Which is why I stated that he should have received the pallium fully vested in his episcopacy in the hand as an honorific (not vested with it), kissed his hand and be done with it. In most liturgical traditions hierarchichal services represent the pinnacle of the public liturgical life of any particular Church. To be directly vested by the Pope in the actual vesture of your episcopal office (omophorion) liturgically leads one towards a syncretic liturgical and ecclesiological conclusion that the BCCA is a Roman church with a Byzantine rite.
Well, there are likely a number of ways this could have been handled more considerately, and there probably isn't an ideal answer for reasons mentioned and many others.
IMHO all of this is indicative of many other things about the Catholic Communion that no doubt will continue to raise the eyebrows of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, if not our own as Eastern Catholics.
As it turned out, Metropolitan William did look oddly out of place in procession. More significantly and in all likelihood, he simply removed his own omophorion before the ceremony and had it handed back to him by His Holiness. Seems odd to refer to such as a "gift", no? If they really wanted to be creative, perhaps they could have had an omophorion fashioned in traditional Byzantine style from the blessed lambs wool used for the others, which Abp. William then could have worn over or in place of his normal one for the ceremony and subsequent Mass. That would have shown some real forethought.
On that note, the whole approach seemed to be a last minute decision / consideration at any rate, with word coming from the Chancery office only one day prior to the ceremony.
Archbishop William to receive omophor[/i] from Pope Benedict XVI (release dated 6/28/2012) [
archeparchy.org]
However, the Archeparchy's "Upcoming Events" had read (and still reads) as follows for some days beforehand:
Archbishop William receives [i]Pallium/Omophor[/i] in Rome [
archeparchy.org]
It seems as if some attempt was being planned to recover from the incident of +Metropolitan Judson's era, yet a decision was made only on or near the eve of the event.
More broadly and to your point on ecclesiology, while including a Byzantine Metropolitan in this ceremony is laudable in the context of the Communion, it still remains that the Archbishop of a [i]sui juris Metropolitan Church isn't really the same as an Archbishop of a Latin Church Metropolitan Archdiocese. The challenge really starts here.
As much as I hate suggesting it in some respects, perhaps it is best that the public, ceremonious imposition of a pallium remain a practice particular to the Latin Church alone, as its entire meaning and purpose really only fit in that context. The only problem of course is the way the CCEO was written with respect to the appointment of a hierarch of a Metropolitan Church, as well as Rome's well intended insistence in being inclusive as regards the Eastern Catholic Churches.
BTW - the Catholic News Service produced a very nice video segment entitled
Pallium: Three American Shepherds [
youtube.com]. I guess Abp. William doesn't count, as we thought he was one of
four American Archbishops recognized in this ceremony. I guess they are oddly correct in their omission, however, as he did not receive a pallium. Nonetheless, yet another example of the marginalized position of the smaller Eastern Catholic Churches, in particular, in the much larger Roman Catholic world.
With hope and in an optimistic light, I'd like to believe that there was some genuine attempt here to have Metropolitan William appropriately recognized, both in general and in the context of his own tradition. It did, however, also highlight that we still have a way to go ...
