What influenced your decision to become an Eastern Catholic after being originally Latin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcusAndreas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I decided to make the change when I got to the point where I felt more displaced in a Roman parish than in a Byzantine one. I submitted the paperwork when my head was clear (I spent a couple years recovering from a knee injury).

I’m waiting on everyone else, now… I’ll be a Ruthenian soon, on paper as well as praxis.

It’s eastern enough to beat me about the head with the symbolism, the theology, and the sense of community. I may not know everyone in the parish, but I can at least recognize where I’ve seen them before when I encounter them outside the parish.

And the praxis is americanize enough that I can attain it. (Most of the Russian Orthodox I know don’t follow the fasting rules of the OCA-RO Diocese of Sitka & Alaska…)
 
Are the melkites the most “Orthodox-ish” of the byzantine churches? the least willing to deal with compromise?
 
Are the melkites the most “Orthodox-ish” of the byzantine churches? the least willing to deal with compromise?
Today, probably yes - in reaction to a past that was more latinized than anyone else’s (I’ve seen photos of old Melkite churches with Communion rails and altars stuffed with statues, not an icon in sight, and the priest and acoyltes dressed as Romans - the acolytes were wearing surplices over their cassocks).
 
I am a former protestant turned Roman Catholic. I was received into the Roman Church about three years ago. SInce then I have been attending a Roman Church and a Ruthenian Church about once a month. I have began prayerfully considering formally switching rites and becoming a full member of the Ruthenian parish. There are many things which drew me from the West to the East, first and foremost are the writings of the eastern fathers, the emphasis on God’s mystery in the East, the divine liturgy, the canonical hours. And lastly but not least, a reconnection with the Rusyn roots of my family, a return to the faith of my forefathers and foremothers, who emigrated to the USA from Poland and Western Ukraine. There are a few things I am worried about though, mainly, I cannot commit to the fasting practice of the Eastern Church.
 
Augustus: the Ruthenian fasting requirements are really not much more than Roman… just on 3x the number of days… and you don’t have to reduce the size of the meals. I found Ruthenian Reqired Fast much easier. It’s no meat M-W-F of the four fasts, and no meat on any friday which isn’t a holy day, and no meat, milk, eggs, oil, nor wine on 3 days a year. No missing meals. No grumbly stomach. No low-blood-sugar headache.

Whereas, Roman, it’s no meat on fridays, and fridays of lent and advent are 2 half meals and 1 full meal… the reduced portions were always what made it hardest for me. (I’m not diabetic, but I do have issues when my blood sugar is low.)
 
I am a cradle Latin and have been on a pilgrimage to the East for almost 9 yrs now, and like many, the Liturgy and spirituality was the draw…

My roots may be Latin but my branches are leaning East…
 
Augustus: the Ruthenian fasting requirements are really not much more than Roman… just on 3x the number of days… and you don’t have to reduce the size of the meals. I found Ruthenian Reqired Fast much easier. It’s no meat M-W-F of the four fasts, and no meat on any friday which isn’t a holy day, and no meat, milk, eggs, oil, nor wine on 3 days a year. No missing meals. No grumbly stomach. No low-blood-sugar headache.

Whereas, Roman, it’s no meat on fridays, and fridays of lent and advent are 2 half meals and 1 full meal… the reduced portions were always what made it hardest for me. (I’m not diabetic, but I do have issues when my blood sugar is low.)
Actually in the current Roman use (at least for the continental USA) the legal minimum is no meat on Fridays in Lent and the 2 half-meals and 1 full meal thing on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. In other words, almost nothing.

Abstinence from meat on other Fridays is strongly recommended by the USCCB but universally ignored.
 
Actually in the current Roman use (at least for the continental USA) the legal minimum is no meat on Fridays in Lent and the 2 half-meals and 1 full meal thing on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. In other words, almost nothing.

Abstinence from meat on other Fridays is strongly recommended by the USCCB but universally ignored.
This is practiced beyond the territories of the USCCB. Fasting (which means eating less) on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, Abstinence for Fridays of Lent.
 
Abstinence from meat on Friday is practiced by many Traditional Catholics. I have no figures, but based on those I’ve spoken with it would seem quite high.
 
Abstinence from meat on Friday is practiced by many Traditional Catholics. I have no figures, but based on those I’ve spoken with it would seem quite high.
Yes, but most Roman Catholics are not Traditional Catholics, unfortunately - just a small minority.
 
Yes, but most Roman Catholics are not Traditional Catholics, unfortunately - just a small minority.
Well, many Roman Catholics are traditional, not just the way traditional seems to be defined here. I’ve always viewed myself as traditional and convervative and many people would agree. Then I bumpbed into the TLM crowd online then suddenly I’m labeled as a modernist.

Traditional doesn’t have to mean those who prefer the EF. Many adhere to traditional practices while appreciating the Mass in the vernacular.
 
Well, many Roman Catholics are traditional, not just the way traditional seems to be defined here. I’ve always viewed myself as traditional and convervative and many people would agree. Then I bumpbed into the TLM crowd online then suddenly I’m labeled as a modernist.

Traditional doesn’t have to mean those who prefer the EF. Many adhere to traditional practices while appreciating the Mass in the vernacular.
Don`t worry about the traditionalist labels, all any of us need be concerned about is adhereing to orthodox teachings.
 
Well, many Roman Catholics are traditional, not just the way traditional seems to be defined here. I’ve always viewed myself as traditional and convervative and many people would agree. Then I bumpbed into the TLM crowd online then suddenly I’m labeled as a modernist.

Traditional doesn’t have to mean those who prefer the EF. Many adhere to traditional practices while appreciating the Mass in the vernacular.
As a technical term, “Traditional” refers to someone who exclusively uses the EF. But I second kitkatty’s post.
 
Abstinence from meat on Friday is practiced by many Traditional Catholics. I have no figures, but based on those I’ve spoken with it would seem quite high.
It’s actually still required by the USCCB for all RC in the US, but one may, by national indult, substitute “some other pious practice”.

The Ruthenian Church simply doesn’t participate in that indult.
 
I changed from the Latin Catholic church to the Malankara Catholic church. Liturgy was the motive I can go to Mass every day now. In Spain I could get to a Traditional Latin Mass only on Sundays. The Malankara liturgy is untouched since St. Thomas the Apostle set foot in India. I had to move to India to get it but it was worth it. It was impossible for me to attend the revised Latin liturgy.
 
As a technical term, “Traditional” refers to someone who exclusively uses the EF. But I second kitkatty’s post.
There’s just many more Roman Catholic traditions that one can adhere to, not just the TLM. Having traditional values is one. Anyway, I don’t worry about labels. As long as I am in Communion with the Pope through my Bishop, then I’m alright.
 
I changed from the Latin Catholic church to the Malankara Catholic church. Liturgy was the motive I can go to Mass every day now. In Spain I could get to a Traditional Latin Mass only on Sundays. The Malankara liturgy is untouched since St. Thomas the Apostle set foot in India. I had to move to India to get it but it was worth it. It was impossible for me to attend the revised Latin liturgy.
Wow, you moved to India to attend liturgy. That’s intense.
 
One factor is probably the sheer dreariness of the modern Latin rite liturgy. For anyone of a more contemplative bent it is a terrible trial, and there is such an unconnectedness and lack of reverence about it. The TLM is wonderful, but it often comes with a whole attitude which is off putting. I am still Roman rite, but I’d go to an Eastern rite liturgy every week if I could.
 
My wife is a Hungarian Byzantine. Recently we visited her relatives in Pennsylvania where we attended a Byzantine mass. Our kids, who had never attended a Byzantine mass, were captivated by the icons, the music, and the incense. There is nothing but the Latin rite where we live. If there was a Byzantine church here we’d be attending it, because the Byzantines haven’t thrown away all of their traditions as the Latin rite has. They haven’t replaced their ancient hymns with guitar music and hand clapping. They haven’t stripped their churches of religious art and incense.
 
I think as a Convert from Calvinism to the Latin rite and now I am in a Melkite parish the Liturgy is for sure the number one thing. I know some ex-Calvinists turned EO and we all want to cheer when the priest says “He is gracious and LOVES mankind.” The words of the Liturgy blow my mind.

The Marian devotion is more centered on her as the Theotokos.(Mother of God) The dogma of the Incarnation is everywhere in her devotion. Meditating on the mysteries while saying prayers is too difficult for me. (Nothing against it)

I love the icons, smells, bells, and it isn’t quiet. Good for ADD types.

Oh and the fasting for the east. The East gives a stricter fast but if you can’t do it than do some. They don’t give a penalty for not doing the whole fast. Also if it is lent and you go to someone’s house and they serve meat then eat the meat. Better to not make the host upset or angry with your Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top