Why Do So Many Hate Things Roman?

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Cecilianus,

I’m not sure that the Melkite priest distributing Communion by hand instead of spoon is actually a Latinization. To my understanding it is simply a Melkite practice, one of the many things unique to the Melkite/Antiochian tradition (I believe the Antiochian Orthodox do this as well). The spoon is more of a Slavic thing than a Byzantine thing to my knowledge (but I may be wrong).

As for sacred languages… Perhaps the Slavs again are more concerned with sacred/liturgical languages than the Greeks. The Melkites celebrate their liturgies in Arabic in the mother country, the Romanians in modern Romanian (they have regular commissions to update translations so that they are in modern Romanian but still accurately reflect the Greek), the Bulgarians in Bulgarian. Even among the Slavs the Ukrainians seem to prefer the use of Ukrainian over Church Slavonic. For me the issue is rather moot. It has been part of the Byzantine tradition throughout the centuries and continues to be so, at least in some parts, to this day. Personally I like it at least when the thrice-repeated parts maintain either some Greek or Church-Slavonic depending on the tradition of the parish I’m attending. My own parish uses a not-insignificant amount of Greek and Arabic.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I was going to say pretty much the same thing, but you did it far more gently. Thanks. The only thing I’ll add is that, while I wouldn’t call them “sacred” languages, I’m sure the Orthodox (OO and EO both) would be quite amused to hear that use and maintenance of the various venerable ancient liturgical languages is a latinization.

I wasn’t very clear in my original post I guess… sorry about that. My point was that the attempted imposed use (by Rome on the U.S. Melkites) of a liturgical language to the exclusion of the vernacular was a Latinization. I won’t deny that among the Byzantines there are recognized ancient and venerable liturgical languages that, to a greater or lesser extent, can be used in the liturgical services. But these languages normally aren’t used to the exclusion of the vernacular. Again, the Romanians, Bulgarians, Melkites (in the Middle East), Ukrainians, Georgians, Greeks (at least in the U.S.), etc. all have vernacular liturgical translations that are used. The extent to which a liturgical language is used often differs from parish to parish.

Of course, I do not attempt here to speak on behalf of the Oriental Churches. I still humbly admit my ignorance of their venerable traditions.

 

[malphono]

I wasn’t very clear in my original post I guess… sorry about that. My point was that the attempted imposed use (by Rome on the U.S. Melkites) of a liturgical language to the exclusion of the vernacular was a Latinization. I won’t deny that among the Byzantines there are recognized ancient and venerable liturgical languages that, to a greater or lesser extent, can be used in the liturgical services. But these languages normally aren’t used to the exclusion of the vernacular. Again, the Romanians, Bulgarians, Melkites (in the Middle East), Ukrainians, Georgians, Greeks (at least in the U.S.), etc. all have vernacular liturgical translations that are used. The extent to which a liturgical language is used often differs from parish to parish.

OK, got it. But now I’ll add something else. Any “flack” that Raya may have gotten from Rome (or anyone else) was justified on the basis that he took it upon himself to make and use a translation. That’s rather like having Fr Whoever from St Noname parish coming up with his own translation of the Latin Novus Ordo (or even of the Latin Usus Antiquior) and putting it to use on his own authority. The fact is that Fr Whoever does not have authority to do any such thing, and neither did Raya. Notice that once Maximos IV (who did have the authority) got involved, the matter seems to have been swiftly settled.

Of course, I do not attempt here to speak on behalf of the Oriental Churches. I still humbly admit my ignorance of their venerable traditions.

It’s pretty much the same as with the Easterners.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

OK, got it. But now I’ll add something else. Any “flack” that Raya may have gotten from Rome (or anyone else) was justified on the basis that he took it upon himself to make and use a translation. That’s rather like having Fr Whoever from St Noname parish coming up with his own translation of the Latin Novus Ordo (or even of the Latin Usus Antiquior) and putting it to use on his own authority. The fact is that Fr Whoever does not have authority to do any such thing, and neither did Raya. Notice that once Maximos IV (who did have the authority) got involved, the matter seems to have been swiftly settled.

It’s pretty much the same as with the Easterners.

I’ve actually often wondered why Raya wasn’t censured by the Patriarch for acting on his own in translating the way he did. Given the time, though, there was not a U.S. Eparchy for the Melkites, so there was no authority outside of the Patriarchate that he could turn to for an approved English translation of the DL (not trying here to justify his actions, merely understand them). At least in translating the services he attempted to keep the vernacular dignified and faithful to the original Greek, as opposed to the current N.O. translation of the Mass. Obviously there were some flaws with his translation, but it was a first attempt. Anyhow… it’s all water under the bridge now, I suppose.

Oh, but I must say that, from what I’ve read, the “flack” Archimandrite Raya received was not at all based on his having done his own translation, but rather on the fear of the Latin bishop that a vernacular Divine Liturgy would scandalize the Latin Catholics who, at the time, could not attend Mass in the vernacular. It also seems to have been based off of concerns that Fr. Raya was receiving many converts from Protestantism as well as interested Roman Catholics into his parish. For him, however, and this is one of the things I admire about him, his focus was not on increasing numbers, taking away pew fillers from Roman parishes, or any such thing; he was above all concerned with evangelizing the culture around him. In his writings he says over and over again that, in the Byzantine tradition, the Liturgical life of the Church is the primary means of evangelization. That was why he was so anxious to translate the services. It would’ve behooved him, however, to imitate Sts. Cyril and Methodius and seek the permission of his Patriarch (and/or the Bishop of Rome) before taking it upon himself to translate the Liturgical Services. I will certainly not disagree with you there.

Again, I apologize for not being more clear in my original post.

 

[malphono]

I’ve actually often wondered why Raya wasn’t censured by the Patriarch for acting on his own in translating the way he did.

This is just an educated guess, but it might have had something to do with the fact that, (at the time, at least) he and Hakim were buddy-buddy and for his part, Hakim was in the good graces of Maximos IV.

Anyhow… it’s all water under the bridge now, I suppose.

That it is.

Oh, but I must say that, from what I’ve read, the “flack” Archimandrite Raya received was not at all based on his having done his own translation, but rather on the fear of the Latin bishop that a vernacular Divine Liturgy would scandalize the Latin Catholics who, at the time, could not attend Mass in the vernacular. It also seems to have been based off of concerns that Fr. Raya was receiving many converts from Protestantism as well as interested Roman Catholics into his parish. For him, however, and this is one of the things I admire about him, his focus was not on increasing numbers, taking away pew fillers from Roman parishes, or any such thing; he was above all concerned with evangelizing the culture around him. In his writings he says over and over again that, in the Byzantine tradition, the Liturgical life of the Church is the primary means of evangelization. That was why he was so anxious to translate the services.

Whether the bishop claimed “scandal” (which seems to have been a very overused word, but I digress) or not, I don’t know and really don’t care. In the absence of a Melkite jurisdiction, Raya was a Melkite priest incardinated in the local Latin diocese, and as such, the bishop would have been well within his rights to balk at any such unilateral action. His justifications for his action notwithstanding, Raya well knew that the Patriarch and the Synod had jurisdiction in liturgical matters and that he was being precipitous.

It would’ve behooved him, however, to imitate Sts. Cyril and Methodius and seek the permission of his Patriarch (and/or the Bishop of Rome) before taking it upon himself to translate the Liturgical Services. I will certainly not disagree with you there.

That would have been the right way, and had it been so done, the entire incident would never have happened.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This is just an educated guess, but it might have had something to do with the fact that, (at the time, at least) he and Hakim were buddy-buddy and for his part, Hakim was in the good graces of Maximos IV.



That it is.

Whether the bishop claimed “scandal” (which seems to have been a very overused word, but I digress) or not, I don’t know and really don’t care. In the absence of a Melkite jurisdiction, Raya was a Melkite priest incardinated in the local Latin diocese, and as such, the bishop would have been well within his rights to balk at any such unilateral action. His justifications for his action notwithstanding, Raya well knew that the Patriarch and the Synod had jurisdiction in liturgical matters and that he was being precipitous.

I only say “scandal” because I seem to have remember reading that word in the book that serves as my source for this incident, a book compiled by Patriarch Maximos IV. You’re right, though, it does seem to have been an overly-used word at that time. As to the rest, I agree whole-heartedly.

That would have been the right way, and had it been so done, the entire incident would never have happened.

I believe you are correct.

 

[Cecilianus]

Cecilianus,

I’m not sure that the Melkite priest distributing Communion by hand instead of spoon is actually a Latinization. To my understanding it is simply a Melkite practice, one of the many things unique to the Melkite/Antiochian tradition (I believe the Antiochian Orthodox do this as well). The spoon is more of a Slavic thing than a Byzantine thing to my knowledge (but I may be wrong).

A Melkite priest told me they had begun doing that during an epidemic in the 1920s, and kept it because it was a way of distinguishing themselves from the Orthodox.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I was going to say pretty much the same thing, but you did it far more gently. Thanks. The only thing I’ll add is that, while I wouldn’t call them “sacred” languages, I’m sure the Orthodox (OO and EO both) would be quite amused to hear that use and maintenance of the various venerable ancient liturgical languages is a latinization.

I am going to have to throw my beads in with VMB Phillip Rolfes here!

The strength of the Eastern Church was that it adapted to the people. Sts Cyril and Methodius became famous in history and in the life of the Church because they challenged the wisdom of their day that asserted there were only three languages that could be called “sacred.”

Rather than venerate languages, Cyril and Methodius saw in language the primary evangelization tool par excellence. Their Slavonic language was precisely this and it inculturated Christianity in the people’s lives.

While Slavonic came to be used in liturgical services and so was ‘sacred,’ that did not mean that it didn’t grow or became adapted with succeeding centuries.

The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition played a significant, ongoing role not only in the cause of the Church, but also (and most telling) in the development of the various modern Slavic languages and cultures. No wonder Bl Pope John Paul declared them patrons of Europe, together with St Benedict.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

A Melkite priest told me they had begun doing that during an epidemic in the 1920s, and kept it because it was a way of distinguishing themselves from the Orthodox.

This is a very important point in the history of “Latinization” (someone should write a book!).

In Eastern Europe in the 18th-19th centuries, various Latin devotions came to “speak” to the Greek-Catholic people. Among them was the veneration of the Pieta, the Blood of Christ, adoration of Christ in Holy Communion, the Sacred Heart etc.

And the Greek-Catholics were more than willing to go to Latin parishes to attend these devotions.

So a movement began in the Greek-Catholic Church to “adopt” a number of the more popular devotions and Fr. Isidore Dolnitsky, for one, even wrote several Byzantine services with this thematic. This was done to keep the Greek-Catholics “put.”

Even the Orthodox adopted many Latin practices, promoted by their more famous Saints of that era. The Orthodox Kyivan Academy, it has been said, was entirely devoted to the Immaculate Conception and produced hymns and services to honour Mary Immaculate. There is even an old Akathist to the IC that is still circulated among Orthodox and one was published by the St Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood.

The Orthodox Saint Dmitri of Rostov prayed the Rosary, St Tikhon of Zadonsk prayed a form of the Stations of the Cross (with life-sized pictures of Christ on His way to Golgotha set up in his cell) and devotion to the Passion of Christ was very prominent.

So it was a matter of “we like this” more than anyone imposing it on anyone else. That is one side only of the issue of “Latinization” but I bring it up to show that it isn’t an easy idea to pigeon-hole.

Alex

 

[malphono]

… Cyril and Methodius saw in language the primary evangelization tool par excellence. Their Slavonic language was precisely this and it inculturated Christianity in the people’s lives.

Yes, except that OCS was never a “vernacular” as such. Nor was it meant to be.

While Slavonic came to be used in liturgical services and so was ‘sacred,’ that did not mean that it didn’t grow or became adapted with succeeding centuries.

One can also say that Latin “grew” in the same way.

 

[jam070406]

This is a very important point in the history of “Latinization” (someone should write a book!).

In Eastern Europe in the 18th-19th centuries, various Latin devotions came to “speak” to the Greek-Catholic people. Among them was the veneration of the Pieta, the Blood of Christ, adoration of Christ in Holy Communion, the Sacred Heart etc.

And the Greek-Catholics were more than willing to go to Latin parishes to attend these devotions.

So a movement began in the Greek-Catholic Church to “adopt” a number of the more popular devotions and Fr. Isidore Dolnitsky, for one, even wrote several Byzantine services with this thematic. This was done to keep the Greek-Catholics “put.”

Even the Orthodox adopted many Latin practices, promoted by their more famous Saints of that era. The Orthodox Kyivan Academy, it has been said, was entirely devoted to the Immaculate Conception and produced hymns and services to honour Mary Immaculate. There is even an old Akathist to the IC that is still circulated among Orthodox and one was published by the St Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood.

The Orthodox Saint Dmitri of Rostov prayed the Rosary, St Tikhon of Zadonsk prayed a form of the Stations of the Cross (with life-sized pictures of Christ on His way to Golgotha set up in his cell) and devotion to the Passion of Christ was very prominent.

So it was a matter of “we like this” more than anyone imposing it on anyone else. That is one side only of the issue of “Latinization” but I bring it up to show that it isn’t an easy idea to pigeon-hole.

Alex

There is an Immaculate Conception Ukrainian Catholic Church not far from me.

 

[ProVobis]

To my knowledge:
It was forbidden because kneeling was a sign of sorrow and penitence. This gesture was not fitting for the celebration of the Liturgy, which was the joyful celebration of Christ’s salvific work. Hence, the ban on kneeling.

Sounds like a little bit of social engineering here. Nothing to do with doctrine.

Is this why men kneel when proposing to a woman, for example?

Surely there must be some doctrinal reason for standing, if a council forbid kneeling.

 

[ProVobis]

One can also say that Latin “grew” in the same way.

Indeed. When codified Christianized Latin was fully adopted in the Western rites it was not as vernacular as Vulgar Latin which was to become the mother to Romance and other languages. One can find a small sample of differences in the Appendix Probi, which shows the potential of corruption of a particular language (and theology, as a result) by illiterates and semi-literates.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

A Melkite priest told me they had begun doing that during an epidemic in the 1920s, and kept it because it was a way of distinguishing themselves from the Orthodox.

Interesting. I did not know that.

 

[HollyDolly]

:harp: I’m Roman Catholic, but my mother’s parents were Hungarian byzantine and Hungarian Presbyterians. If i became a maronite or greek orthodox,we have both in San Antonio, I would follow what they follow, not expect them to accomadate me as a converted catholic.As far as I’m concerned, the orthodox and eastern rites of the Catholic church, honor The Father ,Son and Holy Ghost.They also honor the Blessed Mother of Jesus and the saints,what more could I want? My late father studied aplogetics with the jesuits when he was studying mechanical engineering at Marquette in Milwaukee. He had mentioned about the Copts and orthodox,don’t recall how the subject came up, but he never felt they needed to do as Rome did.
The same goes for the Jews.He grew up in a german family and they could speak yiddish.I know grandpa and daddy most certainly did. From him we learned many things about jewish customs and such, and he had been invited when in highschool to attend a seder at a friend’s house for Passover. He never felt the need to convert jews, and his parents had no problem with him attending. My parents felt a person’s beliefs were their own business. Oh, they would defend the church if someone went off an an anti catholic tirade i imagine,but they never tried to push our faith on anyone.
If there is anti roman feeling amongst the eastern rites, it’s because Roman catholics in that part of their world try to impose it on them. If anything the two should have worked together to minimize any protestant influence,etc.

 

[RyanBlack]

Sounds like a little bit of social engineering here. Nothing to do with doctrine.

Is this why men kneel when proposing to a woman, for example?

Surely there must be some doctrinal reason for standing, if a council forbid kneeling.

The doctrinal reason is that in the cultural context of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, kneeling was associated with penitence, which is inconsistent with the celebration of the Resurrection. There are several patristic sources that demonstrate the association of the posture of kneeling with penitence.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sounds like a little bit of social engineering here. Nothing to do with doctrine.

Is this why men kneel when proposing to a woman, for example?

Surely there must be some doctrinal reason for standing, if a council forbid kneeling.

It is not “if a council forbid kneeling”, as if someone is lying.

First Council of Nicaea
Canons.
20. Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.

As can be seen this was done to create uniformity of posture across the whole Church. Which is no longer the case today as each Episcopal Conference has set up when kneeling is to be done.

The East has always believe that kneeling is penitential in nature and in no way is any “social engineering” going on.

As for the example of men kneeling to propose, actually men drop to one knee to propose, I have never heard of a man kneeling down to both knees. Sort of an extended genuflection.

 

[jam070406]

It is not “if a council forbid kneeling”, as if someone is lying.

First Council of Nicaea
Canons.
20. Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.

As can be seen this was done to create uniformity of posture across the whole Church. Which is no longer the case today as each Episcopal Conference has set up when kneeling is to be done.

The East has always believe that kneeling is penitential in nature and in no way is any “social engineering” going on.

As for the example of men kneeling to propose, actually men drop to one knee to propose, I have never heard of a man kneeling down to both knees. Sort of an extended genuflection.

It says when one offers prayers to the Lord. When the Priest says “let us pray” people stand.
It doesn’t specify one cannot kneel during the consecration.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It says when one is praying. When the Priest says “let us pray” people stand.
It doesn’t specify one cannot kneel during the consecration.

The whole of the Mass is a prayer.

 

[jam070406]

The whole of the Mass is a prayer.

Yes. But the text doesn’t specify when. Nor say throughout the course of the whole Liturgy.