www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Did HB Gregorios III rejected the cardinalate?

A much more balanced commemoration! Our old UGCC prayerbooks had "Naysv." or something akin to "Ever so Most Holy."

Yes, we're real Papists!

Alex

I have read the Code of Canons on the subject of the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff. I have also had ample opportunity to observe what goes on among the Melkites and in the Exarchate in Greece. I have reported my observations accurately. If anyone wants documentary evidence, I have a lovely, complete video-recording of a Melkite Archbishop, in perfectly good standing, serving Pontifical Divine Liturgy in English - there was no mention or commemoration of the Pope at any time in the course of the service.

Contra factum non est argumentum.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

What is required and what occurs are often two different things. You stated only the hierarchs are bound to use it, that is incorrect. The CCEO requires all bishops and priests to commemorate the Holy Father.

That you have observed this not happening among the Melkites and Greeks, I do not doubt. In the US, however, I have observed Melkites commemorating the Pope in the dyptychs alone. In fact, Bishop John Elya had this pecular remark about it:
"You are right also that we commemorate the Pope of Rome only once, namely at the end of the Anaphora. However, the exact mandated translation is 'First, Lord, remember His Holiness N. Pope of Rome, His Beatitude � etc.' Regardless of linguistic or historic pretexts, 'Among the first' translation has been repeatedly prohibited by me, as Melkite Eparch, and by my predecessors. I consider persisting in using 'among the first�' in our Melkite churches in America as an open defiance to legitimate authority."

Now the pittsburgh Metropolia has used and continues to use: "Among the first O Lord..." What the fuss is I don't understand.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Where is this documented? Rome=Who in particular?

So, instead of Korolevsky following the mandate to produce an authentic Ruthenian usage, he instead composed on his own the wording in question? What then was the correct form that should have been found as the true Ruthenian usage?

Dn. Anthony

Fr. Deacon Anthony,


In the comments accompanying the recognitio of the RDL, so I was told.

Rome=Oriental Congregation=Archimandrite Robert Taft, I suppose.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thank you Fr. Deacon Lance.

I wonder, however, who has it right: 'Rome who required " Holy Ecumenical Pontiff" be dropped from the RDL and replaced with "Holy Father" citing that "Ecumenical" is a title belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of New Rome (Constantinople) ",' or V. Lossky who says (In the Image and Likeness of God, p 174-5 in the 2001 edition):



Without having the precise wording and documentation from "Rome" we can only be left wondering.

Dn. Anthony

Fr. Serge,
Bless.

I would like to see the Melkite video out of sheer love of the Melkite Church! How can I see the English Divine Liturgy?

Dear Father Deacon Anthony,

Initially, only the Metropolitan/Primate commemorated the Pope of Rome and his bishops commemorated their Metropolitan.

Later traditions, buoyed by the Synod of Zamoysk, increased the number to the point where the Pope was commemorated each time the hierarchy was.

The UGCC argues over things like whether to refer to the Pope as "our" or not.

Some of our parishes say "our" and others do not.

Alex

sorry, but did HB Gregorios III reject the red hat or not?

I scrolled through this thread (quickly), did I miss it?

herb

Wow Todd. Every day I see you posting about how you want to change the Catholic Church so that she no longer resembles herself. I still ask, why don't you become Eastern Orthodox? I don't want you to leave but your faith is not that of the Catholic Church. It just seems you would be happier with the Greeks.

E&W,

I don't see how that quote from Todd shows him as any less Catholic than you or I..

Dear East and West,

Actually, Todd's views are shared by a number of EC's I know and even clergy.

The sobering reality is that if the Unions of Brest and Florence and the others had never taken place, Rome today would definitely reject any group of Eastern Orthodox approaching it seeking a separate union with it.

And Todd's perspective underlines the whole principle of the Particularity of the EC Churches.

We are not under Rome in the same way the Latin Catholic Church is. Why do the EC Churches need to participate in an internal Latin Church affair to select their own Pope?

We would still be in communion with him.

I personally agree that the EC's should be present at a Conclave.

But I can see Todd's point as well.

Either can be defended as fully Catholic.

BTW, I can see the "West" in your online moniker; Is the "East" going to raise its head any time soon?

Alex

Dear Dr. Alex,

I'm not sure that Rome would reject individual groups from approaching if Brest and Florence hadn't taken place - it seems to me that Rome has changed its approach after seeing how Brest and Florence (and other partial Unions), however well intentioned, had undesired consequences. I suppose hindsight is 20/20.. and willingness to change is a gift of grace.

(as an aside, I wonder if this will cause any problems in the situation of Mar Bawai, where he and his group wish to be Chaldean Catholic and are not ACotE any longer.. they seem to be in an awkward in-between state at the moment)

Dear Dr Michael,

Yes, one never knows what Rome means exactly or is about on this score.

In the case of the Ruthenian/Ukrainian Churches, I think Rome wished it could have avoided the problems with Russian Orthodoxy by just simply leaving well enough alone.

It would then be removed from the embarassment of having small EC Particular Churches as Patriarchates while having to deny the UGCC official recognition as such for various (ost-political?) reasons.

The ten top reasons why the UGCC can't be a patriarchate:

10) It is too big by comparison to the other EC Churches, the bureaucracy it would need would be enormous;

9) It never had a patriarchate before (even though Vatican II mad allowance that such could be established where there was a need)

8) The UGCC doesn't need a patriarchate;

7) Who cares what Vatican II said about it?

6) Ukrainians don't like to submit to authority - it is enough when they submit to Rome (but do they?);

5) Major Archbishops are equal to Patriarchs, the Primate of the UGCC is a Major Archbishop, what more do the Ukies want?

4) The Ukrainians say they already have a Patriarchate - so Rome's job is done after all!

3) If a UGCC patriarchate is affirmed, there will always be the argument "Did Rome establish it, or did it just acknowledge what the UGCC established?" If the latter answer gives sway, Rome will be seriously dissed.

2) UGCC can't have a patriarchate because so many of their countrymen are Orthodox;

1) The UGCC can't have a patriarchate because Cardinal Casper says it can't!

Alex