Vatican II and the Eastern Catholic Churches

[bpbasilphx]

How has Vatican II affected the liturgical praxis and spirituality of Eastern Catholic Churches?

I’d love to hear your stories here. While I’m especially interested in the non-Byzantine ones, I’ll be gratified to hear from any and all–for good or ill.

Tell, tell!

 

[malphono]

Not much I can say that I haven’t said already in a number of prior threads, and the following, (except for the last paragraph), is redundant to those:

Over the course of the past 40 years, the Maronites, in particular, have been undergoing a continuing wave of neo-latinization. Out with the “old” and in with the “new” which are far more insidious and far more serious than the “old” latinizations. Much better if things had remained as they were.

I’ve been told that the Armenians have had their share of post-conciliar liturgical degradation too, but that’s hearsay.

 

[bpbasilphx]

What neo-latinizations are the Maronites experiencing?

(Don’t feel bad about repeating yourself. Hopefully, this thread will draw some new readers.)

 

[Diak]

Vatican II was of immense benefit to the UGCC. Several of our hierarchs (Patriarch Josyp and Metropolitan Maxim most notably) were prominent speakers at several sessions. The Document on the Eastern Churches inspired most Eastern Catholic Churches to actually consider what it meant to be sui iuris. While it did not specifically pertain to us, Sacrosanctum Concilium has much to say about liturgy that we can make very beneficial use of.

The Eastern Code, Orientale Lumen, the Instruction by Rome, the printing and promulgation of the Anthologion in Rome would all likely not have happened without the impetus of VII. Even in my lifetime the signs of influence and hope cannot be ignored -parishes returning parochial Great Vespers and Matins as well as some Holy Week customs, restoring three-fold Sacraments of initiation, restoring congregational singing instead of “low Mass”, etc. A great deal of scholarship has also been done since then in the Eastern Liturgies which has been of great benefit (Arranz, Taft, etc.)

I am not one for ignoring reality, and one also has to realize that some neo-latinizations have crept in during this time as well with some specific Churches and parishes, such as bad vernacular translations (“inclusive language”), bad music in some quarters, etc.

 

[Seamus_L]

Fr Deacon Diak, I’m curious as to why you refer to bad translations, inclusive language and bad music, as Neo-Latinizations ?

 

[Aramis]

Fr Deacon Diak, I’m curious as to why you refer to bad translations, inclusive language and bad music, as Neo-Latinizations ?

Because the inclusive language is derived by imitation of the ICEL translation for the Roman Ordinary Form Mass, which is noted for the same.

It’s a typical dig at the current Ruthenian Church - Pittsburg Metropolia English Divine Liturgy text.

Usually from disgruntled members of the Ruthenian and Ukrainian churches.

I would agree the inclusive language is an Americanization. I don’t agree it’s a neo-latinization. Especially given the forthcoming english for the Latin.

I like the new tones, which I find are closer to the previously prescribed, annotated in circa 1900-1920 texts, which did not match the tones taught based upon the 1965 recordings… and those 1965 tones seem to themselves be influenced by Latin chant tones.

Then again, some people want a return to the truly Latinized Ruthenian Liturgy…

 

[Diak]

Fr Deacon Diak, I’m curious as to why you refer to bad translations, inclusive language and bad music, as Neo-Latinizations ?

Since the question was directed at me personally, I will attempt to answer. My answer was not directed at any one particular Church or translation, but rather an observation of currents in several Eastern Catholic churches especially since the 1970s.

Because the inclusive language is derived by imitation of the ICEL translation for the Roman Ordinary Form Mass, which is noted for the same.
It’s a typical dig at the current Ruthenian Church - Pittsburg Metropolia English Divine Liturgy text.

Usually from disgruntled members of the Ruthenian and Ukrainian churches.

I would agree the inclusive language is an Americanization. I don’t agree it’s a neo-latinization. Especially given the forthcoming english for the Latin.

I like the new tones, which I find are closer to the previously prescribed, annotated in circa 1900-1920 texts, which did not match the tones taught based upon the 1965 recordings… and those 1965 tones seem to themselves be influenced by Latin chant tones.

Then again, some people want a return to the truly Latinized Ruthenian Liturgy…

First of all, I am not sure of the intent of the very overly presumptive and judgemental previous post, but if it is directed at my post I most certainly do not appreciate being labelled as “disgruntled” or attempting to make a “dig”. I am most certainly not “disgruntled” in my particular Church, am an active participant (unlike most who would typically be considered “disgruntled”).

Since I now feel compelled to defend those comments in the context of the previous poster, and since he was the one to bring up the specific example, I would like to address that example since he was the one to specifically refer to that example.

First of all that particular Church has seen it fit to modernize the translation of the Creed from any other common Greek Catholic or Orthodox translation. It is hardly a return to tradition by veering from the extant Orthodox-Catholic corpus that is generally in agreement, nor is it even reasonable to even suggest that this joint corpus is somehow itself “latinized” simply to justify the actions of one reforming small particular Church especially when dealing with the Symbol of Faith. Since the Latin Church has adopted a number of “inclusive language” translations in various services and texts, the obvious conclusion is that this is a neolatinization since it did not occur in the particular Churches prior to its use by the Latins.

It seems any (name removed by moderator)ut of the sensus fidelium that is negative to a new text or usage is often labelled as “disgruntled”. The sensus fidelium was largely ignored in the particular example cited by the above poster, and even most of the clergy were not involved until the final draft was circulated. While I understand that the Church is no democracy, there is definitely an historical parochial litrugical development that is organic (see especially the “cathedral order” as Mateos describes) , while in this case no parish of the BCCA that I have ever known of has asked or requested the Liturgy be revised. I was working in that particular Church at the time up to the promulgation of the RDL, and I never saw any documents or instructions until the final pew books were disseminated other than discussions on the Internet (most at byzcath.org which anyone interested should definitely review, as the primary author of the RDL also gives his comments as well).

In my own BCCA parochial experience, I went from assisting a parish to restore its Liturgy back to the 1964 Liturgikon, which is essentially that of the Rome books in English, to a reduction of about 1/3 of that Liturgy as well as signficant changes in music and text, with an accompanying significant drop in parish attendance. Again that is just my experience, but I do not think the attendance drop with the RDL or a lack of congregational singing of the new music is necessarily an isolated experience.

That particular Church mentioned in the example above has also mandated abbreviations and translational changes from the received Rome editions of the Slavonic normal texts (again very hardly “latinized” since several Orthodox churches have also made use of these). I would maintain that this could be considered a neolatinization in the model of reducing the length, number, and type of liturgical services in the Latin Church in the last half century in addition to the penchant for very modernized English translations.

We can go into more detailed discussions into the influences of modern liturgical movements in the Latin Church that have affected the Eastern Catholic Churches, liturgical anthropology as it has been received and as it is trying to be revised, consistent with several recent sociological trends and movements, and several other discussions which are pertinent, but these will take a considerable more time to elaborate rather than the off-hand dismissal of the previous post.

Catering to ephemeral sociological trends and pressures does not always coincide with the maintaining of orthodoxy, especially since as Eastern Christians we take the lex orandi to be the preeminent form of celebrating and transmitting the lex credendi. I would most certainly include inclusive language, an attempt to alter liturgical translations to one specific minority that does not represent the entirety or even a majority of the sensus fidelium as a neolatinization - this approach was received directly from the Latins. No Orthodox church has embraced this as a standard in liturgical translations.

 

[Diak]

Part II of my reply. As can be seen, this is not something that is easily discussed with reason without some length, and one cannot simply engage in the presumptious dismissals of the previous poster.

The Instruction from Rome specifically requests us to be consistent with our Orthodox brethren, and not to promulgate liturgical translations that unnecessarily deviate from what the Orthodox usages are. I don’t think following what Rome has promulgated on our behalf liturgically, namely the Ordo, the Anthologion and the other service books along with the Instruction is anything other than a restoration to a more authentic usage of the received tradition, and is most certainly not a “latinization”.

While certainly texts have to be revised for changes in language, this has to be done with the wider consideration of what is in use amongst all of the Eastern Christian churches and not just what the current trends of the Latins as the model. Simply relying on “well, the Latins do it now” is itself a neolatinization.

Regarding music, I would encourage anyone who is seriously interested in the development and changes of the music within a particular Church to speak to those who actually have wide and long-lasting experience with the music of that particular Church. Again since the example of the BCCA was brought up by the previous poster, I can privately give you names of several life-long cantors within the BCCA who sang the music in Slavonic as well as several English versions and let them tell you from that life-long experience in detail as to why the “new music” in that particular Church is inferior from the previous English settings that were fairly universal in that Church.

My own experience is primarily in the Galician and Kyivan musical tradition as a cantor, and I would rather you talk to those who are not only knowledgable of the music but who had the benefit of seeing the progression from Slavonic to English to the current music or who were taught by those who did. My own limited attempts to sing the new music in the particular Church being referred to were not successful nor not even remotely as felicitous as the previous music, but I would not consider my own observations as fully objective and again would refer one to those who have spent their lives singing the music of that particular Church.

In any case I do not believe preferring an older and more comfortably singable set of music is a “latinization”. Perhaps the forced standardization of new music forms, settings and texts is itself another example of neolatinzation.

I think the true “dig” was the last comment of the previous poster - “Then again, some people want a return to the truly Latinized Ruthenian Liturgy…” If attempting to adhere to the prescriptions of my Synod who has mandated the traditional Rome *Ruthenian Rescension *books as mandatory, of the guidance of Rome herself with whom we are in full communion and whose liturgical guidance specifically to the Eastern Churches has most often been for liturgical restoration (such as the Instruction and the previously cited liturgical books), and especially of fidelity to our joint received tradition with our Orthodox brethren (in my case of the Kyivan Church) is somehow “latinized”, I would posit the accuser has no concept of what the term means.

If simply having concerns and observations is “disgruntled” then likely everyone is as such. I just call it like I see it. I most certainly do not intend to be overly negative of the Latin Church at all by these comments; and to the contrary I greatly applaud the recent direction from Liturgicam Authenticam as well as other movements from Rome away from some of the Latin experimentation of the last 40 or so years.
FDRLB

 

[malphono]

What neo-latinizations are the Maronites experiencing?

(Don’t feel bad about repeating yourself. Hopefully, this thread will draw some new readers.)

The neo-latinizations are legion, and I could write and entire treatise on the subject. (Actually I’ve been asked officially to to just that, but have delayed starting the project. There are a variety of reasons for the procrastination, but one that is primary is: what good would it do?)

Even so, and although I’m not using this venue to begin, I will make a couple of comments:

In particular to the Maronites, liturgical reform (i.e., de-latinization) was initiated in the early 1900s under the auspices of HB Elias Petrous (Hwayek). The project was suspended because of WWI and its aftermath, but was reinstated in the 1930s under HB Antonious Petrous (Arida). I will note here that the impetus for this reform came not from Rome, but rather from HB Elias Petrous himself, probably with the influence of the Syriac Patriarch Ignatious Ephrem (Rahmani) who was a great liturgical scholar in his own right.

What had been most latinized (in text as well as structure and rubrics) was the “Ritual” and that became the first priority for reform. The restored “Ritual,” published in (I believe) 1939, was formally promulgated by HB Antonious Petrous in 1942, and was an incredibly beautiful work that was a true restoration.

The next part of the project was to have been the qourbono but the project was suspended (for a variety of reasons which I am not going into here), in the late 1940s. (One thing to note is that the latinization of the qourbono was much less than with the “Ritual” and was mainly confined to rubrics, although there were a few textual items.) Nonetheless, those who had been part of the commission pressed on, even if unofficially. (Scholars will be scholars, I guess.)

The idea of liturgical reform resurfaced, of course, in the post-conciliar era, and here is where we have a problem: all the work that had been lovingly and painstakingly done over the previous 70-some years was unceremoniously tossed out in favor of “something new” which was but a severely abbreviated facsimile. At first, starting in 1972, this was done “ad experimentum” (there were several versions in that category); it became codified in 1992 with the publication of the “new” Missal, and things got even worse with the appearance of the 2005 version.

The goal had, apparently, changed from one of restoring Tradition, to one of inventing something loosely based on it, (but nearly unrecognizeable), in emulation of what was done in creating the Latin Rite Novus Ordo. (NB: This is true even for the “Ritual” that had already been restored: to the shame of the so-called “liturgical commission” it has now been decimated.) In the short run, the prognosis is for the situation to continue to deteriorate. There is hope in the future for a true restoration, but that hope is but a faint glimmer.

Sorry that I cannot be more specific, but I have to live with certain things, and am not at liberty to provide certain details.

Diak:

The Eastern Code … would all likely not have happened without the impetus of VII.

First off, allow me to agree in main with your 2-part post regarding neo-latinizations. As a whole it is well put, and as you may infer from what I said above, a good part of it applies equally to the Maronites in principle.

That said, I am truly not sparring for an argument, but I do have a comment on your prior post (quoted above):

PP Pius XI commissioned an Oriental Code in the 1920s, and much work was done on it. It was, in fact, essentially completed, but when PP Pius XI expired, the project was shelved, and the code never promulgated. (Big surprise there.) As I am informed, the current code, although it cannibalized much of should have been promulgated in 1939, is inferior to it. Before anyone starts the usual “references, please” strain, I will say that my sources are unimpeachable, but I at the same time they are confidential and I am not at liberty to say more.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I know from my own experience of trying to adapt Byzantine and Slavic (in the broad sense) chants into English, it’s sometimes anybody’s guess the best way to get the words to fit the existing music.

What works when you’re by yourself doesn’t work in choir rehearsal. And then what works in a rehearsal won’t work in the service itself. (I really feel for Patchunky’s dissatisfaction with recent Ruthenian publications, but I also understand what the editors went through.)

I did my adaptations of a few of the Lenten chants, and sent them to a certain monastery for (name removed by moderator)ut by a monk with equivalent experience. He replied that none of my music was “standard” (his word).

The ironic thing–they were taken note for note from a photocopy of the TRIODION chant book by the Holy Synod of Russia before the revolution–and copied from that very monastery!

I saw no purpose to be served in telling him this.

 

[Diak]

Dear Malphono, I was referring to the 1990 revision of the CCEO which ended up being very much different from the earlier drafts, especially in granting more rights to particular Churches as the 20s version was much more montane in most regards. The 1990s CCEO, while far from perfect in granting particular Church rights. would likely not be possible without Orientalium Ecclesiarum and other Magisterial developments during and after Vatican II. From what I have seen myself in copies of the drafts, and spoken to graduate students in Eastern Canon Law at the Orientalium who worked with the older documentation, exactly the opposite is the case - namely that the 1990s code is far superior. We would essentially not need a CCEO if that of the 20s was promulgated, as it is essentially a recanning of the Latin code for Eastern Catholics and not something that pertained in large part to our own particularities.

Certainly a brilliant document like the Instruction also would not have been possible without the combined effects of the promulgation of the standard Rome liturgical texts of the 40s through the 70s and the accompanying Magisterial (and in our case, Synodal) proclamations.

As far as neolatinizations amongst the Maronites, while my own experience is somewhat limited I attended a Qurbano several (probably about four to be more exact) years ago where the priest served versus populum and at the end a rather mundane modern Latin-rite hymn was used in English. I think if a priest tried to serve versus populum in one of our Ukrainian parishes, the looks and stares from the babas would be worse than any temporal punishment he might face from his transgression…

 

[malphono]

Dear Malphono, I was referring to the 1990 revision of the CCEO which ended up being very much different from the earlier drafts, especially in granting more rights to particular Churches as the 20s version was much more montane in most regards. The 1990s CCEO, while far from perfect in granting particular Church rights. would likely not be possible without Orientalium Ecclesiarum and other Magisterial developments during and after Vatican II. From what I have seen myself in copies of the drafts, and spoken to graduate students in Eastern Canon Law at the Orientalium who worked with the older documentation, exactly the opposite is the case - namely that the 1990s code is far superior. We would essentially not need a CCEO if that of the 20s was promulgated, as it is essentially a recanning of the Latin code for Eastern Catholics and not something that pertained in large part to our own particularities.

My JOCDs would dispute those comments about the original project, but I said I wasn’t going to argue, and I will not.

What I will agree with, though, is the post-conciliar revival of the project. Some will dispute this, but IMHO the period from 1939 through 1958 was not one of the bright spots for the East and Orient. It is of course possible that the project may have been revived even had a Council not been called, but that would be forever a matter of speculation.

Certainly a brilliant document like the Instruction also would not have been possible without the combined effects of the promulgation of the standard Rome liturgical texts of the 40s through the 70s and the accompanying Magisterial (and in our case, Synodal) proclamations.

Perhaps I am just dense today, but which document do you mean?

As far as neolatinizations amongst the Maronites, while my own experience is somewhat limited I attended a Qurbano several (probably about four to be more exact) years ago where the priest served versus populum and at the end a rather mundane modern Latin-rite hymn was used in English. I think if a priest tried to serve versus populum in one of our Ukrainian parishes, the looks and stares from the babas would be worse than any temporal punishment he might face from his transgression…

Ah, so you’ve seen some examples of it. And those merely scratch the surface.

One note: The ad orientem posture remains an option in the Patriarchal Territories and elsewhere, but the bishops in the US have essentially banned it. Nonetheless, a small handful of priests in the US have restored ad orientem celebration locally, with no negative repercussions from the congregation.

 

[Diak]

Perhaps I am just dense today, but which document do you mean?

I probably am the dense one for not citing the full title. What I was referring to is The Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches which is just usually abbreviated to "The Instruction.

It seems to be largely unknown outside of the Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite and a few other Greek Catholic Churches. It is amongst the obligatory documents for all UGCC clergy.

But I have met quite a few, especially amongst the Oriental Catholics, who have never heard of it.

 

[malphono]

I probably am the dense one for not citing the full title. What I was referring to is The Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches which is just usually abbreviated to "The Instruction.

It seems to be largely unknown outside of the Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite and a few other Greek Catholic Churches. It is amongst the obligatory documents for all UGCC clergy.

But I have met quite a few, especially amongst the Oriental Catholics, who have never heard of it.

Thanks for the clarification. Actually I am familiar with that document, and it’s quite interesting. One item that I find fascinating is paragraph 107, and in particular the last sentence. Rather puts a large hole in the "versus populum" business that has become de rigeur among the Maronites. Oh well …