinization”. Now, when people “impose” their will upon me, for example, it tends to ruffle my feathers somewhat, in that when something is imposed there’s almost always an element of force involved and going contrary to the established order or direction that the one being imposed upon is going in.

Personally, I don’t view “latinizations” as necessarily bad or evil or negative. But that’s just me ! If Eastern Catholic bishops viewed the CCEO or any of its specifics, i.e. Canon 209, as having something jammed down their throats, as in being “imposed” upon them, why would they choose (because I’m sure no one held a gun to their heads!) to agree to them and choose to remain Catholic? Does that make more sense?

 

[twf]

And what exactly is that supposed to mean, Marduk?

I am one of those “EO” who are “under” the Patriarch of Moscow - he is not a Pope and does not function as such - and His Holiness, Patriarch Kyrill, has very little to do with my life. My Diocesan Bishop, Metropolitan Hilarion of Eastern America and New York, is the Bishop whose authority is real to me. I have never received an ukaz from the Patriarch. I do, as is normal in the Russian Orthodox Church, commemorate the Patriarch’s name before that of my own Bishop in the Proskomedia, the Litanies, the Great Entrance, and in the Anaphora. But the closest I’ve ever gotten to feeling his immediate authority is the fact that he confirmed the election of my Bishop by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

I’ll give you a small example of how the Orthodox Church works. I was in the presemce of Metropolitan Hilarion, who in addition to being my Diocesan Bishop is also the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, at a recent Youth Conference in Ottawa. Archbishop Gabriel, the Ruling Bishop of the Diocese of Canada, was at the same conference. When asked offer a prayer, he declined, saying that though he was the First Hierarch of our Church, it was Archbishop Gabriel who would offer the prayer because he was in his Diocese.

I think that we all know that this is very different from the Catholic Church. The Pope is the Pope. Every Catholic, no matter what Rite they belong to, knows that.

Let’s not have any more cheap shots, Marduk. Thanks for the blessings.

Fr David Straut

Father,
This is not the reported experience of many EO in Russia from what I’ve read…but that is neither here nor there. Do you think that the Pope of Rome micromanages the affairs of the ~2500 particular churches in communion with him? (I use here the proper theological definition of a particular church - a group of the faithful, typically a diocese, under a bishop). All Catholic bishops, even within the Latin Church, enjoy considerable autonomy. The idea of the Pope as a general giving daily marching orders to the bishops is fiction pure and simple.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by mardukm
We have as much will and freedom as the great majority of EO who are under the “Pope” of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Sounds like mardukm was making a comparison between the fact that the LC is easily the largest Catholic Church, and the fact that the ROC is easily the largest Orthodox Church. I can’t say I really understand his comment, but it is … interesting. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is to the liking of some Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

This is an extremely odd question. No one could answer such a question.

Why not ask if there are any Latin bishops who have a problem with it? Same issue, there is no reason why they should object.

But, unlike Eastern Catholics, Western Catholics are not allowed any sui iuris Churches – or rather, they have one, the LC Church. Even the new Anglican Ordinariates aren’t sui iuris Churches.

 

[twf]

But, unlike Eastern Catholics, Western Catholics are not allowed any sui iuris Churches – or rather, they have one, the LC Church. Even the new Anglican Ordinariates aren’t sui iuris Churches.

True - but that doesn’t mean there isn’t considerable autonomy and flexibility between various ‘branches’ of the Latin Church sui iuris. The Anglican Ordinariates are not sui iuris churches and their Ordinaries are immediately subject to Rome (and in fact derive all their authority from the Roman Pontiff as personal vicarious ordinary jurisdiction), but this makes sense for several reasons… for one, at present, the two Anglican Ordinaries currently shepherding Anglican Catholics are both presbyters and not bishops, due to their married state, thus it is only theologically proper that they receive their jurisdiction to act as bishops from a true bishop - in this case, the Bishop of Rome. That being said, the faithful of the Anglican Ordinariates enjoy the right to worship according to their own distinct liturgy, be governed by married Ordinaries as per Anglican custom, and live the Christian life according to traditional Anglican spirituality. Legally they may be more restricted than a Church sui iuris, but there are probably more genuine differences between an Anglican Ordinariate and a Latin diocese than there is between any two Byzantine Churches sui iuris. Even within the Roman Rite Latin Church, the various national jurisdictions enjoy autonomy on a number of issues as determined by the bishops (in consultation with the Holy See - which makes sense as the Pope is the primate of our particular Church) - for example:

In Canada, Latin Catholics observed only two holy days of obligation - Christmas and Mary Mother of God, while in the United States they observe six

In Canada, Latin Catholics may substitute another act of piety for the traditional meat abstinence on all Fridays of the year, even during Lent, while in the United States, Latin Catholics may only substitute other acts of piety on Fridays outside of Lent…and in the UK, Latin Catholics must abstain from meat, as per the traditional practice, all Fridays of the year

In the Dominican Republic the feast of Our Lady of Altagracia is a great national feast but it does not even appear on the calendar of the Latin Church in Canada

In the United States, the Latin faithful kneel during the entire Eucharistic prayer, while in Canada the appropriate kneeling/standing postures are determined by the local bishop and vary from city to city - in Vancouver we kneel during the entire EP as in the US, but in near by Nelson, we kneel only during the consecration itself

Etc

 

[Hesychios]

But, unlike Eastern Catholics, Western Catholics are not allowed any sui iuris Churches – or rather, they have one, the LC Church. Even the new Anglican Ordinariates aren’t sui iuris Churches.

The concept of separate Sui Iuris churches is a modern one for the Papal communion (not even thirty years old).

 

[Peter_J]

True - but that doesn’t mean there isn’t considerable autonomy and flexibility between various ‘branches’ of the Latin Church sui iuris. The Anglican Ordinariates are not sui iuris churches and their Ordinaries are immediately subject to Rome (and in fact derive all their authority from the Roman Pontiff as personal vicarious ordinary jurisdiction), but this makes sense for several reasons… for one, at present, the two Anglican Ordinaries currently shepherding Anglican Catholics are both presbyters and not bishops, due to their married state, thus it is only theologically proper that they receive their jurisdiction to act as bishops from a true bishop - in this case, the Bishop of Rome. That being said, the faithful of the Anglican Ordinariates enjoy the right to worship according to their own distinct liturgy, be governed by married Ordinaries as per Anglican custom, and live the Christian life according to traditional Anglican spirituality. Legally they may be more restricted than a Church sui iuris, but there are probably more genuine differences between an Anglican Ordinariate and a Latin diocese than there is between any two Byzantine Churches sui iuris. Even within the Roman Rite Latin Church, the various national jurisdictions enjoy autonomy on a number of issues as determined by the bishops (in consultation with the Holy See - which makes sense as the Pope is the primate of our particular Church) - for example:

In Canada, Latin Catholics observed only two holy days of obligation - Christmas and Mary Mother of God, while in the United States they observe six

In Canada, Latin Catholics may substitute another act of piety for the traditional meat abstinence on all Fridays of the year, even during Lent, while in the United States, Latin Catholics may only substitute other acts of piety on Fridays outside of Lent…and in the UK, Latin Catholics must abstain from meat, as per the traditional practice, all Fridays of the year

In the Dominican Republic the feast of Our Lady of Altagracia is a great national feast but it does not even appear on the calendar of the Latin Church in Canada

In the United States, the Latin faithful kneel during the entire Eucharistic prayer, while in Canada the appropriate kneeling/standing postures are determined by the local bishop and vary from city to city - in Vancouver we kneel during the entire EP as in the US, but in near by Nelson, we kneel only during the consecration itself

Etc

The concept of separate Sui Iuris churches is a modern one for the Papal communion (not even thirty years old).

You both make good arguments. But rather responding point by point, let me ask you both this: if being a sui iuris church or not being one doesn’t make much difference, then why don’t they just go ahead and let the Ordinariates have that distinction (albeit conditioned on the need for a celibate bishop)?

Also, if I remember correctly, didn’t Cardinal Kaspar make a special point of telling the Eastern Orthodox that the new Ordinariates would not be sui iuris churches? Why would he do that unless being sui iuris makes a significant difference?

 

[Hesychios]

You both make good arguments. But rather responding point by point, let me ask you both this: if being a sui iuris church or not being one doesn’t make much difference, then why don’t they just go ahead and let the Ordinariates have that distinction (albeit conditioned on the need for a celibate bishop)?

I can’t answer that question, I could only guess.

It seems though (my guess), that the church does not regard the Anglican Use as any different in essence from the Latin church. The liturgical variations are superficial and the reason for these evolved differences (both the Latin church and the Anglican church evolved their liturgical customs and practices in the intervening four and a half centuries) is more like an accident of history. They both take their starting point from an evolved Gallo-Roman liturgical amalgam, the Anglican practice owes more to one or two local variations from Britain while the Latin rite has been pasteurizing and homogenizing it’s practice on a regular basis with such instruments as the GIRM.

BTW, This is similar but not the same kind of situation as the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites, which started out as much more different very on in church history and have evolved to be very similar to the Roman rite. Those (nearly dead) rites aren’t even allowed an ordinariate.

Also, if I remember correctly, didn’t Cardinal Kaspar make a special point of telling the Eastern Orthodox that the new Ordinariates would not be sui iuris churches? Why would he do that unless being sui iuris makes a significant difference?

I never heard this and (if true) at this point I don’t know why it seemed important for him to point that out. One could always speculate …

 

[twf]

You both make good arguments. But rather responding point by point, let me ask you both this: if being a sui iuris church or not being one doesn’t make much difference, then why don’t they just go ahead and let the Ordinariates have that distinction (albeit conditioned on the need for a celibate bishop)?

Also, if I remember correctly, didn’t Cardinal Kaspar make a special point of telling the Eastern Orthodox that the new Ordinariates would not be sui iuris churches? Why would he do that unless being sui iuris makes a significant difference?

My point wasn’t that there is no value in the canonical construct of a Church sui iuris, but rather to show that a degree of autonomy (diversity in unity) is also possible without it. You had pointed out that the West is deprived of distinct Churches sui iuris and I replied by pointing out that some autonomy and flexibility is still enjoyed by different jurisdictions within the Latin Church. Churches sui iuris still enjoy a greater degree of autonomy. To my mind, the difference is that the hierarchy of a Church sui iuris can determine their own disciplines and practices independent of a superior authority (eg. Rome), while autonomous jurisdictions within a Church sui iuris (national churches within the Latin Church or the Anglican ordinariates) must consult with Rome first before implementing significant changes. For example, an Eastern Church sui iuris should be able to freely ordain married men at the discretion of their own bishops - Rome should not (and today doens’t appear to do so) interfere. Married Anglican men, however, must still be individually dispensed before being ordained to the priesthood. Autonomy and local variance in traditions, liturgy, and discipline is possible within the Latin Church, and indeed encouraged, but Rome is more involved.

In regards to Hesychios’ point, Catholics would see the modern codification of Churches sui iuris as a restoration of the ancient model - pre-schism. For many centuries, during the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, due to the ancient schism with the non-Chalcedonians and the more recent schism with the East, was essentially the Latin Church…as a result of this, it took Rome a while to “remember” the proper place of the Eastern communities that were gradually reconciled with her.

 

[Peter_J]

Probably because in the pre-schism church the Eastern Catholics did not commemorate the Patriarch of Rome/Pope of Rome in the parishes and monasteries. That was done only in the cathedrals of the Patriarchs.

In the parishes the hierarchy of the particular church was commemorated. Thus they commemorated their own patriarch and no others, and their own patriarch commemorated his peers (of which there would be several).

There are different opinions about whether the commemoration of the Pope is a Latinization or not – for example, Chris had a pretty good post explaining why he doesn’t consider it a Latinization.

 

[Peter_J]

We commemorate all our heirarchs, including “Benedict, Pope of Rome” in our DL.

Recently reposed +Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory was commemorated among the reposed in our DL on Sunday.

Interesting. I think this may be the first time I have heard of an EC parish commemorating a third Patriarch (in addition to their own and the Pope of Rome).

 

[Hesychios]

There are different opinions about whether the commemoration of the Pope is a Latinization or not – for example, Chris had a pretty good post explaining why he doesn’t consider it a Latinization.

There are questions about a lot of practices, I don’t know, I offered an opinion as to why I thought someone else said it was a latinization.

BTW, one does not have to be Orthodox to have an opinion about these things, as you know it provokes lively discussion among Eastern Catholics.

But I am aware that the average EC parish and monastery of the first millenium did not commemorate the Pope unless he was their own patriarch (which probably did happen in Italy). We know now that EC do commemorate the Pope in the parishes, they are required to whether they want to or not. I can’t imagine the people not wanting to unless they were not at heart eastern Catholics, but then they would just do the sensible thing and quit, they have alternatives.

Do the bishops object? I should think not (at least not modern ones who know nothing else), but it is a departure from early church practice now required of them. It was introduced at some point.

The same can be said for a lot of latinizations, the people have become used to them and it is all they know now, so they are quite attached to these things even when Rome wants those people to remove them. The churches in India are a good example of the turmoil this call from Rome has inspired, there has been quite a backlash against restoring their earlier traditions. The difference between the commemoration and all that other stuff is that the commemoration is still required by Rome in the rubrics Rome approves, all that other stuff is not and crept in haphazardly over time.

One could argue (facetiously) that the call from Rome to make any changes at all is a Latinization, even when it is a call to restore old traditions! A very real argument can be made that it is not Rome’s business to be telling them how to worship, and if they want to kneel on Sunday, eliminate the sponge, have Stations of the Cross, pull down the curtain or have holy water fonts on the doorway it’s their own business

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting. I think this may be the first time I have heard of an EC parish commemorating a third Patriarch (in addition to their own and the Pope of Rome).

I think it was a one-time thing out of courtesy.

Some people would probably consider it an abuse.

If the Cardinal Archbishop of LA did that the Catholic blogs would have been all over it like white on rice.

 

[Peter_J]

There are questions about a lot of practices, I don’t know, I offered an opinion as to why I thought someone else said it was a latinization.

BTW, one does not have to be Orthodox to have an opinion about these things, as you know it provokes lively discussion among Eastern Catholics.

But I am aware that the average EC parish and monastery of the first millenium did not commemorate the Pope unless he was their own patriarch (which probably did happen in Italy). We know now that EC do commemorate the Pope in the parishes, they are required to whether they want to or not. I can’t imagine the people not wanting to unless they were not at heart eastern Catholics, but then they would just do the sensible thing and quit, they have alternatives.

Hmmm, I suppose you could say that all Latinizations are optional, inasmuch as no one is forced to remain Eastern Catholic if they don’t like it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hmmm, I suppose you could say that all Latinizations are optional, inasmuch as no one is forced to remain Eastern Catholic if they don’t like it.

As optional as the epiclesis, if you are Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

I think it was a one-time thing out of courtesy.

Some people would probably consider it an abuse.

The possibility of commemorating several Patriarchs was discussed in a thread last summer, Melkite commemoration … a possible compromise?. Not everyone was favorable towards the idea, but I don’t think anyone said it would be an abuse.

 

[5Loaves]

I think it was a one-time thing out of courtesy.

Some people would probably consider it an abuse.

If the Cardinal Archbishop of LA did that the Catholic blogs would have been all over it like white on rice.

If so it’s a tragic day indeed in the Church-- when commemorating among the reposed a Patriarch, reposed the previous day, and of whom HH Benedict XVI released immediately a statement addressing the great loss, referring to Pope Shenouda III as "God’s “faithful servant’, would cause anyone to think of such prayers as “an abuse” or fodder for Catholic blogs. But there are many things Benedict XVI speaks out on which seem to generate much band width in these blogs.