How did Vatican II affect the Eastern Catholic Churches?

[ciero]

This sort of language isn’t appropriate on this forum .

I dont see why. I have no problem being called a Uniate, it is something to be proud of as far as I’m concerned. I think thoses who take offence at it are really not very comfortable with their Eastern-ness.

 

[dvdjs]

You can take it as a “smear” if that’s what makes you happy, but it most certainly does have a “real meaning:” it’s in the principles behind it.

“Labeling” with no clear content, makes me unhappy. If you have solid principles in mind, then please speak directly of them. The label is lost on people with little familiarity with the NO.

Although I do have a familiarity with the Byzantine liturgy in general, I clearly stated earlier that I’ve no personal familiarity with the Ruthenian RDL, so I think the above remark is rather out of place.

My comment was strictly in principle and based on a lot of personal experience (more than I actually care to have had) with other liturgical traditions where the exact same thing has happened. In each and every case, it is nothing but a neo-latinization: de-emphasizing priestly prayers is, whether you like it or not, another of the hallmarks of the Novus Ordo.

In this post, however, you made the connection to the Ruthenian church. And you do it here again: in the absence of “personal familarity with the Ruthenian RDL” how can you speak of “the exact same thing”? It is that connection that is out of place.

 

[Formosus]

Calling a Byzantine Catholic a “latinized uniate” is clearly meant to be an ad hominem. You used it as an insulting label on someone else, and that not only violates charity but actually is against the rules of this forum.

 

[malphono]

“Labeling” with no clear content, makes me unhappy. If you have solid principles in mind, then please speak directly of them. The label is lost on people with little familiarity with the NO.

If one has little familiarity with the Novus Ordo, perhaps one shouldn’t call a reference to its influence a “smear.”

In this post, however, you made the connection to the Ruthenian church. And you do it here again: in the absence of “personal familarity with the Ruthenian RDL” how can you speak of “the exact same thing”? It is that connection that is out of place.

OK, have it your way. I should have known better than to involve myself in (or even make a comment on) anything that is even remotely Byzantine or related to Byzantine. It’s never worth the trouble. This time included.

 

[dvdjs]

If one has little familiarity with the Novus Ordo, perhaps one shouldn’t call a reference to its influence a “smear.”
.

Fair enough. I apologize for aussuming that you were speaking pejoratively of the NO.

 

[malphono]

Fair enough. I apologize for aussuming that you were speaking pejoratively of the NO.

No apology necessary. it’s not a secret that I’ve never been a fan of the Novus Ordo from the day it appeared (and unfortunately I remember it well, as the song goes), but that has nothing to do with this thread. (Nor, for that matter, does it’s influence on the “revised” Ambrosian Rite.) What does concern this thread, though, is the influence of the Novus Ordo (and the principles behind it) on anything other than the Latin Church.

 

[dvdjs]

I dont believe anyone here was talking about the anaphora being a private prayer of the priest.

Well, IIRC, you were the first to use the phrase “private prayer”. Prior to that we had been talking about prayers taken quietly or soto-voce by the priest while the congregation is chanting. That would include most of the anaphora. Indeed, in many discussion of the RDL the taking of the anaphora aloud has been criticized, and specifically criticized as a Latinization. I think that that criticism is groundless, and am glad that you seem to be steering clear of it.

I am interested to learn what you specifically mean by “private prayer of the priest”. If you mean the prayers whose public recitation has been abbreviated to just the ekphonesis, then yes, such are heard in full in my experience in the OCA; If you mean prayers over bowed heads, yes. If you means the prayers of the Cherubikon, then no (but neither is it taken aloud in the RDL). Overall, the usage that I have experienced in the OCA is much the same as in RDL. I think, in fact, that our liturgy committee was inspired by the faculty of SVS as much or more than anything else.

Seems that you were defending the curtailing of the litanies but taking the priests private prayer of the litany aloud.

Really? Please re-read my posts. I am only defending a reality-based assessment of the pros and cons of the RDL.

As to your personal attack: Objectively, you spoke in ignorance of me and the people I had spoken of in my post. I am prompted to ask: why doesn’t your lack of knowledge inhibit you from posting such remarks?

 

[dvdjs]

No apology necessary. it’s not a secret that I’ve never been a fan of the Novus Ordo from the day it appeared (and unfortunately I remember it well, as the song goes), but that has nothing to do with this thread. (Nor, for that matter, does it’s influence on the “revised” Ambrosian Rite.) What does concern this thread, though, is the influence of the Novus Ordo (and the principles behind it) on anything other than the Latin Church.

Thanks. The problem is that the NO as an outgrowth of VII is considered fruit by some, spoiled fruit by others, and rank growth by others still. So bringing up the NO tends to create confusion: it means different things to different people.

My thinking is that VII itself was a manifestation of a broader zeitgeist that was also keenly felt within some of the EOC’s. Part of this was the fact that we were beginning to deal with communities that are largely literate, increasingly educated community, dispersed, and highly mobile. These realities have an impact on clericalism, on antiquarianism, on liturgies, on the significance of uniformity and so forth. I think that these are the broader realities that have been driving the thinking on liturgy.

 

[malphono]

Thanks. The problem is that the NO as an outgrowth of VII is considered fruit by some, spoiled fruit by others, and rank growth by others still. So bringing up the NO tends to create confusion: it means different things to different people.

To me, (and I know that I’m not alone in this), any influence of the Novus Ordo on other than the Latin Church means latinization. This is not a good thing. People constantly complain about the “old” latinizations and are hot-to-trot to “delatinize” but far too often they neglect to say the same about the reality of neo-latinization.

My thinking is that VII itself was a manifestation of a broader zeitgeist that was also keenly felt within some of the EOC’s. Part of this was the fact that we were beginning to deal with communities that are largely literate, increasingly educated community, dispersed, and highly mobile. These realities have an impact on clericalism, on antiquarianism, on liturgies, on the significance of uniformity and so forth. I think that these are the broader realities that have been driving the thinking on liturgy.

That may be, but I cannot see that anything there in any way justifies importing the principles of the Novus Ordo. The East (including the Orient) has its own traditions, and the last thing we need is to be further influenced by the effect of the Novus Ordo and all the baggage that goes with it. As I said above, this is not a good thing.

 

[Aramis]

There is no Gregorian chant in the music of the RDL. None. In fact, the music is very faithful, some say faithful to a fault, to Cerkovnoje Prostopinije (Church Plainchant) of Father John Bokšai and Cantor Joseph Malinič, Uzhhorod 1906.

.

I’d noticed the same. But most Ruthenian parishes in the US have not been faithful to the 1909 promulgation of Rev. Fr. Bokšai’s annotations. Most are moderately close to Very Rev. Fr. Levkulic’s 1965 recordings, which bear little resemblance to Fr. Bokšai’s.

I can see where Fr. Levkulic’s melodies are DRASTIC simplifications of Fr. Bokšai’s.

It’s just a matter of inertia, and certain posters 'reound here are excessively vocal about it, denying the obvious.

That said, Fr. Levkulic’s ARE authentic development; the 2006 music is not, but antiquarianism in a mild form, tho in this case, well under the 200 year limit for it being a “no-no”…

As for the rest of it…

The “augmentations” in this case are not; they are a return to the Greek rubrics. An antiquarianism. Therefore, inauthentic development, but not innovation.

But certain posters 'round here take every turn they can to decry those elements wrongfully as latinizations.

The abbreviations, not really a latinization, either. They are just part of the Ruthenian heritage, and continuing authentic development. Unfortunate as they are.

The inclusive language is an Americanism, and modernism. And as such is a major problem.

 

[dvdjs]

To me, (and I know that I’m not alone in this), any influence of the Novus Ordo on other than the Latin Church means latinization. This is not a good thing. People constantly complain about the “old” latinizations and are hot-to-trot to “delatinize” but far too often they neglect to say the same about the reality of neo-latinization.
…
That may be, but I cannot see that anything there in any way justifies importing the principles of the Novus Ordo. The East (including the Orient) has its own traditions, and the last thing we need is to be further influenced by the effect of the Novus Ordo and all the baggage that goes with it. As I said above, this is not a good thing.

IMO, we really should not import anything from outside our own tradition.

At the same time, we should not fear organic developments within our own tradition simply because they may have parallels in developments of the Latins - or, for that matter, because they oppose developments among other Byzantines. For example, after the work of SS Cyril and Methodius, the introduction of Hungarian, and so forth, it is natural in the US for us to use English in the liturgy. The fact the Russian and Greek Orthodox oppose the use of their modern languages, or that the Latins in the US have moved to English with some controversy is irrelevant. What we did was natural to our tradition even if paralleled in the NO, and even though it the analogous course has been opposed by other Byzantines.

I cannot say that you have been unfair, but there are folks who trot out the accusation of neo-Latinization without any foundation - just to poison the well on things that they, subjectively, don’t like. It is a very toxic accusation, and thus should be used very carefully, with serious justification.

 

[malphono]

IMO, we really should not import anything from outside our own tradition.

At the same time, we should not fear organic developments within our own tradition simply because they may have parallels in developments of the Latins - or, for that matter, because they oppose developments among other Byzantines. For example, after the work of SS Cyril and Methodius, the introduction of Hungarian, and so forth, it is natural in the US for us to use English in the liturgy. The fact the Russian and Greek Orthodox oppose the use of their modern languages, or that the Latins in the US have moved to English with some controversy is irrelevant. What we did was natural to our tradition even if paralleled in the NO, and even though it the analogous course has been opposed by other Byzantines.

I cannot say that you have been unfair, but there are folks who trot out the accusation of neo-Latinization without any foundation - just to poison the well on things that they, subjectively, don’t like. It is a very toxic accusation, and thus should be used very carefully, with serious justification.

The implication in the above quote is that post-conciliar “changes” in the Latin Church are “organic” and I disagree 110% with that premise. It was the “hermeneutic of rupture” and most certainly not that of continuity.

Even more do I disagree with the premise that such things done in the East and Orient were not perpetrated in emulation of that very same Novus Ordo mindset, which also represents the very same hermeneutic of rupture from the very same source and with the very same agenda. Is one to believe, e.g., that it was just a “coincidence” that liturgical languages were abruptly and unceremoniously dispensed with at the same as in the West? Personally, I’m not big on the idea of “coincidence” in such things. It’s just as much a “coincidence” that I have a bridge for sale. Call it what you want, but in my book (and again, it’s not merely my position) it’s neo-latinization. As far as I’m concerned, this is most definitely not a good thing.

In any case, it seems to me that this sub-exchange has reached an impasse. At this stage I’d prefer not to belabor the matter.

 

[Formosus]

I am not sure if the change in language is neo-latinism. Rather I think its neo-modernism. So I think Dvdjs is right in that it was part of a wider movement in Orthodoxy and the Latin church. But its not a movement that is the result of organic growth, but rather the result of modernism and trying to appear relevant to the modern world at the expense of Tradition, tradition, and the truth.

 

[dvdjs]

The implication in the above quote is that post-conciliar “changes” in the Latin Church are “organic” and I disagree 110% with that premise. It was the “hermeneutic of rupture” and most certainly not that of continuity.

Even more do I disagree with the premise that such things done in the East and Orient were not perpetrated in emulation of that very same Novus Ordo mindset, which also represents the very same hermeneutic of rupture from the very same source and with the very same agenda. Is one to believe, e.g., that it was just a “coincidence” that liturgical languages were abruptly and unceremoniously dispensed with at the same as in the West? Personally, I’m not big on the idea of “coincidence” in such things. It’s just as much a “coincidence” that I have a bridge for sale. Call it what you want, but in my book (and again, it’s not merely my position) it’s neo-latinization. As far as I’m concerned, this is most definitely not a good thing.

In any case, it seems to me that this sub-exchange has reached an impasse. At this stage I’d prefer not to belabor the matter.

I used the word organic in to refer to possible legitimate developments in my Byzantine tradition. In referring to Latins I only used the word development: I am in no position to judge whether their developments are organic or not. I don’t have the requisite background, and I deliberately do not care: I really don’t want their opinions on my tradition, and happily exchange the courtesy by refraining from giving mine on theirs.

Your comments on liturgical languages is interesting. Romanian officially replaced liturgical Slavonic in among Orthodox speaking Romanian language in 1863. Efforts to use Hungarian language among Eastern Catholics began shortly thereafter; Hungarian was widely used by the 1920’s. In America, the BCC was already using English for Sunday liturgy in the 1950’s at my home parish. So, in fact, our use is not “coincidental” with the Latins; is antedated their use. Indeed the early use of Hungarian was done over Vatican objections.

More broadly, I never spoke of coincidence in an uncorrelated sense. Rather I mentioned that given that we all are facing the same changes in culture one would certainly imagine parallel developments. One might expect, for example the development of Bible study for laity following the achievement of high rates of adult literacy. While that development might have all the appearances of East following the West - since the Slavic East lagged the West in adult literacy - an assertion of imitation would, IMO, miss the fundamental story. So if you want to assert causality, I am open to hearing your arguments. But appeals to obviousness and eye-rolling are not arguments.

Finally, I will state, even at the risk of being wrongly labeled, that I really don’t care that much about imitations. I certainly think that we have cherish and treasure our particular traditions, and I do work for that goal. But should the Russian Orthodox abandon, choral music, seminaries, academic theology - not to mention electric lighting - just because they are Western imports? I don’t think so. If you agree, then we have to think even more about what developments are legitimate even though not organic.

 

[dvdjs]

I am not sure if the change in language is neo-latinism. Rather I think its neo-modernism. So I think Dvdjs is right in that it was part of a wider movement in Orthodoxy and the Latin church. But its not a movement that is the result of organic growth, but rather the result of modernism and trying to appear relevant to the modern world at the expense of Tradition, tradition, and the truth.

I am not sure about “modernism”, but certainly there were political and cultural currents at work for the Hungarians, the Romanians, and the BBC in the US. (And I think such idea permeate the decision of the Russian church again Russian language in the FSU but for Romanian language in Moldova.) But those ideas were also at work in the manner in which SS Cyril and Methodius conducted their mission, using a Slavic language against Tradition and tradition. (I don’t know how “the truth” enters in.) And before that Latin vs Greek. And Greek over Aramaic? Given this history, it is hard to see how modernism fits in.

 

[malphono]

I am not sure if the change in language is neo-latinism. Rather I think its neo-modernism. So I think Dvdjs is right in that it was part of a wider movement in Orthodoxy and the Latin church. But its not a movement that is the result of organic growth, but rather the result of modernism and trying to appear relevant to the modern world at the expense of Tradition, tradition, and the truth.

Yes, but that is exactly the post-conciliar Novus Ordo mindset: let’s be “relevant” (and in this context that word still makes me shudder after 40+ years) and to hell with Tradition, to hell with tradition, and to hell with the truth.

 

[Formosus]

I am not sure about “modernism”, but certainly there were political and cultural currents at work for the Hungarians, the Romanians, and the BBC in the US. (And I think such idea permeate the decision of the Russian church again Russian language in the FSU but for Romanian language in Moldova.) But those ideas were also at work in the manner in which SS Cyril and Methodius conducted their mission, using a Slavic language against Tradition and tradition. (I don’t know how “the truth” enters in.) And before that Latin vs Greek. And Greek over Aramaic? Given this history, it is hard to see how modernism fits in.

I think you misunderstood me. I am talking about the use of “inclusive language” and gender neutral terms in the Liturgy. Not the debate over Latin vs. the vernacular or Koine/Byzantine Greek vs. Demotic etc.

 

[dvdjs]

I think you misunderstood me. I am talking about the use of “inclusive language” and gender neutral terms in the Liturgy. Not the debate over Latin vs. the vernacular or Koine/Byzantine Greek vs. Demotic etc.

You are right I did misunderstand you.

Yes, but that is exactly the post-conciliar Novus Ordo mindset: let’s be “relevant” (and in this context that word still makes me shudder after 40+ years) and to hell with Tradition, to hell with tradition, and to hell with the truth

Well that takes us back to an earlier are of questions. So I ask: what truth, specifically, is being let go to hell?

Yes I understand that traditions are have changed. I think that in almost every Byzantine church, women and men are no longer segregated; women are even allowed to serve in the place of cantors and readers. Does that make anyone shudder? Has a theological moral truth been sacrificed as these changes were made?

 

[ciero]

Yes, but that is exactly the post-conciliar Novus Ordo mindset: let’s be “relevant” (and in this context that word still makes me shudder after 40+ years) and to hell with Tradition, to hell with tradition, and to hell with the truth.

As I stated in an earlier post, the worst Latinisim adopted by Byzantine catholics is the Latin mindset. Your quite right Malphono! To hell with tradition and the truth.

 

[dvdjs]

As I stated in an earlier post, the worst Latinisim adopted by Byzantine catholics is the Latin mindset. Your quite right Malphono! To hell with tradition and the truth.

Then I’ll ask you the same questions. I alluded to some specific abandoned traditions - which do you wish back and why? And what truth has ben consigned to hell?