tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207680054293037055.post5594981861628065638..comments2024-02-22T07:16:10.331-08:00Comments on Annales Ecclesiae Ucrainae: The Title of "Excellency" for BishopsRev. Dr Athanasius D. McVay HED FRSA FRHistShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16087521538917592655noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207680054293037055.post-31587143968994415752010-01-04T13:44:25.494-08:002010-01-04T13:44:25.494-08:001. Yes I would consider writing.
2. A lawful cust...1. Yes I would consider writing.<br /><br />2. A lawful custom is not an abuse. However, it would be quite correct to address them as Excellency, as the nuncio does. I suspect he also uses Excellency when writing in English.Rev. Dr Athanasius D. McVay HED FRSA FRHistShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16087521538917592655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207680054293037055.post-42324675899709894692010-01-04T11:30:51.894-08:002010-01-04T11:30:51.894-08:00Is it, therefore, an abuse that Lordship for bisho...Is it, therefore, an abuse that Lordship for bishops and Grace for Archbishops is still the standard use in Great Britain?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12813595031543071453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207680054293037055.post-20972810035843173202010-01-04T10:21:52.962-08:002010-01-04T10:21:52.962-08:00Dear Reverend Dr.,
I found this article fascinati...Dear Reverend Dr.,<br /><br />I found this article fascinating. I wonder if you would consider writing an article on the subject or on some similar subject for the journal of St. Conleth's Catholic Heritage Association published here in Ireland:<br /><br />http://catholicheritage.blogspot.com/2009/12/christvs-regnat-december-2009.html<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />ThomasConvenorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17939527929709019039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207680054293037055.post-67656518650046851602009-12-30T13:12:17.146-08:002009-12-30T13:12:17.146-08:00I am very familiar with Ut sive sollicite. It was ...I am very familiar with Ut sive sollicite. It was issued in a climate when people though everything from the Old World was to be abolished ("don't trust anyone over 30"). The decree was intended to simplify certain ceremonial usages of the Papal Court (renamed the Papal Household). These included forms of address in official correspondence. Titles were left untouched but the forms of address for the Roman Curia were simplified for official correspondence. No distinction was made between East and Wet except for Patriarchs because the debate as to their precedence was still hot from Vatican II. There was no debate on Eastern Catholic bishops. Dress is a matter beyond this post. Thank You for Yr. insightful comments.Rev. Dr Athanasius D. McVay HED FRSA FRHistShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16087521538917592655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207680054293037055.post-43887062225643111232009-12-30T05:51:53.995-08:002009-12-30T05:51:53.995-08:00Dear Fr. Athanasius you raised an interesting poin...Dear Fr. Athanasius you raised an interesting point in regards to law on this matter. I must give this considerable thought. However, for your consideration you might find the following of interest. <br /><br />The Secretariat of State issued the Instruction Ut sive sollicite, on the vesture, titles, and insignia of cardinals, bishops, and lesser prelates on March 31, 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 334-340. In Part II Titles and Coats-of-Arms §30, the text reads: “With regard to the dress and titles of cardinals and patriarchs of the Eastern rites, the traditional usages of their individual rite is [sic] to be followed.” If the hierarchs of the Eastern rites were to follow the practice of the Latin Church, then it seems that there would be no need for this directive as §22 reads: “For cardinals the title “Eminence” and for bishops, “Excellency,” may still be used and the adjectival phrase “Most Reverend” added.” Possibly, I am only reading into this but it seems that the tone of this instruction which is the current law of the Catholic Church makes a distinction between the usages of the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches. While the text refers only to cardinals and patriarchs and not to bishops in regards to their dress [clerical attire] and titles, I am not certain why it would not also extend to bishops. Within our own Church [Ukrainian Catholic] I have seen considerable change among the hierarchs in regards to their dress. At one time most of them dressed like Latin bishops but now, more and more are attired in the traditional clerical dress of their own Church which clearly corresponds to the dress of the Orthodox. This same point was later reinforced in the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches §66 “As for the non-liturgical dress of the clergy, it is appropriate that the individual Churches sui iuris return to the style of the traditional Eastern usage.”<br /><br />I am sorry to have strayed solely from the topic of titles and have also included clerical attire. Yet, the underlying point is one of traditional usage. This in no way is a criticism of your excellent article on the usage of “Excellency” for bishops in the Catholic Church. You have provided a detailed historical picture. Thanks so much. Ut sive sollicite may be of interest to you in regards to your future piece on Coats-of-Arms. I certainly look forward to that forthcoming article.Protodeacon Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16030718466163353016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207680054293037055.post-79191766585241063522009-12-28T11:44:18.865-08:002009-12-28T11:44:18.865-08:00The question is a valid one and requires serious s...The question is a valid one and requires serious study. First one must distinguish between a courtesy title and a title de jure. A point to examine might be how old are contemporary Orthodox titles and whether they courtesy titles or titles given by church law. In the East, the problem of “self-style” is ever present. How extended is the use of each titles, and is it a question of everyone styling themselves by a greater title than their peers? Is there some shadow-styking regarding Roman titles (Eminence)? We must never forget that the Byzantine Empire was Rome, not a domain of popular “Greek” culture.<br /><br />Replying to Father Cyrille Korolevskij, Metropolitan Sheptytsky wrote, slightly tongue-and-cheek: <br />“Ah, again you address me as as Eminence!!!! Your are convinced that all the oriental bishops have the right to the title but for me this theory is a bit dangerous and it is very difficult for us to accept without protesting.” (30 March 1926). Incedentally, Kotolevskij saw early on that the rump of the Kyivan Church, the Church of Lviv-Halych, was an autonomous (Particular) Church equal to an orthodox major archbishopric [to Sincero, June 1931]. This topic qill be treated on a future post on the See of Halych.Rev. Dr Athanasius D. McVay HED FRSA FRHistShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16087521538917592655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207680054293037055.post-55175418621637069152009-12-28T06:47:11.188-08:002009-12-28T06:47:11.188-08:00Reverend and Dear Fr. Athanasius,
Thanks for a ver...Reverend and Dear Fr. Athanasius,<br />Thanks for a very informative and interesting article. What is your view about Eastern Catholic hierarchs using the same courtesy titles as their Orthodox brethren?<br /><br />Bishop: Your Grace<br />Archbishop: Your Eminence<br />Metropolitan: Your Eminence<br />Patriarch: Your Beatitute/Your HolinessProtodeacon Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16030718466163353016noreply@blogger.com