Bow or Kneel?

[dvdjs]

There is no mistaking that even today Eastern Catholic churches are seriously conflicted over this, most notably in India but this is true to some extent all over. Clearly, Eastern Catholics are not of one mind on this idea of returning to authentic traditions.

There have been so many discussion on this matter that I think it should be easy to get it:
discussion are about what is “authentic”, what is legitimate organic development, and how any change should be implemented. All of this is discussable, at least among those who have the capacity to understand that the answers are not obvious, and that some scholarship and considerable thought is required on these matters

It is sad to see that it required a Vatican mandate. Actually, it is much like an admission that the movement toward self-determination is not genuine.

Crocodile tears? In any case, I am unfamiliar - certainly from the life of the church - of any mandate.

How far from the bold days so long ago when the synod of Ruthenian bishops once demanded terms from the Papacy

Demanded terms from the papacy? Surely you know that what you quoted were not terms demanded from the Papacy.

That spirit left the church ages ago. The later bishops of that same church, long since appointed by kings and Popes embraced latinizations with vigor, resulting in the notorious Synod of Zamosc, and eventually the suppression of the hours in favor of Latin devotions, the removal of the monasteries from the control of the bishops and gathering them into a Latin-like religious order, the routine poaching of Ruthenian faithful, etc. The original Orthodox bishop-signatories, who placed so much hope in this new beginning, were betrayed.

Your vicious slander against our churches is disgusting. Let’s be clear about our courage and vigor. In the presence of an all-out assault against us be a symphony of Communist authorities and EOCs, we had the courage to resist and to persevere. Your attempt to stir up a sense of injustice against the RCC, is straining at gnats, all the while keeping silent about the swallowing of camels.

All this resulting in a church that did not know how to restore itself or why it should, and had to be ordered to do so from outside for the Vatican’s reasons, not it’s own reasons.

What this has led to is churches that are going about their lives and being churches, just as they always have. We are doing it, and if you had - or admitted to - a better sense of the history actual Orthodox praxis in America, you would understand that this work is not overall far out of step with Orthodoxy in America. Lagging just behind in some, while leading in others.

You ideas are just more fantasy. We are not reading a handful of ancient canons, while conveniently ignoring others, and pronouncing on “authentic practice” even as it deviates what is being handed handed down within actual Orthodox churches - another conveniently ignored reality. We are not looking for other churches to carbon copy. Having been Eastern Christians for well over a millenium, and having been Eastern Catholics for many centuries, and having lived through a great deal in all of those years, we have a great sense of possibilities and realities, a confidence in being ourselves and in striving in our own way for goodness. And an insouciance about stretching - wherever we please. We know who we are - and who we have always been. We didn’t just discover Eastern Christianity last Tuesday.

You might not get this. But your efforts to tell our history and our character in your own slanted way, really miss the mark.

 

[mardukm]

If it is a “must”, then it is micromanagement and not just. While I appreciate the endorsement of the Popes, I think we can handle this ourselves.

That’s my thought too.

I’ve always understood that the Pope’s endorsement to return to our roots is not directed primarily at us non-Latins, but as an exhortation to other Latin hierarchs who have tried - intentionally or not - to restrict our growth and self-realization as sui juris Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Seamus_L]

Who on earth suggested that the Eastern Rites should become carbon copies of the Latin Rite ? That’s quite an “all or nothing” attitude to suggest that supporting the right of Eastern Catholics to retain devotions that originated in the West is the same as asking them to be a carbon copy of the Latin Church.

 

[Cecilianus]

I couldn’t vote in the poll because I’m not quite sure what you mean about these “pews” thing…

In an Eastern temple I make three minor prostations in the narthex before proceeding to venerate the ikon on the tetrapod with minor prostations; great prostations only if the temple is empty and/or huge major feast day. In Roman churches I genuflect before the Tabernacle. If there is no Tabernacle inside of Roman church, then I have no business being there.

As far as the UGCC priest who called Liturgy “Mass” - shame on him. It isn’t Mass. HE needs to be recatechized. We are Orthodox, unless you believe that Rome is and should be Heterodox in which case latinize to your heart’s content. And shame on the UGCC priest who insisted to me that he was a “Roman Catholic of the Ukrainian rite”. ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!!!

 

[ConstantineTG]

I couldn’t vote in the poll because I’m not quite sure what you mean about these “pews” thing…

The local Greek Orthodox parish where I am has pews

As far as the UGCC priest who called Liturgy “Mass” - shame on him. It isn’t Mass. HE needs to be recatechized. We are Orthodox, unless you believe that Rome is and should be Heterodox in which case latinize to your heart’s content. And shame on the UGCC priest who insisted to me that he was a “Roman Catholic of the Ukrainian rite”. ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!!!

Sometimes its not the priest’s fault. I can tell from my personal experience that many cradle UGCC who were born and raised here in the diaspora do refer to the Divine Liturgy as Mass. And the priest sometimes just gets on with the linggo because he has to talk to them in their language.

 

[Formosus]

Its not about the Pope micromanaging the Eastern Churches, but rather recognizing the injustice that the Roman Church has placed on the Eastern Churches via Latinizations

Just to play a bit of devil’s advocate here…

Many of the latinizations in our (UGCC) were not imposed on us by Rome but adopted by our hierarchs and people. So perhaps something that Rome does could be considered impositions (namely matters relating to ecclesiology) but I am not quite sure Rome is responsible for stations of the cross in our Temples or Rosary instead of the hours before Liturgy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If it is a “must”, then it is micromanagement and not just. While I appreciate the endorsement of the Popes, I think we can handle this ourselves.

I agree with how mardukm explained it. Its no so much as commanding the Eastern Churches but also letting the Western bishops and priests know that they shouldn’t be forcing any more Latinizations on the East. Its also a signal to the Eastern Churches to stop doing things to please the local Latin heirarchs. A lot of the Latinizations were borne out of that.

Hi Constantine,
There is no mistaking that even today Eastern Catholic churches are seriously conflicted over this, most notably in India but this is true to some extent all over. Clearly, Eastern Catholics are not of one mind on this idea of returning to authentic traditions.

Its a slow process. Of course people want to hold on to what they have. Tradition really, in a personal and real life sense, is not what is 1000 years old or something. Tradition is what you were taught to do by your predecessor. So to the people today who are practicing Latinizations, they never lived in a Church that was Latinization free. Even if we say these Latinizations were only introduced in the last 50 or 100 years.

It is sad to see that it required a Vatican mandate. Actually, it is much like an admission that the movement toward self-determination is not genuine.

Its not sad given the history. Whats sad that in some cases it has gotten to the point that the Eastern Churches impose Latinizations on themselves just to get in the good graces of the local RC bishops.

How far from the bold days so long ago when the synod of Ruthenian bishops once demanded terms from the Papacy, including:

…That the divine worship and all prayers and services of Orthros, Vespers, and the night services shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the ancient custom of the Eastern Church

…That the Mystery of Holy Baptism and its form should remain among us unchanged as we have served it until now,

…that we should not have to make such processions with our Mysteries inasmuch as our use of the Mysteries is different

…That the marriages of priests remain intact

…That our Bishops should not send to Rome for the permission to consecrate

…If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted

…That Archimandrates, Hegumenoi, monks and their monasteries, according to the old custom shall be under the obedience of the bishops of their dioceses

…That our Rus’ monasteries and churches should not be changed into Roman Catholic churches

Concluding thus … that in our name and in their own name they should ask the Most Holy Father the Pope, and also the King’s Grace, our merciful lord, to confirm and guarantee beforehand all the articles which we have here given in writing, so that assured as to the faith, the Mysteries, and our ceremonies, we might come to this holy accord with the Roman Church without any violation of our conscience and the flock of Christ committed unto us and likewise that others who are still hesitating, seeing that we retain everything inviolate, might more quickly come after us to this holy union.

These were bold men. Not afraid of the Papacy, although they very much respected it. They insisted on their rights before they themselves would act, they demanded and received promises. They acted upon their own initiative and did not wait for Rome to offer up some little concessions.

That spirit left the church ages ago. The later bishops of that same church, long since appointed by kings and Popes embraced latinizations with vigor, resulting in the notorious Synod of Zamosc, and eventually the suppression of the hours in favor of Latin devotions, the removal of the monasteries from the control of the bishops and gathering them into a Latin-like religious order, the routine poaching of Ruthenian faithful, etc. The original Orthodox bishop-signatories, who placed so much hope in this new beginning, were betrayed.

All this resulting in a church that did not know how to restore itself or why it should, and had to be ordered to do so from outside for the Vatican’s reasons, not it’s own reasons.

Well, history should speak for itself. As much as the ECs in the past wanted to keep their ways, they were not always allowed to do so. It has gone long enough that it has developed into an attitude. I’ve heard of a story where an EC bishop would dress like an RC bishop when invited to the local KofC dinners. For decades EC bishops from that Eparchy would be invited and come, and dress like a RC bishop. Until one day one of the more recent bishops dressed like a Byzantine bishop. Everyone was surprised that they didn’t know the Orthodox were invited

And it wasn’t because the EC bishop was ashamed of the Byzantine heritage. Its more with pleasing or not offending the RC sensibilities. Like I said, it has become an attitude, and its good that the Pope put a stop to it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just to play a bit of devil’s advocate here…

Many of the latinizations in our (UGCC) were not imposed on us by Rome but adopted by our hierarchs and people. So perhaps something that Rome does could be considered impositions (namely matters relating to ecclesiology) but I am not quite sure Rome is responsible for stations of the cross in our Temples or Rosary instead of the hours before Liturgy.

Like I mentioned above, there have been many reasons for it and a lot of times its directly or indirectly from the Latin Church. Think of it this way, its pretty much how the world is in the last century. Many countries have to be democratic and capitalist, because the dominant country which is the US wants it so. Its a Westernization of culture and of politics around the world. If not, then you don’t get aid. The ECs, where do they go? We believe in the Pope and with to be in communion with him. So to get in good graces with the bigger Latin Church, we do as the Latins do even though its in our own Church.

 

[Aramis]

I came to a realization recently in an unrelated discussion:

It’s really only been in the last 40 years or so that the expectation of rampant xenophobia and the expectation of assimilation have fallen by the wayside.

In the US, that’s in no small part due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in Alaska, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, brought legal equality to all persons in the US. (Alaska Natives didn’t actually get equality under the CRA… ANCSA brought it and ended the form of apartheid unique to Alaska… by granting self-rule to native villages.)

In the Church, Vatican II made clear the dignity of the Human Person, and the dignity of the diverse rites of the church. A point made much clearer in 1983 with the new CIC (Code of Canon Law). And clearer still under the CCEO.

The latinizations of the UGCC were seen as a form of assimilation in North America. A resistance to assimilation in the Ukraine.

And a few were honest but potentially misguided attempts to improve the praxis - like HG Nicholas + Elko ordering the removal of the iconstasi so that the people could see the sacrifice at the Altar. (And his not complaining at all about Fr. Artim putting in a very open grillwork one where no iconostas had been…) It wasn’t a latinization as much as a desire for education… mishandled, and ill received.

Western Societies have fundamentally changed, and with it, much of the impetus for Latinization is diminished; we’d likely see delatinizations even if the Popes had said nothing.

 

[dvdjs]

Its a slow process. Of course people want to hold on to what they have. Tradition really, in a personal and real life sense, is not what is 1000 years old or something. Tradition is what you were taught to do by your predecessor.

Bravo. This point is often missed by those whose real life experience is limited.

So to the people today who are practicing Latinizations, they never lived in a Church that was Latinization free. Even if we say these Latinizations were only introduced in the last 50 or 100 years.

But this is only part, and a minor part in my experience, of the problem. First there is the matter of agreeing on what is a “Latinization” or better, what is an inorganic practice that not part of authentic praxis. For some particular churches, a look to their Orthodox counterparts may e all that is required to sort out this questions. For others this just can’t work, and moreover would be seen as insufficient by many. For example - pertinent to this thread - is the widespread practice of kneeling in EO churches in the US during Sunday liturgy meaningful to us or not? Is the very widespread use of pews in EO churches in the US meaningful to us or not? Is the adoption of Western musical styles in certain Orthodox churches meaningful to us or not? These issues are more complex that some would allow - especially those who, for whatever unfathomable reason, would rather imagine a failure of courage and devotion among Eastern Catholics to be the problem.

Its not sad given the history. Whats sad that in some cases it has gotten to the point that the Eastern Churches impose Latinizations on themselves just to get in the good graces of the local RC bishops

.
You presuppose facts not in evidence. Can you document this idea “impose Latinizations on themselves just to get in the good graces of the local RC bishops”.? Given the actual history of celibacy in the US, this characterization is a bit of a stretch. But can you document this attitude in the case of - well, kneeling, genuflection, pews, … ?

Well, history should speak for itself. As much as the ECs in the past wanted to keep their ways, they were not always allowed to do so. It has gone long enough that it has developed into an attitude.

History most certainly does not speak for itself.
Some people might take a rigorous approach to discerning fact from mythos, but what conclusions can follow immediately?
More often people use even the vaguest sense of events to support whatever axe they have to grind.

I’ve heard of a story where an EC bishop would dress like an RC bishop when invited to the local KofC dinners. For decades EC bishops from that Eparchy would be invited and come, and dress like a RC bishop. Until one day one of the more recent bishops dressed like a Byzantine bishop. Everyone was surprised that they didn’t know the Orthodox were invited And it wasn’t because the EC bishop was ashamed of the Byzantine heritage. Its more with pleasing or not offending the RC sensibilities. Like I said, it has become an attitude, and its good that the Pope put a stop to it.

I have not heard this story. It makes me wonder: just exactly how do bishops, Orthodox or Catholic, Eastern for Western, dress for KofC dinners? But the real question is - apart from the mushiness of ostensible facts, how do you discern motivation and attitude? I have read plenty of complaints about Met Phillip of the Antiochians on clergy dress. What is his attitude and how does it inform us?

 

[Cecilianus]

The local Greek Orthodox parish where I am has pews

I’ve been scandalized by every Greek Orthodox church I’ve ever stepped foot into. I’ve seen two GO cathedrals (Denver and Columbus) that look more western than certain Roman Catholic cathedrals (like the Cathedral of St. Louis). And some of their parishes aren’t a whole lot better.

 

[Aramis]

I have not heard this story. It makes me wonder: just exactly how do bishops, Orthodox or Catholic, Eastern for Western, dress for KofC dinners?

Archbishop Hurley (of Anchorage) always wore suit and pectoral cross. Archbishop Ryan (also of Anchorage) wore his cassock, zucchetto and cincture or his clerical suit, both with pectoral cross. (I’ve seen photos of him at dinners in both.) The Roman pectoral cross is a crucifix with 3D corpus.

The Byzantine bishop should wear his byzantine iconographic relief pectoral cross and engolpion. A primate (a patriarch, a major archbishop, or a metropolitan heading a sui iuris church) would have two engolpia. As evidenced by the various photos on the official sites, most wear them with both the clerical suit and the podrjaznik and exorason (cassock and overcassock), and the mantiya (bishop’s cloak). But I’ve never been at a KofC function where an EC bishop was present.

Ruthenian Monsignor Archpriest Michael Artim was occasionally mistaken for a Roman bishop, tho’… as a Byzantine, he wore his pectoral cross, and usually the clerical suit. But he also had biritual faculties for the Roman Rite, and was honored with a title bearing the mode of address of monsignor at the request of the (roman) Archbishop of Anchorage, and so wore the customary roman black biretta with a colored tuft.