www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Latinn Rite attendance at Byzantine Rite Church

Would a Latin rite person who regularly attending an Eastern Rite Church, and accepts their beliefs and practices, find themselves in any way in conflict with the Latin Rite? One example might be that some Eastern Catholics see the Pope as separate among equals in regard to other bishops. Their are probably other issues that don't come to mind. It is obviously acceptable to receive communion within either rite, so I do not see that as an issue.

There is no issue to see.

JW55:

Christ is in our midst!!

First of all, I think it's best to keep in mind a saying attributed to St. Seraphim of Sarov whe one starts to ask this type of question.

St. Seraphim said, in essence, that all the practices we do as Christians are not ends in themselves. They are means to the end of acquiring the Holy Spirit of God within us. All the practices and all the rest are merely the means. And we need to remember that.

I am a Latin Catholic. I have studied the Eastern Churches and been a member at one point in my pilgrimage. The tussle back and forth over who is the highest ranking bishop or how he is related to his brother bishops doesn't even penetrate my day-to-day struggle to stay faithful to the Lord and His teaching. I've got more immediate things to struggle with. Keeping an example for my children, my brethren in my parish, my colleagues at work, etc., all keep me focused on more mundane things than who is the boss bishop.

And I take something from my father, who was Lutheran, with me. He said he didn't much care what a man did on Sunday morning. It's all about how a man lives his life the rest of the week from what he's gained on Sunday morning. There are a lot of folks I've run across who must spend their Sunday morning figuring out how to stick their neighbor from the way they live--probably the only time they have from actually sticking everyone they can the rest of their week.

So go to Mass or to the DL and remember that this activity in which you are immersed is the only reality we have here on this earth. It's where we meet the living Lord in the breaking of the Word and Bread. It'w where we are plunged again into His Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and where we meet Him coming humbly again to us as our nourishment.
Bob

I really really like this last paragraph! Father reminds us of this frequently.

No conflict, depending on what direction you see yourself taking. For myself, I'm trying to grasp, as fully as possible, Eastern Catholicism. This is to say, I'm trying to get in tune with it all, and not just to experience the rite, for the rite's sake.

Bob might have said it better, but for pete's sake, everybody should stop worrying about all this junk and just go pray, because, you know, the Holy See's probably not going to have you consulting on the papacy any time soon.

Agreed, JDC.

If one's view of the Pope is different from the Roman Catholic view of the Pope, then one is not Catholic. As Pastor Aeternus states, those who do not accept those views are anathemized.

Gee, so much for dialogue. I suppose, then, that my entire Church has been anathematized.

I guess hell is going to be full of Romans who haven't signed the Pastor Aeternus pledge, myself included. I think we can finally solve this whole thing about whether Orthodoxy or Catholicism is the true church. We can set up one of those Old Testament style competitions. We can put ConstantineTG and haydukovich, who is posting on the Christian East and West thread, in a cage and see who walks out. Maybe we can rent to Colosseum for the event.

Honestly, absolutist pronouncements add little to the discussion.

I don't think so. For every canon that says Latin Catholics must believe blank, you can find a canon that says that Eastern Catholics must believe blank.

You obviously don't know Constantine.

So ... you don't believe in having dialogue with anyone who has been anathematized, or what?

I meant it guys ... don't make me quote Bulgakov again!

As a Latin Rite Catholic who has only for some months now begun to experience Eastern Catholicism, I perceive subtle differences that I would not necessarily identify as conflicts.

With respect to the precise character of the office and jurisdiction of the Pope, it seems to me that different Eastern Catholics might entertain somewhat different notions, if only subtly different notions within a range of loyalty to the position of the Church, if they were forced to think about the matter or to opine on it.

My own perception of the role of the papacy in the context of the hierarchy of the Church, has, I think, been broadened on account of my encounter with Eastern Catholics and with Orthodox Christians insofar as they are keen to point out that once upon a time in history, the Roman Patriarchate did not really claim or practice the direct, universal jurisdiction which characterizes the papacy of today.

That style of monarchical and unilateral leadership from the Patriarch of Rome that we are familiar with today is not traceable to the origins of the office, but has evolved as such, often with political implications. I don't think it would be a disloyalty to accept the current position of the Church regarding the papacy while at the same time refusing to be in any way scandalized should the current position be someday modified to embrace a more ancient understanding of just what the Patriarch of Rome meant to the Church back in those times when the Church was still One.

I think there is a way for Rome to maintain her formal doctrine of universal jurisdiction in theory while at the same time relinquishing the idea in practice, in favor of a more ecumenical approach to governing that could be acceptable to the Orthodox Church. In essence, the papacy would still, theoretically, regard the Roman Patriarchate as one infallible guarantor of authentic teaching (the other...and more august...infallible guarantor being, of course, an Ecumenical Council of the Church), while at the same time surrendering to the notion of decentralized government, shared responsibility with the other patriarchs for decisions which face the whole of the Church (but for which the convocation of an Ecumenical Council is not necessary), and appellate, rather than immediate jurisdiction, in matters that require some judgment or other (but not without the input of the other patriarchs).

I think there is a sense in which the Eastern Catholic is probably better attuned than the Roman Catholic to possibilities for change regarding the papacy's approach to leadership within the universal Church. And it occurs to me, too, that, since the papacy itself has opened the doors to dialogue concerning its own character, Roman Catholics should feel free to imagine various possibilities for future modification of the role and behaviour of the papacy, without worrying that they might, in so doing, be guilty of any disloyalty to the papacy.

If the papacy, itself, is willing to take a look at itself and listen to the thoughts of the Orthodox about modifications in papal behaviour that may one day seem to make sense, then I see no reason why I should not likewise be able to speculate about such possible modifications, guarding, of course, all due respect and reverence for the Church's position at the moment, and bearing in mind that there is a difference between hope for eventual good changes and renewal that make sense, and a spiteful, revolutionary attitude that has no respect for the present mind of the Church, and no patience for the Church's slow pace of reform.

So, no, I don't see conflict, at all, but rather a more nuanced approach and perspective.