Canonical question: commemorating Hierarchs

[Elisha]

On the IndianaList either today or yesterday, there is some hubub about ROCOR priests not commemorating Patriarch Alexei II.

Retired Bishop Tikhon posted how it is canonically correct for priests in local parishes to ONLY needed to commemorate their diocesan bishop and thus this non-commemoration of Patriarch Alexei is not uncanonical, that the current practice of commemorating First Hierarchs confuses what is and is not canonical, that local parishes should return to only commemorating their diocesan bishop and leave the commemoration of the First Hierarch to their diocesan bishop.

What do the resident experts here say?

[Fr. George]

Retired Bishop TIKHON is spot-on.  The parishes are only to commemorate their local hierarch; the local hierarchs commemorate their synodal presidents, and so forth.  The practice of commemorating First Hierarchs at the parishes all the time is a bit strange, and possibly a reflection of an incorrect ecclesiological model (a diocese has only one bishop, no matter how you slice it).

[Elisha]

Retired Bishop TIKHON is spot-on.  The parishes are only to commemorate their local hierarch; the local hierarchs commemorate their synodal presidents, and so forth.  The practice of commemorating First Hierarchs at the parishes all the time is a bit strange, and possibly a reflection of an incorrect ecclesiological model (a diocese has only one bishop, no matter how you slice it).

Thanks for confirming that my retired bishop is not completely insane.   

[Αριστοκλής]

Thanks for confirming that my retired bishop is not completely insane.   

Never insane! But always armed with a keyboard and ready to use it he remains 

[PeterTheAleut]

Never insane! But always armed with a keyboard and ready to use it he remains 

You know him well, do you?

[Αριστοκλής]

You know him well, do you?

Yes, we've crossed keyboards on occasion.

[Esteban]

I recall that Father Kyril Jenner, in a message posted to one of the lists in the not-too-distant past, explained that the practice of commemorating both the first hierarch and the diocesan bishop at services has its origins in the time before the autocephaly of the Russian Church, when there was only one ruling bishop, the Metropolitan, who was assisted by various regional vicar bishops. When these regions became canonically established dioceses and their bishops proper ruling bishops, the long-standing practice of commemorating both simply wasn't discontinued.

This would explain why this peculiar practice—and regarding this Bishop Tikhon is quite right!—is generally observed in the broader Russian sphere of influence (which for these purposes would include, I suppose, Poles, Ukrainians and Carpatho-Russians, as well as the North American Metropolia and the Parish Exarchate, and others), but not beyond it. An exception to this is the Serbian Church in North and South America (and perhaps also in Australia?), in which all priests commemorate the Patriarch — a practice, I imagine, related to the reconciliation of the Patriarchal and Free Serbs in 1992. Liturgical books printed in Serbia, however, only call for the commemoration of one's own bishop.

-e.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Canonical question: commemorating Hierarchs