Traditionalists from the Latin Rite transferring to Eastern Rites

[T_More]

I’ve read/heard that ever since Vatican II, there have been traditional leaning Catholics within the Roman Rite that have transferred to Eastern Rites because of the litrugical abuses that have gone on the last 3-4 decades. Can any one speak about this? Have you seen this yourself? Are there any here that have done this? Thanks!

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’ve thought about it. There’s only one Eastern church in this state, I think. They do Mass in Arabic (!), but it’s a bit too far for me. I’d give it a try if I was closer, since the EF parishes are even further.

 

[malphono]

Yes, there was a certain amount of ad-hoc “defection” over the post-conciliar years, (colloquially, we refer to the majority of them as “disgruntled Latins”) but only a very small number of those who “defected” actually transferred Churches. IOW, most weren’t there because they found something in the East, but rather because they had lost something in the West.

Note, however, that the tide reversed itself with the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum. With the liberation of the Missal of 1962, most of those who “defected to the East” have returned to the West.

 

[TrueLight]

I know a couple of folks who attend SSPX chapels and when they are not able to attend their mass, they attend a Byzantine liturgy. These same folks will not attend an OF.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes, there was a certain amount of ad-hoc “defection” over the post-conciliar years, (colloquially, we refer to the majority of them as “disgruntled Latins”) but only a very small number of those who “defected” actually transferred Churches. IOW, most weren’t there because they found something in the East, but rather because they had lost something in the West.

Note, however, that the tide reversed itself with the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum. With the liberation of the Missal of 1962, most of those who “defected to the East” have returned to the West.

I think that is an important point; most of these people were fully content with the Catholic West… and are now once again.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem here is many outsiders do not think that the Eastern Churches have problems of their own. I always get the “well you’re Eastern Catholic, you do not have the problems of abuse the Roman Catholic Church has.” No. We have plenty of problems. Our Liturgies aren’t perfect, and they certainly aren’t abuse free.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Even before the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum the diocese I lived in at the time had an EF Mass. This did not stop disgruntled latins from attending my home parish (a Melkite parish).

They did so because they did not like being under the authority of the bishop even though he allowed an EF Mass in the city.

I believe that such a group still exists out there in the Church as a long as there are bishops out there that are seen as being “progressive” (for lack of a better word).

 

[Cristiano]

I am member of an OF parish and I love to attend Divine Liturgies and Maronite Masses. I have seen an EF individual that he is trying to get into a Maronite seminar because he could not be accepted by the FSSP. Beside that I have seen just some Latins like myself that are more attracted by the whole thing instead of just a rigorous liturgy. If you do not dwell in the theology and spirituality of the Eastern Church then the liturgy could be preferred more for the entertainment aspect and personally I do not consider that reason good enough to transfer. My impression is that a lot of EF Latins could have serious difficulties in adopting new theological understandings of old beliefs.

 

[chococat]

My entire family have been Byzantine Catholics and within the last 10 yrs or so there have been quite a few Latin Rite Catholics that have transferred to our church (Slovanic Byzantine) Most have been frome the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio. One has even becme a priest in our Rite.

 

[Rich_C]

I know a few at Fish Eaters but not IRL. They seem to think like Roman Catholics, still compared to the cradle-Eastern Catholics I’ve known.

 

[malphono]

Even before the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum the diocese I lived in at the time had an EF Mass. This did not stop disgruntled latins from attending my home parish (a Melkite parish).

They did so because they did not like being under the authority of the bishop even though he allowed an EF Mass in the city.

I believe that such a group still exists out there in the Church as a long as there are bishops out there that are seen as being “progressive” (for lack of a better word).

I suppose some of it depends on the size of the city: for example, Brooklyn (which, if still an independent city, would be something like the 4th largest in the country), still today has precisely one church where the Usus Antiquior is allowed, and that only on Sundays and (I think) Holy Days, Summorum Pontificum not withstanding. As I understand it (and I could be wrong about this), the local bishop is not known to be particularly “progressive” nor was his predecessor.

 

[pkornmeyer]

I know a couple of folks who attend SSPX chapels and when they are not able to attend their mass, they attend a Byzantine liturgy. These same folks will not attend an OF.

It’s funny because a major tenet of Catholicism is following the teachings of the Church (which did not in fact change with Vatican II) so those who attend SSPX masses (illicit) commit the sin of apostasy because they are disobeying the Vatican and are giving credence to a schismatic group. Especially since Benedict XVI opened up use of the traditional rite.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I suppose some of it depends on the size of the city: for example, Brooklyn (which, if still an independent city, would be something like the 4th largest in the country), still today has precisely one church where the Usus Antiquior is allowed, and that only on Sundays and (I think) Holy Days, Summorum Pontificum not withstanding. As I understand it (and I could be wrong about this), the local bishop is not known to be particularly “progressive” nor was his predecessor.

I am speaking of Rochester, NY. There was (I do not know now as I am not living there though I do visit family there) an EF Mass in the city. An hour of travel within this diocese from the point of where the EF Mass was held would put you into any of the surrounding dioceses.

Bishop Clark of the diocese of Rochester is a well known progressive bishop. Whatever that means.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s funny because a major tenet of Catholicism is following the teachings of the Church (which did not in fact change with Vatican II) so those who attend SSPX masses (illicit) commit the sin of apostasy because they are disobeying the Vatican and are giving credence to a schismatic group. Especially since Benedict XVI opened up use of the traditional rite.

This is, in fact, wrong. It is well known that it is not sinful to attend SSPX Masses, provided one does so for the Mass itself, and not out of a want to separate oneself from the authority of the Pope. Catholics may attend SSPX Masses.

Write a letter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and this is what they will tell you.

 

[coachkfan1]

The implication is that abuses never occurred before Vatican II. Can anyone tell me if that was actually the case, or is there a lot “Well in my day…” going on by people who are just naturally resistant to change?

 

[Rich_C]

The implication is that abuses never occurred before Vatican II. Can anyone tell me if that was actually the case, or is there a lot “Well in my day…” going on by people who are just naturally resistant to change?

This is a good question and I’m sure no one would say they never happened. But also, this is an interesting thread and your question is really another topic, so why not make a new thread for it or search the forum?

 

[Cristiano]

It’s funny because a major tenet of Catholicism is following the teachings of the Church (which did not in fact change with Vatican II) so those who attend SSPX masses (illicit) commit the sin of apostasy because they are disobeying the Vatican and are giving credence to a schismatic group. Especially since Benedict XVI opened up use of the traditional rite.

That is not correct at all. I think that you should read some of the documents coming from the Vatican in regard to the status of laity attending the SSPX masses. Personally I do not think that it would be a good idea for myself, but I stick to what the Vatican says in regard to the issue.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is, in fact, wrong. It is well known that it is not sinful to attend SSPX Masses, provided one does so for the Mass itself, and not out of a want to separate oneself from the authority of the Pope. Catholics may attend SSPX Masses.

Write a letter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and this is what they will tell you.

Actually this “well known fact” is from the posting of a response from the PCED to an individual. The PCED made no blanket rule. They were responding to a question from an individual.

What I find odd is that the actual question that this response was to has never been made public so I wonder as to the conditions that this individual was under.

But that does not matter, or will not matter shortly when, God Willing, the SSPX is fully returned to the Church.

 

[Cristiano]

The implication is that abuses never occurred before Vatican II. Can anyone tell me if that was actually the case, or is there a lot “Well in my day…” going on by people who are just naturally resistant to change?

Abuses happened before but they were not called abuses. The laity was also more hesitant to accuse a priest of abuse even if it was a blatant case. Only a few people would write to a Bishop complaining of those attitudes, and those where usually the ones that already had the bishop’s ear. They did not have internet and social media to forward the information until they found enough people that would agree with them. I am not saying that people would not gossip about the priests, I am just saying that it was done in a different and less open manner.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Abuses happened before but they were not called abuses. The laity was also more hesitant to accuse a priest of abuse even if it was a blatant case. Only a few people would write to a Bishop complaining of those attitudes, and those where usually the ones that already had the bishop’s ear. They did not have internet and social media to forward the information until they found enough people that would agree with them. I am not saying that people would not gossip about the priests, I am just saying that it was done in a different and less open manner.

I believe that it was mostly that the laity were not as knowledgable or really cared to be as they are today. So when an abuse did occur they were not aware of it.