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

I did, and all it tells me is nobody agrees on what a "latinization" is. I'm sure the Ruthenian BCC leadership wouldn't say the revised liturgy is latinized, or introduced new latinizations, if you asked them.

The whole question of de-latinization and liturgical reform seems to me to be a clerical issue. I wouldn't be shocked if most people when asked wouldn't just say things should be left alone, existing latinizations and all. I would also wonder if this whole issue is really the most pressing problem the church is facing.

What's ironic to me is the Ruthenian BCC it would seem was at its largest numerically and most active when it was "latinized".

I must say you understand neither Latinization nor calendar.

The Eastern Catholic churches have been charged by the Pope with restoring their traditional practices, theology, rituals, and way of thinking. Is that negotiable or up for vote?

Let us be perfectly clear: the only reason for the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches as “Ecclesiae particulares” is their distinct ecclesial patrimony—i.e., their “rite” in the full sense of that term. Our rite is not just an essential part of our identity; it is our identity. And without it there is no reason for us to exist apart from the Latin rite. If the only thing that distinguishes our rite from that of our Orthodox Sister Churches is our communion with and obedience to the Holy See of Rome, then one can legitimately ask what kind of Eastern Catholic ecclesiology could ignore such clear and repeated instructions of the Holy See in this regard. The answer, of course, is perfectly clear to anyone capable of thought. . .

Ironically, however, the Eastern Catholic liturgical renewal so strenuously fostered by the Holy See since Pope Leo XIII has been opposed every step of the way by those who should have welcomed it on bended knee as a great grace from God; I mean, of course, the Eastern Catholic hierarchy with a few notable exceptions like Andrij Sheptytsky (1865-1944), Archbishop of Lviv, Metropolitan of Halych, and primate of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church. . .


At bottom, then, what we face is two different interpretations of a community’s past, two different historical visions. This is possible because history, of course, is not just a shared past, but one’s view of that past seen through the lens of present concerns. This vision is not a passive view of the past as an objective reality, but a pattern formed through a process of selection determined by one’s present outlook.

Some Eastern Catholic clergy see their history as a progress from schism and spiritual stagnation into a life of discipline, renewal and restored religious practice in the Catholic communion. For this group, the adoption of certain Latin—they would say “Catholic”—devotions and liturgical uses is a sign of this new identity. Such attitudes reflect an interior erosion of the Eastern Christian consciousness, a “latinization of the heart” resulting from a formation insensitive to the true nature of the variety of traditions within the Catholic Church.

Others, while not denying their commitment to the Catholic communion nor underestimating the obvious spiritual benefits it has brought to their Churches, see themselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome, distinguished from their Orthodox Sister Churches in nothing but the fact of that communion and its doctrinal and ecclesial consequences. They see the Latinisms that have crept into their tradition as a loss of identity, an erosion of their heritage in favor of foreign customs with which they can in no way identify themselves. For some, latinization is a sign of their identity, for others its negation, and both are right, because they perceive themselves differently.

Underlying these issues, of course, is the more serious question of Rome’s credibility: is the Holy See to be believed in what it says about restoring the Eastern Catholic heritage? The morale of some of the younger Eastern Catholic clergy has of late been deeply affected by this cul-de-sac: they feel mandated to do one thing by the Holy See, and then are criticized or even disciplined by their bishop if they try to obey.

The problem, as usual, is one of leadership, without which the hesitant or reluctant have no one to follow. What is needed is not just discipline and obedience, but also clergy education loyal to the clear policy of the Church on this question, and prudent pastoral preparation. This is the only way out of the vicious cycle that has been created: the proposed reforms are resisted because the clergy and the people are not prepared to accept them—yet some Church leaders do little or nothing to prepare the people for a renewal that the leaders themselves do not understand or accept.

The Eastern Catholic churches have been charged by the Pope with restoring their traditional practices, theology, rituals, and way of thinking. Is that negotiable or up for vote?

Underlying these issues, of course, is the more serious question of Rome’s credibility: is the Holy See to be believed in what it says about restoring the Eastern Catholic heritage?

How come we never hear of Roman Byzantinizations? ;-)

How come we never hear of Roman Byzantinizations? ;-)

The question posed above by Fr Taft is a critical question.
Are the Eastern Catholic Churches pawns being sacrificed to obtain a union with the Orthodox Churches?