www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ruthenian latinizations

It has been. Our God-Loving Bishops simply refuse to do it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Dear jjp,

Sorry for almost diverting another thread. I re-posted my comment/question starting another thread here:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...thodox%20Steps%20to%20Reunion#Post352692

For anyone who might want to continue that conversation and help me see what step Orthodoxy has taken in Ecumenism.

Lyrie eleison,

Manuel

jjp,

The simple fact is that, over 25 years or so, there has been a great deal of DElatinization in the Ruthenian church in the United States:

- restoration of iconostases, and building of new churches in more traditional styles
- restoration of infant communion, beginning with baptism
- restoration of aliturgical days, and the end of "daily Mass" during the Great Fast
- elimination of the filioque from the creed
- elimination of rubrics directing the congregation to kneel throughout the services
- restoration of litanies which were formerly either marked as optional in the people's books, or omitted entirely.

Even the vesper-Liturgy which has garnered such scorn here was begun as an attempt to move AWAY from Roman-style Saturday evening liturgy and toward a more proper Byzantine cycle of services, by gradually making the faithful familiar with parts of the service of Sunday vespers.

The problem is whether and at what pace FURTHER de-latinization takes place. I think that the phrase "latinization of the heart" is primarily being used here to mean "not willing to go further" - "If you were REALLY Eastern you would be doing everything the right way, RIGHT NOW." But in fact there is opposition to this process, not just from some clergy but from many of our faithful, who do not want to be "just like the Orthodox." And one of the flagship "opposed to the RDL" parishes that I have attended uses not only the old music and texts, but takes the filioque in the Creed - so it is not likely that their opposition is inspired by wanting a "more authentic Eastern liturgy."

As several have noted, education is key - as is gradual change. If, for example, the bishops simply ordered that all parishes were to celebrate ONE Divine Liturgy per altar each Sunday, and only Vespers could be celebrated on Saturday evening, the most likely result would be a mass flight to nearby Roman parishes.

One consequence has been the amount of QUIET change. For example, the services of Benediction is gone; processions with the Blessed Sacrament are a thing of the past (though still sometimes held in Europe, where Corpus Christi is a civic holiday with public services). At the annual Uniontown pilgrimage, the "Perpetual Rosary" used to be a very big deal; now it is done quietly in a chapel, while the sisters are emphasizing the Jesus Prayer; Matins was celebrated all three days of the pilgrimage.

More parishes are celebrating Vespers and Matins that any time in decades. So the idea that the Ruthenian church is becoming MORE latinized is a real stretch; but of course the bishops, clergy and faithful could do more than they have so far.

In Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

What about those who attend a Latin Church because there is no Eastern Church near them?

My own druthers would be they attend Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox parish.

I agree, but I was actually assuming there was no Orthodox parish near them either.

Good question! The RC bishop is responsible for the care of these people and should attempt to make arrangements for a priest of the member's particular Church to visit occasionally to administer the sacraments.

To be fair, the same policy should hold true for Eastern Bishops in countries where the Roman Church is in the minority.

So are you saying that excepting when the RC bishop brings in a priest from the Eastern Catholic's particular Church the person should just not attend a Roman mass, or receive the sacraments?

Byzcat,

Thanks for the reminder to the forum's visitors that the bishops and seminary have made historic changes in the past generation. Our more recent members only hear of the criticisms and the progress is overlooked.

The changes are truly of HISTORIC proportions when you consider how slow ecclesiastical change occurs.



Stuart,
If you have a document or statement of Rome's rescission of imposed celibacy would you please post it. I haven't heard of any "official" change.

Many blessed years,
Fr Deacon Paul

Everything on Jeff's list was accomplished at least in some parishes in the 1970s and 1980s. Parishes like Annandale and Williamsburg had to undo authentic Byzantine praxis to substitute the part latin part invented praxis of the Revised Divine Liturgy.

While there are some pastors who cling to the old text and the old music who are indeed latin-minded there is no support for the claim that new texts and rubrics (different from the normative Ruthenian) and music were needed as part of authentic renewal. There are examples of parishes that used the old texts and music with fully authentic rubrics for Vespers, Matins and Divine Liturgy with good attendance at each and with good singing. From a scholarship perspective, there is nothing more authentically Byzantine about the Revised Divine Services then was possible with the official, normative Ruthenian service books. The whole mandate for the Revised Liturgy has set accomplishing truly authentic renewal back maybe a whole generation.

I will repeat my long-stated path towards authentic renewal. No mandates or awkward liturgy or music required. Take the 1964 texts and correct what is incorrect, and follow up with elegant texts for the other Divine Services (without the politics the currently mandated texts have for such politics are both wrong and have been shown to empty churches over time). Give freedom for music, with a return to the old settings for the fixed portions of the DL and liberty for everything else (what is good will eventually spread and what is bad will not last even with mandates).

I agree with Stuart on the latinization of the mind. The idea that half each Vespers and Divine Liturgy is a step East is ludicrous. All it does it to reaffirm the idea that a service without Eucharist is worthless. One could go on, but one obvious way is to change the seminary life so that the liturgical life is authentically Byzantine, and not a mish-mash of Revised services. It is the only way to form the next generation of priests correctly. And, of course, make the cathedrals examples of excellence in liturgy (correct normative praxis and good singing) so that the other parishes are impressed by its growth and want to copy the example.


The 1992 Eastern Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II ended any restrictions on clerical celibacy once and for all. The 1999 Ruthenian (Pittsburgh) Particular Law was written mostly by Bishop Andrew Pataki. He does not accept the idea of a married clergy and wrote the law in a way that forced Rome to rewrite it. Essentially Rome decided that Pittsburgh Ruthenians were not competent enough to work this out for themselves and demanded to review individual cases (see Canon 758 §3-2 below). This is possibly very likely because they want to prevent Roman Catholic married men from moving East just to be ordained to the priesthood and then find a way back to the Roman Church. Bishop John Kudrick of Parma has ordained married men. I have long recommended that a good method of re-introducing the married clergy would be to seek priestly vocations from older men (50+) who are either retired or semi-retired, in good marriages or widows, and who remember the older married priests. They could be a good example to the young married men seeking the priesthood. The matter has been entirely in the hands of our bishops since 1992.

Here are the relevant canons:


The idea that a Byzantine who has no decent Byzantine parish near him should attend a RC parish rather then an Orthodox parish is another sign of a Latin mindset. The Catholic Church has stated in numerous places that communion is not perfect but "profound". Well, if this is true then let the example be lived. Balamand was never ratified but it did express the mind of the Catholic Church [#15 While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.] Since the RCC was willing to agree to this it should really have no problem if a Byzantine Catholic joins an Orthodox parish to find a weekly celebration of his own Liturgy. But we've discussed all this at length. And the larger issue is with Greek Catholic bishops and clergy, and much less then the people.

.

This is like the old joke:

"How many Ruthenians does it take to change a light bulb?"
"We're still waiting for Rome to tell us to change".

The CCEO supersedes all "extraordinary norms"--which would include Ea Semper (by the way, how can a "norm" be "extraordinary"?). Also, any number of official documents from Orientalium ecclesiarum onward have instructed the Eastern Catholic Churches to restore the fullness of their Tradition, including the married priesthood. And, of course, the Ruthenians saw fit to put it in their particular law, albeit in a very stupid way, but it's there. So how much of a hint do we really need? Every other jurisdiction--Melkite, Ukrainian, Romanian--is ordaining married men right here in the States (and up in Canada for even longer).

The true answer, as I have been told several times by people who know, is the bishops like having a celibate priesthood--it's cheaper and easier to manage.

I assume this is addressed to me, and my answer is yes, especially if the person involved has a family with small children. If we are to restore the fullness of our Tradition, then we must live in the Tradition, and not in some other Tradition with a different liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrine and discipline--and most certainly not partly in one and partly in the other, which ensures that we learn nothing from either. And this means getting over the notion that "Catholic is Catholic", which has been the bane of our existence for four hundred years.

Actually it was addressed to Paul B, but I appreciate your reply. Thanks.

Yes I think the Catholic is Catholic idea is not helpful, especially when it comes to making sure that traditions are past on to our children, so I guess it's time to kick out canons that say we are obligated to attend a Catholic or Orthodox service, if our own rite is not represented in a given area. Or do we just individually seek dispensations?

Just why are we endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit?