Commemoration of the Pope

MrPip · #1 Mar 20, '12, 9:42 am

Are there Eastern Catholics, either clergy or laity, but especially clergy, who have objected or currently object to commemorating the Pope during the Divine Liturgy, as required by Canon 209 of the CCEO? If so, what might their reasons be?

Thanks!

Jeff

Wesley1982 · #2 Mar 20, '12, 1:08 pm

Not that I know of - I think the Eastern Catholic Rite is part of the RCC.

5Loaves · #3 Mar 20, '12, 1:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPip

Are there Eastern Catholics, either clergy or laity, but especially clergy, who have objected or currently object to commemorating the Pope during the Divine Liturgy, as required by Canon 209 of the CCEO? If so, what might their reasons be?

Thanks!

Jeff

We commemorate all our heirarchs, including "Benedict, Pope of Rome" in our DL.

Recently reposed +Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory was commemorated among the reposed in our DL on Sunday.

MrPip · #4 Mar 20, '12, 1:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5Loaves

We commemorate all our heirarchs, including "Benedict, Pope of Rome" in our DL.

Recently reposed +Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory was commemorated among the reposed in our DL on Sunday.

I ask because there was a discussion on another (Orthodox) board in which there was an implication that Canon 209 of the CCEO constituted what one poster called an "imposed latinization". When something is "imposed" upon someone or something else it is not usually seen in a positive light, rather that it is being forced upon them unwillingly. It was asked if Eastern Catholic bishops would object to commemorating the Pope during the DL because of this imposition, but no really clear answer was given. So, I just thought I'd ask here and see what came up

.

It would seem paradoxical to me that a Catholic bishop, whether Eastern or Western, would have any such objection and still want to remain "Catholic".

5Loaves · #5 Mar 20, '12, 2:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPip

I ask because there was a discussion on another (Orthodox) board in which there was an implication that Canon 209 of the CCEO constituted what one poster called an "imposed latinization". When something is "imposed" upon someone or something else it is not usually seen in a positive light, rather that it is being forced upon them unwillingly. It was asked if Eastern Catholic bishops would object to commemorating the Pope during the DL because of this imposition, but no really clear answer was given. So, I just thought I'd ask here and see what came up

.

It would seem paradoxical to me that a Catholic bishop, whether Eastern or Western, would have any such objection and still want to remain "Catholic".

As well there are those who consider the whole of the CCEO a latinization...

Frankly, if you know our litanies, we pray for every conceivable person in the whole world several times over during the DL of St John Chrysostom, and now in Great Lent with the DL of St Basil the Great even more precisely do we enumerate every imaginable person for whom we pray.

MrPip · #6 Mar 20, '12, 2:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5Loaves

As well there are those who consider the whole of the CCEO a latinization...

Frankly, if you know our litanies, we pray for every conceivable person in the whole world several times over during the DL of St John Chrysostom, and now in Great Lent with the DL of St Basil the Great even more precisely do we enumerate every imaginable person for whom we pray.

I remember the litanies well, and always liked them very much. It struck me as particularly odd that any Catholic would have any kind of objection at all to any other Catholic, especially the Pope, being commemorated

And if CCEO or any part of it was so problematic, why would those Eastern churches that accepted it accept it?

5Loaves · #7 Mar 20, '12, 2:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPip

And if CCEO or any part of it was so problematic, why would those Eastern churches that accepted it accept it?

This I suggest you start in a new thread.

Hesychios · #8 Mar 20, '12, 5:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPip

I ask because there was a discussion on another (Orthodox) board in which there was an implication that Canon 209 of the CCEO constituted what one poster called an "imposed latinization". When something is "imposed" upon someone or something else it is not usually seen in a positive light, rather that it is being forced upon them unwillingly. It was asked if Eastern Catholic bishops would object to commemorating the Pope during the DL because of this imposition, but no really clear answer was given. So, I just thought I'd ask here and see what came up

.

Probably because in the pre-schism church the Eastern Catholics did not commemorate the Patriarch of Rome/Pope of Rome in the parishes and monasteries. That was done only in the cathedrals of the Patriarchs.

In the parishes the hierarchy of the particular church was commemorated. Thus they commemorated their own patriarch and no others, and their own patriarch commemorated his peers (of which there would be several).

Likewise, in the pre-schism church the Western Catholic parishes and monasteries did not commemorate the Eastern Patriarchs (they still do not), just their own patriarch in Rome, the commemoration of the other patriarchs was done in Rome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPip

It would seem paradoxical to me that a Catholic bishop, whether Eastern or Western, would have any such objection and still want to remain "Catholic".

Modern Eastern Catholic bishops in the diaspora are appointed by the Pope of Rome, and often got their training in Latin institutions as well, so don't expect any arguments coming from that corner.

Paul theApostle · #9 Mar 21, '12, 12:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesychios

. That was done only in the cathedrals of the Patriarchs.

Do you know what kind of commemeration?

was it silently by the preist over the Holy communion preparations or read aloud during the Litany?

Hesychios · #10 Mar 21, '12, 4:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul theApostle

Do you know what kind of commemeration?

was it silently by the preist over the Holy communion preparations or read aloud during the Litany?

In the diptychs for sure, there are historical references to it.

Wherever you see an Orthodox parish (Priest or Deacon) commemorate it's own Metropolitan or Patriarch, the Patriarch would commemorate his fellow Patriarchs. This is still the practice in Orthodox churches.

Sometimes (rarely) it happens that some church leader can not be commemorated by his peers. To be 'struck from the Diptychs' is to be removed from commemoration for some lapse in behavior or whatever. It is a type of admonition to straighten up. It is not an excommunication but something like a warning. Of course, if communion is broken for some serious reason the person will not be commemorated.

Normally all the peers are recognized by a Patriarch in the diptychs of his worship.

Paul theApostle · #11 Mar 21, '12, 6:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesychios

In the diptychs for sure, there are historical references to it.

Wherever you see an Orthodox parish (Priest or Deacon) commemorate it's own Metropolitan or Patriarch, the Patriarch would commemorate his fellow Patriarchs. This is still the practice in Orthodox churches.

Sometimes (rarely) it happens that some church leader can not be commemorated by his peers. To be 'struck from the Diptychs' is to be removed from commemoration for some lapse in behavior or whatever. It is a type of admonition to straighten up. It is not an excommunication but something like a warning. Of course, if communion is broken for some serious reason the person will not be commemorated.

Normally all the peers are recognized by a Patriarch in the diptychs of his worship.

Ok

Im not sure exactly what 'Diptychs' is

is it anything to do with commemerations done in the preperation of the Communion/holy gifts?

Thanks tiger

MrPip · #12 Mar 21, '12, 1:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Probably because in the pre-schism church the Eastern Catholics did not commemorate the Patriarch of Rome/Pope of Rome in the parishes and monasteries. That was done only in the cathedrals of the Patriarchs.

In the parishes the hierarchy of the particular church was commemorated. Thus they commemorated their own patriarch and no others, and their own patriarch commemorated his peers (of which there would be several).

Likewise, in the pre-schism church the Western Catholic parishes and monasteries did not commemorate the Eastern Patriarchs (they still do not), just their own patriarch in Rome, the commemoration of the other patriarchs was done in Rome.
Modern Eastern Catholic bishops in the diaspora are appointed by the Pope of Rome, and often got their training in Latin institutions as well, so don't expect any arguments coming from that corner.

I know that Eastern Catholic bishops are ultimately appointed by the Pope, but isn't that after a list of vetted (by other Eastern Catholic bishops)candidates has been presented to him and/or with consultation with the Eastern eparchy in question?

I guess it boils down, for me anyway, to asking, as I did above, if there are Eastern *Catholic* Christians who are either bishops, priests, or laity who have a problem with the commemoration of the Holy Father, why do they remain in the *Catholic* Church?

RyanBlack · #13 Mar 21, '12, 2:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPip

I know that Eastern Catholic bishops are ultimately appointed by the Pope, but isn't that after a list of vetted (by other Eastern Catholic bishops)candidates has been presented to him and/or with consultation with the Eastern eparchy in question?

I guess it boils down, for me anyway, to asking, as I did above, if there are Eastern *Catholic* Christians who are either bishops, priests, or laity who have a problem with the commemoration of the Holy Father, why do they remain in the *Catholic* Church?

Not all Eastern Catholic bishops are appointed by the Pope. It depends upon the status of the particular Eastern Church, and whether the bishop is appointed to a see in the traditional territory.

mardukm · #14 Mar 21, '12, 2:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanBlack

Not all Eastern Catholic bishops are appointed by the Pope. It depends upon the status of the particular Eastern Church, and whether the bishop is appointed to a see in the traditional territory.

Even in the "diaspora," not all non-Latin bishops are appointed by the Pope. They can be transferred by the Synod or promoted from a co-adjutor position.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hesychios · #15 Mar 21, '12, 3:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPip

I know that Eastern Catholic bishops are ultimately appointed by the Pope, but isn't that after a list of vetted (by other Eastern Catholic bishops)candidates has been presented to him and/or with consultation with the Eastern eparchy in question?

The final decision rests with the Pope, and if he does not like the candidates he will send the list back and wait for one that suits him.

Also, some Eastern Catholic churches are so small there is no synod to speak of and the matter rest entirely in Rome. There are even some EC Sees that the Pope has decided to leave vacant. There is nothing to be done about it, the faithful have to accept that.

The Pope is also the codifier of the Canons, and he has the power to dispense with the canons or change them if necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPip

I guess it boils down, for me anyway, to asking, as I did above, if there are Eastern *Catholic* Christians who are either bishops, priests, or laity who have a problem with the commemoration of the Holy Father, why do they remain in the *Catholic* Church?

This is an extremely odd question. No one could answer such a question.

Why not ask if there are any Latin bishops who have a problem with it? Same issue, there is no reason why they should object.

It's like asking if any generals have a problem saluting the President. Why should the Marines be any different from the Army and Air Force?

Eastern Catholic churches do not have a will of their own, they are under the Pope and follow the policies and practices set before them, sometimes with anxiety but often quite eagerly.