www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Why do people change rites?

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.