Re: Maronites and "Latinizations"

[YoungTradCath]

Despite the fact that Rome seems to be moving slowly towards it, I doubt any formal “reform of the reform” in the Latin church will make much difference to the Maronites. They’re hell-bent on pursuing their chosen path. The only thing that might stop the blood-letting is a direct intervention by Rome saying STOP THIS MADNESS RIGHT NOW! Other than than, I fear that we (meaning the Maronite Church) are doomed.

The above taken from another thread.

Is there any sort of comprehensive thread here or a website that talks about this and explains it, along with the Maronites’ current leadership’s practical responses? I am very interested, because even though I am a Latin (incidentally greatly preferring the EF of the Roman Rite), I am greatly interested in the Eastern Rites, but I fear a “same old, same old” thing going on, if you know what I mean.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The above taken from another thread.

Is there any sort of comprehensive thread here or a website that talks about this and explains it, along with the Maronites’ current leadership’s practical responses? I am very interested, because even though I am a Latin (incidentally greatly preferring the EF of the Roman Rite), I am greatly interested in the Eastern Rites, but I fear a “same old, same old” thing going on, if you know what I mean.

Every Church has problems, there is no perfect Church. Sometimes our problems are different, in this case it is the same.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Every Church has problems, there is no perfect Church. Sometimes our problems are different, in this case it is the same.

True, but there has to be a “most liturgically faithful Church” or something. I am interested in learning about where the individual Churches fall on that spectrum, so that I can analyze what contemporary or not-so-contemporary cultural oddities contribute to poor liturgy. Perhaps this is a worthless endeavor, perhaps not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

True, but there has to be a “most liturgically faithful Church” or something. I am interested in learning about where the individual Churches fall on that spectrum, so that I can analyze what contemporary or not-so-contemporary cultural oddities contribute to poor liturgy. Perhaps this is a worthless endeavor, perhaps not.

You can look at Latinizations as either an abuse, or just a natural evolution to being in communion with such an influential Church as Rome. It really is difficult to maintain your identity when a lot of people in your own Church don’t even have the desire to preserve such Liturgical tradition. Its not that they are modernitst or something, but to them being Catholic is just being Catholic, and Roman or Maronite or Ukrainian doesn’t matter. And a lot of Latinizations is just about keeping up with the RC parish down the street and people just prefer the anticipated Mass or the pews or the recited Liturgy, etc. As long as our parishioners have the option to go to Mass instead of our own Liturgy, Latinizations won’t stop.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You can look at Latinizations as either an abuse, or just a natural evolution to being in communion with such an influential Church as Rome. It really is difficult to maintain your identity when a lot of people in your own Church don’t even have the desire to preserve such Liturgical tradition. Its not that they are modernitst or something, but to them being Catholic is just being Catholic, and Roman or Maronite or Ukrainian doesn’t matter. And a lot of Latinizations is just about keeping up with the RC parish down the street and people just prefer the anticipated Mass or the pews or the recited Liturgy, etc. As long as our parishioners have the option to go to Mass instead of our own Liturgy, Latinizations won’t stop.

True that, even when the Latin is your own Church! Two ways of looking at the bolded statement.

I would like the Eastern Churches to return to their own proper liturgical practices, if that is what they (officially…) want. Something that pains me is that, within the Latin Church before Vatican II, there was a great number of Rites and Uses. Now there are like three, and only two commonly in use. Ironically, so much richness has been lost.

 

[patrick457]

True that, even when the Latin is your own Church! Two ways of looking at the bolded statement.

I would like the Eastern Churches to return to their own proper liturgical practices, if that is what they (officially…) want. Something that pains me is that, within the Latin Church before Vatican II, there was a great number of Rites and Uses. Now there are like three, and only two commonly in use. Ironically, so much richness has been lost.

There were more before Trent. Many rites and uses fell into disuse either because they were a suppressed (Quo Primum for example abolished rites that were less than 200 years old at the time of promulgation) or, more commonly, because people just stopped using them. The latter was often the case post-VII: a number of religious orders abandoned many of their own particular liturgical practices in favor of the Roman.

Back in the Middle Ages, there was a sort of pressure to make the Western Church to follow only one Rite, that of the Roman. The Gallican rites disappeared because the Franks made the Roman rite to be the only one in use in their domains (ironically, Gallican practices fused with the original Roman rite during the process, giving us the ‘Roman’ rite and chant we know today; this hybrid made its way back to Rome, where it supplanted its original parent!); the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites survived because their practitioners actively protested against this move, although they would also eventually be increasingly ‘Romanized’.

 

[Denho]

True, but there has to be a “most liturgically faithful Church” or something. I am interested in learning about where the individual Churches fall on that spectrum, so that I can analyze what contemporary or not-so-contemporary cultural oddities contribute to poor liturgy. Perhaps this is a worthless endeavor, perhaps not.

If you can quantify such things, which isn’t exactly a science, the Syro-Malankara Church is most likely the most “pure” ritual Church mainly because they are the Church that was most recently reconciled with Rome. This isn’t absolute and I am sure you can find parishes of the Syro-Malankara Church that do some interesting things.

The whole idea of “latinization” has a long and storied history. it isn’t just regarding rubrics and externals. The internal structure of various sacramental rites have been butchered and replaced with Latin forms: the Maronites currently use the Tridentine form for Absolution and have “vows” inserted into the Crowning ritual, etc, etc. These are the current books in English, the Arabic “revisions” that have been released recently are even worse - any reference to Biblical imagery in the Crowning ritual has been removed - poor Abraham, Sarah, Rebecca, and Jacob. The Baptismal liturgy is a shadow of its former self, aka the Short form was shortened and thats what is given.

Ramsho/Vespers or Safro/Orthros/Lauds in a Parish? Try the Novena to the Sacred Heart and Benediction of the Sacrament.

Then there is the spirituality and theology - or lack thereof. You will be hard pressed to find many Maronite clergy who can tell you anything substantial about Ephrem, or Jacob of Serug, or Isaac the Syrian, or Maron, or John Maron, or anyone else really. They will, however, be able to tell you the entire life story of St Therese or the Cure d’Ars in intimate detail. You’ll hear a lot about transubstantiation and original sin and validity/licitness and lots of other wonderful scholastic things - unless they are a fan of Rahner, de Lubac, or Chardin, of course.

To be blunt, it is all a farce. There is no restoration, its all smoke and mirrors. And the hierarchy in Lebanon is more than happy to play their violins as the ship sinks around them.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

All of the previous post, and the various things our friend Malphono has mentioned, makes me extremely sad, especially since I’m about to move my family to an area where our beloved Melkites are not available, and we’ll only have the option of Maronite, Roman, or Orthodox.

I have the three volume set of Maronite Liturgy of the Hours (well, Ramsho and Safro). Apart from the rather infelicitous and unpoetic translation, I really like it and would love to see/hear it celebrated in Maronite parishes. But I suppose that’s just a pipe dream.

 

[YoungTradCath]

To be blunt, it is all a farce. There is no restoration, its all smoke and mirrors. And the hierarchy in Lebanon is more than happy to play their violins as the ship sinks around them.

:’(

 

[Denho]

All of the previous post, and the various things our friend Malphono has mentioned, makes me extremely sad, especially since I’m about to move my family to an area where our beloved Melkites are not available, and we’ll only have the option of Maronite, Roman, or Orthodox.

I have the three volume set of Maronite Liturgy of the Hours (well, Ramsho and Safro). Apart from the rather infelicitous and unpoetic translation, I really like it and would love to see/hear it celebrated in Maronite parishes. But I suppose that’s just a pipe dream.

The parish in Austin prays Safro before their Liturgy on Sunday. My home parish prays Ramsho on a regular basis. It is hit or miss, mostly miss.

If one can forgive the unsingability of the translation of the qolae, the unfortunate synaxxaria, and the absolutely God-awful binding and type-setting, some of the Hoosoyae are rather nice.

The clergy can barely get themselves through it during conferences. The psalms are chanted in a pseudo-latin psalm tone and none of the hymns are formatted in a way that they can actually be used as such.

They are working on a new version with some more music… but I shudder to think of what else they could do to the offices to “reform” them.

 

[patrick457]

If you can quantify such things, which isn’t exactly a science, the Syro-Malankara Church is most likely the most “pure” ritual Church mainly because they are the Church that was most recently reconciled with Rome. This isn’t absolute and I am sure you can find parishes of the Syro-Malankara Church that do some interesting things.

The whole idea of “latinization” has a long and storied history. it isn’t just regarding rubrics and externals. The internal structure of various sacramental rites have been butchered and replaced with Latin forms: the Maronites currently use the Tridentine form for Absolution and have “vows” inserted into the Crowning ritual, etc, etc. These are the current books in English, the Arabic “revisions” that have been released recently are even worse - any reference to Biblical imagery in the Crowning ritual has been removed - poor Abraham, Sarah, Rebecca, and Jacob. The Baptismal liturgy is a shadow of its former self, aka the Short form was shortened and thats what is given.

Ramsho/Vespers or Safro/Orthros/Lauds in a Parish? Try the Novena to the Sacred Heart and Benediction of the Sacrament.

Then there is the spirituality and theology - or lack thereof. You will be hard pressed to find many Maronite clergy who can tell you anything substantial about Ephrem, or Jacob of Serug, or Isaac the Syrian, or Maron, or John Maron, or anyone else really. They will, however, be able to tell you the entire life story of St Therese or the Cure d’Ars in intimate detail. You’ll hear a lot about transubstantiation and original sin and validity/licitness and lots of other wonderful scholastic things - unless they are a fan of Rahner, de Lubac, or Chardin, of course.

To be blunt, it is all a farce. There is no restoration, its all smoke and mirrors. And the hierarchy in Lebanon is more than happy to play their violins as the ship sinks around them.

Asking as a Latin (Roman), where did the whole process of ‘Latinization’ spring from anyway?

 

[MorEphrem]

The parish in Austin prays Safro before their Liturgy on Sunday. My home parish prays Ramsho on a regular basis. It is hit or miss, mostly miss.

If one can forgive the unsingability of the translation of the qolae, the unfortunate synaxxaria, and the absolutely God-awful binding and type-setting, some of the Hoosoyae are rather nice.

The clergy can barely get themselves through it during conferences. The psalms are chanted in a pseudo-latin psalm tone and none of the hymns are formatted in a way that they can actually be used as such.

It’s all so very true. Why the offices are chanted in gregorian chant and the sooghite, qole and mazmoore are only spoken are beyond me.

They are working on a new version with some more music… but I shudder to think of what else they could do to the offices to “reform” them.

I have an idea, let’s try the Hail Mary in Arabic… that’s an authentically Maronite hymn, right? A major obstacle in my opinion is the fact that most Maronites (or at least in the US) don’t really know what Syriac even sounds like. I was told by a certain priest that he had a parish concert and he had one song sung in Syriac. Apparently everyone was confused as to what that weird language was.

Asking as a Latin (Roman), where did the whole process of ‘Latinization’ spring from anyway?

For the Maronites, it’s a post-Crusade phenomenon done to try to prove how loyal we are to the Pope because apparently it’s been extremely important for us to prove that we were in continual union despite geographic and political boundaries for a few centuries. This is when Latin vestments, unleavened bread and the like were introduced. I forget exactly where I read it (I feel it was something written by Bishop Stephen Hector Doueihi), but even the formula for our myron was criticized as being comprised improperly and had to be amended to bring us into orthodoxy.

I’d say our church had truly opened Pandora’s Box with the liturgical reform of the 70s.

 

[Aramis]

True that, even when the Latin is your own Church! Two ways of looking at the bolded statement.

I would like the Eastern Churches to return to their own proper liturgical practices, if that is what they (officially…) want. Something that pains me is that, within the Latin Church before Vatican II, there was a great number of Rites and Uses. Now there are like three, and only two commonly in use. Ironically, so much richness has been lost.

What they want, unless it is delatinization, is immaterial. Multiple popes, starting in the late 19th C, have instructed the eastern churches to delatinize.

 

[Denho]

What they want, unless it is delatinization, is immaterial. Multiple popes, starting in the late 19th C, have instructed the eastern churches to delatinize.

The irony of the whole thing is that in order to treat the Eastern Churches with a more “hands off” interaction, they left the Maronites to their own devices - a free license to self destruct. It’s a bitter moment begging for “Mother Knows Best - Rome” to sweep in and stop an out of control process of “reform” while also wanting more autonomy for the Eastern Churches.

Rome can issue guidelines all they want. It is falling on ears that only hear what they want to hear.

I’ve actually heard in regards to one of the Instructions on how to implement Liturgical Reform from a Maronite priest: “Oh, that only applies to those churches who have Orthodox counterparts.” :banghead::banghead:

 

[malphono]

It’s all so very true. Why the offices are chanted in gregorian chant and the sooghite, qole and mazmoore are only spoken are beyond me.

Yes, that’s true, but would it be better to use the less-than-authentic neo-Maronite chant style currently in vogue at Mass? For all the hype, the emanations from the “music commission” are far from stellar.

I have an idea, let’s try the Hail Mary in Arabic… that’s an authentically Maronite hymn, right? A major obstacle in my opinion is the fact that most Maronites (or at least in the US) don’t really know what Syriac even sounds like. I was told by a certain priest that he had a parish concert and he had one song sung in Syriac. Apparently everyone was confused as to what that weird language was.

The majority in Lebanon are probably worse these days than their US counterparts.

For the Maronites, it’s a post-Crusade phenomenon done to try to prove how loyal we are to the Pope because apparently it’s been extremely important for us to prove that we were in continual union despite geographic and political boundaries for a few centuries. This is when Latin vestments, unleavened bread and the like were introduced.

To be fair, the Latin vestments came because of a need. When it was reported to Pope Flan (I don’t remember which one) by an emissary that the Maronites were basically using tattered rags, he collected used vestments from Rome and sent them. The intent was good, but of course it did cause a little problem. Interesting, though, that despite the trend, Syriac-style vestments didn’t completely disappear.

Whether or not the use of unleavened bread is actually a latinization is debatable, although I will agree it’s exclusive use is. IIRC, there are some sources that claim both leavened and unleavened was used in the early centuries.

I’d say our church had truly opened Pandora’s Box with the liturgical reform of the 70s.

No question about that.

 

[malphono]

The irony of the whole thing is that in order to treat the Eastern Churches with a more “hands off” interaction, they left the Maronites to their own devices - a free license to self destruct. It’s a bitter moment begging for “Mother Knows Best - Rome” to sweep in and stop an out of control process of “reform” while also wanting more autonomy for the Eastern Churches.

Rome can issue guidelines all they want. It is falling on ears that only hear what they want to hear.

I’ve actually heard in regards to one of the Instructions on how to implement Liturgical Reform from a Maronite priest: “Oh, that only applies to those churches who have Orthodox counterparts.” :banghead::banghead:

Indeed. I hate to say it, but it’s all true.

That “commission” has been out of control for at least 20 years now, and it gets worse by the day. And as it does, so we draw closer and closer to the inevitable end.

Maybe what we need is a strong emergency dose of a Maronite version of Summorum Pontificum before all is lost …

 

[malphono]

The whole idea of “latinization” has a long and storied history. it isn’t just regarding rubrics and externals. The internal structure of various sacramental rites have been butchered and replaced with Latin forms: the Maronites currently use the Tridentine form for Absolution and have “vows” inserted into the Crowning ritual, etc, etc. These are the current books in English, the Arabic “revisions” that have been released recently are even worse - any reference to Biblical imagery in the Crowning ritual has been removed - poor Abraham, Sarah, Rebecca, and Jacob. The Baptismal liturgy is a shadow of its former self, aka the Short form was shortened and thats what is given.

To be fair, the 1942 Ritual kept the “vows” for one reason: Rome would never have given its approbation otherwise. (And even so, Moran Mor Antonious Petrous promulgated without final Roman approbation – there were still some disputes about Chrismation etc. That act was one of the reasons he was targeted a few years later, but I digress.)

In any case, the 1942 Ritual was, as a whole, a remarkable work of restoration. That is has recently been tampered with is a crime.

Ramsho/Vespers or Safro/Orthros/Lauds in a Parish? Try the Novena to the Sacred Heart and Benediction of the Sacrament.

Or how about the newly-minted “Chaplet of S Charbel”?

To be blunt, it is all a farce. There is no restoration, its all smoke and mirrors. And the hierarchy in Lebanon is more than happy to play their violins as the ship sinks around them.

I wouldn’t limit the last sentence to Lebanon. It’s the hierarchy in general.

 

[Aramis]

The irony of the whole thing is that in order to treat the Eastern Churches with a more “hands off” interaction, they left the Maronites to their own devices - a free license to self destruct. It’s a bitter moment begging for “Mother Knows Best - Rome” to sweep in and stop an out of control process of “reform” while also wanting more autonomy for the Eastern Churches.

Rome can issue guidelines all they want. It is falling on ears that only hear what they want to hear.

I’ve actually heard in regards to one of the Instructions on how to implement Liturgical Reform from a Maronite priest: “Oh, that only applies to those churches who have Orthodox counterparts.” :banghead::banghead:

The UGCC was likewise left to its own devices as well… resulting in a latinized liturgy AFTER explicit discouragement of same was issued…

At this place it is opportune to notice the fact that the sacred rites, although not instituted specifically for proving the truth of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith incontrovertibly, are effectively the living voice of Catholic Truth, the oft-sounded expression of it. For that very reason the true Church of Christ, even as she shows great zeal to guard inviolate those forms of divine worship - since they are hallowed and are not to be changed - sometimes grants or permits something novel in the performance of them in certain instances. This she does especially when they are in conformity with their venerable antiquity. By this means, her vitality does not appear ever-aging; she stands out more wondrously as the very Bride of Christ whom the wisdom of the Holy Fathers recognized in prefigurement in the words of David: The queen stood at your right hand arrayed in apparel embroidered with spun gold she is clothed with embroidery of diverse figures and spun gold fringe2.

Inasmuch as this diversity of liturgical form and discipline of the Eastern Churches is approved in law, besides its other merits, it has redounded tremendously to the glory and usefulness of the Church. They ought not figure any less as subjects of Our charge. **So much is this the case that it is in the best interest of all that their discipline not haphazardly borrow anything that would be ill-suited from Western ministers of the Gospel whom love for Christ compels to go to those peoples. **The decisions that Our illustrious Predecessor Benedict XIV in his wisdom and foresight decreed in the Constitution of 24 December 1743 remain in force. This constitution was addressed as a letter to the Greek Melkite Patriarch of Antioch and to all the Bishops of that rite subject to him. The truth is that in the long course of time, given that the state of affairs has changed in those regions, that Latin rite missionaries and institutes have multiplied there as well, it now happens that some of the special concerns of the Apostolic See on the new conditions should be set out.

(HH Leo XIII, Orientalium Dignitas, 30 Nov. 1894. Emphasis mine.)

And the UGCC’s disobedience in that matter lead to formation of the SSJK, and their later excommunication for disobedience in clinging to that latinized liturgy. Hopefully, similar fate doesn’t fall upon the Maronites.

 

[babochka]

True, but there has to be a “most liturgically faithful Church” or something. I am interested in learning about where the individual Churches fall on that spectrum, so that I can analyze what contemporary or not-so-contemporary cultural oddities contribute to poor liturgy. Perhaps this is a worthless endeavor, perhaps not.

I think it varies widely from parish to parish (perhaps regionally) within each jurisdiction. I have heard that the Melkites have made the most overall progress toward shedding their latinizations. I have attended a Chaldean liturgy and my Iraqi companion assured me that there were no latinizations, but I don’t know enough about how their liturgy is supposed to be to judge that. The church seemed pretty Latin to me, with statues and stations of the cross, but the liturgy was sung and celebrated ad orientam.

I have little personal experience outside of Ruthenian and Ukrainian parishes in California, but we’re doing pretty well out here. I’ve never seen a spoken liturgy or stations of the cross. My parish, at least, has practiced infant communion since we were founded in 1966. I’ve seen Holy Water fonts in one church, but I believe they are no longer there. One monastery out here celebrates the feast of St. Joseph on March 19, which is really strange.

Of course, the Ruthenian revised Divine Liturgy is problematic, particularly with the Anaphora prayed out loud. I thought we were unique in that, but I recently attended the anniversary celebration of a local Ukrainian parish, and I was surprised to hear the Bishop pray most of the the Anaphora aloud.

More insidious than liturgical latinizations is latinization of the mind. That runs rampant. My priest has said that he knows little of Eastern theology, in spite of having attended an Eastern seminary. They were required to memorize the Roman Canon, but not even offered the opportunity to study Eastern theology in depth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Indeed. I hate to say it, but it’s all true.

That “commission” has been out of control for at least 20 years now, and it gets worse by the day. And as it does, so we draw closer and closer to the inevitable end.

Maybe what we need is a strong emergency dose of a Maronite version of Summorum Pontificum before all is lost …

Or one priest who is strong willed enough and a community who will support him. Similar to what St. Elias is to the UGCC. I know a number of bishops and priests want to follow that lead but many of the laity don’t want to change their Latinized ways. So it has to be a strong willed priest and an extremely supportive community.