Engaging with the Eastern Orthodox liturgy

[LausTibiChriste]

As the article states, some of the "Latinizations" such as the stations of the Cross, are centuries old; the same for the Rosary. Plus these priests have not lost the missionary spirit. Finally the use of the Old Slavonic as an antidote to the nationalism that plagues the Eastern Rites and to a greater extent the Orthodox is probably a good idea.

Rosary is a personal devotion which some Easterns practice but many do not.

Stations of the Cross sure, but what you're not getting is that these practices are alien to Easterns and while they would readily admit there's nothing wrong with them it's not for them.

Almost all liturgies outside the West said by Easterns are Old Slavonic.

You can't impose on Easterns, that's not how they work (here I'm talking in particular about Russians)...if the Church realized this in the early 20th century, and listened to Bl. Leonid and Ven. Sheptysky, we might even have had some sort of Union by now. Until those filthy Polish Jesuits got their greasy Polish Jesuit fingers over everything.

This isn't trying to evangelize a culture that is foreign to Christianity, you're talking about a Church with venerable traditions, some of which are older than ours. You can't impose.

Luckily the Church is a lot more nuanced than manual thumping Latin laymen.

The West trying to impose it's way on Russia is precisely why there's a war going on. It's no different in the liturgical realm.

You can't impose Western praxis on them. It won't work and will drive them away. And if it drives them away, we should bear some responsibility for that.

[Greg]

If Salvation is coming from the East then maybe we adopt their ways.

[AlNg]

1.Christ founded a Church, only one.
2.The Church must be visible and apparent.
3. Composed of a body of faithful, under one government; teaching authority; agreeing and confessing one and the same doctrine.
4. Not a heterogeneous collection of individuals professing different doctrines; under different leaders.

How does that apply to the Catholic Church of today?

[AlNg]

Here is a quote from St. Augustine of Hippo, considered a saint in the Orthodox Church

Can you provide a reference for this? I heard that at least some Orthodox Christians do not consider Augustine of Hippo to be a Saint? And according to the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, I read that the Creed adopted there did not contain the filioque, but contains the phrase: "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;..."

[LausTibiChriste]

If Salvation is coming from the East then maybe we adopt their ways.

Trads who think the conversion of Russia means that they're going to adopt the TLM are in for a big surprise

[EastWest7]

As the article states, some of the "Latinizations" such as the stations of the Cross, are centuries old; the same for the Rosary. Plus these priests have not lost the missionary spirit. Finally the use of the Old Slavonic as an antidote to the nationalism that plagues the Eastern Rites and to a greater extent the Orthodox is probably a good idea.

Rosary is a personal devotion which some Easterns practice but many do not.

Stations of the Cross sure, but what you're not getting is that these practices are alien to Easterns and while they would readily admit there's nothing wrong with them it's not for them.

Almost all liturgies outside the West said by Easterns are Old Slavonic.

You can't impose on Easterns, that's not how they work (here I'm talking in particular about Russians)...if the Church realized this in the early 20th century, and listened to Bl. Leonid and Ven. Sheptysky, we might even have had some sort of Union by now. Until those filthy Polish Jesuits got their greasy Polish Jesuit fingers over everything.

This isn't trying to evangelize a culture that is foreign to Christianity, you're talking about a Church with venerable traditions, some of which are older than ours. You can't impose.

Luckily the Church is a lot more nuanced than manual thumping Latin laymen.

The West trying to impose it's way on Russia is precisely why there's a war going on. It's no different in the liturgical realm.

You can't impose Western praxis on them. It won't work and will drive them away. And if it drives them away, we should bear some responsibility for that.

Yes, LTC; I understand that the rosary is not liturgical. And as I've tried to explain to my Orthodox friends (and even a few Catholics who attend a Byzantine parish), said Latinizations are hundreds of years old (eg., in Slovakia, and Ukraine, some of course, brought to America over a hundred years ago).

So, from a pastoral perspective, it's unwise in my opinion for a newly ordained priest to go into his first parish and immediately start ripping the Stations off the walls, etc).
I am all for Eastern Catholics saying the rosary as a private devotion. The Ruthenian Byzantine priest I met back in early 1975 seemed pleased that he was able to end the practice of it being said in the congregation (had been done just prior to the start of Sunday Divine Liturgy). He also got the first iconostasis installed there. He was an older guy who had the wisdom to do such things slowly.

I do agree with your analogy of the Latinizations made on Eastern Catholics as being akin to what has been going on with Russia for a number of years now. They don't want our/EU culture and I can't blame them. Lord have mercy on my grandchildren. 

[EastWest7]

If Salvation is coming from the East then maybe we adopt their ways.

Trads who think the conversion of Russia means that they're going to adopt the TLM are in for a big surprise

Indeed.

[LausTibiChriste]

Yes, LTC; I understand that the rosary is not liturgical. And as I've tried to explain to my Orthodox friends (and even a few Catholics who attend a Byzantine parish), said Latinizations are hundreds of years old (eg., in Slovakia, and Ukraine, some of course, brought to America over a hundred years ago).

So, from a pastoral perspective, it's unwise in my opinion for a newly ordained priest to go into his first parish and immediately start ripping the Stations off the walls, etc).

I agree completely. Prudence should guide our actions at all times, especially when implementing changes.

I have noticed a contrast between Easterns in the Old World vs. New - maybe you haven't, but I am heavily influenced by the Russian Rite and except with perhaps the Melkites, they are the most "Orthodox" in my experience. From what I've seen, the Easterns in the New World (and parts of Western EU) are far more ready to accept Latinizations.

My Ruthenian parish back in Europe isn't very Western from what I've seen...I see chotkis not Rosaries, and the only reason they have the stations of the cross is because it's an old Baroque Jesuit church lol.

[Michael Wilson]

Can you provide a reference for this? I heard that at least some Orthodox Christians do not consider Augustine of Hippo to be a Saint? And according to the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, I read that the Creed adopted there did not contain the filioque, but contains the phrase: "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;..."

Aing,
If you mean do I have 'any evidence of St. Augustine being considered a saint by the Orthodox?" This is from the website of the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America"
https://www.goarch.org/-/saint-augustine-greek-orthodox-tradition

In order to clarify where Augustine stands in regard to Greek Orthodoxy, my thesis in this paper is that he has been a "saint" of the Church and has never been erased from the list of saints. It is true that some of his teachings were highly criticized and branded as heretical, but this occurred after his death. The most important doctrinal controversy surrounding his name is the filioque. Other doctrines that were unacceptable to the Church are his view of original sin, the doctrine of grace, and predestination. My intention in this paper is to present the Orthodox writings, both ancient and modern, on the person and theology of Augustine.

If you mean where does St. Augustine teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son?"
Here is a site on youtube where dwong in refuting an Orthodox apologist, gives several quotes from the works of St. Augustine on this double procession:

[Michael Wilson]

Aing:
On the First Council of Constantinople declaring that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father:
The Creed was countering the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian heresy, that denied that the Holy Ghost was true God:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Pneumatomachian-Macedonianism.html

According to the Pneumatomachians (Macedonians), the Holy Spirit was a created entity, subject to the Father and Son, in something of a servant role. This error was addressed and soundly refuted at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. As a reaction against the growing heresy of Macedonianism, church leaders at this council voted to expand the Nicene Creed to more accurately defend the Holy Spirit as fully God and worthy of worship. With that addition, the creed now reads, "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets." The Council of Constantinople sought to make it clear that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial (homoousious) with the Father and the Son.

[Michael Wilson]

Aing:

1.Christ founded a Church, only one.
2.The Church must be visible and apparent.
3. Composed of a body of faithful, under one government; teaching authority; agreeing and confessing one and the same doctrine.
4. Not a heterogeneous collection of individuals professing different doctrines; under different leaders.

How does this apply to the Church today? If you believe that Christ is truly God and therefore He cannot lie or be mistaken, then we have to believe that when He stated that He would be with His Church until the end of times; and that He would send the Holy Ghost to the Apostles to teach them all truth; and that He gave to Peter the care over His whole flock; that this would always be true, that somehow even in the midst of the greatest crisis of the Church, that Our Lord was with His Church, such as the Arian crisis; the Western Schism; the Protestant revolution; and even today in the middle of an almost complete apostasy in both the laity and hierarchy, that the Church still exists, that it will emerge triumphant over its adversaries, and will once more shine forth in luster with its four marks of unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity; even if for a time these may seem to have been greatly reduced or almost completely obliterated.
James posted this article on another thread about the resurgence of Catholic traditionalist in the Church:
https://apnews.com/article/catholic-church-shift-orthodoxy-tradition-7638fa2013a593f8cb07483ffc8ed487
This is like the flowering of a desert after a rainstorm; in another article that I have not been able to locate yet, Cardinal Burke stated that the efforts to suppress the TLM have backfired and that it is flourishing now more than ever.

[Michael Wilson]

LTC

Rosary is a personal devotion which some Easterns practice but many do not.

Stations of the Cross sure, but what you're not getting is that these practices are alien to Easterns and while they would readily admit there's nothing wrong with them it's not for them.

No argument here; therefore their suppression makes no sense; it doesn't affect the Byzantine rites. If you want to argue that they should be suppressed because they are not in accord with Byzantine spirituality"; I would disagree, I've read an account of  the History of Christian i.e. Catholic spirituality by Fr. Pierre Pourrat, and there is really no difference between Eastern and Western spirituality; they both come from one original source and the imitation of the Life of Our Lord through the meditation of His life, Passion and death, is a fundamental practice of all true spirituality. The Rosary and stations are an aid for us to do this. Also, the stations were practiced in Jerusalem by pilgrims coming from all over the world, from the earliest days of Christianity; they were latter indulgenced, and Catholics who wanted to gain the indulgences attached to these were enabled to do so wherever they were canonically erected without having to travel to the Holy Land, especially when such travel was largely impossible.

Almost all liturgies outside the West said by Easterns are Old Slavonic.

Great.

You can't impose on Easterns, that's not how they work (here I'm talking in particular about Russians)...if the Church realized this in the early 20th century, and listened to Bl. Leonid and Ven. Sheptysky, we might even have had some sort of Union by now.

I agree. There will be a union with the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Until those filthy Polish Jesuits got their greasy Polish Jesuit fingers over everything.

This is just you venting your anger.

This isn't trying to evangelize a culture that is foreign to Christianity, you're talking about a Church with venerable traditions, some of which are older than ours. You can't impose.

Not really, the Russian Church is of relatively recent origin as compared to that of Rome which was founded by the Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul.

Luckily the Church is a lot more nuanced than manual thumping Latin laymen.

Wait till I get a hold of that #@%^% guy! I will give him a piece of my mind and a good thrashing!

The West trying to impose it's way on Russia is precisely why there's a war going on. It's no different in the liturgical realm.

True for the first; not institutionally true for the second; if there has been impositions, its unfortunate.

You can't impose Western praxis on them. It won't work and will drive them away. And if it drives them away, we should bear some responsibility for that.

I agree. It is counter productive.

[EastWest7]

Yes, LTC; I understand that the rosary is not liturgical. And as I've tried to explain to my Orthodox friends (and even a few Catholics who attend a Byzantine parish), said Latinizations are hundreds of years old (eg., in Slovakia, and Ukraine, some of course, brought to America over a hundred years ago).

So, from a pastoral perspective, it's unwise in my opinion for a newly ordained priest to go into his first parish and immediately start ripping the Stations off the walls, etc).

I agree completely. Prudence should guide our actions at all times, especially when implementing changes.

I have noticed a contrast between Easterns in the Old World vs. New - maybe you haven't, but I am heavily influenced by the Russian Rite and except with perhaps the Melkites, they are the most "Orthodox" in my experience. From what I've seen, the Easterns in the New World (and parts of Western EU) are far more ready to accept Latinizations.

My Ruthenian parish back in Europe isn't very Western from what I've seen...I see chotkis not Rosaries, and the only reason they have the stations of the cross is because it's an old Baroque Jesuit church lol.

Yes, I agree with you on these points, LTC. I think many Eastern Catholics in the New World accept the Latinizations because they simply want to go along to get along.
As for me, had the Melkite Catholic parish in my town not been so authentically Orthodox in their liturgy, services; I am not sure I would have decided to join the Catholic Church. At least not back in 1986, anyway.
(And thank you Fr Theophane Wakim, Fr Philip Khairallah, MD, Fr Jim Babcock)

[Wenceslav]

Michael Wilson is absolutely correct that only Catholics can be recognized as Saints. That schismatics like the heretic Palamas are recognized today (even by the Ukrainian Catholics) is a post Vatican-II novelty.

The following quote is from Professor Michael Petrowycz's (presently at Ukrainian Catholic University, L'viv Ukraine] dissertation "Bringing Back the Saints: The Contribution of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1940-1952) to the Commemoration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, p.363.

URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OKxWD8l4mTnnpPQtyBp-cOsULWh_DvKY/view?usp=drivesdk

...As mentioned above, even when the moral evaluation of a candidate was positive (even eminently so, as in the case of Metropolitan Phillip), the candidate was nonetheless disqualified when it was accepted beyond doubt that he or she had been out of communion with Rome. This means that the Commission accepted into the RR only saints that it believed to be, or presumed to be, in communion with Rome. The category of a "material schismatic, who did not provoke, but inherited the schism in good faith, and therefore, according to Jugie and St. Augustine, carried no responsibility for the schism, was not considered by the Commissions as a candidate for the RR and RV sanctorale.

RR = Recensio Ruthena (Ukrainian Catholic sanctorale)
RV = Recensio Vulgata (Russian Catholic sanctorale)

The above quote from Petrowycz's dissertation is quite clear. The Russian saints approved during the pontificate of Pius XII had to be in communion with Rome. Even hose who inherited the schism and were of good faith were not considered for sainthood in either the Russian or Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

That's all fine and well for saints who died in the 11-12th century, but how do you justify it for saints such as Sergius or Stephen of Perm, but of whom died at the very end of the 14th c? There is nothing to justify their adherence to Rome at the stage.

Of course, for those of us who are not sede this is a pointless argument as the East has been given way more leeway in venerating Orthodox saints. Allowing the East to be more authentically Eastern was the only silver lining of V2 in my humble opinion.
 

Hi LTC,

For the record, Petrowycz's thesis is corroborated by the well known author (pre-VII), Donald Attwater, in Butler's lives of the saints.

From Butler's Lives of the Saints. First Supplementary Volume. By Donald Attwater. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne. 1949.

Entry for St. Sergius of Radonezh (Feast day : September 25)

WHEN in 1940 the Holy See authorized a liturgical calendar for the use of the few Russian Catholics it included, among other Slav modifications of the Byzantine calendar, the feasts of some thirty Russian saints, twenty-one of whom had not previously figured in any calendar in use today among Catholics. These last all lived after the trouble between Rome and Constantinople in 1054. Their admission to Catholic recognition is a further example of the Holy See's practical judgement that the separation of the Eastern Orthodox Church was not fully consummated till long after the excommunication of the patriarch Cerularius of Constantinople in that year, and in any case the consummation became complete in different places at different times. The choice of these saints, as Father Cyril Korolevsky has remarked (in Eastern Churches Quarterly, July 1946, p. 394), " based upon impartial judgement, does not exclude the possibility of still other Russian saints being admitted when more progress has been made in the study of Slav hagiography ".

Emphasis mine.

As Michael explained above "the  Church holds up a person to be venerated by the faithful, it is for faithful as an example that they may imitate them in the practice of their virtues; how is it possible to hold up to imitation a person who objectively died outside the Church, and therefore did not save their soul? ". The above cannot change for sedes or non-sedes.

With respect to so-called Latinizations, the heroes of the Faith like Gojdic, Hopko, Shepticky, Khomyshyn all had great devotion to the Sacred Heart, Eucharistic Benediction and Scholastic philosophy inter Alia.

It is the post-VII period that is the modernist novelty! i.e. false ecumenism, Eucharistic hospitality to schismatics, "sister churches" and Balamand etc.

[KreKre]

If TLM is not available on that day, or just for the novelty and beauty of it, I sometimes attend Mass at a Greek Catholic Church of Croatia, one of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches which are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (and this one has been for centuries). I believe this is the only proper way to experience the Eastern Rite.

If I didn't have an SSPX chapel nearby, this is where I would go every week.

When done properly, with reverence, the Eastern Liturgy is a beautiful treasure of tradition. The Old Church Slavonic language is as beautiful as Latin, and the chant is lovely, just as dignified as the Gregorian chant. This church in my vicinity also has access to incense of superior quality, and they burn a lot of it during Mass. Since they are just as Catholic as we are, they have the correct prayers (for example, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed contains the Filioque part). This is very much unlike the "orthodox" churches where one can hear heresy preached.


In Croatia, before Vatican II, one could attend a Glagolitic Mass. This is a Roman Rite, pretty much identical to TLM, but in the Old Church Slavonic language, written in a special script called glagolitic. This was a special privilege issued to Croatian lands by the Pope Innocent IV in 1248, and this practice continued until Vatican II (alongside Latin). Here is an example of a Roman Missal in Old Church Slavonic, written in glagolitic script: https://archive.org/details/misal-kneza-novaka-2