What influenced your decision to become an Eastern Catholic after being originally Latin?

[Aramis]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

LOL
At least in your parish they are somewhat displaced from their own tradition. In my parish there's a tug-o-war. We're trying to get whats in the "Divine Liturgy, an Anthology for Worship" as the norm for our musical sets. Most of the people still revert to the old tones if the subdeacon isn't leading the singing. My wife is being trained now to help with the singing. I wish I could help but I couldn't sing to save my life

They truly want to impose those latinizations on the rest of the parish, tho... and they cringed visible when the pastor described the parish as "Orthodox in Communion with Rome"....

The problem isn't that they hang on to the latinizations... its that they think those are the uniform face of the Byzantine Rite, not just a particular subset of the UGCC.

[ConstantineTG]

Thank you Diak and kitkatty for that wonderful eyeopening viewpoint

[Vico]

Accurate observance allowing "organic change" but at the same time maintaining mutual goodwill, is difficult to achieve.

[Diak]

At least in your parish they are somewhat displaced from their own tradition. In my parish there's a tug-o-war. We're trying to get whats in the "Divine Liturgy, an Anthology for Worship" as the norm for our musical sets. Most of the people still revert to the old tones if the subdeacon isn't leading the singing. My wife is being trained now to help with the singing. I wish I could help but I couldn't sing to save my life

Habit is hard to break, especially with regard to music. Once a good core of strong voices is formed it will fall into place. The Anthology is golden and after about six months or so transition here back in 2008 it is now the foundation our music and text for English, with Archpriest Roman Galadza's Vespers and Matins music and text being utilized for those services.

Thank you Diak and kitkatty for that wonderful eyeopening viewpoint

Those of that generation suffered displacement, political and religious oppression (from Polish Latin as well as Muscovite Orthodox) and martyrdom. We can at least try to work with them where they are knowing the cultural and historical background. I've been at the bedside and sung funerals for dozens of these heroes and unsung saints over the years, Their strength and tenacity in holding onto their religious and spiritual traditions against seemingly impossible pressure have been a great inspiration to me over the years when I have had doubts or felt my own faith faltering. With nearly all of them the "latinized" aspects are an outward veneer, and the old Kyivan faith is still strong and deeply ensconced in their personality (as I am always reminded annually when the Irmosy of the Paschal Canon are sung). We have to be there for them as well - and simultaneously always moving towards the fuller recognition and restoration of our Kyivan tradition.

[Heffner]

Originally Posted by Cecilianus

Our standing is your kneeling. Kneeling has a different significance in the East than it does in the West (it is penitential rather than just prayerfully reverent), and standing also has a much different significance in the East than it does in the West (it is the posture of prayer - standing for us means the same thing as kneeling does for you).

It is forbidden by the canons of the Quinisext Council for us to kneel on Sunday. And given the difference is body language, as a Traditionalist I always stand throughout the Divine Liturgy, just as I always kneel for Holy Communion in any Latin-rite church.

The East and the West have different customs and different traditions, and to be a consistent traditionalist Catholic is to acknowledge the legitimacy and authenticity of each and practice both properly. You are showing a very shallow understanding of the two rites by accusing us of inconsistency by doing one thing in a Latin church and another thing in a Byzantine church - the two rites really are different, and to put Latinizations in a Divine Liturgy is the same deformation as when they tried (in the form of the Novus Ordo) to efface the specifically Latin character of the Roman Rite.



I would be more charitable in my interpretation of their intentions - at any Liturgy Roman or Byzantine the reigning assumption (as I was instructed) is that people are praying rather than paying attention to you and that you should feel free to show reverence and devotion to Our Lord because He is the only one watching you.

I would also say that such people, if they are at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, need better instruction as to the meaning and nature of our rite, something which our priests and laymen need to do a better job at doing.

No kidding?

Tell it to the "traditionalists" at my Eastern parish.

[Cecilianus]

Originally Posted by Heffner

No kidding?

Tell it to the "traditionalists" at my Eastern parish.

Unfortunately I believe you - they really should be instructed as to what the Eastern traditions actually are.

Thank you Diak and KitKatty for pointing out to me a much more balanced view of the Latinizations. I really shouldn't complain if that is what Eastern Catholicism is to them; the Church embraces a huge amount of diversity and so long as these Ukrainian churches exist alongside more purely Byzantine-ritual churches than there shouldn't be a problem.

Nor really should there be a problem if Latin-rite traditionalists want to enter into the Byzantine Rite in the Latinized-Ukrainian form; for them it may be a beautiful way to integrate the best of both traditions. But they absolutely must understand and accept the purer form of the Byzantine Rite as authentic. They should not cling to them as being necessary for Catholicism versus Orthodoxy, or insist on imposing them on those who are more vostochnik, as Heffner is describing.

[Diak]

I really shouldn't complain if that is what Eastern Catholicism is to them; the Church embraces a huge amount of diversity and so long as these Ukrainian churches exist alongside more purely Byzantine-ritual churches than there shouldn't be a problem.

I fear you have missed the point. It is an individual issue, not an ecclesiological issue. As I have mentioned the UGCC has been the most forward of all the Eastern Catholic Churches in reviving traditional Eastern monasticism (perhaps the greatest "benchmark" of an authentic Eastern Church), and even individual parishes as I specifically mentioned are in the forefront of restoring the authentic tradition.

Heffner's previous observations are generally mine as well over several decades; the more "bitter" are not our older people when it is distinctly explained that we are working to take back what (in the case of the UGCC) Metropolitan Andrey and Patriarch Josyp wanted for our Church long before Vatican II and the current direction of our Synod, namely the full restoration of our Kyivan tradition. When explained to them in these terms, there is almost never any dissent when the lineage of direction from our valiant hierarchy who suffered much at the hands of the Soviets is made historically apparent to them. Rather the "bitterness" is indeed from those few Novus-Ordo refugees who want a romaticized pre-Vatican II Latin-esque church even when they attend our services.

Nor really should there be a problem if Latin-rite traditionalists want to enter into the Byzantine Rite in the Latinized-Ukrainian form; for them it may be a beautiful way to integrate the best of both traditions. But they absolutely must understand and accept the purer form of the Byzantine Rite as authentic. They should not cling to them as being necessary for Catholicism versus Orthodoxy, or insist on imposing them on those who are more vostochnik, as Heffner is describing.

We are not here to be syncrestic but to be the living bearers of a living tradition. Again, my intent was to illustrate the difficult history of an ever-diminishing group of persons who have made a significant effort in contributing to their parishes often at great personal hardship and who, at their heart, are Eastern Christians.

It is another thing entirely, culturally as well as historically, to discuss the more recent phenomena of traditionalist Latin Catholics who attend our parishes as a refuge from the Novus Ordo, who want the latinizations in spite of the direction of our Synod when they are absolutely able to understand the catechetical dimensions of our tradition, and who I have seen even foment to some degree additional miscontent by "spurring on" the latinized tendencies. And again I want to not be overly prejudicial against our Latin brethren who more often than the specific few I mentioned attend our services with great interest and love for our traditions; indeed more than a few former Latins are now zealous parishoners (and even clergy) in our UGCC.

And I would also add another dimension not mentioned, that of the neo-latinizing tendencies of some Eastern Churches who have adopted very modern English translations, abbreviated liturgies, changed music, and taken other more modern cues from the Latin Church, etc. These are far less understandable and acceptable and perhaps of far larger overall significance to some churches than the decreasing number of poorly catechized refugees, poorly catechized because of extreme hardship and oppression.

[Cecilianus]

Originally Posted by Diak

I fear you have missed the point. It is an individual issue, not an ecclesiological issue.

Individual issues become ecclesiological issues when more than one individual is involved. If it's okay for one Catholic to keep some Latin customs, than by extension it's okay for the rest of his family or parish. I think we're in agreement over the basic point here.

We are not here to be syncrestic but to be the living bearers of a living tradition. Again, my intent was to illustrate the difficult history of an ever-diminishing group of persons who have made a significant effort in contributing to their parishes often at great personal hardship and who, at their heart, are Eastern Christians.

I understood your point to have been that in Ukraine some Latin customs are a living tradition, engrained in their hearts by persecution. And it is a tradition a bit closer to the Latin tradition than an Old Believers parish for instance - and it may even be more natural for a traditionalist Roman Catholic to be adopted into that tradition than into the purer form of the Byzantine rite.

There are some times when "syncretism" of rites can in fact be natural and authentic. One thinks for example of the Byzantine and iconographical influences that persisted in Italy until the Renaissance (e.g., Fra Angelico), the Polish love for iconography especially the Theotokos of the Passion/Our Lady of Perpetual Help, the entire Maronite and Armenian liturgies, and the Roman Catholic Croatian custom of saying the Tridentine Mass in Church Slavonic. I would include the Rosary and kneeling during Communion as a Ukrainian example of this.

It is another thing entirely, culturally as well as historically, to discuss the more recent phenomena of traditionalist Latin Catholics who attend our parishes as a refuge from the Novus Ordo, who want the latinizations in spite of the direction of our Synod when they are absolutely able to understand the catechetical dimensions of our tradition, and who I have seen even foment to some degree additional miscontent by "spurring on" the latinized tendencies. And again I want to not be overly prejudicial against our Latin brethren who more often than the specific few I mentioned attend our services with great interest and love for our traditions; indeed more than a few former Latins are now zealous parishoners (and even clergy) in our UGCC.

And I would also add another dimension not mentioned, that of the neo-latinizing tendencies of some Eastern Churches who have adopted very modern English translations, abbreviated liturgies, changed music, and taken other more modern cues from the Latin Church, etc. These are far less understandable and acceptable and perhaps of far larger overall significance to some churches than the decreasing number of poorly catechized refugees, poorly catechized because of extreme hardship and oppression.

I am myself a Tridentine Latin exile, so I would urge patience and hospitality for them. However, I also strive to be as Eastern as I can - I pray the chotki, stand throughout the Liturgy, and otherwise try to practice fully as a Byzantine - because I respect the tradition and integrity of the Byzantine rite. I also go to Divine Liturgy not because what I really want is a Tridentine Mass (I could easily go to a Tridentine Mass that would cut about 40 minutes out of my drive each way on Sunday morning) but rather because I love the tradition I have chosen, and I regard it as even more orthodox, more reverent, and more traditional than the Tridentine liturgy that I came from. Rather than complain about the "Latin exiles" as some priests tend to do, you should teach them to view the Divine Liturgy in this same way as I do.

[Diak]

And it is a tradition a bit closer to the Latin tradition than an Old Believers parish for instance - and it may even be more natural for a traditionalist Roman Catholic to be adopted into that tradition than into the purer form of the Byzantine rite.

Not really - in fact many of the Ukrainian particular traditions (not practiced in other Eastern Catholic Churches of the Constantinopolitan tradition) are exactly pre-Nikonian such as making the sign of the cross three times when entering a church, antimension under the altar cloth, and many others. In this regard much of what is traditionally practiced at Ukrainian parishes can be said (in the pre-Nikonian sense) to be the "purer form of the Byzantine rite" (whatever that is implying).

understood your point to have been that in Ukraine some Latin customs are a living tradition, engrained in their hearts by persecution.

I am not sure the continuance of private practices (sometimes foisted on people) should be considered a "living tradition". They are what they are, and generally not any older than the 19th century. "Newer accretions" is probably more accurate than "living traditions".

There are some times when "syncretism" of rites can in fact be natural and authentic. One thinks for example of the Byzantine and iconographical influences that persisted in Italy until the Renaissance (e.g., Fra Angelico), the Polish love for iconography especially the Theotokos of the Passion/Our Lady of Perpetual Help, the entire Maronite and Armenian liturgies, and the Roman Catholic Croatian custom of saying the Tridentine Mass in Church Slavonic. I would include the Rosary and kneeling during Communion as a Ukrainian example of this.

I do not consider religious art to be subject to ritual syncretism. Artistic, perhaps. This is an accessory matter relative to introducing liturgical practices that are not part of the inherent received tradition.

The development of the Maronite and Armenian rites are both very complex histories, subject to both historic as well as more recent developments, and again within the particlar liturgical development cannot be automatically considered to be victim to syncretism.

Kneeling and Rosary are private devotions and actions and as such are precisely that, private actions and devotions. And outside of certain specific times (as noted by the Council of Nicea) there is no open prohibition on kneeling, prostrations, etc. - in fact they are encouraged at certain times.

Regarding the Rosary, there are historical developments of the "Rule of St. Pachomius" and other private prayer rules of the Mother of God that are not unlike the later Latin Rosary. The question is NOT if the Rosary is acceptable as private devotion. Of course it is. The question is rather the propriety when this private devotion takes the place of a corporate liturgical/paraliturgical celebration more organic to the tradition, as I have mentioned before. Nearly all of the people of that generation I know (or knew, everlasting memory) are every bit as loving of the Akafyst or Moleben/Paraklis to the Mother of God as they are of the rosary prayed privately in their homes or quietly in the church before the services start.

Individual issues become ecclesiological issues when more than one individual is involved. If it's okay for one Catholic to keep some Latin customs, than by extension it's okay for the rest of his family or parish. I think we're in agreement over the basic point here.

I think we are perhaps not in complete agreement - these are actions of individuals. The ecclesiological issue is the larger direction from the Synod (and by extension Rome) to be faithful to the tradition and for the clergy and people to respond to this direction. Individuals can accept or deny these (or be ignorant of them).

Understanding why someone is doing something in a certain way because of background is key moving forward, which must be done gradually and with pastoral care. I have always maintained that one must continue to forge ahead in keeping with the direction of our Synod (and Rome for that matter) in being ever faithful to the organic received tradition without these later latinized syncretisms.

I am much less concerned with these sorts of individual things (which will eventually take care of themselves) than with the neo-latinizations occurring in some churches that I have witnessed just over the last decade or so (even the last five years) such as wholesale abbreviations and modern re-translations of liturgies, etc. which are ecclesiological issues and not ones of private devotion of individuals as discussed above.

I am myself a Tridentine Latin exile, so I would urge patience and hospitality for them

And I myself had the pleasure of knowing Archbishop Lefevbre when he was still alive and taught at one of his schools "pre-schism". And which is why I was careful to add the clarifier

And again I want to not be overly prejudicial against our Latin brethren who more often than the specific few I mentioned attend our services with great interest and love for our traditions; indeed more than a few former Latins are now zealous parishoners (and even clergy) in our UGCC.