Metropolitan William Receives Pallium in Rome

[Peter_J]

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.

Yes, I’ve heard that too.

Frankly I’m not at all surprised that the Pope would accommodate the EP’s request, but I am a bit surprised that the EP would be so concerned about an internal Catholic matter. Perhaps this is an example of what I was saying a few days ago, that some Orthodox see Eastern Catholics as a “bridge church”.

 

[Hesychios]

… Perhaps this is an example of what I was saying a few days ago, that some Orthodox see Eastern Catholics as a “bridge church”.

Bridge church? No, I don’t think so.

More like hostage church (no offence intended). It is well understood that the EC have usually asked for the relationship, breaking their relationship with their Orthodox mother churches. It is also well understood that they cannot ask to rejoin Orthodoxy, they have lost the actual ability to make that kind of decision anymore.

Why is the incident important? I think probably because it looks so darn bad. It reflects poorly on the EC (from an Orthodox perspective) and causes Orthodox to think “there but for the Grace of God go I”, and it makes reconciliation efforts more difficult. The Vatican staff actually understands this, I am sure, which is why I think the granting of the pallium was done in private for bishop Judson Procyk.

 

[dvdjs]

More like hostage church (no offence intended).

It is well understood that the EC have usually asked for the relationship, breaking their relationship with their Orthodox mother churches.

Asked for the relationship with Rome? Yes; asked to break of with Mother churches?
Far less clear. And in the moment of Brest, the excommunications that came days later were not precedented and not entirely obvious given the on/off relations of the previous 500 years. It the case of the Melkites, it is not unfair to call them the Mother church.

It is also well understood that they cannot ask to rejoin Orthodoxy, they have lost the actual ability to make that kind of decision anymore.

This is at one level tautological. It is like asking for centralized decision making in the Orthodox church. But beyond that, let’s see - What happened in Belarus? It was forcibly coerced to be sure, but I think there was a corporate rapprochement (OK, submission) of the whole church to the ROC. And likewise in every area conquered by Russia. ACROD, while representing only a portion of the BCC, was formed by corporate decision-making and action. So what is the proof for your anti-historical claim?

Why is the incident important? I think probably because it looks so darn bad. It reflects poorly on the EC (from an Orthodox perspective) and causes Orthodox to think “there but for the Grace of God go I”, and it makes reconciliation efforts more difficult. The Vatican staff actually understands this, I am sure, which is why I think the granting of the pallium was done in private for bishop Judson Procyk.

To some, pretty much everything we do looks darn bad and reflects poorly. It is thus always possible to find barriers to reconciliation. One can always skew the present and revise past to see whatever one wants. One can look and see communion of brothers or look and see subjugation by tyrants. One can look imagine that ECs exist not because they want to, and are even delighted to be where they are, but because they are lacking in abilities. One can even imagine that ECCs can be called hostage churches withiout meaning offense.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Yes, I’ve heard that too.

Frankly I’m not at all surprised that the Pope would accommodate the EP’s request, but I am a bit surprised that the EP would be so concerned about an internal Catholic matter. Perhaps this is an example of what I was saying a few days ago, that some Orthodox see Eastern Catholics as a “bridge church”.

I think (that is, know for sure) that the EO look to the EC’s to see how they will be treated when the EO and RC are reunited.

 

[Peter_J]

Bridge church? No, I don’t think so.

More like hostage church (no offence intended).

I think dvdjs said it best when he said:

The thing about the “hostage church” idea is that, however true it may have been originally, it would be less-and-less true with each successive generation. To still think of the Eastern Catholic Churches as “hostage churches” after 400ish years is downright silly, in my opinion.

 

[Hesychios]

I think dvdjs said it best when he said:

I am unmoved.

The thing about the “hostage church” idea is that, however true it may have been originally, it would be less-and-less true with each successive generation. To still think of the Eastern Catholic Churches as “hostage churches” after 400ish years is downright silly, in my opinion.

Actually, I can agree with your point.

The less Orthodox the EC become, as indeed we have seen, the more willing and eager. Any church which can produce an Elko has certainly found it’s place.

I think the Orthodox who have the most regard for the EC are the most likely to see them as trapped. When Orthodox start to see the EC as not Orthodox, it stands to reason they would lose sympathy for those difficulties with Rome.

The fact that the EP was in some way upset about the pallium thing (as an example) at the time was probably an indication of sympathy for the Ruthenian church.

I think the sentiment is misguided. There is no reason for Orthodox to feel this way. The Ruthenians generally want to be in the position they are in, and I am sure the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh and the Metropolitan of Mukachevo are quite happy to wear a pallium.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ByzCathCantor,

I must admit that I find this to be a difficult concept, at times. Don’t all bishops share that responsibility equally?

Yes, all bishops share in the stewardship of the Catholic Church as a whole, not just for their own particular diocese, as affirmed by Vatican 2.

The pallium is given only to those of metropolical rank, which would indicate (to me anyway) that the special responsibility shared with the Pope is the unique responsibility of a head bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

I am unmoved.

Normalije. The less one practices charity, indeed as we have seen, the more willing and eager.

The less Orthodox the EC become, as indeed we have seen, the more willing and eager. Any church which can produce an Elko has certainly found it’s place.

Do you know, actually know, of the Elko years?

The plus side of the Elko years: he was an avid advocate for his flock and for its transformation from immigrants to Americans. This idea may not have been high on the agenda for many immigrant groups, but for us, who had spent a millenium as nth class people in whatever empire, with highly limited futures there, it was very important to be part of and take part in what America offered. We would not remain marginalized.

In Bishop Elko’s mind, and many others, that meant leaving behind many, many “old-fashioned” ideas. The list is enormous - mostly about things cultural. But it did extend to some aspects of religious praxis; some of that extension represents the bad side, but a side that has been under restoration. One thing is very clear: this dynamic had nothing to do with being held hostage by Rome. Nothing.

Here are some basic facts that seem to be missed, by many,

1. Eastern Christianity is not inherently Romophobic - indeed Romophobia is a malignant development.
2. Eastern Catholics rather overwhelmingly like being Catholic just as they really like being Eastern. It is the catholic church that is deeply, even inherently, engaged in good shepherding and not content to cut the baby in half. That attitude makes the catholic church so obviously the right place for those who thinking is animated by the Philanthropos.
3. That demeanor hasn’t a thing to do with hostages or any such thing, but is genuine and derives from a history that is very rich, and goes far beyond the scabs that some can’t see beyond and find endlessly fascinating to pick at.
4. A salient part of that story is a love of the people of the community. The significance of this characteristic, this loyalty, may be hard to understand by some who are may be unrooted.
5. We may practice differently that some others of the Byzantine rite. But that has a longer history and cultural connection that is commonly understood. We are, in some ways, less hung-up on ritual purity than many others; at the same time we are a little more hung-up than most about “our” way.
6. Some misanthropes just can’t manage to leave us alone. Some, in living memory, have even actively sought our destruction. The enmity is hard to figure. That is a cross that we have had to bear. But I think that while we might still suffer, we no longer are so disempowered that we are forced to suffer in silence.

I think the Orthodox who have the most regard for the EC are the most likely to see them as trapped.

And at the some time see Rome as patronizing. Mote/Log.

The fact that the EP was in some way upset about the pallium thing (as an example) at the time was probably an indication of sympathy for the Ruthenian church.

In some way upset? The EP has celebrated the feast of Peter and Paul with the Pope for some years now. Although not in attendance this year, delegates from the EP were there. Any news of upset? Any facts?

The Ruthenians generally want to be in the position they are in, and I am sure the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh and the Metropolitan of Mukachevo are quite happy to wear a pallium.

Haven’t seen it in Mukachevo. In fact, haven’t seen much “wearing” of a pallium at all, outside of this ceremony.

 

[Vico]

Hesychios,
There is no Metropolitan Eparch of Mucacheve.

Below is a photo of Eparch Milan Šašik of Mukacheve. He is directly subject to the Holy See.

http://cegolnya.uz.ua/mediafiles/vladyka-Milan-Sasik2.jpg

Here you can see the difference in their mantels, Metropolitan Archeparch William Skurla. He is directly subject to the Holy See.

http://www.parma.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/29-web archbishop william fnl.jpg

 

[twf]

Dear brother ByzCathCantor,

Yes, all bishops share in the stewardship of the Catholic Church as a whole, not just for their own particular diocese, as affirmed by Vatican 2.

The pallium is given only to those of metropolical rank, which would indicate (to me anyway) that the special responsibility shared with the Pope is the unique responsibility of a head bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

I would agree. While the canonical privileges of Latin metropolitans have been largely eroded (though a few still remain), the metropolitan is still the “elder brother” among the bishops of a province and tends to assume a leadership role as the “face” of the Church in that region…if for no other reason than the fact that the metropolitan’s particular church is typically the archdiocese of the largest and most important city in the region. Metropolitans are also more likely to sit on councils/congregations at the Vatican and directly assist the Holy Father in governing the wider Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Normalije. The less one practices charity, indeed as we have seen, the more willing and eager.

Do you know, actually know, of the Elko years?

The plus side of the Elko years: he was an avid advocate for his flock and for its transformation from immigrants to Americans. This idea may not have been high on the agenda for many immigrant groups, but for us, who had spent a millenium as nth class people in whatever empire, with highly limited futures there, it was very important to be part of and take part in what America offered. We would not remain marginalized.

In Bishop Elko’s mind, and many others, that meant leaving behind many, many “old-fashioned” ideas. The list is enormous - mostly about things cultural. But it did extend to some aspects of religious praxis; some of that extension represents the bad side, but a side that has been under restoration. One thing is very clear: this dynamic had nothing to do with being held hostage by Rome. Nothing.

Here are some basic facts that seem to be missed, by many,

1. Eastern Christianity is not inherently Romophobic - indeed Romophobia is a malignant development.
2. Eastern Catholics rather overwhelmingly like being Catholic just as they really like being Eastern. It is the catholic church that is deeply, even inherently, engaged in good shepherding and not content to cut the baby in half. That attitude makes the catholic church so obviously the right place for those who thinking is animated by the Philanthropos.
3. That demeanor hasn’t a thing to do with hostages or any such thing, but is genuine and derives from a history that is very rich, and goes far beyond the scabs that some can’t see beyond and find endlessly fascinating to pick at.
4. A salient part of that story is a love of the people of the community. The significance of this characteristic, this loyalty, may be hard to understand by some who are may be unrooted.
5. We may practice differently that some others of the Byzantine rite. But that has a longer history and cultural connection that is commonly understood. We are, in some ways, less hung-up on ritual purity than many others; at the same time we are a little more hung-up than most about “our” way.
6. Some misanthropes just can’t manage to leave us alone. Some, in living memory, have even actively sought our destruction. The enmity is hard to figure. That is a cross that we have had to bear. But I think that while we might still suffer, we no longer are so disempowered that we are forced to suffer in silence.

And at the some time see Rome as patronizing. Mote/Log.

In some way upset? The EP has celebrated the feast of Peter and Paul with the Pope for some years now. Although not in attendance this year, delegates from the EP were there. Any news of upset? Any facts?

Haven’t seen it in Mukachevo. In fact, haven’t seen much “wearing” of a pallium at all, outside of this ceremony.

I agree with much of what you’re saying, but I’d like to chime in a few thoughts of my own. Mostly, I think it’s important to point out problems while at the same time realistically not expecting them to change overnight.

Specifically, I believe the Eastern-Catholicism-as-bridge idea is problematic, regardless of whether it’s the bridge-from-Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism form (“uniatism”) or the bridge-from-Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy form (“reverse uniatism”, I guess, although I know of no official documents that call it that). I hope that all of us will ease off on both of those – gradually, I mean, I don’t expect much to change in just one or two years.

The Eastern-Catholicism-as-hostage idea is closely related, but seems more “fringe” to me, and more emotionally driven. (I note Hesychios said, “I think the sentiment is misguided. There is no reason for Orthodox to feel this way.”)

 

[dvdjs]

Specifically, I believe the Eastern-Catholicism-as-bridge idea is problematic. I hope that all of us will ease off on both of those – gradually, I mean, I don’t expect much to change in just one or two years.

I would say that the idea is worse than problematic. Eastern Catholic Churches are churches. Their identity is not and cannot be determined by their interactions with other churches. They, of course, have such interactions, they might possibly serve many interactive functions, but their mission is to work for the salvation of the souls of those who become members of that church, following that church’s particular way - a time-tested, fruitful way that is the distinguishing feature of that church.

 

[Peter_J]

I would say that the idea is worse than problematic. Eastern Catholic Churches are churches. Their identity is not and cannot be determined by their interactions with other churches. They, of course, have such interactions, they might possibly serve many interactive functions, but their mission is to work for the salvation of the souls of those who become members of that church, following that church’s particular way - a time-tested, fruitful way that is the distinguishing feature of that church.

Alright, I can agree that it’s “worse than problematic”. But in any case, I think the main thing is that the solution won’t be one-sided. What I mean is, there is (and should be) a lot of emphasis on disavowing uniatism, i.e. the Eastern-Catholicism-as-a-bridge-from-Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism idea, but I don’t believe such efforts can be very successful unless they’re accompanied by a disavowal of the Eastern-Catholicism-as-a-bridge-from-Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy idea. (Sorry for being so wordy. )

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios,
There is no Metropolitan Eparch of Mucacheve.

Thank you for the correction. I had for some reason assumed Mukachevo had an Archeparch.

 

[dvdjs]

Alright, I can agree that it’s “worse than problematic”. But in any case, I think the main thing is that the solution won’t be one-sided. What I mean is, there is (and should be) a lot of emphasis on disavowing uniatism, i.e. the Eastern-Catholicism-as-a-bridge-from-Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism idea, but I don’t believe such efforts can be very successful unless they’re accompanied by a disavowal of the Eastern-Catholicism-as-a-bridge-from-Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy idea. (Sorry for being so wordy. )

Good point.
I think that we are halfway there, and had come very close to being all the way there.

The Balamand agreement repudiates the idea of prosyletism among catholic and orthodox churches as inconsistent with our view of each other as sister churches. It specifically repudiates “uniatsim” as a missionary apostolate - while at the same time stipulating to the right of Eastern Catholic churches to exist.

This view continues to inform Catholic relations with Orthodox. Within Orthodoxy, however, this agreement may be a dead letter. There was strong backlash against it on the points that I summarized. Indeeed, we have not even made a it of progress on having an honest appraisal of the mock synods of L’viv and the mock non-synod of Uzhhorod at which Greek Catholic churches were liquidated. Amazingly, even here EO posters have been unwilling to recognize this sham, and to stipulate a ECC’s right to exist.

So I think we are halfway there, with the CC taking the lead in rapprochement. How to make more progress? First by better understanding the problem.

Here is a fascinating article (first part of the longer, rambling essay) that gives some insight into the problem. The article summarizes a lecture by Professor John H. Erickson of St. Vladimir Orthodox Seminary. firstthings.com/article/2009/02/orthodoxy-and-8220parallel-monologues8221-22

 

[Vico]

dvdjs,

The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue (Catholic-Orthodox) has had twelve sessions to date. The focus of the last four meetings, after 2000, has been authority in the Church and the role of the Bishop of Rome. But it does seem that Uniatism is the blocking issue currently, since participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the sessions is desired. In November 2011 Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion (of Volokolamsk) reminded that discussion of the issue of the unia was a precondition for return of the Russian Orthodox Church to the dialogues.

During USSR:
1980 (Patmos/Rhodes), 1982 (Munich), 1984 (Crete), 1987 (Bari), 1988 (Valamo), 1990 (Friesing)*

After USSR (25 Dec 1991):
1993 (Balamand), 2000 (Emmitsburg), 2006 (Belgrade), 2007 (Ravenna)**, 2009 (Paphos), 2010 (Vienna)

• Uniatism topic
  ** Russian delegation walked out of the meeting (protest to presence of Estonian delegation).

 

[Peter_J]

Going back to something said a few days ago …

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.

Frankly, to me it seems problematic that Orthodox would see it as problematic. (Of course, I don’t know how many Orthodox that’s even true of.)

 

[Peter_J]

I think the Orthodox who have the most regard for the EC are the most likely to see them as trapped. When Orthodox start to see the EC as not Orthodox, it stands to reason they would lose sympathy for those difficulties with Rome.

The fact that the EP was in some way upset about the pallium thing (as an example) at the time was probably an indication of sympathy for the Ruthenian church.

I think the sentiment is misguided. There is no reason for Orthodox to feel this way. The Ruthenians generally want to be in the position they are in,

I wonder if it would be a helpful description, either instead of or in addition to that “bridge” analogy, to say that Constantinople still regards the Eastern Catholic Churches as her daughters.

Having said that, I don’t think sympathy as such should ever really be lost. (Conversely, if Western-Rite Orthodox experience hardships, I can sympathize without seeing them as either a “bridge” or as daughters of the Latin Church.)

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I’ve rethought my, uh, thinking here a bit. I guess I was approaching this from the p.o.v. of someone who has studied Eastern Catholicism a great deal, and hence I tended to react to the EP’s actions with an eyeroll and a “Why’s he harping on that?” But it occurs to me now that many might instead find it surprising (and thus possibly educational) – reacting more like “Huh? I would think the EP would be happy for an Eastern Catholic bishop who’s become a metropolitan. After all, aren’t they together in the Eastern lung?”

What’s more, it strikes me that there isn’t necessarily any reason to imagine that the EP has designs on the Eastern Catholic Churches, when it may well be that he just didn’t want to appear to be celebrating uniatism. It may be significant that this was in 1995 – just a matter of months before Catholics celebrated (much too enthusiastically, in the view of many Orthodox) the 400-year anniversary of the Union of Brest.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

… it strikes me that there isn’t necessarily any reason to imagine that the EP has designs on the Eastern Catholic Churches, when it may well be that he just didn’t want to appear to be celebrating uniatism.

My own take on the EPs reaction was that it had nothing to do with uniatism per se, nor any “designs” on the ECCs, yet it was intended to send a message to Rome as regards the prospect of reunion. The opportunity presented itself quite readily in this case.

Remember, of course, the Orthodox have a fundamentally different view of ecclesiology. They also know that the Eastern Catholic Churches, including the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, are supposed to be self-governing (sui juris), and that has a specific meaning to them. From their perspective, it is unthinkable that a prelate of a Church in communion with another Church should have to submit, in effect, to a “superior” prelate of another Church, as is the posturing in the ceremony for the imposition of the pallium. No Patriarch or Metropolitan of an autocephalous Orthodox Church would ever have to kneel before another in order to be vested in their office, as is the case of an Archbishop of an Eastern Catholic Metropolitan Church under current Canon Law.

So yes, a message was being sent. If this is what you do with the EC Churches, then how are we the Orthodox to believe that we would not have to submit on bended knee to the Pontiff in order to be in full communion? Further, if the Church does genuinely support the notion of equal dignity of the Eastern Catholic Churches and expect them to follow their own traditions and disciplines, then why would they force a Metropolitan to be vested in their office in such a non-traditional way, from an Eastern Christian perspective?

The event happened to be a “perfect storm”, where ecumenical dialogue had advanced to the stage where closer Catholic-Orthodox ties were being fostered (hence the invitation to Rome for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul), and a specific event - the imposition of the pallium on a recently appointed and enthroned Metropolitan of an Eastern Catholic Church - just happened to coincide and created an opportunity to press a critical point in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.