Commemoration of the Pope

[Alexander_Roman]

I know that Eastern Catholic bishops are ultimately appointed by the Pope, but isn’t that after a list of vetted (by other Eastern Catholic bishops)candidates has been presented to him and/or with consultation with the Eastern eparchy in question?

I guess it boils down, for me anyway, to asking, as I did above, if there are Eastern Catholic Christians who are either bishops, priests, or laity who have a problem with the commemoration of the Holy Father, why do they remain in the Catholic Church?

Well, I think that if in the Novus Ordo Mass you were expected to commemorate the Pope four times, as the UGCC does, you might be hearing some protests from . . . everyone, despite their Catholicism!

There is no reason to commemorate the Pope four times - once is enough (during the Great Entrance). We have a different relationship to him than you do - he is your immediate Primate. We used to commemorate him as “our” and parishes are dropping that since we are Particular Churches in communion with him etc.

Originally, the EC’s of the Kyivan Metropolia never commemorated the pope at the parish level - only the Metropolitan/Primate commemorated the Pope and one’s communion with the EC Metropolitan affirmed one’s communion with the pope. Over time, the papal commemorations increased to four.

Also, the way the UGCC titles the pope “The Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff” is something Rome itself does not recognize since that is the title of . . . the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople . . . The proper title for the pope would simply be "the Holy Father, Pope of Rome.).

That is what the discussions are about and have nothing to do with loyalty but with other things.

BTW, when I organized an English Divine Liturgy for our RC university community, many later LAUGHED at the idea that we commemorated the pope four times. They thought it was RIDICULOUS. And also embarrassing to us . . .

Alex

 

[Peter_J]

There is no reason to commemorate the Pope four times

Well, look on the bright side: 75% of those commemorations are voluntary.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, look on the bright side: 75% of those commemorations are voluntary.

I wish they were!

It was the synod of Zamoysk in the 18th century that insisted on commemorating the Pope twice (at the parish level).

Now every time the hierarchy is commemorated, the Pope is as well (including at the end of the Liturgy when the “Ad Multos Annos” is sung for various hierarchs etc.).

It is now the standard requirement and all the missals/prayerbooks include this. The formal rule was that the Primate of the EC Particular Church is to be commemorated, followed by the local Archbishop or Bishop - no one else among the hierarchs.

One issue is that there is a perceived “nervousness” among some hierarchs that if we reduce the number of times the Pope is commemorated then we will be on our way to opening the door for EC’s to leave for Orthodoxy - which is nonsense. Those EC’s I’ve known who have left the UGCC for Orthodoxy … should have been Orthodox to begin with.

In addition, our Church has removed the Second Antiphon and the Litany for the Catechumens in an attempt to “shorten” the Liturgy. And why, you might ask? This was because the Novus Ordo of the Latin Church was perceived to have been a shortening of the Liturgy and since “we are Catholics too” then we had to somehow shorten ours.

That too is faulty thinking because our vocation is to be as faithful to the Eastern liturgical tradition as possible “nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter.”

If we simply restored the commemorations of the hierarchs to what it should be, we would have the desired “shortening.”

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

I wish they were!

It was the synod of Zamoysk in the 18th century that insisted on commemorating the Pope twice (at the parish level).

Now every time the hierarchy is commemorated, the Pope is as well (including at the end of the Liturgy when the “Ad Multos Annos” is sung for various hierarchs etc.).

It is now the standard requirement and all the missals/prayerbooks include this. The formal rule was that the Primate of the EC Particular Church is to be commemorated, followed by the local Archbishop or Bishop - no one else among the hierarchs.

One issue is that there is a perceived “nervousness” among some hierarchs that if we reduce the number of times the Pope is commemorated then we will be on our way to opening the door for EC’s to leave for Orthodoxy - which is nonsense. Those EC’s I’ve known who have left the UGCC for Orthodoxy … should have been Orthodox to begin with.

In addition, our Church has removed the Second Antiphon and the Litany for the Catechumens in an attempt to “shorten” the Liturgy. And why, you might ask? This was because the Novus Ordo of the Latin Church was perceived to have been a shortening of the Liturgy and since “we are Catholics too” then we had to somehow shorten ours.

That too is faulty thinking because our vocation is to be as faithful to the Eastern liturgical tradition as possible “nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter.”

If we simply restored the commemorations of the hierarchs to what it should be, we would have the desired “shortening.”

Alex

That’s odd, I think current custom in the Greek Orthodox Church (in America) is only to sing that for bishops when they are present (otherwise, it’s clearly addressed to the priest). Do you happen to know if this reflects some older usage (singing many years for an absent bishop), or was this practice introduced by the UGCC?

And if you have no second antiphon, does that mean you don’t get to sing the ‘save us, O Son of God’ refrains? I like those refrains

 

[Alexander_Roman]

We sing it for the Pope and the whole hierarchy - I didn’t know that it was only for those present.

We jump from the First Antiphon to the Third leaving some wondering why is there no Second Antiphon when there is a Third . . .

I guess people are in a hurry on Sunday morning and can’t stay longer than absolutely necessary . . .

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

We sing it for the Pope and the whole hierarchy - I didn’t know that it was only for those present.

We jump from the First Antiphon to the Third leaving some wondering why is there no Second Antiphon when there is a Third . . .

I guess people are in a hurry on Sunday morning and can’t stay longer than absolutely necessary . . .

Alex

Well I don’t know if historically it was done that way (only for those present). This is just how the Greeks do, but I can never trust Greek practice as being fully in line with historical practice, since they have removed the beatitudes from the third antiphon, replacing it with psalm verses. I was hoping that you might know which practice is the original practice.

 

[Peter_J]

I wish they were!

When you come down to it, the whole “imposed latinization or voluntary latinization?” issue can be pretty subjective. I recently mentioned that commemorating the Pope (once) is an imposed latinization, and quoted canon law to back it up; I was told not to say that, because “imposed latinization” has a negative connotation. :ehh:

 

[Alexander_Roman]

When you come down to it, the whole “imposed latinization or voluntary latinization?” issue can be pretty subjective. I recently mentioned that commemorating the Pope (once) is an imposed latinization, and quoted canon law to back it up; I was told not to say that, because “imposed latinization” has a negative connotation. :ehh:

This is certainly the grist for the discussion mill! My own view is that if a Church or individual of the Christian East voluntarily adopts something from the West, then there is no way that is a “Latinization” from the historical viewpoint about Latinizations being Latin practices imposed by others on an Eastern group or Church so that their spiritual culture becomes differenced along Latin lines.

One could argue that Latinization occurs when Eastern hierarchs or laity, under the conscious or unconscious influence of Latin quarters, adopt Latin ways because of ignorance of their own traditions etc. That is more of a self-imposed Latinization that is different from a truly Eastern Church appreciating elements in the Latin Church and adopting them, albeit in “Easternized” form. The Melkites, for example, adopted the Feast of St Joseph in March and that of Corpus Christi.

Commemorating the Pope cannot possibly be a Latinization for any Eastern Catholic Church. The question is simply “How many times?” When Eastern Catholics want to try and be “more papal than the Pope” in this regard or outstrip Roman Catholics here - that isn’t just a Latinization, it’s just crazy!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well I don’t know if historically it was done that way (only for those present). This is just how the Greeks do, but I can never trust Greek practice as being fully in line with historical practice, since they have removed the beatitudes from the third antiphon, replacing it with psalm verses. I was hoping that you might know which practice is the original practice.

I don’t . . .

Alex

 

[Vico]

…

From the current Byzantine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:

The Pope is mentioned in the:

1. Prothesis
2. Litany of Peace
3. Litany of Fervent Supplication
4. Procession
5. After the Anaphora
6. Festive Dismissal

Zamosc eliminated use of the sponge and hot water, now restored:

Taking the sponge he gathers the particles together below the holy bread and the diskos so that they be secure and none fall off.

…

The deacon takes the hot water and says to the celebrant:
DEACON: Reverend Father, bless the hot water.
The celebrant blesses the hot water, saying:
CELEBRANT: Blessed be the fervor of your holy ones, always, now and ever and forever.
The deacon pours a little water in the form of a cross into the chalice, saying:
DEACON: The fervor of faith, full of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

But the original practice was to have only the Primate commemorate the Pope once in the Divine Liturgy.

Perhaps reducing the commemorations of him after the Anaphora and/or during the Procession would be sufficient . . .

Alex

 

[Vico]

…

Also, the way the UGCC titles the pope “The Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff” is something Rome itself does not recognize since that is the title of . . . the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople . . . The proper title for the pope would simply be "the Holy Father, Pope of Rome.).

…

Ecumenical Pontiff is an excellent translation of the liturgical text (Old Bulgarian):

vselenkago = universal
archierea = high priest = Pontiff.

 

[Vico]

But the original practice was to have only the Primate commemorate the Pope once in the Divine Liturgy.

Perhaps reducing the commemorations of him after the Anaphora and/or during the Procession would be sufficient . . .

Alex

I don’t know when it changed, but there are many commerations in the Sluzebnik Ruthenian recenion of 1952. (This recension removes Latinizations back to ~1438 at the time of MetropolitanIsidore of Kiev - Ruthenian archbishop of Kiev and all Russia from 1437-1442.)

patronagechurch.com/Sluzebnik/sluzebnik.htm.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Ecumenical Pontiff is an excellent translation of the liturgical text (Old Bulgarian):

vselenkago = universal
archierea = high priest = Pontiff.

Yes, an excellent translation but not regarding the commemoration of the Pope of Rome but of the patriarch of Constantinople.

In translations issued by Rome, I am told by good ecclesial authority, that form is left out.

Alex

 

[Vico]

Yes, an excellent translation but not regarding the commemoration of the Pope of Rome but of the patriarch of Constantinople.

In translations issued by Rome, I am told by good ecclesial authority, that form is left out.

Alex

It is in the Ruthenian Recension and used in our Byzantine liturgy. You can read the Sluzebnik at the link I gave. Also in English, we use it, for example in the Great Compline.

Celebrant: Let us pray for our holy, ecumenical pontiff (name), pope of Rome.

metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/LentenGreatCompline.pdf

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It is in the Ruthenian Recension and used in our Byzantine liturgy. You can read the Sluzebnik at the link I gave. Also in English, we use it, for example in the Great Compline.

Celebrant: Let us pray for our holy, ecumenical pontiff (name), pope of Rome.

metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/LentenGreatCompline.pdf

It is interesting that this usage survived the very recent publication of the Lenten Great Compline (unofficial), as this is not the current usage in the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia.

When commemorated, the Pope is referred to “holy father, [name]. Pope of Rome”.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

It is in the Ruthenian Recension and used in our Byzantine liturgy. You can read the Sluzebnik at the link I gave. Also in English, we use it, for example in the Great Compline.

Celebrant: Let us pray for our holy, ecumenical pontiff (name), pope of Rome.

metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/LentenGreatCompline.pdf

Yes, I have it. That doesn’t mean it is correct. The term “ecumenical pontiff” is not a form Rome itself accepts. There was a paper written by a UGCC professor (only in Ukrainian unless there is an English translation) that was discussed at our parish. In it, he showed how that form simply changed the term “Pontiff” from “Patriarch” when the unions took place. Rome itself was opposed to Constantinople (at the time of St John the Merciful) even using “ecumenical” - as it opposed the Alexandrian Church using the term “Ecumenical Archbishop”).

When Rome herself issues a translation, as the professor showed, the term “Holy Father ___ Pope of Rome” is used only. The former term is a bit triumphalistic and its usage is defended by those who might consider any change to somehow demean the role of the Pope.

I apologise for being so lax in keeping records of these things, but I never thought to bring it up here!

Alex

 

[Vico]

Yes, I have it. That doesn’t mean it is correct. The term “ecumenical pontiff” is not a form Rome itself accepts. There was a paper written by a UGCC professor (only in Ukrainian unless there is an English translation) that was discussed at our parish. In it, he showed how that form simply changed the term “Pontiff” from “Patriarch” when the unions took place. Rome itself was opposed to Constantinople (at the time of St John the Merciful) even using “ecumenical” - as it opposed the Alexandrian Church using the term “Ecumenical Archbishop”).

When Rome herself issues a translation, as the professor showed, the term “Holy Father ___ Pope of Rome” is used only. The former term is a bit triumphalistic and its usage is defended by those who might consider any change to somehow demean the role of the Pope.

I apologise for being so lax in keeping records of these things, but I never thought to bring it up here!

Alex

Thank you for the historical information. I see that the Latin Church is, per the body of laws and writings that they have, the Ecumenical Church of all the Christian Churches, rather than Constantinople or Alexandria. It makes sense it that way, and also in that Rome favored the triple Petrine See of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, rather than the eastern favored, five Patriarchates. (Justinian II gave the title Primate to the Patriarch of Constantinople.)

In my parish, we use the Passaic books and depending upon which Liturgy, there are different phrases used, including “holy, ecumenical pontiff (name), pope of Rome”.

I think one must remember that Rome did the recension texts that include the Old Bulgarian (Slavonic) that you can see printed at the references I gave.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Also, the way the UGCC titles the pope “The Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff” is something Rome itself does not recognize since that is the title of . . . the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople . . . The proper title for the pope would simply be "the Holy Father, Pope of Rome.).

The text in the Anthology states “holy universal Pontiff”

BTW, when I organized an English Divine Liturgy for our RC university community, many later LAUGHED at the idea that we commemorated the pope four times. They thought it was RIDICULOUS. And also embarrassing to us . . .

Alex

I don’t know why its more embarrassing to us. We do value our communion with the Pope. I think its appropriate, there’s probably more Roman Catholics anyway who are defiant of the Pope than Eastern Catholics.

 

[5Loaves]

In my parish, we use the Passaic books and depending upon which Liturgy, there are different phrases used, including “holy, ecumenical pontiff (name), pope of Rome”.

.

We use the OCA books. For some reason they don’t commemorate the Pope of Rome.

I think what our clergy says is “His Holiness Benedict Pope of Rome.”