www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eastern Monsignors? Was: New Bishop Named for Chicago Eparchy

.

Hello:

In the Latin Church, it is proper to call "Monsignor" anyone with any title "above" that of parish priest.

Additionally, there are Latin honorary titles that bear the explicit right to the "Monsignor" appelative. There is no rule that says that these titles are reserved exclusively for Latin clerics.

An example of this would be my own parish priest.

Fr. Bill is a Maronite Catholic. In fact, he is a Maronite Chor-Bishop. Additionally, he is a Monsignor in the Latin Church, and actually heads a Latin parish.

This might also be the case with Fr. Richard, Bishop-Elect of Chicago.

Shalom,
Memo.

"Requirement" by the individual prelate of calling him by his proper title is hardly the point. Patriarch Husar is, by right and by Rite, a Patriarch and should be referred to by this title by members of his flock.

With regard to the Stations of the Cross, just becasue the Orthodox in Ukraine do something doesn't make it right, either. As I mentioned above, there is a service in the Byzantine Rite called the Akafist to Christ's Passion. There is also something called the Passiya which I personally am not familiar with (and, as I recall, discussed on another thread).

Finally, accepting the premise that the Archbishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West properly (i.e. theologically and under church law) "functions as the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Catholic Church" - does this mean he is allowed to overrule a sui juris Patriarch and his Synod? It just seems to me that too many people buy into the "Roman Empire" model of church governance (with an Emperor at its head) as opposed to the Greek "City-State" model that is more (albeit not completely) practiced in the Christian East. This, of course, is just my humble opinion and others may think the Roman model superior.

Furthermore, yes, I wear my small-o orthodoxy on my sleeve - and with great pride. But strike me down if I ever take to ad hominum attacks and disrespect someone anyone else's views. For I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Finally, back to the topic at hand of Eastern Monsignors. It very well may be that this is an honorary title bestowed upon an individual priest by the Pope (there, I said it - happy??) and that it is probably (in the absence of direction from his bishop) up to the individual priest whether to use it publicly. Example: my late grandfather was always addressed as a "Very Rev. Cannon." Similarly, my late great uncle was always a "Rt. Rev. Mitred Archpriest." Why? Becasue they quitely made it known that they did not want a Latin title. Some may scoff at this as being too sensitive or whatever, but many of us always saw it as just another expression of our holding on to something that we dear to us. In short, give me a pectoral cross and a Nadberdnyk over red buttons on a cassok any day.

By way of a possible solution, perhaps the Ordinaries of the individual eparchies should see clear to consider bestowing honorary Eastern titles upon its clergy anbd, by so doing, aleviate the need for Rome to feel the need to bestow Monsignor-hoods.

Yours,

kl

David is correct that the title of Monsignor is awarded by the pope as a title of honor and, once awarded, can be justly used by that individual. The issue here is not that the individual has such a title but that the use of such titles is a Latin Catholic practice for Latin Catholics. Rome itself is on record that Eastern Catholic clergy should not be given titles normally reserved for Latin Catholic clergy. In the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church the custom of granting the title �monsignor� was once common but about 10 years ago it was stopped. The correct title now given to priests is that of �archpriest� (with or without mitre). There are still a number of older priests who retain the title �monsignor� and I see nothing wrong with allowing them to continue to use it (although I think that the pastoral thing to do would to make them all archpriests). Additionally, the term is used in other languages as a common reference to a bishop (or anyone so honored with the title specifically). I have had a prayer card for many years that I got at the cathedral in Passaic, NJ (the area surrounding our cathedral there has many Americans of Hispanic origin). It identifies the bishop of Passaic (in Spanish) as �Monsignor Michael J. Dudick�.

David is also correct that the pope has many titles. There is nothing wrong with using his various titles. 95% of the time he acts only as Patriarch of Rome speaking to the Western Church. The use of the title �Patriarch of Rome� helps people to understand that this. It is no way a denial of his role as successor of Peter. The title �Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Catholic Church� is unknown in the East, probably because it does not reflect the first among equals view of the role of Peter. I do not think that not using the title �Supreme Pontiff� in any way is either ignorant or spiteful. The use of this term by Byzantines is definitely a latinization. [In the liturgy we purposely retain the use of the term �ecumenical patriarch� since it identifies that our patriarch should be the patriarch of Constantinople and will be when full communion is someday re-established.]

I think that Krylos Leader has raised several interesting points for discussion.

The weekdays of the Great Fast are aliturgical. This means that no Divine Liturgy should be celebrated on these days (the feast of the Annunciation is an exception). The fact that his parish seems to have both morning Divine Liturgies during the Fast and evening Presanctified Liturgies is not in accordance with our liturgical tradition. I have seen Ruthenian parishes that celebrate Divine Liturgies on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays during the Great Fast but I have never seen a regularly schedule morning Divine Liturgy and evening Presanctified on the same day.

On the other issues KL raised, I am not worried about the use of the term �Epiphany� instead of �Theophany�. The terms are used interchangeably throughout Byzantine Orthodoxy. In a similar way most Byzantines use the term �Christmas� instead of �Nativity�. Also, I�m not concerned about the lack of the use of the term �patriarch�. I support the formal recognition of the Patriarchate in Ukraine but since His Beatitude does not use the term to describe himself one cannot judge others who choose not to use the term.

Since the liturgical life of the bishop-elect�s parish is Latin leaning it is a fair question to ask if the bishop-elect will lead an effort to restore a more authentic liturgical life in the parishes of his eparchy.

Admin,
While you say, "the title �Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Catholic Church� is unknown in the East, probably because it does not reflect the first among equals view of the role of Peter" and it is most likely true. We as Catholics must still recognize this fact, just as we must follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

I do not think that using the Holy Father's other titles is ignorate and spiteful unless one uses them in an attempt to down play the Holy Father's role as Pope. Which is what I think was being done earlier in this thread.

Like it or not, we are Catholics and until such a time as reunion we must follow all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

David

I find this an interesting topic. What it seems to involve is the the bestowal of honors within a particular church, but also the bestowal of honors 'across' churches.

Ideally, our clergy who have shown heroic and self-less vigor in both serving the people and in building up the Church, should be recognized by their own bishops or their own synods. The title is a "nice-nice", but as we know, those who truly earned the honor usually don't care one way or the other -- they just keep on serving. A few others just love the honorifics and have no hesitation in both using them and insisting that others use them.

I suspect strongly that the bestowal of honorifics by the Holy See is mediated through the structure of the individual church/diocese. That is, no Byzantine priest would be given the honor without the complicity of the relevant bishop or synod. It seems that the 'structure' would send out solicitation letters to every bishop for nominees who would then forward them on to the Holy See in Rome. I don't think that "Rome" would just seek out folks for honors without the approbation of the hierarch/synod.

As for these honors, it would be best if the bishop were to himself bestow honors and "titles" on those who are most worthy. But, I guess it's more "significant" if the honors come from the Mother-Ship at the Patriarchal level. But, without patriarchates for Byzantines, I guess it's Rome.

I think it is wonderful that the Patriarch of Constantinople has seen fit to bestow the title of Archimandrite upon Fr. Robert Taft, scholar-extraordinaire of the Byzantine and Eastern Churches. Even though Fr. Bob is a Jesuit, New England Province stationed at the Orientale in Rome, his wonderful work is a service to the faithful of the East. So, his "right" to the title perforce of his work, is unquestioned. It comes from outside "his own church", but then, -- who cares. I see the same for the title of "domestic prelate" (=monsignor) bestowed by the Holy Father himself (well, by his bureaucratic minions) for work well done.

I think it best just to accept the reality of the honor bestowed by whatever patriarch or synod or bishop; and rejoice that one of our own has received the honor. American citizens have been knighted by Elizabeth II of Great Britain; other Americans have been honored by various governments in France, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal. Let's just rejoice in their accomplishments and their recognition. For our people, I just hope that it doesn't include the syncretism of wearing red cassocks or red buttons or feathers or whatever. Perhaps a simple ring would be a nice universal symbol.

Blessings, y'all.

John, Ethnarch of Fairfax, Hellene of Bailey's Crossroads, Prime Analogue of Arcadian Pastorality in Exile, Cuisinier Extraordinaire, Guardian of the Remote, Master of Science, Master of Divinity-not-the-fudge, Doctor of Philosophy, Honorary Ruthenian, Friend of Ukraine, etc., etc.

I thank the Administrator for his support. Yet I continue to be accused of being "ignorant and spiteful" in my desire to stress the point that the Synod of the UGCC, as headed by its Patriarch should be the sole arbitor of candidates to its own episcopate - wherever in the world the seat of the particular bishop may be.

As for following the "dogmas" of the Catholic church in all things, does this mean my parish is committing heresy when it refers to December 8(22) as the "Feast of the Conception of St. Anne when She Begat the the Most Holy Theotokos and Most Pure Virgin Mary" and not the "Immaculate Conception?" By the way, we also omit the filloque and finish the Great Vespers with "Lord strengthen the orthodox faith for ages onto ages." Should we just resign ourselves to our eternal fate in the underworld now and stop pretending to be followers of Christ along with the other millions of Orthodox (big-O)?

As for the new Vladyka, I admit I am allowing my secular profession get in the way here, but his statement that he would like to "restore" Eastern Traditions would never hold up under cross-examination. As the Administrator properly points out (not that he needs my approval of anything), the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on Wednesdays and Fridays of the Great Fast raises serious issues. Of course, individual parishes will most likely continue to do what they will - but that's a thread for another day.

Finally, I will throw out one more issue. Does anyone know of the Vladyka-elect's command of the Ukrainian language? I only ask this becasue of the recent flood of new immigrants to the 'States from Ukraine (both Orthodox and Greek-Catholic - but that's still another thread) who are taking part in parish life all over the Western 2/3 of the U.S. and still have a desire to hear the Gospel preached in their native tounge and, franly, do not have that good a command of English yet. One would expect a bishop to be able to communicate with all of his people.

Yours,

kl

In a sense, we Latin's are cheated because our patriarch is always distracted by “Pontifical” stuff!

Seriously though, I love the Pope, and every Pope we've had in my lifetime. Sometimes I like to refer to him as the bishop of Rome, for me it's a term of endearment, not at all an attack. Something like emphasizing his responsibility by way of contrast. A simple bishop with awesome responsibilities, he is my pastor and my shepherd.

I can see the sense where referring to him in such a way might be calculated as a subtle criticism or construed in a negative sense but I usually ignore it.

Peace
Michael, sinner

Me thinks that Dr. John has taken the Fast a bit too far and has become a bit light-headed from the lack of nutrition. I think that a peanut butter sandwich is needed pronto!

--

David,

I�m sorry but I didn�t see any purposeful attempt to downplay the Holy Father�s role in this thread. In fact, any suggestion that his role should be altered is fair since the Holy Father has asked the East to help him redefine his role in a future reunited Church. I don�t see where anything anyone has posted suggests that Eastern Catholics should not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I also don�t see the non-use of the title �Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Catholic Church� to be un-Catholic in any way. Titles are not dogmas. When the Holy Father refers to the Mary as �Our Lady of the Rosary� he does not imply disrespect because he has not used the greater title bestowed on her is �Theotokos�.

Admin

Well I think I am done playing these games.

KL,

I think you are being too harsh on the new bishop-elect.

First, on the use of the term �patriarch� I noticed that in official reference he uses the term His Beatitude himself tends to use (�His Beatitude Lubomyr Cardinal Husar�). Second, in his �Pastor�s Corner� letter he does refer to the �Patriarchal Divine Liturgy�.

Also, all Byzantine parishes in the greater Pittsburgh area seem a bit slower in the process to restore more authentic traditions than are the parishes in the rest of the country (must be all that snow they get). If the parish has the exact same Great Fast liturgical schedule now that it did five years ago then I would agree that no progress is being made. But, if the introduction of the Presanctified Liturgy is something that is recent I can understand a pastoral decision to retain the other latinized devotions and customs and then downplay them each year for 5 or 10 years until they disappear.

I should note in this thread that my hope is that all Byzantine Catholics in the United States join together to form a single ecclesial jurisdiction with our own patriarch here.

Admin

Of course, Admin., you are more than correct when you say that progress is the name of the game here and as we all know, de-latinization (if that is indeed our goal) is a slow process. I accept and humbly agree with the suggestion that an iron-handed "we will do everything strictly by the Byzantine book" approach would not be a good thing.

As for a Byzantine Catholic Patriarch for North America, I sence in your post that you believe that we would probably have to "get over the ethnic thing" before that could happen. Much, of course, will depend upon immigration patterns, etc., but I agree that a united sui juris Byzantine Catholic Church of North America would have the potential of better serving the spiritual needs of those of us with an American mentality and provide a more attractive place for converts and those wishing to change Rites.

Yours,

kl

Dear Mr. Esteemed Administrator, Sir,

I think I argee with your point that Patriarch Lubomyr does not use the title himself, but goes around serving his flock. It is also true that the autority of most recognized Patriarchs is geographically limited to the "old country". I think that the Slavic Byzantine Church throughout the world should have a single Patriarch, rather than separate "national" Patriarchs.

I thought that the Byzantine Catholic liturgy utilised the term "Ecumenical Pontiff" rather than "Ecumenical Patriarch".

Mor Ephrem is correct. It is the term "ecumencial" which I mean to refer to belonging in our liturgical text. I should not have included the term "patriarch". The title "ecumenical" is retained because our patriarch should be the Patriarch of Constantinople and not the Patriarch of Rome.

This is actually a good topic for a separate thread. Most of our liturgical books only indicate that we pray for our local bishop (or archbishop). An outline of the development of how the higher ranking patriarchs were added would be interesting.