It occurs to me the strangeness of those who wish to become Roman Catholic but to take with them their own rite (s). From the seventh century on and most especially in the Council of Trent, the unity of the Roman Catholic Church was a liturgical unity and, for lack of a better term, uniformity. Now we find that both Rome and Constantinople are offering converts a way to enter communion and retain the distinctive features of their Western and/or parochial rites.
Perhaps it started with the Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics, who, as most know, have their own distinctive liturgical tradition as well as married priests (but celibate bishops). Anyway, it now has spread to the possibility of Anglicans entering communion with Rome and retaining the distinctive features of their own liturgical tradition and married priests (but not married bishops and married priests only so long as their wives are still alive because they cannot remarry).
Some know that the Antiochians have a Western Rite group within the Orthodox Church - complete with their distinctive liturgical tradition and vestments. Father John Fenton, formerly LCMS, is one such priest in the Detroit area. His parish uses a western rite and even statues. I do not have a great deal of knowledge of this parish and its practices but I know people who know him and have visited his blog and website often.
My point is this -- when you leave the tradition you are in to enter communion with another, why would you want to keep your liturgical tradition? Is not the essence of Rome manifest in the Mass of the Roman Rite? Is not the essence of Constantinople manifest in the Eastern liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil?
I wonder if being allowed to keep the rite is not one way of bringing legitimacy to their lives prior to entering communion with another church and allowing the appearance, at least, that is it not a big change but an evolution both natural and logical. In other words, if I can keep my Anglican rite and priest, then it is as much as saying that it was catholic in both the small c and big C sense of that term. So for the Western rite used by those who enter communion with Eastern Orthodoxy.
If that is how communion with Rome works, then why would Rome not offer a Lutheran rite, Methodist rite, and Presbyterian rite, as well? For these liturgical rites (at least the traditional ones) are fairly close to the Roman rite and no more out of the tradition than the Anglican. This way we can be Roman and Lutheran (insert your tradition here) at the same time (I say this tongue in cheek).
It seems to me as a Catholic who is non-Roman and as an Orthodox who is non-Eastern (that ought to muddy up the terminology waters a bit), that if you wish to enter communion with another church, it must involve, at bare minimum, adopting their liturgical tradition. So if you enter Rome, be Roman on Sunday morning... and likewise Eastern Orthodoxy... These traditions are not doctrinal statements that sit apart from or distinct from their liturgical expression so in adopting the faith, it is expected that you adopt the piety and practice.
Which is my beef with those who want to believe as Lutherans but worship as non-denominational, quasi-denominational, or anti-denominational free churches. If you want to be Lutheran, worship like a Lutheran... (you fill in the blanks for other traditions). Otherwise, why accept the beliefs and reject the liturgical tradition that practices that faith on Sunday morning?
It leaves me scratching my head...