Prayers For the Pope Of Rome In the Liturgy & Pre-Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter FRANKYG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FRANKYG

Guest
Greetings from Las Vegas 😃

I noticed that in the Divine Liturgy of Eastern Tradition, and Oriental for that matter, Commemorates the Pope of Rome. Is this a new practice?

Or was this the norm before the Great Schism??
I am sure the Roman rite has for the most part always had this practice, but then again, The Bishop of Rome is Our patriarch, so that makes sense.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be great. Thanks alot 🙂
 
FRANKYG said:
Greetings from Las Vegas 😃

I noticed that in the Divine Liturgy of Eastern Tradition, and Oriental for that matter, Commemorates the Pope of Rome. Is this a new practice?

Or was this the norm before the Great Schism??
I am sure the Roman rite has for the most part always had this practice, but then again, The Bishop of Rome is Our patriarch, so that makes sense.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be great. Thanks alot 🙂
Click to expand...
The most I’ve seen in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is that it asks that we pray for our archbishop . Perhaps this is just an Eastern Catholic thing. I too would be interested to see if there’s any history behind it.
 
There are probably others here who have more definite information, but from what I understand the answer is only Patriarchs would commemorate their counterparts in the other churches, the parishes would commemorate their own hierachs. The bishops of Rome also comemorated their counterparts in Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople (I don’t know if they comemorate their EC patriarchs in a like manner, or if the practice has been abandoned).

If so, then when the Pope was stricken from the diptychs in 1009AD, this only affected the practice of the Great Church at Constantinople (and perhaps the other patriarchal cathedrals), because the parishes (and other diocesan cathedrals) did not commemorate him anyway.

It appears that commemorating the Pope three times in the eastern Catholic liturgy of every parish would have been a post schism introduction, so far as I can tell. BTW, I think the Latin Catholics only comemorate him once in the parish liturgy.

If anyone has any more solid information on the subject I would be interested to learn of it.
 
Hesychios said:
If so, then when the Pope was stricken from the diptychs in 1009AD, this only affected the practice of the Great Church at Constantinople (and perhaps the other patriarchal cathedrals), because the parishes (and other diocesan cathedrals) did not commemorate him anyway.

.
Click to expand...
This happened before 1054? I know the schism didnt exactly happen all at once. But can you elaborate on your comment. Thank you 🙂
 
FRANKYG said:
This happened before 1054? I know the schism didnt exactly happen all at once. But can you elaborate on your comment. Thank you 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, the Papacy was under admonishment by at least one Eastern Catholic patriarchate since 1009. It appears that the defining moment was when the new bishop of Rome Benedict VIII introduced the Creed with the Filioque into the Mass of the Metropolitan church of Rome.

What that meant was the bishop of Rome would not be commemorated at liturgy in the great church of Hagia Sophia, and concelebration was out of the question. Otherwise, there was still communion churchwide, with the hope (of course) of some sort of resolution.
 
FRANKYG said:
This happened before 1054? I know the schism didnt exactly happen all at once. But can you elaborate on your comment. Thank you 🙂
Click to expand...
Also:

879 Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII)

903 antipope Christopher used the filioque
 
The mention of the Pope in the diptych did not really have a strong correlation to the attitude they had for Rome pre-schism.

According to the Annales of Cardinal Baronius in the 16th century, the Emperor posed the question in 1089 as to why the Pope’s name was not mentioned, and was told:
Not by a synodical judgement and examination was the Roman church removed from communion with ours, but as it seems from our want of watchful care the Pope’s name was not commemorated in the holy diptychs.
Click to expand...
I’m quoting the translation from George Every, Misunderstandings Between East and West, whom I will go on to quote directly (p. 12):
Later Byzantine writers generally agreed that the commemoration of the Pope disappeared in the time of the Patriarch Sergius II (1000-19). In what may be the earliest notice of this we are told that the reason was not known, but “the quarrel was apparently over some sees.” Greeks and Latins were often in conflict in the Byzantine possessions in southern Italy, where dioceses in Apulia and Calabria had been assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople by imperial authority in the eighth century, and it is likely at an embassy from the Emperor Basil II and the Patriarch Eustathius to Pope John XIX in 1024-25 was intended to repair a longstanding difference about the spheres of Pope and Patriarch. But it is important to realize that the mere omission of the Pope’s name from the intercessions at St. Sophia did not in itself constitute a schism. The Pope was not normally commemorated in many churches of the East, and even where he was, his name might not be known. According to the chronicler Yahya of Antioch, who died about 1040, no Pope was named in the liturgy at Jerusalem and Alexadnria between Benedict II, who died in 685, and John in 999, for ant of information. John’s name was still in the diptychs in Yahya’s time.
Click to expand...
 
Cecilianus said:
The mention of the Pope in the diptych did not really have a strong correlation to the attitude they had for Rome pre-schism.

According to the Annales of Cardinal Baronius in the 16th century, the Emperor posed the question in 1089 as to why the Pope’s name was not mentioned, and was told:
Not by a synodical judgement and examination was the Roman church removed from communion with ours, but as it seems from our want of watchful care the Pope’s name was not commemorated in the holy diptychs.
Click to expand...
That is one of the oddest assertions I have ever read here.

Whoever invented this explanation is trying to claim the deacons, priests and bishops of the Great Church in Constantinople (there were dozens, if not more than a hundred) simply forgot to commemorate a patriarch !?! This is something they did and heard every day, like a litany.

“Oh … there was another one? … gee I forgot”

“I forgot too …”😊

It implies that the bishop of Rome was so far off of the minds of these people that it was like he never existed. That’s actually worse than disapproval, it suggests utter irrelevance. I don’t see how anyone could have believed that at the time.
Cecilianus said:
I’m quoting the translation from George Every, Misunderstandings Between East and West, whom I will go on to quote directly (p. 12):
Later Byzantine writers generally agreed that the commemoration of the Pope disappeared in the time of the Patriarch Sergius II (1000-19). In what may be the earliest notice of this we are told that the reason was not known, but “the quarrel was apparently over some sees.” …
Click to expand...
Potentially could have been, but the Normans didn’t start to attack the Byzantine empire until around 1016AD and that was apparently a smaller scale ‘ruffian’ affair. The seizure of territories started in the 1020’s and the replacement of bishops would have been after that.

Most sources I have seen agree that the date was 1009, and that was the year that the filioque started to be used in Rome. Since the filioque had already been a flash point between eastern Catholics and western Catholics for multiple generations I don’t see any reason to doubt it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This issue is a fascinating one, but I’m assuming that it is about the specific matter of the commemoration of the pope iin Eastern Catholic liturgies (?).

After the Union of Brest in 1596, only the EC Metropolitan of Kyiv (and EC’s in those days officially called themselves “Orthodox in union with Rome”), commemorated the Pope once only when he celebrated the Divine Liturgy. One was in “union with Rome” when one was in union with the EC Metropolitan/Primate. The Pope was never commemorated in Divine Liturgies celebrated elsewhere.

At the Synod of Zamosc, all EC Divine Liturgies were to commemorate the Pope twice, but not during the regular ektenias/litanies.

It was during the times of the Austro-Hungarian empire that the commemoration of the pope reached a total number of four times during the Divine Liturgy, with an added commemoration after a Pontifical Divine Liturgy (i.e. for the singing of “Many Years” or “Ad Multos Annos”).

What was interesting is the way the pope was commemorated in the Slavic EC liturgies “the Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff etc.” This phrase was actually the one used pre-unia to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch - the very SAME title was now applied to the pope. In fact, Rome does NOT recognize that title but officially uses “the Holy Father (name), Pope of Rome.”

And UGCC Churches are now tending to not use the word “our” in reference to the Pope, but rather “the.”

There is no reason why the UGCC in particular could not return to a single commemoration of the Pope (but that would be controversial for many).

Alex
 
Alexander,

I have only been to a few non-Melkite Divine Liturgies, so I am unfamiliar with current practice. In our liturgy, we commemorate the Pope only once. Does this number fluctuate depending on jurisdiction?
 
Little_Boy_Lost said:
Alexander,

I have only been to a few non-Melkite Divine Liturgies, so I am unfamiliar with current practice. In our liturgy, we commemorate the Pope only once. Does this number fluctuate depending on jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
In my Ruthenian church we commemorate him four times.
 
We have four ordinary times, one more for the Prothesis and another for the festive dismissal.
  1. Prothesis, Fourth Phosphora
    “Remember, O loving and kind Master, our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome, …”
  2. Litany of Peace
    “For our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome, let us pray to the Lord.”
  3. Litany of Fervent Supplication
    “Again we pray for our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome …”
  4. Prayer of the Cherubikon
    “May the Lord God remember in his kingdom our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome …”
  5. Prior to Preparation for Communion
    “Among the first, O Lord, remember our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome, …”
  6. Dismissal (festive)
    “To our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome, grant, O Lord, many years.”
 
Little_Boy_Lost said:
Alexander,

I have only been to a few non-Melkite Divine Liturgies, so I am unfamiliar with current practice. In our liturgy, we commemorate the Pope only once. Does this number fluctuate depending on jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Yes, the Melkites follow closely the Greek tradition of only commemorating their hierarchy once during the Liturgy. The Slavic tradition is to commemorate the hierarchy four times and, over time, the pope of Rome came to be commemorated each time.

I think I like the Melkite tradition the best as our tradition of commemorating all the bishops et alia can be tedious. When we had a UGCC Divine Liturgy for our Roman Catholic Community at my university, the Latin Catholics found it amusing that we would commemorate the pope more than they did and they too found it all rather tedious.

Alex
 
Vico said:
We have four ordinary times, one more for the Prothesis and another for the festive dismissal.
  1. Prothesis, Fourth Phosphora
    “Remember, O loving and kind Master, our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome, …”
  2. Litany of Peace
    “For our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome, let us pray to the Lord.”
  3. Litany of Fervent Supplication
    “Again we pray for our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome …”
  4. Prayer of the Cherubikon
    “May the Lord God remember in his kingdom our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome …”
  5. Prior to Preparation for Communion
    “Among the first, O Lord, remember our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome, …”
  6. Dismissal (festive)
    “To our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome, grant, O Lord, many years.”
Click to expand...
Dear Vico,

Well, your Church commemorates the Pope the way Rome itself would like him to be commemorated in the East rather than our “The Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff . . .” which title is that of the Patriarch of Constantinople . . .

The fact is that if Eastern Catholics are called to return to their traditions (and we know that we are), then the ideal way of commemorating the Pope of Rome would be to do it once only with the Primate of the EC Particular Church and the local Bishop being commemorated at other times alone.

My Church often deletes portions of the Ektenias (and by what right or authority I don’t know, this was only to be done in times of war etc.) but keeps the full commemorations four times. We should restore the full texts of the Liturgy and prune back the commemorations . . . But that won’t happen since there is this fear among some in our hierarchy and monastic orders that if you don’t have our laity hear the pope commemorated frequently, they will start to think about “returning to Orthodoxy.”

Alex
 
Tradition is commemorating by name your bishop and metropolitan, not bishop and patriarch.

The Patriarch is commemorated in the HDL, traditionally.
 
I agree - but I think our people in the pews will revolt if we move too quickly along those lines.

They will also revolt if we try taking away those pews!

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
I agree - but I think our people in the pews will revolt if we move too quickly along those lines.

They will also revolt if we try taking away those pews!

Alex
Click to expand...
Take the pews away anyway!

(Although, seriously, you’re right - my spiritual father tried to, and his parishioners threatened to disband the parish. I hope the Orthodox come back into communion with Rome if only so I can find a parish without going to Canada where I don’t feel imprisoned by wooden cages.)
 
Alexander_Roman said:
I agree - but I think our people in the pews will revolt if we move too quickly along those lines.

They will also revolt if we try taking away those pews!

Alex
Click to expand...
Many in the parish were upset when Rev. Fr. James put pews back in. We genuinely preferred the chairs… and it will be interesting next time the bishop is up… no room for him in the aisle!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top