www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Title of Eminence

Since we have a new metropolitan, I thought I would address an issue which has always bothered me and that is the use of the title Eminence in regards to our Metropolitan. It seems to me both a Latinization and inappropriate. If one understands the history of the title I think you will understand.

In 1630 Pope Urban VIII granted the title of Eminence to members of the College of Cardinals and required all others to relinquish it. These others were princes who then adopted the title Highness. The only other person permitted the title is the Prince Grand Master of the Order of Malta. This act was confirmed by the Congress of Vienna and the Congress of Berlin and formally ratified by the Versailles Treaty which governs international diplomatic protocol. In fact, the use of "prince of the Church" for Cardinals is not at all inaccuarte because it is diplomatically speaking exactly what they are. In diplomatic precedence Cardinals precede everyone but emperors, kings, crown princes, and heads of state. The title is not just a nicety, but designates a diplomatic rank.

Therefore, it seems to me inappropriate for us to use this title of our metropolitan. First it seems a Latinization, as if we are trying increase the prestige of our metropolitan by adopting a Latin title. Second, he is not a cardinal and not entitled to it. This is not a statement on his honorary precedence, which I feel is greater as he is head of a particular Church. It is simply fact as he does not have the diplomatic status or right to the title which is governed by international law. We can call the Administrator Royal Highness but it does not make him a prince or entitle him.

I would suggest we adopt the more Eastern style of Beatitude which is in keeping with our heritage and is what the Orthodox, at least the OCA, use as well.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate.

I would suggest we adopt the more Eastern style of Beatitude which is in keeping with our heritage and is what the Orthodox, at least the OCA, use as well.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Why should the Byzantine Ruthenian metropolia always be concerned about out doing the OCA all the time anyway? All the Orthodox Church in America is nothing more really then an Americanized Russian Church that uses english. Why should the Ruthenian metropolia which is a different cultural tradition from Russian Orthodoxy care what Russian Orthodoxy does?

For the past hundred years, the group that is now the OCA has sought not only to convert all Byzantine Ruthenians to Orthodoxy but also to extensively Russify them to the point where they lost almost all their previous traditional mannerism. Just look what they used to call themselves before 1970 - the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America", if that dont beat all?

Why should the Ruthenian Church follow Russian practices that never were theirs in the first place? Ruthenians should instead seek to be faithful to their own traditions free from any outside (especially Russian) influences.

Robert K.

Robert,

I was not aware the Ruthenian Catholic Church was ever trying to out-do the OCA. I simply used the OCA as an example. I would also remind you that the Pope himself, as well as various Vatican issued documents, have asked us to align our usages with those of the Orthodox Churches. But for your knowledge I will clarify some things.

The use of Eminence in the Catholic Church is reserved to cardinals and the Prince Grand Master of the Order of Malta. No one else has the right to assume or use it, if for no other reason because the office of cardinal carries with it recognized diplomatic status.

The Ruthenian Catholic Church has in the past adhered to the usage of Most Reverend for both our bishops and metropolitans. This is also the usage in the Latin Church. In the Catholic Church, the title Beatitude is used by all patriarchs, Eastern and Latin, and by the Ukrainian major archbishop. I have not seen the Syro-Malabar major archbishop use this title, however.

In the Orthodox Churches, patriarchs use either Holiness or Beatitude. The heads of other autocephalous Churches whether they are archbishops or metropolitans use Beatitude. The use of Eminence among the Orthodox seems confined to metropolitans of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, here again they have no right to this title as it was never diplomatically conceded to them.

The use of Eminence in our Church did not start until Metropolitan Judson's reign. I would guess in imitation of the EP's use of the term or in attempt to assert our metropolitan's equality with the cardinals. However, I would add I never saw it used on official documents of the Archeparchy, until it was used on Metropolitan Judson's memorial prayer card handed out at his funeral liturgy.

Keeping the above facts in mind, I again state we should not use the title Eminence for our Metropolitan. Beatitude is in conformity with Eastern usage, both Catholic and Orthodox, in refering to the head of a sui iuris/autocephalous Church. I believe this is the usage we should adopt.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Numerous Greek Orthodox Metropolitans are addressed with the term, "Your Eminence." Certainly no one using this title is trying to put our Metropolitan on par with Latin Cardinals. After all the office of "Cardinal" is an invention of the Latin Church and an honoric similar to "Monsignor." Though the bishops who hold the title "Cardinal" might hold power in the Curia or be prelates of large Sees they are not heads of Churches in the sense that our Metropolitan is head of our Church.

Titles and how hierarchs are addressed in the Latin and Eastern Churches are really "apples and oranges." If things were allowed to be as they were intended how our "sui juris" Church would function would also be quite different!

[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: khouri ]

Khouri,

I think you missed my point. I conceded that the metropolitans of the Ecumencical Patriarchate use the title Eminence. I also realize that many who use it for our metropolitan do so out of ignorance of the title's nature and implication. In either case the use would be wrong.

I would also state that the office of cardinal is more than an honorific like the three grades of monsignori. Cardinals, if they receive no other duty, have the responsibility of electing the Bishop of Rome.

What I am realy trying to get across is the title Eminence orginated as secular one for princes. The Pope, in his role as Sovereign, first of the Papal States and now the Vatican City State limited this title to cardinals and the Prince Grand Master of the Order of Malta and the rest of the world agreed and codified this in the laws of diplomatic protocol.

We could call the metropolitan Majesty, Higness, whatever, but it would not make it correct or lawful. As silly as we may think the titles of royalty are these things are governed by law. In several European countries, typically those with monarchies, it is punishable by law to assume any style or title governed by diplomatic statutes.

Therefore, use of the title by anyone who is not a cardinal is incorrect and shows ignorance of the title's history and implication. The title Beatitude is more ancient, clearly implies one is the head of a sui iuris/autocephalous Church, and therefore entirely more appropriate. As for Church standing, I think most would recognize that heading a sui iuris Church is a higher dignity than cardinal. So why adopt their title, which diplomatically no else is entitled to and when historically there is a higher and more appropriate title?

In Christ,
Lance

Before anyone thinks I am nuts and spend too much time reading diplomatic protocols :p let me state I don't think that it is matter of any great import just a pet peave that I would like to see corrected.

Admin,

I just noticed your use of Eminence on the welcome page, so this was not at all directed at you. But my vote is still for Beatitude.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

Thank you for the history lesson. Its nice to know the roots of our words and titles. I suppose, as head of a Sui Juris Church, Metropolitan Basil could choose any title he wanted, although eyebrows could be raised.

Of course, congressmen and judges are addressed as "honorable", even those whose votes or decisions are despicable, not to mention those who have been convicted or jailed for crimes.

As we know all too well, there is at least one American Bishop entitled to be called "his Eminence" who is perhaps more deserving of the title "his Decadence".

Having a title and living up to it are two different things. Let us pray that Metropolitan Basil is always "Eminently Beatific" and worthy of all good titles.


John
PIlgrim and Odd Duck

Dear Lance,

You are not nuts.

If you are, then we Ukies are nuts with you!

We used to fight over the title with which to address Patriarch Josef the Confessor.

The "Patriarchalists" (like me ) would insist on calling him "His Beatitude the Patriarch."

The "Major Archbishopalists" called him "His Beatitude the Major Archbishop or Metropolitan." Others liked "His Eminence the Cardinal."

One genius compounded the Ukrainian with the English and called him "His Blazhenitude."

Later on, the Patriarchalists began to harden their positions, and thought that "His Beatitude" was fitting for Metropolitans, but for a Patriarchal Head of a Church "His Holiness" and "Holy Father" were appropriate.

Believe it or not.

I think your new Metropolitan should be "His Beatitude" as he is the Head of a sui generis Church.

"His Eminence" in the North American context, does sound like you are making him out to be a Cardinal.

Not that there would be anything wrong if he were!

Alex

Indeed this is so. Note, however, that in the GO usage 'metropolitan' is not applied to the head of a 'sui juris' Church. In the current usage of BC Ruthenians, 'metropolitan' is only applied to the head of the Church, a sui juris church. So for the GO this is not the case. Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh as far as I am aware is not the head of the GO Church in USA. The BC Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh will be the head of the particular church, at least according to Catholic Canon Law.

To the poster who asks why we are following what the OCA does...well this is why. What the OCA does is probably closer to authentic Carpatho-Russian/Ruthenian/Rusin usage than the latinized mess that many would like to pass off as 'our tradition.' Authentic Carpathian usage is what was in place in 1646 at the time of the Union. Why would the Diocese of Mukachevo have followed another usage other than that of the Other Slav Orthodox all around them?

I think, however, that the point that Lance is trying to make is that the position of Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ruthenians is different than any RC or other GC/BC hierarch in the USA. It is also important to remember that the Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh becomes in a way the de facto ranking bishop in the world. There is no other GC Ruthenian Arcbishop or Metropolitan in any other place. So, I tend to agree with Lance. We should probably call him His Beatitude. His Eminence is still better than His Excellency.

Bob

Dear people,

The application of these titles is not as selective as it seems that you believe. You cannot just decide that someone should be some title. All ranks and Sees have their appropriate titles, depending on your heritage. In the Russian and Ukrainian Churches there are the following (phonetically):
- "Pre-o-svyashchenishi" -- Bishop, equivalent to "His Grace"
- "Vysoko-pre-o-svyashchenishi" -- Archbishop (as in honorific ones of the Russ. Orthodox Church) or Metropolitan that is not the head of a church.
- "Blajenishi" -- Metropolitan (head of a church, as in OCA, UOC-MP, etc.) Here it must be noted that Metropolitan Laurus of ROCOR is only Vysokopreosvyashchenishi (correct me if I am wrong). Translated as Beatitude. This title is also given to Patriarchs who were never granted the status of Holiness.
- "Svyatishi" -- Patriarchs, translated as Holiness. There is sometimes also "All-Holiness"

Therefore, to answer your question, your new Metropolitan should definately be "His Beatitude" if your Church is like the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic, or Melkite Churches.

His Beatitude LUBOMYR, Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus', must retain the title "Beatitude", because our church was never granted "Holiness". Does anyone know what the Melkite Patriarch's title is?
Also, Patriarch Pavel of Serbia is also only a "Beatitude".

Daniil

Dear Daniil,

I take no position on the matter, as our Primate doesn't officially call himself "Patriarch" but "Major Archbishop" anyway.

It seems to me that "Beatitude" can be applied to any Primate of a sui generis Catholic Church.

"Holiness" or "All-Holiness" are titles for an Orthodox Patriarch, although not all of them bear this title.

The Armenians have more than one Patriarch who are styled "Beatitude" but the Catholicos-Patriarch of Etchmiadzin ("Descent of the Only-Begotten") is styled "Holiness."

The Patriarchalist Ukies who styled Slipyj "Holiness" were simply following the Orthodox tradition in this regard.

As to the question of granting titles, neither "Holiness" nor "Patriarch" were ever granted by Rome or anyone else to the Primate of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

If one uses "Patriarch" one might as well use "Holiness" as well, no?

Alex

Lance,

I think that I figured out where this came from. I just visited the homepage of the American Carpatho Russian-Russian Orthodox Diocese (www.acrod.org [acrod.org]). On that site you will find a short biography of Metropolitan Nicholas:

"His Eminence, the Most Reverend Metropolitan Nicholas, Titular Metropolitan of Amissos, was born on February 23, 1936. He was elected Bishop..."

Throughout the site Metropolitan Nicholas is consistently referred to as "His Eminence." I imagine that he has this title because he is a Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

During the reign of Metropolitan Judson our Church sought to recapture many of its lost traditions. Rather than using the Latin title "Most Reverened," which we were accustomed to, the decision was apparently made to adopt a more appropriate title. It was only natural for us to look at our cousins over in Johnstown, and see what they were doing. Since their Metropolitan is called "His Eminence," we will call our Metropolitan "His Eminence." I believe that is what happened.

In any case, I have to say that "His Eminence" is a HUGE, HUGE improvement over "Most Reverened," the Latin title that our previous Metropolitans were called.

God Bless,
Anthony

Yes, Alex, but as you just mentioned, not all Orthodox Patriarchs are "Holiness." Some are "Beatitude" too.

If he doesn't call himself Patriarch (which he doesn't on paper, but does in person), then why do we have a Patriarchal Sobor?

Daniil

Dear Daniil,

Yes, that is precisely my point.

We ourselves aren't consistent about the title, and we've never been.

Ultimately, Patriarchal Sobors or not, the whole thing is like calling Andrew Sheptytsky a saint amongst ourselves while this isn't recognized by anyone outside our immediate Church.

It makes no difference, ultimately, as long as we are under Rome and as long as Rome doesn't recognize the title.

Do you think Orthoman will ever forgive me?

Alex