Melkitization

[Peter_J]

But is it bad?

Difficult question. Consider, analogously, if an Eastern Catholic parish was in a bad way with respect to its liturgy, then Latinization could be an improvement; yet we still say that Latinization is bad in principle.

The Latin Church has a history of adopting practises from others, like the unleavened bread from the Armenians.

Well, I think historically all churches adopted practices from other churches; but that’s generally considered a different phenomenon than Latinization/Melkitization/Byzantinization or what have you.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

What then is the “Melkitization” of the Latin Church? Care to give some examples?

 

[Peter_J]

What then is the “Melkitization” of the Latin Church? Care to give some examples?

To be honest, I think not. For one thing, I’m not sure what kind of reaction people might have; but even if I wasn’t concerned about peoples’ reactions, quite frankly I have very little certainly about what can be counted as a “Melkitization of the Latin Church”. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can say more, but keep in mind I said before: the Latin Church is so much larger (and has so many different kinds of changes) that it’s tough to track how each change comes about.

 

[malphono]

Well, alright, I’m not here to tell you what to do of course; but I was glad to have your (name removed by moderator)ut, particularly regarding relations among different churches – including the ones that are neither Latin nor Byzantine.

Thank you again. BTW, just to clarify, my earlier comment about keeping mum wasn’t directed toward you or the original post.

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you again. BTW, just to clarify, my earlier comment about keeping mum wasn’t directed toward you or the original post.

I’m still a little surprised nevertheless. I thought MarkosC was basically agreeing with you (unless I misunderstood what it was that he was calling “nonsense”).

 

[malphono]

Apparently some folks considered my first post in this thread to be “nonsense” and, while I really don’t much care, I will risk redundancy and expound a bit (or repeat myself, same thing so take your pick).

What I call “Melkitization” (and I probably should have stuck with “Byzantinization” which, of course, is the exact same thing, but would likely have ruffled fewer feathers – go figure) has nothing whatsoever to do with any activity on the part of the Melkite Church. Rather, it has to do with a twisted mindset on the part of certain Maronite clergy (including not a few bishops) who, in their misguided zeal to eliminate all vestiges of the “latinizations” (and again, I note that those very same people are wedded to the versus populum table and the rest of the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations) look to the Melkites as being the paradigm of non-latinized purity (and since there are, for example, more than enough instances of Melkites using a versus populum table, they are definitely not that, but I digress). I will, however, note that those people are fading away. This was more of a trend in the '70s and '80s than it is now. (One of the fruits of their efforts is the unfortunately enduring use of the term “Divine Liturgy” in many Maronite parishes in the US. When speaking in English, I far prefer the more generic term “Mass” but I digress again.). In the current scheme of things, the Maronite Church has far bigger issues to deal with, namely the continuing and unending stream of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization. But of course the Maronite Church as a body embraces all of that to a degree that even the Latin Church does not. (Reminds me in a bad way of the old expression “more Catholic than the Pope” but I digress yet again.)

In any case, IMHO byzantinizations aren’t much better than latinizations. We don’t need either. But sadly we’re saddled with both in varying degrees.

 

[malphono]

I’m still a little surprised nevertheless. I thought MarkosC was basically agreeing with you (unless I misunderstood what it was that he was calling “nonsense”).

Perhaps I misread it and its successor posts too (in quite the opposite way). I guess we’ll see.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Why anyone would want to adopt versus populum is beyond me. It’s a latinization that even the Latins don’t like.

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps I misread it and its successor posts too (in quite the opposite way). I guess we’ll see.

Personally, I took

Originally Posted by malphono
there are those anti-latinization Maronites who insist that the Melkites are the “guardians of tradition”

to be saying that the the “guardians of tradition” idea is nonsense (thus agreeing with you). But I’ll wait for his clarification.

Incidentally, I think this is all prone to be a touchy subject … hence my early disclaimer that criticizing Latinization (resp. Melkitization) doesn’t imply being anti-Latin (resp. anti-Melkite).

 

[malphono]

Why anyone would want to adopt versus populum is beyond me.

Indeed. It’s beyond me too. Has been from the first versus populum table I ever saw back in the late '60s. Nonetheless, thus go the Maronites, the SCC, the CCC, at least half of the Syro-Malabars, and (against the explicit instruction of their Holy Synod) some Chaldean bishops. Whatever …

It’s a latinization that even the Latins don’t like.

Well yes, but don’t say that too loudly. You know, the walls have ears. Some of the versus populum crowd from the other fora here might be eavesdropping. :bigyikes:

 

[dzheremi]

And then they came for the ad orientem crowd, and I did not speak up, because my church already had that, so it would be weird to have some other faction who thought otherwise and thought it was any of their business to tell my church what to do…

Wait, what were we talking about? Right…Melkitization/Byzantinization/general “Eastern-ness” even if you’re an Oriental.

This idea of Byzantinization of the Latins is a new one to me, though. I am reminded of the reproduction of the Black Madonna of Czestochowa icon that hung in the otherwise dreadfully N.O.-focused parish I attended in Oregon for my last year and a half as an active RC, but I never connected that with any sort of Byzantinzation, because as far as I knew at the time this came out of the Polish church, and the Poles are of course nothing if not proud Latin Catholics. (Except for the ones that, y’know…aren’t.)

So I’m still a bit confused as to what we might actually be referring to here. When a Maronite talks about Melkitization, it makes perfect sense to me, but Byzantinization among the Latins…you mean like how Lycourgos Angelopoulos has often worked with Ensemble Organum?

 

[Peter_J]

Not to change the subject, but for many years I’ve been in the habit of referring to those Catholic churches that use the Byzantine Rite (e.g. Melkite, BCC, UGCC, etc.) as “Eastern Catholic Churches”, and the other non-Latin Catholic churches (Maronite, Chaldean, Coptic, etc.) as “Oriental Catholic Churches”. Is this terminology standard?

The reason I was thinking about this just now, is that it might be for this reason that I have tended to think of the Melkite Church and the Maronite Church as though they don’t have anything to do with each other.

 

[MarkosC]

Perhaps I misread it and its successor posts too (in quite the opposite way). I guess we’ll see.

My apologies, I meant that the idea that Melkites represent any sort of “pure Antiochian tradition” that anyone should imitate is nonsense, and that Maronites should not blindly follow even the best of us (or the Antiochians, or the Greeks, or the Russians…) If Maronites want “liturgical reform” they should look carefully to their own traditon and spirituality.

Herr Meister-Beadsmann,

 

[malphono]

Not to change the subject, but for many years I’ve been in the habit of referring to those Catholic churches that use the Byzantine Rite (e.g. Melkite, BCC, UGCC, etc.) as “Eastern Catholic Churches”, and the other non-Latin Catholic churches (Maronite, Chaldean, Coptic, etc.) as “Oriental Catholic Churches”. Is this terminology standard?

Although Rome makes no such official distinction, (e.g., the CCEO is formally titled “Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium”) “Eastern” vs “Oriental” has become a standard way of differentiating Byzantines and non-Byzantines in English.

My apologies, I meant that the idea that Melkites represent any sort of “pure Antiochian tradition” that anyone should imitate is nonsense, and that Maronites should not blindly follow even the best of us (or the Antiochians, or the Greeks, or the Russians…)

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry that I misread the original intent.

If Maronites want “liturgical reform” they should look carefully to their own traditon and spirituality.

One can only hope against hope, but based on the evidence, it looks like that ship has sailed into the wrong sea (and I don’t mean a Byzantine sea either).

 

[dzheremi]

So is this the point where I start a thread on Syriacization, and then we can actually bemoan that an “-ization” isn’t happening? That could be fun for a few seconds…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Herr Meister-Beadsmann,

Herr Reader Macarios!

I hope to see you at Liturgy, even if only for a brief moment.

 

[Peter_J]

So is this the point where I start a thread on Syriacization, and then we can actually bemoan that an “-ization” isn’t happening? That could be fun for a few seconds…

Let’s not forget Bueller: Izations in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ization, he should believe in himself.