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

Perhaps what the Eastern Bishops need to do is to say, "we are retaining our traditions and in doing so are going to return to the practice of ordaining married men and the jusrisdiction over Eastern Catholics of our rite.
We ask, in a spirit of charity, for our brother, the Pope and Bishop of Rome, to affirm what we are choosing to do."

Would this be taken as an act of disobedience, or would it be taken as it is intended, as witnessing to the tradition and asking the protos to uphold the tradition?

It's important to remember, but it's water under the bridge at this point. That's why some of the things pointed out in the article from the Messenger seem out of place. We can remember history, but it's not really up to us to comment on the current state of the BCC in the Catholic Communion. The ACROD chose to leave.


I think an important thing to remember is +Metropolitan Orestes (I said Bishop Chornock above because I was writing too fast) just felt like he was preserving his church and protecting his people. I do not get a sense he left with bitterness or malice, that unfortunately I would say did not seem to be the case with Fr. Alexis. The fact that Metropolitan Orestes did not repudiate his past can be seen in many ways in the past and present. For instance here [flickr.com] is a picture of him in the 30's, and here [flickr.com] is a picture of his ordaining bishop. Both posted on the flickr page of the ACROD. I agree with Fr. Lawrence that if Metropolitan Orestes is still under the bans of excommunication, that is a historical wrong that must be righted as a gesture of reconciliation.

I don't think AMM or Fr. Lawrence are off base at all. Why hasn't Rome unequivocally stated Eastern Catholic Churches everywhere can ordain married men to the presbyterate? Because Rome is content with its micromanaging status quo. Because, in America land of dissenters, it serves the Latin Church's purpose to control and limit an Eastern married presbyterate.

And if the excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius can be lifted, for goodness sake lift Metropolitan Orestes', St. Alexis', and anybody else's who left the Greek Catholic Church for the OCA/ACROD/UOC. However, the Orthodox should do likewise for Metropolitan Cardinals Isidore and Bessarion, and the Metropolitans and Bishops of the various Unias.

First of all, thank you for the wonderful link to the 1966 Prostopenije. The late Metropolitan Stephen was my late-mother in law's cousin from the St. Clair, PA area - an area which is a microcosm of the tortured history of the American Rusyn community. In St.Clair and the surrounding communities you can find churches of those who retained their Greek Catholic connection with Rome, now BCC, some who left with St. Alexis and became Russianized,now OCA and some who left with Bishop Orestes and ultimately found their way back into ACROD many years later.

My late father observed that one of the Rusyn's problems in America stemmed from the lack of a true national identity, hence the desire to 'fit in' when they came to America and were confronted the reality of living as a small minority within the sphere of Western Catholicism and congregationalist Protestantism. Thus to many who left the Greek Catholic Church following St. Alexis they quickly adopted the cloak of Russianism in a misguided attempt to show they were not Roman Catholic. Within the Greek Catholic community the reverse phenomena took place - the acceptance of Latinization was the means to become a 'good' Catholic in America. By the time of the 1930's, the rallying cry of 'Neither to Rome nor to Moscow' was the 'anthem' of those who went on to establish ACROD - which was chartered as the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese (emphasis added) in an effort to attempt to show that they were not like the previous 'returnees' to Orthodoxy who by that time were the heart of the former Metropolia (now OCA).

Many ironies abound to this day, but it can not be denied that within both the BCC and ACROD many of the overt Latinizations of the early 20th century have either faded away or been changed by Episcopal direction and oversight.

And yes, trusteeship and 'ownership' of the local properties did indeed become a major issue as the celibacy dispute unfolded. The lingering myths of 'congregationalism' and 'property' continue to plague the parishes of ACROD and much of the greater American Orthodox community.

It is not just Bishop Orestes but many others who were excommunicated, both clergy and laity of the time, including my grandfather. Those were really difficult, and hurtful times.

Latinizations in the way of devotions and pious practices are one thing. In my opinion such have NEVER come from Rome or official Vatican policy. They were introduced by Byzantine clergy who were Latinized/Magyarized/Polonized. They were sometimes instigated by Latin religious Orders who were "helping" or "catechizing" their little Byzantine brothers and sisters.
In Poland, Austria-Hungary, Galicia, etc. the clergy were Latinized from their seminary experience. Politics also entered into it. Latin priests and bishops were highly respected, Orthodox and "uniates" were looked down upon. The Eastern clergy were in many cases poorly educated. The fact that the nations in which they were residing were enemies of Orthodox Russia made any Eastern identification or tendency suspect.
Many years ago I attended Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian church in Yonkers with some friends. Someone was scandalized because the little old ladies were chanting the rosary before the Divine Liturgy. I chuckled (inside) because I thought "They're praying. You're chatting and gossiping!"
I am familiar with a UGCC parish where there is no Presanctified Liturgy, but they still have Stations of the Cross. This custom was revived recently by a new priest. As for the Melkites being very Eastern I recommend caution: This is generally true in the U.S. thanks largely to Archbishop Joseph Tawil of blessed memory. It is not always true in the Middle East where there is sometimes "competition" with the Maronites and Latins. Altar girls are not unknown there.
Teaching people to replace chanted rosaries with the reading of the Hours is insufficient. There needs to be leadership by bishops. Bishops and clergy must embrace an authentic Eastern spiritual way of life - a conversion. The faithful need to be lovingly and gently encouraged. Putting a three-barred cross on the roof or reforming texts and rubrics alone won't do it.

The Ukrainian parish I attend has pews. And its the cathedral. The other Ukrainian parish I know in our area also has pews. The other two I don't know but I suspect they have pews. We generally don't stand for the entire DL, and would normally sit during the litanies, which I heard from a poster from CAF is a Latinization. There are a few who kneel during consecration and before and after Communion. And their regular parishioners. I don't even though I'm RC. When in Rome...

Plenty of Orthodox parishes in this country have pews. I have never been in a Greek Orthodox church that didn't. In some cases, this is because the building in question was not originally an Orthodox church, and it would have been too expensive to remove them. In other cases, its due to the desire of the immigrant parishoners to have their church look "American" (i.e., Episcopalian or Methodist), and American churches have pews.

Not all Orthodox make a fetish of standing for the entire service (in the 13th century, Byzantine visitors to Kyiv marveled at the stamina of the Rus', who stood unmoving for hours, even the children, "as though their legs were made of iron), and in more than a few, you will see people, if not kneeling, then prostrating at various points (particularly the Epiclesis) even on Sundays. Orthodoxy in general tolerates a great deal of individualism in personal expressions of piety, and usage varies not only from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but from parish to parish.

More serious latinizations are those that tend to deform the shape of worship, which would include omission or removal of the iconostasis, failure to perform the entire Proskomide (Rite of Preparation), and gross abridgments of the Liturgy (e.g., elimination of all antiphon verses--common in some Orthodox churches; removal of major litanies; suppression of major hymns and prayers). One could also point to the substitution of Latin devotions for the proper liturgical services of the Eastern Churches (e.g., Stations of the Cross for the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts; Rosary services in place of the Akathistos Hymn, etc.).

In the Orthodox Churches, we don't see this so much as we see the atrophying of the Liturgy of the Hours, with Vespers perhaps limited to Saturday evenings, and Orthros missing altogether, even on Sunday mornings. It has to be said that the situation in this case is generally improving.

Some of these abuses have been tolerated for so long they have a veneer of legitimacy, but enlightened pastors and hierarchs have been pushing for restoration of the full Tradition and seem to be making slow but steady progress.

A good analysis, for example, the liturgical differences between ACROD and other Orthodox have lessened as the years have passed and a fuller understanding developed within both ACROD and other Orthodox bodies as to what were legitimate regional expressions of practice and what were Western innovations.

Yes.

I think that the pews are not a Latinization, but an Americazation.

If you go to the older Latin churches of Europe, you will not find pews. If you go to ancient churches in countries where the Reformation prevailed, you will find many of them, at some point, added pews. Since, in many of the Reformed communities, the sermon is the heart of the service, and used to last for one or more hours, pews are something of a necessity. Just when and why the Latin Catholics began adopting them is an interesting question, but there is no doubt they were following the example of the Protestants.

I'm pretty sure ea semper and cum data feurit came from Rome. I can't remember about the sponge and Zamosc.

Some Latinizations were supported by Rome. See, for example, Pope Pius IX's encyclical Omnen Sollicitudenem [ewtn.com] which was written as a response to attempts to remove them.

I can't remember about the sponge and Zamosc.

Both were indigenous movements, which Rome ratified when they were presented. But Rome did not encourage those.

Can you provide a listing of the specific latinizations that Pope Pius IX refers to? I've never had the opportunity to read about them. Omnem Sollicitudinem is a curious document. It is primarily a pastoral response to the events at Chelm, but it does not detail those events. It expresses concern that the liturgical rites be kept pure and intact but also states certain rites can be borrowed (and he refers to some unnamed borrowing into the Armenian Catholic Church).

What exactly were the "innovations" introduce in the Diocese of Chelm? There is always a tendency to assume that the Orthodox usage was correct and the Greek Catholic usage incorrect but that is not always true. I think we would need to have a good knowledge of the specific liturgical issues in order to put this document in context. My read of this is that the liturgical issues (serious as they were) were but a symptom of larger issues in the diocese at that time.