Commemoration of the Pope

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

But I don't believe EC's need to "overdo" commemorating the Pope

I don't know. Maybe that's "overdoing" it, maybe it isn't. But what really mystifies me is those who say that can't call it a latinization.

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

when the Eastern Churches only commemorated him once (and that by the Patriarch) when the church was undivided.

Exactly.

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Well if we are going to commemorate the entire hierarchy several times, why not include the Pope? Correct me if I'm wrong, but those who commemorate the Pope only once also do not commemorate their entire hierarchy. Since our commemoration in the UGCC is a roll-call from the Patriarch to the Metropolitan to the Eparch, why not include the Pope?

A really excellent question sir! (And I haven't forgotten your icon . . .I've been really ill but have just gotten my clean bill of health yesterday).

We likewise need not commemorate everyone but our Patriarch and our local Hierarch, be he a bishop, an Archbishop etc.

However, when we do commemorate our own hierarchy of our Particular Church, they are "ours" whereas we are in a different relationship with the Pope. My parish and others, for example, no longer refer to him during the commemoration as "our Ecumenical Pontiff" but as just "the Ecumenical Pontiff etc."

I know that can be unnerving, but there you have it.

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Peter J

I don't know. Maybe that's "overdoing" it, maybe it isn't. But what really mystifies me is those who say that can't call it a latinization.




Exactly.

It's definitely overdoing it for a Particular EC Church . . . It is not so much a Latinization but a kind of nervous repetition that was brought in by our bishops who felt that if they don't constantly keep the Pope in front of our Church's eyes by the frequent commemorations, they will possibly start thinking about becoming Orthodox.

I kid you not. This is also the thinking behind the introduction of the Sacred Heart devotion et alia.

In fact, the Ukrainian Orthodox have a number of Latin practices which they liked and borrowed (such as the Way of the Cross and the Passion Gospel readings i.e. "Passia services"). At no time were these taken on as ways to "Latinize" since they were voluntarily accepted. Neither would the acceptance of a Coptic practice in a voluntary way constitute "Coptization."

Alex

[5Loaves]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

That is the correct form and should our Church ever accept it, the priest should say it out loud enough for everyone to hear so that he doesn't have to repeat several more times . . .

Alex

Repetitions, in the Divine Liturgy?

Was there only single commemoration of our beloved hierarchs in 19th Century Russia? Is outrage!

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Peter J

^^ Regarding commemorating the entire hierarchy, see the thread Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise?

I remember that thread in the Byzantine Forum and I commend you and ConstantineTG for your excellent contributions to it.

To defer commemorations of the Pope to our Patriarch alone would be far too radical a change for the UGCC. But to reduce them to once or even twice (the Synod of Zamoysk legislated a double commemoration of the Pope) and to not commemorate him during the Litanies/Ektenias would be a suitable compromise for the UGCC parishes.

Alex

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

To defer commemorations of the Pope to our Patriarch alone would be far too radical a change for the UGCC.

I tend to agree: that would be too radical. But that doesn't mean we should go to the other extreme by not even allowing it to be called a Latinization.

[Vico]

So there are a few topics: which liturgies should the Pope be commemorated in, how many times the Pope should be included, and the precise wording. Regarding how many times, we know that for at least one liturgy, zero is not traditional, because Constantinople removed the Pope from the diptychs, four times that I know of:

• 879 Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII was active)
• 903 antipope Christopher used the filioque
• 1006 Pope John XVIII (1003-9) used the filioque, then the next Pope added it in the creed (Pope Sergius IV 1009-12 was active)
• 1054 Latin Church replacement of artos with azymes and removal of epiclesis (St. Pope Leo IX was active)

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Vico

So there are a few topics: which liturgies should the Pope be commemorated in, how many times the Pope should be included, and the precise wording. Regarding how many times, we know that for at least one liturgy, zero is not traditional, because Constantinople removed the Pope from the diptychs, four times that I know of:

• 879 Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII was active)
• 903 antipope Christopher used the filioque
• 1006 Pope John XVIII (1003-9) used the filioque, then the next Pope added it in the creed (Pope Sergius IV 1009-12 was active)
• 1054 Latin Church replacement of artos with azymes and removal of epiclesis (St. Pope Leo IX was active)

I'm not exactly an expert, but I'd say your list seems a bit skimpy.

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by 5Loaves

Repetitions, in the Divine Liturgy?

Was there only single commemoration of our beloved hierarchs in 19th Century Russia? Is outrage!

If you can refresh my memory . . . I don't remember the commemoration of Russian hierarchs ever beginning with that of the Pope of Rome . . .

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Peter J

I tend to agree: that would be too radical. But that doesn't mean we should go to the other extreme by not even allowing it to be called a Latinization.

I don't know if it is an extreme. Perhaps it is. Our parish priest, Rev. Fr. Bohdan Lypsky, would emphasize his view that it isn't a Latinization - simply the commemoration of the fact that an EC church is in union with Rome. He used to say that there should be no liturgical differences between EC and Orthodox Churches so that "if you are in either, you shouldn't know which was which until you heard the commemorations . . ."

One could certainly make the argument that frequent commemorations of the Pope are a Latinization. But perhaps it is something even more serious - an insecurity about EC's union with Rome.

Alex

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

A really excellent question sir! (And I haven't forgotten your icon . . .I've been really ill but have just gotten my clean bill of health yesterday).

We likewise need not commemorate everyone but our Patriarch and our local Hierarch, be he a bishop, an Archbishop etc.

However, when we do commemorate our own hierarchy of our Particular Church, they are "ours" whereas we are in a different relationship with the Pope. My parish and others, for example, no longer refer to him during the commemoration as "our Ecumenical Pontiff" but as just "the Ecumenical Pontiff etc."

I know that can be unnerving, but there you have it.

Alex

I dunno, I kinda like the the commemoration of the hierarchy. There is also a catechizing effect to it. Most Roman Catholics think they all directly fall under the Pope. Most aren't even aware of the relationship of an Archdiocese and a Suffragan Diocese.

[5Loaves]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

If you can refresh my memory . . . I don't remember the commemoration of Russian hierarchs ever beginning with that of the Pope of Rome . . .

Alex

Well, you are surely right that dear Father Vasiliy would not be commemorating the Pope of Rome.
As I said, we've had to add that commemoration to the OCA Liturgy books we use since it is somehow missing from them..

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I dunno, I kinda like the the commemoration of the hierarchy. There is also a catechizing effect to it. Most Roman Catholics think they all directly fall under the Pope. Most aren't even aware of the relationship of an Archdiocese and a Suffragan Diocese.

I agree with you sir. But the debate goes on in the UGCC about how many times the Pope, who is in a different relationship to the administration of our Church, should be mentioned. And I hope that the parts of the Liturgy that have been taken away are fully restored throughout our Church as well . . .

We shall see where that debate ends.

A blessed Pascha to you!

Alex

[dochawk]

Originally Posted by Peter J

^^ Regarding commemorating the entire hierarchy, see the thread Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise?

I m partial to,"all the Holy Patriarchs," without naming names . .

hawk

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by dochawk

without naming names . .

Except as required, of course.