www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Conception

Dear Simple Sinner,

Certainly, you raise a very important issue (I don't believe anyone connected the Latinization thing to church growth, but nevertheless).

In fact, it would seem that the need for church growth is the one big reason that has been used (correctly or wrongly) to justify the importation of Latinizations or else their maintenance, as you've outlined.

For example, in Myron Fedorw's Ukrainian language booklet on this issue, he maintains that Fr. Isidore Dolnitsky's liturgical services on Latin themes were created precisely to allow EC's to have devotion to the Sacred Heart et. al. within their own churches, rather than going to Latin parishes.

I've met more UGCC priests to remember from Ukraine who describe how their entire village parishes are into Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration (including small children who too have their special Hour of Adoration), the Perpetual Rosary, Sacred Heart devotion etc. Even Orthodox parishes in western Ukraine and surrounding areas have the Sacred Heart devotion, Stations of the Cross and the "Supplicatsia" Eucharistic service (which I've seen in Orthodox prayerbooks with my own eyes).

If anything, these devotions are symptomatic of vibrant EC parishes that involve very many of their members who also go out to grab others to join them, the unchurched, youth etc.

But why are we losing numbers here? It cannot be because of "Latinization" since many of our EC parishes are as Latinized today as they were yesterday - that seems to cross that factor right out.

Is it because we are too ethnic? Are English language parishes any better off than our ethnic ones? ALSO, does the fact that our services are in English sufficiently "de-ethnicize" a parish to make it attractive to mainstream North Americans looking for a spiritual alternative? Do the majority not see our onion-domes et al., even when the services are in English, as being an "ethnic" expression nevertheless?

Do we suffer reduction in numbers because our services appear too complicated, flowery and "over the top" ritualistic? Is that a turn-off for the mainstream? Are we too "different" and even "extreme" looking for many North Americans (converts to the EO and EC Churches can appear to be more "Orthodox than the Orthodox" but that hardly represents a mainstream phenomenon).

Alex

Uberfromm?

Ubervostochnik?

I would imagine that an average Evangelical would get more exposure of the Roman Catholic Church than the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox may be quite foreign to him unless there is a large community in his area.

When the Coptic patriarch came to Houston a few years ago, he mentioned growth of their church in America. At the time I suspected the draw to be more from immigration than conversions. But the issue is a very complicated one. There may not be one simple answer or solution.

Simple Sinner,

I am no expert about these matters. My statements are more self-reflection. One has to assume that with anyone, now-a-days.

What I do know is that when you have a dynamic clergy coupled with authentic traditions, the Eastern Catholic churches thrive. If you find my point unfounded, there real is nothing more for us to discuss. Latinizations are turning people away. Why would anyone that wants to be Eastern remain in a Church that does not?

Many people who, both on this forum and outside this forum are proof that Latinizations turn people away. If you disagree, what more can I say.

u-fromm is German - means ultra pious.

�ber-vostochnik is a term we coined in P-burgh among the Easterns - Catholic and Orthodox - who seemed more committed to the "Greek" part of Greek Catholic/Greek Orthodox. The desire to realize a very Byzantinized Sub-Alleghania Rus, form took precedent. "Look at him! He only has a chotki with 300 knots!"

I do disagree - so I don't know what you can say.

But you seem to attribute to me a stance demanding Latinization - and that is not at all the case. My "schtick" is that it IS NOT the Latinizations that are making us disappear... It is not Byzantinization that is making us thrive.

The point of the links to the Orthodox writers and the Hopko Letter was to demonstrate that the grass ain't greener. They never were Latinized (excepting the ACROD parishes and some of the original OCA parishes formed by Toth) and I honestly don't believe they are doing much better. Hard as some writers and apologists have worked to make it seem like all of Evangelicalism is about to go Byzantine, and every second Anglican parish is thinking about becoming "Western rite"... Well it just ain't happening in that Eastern camp either.

The dynamic I have found for the parishes that are vostochnik and thriving is this - the parishes are like-minded folks who have an appreciation for this and grow close in their love for it. We especially like the form... Many ex-Latins with a smattering of converts, reverts and a mix of the ethnic element. They have a love for the Liturgy.

On the flip side, in the past 4 decades there were heavily Latinized parishes that were heavily attended by disaffected Latins. More than a few such parishes were kept alive by that trend.

I share in your enthusiasm for greater return to our Byzantine patrimony... First and foremost is holiness and being comfortable that you have found a place where you can work out your salvation. All the bells, whistles, robes, gold, incense chotki, and great hats in the world are nice but secondary.

Pinning the decline of Eastern Christianity in the West on Latinization or our failure to boldly copy all that is in modern Orthodoxy works up until you hit the point where you realize - if you do some research beyond the hype - that it is a pan-Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) problem.

I LOVE IT!

I bet the uber's install onion domes on their garages as well!

Gordo

Dear Friends,

FYI, on the Immaculate Conception, Fr. John Meyendorff in his writings did "hint" at an Orthodox understanding of the IC and this is most fully brought out in the way Fr. Richard McBrien describes it in his (sometimes controversial) "Catholicism."

Fr. McBrien actually admits to 2 ways of understanding the IC - the second way COULD be acceptable to the Orthodox (that the Theotokos was sanctified at her Conception).

I've also seen some RC prayerbooks where, for example, in the Litany of Loreto, the invocation has been changed to "Mary, conceived in holiness," rather than the older "conceived without the stain of Original Sin."

Alex

Actually, I don't think there's a "reason" for what you call siding with Roman Catholics. There is a common patrimony and, due to the vagaries of history, there was an adoption of some Latin names for feasts that were already present in the East. Most of the Eastern Churches are moving back toward their traditions, but the people who have grown accustomed to particular terminology must be respected. Thus, the process is long and involved.

I'm not sure what you are asking here... Rather, it seems to be a way to make a jab at the Church -- quite unnecessary if the course of civil conversation.

Again you seem to posit more than you ask -- if you want to ask questions, feel free to do so. You have some good questions that deserve good answers, but you defeat the purpose when you ask them in a rhetorical manner that precludes getting good answers.

But, as you well know, the Church does not draw everything from the bible for that would be the wrong direction. Rather, the bible is only part of Tradition.

Fr. Deacon Ed

Gordo. Thank you. But there are those who insist that ONLY the Synoptic Evangelists are correct and thta John is so-so. This sounds similar to various catholic teachings whereby one version is more correct than another.
Ed

Robster. On what day did our Lord eat the Last Supper with his Apostles? Was it a Passover meal? Should Catholics use only unleavend bread?

When you say the Church, which one - Roman or Byzantine? Can Catholics of varying theologies live together as one community united in faith?

Is Patriarch Photius a saint in the Catholic Church? If so, whih one?

Ed

And how many Orthodox teachers have complained that their teaching has been mixed with the ideas of the scholastics?
Ed

Is the Assumption all about making the salvation of Christ more acceptable or understandable - or - is it about a personal metaphyics on Mary?

In the end, is a *dogma* about Mary's assumpiton absolutely necessary? Should it be incorporated into the great Creeds of the Churches?

Ed

You are what you choose to be.

Can this be true for the Roman Catholics? Friends of mine tell me that their church community just had their second Latin Mass. Many thought only five or six people would show up. They were surprised to see the church packed - many of them with young people and their children! They removed the altar table (they actually rolled it away) and set up on the high altar in the back of the sanctuary. All in Latin. Thanks to the current Pope, many vostochnik Roman Catholics are now excited about their church. It is interesting to me that a number of Byzantine Catholic families are contemplating attending the Latin masses.

Now that the Roman Catholic church is going back to the latin mass, will Byzantine Catholics dump modern adaptations of the new Roman Mass? Byzantine Catholics seem to follow the trends in the Roman catholic churches. Every time the Romans switch directions, the Byzantines do the same. I am also told that inclusive language is out. how will this affect theNew Byzantine worship?

Ed