www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Latinization as a way to keep EC's with Rome

Amadeus: It might look "rapid" but there are some things that you might not know: this spirtual path is in a time frame of almost 25 years. Plus I never was really roman catholic always bc.

But to assure you this path concerned me first too - on the line "another change?". I came to the conclusion that this path is very logical in my life. It feels right to do. Plus I discovered that this path is actually not so uncommon as it looks like (several people confirmed that).

Another tremendous reason for me is my probable vocation to the deaconat. It is very important for me that I am in full line of the theology to consider this vocation. And I had to be honest that I am not in full line of the teaching of the RC/BC church.

Orthodox Catholic: I understand your remark very good. And if I sounded that I am blaming people because they fearing that they are too orthodox than I was missunderstood. I understand this positionn I only cannot accept it for myself.

Torsten, regarding your comments about the diaconate, at least in my Greek Catholic diaconate program the reading material was centered on Orthodox writers such as Ware, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Lossky, Gillet, Hopko, Harakas, Cabisilas, Palamas, and many others.

Torsten:

I used "rapid" in quotations and, therefore, relatively!

Some of us here have been in the SAME Church all our entire lives. In my case, almost 60 years now!

Frankly, 4 Churches "in almost 25 years" is to me, personally, "rapid!" It is just difficult to acquire the full knowledge about one Church if another eye is on the next.

As you said, it has been done and I am not putting up hurdles in your Church hopping. Just don't preach to the choir, if I may request!

Amado

You have to admit its strange.For centuries Rome pushed Latinization.Than Came Leo XIII and a change started,slowly. Than with Vatican II it went into overdrive .De-latinization was the policy ! The Filioque was removed from Eastern Liturgical books .Latin innovations were removed.Today we have Rome pushing De-Latinization while some in the Eastern churches resist it strongly,strange.

Rome pushed Latinization? Do tell.

djs asks: "Rome pushed Latinization? Do tell."

Well, if you insist . . . shall we discuss the pressure to make use of Latin vestments? The pressure to adopt the Gregorian Calendar? The pressure to use the Roman form of the sacraments (try Penance, Holy Orders, matrimony . . .) The denial of the right of priests to administer Confirmation/Chrismation? The prohibition of the Eastern Catholic Liturgies in Eastern Catholic seminaries in Rome? The suppression of the Chaldean hierarchy in Malabar? The imposition of the RC Mass (in Ge'ez) in Ethiopia? The denial of a Byzantine hierarchy in Italy?

Will that do for one evening? There's lots more where that came from!

Incognitus

III: You've given a list of items which mostly appear to be Latinizations and attached the word pressure to some, but, for the most part, have given little detail of the "pressure" or documentation of its coming from Rome, let alone its dating relative to the Pontificate of Leo XIII.

My impressions was that in earlier times with our ancestors, Rome opposed local pressures, which had an strong nation-building component to them. "On the Euchologion" of Benedict XIV (1756) provides provides a happy example.

I am happy to be educated on the matter, but your list is not instructive.

Indeed.
Precisely my position, and for the same reason.

The closer I came to heeding the call to the diaconate, the more difficult it became to reconcile the BC position with my own convictions. Because of that it made sense to move on.

+T+
Michael, that sinner

Dear djs,
Sorry to be dense, but I don't understand. Your brief post was a response - I think - to the previous post suggesting that Leo XIII had reversed the earlier policy of Latinization. So why are you asking me to document Leo XIII as a proponent of Latinization?

As to documents, try the Clementine Instructions regarding the Italo-Greeks, Omnem Sollicitudinem (Pius IX) regarding the Ruthenians, and, of course, Ea Semper.

Beyond that, I'm not about to write a doctoral dissertation this morning. But there is no lack of material, including quite recent material.

Incognitus

Incognitus: JohnnyJ remarked that for centuries Rome pushed Latinization, but the pontificate of LeoXIII marked a turning point in this policy.

This idea may be criticized from two distinct perspectives.

First, did LeoXIII mark the turning point? Clearly your bringing up Ea Semper argues against JJ's thesis.

Second, a perspective often expressed here is that, for Ruthenians, Rome had often been a brake on changes that otherwise might have ensued because of local pressures and currents. "On the Euchologion" is one example. "Omnem Sollicitudinem" is more complex. It does clearly say: no ad hoc innovation. It does not, however, vitiate changes enacted synodally even thay are if "Latinizations". In fairness one might take into account the dire situation being faced at the time in Chelm - rather like post WWII - and see an exhortation to faithful to hold fast to what is theirs.

Holy Martyrs of Pratulin, pray for us.

To quote Father Cyril Korolevsky, when Saint Pius X was elected, Leo XIII's policy towards the Eastern Churches "was put aside for a while". Ea Semper was Pius X, not Leo XII

There is serious ground to believe that Marcel Popel really was seeking liturgical renewal, not incorporation into the state Church of the Russian Empire - but Omnem Sollicitudinem was the last straw.

May the martyrs of Pratulin indeed pray for us. You realize, I trust, that the priest whom they were trying to keep out of their church was Greek-Catholic.

Incognitus

He would therefore agree presumably that LeoXIII was not a turning point.

After Leo XIII, thus, again, arguing against his pontificate being a turning point.

Perhaps. But does one of the bishops in a particular church have the right, within his eparchy to repeal, unilaterally the decisions of a synod?

Perhaps also Gabriel Kostelnik was seeking liturgical renewal. He too was a Greek-Catholic priest. Facts of History are often hard to disentangle from political polemics, which come in all sorts of flavors.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/martyr10.htm
http://www.parafia-drelow-nmp.siedlce.opoka.org.pl/meczennicy/historia_e.htm

So...according to the website (2nd posted link above), the bishop sent a Latin priest into Drelow in 1919 to re-form the parish as a Latin parish? If that isn't strong-arming, I don't know what is.

Did the make-up of the village change? Were all the Greek Catholics gone or become Orthodox? Did ethnic Poles make up the majority of the area???

Yet, in further reading, when the cause of the Uniate martyrs was started, they asked for eye-witness accounts and for information from relatives of the martyrs. These presumably would be the people who were now members of the new Latin parish. Geesh!

Dear djs,
I'm finding your arguments increasingly hard to follow - is there an agenda here that I am not aware of?

Father Cyril Korolevsky certainly regarded Leo XIII as a turning point - kindly read what Father Cyril wrote, instead of attempting to put words in the mouth of a man who has been dead for nearly fifty years.

I assume the synod you are referring to is the infamous Synod of Zamost. But if you will examine the matter carefully, you will discover - surprise! - that the overwhelming majority of abuses that Marcel Popel was seeking to correct were NOT, repeat, NOT enjoined by the Synod of Zamost; they were nothing but illegitimate customs. Marcel Popel repeatedly appealed to published documents of the Holy See - such as the Euchologion of Benedict XIV - only to find that in the interpretation of Omnem Sollicitudinem, these documents applied somewhere else, although just where that somewhere else might be is mysteriously left unspecified (the Moon? the planet Mars? the great nebula in Andromeda?). Zamost did not enjoin the use of organ music during the Liturgy, the removal of icon-screens, the use of the monstrance . . . must I continue the list?

As to Drelow, there is a serious mis-statement of fact. Father Marcel Popel did not order everyone to join the Orthodox Church in 1874; he ordered the use of the authentic forms of the Divine Liturgy and other services of Catholic Byzantine worship.

Father Gabriel Kostelnyk of unhappy memory was certainly interested in liturgical repristination, and had been for a long time. This, however, had nothing to do with his sad involvement in the outrageous events of 1945-1946. He was led to believe that the Soviets had his son in their prison, and that if the father did not do what the Soviets wanted, the son would pay for it, so to speak. Father Gabriel's wife left a thorough description of this disgraceful matter; it was published after her death.

The KGB murdered Father Gabriel Kostelnyk in 1948. Forty years later, I was privileged to meet his son and receive a first-hand account (all the surviving members of the Kostelnyk family are Greek-Catholics).

The Soviet government had no serious interest in the fine points of ritual used in Galicia from 1946 until the collapse of the USSR. All the government cared about was external conformity (not in ritual matters) to the State Church.

Incognitus

Incognitus:

I have no agenda, other than learning about the truth, and cannot understand why you would raise such a point. JJ's history struck me as inconsistent with what I've read here over the past few years, on the two grounds noted above. So I am looking to find out what is behind his comment.

I don't get your point at all on LeoXIII. He may have had the very best understanding of and relationship with the Eastern Catholic Churches, but if in his aftermath we had Ea Semper it cannot be said that his pontificate the "turning point": that Rome pushed Latinization before, but reversed this position after, as suggested by JJ. Indeed it would seem to me that any who find strong continuing Latinization pressure from Rome after LeoXIII would be the first to object to this idea. To me this point is secondary, but I made it specifically in response to your question about my remark about dating relative to Leo XIII. Your quote from Father Cyril Korolevsky at face value seemed to agree with the idea that pressure toward Latinization resumed after LeoXIII. I am sorry if I misuderstood the quote that you selected.

The issue of primary interest to me is the origin of so-called Latinization pressure in our particular churhces. Was there pressure? Of course. Was is for the most part local or for the most part from Rome-central? Was it cultural or ecclesiastical? Was it internal or external? These are, to me, interesting questions, about which I was soliciting information - while also indicating that it is not a simple thing to get extract reality for most accounts on such matters. (The life and death of St. Josaphat provides an even more striking example than does the Chelm annexation). But again lists, continued or interrupted, aren't helpful. The question that interests me is not: did Latinization occur (i.e. can Latinizations be listed? Duh!); but how did they occur, and what was the specific role of Rome over time in it. I think we can agree that the pews, organs, diminished iconostases, etc. of Orthodox in the US cannot be ascribed to pressure from Rome. Therefore we ought to be able to agree that such things in our churches are not ipso facto ascribable to pressure from Rome.