Openness to Eastern Traditions?

[Peter_J]

But joking aside, I think this is part of the problem: it’s so common for Latin Catholics to be ultramontane that we’ve come to take it for granted, and then any LC who isn’t ultramontane starts to feel like a stranger in his or her own home (so to speak) …

That’s one reason that LCs-considering-ECism should ask themselves “Is it because of something I like about ECism, or something I don’t like about LCism?” and, if the answer is the latter, then “Can I stay where I am and try to make things better?”

 

[malphono]

But joking aside, I think this is part of the problem: it’s so common for Latin Catholics to be ultramontane that we’ve come to take it for granted, and then any LC who isn’t ultramontane starts to feel like a stranger in his or her own home (so to speak) …

When I first said “universal jurisdiction” I actually wasn’t thinking about ultramontanism, but rather the traditional geographical limitations to which Rome binds the East & Orient, but not itself.

 

[newenglandsun]

Nearest Byzantine Catholic Church to me is St. Stephen’s Parish in Phoenix, AZ.
ststephenbyzantinecathedral.org/

Quite a long way away from a poor college student like myself who only rides my bike to and from places.

 

[Aramis]

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.

Plus, Christianity arrives in southeast asia mostly with portugese and british crews carrying their priests.

For what it’s worth, the Anglican Church is considered to be Roman Rite, even tho’ it’s outside the church.

 

[Rafkqa]

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.

I have no issue with the term Eastern Church, Church of the East or any of the rest. In fact I have no issue with Churches in the Diaspora in some contexts. Of course I think it is essential to understand, respect and continue to recognise the importance and influence of areas in which our Churches originated to understand our Churches… However what is problematic is when that term is being used and creates as sense of illegitimacy for those Eastern Churches in the West ( some of which have been around for centuries) as if they are still makeshift hubs to serve the particular linguistic needs of a the particular migrant community. Further when they are not properly engaged and recognised in the decision making processes of the particular Eastern Church as a whole, especially sometimes because their needs and challenges are so different to the Church which remains in the East.

Also the idea that it is the Eastern Churches in the west who will forget all ties and traditions has proved itself entirely incorrect. In fact I see them making the most noise the other way (particularly because that is the only thing that is going to differentiate them and set them apart and ensure they survive). Any formal move towards the ‘novus ordo’ has come from the East not the West.

 

[Peter_J]

When I first said “universal jurisdiction” I actually wasn’t thinking about ultramontanism, but rather the traditional geographical limitations to which Rome binds the East & Orient, but not itself.

OIC.

And, don’t get me started!

 

[malphono]

OIC.

And, don’t get me started!

LOL Believe me, I know what you mean.

 

[CompSciGuy]

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.

Oh yeah well each rite should certainly retain its own traditions; it would be rather sad if the Byzantine liturgy were to become latinized. As far as the “byzantinization” of the latin liturgy… well to be honest the way the latin liturgy is celebrated today there isn’t really a whole lot of the original “latin-ness” left. I would say it could use some reforming, re-latinization if you will.

 

[Peter_J]

it would be rather sad if the Byzantine liturgy were to become latinized.

Not to nit-pick, but it’s not really a matter of “if”. Latinizations *have *happened. But good post otherwise.

 

[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.

I’m curious: was there anything that an Eastern Catholic(s) said that helped (or hindered) you, when you first started thinking about all this?

 

[MonkMoses]

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.

Where in So Cal does your son live? So Cal is full of Byzantine Catholic churches.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I’m curious: was there anything that an Eastern Catholic(s) said that helped (or hindered) you, when you first started thinking about all this?

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If you mean by my choice of Roman versus Eastern, I was confirmed in the Roman Catholic church before I knew a whole lot about the Eastern Catholic church. Not that I didn’t know they existed, I just didn’t know a lot about them, or that they were different communions per se. However I will say I am very drawn to the Eastern liturgy and spirituality. Since I am allowed to enjoy the Eastern Catholic liturgy of the Maronites, I do so without the requirement of becoming a member of the Maronite Church. However I remain Roman Catholic both out of convenience and out of a kind of cultural sense of “belonging,” so to speak. I love Eucharistic adoration and adoration chapels, which is not really a practice in the Eastern Catholic churches. I do love the traditional latin liturgy. I am (and I mean this with complete charity and without wanting to stir up any heated church politics) saddened by the fact that the ordinary form of the mass seems to be lacking very much throughout the world and I wish that we would adapt the Ordinary Form to conform to the style of the historical Catholic Church, i.e. we could translate the gregorian chant for use in the mass, etc. The Byzantines have done a good job adapting their liturgies to the vernacular and I think we could too. Anyways, these things are not enough to make me want to change churches. But I still love the Eastern Catholic Churches and attend them whenever possible.

 

[Jon_Paul]

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.

Will the Eastern Catholic Churches also provide Latin Church Masses for their faithful as an option? For some reason I doubt it.

Latinisations in the East are rightly condemned by the Church, but in my opinion, some people are perfectly happy with Orientalising the West. The Latin Church is a legitimate apostolic church, with traditions that reach back to those apostles, with an ancient liturgy and centuries old devotions. We’ve also had legitimate developments and organic growth and should in no way be looked down upon.

 

[chococat]

Where in So Cal does your son live? So Cal is full of Byzantine Catholic churches.

They live in the Huntington Beach, Long beach area. They said the nearest one is in Anaheim. But they both left the church anyway so I don`t think it would help if they lived next door. When we visited them we went to a Roman Rite church near them.

 

[nschmitz10]

I enjoy Eastern traditions and love the Byzantine liturgy. Haven’t been able to ever attend a Syriac Church, but would like to. I frequently attend Ukrainian Greek Divine Liturgy and observe ROCOR Masses. However, we must make sure that we don’t mix traditions in the liturgy. Pope John Paul II was clear on that issue.

 

[Peter_J]

Latinisations in the East are rightly condemned by the Church, but in my opinion, some people are perfectly happy with Orientalising the West. The Latin Church is a legitimate apostolic church, with traditions that reach back to those apostles, with an ancient liturgy and centuries old devotions. We’ve also had legitimate developments and organic growth and should in no way be looked down upon.

I believe I understand what you’re saying, Jon Paul. But I also believe it’s more complicated than you realize. Suffice it to say, no one (I should hope) is advocating forcing Easternizations on Latin Catholics, like Latinizations were forced on Greek and Oriental Catholics in the past.

 

[Jon_Paul]

I believe I understand what you’re saying, Jon Paul. But I also believe it’s more complicated than you realize. Suffice it to say, no one (I should hope) is advocating forcing Easternizations on Latin Catholics, like Latinizations were forced on Greek and Oriental Catholics in the past.

I don’t see anyone advocating for “forcing” Easternisations on Latin Catholics either. But I think the West faces something much more sinister than having practises forced upon us. If I may use clerical celibacy as an example. The married clergy have existed since Apostolic times and the Eastern Churches maintain a married clergy for their parishes. A celibate clergy has also existed since Apostolic times and the Latin Church has upheld this practise for its secular clergy. These are both traditional and apostolic and both are to be given due respect. But there’s a current amongst Latin Catholics, an attitude that would see all of our Latin traditions and our Latin heritage demoted to mere “options”, because of what the East allows. It appears that for some people Eastern practise and tradition is held up on a high throne that reigns over the Latin West instead of of the sister traditions of East and West reigning supremely and harmoniously together. If a man feels called to the priesthood and also wishes to be celbate in the East, what happens? He becomes a monk and doesn’t enter the secular clergy (I don’t know whether this distinction makes sense in the Eastern context).

It goes further than the example of celibacy however. The liturgy is another one. If someone occurs in the East then it should be an option in the West. I disagree with this, the Eastern liturgies are beautiful, they are worthy reflections of the celestial liturgy that occurs in heaven, but so are the Latin liturgies! Another example could be the devotional spiritualities of the Passion and the Resurrection. You’ll hear every now and then how the East focuses more on the Resurrection and the West focuses more on the Passion. I find this to be generally true, but neither of these legitimate and apostolic traditions are in conflict. It’s not that we put one above the other but that we have received traditions and spiritualities from the Apostles.

With all this being said I’ll get to the point. I find that a great many Latin Catholics use the Eastern Churches as a scapegoat for their own personal political and spiritual views. They wish to conform everything else to their own creature comforts and preferences, they are in reaction and revolt against the 2,000 years of history that lives in the Latin Church. And I say they take advantage of the East. I’m sure you’ve seen on this forum people that suggest adopting such and such an Eastern liturgical pracise over a Latin practise, or an Eastern para-liturgical devotion over a Latin para-liturgical devotion, etc. But I ask you have you ever once heard a Latin Catholic argue for the adoption of the Eastern Lenten season? Have you ever once seen a Latin Catholic argue for the Eastern Lenten diet? In such a case they suddenly turn in to proud Latin Catholics, with fasting and abstaining on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday thank you very much!

I just get rather disgruntled by attitudes I perceive in people regarding the Latin Church and her history and her traditions. These people that make a big show of saying how good the East is with its desire to return to Eastern traditions and oppose Latinisations, etc., would be the first to swoop down without mercy upon a Latin who would dare suggest returning to Latin traditions and spiritualities, etc.

Of course this is all solely what I’ve observed from American Catholics on the internet. I’m a European and it tends to be entirely different. I think the issue is due to the melting pot that is America. There are no massive concentrations of Melkite Catholics in southern France. Vietnam was converted by Latin Catholics and thus falls under the Latin Church, those places converted by Eastern Catholics fall under the Eastern Churches. With America where the two worlds crash together, issues explode, from the above that I’ve mentioned, to discrimination against Eastern Catholic clergy by Latin bishops, etc.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Of course this is all solely what I’ve observed from American Catholics on the internet. I’m a European and it tends to be entirely different. I think the issue is due to the melting pot that is America. There are no massive concentrations of Melkite Catholics in southern France. Vietnam was converted by Latin Catholics and thus falls under the Latin Church, those places converted by Eastern Catholics fall under the Eastern Churches. With America where the two worlds crash together, issues explode, from the above that I’ve mentioned, to discrimination against Eastern Catholic clergy by Latin bishops, etc.

Historically, it’s not only America, but even the areas where Easterners were the majority. In India, for example, the Portuguese Latins forced themselves onto the Easterners. Now, we Easterners have to beg to have our own “proper territory” respected. I’m not saying that there were not issues prior to the Portuguese arriving, clearly there were, but claiming another church’s “area” is not an ideal to emulate.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t see anyone advocating for “forcing” Easternisations on Latin Catholics either. But I think the West faces something much more sinister than having practises forced upon us. If I may use clerical celibacy as an example. The married clergy have existed since Apostolic times and the Eastern Churches maintain a married clergy for their parishes. A celibate clergy has also existed since Apostolic times and the Latin Church has upheld this practise for its secular clergy. These are both traditional and apostolic and both are to be given due respect. But there’s a current amongst Latin Catholics, an attitude that would see all of our Latin traditions and our Latin heritage demoted to mere “options”, because of what the East allows. It appears that for some people Eastern practise and tradition is held up on a high throne that reigns over the Latin West instead of of the sister traditions of East and West reigning supremely and harmoniously together. If a man feels called to the priesthood and also wishes to be celbate in the East, what happens? He becomes a monk and doesn’t enter the secular clergy (I don’t know whether this distinction makes sense in the Eastern context).

The West has a tradition of married clergy up through the 12th C. It was abolished for reasons of protecting church property from claims of inheritance; part of the issue is the Roman tradition of single priest Parishes.

The East has both married and celibate clergy, both in and outside of Union with Rome. Not all Eastern celibates are monastics, either.

For 400 years, Rome didn’t allow concelebration with anyone presiding other than a bishop. This lead to large cathedrals with 15+ altars, and a priest at every one.

Just because it’s tradition doesn’t make it good. Slavery was a tradition, too.

 

[Jon_Paul]

Historically, it’s not only America, but even the areas where Easterners were the majority. In India, for example, the Portuguese Latins forced themselves onto the Easterners. Now, we Easterners have to beg to have our own “proper territory” respected. I’m not saying that there were not issues prior to the Portuguese arriving, clearly there were, but claiming another church’s “area” is not an ideal to emulate.

The issue with the Portuguese in India is a bit more complicated than the situation in northern America. I wont defend everything the Portuguese did, especially the usurpation of authority that occurred and the trampling of legitimate traditions. But the Portuguese and the Latin missionaries were also responsible for bridging the Indian Catholics with the Bishop of Rome as well as the re-establishing of the Catholic faith against the various errors that had cropped up. But yes there were wrongs and rights on that issue.

America is different though. It is Latin territory and by all rights it should be. But the spiritual needs of the Eastern Catholic emigrants must be met and it should rightly be met by their respective Churches. I don’t see any Eastern Catholics claiming the Americas, my post had nothing to do with that. I was simply bemoaning the attitude I have noticed in Latin Catholics.