www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dr. Carroll at it again

The current controversy is over infant Communion in the Eastern Churches. Dr. Carroll thinks the West has a better method by making children understand before they receive. Where does this rationalistic approach leave the Grace babies receive at every Holy Communion? Where does this leave people who are autistic and can't "understand". Most importantlu, none of us should be receiving under this criterion, because we will never truly understand one of the greatest Holy Mysteries of our Faith. That is why it is a mystery.

In Christ,

Joseph

It is not a controversy. Each tradition has its own practice. Eastern Catholicism exists not because we are a body of people who believe we have "a better method" than the Latins, but because this is the patrimony we happen to have by historical accident.

Theologoans and intellectuals might find great insights by comparing and constrasting the different practices of various patrimonies. But for the vast majority, we know the Catholic faith via a particular patrimony and can find salvation without knowing of any patrimony but our own.

K.

Kurt,

I'm a new convert, well almost. But don't we have a stronger reason that "patrimony" for infant confirmation and communion. Seems pretty week to me. Moreover, where do I as a convert fit in. Being tenth generation American whose distant anscestors never saw Central or Eastern Europe am I left out in the cold. My poor anscestors came from the border of France and Germany.

Dan Lauffer

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurt:
[B]It is not a controversy. Each tradition has its own practice. Eastern Catholicism exists not because we are a body of people who believe we have "a better method" than the Latins, but because this is the patrimony we happen to have by historical accident.

Well Kurt, then tell that to Dr. Carroll. He is the one who thinks Latins are superior to Byzantines. I make no claims of superiority for either tradition.


Dan,

You have every right to enter the Byzantine Catholic Church. It isn't just for people who are born into it, despite what Kurt believes.

A homily on this topic explained that we would no more deny spiritual Food to infants because they don't understand than we would deny physical food to infants because they aren't familiar with the 4 basic food groups and other "dogmas" of nutrition.

Sophia

Dan,

I am sorry that Demoslider felt compeled to make an unchristian and uncharitable remark that misrepresents me. You ask a very valid question.

A particular christian patrimony is not limited to ethnicity or culture. Normatively, it is the partimony of the community which evangelizes you. Some are evanglized at birth, by their parents and family members. They normatively would receive the christian patrimony of their family. Others (like I assume you) are evangelized later in life, as adults. They receive the patrimony of the community which evangelizes them.

All of this emphasizes the Catholic principle of the role of community in evangelization.

Christian patrimony might be called the box and attached ribbons & bows in which the gift of faith comes in. The box and externals comes as part of the gift and in fact the carrier of the gift.

A false understanding of patrimony would be seeing the Catholic faith as like a job offer and Christian patrimonies as like an array of health care plans a worker selects after being hired.




[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 12-03-2000).]

Characterizing me as uncharitable is more unChristian than my remark regarding you were, my dear friend Konrad. I have read previous notes from you where you seemed to say only born Byzantines could be Byzantine. If my eyes played tricks on me, I apologize. Maybe you didn't mean that. However, you do seem to repeat stock phrases such as the Anglo-Saxon mindset, to name one, to prove your points. How someone who thinks Al Gore is a great guy, can call others unChristian and uncharitable is beyond my poor Anglo-Saxon mind.

In Christ,

Joseph

Gentlemen,

Please, don't fuss with one another. You both have warmly welcomed me. I think I may have read too much into Kurt's initial post and somewhat overreacted. Joseph, thank you for trying to defend me.

Patrimony then may be like a calling or vocation. I.e., God seems to have called certain people and continues to call certain people to the ministry of helping to find unity in the Universal Church through the means of the Orthodox liturgy and communion with Rome. In that case I see the point.

This would be similar with what Wesley believed for Methodists. He said that the mission or calling of the Methodists was "to proclaim holiness throughout the world." This could be called Methodisms "Patrimony".

Am I getting close?

Dan Lauffer

Joseph,

Apology accepted. Your eyes must have read the postings of others who mischaracterize my statements, as has happened.

There are four things I have been extremely careful never to do on this forum:

1. To say that birth or genetics determines one's Christian patrimony.

2. To accuse others of being sinful or uncharitable based on how they vote or to initiate a discussion on this topic.

3. To publicly disagree with any official teaching of the Catholic Church.

4. To disclose my ethnicity or discuss the nationality question.

I appreciate your willingness to admit to the misjudgement of your eyes. I think this forum retains posts far in to the past if you would like to review my previous statements.

Lastly, to the others who have mischaracterized my statements, I am certain that this was not due to malice but a failure to read carefully.

Kurt

Dan,

You're right, I went a little too far with Kurt and apologize to Kurt, you and everyone else on the forum for sowing any bitterness by my remarks. Dan, I am on a similar journey as you. I am a Roman Catholic who has been attending Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine parish for about 6 months now. I will be making a formal transfer soon because I feel called to the Byzantine Catholic Church. I agree with your definition of patrimony. I believe people are being called to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome as you and I both are. I believe we can be witnesses to Church unity between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and pray this unity will be realized in our lifetimes. I still have much to learn and I value everyone's contributions here, which helps me a great deal.

In Christ,

Joseph

To all,
I am a Latin Rite Catholic and I believe that Holy Communion should be given to infants. It was the universal practice of the early Church. Furthermore, I also believe that whenever possible baptism should be performed by immersion. This was also the view of St. Thomas Aquinas who believed that baptism by immersion better symbolizes the spiritual reality that it confers than does baptism by sprinkling.
As for the Sacrament of Confirmation/Chrismation, there is a reason for its delay in the western Church. The proper minister of this sacrament is the bishop. Since bishops could not be present at every infant baptism, the sacrament of confirmation was delayed until such time as the bishop could make his rounds. In the Eastern Church, I believe, the bishops delegated the administration of the sacrament to the priests. At present there is an incongruity in the western Church. With the establishment of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, priests generally administer the three sacraments, Baptism, Holy Eucharist, and Chrismation to adults at the Easter Vigil Liturgy. Why the bishops delegate the administration of Chrismation to priests at this time but not in general for infants is a mystery to me.
Incidentally, Father Boniface Luykx, an Eastern Catholic who was present at the Second Vatican Council, states that there was a move at Vatican II to change the western practice to conform to that of the east. Unfortunately, there were some forces opposed to it who changed the documents at the last moment.

Ed

Why not ask Dr. Carroll if he believes the same concerning baptism, and if not just why? It is inappropriate for him to claim superiority in Western practice regarding this over and above Eastern. Sucha claim is also flat wrong. His assertion needlessly brings in a charge of pseudo-rationalism, wherein one's own understanding effects the graces of sacraments. Your reply is quite appropos.

Pax Christi,
John