Was the Eastern part of Catholicism spared the Crisis in the Church? No crisis of doctrine, morality, practice, the Faith itself?

Somehow I have a hard time believing that. I'm pretty sure Vatican II was a universal phenomenon -- Bishops from all over the world, of all peoples and races, signed on to the docuмents and went back home and implemented them. We're talking ALL peoples -- black, brown, white, yellow, red, you name it. That INCLUDES East and West.

I think those seeking a "solution" in the Eastern regions of Catholicism think that the Crisis is primarily about the Mass. It's not. I'll give you a hint: even if you're in the East, Francis would still be your Pope. Long story short, the Crisis remains.

I've never been a fan of "going Eastern" as a solution to the Crisis. I'm biased, I'll admit. Born and raised in the Traditional Catholic movement, so I'm a firm believer in the latter.

The idea of a family of white Irish-Germans going to a Byzantine, Russian, Ukrainian, Lebanese, Coptic or any other Rite is kind of a joke to me as well. We're not even 1% any of those Eastern peoples. Why would I go there? There is zero anything suggesting that I *belong* in such a place. It's just not my place. Not my culture, not my language, not my people, not my heritage, not my liturgy. My ancestors went to the Tridentine (Roman Rite) Mass. That's where I belong.

If God wanted me in an Eastern Rite, he would have given me SOME connection to those cultures. But He didn't. Ergo.
(It's not like God couldn't have *easily* arranged that I be born in one of those countries.)

Grow where you are planted, I say.

Somehow I have a hard time believing that. I'm pretty sure Vatican II was a universal phenomenon -- Bishops from all over the world, of all peoples and races, signed on to the docuмents and went back home and implemented them. We're talking ALL peoples -- black, brown, white, yellow, red, you name it. That INCLUDES East and West.

Well, it was and it wasn't.  Just like most NO Catholics know little about what was actually IN Vatican II, they know even less in the Eastern Rites.  I doubt that many of their clergy have read it.  People in the pew noticed the changes almost entirely due to the changes in the Mass.  As far as the doctrine, heck, 90% of the garbage that appeared in V2 was already widely spread around among the bishops and the clergy long before the Council.  And there's no doubt some of that same Modernist contamination in the Eastern Rites, but my take is that it's little different than the Modernist contamination that was already everywhere before Vatican II.

I know that I myself would never have become a Traditional Catholic were it not for the NOM.  Had they merely published V2 and left the Tridentine Mass intact, there would likely be no Traditional movement to begin with.  That's where it all hits home ... in the Mass.  Otherwise, you'd just keep offering and/or attending the Tridentine Mass while objecting to some of the content of the V2 docuмents.

Catherine Emmerick actually referred to the changes in the Church primarily afflicting the Western wing of the Church (i.e. the Roman Rite).

Really, the greatest doctrinal changes in V2 revolved around religious indifferentism, and that was running rampant throughout the Church well before Vatican II.  Even if you're not a Feeneyite, you need to look at what Father Feeney was up against ... overtly heretical statements constantly being made by Cardinal Cushing and a myriad of Jesuit priests that he was battling against.  Some of their statements are as bad if not worse than anything you'll find today, and that dates back to the 1940s.