And it is a tradition a bit closer to the Latin tradition than an Old Believers parish for instance - and it may even be more natural for a traditionalist Roman Catholic to be adopted into that tradition than into the purer form of the Byzantine rite.
Not really - in fact many of the Ukrainian particular traditions (not practiced in other Eastern Catholic Churches of the Constantinopolitan tradition) are exactly pre-Nikonian such as making the sign of the cross three times when entering a church, antimension under the altar cloth, and many others. In this regard much of what is traditionally practiced at Ukrainian parishes can be said (in the pre-Nikonian sense) to be the “purer form of the Byzantine rite” (whatever that is implying).
understood your point to have been that in Ukraine some Latin customs are a living tradition, engrained in their hearts by persecution.
I am not sure the continuance of private practices (sometimes foisted on people) should be considered a “living tradition”. They are what they are, and generally not any older than the 19th century. “Newer accretions” is probably more accurate than “living traditions”.
There are some times when “syncretism” of rites can in fact be natural and authentic. One thinks for example of the Byzantine and iconographical influences that persisted in Italy until the Renaissance (e.g., Fra Angelico), the Polish love for iconography especially the Theotokos of the Passion/Our Lady of Perpetual Help, the entire Maronite and Armenian liturgies, and the Roman Catholic Croatian custom of saying the Tridentine Mass in Church Slavonic. I would include the Rosary and kneeling during Communion as a Ukrainian example of this.
I do not consider religious art to be subject to ritual syncretism. Artistic, perhaps. This is an accessory matter relative to introducing liturgical practices that are not part of the inherent received tradition.
The development of the Maronite and Armenian rites are both very complex histories, subject to both historic as well as more recent developments, and again within the particlar liturgical development cannot be automatically considered to be victim to syncretism.
Kneeling and Rosary are private devotions and actions and as such are precisely that, private actions and devotions. And outside of certain specific times (as noted by the Council of Nicea) there is no open prohibition on kneeling, prostrations, etc. - in fact they are encouraged at certain times.
Regarding the Rosary, there are historical developments of the “Rule of St. Pachomius” and other private prayer rules of the Mother of God that are not unlike the later Latin Rosary. The question is NOT if the Rosary is acceptable as private devotion. Of course it is. The question is rather the propriety when this private devotion takes the place of a corporate liturgical/paraliturgical celebration more organic to the tradition, as I have mentioned before. Nearly all of the people of that generation I know (or knew, everlasting memory) are every bit as loving of the Akafyst or Moleben/Paraklis to the Mother of God as they are of the rosary prayed privately in their homes or quietly in the church before the services start.
Individual issues become ecclesiological issues when more than one individual is involved. If it’s okay for one Catholic to keep some Latin customs, than by extension it’s okay for the rest of his family or parish. I think we’re in agreement over the basic point here.
I think we are perhaps not in complete agreement - these are actions of individuals. The ecclesiological issue is the larger direction from the Synod (and by extension Rome) to be faithful to the tradition and for the clergy and people to respond to this direction. Individuals can accept or deny these (or be ignorant of them).
Understanding why someone is doing something in a certain way because of background is key moving forward, which must be done gradually and with pastoral care. I have always maintained that one must continue to forge ahead in keeping with the direction of our Synod (and Rome for that matter) in being ever faithful to the organic received tradition without these later latinized syncretisms.
I am much less concerned with these sorts of individual things (which will eventually take care of themselves) than with the neo-latinizations occurring in some churches that I have witnessed just over the last decade or so (even the last five years) such as wholesale abbreviations and modern re-translations of liturgies, etc. which are ecclesiological issues and not ones of private devotion of individuals as discussed above.
I am myself a Tridentine Latin exile, so I would urge patience and hospitality for them
And I myself had the pleasure of knowing Archbishop Lefevbre when he was still alive and taught at one of his schools “pre-schism”. And which is why I was careful to add the clarifier
And again I want to not be overly prejudicial against our Latin brethren who more often than the specific few I mentioned attend our services with great interest and love for our traditions; indeed more than a few former Latins are now zealous parishoners (and even clergy) in our UGCC.
- they really should be instructed as to what the Eastern traditions actually are.