www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mitered Archpriests

This is a continuation of the discussion concerning married bishops.

I have heard it suggested that Anglican bishop converts to Orthodox receive the honor of being "mitered archpriests," since a married man cannot serve as a bishop.

Apparently the Russian Church has made use of this office when not enough black/monastic clergy were available for filling empty episcopal sees. So they set up a married priest with a mitre.

Does anyone know of the tradition of mitered archpriests in Russia? Are they allowed to function like bishops?

I also met an Antiochan Orthodox monastic archmandrite and dean who told me that although he was not a bishop, the canons of the Antiochans allowed him to ordain priests and deacons with permission of the bishop. Ever heard of this? Presbyteral ordination?

in Christ,
Marshall

A Mitred Archpriest cannot serve in the manner of a bishop, but an Mitred Archimandrite can, in varying degrees - this seems to have been one of Patriarch Nicon's innovations. Incognitus

That is a very interesting story, Marshall. Archpriest is really an honorific title.

Mitred archpriests have nothing whatsoever to do with the Nikonian reforms. The family chaplain of Catherine II, Ivan Pamfilov, was the first mitred archpriest, upon order of the Empress to set him aside as such, in the 1780s as I recall.

It appears Catherine did not want her self-picked and much loved priest-confessor Fr. Ivan to be outdone by the archimandrites and bishops at the Kremlin, and thus she felt he deserved a bit more finery. Fr. Ivan was generally known as a troublemaker, and was somewhat anti-monstic and anti-hierarchy. Metropolitan Platon was told by the Empress basically to do the blessing of the mitre and set him aside, get over it, and later more married archpriests were also awarded the mitre.

Really the only difference is that the archpriest can wear the mitre and wear the epigonation. Other than that he serves the Liturgy as any other priest. He does not bless with a dikery/trikery as the Bishop. If other priests are present he would be the ecclesiarch or ranking clergy for those parts of the Liturgy properly taken by the ranking priest.

At least in the Slavic tradition, an archimandrite or archpriest can, with the blessing of the bishop, perform the tonsure of a reader if for some extraordinary reason the bishop cannot come. But that is only for "minor orders", not the ordination of a deacon or priest.

Mitred Archpiests were also employed in the Balkans during the Ottoman occupation due to a similar shortage of bishops. My own Great, Great, Great Grandfather on my mother's side, Papa Lambro (Harralambi) served thus until he was shot down by the Turks while on a journey.

They served the many administrative and financial responsibilities of a bishop, but did not ordain or serve as bishops. In that sense, they kept the diocesan structures alive and functioning properly during a difficult era.

In Christ,
Andrew

As I understand it (and I stand to be corrected), in the Greek etc. southern Byzantine traditions, the Archpriests are not mitred?

If so do they were a purple Kamelavka?

If not, how do you tell them apart from the "regular Joe" presbyters.

Herb

In the Slavic tradition, they clearly were a purple Kamelavka.

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
From my understanding, the Mitred Archpriest is similar to the Syriac Chorbishop.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Herb:

Forgive me, but some Archpriests in the "Slavic" (as you put it) tradition do indeed wear a mitre in the style of a bishop's mitre. My parish's current pastor and his predecessor had this hoor bestowed upon them. This is the highest order of priestly honors.

There is indeed, however, a lower honor where it the priest would wear a purple kamilavka or, more commonly, a purple kovpak.

Any priest so honored, mitred or not, wears a nadberdnyk.

Yours,

hal

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Halychanyn:
[QB] Dear Herb:

Forgive me, but some Archpriests in the "Slavic" (as you put it) tradition do indeed wear a mitre in the style of a bishop's mitre. My parish's current pastor and his predecessor had this hoor bestowed upon them. This is the highest order of priestly honors.


This is not correct. The mitred archpriest wears a mitre that largely looks like an episcopal mitre EXCEPT the latter has a cross on it whereas the mitre of an archpriest does not: this is the key difference and how one may tell them apart.

While on this topic, we could discuss the various aesthetic crimes committed against humanity in these latter days by fold-up mitres, mitres with icons that look like Disney characters, and other horrors too unspeakable for polite company!....

dear Hal:

thanks very much for your reply, but my question was not whether Slavic Byzantine Archpriests may or may not be granted a mitra. That has been established since Catherine the Great - as Diak has said.

My question is, what do the Greek and other "southern" (like Melkite-Antiochian) Byzantine Archpriests wear (headgear-wise), if they don't wear either a Mitra. Or do they wear a purple Kamelavka? If not what headgear distinguishes them from "regular-Joe" presbyters.

thanks.

Herb

In "Greek" (used loosely; includes Greek, Arabs, etc) practice, there is no headgear to distinguish protopresbyters and archpriests and "regular" presbyters. All priests can wear a black brimmed kalimavkion. The color does not change, since colors don't equal rank in this view. Archimandrites, of course, would wear an epikalimavkion (a veil) over their kalimavkion (combined, called a "klobuk" in Slavic parlance). Since all priests in the "Greek" tradition are not given the honor of wearing a pectoral cross, high ranking priests are often given the honor of wearing a cross. The bestowal of an epigonation (palitsa) is also another distinguishing external item.

This is at least what I am familiar with.

Dave

Do Orthodox bishops other than those in Russia and Greece wear mitres that look like Byzantine crowns?

I think that Antiochans wear black hoods instead. Is this right?

in Christ,
Marshall

dear Dave:

thanks! That clears it up!

By the way, since you raised it...

Where do "protopresbyters" and "protopopes" fit into the Archpriest/Archimandrite schema.

And what about those "Canons"? The only people that seem to have them (commonly at any rate) are the Ukrainians and the Anglicans. What's that all about? (Obviously we know about Cathedral Canons and Canons Regular - who are fairly rare in my own experience at any rate.)

Herb

ps: Marshall,
Those black hoods are the epano-kamilavkions that Dave was referring to. In the slavic tradition, the black hood combined with the black hat are together called a "klobuk". And Yes, you are quite correct, that Antiochians and [everyone else for that matter (i.e. all Byzantine monastics)] wear them.

Marshall, all bishops of the Byzantine tradition wear mitres like crowns. If not fully vested, and they are monks, they may wear a klobuk with a veil.

If wearing a mitre, they will also be wearing (usually) a great or small omophorion as well. As Adam correctly pointed out, archpriests and also archimandrites don't get crosses on top of their mitres as bishops do.

The Armenians have a unique tradition where some priests like vartopeds wear crown-like mitres but the bishops wear triangular mitres similar to the Latins but wider and usually more ornate.

Adam, you forgot the inflatable mitres...

Herb, protopresbyter is now usually not related to archpriest, although at one time they were generally synonomous.

The Protopresbyter among both Greek Catholics and the Orthodox is another honorific title, and usually implies a higher administrative position such as the equivalent of a college/seminary dean, a chancellor of an eparchy or some other visible administrative position as appointed by the Bishop.

Archpriest can be strictly honorific without any additional administrative duties attached.

Small correction...

Among Eastern Catholics as per the CCEO, A Protopresbyter is synonomous with a Dean or Vicar Forane in the Latin Church and is an office and not a permanent honorary title like Archpriest. I believe this is also true of the Greek Orthodox, whereas the Russians, as Subdeacon Randolph stated, reserve it for rectors and such.

The title of Canon, on the otherhand were adopted by the Ukrainian, Ruthenian, and Armenian Catholic Churches but again the CCEO has disallowed titles of honor of one Church being used by another. So technically there should be no more Eastern honorary Canons.

In Christ,
Fr. Deacon Lance