Levels of Latinization

[Vico]

Okay. Guess I should’ve worded my question a little differently. Thank you for citing the canons, i.e. the “official rule”, as it were. However, I think we’re talking more about what actually happens in practice amongst the various churches, as apart from what is codified. Seems there is a spectrum of practice and my concern had to do with what is (and was) most commonly practiced (the “rule”) as opposed to deviations from that practice (the “exception”). Hopefully the praxis is (was, and will be) a reflection of the codified “rule” and not an exception to it .

By the way, what did the canons say before 1992?

(And, you never did answer my question about where you got the list of Latinizations…I’m still curious .)

In Christ,
MinM

The Latinization list is one that I had from a similar thread a few years ago, which I got from a Melkite website and modified.

I’m showing just some of the instructions, which are from various years: 1264, 1274, 1342, 1439, 1595, 1736, 1742, 1783, 1790, 1863, 1896, 1917 CIC, 1948, as shown below:

  *ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM*

SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS

1. The Sacred Ecumenical Council confirms and approves the ancient discipline of the sacraments existing in the Oriental Churches, as also the ritual practices connected with their celebration and administration and ardently desires that this should be re-established if circumstances warrant it.
2. The established practice in respect of the minister of Confirmation that has obtained from most early times in the Eastern Church should be fully restored. Therefore, priests validly confer this sacrament, using chrism blessed by a patriarch or a bishop.(14)
3. All Eastern Rite priests, either in conjunction with Baptism or separately from it, can confer this sacrament validly on all the faithful of any rite including the Latin; licitly, however, only if the regulations both of the common and the particular law are observed.(15) Priests, also, of the Latin Rite, in accordance with the faculties they enjoy in respect to the administration of this sacrament, validly administer it also to the faithful of Eastern Churches; without prejudice to the rite, observing in regard to licitness the regulations both of the common and of the particular law.(16)

(14) Cfr. Innocentius IV, Ep Sub catholicae, 6 mart. 1264; 3, n. 4; Syn. Lugdunensis II, an. 1274 (professio fidei Michaelis Palaeologi Gregorio X oblata); Eugenius IV, in Syn. Florentina, Const. Exsultate Deo, 22 nov. 1439, 11; Clemens VIII, Instr. Sanctissimus, 31 aug. 1595; Benedictus XIV. Const. Etsi pastoralis, 26 maii 1742, II, n. 1, III, n. 1, etc.; Synodus Laodicena, an. 347/381, can. 48; Syn. Sisen. Armenorum, an. 1342; Synodus Libanen. Maronitarum, an. 1736, P. II, Cap. III n. 2, et aliae Synodi particulares.

(15) Cfr. S.C.S. Officii, Instr. (ad Ep. Scepusien.), an. 1783; S.C. de Prop. Fide (pro Coptis), 15 mart. 1790, n. XIII; Decr. 6 oct. 1863, C, a; S.C. pro Eccl. Orient. 1 maii 1948; S.C.S. Officii, resp. 22 apr. 1896 cum litt. 19 maii 1896

(16) CIC, can. 782, 4; S.C. pra Eccl. Orient., Decretum . de Sacramento Confirmationis administrando etiam fidelibus orientalibus a presbyteris latini ritus, qui hoc indulto gaudeant pro fidelibus sui ritus, 1 maii 1948.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

The first compiled set of canon laws in one promulation was 1917. It took until 1992 to complete the eastern portion of it, with the revision of the Latin portion in 1983. The eastern canon law was initiated by Pius XI in 1929 and published in parts from 1949-1958. There is much history given in the introduction portion or promulgation of the canon law.

 

[MichaelinMD]

The Latinization list is one that I had from a similar thread a few years ago, which I got from a Melkite website and modified.

I’m showing just some of the instructions, which are from various years: 1264, 1274, 1342, 1439, 1595, 1736, 1742, 1783, 1790, 1863, 1896, 1917 CIC, 1948, as shown below:

  *ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM*

SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS

1. The Sacred Ecumenical Council confirms and approves the ancient discipline of the sacraments existing in the Oriental Churches, as also the ritual practices connected with their celebration and administration and ardently desires that this should be re-established if circumstances warrant it.
2. The established practice in respect of the minister of Confirmation that has obtained from most early times in the Eastern Church should be fully restored. Therefore, priests validly confer this sacrament, using chrism blessed by a patriarch or a bishop.(14)
3. All Eastern Rite priests, either in conjunction with Baptism or separately from it, can confer this sacrament validly on all the faithful of any rite including the Latin; licitly, however, only if the regulations both of the common and the particular law are observed.(15) Priests, also, of the Latin Rite, in accordance with the faculties they enjoy in respect to the administration of this sacrament, validly administer it also to the faithful of Eastern Churches; without prejudice to the rite, observing in regard to licitness the regulations both of the common and of the particular law.(16)

(14) Cfr. Innocentius IV, Ep Sub catholicae, 6 mart. 1264; 3, n. 4; Syn. Lugdunensis II, an. 1274 (professio fidei Michaelis Palaeologi Gregorio X oblata); Eugenius IV, in Syn. Florentina, Const. Exsultate Deo, 22 nov. 1439, 11; Clemens VIII, Instr. Sanctissimus, 31 aug. 1595; Benedictus XIV. Const. Etsi pastoralis, 26 maii 1742, II, n. 1, III, n. 1, etc.; Synodus Laodicena, an. 347/381, can. 48; Syn. Sisen. Armenorum, an. 1342; Synodus Libanen. Maronitarum, an. 1736, P. II, Cap. III n. 2, et aliae Synodi particulares.

(15) Cfr. S.C.S. Officii, Instr. (ad Ep. Scepusien.), an. 1783; S.C. de Prop. Fide (pro Coptis), 15 mart. 1790, n. XIII; Decr. 6 oct. 1863, C, a; S.C. pro Eccl. Orient. 1 maii 1948; S.C.S. Officii, resp. 22 apr. 1896 cum litt. 19 maii 1896

(16) CIC, can. 782, 4; S.C. pra Eccl. Orient., Decretum . de Sacramento Confirmationis administrando etiam fidelibus orientalibus a presbyteris latini ritus, qui hoc indulto gaudeant pro fidelibus sui ritus, 1 maii 1948.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

The first compiled set of canon laws in one promulation was 1917. It took until 1992 to complete the eastern portion of it, with the revision of the Latin portion in 1983. The eastern canon law was initiated by Pius XI in 1929 and published in parts from 1949-1958. There is much history given in the introduction portion or promulgation of the canon law.

Many thanks!

Seems the Melkites have been “afflicted” (if that’s the right term, because I don’t see all Latinizations as necessarily bad things) by Latinizations somewhat more than other Eastern Catholic churches. At least, if your list is a true representation of what’s happened in their Church and applies to most parishes.

 

[babochka]

Many thanks!

Seems the Melkites have been “afflicted” (if that’s the right term, because I don’t see all Latinizations as necessarily bad things) by Latinizations somewhat more than other Eastern Catholic churches. At least, if your list is a true representation of what’s happened in their Church and applies to most parishes.

I don’t think it is that straightforward. This list might have come from a Melkite website, but each of the items on Vico’s list have happened in the Ruthenian and Ukrainian churches, at various times and places, and each of the Byzantine Churches have removed those latinizations, to varying degrees. I grew up in the Ruthenian Church, but living in California, where our parishes are few and far between, my experience is limited to a handful of Ruthenian parishes, 2 Ukrainian parishes, a Ukrainian monastery, 1 Romanian parish and 1 Melkite parish. Our Eparchy is young and small, and somewhat isolated from the “old country” of Pennsylvania and Ohio. I don’t think such latinizations have ever been widespread out here. I do remember kneeling during the consecration when I was a child (1970s); on the other hand, we removed the pews from the church between Pascha and Pentecost. The fact that I, in my limited experience, have never seen these latinizations does not mean they they don’t or didn’t exist.

Thankfully, I think the vast majority of these latinizations are a thing of the past in Byzantine-rite churches in the US, in all jurisdictions. I could be wrong, though. I still live in my isolated little bubble.

 

[andrewstx]

All the Latinisation is a reason that I don’t leave Orthodoxy for Eastern Catholicism. The other is that EC church is more than 500 miles away.

The Orthodox Church in America was originally Ruthenian Catholic. but when they reached Penna they were Latinised. Actually the Irish and German bishops just expected them to just join their Western diocese.

They wanted to stay Catholic but the bishops would have none of it. At first when they splintered away they took the name: the Russian Greek Catholic church.

Why could not those bishops have allowed the Eastern Catholics to remain Eastern Catholics instead of trying to force them into the Latin church?

 

[Aramis]

Why could not those bishops have allowed the Eastern Catholics to remain Eastern Catholics instead of trying to force them into the Latin church?

It boils down to two key factors: ignorance on the part of the Roman Bishops in the US, and extant canon law of the time having banned any liturgy but the Roman within the US.

Keeping in mind that the Plenary Council of Baltimore had national jurisdiction within the US, and banned the use of any other rite within the US in 1852. It wasn’t until 1908 that the relevant canons from 1st Plenary Baltimore (quoted below) were overturned:

1. The Roman Ritual, adopted by the First Council of Baltimore, is to be observed in all dioceses, and all are forbidden to introduce customs or rites foreign to the Roman usage. Sacred ceremonies are not to be employed in the burial of Catholics whose bodies are deposited in sectarian cemeteries; or even in public cemeteries, if there be Catholic cemeteries at hand.
2. The Baltimore “Ceremonial” is to be used all through the country.

Also, 1917 saw a major reform of canon laws for the Roman Church, and national and plenary councils lost a LOT of autonomy and authority.

But then, it’s not like the Bishop of Sitka didn’t Russify the Ruthenians of the Tothian Schism.

 

[Vico]

It boils down to two key factors: ignorance on the part of the Roman Bishops in the US, and extant canon law of the time having banned any liturgy but the Roman within the US.

Keeping in mind that the Plenary Council of Baltimore had national jurisdiction within the US, and banned the use of any other rite within the US in 1852. It wasn’t until 1908 that the relevant canons from 1st Plenary Baltimore (quoted below) were overturned:3. The Roman Ritual, adopted by the First Council of Baltimore, is to be observed in all dioceses, and all are forbidden to introduce customs or rites foreign to the Roman usage. Sacred ceremonies are not to be employed in the burial of Catholics whose bodies are deposited in sectarian cemeteries; or even in public cemeteries, if there be Catholic cemeteries at hand.
4. The Baltimore “Ceremonial” is to be used all through the country.Also, 1917 saw a major reform of canon laws for the Roman Church, and national and plenary councils lost a LOT of autonomy and authority.

But then, it’s not like the Bishop of Sitka didn’t Russify the Ruthenians of the Tothian Schism.

A timely change since the peak year for the Austro-Hungarian immigration was 1907, and for the Ruthenians of both Austria-Hungary and Russia, was 1914, when the total number reached 42,413. Orientalium Dignitas of Pope Leo XIII was given November 30, 1894, just 14 years before the change in the canons.

carpatho-rusyn.org/gcu1.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13orient.htm

 

[Aramis]

A timely change since the peak year for the Austro-Hungarian immigration was 1907, and for the Ruthenians of both Austria-Hungary and Russia, was 1914, when the total number reached 42,413. Orientalium Dignitas of Pope Leo XIII was given November 30, 1894, just 14 years before the change in the canons.

carpatho-rusyn.org/gcu1.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13orient.htm

The irony? That “Timely Change” in 1908 was NOT due to Easterners - it was due to Dominican Friars. They took on Bishop Ireland - and won. Pope St. Pius X upheld the rights of non-Romans - the papally granted rights of the Dominican Order, and the papally acknowledged rights of the Eastern Churches happened to overlap… and HH Pius X followed through. As did HH Benedict XV. When the Bishops refused to allow the Eastern Liturgies under their own dioceses, exarchates were erected. And later, Eparchies.

 

[Vico]

The irony? That “Timely Change” in 1908 was NOT due to Easterners - it was due to Dominican Friars. They took on Bishop Ireland - and won. Pope St. Pius X upheld the rights of non-Romans - the papally granted rights of the Dominican Order, and the papally acknowledged rights of the Eastern Churches happened to overlap… and HH Pius X followed through. As did HH Benedict XV. When the Bishops refused to allow the Eastern Liturgies under their own dioceses, exarchates were erected. And later, Eparchies.

They had Greek Catholic Bishop Sotor Ortynsky in 1907 through action of Pope Pius X, under jurisdiction of Philadelphia, but he had no independent jurisdiction until 1913, but he died soon, I think about three years later.

 

[MichaelinMD]

I don’t think it is that straightforward. This list might have come from a Melkite website, but each of the items on Vico’s list have happened in the Ruthenian and Ukrainian churches, at various times and places, and each of the Byzantine Churches have removed those latinizations, to varying degrees***…snip…*** The fact that I, in my limited experience, have never seen these latinizations does not mean they they don’t or didn’t exist.

Thankfully, I think the vast majority of these latinizations are a thing of the past in Byzantine-rite churches in the US, in all jurisdictions. I could be wrong, though. I still live in my isolated little bubble.

You’re probably right about the extent of the Latinizations. I was probably reading Vico’s list as if he was saying or implying that those Latinizations were still widely in place in the Eastern churches. And yes, the fact that you or I have never seen them certainly doesn’t mean they didn’t/don’t exist.

As a relative newcomer to the Church (I was received into the Church 13 years ago), it’s easy for me to wonder what all the hullabaloo concerning Latinizations is about. I do appreciate that they were/are an infringement on people’s ethnic and cultural and historical practices, and I personally much prefer the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom over the N.O. mass (I’ve never yet been to a TLM, unfortunately), and Byzantine Catholic worship praxis over modern RC worship praxis. However…to my limited vision, they both accomplish the same thing (when not “improvised” upon ), just in different ways. I receive the same Body and Blood of Our Lord at both liturgies. I can praise, worship, and glorify Him equally in one as in the other. Do I prefer one over the other? Yes. But, in the larger perspective, my preferences are pretty small, almost to the point of meaninglessness, and in my mean-spirited moments, could even be perceived as being just petty.

In Christ,
MinM

 

[Catechesis]

Hey thanks for the replies guys but can anyone maybe procure a list of the churches by their levels of Latinization? I’ve heard Maronite and Syro Malabar thrown around in the past but the other 20 I don’t know about.

 

[Aramis]

Hey thanks for the replies guys but can anyone maybe procure a list of the churches by their levels of Latinization? I’ve heard Maronite and Syro Malabar thrown around in the past but the other 20 I don’t know about.

With the exception of the Maronites (who have a latinized set of rubrics), the latinization isn’t consistent in the various Eastern Churches.

For example, one of the Parishes in the Eparchy has no standing iconostas, using a portable one only. We had a minimal one in 1990, and now have a very different one.

Some parishes of the Eparchy have chairs, others pews. We again have pews - we pulled them out in the 90’s and used free standing chairs instead. A few years ago, the pastor insisted on putting in new pews.

Paraliturgical hymns instead of the Psalms during communion: we normally don’t now, but a couple parishes still do.