Changes in the Eastern Rites - Acceptable or Not
Jun 10, 2019 18:17:55 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski likes this
Post by wenceslav on Jun 10, 2019 18:17:55 GMT -5
Pacelli, to get the ball rolling, I have included excerpts from this insightful paper. The author is a noted UGGC cleric and is certainly not our side (i.e. that “Trads” typically espouse). All these changes are typically post VII (and not in the Ruthenian Recension books of the 1940s) and were explicitly introduced for the “Orthodoxization” of the Rite. I will post quotes from hierarchs as time permits. Of course, any concessions in the Liturgy towards the Jews, is a concession towards the Jews as in the Novus Ordo.
Excerpt below from Ukrainian Catholic priest, Fr. Peter Galadza “The Reception of the Second Vatican Council by Greco-Catholics in Ukraine,” in Communio: International Catholics Review 27: 2 (2000), pp. 314 - 316. Entire Journal Article is here.
Emphasis is mine in the quote below. As I said above, the author who is a Ukrainian Catholic priest is a highly respected theologian (albeit, a firm promoter of all things VII) within the UGCC. One important issue that I was only recently made aware of includes the purging of anti-Semitism’s in the Byzantine “Liturgy of Hours” as was done in the Roman Rite’s Holy Week offices.
Also as Fr. Galadza points out, it was the re-orientation of theology (by the rejection of Thomism) that helped bring about the most change [from my perspective, the most damage]. Before VII, the Theology of the Ukrainian Church (as in the rest of the Catholic Church) was Thomism. Thomism was proclaimed the official doctrine of the Church in the Leo XIII’s Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” (1879) and was meant to assist Catholics in their “systematic commitment to the struggle against error”. As other theologians have stated before, it was this radical change that allowed the UGCC to accept the Vatican II ecclesiological model of the Catholic Church as a Communion of Particular Churches. All local or Particular Churches who have a valid Eucharist (even schismatic bodies) are part of the Church of Christ i.e. the common statement by most in the Ukrainian Church is that they want to return to an ecclesiology of the First Millennium. Yes a horrific statement to us, Traditional Catholics, but one accepted with glee by the Ukrainian Hierarchy who are setting up a false Kyivan Church. Hence the lack of any problems by the Ukrainian Hierarchy of communicatio in sacris with Ukrainian Orthodox schismatics.
Excerpt from Fr. Galadza's paper:
The reception of Vatican II in the Ukrainian Catholic diaspora has included the following, all of which, to a greater or lesser degree, have already been, or are being, mirrored in Ukraine.
(a) The introduction of the vernacular, at first for only five parts of the Eucharistic Liturgy, but very quickly for the entire Eucharist, as well as all sacraments and many offices.
(b) Minor liturgical abbreviations, a relaxation of the fasting discipline, the reduction of the number of "obligatory holy days," and the publication of a Liturgy of the Hours anthology in 1990 purged of anti-Semitisms, which, as in the old Roman Rite, had been prominent in the Holy Week offices.
(c) A moderate de-Latinization—at least as regards more egregious pre-Vatican II forms—leading to a large decline of Sacred Heart devotions, Eucharistic exposition, and kneeling for Communion. (In Ukraine there has been significant opposition to de-Latinization in some circles.)
(d) A revision of catechesis in the direction of experience based instruction, with scriptural narrative, the liturgical cycle, and Greek patristics—the key sources—molded according to the insights of modern psychology.
(e) A restoration of the diaconate in at least one half of the dioceses.
(f) A dramatic increase in the number of ecumenical gestures, the virtual cessation of anti-Orthodox polemics, and the creation in 1992 of the bi-lateral Kievan Church (Ecumenical) Study Group, whose goal is to study how eucharistic communion might be restored with Constantinople, without breaking it with Rome.
(g) The creation of presbyteral councils in several eparchies and the revival of parish councils in many. (This has not caught on in Ukraine.)
(h) A campaign, spearheaded by Cardinal Josyf Slipyj, to implement synodal rule. This was blocked by the Vatican until 1980 with the help of prominent diaspora Ukrainian Catholic bishops. Segments of the Vatican feared Slipyj's "anti-Soviet initiatives" and the fact that support for Ukrainian Catholic autonomy (and hence its development) would anger those Orthodox, both within and without the USSR, who opposed the very existence of "Uniate" Churches. These Orthodox considered Vatican obstruction of Slipyj's campaign a barometer of Rome's commitment to ecumenism. Pope John Paul II began the process of recognizing a limited form of Ukrainian Catholic Synodal rule.
(i) The campaign for the erection/recognition of a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate. In his first speech at Vatican II, on 11 October 1963, Slipyj had called for the creation of a patriarchate, arguing that his Church's numbers (it remains the largest Eastern Catholic community) and its martyrdom warranted such status. Slipyj and most nationally and "ecclesiastically" conscious Ukrainian emigres were not placated by the Vatican's recognition of their Church as a Major Archepiscopate (which technically enjoys the rights of a patriarchate); there was an unspoken desire to possess a Ukrainian Catholic equivalent to the Moscow Patriarchate. The latter's attempts to absorb the former could be countered more effectively if Ukrainian Catholics could claim patriarchal status: history knows of no precedent for the absorption of one patriarchate by another.
At the level of particularity, except for the question of liturgical "de-Latinization," there was simply no other issue that dominated the attention of post-Vatican II diaspora Ukrainian Catholics to the same degree. We will note below how different at the time was the attitude within the USSR.
(j) Finally, for the long term, the most significant dimension of Vatican II's reception among diaspora Ukrainian Catholics has been the very gradual, though by no means universal, appropriation of the right to a distinctive theology. For the first time in history, the Council had proclaimed that Eastern Catholics possess not only a particular liturgy and canonical discipline, but a unique theology and spirituality as well.
[…]
Excerpt below from Ukrainian Catholic priest, Fr. Peter Galadza “The Reception of the Second Vatican Council by Greco-Catholics in Ukraine,” in Communio: International Catholics Review 27: 2 (2000), pp. 314 - 316. Entire Journal Article is here.
Emphasis is mine in the quote below. As I said above, the author who is a Ukrainian Catholic priest is a highly respected theologian (albeit, a firm promoter of all things VII) within the UGCC. One important issue that I was only recently made aware of includes the purging of anti-Semitism’s in the Byzantine “Liturgy of Hours” as was done in the Roman Rite’s Holy Week offices.
Also as Fr. Galadza points out, it was the re-orientation of theology (by the rejection of Thomism) that helped bring about the most change [from my perspective, the most damage]. Before VII, the Theology of the Ukrainian Church (as in the rest of the Catholic Church) was Thomism. Thomism was proclaimed the official doctrine of the Church in the Leo XIII’s Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” (1879) and was meant to assist Catholics in their “systematic commitment to the struggle against error”. As other theologians have stated before, it was this radical change that allowed the UGCC to accept the Vatican II ecclesiological model of the Catholic Church as a Communion of Particular Churches. All local or Particular Churches who have a valid Eucharist (even schismatic bodies) are part of the Church of Christ i.e. the common statement by most in the Ukrainian Church is that they want to return to an ecclesiology of the First Millennium. Yes a horrific statement to us, Traditional Catholics, but one accepted with glee by the Ukrainian Hierarchy who are setting up a false Kyivan Church. Hence the lack of any problems by the Ukrainian Hierarchy of communicatio in sacris with Ukrainian Orthodox schismatics.
Excerpt from Fr. Galadza's paper:
The reception of Vatican II in the Ukrainian Catholic diaspora has included the following, all of which, to a greater or lesser degree, have already been, or are being, mirrored in Ukraine.
(a) The introduction of the vernacular, at first for only five parts of the Eucharistic Liturgy, but very quickly for the entire Eucharist, as well as all sacraments and many offices.
(b) Minor liturgical abbreviations, a relaxation of the fasting discipline, the reduction of the number of "obligatory holy days," and the publication of a Liturgy of the Hours anthology in 1990 purged of anti-Semitisms, which, as in the old Roman Rite, had been prominent in the Holy Week offices.
(c) A moderate de-Latinization—at least as regards more egregious pre-Vatican II forms—leading to a large decline of Sacred Heart devotions, Eucharistic exposition, and kneeling for Communion. (In Ukraine there has been significant opposition to de-Latinization in some circles.)
(d) A revision of catechesis in the direction of experience based instruction, with scriptural narrative, the liturgical cycle, and Greek patristics—the key sources—molded according to the insights of modern psychology.
(e) A restoration of the diaconate in at least one half of the dioceses.
(f) A dramatic increase in the number of ecumenical gestures, the virtual cessation of anti-Orthodox polemics, and the creation in 1992 of the bi-lateral Kievan Church (Ecumenical) Study Group, whose goal is to study how eucharistic communion might be restored with Constantinople, without breaking it with Rome.
(g) The creation of presbyteral councils in several eparchies and the revival of parish councils in many. (This has not caught on in Ukraine.)
(h) A campaign, spearheaded by Cardinal Josyf Slipyj, to implement synodal rule. This was blocked by the Vatican until 1980 with the help of prominent diaspora Ukrainian Catholic bishops. Segments of the Vatican feared Slipyj's "anti-Soviet initiatives" and the fact that support for Ukrainian Catholic autonomy (and hence its development) would anger those Orthodox, both within and without the USSR, who opposed the very existence of "Uniate" Churches. These Orthodox considered Vatican obstruction of Slipyj's campaign a barometer of Rome's commitment to ecumenism. Pope John Paul II began the process of recognizing a limited form of Ukrainian Catholic Synodal rule.
(i) The campaign for the erection/recognition of a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate. In his first speech at Vatican II, on 11 October 1963, Slipyj had called for the creation of a patriarchate, arguing that his Church's numbers (it remains the largest Eastern Catholic community) and its martyrdom warranted such status. Slipyj and most nationally and "ecclesiastically" conscious Ukrainian emigres were not placated by the Vatican's recognition of their Church as a Major Archepiscopate (which technically enjoys the rights of a patriarchate); there was an unspoken desire to possess a Ukrainian Catholic equivalent to the Moscow Patriarchate. The latter's attempts to absorb the former could be countered more effectively if Ukrainian Catholics could claim patriarchal status: history knows of no precedent for the absorption of one patriarchate by another.
At the level of particularity, except for the question of liturgical "de-Latinization," there was simply no other issue that dominated the attention of post-Vatican II diaspora Ukrainian Catholics to the same degree. We will note below how different at the time was the attitude within the USSR.
(j) Finally, for the long term, the most significant dimension of Vatican II's reception among diaspora Ukrainian Catholics has been the very gradual, though by no means universal, appropriation of the right to a distinctive theology. For the first time in history, the Council had proclaimed that Eastern Catholics possess not only a particular liturgy and canonical discipline, but a unique theology and spirituality as well.
[…]