www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Lay Ministers to distribute the Eucharist?

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, that is an important point!

What we often term "Latinization" is really a form of Protestantization in the aftermath of Vatican II.

I used to discuss this withy my Latin Catholic teachers, most of whom were priests.

They readily admitted and agreed that the Latin Church had embraced so much of the "Protestant rites" and added "there's nothing wrong with that."

Eugene Ivankiw of St Volodymyr and Olha's UGC parish in Chicago once wrote an article on this very subject for their "Visnyk."

In it, he said that it is "understandable that Western Catholics would adopt Protestant rites so as to culturally come closer to their Protestant neighbours whom they often share a national culture and identity with."

Alex

I think there is something wrong with it. In many parts of the world, Catholics seem to be having difficulty seeing any difference between the two. It seems to me that is a major reason Catholics are converting to Protestantism.

Dear Charles,

That is a very good point too!

When I did a study of the Catholic Charismatic movement, I came across Catholics who simply joined Protestant Pentecostal churches, however, there was a movement the other way, but not as pronounced.

At one of the tables at the meetings, there were bible-study pamphlets being given out to all the Catholics Charismatics.

I began reading them and found them interesting, until I got to one that said, "It is good that so many Catholics are reading the Bible and are getting saved. But they must take the final step and join a Protestant church . . ."

There was other literature like this and very little or nothing was done by the parish to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Alex

Christ is Risen!
And I know of cases where this is still done, BUT a priest gives absolution upon advice of the confessor, and so the sacrament is still administered by a priest!

Photius

Vladyko incognitije, christos voskrese!

I concur I concur with all you have written above. I can add a couple of points:
1) I have seen a deacon administer Communion in the presence of Metropolitan Philaret of ROCOR.
2) A subdeacon in the Orthodox Church may touch the holy vessels only when they are empty, which would imply that they can not administer Communion.

Photius

There's NOTHING wrong with the Catholic Church
embracing HERETICAL rites??
This sort of attitude is why so many Latin Rite
Catholics like me now attend only the
Eastern Church.............

Dear Antonius,

I didn't mean to cast aspersions and I certainly don't believe that the Latin Church practices anything that is "heretical!"

We should also remember that, for many years, Latin Catholics regarded the Eastern Churches as practicing "schismatical rites" and "put up" with it for purposes, as some believed, to bring the EC's into the full communion of the Latin Catholic Church.

In his diary, St Basil Velichkovsky, the Ukrainian Redemptorist hieromartyr and missionary, related his interview with a Roman Catholic bishop who told him that the whole idea of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" was a "Roman mistake."

He said, "How could they (Orthodox) ever be Catholics?" And he implied that even the Eastern Catholic Churches weren't "fully Catholic."

Alex

Dear Orthodox Catholic:

No, no, that's not what I meant at all.
I was lamenting the fact that IMO the
Latin Church has gotten far too "cozy"
with HERETICAL "rites" like the Protestants
since Vatican II, and has consequently
changed much of its Liturgy and Worship,
to the point where many of us Latin Rite
Catholics now only attend Eastern Catholic
Churches. I thought your original post was great!
Sorry for the misunderstanding............

The early canons prescribe that a Christian who stays away from the Liturgy for three Sundays in row is automatically excommunicated. This is a little known fact among many contemporary Orthodox. Actually, the canons stipulate this for anyone who does not partake of Holy Communion, but of course, by extension, it is true of those who skip Liturgy.

http://www.stgeorgecathedral.net/article_0201.html

I would ask again, and I knew this before, if the contemporary Orthodox practice is not in keeping with the early Church why are BCs obligated to follow that practice? Why should we ape contemporary Orthodox practices any more than we should ape contemporary RC practices?

Dan L


Dan,

We have many Orthodox at St. Georges and for many years after they came there I noticed a lot would not go to Communion. The reason was they had not gone to confession just before Divine Litugy started. So they would be at church every time the doors were opened, but would not receive. So I thought that statement was interseting. Let me clarify this article is not from our Church, St. George Melkite. I wonder how it is reconcilled in the Orthodox Church?

Pani Rose

Dear Antonius,

O.K.!

My Church has been blessed to have more and more RC and Protestant Christians (as well as unchurched) over the years.

We are a very UKRAINIAN parish but have come to accept these strangers whom God is calling to join us!

I'll never forget the day when a First Nations Canadian came in during the Liturgy on Palm Sunday. He crossed two pussy-willow branches and came near the iconostasis, praying with uplifted hands and the crossed branches!

We have people holding bibles standing at the doors praying and weeping as they pray.

Perhaps we'll learn to share what we have with those who are thirsty for it too!

That experience will doubtless teach us Ukies not to take our tradition for granted nor make light of our vocation in North America to reflect the Eastern Light!

Alex

Dan L,

I would say in short "because Rome calls you to this." However, you may not agree with Rome either. But, in any event, there are many early church practices that you may want to advocate, such as communion in the hand, for example.

To quote an oft cited but unknown source, "which century would you like to live in?"

Tony

19th century Russia, of course. Otherwise is OUTRAGE! :p

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Photius (and by the way, I am not now and never have been a bishop of any description!),
Thanks for your welcome post. As to subdeacons and Holy Communion, two closely related points are worth noting:

1. the ordination of a subdeacon does not take place within the Altar and need not necessarily take place within the Divine Liturgy; and
2) a Subdeacon receives Holy Communion outside the Royal Doors, hence not with the bishop, priests and deacons.

Therefore, I would conclude that outside of utter emergency (as may occur during a terrible persecution, for example), a subdeacon may not be blessed to administer Holy Communion to others. As you mention, a deacon may be so blessed. For that matter, a subdeacon may be ordained to the diaconate, but a bishop is required to serve the ordination, obviously.

Incognitus

I disagree, "lay ministers of the Eucharist" are a response of the Church to meet a pastoral need. Not every Protestant community has a regular Eucharist celebration. With Latin parishes in our area ministering to some 700+ souls at a given Mass, it is impractical to think that one priest (who may binate or even trinate) is able to distribute the Eucharist by himself.

I recently had the priviledge of serving as the deacon at the graduation Masses at my daughters' schools, a high school and grammar school. (I did not read the Gospel, but chanted the introductory dialogue and the ending, as well as the lesson itself, which was well received, but that's another post.) Even with the main celebrant, one deacon, 1 assisting priest, and 5 "lay ministers", the actual distribution of the Eucharist under both species lasted 10+ minutes. One can imagine how long the the actual communion rite would have lasted had there only been the priest celebrant and myself.

Now, as pertains to the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, the hierarchs legislated a norm to meet the pastoral needs of larger congregations and for those parishes whose priests may be infirm and unable to distribute the Eucharist.

Among the first who assist the priest with the Eucharist is the deacon, but not every parish in our Metropolia has a deacon. With some 150+ souls at our 10 AM Liturgy, I assist the celebrant with the distribution of the Eucharist. When I have the priviledge to deliver the homily for Sunday, I also serve at the 8 AM liturgy, but the celebrant alone distributes the Eucharist to about 50+ souls. On rare occasions, we have a priest who celebrates the Liturgy, but is unable to hold the Chalice in his hand for a sustained length of time. On those rare occasions, I distribute the Eucharist by myself.

In those parishes where the priest is unable to distribute the Eucharist and there is no deacon, should the faithful forego the reception of Our Lord in the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist?

IN TRUTH HE IS RISEN!
Mostly, I was being silly following some comment you made a few days ago when someone addressed you as "Father Incognitus". In Greece, at least, however, archimandrites and elders are frequently addressed as "despota", and I've heard Serbs and Bulgars on Athos use "vladyko" for the same. And, on the streets of Greece, any man in a rason may be called "despota", at least by unlearned folk, and I have been so called, inappropriate as that may have been.
Yes ... the distinction betwixt Ceirotonia (rukopolozhenie) and cheirothesia (rukobozlozhenie) ...

Photius (also not a patriarch of any sort)