www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Latinizations--Another View

I recently converted to Catholicism from the Orthodox Church in America. I chose to do so because in January, I got engaged to a lady who is Roman Catholic. We came to a compromise-I agreed to become Catholic and she agreed that we will worship in a BC Church and raise our children as Byzantine Catholics. We live in Houston, TX and there is a Maronite parish, a Ukrainian parish, and a Ruthenian parish. We decided on the Ruthenian parish, where I was received into full communion in April.

So everyone will have a better idea of the perspective I bring, let me tell you a little bit about myself. I was not reared in the Orthodox Church. My mother is from a family of Southern Baptists and my father is from a family of Pentecostals. My desire to participate in the worship life of a community that is centered on eucharist led me to an Episcopal parish while I was a student at Duke University Divinity School. However, after a few years in the Episcopal Church, I grew increasingly disenchanted with the rapid loss of orthodoxy on the denominational level, so I left for the OCA. My belief that the Orthodox Church will never deny a traditional doctrine of Trinity and traditional, Chalcedonian christology, and my love of the Eastern Fathers and several modern Orthodox theologians are what led me to the Orthodox Church.

Since I began attending the Ruthenian parish and reading some of the posts on the Byzantine forum, I have encountered a great deal of discussion about Latinizations-something that I did not encounter in the OCA. While I found the OCA parish where I was chrismated and another I attended briefly in Florida to be very welcoming of people like me who are not from an Orthodox background, I also found them to be thoroughly Eastern (which I see as a good thing), with the exception that services are entirely in English.

As for all of this fuss I?m now hearing over Latinizations of Eastern Catholic Churches, I am familiar with the shameful history of abuse and persecution of Eastern Christians by Western Christians that has brought about these concerns and fears. However, there are some cases in which both the language and generally polemical tenor of conversations leads me to believe that for some people, what is really motivating them is contempt for both all things Latin, including the Latin Church and her members. When this happens?and please don?t try to tell me it does not?those who engage in such vitriolic speech make themselves guilty of the same sort of sins they accuse Latin Christians of committing against them. The experience my fianc�e has had with this has caused her a great deal of pain and has made her not want to go back to the Ruthenian parish, though she has resolved that she will not allow the hatefulness of a few drive her away. For the sake of not giving offense to those whose faith may be week (which is a most serious sin), I ask that we try to temper our speech with respect to the Latin traditions.

I would also ask people to consider another point of view about Latinizations. I personally am perfectly content to have a liturgical life free of Latinizations. If I have a particularly strong yearning for experiencing the Latin liturgy, I can always go to a weekday Mass or a Sunday afternoon or evening Mass. With respect to the Byzantine Church, it?s perfectly fine with me if we do away with the pews, use the curtain during Divine Liturgy, use only traditional Byzantine Christian music, avoid any Latin style religious art, etc., etc. However, Latin expressions of the Christian faith are not in and of themselves undesirable. Also, Christianity has always been somewhat syncretistic from its inception.

Christianity incorporated Hellenistic thinking with its Semitic roots from the very beginning. I for one am very glad that the Church, which in its very beginnings, was made up almost entirely of Jews, did not decide to reject the entire New Testament, and in particular the Johannine and Pauline writings, because of ?Hellenizations.? I?m also thankful that the Western Church did not reject the Seven Ecumenical Councils as ?Hellenizations? (all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils took place in the East and the bishops who attended were overwhelmingly Eastern). Also, look at the Chalcedonian Definition and the Tome of Leo, so important for defining the bounds of orthodox Christology at the Council of Chalcedon. The Fathers at Chalcedon made use of Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Roman strains of christological thought in order to define for the entire Church what is the true faith with respect to questions concerning how Christ is both truly God and truly human. Also I?m very thankful that the West did not choose to reject the Trinitarian teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers as being corrupt ?Hellenizations? (I know, I know, the West has put more emphasis on Augustine?s Trinitarian teachings than on those of the Cappadocians, but they have not rejected Eastern Trinitarian teachings?not even St. Thomas Aquinas, who often looked to St. John of Damascus, who was thoroughly Cappadocian). I could provide more examples, but I must stop somewhere.

Basically, I?m making two pleas here. First, let those of us who are Eastern Christians, either by virtue of having been born into a family of Eastern Christians, or by virtue of having converted, be careful in how we discuss these concerns about Latinizations. When people who are Western Catholics, for whatever reason, join us in Divine Liturgy, and begin to express a desire to incorporate Latin expressions of Christianity, and if such incorporation would present an offense to the Eastern faithful, please, please, do not resort to attack. Instead, explain to them how Vatican II instructs the Eastern Churches to reclaim their Eastern heritage and also, explain to them the historical reasons for the acute sensitivity of many Eastern Catholics to any Latinization of the Eastern liturgical life.

Secondly, I would also ask that we at least be open to the possibility that our own spirituality might actually be enriched by some exposure to the Western tradition (though certainly not if it is imposed upon us), just as Western Christians might be enriched by exposure to Byzantine expressions of the faith. Both traditions provide a wealth of spiritual riches that are a gift of the Blessed Holy Trinity to the Church. They are not rightly to be seen as being in conflict with each other. They are complementary to each other. Ours is a ?both?and? tradition, not an ?either?or? tradition. Remember, we confess ?one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,? not ?one, holy, Western, and apostolic Church,? or ?one, holy, Eastern, and apostolic Church.? Finally, let us recall the words of Holy Scripture itself, ?There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all who is above all and through all and in all" (Eph. 4:4-6, Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic edition).

Peace to all,
Ryan

Excellent post ! You are quite the journeyman !
Education, particularly of eastern customs and traditions is the key. I, as a RC, now learning more and more on here and elsewhere, DEEPLY appreciate how the eastern churches do and should retain ALL traditions and resist any latinizations.

Friends:
This is simply a repost. I should have previewed my initial post and I would have seen that all of my quotation marks got converted to question marks, which makes the post look dreadfully messy. So here it is again.


I recently converted to Catholicism from the Orthodox Church in America. I chose to do so because in January, I got engaged to a lady who is Roman Catholic. We came to a compromise-I agreed to become Catholic and she agreed that we will worship in a BC Church and raise our children as Byzantine Catholics. We live in Houston, TX and there is a Maronite parish, a Ukrainian parish, and a Ruthenian parish. We decided on the Ruthenian parish, where I was received into full communion in April.

So everyone will have a better idea of the perspective I bring, let me tell you a little bit about myself. I was not reared in the Orthodox Church. My mother is from a family of Southern Baptists and my father is from a family of Pentecostals. My desire to participate in the worship life of a community that is centered on eucharist led me to an Episcopal parish while I was a student at Duke University Divinity School. However, after a few years in the Episcopal Church, I grew increasingly disenchanted with the rapid loss of orthodoxy on the denominational level, so I left for the OCA. My belief that the Orthodox Church will never deny a traditional doctrine of Trinity and traditional, Chalcedonian christology, and my love of the Eastern Fathers and several modern Orthodox theologians are what led me to the Orthodox Church.

Since I began attending the Ruthenian parish and reading some of the posts on the Byzantine forum, I have encountered a great deal of discussion about Latinizations-something that I did not encounter in the OCA. While I found the OCA parish where I was chrismated and another I attended briefly in Florida to be very welcoming of people like me who are not from an Orthodox background, I also found them to be thoroughly Eastern (which I see as a good thing), with the exception that services are entirely in English.

As for all of this fuss I'm now hearing over Latinizations of Eastern Catholic Churches, I am familiar with the shameful history of abuse and persecution of Eastern Christians by Western Christians that has brought about these concerns and fears. However, there are some cases in which both the language and generally polemical tenor of conversations lead me to believe that for some people, what is really motivating them is contempt for all things Latin, including the Latin Church and her members. When this happens-and please don't try to tell me it does not-those who engage in such vitriolic speech make themselves guilty of the same sort of sins they accuse Latin Christians of committing against them. The experience my fianc�e has had with this has caused her a great deal of pain and has made her not want to go back to the Ruthenian parish, though she has resolved that she will not allow the hatefulness of a few drive her away. For the sake of not giving offense to those whose faith may be week (which is a most serious sin), I ask that we try to temper our speech with respect to the Latin traditions.

I would also ask people to consider another point of view about Latinizations. I personally am perfectly content to have a liturgical life free of Latinizations. If I have a particularly strong yearning for experiencing the Latin liturgy, I can always go to a weekday Mass or a Sunday afternoon or evening Mass. With respect to the Byzantine Church, it's perfectly fine with me if we do away with the pews, use the curtain during Divine Liturgy, use only traditional Byzantine Christian music, avoid any Latin style religious art, etc., etc. However, Latin expressions of the Christian faith are not in and of themselves undesirable. Also, Christianity has always been somewhat syncretistic from its inception.

Christianity incorporated Hellenistic thinking with its Semitic roots from the very beginning. I for one am very glad that the Church, which in its very beginnings, was made up almost entirely of Jews, did not decide to reject the entire New Testament, and in particular the Johannine and Pauline writings, because of "Hellenizations." I'm also thankful that the Western Church did not reject the Seven Ecumenical Councils as "Hellenizations" (all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils took place in the East and the bishops who attended were overwhelmingly Eastern). Also, look at the Chalcedonian Definition and the Tome of Leo, so important for defining the bounds of orthodox Christology at the Council of Chalcedon. The Fathers at Chalcedon made use of Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Roman strains of christological thought in order to define for the entire Church what is the true faith with respect to questions concerning how Christ is both truly God and truly human. Also I'm very thankful that the West did not choose to reject the Trinitarian teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers as being corrupt "Hellenizations" (I know, I know, the West has put more emphasis on Augustine's Trinitarian teachings than on those of the Cappadocians, but they have not rejected Eastern Trinitarian teachings-not even St. Thomas Aquinas, who often looked to St. John of Damascus, who was thoroughly Cappadocian). I could provide more examples, but I must stop somewhere.

Basically, I'm making two pleas here. First, let those of us who are Eastern Christians, either by virtue of having been born into a family of Eastern Christians, or by virtue of having converted, be careful in how we discuss these concerns about Latinizations. When people who are Western Catholics, for whatever reason, join us in Divine Liturgy, and begin to express a desire to incorporate Latin expressions of Christianity, and if such incorporation would present an offense to the Eastern faithful, please, please, do not resort to attack. Instead, explain to them how Vatican II instructs the Eastern Churches to reclaim their Eastern heritage and also, explain to them the historical reasons for the acute sensitivity of many Eastern Catholics to any Latinization of the Eastern liturgical life.

Secondly, I would also ask that we at least be open to the possibility that our own spirituality might actually be enriched by some exposure to the Western tradition (though certainly not if it is imposed upon us), just as Western Christians might be enriched by exposure to Byzantine expressions of the faith. Both traditions provide a wealth of spiritual riches that are a gift of the Blessed Holy Trinity to the Church. They are not rightly to be seen as being in conflict with each other. They are complementary to each other. Ours is a "both...and" tradition, not an "either...or" tradition. Remember, we confess "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church," not "one, holy, Western, and apostolic Church," or "one, holy, Eastern, and apostolic Church." Finally, let us recall the words of Holy Scripture itself, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all who is above all and through all and in all" (Eph. 4:4-6, Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic edition).

Oh no not again!!!

Dear Ryan,

You write very beautifully. Thank you for this post and for enriching us with it. Thank you for your positive contributions to this forum, and though belated, WELCOME .

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

Alice:
Thank you for your kind words and for your welcome.
In peace,
Ryan

customs, traditions, and rites have always been introduced between east and west in the first millenium of christianity, nothing wrong with sharing ideas,especially when concerning the sacred. of course this cultural sharing was when east and west were one. the early church did not make much of this but eventually politics and estrangement got involved. nowadays as eastern catholics we must get back to our roots and protect our tradition. aside from latinizations(forced latinations) i know atleast in yesteryear there was even persecution for us to not pattern Orthodox Christian believers. what i mean is, we were in a tough position in which the Latin west did not understand us and the Orthodox east does not accept us. i think this is why we have our own identity sometime, which is truly genuine, and part of who we are. the bridge between west and east

I think you will always find, in both east and west, those individuals who must be more pure and authentic than everyone else. Much of that is, I believe, little more than pride in that the individuals often are seeking to draw attention to themselves. It is true that the Latin Church is the 500-pound gorilla on the block, and it sometimes does overwhelm and dominate everyone else. However, it is up to us easterners and our leaders to be who we are and what we are, but with humility and not pride.

Well said ! And Welcome !

The Church is both correct and universal, both Orthodox and Catholic. And these two sides of the same Church complement each other. And together, they make each other whole.

Again, welcome and well said.

-- John

Some time ago, Dr. Alex Roman and I carried on a private correspondence about the issue of Latinizations and I offered him this take.

The history of the Church among the Slavs is a difficult one to pin down. It seems that there have been Eastern Christians living among Western Christians in those lands together since the evanglization of the area was overlapped by the Greeks and Germans centuries ago.

I thought that with the addition of politics to the equation, it might be more like this. To some people, a Latin practice meant to their Latin neighbors and rulers "hey, we're like you but Eastern in our liturgical practice, so we're distinct people." To their Orthodox neighbors, they could say, "hey, we're like you liturgically and haven't abandoned our heritage, but we have some of our own customs that work for us that we've borrowed from our Latin neighbors, so we're distinct people." And, I believe, that this idea of defining oneself as distinct is important. We all do it on one level or another. This is especially important for a small tribe that is threatened with being swallowed by a larger tribe--we still want to be distinct and define ourselves as such.

Now this is a vast oversimplification of the ideas I came to after thinking about this complex situation. But when we look at the threads posted here over the past few years concerning Ruthenians not wanting to be considered Ukrainians and neither group wanting to be incorporated into the Russian Orthodox Church this seems to make some sense. Addtionally, Alex has done some traveling in that part of the world and says that many Latin practices are still used in some Orthodox parishes there. So the issue of Latinization is far more complex than the way things were introduced in the United States during the last century.

Finally, I beg you not to make the mistake that the Latin Church made during the last 40 years. SO much was done away with or actively discouraged in the area of avenues people used to nurture their faith that the very fabric of the domestic church was damaged. People often don't pray together because no one is sure what is the current accepted practice. There are so many homes that have no evidence of being Christian let alone being Catholic--and this is, I believe, a direct result of all this. St. John Climacus tells us that there are many ladders by which we make our climb toward Heaven. Don't chop someone else's ladder off just because it has wood from two different sources.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob, that was a very good post !

-- John

Another thing that has crossed my mind reading the history of the Slavic region is that the relationship of this region to its Patriarch--in Constantinople--may not have excluded an ongoing relationship with Rome, even though the two sees had a broken relationship.

So when the Ruthenians decided to switch from one Patriarch to another--who we finally report to--it may not have been as black and white as we like to see it today. They didn't have instant communications and issues that cropped up in distant cities didn't affect the local eparchy as they might today. In fact, moving to Rome might have been a brilliant move. The Ruthenian bishops were reported to have been unhappy with the liturgical changes of their Patriarch and maybe moving to Rome meant to them that they'd be left alone--after all, before the actual move it might have seemed that Rome would leave them alone because Rome wouldn't understand their liturgical tradtions. The downside was that Rome not only DIDN'T understand, but took steps over time to remedy their understanding by introducing changes that have become known as "Latinizations" so they would understand the Ruthenians.

What I'm trying to get at is that we may need to take a different look at the relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches to their Orthodox relatives in different parts of the world. The Greek tradition Catholics might more easily find union with their Orthodox relatives because they have a different history and less friction brought on by changing historical circumstances. The Slavs, on the other hand, may have to live with a much more ambiguous situation. The MP doesn't see Ukraine as separate from it and yet there is a separate history that finds its present day existence in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I've posed this dilemna before: both the UGCC and the MP derive from the same Kievan source and both have a seemingly valid claim to being the successor to that historical Church.

It seems to me that it will take many years of actually being in communion where we would have one parish having their bishop being different from the bishop the next parish was supervised by. Then it would take getting used to the idea that the other person's bishop might stop by and still be available to help with problems until the situation could come to the point where in a given area people of the same ritual tradition would again have one bishop in one place. But we've got to be able to accept and live with a little ambiguity in our ORTHOPRAXY for that to happen. (Notice I didn't say ambiguity in our ORTHODOXY.)

In Christ,

BOB

Latin practices are not bad in themselves. They just don't belong in some places.

Why? Because they contribute to drift away from Orthodox practices. That is fundamentally unacceptable because the supposed goal is eventual east-west unity. The Eastern Catholics should not differentiate from their Orthodox co-religionists if it can be helped.

Orthodox bishops and clergy who first agreed to the union scheme did not intend to see their churches morph, and it is still a bad idea.

+T+
Michael

Well that is simple clear and to the point on all points.

Eli

I was under the impression a small group of clergy were the ones lining up the union and the one and only bishop was the one who broke with his Patriarch and will the assistance of the civil austhorites implemented it. Any attempts for Orthodox bishops to minster to those who were not going Catholic, was made next to impossible by the intervention of the civil authorities. The same happended in Lviv when the one and only Orthodox bishop went Catholic (some would say he was a 'sleeper' waiting for the right moment to bring about the Union). He also was aided by the civil authorities who made it very very difficult for anyone who wanted to remain Orthodox. Given time and people were cut off from their roots and the divisons were sort of set in concrete. All the grant language of the union documents did not last the distance. withing the fist 200 yrs the Byzantines were under attack from the Poles, hence the weak bishops bringing in Latinisms under the excuse of not scandalising the Latins (of Poland). This at the same time while Publishers in the Papal states were still putting out service books of very high quality, with all the bits the Poles wanted out still in them.

That is my view I should add, of what has got us to this point in time. Having dug ourselves in I suppose it is time to stop digging.