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.
True. There is no USA obligation to practice penance on Fridays outside of Lent for the Latin Church, yet Friday remains a day of penance, and we are urged to do penance, particularly abstinence.
Wrong. The obligation to friday penance is still present. Abstinence has been indulted, but it’s still required to do something penitential.

The problem is that much of the Roman Church in the US isn’t pointing it out. A few priests are pointing it out… Most Rev. Roger Schweitz and Very Rev. Leo Walsh amongst them.

see usccb.org/lent/2007/Penance_and_Abstinence.pdf ¶20-28
 
Wrong. The obligation to friday penance is still present. Abstinence has been indulted, but it’s still required to do something penitential.

The problem is that much of the Roman Church in the US isn’t pointing it out. A few priests are pointing it out… Most Rev. Roger Schweitz and Very Rev. Leo Walsh amongst them.

see usccb.org/lent/2007/Penance_and_Abstinence.pdf ¶20-28
There are a variety of opinions, and commonly available, so it is odd that the USCCB does nothing to correct, if such opinions are not in accord with the intentions of the USCCB, which is to continue with the 1966 as in the link you posted. nccbuscc.org/norms/12521253.htm

Jim Akin, on this catholic.com: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501bt.asp

He states that USCCB determined more precisely per Canon 1253 (“It is for the conference of bishops** to determine more precisely** the observance of fast and abstinence”) by restricting the observance of fast and abstinence to Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent, and Good Friday.

If this is incorrect then it would be good to get catholic.com to correct it.

The following is what I posted on another thread last year.
The way that Mr. Colin B. Donovan, STL (Licentiate in Sacred Theology), phrased it (for the USA not for Canada) is:

“On the Fridays outside of Lent the U.S. bishops conference obtained the permission of the Holy See for Catholics in the US to substitute a penitential, or even a charitable, practice of their own choosing. Since this was not stated as binding under pain of sin, not to do so on a single occasion would not in itself be sinful. However, since penance is a divine command, the general refusal to do penance is certainly gravely sinful. For most people the easiest way to consistently fulfill this command is the traditional one, to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year which are not liturgical solemnities. When solemnities, such as the Annunciation, Assumption, All Saints etc. fall on a Friday, we neither abstain or fast.”

ewtn.com/faith/lent/fast.htm
 
There are a variety of opinions, and commonly available, so it is odd that the USCCB does nothing to correct, if such opinions are not in accord with the intentions of the USCCB, which is to continue with the 1966 as in the link you posted. nccbuscc.org/norms/12521253.htm

Jim Akin, on this catholic.com: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501bt.asp

He states that USCCB determined more precisely per Canon 1253 (“It is for the conference of bishops** to determine more precisely** the observance of fast and abstinence”) by restricting the observance of fast and abstinence to Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent, and Good Friday.

If this is incorrect then it would be good to get catholic.com to correct it.

The following is what I posted on another thread last year.
Regarding the quote from Mr. Donovan, it’s sometimes a bit fuzzy where the distinction lies between a “general refusal” to do penance (which he says is gravely sinful) and simple negligence to do anything special on a particular Friday (which I was certainly guilty of on plenty of occasions).
 
Wrong. The obligation to friday penance is still present. Abstinence has been indulted, but it’s still required to do something penitential.

The problem is that much of the Roman Church in the US isn’t pointing it out. A few priests are pointing it out… Most Rev. Roger Schweitz and Very Rev. Leo Walsh amongst them.

see usccb.org/lent/2007/Penance_and_Abstinence.pdf ¶20-28
In Agreement with your post, here is a site stating “Bishops, and the priests in their jurisdictions, have long neglected to teach about the obligatory requirement of either abstaining from meat on all Fridays of the year, or of substituting another observance.”

trosch.org/for/the/abs-main.htm
 
One thing I couldn’t figure out about Roman Catholic traditionalists in Eastern parishes is why do they cry foul of a Roman Mass in the vernacular, but readily accepts the Divine Liturgy in English? 🤷
Good question! Or communion while standing. Or no kneeling. Or unconsecrated priests’ hands, etc.

What I don’t like to see are the are those who demand to genuflect before receiving communion or those who kneel after receiving it. Anything to put on a show I suppose.
 
Absolutely nothing Protestant about us - that’s a slander I’m tired of hearing. True Traditionalists - represented by sacerdotal societies like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest - are 100% obedient to the Pope of Rome, and they preserve the integrity of the Catholic Faith completely intact when the rest of the members of the Church have been both externally and internally Protestantized and modernized. And we do so with the blessing and encouragement of the Holy See.
There is nothing known as a “Traditional Catholic” in the Catholic Church. When I see that label being used it does set off a few alarms.

I suppose one could call themselves something like a “traditionally-minded Catholic” but even that would be misleading in many cases. Those that adopt the “Traditional Catholic” label often accept or reject what they personally believe is right or better. Their choices are often not traditional.
 
Absolutely nothing Protestant about us - that’s a slander I’m tired of hearing. True Traditionalists - represented by sacerdotal societies like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest - are 100% obedient to the Pope of Rome, and they preserve the integrity of the Catholic Faith completely intact when the rest of the members of the Church have been both externally and internally Protestantized and modernized. And we do so with the blessing and encouragement of the Holy See.
The are also not “True Traditionalists.” Trying to apply that label to such wonderful groups is wrong.

They are Catholic Christians of the Latin Rite.
 
Good question! Or communion while standing. Or no kneeling. Or unconsecrated priests’ hands, etc.

What I don’t like to see are the are those who demand to genuflect before receiving communion or those who kneel after receiving it. Anything to put on a show I suppose.
There are those who kneel in our parish. I think the UGCC at least in our part of Canada is very Latinized. I don’t know in the East, there’s St. Elias which I think is the model of what an Eastern Catholic parish should be. But I don’t even know if other UGCC parishes in Ontario are as orthodox as they are.
 
…In most parishes this stems more from the history of forcible Latinizations and hostility on the part of the West (e.g., Archbishop Ireland), as well as the abysmal ignorance many Roman Catholics still have towards the East. I am constantly having to explain that I am fully Catholic and not a schismatic Orthodox. Fortunately this started to change as part of the general reform movement of which Vatican II was a part (I phrased it like that because it was actually Pius XII shortly before Vatican II who began commanding us to “convert the Latins to a love and appreciation of the Eastern Rites”, an injunction that was repeated several times by Blessed John Paul II). We still have a long way to go, however, before the Western Church in general understands Byzantine Catholicism as well as all Byzantine Catholics are familiar with the Western Rite…
That is a terribly incorrect statement in my experience. The ten or so canonically Eastern Catholics in my parish don’t groan about “latinizations.” If you get some of the older ones talking they’ll recall a few stories from growing up in PA back in the “old days” but there is no anger or bitterness at “latinizations.”

The angry/bitter Latin Riters do talk about “latinizations” but it’s only an unknown word and excuse to them. They would shout for joy if some “latinizations” like kneeling, sanctus bells, etc. were allowed today.
 
For one thing the vernacular is not really a big issue with RC traditionalists; it’s the radical alteration of the words and structure of the Mass, the ascetic laxity, and the theological point of view taught by Vatican II and the much more radical theological liberalism that became rampant in the name of the spirit of Vatican II. I don’t think any traditionalists would really want the Tridentine Mass translated into English, but they would not complain about that nearly as much as the Novus Ordo. RC traditionalists don’t like the Novus Ordo in Latin any more than any other Novus Ordo.

Also, the vernacular versus Latin issue was a major point of contention during the Protestant Revolt, and I think most “Latin exiles” recognize that the Divine Liturgy was never said in Latin and that there is a longer tradition of saying it in the vernacular than there is in the West.

I also think that most “Latin exiles” (and I include myself in this category - I was a Roman Catholic traditionalist who fell in love with Byzantium) would much prefer the Liturgy in a sacred language, Greek or Slavonic. We’re not adamant enough about it to riot in the middle of the service as the Greek congregation did less than a week ago when their Metropolitan started reading the Old Testament reading in demotike rather than katharavousa, but I would rather learn Slavonic than continue having Liturgy in English. That being said, the liturgical problems in the East (the RDL, the use of English, the pews, the see-through iconostases, and the rampant Latinizations) are of a totally different order than the liturgical problems in the West where I have trouble even recognizing that I am in a Catholic church. (I’m the old-fashioned type of body-soul composite that still needs sacraments and other visible signs to show me spiritual realities - I can’t go to a disco party where they hand out pieces of validly consecrated bread and receive the same spiritual nourishment that I do at a Traditional Liturgy.)

Most “Latin exiles” (not including myself) would probably prefer the Tridentine Mass to the Divine Liturgy - they are Catholics of the Roman Rite, after all, and they have a right to their own spiritual tradition. But one can go from one to the other and still see the same faith, and experience the same bond of faith with the parishioners of either church. That’s not something I can do at a Novus Ordo. We both pray for the Pope of Rome, but there is no visible bond of faith between myself and the congregation at a Novus Ordo Mass, and I feel as out of place as I do in a Protestant congregation. I suspect other Traditionalists experience the same thing, and are hospitable enough guests not to complain about the use of English at Divine Liturgy.
I guess there’s a wide variety of traditionalists as well. There are those who would embrace the OF if its only in Latin. I guess these are the guys you wouldn’t see in an Eastern parish. Then there are those who seek for old and traditional Liturgies regardless of form or language. They are likely to be the ones to go to an Eastern parish and hear a 1500 year old Liturgy in English.

I don’t consider myself an exile. In fact I never really expected to move to an Eastern parish. I was just exploring other rites. I’ve been to a Chaldean Holy Qurbana, the EF, then a Byzantine Divine Liturgy. I fell in love with it and decided to stay. I guess I’m just an exile from my own parish. I sort of don’t like our new priest but absolutely loved the previous one he replaced. I don’t think I would have even missed a Mass from that old priest to explore other forms of Liturgy. He’s the only priest I know I’d gladlly go to Mass several times for, especially like in Easter where there are different readings at different times of the day, I’d love to hear his sermon on each of the readings. I still follow my First Friday devotion and go to the OF of First Friday Mass where there usually would be the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and the prayers to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
 
There are those who kneel in our parish. I think the UGCC at least in our part of Canada is very Latinized. I don’t know in the East, there’s St. Elias which I think is the model of what an Eastern Catholic parish should be. But I don’t even know if other UGCC parishes in Ontario are as orthodox as they are.
I ignore stuff like people kneeling in a Byzantine parish but it does strike me that these people are often the ones who would complain about something like “latinizations.” It’s almost as if they feel they themselves know what’s best.
 
I ignore stuff like people kneeling in a Byzantine parish but it does strike me that these people are often the ones who would complain about something like “latinizations.” It’s almost as if they feel they themselves know what’s best.
I don’t think they do. Was it here or on byzcath that I am reading that its hard to keep your Eastern identity in this side of the world where Catholics are usually Roman Catholics, and other Christians are usually Protestant. I hope God grants His Church more balance by increasing the number of Eastern Catholics.
 
Regarding the quote from Mr. Donovan, it’s sometimes a bit fuzzy where the distinction lies between a “general refusal” to do penance (which he says is gravely sinful) and simple negligence to do anything special on a particular Friday (which I was certainly guilty of on plenty of occasions).
That seems similar to the distinction between a “general refusal” to have children and exercising natural family planning when just and moral.
 
Good question! Or communion while standing. Or no kneeling. Or unconsecrated priests’ hands, etc.
Our standing is your kneeling. Kneeling has a different significance in the East than it does in the West (it is penitential rather than just prayerfully reverent), and standing also has a much different significance in the East than it does in the West (it is the posture of prayer - standing for us means the same thing as kneeling does for you).

It is forbidden by the canons of the Quinisext Council for us to kneel on Sunday. And given the difference is body language, as a Traditionalist I always stand throughout the Divine Liturgy, just as I always kneel for Holy Communion in any Latin-rite church.

The East and the West have different customs and different traditions, and to be a consistent traditionalist Catholic is to acknowledge the legitimacy and authenticity of each and practice both properly. You are showing a very shallow understanding of the two rites by accusing us of inconsistency by doing one thing in a Latin church and another thing in a Byzantine church - the two rites really are different, and to put Latinizations in a Divine Liturgy is the same deformation as when they tried (in the form of the Novus Ordo) to efface the specifically Latin character of the Roman Rite.
What I don’t like to see are the are those who demand to genuflect before receiving communion or those who kneel after receiving it. Anything to put on a show I suppose.
I would be more charitable in my interpretation of their intentions - at any Liturgy Roman or Byzantine the reigning assumption (as I was instructed) is that people are praying rather than paying attention to you and that you should feel free to show reverence and devotion to Our Lord because He is the only one watching you.

I would also say that such people, if they are at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, need better instruction as to the meaning and nature of our rite, something which our priests and laymen need to do a better job at doing.
 
That is a terribly incorrect statement in my experience. The ten or so canonically Eastern Catholics in my parish don’t groan about “latinizations.” If you get some of the older ones talking they’ll recall a few stories from growing up in PA back in the “old days” but there is no anger or bitterness at “latinizations.”

The angry/bitter Latin Riters do talk about “latinizations” but it’s only an unknown word and excuse to them. They would shout for joy if some “latinizations” like kneeling, sanctus bells, etc. were allowed today.
May I ask if your parish is Ruthenian or Ukrainian?

It does seem that some Ukrainians from the Old World are more used to Latinizations where they grew up with them and where it was unfortunately such abuses that provided them with a sense of identity as “Catholic” versus “Orthodox”. It’s something the Popes have been trying to fight ever since Leo XIII, and something which people who translated to the Eastern Rites often have a much better understanding of (because our understanding is more intellectual - from studies - rather than our knowledge being based on what we grew up with). And I have seen a lot of people, especially Ruthenians and transfers, very angry with the Latin ignorance of the Eastern Rites and with the Latinizations still prevalent.

And the angry/bitter “Latin exiles” do usually need better instruction on what is proper for the Byzantine Rite, why we do things the way we do, and why many of the things they love are inappropriate for this rite (which is not to say that they are not wonderful things in their proper place).
 
The are also not “True Traditionalists.” Trying to apply that label to such wonderful groups is wrong.

They are Catholic Christians of the Latin Rite.
It all comes down to a label, really - I think we’re in agreement here.

Speaking as having once been one, we choose to call ourselves Traditionalists - and I think we can all agree that only by remaining obedient and faithful to the Holy See can you really properly be Traditional (with apologies to sedes and fans of the SSPX). Just as I call myself “Orthodox” but without necessarily implying anything about the Orthodoxy of Roman Catholics (or about the Orthodoxy of schismatic groups), true Traditional Catholics (FSSP etc.) stay faithful to what they are without passing judgment on the prayer lives of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo.
 
There are those who kneel in our parish. I think the UGCC at least in our part of Canada is very Latinized. I don’t know in the East, there’s St. Elias which I think is the model of what an Eastern Catholic parish should be. But I don’t even know if other UGCC parishes in Ontario are as orthodox as they are.
Everyone kneels at the local UGCC parish; I don’t know how common that is for the UGCC in the States. I would absolutely love for a chance to visit St. Elias; they are a model for us all.
 
Everyone kneels at the local UGCC parish; I don’t know how common that is for the UGCC in the States. I would absolutely love for a chance to visit St. Elias; they are a model for us all.
I see some kneel at our Byzantine parish, I believe they are preparing for the liturgy, yet not during the Liturgy, except the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, and on Holy Friday. Since it is penitent act it is not in keeping with the Sunday (or Saturday vigil) Resurrection, yet we do have three (most only observe two although there are specified in the 2006 DL) profound bows in the Divine Liturgy during the anaphora.
 
Everyone kneels at the local UGCC parish; I don’t know how common that is for the UGCC in the States. I would absolutely love for a chance to visit St. Elias; they are a model for us all.
Same here, I’d love to visit them sometime. Maybe when I take my wife to Niagara Falls, we’ll go for Divine Liturgy there, its not that far away, couple of hours maybe?

Our parish has pews too. I was hoping the UOC parish near the Catholic school I’ll be going to this weekend of Catechist training has Vespers so I can join in. But they don’t. I also wanted to compare how the inside of their parishes compares with ours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top