Do traditionalists consider attending mass at an Eastern Catholic church to be problematic in any way?

Well, the Maronites, unfortunately, adopted many Novus Ordo-isms, including lay lectors, use of vernacular, and Mass versus populum.

Apart from them, I've been to Byzantine and Coptic Catholic Masses and found them to be very venerable rites, and theologically sound.

However, these eastern churches too have been pressured since V2 to abandon "Latinization" of their liturgies and even their prayer and private devotions (discouragement of the Rosary, suppression of the Stations of the Cross, etc).

Of course, one wonders, if "Latinization" is such an abominable evil, why the Maronites have seen fit to adopt so many liturgical innovations created specifically for the the Latin rite's missal...

One wonders about many things in the post-conciliar era...
 

Would you want the Latin rite to have "byzantinzations"? I highly doubt it. Latin devotions have no place in the East. The Latin traditions are not triumphal over Eastern traditions. If Vatican II got one thing right, it was the decree on Eastern Catholic Churches. And I know Maronites who detest the latinizations of their liturgy.

Quote from: BTNYC

Well, the Maronites, unfortunately, adopted many Novus Ordo-isms, including lay lectors, use of vernacular, and Mass versus populum.

Apart from them, I've been to Byzantine and Coptic Catholic Masses and found them to be very venerable rites, and theologically sound.

However, these eastern churches too have been pressured since V2 to abandon "Latinization" of their liturgies and even their prayer and private devotions (discouragement of the Rosary, suppression of the Stations of the Cross, etc).

Of course, one wonders, if "Latinization" is such an abominable evil, why the Maronites have seen fit to adopt so many liturgical innovations created specifically for the the Latin rite's missal...

One wonders about many things in the post-conciliar era...
 

Would you want the Latin rite to have "byzantinzations"? I highly doubt it. Latin devotions have no place in the East. The Latin traditions are not triumphal over Eastern traditions. If Vatican II got one thing right, it was the decree on Eastern Catholic Churches. And I know Maronites who detest the latinizations of their liturgy.

Exactly.  We Byzantines should worship in an authentically Byzantine rite.  This means icons, not statues.  It means nothing like a low Mass without chant or incense.  It means, for the most part, standing during the Divine Liturgy, not kneeling.  There is nothing wrong with low Masses or statues in the Latin rite, of course.  

And I have never once heard a eastern rite priest, Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean or Maronite discourage the rosary.  

Do traditionalists consider attending mass at an Eastern Catholic church to be problematic in any way?

It seems to me this is not a simple question.  

On the one hand, it could be problematic if the Westerner is simply
miserable in the pandemic pandemonium of the West, and is seeking
refuge in his misery, for then he will come into the Eastern Church
with an attitude of "Everything is TERRIBLE over there in NovusOrdo
land!"  The Eastern Catholics are not happy to hear all your miserable
complaints.  They don't want contention to spread amongst them
like a cancer, IMHO.  

Ont the other hand, if the Westerner comes peacefully, and with a
prayerful spirit, and seeks the consolation of holiness and truth and
Catholicity, he may be a very helpful and appreciated new member,
even if he won't be coming EVERY week.  

It is my experience that many Eastern rites have no daily Mass, but
save up their zeal for Sunday Divine Liturgy, which goes on for 2 or
3 hours, sometimes more.  Everything is sung, and LOTS of incense.
The congregation is generally very involved.  They even interact
with each other at one point, which it seems to me, is what the
Newmass tries to import in the "sign of peace" segment, which has
turned into a free-for-all.  This tells me that this interaction has been
rightly preserved in the Eastern Divine Liturgy, somehow, but it does
not belong in the Western Mass for whatever reason.  Perhaps the
Western men get the wrong ideas:  impurity;  and the Western
women use it for the wrong purpose:  banalization and socialization.

Just a hunch.  

But overall, I'd take a stab at this by saying that any problem that
results is not due to the Eastern rites, but rather due to the
Westerner's unadjusted attitude.  A Western way of thinking and
praying and assisting at Mass is not easily fitted into the Eastern
Divine Liturgy.  It takes a willingness to learn something, which
requires humility, and it is all too easy for a Westerner to have a
high-and-mighty way of thinking, as he comes in there, which is
not the right thing to have.

But if he can muster up a healthy dose of accommodation, and
openness to learn some things that may seem impossible at
first (but gradually they become quite simple, with the action of
God's grace), he may well discover an entire universe that he
had previously been ignorant of its existence.

Quote from: tcdvt

Quote from: BTNYC

Well, the Maronites, unfortunately, adopted many Novus Ordo-isms, including lay lectors, use of vernacular, and Mass versus populum.

Apart from them, I've been to Byzantine and Coptic Catholic Masses and found them to be very venerable rites, and theologically sound.

However, these eastern churches too have been pressured since V2 to abandon "Latinization" of their liturgies and even their prayer and private devotions (discouragement of the Rosary, suppression of the Stations of the Cross, etc).

Of course, one wonders, if "Latinization" is such an abominable evil, why the Maronites have seen fit to adopt so many liturgical innovations created specifically for the the Latin rite's missal...

One wonders about many things in the post-conciliar era...
 

Would you want the Latin rite to have "byzantinzations"? I highly doubt it. Latin devotions have no place in the East. The Latin traditions are not triumphal over Eastern traditions. If Vatican II got one thing right, it was the decree on Eastern Catholic Churches. And I know Maronites who detest the latinizations of their liturgy.

Exactly.  We Byzantines should worship in an authentically Byzantine rite.  This means icons, not statues.  It means nothing like a low Mass without chant or incense.  It means, for the most part, standing during the Divine Liturgy, not kneeling.  There is nothing wrong with low Masses or statues in the Latin rite, of course.  

And I have never once heard a eastern rite priest, Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean or Maronite discourage the rosary.  

I've always been suspicious of the Byzantine attitude toward statues.

Their over-developed doctrine of icon veneration seems to me to be an exaggerated reaction against the iconoclasm heresy (which, let's not forget, started in the Byzantine empire and was exacerbated by their caeseropapism) and, in a way, a tacit acquiescence to some of that heresy's tenets: i.e. that three dimensional images are in some way more idolatrous than two dimensional ones... Prior to iconoclasm there was Byzantine statuary, afterwards there has not been... In my opinion, that's a condition that could do with some "Latinization."

(For what it's worth, there has been a good deal of "Byzantinization" in the NO - concelebration, standing to receive Holy Communion, the prayer of the faithful, etc.)

And, speaking of "Byzantinizations," the Byzantines were much bigger offenders in the realm of Liturgical tampering than the "Latinizers" ever were (the Coptic and Syrian liturgies are egregious examples) and this explains why there is pretty much no eastern liturgy extant that has not been profoundly altered by the Byzantine influence in some way, including the very isolated Ethiopians (by way of the Copts).

Yes, even the Mozarabic rite has been tinged with modernism and follows VII changes. (Wait that is rhetorical)

It was a beautiful rite. "Rito Mozárabe".


From about the 8th century the local Roman rite gradually spread throughout the West, displacing the Gallican liturgies, but being modified by them in the process. There are two places in Western Europe where the old Gallican liturgies are still used. The first is Toledo in Spain, the Mozarabic rite. The word "Mozarabic" refers to the Mozarabes, the Christian Arabs, and, strictly speaking, should only be applied to those parts of Spain which fell under Moorish rule after 711. In its present form it is the last remnant of the old Spanish rite. From the 11th century the Mozarabic rite was more and more driven back by that of Rome, and it seemed that it would disappear completely. In 1500 Cardinal Ximenes, the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo who died in 1517, revised its liturgical books, and founded chapters at Toledo, Salamanca, and Valladolid to preserve its use, but it is only in the Corpus Christi chapel in the cathedral at Toledo, founded by the Cardinal, that it is still celebrated today, but with Roman elements and VII changes, in particular the Roman form of the words of institution.
Cardinal Ximenes had a Mozarabic Missal printed in 1500, and a Breviary in 1502.

Here is the 1500 Missal:
Mozarabic missal 1500 AD
 

This is the "current" Mozarabic rite. Bastardized by V2 changes:


Altar girls.. really traditional in the Mozarabic rite

Bad link for the 1500 AD Mozarabe missal

here you go:
http://www.bvh.univ-tours.fr/Consult/consult.asp?numtable=B410186201_I40&numfiche=706&mode=3&offset=6&ecran=0

I would not consider Eastern Catholics for a few reasons:

1.  I am not an Eastern Rite Catholic.  Attendance of Divine Liturgy at a foreign Rite is supposed to be a rare exception and not a rule (unless one resides within the physical domain of the Eastern Rites).

2.  I do not know enough about Eastern Rites to know what is going on.  Thus, I don't know if what is there (at any particular church) is corrupted or if it is the Rite's tradition.

3.  Eastern spirituality (even Eastern Christian spirituality) is incredibly strange to me.  This, I know, is my problem and not the problem of the East, but I simply am not an Easterner and I am very uncomfortable (to a point of great distraction) in Eastern society.  One example of this is that kneeling is not the norm in the East.

4.  Eastern Catholics who are in "full" communion with Modernist Rome cannot help but be a problem when it comes to doctrine.  I do not attend the traditional Mass in a Church where the priest is in "full" communion with Modernist Rome either.

Neil Obstat has very good points above concerning the reasons a Latin Rite Catholic attempting to escape the Novus Ordo may have difficulties.  At this time, the Eastern Rites simply would not be an option for me.

These are perfectly reasonable thoughts from a Latin Rite Catholic, especially a trad one.  

Well, the Maronites, unfortunately, adopted many Novus Ordo-isms, including lay lectors, use of vernacular, and Mass versus populum.

Apart from them, I've been to Byzantine and Coptic Catholic Masses and found them to be very venerable rites, and theologically sound.

However, these eastern churches too have been pressured since V2 to abandon "Latinization" of their liturgies and even their prayer and private devotions (discouragement of the Rosary, suppression of the Stations of the Cross, etc).

Of course, one wonders, if "Latinization" is such an abominable evil, why the Maronites have seen fit to adopt so many liturgical innovations created specifically for the the Latin rite's missal...

One wonders about many things in the post-conciliar era...
 

Actually the use of the vernacular was an Eastern practice long before it was adopted into the Latin rite.