I found an interesting article about the current "phenomenon" of Roman rites christians, switching to the Eastern Rite.

http://www.reginadoman.com/articles/riteswitch.html

It is good to see that the Latin Bishops in the USA are more willing to accept the change of rite (this has not happenned in many countries), and that the idea of the "superiority" of the Roman Rite is part of history (however, the reasons, are not a change of mind, but the troubles in the Western Church).

What kind of experiences are common in your parishes?
What kind of conversions are more frequent in your parishes, Orthodox becoming Byzcath or Latin people becoming ByzCath?

People change their ecclesial affiliation (not their "rite") for one of three reasons:

1. They are not happy where they are (most frequently Roman Catholic traditionalists unhappy about the "new" Mass, or Byzantine Catholics unhappy about their "old" one).

2. They are marrying a person of the other Church (easily the most common reason).

3. They sincerely believe that the liturgical, theological, and spiritual patrimony of the Church they are joining better expresses their understanding of truth and better meets their spiritual needs (msot commonly found among people leaving one communion for another).

Very few Orthodox join the Byzantine Catholic Churches, except by marriage. A lot of them camp out in our parishes, if there is no parish of their own nearby--particularly if what they seek is an ethnic parish, or one with a specific liturgical useage. A lot more Byzantines become Orthodox, either because they feel cramped in the compromises of our "uniate" life, or because they have some fundamental disagreements with Latin doctrine or ecclesiology (which they feel are also normative for Eastern Catholics). And again, a lot of Byzantine Catholics are camping out in Orthodox parishes, because there are no parishes of their own Church nearby. But even more Byzantines simply give up the struggle and become Roman Catholics, because they've bought into the idea that "Catholic is Catholic", and because Roman Catholic is "Real Catholic", and because it's just so much easier to be Roman Catholic in this country: there are parishes everywhere; five Masses on Sunday, no waiting (and usually one on Saturday evening, so you don't have to miss soccer practice, or can get off early to the beach, or can just sleep in); none of that onerous fasting stuff; nice, short services, with different styles to meet all tastes; cheap tuition for parish schools (a big inducement), and a huge institution to cater to their needs. Of course, the parishes are sometimes huge and impersonal, but a lot of people seem to like the anonymity after the intimacy (nosiness) of smaller Byzantine parishes.

Stuart,

Your words reflect a man who has been in the thicket of church community.

to Stuart K:

"Cheap tuition"? What planet are you living on?
My friends are paying 5x the tuition for their kids in Catholic grammar school that I paid for college. ($5,000).

Mike,

he probably meant to say "they (BC's) qualify for the parish discount by joing the RC parish".

Hey, you all!

Yes, it is less expensive to join a Latin parish to get the school "discount" but be careful: the discount is actually because one donates his/her actual Sunday offerings to the parish. Outsiders, like me, send our children to a parochial school and pay more than double because they don't receive money from us elsewhere, hence the double rate. I am also unaware of any local parochial schools that our eparchy cooperates with like Latin parishes do who have no school of their own.

At our son's current school, there used to be a three tier rate: (1) active parishioners, (2) active non-parishioners, and (3) non-active parishioners, other Christians, and non-Christians. Today, it has been compressed into a two tier system and we pay the non-parishioner/non-practicing Catholic/non-religious rate. At to this the fact that we are also paying for a public school system with our tax dollars that absolutely stinks.

Brother Remie- I can only speak from my own journey to Byzantine Catholicism from Latin Catholicism. For myself, a lifelong active Latin Catholic, the journey was gradual and took many years, actually as many as 15. A gentle tugging and hunger to learn more reached a peak last year when, with the help of the internet, I was able to fully explore the treasures of the east. Around the fall of last year, I went to my first Liturgy and right now I am awaiting final confirmation of my changing of churches. So my own travels, perhaps unique in my parish from what I can see, were not spur of the moment or in reaction to any one event. Rather, they were the apex of a long road, leading to something I had always hungered for. Pray for me as I do all of you,

A sinner
Michael

I've seen that many dissafflected Roman Catholics who start attending Byzantine Catholic parishes finally end up in the Orthodox Church because of the resons you posted.

Is it that people from that background see the byzantine catholic parishes as a "preparation" for Orthodoxy?

After all, they have an environment that could work very well, they can take communion and get acostumed to the liturgical piety of the East.
Specially in the USA, a country which is very diverse in religion and has a lot of "options" (within the Apostolic Church).

In many cases, members of the Roman Rite who attend byzantine parishes face the same difficulties than those who attend the indult Latin Mass, or the FSSP Latin Mass.
I have friends in my native country who have attended the melkite or the maronite parish, and are very happy because they find a liturgy and a cathechesis which is consistent with the traditional faith, and in addition to that, they're in communion with the Pope.

The problem appears when they want to baptize their children, or to get married: "sorry you can't do this here", and they're sent back to the modernist and liberal bishop and their "official" parish. They get dissapointed because they realize that the structure does not protect them from those who previously attacked them, and after some months, they join the Orthodox Church. Somehow, Orthodoxy provides them a protection they couldn't find before.

Remie,

Why didn't your friends change Rites before these situations arose?

Nicky's Baba

Is there anyone here who canonically changed churches from a Byzantine Catholic sui iuris Church to the Latin Church?

I'd be thoroughly fascinated to hear about their "conversion" experiences.

I think the issue of Catholic "transritualism" is a distinct action from those who convert to Orhodoxy. Moving from one part of the Catholic Church to antother is not the same as coming into a new communion.

Axios

Brother Nicky's Baba:

I supose that they didn't know about that of changing rites, it was until they wanted to baptize or marry in that Church. Unfortunately, people aren't as informed as in the USA about these issues (including the priests ), because the information is not avaible in many cases. "Paperwork works slowly and sometimes it doesn't work". I haven't asked if some of them ever tried the paperwork (changing rites), I supose that the negative answer was enough to get them dissapointed.

As Axios said, being Orthodox is a different thing, one of the persons I know from the Melkite Church who returned to Orthodoxy said something like this: "in the Catholic Church people cxan believe many different things, people can still be catholics without believing what the Catholic Church teaches, this doesn't happen in the Orthodox Church."
I don't mean that they didn't have to do paperwork when they became Orthodox (they went to the Antiochian parish, so I don't think they had to be re-chrismated, they were just received). I'll try to get information.

Dear Friends,

I think that Mar Stuart's comments reflect the American experience completely and not at all the Canadian or other.

Membership in a church, for someone like me at least, is more than assent to doctrine or feeling comfortable with a system of ritual and liturgy or even the all-important issue of tuition .

It is a "total" commitment involving religion, culture, nationality, family, friends etc.

My "I" has very little to do with it, or at least my "I" would be greatly affected within the broad system of social relationships in which my religious commitment has its locus.

In this type of situation, I am more likely to change churches only when and if my immediate community would first.

In a sense, it is a form of "cuius regio, eius religio" as held sway in the Reformation, but with the difference that the auctoritas and dignitas of the "regio" is dispersed through a number of people in the social hierarchy I am implanted in.

Even our Latin brothers who come to join us up here, as in the case of my priestly friend in St Catharines, establish a relationship to the Ukrainian community, e.g. by learning the liturgy in Ukrainian and other things related to culture and less to religion per se.

The Orthodox who come to my in-laws' parish do so inconspicuously - they don't, being recent immigrants from a situation of militant atheistic rule, see a great difference between the Churches, and certainly nothing that would prevent them from attending the nearest Ukrainian Catholic Church each Sunday.

What is more important to them is that they are "among their own" who speaka da language, eatta da food and celebrate da holidays.

And just when we all thought our Canadian cultural diversity system was going to break down, in come these new immigrants and infuse new life into our communities!

Oh well, give it a few more years yet . . .

For us, "Byzantine Catholics" are those of us who do well in extremely political situations at the church committee meetings . . .

Alex

Remie,
Who said you could be Catholic and believe anything you want? I think the beauty of the Catholic Church is that there are so many theological approaches to everything. It can at times cause friction, but overall I think it is very helpful and essential for Christ's Body. This is something that I think the Orthodox Churches lack a great deal; there simply aren't as many theoligical approaches in Orthodoxy as there are in Catholicism.

ChristTeen287

Dear ChristTeen,

Well, I think that you may have gone too far here . . .

It is simply just that not every Orthodox jurisdiction appreciates a more liberal perspective than others.

The OCA has sometimes been criticized for perceived liberalism on the part of some of its theologians.

However, there is nothing to suggest the sort.

Intellectuals will always be persecuted and the OCA has produced an excellent group of intellectuals and theologians within the Orthodox tradition, and it has always fostered a responsible and traditional stream of intellectualism in its schools.

Alex

Dear Remie
I was raised Roman, my family background being
French Canadian via Massachusetts.

When as a young married we bought our first home the nearest church happened to be the only
Byzantine church in the entire state. I started attending, loved the ancientness, loved feeling I was worshipping in a very similar manner as the early Christians.

After about 10 years, I thought, Gee, can I become a 'byzantine' catholic? So the paperwork actually went pretty fast. Only about two or three months at most.

On a different note, while attending morning Mass on Monday at the nearest Roman church (my Byzantine priest has Mondays off) I was speaking to a very nice lady whose regular parish is a
Tridentine parish. In our conversation I mentioned my concern that down here in the South we are so outnumbered by non-catholics, we don't have that frequent contact with other catholics, like people up North. She felt that in some ways when a person is around alot of Catholics, like up North (she mentioned Chicago), you are exposed to too many various ideas, not all of which are correct. That sometimes, catholics feel anything goes.

(To ChristTeen, if you are interested in the Tridentine parish, she said it is in Mableton.
I am not sure how far that is from you, I could find out the name, location next time I speak with this lady.)

denise

My thoughts on going from the OCA to the Byzantine Catholic church that follow may sound very opinionated to some as you read them. You would have to know me personally in that case in order to understand how I came to feel the way I do. I apologize if I make any of you uncomfortable by what I say below.

My wife and I came to the Byzantine Catholic church from an OCA parish here in Arizona. There is only one regular OCA parish in the entire state, the other being Roumanian OCA. We had been chrismated here, but over time came to the conclusion that our orthodoxy could be better served by being Byzantine instead. (Besides, my wife was born and raised in Uniontown, Pa., home of the Sisters of St. Basil, and Mt. St. Macrina, though she herself was originally part of a regular Roman parish there.) Our awakening to the world of Byzantine Carholicism has been a breath of fresh air. Our parish is friendly, and joyfully worships together. Everybody sings, too.

The OCA parish in Arizona has about 50 families, but is 50 years old. They are a commuter parish (no one lives nearby), and have never been able to do much to influence the community around them, which is mainly Hispanic. The Byzantines have 3 churches in the state, and are continually adding new parishioners, many from Roman churches. They outnumber the OCA ranks here substantially, are much better organized, and integrate into the world around them much better than the OCA has done. I'd go so far as to say they are much more American.

IMHO, the OCA lacks administrative organization in the west,lacks relevant hierarchical vision within its diocese (has an ultra-conservative bishop, more like you would find in ROCOR), lacks true integration into the community around us, and lacks effective, efficient direction at the parish level as well. It also has Christ the Savior Brotherhood influences that conflict with the traditional ethos of the parish. Not all of these negatives apply to all OCA parishes in the west, however.

Before coming to the Byzantines, we did look at other orthodox jurisdictions. In addition to the above shortcomings (CSB excepted), the others suffer from too much ethnicity. (I'm sure they don't see it that way.) The OCA is, by my observation, the least ethnic of the bunch, but that turned out not to be enough of a difference to matter to us.

I cannot see how Orthodox jurisdictions will make a difference in America until they rethink their notions about what used to work in the old country versus what works here. Given time, some orthodox jurisdictions may merge, instead. Some hope for eventually one orthodox jurisdiction in America, but that's a long way off. There is too much turf being fought over.

My wife and I are both much happier, and our spiritual lives are much more productive since we came to the Byzantines. I look back at my days in the OCA as formative days that led me to an awareness of a greater good that is realized best with John Paul II, without losing our orthodox theology and customs.

This is a complex topic, the matter of conversion from orthodoxy to Rome, or vice versa. Not all answers will be readily understood by everyone, or be regarded as relevant. Please just remember that they served to work for our greater spiritual well-being, and may not always work that way for eveyone else. People are like that, you know?

Dear Jim,

Well, I've obviously misunderstood you - please forgive me!

I think we are all different in what "works" for us at the parish level.

I think what you've said about your experience with particular OCA parishes and ethnicity would also apply to many Eastern Catholic parishes in Canada.

I like to think that we are ALL Orthodox Catholics first, no matter what, and that we then go to find our home in communion with a particular Patriarchate and then parish.

Perhaps that sounds relativistic, but it is not meant to be.

May God bless you and your family in your journey toward Him as you follow the path He has set for you to walk on.

Alex

What a fascinating personal experiences!

About the OCA, I supose the original purpose was to be inclusive, to have the ethnic parishes of course (Romanian, Russian, Bulgarian, Mexican :p , etc)but also non-ethnic parishes for the normal American, However, I've seen the parish listnings and most of the parishes, no matter if they're ethnic or not, have the services in English. However, they've had problems to integrate the new inmigrants from other countries and the ethnic dioceses have the same problem (probably the most succesful OCA diocese in receiving the inmigrants is the Bulgarian Diocese, because they've developped a cathechetical rpogramme, english classes, and a lot of things in the native language).

About the hispanic population, it has been hard for the Orthodox to have estable missions and for us hispanics to understand that Orthodoxy and Catholicism aren't the same thing (not exactly ), the missions aren't stable and the members usually return to catholic parishes because the orthodox churches are scarce in these regions. I've also seen that if there's not a Spanish liturgy avaible, most of us would prefer a liturgy in Slavonic or Greek, than a liturgy in English and that's the other problem.

From your comments I've seen that in Canada or England, the Eastern jurisdictions have remained more traditional and ethnic than in the USA (well in England, I supose it's because they're not so far from their native countries), than the USA (am I right?).

I am thinking about the Antiochian Orthodox Church, for example, where the only-English liturgies and the former-anglican priests are being integrated in many parishes. I'd like to know how the inmigrants (or the craddle Arabs) are feeling those changes...

...or the Ruthenian Catholic Church. To tell you the truth, I don't know if you also receive European inmigrants frequently (If I'm not mistaken, the Slovak byzcath are being integrated in Ukrainian parishes), but do you think that the use of English and the loss of an ethnic sense would not help the inmigrants to integrate?
On the other side, it is good that a lot of American people are finding a home in the OCA and the Byzantine Ruthenian Church.

Encouraging English and minimizing foreign language use in services helps to integrate immigrants into the parish if it is an English-speaking parish in the first place.

Many immigrants break entirely with their native church in order to be assimilated better into american culture, a venture that I do not happen to agree with. There can be a balance between representing ethnic elements in the parish (Food is a great example. , and creating an ethnic club which masquerades as a church. That's the problem I see with many orthodox churches here- they are more like ethnic clubs and less like churches. I don't see that in the Byzantine Catholic church. What little slavonic is used is not enough to interfere with the understanding of English speaking peoples here.

BTW, I don't disagree with Alex about coming from ethnic roots, then on to the church, either. It's just that in the desert southwest it is something of a stretch to recreate little islands of ethnicity that do not connect with the world around them, but if there are enough of the same persuasion who can establish a parish and linkage to the community well and good. For me it is better to know that the church is not ethnic in and of itself, and to work in the world for the Glory of Christ. In the case of the OCA and the Byzantines, my wife happens to be of eastern Slovakian descent, and the cultural ties are strong, especially the food. Both churches could work for us from an ethnic standpoint. That was not the reason we left the OCA.

"Dear ChristTeen,

Well, I think that you may have gone too far here . . ."

Alex,
Do you disagree with my assertion that the Catholic Church has more theological viewpoints than does Orthodoxy? Perhaps this is not true; my point was that the Catholic Church is both Eastern and Western, and has an abundance of both Eastern and Western (and various other little sub-traditions, I guess one could say). It seems the Orthodox Churches are, well, Eastern. This isn't meant to be offensive to the Orthodox, it just seems kind of...well, factual. But if you feel the need, please enlighten me because gosh knows I'm not expert at this subject.

Byzinroswell,

Thanks for the info on the Tridentine parish (it's St. Francis de Sales). I'm actually reading St. Francis de Sales' Catholic Controversies right now. Mableton is about 55 minutes away from here.

ChristTeen287

*...and abundance of both Eastern and Western theologies/outlooks/Traditions.*

From where i stand the Eastern Catholics are going to be a pillar for the Western Catholics. Many things are going on in the Western "Rites" people feel the comfort of an unchanging God in a Church that remains true to Catholic tradition. Didn't your pope say something along the lines of "we need to become more like the east" or something or other....

I think that there is a serious problem when the focus is upon the "Church" or the "Rites" when the reality is the people who practice them.

People can talk about the "Church" as if it were an entity unto itself. It's not. The Church is the summation of the baptized souls who constitute it. It has NO other existence than in the believing baptized souls who come to both worship and participate in the sacraments. To suggest that there is something "essential" about a church -- WITHOUT referencing the people -- is merely an intellectual exercise without connection to reality.

There is a whole massive literature within "ecclesiology" that discusses the reality of "Church" as understood by the "church"; while it may be convenient to work from a simplistic perspective of Union with Pope=Catholic Church, everybody else is "outside", the fact remains that the Church is much much broader than the simple formulations would lead folks to believe.

Blessings!

Dr. John, you are in error. The Church is an entity unto itself. Church doctrine says that the people of the Church are not infalliable, but the Church herself is. This doctrine could not be true if there was no entity of the Church.

Dear Nikolai,

But what about the "Vox Populi" the Voice of the People?

What about the "Axios" sung at ordinations that was originally the "stamp of approval" of the people on a priestly candidate?

The Orthodox Church does indeed teach that the laity have a special role to play as members of the Royal Priesthood of Christ and as part of the Body of Christ.

The two cannot be separated, although we do submit to the teaching authority of the Church.

You seem to have a ways to go in your Orthodox catechumenate, Big Guy!

Spending too much time designing websites, are we?

Alex

Dear ChristTeen,

I guess I don't exactly understand what you mean by "theological viewpoints" and why having more of these would be a good thing!

The Byzantine Church at one point counted nearly 200 heresies emanating from its theological schools and minds. The Roman Church was Orthodox because it had ceased to be a theological powerhouse.

If you mean "Rites" and their spiritual cultures, then the Catholic Church is certainly dominated by the Latin spiritual culture and the comparativey small (and often Latinized) Eastern Churches in union with it can hardly, in my own view, be deemed to set an example in terms of spiritual diversity - although we're getting there.

Orthodoxy, on the other hand is wide enough to accept Western Rites, the Assyrian Rite. There are the beautiful Oriental Orthodox Churches with their spiritual patrimonies that are Eastern as well.

Alex

I suppose I should weigh in on this, since I have applied for canonical transfer?

My experience in the Latin Church had always been very intellectual. There was a certain appeal to this, since I have a science background. My theology was Scholastic theology. For all the intellectual understanding I had, it somehow wasn't enough.

Then I attended a Melkite Divine Liturgy. There was a huge contrast compared with the Latin Mass. You enter into the Liturgy with your whole being. That NEVER happened for me in the Mass.

I began to study more about Byzantine Christianity, but for a number of years I couldn't bring myself to pursue it further. It also didn't help that my mother discouraged me. I remember the day she said, "Why are you interested in that? You're going to become Eastern, aren't you?"

As it turned out, I fell away from the Church for a relatively short time (7-8 months). A Protestant friend of mine demanded that I go back to church weekly. I attended a few Sunday Masses after that, but I still was missing something. I decided to pursue my curiosity about Eastern Catholicism, and looked in the telephone book - and found one Byzantine Catholic parish here in Indianapolis.

I attended my first Divine Liturgy there two weeks before the Feast of SS Peter and Paul. I stayed, only going back to the Latin Church to fulfill a Mass obligation I couldn't fulfill in the Byzantine Church (and I checked with a canon lawyer on this), since I am still subject to Latin canon law.

The Byzantine Rite has in it a sort of built-in mysticism that is missing from the Roman Rite. That is important to me because of my strong inclination to intellecualism.

So why did I apply for the transfer? The best analogy I can think of is of falling in love and wanting to get married.

Dear NDHoosier,

Getting married?

Remember that we Byzantines do everything three times!!

Alex

I have to say that this is very, very odd, because I personally know many folks named in that article, including the author, quite well indeed.

In my experience, most of the folks from the Latin Church came to the Melkite parish mentioned in the article out of some sense of discontent with the Latin Church, often due to liturgical "issues" with the Latin Church. They were disproportionately conservative, religiously and politically/socially -- perhaps this was egged on by the fact that a group of them had close personal ties to Paul Weyrich, one of the deacons there (who has the temerity to pass himself off as "Orthodox" --- yup, with a big "O" and all -- to the media). Many of them remained very critical of the Latin Church and many of its usages and theological expressions. Most of them remained Catholic either because (1) personal family ties that they did not want to sever -- if even spiritually -- by joining the Orthodox Church, (2) a perception that their Melkite parish was superior to the local Orthodox parishes and (3) personal ties in the Melkite parish to the pastor and other parishioners. There were a few ex-Orthodox -- Arabs who married Melkites. There were also a few of these in the other direction -- ie, Arab Melkites who married Arab Antiochians. I did not personally know any lay ex-Orthodox in that parish, but there may have been a few who I didn't know at the time (the parish was much larger than most Eastern Orthodox parishes) or who have since landed there. I did know a few ex-Protestants in the parish -- some (not all) of them are there because it is a kind of compromise between Orthodoxy (where they wanted to go) and Roman Catholicism (where their spouse comes from). Traffic in the other direction -- ie, from Melkite to Orthodox -- was fairly common, even in the few years I was there, and since becoming Orthodox I have met even more "alumni" of that Melkite parish in the local and regional parishes of various Orthodox jurisdictions -- both lay and clerical.

One should also note well that Fr. Constantine Belisarius, who previously headed a small Melkite community (it lacked canonical status, AFAIK) in the vicinity of Front Royal (which is in the vicinity of the author), is quite a controversial figure indeed. In fact, I recall that the Ruthenian Bishop explicitly forbade members of his Eparchy from attending Fr. B's community in Front Royal, in spite of the fact that he was present there with the blessing of the Melkite bishop. Ah, so much for the joyous relations between the churches of the Catholic communion.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Yes, not all of them are so "joyous!"

But we would be overjoyed if you came to Toronto!

Who knows? Perhaps you could start a new wave of movement from Eastern Catholic to Orthodox here?

(Do the Orthodox give medals or honours to those who bring in fresh converts? If so, I think I should qualify for one too . . . )

Alex

To NDHoosier
as far as I know, attending Byzantine Liturgy
'fulfills' your Sunday obligation. A Catholic church is a Catholic church.

Before I transferred from Roman rite to Byzantine Rite (or church, if that is more correct), I attended Sunday Liturgy for years at Byzantine.
My priest was aware we were Roman and never said
attending Byzantine did not fulfill our obligation. Heck, half our parish is Roman and have attended for years.
denise

Alex,

I believe that the Catholic Church is just as "wide" as the Orthodox Church when it comes to rites. The Catholic Church has 8 very distinct rites (is it more if you count Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc. or are those already counted). Yes, the Catholic Church is quite dominated by the Latins, but I truly believe this is ever-so-slowly changing. Similarly, it seems that the Orthodox Church is dominated by Russian and Greek traditions. (When I said Orthodox Churches, I did not mean to include the Oriental Orthodox Churches...I will try in the future to adequately differentiate between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox).

By "theoligical viewpoint" I mean, well, different views on theological points such as the Eastern/Western understanding of the Holy Spirit, the Immaculate nature of the Theotokos, the Pope, divine worship, the afterlife, etc. "Theological viewpoint" isn't a great term for this, I know.

ChristTeen287

You are right. However, it may not fulfill a Holy Day of Obligation other than Sunday.

Example: Nov 1 is the Feast of All Saints in the Roman Calendar. In the Byzantine Calendar, it is the feast of SS Cosmas and Damian. Since the two calendars are not coincident, I cannot fulfill the obligation for All Saints at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and must do so at a Mass of the Latin Church. Upon completion of my transfer, this situation will no longer pertain.

This is according to both a former Latin Church diocesan Judicial Vicar and our own Anthony Dragani.

I know it sounds legalistic, but I'm a by-the-canon-law-book kind of guy.

"...I cannot fulfill the obligation for All Saints at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and must do so at a Mass of the Latin Church. Upon completion of my transfer, this situation will no longer pertain.
I know it sounds legalistic, but I'm a by-the-canon-law-book kind of guy."

Well this is what I don't catch.
We all know that both the Old Latin liturgical books, and the liturgical books and calendar of the byzantine Church (and any other rite or Church) do have their special readings, and texts of the liturgy for every fest and day (what the Latins called the Propium right?)

...but I've noticed that with the modern catholic calendar, people may not expect to attend a special mass for the fest they celebrate. From what I've seen here, most masses are "communitarian" masses (I don't know if this is the right term) and even at important fests, the fest is not mentioned (I don't know how accurate this can be).

So, it's hard for me to understand the legal scheme they have.

This may be one correct interpretation from the judicial point of view but the pastoral viewpoint is to simply follow the calendar of the Church you are participating at. That is, if you are a regular active member of a Byzantine parish then you should participate as if you were a Byzantine Catholic. It makes no sense to immerse oneself in the life of a parish and then to go to another parish just to meet a legalistic requirement. The only incorrect viewpoint here would be for those who would skip liturgies on Roman Catholic holy days because one is attending a Byzantine parish and then to also skip holy days at the Byzantine parish because one is technically a Roman Catholic.

Also, the advice you have been given about fulfillment of a Roman Catholic obligation at a Byzantine parish is incorrect. Roman Catholics may fulfill their obligation to attend Mass at any Catholic parish even if that parish is not celebrating the same feast. First preference for attendance at the Divine Liturgy / Mass should always be given to one’s own parish.

Dear Administrator,

So you are saying the RC Church is the original "Mass Society?"

Have a great weekend . . .

Alex

Perhaps it is better to say that the Catholic Church is Eastern and Western, and has an abundance of both traditions...now.

After the Schism, East and West were separated. So yeah, the Orthodox Church was Eastern, but the Catholic Church was not Western and Eastern; it was just Western. But with the advent of the Eastern Catholic Churches, that began to change, sorta. Now I don't pretend to be an expert on the Eastern Catholic Churches or how they were formed, but I do know that, at least in India, Rome went out of its way to bring the existing Church *under* Rome.

So how much can be said for the Catholic Church being both Eastern and Western when, the predominance of Latin Christianity notwithstanding, that Eastern character was gotten through less than noble means, and that starting only about five hundred or so years ago (round number, could be wrong)?

With regard to distinguishing the Oriental Orthodox Churches from the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it would be best to simply use this terminology, without distinguishing between "the Orthodox Church" and the Oriental Churches, as if we were not and are not Orthodox.

The Catholic Church has always been both Eastern and Western: there were/are Eastern Christians (such as the Maronites) who have always been part of the Catholic Church, and have never separated from it. However, the Orthodox Churches have not always been Easterna and Western.

ChristTeen287

The Maronites like to say this, but it isn't substantiated by the facts, which are that the Maronites originated as a "Melkite" Antiochene community around the Monastery of St. Maron (or Maroun), which accepted and maintained the monothelite christology endorsed during the reign of Heraclius I. They were driven into the Lebanon by the invasion of the Arabs, where they were separated from all other Christian communities. When the Crusaders arrived in the 1090s, they were welcomed as deliverers, and rapidly accommodated themselves to Latin theology and doctrine. The original documents establishing communion between the Maronites and the Church of Rome refer, obliquely, to the "renunciation of all heresies"--meaning (a) that in all likelihood, they were still monothelites, but not strongly devoted to the doctrine; and (b) being monothelites, could not have been in communion with the Church of Rome, unless that communion had been severed during the reign of the lamentable Honorius I. Furthermore, the establishment of communion with Rome, and renunciation of "traditional" Maronite beliefs, was not universally accepted in that community, so that within a century there were competing Maronite patriarchs--one latinizing, the other not--and the latter had to be suppressed (with much bloodshed) by the Latin forces in Outremer.

Now, if you want to point to an Eastern Christian community that has always been in communion with the Church of Rome, one has to look to the Italo-Greek (later Italo-Albanian) Church of southern Italy, which was formed when the Byzantines reoccupied Naples, Calabria and Sicily during the reign of Justinian. These remained under Byzantine jurisdiction, off and on, until the area was conquered by the Normans and passed into the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. They remained distinct, with their own bishops, until the Middle Ages, when they were placed under Latin ordinaries, but somehow managed to survive intact until modern times, when they were reestablished as a distinct ecclesia sui juris.

Dear Mor Ephrem:

Apart from the time-line, addressed by others, there is another aspect of your post that IMO deserves comment.

There was a variety of modes and means, some less noble and other less ignoble. So how much can be said, now? This comment from Fr. Taft addresses a perspective than is certainly much harder than yours, but still worth posting.

http://www.jbburnett.com/mods/taft-unia-kelly2000.html

Again this comment addresses a perspective that goes far beyond yours. Nevertheless, I think it also implicitly makes the point that the embrace of all rites and tradtions of early christianity in the Catholic church now, cannot - in fairness to those who are voluntarily a part of that communion now - be disparaged on the basis of its mode of origin.

djs

Dear ChristTeen,

The estrangement of Western Christian liturgical traditions from Orthodoxy occurred as a result of doctrinal issues, rather than any desire of the Eastern Church to be "Eastern only."

We know there was a Benedictine monastery on Mt. Athos, as well as an Armenian monastery - whose ruins can still be seen.

But even then, the Orthodox Church maintained a high esteem and veneration for Western saints and their devotional life.

The Rule of St Benedict is an approved monastic Rule within Orthodoxy and always has been.

And during the time of the Kyivan Baroque - as well as the time of St Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain - western devotions, spirituality and spiritual texts were studied and practiced among Orthodox Christians.

St Nicodemus translated a copy of the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius - this is still to be found among the spiritual books of Mt. AThos.

The "Unseen Warfare" that is so popular in the Orthodox East is actually a double remake of a Latin text written by an Italian priest . . .

St Dmitri of Rostov and others practiced the Rosary, Way of the Cross and many other Latin devotions.

So the Orthodox Church has always had a connection with Western spiritualities throughout.

Alex

Slava Jesu Kristu,

At least for me, the Eastern Church speaks to me at a deeper level than the Western. This is in no way to the imply that the West is not deep, it is simply that the Eastern praxis reaches me better. I think the arguments around Holy Days of Obligation are somewhat misplaced for the Easterners. In the Eastern Church there has never technically been a penalty to not attending Liturgy. (Of course, in fear of your immortal soul, who wouldn't want to attend?) I think the idea for Byzantines crept in after the first groups began to return to Rome. With it, consequently, the calander issues. In my opinion, Eastern Catholics should always follow their own calander even if attending a Roman Church. One can always offer the intention of the Mass for whatever Eastern Feast it happen to fall on. Otherwise, I fear we risk being absorbed by our big brother. Just a few thoughts on the matter..

Dmitri

Thanks for the info StuartK and Alex.

Alex, I did not mean to imply that Orthodoxy has separated itself from Western Christian theological expression, voluntarily or otherwise.

Where is Mt. Athos located, and what's the history behind it? I've heard a lot about it but never really delved into it.

ChristTeen287

I do not question the right of the various Eastern Catholic Churches to exist, not at all. What I do disparage is the way it happened, at least in India (I don't know much about anywhere else, so I really cannot say). And what I do question is the notion that the "Catholic Church" was always Eastern and Western. After the Schism, it was almost exclusively Roman, with the exception of the Italo-Albanians, the Maronites being somewhat disqualified by what Stuart brought up...but even with the Maronites included among the number of those who "never" broke communion with Rome, you cannot say that the Catholic Church has "always" been Eastern and Western, anymore than you can say that, because of the Western rite Antiochian Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has "always" been Eastern and Western.

Mor Ephrem,

Yes, since the split, the Catholic Church has been primarily (but not wholly) Western. However, in terms of the number of adherents, I don't think the Church has ever had a totally equal number in each tradition. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Western Rite services of the Antiochean Orthodox Church fairly new inventions (or reestablishments, whatever one may call them.) They haven't always been part of Orthodoxy, right?

ChristTeen287

Dear Christ-Teen:

The Antiochian Orthodox Church has approved only two versions of the Western Rite:

1) an English translation of the Tridentine Latin Rite with some corrrections and a byzantine epiclesis (named after St Gregory)

2) a corrected version of an Anglican Prayer Book with numerous byzantine corrections and some prayers borrowed from the modern Catholic Mass (they call it "Liturgy of St Tychon)

In your web search you'll find lots of "jurusdictions" offering the "western rites" such as the "sarum rite", the "Celtic rite", "Galican Rite". None of them is canonucal and most of them are not true Churches. Those rites are very much like "do-it-yourself" rites, invented liturgies and re-creations of ancient rites, pure liturgical fiction.

The Tridentine Mass is perhaps the rite which had suffered less changes through the history. It is thought that the Roman Latin Mass which was celebrated at the time of the schism was similar to the Tridentine Rite (it's important to say that there were a lot of local variations of the Latin Rite in the West. The reform of Trent established unified rite).

However, it is clear that the development of this rite had nothing to do with the Orthodox East and that the existence of Western Rites has a problem of legitimacy (there's a good article by Father Schmemann about this).
The Tridentine Mass as we know it now (and the Antiochian translations come from this version)had suffered very important reforms (not so visible in the rite itself but clearly reflecting the doctrines of the Latin Church). The first of the reforms occured almost inmediately after the schism! and the second reform was the reform of Trent at the time of the Protestant revolts. These reforms occured in times of severe crisis of Faith in the West and have nothing to do with the pre-schism Church.
But we can deny that it is an ancient liturgy.

The second liturgy, named after St Tychon was clearly deficient. First of all it comes from a Protestant Church and we have no doubts that Protestantism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Since its creation, that Mass was full of the spirit of Protestantism. It had to be corrected with Russian Orthodox liturgical texts (if you read it you may notice that it looks a little bit like an abreviated Liturgy of St John Chrisostom + some latin prayers). It is a blend of texts and liturgies, seen as an unaccpetable liturgical fiction.
The Orthodox Bishops of other jurisdictions were very critical. The Greek Orthodox Bishop of St Francisco issued a letter discouraging their faithful to attend those parishes and forbiding the concelebration with those priests.
Recently, the AOC recommended the Western Rite parishes to use the Mass of St Gregory and the use of the second one was suspended (a revision is needed).

Remie,

Thanks for the information. I've read the Liturgy of St. Gregory, and it's almost identical to the Tridentine Mass.

These "rites" haven't always been a part of Orthodoxy, right? Aren't these unique to the Antiochean Orthodox Church? Weren't they recently implemented?

I have always heard Western Catholic theologians state that both the Tridentine Mass and the Byzantine Liturgies have been in use, or at least their seeds have been in use, since about the 4th century. I was under the impression that the Western liturgies are as ancient as the Eastern ones; does this hold true? Thanks for the input.

ChristTeen287

These "rites" haven't always been a part of Orthodoxy, right? Aren't these unique to the Antiochean Orthodox Church? Weren't they recently implemented?

As far as I know, the AOC is the only canonical Church with approved Western Rites, but the WR movement's roots are not Antiochian.
Some Anglican priests and theologians from the anglo-catholic faction thought that it was possible to become Orthodox, they had the idea of the Western Rite. According to some sources, St Tychon approved a corrected version of an Anglican Prayer Book (the "Liturgy of St Tychon"), but it was never implemented.

In the 70's, some disafflected Episcopalian Congregations in the USA were received by the AOC (entire parishes, sometimes)and that's the WR vicariate.

This is their site, it's cool.
http://www.westernorthodox.com/

The history of the "Tridentine use" liturgy remains as a mystery. It is strange cause most of he WR parishioners are former Episcopalians and not Latin Catholics. Maybe they tried to atract some Latin people who were aloenated by the liturgical reform in their Church but this hasn't happenned.
Anyway, I don't think that many Latin Traditionalists would feel atracted with the L. St Gregory (although it has the text of the Tridentine Mass): it is in English, the hymns look very much like Anglican (and sometimes, very modern), the sermons are often "modernist" (I was told that it is in fact a Tridentine Mass that looks and sounds like the New Mass).