Eastern rite and traditional catholics

[Madaglan]

I’ve been going to Ruthenian churches for the past two years. Only at certain times will I attend a Novus Ordo Mass, although I attended NO since childhood. I’ve been to several TLM’s, but not nearly as many Divine Liturgies. I can’t remember all the reasons I decided to attend a Ruthenian church. Already, even before going to Divine Liturgy for the first time, I was sparked with a great interest for Eastern Christianity, and had already read several Eastern Orthodox books. Before attending my first DL, I had only attended one TLM, and that was a Low Mass. I was not very much impressed by Low Mass, since I couldn’t hear anything the priest was saying.

Right now I don’t know where I belong. I don’t want to get into the trap of placing personal preference over doctrine. I like the Byzantine Divine Liturgy very much, especially when there’s a great cantor and much chanting. I pray the Jesus Prayer. I once prayed the Rosary, but no longer, not because I think it’s wrong, but because I couldn’t decide what to meditate on (the mysteries, the spirual fruits, the words I was praying, or my rosary intention?). But some aspects of Byzantine spirituality I’m not so sure about. Well, maybe I’m just more lax about than other people who like to be fully Eastern. I enjoy welcoming the icons, saying hello to Christ, the Theotokos, and all the saints surrounding me, and just being glad to be in their presence, along with all the other peope in the church. Maybe I’m being a bit too informal, but before Divine Liturgy I like pointing out to my friends around me my fascination at certain depictions on the icons (either on the walls or in the bulletins).

I’ve been to TLM’s as well, including High Masses. Overall, I think they are very well done. I admire the solemn reverence, the music and the liturgy itself. But, I don’t know: it’s the weirdest thing. In many ways I “feel” more at home with the TLM than the DL, since the NO still is of Latin tendencies, and that’s what I went to all my childhood. I guess there was one time when I felt normal in a NO setting, but there came a point (I think it was only after attending Divine Liturgy) that no longer could I attend NO and feel as though I belonged.

One thing I really like about the Eastern Divine Liturgy is that I don’t feel nearly as self-concious as I do when I’m at a Latin liturgy, be it NO or TLM. When at a Latin liturgy, I feel like there are many unspoken rules that you have to abide by once you enter the church. I’ve always felt spiritually constrained somewhat–as though things were too solemn and grave around me.

Grrr…you know, if it weren’t a matter of doctrine (which I consider very important and am not willing to compromise on) I’d probably join a traditional LCMS community.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I attend Eastern Orthodox Churches frequently, far more than any NO liturgies.

I am not sure Eastern Catholics have a “Sunday Obligation” to attend specifically a Catholic Church recognizing the Popes authority as it is today.

This Sunday Obligation is some funny idea that probably came up in the Latin Church within the last 700 years.

I think that this Sunday obligation is a big stumbling block that is harming us from learning about each others Churches.

Just because the non-papal Orthodox Catholics are in schism with the papal Catholics thats not a reason to snub them.

If it is a real Church and the REAL Body and Blood of Christ with real miracles occurring why would it not count as my Sunday obligation?

Think about this… Why would the Pope attend a liturgy in Patriarch Bartholomew’s Phanar church of St George if he could only fulfill Sunday obligations at a papal Catholic Church alone?

I should mention that I never receive communion at them. Though if the oppurtunity presents itself I would willingly do this as well under the right circymstances, albeit not frequently. An Orthodox bishop has said he would give me it if there was some grave reason to, such as no Catholic Churches around. To receive it more than once or twice would make no sense because if there is no official communion between the Churches there is no point to receive the sign of official communion.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

As gorgeous as the Eastern liturgies are, I never feel entirely at home when I attend an Eastern Catholic church.

People must understand this represents a problem between the Western and Eastern Churches of this time.

It is not natural that one should feel so un-at-home attending a Church which is Eastern. If one compares the traditions and culture of earlier Western and Eastern Churches one finds that the differences are such that the feelings of difference one would previously have encountered going from a Church in Southern France to one in Lebanon would have been quite subtle in the year 708 A.D. when Pope Sisinnius was serving God. Pope Sisinnius by birth and culture purely a Syrian…but the nature of the culture at this time was such that an eastern mediterranean Syrian could easily relate to a western mediterranean Roman.

We must bring the Western Church back into a theological mindset and culture of it’s 1st millenium.

Otherwise I shudder to think of the OTHER alternative road it will lead towards…

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

“I am not ashamed one bit of our Western tradition and definitely do not think it is inferior in any way.”

Neither are any of us when it is of its true ancient western character.
Someday the Western Orthodox and Western Catholic Churches will be able to stand as proudly next to their Eastern brothers in full understanding and recognition of their love for the undivided trinity.

“We cannot have one foot in the East and one foot in the West.”

Well this is the problem it is true. If we mean the one foot in west of today (and to some extent ocasionally even the east of today) this is very difficult YES.
But if we mean living with one foot in the west of the first millenium. IT CAN BE DONE and is being done.

We SHOULD and must learn to live with a foot in each.
So help me God I live my life with one foot in the East and One foot in the West.
This is the tradition of fathers of the Church such as St. Jerome who lived half his live in Gaul and Italy and the other half in Syria and Palestine. He was ordained near Antioch but educated in Rome.

I attend Western Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches
I attend Western Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches.

The whole teaching of the Latin Fathers may be found in the East, just as the whole teaching of the Greek Fathers may be found in the West. Rome has given Saint Jerome to Palestine. The East has given Cassian to the West and holds in special veneration that Roman of the Romans, Pope Gregory the Great. Saint Basil would have acknowledged Saint Benedict of Nursia as his brother and heir. Saint Macrina would have found her sister in Saint Scholastica. Saint Alexis the ‘man of God,’ ‘the poor man under the stairs,’ has been succeeded by the wandering beggar, Saint Benedict Labre. Saint Nicholas would have felt as very near to him the burning charity of Saint Francis of Assisi and Saint Vincent de Paul. Saint Seraphim of Sarov would have seen the desert blooming under Father Charles de Foucauld’s feet, and would have called Saint Therese of Lisieux ‘my joy.’ - Archimandrite Lev Gillet

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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

Eastern Catholic not Eastern Orthodox.

The two churches seem to be getting confused in this exchange.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner:

The two churches seem to be getting confused in this exchange.

A reflection of the real confusion perhaps?

 

[Thursday1]

A reflection of the real confusion perhaps?

What confusion? Some accept the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Saint Peter, first among equals, and some do not. Those who accept the Pope are Catholic, those that don’t are Orthodox. Is it really that confusing?

But, back to the initial question, I think many “Traditional” Catholics look upon the Eastern Rites with suspicion, and in some cases downright contempt. The mindset is (some of the time) Why can’t they just all say the Latin Mass? or "I guess their clergy can’t handle celibacy like our good Latin Priests . . "

I think this is typified in the extreme cases where some traditionalist believe the NO to be an invalid Mass, and make the argument that they must break from Rome and continue to say the Tridentine, or the Church will have fallen. These groups completely ignore the other 20 something Rites of the Church!

As JPII said, the Church must breathe with both Her lungs. A belief that was so wonderfully shown at his Funeral, when the Eastern Patriarchs incorporated their blessings into the Latin liturgy.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Thursday1:

What confusion? Some accept the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Saint Peter, first among equals, and some do not. Those who accept the Pope are Catholic, those that don’t are Orthodox. Is it really that confusing?

The Pope claims to be more than just “first among equals.” The Eastern Orthodox, not just the Eastern Catholics, can accept this designation.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Thursday1:

But, back to the initial question, I think many “Traditional” Catholics look upon the Eastern Rites with suspicion, and in some cases downright contempt. The mindset is (some of the time) Why can’t they just all say the Latin Mass? or "I guess their clergy can’t handle celibacy like our good Latin Priests . . "

I got this impression when I read Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics. He regarded the Eastern practice of having married clergy as simply a concession to human weakness.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

A reflection of the real confusion perhaps?

I can’t say I understand where you are going with this one… and don’t want to presume.

Can you explain?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner:

I can’t say I understand where you are going with this one… and don’t want to presume.

Can you explain?

I was simply alluding to the fact that there is a wide diversity of views among Eastern Catholic Christians. Some Eastern Catholics are almost indistinguishable from the Orthodox in their theology and their liturgical life; others you would think were Latin Christians based on the rosary, sacred heart, novenas and other devotions. Some Eastern Catholics challenge Latin positions with their Byzantine positions (in the same way a Dominican might challenge the views of a Jesuit); others accept the Latin positions according to the Latin understanding without approaching theology with Byzantine lens.

I was not saying that Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the same. I was pointing out that the Eastern Catholics are an amalgam of what I have found to be very much different approaches to theology and liturgy.

If you ask about Eastern Catholic ecclesiology, you are likely to get very different answers among the Melkites, Maronites, Ukrainians and Chaldeans – some saying that the Pope is Supreme Head of the Church, others significantly downplaying his role and even considering him not to be infallible as understood by Latin Christians.

 

[Aramis]

I was simply alluding to the fact that there is a wide diversity of views among Eastern Catholic Christians. [snip]

I was not saying that Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the same. I was pointing out that the Eastern Catholics are an amalgam of what I have found to be very much different approaches to theology and liturgy.

If you ask about Eastern Catholic ecclesiology, you are likely to get very different answers among the Melkites, Maronites, Ukrainians and Chaldeans – some saying that the Pope is Supreme Head of the Church, others significantly downplaying his role and even considering him not to be infallible as understood by Latin Christians.

You can even get differing theological answers from two different priests of the same Sui Iuris church.

The head of a Patriarchal Church IS their patriarch.
He answers to Rome’s Pontiff. He must accept and teach the Dogmas. The Doctrines, however, vary slightly, and theology far further. He requests and receives union upon his election, and Rome can’t appoint him, only his synod elects him.

The non patriarchal churches seem more amalgum than the Melchites… or the other patriarchal churches. But they are also far more dependent upon Rome.

And, in the US at least, invaded by Traditionalists and refugees from the Roman Rite, who can accept the “unchanging” DL of St. John but not the NO liturgy.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

You can even get differing theological answers from two different priests of the same Sui Iuris church.

The head of a Patriarchal Church IS their patriarch.
He answers to Rome’s Pontiff. He must accept and teach the Dogmas. The Doctrines, however, vary slightly, and theology far further. He requests and receives union upon his election, and Rome can’t appoint him, only his synod elects him.

The non patriarchal churches seem more amalgum than the Melchites… or the other patriarchal churches. But they are also far more dependent upon Rome.

And, in the US at least, invaded by Traditionalists and refugees from the Roman Rite, who can accept the “unchanging” DL of St. John but not the NO liturgy.

We didn’t just get the Roman traditionalists brother!

I have also found that we have inherited a goodly number of Roman liberals with liturgical sensibility. Especially on the net, I find a disproportionate number of folks trying to manipulate what it is to be Eastern Catholic as some “catch-22” way of being Catholic but dismissing some of Catholicism as “just for the Latins”.

“Well I am Orthodox in Communion with Rome, so I don’t believe some Roman things, because I am Orthodox…”

The matter gets sticky and tricky frequently.

After V2 efforts in our churches began to explore returning to our liturgical roots and heritage. So far it has been a pretty mixed bag as to how well this has gone…

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Aramis:
The head of a Patriarchal Church IS their patriarch.

Not all Eastern Catholics have a patriarch.

He requests and receives union upon his election, and Rome can’t appoint him, only his synod elects him.

I’m not a canon lawyer, but it seems to me that, even if a synod elects a patriarch, Rome still has to confirm this election, to ok it.

And, in the US at least, invaded by Traditionalists and refugees from the Roman Rite, who can accept the “unchanging” DL of St. John but not the NO liturgy.

I sniff sarcasm.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Not all Eastern Catholics have a patriarch.

In all fairness, Aramis rather clearly alludes to this when he says…

The non patriarchal churches seem more amalgum than the Melchites… or the other patriarchal churches. But they are also far more dependent upon Rome.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner:

I have also found that we have inherited a goodly number of Roman liberals with liturgical sensibility. Especially on the net, I find a disproportionate number of folks trying to manipulate what it is to be Eastern Catholic as some “catch-22” way of being Catholic but dismissing some of Catholicism as “just for the Latins”.

Interesting. Scary.

“Well I am Orthodox in Communion with Rome, so I don’t believe some Roman things, because I am Orthodox…”

The matter gets sticky and tricky frequently.

It does indeed. IMHO, I’m more of the tendency to believe that Orthodoxy is not compatible with Roman Catholicism.

But maybe I have yet to see the light.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner:

In all fairness, Aramis rather clearly alludes to this when he says…

Yes, I noticed that after I posted.

My apologies.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It does indeed. IMHO, I’m more of the tendency to believe that Orthodoxy is not compatible with Roman Catholicism.

I more or less am of the opinion that what Orthodoxy is today is not 100% correspondant with the Eastern Churches who were in full communion with west in the first millenium.

I don’t have a problem with considering myself “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” per se, but the qualifications I need to make when doing so, seem to make it more trouble than it is worth…

For example, I hold some of the modern practices of ecclesiology, teachings on contraception and divorce, to be innnovative.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner:

I more or less am of the opinion that what Orthodoxy is today is not 100% correspondant with the Eastern Churches who were in full communion with west in the first millenium.

All right. That’s your opinion (and the opinion of many rational people indeed). Be careful though not to equate being Catholic with “full communion with [the] west.”

For example, I hold some of the modern practices of ecclesiology, teachings on contraception and divorce, to be innnovative.

Orthodox ecclesiology, so far as I can tell from what I’ve read of it, is tied in very much with sacramentality, especially as it relates to the local church. Orthodox ecclesiology is very much rooted in the Ignatian tradition: where Christ is [celebrated in the Mysteries], and by the bishop, there is the Church. One Eucharist. One Bishop. One Church.

The Eastern appreciation of “Sister Churches” in communion with one another is still lost in the West, IMHO.

What did the Catholic Church formally teach on contraception in the 1st millenium? Which canons, councils or papal writings deal with this issue?

Its teachings on divorce, from what I know, are not new. Several early Church Fathers allowed for divorce. Christ allows for divorce in the special case of marital unfaithfulness.

It was allowed in the East while bishops in the East were still in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The difficulty, in my mind, is *re-marriage *while the divorced spouse is still living–which, from what I have read, is not approved by the Fathers.

The Eastern Orthodox do not agree with divorce but only allow it as economia.

By the way, speaking of novel ecclesiology, just remember: The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. (Wait, where is that found in the 1st millenium? )

Please, tell me if I’m missing anything. I want to learn more. Thanks!

 

[FelixBlue]

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.

I’m curious, where do you attend? I’m in the Houston area as well…