www.byzcath.org

Latinisation?

Posted By: Otsheylnik

Latinisation? - 04/25/11 05:31 AM

St Andrew's Russian Catholic Church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z66IGcZLPI

In particular, what is the deal with the fans and the processional cross - I have never seen them used at this or any point of the service in ROCOR churches or the Russian Catholic church, with the exception of the hierarchical liturgy (which this isn't) and even then just the fans.

Posted By: ukrainiancatholic

Re: Latinisation? - 04/25/11 07:32 AM

I cannot speak to any Russian practice, Orthodox or Catholic, but my experience is that cross and fans are normally stationary behind the Altar, and only removed for processions on Feasts days. In other places, I have seen that fans brought out for the time of the Gospel reading. Most places, they just stay behind the Altar the whole time, from what I have seen.

I do not consider the processional fans or cross to be a Latinization. The only Latinization I see if that God-forsaken chair shown in the clip. Chairs are a distant cousin of the pew, which is known by all as a Protestant heresy, so the chair, being basically a mini, one-person pew, is slightly heretical at worst, but a Latinization at best. grin
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Latinisation? - 04/25/11 12:46 PM

We have a few chairs in my ROCOR church, as well as benches in the side of the church and the kliros. They are not at all a latinisation, but rather a concession to the elderly and infirm. I think people on here are also in general a bit fanatical about pews as latinisations, since the Antiochians and Greeks do not seem to have become ROman and they have been using them for more than a century. I've even seen an Old believer church (priestless) with pews, fair enough when most people are old, your services are long and your church is almost extinct.

I don't know, the processional cross in particular seems ROman because it is singly carried, at what would have been the front of a procession, seems to be a bit of liturgical paraphenalia that would appeal to a latin mindset. I also don't like the English (the idea of a Russian Church with no Slavonic seems odd to me), but that's another issue entirely.

Whenever we (ROCOR) bear such things as the cross in processions (rarely), they are always borne in pairs anyway, so it would be accompanied by a banner etc. THe single cross at the head of the procession seems Roman..we seem to do things in pairs in the RUssian use mostly.
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: Latinisation? - 04/25/11 12:50 PM

I have seen the processional cross and fans moved around a lot in videos of the Patriarchal liturgies at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, but admittedly those liturgies are probably rather exceptional.
Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Latinisation? - 04/25/11 01:41 PM

Fans are a normal part of the hierarchical liturgy (archiereiskaya sluzhba), I was a bit more curious about this one because we don't use either at a liturgy without a bishop (no bishop in the video). I'll have to see how they set up the cross in Moscow though, I know their usage differs a bit from ROCOR usage which is descended from St Petersburg use.

Posted By: ukrainiancatholic

Re: Latinisation? - 04/25/11 02:59 PM

I was joking about the chairs/pews.... Every ROCOR church I have been to has benches or chairs. I was merely making a parody of people who make chairs/pews an issue.

I saw fans in use as recent as yesterday at the Easter DL when they were used in procession and during the Gospel with no bishop present.
Posted By: ByzKat

Re: Latinisation? - 04/25/11 03:20 PM

A good while back, Father Elias (one of the moderators on this forum) stated (in Ripidia)

Quote
Ripidia may be carried at the great entrance, held at the proclamation of the gospel and even at other times.

Their use varies in the Byzantine Churches from Athos (not at all) to America (every Liturgy).


Christ is risen!

Jeff Mierzejewski
Posted By: Steve Petach

Re: Latinisation? - 04/26/11 01:01 AM

It would be hard for the Russian Catholic Church in America to have a true hierarchical Divine Liturgy with their own Bishop since the parishes are under local Latin Archdiocesan authority.

There was a thread on Byzcath.org regarding this issue several years ago:
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/18886/2


Posted By: Otsheylnik

Re: Latinisation? - 04/26/11 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by ByzKat
A good while back, Father Elias (one of the moderators on this forum) stated (in Ripidia)

Quote
Ripidia may be carried at the great entrance, held at the proclamation of the gospel and even at other times.

Their use varies in the Byzantine Churches from Athos (not at all) to America (every Liturgy).


Christ is risen!

Jeff Mierzejewski


Thanks Jeff, that's the answer I was looking for. As I have never been to America, I'm prepared to accept that it's an American usage that is authentically Byzantine, because as we know usage varies place to place - I've never seen it here (ROCOR Australia or Russian Catholic Australia) is all, and prompted the question.
Posted By: Steve Petach

Re: Latinisation? - 04/26/11 04:46 AM

All things considered, St Andrew Russian Catholic Church is quite authentic and un-latinised. I have been there many times and will be there in a few weeks for their annual fund raising rummage sale, May 7th.

As for the chairs, there are only four rows of chairs, in what is a small nave. At Pascha, the church is usually standing room only. During regular Sundays, everyone stands anyway.

In our own parish, the cross and fan are used regularly for both the small and great entrance, for liturgies without the bishop. We haven't had a hierarchical liturgy at the "proto"-cathedral in several years, 2006, the parish 50th anniversary.
Posted By: KevinM09

Re: Latinisation? - 08/30/13 08:35 AM

Would it be safe to say that the Byzantine Churches are better at delatinizing while the Oriental Churches are having a more difficult time?
Posted By: Michael_Thoma

Re: Latinisation? - 08/30/13 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by KevinM09
Would it be safe to say that the Byzantine Churches are better at delatinizing while the Oriental Churches are having a more difficult time?
Not exactly. It varies by region, bishop, even parish. Some Oriental Catholics are quite staunch about preserving their non-Latinized Holy Traditions.
Posted By: Diak

Re: Latinisation? - 08/30/13 10:58 AM

Quote
In particular, what is the deal with the fans and the processional cross - I have never seen them used at this or any point of the service in ROCOR churches or the Russian Catholic church, with the exception of the hierarchical liturgy (which this isn't) and even then just the fans.

Ned - that is very generally also the rule in the UGCC - ripidia are only used for hierarchal Liturgies. There are exceptions, of course, like St. Elias where they are used more frequently.

My very first liturgy "guru" studied under Patriarch +Josyp of blessed memory in Rome and concluded that this was the Kyivan (Mohylian) tradition.
Posted By: Paul B

Re: Latinisation? - 08/30/13 12:16 PM

The ripidia (fans) which we see are elaborate and ceremonial articles which really aren't practical for their intended practical use for the Ruthenian Church.

Their use is mentioned in Ordo Celebrationis (Order of the Divine Liturgies) before the Consecration, "(the deacon) enters the Altar (Sanctuary) through the south door, and takes his place at the right of the priest; if there is need, the deacon takes the ripidion and reverently fans the Holy Gifts. If there is no ripidion, he does the same with the small folded veil."
During the singing of Holy, Holy, Holy "the deacon comes to the priest's right, if there is need he takes the ripidion or the folded small veil into his hands and, with full attention and fear, fans around the Holy Gifts in silence."

The original reason for the the fan was to keep the flies away from the Holy Gifts. Recall that at the great Churches of Constantinople people presented food gifts which were brought into the Church in procession, from which the practice of the Little and Great Entrances had their origin. Of course all of this food was quite an attraction to flies and other insects.

In the "Ordo" glossary there is this definition: Ripidion (plural ripidia; they are usually in pairs) -- liturgical fan, decorated with images of the angels and affixed to a staff. The ripidia are often carried in processions, at the Entrances of the Divine Liturgy, during the reading of the Gospel, and at other solemn moments. Although ripidion is a Greek word, the Greeks tend to call the ripidia the "exapteryga."
Posted By: Chtec

Re: Latinisation? - 08/30/13 02:36 PM

The use of fans does vary. Many clergy have taken to using them all the time, especially where there are plenty of altar servers. Since getting a set at my church, we have only used them on Pascha and for the consecration of our church.

As for the processional cross, Greek and Antiochian churches frequently seem to use the cross at the start of the Little and Great Entrances during the Liturgy. In the Russian tradition, the use of the cross during those parts of the Liturgy is restricted to liturgies served by primates of local churches.

Fr. David
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Latinisation? - 09/02/13 10:15 PM

Bless Father David,

Was the original purpose of the fans to keep flies away from the altar wine?

Reverencing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex
Posted By: Chtec

Re: Latinisation? - 09/02/13 10:23 PM

Yes, I believe so. The rubrics for their use during the Anaphora are still present in liturgical books, as is the mention that one of the small veils may be used in place of a fan. In the Russian tradition, the gifts are only fanned by a deacon on the day of his ordination; it is not done at other times. However, over time, the fans have also become ceremonial items, being carried over holy items or in processions.

Fr. David
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Latinisation? - 09/02/13 11:04 PM

Bless Father David!

You mean the veil or square that I see our deacons move over the Gifts during the Divine Liturgy?

Reverencing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex
Posted By: malphono

Re: Latinisation? - 09/05/13 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Originally Posted by KevinM09
Would it be safe to say that the Byzantine Churches are better at delatinizing while the Oriental Churches are having a more difficult time?
Not exactly. It varies by region, bishop, even parish. Some Oriental Catholics are quite staunch about preserving their non-Latinized Holy Traditions.


That's true, but sadly it mainly applies to the Syro-Malankara. I do, however, give immense credit to the Chaldeans for their attempts at restoration. And to the Syro-Malabars, particularly now under the tutelage of Mar George, for trying to eliminate latinizations, both those externally and internally imposed. But the rest of the Orient? Not so much. frown The rest of the Orient is actually embracing Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization more and more. It's truly sad. mad
Posted By: Anthony

Re: Latinisation? - 09/05/13 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by malphono
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Originally Posted by KevinM09
Would it be safe to say that the Byzantine Churches are better at delatinizing while the Oriental Churches are having a more difficult time?
Not exactly. It varies by region, bishop, even parish. Some Oriental Catholics are quite staunch about preserving their non-Latinized Holy Traditions.


That's true, but sadly it mainly applies to the Syro-Malankara. I do, however, give immense credit to the Chaldeans for their attempts at restoration. And to the Syro-Malabars, particularly now under the tutelage of Mar George, for trying to eliminate latinizations, both those externally and internally imposed. But the rest of the Orient? Not so much. frown The rest of the Orient is actually embracing Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization more and more. It's truly sad. mad


What about the Armenian and Ethiopian Catholics? How are they when it comes to latinization?
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Latinisation? - 09/06/13 12:23 AM

Isn't there a movement in the Maronite Church to return to authentic Maronite Traditions and Lliturgical praxis?
Posted By: malphono

Re: Latinisation? - 09/06/13 09:20 AM

From what I've heard, both are in pretty bad shape in that department. frown
Posted By: malphono

Re: Latinisation? - 09/06/13 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Isn't there a movement in the Maronite Church to return to authentic Maronite Traditions and Lliturgical praxis?


Well, yes, but there are two things here. The first is the revisionists (who are, of course, the ones in power) insist that they're doing just that. Sounds like the Novus Ordo, doesn't it? smirk The second follows from the first, in that the real movement for restoration is thwarted, ignored, and ridiculed (e.g. we're often referred to as "crackpots" or worse) by those in power. It's truly an uphill struggle.
Posted By: Franciscum

Re: Latinisation? - 09/28/13 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by ukrainiancatholic
I cannot speak to any Russian practice, Orthodox or Catholic, but my experience is that cross and fans are normally stationary behind the Altar, and only removed for processions on Feasts days. In other places, I have seen that fans brought out for the time of the Gospel reading. Most places, they just stay behind the Altar the whole time, from what I have seen.

I do not consider the processional fans or cross to be a Latinization. The only Latinization I see if that God-forsaken chair shown in the clip. Chairs are a distant cousin of the pew, which is known by all as a Protestant heresy, so the chair, being basically a mini, one-person pew, is slightly heretical at worst, but a Latinization at best. grin


Naw. Pews existed well before the reformation. You're simply parroting myth meant to demean.
Posted By: haydukovich

Re: Latinisation? - 09/29/13 12:23 AM

I was told that the fans harken back to the times when the sacrifice (flesh of an animal sacrificed on the altar) where used to keep the flies off the offering ... having nothing to do with flies in wine.

One church I attended used the fans at every Great Entrance and even the Little Entrance and were used on each side of the Gospel. In fact everything in the sanctuary was used for both little and Great entrance - censer - lights - fans - cross -
Posted By: Paul B

Re: Latinisation? - 09/29/13 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Franciscum
Originally Posted by ukrainiancatholic

I do not consider the processional fans or cross to be a Latinization. The only Latinization I see if that God-forsaken chair shown in the clip. Chairs are a distant cousin of the pew, which is known by all as a Protestant heresy, so the chair, being basically a mini, one-person pew, is slightly heretical at worst, but a Latinization at best. grin


Naw. Pews existed well before the reformation. You're simply parroting myth meant to demean.


What are you saying Franciscum, that pews being a "protestantism" is a "village legend"? smile

Just wondering.....did they make the Emperor and Patriach stand in Hagia Sophia?
Posted By: Fr. John Morris

Re: Latinisation? - 10/02/13 04:50 PM

Seating for the Faithful is not a Latinization. There are ancient pre-schism rubrics that refer to sitting. For example the Psalms are divided into Kathisma, which means sitting for the people sat when the Psalms were read. We have an ancient service to the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary called the Akathist Hymn which literally translates "Not sitting." If the ancient Church of Constantinople had a service called "Not Sitting," that means that the faithful sat at times during services.
There are pews in St. Mary's Patriarchal Cathedral in Damascus for the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. There are also pews in St.George's Cathedral the Cathedral for the Ecumenical Patriarch. Monasteries have a kind of pew along the sides of the Nave.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Posted By: Fr. John Morris

Re: Latinisation? - 10/02/13 04:52 PM

In Antiochian Orthodox practice the cross and lanterns are used for the Little Entrance. The Cross and fans are used for the Great Entrance which unlike the Russian practice goes down the side aisle to the back of the Nave and then down the central aisle to the Solea.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Fr. John Morris
The Cross and fans are used for the Great Entrance which unlike the Russian practice goes down the side aisle to the back of the Nave and then down the central aisle to the Solea.


Yes. I like this practice of the Antiochians. smile
Posted By: Recluse

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Fr. John Morris
Seating for the Faithful is not a Latinization.


I have a question for you Father. The Antiochian parishes (and some Greeks) have the epistle reader facing the people with their backs to the Altar when they read the epistle. Most other jurisdictions have the epistle reader facing the Altar when they read. What is the reason for this? Was it changed at some point by the Antiochian Orthodox, and if so, by whom?
Posted By: DMD

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Fr. John Morris
Seating for the Faithful is not a Latinization. There are ancient pre-schism rubrics that refer to sitting. For example the Psalms are divided into Kathisma, which means sitting for the people sat when the Psalms were read. We have an ancient service to the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary called the Akathist Hymn which literally translates "Not sitting." If the ancient Church of Constantinople had a service called "Not Sitting," that means that the faithful sat at times during services.
There are pews in St. Mary's Patriarchal Cathedral in Damascus for the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. There are also pews in St.George's Cathedral the Cathedral for the Ecumenical Patriarch. Monasteries have a kind of pew along the sides of the Nave.

Archpriest John W. Morris




Quite right, Father!

It's funny how in both matters pertaining to religion or Faith, a strongly held opinion often is more powerful than are facts. Oh well....
Posted By: DMD

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 12:29 PM

While we are at it, another 'false' charge of Latinizing which we hear all of the time at ACROD, and I am sure that many BCC and UGCC folks hear it as well, is that commemorative liturgies for the intention of the departed are somehow 'un-Orthodox.'

It must be OK though if you are a departed Tsar or member of the immediate Royal Family...Here is a Liturgy celebrated last SUNDAY by the Patriarch of Moscow in commemoration of the departed Romanov's and the 400th anniversay of the establishment of their dynasty. The ektenia prior to the Cherubic hymn is the same as we chant in our liturgies and in the same place. (In ACROD we don't do that on a Sunday....)

The videography is beautiful in HD if you have the CPU to watch, it is worth the time. The closeups on the chalice are stunning and it is well produced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX26vDokyU4

The more I learn the more I am convinced that many things for which the 'L' charge is hurled out can be found in one or more of the local practices or traditions of various Orthodox communities.

Thoughts on this one anyone? Thanks...
Posted By: Michael_Thoma

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. John Morris
Seating for the Faithful is not a Latinization. There are ancient pre-schism rubrics that refer to sitting.
Dear Very Rev. Father - the original argument wasn't in regard to seating, but pews. Pews are a latin and protestant custom. Seating is a universal option, in India the preferred seating is on the floor/rug/carpet.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 05:43 PM

Indeed, at Hagia Sophia, while proper seats were available in the mezzanine for the imperial family and the nobility, the people just plopped down on the floor. As for the Kathismata, these monastic readings of the Psalms ("while seated") were originally done in the trapezium, and later removed to Vespers, Orthros and the other Hours.
Posted By: Paul B

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 07:51 PM

If our people "plopped" on the floor we would need numerous physical therapists to help them up. smile Pews make much more sense because you can get an assist by pulling on the seat in front of you. Try that with folding chairs. rofl,,, no rofh (rolling on the floor hurting.

Out West where everyone is young they don't have to be sensitive to this issue.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 09:14 PM

Quote
Pews make much more sense because you can get an assist by pulling on the seat in front of you.

They also lock you rigidly in your place and make it impossible to move about the nave in response to the flow of the liturgy, to say nothing of actually worshiping with your whole body.

The elderly can be provided with chairs and benches, placed around the nave as needed. But pews were, are and will always remain, an abomination. "Take them out and burn them".
Posted By: Recluse

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
But pews were, are and will always remain, an abomination. "Take them out and burn them".


Indeed. grin
Posted By: Lester S

Re: Latinisation? - 10/03/13 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Recluse
Originally Posted by StuartK
But pews were, are and will always remain, an abomination. "Take them out and burn them".


Indeed. grin


second the motion :p biggrin
Posted By: Our Lady's slave

Re: Latinisation? - 10/04/13 03:02 AM

This will be understood by the oldies amongst us

Bring back Illya with his electric chain saw biggrin

But please leave somewhere for me to sit when necessary
Posted By: John Doucette

Re: Latinisation? - 10/04/13 08:38 PM

If I did not sit down during parts of the Liturgy or liturgical services I would collapse due to an old ankle injury and an essential tremor.

Slava Isusu Khrystu
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Latinisation? - 10/04/13 11:19 PM

Quote
If I did not sit down during parts of the Liturgy or liturgical services I would collapse due to an old ankle injury and an essential tremor.


The do so. The Lord does not insist on what we cannot give. But norms should be norms, and exceptions granted liberally, rather than to discard the norm in the name of pragmatism, compassion, or whatever.
Posted By: bergschlawiner

Re: Latinisation? - 10/06/13 04:14 PM

People plopping down on the floor again! Think I mentioned before going to a local Antiochean totally anglo convert church where the entire congregation "plopped" on the floor at certain times, like the epistle, sermon, etc. Never saw this before in any other churches, Orthodox of otherwise and it seemed somewhat "oriental"
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: Latinisation? - 10/11/13 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by bergschlawiner
People plopping down on the floor again! Think I mentioned before going to a local Antiochean totally anglo convert church where the entire congregation "plopped" on the floor at certain times, like the epistle, sermon, etc. Never saw this before in any other churches, Orthodox of otherwise and it seemed somewhat "oriental"


Sitting on the floor during the homily was practiced by parishioners at the former location of Our Lady of Fatima Russian Byzantine Catholic Church in San Francisco. Photo.
Posted By: bergschlawiner

Re: Latinisation? - 10/11/13 06:36 PM

Why not just remain standing? Why sit or squat?
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Latinisation? - 10/11/13 07:16 PM

In Chrysostom's time, a homily could go on for an hour or more.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Latinisation? - 10/11/13 11:22 PM

Dear Royal Stuart,

A friend of mine, a UGC priest, was in St George's Cathedral in L'viv some years back, as a guest homilist.

As he waited to be introduced by the parish priest, he saw that twenty-five minutes had elapsed since the parish priest began to speak.

So he thought that he shouldn't speak longer than for another ten minutes of so . . .

After the Liturgy, he saw the parish priest approach him in a rather agitated state . . .

"Don't you ever do that to me again, Father!"

My priestly friend asked him what he did to deserve his opprobrium . . .

"Look, you came all the way from Canada as our guest . . . the people expected you to give a SERMON - and what did you do? Is that called a sermon where you are from? Well?"

My friend found that people in the "old country" expect to spend several hours in church and actually look forward to hearing long sermons.

He also saw how priests are kept busy there from morning until late at night with various duties - mostly by people who demand baptisms, blessings, confessions etc. etc.

Alex
Posted By: AdsumJDS

Re: Latinisation? - 10/12/13 09:28 AM

I really cannot believe what I am reading here, arguing and pontificationg about what? Pews, of all things! ... and that someone would make such a statement that pews are "an abomination. 'Take them out and burn them.'" All of Heaven must be looking down on us and sighing a big "How childish people are even after 2000 years of Christianity!" Lord, O Lord, have mercy!
Posted By: DMD

Re: Latinisation? - 10/12/13 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Royal Stuart,

A friend of mine, a UGC priest, was in St George's Cathedral in L'viv some years back, as a guest homilist.

As he waited to be introduced by the parish priest, he saw that twenty-five minutes had elapsed since the parish priest began to speak.

So he thought that he shouldn't speak longer than for another ten minutes of so . . .

After the Liturgy, he saw the parish priest approach him in a rather agitated state . . .

"Don't you ever do that to me again, Father!"

My priestly friend asked him what he did to deserve his opprobrium . . .

"Look, you came all the way from Canada as our guest . . . the people expected you to give a SERMON - and what did you do? Is that called a sermon where you are from? Well?"

My friend found that people in the "old country" expect to spend several hours in church and actually look forward to hearing long sermons.

He also saw how priests are kept busy there from morning until late at night with various duties - mostly by people who demand baptisms, blessings, confessions etc. etc.

Alex


My dad, an Orthodox priest, was a guest of honor at the Greek Catholic Cathedral of St. John in Presov at his cousin's son's First Mass some fifteen or so years back. The bishop allowed him to even preach the homily in "ponashemu" of course! After it was over two things, the bishop complimented him on his perfect Rusyn "Sarishan" dialect and the babas, who didn't realize (or care more likely) that he was "pravoslav" thanked him for its twenty minute brevity. Go figure. I see from Bishop Sasik's videos from Muchachevo that long long homilies are the norm. Go figure??
Posted By: malphono

Re: Latinisation? - 10/12/13 11:49 AM

I suppose a long sermon may have benefits for some people: it gives them a chance to nod-off and cacth some Zzzzzzz's in total oblivion. sleep
Posted By: dochawk

Re: Latinisation? - 11/24/13 11:07 PM

We had a priest growing up sent to the homiletics center (which the diocese used when priests needed to "dry out").

His homilies changed from run of the mill to very good.

He told us that the most important thing they taught him was "seven minutes" . . .

I've observed over the years that very few priests can go past that while still actually saying something. And of those who can, many are talking *way* above the heads of the congregation.

And as for pews . . . my knees are *much* better since changing from roman rite to a byzantine parish . . .

hawk
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Latinisation? - 11/25/13 02:31 PM

Kyr Kallistos likes to say, "A good homily should have three points, no more, and no less".
Posted By: Fr. Jon

Re: Latinisation? - 11/25/13 11:22 PM

I love the breakdown regarding homilies (sermons) taught to us at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, MD:

1. Homilette - that which one gives on weekdays.
2. Homily - Sunday fare.
3. Homilong - you can get away with it on big occasions, but try not to.
4. Homilicide - for the love of God and His holy people - please don't.
Posted By: Garajotsi

Re: Latinisation? - 11/26/13 08:09 AM

Thanks! I needed a morning smile.

smile
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: Latinisation? - 11/27/13 10:06 AM

(With due apologies to my brothers and sisters from south of that Line), then there's hominy - of which no one should ever partake, neither before nor after a homily. biggrin

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: JimG

Re: Latinisation? - 11/27/13 11:19 AM

Down here hominy is generally eaten before the homily as part of a hangover cure called menudo. It is a wonderful soup made with hominy, cows stomach and pigs feet.
Posted By: Irish_Ruthenian

Re: Latinisation? - 11/27/13 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
(With due apologies to my brothers and sisters from south of that Line), then there's hominy - of which no one should ever partake, neither before nor after a homily. biggrin

Many years,

Neil


As one who was born and raised outside of Atlanta....

"Thet, suh, is strictly yo damn Yankee opinion!!!" wink
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Latinisation? - 11/28/13 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
(With due apologies to my brothers and sisters from south of that Line), then there's hominy - of which no one should ever partake, neither before nor after a homily. biggrin

Many years,

Neil


There is a Mexican soup called pozole, made chiefly of hominy and pork. It should be partaken whenever possible. If you try it, you will love it forever. You will also repent of your former opinions.

Caleb
Posted By: Fr. John Morris

Re: Latinisation? - 01/06/14 08:35 PM

There are pews in St. Mary's Cathedral in Damascus, the Cathedral of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. I have always questioned the argument that seating in an Eastern Orthodox Church are a Latinization. There are ancient liturgical texts that predate the schism that refer to sitting. For example in the Greek/Antiochian tradition we chant the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos on Friday evenings of Great Lent. Akathist literally means "not sitting." That would imply that people sat at times during services. The Psalms are divided into 20 Kathisma, which means "sitting," because one traditionally sits when the Psalms are read.
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: Latinisation? - 02/26/14 12:19 PM

By Latinisation what is meant? There are some good ways that the Western Church has and some bad. Pews are not feasible in large cathedrals, but in smaller churches they are necessary. In the Ancient Latin Rite the processional cross was only used for Masses with a Bishop, but now is used too much. I prefer the processional cross to be used only in Masses with a Bishop and I believe that this understanding is shared here. The importance of the procession is what is being processed; in the Little Entrance it is the Evangelion, in the Great Entrance the Sacred Gifts. The fans are always surrounding these elements; so, the processional cross is really not necessary in non-hierarchical Divine Liturgies, but this is my opinion.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Latinisation? - 02/27/14 10:09 AM

Quote
There are ancient liturgical texts that predate the schism that refer to sitting. For example in the Greek/Antiochian tradition we chant the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos on Friday evenings of Great Lent. Akathist literally means "not sitting."


Archaeology is pretty clear that pews were not incorporated into ancient churches. Benches were scattered around the nave (or built into the walls) to allow some to sit, and other people brought folding chairs, but the default posture was always standing. Rubrics for the reading of the Kathismata ("While Seated") of the Psalms as well as for the Akathistos ("While Standing"), were introduced to the liturgy from monastic usage, where services could run continuously for several hours. As monastic congregations were small, enough seating could be provided for all, but was used only at specified times. In parochial and cathedral services, the people usually just sat on the floor, generally during the homily, or through long readings of the Psalms.
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: Latinisation? - 02/28/14 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Sean Forristal
By Latinisation what is meant?


Welcome to the forum!

To directly address your question, we (Eastern and Oriental Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, as well as most non-Eastern members posting here, typically understand 'latinization' to mean the incorporation, either forced or self-imposed, of Latin praxis into our spiritual life.

The reference may be to any of myriad aspects of that spirituality. Some examples: the form of the Eucharist (unleavened hosts vs prosphora); liturgical praxis (e.g., celebration versus populum vs ad Orientum); liturgical language (inclusion of the filioque in the Creed vs exclusion of it); liturgical furnishings (e.g., pews vs no pews); liturgical vesture (chasuble vs phelon); liturgical calendar (Ash Wednesday vs Clean Monday); liturgical accoutrements (e.g., communion patens vs communion cloths); liturgical vessels (e.g., paten vs footed diskos); prayer (e.g., communal recitation of the Rosary vs recitation of the Hours); clerical dress (e.g., birettas vs skoufia); clerical styling/honorifics (e.g., Monsignor vs Archimandrite); liturgical 'art' (for lack of a better term) (e.g., statuary vs iconography); terminology (e.g., Mass vs Divine Liturgy); patronage (e.g., Assumption of the Blessed Mother parish vs Dormition of the Theotokos parish); aspects of the Mysteries (e.g., First Holy Communion and Confirmation vs infant Chrismation and Communion). Not all differences apply to all Churches, but that's a pretty representative catalogue. There are a myriad of other instances.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: Latinisation? - 03/01/14 11:17 AM

Thank you for clarifying what "Latinisation" means Irish Melkite. I found your response very helpful and I believe your reply helped the topic thread in general.

Through my Liturgical Studies, both academic and experiential, many of the differences have come about due to how the basic elements of the Divine Liturgy/Holy Mass became adopted to local differences. The patan being raised in the Greek Rites, while in the Roman Rite it remained in its primitive form. The Chasuble and The Greek One (I forgot the exact name) came from the same Roman Penula (Rain Coat) and was beautified, shaped, and ornamented according to local custom. The Stole and the Orarion are from the Roman Republic and Senate. The point I am making is that much of our Liturgical elements have a common ancestor and have some origin in the Greco/Roman culture of the Roman Empire. When Latinisation is used, I believe that hard feelings toward Rome could be alleviated by understanding our common past.
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: Latinisation? - 03/01/14 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Sean Forristal
When Latinisation is used, I believe that hard feelings toward Rome could be alleviated by understanding our common past.


Sean,

I think you need to understand that latinization is not a good thing and 'hard feelings' about it have a well-founded basis and history that is little alleviated by looking to find commonalities of origin. This is not about objecting to differences, it is about being coerced to adopt such. Liturgical studies are unlikely to have addressed that - because it could hardly be deemed 'developmental'.

Rather, you need to expand on your knowledge of the history of Eastern Christianity in the New World, where Latin supremacy served as a means to legitimize religious bigotry, paternalism, and the grafting of all manner of Latin praxis onto Eastern Catholicism - causing thousands of Eastern Catholics, clergy, laity, whole parishes, to translate to Orthodoxy.

In listing examples of latinization above, did I forget to mention priestly celibacy vs married presbyters?

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Paul B

Re: Latinisation? - 03/01/14 03:15 PM

Sean,

The resurrection of the Eastern Churches after Vatican II is much the reason that we have tried to re-adopt proper liturgical, theological and practical Eastern Church practices.
From the time of communion in the 16th century though the mid 20th century, the Roman Church has perceived the Eastern Catholics as "cute" but inferior to the great Western Roman Church of power and glory. Vatican II changed that when it declared the Eastern Catholic Churches as equal in dignity as Sui Iuris churches. Rome and the Roman bishops have been trying to live up to this declaration, but it is difficult to change a mindset that has existed for centuries.

We are trying to help them to understand this equal dignity that is inborn as granted by Christ as head of the Church and it's Mother Mary. The Universal Church is a variety of Churches with Pope, Patriarchs, Primates, Metropolitans and bishops whose unity is in synodal communion and a common agreements of the validity of the Sacraments (Mysteries.)

I'm not a theologion, so if I slighted proper ecclesiastic-ism please be understanding.

Father Deacon Paul
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: Latinisation? - 03/01/14 05:50 PM

Well put, Deacon Paul!

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: Latinisation? - 03/01/14 06:02 PM

To All:

I have great respect and knowledge of Easter Christianity. My posts were only to express my deep love of our shared past. By no means did I intend to belittle the subject; I had only good-will in my heart. I would not be a bi-Ritual Catholic if I did not love, know, and respect the Eastern Rites. Please, extend to me the same good-will that I have for this forum as well as the Eastern Rites.

Yes, I know about many Western Rite bishops and their tried-domination over Eastern Rite Catholics, especially in the US, but this happened in between Vatican I and Vatican II. For the most part these bishops were either Irish of Polish, and did not fully understand what they were doin. At the start of Vatican I all Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs were present and processed in according to the ranking of patriarchates in the Canon of Chalcedon. Well before Vatican II (The Eastern Patriarchs were not processed in according to Chalcedon at the start of Vatican II) there were many kind gestures the Popes made to Eastern Patriarchs; the meeting of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athanagorus I and their mutual embrace was made possible by long dialogue between the West and the East.

God-willing if I become a priest, I will god-willing become a bi-Ritual priest to serve the Eastern Christians in places where having a priest of their own rite is difficult. A few weeks ago I designed a multi-ritual sanctuary, which I hope to have built. The name of the Church will be Sts. Gregory I and John Chysostom multi-ritual Catholic Church, where all Eastern Rite Catholics will be welcome to have their respective Rites celebrated. I really want Western and Eastern Catholics to understand each other and experience each other's rich liturgical, theological, spiritual, and historical traditions. In my opinion I believe that the Catholic Church must breathe with both lunges everywhere. May many more Eastern Catholics influence Western Catholics, as for me I love a cherish both.


All my love and gratitude in Christ;
Sean Forristal
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: Latinisation? - 03/02/14 01:36 AM

Sean,

I don't intend to come across as argumentative, but your history is more than a bit off. Other than those who were Irish or of Irish descent, the bishops involved in the early 20th century conflicts with Eastern Catholics were primarily German or of German descent, not Polish. (There were no hierarchs of Polish ethnicity in the US at the time of the earliest disputes and I'm not certain that there were any even by the 1930s.)

And it would be more than a kindness to suggest that the bishops primarily responsible didn't know what they were doing. They were exercising religious, cultural, and ethnic bigotry, to put the best face to it.

With few exceptions, they saw married clergy, infant communion, iconostases, liturgical services in languages other than Latin, and any other mark of distinction between Eastern and Latin Catholics as threatening to American 'acceptance' of Catholics and Catholicism - making Catholics that much 'less American' and that much 'more foreign'.

The heresy is known as 'Americanism' and though condemned (for other reasons) by popes, it thrived long enough that, well before VII, most Eastern and Oriental Catholics in the US were worshiping in settings and according to a praxis that was indeed 'foreign' - foreign to their own religious heritage. 'Kind gestures' from afar did nothing for what transpired in those decades.

By the time some more enlightened Latin hierarchs, such as Archbishop Richard Cushing, of blessed memory, Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen, and some others came along, the damage was already done. They stood staunchly by and assisted us, and we gratefully hold them in our memory - but, it wasn't until post-Vatican II that we could really begin to recoup our heritage. It's been a half-century long struggle and our Churches still lack much of the autonomy that is theoretically ascribed to them by the phrase sui iuris.

I'll presume that your reference to patriarchal attendance at Vatican I was meant to be to Catholic patriarchs - Eastern/ Oriental and Latin. To the best of my knowledge, no Eastern Orthodox patriarch was present at that Council.

Additionally, it would be best not to cite patriarchs being given a modicum of processional precedence at Vatican I as an example of papal solicitude toward the East. Any such statement rings hollow in consideration of Pius IX's foot resting on the head or neck of the His Beatitude +Gregory II Youssef, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria, and Jerusalem of the Melkites, after he was thrown to the floor at the Pope's feet by a papal guard. The reason? He departed Rome without assenting to the declaration of papal infallibility and, when he subsequently subscribed, prefaced his signature by the phrase "excepting all the rights, privileges, and prerogatives of the patriarchs".

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: Latinisation? - 03/02/14 11:24 AM

Irish Melkite:

I do not know why you keep harassing me. Yes, I do understand that some of the greatest persecutors of Eastern Rite Catholics were of German descent. Venerable Fulton Sheen did do much to help the situation, but there were many Irish bishops that did persecute Eastern Rite Catholics. Having married priests of the Eastern Rite was probably very confusing for Western Catholics and Clergy of the time. The secular media constantly uses today the Eastern Rite Priests as ammo to destroy mandatory priestly celibacy for Western Rite Priests; thus, this matter is very delicate.

The problem that we seem to be having is a matter of historical correctness, but without mutual respect for each other's learning. You should know that Eastern Rite Catholics were harassed by Polish Clergy, sometimes on account of communism. In a Liberal book "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber" many Orthodox Patriarchs were offended by not giving them their proper, anciently held by the West, place in the opening procession of Vatican II; The Council of Trent made sure this was kept as well. I do not know where you read of the mistreatment of Eastern or Orthodox Hierarchy during Vatican I and I am sure that Pope Bl. Pius IX would not be on the way to canonization if this was known. Your history of Vatican I seems quite a bit different then the current Catholic Church's understanding of it. Moreover, Pope Bl. John XXIII was a great model of Eastern-Western dialogue even before becoming a Pope.

"Sui Iuris" does not mean that Eastern Churches can operate entirely on their own without Papal approval of the Ordination of a Bishop. Nor does it mean that Eastern Churches can have theology that contradicts the Magisterium of the Church. All Institutes of Consecrated Life of Pontifical Rite are given the status of "Sui Iuris," as well as a few Personal Prelatures and Ordinariates. "Sui Iuris," simply means that a particular part of the Catholic Church is able to be free of the intrusion of the Local Ordinary, and that it is directly under the Pope and the Roman Curia. Understanding "Sui Iuris" as complete autonomy from the Pope or his representatives is not correct.

I am not trying to defend all of the actions of the Western Church against the Eastern Churches, but rather to add a little more information to the subject. In many ways I am trying to be a source of unity here as I have studied much about the Church and am only trying to add more information. Peace to you and your family, brother in Christ and may the Blessings of God descend upon you all.

Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: Latinisation? - 03/02/14 11:41 AM

Also, I am sure that the use of "religious bigotry" is a little excessive. This sentiment may be a little harsh, but would probably be better understood as a lack of understanding of the Easter Rite Churches. When talking to Orthodox Priests and after they hear I am a Roman Catholic, but bi-Ritual, they usually treat me with disdain, but they are shocked when I ask them to bless me. They also comment that Rome will have to come to their point-of-view and that they will never accept Papal Authority. I think both the Western and Eastern Churches are to blame for the constant source of mis-understanding, hatred, and animosity. Let us work together against the devil in this forum, who seems to bring unkindness and animosity between us.
Posted By: Our Lady's slave

Re: Latinisation? - 03/02/14 12:05 PM

Sean

Exactly what do you mean by ' bi-ritual ' as applied to a lay person ?

As a Latin Catholic there is nothing that stops you worshipping in any Church that is in Communion with Rome - you would be welcome in my Parish , even though it is possible you would struggle with the language - we are not bi-lingual.

I'm friends [ not FB Friends , but friends in real life ] with some Orthodox Priests and am welcome in their Churches - I make no bones about it and introduce myself at the beginning as Catholic - specifically Greek Catholic and have never been treated with disdain .

As to where you get this
Quote
Let us work together against the devil in this forum, who seems to bring unkindness and animosity between us.
from goodness only knows - there is no devil in this Community - but there is love between us all ,and incredible support to a member with any problems.

Perhaps after you have been among us for a while you will understand better.

Now we all , Eastern Catholic and Orthodox , have entered the Great Fast , and our Latin Catholic members will enter it on Wednesday , it would be as well if we all review the Prayer of St Ephrem and meditate upon it
Posted By: Paul B

Re: Latinisation? - 03/02/14 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sean Forristal


I am not trying to defend all of the actions of the Western Church against the Eastern Churches, but rather to add a little more information to the subject. In many ways I am trying to be a source of unity here as I have studied much about the Church and am only trying to add more information. Peace to you and your family, brother in Christ and may the Blessings of God descend upon you all.



In your quest for more information, allow me these comments; not at all as antagonism, but as background for your quest to know the East and its sensitivity to being observed merely as "cute."

First, I don't see how Neil has "harassed" you at all. You commented, he replied. That you may not have liked his answer is not harassment. But that is forgotten, so let's move on with more background. Please don't consider background information as "hatred" or "bitterness", for it is what it is.

Where you live you may not see many people whose ancestors were Slav or Italian, so you may not get a full perception, so please try to understand.

It is a fact that immigrants from Sicily, disparagingly called "wops" and "greasers" by previously settled "loyal Americans" and "good Catholics," were Italo-Greek Byzantines. They were not accepted by most RC Bishops and the bishops appealed and complained to Rome until Rome actually banned the Italo-Greek Church in the United States. Then came the Polish, the bishops didn't like them either, nor their priests, but they had to tolerate them because they were Roman Catholic. Their mistreatment cause many Polish communities to accept the Polish National Church.

About the same time the slavic immigrants came. By that time Rome knew they made a mistake by banning the Italo-Greek Church so they allowed the Greek Catholics to exist and for priests to be sent from Europe, but with restrictions. Many Roman Catholics bishops, especially Bishop Ireland, still complained and protested and harrassed.

So our ancestors suffered much for their Faith; if we didn't recognize this we would be an ungrateful lot. It would be like the Church saying to the Early Church martyrs "all you had to do to be accepted was to bow to the Roman statues."

This may not make sense to you.....maybe some day you will understand.

May you have a fruitful and blessed Great Fast.
Your brother in Christ,
Father Deacon Paul
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: Latinisation? - 03/03/14 12:37 PM

Dear Father Deacon Paul:

As a devoted Roman Catholic while growing up in the secular school environment I know what it is like to be persecuted. Two of my teachers singled me out in class for my beliefs, one taking me out of a discussion on abortion, the other giving me a lesser grade on a paper because I disagreed with his neo-spiritualistic and naturalism. I have even been persecuted by Roman Catholic priests for my piety and liturgical accuracy. Thus, I am well acquainted with persecution and do "understand."

My ancestors of German and German Jewish Roman Catholic descent were persecuted by the KKK and others during WWII. The Irish priests had great disdain for the German immigrants too. Both of my grandmothers were harassed because they spoke German. But fortunately, they kept the Faith and built beautiful churches in Kansas.

Thank you for information regarding the Italo-Greek Catholic Church. Many bishops in the US have been less that holy in their treatment of people, even Catholics, from origins not of their own. If it was not the Irish Catholics fighting with the Italian Catholics, it was German Catholics fighting with the Polish Catholics. A former friend grew up in an Italian neighborhood in Paterson, NJ and he related these same stories to me. All of these occurrences are horrible.

I do not believe in Latinizing the Eastern Catholic Churches, but I do believe that Eastern Catholic Churches have much to offer Roman Catholic Churches, especially in regard to the Sacred Liturgy. Eastern Catholicism is not simply cute, for the past two years during the Great Fast, I did not eat meat, poultry, seafood, dairy, or oil, namely the full fast. This fast is intense and difficult and not for the faint of heart. You may find it interesting to know that my Vulga-German relatives did this even being Roman Catholics. No Eastern Catholicism is not "cute," but when lived well it is full of joy and beauty as I have experienced.

Your simile was a little bit extreme. The Roman bishops were not trying to make you commit idolatry, but were very wrong anyway. Have a blessed Great Fast and pray for me for the same.

Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: Latinisation? - 03/04/14 07:26 AM

Just my 2 cents. I fled the "Latin" Church, partly because they threw away Latin, but mostly because the liturgical changes to the Latin Rite after Vatican II (and in disobedience to Vatican II's document of the Liturgy in many cases) combined with the mea culpa "ecumenism" of John Paul II, really seems to me to amount to a new religion entirely. If I had not found the Byzantine Church I wouldn't be a Catholic today. The integrity and the beauty of the Liturgy was the perfect antidote for the Novus Ordo blues.

The Ukrainian Catholics in my area have a sort of "low Mass" on Saturday afternoon, anticipating Sunday, that is the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom spoken as rapidly as possible in English. This Saturday anticipation and the quick spoken Liturgy are real examples of modern day latinization. Although I came to the Byzantine Church in the 1990s and do not know what changes had occurred before, there doesn't seem to be much latinization IMHO.
Posted By: Economos Roman V. Russo

Re: Latinisation? - 03/04/14 10:53 AM

Would some kind soul out there in cyberspace please found a forum "By the Waters of Babylon" for all Roman Refugees and such like who insist on infecting our site with toxic Latinophrone claptrap. Please! Rudyard Kipling was oh-so-right, "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet." And for this grouchy old man 'never' is too soon for me!
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: Latinisation? - 03/04/14 11:24 AM

Ot'ets Nastoiatel':

What do you mean by Latinophrone claptrap; it sounds very funny.:)

As for a Divine Liturgy Low Mass, I am surprised that this is tolerated by the congregation. This example I would agree is a Latinization. A Latinization I hate is the constant tweaking of the Rules of the Great Fast in Eastern Catholicism. I have done the full fast and it had immeasurably great impacts on my spiritual life. Many Ex. Form Roman Catholics did attend Byzantine Catholic churches to keep their sanity and sanctity; thus, in my experience many EF Roman Catholics have a great love for Byzantine Catholicism, some still go to both places as I have experienced.
Posted By: Epiphanius

Re: Latinisation? - 03/04/14 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Roman refugee
Just my 2 cents. I fled the "Latin" Church, partly because they threw away Latin, but mostly because the liturgical changes to the Latin Rite after Vatican II (and in disobedience to Vatican II's document of the Liturgy in many cases)

Roman,

I know you're saying this by way of introduction, but believe me, we've all heard these criticisms of the RC "Ordinary Form" Liturgy, and we have a lot of different opinions about it. Our main concern here is how some RC practices and attitudes tend to creep over into the ECCs, and although this is still a problem, it was even more so before V-II.

Originally Posted by Roman refugee
... combined with the mea culpa "ecumenism" of John Paul II, really seems to me to amount to a new religion entirely.

This is, if nothing else, an "ecumenical" forum. We are ECs and EOs, OCs and OOs as well as RCs and some Protestants, and we all accept each other as brethren in Christ.

Originally Posted by Roman refugee
The Ukrainian Catholics in my area have a sort of "low Mass" on Saturday afternoon, anticipating Sunday, that is the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom spoken as rapidly as possible in English. This Saturday anticipation and the quick spoken Liturgy are real examples of modern day latinization.

That's it exactly. But note that it's the lesser of the two anomalies--the anticipated Liturgy on Saturday--that only came with V-II; the greater anomaly--the recited Liturgy ("spoken as rapidly as possible")--goes back a lot farther.


Peace,
Deacon Richard
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: Latinisation? - 03/05/14 12:01 PM

[quote=Sean Forristal]Ot'ets Nastoiatel':

What do you mean by Latinophrone claptrap; it sounds very funny.:)

Usually, one is either a phile or a phobe.

Actually, the congregation seems to like the recited Liturgy. In and out, quick, just like the Romans.
Posted By: Pasisozi

Re: Latinisation? - 03/06/14 10:46 PM

In certain circles of the Ukrainian Catholic Church--in my limited experience--there's a lot of "me too!"-ism. Unfortunately, this is seen in not imitating the best of Latin usage and piety but the worst, such as the "in and out" recited Liturgy. Another example are Greek Catholic prayer books that had prayers to say DURING the Divine Liturgy ("O Lord my God who hast permitted me to view this solemn entrance...") instead of attending to the actual liturgical prayers.

Obviously, this is NOT the UCC as a whole.

I would guess that "Latinophrone" means trying to fit Eastern spirituality (which includes liturgical life) into a Latin mold, and approaching it with Latin attitudes. This is something the late Fr. George Florovsky called "pseudomorphosis," which even affected Orthodoxy for a while.
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: Latinisation? - 03/07/14 12:04 PM

Thank you Pasisozi for clearing up what "Latinophrone" means. I believe we cannot put any spirituality in a box as the Holy Spirit is the subject and object of spirituality. The recited liturgy must go in my opinion; it gives people the impression that Divine Services should fit into "my" schedule, rather than how can "my" schedule fit into God's. A "Thank You" to all who have treated me with Christian Charity and who presume my good will towards all Eastern Catholics and Christians, but for those who have not, I love you for challenging me to be more humble.

Your unworthy brother in Chris;
Sean Forristal
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Latinisation? - 03/07/14 01:48 PM

Dear Sean,

You are welcome! smile

Alex
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: Latinisation? - 03/19/14 07:52 AM

I found a pdf document by one John Vernoski: (I don't have the link-I am sure one can google it)


Violations of Vatican Directives Regarding Liturgy in the "Revised Divine Liturgy" promulgated by the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan
Church of Pittsburgh 6 January 2007
May 2007


which discussed the 2007 changes in the Ruthenian service books. If anyone wants to read it I will post it.
Posted By: Our Lady's slave

Re: Latinisation? - 03/19/14 08:56 AM

Roman Refugee

May I humbly suggest that you read the posts on this board

which specifically deals with the Changes to the Liturgy
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: Latinisation? - 03/19/14 09:43 AM

Thank you, Our Lady's Slave. I shall bring myself up to date.
Posted By: Epiphanius

Re: Latinisation? - 03/19/14 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Sean Forristal
The recited liturgy must go in my opinion; it gives people the impression that Divine Services should fit into "my" schedule, rather than how can "my" schedule fit into God's.

Actually, the most commonly given "excuse" I've heard for the spoken Liturgies is either that "we don't have a cantor for every Liturgy," or "we can't have a choir for every liturgy." As a big proponent of congregational singing (a major reason for for coming East), I don't look very kindly on either one. Choirs can be very beautiful indeed, but simply by their presence they tend to promote a kind of "professional" attitude towards liturgical singing, reinforcing the average layperson's feeling that it is not his/her place to participate. Not having a cantor, on the other hand, can be a real problem, but IMHO it should always be looked at as a temporary situation.


Peace,
Deacon Richard
Posted By: Pasisozi

Re: Latinisation? - 03/19/14 12:22 PM

While I believe strongly in congregational singing, in the Byzantine tradition, a choir or cantors are still necessary to take the lead, sing the propers, and especially in singing the more complicated services of Matins and Holy Week (most of which are a form of Matins).
Posted By: Epiphanius

Re: Latinisation? - 03/20/14 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Pasisozi
While I believe strongly in congregational singing, in the Byzantine tradition, a choir or cantors are still necessary to take the lead, sing the propers, and especially in singing the more complicated services of Matins and Holy Week (most of which are a form of Matins).

Let me apologize for not making myself clearer. I know that it's practically impossible to have congregational singing without a cantor. What I was really trying to do was explain my objections to the most common "excuses" for having spoken Liturgies.

Not having a *choir* is really no excuse at all, since most of the choir members should also be able to serve as cantors, who could easily cover the additional parish Liturgies on Sunday (or even weekdays). Not having a cantor (or enough cantors to cover all Liturgies) is a real problem, but it usually points to a pastor who hasn't made an effort to recruit and train cantors--which in turn often points to a Latinized attitude that thinks a "low" Liturgy is somehow a good idea. sick


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Posted By: bergschlawiner

Re: Latinisation? - 03/21/14 01:51 AM

One good reason that I can personally attest to is in a military chaplaincy situation, especially were the priest is visiting (speaking as an Orthodox former serviceman) and there are no two believers of the same ethnicity or who even know how to sing. An extreme case was having an American OCA chaplain serving for several Romanians who never learned much about the Liturgy anyway plus some Greeks and "american" converts. At one Liturgy at Abu Ghraib prison the military Catholic chaplain volunteered to sing the responses from the Armed Services Hymnal. This is of course an exceptional situation. Probably not much better in prison ministries.
© 2020 The Byzantine Forum