There is a an observation in the EC and EO churches that, “tradition means how it was done at the time of my Grandfather’s Chrsimation.” . . . that seems to be what you’re after.
If you want serious tradition, Roman liturgy should be in greek rather than that latin vernacular latin, and the norm is for the bishops of Rome and Byzantium to be in communion. But I take it that you want something more recent than that, but before this serious of anointed popes with whom you disagree . . .
The mildest term for your rejection of RCC teaching on this subject is “uncharitable” . . .
That’s not tradition, that’s antiquarianism. Latin has been used for about 1700 years. Like it or not, that’s the tradition of the Latin Church. Not everything of the early church should be resuscitated. Bear in mind antiquarianism is actually an error condemned by the church.
We tried on multiple occasions but the Byzantines broke the unions twice. The original schism was the fault of both sides but the schism after Florence is squarely on the Byzantines with some help from the Turks. “Better the turban of the sultan than the tiara of the pope” as they said.
I would like to ask what do you mean by active participation. If that means receiving Eucharist, I completely agree that symbol of unity should not be done if there is no unity. If it means visiting often I suppose there can be situations where it is fine. Imagine having Orthodox wife and attending Liturgy with her occasionally (yet often in practice).
However, I wholeheartedly agree that substituting Orthodox Church for Catholic Church can never be good. To have good relations with Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims, Atheists and every human is something we are called to. To support their errors, never.
From Catholic perspective, Eastern Orthodoxy is in error of schism. That is clear truth no one can and should deny. Popes have been charitable and despite schism acted very nicely towards our Orthodox separated brethren but never would imply there is no schism. Pope is guardian of Divine Truth, not maker of it. Pope, from his very nature, can not contradict anything that was true before. What we are called to do by Vatican 2 and recent Popes is to be charitable and nice, not anti-semitic. We are however NOT called to heresy of indifferentism neither to heresy of modernism. Trent is as true as Vatican 1 or 2. To criticize using Trent in debates to make a point would be like criticizing using Bible to make a point. Both are infallible sources guided by Holy Spirit.
In 1990, when my grandmother passed away, my Orthodox uncle & aunt stood like sentinels during the funeral Liturgy. They didn’t say a single word and sat down only for the homily.
When my uncle died, we had to attend his funeral. Full Parastas in the evening, full Parastas in the morning (no Liturgy) and Panakhyda at the grave. We stood respectfully but didn’t even say “Amen” during the service because it would be a sin against the virtue of Faith.
Indeed; as Pope Pius XII wrote in Mediator Dei, para. 62-63:
Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
I would not say that there was fault on both sides; according to the Syllabus of Errors, one is not to hold that “the Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western” (Syllabus, condemned proposition 38).