www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Can someone belong 2 BOTH: Roman Catholic Tradition & Orthodoxy?

I wonder if someone can belong to BOTH the Roman Catholic tradition [Latin or Byzantine] - AND - Orthodoxy?

As a Christian, to be 'received' into another Christian tradition, one does not need to be baptized again as ALL baptisms in Christ are recognized by all Christian traditions (as far as I know).

While I do not see any real 'conflict' between the two, can an individual who WISHES to belong to both do so? I am going to make a sort of 'parallel' here while it is not quite the same... - like 'dual citizenship' [I know religion is different ...but bear with me here as I cannot express it any other way] - can there not be 'dual religious tradition' practice in other words if a person want to belong to two Christian religious traditions? If a person wants to feel a sort of embodied 'reunification' of the churches within themselves and their lives, can this be done? Are there any 'rules' which prevent this? If not, could this be a possibility for someone who desires it? In other words, if a Roman Catholic wants to join the Orthodox tradition while not having to abandon the faith tradition their were raised in - can this actually happen? (or vice-versa) and be able to follow the traditions of BOTH in their lives.

I have never heard of anything which could 'prevent' this. . .

Best,

Christine

UPDATE: I found the answer to this from someone working with the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada... the answer to this is: NO.

While the churches meet and try to find ways to unite as one church, there are two differences which pose a problem:

1) The hierarchy - 'administrative' I would call it...;
2) A problem on the views which deal with the Holy Spirit within the Trinity (I have to call him back to ask more precise info as our conversation was rapid and short and I need to get this down properly)

...He stated something to the effect that while these churches are two entities and as long as these issues divide them and they are not united, a person cannot be part of both at he same time.

Hi.

I've many timess (maybe too many) pointed out to Orthodox friends and acquaintances that, as a cradle Catholic, I never left Orthodoxy. (Though having said that, I think I have to add the obvious truth that being a never-been-Orthodox can't be equated with actually being Orthodox.)

TR:

Christ is in our midst!!

Actually no. Both Churches require a person to make a profession of faith that excludes membership in any other body. So a Catholic on making profession of faith "repudiates all his/her former Latin errors and heresies." And an Orthodox on entering communion with the Latin Church makes similar professions--and in the Latin case signs a legal document to that effect.

Bob

WOW! I think such renouncements should be abolished. The Roman Catholic Church often meets with the Orthodox Church toward working on a reunification. . . it seems counter to their goal to have such 'renouncements' in place in my view. . . I have looked at the prayer book of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada for example and they do have two great powerful things in common with us: the Lord's Prayer and the Gospel (even if the Roman Catholic version is that of the Jerusalem Bible, the scriptures are basically the same). In today's world, I would distance myself from using the word 'heresies' between Christian churches as they are ALL founded in Christ. . . So, to, "repudiates all his/her former Latin errors and heresies." is simply wrong to do in my view... it is archaic and to do this to someone who had lived in Christ is wrong (my honest opinion) - one should not be forced to 'repudiate' a religious tradition based in Christ - it is to turn one's back on the sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross for the sake of a different manner of praying Him. . . Churches need to step up to our modern times and not alienate each other by such pronouncements in my view - to force this is in essence to be counter to Christ Himself. . .

Best,

Christ is in or midst!!

While what you say may sound warm and fuzzy, the history of the Church shows a consistent striving for keeping the Faith pure. That is why there were so many struggles for defining just what is the Faith. What you say may also be seen as syncretism, the idea that any and all professions of what it means to be a follower fo Christ have equal value. In fact, there are few that would adopt this view.

While we are here seeking to understand each other, I don't believe that there are any members here who would say they agree with the statement made above. I have met people who call themselves Christian but who believe that the Lord's body was just "a shell" that He adopted rather than what the Church of the first millenium has defined through the period fo the early ecumenical councils. Similarly there are Christians who deny that the Eucharist is sacrificial in nature--something that a study fo the various Apostolic Churches' liturgical books shows is common to a shared Deposit of Faith, even though we remain out of communion with each other.

I believe that this is more than differences in praying. It goes to the heart of what it means to be "in communion" in all its many meanings.

Bob

This could be discussed 'ad nauseum' ...then again, Roman Catholics must trust in the Church that Christ was God made man and He is not a mere 'shell' which he borrowed. The discussion as to why He had an earthly mother can even go into Mosaic Law as a true descendant of the line of King David.

The Eucharist is sacrificial in nature and this is at the very root of the Catholic faith. . . I am not into theology and this is not the ultimate reason for my post. I was looking of 'why' and why not' one could adhere to two religious traditions at the same time.

I am not going to change what I stated before... It makes no plausible sense to me to repudiate a Christian religious tradition while being a baptized Christian to then follow another which accepts this baptism [Recall: 'I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins' (in the 'Symbol of Faith' or 'Profession of Faith') - hence, one Christian faith accepts the baptism received in another Christian religious tradition because of this.] and then turn around and have the audacity to call the first 'heretic.' Heresy is something much more remote today - the days of the 'Inquisition' are over and it is best they stay that way... - and, while the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church work to reunite (and often meet on this issue) if makes no sense at all to me to demand the repudiation of one by the other.

Best,

Christine

Not necessarily.


Please go to the thread above entitled "Who We Are" because we aren't here to discuss the Latin Church, its practices, or beliefs. Please don't be another Latin come here to teach the Eastern Churches how to live and believe. We've had more than enough of that.


Actually it is because there is more here than "two traditions" when you ask the "why" or "why not."

Bob

OK Bob... Got ya... you are right as Orthodoxy has more than one kind of tradition even within it. . .

Roman Catholic and Orthodoxy? Why would anyone want to belong to both? Either is capable of driving you totally nuts. LOL.

You should know better than that being a Byzantine Catholic...
The Vatican has two forms of religious traditions under its pontificate authority:

1) Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite (Their Bishops and Cardinals wear a pointed mitre);
2) Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite (Their Bishops wear a round 'mitre' (not sure of the real name for it).

I do not know where the Armenian Catholic and Coptic Catholic fit in. . .

So... you may as well go crazy too. . .

Crazy is as crazy does. As a Byzantine Catholic who works in a Latin Rite parish, there are too many similarities. The clergy is not any better or worse in one than the other. The politics are essentially the same with the same games played by those lusting after power and status. The people don't behave any better or worse in either. Neither group commits any sins unknown to the other group. Member of one church are no more or less generous than the other. Both churches - include Orthodoxy in that as well - are made up of people. People can drive you crazy since they are more alike than different and tend to behave the same regardless of the church in which they worship.

Actually it is Latin Catholic of Roman Rite (or Ambrosian Rite or Mozarabic Rite)
There is no such thing as Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite and such terminology is offensive at it reduces a holistic tradition of spirituality, liturgy, theology, and discipline to its liturgical dimension alone. It is simply Byzantine Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, etc.

Roman-Rite Catholics (RRCs) can't simultaneously be Byzantine-Rite Catholics.

You stated: (I do not know how to use the 'quote' option in here yet... I tried and it did not work):
Actually it is Latin Catholic of Roman Rite (or Ambrosian Rite or Mozarabic Rite)

My response: It is Roman Catholic of the Latin rite because I belong to it and I do know this. I have never heard of the Ambrosian Rite or the Mozarabic Rite to refer to us. . . and Roman Catholic of the Latin rite has ALWAYS been the term used in our church.

The rest... I do not know because I have seen churches state that they are:
Roman Catholic of the Byzantine rite - so, they DO exist and it is no insult to them! I have even gone to the consecration of a new Byzantine Catholic church on which this is CLEARLY written on the front of the program!

Best,

Christine

They are NOT 'simultaneous' - they are two forms of religious tradition BOTH under the Vatican.

Best,

Christine

Yes indeed - there are MANY similarities and I feel those who bash them in ignorance are harming the churches from within while their respective heads try to work on reuniting. . .

Best

I get it... - you mean because of the word 'Roman' in there... right?

Best

Christine:

There are several Latin Catholic variations, the largest being the Roman. You might find some of them online if you do a google search. Though small, they are legitimate variations found in Europe.

The Eastern Catholic Churches fall into the divisions that came about in the Eastern world as a result of the Concil of Chalcedon (the 4th Ecumenical Council). They mirror the Byzantine Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox families of Churches.

Bob

The Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite are not well known, as they are each used by a very small percentage of Catholics. They do exist however -- within the Latin Church, alongside the Roman Rite. That's why it isn't technically correct to refer to the Roman Rite as the Latin Rite (although it is very common).

I don't want to presume to know their reasoning, of course, but perhaps they are concerned about people who might see "Byzantine Catholic" and not realize that means in communion with Rome.

But on the other hand, as it is their sign could confuse people since "Roman Catholic" is used as a shortened form of "Roman-Rite Catholic".

Here is the breakdown of the types of Catholic religious traditions and the Orthodox [I listed all those I could find]:

UNDER THE PAPACY of ROME are the following Catholics:
Latin Rite;
Liturgical rites
a. Latin (Western) - Actively celebrated:
• Roman Rite [Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite], whose historical forms are usually classified as follows:

• Pre-Tridentine Mass (the various pre-1570 forms);
• Tridentine Mass (groups celebrate various forms of this, the 1962 one being authorized in circumstances indicated in the document Summorum Pontificum)
• Mass of Paul VI (1970–present)

Under the authority of the Papacy of the Vatican and belonging to the 'Church of Rome' are ALSO:
b. Anglican Use (restricted to formerly Anglican congregations)
c. Ambrosian Rite (Milan, Italy and neighbouring areas) [So this is NOT the same as the religious tradition I practice and I was correct in stating this before];
d. Rite of Braga (Braga, Portugal)
e. Mozarabic Rite (Toledo and Salamanca, Spain) [So, again, this is NOT the same as the religious tradition I practice and I was correct in stating this before]
Defunct or rarely 'celebrated' as a 'rite' and are now part of the 'Latin' rite:
• Aquileian Rite (defunct: northeastern Italy)
• Durham Rite (defunct: Durham, England)
• Gallican Rite (defunct: Gaul, i.e., France)
• Celtic Rite (defunct: British Isles)
• Sarum Rite (defunct: England)
Catholic Order Rites (Liturgical Rites - Now part of the main Latin Rite):
• Benedictine Rite
• Carmelite Rite
• Carthusian Rite
• Cistercian Rite
• Dominican Rite
• Franciscan Rite
• Friars Minor Capuchin Rite
• Premonstratensian Rite
• Servite Rite
• Eastern Catholics [In full communion with Rome, but retaining a diverse array of Eastern liturgical rites]
a. Alexandrian;
• Coptic Catholic Church
• Ethiopic Catholic Church
b. Antiochian;
• Maronite Church
• Syrian Catholic Church (West)
c. Armenian Catholic Church;
d. Byzantine Rite (Constantinopolitan) [So, this IS the Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite...];
• Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
• Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
• Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
• Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
• Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
• Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
• Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
• Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
• Melkite Greek Catholic Church
• Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
• Russian Byzantine Catholic Church
• Ruthenian Catholic Church
• Slovak Greek Catholic Church
• Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
• Ukrainian Catholics of the Byzantine Rite [Need to classify this one better here... it likely 'belongs' elsewhere...]
e. Chaldean or East Syrian Catholics
• Chaldean Catholic Church
• Syro-Malabar Church


2. Eastern Christianity
• Eastern Orthodoxy (the churches are in full communion, i.e. the national churches are united in theological concept and part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Orthodox Church)
a. Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
b. Russian Orthodox Church
c. Serbian Orthodox Church
d. Romanian Orthodox Church
e. Church of Greece
f. Bulgarian Orthodox Church
g. Georgian Orthodox Church [Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church]
h. Greek Orthodox Church
i. Cypriot Orthodox Church
j. Albanian Orthodox Church
k. Polish Orthodox Church
l. Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
m. Turkish Orthodox Church (unrecognized by other Orthodox churches/schismatic)
n. Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric (unrecognized by other Orthodox churches/schismatic)
o. Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate (unrecognized by other Orthodox churches/schismatic)
p. Montenegrin Orthodox Church (unrecognized by other Orthodox churches/schismatic); and,
q. Several other autocephalous churches and Patriarchates
• Russian Orthodox Old Believers
• Eastern Orthodox Old Calendarists
• Oriental Orthodox
a. Armenian Orthodox;
b. Coptic Orthodox (Egyptian);
c. Ethiopian Orthodox;
d. Syriac Orthodox; as well as,
e. A portion of the St. Thomas Christians

I hope this helps... So, one cannot 'bunch' religious traditions together. . . Despite that the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic belong to the Catholic Church of Rome under the Papacy, they are not quite the same as the Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite as their religious tradition is practiced differently.

I hope this helps to clarify my point of view. . .

Thank you for your efforts... it forced me to search deeper into things. . .

Best,

Christine

Got ya... I think basically at the end of the day we are stating the same thing but in different ways. . .

For many, Roman Catholic is the same as 'Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite'... However, when you look at the breakdown of the different 'traditions' WITHIN the Roman Catholic Church, I can see where you are coming from... with 'Roman-Rite Catholic'...

I have always taken my religious tradition (and so has my church) as being 'Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite' - so, I guess I could see today I am a 'Roman-Rite Catholic' - the two are the same in essence. . . We use 'RC' [For Roman Catholic] instead of 'RRC' [For Roman-Rite Catholic] however... - you rarely see RRC used by our church ...practically never these days. . .

Best,

Christine

True, I hardly ever use "Roman-Rite Catholic" (RRC) or see it used by others. Personally I usually speak of "Latin Catholics" (LCs) which includes RRCs as well as Bragan-Rite Catholics, etc etc.

Well, I wasn't going to go into so much detail but there's no question that the Latin Church has quite a few rites (even without counting the defunct ones).

Of course, the Roman Rite is used more than all the other Western rites put together.

Your ignorance of a fact does not make it untrue. The Code of Canon Law refers to the western Church by one name: Latin Church. The Latin Church is unique in that it is multi-ritual.

I only wish we could have seen it pre-Trent.

In fact it is the first canon in the Code of Canon Law [vatican.va]:

Today the world is changing and I hope soon I shall no longer be torn by this. . . While I am Roman Catholic, I have always wanted to belong to BOTH religious traditions. . .

I posted this already in the thread under the photo of the Hagia Sofia (Agia Sofia) but am now adding it here as it is relevant to our discussion. . .

Below (at the bottom here) I copied an article which has appeared today, November 29, 2014 in Yahoo News... - I could no longer find the link so I copied the text here for you... If someone can find the link, it would be so nice as my intent here is not to violate any copyright... - yet, I do not know how long this post will be up on the Internet. . . The most important part is at the very bottom where Pope Francis I and Patriarch Bartholomew I, leader of the Orthodox Church in Istanbul, 'participated in an ecumenical liturgy and signed a joint declaration in the ongoing attempt to reunite the churches.' I pray this day of re-unification shall come when the major branches of Christianity unite! I pray Our Lord to grant that I see this in my own lifetime!

The article:

Title:
Pope prays in Turkey mosque in new gesture of Muslim outreach
By Nicole Winfield And Suzan Fraser, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press
Date: November 29, 2014

Getty Images/Getty Images - ISTANBUL, TURKEY - NOVEMBER 29: Pope Francis shakes hands with Mufti of Istanbul, Rahmi Yaran (R) as he leaves the Sultan Ahmet mosque, popularly known as the Blue Mosque, on November …more
ISTANBUL - His head bowed and hands clasped in front of him, Pope Francis stood Saturday for two minutes of silent prayer facing east inside one of Istanbul's most important mosques, as he shifted gears toward more religious affairs on the second leg of his three-day visit to mainly Muslim Turkey.

Following in the footsteps of Pope Benedict XVI who visited Turkey in 2006, Francis prayed alongside the Grand Mufti of Istanbul, Rahmi Yaran, who had his palms turned toward the sky in a Muslim prayer, inside the 17th-century Sultan Ahmet mosque.

"May God accept it," Yaran told the pope at the conclusion of a poignant moment of Christian-Muslim understanding.

The Vatican spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi called it a moment of "silent adoration." Lombardi, who was standing behind the pope, said Francis told the mufti two times that we must "adore" God and not just praise and glorify him.

It was a remarkably different atmosphere from Francis' first day in Turkey, when the simple and frugal pope was visibly uncomfortable with the pomp and protocol required of him for the state visit part of his trip. With President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's mega-palace, honour guard and horseback escort now behind him, Francis got down to the business of being pope, showing respect to Muslim leaders, greeting Istanbul's tiny Catholic community and later meeting with the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians.

Francis nodded, smiled and looked up in awe as Yaran gave him a tour of the Blue Mosque, famed for its elaborate blue tiles and cascading domes. Francis listened intently through an interpreter as Yaran explained verses of the Muslim holy book.

Presenting the pope with a blue, tulip-designed tile, Yaran said he prayed to God that his visit would "contribute to the world getting along well and living in peace."

"We are in need of prayers. The world really needs prayers," Yaran said.

Benedict had visited Turkey amid heightened Christian-Muslim tensions and prayed at the mosque in a gesture of respect for Islam that was appreciated by many Turks. The Vatican added the stop at the Blue Mosque at the last minute to show Benedict's respect for Muslims.

The Vatican also acted to avoid offence to its Muslim hosts by moving up Francis' visit to the mosque so it wouldn't coincide with noon prayers.

After he left, Francis walked a short distance — greeting crowds for the first time in his visit — to tour the nearby Haghia Sofia, which was the main Byzantine church in Constantinople — present-day Istanbul — before being turned into a mosque following the Muslim conquest of the city in 1453. The Haghia Sophia is now a museum, although some Islamic groups want it to be converted back into a mosque.

Pope Paul VI, who made the first-ever papal visit to Turkey in 1967, fell to his knees in prayer inside Haghia Sophia, triggering protests by Turks who claimed Paul had violated the secular nature of the domed complex. Francis avoided any religious actions inside.

Halfway through his tour, the Muslim call for prayer echoed off the Haghia Sophia's marble walls, an evocative moment that symbolized the crossroads of East and West that Istanbul represents.

Museum director Hayrullah Cengiz pointed to a niche with a Byzantine fresco of the Virgin Mary holding an infant Jesus, saying it was his favourite corner because the area also features Arabic writings of the names of the Prophet Mohammed and Allah.

"They are all together," Cengiz said.

A few dozen well-wishers outside Haghia Sophia waved a combination of the Turkish and the flag of the Holy See. One carried a banner that read: "You are Peter."

Francis nearly tripped over while walking the carpet from his plane to a VIP terminal at Istanbul's Ataturk Airport. The governor of Istanbul and Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians, helped the pontiff as he tottered.

Later on Saturday, Francis will meet with Bartholomew — the real reason for his visit to Turkey.

The two major branches of Christianity represented by Bartholomew and Francis split in 1054 over differences on the power of the papacy. The two spiritual heads will participate in an ecumenical liturgy and sign a joint declaration in the ongoing attempt to reunite the churches.

Suzan Fraser reported from Ankara, Turkey.
(An earlier version had misspelt the name of the Grand Mufti)

______

Best to all!

Christ is in our midst!!

I believe that anything written by the Associated Press should be taken with a grain of salt. Secular news outlets are notorously ignorant of things religious and especially Christian. I think the simple explanation of the cause of the Great Schism mentioned toward the end of the article shold be a give-away.

There is a thread on this Board where Father Robert Taft is asked about what we can expect from the ecumenical work and he calls the future relationship "communion," saying that the idea of "unity" is soemthing that did not even occur in the first millenium. You might find his comments a good start in understanding the reality of where this is all going.

Bob

Thank you Bob! I do take the reporting of the press with a 'grain of salt' - however, as I am not a theologian, it is difficult for me to 'assess' where all this is indeed going. . . This does not take away the fact that I do pray for the unity of the Church as ONE Church. . .

In terms of the causes of the Schism I am aware of them - ...and I do know how to read... my religious tradition has not caused me to be blind, deaf and dumb.

Best,

Christine

Recently, I was asked to deliver some remarks at a monastery where my religion students had gone for a one-day visit.

Somehow, I got onto the topic of St Elias and how all those priests of Jezebel were killed after the contest re: the sacrifice.

I then paused and added, "So the prophet Elias could never be a patron saint of ecumenism."

The students didn't get it, but the nuns couldn't stop laughing.

Happy to bring some more sunshine into their lives . . .



Alex

In this modern day and age, can you really say Roman Catholic tradition? What does that even mean anymore?

This touches on a very similar question I have. I was Roman Catholic for nearly 25 years, converting in 1985-6. After almost 10 agonizing years trying to find the most 'conservative' or 'traditional' parish, we finally left and entered the environs of the SSPX, believing we would find authentic Roman Catholicism there. Perhaps outwardly, but we left rather disgusted after just a couple of years. then we bounced back-and forth between the Vatican II "we don't do that anymore" folks, and the traditionalists (even sedevacantists)for an excruciatingly long time. Also spent 4 years in Steubenville with those folks.
Scarred and spiritually confused, we found the strength to change... and became Orthodox. Over time, it became apparent that they too exhibited many if not most of the variety of liberal to traditional venues, with modernists embracing Vatican II's ecumenism and tradtionalists ever splintering into mutually anathematizing "true", "genuine" groups in rebellion. Not too much difference on either side of the Schism (i.e., the mutual anathematizing of Constantinople and Rome for whatever plethora of geo-religious-political 'stuff' (words fail at this point).
So, AFTER 43 years since a most wonderful and utterly life-changing conversion (outside the realm of ecclesiastical chaos) but in the normal course of my little 'life's' events, I NEARLY gave up on finding the Church... NOT CHRIST... but the Church, mindful that the two are truly and ultimately inseparable.
We are now worshiping with the Melkite Greek-Catholics, with some trepidation and many, many questions. And finally, my question:
It would seem to me that in the horrific aftermath of the misappropriations and misapplications (being generous in my terms)of Vatican II... why wasn't there a huge influx of 'traditionalist' Catholics from the Roman Rite into the Byzantine, Eastern catholic churches? If there was one, please let me know where to find more info. To ponder this question DEEPLY, AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS, seems VITAL for someone at our particular level of experience (and I'm sure we are not at all unique in this).
Any and all constructive input, with charity uppermost, would be most appreciated.

Glory to God for All Things!

Ivanov

Well there was an influx of traditionalists when I was heavily involved with the Byzantine Rite in the 1980s. I do not know about before then. I do think they were of a milder variety in that liturgy in English was fine, and they were blissfully ignorant of the specifics of the Byzantine Rite not to be bothered that it was not Eastern to a tee. However, some were admittedly on "for the ride" and would go to a Tridentine parish the moment the Pope allowed it. I do not know how many actually did this. I know that most who attend my old parish are from the Latin rite and are rather conservative, but still prefer the Byz. rite even though now there are Trid. Masses allowed in the area.
Really, for a long time Latin riters saved the Byz. Rite...but for that same amount of time the fullness of the Eastern tradition was often downplayed. I think diehard Latin Trads either died out, or the next generation clings to the Trad. subcultures, of which the are several flavors, alive and well in cyberspace and in reality to a degree.
You may not know this, but I am Greek Catholic, but I attend Orthodox services. I am aware of the modernism and Trad. problem there as well. I attend a ROCOR parish. What I like about them is that they dowplay academics (which can be a playground for modernists and archaeologising trads) and focus more on asceticism and prayer life...and I have found their approach services much "warmer" than the other local Orthodox churches. Since their "rehabilitation" they have also tried to act as a leaven to other Orthodox. Fr. Seraphim Rose noted that the correctness disease and splitting off into purist churches only compounds the problem, and it would have done everybody more good if the tradition minded stay attached to their canonical churches and provide a good influence from within. The are examples of this in other Orthodox jurisdictions, i.e. there are Greek priests much more tradition minded than what I remembered in the 1980s, as well as a number of St. Herman monastery mission parishes which have joined fairly mainstream jurisdictions.
I do not know if such a solution would apply to the Catholic Communion, since it is so large and diverse. I know a lot of Catholics who attend Novus Ordo parishes who strive to be orthodox and faithful to the magisterium, and are probably blessed not to have heightened expectations of liturgy, who
have reverence enough, however, that when they see something "wrong" at Mass grin and bear it. I really think the West lost its sense of liturgy way, way before Vatican II so I do not think there can be the same recovery of liturgical sense as one would find with the Byzantine Catholics. Eg. the fullness of theology is not expressed in the Latin liturgy (new or old), there is a vertical relation between the clergy and laity...these existed for centuries, like a broken bone poorly set.
You, Ivanov, took the right road and focused on Christ That is what we should be doing regardless of our jurisdictional affiliation and it would keep us out of all kinds of party or jurisdictional trouble, mend our schisms and heal our wounds.
Somerset Maughm said a bore is someone who leaves out no details. Sorry if I offered too many details.