How did Vatican II affect the Eastern Catholic Churches?

[ciero]

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?

How about first and foremost working to acquire a truly Eastern mindset and Orthopraxis. But as you stated earlier your relatives from Eastern Europe would not find this acceptable or necessary. One of the first Latinizations that crept into the Ruthenian church (I’m not sure of the others) was to start thinking like Latins. Using Latin terminology vs Byzantine terminology, using Latin theological concepts rather then Byzantine, as far as I’m concerned it was part and parcel of the “second class citizen” mindset that was foisted upon and ACCEPTED by our forerunners.
If we are truly going to be faithful to our Eastern heritage we must start thinking like Easterners. I recommended a book by Archimandrite Meletios Webber, Bread and Water Wine and Oil, which I again recommend.
Without an Eastern mindset we are only Eastern by our externals. Basically what the Orthodox have referred to us for years, Roman catholics with a different Mass. That NOT what I want to be, how about you?

Without bringing up specifics I believe the RDL is a good example of this Latin mindset. Byzantine Liturgy has always had a maximumalist approach, hold out the ideal and let people strive to achieve that ideal, the Latin mindset would set the minimum as allowed by law and accept this. The fact that the Ruthenian metropolia has adopted this minimalistic mindset with regard to the Liturgy & fasting (clean Monday and Good Friday are the only fast days left on the calendar) is pretty indicative that our bishops have bought into this mindset.
And as to your comments about the RDL being organic change, that is a lot of rubbish. Organic change happens from the ground up. If a large number of parishes made these changes over time without a mandate from the bishop then it could be seen as ORGANIC. The bishops mandating change is hardly organic. Now as far as the music goes, what was real organic change with the music developing over the last 50 years or so was real organic change, but the bishops had no problem squashing that in order to MANDATE their own music. Go figure. No consistency.

 

[dvdjs]

How about first and foremost working to acquire a truly Eastern mindset and Orthopraxis. But as you stated earlier your relatives from Eastern Europe would not find this acceptable or necessary.

How about about first and foremost addressing the specific questions to you, rather than shifting back to vague generalities? The truth is, you haven’t the slightest idea about my Orthopraxis or that of my relatives. Please, stop making accusatory assumptions.

One of the first Latinizations that crept into the Ruthenian church (I’m not sure of the others) was to start thinking like Latins. Using Latin terminology vs Byzantine terminology, using Latin theological concepts rather then Byzantine, as far as I’m concerned it was part and parcel of the “second class citizen” mindset that was foisted upon and ACCEPTED by our forerunners.

I am not sure about the use of Latin terminology in the old country, but I don’t dispute the fact that there has been Western terminology used in the Ruthenian church in the US, as we sought English words to replace our native language. I don’t cringe over the use of “mass” for “liturgy” - in the old days, btw, we used the precise translation “services” - and I wonder about those who do. On the other hand, your ideas about the " ‘second class citizen’ mindset" are completely foreign to me. Completely. Mileage varies, but I would be curious - especially in light of your unfounded remarks about me personally (or similar remarks aimed at Ghosty in another thread) - do you have contrary experience or are you just making things up?

Basically what the Orthodox have referred to us for years, Roman catholics with a different Mass. That NOT what I want to be, how about you?

I work to be faithful to, and defend fidelity to, the beauty and traditions of my particular church. I am happy with the mindset that respects those traditions and cherishes their beauty. I am certain that they have enlivened the spiritual lives of people that I know and love, and, I believe, they have been efficacious for the salvation of these people. I am not especially interested in how others, especially those who seem hostile to me and my church, label that mindset or judge me, and I am not moved by their vague criticisms.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

How did Vatican II affect the Eastern Catholic Churches?

I think it made the Chaldean Church more traditional and back to its roots.

 

[malphono]

How did Vatican II affect the Eastern Catholic Churches?

I think it made the Chaldean Church more traditional and back to its roots.

Yes, but not at first. It’s only in the past several years that the Chaldeans seem to have thrown-off the yoke of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, thanks in large part to Mar Sarhad. The restoration, e.g. of ad orientem celebration is a great milestone!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes, but not at first. It’s only in the past several years that the Chaldeans seem to have thrown-off the yoke of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, thanks in large part to Mar Sarhad. The restoration, e.g. of ad orientem celebration is a great milestone!

I would say that the Church is generally slow to act and the ecumenical council of Vatican II set up the back drop for the kind of changes H.G. realized.

 

[dvdjs]

Without bringing up specifics I believe the RDL is a good example of this Latin mindset. Byzantine Liturgy has always had a maximumalist approach, hold out the ideal and let people strive to achieve that ideal, the Latin mindset would set the minimum as allowed by law and accept this. The fact that the Ruthenian metropolia has adopted this minimalistic mindset with regard to the Liturgy & fasting (clean Monday and Good Friday are the only fast days left on the calendar) is pretty indicative that our bishops have bought into this mindset.

I am glad that you edited your post to add some specifics. You remain, however, uniformed, in your discussion. First, the idea of a maximalist approach to liturgy needs to be clarified by an actual understanding of the development of the Byzantine liturgy over the centuries. The reality is that substantial abbreviation at the parish level occurs in all jurisdictions as compared to the monastic ideal. In that light, your point reduces to a question of which ones you like and which ones you don’t. Second, the RDL itself represents an growth, not an abbreviation, of the liturgy as it was typically taken throughout the Metropolia. Third, it represents an expansion over the liturgy as it is taken in the corresponding Orthodox jurisdiction. On fasting, I think that you miss the point. Do Orthodox jurisdictions mandate fasting - even a minimum? Does the BCC proscribe greater ascetic efforts?

And as to your comments about the RDL being organic change, that is a lot of rubbish. Organic change happens from the ground up. If a large number of parishes made these changes over time without a mandate from the bishop then it could be seen as ORGANIC. The bishops mandating change is hardly organic. Now as far as the music goes, what was real organic change with the music developing over the last 50 years or so was real organic change, but the bishops had no problem squashing that in order to MANDATE their own music. Go figure. No consistency.

I made no such claim that the RDL represents organic change. I am not all that certain about the meaning of “organic” change. But I think that it is something of a fantasy that changes in the liturgy occur from the ground up. Not in Apostolic Christianity, in which the priests act as agents of the Bishop. Indeed your comments about music are all wrong. There most certainly were liturgy and music commissions operating under the mandate of the Bishop that gave us the 1964 and 1972 adaptations of prostopinije - the latter, in particular, contained wholesale changes made up by the commission. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

 

[malphono]

I would say that the Church is generally slow to act and the ecumenical council of Vatican II set up the back drop for the kind of changes H.G. realized.

Well … yes, but it wasn’t particularly “slow” to get on the versus populum bandwagon, e.g., and that is a Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization if there ever was one. As I understand things, there is (was, I hope) some resistance from some bishops (at least in the US) to getting off that particular bandwagon, despite what the Synod clearly mandated. But mandate it the Synod did, and that is to their great credit.