Why or why not

[benjamindt]

I have to be honest, I feel dead at mass in my Latin Rite church. Granted, we are in a temporary building with no pews until we can build the church, etc etc. Many reasons exist why but I experienced a Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite and ever sense I have felt a great pull.

I know I don’t have to “switch” or “change” rites, I can go to a Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy if I want but I feel compelled to change rites, but what would that even mean?

Let’s pretend I can change or have permission, what would be the difference between being a Latin attending a Byzantine rite vs being a Byzantine attending a Byzantine rite?

I don’t understand what I’m feeling, and it doesn’t matter what I want really. If the church says i can’t, i can’t and Glory to God. But even if I could change should I? I honestly don’t feel nearly as close or drawn to God in one as I do the other…

Anyway, I’m severely confused. I just want that feeling every time I go to mass/divine liturgy. And no, I don’t hate the ordinary form of the latin mass, that has nothing to do with it. I love the Church and if She told me I should stand on my head while I recite the Our Father, who am I to argue with Her, but I don’t want to deny what God may be pulling me towards.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I think the Church has caught up with the fact that it’s great to fellowship with other Christians especially around Scriptures and intercessions. Just check out regulations regarding Communion! That’s my take on it!

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Talk to your priest about this, please. I don’t know if the Byzantine rite is one of the 26 rites accepted by the Catholic church. I suspect that you are moved by the solemnity and grandeur of the other church in an aesthetic way. However, your focus needs to be on what actually occurs during the Mass and the centerpiece, Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. I understand what you are saying about the surroundings in your temporary location. My church went through an expansion and renovation that put us in the parish hall for Masses for over a year. Whenever I traveled and went to a Mass in a traditional church, I just loved the total experience but recognized that I worshipped God in the same way and received Jesus in the Holy Eucharist at both locations.

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t know if the Byzantine rite is one of the 26 rites accepted by the Catholic church.

The Byzantine rite is used by all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as by 14 Eastern Catholic Churches, including the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Ruthenian Catholic Church.

 

[RyanBlack]

I have to be honest, I feel dead at mass in my Latin Rite church. Granted, we are in a temporary building with no pews until we can build the church, etc etc. Many reasons exist why but I experienced a Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite and ever sense I have felt a great pull.

I know I don’t have to “switch” or “change” rites, I can go to a Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy if I want but I feel compelled to change rites, but what would that even mean?

Let’s pretend I can change or have permission, what would be the difference between being a Latin attending a Byzantine rite vs being a Byzantine attending a Byzantine rite?

I don’t understand what I’m feeling, and it doesn’t matter what I want really. If the church says i can’t, i can’t and Glory to God. But even if I could change should I? I honestly don’t feel nearly as close or drawn to God in one as I do the other…

Anyway, I’m severely confused. I just want that feeling every time I go to mass/divine liturgy. And no, I don’t hate the ordinary form of the latin mass, that has nothing to do with it. I love the Church and if She told me I should stand on my head while I recite the Our Father, who am I to argue with Her, but I don’t want to deny what God may be pulling me towards.

If you choose to attend an Eastern Catholic Church without being granted a change of ritual church membership, then you will still be bound by Latin Canon Law. If you are granted a formal change of ritual church membership, then you will no longer be bound by Latin Canon Law, but by the Eastern Code of Canon Law, and the particular law of the particular church into which you would be received. So if you continue as a Latin Catholic but worship in an Eastern Catholic Church, you would still be bound by Latin Holy Days of Obligation and fasting requirements.

 

[peter26]

Assuming we are talking about Byzantine Catholic as opposed to Byzantine Orthodox, there is no reason you can not attend, satisfy your Sunday Obligation and receive Communion there. You can exclusively attend there and stop attending your Roman Rite parish if you so wish. You would still be bound to Roman Rite days of obligation, but can satisfy these at the Byzantine Church if they have a Divine Liturgy on that day. Changing rites is I understand difficult, and unless you were discerning a vocation within that rite probably would bring you little benefit.

 

[GEddie]

One can transfer rites, but this is only allowed once in a lifetime. Therefore, I’d say something more than an aesthetic feeling ought to be behind such a course of action.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If you choose to attend an Eastern Catholic Church without being granted a change of ritual church membership, then you will still be bound by Latin Canon Law. If you are granted a formal change of ritual church membership, then you will no longer be bound by Latin Canon Law, but by the Eastern Code of Canon Law, and the particular law of the particular church into which you would be received. So if you continue as a Latin Catholic but worship in an Eastern Catholic Church, you would still be bound by Latin Holy Days of Obligation and fasting requirements.

Just to clarify, normally a Latin attending a Byzantine parish regularly will not miss out on fasting or Holy Days since there are so many more in the Byzantine or most other Eastern calendars. However, there could be a day or two that is obligatory for Latins that we Easterners do not celebrate Liturgy. Also, many Eastern bishops allow their faithful to fulfill the “obligation” by attending the Saturday vespers prior to Liturgy - a Latin attending the Byzantine or Maronite or Syriac vespers would NOT fulfill his Mass obligation. In addition, the Eastern code is a little ambiguous on whether an Easterner attending an Orthodox Liturgy fulfills his attendance at Liturgy, I don’t think the Latin code is as ambiguous.

 

[Intransivert]

I’m with you, OP. I get it. I first experienced the Divine Liturgy about 7-8 years ago, and while it felt kind of unusual and different, it felt divine. Since then, I’ve longed to return full time, but the rest of my family didn’t feel inclined to join me so I stayed where I was. Until about a month ago.

I just realized that I couldn’t take it anymore at my Latin Rite parish. My decision wasn’t about “not being spiritually fed” of any of that cliche nonsense. It was bigger than that. I’ve read Sacrosanctum Concilium. I understand why the Latin Rite liturgy needed a little reformation. But the liturgy at all of the Latin Rite parishes within a one-hour drive from me seems completely devoid of the divine. The parish announcements have the same prominence as the Eucharistic Prayer. The music varies, but generally is very poor. People in the pews are lifeless. It seems as if very few really understand why they’re even there. It’s certainly not like this everywhere. There are vibrant Roman Catholic dioceses and vibrant parishes. But not near me.

Robert Cardinal Sarah in the book God or Nothing says (I’m heavily paraphrasing because I don’t have the book in front of me.) that the liturgy is for God. When we make it about and for us, we destroy it. People leave without having had a deep, personal encounter with the living God.

That has been my experience entirely. For years. And I’m a weak man, desperately in need of God, seeking him with my entire being. I need that deep, personal encounter, at least once in awhile, to keep me going. And I’ve found it at Divine Liturgy.

From start to end, Divine Liturgy is about seeking mercy from and giving praise to God. There’s an unmistakable sense of leaving the world behind and entering into communion with the Divine. I love the Divine Liturgy. It helps me to love the Divine.

 

[benjamindt]

Thank you all and especially intransivert for your story.

Firstly, I do understand the difference between EO and EC and this is a Ruthenian EC Church, so licitness and validity is not a problem.

Secondly, It is not really about aesthetics for me, it is about substance, and as I said, I know there is equality in substance in both an eastern catholic divine liturgy and a roman mass, but there is definitely not an equality in my experiences in either mass/divine liturgy.

I am not advocating at all for a complete removal of the ordinary form of the mass. FYI Just wanted to clear that up in case some of you thought that was my motivation or agenda

I know it’s the same church, and I don’t think I’ll be trying to change even if I was allowed. Perhaps it is the size of the Church?

Maybe the problem I’m having in the experience is that we don’t seem very unified as a people during the mass, whereas there appears to be more unity in the Divine Liturgy.

Maybe in our efforts to retain and gain members in the roman rite that we’ve forgotten or sacrificed things we shouldn’t, and I don’t mean the practice of the mass, I mean in the attitudes and catechesis of the people in the pews, even myself. I don’t even pretend to entertain the idea that I have a clue about God in the big sense, but I swear it feels in talking with others that most people feel as though mass on Sunday and Church in general is nothing more than that morning thing we have to do before sports or whatever.

I’m a catechist and I see it in the kids. Out of 20 we have 1 or 2 that actually enjoy learning and want to be there (9th graders) and the rest seem to act worse in CCD than they do in school (i used to teach high school as well)

Anywya, thanks for participating and letting me know your experiences. I plan to attend the divine liturgies more but I think actually changing rites isn’t practical and it definitely isn’t necessary.

 

[wynd]

If you choose to attend an Eastern Catholic Church without being granted a change of ritual church membership, then you will still be bound by Latin Canon Law. If you are granted a formal change of ritual church membership, then you will no longer be bound by Latin Canon Law, but by the Eastern Code of Canon Law, and the particular law of the particular church into which you would be received. So if you continue as a Latin Catholic but worship in an Eastern Catholic Church, you would still be bound by Latin Holy Days of Obligation and fasting requirements.

Isn’t the first step of changing rites to live according to the spirituality of the new rite for a period of time (a year or more)? How can you do that if you’re required to live by the canon law of the old rite?

 

[RyanBlack]

Isn’t the first step of changing rites to live according to the spirituality of the new rite for a period of time (a year or more)? How can you do that if you’re required to live by the canon law of the old rite?

For the most part, in the case of a Latin Catholic seeking to change membership of ritual church to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, one can live according to the spirituality of the Eastern Churches and still observe the Canon Law of the Latin Church. What is most likely to be a concern would be observation of Holy Days of Obligation. For example, in the Latin Church, All Saints’ Day is November 1, which is a Holy Day of Obligation. For the Byzantine Churches, All Saints’ Day does not fall on November 1, so a Byzantine parish likely will not serve a Divine Liturgy on November 1, unless it falls on a Sunday. In that case, a Latin Catholic seeking to transfer churches would need to attend a Mass at a Latin parish in order to fulfill the obligation, unless he were dispensed from the obligation or living in a country where the obligation has been transferred to a Sunday.

 

[Mongo]

Aesthetics is never just aesthetics. Listen to some Gregorio’s chant and some David haas and tell the difference is ‘only’ aesthetic. Visit one of the old Catholic Churches with the beautiful art and architecture and the. Visit a newer church with white walls and no/ugly art. Is the difference just aesthetic? A loss of a sense of beauty is far more than an aesthetic loss.

 

[benjamindt]

Aesthetics is never just aesthetics. Listen to some Gregorio’s chant and some David haas and tell the difference is ‘only’ aesthetic. Visit one of the old Catholic Churches with the beautiful art and architecture and the. Visit a newer church with white walls and no/ugly art. Is the difference just aesthetic? A loss of a sense of beauty is far more than an aesthetic loss.

Fantastic explanation. I could not express what I was thinking well enough to say it, but this is exactly what I thought and it is completely on target.

 

[GEddie]

Aesthetics is never just aesthetics. Listen to some Gregorio’s chant and some David haas and tell the difference is ‘only’ aesthetic. Visit one of the old Catholic Churches with the beautiful art and architecture and the. Visit a newer church with white walls and no/ugly art. Is the difference just aesthetic? A loss of a sense of beauty is far more than an aesthetic loss.

There should still be more than that behind a decision that is only once in a lifetime, IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA

 

[Mongo]

There should still be more than that behind a decision that is only once in a lifetime, IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA

I agree. Faithfulness to the faith of our fathers is important. But let’s not pretend that asthetics are irrelevant. Beauty, goodness, and truth are inseparable realities. It isn’t just a matter of preference: a mans sense of beauty will determine his sense of goodness and truth.

 

[GEddie]

I agree. Faithfulness to the faith of our fathers is important. But let’s not pretend that asthetics are irrelevant. Beauty, goodness, and truth are inseparable realities. It isn’t just a matter of preference: a mans sense of beauty will determine his sense of goodness and truth.

Aesthetics are not irrelevant, but they are subjective, and should be treated as such. One person may see enduring beauty in a painting by Mondrian while another sees only lines and rectangles.

We ought not wax poetic in equating truth with beauty. Taken to its extreme, given the need some feel to move from the Latin to the Eastern churches (I never hear about it going the other way) and pleading aesthetic experience, would we not have to conclude that the Latin Church was less true?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Peter_J]

Isn’t the first step of changing rites to live according to the spirituality of the new rite for a period of time (a year or more)?

Yes. And in my humble opinion, a few years (or even more) is advisable.

 

[RyanBlack]

There should still be more than that behind a decision that is only once in a lifetime, IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA

It’s commonly said that a change of ritual church is only permitted once in a lifetime. However, that’s not exactly true. In fact, there are certain circumstances in which returning to one’s original ritual church is explicitly permitted. Furthermore, it is my understanding that there is nothing in canon law that prohibits a change in ritual church more than once; rather, second requests are rarely made and are not likely to be granted. However, the two bishops involved could grant such a request if they agreed to do so.

In any case, I agree with those who say that is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly.

 

[Mongo]

Aesthetics are not irrelevant, but they are subjective, and should be treated as such. One person may see enduring beauty in a painting by Mondrian while another sees only lines and rectangles.

We ought not wax poetic in equating truth with beauty. Taken to its extreme, given the need some feel to move from the Latin to the Eastern churches (I never hear about it going the other way) and pleading aesthetic experience, would we not have to conclude that the Latin Church was less true?

ICXC NIKA

Maybe there is a reason why it doesn’t go from east to west. That is kind of my point. There are many in the west that see a problem with the drab and banal aesthetics of the west. They will recognize the fact that God works through material reality to convert men’s hearts, yet they continue to destroy their own aesthetic tradition. Within the Christian tradition there is the idea that God is beauty, and that He is inherently desirable because of himself. If beauty is purely subjective that will seriously affect our perception of God. God is no longer inherently attractive. And can we really make the argument that the good is really good if it isn’t also beautiful?

No one would assert that a David haas hymn is aesthetically comparable to Gregorian chant or an old Catholic hymn. There is a reason why people are inspired by the aesthetics of the east or of a traditional Latin church. It raises the heart to God, which is the essence of prayer. Prayer isn’t just words. I normally go to a Roman rite mass and I have trouble making it through mass without thinking how empty it is because there is nothing to raise the heart to God. It is as if everyone (including the priest) is just going through the motions with the spoken mass and the congregations empty responses. I have to tell myself and make a rational case that there is something more going on. The ark is no longer beautiful and consequently we have been convinced that we can touch it with our hands. Consequently it is ordinary and dispensable. Yet they wonder why there is no reverence for the Eucharist and no need for repentance and confession for the faithful.

Beauty is what God and the devil do battle over and the hearts of men are their battle ground.