Metropolitan William Receives Pallium in Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vico
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
On the other hand, if the Metropolia did get elevated, it’s hard to imagine Moscow would be upset (although I’m open to being corrected by our Orthodox friends).
Click to expand...
I could only imagine that happening if the currently separate, largely “national” Churches of Ruthenian origin were first reunited into a structure resembling the UGCC.

In that case, the Mother Church would likely be Mukachevo, adding yet another complication in the Kiev vs. Moscow debate, as we would likely be seen as another “Ukrainian Catholic Church”.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
I’m not sure how that expressly relates to my post, which you referenced in entirety.

I am personally sympathetic to the UGCC cause, if you will, but the Ruthenians do have a slightly different history and identity.
Click to expand...
Indeed. My point for putting the link is to show that the UGCC would want to have a patriarch. 🙂
It seems that the debate is between Kiev and Moscow.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
I’m not sure how that expressly relates to my post, which you referenced in entirety.

I am personally sympathetic to the UGCC cause, if you will, but the Ruthenians do have a slightly different history and identity (albeit intertwined with that of the Ukrainians).
Click to expand...
Crescentinus said:
Indeed. My point for putting the link is to show that the UGCC would want to have a patriarch. 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s in dispute. If it was just a question of wanting a Patriarch, then they would each have one. The real question is about rationale for having a Patriarch, which is why UGCC has a much better chance, compared to the Ruthenians who have little or no chance of getting a Patriarch. (Which, in turn, is presumably why the Ruthenians spend little time saying that they’d like to have a Patriarch.)
 
Peter_J said:
Indeed. An elevation to the Patriarchal level would mean skipping right over the Major Archiepiscopal level. (If “level” is the right word.)

On the other hand, if the Metropolia did get elevated, it’s hard to imagine Moscow would be upset (although I’m open to being corrected by our Orthodox friends).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think Moscow’s territorial chestbeating is only really over Ukraine and a few other small disputed territories of the ROC. Moscow’s canonical claim to America is effectively over since the OCA was given autocephaly by Moscow, although the reunion of the Russian Orthodox Church with ROCOR makes this situation even more irregular, I guess.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
In that case, the Mother Church would likely be Mukachevo, adding yet another complication in the Kiev vs. Moscow debate, as we would likely be seen as another “Ukrainian Catholic Church”.
Click to expand...
I think that would make sense, and the Sub-Carpathian Ruthenians would be strengthened in such a visible unity across international borders. but I don’t think the idea will fly with the Vatican, especially with Mukachevo still being (possibly forevermore) part of Ukraine. I somehow get the sense (no proof, just a sense) that some in the Curia and perhaps the Pope himself is comfortable with an arrangement where the Ruthenians cannot name their own bishops.

I wanted to make another comment here, since the discussion has taken this turn …

I think that there is much too much emphasis on the importance of a patriarch.

Among many people, especially ( I note) among Latin Catholics, there seems to be an assumption that the Patriarch runs the particular church, like a little Pope or something.

So the vision is that the Pope runs the big show, and the patriarch runs the little show for him and the bishop runs his little show for the patriarch. A very top-down image.

This is why people might think that the EP runs the Orthodox church, like an Orthodox version of a Pope. It is a very common misconception I once shared.

That may have actually happened at different times for political-historical reasons but it is far from ideal. The Metropolitan or Patriarch leads the synod as it (the synod) collectively runs the particular church. In that sense bishops of a synod are strategic partners to one another. Power (such as it is) flows up from the all bishops to the Metropolitan.

The title Patriarch is really an honorific. His power is no greater within his synod than as a Metropolitan he would be, and he has no power outside of it.

The patriarchate has more value, I think, as a symbol.
 
Hesychios said:
I think that would make sense, and the Sub-Carpathian Ruthenians would be strengthened in such a visible unity across international borders. but I don’t think the idea will fly with the Vatican, especially with Mukachevo still being (possibly
forevermore) part of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I would agree and advocate such solely to promote the continuation of the Ruthenian tradition, rather than toward a view of promoting an independent Patriarchial Church.

I do believe there may be something to your speculation regarding the Vatican’s viewpoint, as the “Ruthenian Church” has been organized and divided along national lines in post-Communist times (go figure - almost Orthodox, no?).
Hesychios said:
I somehow get the sense (no proof, just a sense) that some in the Curia and perhaps the Pope himself is comfortable with an arrangement where the Ruthenians cannot name their own bishops.
Click to expand...
That could be, but I can’t imagine why.

That said, it is interesting to note that Blessed John Paul II, hailing from southern Poland himself, was personally connected to the Eparchy of Mukachevo, in particular. His name appears as Bishop Milan Sasik’s predecessor in the apostolic lineage (from 1958 - 2003).
 
John_of_Patmos said:
Note the epigonation. Do the Rusyns follow the Greek discipline with it (shows you can hear confessions) or the Russian (a “reward” for the recipient)?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, but I can say something more generally, told to me by my pastor, that the Ruthenian Church traces back to the Greek.

The Ruthenian tradition is tied back to Metropolitan Isadore (of Thessalonica) who was made Metropolitan of Kiev and Moscow and all Rus’ by Emperor John VIII Palaeologus (reign 1425 - 1448).
 
ByzCathCantor said:
He did, indeed, receive a Roman style pallium, which was placed over his omophorion.

http://www.grkatpo.sk/pub/pic/fotogalerie/491/491_11.jpg

Metropolitan William, on the other hand, did not receive one.
Click to expand...
The Ruthenian type of mantle must meet the criteria of CCEO “pallium”.

Metropolitan Judson (1994) received a pallium at the Sistine Chapel from the Holy Father, but I don’t remember when that was. For Metropolitan Basil (2002) I never heard of him receiving a pallium, nor have I heard of what happened with Metropolitans Thomas (1991) or Stephen (1969).
 
Vico said:
Metropolitan Judson (1994) received a pallium at the Sistine Chapel from the Holy Father, but I don’t remember when that was. For Metropolitan Basil (2002) I never heard of him receiving a pallium, nor have I heard of what happened with Metropolitans Thomas (1991) or Stephen (1969).
Click to expand...
My brother, as you are no doubt aware, the “canonical requirement” for the hierarch of a sui juris Metropolitan Church to “request a pallium” was written into the CCEO.

I am not sure whether or not either of the first two Metropolitans of the Byzantine Catholic Church of Pittsburgh sui juris (Stephen and Thomas) received a pallium, especially Metropolitan Stephen, as his appointment well predated the CCEO.

There is a famous story surrounding the event in the Sistine Chapel whereby Metropolitan Judson received his pallium. Apparently, the Ecumenical Patriarch (who was invited for the occasion of the Feast of Sts. Peter & Paul, when the pallium was to be bestowed) expressed great dissatisfaction when he heard that an Eastern Catholic hierarch was required to request and would be given a Roman style vestment, inconsistent with his own traditions, as a symbol of office. So, instead of receiving the pallium with his brother Latin Catholic bishops at the scheduled ceremony, it was given to him separately in a ceremony held afterward in the Sistine Chapel.

Metropolitan Basil was canonically bound to “request a pallium” in connection with his appointment (confirming his acceptance, in effect), but I understand he did not go to Rome to receive one formally in consideration of the objections raised in Metropolitan Judson’s case.

Pope Benedict XVI, with great fortitude, decided that an omophorion should be more properly given to Metropolitan William on this occasion, and he should not be excluded from the general ceremony. Rather, the Roman practice of imposing a pallium was adapted in his case, and the corresponding vestment appropriate to his Rite and tradition was given instead, to seal his appontment as head of an Eastern Catholic Metropolitan Church sui juris.

FWIW & IMHO, this was a good response and a very good result. Some would argue from a more Orthodox point of view that this should not be at all necessary, and with merit. However, given that we are members of the Catholic Communion, and the Eastern Catholic Churches are still not well understood, this change is both suitable and provided an opportunity for catechesis as well as proper recognition of the Eastern Catholic Churches and hierarchs.

That said, I still struggle to understand the custom on the Western side of the aisle. We are taught that all bishops share responsibility for the preservation of the Church equally, yet Metropolitan Archbishops in the Latin Church are singled out for receipt of the pallium as an honor and symbol of “higher office”. At least in the case of a hierarch of a Metropolitan Church sui juris, there seems to me to be a more logical basis for the additional “pomp” and formality. To me, this might be more problematic in the eyes of the Orthodox, as it seems to reinforce a notion of a separate class of bishops.
 
Hesychios said:
It seems kind of like wearing two hats, or perhaps … mitres.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and that was a kind analogy on your part. I have to admit, despite my Catholic fidelity, the first thought that came to mind seeing this photo was “leash” … :o
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Indeed, and that was a kind analogy on yur part. I have to admit, despite my Catholic fidelity, the first thought that came to mind seeing this photo was “leash” … :o
Click to expand...
Well, it is definitely an instrument of control.

I feel quite sure that it did not start out that way, but it developed into one.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Indeed, and that was a kind analogy on your part. I have to admit, despite my Catholic fidelity, the first thought that came to mind seeing this photo was “leash” … :o
Click to expand...
Took the words right out of my mouth
 
Hesychios said:
Well, it is definitely an instrument of control.

I feel quite sure that it did not start out that way, but it developed into one.
Click to expand...
So it seems on some levels. Even in reading the Code of Canon Law applicable to Latin Church Metropolitans, it seems to speak more of bounds than of powers.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Took the words right out of my mouth
Click to expand...
As indicated, I was embarrased to admit this, :o but the thought was all too obvious.

More importantly, I do think His Holiness went out of his way to adapt accordingly. The decision was announced about a day in advance of the scheduled ceremony. I would not be surprised if Metropolitan William himself and other hierarchs took the opportunity to address this directly with the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches during their recent ad limina visit.

Of course, us Ruthenians always have to be at the center of a good controversy. This time, it seems to be a small step forward.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
My brother, as you are no doubt aware, the “canonical requirement” for the hierarch of a sui juris Metropolitan Church to “request a pallium” was written into the CCEO.

I am not sure whether or not either of the first two Metropolitans of the Byzantine Catholic Church of Pittsburgh sui juris (Stephen and Thomas) received a pallium, especially Metropolitan Stephen, as his appointment well predated the CCEO.

There is a famous story surrounding the event in the Sistine Chapel whereby Metropolitan Judson received his pallium. Apparently, the Ecumenical Patriarch (who was invited for the occasion of the Feast of Sts. Peter & Paul, when the pallium was to be bestowed) expressed great dissatisfaction when he heard that an Eastern Catholic hierarch was required to request and would be given a Roman style vestment, inconsistent with his own traditions, as a symbol of office. So, instead of receiving the pallium with his brother Latin Catholic bishops at the scheduled ceremony, it was given to him separately in a ceremony held afterward in the Sistine Chapel.

Metropolitan Basil was canonically bound to “request a pallium” in connection with his appointment (confirming his acceptance, in effect), but I understand he did not go to Rome to receive one formally in consideration of the objections raised in Metropolitan Judson’s case.

Pope Benedict XVI, with great fortitude, decided that an omophorion should be more properly given to Metropolitan William on this occasion, and he should not be excluded from the general ceremony. Rather, the Roman practice of imposing a pallium was adapted in his case, and the corresponding vestment appropriate to his Rite and tradition was given instead, to seal his appontment as head of an Eastern Catholic Metropolitan Church sui juris.

FWIW & IMHO, this was a good response and a very good result. Some would argue from a more Orthodox point of view that this should not be at all necessary, and with merit. However, given that we are members of the Catholic Communion, and the Eastern Catholic Churches are still not well understood, this change is both suitable and provided an opportunity for catechesis as well as proper recognition of the Eastern Catholic Churches and hierarchs.

That said, I still struggle to understand the custom on the Western side of the aisle. We are taught that all bishops share responsibility for the preservation of the Church equally, yet Metropolitan Archbishops in the Latin Church are singled out for receipt of the pallium as an honor and symbol of “higher office”. At least in the case of a hierarch of a Metropolitan Church sui juris, there seems to me to be a more logical basis for the additional “pomp” and formality. To me, this might be more problematic in the eyes of the Orthodox, as it seems to reinforce a notion of a separate class of bishops.
Click to expand...
CCEO 156: “… the pallium from the Roman Pontiff, which is a sign of his metropolitan power and full communion of the metropolitan Church sui iuris with the Roman Pontiff.”

CCEO Canon 157
  1. The power which a metropolitan possesses according to the norm of law over the bishops and other Christian faithful of the metropolitan Church over which he presides, is ordinary and proper, but personal; thus, he cannot constitute a vicar for the entire metropolitan Church sui iuris nor delegate his power to a certain person for all cases.
  2. The power of the metropolitan and the council of hierarchs is validly exercised only within the territorial boundaries of the metropolitan Church sui iuris.
  3. The metropolitan represents the metropolitan Church sui iuris in all its juridic affairs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top