When are the Byzantine Catholics going to De-Latinize?

[Peter_J]

Hi Constantine. The Balamand Statement said (among other things):

1. Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in response to the spiritual needs of their faithful.

Although it says this “Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches”, I think the same thinking can be applied to the Latinized portions of the Eastern Catholic Churches. (Without, of course, claiming that Latinization was a wise course of action.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi Constantine. The Balamand Statement said (among other things):

Although it says this “Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches”, I think the same thinking can be applied to the Latinized portions of the Eastern Catholic Churches. (Without, of course, claiming that Latinization was a wise course of action.)

The direction of the faithful should be by the guidance of the fathers of their Church, and that is the synod of the Church. I find in our case that Latinizations are insisted on by the laity and not the bishops or the priests. As children, we should accept the guidance of our spiritual fathers. Children do not know any better, that is why they have to listen to their parents. So if you are insinuating that the spiritual needs of the people is keeping the Latinization, well, I leave it up to the synod. At least for the UGCC, the direction is ridding ourselves of Latinization. But admittedly the pace has been akin to that of a glacier.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve met or was told about (by other priests) several priests in the UGCC who support retaining what many online posters would consider “Latinizations”. Last year a young priest visiting from Brazil, told me that at his church they have Sacred Heart, Stations of the Cross, and Rosary devotions, as well as Eucharistic Adoration, and First Fridays. On some days, he said, he and his entire congregation can be found marching in procession with the nearby RC parish. And best of all, he told me it was not a unique situation.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’ve met or was told about (by other priests) several priests in the UGCC who support retaining what many online posters would consider “Latinizations”. Last year a young priest visiting from Brazil, told me that at his church they have Sacred Heart, Stations of the Cross, and Rosary devotions, as well as Eucharistic Adoration, and First Fridays. On some days, he said, he and his entire congregation can be found marching in procession with the nearby RC parish. And best of all, he told me it was not a unique situation.

If it is true that, as some bishops have said, such extensive Latinizations hinder Eastern Catholics from bearing authentic witness to go the Gospel message, then such things in Eastern Catholic parishes are to be mourned, not celebrated.

But it has been noted in the past on this forum that many Eastern Catholics in South America tend to be extremely Latinized. I’ve seen photos from a Melkite parish where they were using guitars during the Divine Liturgy.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And best of all, he told me it was not a unique situation.

Are you endorsing this?

If unaware, the leader of this Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav, spent a decent number of years ministering in this part of the world (he was Bishop of the -]Brazilian/-] Argentinian Eparchy before becoming Patriarch), and is undoubtedly aware of the influence of surrrounding Latin Catholic culture.

And yes, there are still a fair number of such practices throughout the UGCC, even in the native Ukraine. Will they survive? It remains to be seen …

Frankly, on the numerous occasions I’ve attended or witnessed a UGCC Divine Liturgy or other liturgical or non-liturgical service, it was always clearly evident that it was in the midst of fellow Eastern Christians.

 

[The_Idiot]

Are you endorsing this?

If unaware, the leader of this Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav, spent a decent number of years ministering in this part of the world (he was Bishop of the Brazilian Eparchy before becoming Patriarch), and is undoubtedly aware of the influence of surrrounding Latin Catholic culture.

And yes, there are still a fair number of such practices throughout the UGCC, even in the native Ukraine. Will they survive? It remains to be seen …

Frankly, on the numerous occasions I’ve attended or witnessed a UGCC Divine Liturgy or other liturgical or non-liturgical service, it was always clearly evident that it was in the midst of fellow Eastern Christians.

Ummm My memory is that his Beatitude served in Argentina hence his knowledge of Spanish - I’ve not heard of him using Portugese ]

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Ummm My memory is that his Beatitude served in Argentina hence his knowledge of Spanish - I’ve not heard of him using Portugese ]

You are most correct - I obviously haven’t had enough coffee yet this A.M., and don’t know why I thought Brazil vs Argentina

Needless to say, he is familiar with the situation of his own churches situated in the confines of cultures heavily influenced by Latin Catholicism. It will be interesting to see how he addresses Latinization, but clearly has some more challenging and delicate matters to attend to in the Ukraine.

 

[Peter_J]

The direction of the faithful should be by the guidance of the fathers of their Church, and that is the synod of the Church. I find in our case that Latinizations are insisted on by the laity and not the bishops or the priests. As children, we should accept the guidance of our spiritual fathers. Children do not know any better, that is why they have to listen to their parents. So if you are insinuating that the spiritual needs of the people is keeping the Latinization, well, I leave it up to the synod. At least for the UGCC, the direction is ridding ourselves of Latinization. But admittedly the pace has been akin to that of a glacier.

Hi Constantine. First, I think we should relax a little here. Nobody’s insinuating anything. Second, I don’t see that Balamand quote as suggesting that we should just throw our hands up in the air and not try to improve the situation, and that’s not what I’m suggesting with regard to Latinizations either. On the contrary, I think that statement can only be properly understood as a qualifier within a larger context of “We should try to improve this situation” (in this case, the Latinization situation).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Of note is that past heads of the Ukrainian Catholic Church have called for the de-Latinization of their Church, beginning especially with Met. Sheptytsky. When the internal conflicts over the matter reached the boiling point, Met. Sheptytsky turned to Rome for assistance. Rome came down highly in favor of de-Latinization.

I don’t know about the current Patriarch, but I know that His Beatitude Lubomry Hussar was very much a “de-Latinizer” and said on a number of occasions that the Ukrainian Catholic Church was to be Orthodox in all things while at the same time maintaining communion with Rome. So it would seem that those who cling to and promote such Latinizations are in disobedience to their Patriarchs, although this disobedience may be innocent enough.

That being said, given the history of the Ukrainian Church I can understand why some within it may be in such a tizzy to maintain their Latinizations such as Stations, Eucharistic Adoration, public Sacred Heart devotions, rosary guilds, etc., etc., etc. At one time these things were badges of honor that demonstrated their loyalty to Rome, and often led to martyrdom at the hands of the Communist regime. I’m not saying I support such Latinizations, I’m just saying that knowledge of the historical circumstance that gave rise to such Latinizations should lead us to a more pastoral approach in the process of de-Latinization.

 

[Seamus_L]

I know of one parish in the Midwestern USA that has received a number of Ukrainian immigrants in the 21st century. They kneel year round when coming back from receiving Communion. I’ve met another priest in the Midwest who does the Chapulet of the Divine Mercy in church (believe me, I ask these kind of questions) and everyone I referred to would no doubt be astonished at the accusation that they’re trying to be Roman Catholics. As some of these folks told me, the Rosary, Sacred Heart, etc were given to the entire world, they’re neither East or West but for the entire church.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The direction of the faithful should be by the guidance of the fathers of their Church, and that is the synod of the Church. I find in our case that Latinizations are insisted on by the laity and not the bishops or the priests. As children, we should accept the guidance of our spiritual fathers. Children do not know any better, that is why they have to listen to their parents. So if you are insinuating that the spiritual needs of the people is keeping the Latinization, well, I leave it up to the synod. At least for the UGCC, the direction is ridding ourselves of Latinization. But admittedly the pace has been akin to that of a glacier.

Hi Constantine

I just thought you might find it interesting to note that historically Latinizations were originally insisted upon by the bishops and the priests. After the Union of Brest, and particularly in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, a good number of the parish clergy for the Ukrainians were formed it a supposedly “Eastern” seminary in Rome. While at that seminary they were only permitted to celebrate their own Byzantine rites once a month, the rest of the time they were required to celebrate the Roman Mass. They were also formed theologically by reading the Roman theologians, not the Eastern Fathers. Parish clergy who were formed in Ukraine itself often had little other formation than what the local priest could provide with the liturgical books and a Roman manual on moral theology. When the highly educated seminarians who had been studying in Rome came home, it was only natural that folks started looking to them for a more in-depth understanding of the Faith. Sadly that understanding was not based on their own authentic Eastern understanding, but on the Roman understanding as taught them in a Roman seminary.

Likewise there were monasteries in Ukraine and Ukrainian monasteries in Rome that were publishing liturgical books that were rampant with Latinizations. These books became widely used in many parts of Ukraine. At that time the situation for liturgical books there very closely represented the current situation of English liturgical books in the U.S. and Canada. There was no one edition, but many editions approved for use by the local bishop. In part this was one of the things that led to the crisis between the Latinizers and de-Latinizers in Met. Sheptytsky’s day.

Finally, during the crisis of Met. Sheptytsky’s time, it was primarily the priests and bishops of the “Latinizing” camp that most resisted the process of de-Latinization begun by Met. Sheptytsky and ultimately supported by Rome. Some clung to their Latinizations to the point that they broke away from the Church and founded the Society of St. Josaphat, as I’m sure you’re well aware.

Even in our own day there are priests and bishops who are still very much against de-Latinization, as illustrated by the comments of SeamusL regarding the priest from Brazil.

Anyhow, I just thought you might find that interesting.

And if you’re interested, I’ve attached a paper I wrote on the liturgical reforms of Met. Sheptytsky.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve met or was told about (by other priests) several priests in the UGCC who support retaining what many online posters would consider “Latinizations”. Last year a young priest visiting from Brazil, told me that at his church they have Sacred Heart, Stations of the Cross, and Rosary devotions, as well as Eucharistic Adoration, and First Fridays. On some days, he said, he and his entire congregation can be found marching in procession with the nearby RC parish. And best of all, he told me it was not a unique situation.

Thankfully we have none of this in our eparchy. Well, we do have the Byzantine version of the Sacred Heart, but we do the Moleben to Christ the Lover of Humanity rather than a Sacred Heart Novena, which is a Byzantination of the devotion. So that is 100% a-okay.

Also what you have described is not the direction that Patriarch Sviatoslav wants for the Church. But like I said, changes won’t come overnight.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi Constantine

I just thought you might find it interesting to note that historically Latinizations were originally insisted upon by the bishops and the priests. After the Union of Brest, and particularly in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, a good number of the parish clergy for the Ukrainians were formed it a supposedly “Eastern” seminary in Rome. While at that seminary they were only permitted to celebrate their own Byzantine rites once a month, the rest of the time they were required to celebrate the Roman Mass. They were also formed theologically by reading the Roman theologians, not the Eastern Fathers. Parish clergy who were formed in Ukraine itself often had little other formation than what the local priest could provide with the liturgical books and a Roman manual on moral theology. When the highly educated seminarians who had been studying in Rome came home, it was only natural that folks started looking to them for a more in-depth understanding of the Faith. Sadly that understanding was not based on their own authentic Eastern understanding, but on the Roman understanding as taught them in a Roman seminary.

Likewise there were monasteries in Ukraine and Ukrainian monasteries in Rome that were publishing liturgical books that were rampant with Latinizations. These books became widely used in many parts of Ukraine. At that time the situation for liturgical books there very closely represented the current situation of English liturgical books in the U.S. and Canada. There was no one edition, but many editions approved for use by the local bishop. In part this was one of the things that led to the crisis between the Latinizers and de-Latinizers in Met. Sheptytsky’s day.

Finally, during the crisis of Met. Sheptytsky’s time, it was primarily the priests and bishops of the “Latinizing” camp that most resisted the process of de-Latinization begun by Met. Sheptytsky and ultimately supported by Rome. Some clung to their Latinizations to the point that they broke away from the Church and founded the Society of St. Josaphat, as I’m sure you’re well aware.

Even in our own day there are priests and bishops who are still very much against de-Latinization, as illustrated by the comments of SeamusL regarding the priest from Brazil.

Anyhow, I just thought you might find that interesting.

And if you’re interested, I’ve attached a paper I wrote on the liturgical reforms of Met. Sheptytsky.

Thanks Philip. Yes I am aware of this fact. But this is not the direction we are on anymore. At least where I am. DeLatinization has begun but who knows how long it will take. Our parish for example has at least during the Paschal Season gotten rid of kneeling on Sundays. I haven’t checked if people went back to kneeling during Liturgy yet, but I guess I will sneak a peak this Sunday. Usually I don’t focus on other people, but I am curious if people went back to kneeling. We only have about 30% of the usual Sunday crowd kneeling anyway.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And if you’re interested, I’ve attached a paper I wrote on the liturgical reforms of Met. Sheptytsky.

“Against the tide” - how apropos!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

“Against the tide” - how apropos!

 

[Seamus_L]

I think the point that is so often missed, is that the Eastern Rite Catholics who wish to retain certain devotions originating in the Latin Church, are anything but Wannabe Latins. As an example, I once spoke to an Eastern priest, who I had heard referred to as practically a Roman Catholic, but during our conversation he spoke so glowingly of the Molebens to the Mother of God (think it was called) and the Akathist to Jesus Christ the Lover of Mankind.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think the point that is so often missed, is that the Eastern Rite Catholics who wish to retain certain devotions originating in the Latin Church, are anything but Wannabe Latins. As an example, I once spoke to an Eastern priest, who I had heard referred to as practically a Roman Catholic, but during our conversation he spoke so glowingly of the Molebens to the Mother of God (think it was called) and the Akathist to Jesus Christ the Lover of Mankind.

The point being? I’ve heard plenty of Roman priests speak glowingly of Molebens, Akathists, the Jesus Prayer, etc., etc., etc. Just because one speaks glowingly of such things does not mean one is Eastern in mind and practice.

But I do believe you are right in saying that Latinized Easterners are wannabe Latins. The problem is that they are a “tertium quid.” They’re not really Eastern and they’re not really Latin. This lack of identity is what robs the Latinized Easterners of their ability to authentically bear witness to the Gospel.

 

[Hesychios]

I just thought you might find it interesting to note that historically Latinizations were originally insisted upon by the bishops and the priests.

My former pastor used to attribute this to something like an inferiority complex among Byzantine Catholics, which is why the actual decisions for change can often be attributed to EC prelates and priests themselves … but reflecting on this it seems to me that the intractable system itself brought on this feeling of inadequacy.

The best educated priests were the ones who had a chance to study in Rome, for example. It was the ‘Ivy League’ of pastoral formation, they got the best postings and were the most likely to become Monsignors or bishops. They commanded respect.

These men set the standard to be emulated.

This is how the notorious Synod of Zamosc could take place, held by the church’s own bishops (selected by the kings of Poland), supposedly on their own initiative 125 years after the Union of Brest.

Another interesting bit, the Basilian order, which is now so ubiguitous in the UGCC and also among the other sub-Carpathian Ruthenians, began as just individual monasteries under their local bishops according to the older Orthodox practice. These houses were separated from their bishops by Rome, and gathered into an association or congregation of houses more in line with western practice. Ultimately there was a perceived need to reform them, and the Pope placed the entire structure under the control of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) which controlled their novices and selection of new admissions, and transformed the Basilians from an eremitical or monastic into an activist order along the same lines as themselves (which is how most EC know and understand their charism today).

I recall reading from our brother Alex (who posts here from time to time) that the UGCC Basilians were the most resistant and the last to begin addressing the Metropolitan as Patriarch.

 

[Wisely]

I think the point that is so often missed, is that the Eastern Rite Catholics who wish to retain certain devotions originating in the Latin Church, are anything but Wannabe Latins. As an example, I once spoke to an Eastern priest, who I had heard referred to as practically a Roman Catholic, but during our conversation he spoke so glowingly of the Molebens to the Mother of God (think it was called) and the Akathist to Jesus Christ the Lover of Mankind.

Well, he is technically Roman Catholic, because he is an Easterner in communion with Rome. That is what makes him unique. His communion with Rome is what makes him different from other Eastern Christians.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well, he is technically Roman Catholic, because he is an Easterner in communion with Rome. That is what makes him unique. His communion with Rome is what makes him different from other Eastern Christians.

So that makes him Roman Catholic?