Eastern rite and traditional catholics

[sir_galahad]

I know that some traditional Catholics, if they don’t have access to the traditional liturgy, prefer to attend a Byzantine liturgy to the NO Mass. Why I can see the attraction, I don’t entirely understand it. Byzantine Catholics aren’t simply Roman Catholics who worship according to different services. They have their own unique and beautiful spirituality which complements that of the Roman rite, but is still very different. As gorgeous as the Eastern liturgies are, I never feel entirely at home when I attend an Eastern Catholic church. Does anyone else out their feel that a reverently said NO Mass a la EWTN is a better substitute for the traditional Mass than a Byzantine one?

 

[steve_green_2]

I would attend ANY eastern rite liturgy over the NO anytime. I believe it compliments the TLM better than the NO ever could. I would, if allowed to, attend an Orthodox Church, to fullfill my obligation if all I was offered was the NO.

 

[udoc89]

I’ve attended a Ruthenian Divine Liturgy in Houston, and it was very moving–and completely unlike what I am used to. Last week, I attended my first Latin Mass at the cathedral in Austin. As a convert, this was even more exotic to me than the Eastern Rite (the Eastern Rite was in English, after all.)

That being said, I would attend the Latin Mass at least once a month, if it weren’t 100 miles away and I had a newer vehicle. My very orthodox priest, however, plans to institute the Latin Mass in our parish as soon as he is able, I feel sure. Our church is very beautiful and will lend itself well to the Latin Mass.

I don’t want to sidetrack your thread. In answer to your question, I was happy to be back in my own parish the week after I attended the Divine Liturgy. Still, I would love to visit an Eastern Rite Catholic Church again, if given the opportunity.

 

[freudmacher]

I would attend ANY eastern rite liturgy over the NO anytime. I believe it compliments the TLM better than the NO ever could. I would, if allowed to, attend an Orthodox Church, to fullfill my obligation if all I was offered was the NO.

I agree. The only TLM in my town is a sedevacantist and I don’t know the validity of his ordination (the priest “can’t” answer a lot of questions I asked). The only eastern orthodox churches here are Greek Orthodox, so I can’t go there. But if there were any other orthodox chruches here, I would attend before a NO mass.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t want to sidetrack your thread. In answer to your question, I was happy to be back in my own parish the week after I attended the Divine Liturgy. Still, I would love to visit an Eastern Rite Catholic Church again, if given the opportunity.

The opportunity is ever-present if you live within your own travel distance of any Eastern Catholic parish. You are permitted, under the code of canon law, to fulfil your obligations in the parishes of ANY of the Sui Iuris churches.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I would attend ANY eastern rite liturgy over the NO anytime. I believe it compliments the TLM better than the NO ever could. I would, if allowed to, attend an Orthodox Church, to fullfill my obligation if all I was offered was the NO.

Really? Would you even attend an eastern liturgy over a latin novus ordo? I go to a Latin Novus Ordo all the time at Holy Ghost here in Denver. Also – you cannot fulfill your obligation at an Orthodox Church if there is a Novus Ordo available. You can only fulfill your obligation at a Catholic Church – but you may receive the Sacraments in an emergency from any Priest in Apostolic Succession.

 

[Catholig]

Really? Would you even attend an eastern liturgy over a latin novus ordo? I go to a Latin Novus Ordo all the time at Holy Ghost here in Denver. Also – you cannot fulfill your obligation at an Orthodox Church if there is a Novus Ordo available. You can only fulfill your obligation at a Catholic Church – but you may receive the Sacraments in an emergency from any Priest in Apostolic Succession.

:clapping: Semper Fi, you’re going to get a good priest at Holy Ghost soon - you know Fr. Jeremy I’ll miss him.

Catholig

 

[BobP123]

Also – you cannot fulfill your obligation at an Orthodox Church if there is a Novus Ordo available.

According to Canon Law, this is not true. If there is a “spiritual advantage” one may attend any Catholic Rite to fulfill his obligation.

 

[fxavier]

I ran for the Byzantines when we had feasts transferred to Sunday such as Ascension Thursday. However, we are now allowed in Detroit to celebrate Holy Days in the Traditional Mass.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[Melchior]

According to Canon Law, this is not true. If there is a “spiritual advantage” one may attend any Catholic Rite to fulfill his obligation.

But an Orthodox Church is not a Catholic Rite. I believe you are confusing Eastern Catholic (In-communion) with Eastern Orthodox (not in-communion).

Mel

 

[BobP123]

But an Orthodox Church is not a Catholic Rite.

I think you will find a lot of disagreement there.

 

[Catholig]

I think you will find a lot of disagreement there.

What are they now ardent supporters of the Pope To all my Orthodox brothers and sisters out there, “Thank you”.

Catholig

 

[BobP123]

What are they now ardent supporters of the Pope To all my Orthodox brothers and sisters out there, “Thank you”.

I didn’t say they were ardent supporters of the Pope or even if they call themselves Catholic. Just that they have Apostolic Successors and a valid Catholic Mass, which you can attend to fulfill your obligation, provided you don’t develop a schismatic mindset, just like with any valid Catholic Rite Mass.

I believe Polish National Church is also considered a Catholic Rite but am not sure.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I know that some traditional Catholics, if they don’t have access to the traditional liturgy, prefer to attend a Byzantine liturgy to the NO Mass. Why I can see the attraction, I don’t entirely understand it. Byzantine Catholics aren’t simply Roman Catholics who worship according to different services. They have their own unique and beautiful spirituality which complements that of the Roman rite, but is still very different. As gorgeous as the Eastern liturgies are, I never feel entirely at home when I attend an Eastern Catholic church. Does anyone else out their feel that a reverently said NO Mass a la EWTN is a better substitute for the traditional Mass than a Byzantine one?

I think this is a mixed bag and depends on the individual. I have a friend who left Catholicism for Orthodoxy because her husband is Orthodox. I asked her how she was doing in her new Church, and she was not too enthusiastic. It has been about 10 years now, and she doesn’t feel at home. On the other hand I know a fellow who joined a Ruthenian Church and is totally immersed in it. He is happy as a clam. Some people cannot leave their traditions because they are so thoroughly inculturated in them. I have another friend who is Byzantine but often attends Mass in the RCC. She is able to accomodate nicely to both Rites, but remains steeped in the Eastern spirituality. I think I would be like my first friend. As beautiful as the Eastern tradition is, and as much as I have learned from them, I could not become an Eastern Catholic–I am too enmeshed in my own Western tradition, and feel that our Liturgy, when reverently done, as it is in my church, would be the better choice. I am not ashamed one bit of our Western tradition and definitely do not think it is inferior in any way.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I agree. The only TLM in my town is a sedevacantist and I don’t know the validity of his ordination (the priest “can’t” answer a lot of questions I asked). The only eastern orthodox churches here are Greek Orthodox, so I can’t go there. But if there were any other orthodox chruches here, I would attend before a NO mass.

See I don’t understand this (I’m not trying to be argumentative here). Our spirituality and tradition is entirely different. The TLM is a Western Liturgy and comes out of a Western tradition. Even the theology is different. For instance they do not have the doctrine of Transubstantiation. They say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not through the Son. Eastern babies are dunked totally naked into the baptismal font and receive all the Sacraments of Initiation at once. The Divine Liturgy is in the vernacular of the people. The Eastern Divine Liturgy can never be seen as a substitute for the TLM, and never should be. We cannot have one foot in the East and one foot in the West. I think that is what the OP is getting at.

 

[freudmacher]

See I don’t understand this (I’m not trying to be argumentative here). Our spirituality and tradition is entirely different. The TLM is a Western Liturgy and comes out of a Western tradition. Even the theology is different. For instance they do not have the doctrine of Transubstantiation. They say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not through the Son. Eastern babies are dunked totally naked into the baptismal font and receive all the Sacraments of Initiation at once. The Divine Liturgy is in the vernacular of the people. The Eastern Divine Liturgy can never be seen as a substitute for the TLM, and never should be. We cannot have one foot in the East and one foot in the West. I think that is what the OP is getting at.

I guess I wasn’t clear here. I DO NOT attend the sedevacantist church here, because it is sedevacantist and he can not tell me about his ordination. I DO NOT attend the Greek Orthodox because they are not in full communion with Rome. I would attend a Orthodox church if they where here in my town AND where in full communion with Rome. I would attend there before a NO mass again. Since I have lived here, I have not been to a single mass that did not have abuses in it. I have had to settle for the ‘lesser’ of the abuses church.

Please, if you still don’t understand, feel free to private message me because I am not a good writer. :banghead:

 

[CB_Catholic]

I guess I wasn’t clear here. I DO NOT attend the sedevacantist church here, because it is sedevacantist and he can not tell me about his ordination. I DO NOT attend the Greek Orthodox because they are not in full communion with Rome. I would attend a Orthodox church if they where here in my town AND where in full communion with Rome. I would attend there before a NO mass again. Since I have lived here, I have not been to a single mass that did not have abuses in it. I have had to settle for the ‘lesser’ of the abuses church.

Please, if you still don’t understand, feel free to private message me because I am not a good writer. :banghead:

That’s ok. It is more clear to me now. My parish is strictly by the book when it comes to the Liturgy, I haven’t seen any clown Masses or dancing nuns, etc. here, but I’ve seen some awful stuff in other areas of the country. Of course, people’s definition of “liturgical abuses” varies widely. Our Pastor, who just died, was a very well-educated and cultured man with impeccable taste, and I cannot imagine that he would have ever put up with some of the stuff I’ve heard about and seen.

 

[fxavier]

See I don’t understand this (I’m not trying to be argumentative here). Our spirituality and tradition is entirely different. The TLM is a Western Liturgy and comes out of a Western tradition. Even the theology is different. For instance they do not have the doctrine of Transubstantiation. They say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not through the Son. Eastern babies are dunked totally naked into the baptismal font and receive all the Sacraments of Initiation at once. The Divine Liturgy is in the vernacular of the people. The Eastern Divine Liturgy can never be seen as a substitute for the TLM, and never should be. We cannot have one foot in the East and one foot in the West. I think that is what the OP is getting at.

While our mode of spirituality is different, the spirituality of the Holy Church is still one and the same. While our tradition developed down different paths, they are still rooted in the Apostles. (I’m referring specifically to the Traditional Mass here, with comments on the Novus Ordo Mass reserved.)

Perhaps, I am being redundant and dense here. But here goes. While there is no expressed definition of Transubstantion in the Eastern Catholic Churches, there is still the same belief. In the same way, we say ‘filioque procedit’ (‘the Son proceeds’), and it is accepted in the Eastern Catholic Church, but not expressed. The rest are disciplinary practices, but nevertheless should never be changed except for good reason, as per the norms of Tradition of the Eastern Church.

I do agree the Rites are not to be substituted. If you are Roman, go to a Roman Mass. But there could be good reasons to go to a Byzantine Liturgy (perhaps for people who understand the nature of Liturgy and its continuity).

 

[fxavier]

I once considered becoming Byzantine, before I discovered the Traditional Mass. However, I realized I was Roman true and true. Before I made the spiritual and intellectual conversion to the Traditional Mass, I attended a Latin Novus Ordo, but never saw its text and rubrics completely in the light of Tradition.

My preference for the Byzantine Liturgy when a Traditional Mass is not around (even though a Latin Novus Ordo is) is grounded on the same beliefs enunciated by our Holy Father concerning the continuity of the Traditional Mass. This preference is also grounded in the desire to rediscover the early Church and its spirituality.

Both the Traditional Mass and Byzantine Liturgy descended without any abrupt changes from the Apostolic Rites. This is enough for many Traditional Catholics to go to the Byzantines when there is no Traditional Mass around. My law school friends always planned an outing to the Byzantines during the Triduum, as we have never had a Traditional Triduum here. The desire is to be united to the Saints, Fathers of the Church, Apostles, and ultimately, to Our Lord, through the texts of either of the Rites.

Here is a quote from Pope Benedict that helps to explain why Traditional Catholics prefer the Byzantine over the Latin Novus Ordo:

**“We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

Preface by Cardinal Ratzinger
to the French edition of Gamber’s
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy​

​

**

This post consists of my thoughts on why I go to the Byzantine Liturgy on occasion. Please accept it with charity. Please feel free to private message me.

 

[Madaglan]

See I don’t understand this (I’m not trying to be argumentative here). Our spirituality and tradition is entirely different. The TLM is a Western Liturgy and comes out of a Western tradition. Even the theology is different. For instance they do not have the doctrine of Transubstantiation. They say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not through the Son. Eastern babies are dunked totally naked into the baptismal font and receive all the Sacraments of Initiation at once. The Divine Liturgy is in the vernacular of the people. The Eastern Divine Liturgy can never be seen as a substitute for the TLM, and never should be. We cannot have one foot in the East and one foot in the West. I think that is what the OP is getting at.

Overall, true. Yet it should be noted that many parts of the ordinary of the Mass were influenced by the East. We cannot forget that Greek was once the liturgical language at Rome.