Openness to Eastern Traditions?

[crumblymunky]

I’m just wondering how you guys feel about Western openness to Eastern traditions. I know that there is a certain amount of people in America who enjoy the mystical traditions, but in Christianity these really haven’t been embraced en mass.

Does anyone see a rise in Eastern Catholicism as a real possibility in the future? I would like to think that eventually, many diocese would come to have an Eastern parish as an option for their faithful just like we now have TLM parishes for the faithful who enjoy that worship.

I certainly would enjoy having an Eastern parish around, but all I have are Orthodox parishes so I attend a Roman Rite parish. Not saying Orthodoxy is bad, but I kinda can’t receive the sacraments without conversion, and I believe the Roman understanding of the Papacy and Peter and such.

 

[chococat]

As a Byzantine Catholic, I wish there were more Eastern Rite churches around, too. My sons live in Southern CA and the closest one is in Anaheim which is way too far so they would have to go to a Roman Rite church and they really miss the Byzantine Rite. So they really have lost faith and don`t go at all now and it breaks my heart.

 

[Aramis]

Is there a chance? yes.

Many west coast Ruthenian parishes are growing. Many Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes are burgeoning. Many Melkite parishes have growth.

Most of that growth is a mix of “latinized ethnics” like myself, protestant converts, and Traditionalist Romans.

My great grandfather emigrated from Poland with multiple icons in tow, and photos annotated in Latinski Slavonic. Everything implies he was either cossack or Carpetho-Rusyn. But he claimed to be a Pole, and raised his family Roman in the US.

 

[5Loaves]

I certainly would enjoy having an Eastern parish around, but all I have are Orthodox parishes so I attend a Roman Rite parish. Not saying Orthodoxy is bad, but I kinda can’t receive the sacraments without conversion, and I believe the Roman understanding of the Papacy and Peter and such.

If my parish were to close I would surely go to the local Orthodox Church. There are an abundance of times and locations where I could still get Holy Eucharist in the Latin Church. But I could not abandon our Liturgical year and our spirituality as long as it were available in an Orthodox Church. That’s what a number of us already have done for years in my parish for services we weren’t able to celebrate in our parish for lack of clergy those days/times. Just a week ago our SF bridge was closed and 4 of us who commute to our parish over it went to the OCA parish.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m just wondering how you guys feel about Western openness to Eastern traditions. I know that there is a certain amount of people in America who enjoy the mystical traditions, but in Christianity these really haven’t been embraced en mass.

Does anyone see a rise in Eastern Catholicism as a real possibility in the future? I would like to think that eventually, many diocese would come to have an Eastern parish as an option for their faithful just like we now have TLM parishes for the faithful who enjoy that worship.

I certainly would enjoy having an Eastern parish around, but all I have are Orthodox parishes so I attend a Roman Rite parish. Not saying Orthodoxy is bad, but I kinda can’t receive the sacraments without conversion, and I believe the Roman understanding of the Papacy and Peter and such.

Well, generally each Catholic is encouraged to cherish his/her own rite. That’s not to say that nobody ever switches (I myself was raised in the Roman Rite of the Latin Church) but it’s the exception not the norm.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I am a Roman Catholic and identify with the Latin rite, mainly because of its heavily Eucharistic focus. However I attend a Maronite parish and I have an icon corner with a small home-made iconostasis and icons that I wrote myself, complete with hanging candles and incense, and I use a Byzantine Catholic prayer book.

The Church has many cultures and many liturgies. Enjoy them. Don’t get too hung up on “should a Roman Catholic do this or should and Eastern Catholic do that.” And just because you like the Eastern Catholic Church doesn’t mean that you have to “switch rites” you can just enjoy the Eastern Catholic parish whenever and wherever it is available to you.

 

[Rafkqa]

I’m just wondering how you guys feel about Western openness to Eastern traditions. I know that there is a certain amount of people in America who enjoy the mystical traditions, but in Christianity these really haven’t been embraced en mass.

Does anyone see a rise in Eastern Catholicism as a real possibility in the future? I would like to think that eventually, many diocese would come to have an Eastern parish as an option for their faithful just like we now have TLM parishes for the faithful who enjoy that worship.

I certainly would enjoy having an Eastern parish around, but all I have are Orthodox parishes so I attend a Roman Rite parish. Not saying Orthodoxy is bad, but I kinda can’t receive the sacraments without conversion, and I believe the Roman understanding of the Papacy and Peter and such.

I find the way that this questions has been framed problematic.

First the question has been framed in a way that homogenises all Eastern Churches as if they are the same, when in fact they are very diverse in Tradition and in spirituality.

Secondly I am not sure what is meant by the term “mystical tradition” but it makes it sound akin to the western orientalist view that was promoted in Hollywood films like Lawrence of Arabia, or 19th century art, where western orientalist notions of the Eastern world were very much framed by their own romantic notions of what they thought was going on in the East, as opposed to what was actually going on in reality. There is more to Eastern spirituality then the use of incense and chant.

The other aspect which confuses me is the statement that “I would like to think that eventually, many diocese would come to have an Eastern parish as an option for their faithful just like we now have TLM parishes for the faithful who enjoy that worship.”

Eastern Parishes are not an “option”. We belong to Churches in their own right, who are in Communion with Rome. Many of our Churches have whole Eparchies and Dioceses around the world and they are as much a part of the relevant Eastern Church as those which are in the geographical area where the Church may have originated. We presently have some situations in which Eastern Churches may be temporairily or partly using Latin Rite Churches in areas where they do not have their own Church, so that they can conduct their own Liturgies. But they are not being provided as simply an “alternative”, but they are accomodating for a need of those particular Eastern Communities.

The various Eastern Liturgies are not simply an alternative “option” nor are they homogenous. They are a way of being for those that belong to the various Eastern Churches. We don’t simply enjoy the worship as an alternative - it is our worship.

One thing I can say about many Eastern Churches in the West is that many are perfectly placed to evangalise and of course we have many different reasons for that. Many of them have establised wonderful Parishes and Diocese who work to Evanglise communities around them and draw them to the faith, that is not because they are some “mystical” tradition, but because they join in the commintment of the universal Catholic Church to share the Catholic faith.

 

[Peter_J]

I am a Roman Catholic and identify with the Latin rite, mainly because of its heavily Eucharistic focus. However I attend a Maronite parish and I have an icon corner with a small home-made iconostasis and icons that I wrote myself, complete with hanging candles and incense, and I use a Byzantine Catholic prayer book.

The Church has many cultures and many liturgies. Enjoy them. Don’t get too hung up on “should a Roman Catholic do this or should and Eastern Catholic do that.” And just because you like the Eastern Catholic Church doesn’t mean that you have to “switch rites” you can just enjoy the Eastern Catholic parish whenever and wherever it is available to you.

Good post, CompSciGuy. Indeed many of us have been “Byzantinized” (or “Maronized”/“Syrianized” etc.) to one extend or another. It’s a good thing (cf M.S.)

P.S. Although with that I feel I need to make one disclaimer: some might worry about “Byzantinization” (etc.) – in particular, might worry that opening the door to “Byzantinization” (etc.) also indirectly opens the door to “Latinization” of ECs, which is of course something we’ve been trying to get away from for a good while.

 

[TimothyH]

The other aspect which confuses me is the statement that “I would like to think that eventually, many diocese would come to have an Eastern parish as an option for their faithful just like we now have TLM parishes for the faithful who enjoy that worship.”

Eastern Parishes are not an “option”. We belong to Churches in their own right, who are in Communion with Rome.

I was thinking the same thing. Eastern Catholic Churches are Churches in their own right and to characterize them as “options” for the Roman Catholics does them a disservice.

As far as I know, and I am open to correction, Roman Catholics can attend an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy at any time and can receive communion. There is no prohibition against walking into any Eastern Church, sitting down and praying with the people there so I don’t know why a Roman Catholic diocese would need an Eastern option in the first place.

-Tim-

 

[Peter_J]

I was thinking the same thing. Eastern Catholic Churches are Churches in their own right and to characterize them as “options” for the Roman Catholics does them a disservice.

I too thought much the same thing, when I read the OP, as what Rafkqa said and what you just said. However, the last part of your post:

As far as I know, and I am open to correction, Roman Catholics can attend an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy at any time and can receive communion. There is no prohibition against walking into any Eastern Church, sitting down and praying with the people there **so I don’t know why a Roman Catholic diocese would need an Eastern option in the first place. **

seems to me a very strange way of putting it.

 

[malphono]

I too thought much the same thing, when I read the OP, as what Rafkqa said and what you just said. However, the last part of your post:

In a sense, the way the OP put it was the old reality. By that I mean two things: first, and more recently, it was the way things were prior to establishment of Eparchies, Exarchates, etc, in the diaspora over the past century or so. That system seems to have worked quite well until the “Bishop Ireland Affair” at least. Until that ugly little incident (the repercussions of which will, apparently, be with us forever, but I digress) though, it was mostly a “hands off” approach. As it should have been (and had traditionally been – see below).

But secondly, it also refers back, (and I’m quite sure the OP didn’t intend to say this), to the early centuries of the Church, where it was a given that there was one bishop in given place. There was no such thing as “overlapping jurisdictions” as we have today. All the faithful, of whichever Church they might be, were under the bishop. He was responsible for their spiritual welfare as much as he was responsible for that of his own people. For example, Rome was the seat of the Empire, which of course meant that people from all parts of the Empire congregated there, which included Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, etc. The bishop would import clergy to tend to their needs. The same was true in Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, etc. Never were the people “latinized” (or “byzantinized” or whatever). It was a hands-off approach in matters of liturgy, spirituality, etc.

 

[Rafkqa]

I too thought much the same thing, when I read the OP, as what Rafkqa said and what you just said. However, the last part of your post:

seems to me a very strange way of putting it.

I think what was meant (and of course Timothy can correct me) was everyone is welcome to attend the various Eastern liturgies in the Eastern Churches and that that Latin Rite Parishes within Diocese do not need to provide Eastern options within themselves. While I am not necessarily opposed to that happening and indeed over time it has happened in some areas where Eastern Churches have not yet established their own Churches, I don’t think it is a permanent solutions for those Eastern Churches. That arrangement makes it very difficult for those Eastern Churches to completely function as a whole Parish community with complete freedom as it means it is under the auspice (and sometimes control) of another.

The other thing is the reference to Eastern Churches in the west as churches in the diaspora. I mean I understand why people use it and of course over the last three centuries we have seen a migration of Catholics from the East to the West (less so the other way around). Many of the Eastern Churches often see themselves this way as well, that is - the Church in the East and the Eastern Church in the west. I think the mindset has not reconciled itself with the fact that being an Eastern Church is not just an issue of geography. Sure those Churches may have originated in the East, but they are not actually defined by the geography, they are defined by the tradition (which is sometimes influenced by the geography) and I think looking at us as Churches in the diaspora (even by our own Churches) has sometimes undermined our legitimacy…

 

[TimothyH]

I too thought much the same thing, when I read the OP, as what Rafkqa said and what you just said. However, the last part of your post:

seems to me a very strange way of putting it.

It is already an option. All a Roman Catholic has to do is drive to an Eastern Catholic Church and walk in.

That is all I meant.

-Tim-

 

[Peter_J]

I too thought much the same thing, when I read the OP, as what Rafkqa said and what you just said. However, the last part of your post:
seems to me a very strange way of putting it.

so I don’t know why a Roman Catholic diocese would need an Eastern option in the first place.

It is already an option. All a Roman Catholic has to do is drive to an Eastern Catholic Church and walk in.

Well, as I said before, that one sentence in the OP (in the second paragraph) is problematic. Nevertheless, it’s easy to see 2 things from the OP:

1. CrumblyMunkey would like to have the option of attending an EC parish
2. but doesn’t because there are no EC parishes where he/she lives

I think perhaps you’re being just a little bit too quick to criticize and too slow to sympathize.

 

[Thomas48]

I would think there was already a “rise in Eastern Catholicism”. For example look how far we’ve already gone, from our home countries to numerous churches in America and across the globe, our diasporas only grow more and more each day.

 

[malphono]

I would think there was already a “rise in Eastern Catholicism”. For example look how far we’ve already gone, from our home countries to numerous churches in America and across the globe, our diasporas only grow more and more each day.

Yes, that’s true, yet a connection with the “homeland” always remains. Personally, I think it has to, else our origins and the traditions and spirituality which derive from them, will be lost. Some other posts (and posters) make it seem that the very word “diaspora” is some kind of pejorative, and those lead me to toss in another :twocents: on the matter.

From my point of view, I see nothing, and I repeat nothing, inherently wrong with the term “diaspora” itself. It’s historical fact, whether one likes it or not. And were it not for the origins of our Churches “in the East” (and some people make even that sound like a negative, but I digress) our Churches would not exist. We are, again whether one likes it or not, inextricably tied to our origins. It is from those very origins that we derive our spirituality. Sure, we can dispense with the ties and become “American” or “Australian” or whatever. The problem is that in doing so, we dispense with our very raison d’être. Without the ties, i.e, the traditions and spirituality, we have no legitimacy whatsoever. We might as well just formally adopt the Novus Ordo and be done with it.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, that’s true, yet a connection with the “homeland” always remains. Personally, I think it has to, else our origins and the traditions and spirituality which derive from them, will be lost. Some other posts (and posters) make it seem that the very word “diaspora” is some kind of pejorative, and those lead me to toss in another :twocents: on the matter.

From my point of view, I see nothing, and I repeat nothing, inherently wrong with the term “diaspora” itself. It’s historical fact, whether one likes it or not. …

I’m just thinking out loud here, but perhaps a big part of the problem is the fact that “diaspora” is generally not applied to Latin Catholics living in the East.

 

[malphono]

I’m just thinking out loud here, but perhaps a big part of the problem is the fact that “diaspora” is generally not applied to Latin Catholics living in the East.

Because it’s not truly a diaspora. Some individuals who moved there for a variety of reasons, yes, but that’s not really the same thing. Plus, of course, the Latins claim “universal jurisdiction” anyway.

 

[Peter_J]

Because it’s not truly a diaspora.

OIC. I guess I never really realized that.

Plus, of course, the Latins claim “universal jurisdiction” anyway.

Well, one Latin does.

 

[malphono]

Well, one Latin does.

Is that like the Three Musketeers: All for One and One for All?