www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Dates for new Bp/Met

Joe,

The pallium and omophorion share the same origin. However, in the Byzantine Church the omophorion came to be seen as a symbol of the episcopal office. However, if you ever notice the bars at the bottom, bishops have three, metropolitans four, and patriarchs five. In the West it has always been the exclusive domain of metropolitans and patriarchs. In fact in the Latin Church a metropolitan may only wear it within his own province. Only the Pope has the right to wear it universally.

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.

The same is not required of patriarchs/major archbishops or metropolitans of those Churches. This coupled with other differences in treatment in the CCEO between patriachal/major archepiscopal Churches sui iuris and metropolitan/eparchial Churches sui iuris can only lead one to the conclusion that the latter Churches are seen as not fully mature or autonomous Churches for whom the Pope exerices patriarchal and/or metropolitan rights without those Churches actually becoming part of the Latin Church. The requirement of our metropolitan to petition and receive the pallium is prime evidence of this.

The imposition is quite simple. After the Gospel the metropolitans come and one by one and kneel before the pope who says:

"To the glory of almighty God and the praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and of the Holy Roman Church, for the honor of the Church of [place], which has been placed in your care, and as a symbol of your authority as Metropolitan Archbishop: we confer on you the pallium taken from the tomb of Peter to wear within the limits of your ecclesiastical province. May this pallium be a symbol of unity and a sign of your communion with the Apostolic See, a bond of love, and an incentive to courage. On the day of the coming and manifestation of our great God nd chief shepherd, Jesus Christ, may you and the flock entrusted to you be clothed with immortality and glory. In the name of the +Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Also of interesting note: the pallium are made from the wool of lambs blessed on the Feats of St. Agnes. On the vigil of the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, the pallia are solemnly blessed at the end of Vespers then placed in a silver casket and placed in the Tomb of St. Peter underneath the High Altar in the Basilica of St. Peter.

As for wearing them, both Archbishops Stephen and Thomas wore theirs on occasion. I do not believe Metropolitan Judson ever wore his. I have seen pictures of the other Eastern Catholic metropolitans who receive them wearing them. Including the metropolitans of the Romanian Greek Catholic and Syro-Malankar Catholic Churches.

In Christ,
Lance

Joe and Anastasios,

I can only guess that the Patriarch felt his rights as Ecumenical Patriarch were being violated by the Pope imposing a Latin honor on a Byzantine bishop regardless of who that bishop was in communion with. All in all I thought it was bad manners by a guest. I respect the EP, but come on, grow up. We are what we are and that is in communion with Rome. I also fault Rome ( read here Curial Officials). They should have let the EP stay in hotel if that is how he felt. Instead they kissed his but and direspected Metropolitan Judson and our whole Church by forcing him to receive it in a private ceremony. I disagree with the imposition myself, but if our metropolitans are going to have to receive it treat them as equals. The prayer of imposition states it is a sign of communion with Rome. Well, our Church has suffered a hell of lot for that communion, show us some respect and stick up for us instead of treating us like a relative you are embarrassed to have and shafting the metropolitan becasue the EP is insulted. Can you imagine the Pope doing that to the EP? I don't think so. Well now that my rant is over... Sorry, but that incident really pissed me off. O God be merciful to me a sinner.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

In regards to the Bishops, maybe we should all contact that EWTN Catholic tv to have them broadcast it. They have been pretty good about doing some Eastern stuff, and I think the bishop's evelvations would be a great exposure to their largely Latin audience. Any takers?
-ukrainiancatholic

Lance wrote: “The pallium and omophorion share the same origin. However, in the Byzantine Church the omophorion came to be seen as a symbol of the episcopal office.”

In looking through literature about our liturgical vestments there is nothing on the pallium to instruct our faithful; only the omophorion is depicted. I would assume that the omophorion is good enough to serve as a symbol of the episcopal office? What is the need for another stole? I can't see why our Byzantine Christian religious texts would pass over such an honorable sign.


Lance quotes the CCEO: “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.”

Yes. In the CCEO, the table of corresponding canons between the CCEO (Eastern Code) and the CIC (Latin Code) indicates there is no similar canon in the Latin Code. Yet, there is one if one looks hard enough. In the CIC there is Canon 437-�1, which reads:

“Within three months from the reception of episcopal consecration of from the time of canonical provision if he has already been consecrated a bishop, a metropolitan is obliged personally or through his proxy to request the pallium of the Roman Pontiff; the pallium signifies the power with which the metropolitan is invested by law within his own province in communion with the Roman Church.”

No mention of a "proxy' is stated in the CIC. The Metropolitan himself must petition for the pallium.

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

This detail is not articulated in the CIC though the above canon implies it. It seems as though the CCEO spells this out clearly for Eastern Catholic Metropolitans.


“This coupled with other differences in treatment in the CCEO between patriachal/major archepiscopal Churches sui iuris and metropolitan/eparchial Churches sui iuris can only lead one to the conclusion that the latter Churches are seen as not fully mature or autonomous Churches for whom the Pope exerices patriarchal and/or metropolitan rights without those Churches actually becoming part of the Latin Church. The requirement of our metropolitan to petition and receive the pallium is prime evidence of this.”


This seems to be the case and probably why the EP flipped.


“I can only guess that the Patriarch felt his rights as Ecumenical Patriarch were being violated by the Pope imposing a Latin honor on a Byzantine bishop regardless of who that bishop was in communion with. All in all I thought it was bad manners by a guest. I respect the EP, but come on, grow up. We are what we are and that is in communion with Rome. I also fault Rome ( read here Curial Officials). They should have let the EP stay in hotel if that is how he felt. Instead they kissed his but and direspected Metropolitan Judson and our whole Church by forcing him to receive it in a private ceremony. I disagree with the imposition myself, but if our metropolitans are going to have to receive it treat them as equals.”

The fact that it ended up a 'private' ceremony signifies that Rome respected the point the EP made and considered it a valid one at that – the fact that it was not a sign of a Byzantine bishop, but rather a sign of power bestowed by the Pope. This was not a disrespect to Metropolitan Judson but maybe an admittance that the EP was right. Rome could have simply ignored the EP and chucked all those words of ecumenism and respect for our return to those ancient and venerable traditions. But they didn't and that in itself is significant. They didn't send the EP to his room. They respected him by listening to him. Some may also interpret the EP's actions as an example of his protection of our Metropolitan's rights without us realizing it. Would we have raised such a ruckus on behalf of ourselves?


“The prayer of imposition states it is a sign of communion with Rome. Well, our Church has suffered a hell of lot for that communion, show us some respect and stick up for us instead of treating us like a relative you are embarrassed to have and shafting the metropolitan becasue the EP is insulted.”

I think this is a bit harsh. If respect is to be shown then maybe a pallium should not be granted? I'm not sure because in almost forty years it has never been explained or taught to me at church what a pallium is. Maybe Byzantine traditions should be respected such as the Metropolitan's omophorion and leave it at that? I don't know. Rome's respectful acknowledgment of the EP's request tells me another story, a story not so well defined. You stated above that metropolitan/eparchial Churches sui juris can be seen as not “fully mature” or “autonomous” Churches (just short of being part of the Latin Church) with the pallium as “evidence” of this. Canonically, without the pallium the omophorion carries no weight and signifies no power. It is a dead sign delegated for liturgical purposes only. Is there anything about omophorions in the CCEO and the power they signify? I never see the pallium on icons of our saintly bishops. In fact, crowns aren't even shown on St. Nicholas because they didn't wear them back in the 4th century.

I would like to know more about this and what your thoughts are. I would also like to know why there is a dearth of information and explanation in our ECF material.


Joe

Excellent idea, UC...

Joe,

"The fact that it ended up a 'private' ceremony signifies that Rome respected the point the EP made and considered it a valid one at that..."

I don't know that can be assumed. If that was the case Rome should have not given it all. Since they insisted on giving it anyway I just see it as a PR move meant to prevent the embarrassment of having the EP boycott the Mass.

"Some may also interpret the EP's actions as an example of his protection of our Metropolitan's rights without us realizing it."

Well, some might but I wouldn't. I think you have to take the behaviour of the EP as a whole. It is his representative (Archbishop Stylianos) at the International Orthodox/Catholic Dialogue that says he is walking out if Eastern Catholic Churches participate. It was his representative that stated the only acceptable and final solution to the "Uniate Problem" was our forced dissolution. Eastern Catholic hierarchs are not accepted as representatives of the Holy See at the EP. From this pattern of behavior, I can only see the EP's protest as at best extreme rudeness and at worst a calculated insult intended to snub us "Uniates."

"Canonically, without the pallium the omophorion carries no weight and signifies no power. It is a dead sign delegated for liturgical purposes only. Is there anything about omophorions in the CCEO and the power they signify?"

I wouldn't say that. The omophorion is a symbol of episcopal power. All Byzantine bishops wear it. Once appointed, Bishop Basil had full jurisdiction as far as the Archeparchy goes. It is his specifically metropolitan power that seemingly hinges on the pallium. The CCEO says nothing of the omophor and interestingly enough I can find no specific prayer for blessing it nor does one accompany its imposition at the consecration of a bishop. However, when vesting for Divine Liturgy the prayer said is:

"You have taken on your shoulders, O Christ, our nature that had gone astray; you have lifted it up on to your shoulders and have offered it to God the Father."

In Christ,
Lance

It seems there are many sections of the Code, which betray a fundamentally Latin understanding and theological appreciation. I wonder if anyone who really understood the Liturgical ceremony of episcopal consecration in the Eastern Church, would compose such a law?

Surely the Metropolitan dignity is part of being the bishop Pittsburgh? Why can't a metropolitan convene the council of bishops, or ordain a bishop without the Roman pallium, if that vestment is only a sign of the Metropolitan's communion with the Roman See?

Does authority come from the "sign" of communion with Rome, or from the bishop's own consecration, and the marriage of a bishop to his (metropolitan) city?

I could never be a canon lawyer, and I really do not understand this?

If a Metropolitan cannot ordain bishops before accepting the pallium from the Pope, then how could Kyr Andrew ordain Kyr William? Kyr Andrew was only "acting" Metropolitan and administrator of the Metropolitan Church, he certainly had no pallium! According to this canon, was the ordination illicit, or invalid! "Cannot ordain" suggests that he is unable to ordain, and so the ordination of Kyr William is invalid. This is silly.

There is something fundamentally wrong about this code.

But we must certainly not base our theology of what it means to be bishop, or Metropolitan on these canons.

I still marvel, that of all the Eastern Catholic Churches, only the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America has accepted the new code. Were we hasty to agree to these rules? What do the other Churches consider a valid reason to hesitate to receive the new code?

But maybe I am the only one who finds these canons difficult to understand, and difficult to reconcile with my understanding of "Church"?

Elias

Father Elias,

"It seems there are many sections of the Code, which betray a fundamentally Latin understanding and theological appreciation."

That has been the main criticism of CCEO from its promulgation, and I completely agree.

"If a Metropolitan cannot ordain bishops before accepting the pallium from the Pope, then how could Kyr Andrew ordain Kyr William? Kyr Andrew was only "acting" Metropolitan and administrator of the Metropolitan Church, he certainly had no pallium! According to this canon, was the ordination illicit, or invalid! "Cannot ordain" suggests that he is unable to ordain, and so the ordination of Kyr William is invalid. This is silly."

The prohibition of ordaining was a silly inclusion becasue it is not as if the metropolitan with or without the pallium is going to ordain anyone a bishop without Rome's mandate anyway. And if Rome selects and mandates the ordination of a man, the canon is superceded. Rome is not bound by the canons. That is why Bishops Andrew, Basil, and George were able to ordain Bishop William. But even if a bishop would ignore the prohibition the only problem would be one of liciety, never validity.

As for not being able to convoke the Council of Hierarchs, one can only wonder what the thought behind that was. The whole impostion of the pallium requirement is probably meant to be similar to a major archbishop's need to be confirmed by Rome before enthronement.

In Christ,
Lance

Heiromonk Elias,

You make very good observations. Obviously ordination is not enough. The inclusion of not being able to convene councils and ordain bishops UNLESS the Metropolitan "personally" requests the pallium (proxy need not apply as in the Latin code) bespeaks of keeping non-Latin Metropolitans in line. Ordination involving the Holy Spirit and reception of all that liturgical garb is OK but not operative until the pallium (the "key") is given to turn the ignition on.

The fact that we were the only non-Latin 'sui juris' Church to accept the Code is news to me. Are we more interested in proving our obedience than acting as a 'sui juris' Church? What exactly IS a 'sui juris' Church if not done in practice?

I still believe that the EP acted on our behalf. Maybe we would have more respect if we put into practice all that which we keep teaching the people about this "return to traditions" stuff? Interesting though how we DO NOT teach anything about the pallium in our ECF material. This needs to be explained. I guess what I am trying to ask is: Are we practicing what we claim to preach?

Joe

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Lance,

The issue of licit and valid never comes up unless we start using Latin concepts. Darn those canon lawyers! As for the EP's desire that the Eastern Catholic churches disappear, the Romanian Catholic bishop of Canton has been preaching the ministry of "disappearing" for a long time.

I am still interested in why there is a dearth of information in our ECF material on the pallium. Our parish liturgy books have descriptions about the vestments of our clergy but nothing on the pallium and what symbolism is attached to it. I've never seen our bishops/archbishops wear it. Is this an embarrassment, a tell-tale sign that we are Catholic first, Byzantine second?

Thanks for your comments on this. I am not a canon lawyer, but I am involved with proposals contractual in nature that involves millions of dollars and this is where I have developed such attention to detail. My interest lies in why there is a silence on the pallium and its role in our sui juris church. This sort of thing jumps out like a sore thumb and has gotten my attention. Sometimes we comb through contract proposals for up to a year working out the details and bugs, so when I see or hear something (pallium) that we accept and use but don't teach in our Byzantine traditions it gets me wondering. I know, I know, curiosity killed the cat

I would also like to know why both the CIC and the CCEO states that there are no corresponding canons regarding the pallium when there is - as I have demonstrated in my previous post? Was this left out unintentionally?

Heiromonk Elias mentions a certain "Latin understanding" in the CCEO's canons. I agree. Does the right of jurisdiction and the right to ordain and convene only come from elsewhere besides the Holy Spirit and the consecration? (I would like to do a study on those prayers) Isn't the Holy Spirit efficacious here? This begs the question: Are we really Catholic first, Byzantine second? This, in turn, begs a second question: What exactly happens at the ordination of our Archbishop-Metropolitan? Why are certain rights divorced from the office at ordination? Is our Metropolitan merely a liturgical figurehead until given authority to act like a Metropolitan? Why can't the Holy Spirit grant the newly installed Metropolitan the right to act like one? See how this topic has gotten me asking too many question? Too many years in proposal work, being part German, and having a philosophy degree from a Latin seminary!

You mention Bishop William being consecrated without a pallium in attendance. It seems that canons are made to be followed and then later superseded. There are three codes I would like to see 'simplified' in the future: the Code of Canons, the Accounting methods and principles, and tax laws.

Your comments are greatly appreciated.

Joe

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Joe,

I believe Lance's comment about the common origins of the pallium and omophorion was intended to address your comment about the "dearth" of info on the pallium in our Church. There just isn't any because the pallium is not properly an Eastern vestment, though the CCEO states that it is a sign of metropolitan, not episcopal, authority. This is a problem, as many others have said, of Rome trying to reconcile Roman and Eastern practices.

Does anyone know the practice of the Orthoxdox in this regard, ie, is there an additional rite of communion between patriarch and metropolitan? What about the Ukrainian or Melkite Churches?

I understand that in the private ceremony, the pope did not even place the pallium upon Metropolitan Judson. As to why he was not seen wearing the pallium, perhaps he thought it was redundant to wear both.

As to your comment about simplifying the three codes, if former presidential candidate Steve Forbes was ever pope, he'd probably have the metropolitans send in a postcard
with the box checked next to the statement, "I support the pope" and a check for a 10% cathedraticum to signify communion.


John

(To Lance and Joe, see you in a few weeks)

"As to your comment about simplifying the three codes, if former presidential candidate Steve Forbes was ever pope, he'd probably have the Metropolitans send in a postcard with the box checked next to the statement, "I support the pope" and a check for a 10% cathedraticum to signify communion."


LOL!

I too would like to know what the Orthodox practice is. So the Pope had a private ceremony and didn't go through with the ritual after all the fuss? I understand the redundancy. I would fear that the omophorion represents nothing of his office. The pallium reminds me of the days when our bishops wore red caps in addition to their crowns.

Maybe Alex (the Erudite) can tell us about the Ukrainians and whether they wear the pallium.

See you at the seminary in a few weeks.


Joe

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Joe,

I have no problem with a gradual disappearence in the event of reunion. However, Archbishop Stylianos' suggestion was along the lines of Pseudo-Synod of Lviv, circa 1946.

John points out the problem exactly. The CCEO tries to reconcile Latin and Eastern tradition and is sometimes very awkward in the attempt.

The Latin influence on the CCEO really shows through in this whole discussion. From an Eastern point of view, one is ordained/enthroned and that is it, the nishop/metropolitan/patriarch has full powers sacramental and jurisdictional from that point. However, from a Latin point of view someone ordained bishop has full sacramental power from ordination, but jurisdictional power beyond a bishop's diocese is something that has to be granted. (Or in the case of a titular or auxillary bishop, jurisdiction is completely dependent on that bishop's superior) In the Latin Church this really isn't a problem because their metropolitans rights and duties are almost non-existent.

So we have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on. However, if you look at the CCEO carefully even despite the differences between election/selection and enthronement between patriarchs, major archbishops, and metropolitans all are prohibited from convoking the synod/council before they are granted communion with Rome. The granting of communion differs slightly for each. For a patriarch this is a simple petition of communion. For a major archbishop it is confirmation of election and grant of communion. For a metropolitan it is the imposition of the pallium which implies communion.

The episcopal sacramental power is never in question, but the extraordinary jurisdictional power of the patriarch, major archbishop, metropolitan is dependent on that hierarchs communion with Rome.

In Christ,
Lance

Someone asked for the Orthodox perspective on the pallium. As I understand it, a bishop is a full-fledged bishop when he is ordained/installed. His omophorion signifies his position as "Despota" in his diocese, not his submission to or even communion with anybody else. He needn't sit by the mailbox for anything more, much less fly to Constantinople for it.

From an Orthodox perspective, I cannot understand the bishop of one diocese waiting to receive final confirmation from the bishop of another diocese, i.e., Rome, and this is even more true in the case of an Eastern Church. The pallium is a Western vestment anyway, and seems out of place in the Eastern Church. From an Eastern Catholic perspective, I can see a bishop applying for it, receiving as a sign of communion, and keeping it on proud display much as a physician or attorney keeps a diploma on the wall, but never wearing it. It simply doesn't go with anything else of his.

Yes, I would take the Ecumenical Patriarch's refusal to witness the granting of an Eastern metropolitan the pallium as sticking up for the Eastern Church. I assume that's what the EP felt he was doing. On the other hand, I also can see telling His Holiness it's none of his business. Whatever may have happened in previous centuries, no one is forcing Easterners into union against their will. I've always thought it a bit hypocritical of us to object to Eastern Rite Catholicism on principle, as if it were some attack on us, while engaging in evangelism in North America, and even lauching fledgling Western Rite jurisdictions. What IS the difference?

Friends,

I really do not think that that the CCEO "tries to reconcile Latin and Eastern tradition." It tries to impose Latin usage on the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. This "pallium" business is just an official latinization that needs to be discarded, period. If it were refused that might send the right signal.

Bob