www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Is Metropolitan Basil required to receive the pallium?

Dear friends,

As you may recall, a month or so ago we discussed whether or not our new Metropolitan would be required to receive the pallium in Rome, as Metropolitans of the Latin Church are required to do. This has in the past been something of a thorny subject, as the reception of the pallium by Metropolitan Judson annoyed the Patriarch of Constantinople, who expressed his disapproval.

According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, eastern metropolitans are required to receive the pallium from the Pope before they can assume the functions proper to a Metropolitan, such as convening the Council of Hierarchs. This situation is very awkward, and is not in keeping with Eastern ecclesiology. What it essentially meant was that an Eastern Metropolitan who is head of a Sui Iurus Church had to fly to Rome and receive a Roman liturgical vestment that he would never wear in order to be able to serve his Church as its head.

Lance posted a rumor that Rome has decided to no longer confer the pallium on Eastern Metropolitans, which would frankly be a big step forward. Has anyone heard the latest on this?

Check out this bulletin from the Vatican. Please note who is NOT on this list! Was the rumor that Lance heard correct?

27-Jun-2002 -- Vatican Information Service

METROPOLITAN ARCHBISHOPS TO RECEIVE THE PALLIUM ON SATURDAY
VATICAN CITY, JUN 27, 2001 (VIS) - Twenty eight metropolitan archbishops will receive the pallium from the hands of Pope John Paul II, on Saturday June 29 - Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, Apostles - at 6 p.m. in St. Peter's Square. The new metropolitans are:

1. Archbishop Jean-Pierre Kutwa, S.D.B, of Gagnoa, Ivory Coast.

2. Archbishop Emiliuis Goulet, P.S.S., of Saint-Boniface, Canada.

3. Archbishop John Joseph Myers of Newark, United States.

4. Archbishop Williams Joseph Kurtz, S.V.D, of Madang, Papua New Guinea.

5. Archbishop Eusebio Oscar Scheid, S.C.I., of Sao Sebastiao do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

6. Archbishop Mariadas Kagithapu, M.S.F.S., of Visakhapatnam, India.

7. Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff, Gales.

8. Archbishop Eurico dos Santos Veloso of Juiz de Fora, Brazil.

9. Archbishop Philip Edward Wilson of Adelaide, Australia.

10. Archbishop Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux, France.

11. Archbishop Peter Kwasi Sarpong of Kumasi, Ghana.

12. Archbishop Antonio Jos� L�pez Castrillo of Calabozo, Venezuela.

13. Archbishop Alfred Clifton Hughes of New Orleans, United States.

14. Archbishop Angelo Scola, patriarch of Venice, Italy.

15. Archbishop Carlos Osoro Sierra of Oviedo, Spain.

16. Archbishop Mario Joseph Conti of Glasgow, Scotland.

17. Archbishop Geraldo Lyrio Rocha of Vitoria da Conquista, Brazil.

18. Archbishop Itamar Navildo Vian O.F.M. Cap, of Feira de Santana, Brazil.

19. Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz of Mother of God in Moscow, Russian Federation.

20. Archbishop Murilo Sebastiao Ramos Krieger, S.C.I, of Florian�polis, Brazil.

21. Archbishop Diego Rafael Padr�n S�nchez of Cumana, Venezuela.

22. Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki of Poznan, Polond.

23. Archbishop Francisco Gil Hell�n of Burgos, Spain.

24. Archbishop Lukas Sirkar, S.D.B., of Calcutta, India.

25. Archbishop Anthony G. Meagher of Kingston, Canada.

26. Archbishop Washington Cruz, C.P., of Goiania, Brazil.

27. Archbishop Salvatore Gristina of Catania, Italy.

28. Archbishop Eustaquio Pastor Cuquejo Verga, C.SS.R., of Asunci�n, Paraguay.

In addition to these twenty eight, the following metropolitans will receive the pallium in their respective sees: Archbishop Andr� Richard, C.S.C., of Moncton, Canada and Archbishop Juan Garc�a Rodr�guez, of Camag�ey, Cuba.

----
Thanks,
Anthony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dragani:
[QB]Dear friends,

>>>As you may recall, a month or so ago we discussed whether or not our new Metropolitan would be required to receive the pallium in Rome, as Metropolitans of the Latin Church are required to do. This has in the past been something of a thorny subject, as the reception of the pallium by Metropolitan Judson annoyed the Patriarch of Constantinople, who expressed his disapproval.<<<

If the experience of Metropolitan Judson is used as the precedent, then the Pope will simply hand him the Pallium, and not impose it upon him. However, the Pope has pursued a policy of enhancing the prestige and independence of Eastern Catholic primates. For instance, he no longer even hands to Pallium to the patriarchs of the various Catholic Churches; he may decide to follow a similar path with the heads of other ecclesiae sui juris.

Anthony,

Pope John Paul II simply handed the pallium to the late Metropolitan Judson as a symbol of communion at a special Byzantine vesper service in the papal chapel and the Vatican News Service report. I suspect the Holy Father would have presented it to Metropolitan Judson in the identical way as the Holy Father presents it to the new Roman Catholic bishops if it were not for the objection of the Ecumenical Patriarch who asked the pope to start treating Eastern Catholics as an example of he would treat the Orthodox when full communion someday achieved. My understanding is the various Vatican bureaucrats were confused about the whole issue but saw the EP�s point.

Regarding the list, my guess is that the reason Metropolitan-Elect Basil�s name is not on it is simply because he will not enthroned as metropolitan until after this service on June 29th. We will probably have to wait until next year to see what happens. I admit mixed feelings on this. I have no problems with the pallium being given as a symbol of communion but my preference would be that it be given by an Eastern patriarch since we are not currently in communion with our own patriarch (the Patriarch of Constantinople). Once communion is re-established with the rest of Orthodoxy the EP would restore the traditional Byzantine custom.

Admin

Friends, I think the above quoted portion of that post is very reasonable. I mean we know how Rome is legalistic, how could the pope give a symbol of an office that is not yet occupied? BASIL is still bishop of Parma until he is installed/enthroned/elevated as Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh. There are simply no two ways about it as far as I have heard.

Bob

Other Archbishop-designates were excluded for the same reason, for example, soon-to-be-Archbishop Dolan of Milwaukee.

Dear Dragani,

The pallium as a liturgical item is universally Orthodox seeing that it was mentioned in the early 4th century in the undivied Church. However, the pallium carries so much symbolism in the later western tradition that I can see why it might be "thorny". Originally (I think) it was a gift of the pope to show his pleasure and appreciation toward a certain metropolitan. Perhaps if the pallium were viewed as a gift of benevolence and friendship rather than as a conferral of rights, there would be no problem.

Officially, in the Roman perspective, does anything canonical happen at the reception of the pallium? Does the reception of the item actually confer metropolitan status or does the bishop-to-be-metropolitan have it already? Or could it be viewed as a token appreciation gift? After all, it is a contact relic from the body of St Peter - pretty neat! Thanks for the interesting thread.

yours in Christ,
Marshall

>>>The pallium as a liturgical item is universally Orthodox seeing that it was mentioned in the early 4th century in the undivied Church.<<<

The Pallium originated as a symbol of imperial authority, which was adopted by the Church as a sign of episcopal authority. But it was never imposed upon any one bishop by another--a candidate was simply vested with it at his consecration, which was always carried out by three of the bishops of his metropolitan province.


>>>However, the pallium carries so much symbolism in the later western tradition that I can see why it might be "thorny". Originally (I think) it was a gift of the pope to show his pleasure and appreciation toward a certain metropolitan. Perhaps if the pallium were viewed as a gift of benevolence and friendship rather than as a conferral of rights, there would be no problem.<<<

The notion of the Pallium being given by the Bishop of Rome to all the bishops within the Patriarchate of the West was suggested to Pope Gregory the Great by the future St. Augustine of Canterbury. The purpose was to bind the many different bishops of the politically fragmented West to the Bishop of Rome. This was seen as necessary due to the imperfect evangelization of the various Germanic tribes, and the residual presence of Arianism among the Goths and Lombards. By implication the reception of the Pallium from the hands of the Bishop of Rome had the effect of making the bishops of the West his vassals. Not precisely Caeseropapism, but more Papo-Caesarism.

Dear friends,

Thank you for your contributions and thoughts on this topic. If Metropolitan Basil is not receiving the pallium yet because he has not been officially enthroned, I do not think it is reasonable for him to have to wait a whole year to receive it. Why? Because according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, our Metropolitan is unable to ordain bishops or convene the Council of Hierarchs until he has received the pallium.

As was previously posted by Lance, the CCEO states in Title VI:

Canon 156-�1. Within three months after episcopal ordination or, if already ordained a bishop, after the enthronement, the metropolitan is bound by the obligation to petition the pallium from the Roman Pontiff, which is a sign of his metropolitan power and full communion of the metropolitan Church sui iuris with the Roman Pontiff.

�2. Prior to the imposition of the pallium, the metropolitan cannot convoke the council of hierarchs or ordain bishops.

If he must wait another year, in some respects our Church will be in "limbo" on certain issues until he receives it. This doesn't seem to be either reasonable or likely. Either a special arrangement will have to be made for him to receive it individually, or it is no longer required. Which do you think it is?

Anthony

I wouldn't worry too much about this. After all, the day after Bishop Basil is enthroned as Metropolitan Archbishop he will be one of three bishops who will ordain Archpriest John to the episcopacy.

We all of us have been rather stupid, haven't we? Bishop Basil will NOT receive the Pallium from Pope John Paul II for one very simple reason--HE'S ALREADY GOT ONE. Metropolitan Judson received the Pallium (handed to him, not put over his head) because he was ordained Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh. Prior to that, he was merely a priest. Bishop Basil is not being ordained, just installed. So, no Pallium.

the whole discussion of palium or not is useless...YES, Metropolitan Basil will receive the palium...not now of course because he is NOT the Metropolitan. The palium is conferred upon reigning archbishops. Don't we have better things to discuss than western vestments and acoutrements?
The palium us purely symbolic at this point...we should be talking about the status of sui iuris....what does this mean? Why do we have a council of hierarchs (what the heck does that means???) and not a Holy Synod???? We got a long way to go yet...why waste time on the palium? If Metropolitan Basil wants one, I am sure he can borrow it from the collection of +Metropolitan Judson of blessed memory.

Stuart,
Basil wears the omophorion as a bishop, not a pallium. Although the two may share a common origin, they are two distinct liturgical vestments. All Byzantine bishops including metropolitans and patriarchs wear the omophorion. I believe the number of bars at the bottom of the omophorion denotes the rank. Only metropolitan archbishops wear the pallium and only within their own metropolitan province, except for the pope.

Thus at his enthronement as metropolitan, Basil will probably be invested with a new omophorion to denote his new rank and jurisdiction.