Questions About The History Of Latinizations

[Seamus_L]

I seem to have heard conflicting accounts about this topic, so I’d like to get as good an answer as possible on the following questions. And of course I realise the history from church to another may vary greatly.

1.When was the peak period for Latinizations ?
2.Were they mandated, and if so by whom ?
3.Has anyone higher than a parish priest in the East ever been openly supportive of them ?
4.Have any Latinizations come about through the laity ?
Thanks

 

[Woodstock]

I’m not a historian, so I’ll get things started.

1.When was the peak period for Latinizations ?

1890-1980. When Eastern Catholics landed in geopgraphically western lands.

2.Were they mandated, and if so by whom ?

Yes. The Latin bishops were given charge of the Eastern Catholic parishes in the US and they mandated them at the diocesan level. There were a few Roman Catholic bishops who were wonderful. Come to think of it, they are hardly ever praised and I’d be interested in seeing more about those men and celebrating their respect for the Eastern Catholic Churches. There were many who were unhelpful. There were some who were intentionally destructive.

3.Has anyone higher than a parish priest in the East ever been openly supportive of them ?

I don’t want to speculate here, so I’ll let those more knowledgeable respond.

4.Have any Latinizations come about through the laity ?

Yes. As they intermarried, had no Eastern education, had no Eastern parishes, and had no idea what distinguished them as Eastern Catholics, the laity brought in latinizations at the parish level. The priests did not correct them and so they spread. Last Flowery Sunday in my parish, there was an interesting mix of icons, paintings, and statues which were brought to be blessed. While Eastern Catholics did head-up Sunday morning rosaries in past and present times, the main source of laity-led latinizations now come from refuge Latins in my experiences. I place the responsibility on the priest to educate and guide all in his parish.

 

[Diak]

You definitely are not afraid to ask the tough questions, Seamus…

The whole subject and history of latinzation(s) are very complex indeed. I don’t know about a “good” answer but having lived the majority of my life as a practicing Ukrainian Greek Catholic, I can only give my experience and observations, speaking only for myself and in no official capacity.

And please understand up front that these may seem to be simple questions, but the very specific cultural, historical, and theological currents running beneath them are deep and wrought with all kinds of eddies.

Each Eastern Catholic Church will have its own particular history and challenges regarding latinization(s). I can only speak with my particular experience in the Kyivan Church; Melkites, Armenians, etc. will each have different history and answers.

1. In my opinion the “peak” probably extends from the decade of the Synod of Zamosc until the Synod of L’viv, roughly the mid- to late-18th century until the late 19th century. But this is not at all inclusive; such trends were present before and even are still present (the so-called neolatinization movement suggested by some writers arguably present in very recent liturgical translations).

After this Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky and his successors up to the present (His Beatitude Patriarch Lubomyr) strongly opposed and worked to reverse latinizing trends.

1. This is the most difficult part of your questions. The cultural and political climate especially come into play here. When the Greek Catholic areas were under the various governments of primarily Latin rulers, such as Poland, Austro-Hungary, Lithuania, etc. generally only Latins could ascend to royalty and higher governmental positions. Thus the pressure to either become Latin or to look and smell as Latin as possible was immense, and the higher Greek Catholic clergy needing the financial and logistical support of the Latin masters for their people, were especially vulnerable.

Conversely in areas under Tsarist control, no government positions could be held by Greek Catholics, and the Greek Catholic Church was generally illegal, so the pressure in those areas was rather to abandon the Union and accept the jurisdiction of the Church of Moscow. So the Church of Kyiv was in this precarious cultural sandwich between the Latinizing and Russifying governments in which she found herself residing. And these governments often colluded, as the suppression of the Ukrainians was of interest to both governments.

 

[Diak]

Part II of reply:

Especially where our communities are surrounded by a Latin majority such as in Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, etc. to refuse certain Latin devotions and practices was not seen as really being “Catholic”.

And then there were as well the frictions with the Latin clergy about our married parochial clergy (another matter and history entirely, but interrelated in that the pressure to suppress the ordination of married men was precipitated in all cases when our Churches existed as a minority in Latin areas). Even in this century, the pressure from Latin clergy on our clergy and people in the U.S. has led to sometimes disastrous circumstances, as with the outfall of Cum data fuerit. Luckily this unfortunate decree has sunset and no longer exists in force anywhere in the world, having not been renewed after the expiration of its last 10-year renewal period by Pope Pius XII.

As most of our seminarians were studying in Latin institutions in those lands (our own seminaries being tightly controlled or outrightly banned), they could not but be influenced when they were refused to be allowed to celebrate their own services, and were constantly being barraged with the idea of praestantia ritus Latinae. So instead of being allowed to study the Greek fathers and their own liturgical tradition, they studied Latin theological and liturgical curricula. They were then a product of their formation and education when introducing latinization(s).

Some latinization(s) were also introduced by Latin clergy working with or around our people, again with the external pressure that certain Latin devotions and ideas were manifestations of being Catholic. Polemic works by Latins about “inferiorities” of our Rite were also not uncommon during these times, such as Skarga - these usually as much an ethnic invective against the Ukrainians as they were theological or liturgical. Likewise Orthodox writers as well often wrote polemical works about our inferiority both ethnically and liturgically, implying the Ukrainian Greek Catholics led at best a “half-breed” existence amongst the Latins denying we could be Eastern at all.

Metropolitan Andrey was tireless in his efforts to counter the latinization(s) which were deeply set by that time, and is perhaps the greatest single figure in the reversal of latinization(s) for the Ukrainian Catholic Church. He suffered much for this, even within his own family, manifesting well the cultural and historical tensions and bias of the time. His family was one of those who had taken Polish citizenship in order to reclaim ancestral land and royalty (his father was a count) and had become Latin to do so, even though one of his ancestors was a great Metropolitan (Athanasius Sheptytsky) of the Ukrainian Catholic Church who was responsible for the construction of the great Cathedral of St. George in L’viv as well as restoring and rebuilding the international Marian shrine at Zarvanytsia.

When Metropolitan Andrey announced his intention as a young man to go back to his ancestral Ukrainian Catholic Church, his father threatened him with loss of inheritance and being disowned by the family. He followed his heart and conscience, became a Greek Catholic monk and later and became one of the greatest leaders of the Church. His brother followed suit, was later martyred under the Soviets and beatified by the universal Church (Klymenty Sheptytsky).

More recently, the anti-Latinization efforts have been greatly assisted by Rome herself starting with Leo XIII and especially with the work of Pope John Paul II - with some bumps in the road, Cum data fuerit being an unfortunate example. The progress made in the last half of the 20th century has been quite miraculous considering the very difficult history. We are not there yet, but Patriarch Lubomyr and the clergy I believe are leading us down the road guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[yeshua]

I seem to have heard conflicting accounts about this topic, so I’d like to get as good an answer as possible on the following questions. And of course I realise the history from church to another may vary greatly.

1.When was the peak period for Latinizations ?
2.Were they mandated, and if so by whom ?
3.Has anyone higher than a parish priest in the East ever been openly supportive of them ?
4.Have any Latinizations come about through the laity ?

                        Thanks

Greetings,

I was asked to come temorarily return to answer these strong questions in the case that fairness to history won’t be shown. I will only speak for my people, the Maronites:

(1) The Maronite church has been under a constant eye of Latinization since it’s formal union in the twelve century. Do limit the history of peaks is irresponsible, but in regards to the most damagaging periods, it would be safe to assume under the Papacy of Pope Leo X, as well as the papacies proceeding the Council of Trent. It was after Trent the Rome sent Jesuits to physically
enforce her Rite, violently in many cases.

(2) Papal decrees have enforced the Roman Rite and her theology onto the Maronite people since the Maronite re-discovery during the Crusades. In many cases, the Pope would refuse the pallium to Maronite Patriarchs (once Rome reinstated the Patriarchal office in the seventeenth century) unless he agreed to terms of liturgical and theological reform. In the early years, one Pope (his name escapes me) called Maronites “heretics” in need of theological renewal.

(3) Beyond the papacy, Latinizations have certainly been encouraged by Romanized Maronite clergy. In an effort to bring Rome to the people, Rome created a Maronite seminary and required Maronite priests to be trained there for some time. It was here that a lineage of Latinized priests, Bishops, and Patriarchs came forth, still honored today mostly by clergy in the diaspora. Due to the limitations placed on the Patriarchal office, the Maronite Patriarch’s authority is limited to only the liturgical facet of the Church outside of Lebanon, and thus Bishops in the diaspora (such as the United States) have a remarkable, and equally tragic, level of freedom. It is for this reason that the American Maronite Church is very unpopular in the homeland, often not even considered Maronite by the laity.

(4) Speaking of the laity, of course Latinizations have been encouraged by them, especially in the West. The generations of Maronite that have been born in the country often think that the Latinizations they experience are authentic Maronite traditions, and religiously defend them. There is also an unmeasured phenomena of Latin community that has either formally or informally changed rites, and their influence promoting Latinizations. Some things, like the rosary, which were first forced into the monastaries in the eighteenth century by Jesuits, are so engrained into the hearts of the laity that this latinization will not be removed.

Let me know if I can answer, or clarify, any more questions.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Diak]

Question 3:

For many of the cultural and historic reasons I cited above, yes, some of the higher clergy (bishops and archpriests) were indeed of the “latinizing” camps. At gatherings of Ukrainian Catholic bishops you could see everything from bishops in klobuk and full Eastern monastic garb to bishops with Latin cassocks, red sashes and zuccheto. Not so much anymore - many more beards, klobuks and mantiyas now.

Metropolitan Andrey, when he was compiling his masterful set of liturgical books called the “Ruthenian Rescension” (Recensionem Ruthenorum) actually requested the Oriental Congregation in Rome review and promulgate the books so his own latinized clergy would be bound to them, and not complain the Metropolitan was doing something that liturgically was not “Catholic” (several letters had already been written by one particular bishop to that effect).

The Congregation did just that after a careful scrutiny of the liturgical books lasting over a decade by a commission of liturgical scholars. Metropolitan Andrey did not live to see the completion of all of the series; but he did live to see his crowning achievement, the Ordo for celebrating Vespers, Matins, and the Divine Liturgies which is still the obligatory norm for the Ukrainian Catholic Church and is even used by some Orthodox churches informally because of its excellent presentation and content. This is an excellent example of Rome supporting our own internal efforts to reverse liturgical latinization(s).

 

[Diak]

Question 4: In some cases of private devotion, yes, but in fairness to the laity it is primarily a continuation of recent history which became immemorial custom to them (i.e. this is way my parents did it, etc.). The great majority were introduced by the clergy, whether our own or Latin.
FDRLB

n.b. Having answered the questions from my own Ukrainian Catholic perspective, I welcome other Eastern Catholic churches to give their perspectives as well.

 

[yeshua]

I seem to have heard conflicting accounts about this topic, so I’d like to get as good an answer as possible on the following questions. And of course I realise the history from church to another may vary greatly.

1.When was the peak period for Latinizations ?
2.Were they mandated, and if so by whom ?
3.Has anyone higher than a parish priest in the East ever been openly supportive of them ?
4.Have any Latinizations come about through the laity ?

                        Thanks

Greetings,

I was asked to temorarily return to answer these strong questions in the case that fairness to history won’t be shown. I will only speak for my people, the Maronites:

(1) The Maronite church has been under a constant eye of Latinization since it’s formal union in the twelfth century. To limit the history to peaks is irresponsible, but in regards to the most damagaging periods, it would be safe to assume under the Papacy of Pope Leo X, as well as the papacies proceeding the Council of Trent. It was after Trent the Rome sent Jesuits to physically
enforce her Rite, violently in many cases.

(2) Papal decrees have enforced the Roman Rite and her theology onto the Maronite people since the Maronite re-discovery during the Crusades. In the early years, one Pope (his name escapes me) called Maronites “heretics” in need of theological renewal. In many cases, the Pope would refuse the pallium to Maronite Patriarchs (once Rome reinstated the Patriarchal office in the seventeenth century) unless he agreed to terms of liturgical and theological reform. The most frequent tools, however, were Papal decrees and legates sent to the Maronite Patriarch. Only after Trent were missionaries sent into the Monastaries and candidates for the priesthood sent to Rome. Note that the Maronite people hold/held a symbiotic relationship with the monastaries, and rightly so their rule and tradition came from them. This was how the rosary, and devotionals, were propogated.

(3) Beyond the papacy, Latinizations have certainly been encouraged by Romanized Maronite clergy. In an effort to bring Rome to the people, Rome created a Maronite seminary and required Maronite priests to be trained there for some time. It was here that a lineage of Latinized priests, Bishops, and Patriarchs came forth, still honored today mostly by clergy in the diaspora. Due to the limitations placed on the Patriarchal office, the Maronite Patriarch’s authority is limited to only the liturgical facet of the Church outside of Lebanon, and thus Bishops in the diaspora (such as the United States) have a remarkable, and equally tragic, level of felxibity. It is for this reason that the American Maronite Church is very unpopular in the homeland, often not even considered authentically Maronite by the laity.

(4) Speaking of the laity, of course Latinizations have been encouraged by them, especially in the West. The generations of Maronites that have been born in this country often think that the Latinizations they experience are authentic Maronite traditions, and religiously defend them. There is also an unmeasured phenomena of Latin communities that have either formally or informally changed rites, and their influence promoting Latinizations. Some things, like the rosary, are so engrained into the hearts of the laity that this latinization will not be removed.

Let me know if I can answer, or clarify, any more questions.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Aramis]

Some Latinizations have less to do with Latins and more to do with improperly thinking Eastern Hierarchs.

The removal of Iconostasi at the orders of a particular Ruthenian Bishop were based upon a strong, but wrong, belief that the people should see all the work behind it.

A few parishes responded in the spirit of the order by using filigree iconostasi; others simply pulled theirs out.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The removal of Iconostasi at the orders of a particular Ruthenian Bishop were based upon a strong, but wrong, belief that the people should see all the work behind it.

If we are thinking of the same Ruthenian Bishop, he ended his days as an “auxiliary archbishop” in a Latin diocese.

 

[Aramis]

The removal of Iconostasi at the orders of a particular Ruthenian Bishop were based upon a strong, but wrong, belief that the people should see all the work behind it.

If we are thinking of the same Ruthenian Bishop, he ended his days as an “auxiliary archbishop” in a Latin diocese.

We are. His Grace, Archbishop-Titular Nicholas + Elko. I just could not pull the name up earlier.

It is quite apparent Rome didn’t agree with him doing what he did. He’s one of a very few Bishops recalled to Rome then prevented from returning to his see without being replaced or retired.

That being said, his goal was admirable, and if he’d insisted on filigree iconostasi, rather than none, I doubt he’d be as disliked, nor have been as harshly treated by Rome, and Ruthenians would have a very distinctive look… But he didn’t, he is, he was, and we do anyway!

 

[Hesychios]

The removal of Iconostasi at the orders of a particular Ruthenian Bishop were based upon a strong, but wrong, belief that the people should see all the work behind it.

If we are thinking of the same Ruthenian Bishop, he ended his days as an “auxiliary archbishop” in a Latin diocese.

He came out of the seminary and was ordained a priest in 1934, during the stormy days of the controversy which would eventually result in the formation and departure of ACROD over the renewed suppression of Eastern Catholic traditions.

His reign as Archbishop from Pittsburgh began in 1955, and ended in 1967 with his resignation.

He spent four years in Rome, ordaining priests for the Byzantine-Slavonic Rites.

Somehow, the Pope decided to send him to serve the Roman Catholics of Cinncinnati: 1971 to 1985. Oddly, the Ruthenian champion of latinization wound up latinized himself.

Vicnaja Pamjat, Archbishop Nicholas Elko.

http://www.archeparchy.org/grfx/photos/elko.gif

 

[mgy100]

Not everything that is label a latinization is indeed a latinization. Small traditions very over time and from place to place. The church is organic and it customs sometimes change with the people, the church is a living being, it is not affixed to one ideal place in time.
At no point was the church NOT influenced by non-Orthodox people.
I can see certainly the big latinizations such as removal of the icon screens, first communions at the age of 6, etc…
But I like my handbells at Liturgy. I don’t care if the people want to kneel on Sundays. I could go on and on, but I’m glad people are in church! There is a huge list of things that could be listed as latinizations that are indeed in fact just Carpatho-mountain small traditions. One example is the dismissal prayers, the singing of Blahodarim Tja ( I think) in Presanctified, I mean, we could spend the rest of the night pointing the differences out… oh the Communion prayer, the way a Deacon and the priest stand when they elevate the Holy Gifts.
Some of the practices should not be stamped out, as they are not latinizations.
Some practices such as the replacement of the less than desirable iconography is being phased out as money and time warrants.
The bishops that are the leaders of the American Carpathian people, Lemkos, Rusyns,… have made great changes in removing true latinizations and maintaining the Carpathian small traditions.

 

[Seamus_L]

Thanks Woodstock, Diak, Yeshua, Aramis, Bpbasilphx, Hesychios and Mgy 100. Some very good answers. I don’t think this necessarily contradicts your claims, but a few things I had heard from various sources over the years (not positive they’re completely accurate) is that a number of Latinizations took place in Western Ukraine and Ruthenia in the late 17th century. Supposedly a few even found there way into the Orthodox Church there (need confirmation)
I do know for certain that in the worst days of Soviet Communism, that Ukrainian Catholic emigres moved closer to the Roman Catholic Church because of some very negative perceptions about the Orthodox Church in the USSR. Whether or not this led to definite Latinizations in the UGCC though, I'm unaware.

 

[Aramis]

Thanks Woodstock, Diak, Yeshua, Aramis, Bpbasilphx, Hesychios and Mgy 100. Some very good answers. I don’t think this necessarily contradicts your claims, but a few things I had heard from various sources over the years (not positive they’re completely accurate) is that a number of Latinizations took place in Western Ukraine and Ruthenia in the late 17th century. Supposedly a few even found there way into the Orthodox Church there (need confirmation)

I’ve seen evidence of some latinizations amongst the Ukrainian Orthodox. Western Cassocks amongst them… it’s the most obvious one, especially in a particular church that is part of the Moscow Patriarchate.

 

[Diak]

I’ve seen some pictures in GCU books from Bishop Elko’s time of ACROD and Ruthenian priests together - one could not tell who was who from the clean-shaven faces, Roman collars and cassocks.

 

[Ungcsertez]

He came out of the seminary and was ordained a priest in 1934, during the stormy days of the controversy which would eventually result in the formation and departure of ACROD over the renewed suppression of Eastern Catholic traditions.

His reign as Archbishop from Pittsburgh began in 1955, and ended in 1967 with his resignation.

He spent four years in Rome, ordaining priests for the Byzantine-Slavonic Rites.

Somehow, the Pope decided to send him to serve the Roman Catholics of Cinncinnati: 1971 to 1985. Oddly, the Ruthenian champion of latinization wound up latinized himself.

Vicnaja Pamjat, Archbishop Nicholas Elko.

http://www.archeparchy.org/grfx/photos/elko.gif

Bishop Nicholas T. Elko wasn’t an Archbishop for the Ruthenians, but Exarch for the Ruthenian Exarchate. The first Metropolitan-Archbishop was Most Rev. Stephen J. Kocisko. He came to the Exarchate in 1968, and one year later, Rome raised the Exarchate to the rank of Archeparchy for the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church and he was elevated to the rank of Metropolitan Archbishop.

Ung

 

[Hesychios]

I had heard from various sources over the years (not positive they’re completely accurate) is that a number of Latinizations took place in Western Ukraine and Ruthenia in the late 17th century. Supposedly a few even found there way into the Orthodox Church there (need confirmation)

This is true…
From the synod of Zamosc onward the adoption of Latin concepts was a policy of the Union of Brest. I find it odd that they would find it necessary to formally forbid the use of the sponge, of all things, and the hot water. This is not an organic development, nor an addition, but a deliberate formal act of eradication of traditional Orthodox sacramental practice. (I guess if Latin priests aren’t using a sponge, the Orthodox don’t need one either, according to this logic. I would really like to see a text of their discussions.)

It is also important to remember that the Union of Brest involved bishops in areas that are predominatedly Orthodox today, an area that in some directions extends into modern Russia. So most Belorussian and Ukrainian Orthodox have ancestors who were under the Unia for a time. While altar practices would now be fully Orthodox, the believers in the nave may be hanging on to practices adopted after Brest, and accepted through economia by the bishops and clergy.

Interestingly, the Orthodox bishops in areas with higher concentrations of Polish population and closer to Krakow and Warsaw actually refused to participate in the Unia originally. L’viv, as well as Cholm, famously waited about 80 years, or three to four generations to sign on to Brest. The L’viv region is today pretty well acknowledged as the heartland of Ukrainian Catholicism, and the most latinized, most of the rest long since having returned to Orthodoxy.

 

[Hesychios]

Bishop Nicholas T. Elko wasn’t an Archbishop for the Ruthenians, but Exarch for the Ruthenian Exarchate.

Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose then that the erection of Passaic followed or accompanied the change or the Ruthenian Exarchate of Pittsburgh to an Archeparchy.

Would you be able to describe the actual difference in rights and responsibilities between an exarch and an eparch? Is it a change in dignity only, or something more substantial?

It looks quite likely then, that His Grace Elko received a promotion when he was named an Archbishop of the Roman Catholic church.

Thanks,
Michael

 

[Ungcsertez]

This is true…
From the synod of Zamosc onward the adoption of Latin concepts was a policy of the Union of Brest. I find it odd that they would find it necessary to formally forbid the use of the sponge, of all things, and the hot water. This is not an organic development, nor an addition, but a deliberate formal act of eradication of traditional Orthodox sacramental practice. (I guess if Latin priests aren’t using a sponge, the Orthodox don’t need one either, according to this logic. I would really like to see a text of their discussions.)

It is also important to remember that the Union of Brest involved bishops in areas that are predominatedly Orthodox today, an area that in some directions extends into modern Russia. So most Belorussian and Ukrainian Orthodox have ancestors who were under the Unia for a time. While altar practices would now be fully Orthodox, the believers in the nave may be hanging on to practices adopted after Brest, and accepted through economia by the bishops and clergy.

Interestingly, the Orthodox bishops in areas with higher concentrations of Polish population and closer to Krakow and Warsaw actually refused to participate in the Unia originally. L’viv, as well as Cholm, famously waited about 80 years, or three to four generations to sign on to Brest. The L’viv region is today pretty well acknowledged as the heartland of Ukrainian Catholicism, and the most latinized, most of the rest long since having returned to Orthodoxy.

Was not Peremyshl the last Eparchy to accept the Brest Union?

Ung