The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
EasternChristian19, James OConnor, biblicalhope, Ishmael, bluecollardpink
6,161 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 776 guests, and 84 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,528
Members6,161
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Is there a difference in whether a heretic is allowed to be commemorated in the Divine Liturgy between the civil ruler and the bishop/patriarch?

For instance in the UK Orthodox priests commemorate "our sovereign queen Elizabeth ..." as civil ruler, even though they may suppose that she is a heretic (as "head of the Church of England"). But they would not commemorate their bishop/patriarch if they thought he was a public heretic.
From this I assume that the Byzantine tradition does not consider any problem in the commemoration of a heretic as civil ruler in the Liturgy.
Do Greek Catholic priests follow the same principle (Its OK to commemorate a heretical civil ruler but not a heretical hierarch)?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,765
Likes: 30
John
Member
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,765
Likes: 30
It is always appropriate to pray for people, and especially to pray for those civil authorities (in your case Queen Elizabeth). To pray for them in no way suggests that what they believe is o/Orthodox.

In the case of a bishop / patriarch who was a declared heretic one could pray for him, that he return to o/Orthodoxy. But one would not necessarily commemorate him as one's bishop or patriarch should he be deposed by the Church as a heretic!

As far as Greek Catholics, yes, we pray for our civil authorities.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by Azarius
Is there a difference in whether a heretic is allowed to be commemorated in the Divine Liturgy between the civil ruler and the bishop/patriarch?
If we wish to search for some church authority to justify praying for our non-Christian rulers, we can go back to the guidance on this very matter which Saint Paul gave to the young bishop Timothy:

"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence."

1 Timothy 2: 1,2.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Member
F Offline
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
For some bizarre reason unknown to me, Greek-Catholics seem to have stopped praying for the monarch, even in countries such as Belgium and Spain, where the Kings are Catholic. Go figure.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Here is a quote from the Encyclical on the Euchologion Ex Quo - Benedict XIV - March 1 1756 [papalencyclicals.net]

Quote
To the Archbishops, Bishops and Other Clerics, Secular and Regular, of the Greek Rite Who Enjoy Favor and Communion with the Apostolic See. ...

#23 ... Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligur. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass. This fully accords with the ancient practice, as may be seen in Estius in 4. Sententiar., dist. 12, sec. 15. For that purpose it is sufficient to beseech to lead back the wanderers to the way of salvation and to the bosom of holy Mother Church, as is expounded by Sylvius, in 3. part. D. Thomae, vol. 4, quest. 83, art. 1, qu. 9. ...

#27. But among the Oriental peoples this practice of commemorating the king in the sacred liturgy is common, as may be seen in the Liturgies of the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians and Syrians. But if it should be asked how it can be endured where it is certain that the kings for whom they pray and whom they commemorate in the liturgy are infidels, Ven. Card. Bellarmine would reply (as in fact he replied in the chapter quoted above) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even for infidels since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men. And of course St. Thomas teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in his work de origine Animae that the sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, his statement must be understood to include both those who are already members of Christ and those who are able to become such (in 4. Sentent., dist. 12, quest. 2, art. 2, quest. 2, to the fourth). Therefore, the Cardinal adds that the whole question should be assessed in terms of what the Church has forbidden: "It is certain from the nature of the object that if the Church has not prohibited it, it is permissible to offer prayers for those men (i.e., the infidels)." Although there is such a prohibition against the excommunicated and so against heretics and schismatics, there is none against infidels and these are not bound by excommunication. This is enough, he says, to allow commemoration of them during Mass and even the offering of the sacrifice for them in accordance with the evident tradition in this matter and with the apostolic constitution.

So in 1756 Benedict XIV requested Greek Rite priests to stop commemorating civil rulers who were public heretics or schismatics (because they were excommunicate). Whereas they were permitted to continue commemorating an infidel (non baptised) ruler (since that has apostolic tradition).

I have not noticed anyone comment on Ex Quo on this forum so I am wondering whether this encyclical was ever accepted by Greek Rite bishops, or has it been forgotten?

For example: Did Greek Catholic clerics in 1930s Ukraine commemorate Stalin as the civil ruler in the Divine Liturgy, or did they omit his name (as a baptised heretic) following Benedict XIV's instruction (perhaps substituting a generic "government" or "rulers" instead).

Perhaps Benedict XIV's requirement to not commemorate a heretical or schismatic ruler was abrogated in later legislation - but if so what was it?

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
I'd offer a caution here, terms such as 'heretic' and 'schismatic' are significantly less acceptable in this day and age than they were when the cited document was written.

Reading it, HH obviously considered infidels able to come to the Church, but seemingly had written off those whom he would have termed heretics and schismatics. I'd like to believe that the Church's view has modified since that time, a belief that is fostered by the fact that the hurling of anathemas has gone out of style for the most part.

Regardless, they are terms not much favored at this site, whether as labels for individuals or the faithful of Churches or denominations other than those of our traditions, because they have the foreseeable and undesirable consequence of creating an atmosphere that is not conducive to charitable discussion or debate. That said, I trust that this thread will continue in a tone and tenor consistent with the season and with reaching out to, rather than pushing aside, our fellow Christians.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
L
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
Quote
Neil said: Reading it, HH obviously considered infidels able to come to the Church, but seemingly had written off those whom he would have termed heretics and schismatics. I'd like to believe that the Church's view has modified since that time, a belief that is fostered by the fact that the hurling of anathemas has gone out of style for the most part.

That's funny, Neil. I see it in quite another way. It doesn't seem to me that His Holiness had "written off" those heretics and schismatics while on the other hand believing that only infidels could come to the Church. Rather, it seems to me that he was saying that those who are so close to the Truth yet remain separated from God's Church perhaps are to be treated more sternly than those who are a long way off from grasping the Truth of the Gospel. Makes sense to me.

Regardless of how you or I interpret it, or what we would "like to believe," we are fortunately not our own Popes and the only thing that would seem to really count for something is whether or not the canons mentioned and the letter written are still in effect. It would be interesting to find out whether the Church's official stance on this has changed at all since that time.

Alexis

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
G
Member
Member
G Offline
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
For some bizarre reason unknown to me, Greek-Catholics seem to have stopped praying for the monarch, even in countries such as Belgium and Spain, where the Kings are Catholic. Go figure.

Fr. Serge


That is horribly depressing : (

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Thanks for the interpretation.

In Ex Quo [papalencyclicals.net] , Benedict XIV was explaining the Eucholgion of 1754, which he hoped that Greek Catholics would adopt.
I found some information about this in the book "The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom" by Reverend Casimir Kucharek (pub 1971):
On page 188 he gives a list of the rites:
Quote
6. Roman-Byzantine Rite. It consists, not in any group of people, but in the Euchologion of Pope Benedict XIV (edit. Rome, 1754). Its purpose was to give Byzantine Catholics liturgical guidance and direction.
Which sounds as though Kucharek may be saying the encyclical was not fully accepted since no one is using the book the pope wanted to be used ...
Quote
We exhort you to set aside previous editions which have been found to contain too many different errors, and to use this edition in sacred rites.
[from Benedict's introduction to Ex Quo]

So I am not sure whether the request to not commemorate an excommunicate ruler was taken up either. Benedict seems to be referring to old canons (which I have not been able to look up). If he is trying to say that this is a matter of Divine Law (in the general sense including Eternal/Natural Law) then it would be a serious matter to ignore. If on the other hand this is merely Church Law then presumably it can be dispensed with in case of necessity.

It seems important to know since this issue could be an occasion for martyrdom.
For example a Greek Catholic priest may find himself in an area fought over between Muslim and Orthodox rulers. While the Muslim ruler is in charge he can commemorate him according to Benedict XIV, but when the Orthodox/dissident ruler takes over the priest is supposed to stop commemorating the ruler. But a local warlord might use this as an excuse to bring a charge of treason against the unfortunate priest. If the priest thinks the requirement not to commemorate an excommunicate ruler is merely Church Law (or even attempt at Latinisation) then he would presumably be correct to think he can dispense with it without sin to save his life. But if this offends against Divine Law then presumably he should be prepared to be martyred rather than break this law?

On page 190 Kucharek talks about the situation of Bishop Leonid Fedorov [en.wikipedia.org] who was imprisoned under Tsar Nicholas II because in his time in Russia
Quote
"every Byzantine had to be Orthodox"
I wonder if the Bishop had offered to commemorate the Tsar this would have been enough to save him from prison, or would he have had to sign up to the whole package and commemorate the "holy synod" also.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Saint Theodore the Studite and the Iconoclasts:

Going back almost a thousand years before Benedict XIV, I see there may be something to learn on this subject from the teaching of St Theodore the Studite who had to deal with both his patriarch and emperor being heretical (Iconoclasts).
I read somewhere that St Theodore stopped commemorating his iconoclastic patriarch Theodotos (appointed by iconoclastic emperor Leo V), and appealed to the Pope for help. But did he also stop commemorating his emperor?

St Theodore's teachings are available here [documentacatholicaomnia.eu] (in Greek & Latin). Does anyone know if there is an English translation?


Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0