Commemoration of non-Orthodox rulers during litanies

[Olga]

However, the monarch (or other head of state) should not be commemorated by name, if he or she is not Orthodox.

[Andreas Moran]

I assumed the head of state is prayed for in any country where the liturgy is served. The usual form here is 'For our sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth' (save that in many Cypriot parishes they do not pray for the Queen). I remember some years ago a visitor objecting to this thinking we were ardent monarchists. It was explained to him that we would pray for whoever were our head of state, even if that had been 'President Scargill' (Scargill at that time being a prominent union leader).

[Michael Astley]

However, the monarch (or other head of state) should not be commemorated by name, if he or she is not Orthodox.

Really? I hadn't come across this before.

Both the Russian Diocese of Sourozh (http://www.sourozh.org/web/The_Divine_Liturgy%2C_Page_1#gtlit) and the Greek Archdiocese in the UK commemorate Her Majesty by name during the Liturgy. I also have a copy of the text of the Liturgy as used at Brookwood when they were under ROCOR and the same is indicated in this text.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all, from the above:

However, the monarch (or other head of state) should not be commemorated by name, if he or she is not Orthodox.
I know of no canon to support this somewhat widespread practice. The distinction between praying for someone 'by name' or 'not by name' seems rather pharisaical: if one prays for a person, one prays for him. Whether one mentions the name or not, the prayer is offered for the person; a distinction between saying the name aloud or not, depending on whether the person is Orthodox, seems a late change in practice based perhaps on the political situation of the era that saw it in, but being quite foreign to the Orthodox theology of liturgical prayer.

That said, it is nonetheless a somewhat widespread practice. In the Russian Orthodox churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, petition is made for the leader of the land by name (hence in this country, 'For our sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth, her government, the royal family, and all in civil authority, let us pray to the Lord...'); and this is also the normative practice in Greek Orthodox churches. The practice in Russian Orthodox churches of the ROCOR varies. Here in the UK, I've encountered the same, as above; however, not long ago I was celebrating at a ROCOR parish in the USA and, 'translating' from my UK service book on the fly, I commemorated 'George, the president of this country, its government, and all in civil authority'; and while I was not challenged on this, the local clergy there did note to me afterwards that their usual practice was simply to commemorate 'the president of this country'.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Paul Cowan]

In my parish we also commemorate the president, state and local authorities.

[Andreas Moran]

Forgive me, dear Olga, but can you tell us the basis of that? Even if civil authorities and armed forces are prayed for, it may well be the case that not all their personnel are Orthodox even in an Orthodox country. St Peter told people to 'honour the king', i.e. the Roman emperor who obviously was not even Christian. Should we not pray for those whom God has placed over us? And I wonder if there's a difference between 'commemorating' and 'praying for'.

[Eric Peterson]

I think it might be a service book thing. I don't recall the Antiochian service book leaving a blank for names, but I also don't recall it adding "in defense of peace and freedom" after prayer for the armed forces. I suppose this came in after Sept. 11. It's sad when clergy don't abide by the service book. Of course, the Antiochians have become notorious for errors in their publications. So, what can you do?

[Paul Cowan]

Forgive me, dear Olga, but can you tell us the basis of that? Even if civil authorities and armed forces are prayed for, it may well be the case that not all their personnel are Orthodox even in an Orthodox country. St Peter told people to 'honour the king', i.e. the Roman emperor who obviously was not even Christian. Should we not pray for those whom God has placed over us? And I wonder if there's a difference between 'commemorating' and 'praying for'.

There is a definite difference in the two words. If we are supposed to be subject to the law of the land / of man (as long as it does not trespass the Law of God) then it only behooves us to pray for those in authority over us. Through the tears/ prayers of the ancient Israleites, God heard them and the way Pharoah treated them.

I am in the middle of re-reading the OT and am coming across numerous refrences to the people praying to God for help with bad rulers.


com·mem·o·rate (k-mm-rt)
tr.v. com·mem·o·rat·ed, com·mem·o·rat·ing, com·mem·o·rates
1. To honor the memory of with a ceremony.
2. To serve as a memorial to.


pray (pr)
v. prayed, pray·ing, prays
v.intr.
1. To utter or address a prayer or prayers to God, a god, or another object of worship.
2. To make a fervent request or entreaty.
v.tr.
1. To utter or say a prayer or prayers to; address by prayer.
2. To ask (someone) imploringly; beseech. Now often used elliptically for I pray you to introduce a request or entreaty: Pray be careful.
3. To make a devout or earnest request for: I pray your permission to speak.
4. To move or bring by prayer or entreaty.

[RichardWorthington]

(re western rite mentioning Queen Elisabeth)

Why? This is no different from other Orthodox liturgies in which prayers are offered for the local authorities.

I had assumed that the page was American ... hence the surprise!

Anyway, she is also Queen of Australia, but this is not exactly local!!



1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.


There were no Christian kings then, although in Acts it does mention the some influential people had become Christians. Perhaps Paul is asking them to pray to those in authority, especially when they are on our 'side'!

Richard

[Olga]

My understanding is that the principle of not commemorating a non-Orthodox head of state by name during public liturgical services is the same which specifies that only Orthodox people can be commemorated by name at the proskomedia, during panikhidi/mnimosyna, and other services. Of course, any Orthodox Christian is free to pray for anyone, Orthodox or not, in their private, personal devotions.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Olga, thank you for your further comment. You wrote:

My understanding is that the principle of not commemorating a non-Orthodox head of state by name during public liturgical services is the same which specifies that only Orthodox people can be commemorated by name at the proskomedia, during panikhidi/mnimosyna, and other services. Of course, any Orthodox Christian is free to pray for anyone, Orthodox or not, in their private, personal devotions.
This is actually not the case, and the two things really aren't comparable.

The reason (or at least, one of the principal reasons) the names of non-Orthodox are not traditionally commemorated at the proskomedia is because that commemoration includes the symbolic participation in the Eucharist through the particle removed from the prosphora with the name, and placed into the sanctified chalice after the communion of the people. This is not just a matter of praying for someone: it is joining them to the celebration of the Eucharist and the body and blood of the altar.

The real point, though, is that in this tradition of commemorating only Orthodox at the proskomedia, the non-Orthodox are not commemorated 'not by name' with a particle. They are not commemorated at the proskomedia. They are prayed for elsewhere. There is no distinction between praying for someone (or commemorating them) 'by name' or 'not by name'.

This is really the issue. The distinction between commemorating / not commemorating, or praying for / not praying for, is a viable one; but the idea of praying for someone 'but not by name' is not -- and doesn't really find any foundation in the theology of Orthodox liturgical prayer.

Let me give a practical example, and I'll take the USA as a subject. If a petition is offered there for 'George, the president of this country', or if instead a prayer is offered without the name for 'The president of this country', the point is that the same prayer has been offered, for the same person. Orthodox theology makes no distinction (and allows for no distinction) between the identity of a prayer if offered with specific mention of a personal name. It would be quite a different question if it was determined not to offer a prayer for the ruler were he/she not Orthodox; but if a prayer is offered, the arbitrary distinction of leaving off the personal name does not follow any pattern of Orthodox theology of which I'm aware. It seems, rather, a habit of political piety, fairly modern in its inception.

All that said, the proper pattern to follow is that prescribed by one's bishop. I'm not advocating anything else; only that certain practices not be given a weightier status (e.g. 'It is wrong to...') simply because they're sometimes practiced.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Paul Cowan]

I think it might be a service book thing. I don't recall the Antiochian service book leaving a blank for names, but I also don't recall it adding "in defense of peace and freedom" after prayer for the armed forces. I suppose this came in after Sept. 11. It's sad when clergy don't abide by the service book. Of course, the Antiochians have become notorious for errors in their publications. So, what can you do?

I have to disagree with you Eric. Notorious? Not any more so than other jurisdictions. I have never seen or heard of In defense of peace and freedom said during the liturgy and I am behind the altar with our priest. Perhaps your local parish is doing this? Where else have you heard this?

[Anthony Stokes]

I think it might be a service book thing. I don't recall the Antiochian service book leaving a blank for names, but I also don't recall it adding "in defense of peace and freedom" after prayer for the armed forces. I suppose this came in after Sept. 11. It's sad when clergy don't abide by the service book. Of course, the Antiochians have become notorious for errors in their publications. So, what can you do?


I have not heard that one before. Usually, the phrase "and subdue under their every enemy and adversary" can be added in time of war, and is in the service books, usually in brackets.

But, it is also possible for a bishop to approve the addition of petitions into the litanies. It is common in the OCA for the central church to send out special petitions at to be offered at different times of the year. Also, at my parish, since we are trying to build a temple, our bishop allows us to insert four petitions about building a church into the augmented litany.

Subdeacon Anthony

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Dn Matthew wrote:


Whether one mentions the name or not, the prayer is offered for the person; a distinction between saying the name aloud or not, depending on whether the person is Orthodox, seems a late change in practice based perhaps on the political situation of the era that saw it in, but being quite foreign to the Orthodox theology of liturgical prayer.

Here in Canada in most rocor churches the Queen is commemorated by name. This I think matches up with prayer for the ruling authority which is attested to after all from apostolic times. The idea that this prayer has to reflect agreement with the policies of this authority is I think wrong according to Orthodox liturgical understanding.

Commemoration and prayer for the armed forces at the litanies also seems to flow naturally from prayer for the authorities and also I do not think should reflect whether we support or do not support government policies on a political level. After all the prayers of the litanies are a supplication of a very different kind than the political.

Also it seems that the wording of our litanies often reflects our political cultures as much or more than it does deeper liturgical understanding. For example whereas the Queen is usually always mentioned by name here in Canada I have never heard the president commemorated by name in the States. On the other hand whereas in America 'the president' is often commemorated, in Canada it is very rare to hear commemoration of 'the prime minister'- more often this as well as all authorities are understood to be included within the phrase 'the civil authorities'. Again I'm not sure that any of these practices is more or less correct than the other. It is more that they reflect local political cultures and how much we feel the Church should be and is justified in legitimizing their authority. In Canada there is definite uneasiness of the Church playing this role. But on the other it may also reflect some misunderstanding of what liturgical prayer is in the first place.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

For example whereas the Queen is usually always mentioned by name here in Canada I have never heard the president commemorated by name in the States. On the other hand whereas in America 'the president' is often commemorated, in Canada it is very rare to hear commemoration of 'the prime minister'- more often this as well as all authorities are understood to be included within the phrase 'the civil authorities'. Again I'm not sure that any of these practices is more or less correct than the other.

I think that in part at least this is due to the latent monarchical prejudices in the Orthodox Church. Our litanies and even our political structure presumes that there is a ruling monarch. This is, no doubt, inherent from the Byzantine empire and then later from the Russian empire. Whether or not it is appropriate is a different issue, but it is the reality of the Church in the world. The prime minister, the president, etc are not monarchs - they are elected officials who have no "inherent" authority or power, but simply that which is given them by the people at a particular place and time. The monarch is given his (or her) authority by God (a fact that most coronation rituals will reinforce) and thus is responsible before God for his (or her) rule of the society entrusted him (or her).

On a side note: it would be an interesting study (for a different thread) to look at the concept of the "sovereign" of a democracy being the "body politic" (God gives authority to the people who entrust it to a leader).

That all being said, I have actually heard the president prayed for by name in the US - usually in OCA parishes and sometimes in the convert Antiochian parishes.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

On a side note: it would be an interesting study (for a different thread) to look at the concept of the "sovereign" of a democracy being the "body politic" (God gives authority to the people who entrust it to a leader).

A clue would the enacting formula of a state (the form of words at the beginning of a statute). That for Britain (where parliament comprises the Queen and both Houses) is:


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows

For the USA (the president not being part of Congress) it is:


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

For Canada it is:


Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

But for Australia, it is:


The Parliament of Australia enacts:

[Olga]

... in Canada it is very rare to hear commemoration of 'the prime minister'-


A guess here, but perhaps the reason the prime minister of a constitutional monarchy is not specifically commemorated may be because he or she is the Head of Government, not the Head of State. It would be interesting to look at pre-revolutionary Russian litanies to see what approach was taken then.