www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Priestly Society of St Josaphat - keeping latinisms?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Father, bless!

You are right about the comparison with the SSJK and the Old Believers. But, even though the Old Believers ritual and cultural differentiation from the Constantinopolitan Tradition is more long standing than the Romanized-Ukrainian usage (as represented by the SSJK), since the Ukrainian Unia began in 1595 a.d., both were perceived as being in disobedience not only to their particular tradition, but also to lawful Authority and suppressed and driven underground or made "non-canonical" or irregular.

I think the strategy of Church Authorities should be to accept the SSJK and slowly get the priests and people to get re-integrated into the schema of the larger Ukrainian Church and its hierarchs, and move in the direction of a United Ukrainian Patriarchate--which appears to be the desire of the the UGCC and independent Orthodox bodies in Ukraine. Indeed, Pope Benedict knows this strategy well and is using it with the SSPX and with independent Latin traditionalists and Anglican "Orthodox". In order to conquer ones opponent you must bring them closer so you can weaken your enemy, this works as a military strategy and as an ecclesiastical one--is it Christian? No. Does it work? Yes. Obviously, latinization is condemned, but the pastoral and real implications of suppression of the SSJK is that it will continue to increase in numbers and bring more sheep from the UGCC and the Orthodox into its "irregular" fold.

There are also the theological implications of latinization. And one could say that the usage of one ritual community of some of another ritual community's liturgical and paraliturgical genius is not hybridization, but rather a movement of the Holy Spirit within the people to express the Will of God for that ritual community, this has been so time and time again in liturgical history. For the byzantinization of the Latin Rite after the Second Vatican Council, even if done in a slipshod way, was not discouraged as a hybridization or bastardization of the Roman Rite, by those liturgical theologians both East and West, except of course Latin traditionalists.

In fact, a byzantinization of the Roman Rite in dogma/doctrine/ritual and praxis is what is sought in the unification of the Byzantine Orthodox and Latin Churches. This process of byzantinization may not relate directly to the issue of the SSJK, but it reveals a process of double standards. Is it not in fact the latinization of ritual Churches of the Constantinopolitan Tradition and other Oriental Traditions, which is feared as an an obstacle to unity and a re-assertion of the Council of Trent, whose profession of faith the founders, eparchs, presbyters, deacons, monastics and laity, of the Unias had to profess? Here I am thinking outside the typical Byzantine Catholic-pro-Orthodox construct, not to offend, but to look at the real issues and ecclesio-political realities behind latinization and byzantinization. In fact the denial of a ritual Church to take on a real life and take on the devotional and ritual life of another community is a denial of that community's sovereign right to develop and grow in the Body of Christ, which leads to stagnation and death. Indeed, liturgical sharing is common. Did not the Constantinopolitan Tradition receive richly from the Antiochian Tradition via St. John Chrysostom and others? Did not the Armenian Tradition borrow from the Byzantine East and the Latin West?

Some might say these traditions were forced on another community, and sometimes they were, but, in most circumstances the laity and clergy wanted them. The voice of the laos is the Voice of God--vox populi, vox Dei. No one would strip them of these additions to their authentic life. Would anyone deny them the right to amend, enhance or discard these additions? No. I know this will shake the emotions of some, but these are questions I ask as not only a student of Theology, but also as a Christian of an Eastern Church.

In my own life as an Eastern Christian I have to really think about these ecclesial issues and often critique the common fear of latinization. It is against the policy of the Church as it stands now to even think about latinization as a good or an authentic part of the life of Churches born of the Unias, but I am always trying to think outside the box to see the issues more clearly.

In fact, I must say there is something good, from the perspective of salvation-deification, about the SSJK usage of the Ukrainian-Constantinopolitan Tradition--it even warms my heart to see those Rosaries, Sacred Heart banners and Blessed Sacrament processions --along with their Divine Liturgies, Akathists and other traditions of the Ukrainian recension--don't ask me why--there is just something on an unconscious level that draws me to them, but I am not seeking to universalize my experience.

Liturgical and ritual sharing has always existed between Apostolic Churches and Churches who are Daughters of Apostolic Churches--the policy of the Papacy is restoration of the Byzantine Catholic patrimony and praxis, but of what era, which age and part in the development, what ideal "golden age"? A textbook re-construction of Byzantine ritual purity is insufficient and so is parroting Eastern Orthodox liturgical praxis, for even they are developing and are critiquing their practices and accretions. Eastern Catholic Churches either have a right to develop and exist of their own as the Holy Spirit develops and guides them through the hierarchy and the laos or they are just shells of liturgical history waiting to be filled in the future with the reality coming from ecclesial unity with the Orthodox Churches. What will it be? These are issues I think about. They are neither popular or mainstream, but I am sure that I am not the first student of theology to contemplate them. I remain open to development of these ideas.

Father, bless.

Humbly in Christ,


Robert

My opinion is that when one thinks of Byzantine Rite, it must be taken into consideration the Service Books that have the aproval of the hierarchy and, nevertheless, the Typikon in use! This is the Byzantine rite to which I refer, for example. Latinizations do not exist in official Service Books, and as far as I know, not even in Service Books made for particular use.

The Byzantine tradition must be rediscovered first and then one should think of "improving" it via Roman rite! One who knows his spiritual and liturgical Byzantine tradition well, could never allow elements from other rites to be included in their rite, especially latinizations! Catholic spirituality includes the Byzantine tradition.

If it is only ONE catholic spirituality it means there are some possibilities:
- all the other rites than the Roman rite are just a cover-up, another face of the Roman rite,
- the Byzantine Catholic tradition is just a Roman-Catholic tradition using another liturgical form, roman-catholics using Byzantine rite...,
- every liturgical tradition is to be... mixed in the Roman Rite... .

In all of these cases the words of the late Melkite patriarch Maximos of Antioch are just dust in the wind. He said during the Second Vatican Council that the greek-catholic Churches are called to be an example of unity with the Holy See, unity in which the Byzantine spirituality, liturgical tradition are very well preserved being their IDENTITY. He stressed in this way the fact that the Greek-Catholic Churches are Orthodox Churches in full communion with the Apostolic See.

Using latinizations makes the Orthodox accuse more and more the Greek-Catholic churches of being a bad copy of the original. Which is not something entirely untrue. Unfortunately!

Right, everything you have said has been said before on the forum. I realize my speculations are only that and do not impact the actual theology done in my Church.

As the poet wrote, "That way madness lies!"

Another said, "Beware the Ides of March." LOL.

Likening the liturgical life of the SSJK to the Old Rite is not sensible in the least. In one case what is held is received tradition centuries old, in the other it is liturgical innovations introduced against the later stated guidance by the Synod and Rome that are not even a century old. No Greek Catholics have been brought up for firing squads or lynchings by authority of other Greek Catholics, as happened with the adherents of the Old Rite in many cases.

What exactly is "this expression of the Ukrainian Catholic faith"? Some of these innovations (and they absolutely are innovations) are even more recent than the Synod of L'viv and were never approved by any competent authority within the Church. And they are also clearly outside of the stated direction of not only the Synod but of the Magisterium.

The SSJK has outrightly refused all attempts to be reconciled by the UGCC Synod, beginning with Fr. Kovpak's refusal to leave a parish that he was legitimately requested to transfer from by the current UGCC bishop of the time. Then it seems he began to have "theological disagreements" and began his flirtations with the various schismatic Latin groups. Kovpak claims to have all of these links to the underground Church, but his name was essentially unknown amongst the most prominent members of the underground Church, who all were loyal to the Synod after the legalization of the Church. He himself was only born in 1967 and by the time he was eligible for the seminary (late 80s) he himself could not have had much first-hand experience as a cleric in the underground Church. But he's told a small group of people who financially support him what they want to hear.

The SSJK is now essentially directly dependency on the SSPX for ordinations, whom the Holy Father stated in March 2009:


In reality the hero bishops and clergy who actually labored for the underground Church and emerged from the catacombs were faithful members of the Synod, unlike this late-comer schismatic group. Fr. Kovpak's earliest and most fervent supporters, the "Transalpine Redemptorists", have since reconciled with the Church and have completely rejected any further support of the SSJK.

Slava Isusu Christu!

My second post admits the comparison was only in the area of suppression and the correlation not between the age and acceptance of their ritual and cultural differentation, but only on the reaction of Church Authorities who desired to see them negated.

I am only dealing with the reality of latinization as a good, as byzantinization of the Latin Rite is also a good--as is evidenced by the Pauline Missal and its expression. We are well aware of the byzantinizations, falsely called protestantizations, in the Latin Rite--use of the laos in the liturgy, participation, use of both kinds, concelebration etc. I am only critiquing the commonly held belief of latinization as a bad. When in reality the sharing of traditions is common in all Apostolic Churches.

Some common myths about Latin devotions used by our faithful are almost abounding in our Church, amongst many clergy and people, who seek to be like the Eastern Orthodox in faith and praxis. The rosary is not a Latin tradition, it was given to the Universal Church by the Blessed Virgin Mary Herself. The Scapular is not a latinization is was given also by Mary for the totality of the Catholic Church. Stations were imported from the Jerusalem Church. Benediction is important for the Universal Church not only because of the countless conversions, miracles and recommendations by Our Lady and other Saints, attributed to this devotion, but countless Pontiffs have recommended it for the Universal Church--the thesis that the Eastern Church never had to deal with Protestants is false, benediction is useful for our Churches to defend our faith in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Statues also have a history in the Church in Constantinople as the museums there attest, these cannot be seen as solely latinizations. And conversely, Ikons, Akathists, use of the Jesus Prayer, and other byzantinizations and orientalizations have been recommended for the Latin Church by Popes and Saints as well.

There is -no- pure Constantinopolitan Tradition free from other Traditions,--the same with other Traditions as is evidenced by modern liturgical scholarship. The innovation of protecting a Tradition from other Traditions, from another Church of another Rite, is not healthy. If the laos and the clergy of a particular Church desire to import traditions from another Church than it is a good.

All of the Traditions within Holy Tradition are the Life of the Holy Spirit. To segregate people of one Tradition from another is an abuse-- not so-called latinization or byzantinization--this arrogance or pride, of some of our people and clergy, only makes one Tradition seem to be superior to another, which is false. It is not latinization which removes our identity as an autonomous ritual Church, nor byzantinization the identity of the Latins, but a lack of love for each other and not showing forth the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Our identity is not ethnic, national or even the idolatry we give to so-called "pure ritual traditions." Our true identity is rooted in our connection not only to the Church Universal, but as a Church which negates that which stresses a divisive mentality--We are Catholics who share in faith, hope and charity communion with the Pope of Rome. I can see the importance of imposing a de-latinizing policy for those who desire to see us be pure ritual artifacts on the curios shelf of the Church Universal, but we are a living Church, with living members, and we are not to think of our Traditions as superior to that of the Latins of whom we are falsely mandated to separate ourselves in devotion and faith by the pro-Orthodox, some might say de facto 'schismatic' faction of our Church. We are not the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We are the Church of the 21 Ecumenical Councils along with the Latins--we must not only be honest as to who we are ecclesiologically, but in that honesty move forward toward authentic Church Unity.

I understand the desire to "purify" our Church to be like the Eastern Orthodox. But, we have a right to exist apart from them as Churches in our own right, perhaps this is the mindset behind the Revised Divine Liturgy--which did not seek a consensus of all the Eastern Churches before making such radical changes. When I came back into the Byzantine Catholic Church from the OCA, I immediately understood that I would have to come to terms with the real status of our Churches in light of the ecclesiology of the Church of Rome at the time of the Unias, which fundamentally was that we are Catholics of the Church of Rome who use the Slavic-Greek Rite. Later, as union was more solidified canon law was modified to create ritual Churches of an autonomous nature, which basically means that they are churches within the One Roman Church, but fundamentally and all Eastern Orthodox theologians understand this, our Churches can be nothing other than Roman Catholic Churches of differing ritual traditions. A Mother Church cannot create a Sister Church, it can only create a Daughter Church. In essence a Mother Church of a certain tradition cannot create a Church of another Tradition, it can only reproduce what it is and allow its faithful to use other traditions. It is in this sense that our Eastern Catholic Churches are Roman Catholic, more precisely Eastern-Roman Catholic and the Latins are Western-Roman Catholic. But, the truth hurts and our pro-Orthodox theologians and faithful will hear none of this, even the Eastern Code of Canon law is basically fundamentally the same as the Latin Code and by using the term ritual Church it proclaims the true status of our Churches as sub-groupings of ecclesial realities that are not only in communion with Rome, but dependent on it for their ontological existence.

Again, knowing this is a minority position, and a working one I offer it in a spirit of humility and love. I am only a student coming to great Truth.

Those of you who have seen me veer in my theological positions over the years know that I only try to think deeply and move to more Truth through interacting with all of you. God bless you.

In Christ,


Robert

In my analysis of our ecclesiological roots, I want it understood that I know of the developments since Orientalium Ecclesiarum, but I wanted to show not only how the Orthodox view us, but also the canonical reality which existed at the time of the Unias, the faithful received actually did become members of the Latin Church, to also show that sui iuris ritual Churches were a later development, and to critique the idea that a Mother Church can create a Sister Church--which is what Rome claims to have done in the New Code of Canon Law with our Churches. Like, I said before all of these things are works in progress and I am always open to the opinions of our Reverend Clergy, Monastics and faithful.

In Christ God,

Robert

I want to connect this to the Priestly Society of St. Josaphat. They are seeking a usage of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic recension that takes latinizations from the SSPX and devotional spirituality from that Society. What I saw from the photos on their website is many faithful are being enriched by this group and are being led to salvation-deification. In that I support this group. I understand they do not want to reconcile with the Major Archbishop or the Synod because they, the modern UGCC, are viewed as ecumenists, schismatics--because they desire to become Orthodox in faith and praxis--, and modernists who support Vatican II. This is obviously the position of the SSPX. I feel for them, for at one time I was very much like them--trying to work out how Modernism has infected the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Churches who follow the New Calendar. And still now as a former Orthodox Christian coming back into the Catholic Communion of Churches I have really had to dig deep to see my proper status and historical ground for union taking into account not only Vatican II, but also Florence, Trent, and Vatican I. I suppose all I can say is that the Pontiff should accomodate them fully and regularize them once the SSPX is and place them immediately under His jurisdiction away from the Holy Synod and the Major Archbishop. We will have to see how this plays out in the future, but my guess is it will be a while before this group accepts a place in the Universal Church until Vatican II and the "Orthodox in Communion" paradigm is worked out within the Papal Tradition.

Quote: "it is a bastardization of both the Byzantine and Latin Rites. In times psst, latinizations were foisted on us and sometimes adopted by us in an effort to prove our Catholicity."

Hypocritical, since there are the Ruthenians and the UGCC today that have altar girls, no Saturday night Vespers but replaced by a Saturday night Divine Liturgy, public praying of the Rosary vs the prayer rope, etc. Just like the modern day RCC does.

Having a Our Lady of Fatima Byzantine Catholic Church seems pretty "latin" to me.

None of this is found in the Orthodox Church. When is the Ruthenians and the UGCC going to be 100% Byzantine, without innovations like altar girls, Rosary, Saturday night Divine Liturgy vs Saturday night Vespers etcc.

bkovacs,

Are you referring specifically to the parish in San Francisco [byzantinecatholic.org]?

I've been to OLF several times and there is nothing "Latin" about the parish.

God bless.

I don't know any Orthodox churches with the name of a Roman Catholic Marian Apparition.

I don't either, but I do know there once was a Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the patronage of Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych with its own parish website.

Since the Magisterium has declared it not to be a good, and the respective Synods (at least for the UGCC) concurring, the rest of the argument does not seem sensible.


Why would you support a group who has been excommunicated for the Church by the UGCC and that excommunication recognized by Rome? Because you "like their Mass"?

You've apparently not seen the pictures floating around the Web of Orthodox girls vested in sticharions of several jurisdictions as well as the Armenian Apostolic Church.