Differences in the commemoration of bishops

[Alex Haig]

I have noticed in 'Russian' parishes (though perhaps it exists in other jurisdictions too) that when the bishop is commemorated, everyone from the Patriarch down is mentioned. So, for example, in Sourozh parishes in the UK, Patriarch Alexis and Bishop Elisey are named. In 'Byzantine' parishes only the local diocesan bishop is mentioned.

Why is there this difference? To me, the 'Russian' way seems very papal but perhaps I am missing something.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Paul Cowan]

Why is there this difference? To me, the 'Russian' way seems very papal but perhaps I am missing something.

With love in Christ

Alex

Perhaps not papal, but heirarchial?

When our Bishop presides he commemorates Metropolitan Phillip. When the priests comemorate they do the Bishop and if he is not present the Metropolitan. When it is the Deacons turn he commemorates the diaconate in christ and all the people. When the people commemorate we do to all mankind. So the lesser remember the greater.

Paul

[Anthony Stokes]

I have noticed in 'Russian' parishes (though perhaps it exists in other jurisdictions too) that when the bishop is commemorated, everyone from the Patriarch down is mentioned. So, for example, in Sourozh parishes in the UK, Patriarch Alexis and Bishop Elisey are named. In 'Byzantine' parishes only the local diocesan bishop is mentioned.
Why is there this difference? To me, the 'Russian' way seems very papal but perhaps I am missing something.
With love in Christ
Alex

That's a very good question. I would like to know as well. I am in the OCA, and typically OCA parishes commemorate the Diocesan bishop and the Metropolitan, but in my diocese at least, that is changing to just the Diocesan bishop. It doesn't have anything to do with the Metropolitan, just a return to proper practice. The Byzantine way you mentioned is correct, and canonical, I believe.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Moses Ibrahim]

In my ROCOR parish, its Patriarch Alexis, Metropolitan Hilarion, and Bishop Gabriel. All three. Any ideas?

[Father David Moser]

In my ROCOR parish, its Patriarch Alexis, Metropolitan Hilarion, and Bishop Gabriel. All three. Any ideas?

All I can tell you is that what you describe above is the commemorations as we have been instructed to do them by our Synod of Bishops. Since I am just a simple (minded) parish priest, I assume that my bishops know what is canonical, proper and appropriate and thus I have no problem following their direction.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Astley]

All I can tell you is that what you describe above is the commemorations as we have been instructed to do them by our Synod of Bishops. Since I am just a simple (minded) parish priest, I assume that my bishops know what is canonical, proper and appropriate and thus I have no problem following their direction.

Fr David Moser

Indeed, as may be seen here (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2008/5encommemoration.html).

[Christina M.]

Sorry for bumping an old thread.

So when they say that a church or a monastery stopped commemorating a patriarch, does that imply that this particular church or monastery used to say the patriarch's name during the Divine Liturgy, and then stopped? But how about for a church which is in communion with their patriarch, yet doesn't say his name during the Liturgy... this isn't considered not-commemorating the patriarch, right?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The main streams of Orthodoxy have different ways of commemorating their ruling hierarchs. Those for example who are in the Russian stream, begin the hierarchical commemorations with their chief hierarchs- ie patriarch and/or metropolitan; then their diocesan ruling hierarch. Those who are in the Byzantine stream however from what I have heard only commemorate their diocesan bishop.

Now this is part of the canonical order of our services. So the clergy are obligated to commemorate their hierarch(s) as they are instructed and this is often communicated to them by official communication (ustav) whenever a new hierarch is elected or there is a new canonical arrangement.

To follow this order is very important since it shows that the local parish, priest and faithful are canonically part of the church they commemorate. Conversely during troubled times, when such hierarchs cease being commemorated, then it shows immediately that the local priest and parish have broken communion with their former hierarch or the church he is part of. Usually though in such situations it will not be long before a new set of hierarchs are commemorated who head the group that the local parish has just joined.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Christina M.]

So, for example, if we hear that a monastery in Greece stopped commemorating their patriarch, that means that they don't say the patriarch's name during the Divine liturgy. BUT, if they weren't saying the patriarch's name beforehand anyways, since as you have pointed out the Byzantines commemorate only their local diocesan bishops, then to stop commemorating the patriarch would mean to stop saying the diocesan bishop's name? (that's a question)

[Anthony Stokes]

Sorry for bumping an old thread.

So when they say that a church or a monastery stopped commemorating a patriarch, does that imply that this particular church or monastery used to say the patriarch's name during the Divine Liturgy, and then stopped? But how about for a church which is in communion with their patriarch, yet doesn't say his name during the Liturgy... this isn't considered not-commemorating the patriarch, right?

Yes to your first question, and I would say no to your last question. In some churches, only the actual bishop of the diocese is commemorated in the Liturgy, in some, like ROCOR churches I believe, all of the bishops are commemorated. I took my male choir to sing at a ROCOR church and we had to sing the polychronion for at least 4 bishops, from the diocesan up through the Patriarch.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Archimandrite Irenei]

As Father David mentioned, there are different practices in different local churches as to how the hierarchy is commemorated during the liturgical services. Generally speaking, the Byzantine-style churches (Ecumenical Patriarchate, Greek Archdioceses, etc.) follow the older practice of commemorating during the divine services only the diocesan bishop (or a higher-ranking bishop in the hierarchy, if he is present and celebrating in the service); while the Slavic-style churches (Church of Russia, ROCOR, Serbians, etc.) follow a later custom of commemorating the whole hierarchy from the patriarch down to the diocesan bishop, in the order that each oversees the other, down to the local parish -- so a parish in the Western American Diocese of the ROCOR, for example, would commemorate in the services: the Patriarch of Moscow, the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, and then the Diocesan Bishop. Additional hierarchs are included in the commemorations if they are present in the church during the service, whether or not they are serving.

The practice of 'not commemorating' a bishop, however, technically refers to removing him from a parish's or diocese's dyptichs, which are the official listings of those canonical hierarchs and bodies recognised and commorated locally, with whom the community is in full liturgical and ecclesiastical communion. 'Not commemorating' doesn't technically relate to whose names are read in the petitions of the services (since, again, these practices change by local tradition) -- though obviously, in a church that does list many bishops in a certain way, the intentional leaving off of one or another would indeed constitute a form of non-commemoration.

The dyptichs are not often read in their fullness. In portions of the Orthodox world of Slavic tradition, an abbreviated dyptich is sung at the end of the Divine Liturgy; but in most parishes the full dyptichs are only proclaimed aloud at the service of the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Father David Moser]

As Father David mentioned,

I'm guessing that you are referring to Fr Raphael's comment as my post doesn't really address this.
Fr David

[Christina M.]

Thank you!! That was the answer I was looking for.