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

The discussion of the term "ecumenical" in referring to the Roman Pontiff in our liturgical books is an interesting one and, as the Administrator suggests, the development of the commemoration of the "higher hierarchs" in addition to the local bishop would make for an even more interesting discussion. Unfortunately, without having sources in front of me that predate the early 20th/late 19th. centuries makes this difficult at the immediate moment.

I concur with those who have mentioned distaste with the recent innovation of referring to the Pope as "our Holy Father ______" instead of the customary "ecumenical Pontiff" because of its vast deviation from the terminology in the "received texts." If we are to begin using paraphrasing in our translations, then there is much indeed that could be changed to suit the preferences of this or that compiler. The same can be said for the translation "our Bishop _______ loved-by God" instead of the familiar "God-loving Bishop _______".

But, to concentrate on the title of the Roman Pontiff in our liturgy, which is relevant to the discussion here, it can be said that "ecumenical Pontiff" is a faithful translation of our Church Slavonic liturgical books of the past two centuries. In both the Lviv and Roman editions of the liturgikon, the title is "vselenstym archijerei" which translates "ecumenical or universal" and "pontiff or hierarch." This continuity is also maintained in other editions which make use of the Latin alphabet rather than the Cyrillic, including the "Velikyj Sbornik" published by Blessed Bishop Pavlo P. Gojdich, OSBM, in Prjashev in 1937.

English translations prior to the 1965 Ruthenian editions often used "universal" instead of "ecumenical" but I don't believe that this represents any difference of thought but merely two variant choices in translation. The two English words mean basically the same thing. Without doing extensive research, it could well appear that the name "ecumenical pontiff" is an historical usage in Ruthenian books, dating from the time that the Patriarch of Constantinople would have been commemorated, as suggested by our Administrator. It should be noted that this is the method now used within the ACROGC Diocese, although I would venture to say that their use of it was merely a continuity of familiar practice among the founding clergy, who were accustomed to commemorating the "vselenstym archijerei" when united with Rome whose name was simply replaced with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Interesting also, is the variation of style in commemorations used by the Ruthenian recension as opposed to other usages. In general the Russian recension does not give the same qualitative adjectives before the hierarchs' names as we do (i.e.: "ecumenical pontiff" or "God-loving bishop"), but use rather the hierarch's formal title of address, such as "His Holiness, _______, Patriarch of _______"; His Beatitude, our Metropolitan _______" or "His Grace, our Bishop _______" etc. Personally, I prefer our system which refers to the particular hierarch's encompassing role in the church (ecumenical pontiff/patriarch) and/or the attributes he should have (God-loving).

Further interesting is the amount of times that the pope or patriarch is commemorated in the services. Since the Roman editions of the 1940s, all the hierarchs, including the Roman Pontiff are commemorated each time the liturgy calls for a commemoration of ecclesiastical authority. In earlier editions, although not consistently, the pope is commemorated only at the Great Entrance and in the "Among the first . . . " during the anaphora. Most editions of the Lviv Sluzhebnyk and other Galician publications follow the latter format. An exception to this rule is (probably among others), the large book "Vespers and Matins for Holydays and Sundays {with prefestive texts and Royal Hours for Christmas and Theophany}" published in Zhovka by the Basilian Order in 1912 (second edition) and earlier, which mentions the Pontiff in each commemorative ektenia.

As an observation, the text of the liturgy given at the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese's website does not commemorate the ecumenical patriarch at all. I don't know if this is an historical practice or if it is just a characteristic of the particular translation used on the site. While it is true that, following some Orthodox usages, only the hierarch and not all priests, were required to commemorate the Patriarch, I do remember that the Patriarch of Moscow was at one time listed to be commemorated in most Russian Orthodox liturgical books.

So, to summarize, following the order of most pre-Roman texts, the celebrant is to commemorate only his local eparchial hierarchs (the eparchial bishop and where there was one, the Metropolitan) in most of the ektenias, requiring mention of the Roman Pontiff only at the times cited above. Why the 1940s editions chose to include papal commemoration at each instance is a good question, although there is some witness (as in the Zhovka book cited above), that this was a practice at least in some places before the Roman books.

All in all, I am of the opinion that rather than introduce paraphrasing in the commemorations as is now being proposed in the "reformed liturgy" we should try to be as faithful as possible to the terminology used in the received Church Slavonic books, which will at least keep us in conformity with others who use the Ruthenian Recension (Ukrainian Catholics, Johnstown Orthodox and some Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions).

God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

Being a Roman Catholic and studying the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches for the past 8 months or so I am beginning to prefer the title Patriarch of The West(or Western Church) when referring to the Pope. I do not believe it is detrimental to the Holy Father.

James

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
One of the things that many Roman Catholics here are forgetting is that John Paul II refers to himself as Bishop of Rome (Archbishop is incorrect).

As to the use of titles, I think that those that have specific duties should trump those that are purly honorific. A Chor-Bishop for example, does have quasi-episcopal funtions. Further, I wish our Eparchs would also quit using the title Monsignor for themselves.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Amado-Guerrero,

The titles of "(Arch)bishop of Rome", "Pope of Rome", and "Patriarch of the West" are nothing but extrange to the Latin (Roman) Church. The pope of Rome being Bishop of the city and diocesis of Rome, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Ecclesiastical Province, Primate of the Italian Church, Patriarch and the West and Primate of the Universal Church. I prefer not to address the bishop of Rome as "Pope" (I prefer the tittle "Pope of Rome")because he is not the only nor the first bishop using such tittle, do not forget that this title has its origin in the Patriarchate of Alexandria (both patriarchs Shenuda of the Coptic Church and Petros of the Greek Orthodox Church use the title of "Patriarch and Pope of Alexandria", as probably patriarchs Stephanos of the Coptic Catholics and Grigorios III of the Melquite Catholics). Personally I hate the title "Supreme Pontiff" ("Pontifex Maximus" in Latin) because is a title that the bishops of Rome took from the Roman Emperors, and these from the supreme "priest" or "magistrate" of the official pagan religion of the city of Rome. Julius Caesar and Augustus used this title (the Pope of Rome is sucessor of the Apostle Peter and not of Julius Ceasar!!!). The title "Pontifex" means in latin he who builds bridges ("pons, pontis", bridge;"facio", make, build). My favourite title for the Pope of Rome is that used by Saint Damasus, Rope of Rome, in the same period that St John the Faster started using the title of Ecumenical Patriarch: "Servus Servorum Dei", Servant of the Servants of God.

Yous in Christ
F

Slava Isusu Christu!

Taking "For our holy ecumenical Pontiff, John Paul, the Pope of Rome...", "O svjat'ijsem vselenst'im Archijereji nasem John Paul, Pap'i, Rimst'im, Hospodu polimsja..." seems the most appropriate/faithful for our Carpatho-Rusyn recension of the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite in the Ektenias. That's what was taken by Father William Levkuluc in his Divine Liturgy Book published by our Seminary Press, mine is dated 1978, although some consider it too Latinized.

Just my lowly opinion :rolleyes:

KL:
What "terms of the Unia" can you identify that suppport your idea regarding the appointment of the Bishop?

The terms of the Unia as to the appointment of Byzantine Catholic bishops gave that right to the king of Poland. This provision is not being followed by Rome.

Axios

This leads to an important historical point in the development of Papal authority.

I have not read the documents referred to here but I presume that this statement is correct. Did the right to appoint those bishops previously reside in the local lords and princes of the region or the local synod of bishops or the Patriarch at New Rome? I am curious as to the situation as it evolved to that point.

In the early church the local synods would most commonly choose their own bishop who would then be consecrated by neighboring bishops lead by the "primate" of the area (provided they approved of the choice, I suppose!). Missionary areas had to be handled differently and there were many conflicts, giving rise to appeals to Rome!

In the west the prerogatives of the local Synods were usurped by the nobility and royalty of these areas, not the bishop of Rome. In the complicated political envirnment of the late Roman west and early medieval period the church was subject to a lot of unpleasant interference and manipulation. Many of these "kingdoms" no longer exist! I suppose this could have happened in the Eastern empire as well.

The real rise in Papal authority began to be evident when Rome was making Concordat-type agreements with more modern western governments and releasing the church from the grip of hostile secular powers. This was an uneven process as it did not happen all at once everywhere but it did eventually result in a church relatively free of secular control.

I could see the possibility of Rome relaxing it's powerful grip on episcopal appointments everywhere eventually. That would probably be positive as long as it doesn't result in "Anglican" type discipline and doctrinal problems.

Perhaps the Ukrainian bishops should be appointed by the synod, is that the same thing as being appointed by the Patriarch? If the Patriarch assumes this function will there be further criticism that the choice should be local, or by the full synod?

I am just curious as to how this will all pan out.

Michael, sinner

If the Pope of Rome is also the "Patriarch of the West", then why has there been a "Latin Patriarch"
of Jerusalem? How can there be two Patriarchs of the West?

Ung-Certez

From 33 Articles Concerning Union
With The Roman Church
http://www.archeparchy.ca/history/union_of_brest.htm#33
The idea that the synod should be the sole arbitrator in the appointment bishops, however meritorious, is not in the terms of the Unia.

For the same reason that there is Greek Partriarch of Jerusalem?

Hmmm....historically, the Latin patriarchates in the east were created during the Crusades, to bring the eastern schismatics under the Mother Church. This is probably not a PC thing to say, but it is the true. Parallel to the Crusades is also the growth of papal power, particularly following the Gregorian reformers (most "autocractic" pope was Innocent III, or at least he wanted to...). In modern times, for example, the Latin Patriachs exists to serve the needs of Roman Catholics in the Holy Land , but originally, the Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites, Copts, etc were to fall under the Latin jurisdiction. As for the Patriarch of the West - there is only one, that of Rome. But the Latin-rite Catholics have lesser patriarchs i.e. Lisbon, Venice, East Indies, Jerusalem etc) but they are not on the same level as "independent" Patriarchs.

Personally, I would have the Churchs follow the canons of Nicaea I and Chalcedon that only allow one bishop per area. It is all fine for there to be someone to look after the Latins and Armenians, and Copts and others, but perhaps this person should not bear the title of Patriarch. In the case of Jerusalem, Apostolically, it is the Greek line that claims descent from St James.

Anton

I hate to admit it, but actually, no.

The Church of Jerusalem was raised to the Patriarchy not because it was a center of a particular liturigical tradition like Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, etc., but because of its importance as a place of pilgrimage. In its jurisdiction were communities of all rites serving the pilgrim population.

As in every other part of Christiandom at the time, the election of bishops was influenced by secular authorities. And yes, after the establishment of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Chapter of St. James elected the nominee of the King, who was a Latin. This election was as legitimate as any other of the time. This sucession continued to elect Latins.

Much later, the Patriarch of Constantinople started awarding the title "Patriarch of Jerusalem" to a bishop of his court and resident in Constantinople. Only in modern times was this titular Greek Patriarch the actual pastor of the Greek Orthodox community of Jerusalem and still later resident in that city. With the end of Turksih rule, the Chapter of St. James resumed election of the Jerusalem Orthodox Patriarch. No unbroken succession exists betweenthe current Greek Patriarch and the early Church of Jerusalem, though Orthodoxy often suggests so.

However, the current Latin Patriarch's claims are not all that solid either. After the defeat of the Crusaders, the Latin Patriarchate similiarly became a title awarded by the Pope to a bishop resident in Rome. Only in the 1800s did he return to Jerusalem and clearly as a titular Patriarch, not an actual one.

Axios

Dear Anton:

Since the JP was not created until Chalcedon, I suppose its lineage may be clearer than in the case of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch. Over history, they all have had many features in common with the Latin Patriarchates, including the role of schism in their formation and in their mission to specific groups, as well as their being unequivocally "under" their first among equals, i.e., the EP.

Really...well I was wrong then! Sorry....but I must re-read Sir Stephen Runciman's Crusades Books again (my gran was close friends with him; I have a personally signed copy of his book 'History of the First Bulgarian Empire'!)...

Still its interesting to note that whilst Rome has seen fit to set up alternative lines of Patriachs in the east, we've never had the idea of setting up an Orthodox Pope...well something to ponder....

Anton