How can we "Delatinize" parishes?

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Well … it was bound to happen sooner or later.

On a slightly more serious note, it is nice to be able to disagree with someone most of the time and still remain on friendly terms with them. Thank you for your friendship and insights, brother Malphono.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

Take, for example, the Stations of the Cross. That devotion is very popular among the Maronites and Chaldeans, and has been so for ages. As a liturgical practice, they are a latinization, yet the concept involved is one that is not at all alien to the Middle East. Hence, it’s kind of hard to say they’re a true latinization. Provided traditional Lenten services are not neglected, I see no problem with the addition of the Stations.

Actually Benediction of the Holy Cross and Ramsho (Evening Prayers) are the standard practices for the Fridays of Lent instead of the Stations of the Cross. My local Maronite parish doesn’t even have the Station of the Cross on its walls. As for the Chaldean-Assyrian Rite, I have no idea what the Church of the East does.

For the Rosary, I’ve yet to figure out what the big problem is. OK, in the form which it is used, it is a latinization, but again, the concept is not alien. For private use, I have no problem with the Rosary whatsoever. For public use, OTOH, I do have a problem, but to be fair, even the Latin Church considers the Rosary a private rather than a public devotion, even in “public” recitation. So, if used in addition to, say, Matins, fine. In place of Matins, though, it seems to me it would be a problem.

My mistake is that I did not mention that my opposition is not to praying the Rosary privately, but publicly before Divine Liturgy or Holy Qurbana instead of Matins or Hours. Yet even in private devotion, the Byzantine rules, such as that of St. Seraphim of Sarov, should be encouraged.

For Mass, it’s clear that daily celebration (within the particular norms of aliturgical days, etc, of the various Churches) is not alien to the East and Orient, at least not according to monastic practice.

This I can partially agree with you on, for monasteries. It is not common in Byzantine practice for parishes to celebrate Divine Liturgy daily, especially in Lent and on Saturdays when Great Vespers should be celebrated instead.

Eucharistic Adoration, OTOH, is purely a latinization. I’ve no problem with quiet, personal meditation (call it adoration if you want) before the Sacrament, but in the form generally used (ostensorium, etc), the concept of Eucharistic Adoration is alien.

In all honesty, I don’t think it can be done.

Don’t give up hope malphono! Many parishes have been slowly de-Latinized that were once practically Latin. My local Ruthenian parish was basically as Latin as it could be when it was built, but it now has a full iconostasis with purely Byzantine iconography. It still has kneelers, a lack of Great Vespers, and holy water fonts, but it’s a start!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hi,

Wow. I really hate to point this out. But without the Roman Church you guys would not be in existence. There is beauty in all traditions I suppose, but when ya get down to the basics, that would the the Roman Church.

Little One0307

NOTE: This post is not meant to offend. I am in no way meaning to be offensive nor obtuse. And personally I do think there is much beauty in the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome.

Great disclaimer, but it is, as the expression goes, too little, too late. Personally, I do, in fact, find the entire post to be rather offensive, to say the least.

I have to agree with you malphono.

If you had to put that disclaimer, LittleOne, then maybe you should have self-moderated and not posted it at all.

Now on to the actual content of this thread.

I had a talk with a woman who is a parishioner at one of our Ruthenian parishes that was doing this work, removing Latinizations.

When we spoke about it she was upset, I made the comment that this was returning to the “traditions of our ancestors” she answered back that the current practices are the “traditions of her ancestors”.

She meant that, what we are calling Latinizations, are the traditions that she and her parent’s grew up with.

This is where the pastoral concerns are. I think more along the lines of malphono’s thought is better, rather than getting rid of the Latinizations, we can make a place for them while returning our services that have been replaced by them.

Philip says that this will take “generations” to change. Every generation we go without a change is another generation that has the Latinization as a tradition. If we wait too long then we will never change them.

 

[dvdjs]

For once I believe we are in 99.9% agreement, my friend! This is truly one for the books! I would just say that I believe such de-Latinization is possible, but only over a good deal of time, and with great patience, conversion, and pastoral concern. It might take a couple of generations for complete de-Latinization to be acheived to the extent that it ought to be.

Me too.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I know you don’t mean to be offensive, but beware, what you have said here is not only historically false, but is EXTREMELY offensive. The traditions, theology, spirituality, and canonical traditions of the East and Orient developed completely apart from Rome even while maintaining communion with Rome. It is also noteworthy that the central truths of the Catholic/Orthodox Faith (both the Faith of the Catholic Church and that of the Orthodox Church) were hammered out in the East, not by Rome in the West. A simple glance through early Church history will reveal this to you.

I agree. The statement shows ignorance to the facts of the development of the Eastern Faith.

 

[malphono]

Take, for example, the Stations of the Cross. That devotion is very popular among the Maronites and Chaldeans, and has been so for ages. As a liturgical practice, they are a latinization, yet the concept involved is one that is not at all alien to the Middle East. Hence, it’s kind of hard to say they’re a true latinization. Provided traditional Lenten services are not neglected, I see no problem with the addition of the Stations.

Truth be told, the “Benediction of the Cross” is also 100% a latinization. It is not, contrary to certain sources, (and what might be called “popular opinion”) an authentic Maronite practice.

For the Rosary, I’ve yet to figure out what the big problem is. OK, in the form which it is used, it is a latinization, but again, the concept

Those “Byzantine rules” may be fine and dandy in a Byzantine setting, but certainly not in an Oriental one. As far as I’m concerned, byzantinization is just as bad as latinization. Look at it this way: is it better to send jobs from the US to India or the Philippines? Either way, the US loses jobs.

 

[malphono]

On a slightly more serious note, it is nice to be able to disagree with someone most of the time and still remain on friendly terms with them. Thank you for your friendship and insights, brother Malphono.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

I had a talk with a woman who is a parishioner at one of our Ruthenian parishes that was doing this work, removing Latinizations.

When we spoke about it she was upset, I made the comment that this was returning to the “traditions of our ancestors” she answered back that the current practices are the “traditions of her ancestors”.

She meant that, what we are calling Latinizations, are the traditions that she and her parent’s grew up with.

This is where the pastoral concerns are. I think more along the lines of malphono’s thought is better, rather than getting rid of the Latinizations, we can make a place for them while returning our services that have been replaced by them.

Philip says that this will take “generations” to change. Every generation we go without a change is another generation that has the Latinization as a tradition. If we wait too long then we will never change them.

I feel that we are currently encountering this problem in the Chaldean Catholic Church in the Eastern American eparchy. Patriarch Emmanuel III has commissioned some reforms to de-Latinize the Chaldean Church, some of which that are not hard to do at all (ad orientum, use of traditional hymns and psalms, matins). The Western American eparchy seems to be complying, but in my neck of the woods the tacky music, excessive Latin devotions, and disregard for the traditions of the Church of the East are driving me further away from the parishes I grew up in.

I don’t know if my parishes are becoming even more Latinized or I am becoming more and more aware of it. I can’t put all the blame on the priests, who are dealing with excessive populations of immigrants who left Iraq, but there is one man I can blame it on and he’s not budging to change anything…

 

[chaldobyzantine]

Truth be told, the “Benediction of the Cross” is also 100% a latinization. It is not, contrary to certain sources, (and what might be called “popular opinion”) an authentic Maronite practice.

My apologies. I thought that was the normal Maronite alternative used instead of the Stations. I can only then suggest whatever the Syriac church does instead.

Those “Byzantine rules” may be fine and dandy in a Byzantine setting, but certainly not in an Oriental one. As far as I’m concerned, byzantinization is just as bad as latinization. Look at it this way: is it better to send jobs from the US to India or the Philippines? Either way, the US loses jobs.

My apologies again, in no way did I wish for the Oriental Churches to be Byzantinized. I was concerning the Byzantine particular Churches. I will be more specific in my later posts. Please bear with me, because regrettably I am not very knowledgeable of the Oriental rites.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Hi,

Wow. I really hate to point this out. But without the Roman Church you guys would not be in existence. There is beauty in all traditions I suppose, but when ya get down to the basics, that would the the Roman Church.

Little One0307

NOTE: This post is not meant to offend. I am in no way meaning to be offensive nor obtuse. And personally I do think there is much beauty in the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome.

Actually, without the Christian East, especially Jerusalem, the Roman Church would not be in existence.

If you are referring to the EC Churches, the Roman Church’s motherly “embrace” has been something of a Latin bear-hug, so much so, that the same Roman Church is now telling us to return to our Eastern traditions.

And the title “Pope” was first born by the Patriarch of Alexandria when the then Primate of Rome was only being called “Bishop.”

Alex

 

[malphono]

I feel that we are currently encountering this problem in the Chaldean Catholic Church in the Eastern American eparchy. Patriarch Emmanuel III has commissioned some reforms to de-Latinize the Chaldean Church, some of which that are not hard to do at all (ad orientum, use of traditional hymns and psalms, matins). The Western American eparchy seems to be complying, but in my neck of the woods the tacky music, excessive Latin devotions, and disregard for the traditions of the Church of the East are driving me further away from the parishes I grew up in.

I don’t know if my parishes are becoming even more Latinized or I am becoming more and more aware of it. I can’t put all the blame on the priests, who are dealing with excessive populations of immigrants who left Iraq, but there is one man I can blame it on and he’s not budging to change anything…

The sad truth is that, in the post-conciliar era, the Chaldean Church was seriously affected by I have repeatedly called Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations. Mar Sarhad in San Diego has, it seems, done a great job in the Diocese of St Peter to implement the decisions of the Holy Synod, notably (but not exclusively) the restoration of ad orientem and even the sanctuary curtain. AFAIK, however, Mar Ibrahim in Detroit seems to have done nothing. (I’ve heard from very reliable sources that he’s actually hostile to the Synods decisions and will not do anything to implement them).

Now, I don’t know you, but it seems to me that the crux of your complaint is that last. Though I also don’t know your age, I’m tempted to ask how would you feel (or how do you think you’d feel) if the Chaldean observance was not Novus Ordoized in the first place? IOW, if things had remained the same (at least until the latest decisions of the Holy Synod), including the “old” latinizations (some of which, apparently, are shared with the ACoE)?

 

[chaldobyzantine]

Hi,

Wow. I really hate to point this out. But without the Roman Church you guys would not be in existence. There is beauty in all traditions I suppose, but when ya get down to the basics, that would the the Roman Church.

Little One0307

NOTE: This post is not meant to offend. I am in no way meaning to be offensive nor obtuse. And personally I do think there is much beauty in the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome.

If only I could moderate my own thread… A man can dream

 

[malphono]

Truth be told, the “Benediction of the Cross” is also 100% a latinization. It is not, contrary to certain sources, (and what might be called “popular opinion”) an authentic Maronite practice.

AFAIK, the traditional Syriac usage has nothing (beyond Ramsho and a type of Presanctified) for Fridays in lent. Extra-liturgical (or paraliturgical) services are not particularly common in the West Syriac tradition, and I tend to think the same applies to the East Syriac tradition as well.

The Benediction of the Cross is, really, a hybrid service, taking the idea of “Benediction” (of the Blessed Sacrament), blending it with Lent, and giving it a “Maronite twist” so-to-speak. In the absence of anything specific, I can’t say there’s anything wrong with using it, provided it follows Ramsho.

Those “Byzantine rules” may be fine and dandy in a Byzantine setting, but certainly not in an Oriental one. As far as I’m concerned, byzantinization is just as bad as latinization. Look at it this way: is it better to send jobs from the US to India or the Philippines? Either way, the US loses jobs.

 

[Cristiano]

…But I applaud the fact that your knowledge of Church history meets the usual RC standards!

Alex

Just because someone says something out of ignorance or out of stupidity, that does not authorize you to insult the Latin Church.

 

[malphono]

Alexander Roman;7886817:

But I applaud the fact that your knowledge of Church history meets the usual RC standards!

Just because someone says something out of ignorance or out of stupidity, that does not authorize you to insult the Latin Church.

Ignorance and/or stupidity? Yes, that’s clear. But while this is not my argument, I really can’t take Alex’s comment as an insult to the Latin Church. The fact is that 98%+ of the Latins barely know that the East/Orient even exists, much less do they know that we have traditions that are as old (and often older) than those of the Latin church. Even out of total ignorance (leave the “stupidity” option aside), the comment to which Alex referred was distasteful (more like obnoxious) at best.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

The sad truth is that, in the post-conciliar era, the Chaldean Church was seriously affected by I have repeatedly called Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations. Mar Sarhad in San Diego has, it seems, done a great job in the Diocese of St Peter to implement the decisions of the Holy Synod, notably (but not exclusively) the restoration of ad orientem and even the sanctuary curtain. AFAIK, however, Mar Ibrahim in Detroit seems to have done nothing. (I’ve heard from very reliable sources that he’s actually hostile to the Synods decisions and will not do anything to implement them).

Now, I don’t know you, but it seems to me that the crux of your complaint is that last. Though I also don’t know your age, I’m tempted to ask how would you feel (or how do you think you’d feel) if the Chaldean observance was not Novus Ordoized in the first place? IOW, if things had remained the same (at least until the latest decisions of the Holy Synod), including the “old” latinizations (some of which, apparently, are shared with the ACoE)?

I’m only 21, so I have no idea how the Chaldean Church was like back then. I meant over the course of my lifetime it seems that more Latin devotions have somehow made it in my local parishes. The Divine Mercy chaplet, the Litany of Loreto, Eucharistic Adoration, have been added; even more instruments and modern music after the sign of peace and during the communion distribution, shorter liturgies, different musical settings for English liturgies, “and also with you”, brand new liturgy books that do not show any of the Holy Synod’s reforms, to name a few.

You hit the bullseye malphono when you mentioned Bishop Ibrahim (insert thunderstorm sound effects here), but I attend my local Melkite parish more often then I do my Chaldean ones, so my personal concern is also for the Byzantine churches as well. From what I’ve seen from Bishop Sarhad, some progress has been made, and the pictures show the Patriarch approves. Though some pictures show CITH and kneeling…

kaldaya.net/2011/News/05/May18_E1_CardinaldalliInAz.html

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Why can’t Roman Catholics accept standing for Consecration and Communion? Why don’t we just call it an Easternization?

Its a rhetorical question. I hope you got my point.

There latin Diocesees that do stand for consecration and almost all stand for communion.
Though I personnally feel more comfortable on my knees at those time, I would never say that one has to do one way or the other.

Sorry, I missed the point. As I have said those two stances you mentioned do happen on latin parishes. And when in RCIA these parts of the Mass are taught My Preist points out that standing is the older tradition.

 

[malphono]

I’m only 21, so I have no idea how the Chaldean Church was like back then. I meant over the course of my lifetime it seems that more Latin devotions have somehow made it in my local parishes. The Divine Mercy chaplet, the Litany of Loreto, Eucharistic Adoration, have been added; even more instruments and modern music after the sign of peace and during the communion distribution, shorter liturgies, different musical settings for English liturgies, “and also with you”, brand new liturgy books that do not show any of the Holy Synod’s reforms, to name a few.

You hit the bullseye malphono when you mentioned Bishop Ibrahim (insert thunderstorm sound effects here), but I attend my local Melkite parish more often then I do my Chaldean ones, so my personal concern is also for the Byzantine churches as well. From what I’ve seen from Bishop Sarhad, some progress has been made, and the pictures show the Patriarch approves. Though some pictures show CITH and kneeling…

kaldaya.net/2011/News/05/May18_E1_CardinaldalliInAz.html

Welcome to what I’ll call the “Maronite world” where Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations reign supreme, are ongoing, and are uncontested. The “old latinization” were something that we could deal with, and even understand, when put in historical perspective. But the neo-latinizations are far more insidious and have no explanation. the only historical perspective is post-conciliar, and that hardly counts.

The same is pretty much true for the Chaldeans, but at least the Chaldean Holy Synod “saw the light” and did something about it. The Maronite Synod has at best adopted the ostrich position, and at worst is actively supporting its own demise.

And, of course, there’s the Maronite bishops adherence to the USCCB’s schedule for removing the more egregious non-translations (“And also with you” etc). Bet you dollars to doughnuts that Mar Ibrahim will go along with the USCCB later this year.

My suggestion? Don’t “go Byzantine” but rather fight for your own. The Byzantines (even the Melkites) aren’t all that unviolated either. Just last night I saw a broadcast of yet another Melkite DL from Lebanon versus populum (rather than ad orientem) in a church with not even a hint of an iconostasis, not even a so-called “portable” one. I just couldn’t take it and shut the thing off, so I don’t know what other innovations there may have been (other than very badly done music, that included a hint of “Western”).

If you’re in Detroit, why not go see Mar Ibrahim? Fight with him if necessary, but you have to make your presence and position known first. Trust me, you’re not the only Chaldo in the diocese to feel the way you do.

 

[dcointin]

This is the Maronite cathedral in St. Louis where I live:



bp3.blogger.com/_ICCoEC9hSwc/Rc0LkaQDz4I/AAAAAAAAAts/BYn47TJX3CE/s1600-h/Saint+Raymonds+Maronite+Cathedral,+in+Saint+Louis,+Missouri±+altar.jpg

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Just because someone says something out of ignorance or out of stupidity, that does not authorize you to insult the Latin Church.

Actually, it was not my intention to insult the “Latin Church” at all. There are Latin professors of Eastern theology who know more about it than many Easterners.

I was simply referring to my experience of Roman Catholics who know next to nothing about the Catholic East and yet who wish to comment on it as they do as has also been stated above.

My comment was therefore aimed not at the Latin Church (heaven forbid!), but to individuals.

If it was taken as an insult, I withdraw it and apologise in a most heart-rending fashion.

Alex