Of course Catholics should know more about all of the church's rites. Before Vatican II, educated Catholics such as Adrian Fortescue and Donald Attwater, and the liturgical movement, were trying to make that happen. Fulton Sheen became biritual, celebrating in the Byzantine Rite. There are Attwater's books, Cyril Korolevsky's biography of Andrew (Sheptytsky), and a picture book called "These Are My Rites." The mind of the church is apparent: Eastern as well as Western. Because the church doesn't force me to choose Eastern over Western, I'm in it.
A Catholic Church that is majority Eastern? (As things are, all Eastern Catholics are 2% of all Catholics. No wonder most Roman Riters have never heard of them.) Fine with me, since the rites are still traditional. That I understand. The different theological schools of thought go over my head but I trust the church and know they're fine.
As a former Episcopalian (born into it) in the traditional Roman Rite I tend to agree that the Latin Church is ex-Protestants' heritage but of course I also agree with the majority here that some Westerners are called to be Eastern. I think we should canonize Andrew (Sheptytsky) and make him their patron.
Being entirely Eastern doesn't necessarily mean being anti-Western; the former minus the latter is what I believe is the authentic Catholic position and one of the church's selling points for me. Some convert Eastern Catholics' enthusiasm for the East is sometimes mistaken for anti-Westernism by well-meaning Roman Riters. (Although I have never met a conservative Catholic in person who thought that way about loving the East.) And, sometimes exacerbated by some thoughtless churchmen, sometimes it does sour into anti-Westernism and the person usually leaves the church for Orthodoxy. That doesn't lessen the church's enthusiasm for the East. I know that a lot of Catholics aren't enthusiastic about it, but I am referring to our teachings.
I agree with Stuart on getting rid of faux inculturation. Nothing wrong with recovering old Western rites, but it seems unnatural and quixotic if the rites (or, in Sarum's case, a recension of the Roman Rite) are extinct. (Actually in the 1800s the Catholic Church was interested in reviving Sarum at Westminster Cathedral but the English Catholic bishops didn't want it.) I understand from other threads that his idea is essentially to high-church the Novus Ordo along those lines (dump the guitar Mass and go strictly liturgical) and forget about the old (Tridentine) Mass, which is a valid opinion. Mine is that the old Mass is better.
(My view is in 50 years the Catholic liberals will be dead so traditionalists and conservatives will be all that's left, so the old Mass has a shot at being the majority in the Roman Rite again.)
...personally I would never leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy (or Orthodoxy for Catholicism).
Fine when it's rightly understood. Not indifferentism or two true churches (illogical: Anglican branch theory), but rather, the church gives born Orthodox the benefit of the doubt; they are estranged Catholics not personally guilty of schism, so with the church's goal of bringing all the Orthodox back, it doesn't try to convert them individually. At the same time, because of the true-church claim, it does accept
such conversions - as the late Fr. Serge (Keleher) said to me, quietly