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

[MarcusAndreas]

I’m curious about what influenced some people who changed rites. I’m interested in the East at the moment and I’m wondering what has influenced and attracted some westerners to the east.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interest in the Eastern praxis and finding the beauty of the Divine Liturgy. The Liturgy itself suits me as a person.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

The beautiful hymnography and iconography that saturates your senses during liturgy.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

For me it was a number of things. The approach to theology, the Divine Liturgy, the emphasis on public celebration of the Divine Office (at least in theory, although also lived in some parishes), the emphasis on communal spirituality without also neglecting personal spirituality, the emphasis in personal piety on God’s mercy and the healing of our sinfulness rather than God’s justice and divine judgment (not that the latter can’t also be found in Eastern theology and piety and the former in Western), hesychasm, the Jesus Prayer, focus on the Patristic writings, no neo-scholasticism (I personally have no problem with scholasticism, but neo-scholasticism I believe is problematic. Consequently I believe that when most Orthodox and Eastern Catholics condemn scholasticism what they are actually condemning is neo-scholasticism), the list goes on.

All of this being said, my journey into Eastern Catholicism has consequently also led me to a deeper appreciation of Roman Catholicism. In particular I have been drawn more deeply into the “mystical theology” of the West as expressed through the Western Patristic Fathers, as well as Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Francis of Assisi, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, etc.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The beautiful hymnography and iconography that saturates your senses during liturgy.

+1
This is part of the beauty of worshiping in a Byzantine Rite. Icons, hymns, chanting, incense.

 

[Cecilianus]

Coming from a Protestant background I was looking for the most reverent, the most authentic, and most pravoslavni (orthodox, in the sense both of right teaching and right glory - it’s a Slavonic word) expression of the Catholic Faith. I found it in the East.

The unity of all the senses (incense, chanting, icons, body language) working together, the sense of tradition (very conservative 4th-century liturgies), the way in which the perfect glory was united with a sense of community and family instead of it being one or the other - everything just seemed more intense, more real, more done. More crossing ourselves, more chanting, more incense, more prostrations, more fasting, more Holy Days of Obligation, longer Liturgy, more traditional.

The fact that the theological heritage of the East is non-Thomistic (or, as someone pointed out, free from *neo-*Scholasticism) really really helped me. I was starting to get desperately frustrated as a Roman Catholic.

The emissaries of St. Vladimir said it best:

We went to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifice where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty and we are at a loss to describe it. We only know that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty. Every man, after tasting something sweet, is afterwards unwilling to accept that which is bitter.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The fact that the theological heritage of the East is non-Thomistic (or, as someone pointed out, free from *neo-*Scholasticism) really really helped me. I was starting to get desperately frustrated as a Roman Catholic.

I only mention neo-Thomism and neo-Scholasticism because I don’t think today’s expression of Thomism or Scholasticism is very faithful to Aquinas himself or the original intent of Scholasticism. The focus among Thomistic scholars has, until recently, been on his Summa Theologica, which Thomas himself certainly did not consider the climax of his writings. In his mind the Summa Theologica was simply a handbook or reference book, much like the medical reference books of doctors. It was meant to give quick clear answers that would then stimulate further thought on whatever subject. It wasn’t meant to be a definitive guide. Personally I advocate an approach to Aquinas, and the other great Scholastics for that matter, that examines his “mystical” writings and his commentaries on Scripture before turning to the Summa. This approach is based off of his famous comment, “All I have written is so much straw,” and on the fact that Medieval theologians’ primary task was to comment on the Scriptures, all the rest of their knowledge was meant to serve that one purpose. I believe that such an approach would bring Aquinas’ and the Scholastics’ writings out of the rationalistic mindset that has imprisoned it, and would demonstrate to the East that the West is not as rationalistic as the common cliche would have it, and that it is every bit as “mystical” and “experiential” as the East. But alas, how does one go about changing a mindset that has dominated for a couple of Centuries now?

One other important thing about Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, is that they were steeped in Scripture and the Church Fathers. Indeed, I believe Aquinas quotes St. John of Damascus almost as much as he quotes Scripture, and I think more than he quotes Augustine! I’ve heard also that certain Eastern Patriarchs have read Aquinas and agreed fully with him, minus his own disagreement with the idea of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Cecilianus]

The fact that the theological heritage of the East is non-Thomistic (or, as someone pointed out, free from *neo-*Scholasticism) really really helped me. I was starting to get desperately frustrated as a Roman Catholic.

I only mention neo-Thomism and neo-Scholasticism because I don’t think today’s expression of Thomism or Scholasticism is very faithful to Aquinas himself or the original intent of Scholasticism. The focus among Thomistic scholars has, until recently, been on his Summa Theologica, which Thomas himself certainly did not consider the climax of his writings. In his mind the Summa Theologica was simply a handbook or reference book, much like the medical reference books of doctors. It was meant to give quick clear answers that would then stimulate further thought on whatever subject. It wasn’t meant to be a definitive guide. Personally I advocate an approach to Aquinas, and the other great Scholastics for that matter, that examines his “mystical” writings and his commentaries on Scripture before turning to the Summa. This approach is based off of his famous comment, “All I have written is so much straw,” and on the fact that Medieval theologians’ primary task was to comment on the Scriptures, all the rest of their knowledge was meant to serve that one purpose. I believe that such an approach would bring Aquinas’ and the Scholastics’ writings out of the rationalistic mindset that has imprisoned it, and would demonstrate to the East that the West is not as rationalistic as the common cliche would have it, and that it is every bit as “mystical” and “experiential” as the East. But alas, how does one go about changing a mindset that has dominated for a couple of Centuries now?

One other important thing about Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, is that they were steeped in Scripture and the Church Fathers. Indeed, I believe Aquinas quotes St. John of Damascus almost as much as he quotes Scripture, and I think more than he quotes Augustine! I’ve heard also that certain Eastern Patriarchs have read Aquinas and agreed fully with him, minus his own disagreement with the idea of the Immaculate Conception.

Aquinas quotes the Greek Fathers more often than the Latin, I believe, and he certainly quotes Platonists more than Aristotle. Also, he did accept the Immaculate Conception in writings written both before and after the Summa Theologica - though Demetrios Kydones may not have known that. I will try reading some of his Scriptural commentaries as you suggest and see if that sits better with me. I also have a friend who owns his Catena Aurea, which I’ve been wanting to dip into.

Nicolaos Boulgaris also quotes Aquinas (whom he calls “The Schoolmen”) at the heading of many chapters of his Catechism before explaining them with a very Eastern understanding and using a very Eastern method of arranging his material - one way I wouldn’t mind trying to combine Eastern and Western theology.

My main problem with Aquinas has to do with the argumentation he uses and develops his analysis of God’s nature with in the Summa Contra Gentiles, which is glossed over in the Summa Theologica, and in general with the philosophical aspect of his thought (in his minor works, such as the De Ente et Essentia, the commentary on Boethius, and some of his physical writings. I realize that the neo-Thomists have probably strayed far from the actual spirit of St. Thomas, and they are often very insistent on their interpretations and will usually provide syllogism to prove that you are culpable of heresy if you disagree (as I’ve seen in articles in The Thomist about Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar) - something that can get uncomfortable to hear in the confessional. What drove me the most crazy is that such Thomists absolutely refuse to compromise Thomas’ metaphysics to accomodate the inconvenient findings of modern science, though I have no doubt that Thomas himself with his love for truth would have been the first to do so. Nor are they able to explain his physics in such a way as to make them reconcilable. At first I thought maybe it was just that my philosophy professors weren’t necessarily well versed in either Thomas or physics, but after half an hour talking to Fr. Benedict Ashley during a vocations retreat at his priory - he is one of the most well-respected Thomist theologians alive today, who has done work in both medical ethics and Aquinas’ First Way - I had to conclude that the Thomist metaphysics itself was incompatible with what I know is true physically.

Again, this isn’t necessarily faithful to the spirit of Thomas, but that’s the state of Western theology. Even to try to systematize Thomas is to do something different than Thomas did, as another Dominican pointed out to me - Thomas brought in a whole lot of different strands from different thinkers without caring a bit about the integrity of the systems he was violating. He simply taught what he believed was truth, no matter where it came from.

 

[BVM_1221]

I’m curious about what influenced some people who changed rites. I’m interested in the East at the moment and I’m wondering what has influenced and attracted some westerners to the east.

Well, I am in the process of deciding to change, See my posting. I have attended a couple of masses, and a retreat. It may be that I feel I can connect to God better, as part of my AA program. I like the way Mary is honored during the liturgy. So chalk me up as a work in progress.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, I am in the process of deciding to change, See my posting. I have attended a couple of masses, and a retreat. It may be that I feel I can connect to God better, as part of my AA program. I like the way Mary is honored during the liturgy. So chalk me up as a work in progress.

Are you moving to the Ruthenian Church? How long have you been attending?

 

[Shiranui117]

The theology and tradition was the lure, the Divine Liturgy was the hook.

 

[azerty]

“Indeed, I believe Aquinas quotes St. John of Damascus almost as much as he quotes Scripture, and I think more than he quotes Augustine!”

He quotes Pseudo Dionysius Areopagite more than any author.

“I had to conclude that the Thomist metaphysics itself was incompatible with what I know is true physically.”

You should read “The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology: Contemporary Science in Light of Tradition” by Wolfgang Smith. Notions like “materia prima” “forme/essentia”, “act” and “potentia” etc seem to be compatible with quantum physic.

 

[Cecilianus]

“Indeed, I believe Aquinas quotes St. John of Damascus almost as much as he quotes Scripture, and I think more than he quotes Augustine!”

He quotes Pseudo Dionysius Areopagite more than any author.

“I had to conclude that the Thomist metaphysics itself was incompatible with what I know is true physically.”

You should read “The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology: Contemporary Science in Light of Tradition” by Wolfgang Smith. Notions like “materia prima” “forme/essentia”, “act” and “potentia” etc seem to be compatible with quantum physic.

But only in a sense radically altered from and in a completely different application from the macroscopic context Aristotle tried to explain things in.

I haven’t that particular book of Dr. Smith’s, but I will get around to it. “Prime matter” I could see as being equivalent to our “energy” in particle physics, but I have a really hard time seeing how “act” and “potency” could be used, and to call an eigenstate a “form” (the closest parallel I can think of) is simply an abuse of language.

I’m also guessing he takes a non-Copenhagen or Bohmian interpretation of QM as most Thomists do, which would mean simply denying the Theory of Relativity - definitely a minority position among physicists.

 

[BVM_1221]

Are you moving to the Ruthenian Church? How long have you been attending?

I am the process of attending this church…

standrewelsegundo.org/

…after attending retreats put on by the Eastern Monks nearby. Actually, this Sunday will only be my second mass at this church. I have a lot to learn, and need to find books that can help me out in the transition.

And what does “Ruthenian” mean?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am the process of attending this church…

standrewelsegundo.org/

…after attending retreats put on by the Eastern Monks nearby. Actually, this Sunday will only be my second mass at this church. I have a lot to learn, and need to find books that can help me out in the transition.

And what does “Ruthenian” mean?

Ruthenian is another sui juris Church. You’re attending a Russian Church. I myself am going to a Ukrainian Church. I’ve been going since the beginning of October. I just want to chat with other people who are in the same phase of the process as myself. I haven’t began any application yet but I will speak with the Bishop when I get a chance (I go to the Cathedral so I see him often) and tell him my plans and seek his advice.

 

[Cecilianus]

Ruthenians or Carpatho-Rusyns are a Slavic people speaking a language similar to Ukrainian but living within what were the historic boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (usually Slovakia, but also Poland, western Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, Romania, and Serbia). In most places if you see an Eastern Rite Catholic church it is either Ukrainian or Ruthenian; if they use the term “Byzantine Catholic” as opposed to Greek Catholic or Ukrainian Greek Catholic they are most likely originally Ruthenian in ethnicity.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ruthenians or Carpatho-Rusyns are a Slavic people speaking a language similar to Ukrainian but living within what were the historic boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (usually Slovakia, but also Poland, western Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, Romania, and Serbia). In most places if you see an Eastern Rite Catholic church it is either Ukrainian or Ruthenian; if they use the term “Byzantine Catholic” as opposed to Greek Catholic or Ukrainian Greek Catholic they are most likely originally Ruthenian in ethnicity.

Here in Canada some Ukrainian parishes are starting to catch on and use the “Byzantine Catholic” tag. Its an effort to show others that non-Ukrainians are welcome in the parish. Others may think that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is just an ethnic Roman Catholic parish for Ukrainians. We do have several ethnic RC parishes here, for Slovaks and another for Croatians. Even the local FSSP parish used to be a German RC parish.

 

[Cecilianus]

Others may think that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is just an ethnic Roman Catholic parish for Ukrainians.

Sometimes Ukrainians act like they think that too, unfortunately.

 

[Cecilianus]

Here in Canada some Ukrainian parishes are starting to catch on and use the “Byzantine Catholic” tag. Its an effort to show others that non-Ukrainians are welcome in the parish. Others may think that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is just an ethnic Roman Catholic parish for Ukrainians. We do have several ethnic RC parishes here, for Slovaks and another for Croatians. Even the local FSSP parish used to be a German RC parish.

But yes, I have occasionally heard Ukrainians call themselves “Byzantine Catholics”. But if you see the words “Byzantine Catholic Church” or “Byzantine Rite” on a church sign without the words “Greek” or “Ukrainian”, then it’s probably Ruthenian.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sometimes Ukrainians act like they think that too, unfortunately.

I have a thread for that

But really they have been warm and welcoming to me and my family. Only problem is everyone else is being Ukrainian so you feel left out even though they don’t intentionally exclude you.

But yes, I have occasionally heard Ukrainians call themselves “Byzantine Catholics”. But if you see the words “Byzantine Catholic Church” or “Byzantine Rite” on a church sign without the words “Greek” or “Ukrainian”, then it’s probably Ruthenian.

But thats here in Canada. I don’t think there’s a Ruthenian parish at least here in BC. If the Ruthenians have monopolized the “Byzantine” label in the US, maybe the Ukrainians will do the same here in Canada.