Which eastern rite should i go to?

[notredame_999]

Lately I have been drifting to the east. I have read books on St. John Chrysotom, the east, even Orthodox saints. I have always been impressed with the eastern faith under opression from both Islam and communism. I have even thought about converting to Orthodoxy but I know this is wrong because they allow artificial birth control and deny papal infalliability.

With that said my issues with the latin rite presently are:
-obsession with distinguishing mortal vs. venial sin
-centralized power
-requirement of a celibate clergy
-novus ordo mass that is drastically different with tradition

Finally, I also have a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and firmly believe in her immaculate conception. I believe she did appear in places like Fatima and Lourdes. Based on this, what eastern rite would I feel most comftorable at? Thank you. This is my last eastern catholic post I promise lol.

 

[Vico]

Lately I have been drifting to the east. I have read books on St. John Chrysotom, the east, even Orthodox saints. I have always been impressed with the eastern faith under opression from both Islam and communism. I have even thought about converting to Orthodoxy but I know this is wrong because they allow artificial birth control and deny papal infalliability.

With that said my issues with the latin rite presently are:
-obsession with distinguishing mortal vs. venial sin
-centralized power
-requirement of a celibate clergy
-novus ordo mass that is drastically different with tradition

Finally, I also have a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and firmly believe in her immaculate conception. I believe she did appear in places like Fatima and Lourdes. Based on this, what eastern rite would I feel most comftorable at? Thank you. This is my last eastern catholic post I promise lol.

There is a scholastic emphasis in the Latin Church, with more elaboration that you mention about sin. And the Alexandrian and Latin traditions are closer in theological expression on sin. But, the basics of sin are not different between Eastern and Latin as there is a difference shown in scripture between grave and slight sins. So in practice, Eastern Catholic confess all serious sins lest they be eating their own condemnation.

From the Prayer of Our Holy Father Basil the Great:

“I know, O Lord, that if I partake unworthily of your pure body and precious blood, I will be guilty! I will be eating and drinking my own condemnation, not discerning your body and blood.”

Interesting that you mention the Latin Novus Ordo and tradition. In some ways the Novus Ordo has been a restoration of traditions from before the Tridentine 1570.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would suggest that you attend the parishes in your area as that is where you will worship so if there is just one parish of an Eastern Church (they are Churches (sui juris) in their own right not rites, a rite is something practiced by a Church).

If you do end up changing Churches you must do so becuase you are drawn to the spirituality not because of a dislike of certain things in the Latin Church. If you put those things in the letter to the bishop your change will most likely be denied. Also do not think that a change will allow you to get around the clerical celibacy issue, most likely it will not.

 

[jbecknell]

Hi, Just wanted to throw some thoughts in your direction there. In the documents concerning the great Council of Trent, the Tridentine Latin Mass was indeed referred to as the Novus Ordo, as it consolidated a few liturgical disciplines of that era. A previous commentor was correct in that the present day “Novus Ordo” was a restoration of the some liturgical practices from before that Council. This is because the Church is the sacred protector and guardian of tradition. Tradition itself therefore shouldn’t be the standard by which we determine whether something in the church is acceptable since disciplines can and do change. Don’t get me wrong. I love, and often attend the extraordinary form of the Latin rite, but only because the magisterium gives me the choice, not because I question it’s veracity. In Archbishop Levebvre’s famous November letter denouncing the Church, he did so by saying he was only being faithful to the “pre-magisterium’s of the past”. That’s a mistake. Since the Church is the sacred Body of Christ, and is the same in truth yesterday, today, and forever, there is no such thing as a “pre-magisterium,” just as there no such thing as a “pre-body” of Christ. I once had a family member ask me if she should say the luminous mysteries of the Rosary, because they weren’t traditional. I said of course she should, and asked her if she recited the Fatima prayer at the end of each decade, because that wan’t traditional either. She replied that of course she did. What I’m getting at is that the Church determines what is tradition, and not tradition. We only know the Blessed Mother appeared in such places as Fatima and Lourdes because the Church proclaimed she did, and we only know the prayers given to us at Fatima because the Church deemed it worthy to be believed. So in a very true sense, it was the Church that gave us Fatima and Lourdes and the like, and the Blessed Mother only speaks to us through Her Son’s institution. if you appreciate her appearances there, it is only because the Church gave them to you and all of us. So my answer to my family member was that if you say the Fatima prayer, and you believe that the Blessed Mother visited us there and other places, then you should say the luminous mysteries, because it’s the same Church that gave us both. Don’t know if it helps, but thanks for the question.

 

[jbecknell]

Just a couple of things to add to an already lengthy post from above. You mentioned that you have great respect for the Immaculate Conception and dislike centralized power. the Immaculate Conception is only considered dogma in the Catholic Church, not in orthodoxy, since of course you know that they don’t have a centralized institution to proclaim it even if they do believe it. centralized power was initiated by Christ in Matthew 16:18 in cesarea philipi next to the great rock there dedicated to the god Pan, god of shepherds. Christ was contrasting the pagan false god, to His Truth and delegated authority He gave to Peter the rock. Just as we can remember commercial jingles from thirty years ago, the peoples of that day remembered Scripture. Simon Peter and the others knew exactly what he meant by the words in Matthew and hearkened back to the words of Isiah 22, where the “key of the kingdom,” was delegated to a faithful servant to rule in the King’s stead. Just as it was done in the days of pharaoh, so it was to be done with Peter. So Christ set up His Church with Peter as His Head, centralized there.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Eastern Catholic Churches hold to all Catholic beliefs so the Immaculate Conception is dogma for us as well.

We also have a centralized power structure. Even the Orthodox has this, no parish stands alone away from a bishop and no bishop stands alone away from the synod.

 

[jbecknell]

My apologies. I meant to specify the Eastern Orthodox church, certainly not Eastern Catholic. Of course, Eastern Catholics hold to the same. While the Eastern Orthodox may have the same beliefs, the Immaculate Conception wouldn’t be declared dogma for them obviously because they lack the primacy of Peter’s chair to declare a universal truth. So we know precisely the truth of the Immaculate Conception through the Catholic Church, but thanks for the correction.

 

[5Loaves]

I would suggest that you attend the parishes in your area as that is where you will worship so if there is just one parish of an Eastern Church (they are Churches (sui juris) in their own right not rites, a rite is something practiced by a Church).

If you do end up changing Churches you must do so becuase you are drawn to the spirituality not because of a dislike of certain things in the Latin Church. If you put those things in the letter to the bishop your change will most likely be denied. Also do not think that a change will allow you to get around the clerical celibacy issue, most likely it will not.

I agree with Br. David.

You can locate a parish with this Find-A-Parish directory.

 

[notredame_999]

I would suggest that you attend the parishes in your area as that is where you will worship so if there is just one parish of an Eastern Church (they are Churches (sui juris) in their own right not rites, a rite is something practiced by a Church).

If you do end up changing Churches you must do so becuase you are drawn to the spirituality not because of a dislike of certain things in the Latin Church. If you put those things in the letter to the bishop your change will most likely be denied. Also do not think that a change will allow you to get around the clerical celibacy issue, most likely it will not.

Just out of curiosity, do you think a latin-young man who may be called to the priesthood but not called not to celibacy, and then decides to switch rites so he can marry and be ordained (in addition to preference in the litugry, eastern tradition) is inherently sinful if for some reason an Eastern Catholic bishop allowed it?

 

[Shiranui117]

I’d also like to ask a question, but slightly different from notredame’s: If a young Roman Catholic felt called to the celibate Eastern Catholic priesthood, would he be more likely to be denied or admitted?

 

[malphono]

Just out of curiosity, do you think a latin-young man who may be called to the priesthood but not called not to celibacy, and then decides to switch rites so he can marry and be ordained (in addition to preference in the litugry, eastern tradition) is inherently sinful if for some reason an Eastern Catholic bishop allowed it?

It seems to me that the above is indicative of a problem of a rather serious nature.

“I want to be married and be a priest, and oh, by the way, I like the DL too” is not a valid reason to transfer Churches. At the risk of redundancy, I have to repeat what I said in another thread about this exact same thing: don’t get your hopes up.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Just out of curiosity, do you think a latin-young man who may be called to the priesthood but not called not to celibacy, and then decides to switch rites so he can marry and be ordained (in addition to preference in the litugry, eastern tradition) is inherently sinful if for some reason an Eastern Catholic bishop allowed it?

Three things.

I do not believe that God Calls people to where they can not go.
I believe that God works thourgh His Church.
No one has a right to ordination.

So given those things, I do not believe a Latin Catholic can be called to ordination and marriage at the sametime no matter what he may feel. The Call is not his feeling but something that comes from the Church.

Also it has nothing to do with being “inherently sinful” as to why an Eastern Catholic bishop would not consider such a candidate. He would not consider him becuase of the appearance of him trying to sneak around Church discipline.

Anyways, to change Churches you would have to worship in the Church you wish to change to for a number of years before you could switch then you would have to be there a number of years before you would even be considered as a candidate to the priesthood, then if a bishop would accpet you as a married man you would be expected to live as a married man a number of years before you could start the seminary.

So given that it would be 6 to 8 years as a single man, maybe 10 to 12 if you were married.

Then do not forget the required 30 credits of philosophy and 12 credits of theology (all from an acceptable program) before you could enter the major seminary (yes the Eastern Churches have the same entry requirements as the Latin Church) which if you did not have would be another (minimum) 2 years of education.

Then lets add that no Eastern Catholic Church has a program for married candidates in place at the current time and it does not appear that they will have one any time in the near future.

One more piece of advice, in the letter to change Churches not only should you not put in your reasons for disliking the Latin Church but you should not mention ordination at all if you wish to be accepted.

 

[ciero]

Three things.

I do not believe that God Calls people to where they can not go.
I believe that God works thourgh His Church.
No one has a right to ordination.

So given those things, I do not believe a Latin Catholic can be called to ordination and marriage at the sametime no matter what he may feel. The Call is not his feeling but something that comes from the Church.

Also it has nothing to do with being “inherently sinful” as to why an Eastern Catholic bishop would not consider such a candidate. He would not consider him becuase of the appearance of him trying to sneak around Church discipline.

Anyways, to change Churches you would have to worship in the Church you wish to change to for a number of years before you could switch then you would have to be there a number of years before you would even be considered as a candidate to the priesthood, then if a bishop would accpet you as a married man you would be expected to live as a married man a number of years before you could start the seminary.

So given that it would be 6 to 8 years as a single man, maybe 10 to 12 if you were married.

Then do not forget the required 30 credits of philosophy and 12 credits of theology (all from an acceptable program) before you could enter the major seminary (yes the Eastern Churches have the same entry requirements as the Latin Church) which if you did not have would be another (minimum) 2 years of education.

Then lets add that no Eastern Catholic Church has a program for married candidates in place at the current time and it does not appear that they will have one any time in the near future.

One more piece of advice, in the letter to change Churches not only should you not put in your reasons for disliking the Latin Church but you should not mention ordination at all if you wish to be accepted.

The Ukranians, Romanians and Melkites will all allow married men to study for the priesthood. Its just the Ruthenians who have a hang up with ordaining married men.

 

[Vico]

Three things.

I do not believe that God Calls people to where they can not go.
I believe that God works thourgh His Church.
No one has a right to ordination.

So given those things, I do not believe a Latin Catholic can be called to ordination and marriage at the sametime no matter what he may feel. The Call is not his feeling but something that comes from the Church.

…

I just want to expand on what you said, by adding the calling to the permanent diaconate, which could be when young or older and married. I don’t mean to undermine any comments that were made that pertain to the priesthood. In 1964 Vatican II decided to restore the permanent diaconate. In 1967 the Pope Paul VI Moto Proprio, Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem was given, some of which follows. Eventually the Latin Church canon laws were modified in 1983 for the diaconate. Finally Pope Benedict XVI has modified diaconate Latin Church canons 1008 and 1009 to indicate that deacons serve not in the person of Christ as the priests do rather they “receive the faculty to serve the People of God in the diakonia of the liturgy, the word and charity”. (Of course the Eastern Churches have a different set of laws CCEO, yet some of this is universal in meaning.)

“Although some functions of the deacons, especially in missionary countries, are in fact accustomed to be entrusted to lay men it is nevertheless “beneficial that those who perform a truly diaconal ministry be strengthened by the imposition of hands, a tradition going back to the Apostles, and be more closely joined to the altar so that they may more effectively carry out their ministry through the sacramental grace of the diaconate.”(4) Certainly in this way the special nature of this order will be shown most clearly. It is not to be considered as a mere step towards the priesthood, but it is so adorned with its own indelible character and its own special grace so that** those who are called to** it “can permanently serve the mysteries of Christ and the Church.”(5)”

“…the manner will have to be indicated in which the new discipline will be implemented, that is to say, whether it is a matter of conferring the diaconate on “suitable young men for whom the law of celibacy must remain intact, or on men of more mature age, even upon those living in the married state,” or on both kinds of candidates.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Ukranians, Romanians and Melkites will all allow married men to study for the priesthood. Its just the Ruthenians who have a hang up with ordaining married men.

I did not say they would not let them study, they all do, including the Ruthenians.

What I said was that none of them have a program instituted for them.

The Melkites, Romanians, and Ruthenians all currently use the Ruthenian’s seminary Pittsburgh and the Ukranians use their own DC. Neither has housing for married candidates. If any of them choose to send their men to another seminary, none of those (all Latin Church) have accomodations for married candidates either.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Three things.

I do not believe that God Calls people to where they can not go.
I believe that God works thourgh His Church.
No one has a right to ordination.

So given those things, I do not believe a Latin Catholic can be called to ordination and marriage at the sametime no matter what he may feel. The Call is not his feeling but something that comes from the Church.

Also it has nothing to do with being “inherently sinful” as to why an Eastern Catholic bishop would not consider such a candidate. He would not consider him becuase of the appearance of him trying to sneak around Church discipline.

Anyways, to change Churches you would have to worship in the Church you wish to change to for a number of years before you could switch then you would have to be there a number of years before you would even be considered as a candidate to the priesthood, then if a bishop would accpet you as a married man you would be expected to live as a married man a number of years before you could start the seminary.

So given that it would be 6 to 8 years as a single man, maybe 10 to 12 if you were married.

Then do not forget the required 30 credits of philosophy and 12 credits of theology (all from an acceptable program) before you could enter the major seminary (yes the Eastern Churches have the same entry requirements as the Latin Church) which if you did not have would be another (minimum) 2 years of education.

Then lets add that no Eastern Catholic Church has a program for married candidates in place at the current time and it does not appear that they will have one any time in the near future.

One more piece of advice, in the letter to change Churches not only should you not put in your reasons for disliking the Latin Church but you should not mention ordination at all if you wish to be accepted.

Good answers so far, ByzCath…

Though not all the ECs I know (at least the Melkite ones) agree in ALL thinngs with RCs.

Many consider themselves Orthodox first who just happen to be in “Communion with Rome.”

When I joined the Melkites, I was confused, then midly surprised, then finally accepting, of the variety of “definitions” of what was a ECer or not.

One of the prarish priests, Fr. Damien, answered this for me…

“we are agree in most things with the Western Catholic Church. It is misinformformation that we do not.”

I let it go at that. And I agree with it ultimately.

One thing ECs DO disagree with RCs is not tending to emphasizing “mortal” and “venial” sins—taccording to Melkites I know, hey tend to distance one from God> There IS sin, of course, but there is not the differentiation between “mortal” and “venial” in the EC.
That is MY experience of course. If other EC denominations do, I would love to know about it.

 

[Vico]

notredame_999,

Sometimes celibate Latin Church priests, to fill a need of the Eastern Churches, have transfered, obtained an adaptation or rite, or a bi-ritual indult.

You can see the concept that a Catholic should retain his own ritus (liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage), in Orientalium Ecclesiarum, H.H. Pope Paul VI, Nov 21 1964 (item 4):

"Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability (4), without prejudice to the right in special cases of persons, communities or areas, of recourse to the Apostolic See, which, as the supreme judge of interchurch relations, will, acting itself or through other authorities, meet the needs of the occasion in an ecumenical spirit, by the issuance of opportune directives, decrees or rescripts.

(4) Pius XII, Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati, 2 iun. 1957, can. 8: sine licentia Sedis Apostolicae, sequendo praxim saeculorum praecedentium; item quoad baptizatos acatholicos in can. 11 habetur: ritum quem maluerint am plecti possunt; in textu proposito disponitur modo positivo observantia ritus pro omnibus et ubique terrarum."

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

Later the revised canon laws 1983 CIC, 1990 CCEO retain these concepts.

 

[ciero]

I did not say they would not let them study, they all do, including the Ruthenians.

What I said was that none of them have a program instituted for them.

The Melkites, Romanians, and Ruthenians all currently use the Ruthenian’s seminary Pittsburgh and the Ukranians use their own DC. Neither has housing for married candidates. If any of them choose to send their men to another seminary, none of those (all Latin Church) have accomodations for married candidates either.

Why would a married man require a separate “program”?

As far as housing goes there have been married men who studied at St. Cyril & Methodious and lived nearby.

The Melkites and Romanians have sent married men to Orthodox seminaries as well.

Why would an Eastern bishop send any candidate for ordination to a Latin seminary?

And how do you a Latin religious consider yourself Byzantine?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why would a married man require a separate “program”?

Certain aspects of formation will and should be different for married candidates. Much of the current seminary formation focuses on celibacy.

There should also be some form of formation for the spouse.

As far as housing goes there have been married men who studied at St. Cyril & Methodious and lived nearby.

Yes but that is not ideal.

The Melkites and Romanians have sent married men to Orthodox seminaries as well.

Again, yes but that is not ideal.

Why would an Eastern bishop send any candidate for ordination to a Latin seminary?

The only one that I know about went to a seminary that is for older candidates.

And how do you a Latin religious consider yourself Byzantine?

Becuase I am a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic. I fall under Canon 517.2 of the Code of Canons for Oriental Churches.
Canon 517

1. One is admitted validly to the novitiate of an order or congregation who has completed the seventeenth year of age. In respect to other requirements for admission to the novitiate cann. 448, 450, 452, and 454 shall be observed.
2. No one is admitted lawfully to the novitiate of a religious institute of another Church sui iuris without the permission of the Apostolic See, unless it is a candidate who is destined for a province or house, mentioned in can. 432, of the same Church.
   So at my ordination (God Willing) I will automatically be bi-ritual. Now learning how to celebrate the liturgy and getting faculties to do so will take time but I plan on spending that time.

Let me finish with this. Again Canonically I am a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic who is a member of a Latin Religious order with permission of the Apostolic See (through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches). I do not wish to enter into any sort of discussion or debate about the whys and wherefores of this.

If you wish to do so I point you to this sticky thread from the Traditionial Catholicism sub-forum, “Let’s talk about clergy and religious …”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Let me finish with this. Again Canonically I am a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic who is a member of a Latin Religious order with permission of the Apostolic See (through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches). I do not wish to enter into any sort of discussion or debate about the whys and wherefores of this.

If you wish to do so I point you to this sticky thread from the Traditionial Catholicism sub-forum, “Let’s talk about clergy and religious …”

I am sorry if this seems harsh, if you want to discuss this with me I will consider talking about it privately though the private messaging system here.

I put this here becuase on another forum (a Byzantine one) I was so harassed that I had to have posts deleted and I left the forum.