www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Psssst! Have You Heard About The...Latinizations?

"Byzantines are supposed to participate fully in the Divine Liturgy and are expressly told NOT to pray �private� prayers during the Liturgy. The Liturgy is the work of the people � we aren�t supposed to be off on our own, with our own private prayers, while the Liturgy is taking place... that is an unfortunate Latinization."

I think what is expressed here is very sound liturgical thinking -- principles sound to both the Latin and Byzantine Churches. But one should resist the temptation to compare the best in theory of one community to the worst practices of another. I think the Byzantine Church historically had a greater tolerance of persons wandering in and out of Liturgy, making private devotions, etc. than the Latin. It was those good German originators of the Liturgical Movement that refocused the Church -- first Latin and afterwards the Catholic East and now the Orthodox -- on the liturgical principles so well explained in the previous post.

If this be a latinization, I welcome it.

Glory to Jesus Christ ! Interesting discussion by Moose, Byzantino, and Orientale. Allow me to describe the liturgical life at may own parish. My parish is a Russian parish founded by former Russian Orthodox. The pastors were Jesuits trained at the Russicum. In former days we had daily Divine Liturgy. Now we daily have Matins. Vespers are served on Saturdays and on the eves of feasts. We have the Akathists of the Passion of Christ, the Theotokos and St. Nicholas at the appointed times during the year, usually on Fridays. We also have Molebens at various times. We have a Panakhida once a month. Our parish has never had group prayer of either the Roman nor Byzantine prayer rope (Chotki, Vervitza, Rosary, etc !) The Russian parishes in America, as far as I know, have never had any Latin sevices( Stations, Adoration, etc.)I doubt that anyone ever prayed a prayer rope during another service. I sometimes pray the Byzantine Rosary before Vespers, Liturgy of the Presanctified or Divine Liturgy on those Feastdays that I can arrive early to church. A few other parishoners do the same. During the short Office (not Orthros) before Sunday Divine Liturgy I am usually running around lighting candles, obtaining prosphora loaves, and helping to move heavy objects about our little wooden edifice. (I am a big Black man; so, people assume that I am strong. ) In the Van Nuys Eparchy the first bishop, Thomas Dolinay commanded the public recitation of the Roman Rosary on Sundays. This practice has, under Bishop George, been discontinued in many parishes. The rosary continues to flourish in parishes (California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.) with significant Spanish-speaking populations. The Rosary is an important part of the cultus of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The two go together. Holy Resurrection Monastery in California, for example, sells Roman Rosaries. Orientale, I too must congratulate you on # 3 of your post . Food for thought and reflection.

blackbyzcath,
Yes, Latinization is still trying to find its way into the Byzantine Church. Your Pastor is not alone in this struggle. It's a fight that many devoted Pastors are fighting. You yourself must keep your faith and devotion to the truth. Tell your pastor I commend him for his devotion to this beautiful tradition. He is doing exactly what he is suppose to per 'Orientale Lumen.' If the group of parishoners what to pray in private let them go. Can't change the stubborn.

[This message has been edited by chanter1 (edited 03-10-2000).]

"It's a fight that many devoted Pastors are fighting."

I would have to disagree. It a fight that a certain small element of transritualists seem to wrongly take on. For the devoted Pastors of the Church, it is NOT a FIGHT. It is a call to liturgical renewal.

K.

>>1. I sincerely hope that people are not praying the rosary �privately� during the divine services. That is a 100% wrong practice for Byzantines. While that may have been the practice for Latin Catholics during the pre-Vatican II Mass, Byzantines are supposed to participate fully in the Divine Liturgy and are expressly told NOT to pray �private� prayers during the Liturgy. The Liturgy is the work of the people � we aren�t supposed to be off on our own, with our own private prayers, while the Liturgy is taking place. This is even the case after receiving communion. I trust that when you wrote that �there are parishioners who have devotion to the rosary and recite it privately and silently in the parish�, you were not referring to during the divine services. If you were, that is an unfortunate Latinization which should be stopped, in a pastoral way � it�s not really an individual matter for these parishioners, but rather a collective matter since the Liturgy requires the active, focused participation of all of the members of the Body of Christ. <<

Orientale,
You are reading more into the statement"..recite it privately and silently in the parish" than was intented. Nobody in my parish prays the rosary during the Liturgy. I am very much against that. The Liturgy is THE prayer of the Church, no devotion whatsoever surpasses the Divine Liturgy. What I meant by the statement is that some parishioners say the rosary on their own whether it be in the church when there is no church service occurring or in their own homes.

>>2. People are free to do what they wish in terms of private devotions, but public devotional life is to be shifted toward the Byzantine devotions, according to the Vatican itself. The Liturgical Instruction specifically denounces �the acquisition of forms of thought, spirituality, and devotions that are not coherent with their own ecclesial heritage� and the tendency in the past for Eastern Catholics to �conform[ing] themselves instead, for the other [i.e., extra-liturgical] aspects of spirituality, to the Western sensibility considered as common to the Universal Church�. This is the direction that the Vatican itself is charting for the Eastern Catholic Churches. Of course, these changes are to undertaken in a pastoral manner � but that certainly does not include an ideology that seeks to universalize Western devotions such as the Rosary. That kind of ideology runs directly, 100% contrary to Vatican teaching on this point as quoted above.<<

I agree.

>>3. While people are free to do what they wish in terms of private devotions, of course the Byzantine Churches would advise that they make every effort to live a devotional and spiritual life that flows from the same Byzantine tradition as the Divine Liturgy. Individual Byzantines would be better served learning and living these prayers (the Byzantine Morning and Evening Prayers, the Hours, canons and akathists, etc.), as they reflect the same spirituality and worldview as the Divine Liturgy itself does and can be integrated into a single, consistent, life of prayer where each piece fits with everything else. The Rosary, consisting as it does in a visual meditation of events in the earthly lives of Jesus and Mary, is a profoundly Western prayer: (1) Western spirituality is far, far more focused on the earthly lives of Jesus and Mary, on the humanity of Christ, etc., than is the East, and this is reflected in the Rosary � the East emphasizes the divine aspect of Christ, and this is reflected in our devotional life (e.g., the Akathist to Christ); (2) Western spirituality is far, far more focused on the events of the passion than is the East, and again this is reflected in the Rosary, the crucifix, etc.; and (3) Western spirituality, since at least the middle ages, has developed the form of prayer known as �meditation�, where specific events, scenes almost, are visually recalled and meditated upon � the Eastern Christian at prayer tries to pray imagelessly, or at least not meditatively in that pictorial sense � that is really a Western way of praying and not an Eastern way of praying � we pray with icons but we do not meditate on the icons in the way that the Rosary encourages one to meditate on the specific events commemorated. There is nothing �wrong� with the Rosary � but it represents a spirituality and a form of devotional life that is foreign to the Byzantine tradition and does not really fit very well into an integrated, Byzantine devotional life. Byzantines are of course free to pray the Rosary privately, but would be better off choosing devotions that are integrated with, and build upon, the Byzantine tradition so that the entire prayer life of a person � private and public � is �in sync� spiritually.<<

Interesting points.

>>Obviously, based on your posts here, you wish to have a Byzantine liturgical life with Latin-style paraliturgical devotions such as Rosaries, Adoration, etc. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you would do well to realize that this is not the direction that the Vatican is charting for the Eastern Catholic Churches and is therefore not, ultimately, the direction that the Eastern Catholic Churches will be taking in the medium-term.<<

I am well aware of what the Vatican has stated regarding the need for the Eastern Catholic Churches to return to their authentic traditions, but I believe you should realize that that is "easier said than done".

I would like to ask you this:

If the Vatican is calling on the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America to return to its authentic traditions, then why did the Metropolitan add the feastday of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the liturgical calender? Wouldn't this be considered a "pandora's box" for those who are so intensely committed to the "de-latinization" movement?

As one of Latino descent, I am personally happy that this feastday has been added to the Byzantine liturgical calendar, but trust me there is no way that the Latino parishioners of the Byzantine Catholic parishes in the Southwest are going to give up their recitation of the rosary to the Theotokos of Tepeyac. Doulos' last post is on the mark: the rosary is a strong devotion in our culture, and it will continue to be so whether in the Latin or Byzantine Church.

Is not the Byzantine Catholic Church in America trying to open its doors to all ethnic groups in the United States? As a result, does this not include accepting the cultural traditions of those who join the Byzantine Church? Does this not include the para-liturgical devotions of that particular ethnic group as well?


Orientale,
I know from a prior post that you are a member of a Melkite parish. Are you aware that 50% of Melkite priests in the United States are former Roman-rite Catholics? This was confirmed by my pastor. Is it not possible that many of these priests still have devotion to so-called "Roman" para-liturgical devotions. In fact, I know one priest who prays the Roman Liturgy of Hours- much to my surprise when I met him for the first time-, and in a nationally televised program, I saw a married Melkite priest pray the rosary with his family.

The Melkite Church has been at the forefront of the "de-latinization" movement. Yet, from clergy to laity, devotions to the rosary and other para-liturgical traditions are very difficult to leave behind.

Out of curiosity, how is it that you- being a Melkite- use a Latin word as your username when you are so vocal for "de-latinization". Are you in need of "de-latinization as well?

May God bless you and have a good Lent.

Byzantino

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I too am Latino and appreciate your last post.

I think that a Byzantine devotion to the Mother of God of Guadalupe does not necessarily have to entail the adoption of Latin devotional practices. I was raised a Latin Catholic but was never personally devoted to the Rosary. But devotion to the Mother of God under the title Guadalupe has always been part of my devotional life. As I see it, either Guadalupe was miraculous or it wasn't. If it was, can I not rejoice in it as an Eastern Catholic? I perceive no violation to the integrity of Eastern spirituality and liturgy by the adoption of the feast. If a Latin Catholic visits an Eastern Christian shrine to the Mother of God, this does not mean that his spiritual foundations would be utterly shaken. So why would the integrity of the Eastern tradition be disrupted by the observance of the Mother of God at Guadalupe?

>>I too am Latino and appreciate your last post.

I think that a Byzantine devotion to the Mother of God of Guadalupe does not necessarily have to entail the adoption of Latin devotional practices. I was raised a Latin Catholic but was never personally devoted to the Rosary. But devotion to the Mother of God under the title Guadalupe has always been part of my devotional life. As I see it, either Guadalupe was miraculous or it wasn't. If it was, can I not rejoice in it as an Eastern Catholic? I perceive no violation to the integrity of Eastern spirituality and liturgy by the adoption of the feast. If a Latin Catholic visits an Eastern Christian shrine to the Mother of God, this does not mean that his spiritual foundations would be utterly shaken. So why would the integrity of the Eastern tradition be disrupted by the observance of the Mother of God at Guadalupe? <<

Padova,

Thank you for your post!

You are correct- devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe does not necessarily mean devotion to the rosary for all Latinos. Yet, I am sure you agree with me that the rosary is a very strong devotion to Our Lady in Latino culture and that any public devotion to the Theotokos in her various titles throughout
Latin America has always included the rosary.

I do not find the addition of the feastday of OLG to be disruptive to Eastern tradition. On the contrary, as I stated before I am very happy that the feastday has been added.
In my parish, we celebrated the feastday, and it was a "big hit"! During the censing of the church at the beginning of the liturgy, the choir sang "Las Mananitas" and the "Ave Maria Guadalupana", instead of what is normally chanted. Parts of the liturgy were chanted in Spanish and the Epistle was read in Spanish as well.

My parish has a well known reputation of being an Eastern Catholic parish that is faithful to its traditions and has no latinization in its liturgy, church architecture, or public devotions. My parish has been called a model for what the Vatican has been asking of the Eastern Churches to do.

The question is: if the rosary and the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe are both regarded as "western" in origin, then why is the feastday accepted and not the devotion? To me, it does not make sense.


From my personal experience, those who have been strongly against the practice of the roasry in the Eastern Church were originally Roman-rite Catholics, who have had a bad experience of some sort in the Roman-rite. Those who have no problem with the rosary have been "cradle" Byzantine Catholics. That has been my experience, it may not be necessarily the same for others. Some of what has been written in this thread seems to reflect that.

So, I believe that the rosary is being unfairly attacked more out of fear of "bad memories" than the devotion itself. Fellow parishioners of mine agreed with me when I brought this up to them. Obviously, there must be many good fruits in praying the rosary if it has become the most popular devotion in the Catholic Church, West and even East. Why should that be taken away from an Eastern Catholic who benefits from it?

One final note: I have a devotion to Saint Joseph, yet the Byzantine Catholic Church does not have devotion to Saint Joseph as in the Roman-rite. Four years ago, I prayed to Saint Joseph using so-called Western prayers for a literally life-changing intention for a person whom I knew. The favor was granted and God in His mysterious ways made me aware that is was due to my petitioning to Saint Joseph. It would take too long to write the whole story down.
Now, if it were not for the so-called Western devotion to Saint Joseph, I most likely would not have turned to him for the particular intention I had. So if God didn't have a problem granting my petition using Western prayers then why should I tell a fellow Eastern Catholic to stop praying the rosary or other devotion that benefits that person, just because its origins came from another part of the world.

Again, Padova, thank you for your response.


[This message has been edited by Byzantino (edited 03-13-2000).]

Amen to all Byzantino has said!

Byzantino,

As I said in my post, if people want to pray Latin devotions in private, that is their own concern. The opinion of the Vatican is that people are best off following one unitary tradition rather than mixing and matching under the pretense of one tradition's practices and devotions being "universal". That is clear enough from the Vatican documents I just cited, to which you have provided no response other than "it's easier said than done", which is a curious response at best, since you seem dead-set at undermining what the Vatican has stated here.

My own parish priest was raised as a RC. Yet in our parish one sees no rosaries, stations, etc -- instead we have the fullest set of Eastern devotional life of any Eastern parish in our area -- Catholic or Orthodox -- and the parishioners seem to like it -- in fact, it seems to be what specifically attracts and retains people. If people in other parishes think differently, so be it -- but we, not them, are following what Rome actually wants for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Your statement that each western ethnic group that comes into the Eastern Church should bring with it its own paraliturgical devotions is not supported by the Vatican documents at all. What you have written sounds well to American ears, but frankly is simply the prescription for importing Latin devotions into the Eastern Church (since these non-Byzantine devotions are invariably Latin) -- which is directly, 100% against what the Vatican has expressly said regarding this. There's no way you can get around that, Byzantino.

If you wish to practice Latin devotions, why not be a Roman Catholic? Don't the Roman Catholic parishes around you have a devotional life that includes the rosary, stations, adoration, etc. -- all, I might add, in a setting liturgically and spiritually which integrates these devotions very well? Surely, it's easy enough to find a RC church -- far easier than it is to find a Byzantine church, I would guess. Since you seem so dead-set at promoting a mix and match approach which is explicitly denounced by the Vatican itself, why don't you just admit that you disagree with Rome and the Holy Father on these matters and leave it at that?

Finally, since you have asked, I use the name "Orientale" out of respect for the Holy Father's treasured encyclical "Orientale Lumen".

In Christ,

O

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
SLAVA NA VIKI BOHU!

Hello everyone,

I must admit that it has been a long time since I posted last. This is an interesting topic for me. My parish is located in the Mid-Atlantic region under the jurisdiction of Bishop Andrew. We are far from the ancestral shores of our Greek Catholic homeland in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Our parish is served by a bi-ritual Irish priest who is the current fair-haired child of Bishop Andrew in this area.

At Divine Liturgy yesterday, we sang the Antiphons for Great Lent and the Beatitudes but then continued with the Divine Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom instead of St. Basil. We were also told that we had a dispensation to eat corned beef & cabbage this coming Friday (the local Roman Cardianl gave one). I know for a fact that our priest will be wearing Green vestments in honor of St. Patrick this coming Sunday. (anyone want me to take pictures?)

How would my learned brothers & sisters of the Forum handle this situation??

Oh, just for the record, The Blue Army does come to Mt.Macrina every year with their banner. Martha Loya, of the priestly LOYA FAMILY, carries it in procession.

I have also been to the site of the visions of LITMANOVA in Slovakia. It sits on top of the mountain side and there is a beautiful wooden structure. The afternoon I was there, some of the women from Litmanova had climbed the mountain to say the ROSARY in the small chaple there. There is also a large wooden ROSARY hanging on the wall.

I have also read the book by Josip Terelya and have seen him speak on EWTN with Mother Angelica. He is a champion of the rosary among Ukrainian Catholics.

One last question for you. The Orthodox Church in America recently cannoized Alexis Toth, the former Byzantine Catholic priest. How will our Hierarchs deal with this situation? Wasn't he excumunicatted???

Wishing you all an easy Great Fast as we wait for the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior....

The least of servant of the servants of God....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by orientale:
[B]Byzantino,

>>As I said in my post, if people want to pray Latin devotions in private, that is their own concern. The opinion of the Vatican is that people are best off following one unitary tradition rather than mixing and matching under the pretense of one tradition's practices and devotions being "universal". That is clear enough from the Vatican documents I just cited, to which you have provided no response other than "it's easier said than done", which is a curious response at best, since you seem dead-set at undermining what the Vatican has stated here.<<

Orientale,
You are doing it again. Please do not read more into what I have written. Anyone who knows me personally will tell you that I am a big fan of the Magisterium and I would never undermine what comes out from the Vatican.
I am only stating the facts: there are many Eastern Catholics from all liturgical traditions(Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean,etc)
who are devoted to their "Latin" devotions and it will be very dificult for them to give up these devotions, hence, my use of the phrase "easier said than done".
Take a look at Eastern Europe. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Stations of the Cross, the Rosary are very prevalent, especially in Ukraine. An acquantance of mine, who is a nun, spent a year in Ukraine and found that in every church she went to, there were many, many people with rosaries in their hands. Especially for Ukrainians, these devotions were their source of strength and consolation during the persecutions they endured from the Communist government and the Russian Orthodox Church. They don't want these devotions to be removed from their Church. I am not disagreeing with what the Vatican has stated, I am saying that it will be difficult to implement in certain areas.
I do not see any lessening of the practice of Western devotions in the Eastern Catholic Churches. In fact, I see the opposite occuring in which priests take part in these devotions, such as the recitation of the rosary.

>>My own parish priest was raised as a RC. Yet in our parish one sees no rosaries, stations, etc -- instead we have the fullest set of Eastern devotional life of any Eastern parish in our area -- Catholic or Orthodox -- and the parishioners seem to like it -- in fact, it seems to be what specifically attracts and retains people. If people in other parishes think differently, so be it -- but we, not them, are following what Rome actually wants for the Eastern Catholic Churches.<<

So does my parish.

Your statement that each western ethnic group that comes into the Eastern Church should bring with it its own paraliturgical devotions is not supported by the Vatican documents at all. What you have written sounds well to American ears, but frankly is simply the prescription for importing Latin devotions into the Eastern Church (since these non-Byzantine devotions are invariably Latin) -- which is directly, 100% against what the Vatican has expressly said regarding this. There's no way you can get around that, Byzantino.

You are correct. So answer me this question which you have avoided. Why then did the Metropolitan of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America officially add the feastday of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the liturgical calendar, since devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe is predominantly found among Roman-rite Catholics?

>>If you wish to practice Latin devotions, why not be a Roman Catholic? Don't the Roman Catholic parishes around you have a devotional life that includes the rosary, stations, adoration, etc. -- all, I might add, in a setting liturgically and spiritually which integrates these devotions very well? Surely, it's easy enough to find a RC church -- far easier than it is to find a Byzantine church, I would guess. Since you seem so dead-set at promoting a mix and match approach which is explicitly denounced by the Vatican itself, why don't you just admit that you disagree with Rome and the Holy Father on these matters and leave it at that?<<

Judging from this last paragraph, I would not be surprised if you yourself happenend to have been originally a Roman-rite Catholic.(see prior post)
Orientale, if each and every Eastern Catholic who had a devotion to some "Roman" para-liturgical were to become RC, then many Eastern Catholic parishes would have to close.
The majority of parishioners in several Eastern Catholic parishes are former Roman-rite Catholics. There is one parish in my state that is 80% former Roman Catholic and this parish advertises that it prays the rosary everyday before liturgy! Should this parish be shut down, thereby depriving the community of its spiritual nourishment?

Ultimalety, Orientale, we will agree to disagree. I am enjoying this discussion, it provides the opportunity to know another's viewpoints. Obviously, we both are firm in our positions. Take care.

This thread has discussed latinization within the Eastern Catholic Churches, yet there has been no or little mention of the "latinization" that has occcurred within the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Here are a few examples:

The devotion of Stations of the Cross practiced by Orthodox Christians(Greek, Syrian, etc) in Jerusalem.

The custom of kneeling at certain parts of the liturgy, especially to receive the Eucharist, usually seen in Ukrainian and Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parishes.

The continued use of Catholic devotions and the use of Catholic terminology in the Carpatho-Russian Greek Catholic Diocese of America, composed of former Roman Catholics. Did they not become Orthodox to avoid latinizations in the first place?

The use of organs, confessionals, kneelers, use of western clerical dress by priests, and even the lessening of the iconostasis in Greek Orthodox Churches in the United Staes and yes even in Greece. I have visited a brand new Greek Orthodox church, whose iconostasis looked more like a "communion rail with four icons" than what one would normally find in a Greek church.

The use of the rosary by Orthodox Christians. Note: many Orthodox Christians have begun praying the rosary as a result of the approved apparitions that occurred in Damascus(Soufanieh) to a Greek-Melkite woman.

I have visited a Syrian Orthodox church, which has an image of the Sacred Heart on a side altar.

I find it interesting that while the Eastern Catholic Churches are in the process of de-latinization, that some Orthodox jurisdictions are adopting the very things that Eastern Catholic Churches are deleting from their churches.
Why is this so? Certainly, there is no pressure on the Orthodox Churches to "look Catholic", so why are they voluntarily adding these "latinizations" to their churches?

Oh, so many questions! If I can make a few observations on some of the issues raised by various posters:

"My own parish priest was raised as a RC. Yet in our parish one sees no rosaries, stations, etc -- instead we have the fullest set of Eastern devotional life of any Eastern parish in our area ... and the parishioners seem to like it. If people in other parishes think differently, so be it -- but we, not them, are following what Rome actually wants for the Eastern Catholic Churches."

Yes, the popes have asked us, in a pastoral manner, to recover our full patrimony. But, as to your RC pastor and congregants, that same authority also considers migration between ritual churches an oddity and clearly something that is equally as non-normative as "Latin" practices in Eastern churches.

"The Orthodox Church in America recently cannoized Alexis Toth, the former Byzantine Catholic priest. How will our Hierarchs deal with this situation?"

I'm not sure why any response would be expected. Canonization is not a sacramental act that might invite a discussion of its validity from that standpoint, but a juridical act. Therefore, as we are juridically distinct from the Orthodox, I can't imagine any commentary.

"[What about Orthodox "latinizations such as the]devotion of Stations of the Cross practiced by Orthodox Christians(Greek,
Syrian, etc) in Jerusalem. The continued use of Catholic terminology in the Carpatho-Russian Greek Catholic Diocese of America, composed of former Roman Catholics. Did they not become Orthodox to avoid latinizations in the first place?
The use of organs, confessionals, kneelers, use of western clerical dress by priests,
and even the lessening of the iconostasis in Greek Orthodox Churches in the United
States and yes even in Greece. I have visited a brand new Greek Orthodox church, whose iconostasis looked more like a 'communion rail with four icons' than what one would normally find in a Greek church."

I think this shows the problem of (often) Roman Rite Catholics who are atracked to the eastern churches. They tend to view "latinization" as anything they were familiar with in the Roman Church that is less common in the Eastern Church. Even in their graecophilia they are backdoor latinizers in that they tend to view certain minor or optional eastern practices as more important than they traditionally have been understood to be. The Stations of the Cross are not a latinization of the Church in the Holy Land, it is a devotion orginally of the Holy Land that was adopted by the Latin Church.

The Carpthao-Russian Church broke less over any liturgical issue as the issue of trusteeship and the right of the congregation to call the priest (even the clerical marriage issue was secondary). Because the Vatican Polyglot Printing House was (and is) the best in the world, the first English language Byzantine liturgical books were published by them, hence up through the 1950's, the Orthodox, dependent on the Vatican Press, would use the term "immaculate" rather than "all-pure" (whatever the difference is!) and sometimes "Mass" for "Divine Liturgy".

It is somewhat superfiscal to say a practice that originated in the west (clerical suit, air conditioning, pews) is a de facto latinization. Even the icon screen is not, as westerners often assume, to "hide" the altar. It is to exhibit "windows to heaven". Therefore, the brick wall style is wholely a matter of taste within the Eastern patrimony, not something essential.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 03-15-2000).]

Throughout world history, as one culture conquered or came in contact with another culture , there has been an exchange of cultural traditions that soon become accepted as authentic.
For example, Mexican culture is a combination of Spanish and Indian traditions. From Spain, came the Catholic faith, the Castilian language, bullfighting, etc. The Native Americans of Mexico accepted these new traditions and made them their own.
Some traditions have stayed the same(ie. bullfighting in Mexico is identical to that of Spain), and other traditions that originally were derived from Spanish culture are now accepted as authentic Mexican culture( Mexican "flocorico" dancing which is derived from Spanish flamenco). Even the Spanish language of Mexico does not sound
the same as Castilian Spanish. Mexico is by far "more Catholic" than Spain, which increasingly becomes more secular.
Spain took back the chocolate from Mexico to Europe, and now the Swiss are known for "their" chocolate.

My point is that traditions from one culture do cross over to another, which later becomes regarded as authentic.

The same thing has occurred in the various liturgical traditions of the East and West.
In the East, the Church commemorated the birth of Our Lord on January 6th. The West commemorated it on December 25th. Over time, the various churches of the East(with the exception of the Armenians) adopted the Western celebration of Christmas.
In the West, Pope Sergius introduced the feastday of the Presentation of Our Lord from the East into the Western calendar. This feastday is very popular in the West, especially in Latin America.
The Armenian Apostolic Church due to its contacts with the West adopted certain Western liturgical practices. Even now, certain parts of the Armenian liturgy are identical to those found in the Latin Tridentine Mass(ie, priest confessing before ascending the altar,
the Last Gospel at the end of the liturgy, also the use of unleavened bread).
Russian Orthodox chant is considered one of the most beautiful chants in the world. Yet, the use of polyphony in Russian chant is due to Western influence. What is Russian chant without polyphony!

How old must a particular feast, devotion, or
liturgical practice be before it is accepted as authentic?
In the Eastern Catholic Churches, what is the criteria for determining when a devotion or liturgical practice is authentic and when is it foreign? How old must it be before it is it accepted as a part of one's tradition?

As I stated in prior posts, the rosary is a very popular devotion -regardless whether one likes it or not-in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Can the rosary still be considered a "Latin devotion" a hundred years from now? As several in this thread know, there is a Byzantine version of the Rosary that was adapted by Eastern Catholics. Will this Byzantine version of the rosary be accepted as authentic a hundred years from now?

According to Kurt's last post, the Stations of the Cross originated in the Holy Land and was adopted by the Latin Church. If it originated in the East, then why is it considered a "latinization" by some Eastern Catholics? Is it simply due to the fact that it is well known in the West and promoted by the Franciscans?

I look forward to your opinions. God bless.

Kurt, some of the the "latinizations" within the Orthodox Churches which I mentioned in my prior post came from a pamphlet written by an Eastern Catholic priest on the need for Eastern Catholic Churches to rediscover their traditions.

Hi Everyone,

This is so interesting, and I am continually impressed by all that you all know. I don't know that much about anything! (being what some call a generalist and what some call a dilettante!)

I wanted to ask if anyone thought that the popularity of Fatima might not have something to do with the movie (I have heard this over in Latin circles... ) and whether the addition of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the calendar might not have something to do with (I have no idea how to word this) the fact (?) that she was recently proclaimed (?) a special guardian (?) of all the Americas?

PS Hi Anne! It was great meeting you the other evening! I love your verve and energy and knowledge and curiousity.