How to approach my parish priest regarding Latinizations

[ukr_cath_ont]

Hi all,

I just moved to a city with only one Ukrainian Catholic church, which I’ve begun attending. However, I am noticing certain aspects of the liturgy that are deeply concerning to me. Perhaps it’s because the parish I was attending before was truly Eastern (those in the western suburbs of Toronto will know exactly which church I’m referring to), but I’m troubled by what I’m seeing. This includes:

• no incense used
• altar doors are never closed during service
• priest delivers a “morning greeting” before liturgy
• many of the barely-audible prayers spoken by the priest while the choir sings are omitted, including the Epiclesis (!)
• no coffee hour/fellowship, no veneration of the cross by the congregation at the end of liturgy
• no infant communion

These liturgical practices constitute what I consider to be rather grave errors on the part of the priest. I am looking for guidance on how I can approach the priest to ask him why he is allowing these Latinizations to continue, and whether he has any intentions of becoming more authentically Byzantine?

Perhaps a more appropriate question would be whether I should approach him at all, or whether he would take offence?

 

[malphono]

The priest should not take offense if the questions are phrased well and presented properly. I say questions (plural) because it would seem to me that it would be more effective to break things up rather than ask about the entire laundry-list at one time. Were it me, I would start with the Epiklesis, and would word it something like this: “Father, maybe my attention wandered a bit, but I don’t recall hearing the Epiklesis last Sunday. Did I miss it?” See what he has to say. One question at a time, and you should be able to gauge his disposition, and thus get a feel for whether further questions would be welcome.

 

[ukr_cath_ont]

The priest should not take offense if the questions are phrased well and presented properly. I say questions (plural) because it would seem to me that it would be more effective to break things up rather than ask about the entire laundry-list at one time. Were it me, I would start with the Epiklesis, and would word it something like this: “Father, maybe my attention wandered a bit, but I don’t recall hearing the Epiklesis last Sunday. Did I miss it?” See what he has to say. One question at a time, and you should be able to gauge his disposition, and thus get a feel for whether further questions would be welcome.

Thank you.

Given what I have written regarding what is happening in the church, do you also regard these Latinizations as serious errors? Or are these widespread occurrences within the UGCC/other Eastern Catholic churches?

 

[malphono]

On the surface, it all sounds pretty grizzly. What I will say, and FWIW, is that I’m familiar with similar things in other Churches. But before I got too upset, I’d try to find out a little more of what’s going on and why. Are they really willful “latinizations” or (and not that this is a good thing by any means) just sloppy liturgy and praxis?

 

[angelic06]

On the surface, it all sounds pretty grizzly. What I will say, and FWIW, is that I’m familiar with similar things in other Churches. But before I got too upset, I’d try to find out a little more of what’s going on and why. Are they really willful “latinizations” or (and not that this is a good thing by any means) just sloppy liturgy and praxis?

Thank you, Malphono. As a Latin Catholic myself (granted, looking eastward), I am slightly annoyed when every bad (clown Masses, etc.—granted, not mentioned by the OP) or not as best as we could do it (no incense, etc., which the OP does mention) is blamed on the Latin Church. I consider Latinizations to be something which are good in themselves, in the proper context…the Roman Church, not the East (such as Eucharistic adoration).

Regarding the non-usage of incense mentioned by the OP, the Latin Church itself is “Latinized”, if you will, with very few parishes using incense. And the strange greetings which priests sometimes make (“Howdy, all…”), which I assume the OP is referring to, really does not belong in any of the 23 Catholic churches.

As much as I am steering towards the East, I will not allow my own church (Latin) to become notorious as a garbage pit of worship as long as I am here on CAF.

 

[Seraphim73]

Thank you, Malphono. As a Latin Catholic myself (granted, looking eastward), I am slightly annoyed when every bad (clown Masses, etc.—granted, not mentioned by the OP) or not as best as we could do it (no incense, etc., which the OP does mention) is blamed on the Latin Church. I consider Latinizations to be something which are good in themselves, in the proper context…the Roman Church, not the East (such as Eucharistic adoration).

Regarding the non-usage of incense mentioned by the OP, the Latin Church itself is “Latinized”, if you will, with very few parishes using incense. And the strange greetings which priests sometimes make (“Howdy, all…”), which I assume the OP is referring to, really does not belong in any of the 23 Catholic churches.

As much as I am steering towards the East, I will not allow my own church (Latin) to become notorious as a garbage pit of worship as long as I am here on CAF.

How else would you characterize what the OP mentions?

 

[babochka]

Hi all,

• no incense used
• altar doors are never closed during service
• priest delivers a “morning greeting” before liturgy
• many of the barely-audible prayers spoken by the priest while the choir sings are omitted, including the Epiclesis (!)
• no coffee hour/fellowship, no veneration of the cross by the congregation at the end of liturgy
• no infant communion

These liturgical practices constitute what I consider to be rather grave errors on the part of the priest. I am looking for guidance on how I can approach the priest to ask him why he is allowing these Latinizations to continue, and whether he has any intentions of becoming more authentically Byzantine?

I’m a little confused as to how the lack of fellowship/coffee hour can be considered a grave error and/or Latinization, as it is not a liturgical issue, but more of a cultural thing. Perhaps you can offer to organize one.

If the priest is praying the epiclesis in a barely audible voice while the congregation/choir sings, how would you know if it is being omitted? This would certainly be a serious issue but… are you sure? Perhaps I have little imagination, but I just can’t imagine such an essential piece of the liturgy being omitted. Are you sure you’re not missing it? Again, if this is happening, it isn’t a Latinization. It would be a serious abuse in either rite.

Morning greeting is just a novel innovation, not really a Latinization.

The lack of infant communion is definitely a serious issue.

No veneration of the cross at the end of liturgy? Unless it has been placed with a recessional and the priest greeting the people at the back of the church shaking hands, I don’t see how this omission is a Latinization, either.

In general, I’d spend a little bit of time in the parish, getting to know the priest. Then I’d have a conversation with him to clarify and gain understanding, without accusations. For example: “Father, in every parish I’ve been in, the cross is offered for veneration at the end of liturgy. Why don’t we do it here?” or “Father, I’ve noticed that you never close the Royal Doors? Is there a reason for that?”

 

[angelic06]

How else would you characterize what the OP mentions?

“Sloppy liturgical praxis” is a better phrase, and does not blame any group.

“Priest not following rubrics” is another phrase of choice.

I have been following Eastern Catholic forums of various kinds for several years now, and I know how much Easterns love to blame the Latin Church for everything. It is endemic to the East. But the more it is done, the less Latins will have an interest in your Churches.

 

[johnnykins]

• no coffee hour/fellowship,

Hmmm…?? I didn’t realize coffee hour was an Eastern liturgical tradition…

 

[malphono]

“Sloppy liturgical praxis” is a better phrase, and does not blame any group.

“Priest not following rubrics” is another phrase of choice.

I have been following Eastern Catholic forums of various kinds for several years now, and I know how much Easterns love to blame the Latin Church for everything. It is endemic to the East. But the more it is done, the less Latins will have an interest in your Churches.

Not that it applies to the OP, but in the case of several Oriental Churches, the neo-latinizations are a matter of “monkey see, monkey do” and I don’t mean on a per-priest or any type of ad-hoc, basis.

It’s not exactly a matter of “blaming” anyone, but latinizations, including the more insidious Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations, do exist. The interesting thing is that whereas the former may have been imposed in some cases, the latter have been embraced from within the various Churches. Certain of the Oriental Churches have formally adopted practices that go even beyond the Novus Ordo paradigm. This of course is diametrically opposed to Rome’s formal call to the East and Orient to shed latinizations. Now, for its part, Rome has not seen fit to offer even fraternal correction, so in a sense Rome does have to shoulder a good portion of of the blame.

 

[malphono]

Hmmm…?? I didn’t realize coffee hour was an Eastern liturgical tradition…

Obviously it’s not a “liturgical” tradition, but it is a very common practice of longstanding among most of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

 

[angelic06]

I am

Not that it applies to the OP, but in the case of several Oriental Churches, the neo-latinizations are a matter of “monkey see, monkey do” and I don’t mean on a per-priest or any type of ad-hoc, basis.

It’s not exactly a matter of “blaming” anyone, but latinizations, including the more insidious Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations, do exist. The interesting thing is that whereas the former may have been imposed in some cases, the latter have been embraced from within the various Churches. Certain of the Oriental Churches have formally adopted practices that go even beyond the Novus Ordo paradigm. This of course is diametrically opposed to Rome’s formal call to the East and Orient to shed latinizations. Now, for its part, Rome has not seen fit to offer even fraternal correction, so in a sense Rome does have to shoulder a
good portion of of the blame.

I am well aware that real latinizations, such as Eucharistic adoration, and depending on whose talking, choral, SATB liturgies do exist. These things are not bad in themselves, in their proper context (in the first instance, the Roman church; in the second, those churches whose hierarchs decide it is conducive to their spirituality). It is for the hierarchs of the respective churches to decide what is appropriate development of liturgy

Some things, such as non-usage of incense, which the OP mentioned, are what I consider to be not as good as it can be. If we consider this a “latinization”, then 90 % of the Latin churches I have been to are “Latinized”. I consider this to be sloppy liturgical praxis, not a good thing and hence not a latinization, except when there are faithful unable to be near it.

The OP mentioned not having coffee hour. How this is a “Latinization”, I do not know, or how it relates to the other complaints the OP mentioned. How “not” having coffee hour is a good thing, and consequently a Latinization (which I mentioned are good things in their proper context), I do not know.

So far the only link I find between the OP’s complaints are that s/he is bringing them up.

 

[babochka]

Obviously it’s not a “liturgical” tradition, but it is a very common practice of longstanding among most of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

But how does the lack of such indicate a Latinization? Would the existence of a coffee hour in a Latin church indicate an Easternization? Or perhaps it comes from Protestant tradition? Many Protestant churches also have fellowship after the service.

 

[malphono]

Yes, that’s quite what we have and it is purely and simply the hermeneutic of rupture. That said, it’s best for me to bow out of this thread now.

 

[malphono]

But how does the lack of such indicate a Latinization? Would the existence of a coffee hour in a Latin church indicate an Easternization? Or perhaps it comes from Protestant tradition? Many Protestant churches also have fellowship after the service.

I didn’t say it was a latinization at all; merely that the post-liturgical fellowship is very common, and of longstanding, in the East and Orient.

 

[babochka]

I didn’t say it was a latinization at all; merely that the post-liturgical fellowship is very common, and of longstanding, in the East and Orient.

Ok, sorry. The OP classified it as a latinization, and I thought you were defending its characterization as such.

 

[Seraphim73]

“Sloppy liturgical praxis” is a better phrase, and does not blame any group.

“Priest not following rubrics” is another phrase of choice.

I have been following Eastern Catholic forums of various kinds for several years now, and I know how much Easterns love to blame the Latin Church for everything. It is endemic to the East. But the more it is done, the less Latins will have an interest in your Churches.

It’s hardly possible for them to have less interest.

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you, Malphono. As a Latin Catholic myself (granted, looking eastward), I am slightly annoyed when every bad (clown Masses, etc.—granted, not mentioned by the OP) or not as best as we could do it (no incense, etc., which the OP does mention) is blamed on the Latin Church. I consider Latinizations to be something which are good in themselves, in the proper context…the Roman Church, not the East (such as Eucharistic adoration).

Regarding the non-usage of incense mentioned by the OP, the Latin Church itself is “Latinized”, if you will, with very few parishes using incense. And the strange greetings which priests sometimes make (“Howdy, all…”), which I assume the OP is referring to, really does not belong in any of the 23 Catholic churches.

As much as I am steering towards the East, I will not allow my own church (Latin) to become notorious as a garbage pit of worship as long as I am here on CAF.

Hi angelic06. I’m not denying your basic point – yes, the term “Latinization” is misused at times, and in an anti-Latin way – but I find your post to be rather one sided. Bottom line, there exist anti- Latin ECs and anti-Eastern LCs.

 

[Peter_J]

a Latinization (which I mentioned are good things in their proper context),

Here you make a different point which (FWIW) I flatly disagree with.

 

[ukr_cath_ont]

Thank you to all for your responses.

As a follow-up, I asked the priest by email why the epiclesis is omitted. He responded by saying that it is not; it is simply said quietly. I am not sure if I believe him entirely, as he uses a mic and we can hear every other prayer.

I do agree with those who said that I should have referred to some of the problematic aspects I pointed out as “sloppy liturgical praxis” rather than as “Latinizations” per se (some are, some clearly are not). I also agree that the Latin Church should not be viewed as the sole source from which these offences spring from. That would be an insult to many R.C. churches that offer beautiful, well-done masses that are as uplifting and “other-worldly” as any Orthodox liturgy.

While I appreciate the discussion my question generated, I don’t want to “rock the boat” too much at the church. We’re new parishioners, and my children seem to love it there, so I may just have to live with it - unless things get too out of hand, I suppose. Sometimes, we just have to let things go.