www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catalogue of Latinizations

Wait, so there's no Catalogue (or Online Store) of Latinizations? Darn, I was hoping to pick up some lace albs and sanctus bells. Oh well.

After spending three weeks in Transylvania, I saw numerous little "Latinizations" among the Orthodox: beardless clergy, clergy not wearing their cassocks all the time, white communion cloths, pale communion wine, lace on the altar, Western devotional images (including the Sacred Heart) in village churches, hand washing before touching the Lamb, abbreviations in the Liturgy (like shortened antiphons, no troparia), all concelebrants pointing to the Gifts at the Words of Institution, rosaries for sale at every monastery gift shop... I'm sure there were more, but I'll stop now.

Even with all these, there is no doubt of their Orthodoxy. Perhaps borrowings from the West are just natural when you live at a cultural crossroads.

Some Orthodox might argue that union with Rome is the ultimate Latinization, but you didn't hear that from me.

Dave

Dear Dave:

Why don't we just let these "latinizations" on one side and "Easternizations" on the other as they are?

Because there will be a point in time that the two will become congruent and the Eastern and Latin Churches become "indistinguishable" or, at least, similar!

Who knows, a future Pope might sport a long beard in those days!

Union by osmosis?

Amado

Just wanted to say, this is a great thread

Is fault of Jesuits! Is OUTRAGE!!



Jeff

Brian, I am with you - Archpriest Roman and his parish have inspired me more than any other. I don't know where people get off calling them elite-they have never turned anyone away at the door and if that is the term that goes along with restoring traditional liturgy ala Holy Father JP II, fine.

This past Lent I visited an EC church for one particular sunday. I distinctly remember seeing and venerating the icon of St. Gregory Palamas and I heard with my own ears the propers of that feast day sung during the parish's (surprise surprise) Vespers, Orthros, and Divine Liturgy.

From the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh's Metropolitan Cantor Institute, in accord with Father David Petras' typikon (where they have been given as an option for years):


Vespers for the Second Sunday of the Great Fast (St. Gregory Palamas) [metropolitancantorinstitute.org]
Matins for the Second Sunday of the Great Fast (St. Gregory Palamas) [metropolitancantorinstitute.org]

And I know at least two parishes in New York state where the propers for St. Gregory were sung on that day... (Great Vespers and Divine Liturgy).

As far as LITURGICAL latinizations, the best summary I have seen was actually in the 1914 (!) Catholic Enyclopedia under Ruthenian Rite [newadvent.org] . (Note that not ALL the items listed are latinizations.) In this context, the publication of the Ordo Celebrationis in the 1940's was a HUGE step in the right direction.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

A friend: But these things you call Latinisations have been around in the Ukrainian Catholic Church for hundreds of years!

Me: Yup - more than long enough. They've outstayed their welcome and ought to go home!

And at least one parish in the Eparchy of Parma (ours) also celebrated the propers for Vespers and Matins of St. Gregory Palamas last Great Fast. We also sang his Canon after Divine Liturgy and had a Moleben to him later on at a mission location. God bless Patriarch Josyp of blessed memory who blessed the addition of this commemoration to the books in Rome back in the 1970s.

I find the advertising about compliance with that Typikon a bit contradictory considering the bullying to the contrary that accompanied last year's Good Friday MCI text.

I hope we do not take a huge step backwards in the near future. This Ordo was paid for by real martyrdom by some of the authors and contributors and that Ordo has stood a great test of time. Let's give it a chance before we throw it out the window (since we are on the subject of Latinizations - gross abbreviation and inclusive language being a favorite one of the last 30 years).

Dear Father Deacon,

Well, first of all, the services for Good Friday were NOT prepared by the Metropolitan Cantor Institute, but by the inter-eparchial liturgy and music commissions, and official promulgated by the bishops - who were probably well aware that MOST parishes needed more guidelines and structure than they had available for the combination of observances.

I understand that, in the Eparchies of Parma and Van Nuys, the Father David's typikon IS the official order of services. But in that very Typikon, Father David writes, "This present typikon... is to be considered superceded by any official directives of the bishops." And like it or not, the directive this Spring was an official one, and the bishops (including yours) are entitled to amend, contextualize or replace their previous directives. That's part of the bishops responsibility, not ours. He answers to God for it; unless his orders are sinful, you're bound to follow them.

I grew up with MOST of the Latinizations in that Encyclopedia article. The Ordo was barely promulgated and never enforced in this country - and many of the complaints I am hearing about locally concern issues where priests wil be expected to FOLLOW the 1940's Ordo, and are complaining.

For that matter, the proposed books I have seen have GREATLY expanded litanies, etc., compared to anything WE used in the 1970's. The question of whether additional litanies, verses, etc. can be added to those in the books is still unsettled. But for many, many parishes, the proposed People's Book wil NOT involve "gross abbreviations, but will actually add material that was already in the official books.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff, "still unsettled" doesn't answer any concerns or questions I'm afraid, but rather raises more. And even the hint of inhibiting a fuller celebration of the Eucharist has me and many others quite disturbed.

So we are throwing out the work of the martyrs and holy bishops just because it hasn't been properly implemented? What about those who take it seriously and have tried to implement it? Will they be told now that they can no longer do what Rome instructed us and allows us to do? Rome is just now realizing the implementation of some aspects of Vatican II, and others going back further to Leo XIII and Pius X.

The 1988 UGCC Liturgikon and pew books realized the lack of implementation of the Ordo, and rather than strike down and create even another new version with another new translation, they rather returned to the fuller implementation, or at least providing the text and options for those who wish to follow that fuller usage. Any concern of consistency with the previous movement of a sister Greek Catholic Church with whom we used to share a hierarchy in the US?

Does the new "People's Book" contains either the same or more content than the 1965 Liturgikon (which is generally consistent with the Ordo)? Sounds like no. Why couldn't we have taken that, which has all of the deacon's parts, all of the priest's parts, all of the litanies (some, of course, like that for the catechumens could be only used when catechumens are present), fairly decent translation, and make "people's books" from that? How does it compare to the Byzantine Book of Prayer?

Neglected or abbreviated usage in some quarters does not justify tearing everything down. Again, perhaps many of us would have less questions and concerns had some opportunity been given for a reading of the "sensus fidelium".

It seems at Otpust will be an opportunity not to obtain input from the "sensus fidelium" but rather to see the Cavia porcellus liturgicus. I await the feedback from those present other than the revisionists responsible for this.

I would gladly and happily withdraw any and all objections up front if guaranteed the opportunity to continue to celebrate the Eucharist in the fullest tradition my church allows in the Ordo, and not be legislated downwards in the erroneous and Latinizing context of "consistency". Can we try it first before throwing it out?

I know some don't care what the Orthodox think, nor about consistency with them, but I do as it is the mind of Rome as expressed in numerous documents. Excuse me for my numerous questions, and don't take it personally, but noone seems to have any answers.

Dear Father Deacon,

1. From everything I have seen and heard, the 1965 Liturgikon was dead before it was printed. It was 1995 before I heard the majority of its litanies in church. I would gladly see it be used right now. It seems that when our particular law was written, Metropolitan Judson and the other hierarches decided that it was not possibly simply to impose the 1965 Liturgikon. I was not there, but my experiences in parishes make it seem likely that that is the case.

2. I sympathize completely with your concern that, in legislating that many formerly-omitted elements of the Liturgy MUST be taken, even if not in their fullest form, the bishops might prevent you and your parish from taking the fuller form. TALK TO YOUR BISHOP. And pray.

3. Just because someone puts "Pittsburgh" on their posts does not mean they know what is surely going to happen in Pittsburgh, or Uniontown, or anywhere. It may be that the bishops are right, and that bringing ALL parishes up to a higher standard will help the Church as a whole. It may be that they need to be reminded that other, healthier parishes desire to go even further. "Be not afraid!" If you have concerns, talk to your bishop, and pray.

The proposed Divine Liturgy text, as I saw it last year, had about 25% more material in it than the 1965 Divine Liturgy text we used to use, while making most of the "some parishes take the following litany" parts of the 1978 Divine Liturgy book that we now use, required. It is not the 1965 Liturgikon, but then again, I've never seen the 1965 Liturgikon service actually used in one of our churches. And almost all the services I've seen in Slavonic have followed the Kiev altar missal FAR more closely than the followed the Ordo.

I would gladly sign a petition in support of either of the first two issues above. But the fact is that in MANY of our parishes, the proposed Divine Liturgy will be closer to the Ordo than they are celebrating now. I REALLY hate to admit that, but it's too true.

I'm carrying no brief for a revised Divine Liturgy text (though I will say that far too many life-long Rusyn Catholics have told me, "I FINALLY understand what all this "singing, shouting crying out and saying" is about!" Sure, it's a failure in catechesis. The question is, is what the bishops are doing with priestly prayers taken aloud going to better pass on the Faith? Given that the people DO give their assent with their Amen, I have to believe that SOME understanding is simply crucial to that assent. We don't say Amen simply because the book says to.) I have no strong feelings that way.

Music is a different issue. Our music WAS heavily simplified and re-ordered, precisely when it might have been a gift that WE could have given to the rest of the Church. Instead, we "Americanized" it. Once more: personally, I could go either way - the 1965 Liturgikon, or a new one of the bishop's choice. But on the issue of music, I would insist that we TRY the melodies our ancestors sang for, say, ten years in English, before we decide that we're just not up to it, and need NEW music. Local traditions? Sure, as long as cantors and people also know the common melodies. But "we need easy, easy music in church" is a Latinization too, and one we do NOT need to pursue.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought it was traditional in the east for women to wear headcoverings? I know some more traditional Orthodox do it.

Dear Jeff,
You write that "almost all the services I've seen in Slavonic have followed the Kiev altar missal FAR more closely than the followed the Ordo."
I have a fair familiarity with Church-Slavonic service books. Could you tell me what the Kiev altar missal is, and when (and by whom) it was published?

Thanks.

Incognitus

Jeff, first of all as we have discussed before, the musical issues are separate, and I am in agreement with your statements there.

We do use the Ordo, and take all of the parts (save for the Catechumens, which we have taken when we have had Catechumens). I know of other parishes, both UGCC and BCC that take the Ordo seriously and to heart. Sure, some parishes are not in great shape overall liturgically speaking.

But again, to create a lower bar in the big picture of that authentic renewal asked for by Rome I am not sure is the best path and is certainly not that being taken by other and larger part of those using the Ordo (the UGCC). Since no one has justified the need for these new texts nor the need to ignore the previous books and directives has many of us in wonder and dismay, even more so if we will be legislated to a point of less full liturgical usage than our parishoners are accustomed to. That will actually create graver issues of conscience with those celebrating.

Your seeming quick dismissal of that entire process of development and implementation of the Ordo isn't reasurring in the least. I am not sure anyone save Rome can rescind that Ordo, which they promulgated, and they have shown no desire to do so. Please pray for those of us who have understood at what price it was developed (martyrdom) and who do take it seriously.