Monsignor Enrico Benedetti (1874-1941)

Among History’s Vanished

The archivist of the Oriental Congregation, Gianpaolo Rigotti’s recent article “Uomini e attività della Congregazione per la Chiesa Orientale tra i motu proprio Dei providentis (1917) e Sancta Dei Ecclesia (1938)” deals with key figures that served the Congregation of the Oriental Church(es). However, one person is conspicuously absent from among these figures: Monsignor Enrico Benedetti. For twenty years, Benedetti was one of the most important employees of the two oriental departments of the Roman Curia, from 1904 to 1924. After this date he largely vanishes from history and obtaining his biographical data continues to be difficult. There are few overt references to his person and activities in the archives of the Oriental Congregation but, surprisingly, more significant information is to be found in other archives of the Apostolic See and in works dealing with Ukraine and the Greek-Catholic Church. Recently, Benedetti’s memory was brought back to life by the research of Monsignor Giuseppe M. Croce. In his now famous edition of Cyrille Korolevskij’s autobiography and correspondence, there are significant references to Benedetti, a protagonist of Byzantine Catholicism in the Roman Curia. Croce’s work has finally lifted the veil from the mystery of aspects of Benedetti’s curial career. This brief biography, based on what appears to be left of Benedetti’s personal file and supplemented by other archival sources, is intended as a modest addition to such research.

Enrico Benedetti was born in Rome in 1874 and was ordained for his native diocese in 1897, at the age of twenty-three. He subsequently obtained a teaching degree, as well as degrees in theology and in canon law, the latter for which he received top marks. In 1899 he was taken on provisionally at the Congregation of the Council [of the Clergy]. On 13 January 1900, he was given the chair of letters at the schools of the Pontifical Urban College run by the Sacred Congregation De Propaganda Fide where he later taught ecclesiastical history. It was in this teaching capacity that Angelo Roncalli (future Blessed John XXIII) remembered Benedetti in his famous memoirs, Journal of a Soul.

Propaganda Fide called Benedetti to additional responsibilities in 1904. At that time the minutante for the Ruthenian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Georgian Rite affairs received another posting and resigned his charge at the Congregation. According to the custom of the time, Italian priests were asked to submit their names for the vacant post. Among the eighteen contestants, Benedetti ranked among the top three for “the best physical, intellectual and moral requisites.” Benedetti was further prized for his knowledge of Greek, French and a little English and German. On 4 July 1904, the cardinals selected Benedetti and Pope Pius X approved the selection the following 12 July. The new minutante was informed of his appointment in a letter from the Assessor of the Sacred Congregation De Propaganda Fide for the Affairs of the Oriental Rite, Monsignor Savelli Spinola, dated the following day.

When Pope Benedict XV suppressed the old Congregation De Propaganda for the Affairs of the Oriental Rite, in 1917, Benedetti passed over to the newly created Congregation Pro Ecclesia Orientali [for the Oriental Church]. In the new department, his past faithful service and expertise earned him the promotion from simple minutante to official, in which capacity he could co-sign documents with the cardinal-secretary or the bishop-assessor. Additionally, Don Enrico was granted the honourary distinction of papal chamberlain which carried with it the title of Monsignor.

The new Congregation was charged with demonstrating a more sympathetic image to Eastern-Rite Christians and its modus operandi was to be exclusively attuned to their needs. For this purpose the Pope chose Cardinal Marini, who had a certain interest in oriental scholarship, as the Congregation’s head. As second-in-command the Pope chose a Greek-Catholic, Bishop Isaias Papadopulos.

Among those who showed the greatest interest in the Christian East was Monsignor Benedetti himself, especially in his area of competency, the Greco-Slavic Churches, the largest among which was the Byzantine-Ruthenian, which comprised several of what we now call ecclesiae sui iuris. Benedetti soon began publishing material about the history of the Ruthenian Churches. In 1916 he published Punti di storia religiosa del popolo ruteno (Notes on the Religious History of the Ruthenian People) in Cardinal Marini’s journal Bessarione. The article was later printed as a booklet. Another important work appeared in 1922, entitled Le Chiese Orientali (The Oriental Churches).

One of the early issues that the new Oriental Congregation had to tackle was the Ukrainian problem. Benedetti had developed a relationship of trust with the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchs, the most senior of which was Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky. Ukrainian political leaders, Catholic and Orthodox, also reached out to the Apostolic See to secure political recognition. In exchange for which they promised freedom for Catholicism in Ukraine, especially for the Eastern-Rite variant. The Congregation, however, was not authorized to address political questions. These were the responsibility of the papal Secretariat of State and the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, which dealt with any religious questions connected with state governments. The Ukrainian question was, in the language of the Curia, a questione politico-religioso (a political-religious mix). The religious values that the Apostolic See intended to promote were intertwined with the political questions of the day. And therein lie the seeds of conflict over Ukraine within the Roman Curia.

With Europe in flux, Benedict XV and his secretary of state Cardinal Gasparri showed significant openness to Ukrainian independence. In 1919 an extraordinary Ukrainian diplomatic representation was received at the papal court. In turn, the Oriental Congregation recommended a papal representative to the Ukraine. Such a pontifical liaison was to assess the situation and present the religious goals of the Apostolic See to Ukrainian notables. The Pope accepted these recommendations and appointed Father Giovanni Genocchi as apostolic visitor to Ukraine.

But who recommended Genocchi to this post? According to his friend and biographer Vincenzo Ceresi: “Enrico Benedetti was a faithful admirer of the religious and devoted to him like a son.” Genocchi’s charming personality had made him many friends in Italian social and intellectual circles but these associations had made him enemies in the Curia, especially during the Modernist Crisis. As had been his predecessor Pius X, so too was Benedict XV an admirer of Genocchi and recognized his fidelity. Pope Benedict sought Monsignor Benedetti’s counsel to find a way to remove Genocchi from the climate of curial suspicion. Benedetti proposed the apostolic visitation to Ukraine and Eastern Galicia at the beginning of February 1920 and, according to Ceresi, the Pope accepted the proposal a week later, naming Genocchi on 13 February.

The instructions that Genocchi received from the Oriental Congregation in March 1920 had been composed by Benedetti and contained a long and sympathetic summary of the history of Ruthenian-Ukrainian questions. Don Enrico’s sympathy was keenly felt by Ukraine’s religious and political men, who, together with Genocchi, corresponded privately with him, seeking counsel and encouragement.

Benedetti also helped many Ukrainian priests. Through the mediation of Ukrainian diplomatic representative Father François-Xavier Bonne, in January 1920 Don Enrico arranged for the future Cardinal Josyf Slipyj to further his studies in Rome. Slipyj received funding through the Congregation for which he wrote to thank Benedetti in November. Two years later, with the Ukrainian diplomatic cause going badly, Bonne himself received a stipend through Benedetti’s intercession.

The turning point in Enrico Benedetti’s curial career occurred at the beginning of 1922 regarding political ramifications to the Ukrainian religious question; namely, the restoration of the ancient Byzantine bishopric of Lutsk.

Metropolitan Sheptytsky had ordained Josyf Botsian Bishop of Lutsk (Volyn) in 1914, using special powers granted him secretly by Pius X. But when Botsian attempted to begin his mission in Volyn he was blocked by Polish civil and religious notables. They feared that the restoration of the illegally suppressed Greek-Catholic Eparchy of Lutsk would help the Ukrainian independence movement and block centuries-old Polish hegemony over the territory. Following his release from Russian captivity in 1917, Sheptytsky made repeated attempts to have Botsian’s appointment legitimized. Finally in 1921, Metropolitan Andrei was able to prove to Benedict XV the existence of the secret faculties granted by Pius X. Thus on 21 February 1921, Pope Benedict did not hesitate to confirm Botsian’s appointment. However, due to the extreme opposition to Botsian in Poland, the Pontiff added the reservation that, although truly Bishop of Lutsk, until a modus vivendi with the Polish government could be achieved, Botsian was not to exercise episcopal jurisdiction.

One of Monsignor Benedetti’s duties was to correct the drafts of the papal Catholic directory, the Annuario Pontificio. In doing so, he added the name of Josyf Botsian under the resident diocese of Lutsk. Shortly before his death in January 1922, Benedict XV had examined these notations but had made neither comment nor objection. During the sede vacante, Polish prelates in the Curia put pressure on the papal secretariat of state to have the entries removed. Monsignor Borgongini Duca ordered the head of the Annuario to remove Botsian’s name but the priest in charge replied that, since the late Pope had approved the drafts, he required a written order. Borgongini complied with the request and the name was removed from the list of resident bishops (page 161). However, the priest-in-charge apparently forgot to remove the name from the index (page 902). Several copies of the first and second editions had already gone into circulation, before the third and final edition removed Botsian’s name altogether.

News about the original versions of the Annuario reached Ukrainian diplomatic representatives resulting in a series of articles in the Italian journal Il Popolo Romano, written by the secretary of the Ukrainian Legation in Vienna, Volodymyr Bandrivsky. A diplomatic incident occurred, resulting in vehement protests from the Polish Legation to the Holy See. Following an internal investigation, Cardinal Gasparri wrote a strong letter to Cardinal Marini blaming Monsignor Benedetti for divulging confidential information. Gasparri argued that, Benedetti, who had added the entries by hand, could not possibly be free from blame because he was aware that the late Pope had ruled that Botsian was not to exercise episcopal jurisdiction. “Mons. Benedetti put the Holy See in a very embarrassing position before the Polish Government.”

Benedetti ardently denied the charge but someone had to take the blame. Recently uncovered archival sources point to the fact that Ukrainian priests in Rome had been the source of the information, especially Basilian Father Lazar Berezovsky who carried on written correspondence with the Ukrainian diplomatic representatives. Pius XI was very annoyed by the incident, especially by the fact that Ukrainian politics seemed to be limiting the Church’s freedom of action. As a result, Cardinal Gasparri summoned Father Berezovsky, informing him that the Pope did not want to hear of “Ukrainians” but only “Ruthenians”. The rector retorted that they were indeed Ukrainians and that no one had the right to take away their name.

The upshot was that the Apostolic See had to give strong assurances to the Polish Government that Bishop Botsian (at least for the time being) would remain a bishop in name only. Enrico Benedetti received a reprimand in kind: his name was also removed from one section of the Annuario, the list of papal chamberlains. This honour, once conferred, remained in force only during the lifetime of the reigning Pope but had to be reconfirmed by his successor. Father Cyrille Korolevskij recounted the affair to Metropolitan Sheptytsky three months later, ended his letter by stating that “Today, the incident has calmed down but Benedetti was not confirmed in his title of “Monsignor” by the new Pope, who said: “We’ll see about it later.”

Even though he was soon restored to his monsignorial title, the Lutsk-Annuario incident had marked Benedetti’s curial career at the very inception of the new pontificate. In Korolevskij’s words: “Benedetti [...] is not in the [new] Pope’s good graces.” The Polish legation was especially on guard against any initiatives of Bendetti and his department, whose attempts to protect Eastern Catholics were regarded as inimical to Poland. Ambassador Skrzyński complained to Genocchi that "as long as Msgr. Benedetti is there, nothing good will be done" by the Oriental Congregation. Leading Polish curialist Monsignor Kazimierz Skirmunt suggested that Botsian’s title be changed without the knowledge of the Congregation so that it "and with it the whole Oriental universe" would not be given the opportunity to protest. Benedetti earned further papal displeasure in 1924, due to his participation in that year's Velehrad Congress. Pius XI complained that he did not want members of the Congregation to participate at such events in an official capacity.

The Oriental Congregation’s wings had been clipped in March 1922. Shortly after the Annuario incedent, its head, Cardinal Marini became ill and was replaced by Cardinal Tacci. Marini had not demonstrated any remarkable capacity and Tacci turned out to be even worse, particularly due to an undiscovered brain tumour. During the latter’s term, many affairs were left unresolved and a number of important documents were mislaid, only to be found among the cardinals papers after his death. By 1924, in the words of Korolevskij, Benedetti had become “disgusted”. He left the Congregation on 31 December 1924 and passed to the Vatican Library the following year.

Although he ceased active service, Enrico Benedetti was well respected in the Roman Curia for his erudition and for many years of service he had given in no less than three Vatican departments. As a result, following his curial retirement, Don Enrico was called upon to serve as consulter to the Consitorial and Oriental Congregations; charges which he fulfilled until his death.

The Ruthenian bishops would have been devastated to see one of their few overt sympathizers retire from the Roman Curia. The relationship of trust that they had formed with Benedetti induced Metropolitan Sheptytsky to propose him for yet one more service. At their Episcopal Conference of 1928, the Ruthenian hierarchs of Poland (Ukrainians) and Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia (Carpatho-Ruthenians) and Bulgaria agreed to Sheptytsky’s proposal to appoint Benedetti as their man in Rome. On 8 July 1928, Sheptytsky wrote to Monsignor Giuseppe Pizzardo, head of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, asking him if the Curia had any objection to the bishops’ recommendation: The Bishops “considered Msgr. Enrico Benedetti, whom all have known for a long time, and who has always shown great devotion to the interests of their Churches and possesses all the necessary experience.”

Pizzardo asked the opinion of Monsignor Eugène Tisserant, a co-worker of both Benedetti and Korolevskij at the Vatican Library. Tisserant replied that he could not see any difficulty with the appointment. The matter was then forwarded to the Oriental Congregation, which also found no objection. Cardinal Sincero wrote to Sheptytsky on 19 July 1928 that “This Sacred Congregation is very happy to inform Your Lordship that it has nothing against your wish [...] as it has nothing against the person chosen for this office.” Once he had received Benedetti’s consent, Sheptytsky formally presented him to the Apostolic See on 27 November 1928 as procurator of the Ruthenian Episcopate in Rome for the affairs of the Ruthenian Churches.

Being familiar with both worlds, Benedetti was perfectly suited to act as a liaison between the Roman Curial offices and the Ruthenian hierarchy. Among notable affairs handled, in 1929 he made important oral clarifications regarding the candidates for auxiliary bishop to Metropolitan Sheptytsky. Two years later, in 1931, he rendered an important service when, together with Korolevskij, he was consulted by the Congregation on the history and status of Sheptytsky’s title Metropolitan of Halych, as distinct from to that of Archbishop of Lviv and Bishop of Kamiamets-Podilsk.

In his final years, Benedetti endured a long illness. Shortly before his death, which occured on Monday, 10 March 1941, he received a special blessing from Pope Pius XII. Monsignor Professor Enrico Benedetti’s funeral took place three days later, on Thursday, 13 March 1941, at the Roman parish church of the Sacred Heart on the Lungotevere Prati. The funeral rites were attended by numerous officials of the Oriental Congregation, among whom many counted themselves as admirers of their former colleague. Eugène Tisserant, now the cardinal-secretary of that department, subequently paid high tribute to Benedetti’s example of generous and loyal service to the Church.

Benedetti's memory continued to endure in the tiny community of Ukrainian priests and religious in the Eternal City, especially among those whom he had known and helped. As late as 1998, Ukrainian historian Liliana Hentosh identified his photograph, still displayed in the corridors of Piazza Madonna dei Monti, the seat of the Ukrainian procurature. The photo had been displayed at the orders of Cardinal Slipyj, whose first Roman sojourn had been arranged by Benedetti. Sadly, with recent renovations to the Madonna residence, even this last vestige of his memory has vanished.

A Lack of Tact and of Delicacy

The Difficult Relations between Archbishops Sheptytsky and Twardowski of Lviv

Many publications have dealt with the relations between the Servant of God Andrei Sheptytsky and Saint Józef Bilczewski, respectively metropolitan-archbishops of the Byzantine-Ruthenian (Ukrainian) and Latin Catholic archdioceses of Lviv.  However, relatively little has been said about the relations between Sheptytsky and Bilczewski’s successor Bołesław Twardowski.  The following is a very brief sketch of some of the principal issues of contention between the two prelates, based on Vatican archival materials from 1922-1939.

The poor relations between Sheptytsky and Bilczewski were notorious.  The main cause of the conflict was the fact that both were the spiritual heads of two peoples with opposing national-political aspirations over the same territory.  Between Sheptytsky and Bilczewski there can be said to have reigned a certain equality.  Ecclesiastically speaking, there was no question of seniority between them. Both had been elected metropolitan-archbishop of Lemberg (Lwów/Lviv) in 1900.  However, civil inequalities did exist between them. Sheptytsky belonged to a noble family whereas Bilczewski came from humble origins.  In should be kept in mind, however, that, in their class system, becoming a bishop was similar to ennoblement.  In Christendom, it was accepted that the spiritual realm was superior to the temporal.  Therefore, in anciens regimes, the Premiere Estate was the clergy not the nobility. Another point of civil inequality was that, during the Austrian regime, Sheptytsky held influential state offices such as Vice-Marshall of the Galician diet and Privy Counsellor to the Emperor.  The divergence between the two ecclesiastics came to a head during the electoral reform of 1913 and, particularly, during the Polish-Ukrainian War of 1918-1920.  In both conflicts, the churchmen took opposing political sides.

When Bilczewski died in March 1923, Sheptytsky was still waiting in Rome to be allowed to return to Lviv.  Vatican officials were very careful in choosing Bilczewski’s successor, in an attempt to avoid further conflicts between the Latin and Greek Catholics.  The papal envoy for Ukrainian affairs, Father Giovanni Genocchi, attended Bilczewski on his deathbed and testified that the future saint sincerely regretted the conflict with the Ukrainians (while still placing the burden of blame upon them). Following Bilczewski’s death, the papal nuncio deputized Genocchi to be his representative at the funeral.  Noting that the event had been well attended by the Greek-Catholic clergy, Genocchi commented that “it is said that both Latins and Ruthenians would be content with the Auxiliary Twardowski”. It is likely that Metropolitan Sheptytsky had also been questioned and almost certainly posed no objection to Twardowski’s nomination.

After Twardowski assumed the Latin see of Lviv, the main occasions of contention between him and Sheptytsky were: Twardowski’s choice for his auxiliary bishop; the agreement for inter-ritual marriages; and precedence and hospitality during visits of church dignitaries. 

A diocesan bishop’s personal choice is usually given the highest consideration when and if he is granted an auxiliary or helper bishop.  But in mid-war Eastern Galicia, each episcopal nomination was wrought with political difficulties. In granting Twardowski an auxiliary, the Apostolic See took the same issues into account that it had done when nominating him.  It was vital to the ecclesial and social peace that an opponent of the Ukrainians not be selected.  However, only a few months after assuming the archbishopric, Twardowski proposed such a man to the Pope, in the person of Father Miecysław Tarnawski, professor of the University of Lviv. Tarnawski had actually been Bilczewski’s choice for auxiliary because he shared many of his views.  Twardowski, widely considered a secondary figure, sought to honour his predecessor’s wish.  But Tarnawski had a terrible reputation among the Ukrainians and had even gone on printed record against them. At the bequest of Bilczewski, he had published a pamphlet entitled “The Uniate Church in Eastern Little Poland (Galicia) during the Russian invasion and the Ukrainian coup.”  Above all, the pamphlet contained strong criticisms of Metropolitan Sheptytsky and claimed that the Ukrainian independence movement, “based on hatred, sooner or later must unite with radicalism, socialism and materialism.” 

As the nunciature’s principal consultant in Galician affairs, Jesuit Provincial Superior Sopuck, had been instrumental in Twardowski’s election and was consulted again regarding Tarnawski.  His response was not favourable, because Tarnawski was always considered the candidate of Bilczewski and the Endecja and the Ruthenians would be upset.  Given Archbishop Twardowski’s insistence, the nuncio suggested that Father Tarnawski visit Metropolitan Sheptytsky and come to an understanding.  Their meeting took place on 3 January 1924.  Although Sheptytsky sent a favourable account, he nonetheless considered Tarnawski to be the least desirable candidate precisely because of his public reputation as an opponent of the Ukrainians.  Indeed, the nuncio had already written to Tarnawski telling him as much.

Sheptytsky’s opinion was important but not decisive.  Based on others’ views, the nunciature had already concluded that Tarnawski, despite his other good qualities, was a poor choice. Archbishop Twardowski, however, blamed Sheptytsky for blocking his candidate and complained to the Bishop of Katowice, August Hlond, future primate of Poland.  Not knowing the facts, Hlond lamented to Nuncio Lauri that Archbishop Twardowski had been humiliated because the Vatican had given more weight to Sheptytsky’s opinion over his, in the matter of his own auxiliary bishop.  But the Apostolic See would not waver.

Two years later, Father Tarnawski published another pamphlet entitled “Post-war difficulties of the Uniate Church in Little Poland”, in which he reversed his earlier antagonistic position towards Greek-Catholics.  This time, even the Polish primate Cardinal Dalbor opposed the nomination because he considered the second work as insincere.  Nuncio Lauri explained to Twardowski that “The Holy See still does not approve of that choice despite the fact that heaven and earth have been moved” to achieve it.  Sheptytsky “would not say a word against Tarnawski because he knows that the Poles are convinced that he is the cause of the passed over nomination.” Twardowski then formally pleaded with Sheptytsky, who gave in and wrote directly to the Pope of Tarnawski’s good qualities.  Still, the nomination never occured.

The second conflict between Sheptytsky and Twardowski occurred over changes to the agreement on inter-ritual marriages, known as the “Concordia” of 1863.  Arguing that the 1917 Code of Canon Law had abolished the accord, Twardowski obtained an apparent relaxation.  Sheptytsky insisted that it should remain in force because the Ukrainians in Poland were now in an inequitable position. Ironically, the ‘discord’ between the bishops resulted in the ‘Concord’ being left in force; the only mutation being that permission to change in rite, hitherto reserved to the Roman Curia, was devolved to the apostolic delegates and nuncios.

The third conflict between the two archbishops of Lviv occurred during two visits to the city by Hlond, now cardinal and primate of Poland.  During the first visit of 1928, Hlond had led the Eucharistic procession and remarked on the absence of Sheptytsky and his clergy. A scandal occurred when Sheptytsky attended a civil ceremony to welcome the Cardinal but was absent from the religious function. Archbishop Twardowski claimed to have sent an invitation but Sheptytsky claimed not to have received it. 

A ray of light shone through the clouded relations in January 1930, when Twardowski attended the celebration of Sheptytsky’s thirtieth anniversary as archbishop of Lviv. Metropolitan Andrei seemed determined to repair any hard feelings. Later that year, at the Eucharistic Congress of Poznan, Sheptytsky and his entourage made a great show of unity and his seminarians sang during the bishops’ dinner.

When Hlond returned to Lviv for a bishops’ meeting, at the end of 1930, in was the Greek-Catholic archbishop’s turn to play host. This time, the grand seigneur demonstrated the best traditions of noblesse oblige.  An account by the brillant but tormented ecclesiastic, Count Piotr Tadeusz Rzewuski (who later renamed himself Father Kreuza), described the preparation for the fête:

A three-roomed apartment complete with servants was prepared for him, prepared and adorned with precious tapestries, an abundance of flowers, and works by a famous Polish painter. The archbishop’s servants wore the special livery for this occasion. [...] Kyr Sheptytsky went to meet him at the station with Kyr Budka, the Chapter and the principal priests of the city.  The Cardinal took his place in the limousine and was received with the sacred candelabras of the oriental rite.  Accompanied by dignitaries and his suite, he visited the Cathedral of St. George’s, kissed the icon of the patron saint, adored the Blessed Sacrament and paused for a moment before the miraculous Virgin of Trembovla, patron of the Union in Lviv.

But the visit and the year that had both begun so auspiciously were to end badly. The differences between the two prelates in class and education came to the fore at the beginning of the bishops’meeting. Twardowski began to pressure Cardinal Hlond to accept his hospitality, which Rzewuski noted was “the first lack of tact on the part of a guest”.  Due to Twardowski’s insistence, the grand evening reception at the metropolitan’s palace, prepared and announced by invitation, had to be cancelled; “another lack of delicacy and an insult to the guests.” Twardowski monopolized the rest of the visit and the Cardinal ended by excusing himself thus: “I must leave or there will be a battle.”  Twardowski did not show up for the rest of the conference, to the embarrassment of his auxiliary.  In the end, Hlond departed for the airport accompanied only by the Ukrainians; the Latin archbishop had not sent his fine automobile, although this would have been proper as his counterpart had been responsible for the welcome ceremony.  Whatever his intentions, Twardowski’s comportment had been a fiasco of decorum, something which would have been felt much more keenly by Sheptytsky.

Cardinal Hlond’s visit to Lviv coincided with beginning of a violent campaign. On the very night of his arrival, the police arrested 20 young men from the metropolitan’s orphanage. The day had likely been chosen as a provocation to upset the visit.  These events preceded the political crackdown of 1931: the imprisonment and torture of Marshall Pilsudski’s political opponents; and the violent “Pacification” against the Ukrainian villages in response to the vandalism of Polish estates.  This apparent lack of solidarity caused a further rift between the Greek and Latin rite hierarchies, the Ukrainian bishops having been hurt by their Polish counterparts silence during the pogroms.  It was only Pius XI’s insistence that brought the Greek-Catholic prelates to the Polish Plenary Council, six years later.

Today it is difficult for many people from first-world societies to understand the rifts that existed in the Old Continent between the various nationalities, even among churchmen of the same faith. An objective, non-moralizing, reading helps us better comprehend such complicated events.  Reflecting on some of the earlier tensions in the Sheptytsky-Twardowski relationship will help contextualize their Second-World-War correspondence, something which historians are now evaluating more attentively.

Zofia Fredro Szeptycka - Eternal Memory

†

Le Comte JEAN de Szeptyce SZEPTYCKI, Membre de la Chambre des Paires en Autriche, député à la diète de Galicie, Chambellan de S.M. Apostolique, Chevalier de la Couronne de fer II. cl., Commandeur de l’ordre R. de St. Georges de Bavière, Chevalier de l’ordre souverain de St. Jean de Jérusalem.  Ses fils: Le Comte André Szeptycki, Métropolitain de Halicz, Archevêque de Léopol, Evêque de Kamieniec Podolski, Conseiller intime de S. M. A., Vice-maréchal de la diète de Galicie.  Le Comte Alexandre Szeptycki et sa femme la Comtesse Isa Szeptycka, née de Junosza Sobańska, avec leur enfants MARIE, SOPHIE, THÉRÉSE, ROSE, HEDVIGE.  Le Comte Stanislas Szeptycki, Chambellan de S.M.A., Capitaine de l’Etat major, attaché militaire au quartier général de l’armée russe en Extrême Orient, Chevalier de l’ordre R. de St. Georges de Bavière.  Le Comte Léon Szeptycki et sa femme la Comtesse Hedvige Szeptycka née Comtesse de Słupów Szembek avec leur fille Sophie

ont la douleur de vois faire part de la perte qu’ils viennent de faire en la personne de leur épouse, mère, belle-mère et grand-mère.

LA COMTESSE

SOPHIE SZEPTYCKA

née Comtesse de Pleszowice Fredro,

Dame de l’ordre de la Croix étoilée de la Croix “Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice”

munie des Sacrements de l’Eglise, décédée à Przyłbice le 17 Avril 1904

à l’age de 66 ans.

La dépoille mortelle reposera dans les caveaux de famille à Przyłbice.

Przyłbice le 17. Avril, 1904.

Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky to Cardinal Girolamo Maria Gotti:

Sans mors matris etiamsi solatio christianae spei, et dulci memoria Ejus virtutum moderatum sacrificatum gravem tamen dolorem affert filio, qui post Deum matrem summo diligebat amore- Non sine lacrimos dolores cogito, quorum defuncta saepe ipse vel in eius fui causa Ejus patientiam et firmam fidem, cum tamen mors opino malum sit ab optimo Deo datum, cujus sanctissimam voluntatem amare venerari infantem me, ipsa docuit non nisi gratiae Deo hodie agendae sunt mihi ob omnia beneficia in defunctam- easque mediante in nos Ejus filios collata. [...] Leopoli die 21/V 904

Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky and the Roman Curia

Despite the deep reservations of his flock, Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky greeted the election of Achille Ratti as Pope Pius XI with optimism and hope.  The two churchmen’s paths had first crossed in 1918, with Ratti’s appointment as papal envoy to Poland,  Russia and Ukraine. During that mission, Ratti’s ambivalence towards their independence struggle caused Ukrainian patriots to be wary of the new pope’s intentions.  True to form, in his battle against nationalism, Pius XI demanded that his ministers place stringent limits on the nationally conscious Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. By analogy, during Pius XI’s pontificate, the Apostolic See’s relationship with the Ukrainian nation can be seen through the Roman Curia’s relations with Metropolitan Sheptytsky, the Ukrainian Catholic primate.  [...]

Andrei Sheptytsky served as metropolitan under five popes, three secretaries of state, three prefects of the Propaganda for Oriental Affairs and another four of its successor the Oriental Congregation.  His relationship with each Pope and with each dicastery differed according to the needs of his Church, the individual policies of each pontiff and those of his officials.  Roman Curia’s ultimate verdict of Sheptytsky was undoubtedly positive.  In particular, its oriental dicastery recognized his constant fidelity and zeal amidst persecutions and hindrances, declaring him a confessor of the Faith for the Union of the Orient with the Roman Apostolic See.  While falling short of completely restoring the powers granted by Pius X,  Pius XII entrusted the entire Catholic mission in the Soviet Union to Sheptytsky’s care.  Following Kyr Andrei’s death, the same pontiff publicly manifested his esteem in two magisterial pronouncements. Although Sheptytsky’s beatification has been inordinately delayed, his name continues to appear in significant acts of the papal Magisterium into the third millennium.

(From the Conference Le governement pontificale sous Pie XI.)

The Mystery of Father Damascene Polivka

Founder of the Ukrainian Church in Winnipeg

published in: Serge Cipko ed., Ukrainians Abroad: News and Views, no. 46 (29 January 2010).

In OSBM habit c. 1895

An article entitled Winnipeg’s First Ukrainian Catholic Church has recently appeared in The Winnipeg Free Press.  The piece is a good summary of the beginnings  of the mother of all Ukrainian religious congregations in the city.  Nevertheless, it does contain a few factual errors.  One of them pertains to the founder of the congregation, Father Damascene Polivka.

The figure of Damascene Polivka is shadowed in mystery.  Concrete facts about his life history continue to evade us.  I attempted to discover more about this mysterious missionary when assisting St. Nicholas Parish compose its centennial history book, but my quest was in vain.  The principal difficulty was that key archival sources were not made available.  Thus, when St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Church Celebrating 100 Years. Together for Tomorrow went to press, it left several historical details undiscovered, including the history of the parish’s own founder.

What little was known about Polivka came from publications of lesser historical value.  These contained precious few details about him, where he was mentioned at all.  His origins, details of his mission, and even the spelling of his name were not uniformly reported.  Photographs of him are extremely rare (I know of only two). He has been described as a Ruthenian missionary priest but of Slovak origin, a Basilian monk sent to Canada by the archbishop of Lviv, Cardinal Sembratovych.  Many details about his person and work appear to be contradictory, and equally mysterious seems to be his role in the foundation of a church congregation shortly before he left the city of Winnipeg one-hundred and ten years ago, never to return. 

I have been able to resolve part of the the mystery surrounding Polivka, including details of his origins and mission, by consulting his personal file in the Archives of the former Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide for the Affairs of the Oriental Rite, now contained in the Archives of the Congregation of the Oriental Churches. The documents contained under the rubric Monaci reveal the following:

Our missionary was born Adalbert Francisk Polivka on 4 February 1869 in the Bohemian village of Hostin u Vojkovic. His father was of Hungarian-Slavic (Slovak) origins. At the time, Bohemia (Czech), northern Hungary (Slovakia) and Eastern Galicia (Western Ukraine) were all part of a single state, the Habsburg empire of Austria-Hungary.  Even in Cyrillic, he always signed his name Polivka (Полівка) and not the Ukraininized Polyvka or Polywka (Поливка) that appears in most publications.  

In early life, Adalbert trained as a medical doctor and surgeon.  He spent a few years in the Latin-Rite congregation of the Brothers of Mercy.  In 1892, upon entering the Ruthenian Order of St. Basil the Great, he assumed the religious name John-Damascene or simply Damascene after the great Saint and Church Father.  The young Polivka had been encouraged to join this order-in-reform by his eponymous fellow Bohemian, Jesuit Father Adalbert Baudiss.  Baudiss was one of the protagonists of the Basilian reform and served as master of novices in Dobromyl, Galicia.  He looked on the young surgeon as having been sent “by Divine Providence” to minister to the medical needs of the impoverished, fledgling religious community.  But the Church law of the time did not allow the hands of priests, consecrated for the holy service of the altar, to be stained with blood, neither to fight in war, nor to practice surgery, nor even to hunt. Baudiss had to ask for a special dispensation from Propaganda Fide, which accorded his recruit permission to practice his medical arts but only within the monasteries.

In order to help the Basilian reform, Pope Leo XIII had granted the Order the right of receiving Latin-Rite candidates without any canonical dispensation.  At their final profession, the pontiff decreed that these monks were automatically to be transferred to the Byzantine Rite.  Polivka was one of several non-Ukrainians to make use of this privilege.  He professed his final vows in 1896 and was ordained a priest on 12 September of the following year.   

Although the Roman Pontiff had intended to favour the Basilians, the extraordinary privileges that he had conceded elicited fierce criticism from Ruthenian-Ukrainian society, which saw the Order as one of its few national institutions.  It was feared the Jesuits would attempt to Polonize the Order and, through it, Ukrainian society. By seconding such criticisms, Metropolitan Josyf Sembratovych was forced to resign his see.  Rome and Vienna thought that the Byzantine-Rite Ruthenians could not reform their church without outside help.  And thus, in the first years of the Basilian reform, the Jesuits allowed the Basilian communities to become cosmopolitan, in typically Austro-Hungarian fashion. 

As long as the Jesuits governed the Order, ethnic conflicts were kept at bay.  However, nationalistic tensions were brewing within the empire.  The Polish-Ukrainian truce (the New Era) had come to an end in 1895 and the Basilians began to take sides.  The Jesuits had already begun to entrust the governance of individual monasteries to reformed Basilians but several young Ukrainian fathers felt this was not enough. They began to call for the Jesuits to relinquish the governance of their Order altogether.  Seeing that they were unwanted, the Jesuits asked to be relieved but the Apostolic See would not permit them to abandon the reform until 1904.  Father Baudiss was among those who believed that the young community was not yet ready to govern itself.  Amid such tensions, those who appeared to take the Jesuits’ side began to experience discrimination from their confreres.  Those who were not Ukrainian ethnics, like Damascene Polivka, began to feel out of place in a community which was becoming increasingly nationalistic.

In March 1899, Polivka wrote to Propaganda Fide explaining that the negative, divisive atmosphere in the monasteries had broken his spirit.  He asked for permission to work outside the order for five or six years, perhaps as a missionary in Brazil.  When Cardinal Ledóchowski, Propaganda’s prefect, consulted provincial superior Father Mycielski, the latter attempted to have Polivka dismissed from the Order. The Cardinal rejected the Jesuit’s proposal and on 15 April 1899 granted Polivka permission to work outside his community for three years, under the jurisdiction of his local bishop, Cardinal Sembratovych.  A month later, on 16 April, Polivka had changed his mind about Brazil and asked instead for permission to become a missionary in Canada, informing the Congregation that he had written to the Canadian bishops.  In June he obtained the blessing of the Ukrainian bishops of Galicia and the funds necessary for the journey.  On 27 July, Bishop Legal of St. Albert, Alberta informed Cardinal Ledóchowski that he and his fellow bishops would be very happy to receive another Ukrainian priest, especially since the previous one, Paul Tymkevych, had become a renegade.  The Congregation duly granted permission for the mission on 20 August.  Just before leaving for Canada, Polivka wrote to Archbishop Langevin of St. Boniface asking for particulars about the mission and itemized the liturgical items that each Greek-Rite missionary needed to purchase.  

There was some confusion on the part of the Canadian hierarchy as to what kind of missionary was being sent.  Legal had written to Ledóchowski that he hoped a Basilian monk would do better where secular priests had failed.  On the contrary, the Basilian Order had not yet accepted a mission to Canada and Polivka was being sent not under the auspices of the Order, but as a secular missionary under the authority of his eparchial bishop.

Damascene Polivka had been instructed to go to St. Albert, Alberta, but instead he remained in Winnipeg.  Upon his arrival, on 21 October 1899, he immediately presented himself to the archbishop of St. Boniface who conferred jurisdiction upon him.  Langevin then left for Montreal where he remained for four months. Polivka wrote to Propaganda Fide explaining that he had chosen to remain where the largest group of Ukrainians had settled, as it was impossible to serve in all three western Canadian dioceses.  The Congregation did not appear to be satisfied with Polivka’s explanations as several question marks were penciled-in next to them in the margins of his letter.  

In the meantime, the missionary was given liturgical hospitality at Holy Ghost Parish, administered by the Polish Oblate Fathers.  Father Damascene insisted on the integral practice of the Byzantine Rite and soon caused a scandal by administering the Sacrament of Chrysmation (Confirmation) to Ukrainian infants. Since these had already been baptized by the Polish Oblates, the Latin faithful concluded that Polivka was re-baptizing them.  The  result was that Polivka was soon forbidden to celebrate Mass at Holy Ghost.  

In the meantime, the Ukrainians had formed a committee. On 8 December they invited Polivka to attend a meeting at which they resolved to buy land for the construction of their own church. In what is probably the earliest Ukrainian church document in Winnipeg, Polivka redacted a petition in both old Ukrainian and Latin to Archbishop Langevin, asking him to bless the project.  This undated petition (December 1899) was countersigned by 27 of the members of the church committee (as they appear on the document): 

Андрей Зайло, Николай Маковецкі, Thеоdorus Stephanik, Прокоп Скіба, Wasyl Rudko, Ілько Бабій, Anton Czerkas. Jan Spizak, Alek. Książyk, Гриць Прокопишин, Julian Bohońko, Michał Lenczak, Стефан Волошиньский. Wasyl Tankowсky, Aleksa Roszko, Іван Сидор, Василій Турчинюк, Petro Krasiuk, Юрко Паніщак, Stefan Cinnyk, Jan Piskosz, Michal Doda, Юрко Кобітикъ, Nicholas Małachowski, Mikołaj Powawoznyk, Jełyjacz Kostiuk, Olexa Haluszczak, Michał Palamar, о. Дамаскин Полівка.

Under pressure from the committee, Father Damascene telegraphed the archbishop in Montreal, asking for his blessing.  Langevin replied that the diocese was already heavily in debt, especially with the newly-constructed Holy Ghost Church which was to serve several nationalities. He further suggested that Polivka’s services were not needed in the city of Winnipeg but in rural Manitoba, where a larger number of the Ukrainians were without the services of any priest.  In the end, Langevin ordered Polivka to assume the mission in Alberta for which he had been commissioned and for which Bishop Legal continued to plead.

Instead of going to Alberta, in the first days of the new century Polivka left Winnipeg for Chicago and thence to New York where he was reported to have come under the influence of the clergy responsible for Svoboda, a newspaper which staunchly opposed the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s jurisdiction over the Eastern-Rite Catholics.  From the US and later from Montreal, Polivka wrote to his Winnipeg flock asking for donations and offering to return to serve them on two conditions: that they would support him financially and that they would not place the church property under the control of the Latin bishop. 

Disappointed with his lack of cooperation, Langevin petitioned Propaganda to recall Polivka to Europe.  At the same time, the prelate penned a courteous letter to Vasyl Rudko of the Ukrainian church committee, explaining the reasons for opposing their project.  In this letter, the archbishop asked the Ukrainians to be patient and not to have any further contact with Polivka, whose jurisdiction he had withdrawn for disobedience.  On 9 February 1900, Cardinal Ledóchowski wrote to Father Mycielski asking him to recall Polivka to the monastery but Mycielski replied that he would be a bad influence in the reformed communities. Mycielski nevertheless promised to ask the superior of the unreformed Basilians if he could assign Polivka to the empty monastery-parish of Krasnopuschna.  Polivka, however, refused this proposal.  He argued that his three-year leave had not yet expired and that his congregation in Plymouth, Pennsylvania would be in danger of falling into schism if he abandoned them.

In Windbeer about 1905.

In June 1900, Polivka wrote to Propaganda’s Prefect from Plymouth, explaining his side of what had happened in Winnipeg.  He placed the blame on the Oblates who were worried about their church debt, and on the Ukrainian committee that had rebelled against the Roman Catholic authorities.  On 3 May 1901, this time writing from Northampton, Pennsylvania, Polivka informed Cardinal Ledóchowski that he could not find a European bishop to accept him so he asked to remain in the United States.  On 16 September 1903, Bishop Garvey of Altoona asked for Polivka to remain in his diocese and continue to minister at the Greek-Rite Church in Windbeer.  The same day, Polivka petitioned Ledóchowski’s successor, Cardinal Gotti, to become a diocesan priest.  Bishop Garvey confirmed that he was willing to accept Polivka as one of his priests in a letter to Cardinal Gotti dated 18 January 1904.

Previously, in December 1903, the Austro-Hungarian chargé d’affaires to the Holy See sent a curious document to Propaganda Fide.  This document contained a  list of Ruthenian Greek-Catholic priests residing in the USA that his government wanted to see recalled, undoubtedly for political reasons.  The first name that appears on the list is “Damascene Polivka, parish priest in Windbeer, Pennsylvania”.  Two other priests who had served in Winnipeg appear: Nestor Dymytriv in Northampton and Nicholas Strytynsky in Olyphant, Pennsylvania.  These priests had one thing in common: they were all connected with Svoboda and had, at one time or another, functioned as independents, essentially Greek-Catholics who did not want to become Orthodox but who had difficulties with the local Latin hierarchy.  Even though Polivka had agreed to serve at The First Slavish [Slavic] United St. Mary’s Greek-Rite Catholic Church in Windbeer, Bishop Garvey’s good dispositions towards him demonstrate that Father Damascene had never broken communion with the Catholic Church.  In this, his explanation to Cardinal Ledóchowski rings true: “it was a rebellion not on my part but on the part of the people... It was rather the people, but not me!”

On 8 October 1905, Polivka sent a petition to Pope Pius X asking to return to the Latin Rite, giving the reason that the married clergy and Ukrainian nationalists were persecuting him. On 16 January 1906, Propaganda released Polivka from his monastic vows, transferring him to the diocesan clergy.  On 29 February 1906, Bishop Garvey wrote to Cardinal Gotti that he had given permission to Polivka to return to his native Bohemia for health reasons.  The last letter in the file was written by Polivka from Krpy-Vrutic, Bohemia on 13 March 1906 asking for the indult to return to the Latin Rite because he had no way of supporting himself financially and all his money had gone to medical cures.  How ironic that a physician who had volunteered to heal and to alleviate the financial burden of a religious order was himself reduced to sickness and poverty.

After this letter, Polivka vanishes from history.  Even the renowned collector of historical data, Father Dmytro Blažejovskyj, was not able to obtain accurate information about Polivka and his whereabouts.  In his Ukrainian Catholic Clergy in Diaspora, Blažejovskyj erroneously listed Polivka as having been born in Subcarpathia instead of Bohemia, as having been stationed in Northampton from 1899 to 1900 and as having been in Galicia from 1901 to 1903.  No mention was made of his service in Plymouth or Windbeer. The last accurate news we have of Polivka places him in Bohemia in March 1906, but what happened to him subsequently?  After leaving the Basilians and returning to his native rite he no longer fell under the jurisdiction of Propaganda Fide for the Oriental Rites. Thus all further trace of him is lost in this Congregation’s archives.  Did he remain in active ministry? Did he serve as a Latin-Rite priest in his native land?  Where did he die and when?  Hopefully further research will solve these mysteries.

      Some of the mystery surrounding Polivka appears to be man-made. Perhaps embarrassed by the fact that Polivka had left their ranks and had fallen out with the Catholic bishops, Basilian chronologists have tended to play down, if not ignore, his role in the founding of their Winnipeg parish.  Facts pertaining to him have been glossed-over, as in a passage by the late Dr. Modeste Gnesko reproduced in St. Nicholas’ centenntial history, which was taken from the 1966 booklet commemorating the opening of the present church.  An English translation of the passage in question reads: “Residing far away from the Winnipeg congregation, he often wrote to it, encouraging it and supporting it spiritually and morally. In addition, he sent monetary offerings for the future church. Impressed by his advice and example, the people resolved to finish the work [that had been] initiated.” Vatican archival sources contradict this account, so the question arises: did Father Gnesko have access to primary sources which were not made available for the composition of the parish centennial history, or was this simply an well-meaning attempt to whitewash inconvenient facts?  

Polivka’s unsuccessful mission made Archbishop Langevin swear that he would never accept another Greek-Catholic priest.  However, following a meeting between his vicar general Father Lacombe and Metropolitan Sheptytsky, and the Vatican’s appointment of a Greek-Catholic apostolic visitor for Canada, the prelate was induced to change his mind. Propaganda Fide had been after the Basilians to assume the mission in the US and Canada since 1893, but the Order’s superiors had always refused.  Finally, in 1902, three Basilian missionaries were sent to Alberta, and two more arrived in Winnipeg the following year.

   And what about the church congregation that Polivka helped found?  In 1901, two years after his departure from Winnipeg, a tiny chapel dedicated to St. Nicholas was constructed on property acquired by the committee. Historical sources demonstrate that the congregation identified itself as Greek-Catholic, even though they did not accept Archbishop Langevin’s jurisdiction.  Despite this fact, clergy of various religious allegiances were permitted to use the chapel until the arrival of two Basilian Fathers in November 1903.  At that time, the congregation asked the Basilians to assume the direction of their church.  Archbishop Langevin paid for the construction of a larger temple (velyka tservka) which was opened in January 1905 and located directly across the street from the original chapel.

But not all segments of that single Ukrainian congregation agreed with the Basilians, nor did they like the fact that their church had been brought under the authority of the Latin archbishop.  Consequently, part of the congregation left to found Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Cathedral, which was consecrated by future Russian Orthodox Patriarch St. Tikhon in 1905.  Two years later, in 1907, a more nationalistic portion returned to the first tiny chapel (mala tserkva) and renamed it Sts. Vladimir and Olga, the future Ukrainian Catholic cathedral.  Another part of the flock formed the Greek-Independent Church and in 1917, a further segment helped create the Ukrainian Greek-Orthodox Church of Canada.  

The Basilians were far from alone in attempting to "remake" history.  In 1936, Father Vasyl Kushnir, the parish priest of Sts. Vladimir and Olga, published a commemorative Almanach that contains a fictional account of the beginings of his parish.  Orthodox publications went so far as to claim that the first church was not even Catholic or that the Uniates separated later.  It seemed to have been important that each successor church lay exclusive claim to the first church, just as their brethren in Ukraine fought over Hagia Sophia in Kyiv.  What is certain is that many if not all of the leaders of these churches were part of the original St. Nicholas congregation, co-founded and served by the mysterious missionary, the Bohemian-Slovak Greek-Catholic onetime Basilian Father Damascene Adalbert Francisk Polivka.

Abbé Quoëx and the Liturgy

On 2 January 2007, a man of great virtue, Father Franck Marie Quoëx, passed to his eternal reward in God.   Each year, those who had the great privilege of his friendship observe this day quietly, modestly but religiously.  And so it is fitting, as Abbé Quoëx was a modest man, a hidden soul.  His scholarly works, of great scientific value, are not yet known.  And still, many who did not know him in life have come to admire him and cherish his memory.  The power of his personality, the nobility of his character, the goodness of his heart continue to attract people who never met him.

An worthy reflection on Father Quoëx's life and work has recently appeared on New Liturgical Movement.  To this excellent article, I can only add that, as an authentic Christian liturgist, Abbé Quoëx did not limit his interest to his own rite; he also studied in the Eastern Liturgies, especially the Byzantine Rite and its various usages. He would often attend Byzantine Divine liturgies in Rome and examined the parallels between different rites and their authentic differences.  His scholarship was pure, motivated by the highest human and religious values, devoid of dependence on fashion or conformity based on self-interest.  He cultivated knowledge because it is man's purpose; it belongs to his natural and spiritual destiny. Quoëx's liturgy, whether studied or celebrated, was a participation in God's Beauty and mankind's desire to share and live that beauty.  

Father's Quoëx was not given the consolation to see his work recognized in this life.  He was, however, granted the grace to see the accession of Pope Benedict XVI, who shares his love and appreciation of the liturgy's culture. 

I encourage everyone to read the article in question in order to know him whose memory endures.  May he continue to challenge and encourage us to follow in his footsteps.

The Title of "Excellency" for Bishops

Throughout the ages, Catholic clergy have been styled by various titles.  The most common title is Reverendus.  In addition to the superlative degree thereof (Reverendissimus), clerical dignitaries also were styled with various secular titles such as Dominus (Lordship), Illustrissimus, and Amplitudinis (Grandeur).  Into the twentieth century, bishops continued to be addressed as Most Reverend and Illustrious Lordship, while, in the English speaking world, archbishops were  addressed, in the style of dukes, Your Grace.  Cardinals were and are styled Eminence after the highest officials of the Byzantine court, and the Pope is called Sanctitas (Holiness) or Beatissimus Pater (Most Blessed or Holy Father).

The title of Excellency is secular in origin and began to be given to civil officials such as ambassadors in the eighteenth century.  Thus apostolic nuncios (papal ambassadors) and other dignitaries of the papal court acquired the title Excellentia with the addition of Reverendissima to distinguish it from secular excellencies. Diocesan bishops began to acquire the title with greater frequency in the nineteenth century.  For example, Metropolitan Sheptytsky, who held various state offices in the Austrian Imperial system, was addressed as Excellency inside Austria but as Illustrissimus ac Reverendissimus Dominus by the Roman Curia or Amplitudo Vestra/Votre Grandeur by other clergy.

With the fall of the continental empires  at the end of the First World War, noble titles lost the universal legal force they once possessed and their use began to wane somewhat in civic circles.  The ambassadorial title of Excellency began to be attributed to bishops with greater frequency.  The solemn concordats concluded between the Apostolic See and new European regimes had force of law in both civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and granted state recognition to the Catholic Church and its structures.  Thus, following the conclusion of  the 1925 concordat with Poland, the Roman Curia began to address Polish bishops with the title of Excellency as opposed to Lordship.  Throughout the British Empire, however, the ducal style of Grace for archbishops and Lordship for bishops was recognized in civil law for Anglican hierarchs, the lords spiritual, each of which was a parliamentary peer of the realm. The same titles were used out of courtesy for Catholic bishops of the Empire.

Following the conclusion of the Concordat with Italy and the Lateran Treaty, the Holy See gained international legal recognition.  The Pope, as spiritual and temporal sovereign, was thus able to grant an internationally recognized legal title to all Catholic bishops throughout the world.  In the audience given to the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonial on 11 December 1930, Pope Pius XI decreed that, henceforth, the title of Excellentia Reverendissima (Most Reverend Excellency) was to be used to style both Latin and Oriental patriarchs, apostolic nuncios, archbishops and bishops, and certain  dignitaries of the Roman Curia.  The decree enacting this decision was issued by the Prefect, Cardinal Gennaro Granito Pignatelli di Belmonte on 31 December 1930 and was subsequently published in the Osservatore Romano issue of 24 January and on page 22 of the 1931 Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Immediately, the problem of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs arose.  As spiritual heads of their Churches they had been styled Beatitude in order to raise them above other metropolitans and bishops.  Since the mainstream Catholic theology and canon law did not yet understand the concept of Particular Churches, many Roman curialists considered the title Beatitude to be abusive, and proper only to the Roman Pontiff because it had been addressed by St. Jerome to Pope St. Damasus in 384.  Such was the tenure of the previous decree of the Ceremonial Dicastery (June 1893) and was the verdict of an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.

It appears, however, that the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental Church(es) had not been consulted on the matter.  Regarding the new title of Excellency, Monsignor Amletto Cicogniani, assessor of the Oriental, sent a formal thank you to Ceremonial on 22 January 1931.  Nevertheless, only two months later, the dicastery’s head, Cardinal Luigi Sincero, brought the matter to the attention of the Pope in an audience of 14 March.  He explained that the Cardinals of the Ceremonial Congregation had ignored the preparatory studies for the codification of Oriental Canon Law which had recommended that patriarchs retain a title distinct from bishops.  Perhaps not wanting to provoke further conflicts in the other curial departments, the  Pope ordered that, henceforth, the Oriental Congregation address Eastern Catholic patriarchs as Beatitude so that “in this way, this qualification would be introduced without issuing, for the moment, a special decree.”

In January 1938, papal secretary of state Cardinal Pacelli consulted the Oriental Congregation regarding letters to be sent to the Melchite Patriarch. The drafts in question had been addressed to “His Excellency”, at which Sincero’s successor, Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, remarked: “Why withold the title Beatitude for the Melchite Patriarch?  Is it someone from the Secreteriat of State?”  Pacelli, upon becoming Pope Pius XII, would  correct this oversight definitively for with his motu proprio Cleri Sanctitati in 1957, he finally granted the title Beatitude to Eastern Catholic patriarchs by full force of the law (canon 273, 10).