Levels of Latinization

[Catechesis]

It is known that many of the Eastern Catholic Churches were Latinized at one point and some to this day still have many Latin Aspects. Can anyone explain the levels of Latinization on the different churches? Also if any Churches have made significant restorations to their original rite and what these changes are?

This thread is only meant to explain impacts from the Latin Church on the Eastern Churches. Though some churches wish to restore their original liturgical traditions, it can be seen that other Eastern Churches treasure the Latin Customs that they have acquired over the centuries and that they do not wish to alter these customs.

 

[Timothy_Garber]

I hope someone answers this. My pastor has said a few things along these lines, pointing how a few things in other Byzantine rites had been “Latinized”. I forget what they were, but I believe most of them happened within the last century - too recent to be called a custom.

 

[Vico]

It is known that many of the Eastern Catholic Churches were Latinized at one point and some to this day still have many Latin Aspects. Can anyone explain the levels of Latinization on the different churches? Also if any Churches have made significant restorations to their original rite and what these changes are?

This thread is only meant to explain impacts from the Latin Church on the Eastern Churches. Though some churches wish to restore their original liturgical traditions, it can be seen that other Eastern Churches treasure the Latin Customs that they have acquired over the centuries and that they do not wish to alter these customs.

General List of Latinizations1. Unmarried priesthood
2. Altar rails
3. Confessional boxes
4. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls
5. 3-D Crucifixes on walls
6. Western-style paintings
7. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy
8. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil
9. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.
10. Introduction of Western music and songs
11. Use of musical instruments
12. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers
13. Reduction of prostrations and reverences
14. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling (only kneeling is in the presanctified or craw to the tomb)
15. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral
16. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration
17. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors (used in some recensions)
18. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism
19. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies
20. Suppression of liturgical hours .
21. Not distributing the antidoron
21. Statues
22. No church bells on Holy Friday
23. Use of clackers

 

[jeannetherese]

Hi Vico,
I was able to follow the first 22, but got lost with use of a clackers. Would you mind sharing a bit of diescription here?
Many thanks, and may God bless you!
jt

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,
I was able to follow the first 22, but got lost with use of a clackers. Would you mind sharing a bit of diescription here?
Many thanks, and may God bless you!
jt

Also called wooden clappers used on Holy Thursday in Latin tradition.

Item from the Union of Brest:8.—Likewise that we should not be compelled to have the blessing of fire, the use of wooden clappers, and similar ceremonies before Easter, for we have not had such ceremonies in our Church until now, but that we should maintain our ceremonies according to the rubrics and the Typicon of our Church.

http://www.churchsupplywarehouse.com/images/products/ZZ2745_4_19_2011_2_23_32_PM.jpg

 

[Aramis]

Noting that Vico’s list is peculiarly byzantine…

A few that were missed:

1. pews or chairs for the majority of the faithful
2. kneelers (separate from, and usually with, kneeling)
3. use of white sticharion instead of the color of the day
4. bishops vested in phelonian rather than saccos
5. anticipated liturgy on Saturday Evening for Sunday
6. use of clerical suit rather than cassock/raisson.
7. leaving off the exoraisson when about in cassock.
8. Bell-less censors
9. handbells at the narrative and epiclesis
10. rubricization of laity postures
11. precut bread
12. use of a monstrance for Exposition.
13. latin vestments, esp the chasuble and maniple

and a few quibbles

1. Unmarried priesthood

As worded, no, it’s not a latinzation. It should be “Disallowing married clergy”

1. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil

Seldom done - but it’s not uncommon for highly latinized parishes to do the DL of St John spoken.

Amongst the Syriacs, the DL’s in use are not those of St John and St Basil. The Copts use St. Basil, and another DL as well.

Only the Maronites have truly embraced a western style mass,
Their modern liturgy is very latinized, certainly, and it’s been so since Trent, but the parallels to the EF/OF transition annoy a lot of Maronite posters.

1. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral
   Not so much a latinization as a modernism - I’ve seen it noted in some orthodox parishes, as well; Blessing of the body, Memorial DL, then the graveside service. It’s an american cultural expectation to have a service with the body present, then go put the body in the ground.

Note that combining Vespers and DL isn’t a latinization (two a year are prescribed in the rubrics), but the use for anticipatory liturgies is a bit of one.

1. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors (used in some recensions)

Not a big issue, and noted by Fr. Schmemman as a longstanding issue in Orthodoxy.
Note that the syriacs (East or West) and Armenians don’t have doors to the altar, and have curtains, instead, and thus for them, it’s a bigger issue.

1. Not distributing the antidoron
   Not really a latinization, either. Not all parishes do so even in Orthodoxy. Especially if the Lamb is almost all the prosphora.

 

[Cavaradossi]

26 as a Latinization baffles me, as the Sakkos is a fairly late addition to a bishop’s liturgical garb. Before the Sakkos became a standard garment, bishops served wearing the phelonion and omophorion.

 

[prodromos]

1. Use of musical instruments

I would not consider that a Latinization so much as a Protestantization. I don’t believe the Latin mass traditionally used musical instruments any more than the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Nils]

1. Use of musical instruments

I would not consider that a Latinization so much as a Protestantization. I don’t believe the Latin mass traditionally used musical instruments any more than the Divine Liturgy.

Organ?

 

[MorEphrem]

Amongst the Syriacs, the DL’s in use are not those of St John and St Basil. The Copts use St. Basil, and another DL as well.

Only the Maronites have truly embraced a western style mass,
Their modern liturgy is very latinized, certainly, and it’s been so since Trent, but the parallels to the EF/OF transition annoy a lot of Maronite posters.

We wouldn’t say we say the DL of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil, but we have anaphorae for both and both of which are used. And I would say more so 1736 and later rather than Trent.

Not so much a latinization as a modernism - I’ve seen it noted in some orthodox parishes, as well; Blessing of the body, Memorial DL, then the graveside service…

Note that combining Vespers and DL isn’t a latinization (two a year are prescribed in the rubrics), but the use for anticipatory liturgies is a bit of one.

It is [shockingly] possible that the Orthodox can be latinized as well. The entire idea of conflations to “save time” and not be redundant seems pretty novus ordo to me, of which I have noticed in the Maronite patriarchate when Safro (Matins) was used as the first half of the qurbono. It reminded me in Florence when the different Latin orders would use their vespers as the equivalent of the liturgy of the word.

Note that the syriacs (East or West) and Armenians don’t have doors to the altar, and have curtains, instead, and thus for them, it’s a bigger issue.

sigh Yes, and sadly this seems to be a latinization that will remain for long. Most Maronites are incredulous if you tell them we’re normatively supposed to have sanctuary veils (our synod even addressed the matter - albeit leaving it up to the local ordinary).

I would say the worst latinization that has touched the Maronite liturgy is the elimination of the lectionary, elimination of the proper liturgical order (to adopt the Latin liturgical structure) and now, worst, adaptation of the novus ordo. Pre-70s our liturgy was kind of like a Tridentine liturgy with the prayers using the recycled Syriac prayers and post-2005 it is literally a novus ordo with a long[er] fraction rite and a three line dialogue for the access to the altar.

 

[malphono]

I would say the worst latinization that has touched the Maronite liturgy is the elimination of the lectionary, elimination of the proper liturgical order (to adopt the Latin liturgical structure) and now, worst, adaptation of the novus ordo. Pre-70s our liturgy was kind of like a Tridentine liturgy with the prayers using the recycled Syriac prayers and post-2005 it is literally a novus ordo with a long[er] fraction rite and a three line dialogue for the access to the altar.

In the pre-1970 days, we hadn’t exactly abandoned the the proper liturgical order, but rather shifted a few things around and did a job on rubrics to convey the outward impression of “conformity” with the Latin Church. The prayers were never recycled: most were authentic and many were identical to what is used by the SOC. IOW, it was really mainly the rubrics that suffered, thus giving that outward impression. Of course we also embraced a number of Latin paraliturgical practices, such as “Benediction,” the Rosary, etc etc.

The post-conciliar story, OTOH, is little more than a hodgepodge of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations, where things are now decidedly different. The liturgical structure has actually been destroyed: e.g, providing for a “liturgy of the Word” (and even using that name) while eliminating the traditional structure of a Canonical Hour (and abandoning such archaic descriptions of it as the Rite of Incense or the Sacrifice of Aaron). Another example is the innovative Novus Ordo-style “offertory” while eliminating the traditional Rite of Preparation. A third is the abandonment of nearly all low-voice prayers. The list, of course, goes on … and on.

 

[Aramis]

26 as a Latinization baffles me, as the Sakkos is a fairly late addition to a bishop’s liturgical garb. Before the Sakkos became a standard garment, bishops served wearing the phelonion and omophorion.

The saccos/sakkos for all bishops was common by the mid 15th C, but prior, it was an imperial honor bestowed upon patriarchs and bishops individually. In some churches, it was treated as an honor of the see rather than the person.

It is the proper vestment of a bishop when celebrating as a bishop. And yet, there are Byzantine bishops who celebrate the HDL in phelonian. Or, in one historical photo I’ve seen, dalmatic and phelonian both over the sticheron, mirroring the Roman Dalmatic and chasuble over the alb.

 

[babochka]

General List of Latinizations
18. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Which Eastern Churches currently (or historically) have separated Chrismation from Baptism?

Also, does anyone know the history of the separation of communion from baptism? When and where did it first occur? Was it forced on our churches, or self-imposed, as so many latinizations have been?

 

[MorEphrem]

Which Eastern Churches currently (or historically) have separated Chrismation from Baptism?

Also, does anyone know the history of the separation of communion from baptism? When and where did it first occur? Was it forced on our churches, or self-imposed, as so many latinizations have been?

For the Maronite Church, we only recently (i.e. in the last few decades) restored Chrismation to Baptism - so recent in fact that the cathedral keeps making announcements that those who are unsure if they were should check with their parish in order to establish if they need to be chrismated.

I don’t know about the Byzantine Churches, but I think it was really a case by case basis. The Maronite Synod of Mt. Lebanon (1736) was basically a Maronite implementation of Trent in which the papal legate anathemized communing infants (any priest who did, I think the punishment was auto-excommunication and the loss of faculties).

 

[babochka]

I don’t know about the Byzantine Churches, but I think it was really a case by case basis. The Maronite Synod of Mt. Lebanon (1736) was basically a Maronite implementation of Trent in which the papal legate anathemized communing infants (any priest who did, I think the punishment was auto-excommunication and the loss of faculties).

This is interesting, as the Council of Trent most certainly did not anathemize communing infants.

Finally, this same holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist: [Page 143] forasmuch as, having been regenerated by the by the laver of baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God.** Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom; **for as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.

 

[MichaelinMD]

General List of Latinizations1. Unmarried priesthood
2. Altar rails
3. Confessional boxes
4. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls
5. 3-D Crucifixes on walls
6. Western-style paintings
7. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy
8. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil
9. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.
10. Introduction of Western music and songs
11. Use of musical instruments
12. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers
13. Reduction of prostrations and reverences
14. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling (only kneeling is in the presanctified or craw to the tomb)
15. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral
16. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration
17. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors (used in some recensions)
18. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism
19. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies
20. Suppression of liturgical hours .
21. Not distributing the antidoron
21. Statues
22. No church bells on Holy Friday
23. Use of clackers

Okay…my experience of Eastern Catholic churches is limited to the Byzantine-Ruthenian church. Here’s what I noticed and not noticed of the above list:

1. Problematic—if the bishops would stand up for what was promised…
   2-12. Never seen any of those.
2. Yes, due to presence of pews, though oftentimes people will go into the aisles to do so.
   14-18. Never seen. With regard to #18 specifically, I entered the Church in the Byzantine Catholic Church, as an adult. My baptism, chrismation, and first Holy Communion were NOT separated.
3. Hmm…maybe a little bit
4. Don’t know, can’t comment.
5. Never seen
6. Depends on the parish
7. Never seen

Where did you get this list from, Vico?

 

[malphono]

For the Maronite Church, we only recently (i.e. in the last few decades) restored Chrismation to Baptism - so recent in fact that the cathedral keeps making announcements that those who are unsure if they were should check with their parish in order to establish if they need to be chrismated.

Despite the fact that the restored (and now shelved :banghead Ritual of Sacraments of 1942 included it, the practice was slow in being reintroduced. The trend really started in the US sometime in the late 1960s IIRC, and gradually made its way into the Patriarchal Territories. It took a while before it was considered more-or-less universal.

MorEphrem;11874351:

The Maronite Synod of Mt. Lebanon (1736) was basically a Maronite implementation of Trent in which the papal legate anathemized communing infants (any priest who did, I think the punishment was auto-excommunication and the loss of faculties).

This is interesting, as the Council of Trent most certainly did not anathemize communing infants.

I’d actually say that the cited Canon of Trent is just that. At least so in a backhanded sort of way when read with the preceding statement from Trent.

 

[babochka]

I’d actually say that the cited Canon of Trent is just that. At least so in a backhanded sort of way when read with the preceding statement from Trent.

I see it completely differently and believe that the statement preceding the canon clarifies my position.

Finally, this same holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist: [Page 143]

Not obliged does not mean that they are not allowed to receive the Eucharist.

Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom;

The council specifically does not condemn the practice of communing infants.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.

Clearly, in light of the previous comments, and even on its own, this canon refers to the belief that young children cannot be saved without the Eucharist. That is not the same thing as saying that they cannot fruitfully receive the Eucharist. The canon says what it means, and is clarified by preceding statements. I don’t think we can read more into it than it actually says.

 

[malphono]

I see it completely differently and believe that the statement preceding the canon clarifies my position. …

Not obliged does not mean that they are not allowed to receive the Eucharist. …

The council specifically does not condemn the practice of communing infants. …

Clearly, in light of the previous comments, and even on its own, this canon refers to the belief that young children cannot be saved without the Eucharist. That is not the same thing as saying that they cannot fruitfully receive the Eucharist. The canon says what it means, and is clarified by preceding statements. I don’t think we can read more into it than it actually says.

True, but when taken with the preceding text from Trent saying that where this was customary at one time, the sense is that, whereas it may not be explicitly condemned, the practice is not supported and is not to be introduced.

In any case, whatever the Latin practice is or is not, is immaterial to the East and Orient. That is abundantly clear in the fact that most (if not all) Byzantines in union with Rome have restored it. As I read it, MorEphrem’s reference to the Maronite Synod of 1736 is that the practice was removed from the Maronite Church precisely because it was no longer in use in the Latin Church. That’s quite clear from the quote and Canon from Trent. And since it remains out of use in the Latin Church, the Maronites – ever more Latin than the Latins – has not seen fit to restore it.

The practice, BTW, was to have been reinstated with the promulgation of the restored Ritual of Sacraments of 1942 to which I referred earlier. The reason it was not has to do with Rome and only with Rome. It was only due to a small miracle of sorts that Chrismation at Baptism was reinstated against Rome’s explicit objections.

 

[babochka]

As I read it, MorEphrem’s reference to the Maronite Synod of 1736 is that the practice was removed from the Maronite Church precisely because it was no longer in use in the Latin Church. That’s quite clear from the quote and Canon from Trent. And since it remains out of use in the Latin Church, the Maronites – ever more Latin than the Latins – has not seen fit to restore it.

This is also what I understood, but he said that, at the Maronite Synod of Mt. Lebanon, the papal legate anathemized communing infants. This goes a huge step beyond what Trent did.

Do you know the history of infant communion in the Byzantine Churches? We came into union nearly 100 years after the Council of Trent, and the practice of infant communion was not called into question at that time. I’ve tried unsuccessfully to determine when, and under what circumstances, it came to an end in the Byzantine Churches.