Re: Maronites and "Latinizations"

[YoungTradCath]

Question:

Why are the laity so attached to Latin practice? If it is a matter of conditioning, I can somewhat understand. But if it is a matter of “doing it the Latin way is easier,” or something, that seems a bit odd to me. A properly celebrated liturgy according to a Rite of the Latin Church–even according to the Pauline Missal–is quite difficult to choreograph, is quite formal, is very mysterious and otherworldly.

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but what is problematic about an audible anaphora?

 

[babochka]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but what is problematic about an audible anaphora?

Because it is not the regular practice of any Orthodox church, it sets the Ruthenian church apart from our Orthodox counterparts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Question:

Why are the laity so attached to Latin practice? If it is a matter of conditioning, I can somewhat understand. But if it is a matter of “doing it the Latin way is easier,” or something, that seems a bit odd to me. A properly celebrated liturgy according to a Rite of the Latin Church–even according to the Pauline Missal–is quite difficult to choreograph, is quite formal, is very mysterious and otherworldly.

Part of it is poor catechesis. To them a Catholic is a Catholic and the differences are actually a product of cultural differences, not Liturgical tradition. And this is true at least from my own personal experience, some Ukrainian Catholics believe we have a different “Mass” because we’re Ukrainian (culturally), not because of a different ritual tradition.

The other is that it is just the way it is when they were brought up. Their parents knelt for the Anaphora and that is how they were taught, why would they stand up for the Anaphora today?

And the other is as you have stated it, they found the Latin expression much better and the priest and/or bishop fearing they will leave an already dying parish would rather succumb to their whims just to keep the parish going for a few more years, than lose whatever amount of financial aid the contribute to the parish. And it doesn’t help that many RC priests are unaware of any of the canons that govern the sui juris Churches. So if an Eastern Catholic woman wants her father to walk her down the aisle intead of the priest walking the couple towards the iconostas, they will tell the priest to either do what they want or they’ll just go down the block and get married in the RC parish.

Not that I do not mean that any or all of these happens always and everywhere. It does happen, not always, not everywhere, but it does happen.

 

[malphono]

Question:

Why are the laity so attached to Latin practice? If it is a matter of conditioning, I can somewhat understand. But if it is a matter of “doing it the Latin way is easier,” or something, that seems a bit odd to me.

On the part of the laity, it’s by and large a matter of conditioning (perhaps “indoctrination” might be more apropos but it amounts to the same thing). In the case of the Maronites, at least, the problem did not start with the laity. It worked its way down to the laity. This process has gone on for some 40 years, but in contrast to the Latin Church, it started out softly, then it came with ever increasing zeal. At this point, the majority of the laity have little or no knowledge of what came before the continuing crescendo of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations, much less any idea of how things should have been restored.

As for the clergy, the answer is a little more complicated, but it still revolves around indoctrination. Plus a bad, unhealthy does of “monkey-see, monkey-do” syndrome. They watched the post-conciliar liturgical free-for-all in the Latin Church and eventually hopped on the bandwagon. It’s a case where the pupil outdoes the teacher: they’ve become worse than their mentors. Sad, but true.

NB: I would be remiss if I did not add that there are notable exceptions to the trend among the laity, and even some among the clergy. But all are officially ignored (or worse) and the blood-letting continues…

 

[babochka]

Question:

Why are the laity so attached to Latin practice? If it is a matter of conditioning, I can somewhat understand. But if it is a matter of “doing it the Latin way is easier,” or something, that seems a bit odd to me. A properly celebrated liturgy according to a Rite of the Latin Church–even according to the Pauline Missal–is quite difficult to choreograph, is quite formal, is very mysterious and otherworldly.

In some cases, it is because they view it as legitimate tradition. “That’s the way we’ve always done it.” It is hard to take someone out of their comfort zone. There was great resistance to the restoration of infant communion, not for any theological reason, but because the kids (and their parents) would miss out a special ceremony that had social meaning. Sometimes, in the old country, where animosity exists between Orthodox and Catholic, latinizations are often what distinguish the Greek Catholics. They don’t want to identify so closely with the Orthodox.

Conditioning is an important aspect of it as well. I grew up in a parish with very few latinizations, but we did kneel for the Eucharistic prayer, I was very uncomfortable when we stopped kneeling. It just didn’t seem right. If you’ve been used to praying the Stations of the Cross every Friday during Lent for your whole life, it seems unnecessary and a little weird to start having the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts instead. If you’re used to not having an iconostasis, you might wonder why on earth Father would want to block your view by putting up a wall with a bunch of icons on it.

 

[RyanBlack]

Because it is not the regular practice of any Orthodox church, it sets the Ruthenian church apart from our Orthodox counterparts.

Personally, it’s one way in which I’m glad to be set apart from common, though certainly not universal, Orthodox practice. I agree with no rationale I’ve ever heard or read for having an inaudible anaphora.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I see. Am I correct in saying that one difficulty could be that the liturgical intricacies of the Eastern Rites are much more obscure than those of, say, the Roman Rite? It is very easy to find copies of the preconciliar Roman liturgical books, even rarer ones like the Caeremoniale and Pontificale. And if you can’t find physical copies, it’s quite easy to find them on Google Books. From what I can tell, the older Eastern liturgical books are extremely rare, even digitized copies.

There are lots of old ceremonial actions, rubrics and customs that are contained within this or that book on the Roman Rite. It seems to me that the intellectual resources that can be used in a de-Latinization or re-Easternization of the Eastern Rites are very rare, or no longer exist.

The traditionalist Latin movement is quite vibrant now and shows no signs of dying; on the contrary, it is expanding all the time. It strikes me that the leadership of the Eastern Churches need to issue a document similar to that great emancipation proclamation, Summorum Pontificum, or, if it comes to it, the Pope himself. Would you like that?

It is rather depressing for me to discover that there is a large group of Easterners who don’t want to de-Latinize. That just seems very silly.

 

[malphono]

I see. Am I correct in saying that one difficulty could be that the liturgical intricacies of the Eastern Rites are much more obscure than those of, say, the Roman Rite? It is very easy to find copies of the preconciliar Roman liturgical books, even rarer ones like the Caeremoniale and Pontificale …

It seems to me that the intellectual resources that can be used in a de-Latinization or re-Easternization of the Eastern Rites are very rare, or no longer exist.

Well, while they’re almost as rare as hen’s teeth, many things do exist.

The traditionalist Latin movement is quite vibrant now and shows no signs of dying; on the contrary, it is expanding all the time. It strikes me that the leadership of the Eastern Churches need to issue a document similar to that great emancipation proclamation, Summorum Pontificum, or, if it comes to it, the Pope himself. Would you like that?

As a few of us have said during the course of this thread: it couldn’t hurt.

It is rather depressing for me to discover that there is a large group of Easterners who don’t want to de-Latinize. That just seems very silly.

At least among the Maronites, it’s not so much those who don’t want do de-latinize, but rather those who want to re-latinize (meaning those who are hot-to-trot with Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations). Therein lies the problem.

I’ll add that I think it’s difficult for someone looking in to quite capture the nuances of what goes on. Situations are different from Church to Church. IOW, what applies to the Maronites doesn’t necessarily apply the same way to, e.g. the UGCC. But the thread topic is about the Maronite Church, and so I confine my remarks to it.

 

[patrick457]

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.

Come to think of it, this is also the same principle behind the extinction and the ‘Romanization’ of the different liturgical rites in the West in the Middle Ages: as the Roman Rite began to spread beyond its original confines, it would have been only a matter of time before the thinking that if you’re not ‘Roman’, you’re not Catholic would turn up. (And the irony is, the Roman Rite absorbed and developed local customs wherever it spread, giving us the ‘uses’.)

BTW, so far the Maronite liturgies I’ve seen on Youtube are said versus populum. Could a Maronite liturgy be said ad orientem or is the versus populum already a legislation?

 

[Aramis]

Because it is not the regular practice of any Orthodox church, it sets the Ruthenian church apart from our Orthodox counterparts.

I’ve certainly heard it done in Alaska… at Russian Orthodox village parishes. It’s said in Slavonic, and not overly loudly, but loud enough that it can be heard outside the windows.

 

[babochka]

I’ve certainly heard it done in Alaska… at Russian Orthodox village parishes. It’s said in Slavonic, and not overly loudly, but loud enough that it can be heard outside the windows.

Certainly it happens, sometimes by design and other times just because the people have finished singing their parts before the Anaphora is finished. Still, it is not the norm and it is certainly not mandated to be done aloud, as it is in the RDL.

 

[malphono]

BTW, so far the Maronite liturgies I’ve seen on Youtube are said versus populum. Could a Maronite liturgy be said ad orientem or is the versus populum already a legislation?

The versus populum table is perhaps the most obvious and egregious of the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations. However, even though it is what is most commonly seen and used these days, its use is NOT required.

 

[Aramis]

Certainly it happens, sometimes by design and other times just because the people have finished singing their parts before the Anaphora is finished. Still, it is not the norm and it is certainly not mandated to be done aloud, as it is in the RDL.

Not the norm, not mandated and not forbidden are not synonyms.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I see. Am I correct in saying that one difficulty could be that the liturgical intricacies of the Eastern Rites are much more obscure than those of, say, the Roman Rite? It is very easy to find copies of the preconciliar Roman liturgical books, even rarer ones like the Caeremoniale and Pontificale. And if you can’t find physical copies, it’s quite easy to find them on Google Books. From what I can tell, the older Eastern liturgical books are extremely rare, even digitized copies.

I actually find the contrary. There seems to be a good history of the Liturgy and praxis of the East which you can trace back to at least the First Ecumenical Council. The what, when, and how is easy, at least in the Byzantine Rite. The big problem really is the will of the people to support those other Liturgical services. For example, we have Presanctified Liturgy for Lent. Hardly anybody comes.

There are lots of old ceremonial actions, rubrics and customs that are contained within this or that book on the Roman Rite. It seems to me that the intellectual resources that can be used in a de-Latinization or re-Easternization of the Eastern Rites are very rare, or no longer exist.

Not for the Byzantine Rite. The Orthodox Church at least has been great at keeping records. I am no sure about the Maronites as they are smaller and of course the issue of the spread of Islam on their lands.

The traditionalist Latin movement is quite vibrant now and shows no signs of dying; on the contrary, it is expanding all the time. It strikes me that the leadership of the Eastern Churches need to issue a document similar to that great emancipation proclamation, Summorum Pontificum, or, if it comes to it, the Pope himself. Would you like that?

For me, what is the use? This has been said over and over again. In my own frustration in my own Church, our Patriarch and pretty much most bishops recognize the issues and have been verbal about it. But I am dismayed that the parishes themselves seem to be frozen where they are. At the end of the day, our size and our need to exist is what holds us back. Sadly, I think this is a great sign of lack of faith in God. Bishops and parish administrators are afraid to change things because they will scare away the little that they have in terms of memberships. On the other hand, we’re all dying a slow death and growth will never take place unless there is change. If people do their best to be more spiritual and be more faithful to God, then God will take care of us. I listened to a talk by an Orthodox priest on dying parishes. He said only God can convert and only God can grow a parish. He told St. Peter, “on this rock I will build my Church.” It is God who builds His Church up. So we need to cooperate with Him by focusing on a growing spirituality, and He will take care of the rest. This Orthodox parish I visited was very vibrant, and it was established 25 years ago from someone’s backyard. They have a ton of converts. And this is because they are focused on spirituality rather than ethnicity which is the problem of many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parishes.

It is rather depressing for me to discover that there is a large group of Easterners who don’t want to de-Latinize. That just seems very silly.

You can’t fault them. They have their reasons. A lot of them are backed up by good intentions, it’s even hard to argue with them or even not sympathize with them. A lot of them do not look at the faith the way we do and they believe that what they are doing is the right thing. Don’t think that everyone who does Liturgical Abuse or Latinization is hell bent on destroying their Church and Tradition. Far from it, a lot of them have this genuine desire to be closer to God. It is just either poor catechesis or a lack of proper spiritual direction that they have wrong notions about the faith. And with the variety of expressions of Christianity today, most people are confused which is the right one. Sometimes they think all of them can be legit.

 

[babochka]

Not the norm, not mandated and not forbidden are not synonyms.

True, but having an audible anaphora mandated is something different altogether.

I actually rather like to hear it. It is a beautiful prayer, as are many of the silent prayers of the priest. I’m not saying it is necessarily bad, but it does seem to be a Latin influence in our liturgy.

This debate is actually raging within Orthdoxy, with some high-profile bishops (not the least of which is Patriarch Kiril) praying the Anaphora audibly. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/02/saying-aloud-of-eucharistic-prayer-some.html

 

[babochka]

The big problem really is the will of the people to support those other Liturgical services. For example, we have Presanctified Liturgy for Lent. Hardly anybody comes.
.

Do you think they would come if it were Stations of the Cross instead of Presanctified? I’m just wondering if it is simply an unwillingness to go beyond Sunday Divine Liturgy, rather than an unwillingness to embrace something authentically eastern.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you think they would come if it were Stations of the Cross instead of Presanctified? I’m just wondering if it is simply an unwillingness to go beyond Sunday Divine Liturgy, rather than an unwillingness to embrace something authentically eastern.

I think it may be a little of both. There is the unwillingness to come to church beyond Sundays and Good Friday and Christmas. There is also perhaps the confusion of what exactly Vespers or Presanctified or whatever else is. But this is in my area, other places may have a different mix.

On the other hand, if its peroggy making or peroggy dinner, everyone is able to make it to Church on a weeknight. So go figure

 

[babochka]

On the other hand, if its peroggy making or peroggy dinner, everyone is able to make it to Church on a weeknight. So go figure

I know many Greeks who, when asked “What is your religion?” will respond with “Greek.” For them, Palm Sunday and Easter are the big days to get to church. This is a problem that Eastern churches in the U.S, both Catholic and Orthodx, must grapple with. I say you should bring some lumpia to the next parish dinner.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I know many Greeks who, when asked “What is your religion?” will respond with “Greek.” For them, Palm Sunday and Easter are the big days to get to church. This is a problem that Eastern churches in the U.S, both Catholic and Orthodx, must grapple with. I say you should bring some lumpia to the next parish dinner.

I’ve served longganiza for breakfast