Have Eastern Rite Parishes been Latinized

[BernadetteM]

A non Eastern Rite person made a comment that the Eastern Rites have been latinized. I have heard that in the past this has happened, but was wondering if that is true today and if so which Rites are latinized.

Also did your Bishops try to stop this or did they go along with the changes?

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A non Eastern Rite person made a comment that the Eastern Rites have been latinized. I have heard that in the past this has happened, but was wondering if that is true today and if so which Rites are latinized.

Also did your Bishops try to stop this or did they go along with the changes?

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

If a Byzantine parish has a Saturday evening Divine Liturgy instead of Great Vespers then it is latinized. If it has kneelers and they use them then it is a latinized. If they pray the Rosary instead of Orthos before the Divine Liturgy it is latinized.

My Church, the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church has parishes where these things are on going though there is a move to fix them.

 

[dcointin]

ByzCath - what area are you in? I visited a Ruthenian parish a few weeks ago that also had a Saturday evening Divine Liturgy.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath - what area are you in? I visited a Ruthenian parish a few weeks ago that also had a Saturday evening Divine Liturgy.

I am currently in Tucson, AZ.

Right now you will find that most of our parishes have a Saturday evening Divine Liturgy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am currently in Tucson, AZ.

Right now you will find that most of our parishes have a Saturday evening Divine Liturgy.

What’s the difference between evening DL and Vespers?

 

[dcointin]

The Ruthenian parish I visited seemed authentically eastern, though I admit that I’m not as familiar with Slavic traditions, and don’t know what their practices outside of the Divine Liturgy are. The only two areas that struck me as foreign were when the cantor announced the “opening hymn” at the beginning, and when the priest seemed surprised when I kissed his hand at the blessing at the dismissal. I think the latter was due to the celebrant being a bi-ritual priest who was simply not used to the practice. They bowed, crossed themselves, etc. all in the eastern manner.

 

[dcointin]

What’s the difference between evening DL and Vespers?

An evening Divine Liturgy is called a “Vesperal Divine Liturgy”, which incorporates Great Vespers for the first half, and the Divine Liturgy for the second half. Great Vespers is an evening service without the Eucharist that focuses on prayer and psalmody. To make things even more complicated, there is also a “Pre-sanctified Divine Liturgy”, which is similar to a Vesperal Divine Liturgy but altered because there is no consecration since the Eucharist was consecrated previously; this is usually used in midweek Lenten services.

 

[Aramis]

What’s the difference between evening DL and Vespers?

Vespers is the Canonical Hours evening prayer. Opening prayers, a few propers, a bunch of psalms, closing prayer. Done.

Divine Liturgy has almost the same opening prayers, slightly different propers, the readings, the homily, the anaphora (consecration), communion, closing prayers. It’s the same service as sunday morning, but done saturday evening.

A Vesperal DL is Opening prayers, a bunch of psalms, vespers and liturgy propers, the readings, the homily, the anaphora (consecration), communion, closing prayers. It’s literally replacing the opening prayers with vespers and then continuing into the DL seamlessly.

The Vesperal DL is not a latinization, but is an expansion of use of a traditional approach from 4x per year to 56x a year or more. The 4x per year it was used traditionally are major feasts, however…

If, however, a “naked” DL is done on sat evening (no vespers before or joined with), it’s a latinization.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

Latinization is something that is in the eye of the beholder! It could mean that there are certain devotional practices in a given EC parish that are of Latin provenance, it could mean that the mindset of the people is Latin, or it could mean both.

But what if a parish is very Eastern in every which way, but holds onto certain Latin devotions (that have been Easternized)? What if the choice is purely voluntary. The Melkite Synod, for example, voted to adopt the feast of the Dormition of St Joseph on March 19th and also the feast of Corpus Christi. Does that make them Latinized? There are also Orthodox parishes who hold Stations of the Cross and Passia services together with a few other “Latin-looking” devotions - are they Latinized?

I used to be very quick to say, “Hey, that’s a Latinization - get rid of it!” I gave up the Rosary, for instance, thinking it to be a Latin practice and then I read about St Seraphim of Sarov and came right back to it. Reflecting on that, private devotions should be up to the individual (I’ve heard of an Orthodox monk who was invested in the Carmelite Third Order Scapular and who loves to pray the Rosary of the Seven Joys of our Lady . . .).

St Dimity of Rostov developed the “Tale of the Five prayers” which is an Orthodox version of the same thing. He prayed the Dominican Rosary daily, the stations of the Cross, wrote about the Heart of Christ (as did St Nicholas Cabasilas) and said a Hail Mary at the turn of every hour of the day and night . . . he also said the Little Office of the Virgin Mary (I’ve seen a Slavonic translation online, together with the 15 prayers of St Brigitte).

And yet he is an Orthodox Saint . . .

The Russian Orthodox Church has even tolerated Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in the Orthodox parishes of western Ukraine and the Sacred Hearts devotion.

So, how does one make sense of all this?

First of all, there is the principle that an EC parish should adhere to the rubrics set down for the Divine Liturgy and the Horologion and the other church services. It should have an iconostasis and adhere, as much as possible, to the rubrics for everything else.

Paraliturgical devotions should only be done in church with the blessing of the Bishop/Priest. What one does outside of church and in a group is OK. Traditions that persist about saying the Rosary publicly before the DL shouldn’t be shown the door simply because that could do real damage to people’s spirituality/emotions. The same rule does apply for EC converts to Orthodoxy.

Persistent western devotions can and should be given an “Eastern liturgical context” as much as possible to underline the ritual distinction.

EC parishes vary greatly along a continuum from “Very Latinized” to “Barely Latinized.” It would depend on the parish. And the parish’s rules must be respected. There is no final word on Latinization. Ultimately, I think someone is Latinized not on the devotional level, but on the spiritual level. If an Eastern Catholic doesn’t see himself or herself as belonging to a Particular EC Church but is an RC with a different Rite - that is probably the best standard for determining whether or not they are truly Latinized in attitude. Everything else would probably flow from that.

Please excuse me now, I need to adjust my scapular . . .

Alex

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

An evening Divine Liturgy is called a “Vesperal Divine Liturgy”, which incorporates Great Vespers for the first half, and the Divine Liturgy for the second half. Great Vespers is an evening service without the Eucharist that focuses on prayer and psalmody. To make things even more complicated, there is also a “Pre-sanctified Divine Liturgy”, which is similar to a Vesperal Divine Liturgy but altered because there is no consecration since the Eucharist was consecrated previously; this is usually used in midweek Lenten services.

While I know about Vesperal Divine Liturgies, the Saturday Divine Liturgy used by most Ruthenian parishes I know of is just the Divine Liturgy for Sunday, not a Vesperal Divine Liturgy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So Vespers doesn’t have Communion, but can fulfill Sunday Obligation?

 

[Aramis]

So Vespers doesn’t have Communion, but can fulfill Sunday Obligation?

In most Byzantine Rite churches, yes. In the Ruthenian? Not as a universal generality, beacuse the hierarchs didn’t add it to the particular law in 1996. (The CCEO requires enabling legislation from each Church Sui Iuris for vespers to count.

The Ukrainians have done so. The Melkites have done so.

Unless the 1996 RPL has been superceeded, the Metropolia has not. Mucachevo, as far as I know, it does.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I tend to agree mostly with what Alexander says (always a pleasure to read your posts, Alexander). There is a Latinization of the mind that is much more dangerous than external Latinizations, although in my opinion the external Latinizations typically flow from a Latinization of the mind.

To the OP, I strongly recommend you check out the little book entitled “Uniatism: Definition, Causes, Effects, Scope, Dangers, Remedies” by Cyril Korolevsky, available from Eastern Christian Publications (ecpubs.com). Although the book is somewhat dated, it gives a very good synopsis of the problems of Latinization. The only thing that I can recall disagreeing with the author on was the issue of priestly celibacy. He claimed that the Eastern Catholic churches should only have celibate priests. That being said, however, his argument wasn’t founded on the notion that celibacy and the priesthood ought to go hand in hand, but that a man who isn’t “tied down” to a family has an easier time getting an education, something which he says is very necessary for Eastern Catholic priests in order to reclaim their truly Eastern identity. He was writing in the 1940s or before, a time where it would’ve been much more difficult than it is today for a married man to get the proper seminary education.

Latinization itself is the tendency, mostly among Eastern Catholics, but it also exists among some Orthodox, to prefer Latin devotions, theology, discipline, liturgical practice, etc. to truly Eastern ones. One example would be a preference for Thomistic theology over the theology of the Three Holy Hierarchs and the other Church Fathers. Another example would be Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Now, this is not to comment on the merit of such things as Thomistic theology and Adoration, but it is simply to say that these things are outside of any of the various Eastern/Oriental traditions.

One must also be equally wary, however, of “Byzantineization”. That would be the tendency to replace authentic Coptic, Maronite, Armenian etc. devotions, discipline, liturgical practice, etc. with Byzantine ones. In the search and zeal to reclaim their own authentic identity, the problem of Byzantineization can be every bit as prevalent as Latinization in these churches.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Phillip,

What you say about the Byzantinization of the Latin Rite is very true!

I attended the Western Rite Antiochian Orthodox conference in Toronto some years back and a number of issues that came up from these former RC, Anglican and Old Catholic converts to Western Orthodoxy was the concern over such Byzantinizations as the inclusiion of the prayer of the Thief in the Western liturgies (it is nice, but there is no reason to include it).

What was more, the Western Riters took to poking light fun at the Eastern church traditions such as the “icons with the big eyes” and the like.

Just like Eastern Catholics sometimes do with respect to the Latin Church . . .

alex

 

[malphono]

I tend to agree mostly with what Alexander says (always a pleasure to read your posts, Alexander). There is a Latinization of the mind that is much more dangerous than external Latinizations, although in my opinion the external Latinizations typically flow from a Latinization of the mind. …

Latinization itself is the tendency, mostly among Eastern Catholics, but it also exists among some Orthodox, to prefer Latin devotions, theology, discipline, liturgical practice, etc. to truly Eastern ones. One example would be a preference for Thomistic theology over the theology of the Three Holy Hierarchs and the other Church Fathers. Another example would be Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Now, this is not to comment on the merit of such things as Thomistic theology and Adoration, but it is simply to say that these things are outside of any of the various Eastern/Oriental traditions.

Those are all aspects of latinization, but as I see the matter, there’s a lot more to it. One major factor is the mindset of the hierarchy, and this is particularly evident in the current, on-going trend of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization that is rampant in certain of the Oriental Churches, and from what I’ve learned from this forum, also seems to affect certain Byzantine jurisdictions, although to a lesser degree.

In general, these neo-latinizations do not concern externals as did the “old” wave of latinizations (many of which are still around), but are far more insidious. Essentially, their effect on the Oriental liturgies is similar to that of the Novus Ordo on the Roman. With respect to the Oriental liturgies, this is not a good thing.

One must also be equally wary, however, of “Byzantineization”. That would be the tendency to replace authentic Coptic, Maronite, Armenian etc. devotions, discipline, liturgical practice, etc. with Byzantine ones. In the search and zeal to reclaim their own authentic identity, the problem of Byzantineization can be every bit as prevalent as Latinization in these churches.

Interesting observation, and one that I’ve seen in varying degrees. No disrespect intended, but I call it Melkitization, although I admit that it does not come from the Melkites themselves. Rather, it springs from a lack of understanding of authentic Oriental tradition on the part of some so-called “Oriental” clergy (including certain bishops). In their misguided view, they see the Melkites as being the “guardians of tradition” so it behooves the Orientals to copy. In doing this they demonstrate that they clearly have no idea that there is actually a difference between Byzantine practicea and traditions and those of the Orient. The good thing is that this is not a trend as such, but seems to be limited to certain places and certain clergy, which means that, while it’s incorrect, (not to mention highly annoying), it’s no where near as dangerous as the Novus Ordo-inspired neo latinizations mentioned earlier.

 

[dcointin]

Those are all aspects of latinization, but as I see the matter, there’s a lot more to it. One major factor is the mindset of the hierarchy, and this is particularly evident in the current, on-going trend of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization that is rampant in certain of the Oriental Churches, and from what I’ve learned from this forum, also seems to affect certain Byzantine jurisdictions, although to a lesser degree.

In general, these neo-latinizations do not concern externals as did the “old” wave of latinizations (many of which are still around), but are far more insidious. Essentially, their effect on the Oriental liturgies is similar to that of the Novus Ordo on the Roman. With respect to the Oriental liturgies, this is not a good thing.

Interesting observation, and one that I’ve seen in varying degrees. No disrespect intended, but I call it Melkitization, although I admit that it does not come from the Melkites themselves. Rather, it springs from a lack of understanding of authentic Oriental tradition on the part of some so-called “Oriental” clergy (including certain bishops). In their misguided view, they see the Melkites as being the “guardians of tradition” so it behooves the Orientals to copy. In doing this they demonstrate that they clearly have no idea that there is actually a difference between Byzantine practicea and traditions and those of the Orient. The good thing is that this is not a trend as such, but seems to be limited to certain places and certain clergy, which means that, while it’s incorrect, (not to mention highly annoying), it’s no where near as dangerous as the Novus Ordo-inspired neo latinizations mentioned earlier.

I admit that I’ve been guilty of conflating “Orthodoxy” with “Eastern Orthodoxy” (i.e. Byzantine Orthodoxy), and have been corrected by Mardukm on this serveral times. Aside from the preference for miaphysite Christology, Coptic iconography, and use of the Liturgy of St. James, I honestly don’t know what’s unique to Oriental Orthodoxy.

In what ways has Latinization been more prominent for the OO? I attended a Maronite liturgy once and was struck at how Latinized the liturgy and church decor was, but does it extend further than that?

Latinization (or “Westerniziation” as I’ve often heard it called), is a problem for the Eastern Orthodox as well. My parish, which is a small mission, had a controversy about a year ago over the introduction of pews, which prohibit performing prostrations and metanias. They’re present in most Orthodox parishes I’ve visited, with exception to ROCOR parishes. I haven’t seen any Latinizations of liturgy or theology however.

 

[malphono]

I admit that I’ve been guilty of conflating “Orthodoxy” with “Eastern Orthodoxy” (i.e. Byzantine Orthodoxy), and have been corrected by Mardukm on this serveral times. Aside from the preference for miaphysite Christology, Coptic iconography, and use of the Liturgy of St. James, I honestly don’t know what’s unique to Oriental Orthodoxy.

The more obvious difference are perhaps subtle to a Byzantine, but one has to bear in mind that Byzantine liturgy has its roots in the Syriac. In and of itself, that would explain why the differences appear to be subtle.

I can’t speak for the Alexenandrenes, but for the Syriacs there is one thing in theological expression that may not be so obvious: any reliance on Greek philosophy is merely either accidental or the indirect result of a “borrowing” words. I’ve often cited this paraphrase from Mor Ephrem: “woe to him who is tainted by the poison of Greek philosophy.”

There are, of course, other details, but I’ll leave for brother mardukm.

In what ways has Latinization been more prominent for the OO? I attended a Maronite liturgy once and was struck at how Latinized the liturgy and church decor was, but does it extend further than that?

The decor is one thing that is a hold-over from the “old” wave of latinizations. The liturgy, though, is quite something else, and that was my point. (I’m not speaking of vestments or minor rubrics here, but rather to the very structure and text.) How much further could the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations extend? The worst part is that they continue as we speak.

 

[dcointin]

This is an interior picture of St. Raymond’s Maronite Cathedral, the one which I visited:



Let me know if you can’t see it, it’s being blocked for me at work

 

[malphono]

This is an interior picture of St. Raymond’s Maronite Cathedral, the one which I visited:

Saint+Raymonds+Maronite+Cathedral,+in+Saint+Louis,+Missouri+-+altar.jpg (image)

Let me know if you can’t see it, it’s being blocked for me at work

Well, I got it, but only the hard way: when I opened the reply window, the link was there but it doesn’t show in the message.

Anyway, yes, I finally got it. Actually, I’ve seen photos of that monstrosity before. The only thing I like about it is the Syriac inscription. The rest is, to put it as nicely as I can, absolutely hideous (including that table (shudder) :winter: ) and not at all to my taste.

But even though the monstrosity is purely post-conciliar in look, (and we come right back to that table again (shudder) :winter: in particular), the principle behind it is that of the “old” wave of latinization.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Malphono,

I’d be interested to know what a non-Latinized/neo-Latinized Maronite Qurbono would look like. Do you have a translation of the Maronite Qurbono into English that predates the post-Vatican II “neo-Latinizations” and contains no Latinizations at all? Also, do you recommend any reading for authentic Maronite Liturgy, Spirituality, Theology, etc.? I ask because the Maronites seem to be the most elusive of the Eastern/Oriental Churches to me with regards to their identity. Of all the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches, they seem to be the ones who identify primarily as “Roman Catholics who celebrate Mass funny”.