Thank you, John for the information. I can see how the Pope can be considered a foster Patriarch, but I agree more with Fr. Elias and the concept of communion as expressed in the diptychs. The pallium seems to take away or devalue this LITURGICAL act/component. The pallium seems to be a 'jurisdictional' symbol of one having power and authority over someone else. The diptychs seem to be more of a symbol of 'communion.'
I guess this can all go back to the meaning and purpose of the Unia since the get-go. One of the most critical items in the Union agreements was the maintenance of our own traditions. Unfortunately, there is no document (that I am aware of) which itemizes what and how Rome will treat that communion years later. The Vatican II documents imply the possibility of patriarchates being set up in the future - if ever. Yet, receiving a pallium as a symbol recognizing the Pope as our Patriarch would seem to convey a relationship that will not permit new patriarchates. Our Metropolitan is a servant until the Great Union occurs.
I've read a number of explanations attempting to define the purpose and meaning of the pallium. Most of them gravitate to a jurisdictional or master/servant relationship rather than one of communion or covenant. Add to this the fact that the pallium is given as a private ceremony between the Pope and the Metropolitan. This is not a liturgy, but rather an act of subscribing to a contract. I heard that our first Rusyn bishop was ordained by an Orthodox heirarch from Transylvanian. No pallium.
There is no celebration within the context of our community. There is no ECF explanation (except for some obscure definition by a canon lawyer in a text). It gets hardly worn. Our liturgy commissions have also not conveyed its meaning either in an effective manner. To the end it seems to be a necessary embarassment to finalize getting the job. We are told to get back to our particular traditions here, here, here, here, and here but not here. The fact that the ceremony itself can be discarded so easily when an Orthodox Patriarch complains or threatens tells me something more: it really shouldn't be and even Rome knows it. But do we?
The Chronicler in the Old Testament (1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah) centers on the issues confronting the returning Jews from the Babylonian Exile. In their new environment it was obvious that political independence was not the same as it was under King David and Solomon nor will it ever be. The only thing they did have that was 'independently owned and operated' was their liturgy, a second Temple still to be built, and their Law. What the Jews did in their liturgy was not considered a threat and our own liturgical renewal since Vatican II has occured so quickly (in church years) and so well to undo centuries of Latinizations and inorganic growths. We've become liturgical experts because that is all we have that is 'independently owned and operated.' Nothing more.
Now our canon law books state that a 'rite' is:
"... the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church 'sui juris.'"
We did good with liturgical renewal and restoration. It was the most obvious and easiest in the way of knowing what was right and should be done (celebrating liturgies we had all along) and what was wrong and to be disgarded (Latinization). Theology has also gotten to be easier since liturgy without a consistent theology that fits like a glove is pure bogus. Spirituality is starting to get some momentum. Thank you, monks and religious! Leave it to the monastics to show us the way with a new an improved Eastern monasticism. Now for 'disciplinary' patrimony. This is the hardest because it includes married priests.
The invitation to renewal stops here because it crosses live wires. It is a 'community' thing that goes outside our private liturgical-theological-spiritual box. It is a practice that intrudes upon other communities because it isn't done in the privacy of our homes. It is a public thing because it is marriage, a sacred mystery whereby a man and woman are crowned in marriage in a public/community context. A pallium seems to represent another 'community' thing - our participation in the Catholic Communion. Symbols that bespeak of a community thing, such as mandatory celibacy and palliums, that come from outside our particular disciplinary patrimony always carry with it grave consequences and a sad and unfortunate history - beginning early as 1893 nonetheless.
I didn't know that a Metropolitan could not convoke a council of bishops or ordain new ones without getting the pallium first. Has this always been the case in the Byzantine Church? It's like saying, "You are hired for the job as CEO, and get a bunch of perks and fancy new clothes to wear to signify your office, but you cannot call a meeting or hire new employees." Either you were hired and given the authority to match the responsibility of the job or you weren't. What is it? What was the purpose of getting a new haircut, new fancy clothes, new office, get relocated, etc if you technically end up a mere figurehead with absolutely no authority in your company? Wasn't signing on the dotted line and the handshake good enough? What we now have is an arbitrary double-meaning of the pallium; one for the Latin Metropolitans and a second one for Eastern Metropolitans. Can a symbol take on two meanings?
I agree with the idea that the pallium is, indeed, a Latinization and has to be chucked like red episcopal skull caps, episcopal insignia depicting Latin hats and tassles, and giving ashes on Ash Wednesday.
I guess I still don't get it.
Joe
[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]
).