www.byzcath.org

Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise?

Posted By: Peter J

Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/26/11 02:44 PM

At the parish I usually attend (Melkite) the priest commemorates Archbishop Cyril, Patriarch Gregory, and Pope Benedict.

Now, I don't remember where, but somewhere I've heard that the traditional practice is actually for the parish priest to commemorate only his own bishop. I.e. only the bishop commemorates other bishops. (Can anyone confirm this?)

I don't think we are ready to return to that traditional (assuming it is) practice. However, I wonder if a compromise would be possible: Namely, to commemorate not only the Melkite Patriarch and the Roman Patriarch, but all the Catholic Patriarches. It seems like that would make a lot more sense than commemorating some but not others.
Posted By: Fr Serge Keleher

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/26/11 03:46 PM

Seems a sensible approach. When the Patriarch serves, it is usually he alone who commemorates the Pope.


In parts of the Middle East, the Greek-Catholics do not commemorate the Pope at all. This is sometimes thought to be a consequence of the trouble between Patriarch Gregory II and Pope Pius IX.

Fr. Serge
Posted By: ag_vn

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/27/11 08:12 AM

I've attented Bulgarian Byzantine liturgies a few times and they also commemorated Pope Benedict first and the Apostolic Exarch then.

The Orthodox practice I've seen is - the priest commemorates his bishop, the bishop commemorates the Patriarch (or the Primate), and the Patriarch commemorates the other Patriarchs and Primates (Archbishops and Metropolitans) his church is in communion with.

According to Metropolitan Georges Khodre of Mount Lebanon (Patriarchate of Antioch) - "In mentioning the Pope of Rome in the Eastern liturgies we are inviting the Churches to a practice the East has never known." - http://www.vatican.va/news_services...,_Botrys_and_Mount_Lebanon_%28LEBANON%29
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/27/11 04:54 PM

Quote
I've attented Bulgarian Byzantine liturgies a few times and they also commemorated Pope Benedict first and the Apostolic Exarch then.


The Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church also commemorates the Pope first, followed by the Metropolitan and Bishop. I have heard (and I could be wrong) that the reason the Bishop of Rome was commemorated was because at the time of Union of Uzhgorod the Ecumenical Patriarch was commemorated and upon entering communion with Rome they just simply switched from the Ecumenical Patriarch to the Ecumenical Pontiff.

Quote
According to Metropolitan Georges Khodre of Mount Lebanon (Patriarchate of Antioch) - "In mentioning the Pope of Rome in the Eastern liturgies we are inviting the Churches to a practice the East has never known." -


If this is the case, I am sure it is, then our Eastern Catholic Churches should return to the Orthodox practice. But I can already see the reaction from some, "they are not Catholic because they don't commemorate the Pope."
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/28/11 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
According to Metropolitan Georges Khodre of Mount Lebanon (Patriarchate of Antioch) - "In mentioning the Pope of Rome in the Eastern liturgies we are inviting the Churches to a practice the East has never known." -


If this is the case, I am sure it is, then our Eastern Catholic Churches should return to the Orthodox practice. But I can already see the reaction from some, "they are not Catholic because they don't commemorate the Pope."


Yes, that's pretty much my thinking as well: in principle we should follow the traditional method, but that probably wouldn't work out too well in practice. So some sort of compromise seems to be in order.
Posted By: ConstantineTG

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/28/11 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Peter J
At the parish I usually attend (Melkite) the priest commemorates Archbishop Cyril, Patriarch Gregory, and Pope Benedict.

Now, I don't remember where, but somewhere I've heard that the traditional practice is actually for the parish priest to commemorate only his own bishop. I.e. only the bishop commemorates other bishops. (Can anyone confirm this?)

I don't think we are ready to return to that traditional (assuming it is) practice. However, I wonder if a compromise would be possible: Namely, to commemorate not only the Melkite Patriarch and the Roman Patriarch, but all the Catholic Patriarches. It seems like that would make a lot more sense than commemorating some but not others.


The commemoration is about the hierarchy which also represents the communion of the people with the Church. So we the people are in communion with the Church through our Bishop, who is in communion with the Metropolitan, who is in communion with the Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope. There's no point to commemorate the other Bishops including other Patriarchs.
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/29/11 05:30 AM

Quote
The commemoration is about the hierarchy which also represents the communion of the people with the Church.


Exactly. Our parish priest is their by the authority of our local Bishop.
So he/we should commemorate his/our Bishop in our Liturgy.

Quote
So we the people are in communion with the Church through our Bishop, who is in communion with the Metropolitan,


Which is why our Bishop should commemorate his Metropolitan (or Archbishop in the Greek Usage)

Quote
who is in communion with the Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope.


Also, why our Metropolitans should commemorate their Patriarch/major Archbishop/Catholicos and they [the Patriarch] in turn should commemorate the Pope of Rome

Quote
There's no point to commemorate the other Bishops including other Patriarchs.


And really the Pope in our liturgies. We are in communion with the Pope only through our communion with our Bishop, (through our parish under his rep- the Priest) who is in communion with his Metropolitan, who is communion with his Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope. Now a Metropolitan Church is different in that case the Metropolitan commemorates the Pope.

I think Eastern Catholics can stress the point of "we are in communion with the Pope" to a fault. Really, we should follow the pattern laid out above (which is the Orthodox Practice) but we don't because we don't want to be accused of not being Catholic. Returning to the Orthodox Practice is part of the courage to be ourselves.
Posted By: Pavel Ivanovich

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/29/11 06:14 AM

This looks like one of those 'Greek' usage and 'Slavonic' usage things. The Greek usage does not mention the Arch hierarch but the local Archbishop. While the Slavonic usage makes frequent reference by name of the Arch hierarch in the ektenias as well as the local Hierarch.

cool
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/29/11 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Peter J
At the parish I usually attend (Melkite) the priest commemorates Archbishop Cyril, Patriarch Gregory, and Pope Benedict.

Now, I don't remember where, but somewhere I've heard that the traditional practice is actually for the parish priest to commemorate only his own bishop. I.e. only the bishop commemorates other bishops. (Can anyone confirm this?)

I don't think we are ready to return to that traditional (assuming it is) practice. However, I wonder if a compromise would be possible: Namely, to commemorate not only the Melkite Patriarch and the Roman Patriarch, but all the Catholic Patriarches. It seems like that would make a lot more sense than commemorating some but not others.


You need to be very specific about what you mean when you say commemorate. The Russian instructions say that a priest shoudl commemorate the bishop who ordained him (and anyone else he wants to) in the proskomedia.

This is quite distinct from who is commemorated in the ektenias during the liturgy, matins, vespers etc. In Russian practice I know of these are NOT up to the priest or deacon (or at least, there are certain petitions they must say and there may be scope to add additional - I assume there are similar official petitions circulated frequently in other jurisdictions, the required form of ours gets updated every couple of years). For those in communion with the Moscow patriarchate, these petitions will include the patriarch of Moscow as well as local hierarchs. In my old Russian Catholic practice the Pope and local latin ordinary were cited, as the stand ins for the proper sui juris hierarchy which doesn't exist.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/29/11 11:55 AM

An additional pointer, in Russian practice ANY bishop present at a liturgy will be mentioned at the Great Entrance in addition to the diocesan bishop. I don't know where the idea that Deacons (since they are doing it) can't do this comes from?
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/30/11 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase

Quote
There's no point to commemorate the other Bishops including other Patriarchs.


And really the Pope in our liturgies. We are in communion with the Pope only through our communion with our Bishop, (through our parish under his rep- the Priest) who is in communion with his Metropolitan, who is communion with his Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope. Now a Metropolitan Church is different in that case the Metropolitan commemorates the Pope.

I think Eastern Catholics can stress the point of "we are in communion with the Pope" to a fault. Really, we should follow the pattern laid out above (which is the Orthodox Practice) but we don't because we don't want to be accused of not being Catholic. Returning to the Orthodox Practice is part of the courage to be ourselves.


CCEO Canon 209 requires the Pope to be commerated.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/30/11 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
An additional pointer, in Russian practice ANY bishop present at a liturgy will be mentioned at the Great Entrance in addition to the diocesan bishop. I don't know where the idea that Deacons (since they are doing it) can't do this comes from?


This is Ruthenian and Melkite practice as well. In fact, bishops present will be commerated in the litanies as well.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/30/11 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
An additional pointer, in Russian practice ANY bishop present at a liturgy will be mentioned at the Great Entrance in addition to the diocesan bishop. I don't know where the idea that Deacons (since they are doing it) can't do this comes from?


This is Ruthenian and Melkite practice as well. In fact, bishops present will be commerated in the litanies as well.


Quite interesting as we in ACROD have always commemorated the Ecumenical Patriarch. I wonder if that is a leftover from Greek Catholic times in place of commemorating the Pope? It could be though that we are part of the 'diaspora' under the EP's omophorion. The Orthodox Church of Greece or the Czech and Slovak lands do not commemorate any non-present hierarch other than their own Bishop. The OCA does not commemorate the MP and in some of their parishes they do not commemorate their Primate, only their local Bishop. (This has nothing to do with any current issues in the OCA, just a point of information.)
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/31/11 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
There's no point to commemorate the other Bishops including other Patriarchs.
And really the Pope in our liturgies. We are in communion with the Pope only through our communion with our Bishop, (through our parish under his rep- the Priest) who is in communion with his Metropolitan, who is communion with his Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope. Now a Metropolitan Church is different in that case the Metropolitan commemorates the Pope.

I think Eastern Catholics can stress the point of "we are in communion with the Pope" to a fault. Really, we should follow the pattern laid out above (which is the Orthodox Practice) but we don't because we don't want to be accused of not being Catholic. Returning to the Orthodox Practice is part of the courage to be ourselves.
CCEO Canon 209 requires the Pope to be commerated.


Just so.

Quote
Canon 209

1. The eparchial bishop must commemorate the Roman Pontiff

before all as a sign of full communion with him in the Divine

Liturgy and the divine praises according to the prescriptions of

the liturgical books and to see to it that it be faithfully done

by the other clergy of the eparchy. 2. The eparchial bishop

must be commemorated by all the clergy in the Divine Liturgy and

the divine praises according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.


It doesn't say that the rest of the Catholic patriarchs must be commemorated ... but that doesn't mean that we couldn't.
Posted By: Pavel Ivanovich

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 05/31/11 01:45 PM

I recall a service at Holy Resurection Monastery (CA) held I think once a year and possibly close to Pascha, where all the heads of the different branches of the Catholic Church were mentioned by name.

cool
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/01/11 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Pavel Ivanovich
I recall a service at Holy Resurection Monastery (CA) held I think once a year and possibly close to Pascha, where all the heads of the different branches of the Catholic Church were mentioned by name.

cool


Good to hear that somebody does it.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/02/11 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by Peter J
It doesn't say that the rest of the Catholic patriarchs must be commemorated ... but that doesn't mean that we couldn't.


What is in the liturgicon? That determines what we could and couldn't do.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/03/11 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Peter J
It doesn't say that the rest of the Catholic patriarchs must be commemorated ... but that doesn't mean that we couldn't.


What is in the liturgicon? That determines what we could and couldn't do.


Isn't it up to Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite synod to determine what's in the Melkite liturgicon (with certain exceptions, like CCEO Canon 209 requiring the Pope to be commemorated)?
Posted By: dochawk

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/04/11 03:41 AM

I've pondered, "and all the Holy Patriarchs," as part of the commemorations--conveniently sidestepping the issue Idaho exactly they are
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/04/11 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Peter J
It doesn't say that the rest of the Catholic patriarchs must be commemorated ... but that doesn't mean that we couldn't.


What is in the liturgicon? That determines what we could and couldn't do.


Isn't it up to Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite synod to determine what's in the Melkite liturgicon (with certain exceptions, like CCEO Canon 209 requiring the Pope to be commemorated)?

Exactly.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/05/11 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Peter J
It doesn't say that the rest of the Catholic patriarchs must be commemorated ... but that doesn't mean that we couldn't.


What is in the liturgicon? That determines what we could and couldn't do.


Isn't it up to Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite synod to determine what's in the Melkite liturgicon (with certain exceptions, like CCEO Canon 209 requiring the Pope to be commemorated)?

Exactly.


I'm glad you agree.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/11/11 03:59 PM

ROCOR requires commeration of Patriarch, Metropolitan, and Bishop.

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2008/5encommemoration.html
Posted By: Pavel Ivanovich

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/12/11 02:03 AM

Just to add to that posting above.

"However in the Sydney, Australia and New Zealand diocese ROCOR wherever the region of the Metropolitan is mentioned one must immediately add: “and Archbishop of Sydney, Australia and New Zealand” and then continue the litany as prescribed.

Archpriest Michael Boikov,
Secretary to the First-Hierarch ROCOR"

cool

Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/12/11 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J

I'm glad you agree.


I do and the last time I checked there weren't commemorations for all the patriarchs in the Melkite Liturgicon.
Posted By: Matta

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/12/11 10:19 PM

Deacon Lance, you are correct.
We commemorate the Pope, the Patriarch, and the eparch or bishop if present.
I believe the non-Byzantine practice of every Melkite celebration commemorating the pope -- i.e., not just the patriarch at the dyptichs -- was "imposed" upon us by Rome. I'd have to check, though.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/15/11 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Matta
Deacon Lance, you are correct.
We commemorate the Pope, the Patriarch, and the eparch or bishop if present.


What if he's not present?
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/15/11 06:43 PM

The translation of the Melkite Liturgy in English that I have read online does not commemorate the Pope of Rome during the Litanies.

Quote
For (our Father and Patriarch Name, if Present) our Father (Arch) Bishop Name, the honorable presbyterate, the diaconate in Christ, and all the clergy and the lay people, let us pray to the Lord.


At the time during the Liturgy after the Consecration the priest says:

Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome,
our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop
N. Graciously bestow them to Your holy Churches in peace,
safety, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word
of Your truth.


So in this way the Pope is remembered in each Divine Liturgy but unlike the Ruthenian Liturgy the Bishop of Rome is not mentioned, at least according to this translation from the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, during the Litanies.

Melkite Divine Liturgy
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/16/11 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
The translation of the Melkite Liturgy in English that I have read online does not commemorate the Pope of Rome during the Litanies.

Quote
For (our Father and Patriarch Name, if Present) our Father (Arch) Bishop Name, the honorable presbyterate, the diaconate in Christ, and all the clergy and the lay people, let us pray to the Lord.


At the time during the Liturgy after the Consecration the priest says:

Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome,
our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop
N. Graciously bestow them to Your holy Churches in peace,
safety, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word
of Your truth.


So in this way the Pope is remembered in each Divine Liturgy but unlike the Ruthenian Liturgy the Bishop of Rome is not mentioned, at least according to this translation from the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, during the Litanies.

Melkite Divine Liturgy


Hi Nelson. I've never been to a Ruthenian liturgy, but my understanding is that they commemorate the Pope multiple times in each liturgy.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/16/11 12:24 PM

In far more effusive terms than do the Melkites.
Posted By: ajk

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/16/11 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
So in this way the Pope is remembered in each Divine Liturgy but unlike the Ruthenian Liturgy the Bishop of Rome is not mentioned, at least according to this translation from the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, during the Litanies.

Originally Posted by StuartK
In far more effusive terms than do the Melkites.
In the 1950-Rome Greek liturgicon the Pope is not mentioned in the litanies either. In the Ruthenian Recension he is ubiquitously referred to as our universal/ecumenical Highpriest/Pontiff, depending on how one might translate the Slavonic. But, speaking of "effusive," and back to the 1950-Rome Greek liturgicon, he is commemorated there, after the epiklesis for instance, as panagiōtatou (a superlative!) Patros hēmōn NAME Papa hRōmēs ( link) -- our all-holiest Father NAME Pope of Rome. The superlatives and effusiveness then continue with varying adjectives for the other hierarchs -- a stylized way of denoting respect, I presume.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/16/11 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J

Hi Nelson. I've never been to a Ruthenian liturgy, but my understanding is that they commemorate the Pope multiple times in each liturgy.


In the Ruthenian Liturgy, the Pope is commerated in the Proskomede, the Great Litany, the Triple Litany, the Diptychs, and the Polychronion.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? - 06/16/11 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by ajk

Originally Posted by StuartK
In far more effusive terms than do the Melkites.
In the 1950-Rome Greek liturgicon the Pope is not mentioned in the litanies either. In the Ruthenian Recension he is ubiquitously referred to as our universal/ecumenical Highpriest/Pontiff, depending on how one might translate the Slavonic. But, speaking of "effusive," and back to the 1950-Rome Greek liturgicon, he is commemorated there, after the epiklesis for instance, as panagiōtatou (a superlative!) Patros hēmōn NAME Papa hRōmēs ( link) -- our all-holiest Father NAME Pope of Rome. The superlatives and effusiveness then continue with varying adjectives for the other hierarchs -- a stylized way of denoting respect, I presume.


1965 Liturgicon: our holy ecumenical Pontiff, N., Pope of Rome

2006 Liturgicon: our holy father, N., Pope of Rome

BDW: His Holiness, N., Pope of Rome and His Beatitude our Holy Patriarch, N.

ACROD Liturgicon: our holy Ecumenical Patriarch, N., Archbishop of Constantinople in Litanies but in the Diptychs: his All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, N., Archbishop of Constantinople
© 2019 The Byzantine Forum