S
smad0142
Guest
What Orders with Byzantine Branches, or entirely Byzantine Orders, are known for being heavily latinizing forces with the ECC?
- Status
C
ciero
Guest
The Ruthenians have the Sisters of St. Basil the Great…that is no different then any modern Roman Order except they have the Byzantine “Mass”.
The Ukrainians have the Sister Servents of Mary Immaculate which is also similar to a Latin Order.
From what I saw last time I was in Ukraine, the Studites have a fairly large group of traditional Byzantine monks.
Just the fact of having “orders” in the Byzantine church is a Latinizations, traditionally each monastery is an entity unto itself, or loosely federated with other monasteries. The idea of a central governing board kind of thing is foreign to the East.
Holy Resurrection Monastery in CA, and Holy Theophany Monastery in WA are fairly new monasteries, trying to be as faithful to the traditions of Byzantine monasticism while being part of the Catholic Church. HRM is for men while HT is for women. They are neither an order or a branch of an order, although HRM is currently living in a Benedictine Abbey, while looking for a permanent home.
D
dvdjs
Guest
“No different” conjures up many wild thoughts. Is that what you are trying to do? The OP
asked
.
The Sisters of Saint Basil the greatest examples of kenosis that I know - and I know them well. These women have sacrificed their lives in the service of the church. I don’t know that the Sisters have an agenda apart from serving. Imagine! Perhaps working to teach, to catechize, to work on liturgical restorations, to preserve and advance liturgical singing, to pray, to see to the elderly, to host pilgrimages, perhaps all of these works can be taken as forces of latinization by some people. But for the most part such people should not dare to loosen the strap on the sandals of these women, let alone criticize them. Get with the program.
C
ciero
Guest
I have nothing against the Basilian sister and love them dearly! But being founded on a Latin model IMHO is a being heavily Latinized.
H
Hesychios
Guest
The Carmelites and the Franciscans have had Byzantine-rite branches.
In Europe the Redemptorists were once active in the east, and of course the Jesuits.’ Of these, I don’t know about Latinizations, perhaps Alex could weigh in on that, he seems to be well informed on such subjects.
Of interest, at one time the Basilian monasteries under the eastern Catholic bishops in eastern Europe (particularly Belarus and Ukraine, I think) were reorganized into a congregation, similar to western monasteries. Sometime later by authority of the Pope the congregation was temporarily placed under the Jesuits and re-formed into a more active religious order similar to western orders.
I know that doesn’t answer the question but it might be a start.
In Europe the Redemptorists were once active in the east, and of course the Jesuits.’ Of these, I don’t know about Latinizations, perhaps Alex could weigh in on that, he seems to be well informed on such subjects.
Of interest, at one time the Basilian monasteries under the eastern Catholic bishops in eastern Europe (particularly Belarus and Ukraine, I think) were reorganized into a congregation, similar to western monasteries. Sometime later by authority of the Pope the congregation was temporarily placed under the Jesuits and re-formed into a more active religious order similar to western orders.
I know that doesn’t answer the question but it might be a start.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The question was about “being heavily latinizing forces”. You responded with these sisters as an example. Then you say have nothing against them and love them dearly, Then you say that they are heavily latinized, That is all very confusing.If you are calling them a force for Latinization, I disagree.
If are calling their organizational structure Latinized, I consider that unresponsive to the OP.
But I am glad that we agree about loving them dearly.
A
Aramis
Guest
Western-style Orders are alien to the East; local monastic communities are traditionally under the bishop or metropolitan, not patriarchal in origin, and a new house only stays tied to it’s parent until it can sustain itself.
The ones that exist are almost all latinizations themselves, and many, if not most, have proceeded at some point to bring with latinizations… ranging from a scant few for certain orders, founded to follow the life-rule of some western monastic, but under the liturgical life of the east, through Western Orders sent specifically to latinize. And there are also a few whose goal is to self-latinize… (Like the SSJK…)
There definitely is room for religious orders in the East… and certain orders’ charisms are not well-filled in the unlatinized eastern experience. But there is not yet sufficient population for non-diocesan religious to be economically successful without some other supports.
And as Brothers David and RJ show, not all Byzantines find the charism they need in the Eastern system, but find a place in a western order with hybrid praxis. Especially friary orders seem to be popular. Friary somewhat (but not fully) overlaps with married minor clerics and with Eastern monasticism… where the monks are not isolated from the outside world but neither are they a part of it.
C
ciero
Guest
Sorry I mis read the question
If you are calling them a force for Latinization, I disagree.
If are calling their organizational structure Latinized, I consider that unresponsive to the OP.
But I am glad that we agree about loving them dearly.
I thought the question was which orders were Latinized rather then which were forces of Latinization. Sorry!
M
mardukm
Guest
If a new community was created, would the local bishop have the final approval, or would the head bishop in Synod have to approve it, as well?
This is a very good point. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, there is nothing comparable to the Latin praxis, except the Daughters of St. Mary, which was established only in the 1960’s.
I wonder how my non-Latin brethren feel about that? If your particular Church established religious communities for specific “charisms” like the Latin Catholic Church, would you be OK with that, or would you consider it a “Latinization,” and thereby reject it? I mean, the Daughters of St. Mary that I mentioned earlier is the first of its kind in the Coptic Orthodox Church, but no Copt would ever say that this new thing was a “Latinization” (though its establishment mirrors the Latin concept of the “charisms” of the various Latin religious orders).
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Great review sir! It was fashionable in the UGCC to blame such religious Orders for all things “Latinized.” And there was some real substantiation for that.
But Latinization, as a phenomenon, in Eastern Europe existed throughout the Ruthenian (meaning East Slavic, Ukrainian, Belarusyan etc.) Greek-Catholic Church.
AND it existed throughout the Kievan ORTHODOX Metropolia. The EC Church there would often borrow their Latinizations from the Kievan Orthodox prayerbooks and vice-versa (this is how the Akathist to the Immaculate Conception was given such wide-spread devotional prominence in Orthodox akathist-collections at that time - a ROC professor in Moscow gave a lecture which is online discussing this very issue and in the second last paragraph he actually names my two akathists to St Francis and to Our Lady of the Rosary as “uniate akathists” and I can live with that!).
There were Basilians who were Latinizers but they were not really East Slavs at all - they were Roman Catholics and members of the RC aristocracy that entered into the Basilian Order with that express purpose in mind. Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky, a Basilian, was the great force of Easternization in the UGCC. At Zhovkva in western Ukraine, the Basilian Press there published books by Orthodox scholars (including the work of the quite anti-Unia scholar, Prof. Ivan Ohienko who later became the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada).
Fr. Jullian Katry OSBM wrote a series of books on Eastern spirituality and Eastern critics have praised it (save for his chapter on the Sacred Heart devotion - but even St Nicodemos the Hagiorite and St Nicholas Cabasilas talked about the “Heart of Christ”).
The Redemptorists have, in recent years, been very devoted to learning and implementing Eastern spirituality. As for the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, the Belgian priest who brought that Order into Saskatchewan, Fr. Ruh, did so because he fell in love with the UGCC. The fact that he inadvertently brought in Latinizations isn’t really his fault as it was a matter of his zeal minus a real study of Eastern spirituality. In either case, the Latinizations involved didn’t prevent Met. Andrew Sheptytsky from promoting both Orders in the cause of pastoral care and missionary work among EC immigrants.
My big interest today is in the Latinizations of the Orthodox Church of the Kievan Baroque. St Peter Mohyla of Kiev brought in the Passia or readings of the Gospel Passions (which are today very popular in both Ukraine and Russia), St Dmitry of Rostov was devoted to the Immaculate Conception devotion, as well as many other borrowings from the West. St Tikhon of Zadonsk had life-size iconic representations of Christ carrying His Cross to Calvary right in his cell! St Seraphim’s favourite icon of the Mother of God has its ultimate origin in . . . Italy.
My OICWR friends (I love them dearly!) used to give me a rarified view of this matter with the Orthodox Church of Kiev in its pristine Eastern form contrasted with the Latinized EC Church that became Latinized as a result of the Unia.
Nothing could be further from the . . . way things actually were . . .
Alex
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Alex,
Also, for the brief period the See at Kiev was in the Unia, I am sure many priests (and future bishops) were getting educated in those new-fangled seminaries the Jesuits were setting up here and there.
Really, it’s a nice recognition of your work.
I read something a long time ago that pointed out that Venice was the source of a lot of books which wound up in use at Kiev.
Also, for the brief period the See at Kiev was in the Unia, I am sure many priests (and future bishops) were getting educated in those new-fangled seminaries the Jesuits were setting up here and there.
Wow! Can I have you autograph?
Really, it’s a nice recognition of your work.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Michael,
Yes, at Venice - lots and lots of Western-style devotions were published in Slavonic for mainly Russian readers (there was an online site with many of these, I’ll see if I can find it again).
What is amazing is that the MOST Western-style devotions found such an audience with the Russians (the Ukrainians were already there with bells on).
The 15 prayers of St Brigitte, the Little Office of the Mother of God etc. In the midst of all these Western devotions, what is a little Akathist to the Immaculate Conception?
But, really, I think that this is a STRENGTH of Orthodoxy, not a weakness, and I’ll explain why.
As you correctly point out (you are bang-on, in fact) the influence of the Jesuit schools among the aristocracy in particular was overwhelming in those centuries.
If you wanted to be anything in Europe, you simply had to be educated in a Jesuit school of some sort. The Ruthenian aristocracy were not only being Latinized, they were being Polonized simply because they were attracted by the sophistication etc. of Jesuit education (in Paris and Rome where Paris was actually the destination of choice even over Rome - When St Thomas Becket was embroiled in his argument with Henry II, he didn’t say “Whatever Rome decides on the matter, I’ll agree to it,” but “Whatever PARIS decides . . .”).
And the Jesuit devotions were thereby imparted even to the Orthodox students. Interestingly, the Orthodox students tended to remain faithful to Orthodoxy (although some families, like the Ostrozhky family, became entirely Latinized and with that, entirely Polonized - the two notables who remained faithful to Orthodoxy, (St) Constantine and his son Alexander, were entombed in the Kievan Caves Lavra but later had their bodies dragged out and burned by the RC’s who were afraid they might be canonized by Orthodoxy and so destroyed their relics, mistakenly believing Orthodoxy wouldn’t canonize them without their relics).
But these Orthodox students took home with them numerous Latin devotions which were then “Byzantinized” in that the case was made for them to be part of the devotional life of Orthodox Christians. Today, one would be hard-pressed to make a good Easternized version of the Immaculate Conception devotion. Yet, there were Orthodox brotherhoods of the IC in the Kievan Metropolia, with medals of the IC (like the Miraculous Medal of today), the Brotherhood ejaculatory prayer: “All Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” and the taking of the bloody vow to defend to the death the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
One could make the argument that they went overboard. But the Orthodox Kievan Baroque style was a child of its time. And it produced great Orthodox Saints. These Saints not only defined Eastern Orthodoxy in terms that all of Europe could understand, their spiritual writings were also read widely in RC circles, winning the admiration of RC’s even in the twentieth century. I have read our Basilian Fathers praise the writing of Mohyla, Dmitri of Rosto etc. which is already a miracle of sorts.
In this, the Orthodox Church of Kiev especially demonstrated its ability (as did the Greek Orthodox Church of the day) to reach out universally, to preach the Gospel to the tribes of Siberia while establishing a spiritual centre at Tobolsk (four metropolitan Saints of Tobolsk were of the Kievan Baroque tradition: Sts John Maximovych, Paul Koniuskevych, Feofil Leshchynsky and Antony Stakhovsky) and to represent Orthodoxy in a very credible way before the best minds of the zenith of European civilization. And they did all this in . . . Latin which was their Lingua Franca.
That is no small achievement on the part of these Orthodox leaders and to belittle them in any way as not being “Eastern” is to simply miss what they truly did manage to accomplish on behalf of the entire Orthodox Church. They preserved and protected the Orthodox Church - and at no time did they ever say that their adaptation to the European situation was written in stone for all time.
All Catholics, I believe, should know about these great Orthodox Lights and should also venerate them as great witnesses to Christ.
(You may have my autograph any time - but I think that ROC professor wasn’t quoting my work to be complimentary )
Alex
Yes, at Venice - lots and lots of Western-style devotions were published in Slavonic for mainly Russian readers (there was an online site with many of these, I’ll see if I can find it again).
What is amazing is that the MOST Western-style devotions found such an audience with the Russians (the Ukrainians were already there with bells on).
The 15 prayers of St Brigitte, the Little Office of the Mother of God etc. In the midst of all these Western devotions, what is a little Akathist to the Immaculate Conception?
But, really, I think that this is a STRENGTH of Orthodoxy, not a weakness, and I’ll explain why.
As you correctly point out (you are bang-on, in fact) the influence of the Jesuit schools among the aristocracy in particular was overwhelming in those centuries.
If you wanted to be anything in Europe, you simply had to be educated in a Jesuit school of some sort. The Ruthenian aristocracy were not only being Latinized, they were being Polonized simply because they were attracted by the sophistication etc. of Jesuit education (in Paris and Rome where Paris was actually the destination of choice even over Rome - When St Thomas Becket was embroiled in his argument with Henry II, he didn’t say “Whatever Rome decides on the matter, I’ll agree to it,” but “Whatever PARIS decides . . .”).
And the Jesuit devotions were thereby imparted even to the Orthodox students. Interestingly, the Orthodox students tended to remain faithful to Orthodoxy (although some families, like the Ostrozhky family, became entirely Latinized and with that, entirely Polonized - the two notables who remained faithful to Orthodoxy, (St) Constantine and his son Alexander, were entombed in the Kievan Caves Lavra but later had their bodies dragged out and burned by the RC’s who were afraid they might be canonized by Orthodoxy and so destroyed their relics, mistakenly believing Orthodoxy wouldn’t canonize them without their relics).
But these Orthodox students took home with them numerous Latin devotions which were then “Byzantinized” in that the case was made for them to be part of the devotional life of Orthodox Christians. Today, one would be hard-pressed to make a good Easternized version of the Immaculate Conception devotion. Yet, there were Orthodox brotherhoods of the IC in the Kievan Metropolia, with medals of the IC (like the Miraculous Medal of today), the Brotherhood ejaculatory prayer: “All Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” and the taking of the bloody vow to defend to the death the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
One could make the argument that they went overboard. But the Orthodox Kievan Baroque style was a child of its time. And it produced great Orthodox Saints. These Saints not only defined Eastern Orthodoxy in terms that all of Europe could understand, their spiritual writings were also read widely in RC circles, winning the admiration of RC’s even in the twentieth century. I have read our Basilian Fathers praise the writing of Mohyla, Dmitri of Rosto etc. which is already a miracle of sorts.
In this, the Orthodox Church of Kiev especially demonstrated its ability (as did the Greek Orthodox Church of the day) to reach out universally, to preach the Gospel to the tribes of Siberia while establishing a spiritual centre at Tobolsk (four metropolitan Saints of Tobolsk were of the Kievan Baroque tradition: Sts John Maximovych, Paul Koniuskevych, Feofil Leshchynsky and Antony Stakhovsky) and to represent Orthodoxy in a very credible way before the best minds of the zenith of European civilization. And they did all this in . . . Latin which was their Lingua Franca.
That is no small achievement on the part of these Orthodox leaders and to belittle them in any way as not being “Eastern” is to simply miss what they truly did manage to accomplish on behalf of the entire Orthodox Church. They preserved and protected the Orthodox Church - and at no time did they ever say that their adaptation to the European situation was written in stone for all time.
All Catholics, I believe, should know about these great Orthodox Lights and should also venerate them as great witnesses to Christ.
(You may have my autograph any time - but I think that ROC professor wasn’t quoting my work to be complimentary
)Alex
A
Aramis
Guest
New communities in the Byzantine Tradition require the receiving bishop’s permission, and their praxis is under the bishop’s purview…
And if they are affiliated with an existing one, the abbot’s permission, as well.
The Ruthenian Church has had no issue with ordered religious… it’s one latinization unlikely to be done away with, especially if more friary orders were established. A byzantine dominican order would certainly not be outside the rule of St. Dominic, but would be rather attached to one latinization… The Rosary taught by St. Dominic! (There have been several byzantines in the Dominican order. And several Dominicans of Roman origin have taken up biritual faculties. Dominicans byzantify readily.)
And the master of the 3rd order of St. Francis is a biritual latin with faculties in 3 different Byzantine Rite churches (UGCC, Melkite, Ruthenian), and a history of being a relief preacher for them.
C
ciero
Guest
Rome & the Ruthenian bishops decided years ago that Religious Orders in the Byzantine church were NOT the way to go and has decided that no new ones will be established and for the most part the existing ones would not be encouraged to expand. The Byzantine Franciscans have been absorbed into a Latin Province and the Byzantine Benedictines became a Monastery of Eparchial Rite, even thought the Benedictines encouraged Holy Trinity to remain part of the Benedictine Order.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
There is a Benedictine monastery in the UGCC Archeparchy of Chicago that makes (terrific) jams and marmelades.
They are VERY Eastern, following the Rule of St Benedict and live a very eremitical existence.
The Rule of St Benedict is part of the Orthodox monastic tradition and is approved by the Orthodox Churches. Western Rite Orthodox monastics follow it, but there is no reason why there cannot be Eastern Benedictines.
The bi-ritual Benedictines of Chevetogne have carried on a most successful ecumenical venture with the Orthodox and publish their famous “Irenikon.”
I’ve read Russian-language commentaries about them which have ALWAYS been complimentary, praising them for their work to “inform Westerners about Orthodoxy.”
An ROC delegation visited them with relics of St Seraphim of Sarov which both ROC and Benedictines venerated together in their Eastern Church.
A Russian news commentary reported on this favourably and said that this “points to the growing veneration of St Seraphim within Roman Catholicism” etc.
I would hope that in the EC zeal to maintain Eastern traditions the baby doesn’t get thrown out with the bath-water . . .
Being “more Orthodox than the Orthodox” doesn’t help anyone either.
Alex
They are VERY Eastern, following the Rule of St Benedict and live a very eremitical existence.
The Rule of St Benedict is part of the Orthodox monastic tradition and is approved by the Orthodox Churches. Western Rite Orthodox monastics follow it, but there is no reason why there cannot be Eastern Benedictines.
The bi-ritual Benedictines of Chevetogne have carried on a most successful ecumenical venture with the Orthodox and publish their famous “Irenikon.”
I’ve read Russian-language commentaries about them which have ALWAYS been complimentary, praising them for their work to “inform Westerners about Orthodoxy.”
An ROC delegation visited them with relics of St Seraphim of Sarov which both ROC and Benedictines venerated together in their Eastern Church.
A Russian news commentary reported on this favourably and said that this “points to the growing veneration of St Seraphim within Roman Catholicism” etc.
I would hope that in the EC zeal to maintain Eastern traditions the baby doesn’t get thrown out with the bath-water . . .
Being “more Orthodox than the Orthodox” doesn’t help anyone either.
Alex
C
ciero
Guest
Holy Transfiguration Skete follows the Benedictine Rule somewhat…and follow the Byzantine Liturgical life somewhat…another hybrid…they petitioned to become a Benedictine Monastery and were turned down due to Rome not wanting to encourage any more Eastern branches of a Latin institution. They were also encouraged to choose to be Benedictine or Byzantine…I’m not sure how it played out as I have not seen or spoken to Fr. Nicholas is a year or so. And YES their cakes and jams are FANTASTIC!
A
Aramis
Guest
And in no small irony, one of the UGCC communities was on the back cover of Columbia in the last few months…
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
This is fascinating! It also shows how Rome itself has really no idea about Eastern monasticism.Holy Transfiguration Skete follows the Benedictine Rule somewhat…and follow the Byzantine Liturgical life somewhat…another hybrid…they petitioned to become a Benedictine Monastery and were turned down due to Rome not wanting to encourage any more Eastern branches of a Latin institution. They were also encouraged to choose to be Benedictine or Byzantine…I’m not sure how it played out as I have not seen or spoken to Fr. Nicholas is a year or so. And YES their cakes and jams are FANTASTIC!
As you know, Eastern monastics are simply such - monastics. But they can and do follow a particular Rule of a Holy Father. In the East, monastics may follow the Pachomian Rule or the Rules of St Basil the Great (which is the most widespread). There are some Antonians as well. When St Paissy Velichkovsky brought in his monastic reform based on the Prayer of Jesus, many monasteries throughout Eastern Europe adopted it. The Rule of St Benedict is recognized by the Orthodox Church as well. Orthodox monastics could follow it.
But traditionally no Eastern monastic would refer to himself or herself as belonging to a religious “Order” as such since Orders are an entirely Roman Catholic affair. They don’t put letters at the end of their names either. So one could not tell what rule or set of rules an Orthodox monastic would be following until he or she told us or if we found out from their website
.Apart from the fact that St Benedict outlines the Daily Office from within his own Western tradition, there is nothing about the Benedictine Rule that could not be adopted by an Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox monastic. It does not have to be a kind of “Byzantine branch of a Western Order.”
As an EC Benedictine Oblate, I follow the spirituality of my Particular Church and read the Rule of St Benedict.
If Rome asked me to choose between St Benedict or the Byzantine tradition, I would tell Rome that I choose both and, thank you very much, please do not tell me how I am to understand my Eastern spiritual heritage.
If Rome was so adamant about the UGCC being entirely true to its Eastern patrimony, then ROME WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THE UGCC PATRIARCHATE.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Absolutely true.
I am surprised that this is not better understood.
That is also true.
The monastery might be following the Rule of Benedict (which derives in some part from the 'Rule of the Master" which some think was from St John Cassian). But the monastery is not organized into a congregation, it is subject (ordinarily) to the local bishop, or (extraordinarily) to the Metropolitan.
This is not so very different from how monasticism was treated in the west in earlier times. In fact in east and west both, monasteries were community houses with rules of their own devising, or perhaps given them by their bishop, only later did they adopt the more popular rules (like St Benedict’s) and at that time each house was a ‘stand alone’ institution.
Eventually, in the west, instead of simply ‘budding-off’ new independent daughter houses as the old ones became too crowded, they would set up subsidiary houses, or branches (still called daughter houses), and these networks evolved into congregations. I think that the key factor here is that these subsidiary houses were often being established across diocesan bounds, which seems to reflect some measure of independance from local bishops (at least to some extent
).It is these congregations which formed the prototypes of an order. The heads of congregations are sometimes known as an Abbot General.
I think it wasn’t until the mid-19th century that all of the congregations were confederated under one superstructure (for lack of a better word), the leading figure of the confederation is the Abbot Primate who resides in Rome, I believe.
But even so the congregations are internally very self governing.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
That is all very true as well!
And while I don’t mind being told by Rome that EC’s should be more “Orthodox” in spiritual and liturgical praxis, I think it serves no one well to be “more Orthodox than the Orthodox.”
You’ve presented the case for Orthodox monasticism very succinctly and extremely well - better than any of my texts at home could sir!
Alex
And while I don’t mind being told by Rome that EC’s should be more “Orthodox” in spiritual and liturgical praxis, I think it serves no one well to be “more Orthodox than the Orthodox.”
You’ve presented the case for Orthodox monasticism very succinctly and extremely well - better than any of my texts at home could sir!
Alex
- Status