www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy RDL 8 Year Anniversary

Dear Kobzar,

Actually, there's nothing "fashionable" about how the UGCC liturgical-linguistic anomalies, whether Basilian or otherwise, appear to Ukrainian intelligentsia who desire the living Ukrainian language in their Church (as the Ukrainian Orthodox of the autocephalous variety have always had).

Some have commented that the unwillingness of the UGCC to bring in contemporary Ukrainian into the liturgy results not so much because of the view that the "language of the streets" (as one individual who should know better indicated to me) should not be the style employed in Church, but, even more troubling and surprising, because of the tradition of linguistic Russophilism within the UGCC . . .

Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko, an expert in Ukrainian language, discussed this at length in one of his publications. Again, don't shoot the messenger here . . .

Alex

However, this argument can be turned on its head . . .

Yes, any movement to "delatinize" should come from within a Particular EC Church sans Roman directives - in principle.

However, it has been an historical occurrence that Latinization within specific EC contexts came NOT from Rome, but through a number of other venues (of which Rome wasn't even aware).

In the Ruthenian Metropolia of Kyiv-Halych that came into communion with Rome in 1596, Latinization largely resulted from the influence of zealous EC bishops and monastics.

That is not a slight to them because union with Rome did NOT equal Latinization. The Ruthenian Orthodox (Belarusyans and Ukrainians) were just as Latinized as their "uniate" counterparts.

St Peter Mohyla and the Ruthenian Orthodox Saints of the Kyivan Baroque era adopted MANY Latin devotions to Eastern liturgical frameworks (if I was still young with a more agile mind, I'd love to do a Master's thesis or a doctoral dissertation on this very subject - unless someone knows of such a work already published).

Orthodox Christians loved the Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception and the "Bloody Vow" to defend to the death the IC doctrine. The Kyiv-Mohyla Orthodox Academy, according to Fr. Florovsky, spent a great deal of liturgical and theological energy in praising the Immaculate Conception well into the 19th century. St Dmitri (Tuptalenko), Metropolitan of Rostov, was himself hauled up on the carpet by the Russian Synod to answer charges relating to this and his other (many) Latin devotions and teachings . . . Fortunately for him, many, if not most, of the members of the Synod were Ukrainian-Belarusyan with a similar spiritual weltanschauung .

So the point I'm trying to make (and yes there is one . . .) is that Rome has found it expedient to take the lead, so to speak, in directing EC Churches to take the initiative in terms of "de-Latinizing" in order to save them from themselves (as Rome thought and thinks).

In fact, what is overlooked, even by our esteemed "High Eastern Church Wing" in the UGCC (may we be protected against that ilk . . . ) is that Orthodoxy continues to bear the Latinization it was once prone to, devotionally, liturgically and theologically, but that it somehow continues to maintain itself as . . . Orthodox and Eastern.

Certain sectors within the UGCC (and I'm most familiar with this EC Church as it is my own) would regard with suspicion "de-Latinization" movements as being simply "Russification" movements.

Also, the Eastern wingers of the UGCC tend to refer to their Church as being something of a monolith which they are slowly but surely bringing out of the Latinized "darkness" into which historical circumstances had unwittingly thrust them.

And nothing can be further from actuality. There is no single UGCC along liturgical/theological lines. There is as much variation within the UGCC in these terms as there is in the Anglican churches, not to mention the impact that things like the need for more national cultural content in the Church have on these processes (for that is what they are).

In my own parish, the priests are divided over the use of the translation of "unto eternal ages" i.e. "na viky vikiv" or "na viky vichni" which I shan't go into.

If anything, Rome's intervention from above to settle this matter would be the best thing to happen . . .

I recently had a discussion with one of our Readers in my parish who completely disagreed with the translation of the Our Father . . . When he asked me where I got the version of the Our Father that I habitually use, I told him . . . from the directive that came from Patriarch Lubomyr several years ago . . .

I didn't say anything about the Hail Mary translation . . .

Rome, where are you when some of us need you?!

Alex

Taking care of its own matters, I'm hoping.

Yes, I'm sure!

It is just that some EC circles are incapable of taking care of their own matters.

Rome should not be the "whipping boy" in this respect. We should remember the many contributions to Eastern liturgics/theology by theologians in Rome.

Latinization, as well, should not be found primarily in terms of this devotion or that (for indeed one may find similar or even MORE Latin devotions among the Orthodox!).

It is primarily a frame of mind and a lack of a sense of identity and empowerment that relies on Rome for everything.

Rome indeed has and will continue to save ourselves from ourselves.

Alex

I don't see how continued self-infantilization is going to improve this situation.

If Rome really respected the autonomy of her "sui iuris" churches, and if the "sui iuris" churches really believed in it, then it should be a lot harder to get her to intervene in things like this. As long as the dogma of papal supremacy prevails, a paternalistic and micromanaging stance will be encouraged in Rome and expected by her dependents.

Dear Swan,

Self-infantilism in the EC Churches exists not only in terms of the dependency on Rome for everything (and no one doubts that this is a problem of the first order!).

Such is also the case when an EC Church or part thereof insists on maintaining Latinisms/Latinization even in the face of Rome's directives to do otherwise.

Should Rome sometimes intervene to give an "Eastern correction" to this in Particular EC Churches?

Absolutely, I say! I speak as an UGCC insider and know that there are wings, sections etc. of our Church that falls heavily into the second category and they believe that Latinization has never affected the UGCC and that EC Churches should never "pretend" to affirm their Particularity but should, in all things theological/canonical/ecclesial be entirely dependent on the pleasure of Rome.

These sections of our Church have proven themselves to be more "papal than the pope." Will they listen to their Primate and his Synod otherwise? Not at all!

The best way to deal with this, in this instance, is with some leadership exercised by Rome.

Of course, this should only come about with the request of our Synod etc. But I don't see how things will change if Rome isn't involved.

So it is a question of Rome helping to save certain sections of our Church from their self-imposed Romanism . . .

One has to look at it from their own unfortunate perspective.

And I do.

Alex