www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Change Sui Juris Church or go Syriac/Malankara Orthodox

Dear brother countertenor,

It doesn't seem right to charge the Latin Church with having a canon that "doesn't align with Apostolic Tradition." The Church has always had the power to regulate the manner in which the Sacraments can be given (notwithstanding the necessary basic matter). True, the Latin Church has separated the Sacraments of Initiation, which most early Church witnesses indicate were performed together. On the other hand, early Church witness indicates that both immersion and sprinkling (or pouring) were acceptable modes of baptism, but nowadays, some Orthodox Churches only accept immersion, going so far as to reject Catholic sprinkling as invalid. Is it the case that these Orthodox Churches no longer "align with Apostolic Tradition," or perhaps it is more simply the case that the Church has always had the authority to regulate the manner in which the Sacraments are given? Also, early Church witness indicates that the Eucharist was available to the laity daily, yet it seems only the Latin Church currently maintains this early Church practice. Is it the case that the Eastern and Oriental Churches no longer "align with Apostolic Tradition," or perhaps it is more simply the case that the Church has always had the authority to regulate the manner in which the Sacraments are given?

Blessings,
Marduk

The key point is the Latin Church has departed from its own Tradition, not for doctrinal or theological reasons, but from flawed pastoral practice, accident of history, and weight of custom. Vatican II recognized the need to restore the integrity of the Rites of Initiation, including the restoration of the proper order of the sacraments (does anyone see an irony in our allowing Roman Catholic children to receive communion, even though they have not been Christmated/Confirmed, while ours are denied communion strictly on the basis of age, even though they have been fully initiated into the Church?) and therefore, the practice of infant communion, which is the patrimony of the entire Church, not something specific to one particular Church (even if it is the big one).

The Latin Church practiced infant communion down to the thirteenth century, and only ceased doing so when the Fourth Lateran Council withdrew the Chalice from the laity (for reasons that proved unacceptable to the Second Vatican Council), and therefore it could no longer give the Eucharist to infants (who received only the Blessed Blood). Theories about the need to "understand" the meaning of the sacrament, and thus the need for communicants to reach the "age of reason" begin to emerge only a century later, as an ex post facto rationalization of a present practice.

The Latin Church never condemned infant communion (how could it, without condemning infant baptism?), it just died out. There is nothing, except the potential wrath of legions of mothers and grandmothers dying to see their little angels in tiny tuxedoes and bridal gowns, that keeps any bishop from restoring proper practice in his diocese by a wave of his hand. Some have, I believe, even done this.


Other modes were acceptable in unusual circumstances, but immersion in "a stream of living water" was always the norm, as can be seen by the existence of very large baptismal fonts dating back to the third century.


That is almost certainly incorrect (see Taft's essay, "On the Frequency of Communion" in Beyond East and West). The earliest stratum of Tradition (witnessed by Justin Martyr and by Pliny the Younger among others) is for Christians to gather together only on Sundays to celebrate the Eucharist. Extension of Eucharistic celebrations to other days emerged much later, and varied over the ages and among Churches--but the Apostolic Tradition was Eucharist on the Eucharistic Day. You may be confused by the practice of giving the consecrated Bread to the faithful to take home and eat at meals during the day (attested well into the post-Nicene period), but what the Church did when it was a small, elite body did not prove viable when it became a mass movement.


If pressed, I would say the Eastern Churches have preserved the Tradition in its fullness better than the Latin Church, but I think you mix apples and oranges. It is one thing for the Church to regulate the means by which the Eucharist is distributed--whether to use leavened or unleavened bread, whether to add water to the wine, whether to give it to the faithful each element separately or by intinction, etc.--and to regulate to whom it may be given, not as a matter of discipline (fasting, confession, membership in a particular Church, etc.) but ontologically. In essence, the Eastern Churches say that, as long as a person has received all the sacraments of initiation and is properly disposed, he may receive in any Church that is in communion with his Church (and we even make an exception for unconfirmed Latin children by way of oikonomia). The Latin Church adds to that an age requirement that has no theological basis, and which has the effect not only of excommunicating their own children, but ours as well. Communion is a 2-way street: if we bend our rules to allow their children to receive in our Churches, then, by gum, they need to bend their rules to accommodate ours.

Better still, they can read their own conciliar documents and restore their own proper practice and Tradition.

Dear brother StuartK

I wouldn't say it is "flawed" if it came from their God-ordained bishops.

On the other hand, the majority of ancient Christian mosaics depicting baptism in living water showed the recipients having water poured over them, while standing in the water. Please don't take what I am saying to mean that our practice as Easterns and Orientals is unpatristic.

When I speak of the "early Church," I had in mind the Church of the apostles. The Bible is clear that the Eucharist was celebated daily. St. Paul is seen to have done it only on the Lord's day while he was in captivity. It seems that to the early Church (i.e., when the Apostles were alive), daily communion was the norm, and infrequent communion was due to exceptional circumstances (communion on the Lord's day being the bare minimum), perhaps based on the Lord's teaching of the necessity of communion. Daily communion was practiced down to the latter fourth century in the Eastern Church (for certain), as attested by St. John Chrysostom (who also decried its infrequent reception). It seems that the bare minimum of receiving on the Lord's Day came about due to the underground status of the Church (when it was dangerous for Christians to come together, but nevertheless recognizing the necessity of at least celebrating on the Lord's Day). In any case, the practice of daily communion has altogether disappeared from the Eastern and Oriental Churches. Here seems to be a case where the exceptional circumstance became the norm in the Eastern/ Oriental Churches, as with the case in the Latin Church with regard to other Sacramental practices.

In any case, instead of criticizing what bishops of each Church have established as the norm for their Church, I think the best solution for peace on this matter is simply to recognize that the Church has indeed the power to regulate the celebration of the Sacraments, and to respect each others' canons pertaining to that celebration. If the authorities in some certain Church decided to restore a previous practice of celebrating the Sacraments, that is great, and that is within their prerogative to do so, just as it was their prerogative to change it in the first place.

I do acknowledge the "irony" you pointed out. I don't know how prevalent it is, since the Canon law in the Latin Church does provide for the celebration of the Sacraments by an Eastern or Oriental according to their own custom, but, as noted by brother Neil, this does not seem to be what is happening in brother Countertenor's case.

Blessings,
Marduk

Glory to Jesus Christ,

I do not want to go off topic but I was reading a post in this thread and something in it confused me:

"I would also point out the fact that the current situation makes it hard for all Eastern Catholics to evangelize to non-Catholics. Since if they are protestants and come into the Catholic Church through the Eastern Church, they are by Canon Law a Roman Catholic, even though they were catechized by an Eastern church, feel at home in the eastern church, ect. That needs to change."

My wife entered the Eastern Catholic Church (Ruthenian) last year (was formerly in a Baptist Church), and was catechized there and received the sacraments of initiation there. Are you saying that such a person is still a Latin Rite Catholic and would need to file petition with the Bishops (something I did recently because I was initiated in the Latin Rite Church) to be an actual Eastern Catholic canonically? That does not seem accurate to me.

Am I misunderstanding what was said here. I did not see anyone else clarify it to mean other than how I took it.

Thanks.

Bishops make dozens of errors. We could call them flaws, or we could call them mistakes, but if they didn't make them, then, of course, the Church would not have called for them to be rectified, would it?



Don't take artistic representations at face value. On the other hand, architecture speaks for itself.


Since almost no biblical scholars make this claim, you'll have to point out this evidence. You may have conflated the continued meetings of the Apostles in the Temple, and later in private homes for daily prayers (the Divine Praises), a continuation of Jewish praxis adapted by the Christian Church, with the celebration of the Eucharist. However, as far as I can tell, the New Testament is almost entirely silent about when, where and how the Eucharist was celebrated.


When Chrysostom (and the other Father) decry the infrequency of communion, they are not speaking of daily reception, but of reception on Sundays. We know from contemporaneous documents that the Eucharist was not celebrated daily in the Great Church of Hagia Sophia during the time Chrysostom was Archbishop of Constantinople.


No, it was never there, as Taft makes quite clear in his essay. It only became the rule in a small number of cathedrals and monasteries, and relatively late in the day.


No, the best solution is for the Church that has departed from the Tradition to return to it. After all, if Latin conciliar documents direct restoration of the integrity of the Rites of Initiation, then the Latin Church ought to comply with its own teachings.


Annoyingly common, as any Greek Catholic parent with young children can attest. That's why we do not go to Latin Churches when on vacation, but will find the nearest Orthodox church if no Greek Catholic parish is present.

My understanding of the Cannons is that yes she is a canonically a Latin Catholic. Since she was a protestant which is a church separate from the Latin Church. Just as I when I was received am a Greek Byzantine Catholic even though there is no Greek Byzantine Church in America. I don't think I am wrong here but that’s how I understand it. I don't think it is right and I think it does hurt our outreach but that’s for the Hierarchy to work out I suppose.

Unless, she wasn't baptized and received baptism in the Eastern Catholic Church. I think that makes it a different situation but I will digress to someone who knows more about that than I.

If the early Church witnesses indicate they were performed together how is it not right to charge the Latin Church with not following the Apostolic Tradition? You also mention them being God ordained bishops, but last I checked bishops were also people that can be and are swayed by many things, not just God.


Where Orthodox Churches reject this, and the early Church witness indicates both were acceptable, I would say that the Orthodox are also out of line. It is fine if each OC require their priests to use immersion, but if one of the OC chooses to use sprinkling (pouring) and the others reject it, they are out of line.

I am not here to say the Latin Church is doing a bunch of things wrong and the Byzantines and Orientals are doing everything right. If I thought the EO were in complete alignment with everything I'd be EO rather than Catholic.


This is the only Diocese I've ever seen this as an issue. I've never seen it in any other diocese in which I've lived.



Thanks StuartK, you practically responded in every way I would have. I think a big problem right now that I'm seeing is that there are ECs who want to rip Rome apart for everything they do that is different than the Eastern Churches, and others that don't want to say anything about other than to attempt to defend Romes practices no matter how off they are, because they don't want to look like they are against Rome. While others have spent so much time trying to harmonize and or justify things that cannot really be defended, that they just want to leave it all alone.

Do I think that what Rome is doing is a heresy? No, however because they make up bogus theologies to try to back up what they do, it does lead Latins to have an incorrect idea about many things, and you can call those ideas whatever you find convenient.

As far as denying communion to individuals who have received all the sacraments of initiation, who are also not capable of being in a state of sin, you can call it whatever you want, I'll just call it, wrong, especially when they're handing it out to people every week who are in a state of sin.

If the Latin Church doesn't want to its children to participate in the life of the Church, they should send them all home and tell them to come back when they're old enough to have "reason." But for now they can just treat them like they are currently. That is, people who keep them from Christ rather than bringing them to him.

Sorry for the typos, my son was taking care of two kids while I was typing.

I should point out that Rome does not really approve of baptism by aspersion (sprinkling), but, while seeing full immersion as normative, allows baptism by pouring water over the candidate, insofar as many parishes lack a font capable of allowing full immersion. This is quite different from "sprinkling"--think of what the priest does with your food basket on Pascha.

No Orthodox Church in my knowledge rejects those baptized by the pouring of water over the head (they would have to reject the baptism of a lot of Orthodox if they did), but they do object to the notion that one can be baptized by the mere sprinkling of water (as does the Church of Rome)--save in cases of grave emergency, when anything will do.

Of course, there are abuses and deviations from the norm all over the place, and on all sides, too.

Very true!

Dear brother StuartK,

I think we are on the same page regarding baptism, though we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of frequent (even, daily) communion. I believe it was the norm in the earliest days of the Church. As a Catholic, I don't see it as much of an issue since I can be fed at the Latin Church, when I have the spiritual need (which is often, I must admit, sinner that I am).

Blessings,
Marduk

From Robert F. Taft, SJ, "The Frequency of the Eucharist Throughout History", in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding:


Later, in Section 2-The Eucharist After Constantine, Taft reviews the evolution of Eucharistic celebration, and concludes:

Dear brother StuartK,

I am afraid I disagree with Father Taft on his interpretation of Acts 2:46. It specifically states, "Daily, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes..." The Christians in Jerusalem were faithful Jews who attended the daily prayers at the Temple. But being faithful Jews, they could not have neglected the other important part of the Temple service, which was the Corban, the daily sacrifice. Obviously, they could not participate in the Temple sacrifice because they knew, according to St. Paul in Hebrews, that Christ replaced all the Sacrifices of the Old Covenant. This, they did when they went to their "home churches," and this, they did daily, as Scripture states.

So, I will have to maintain my position. As mentioned earlier, this daily sacrifice was not able to be performed because of persecution (whence it was dangerous for Christians to gather), though the importance of celebrating the Sacrifice at least on the Lord's Day was maintained in their "underground" communities. When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, the ancient practice re-established itself slowly, but surely (as Fr. Taft points out). But, for whatever reason, it disappeared again in the East and Orient.

I should also point out that the Fathers who promoted more frequent communion did so for very theological reasons (based on Christ's teaching on the Bread of Life).

In any case, as stated, it is not a big deal to me if Eastern or Oriental Catholicism has not maintained this ancient tradition, because at least Latin Catholicism has done so, and since we are one Church (ontologically), the tradition still remains, and Eastern and Oriental Catholics have as much access to it as Latin Catholics (and for those who are "properly disposed," even our Orthodox brethren may take advantage of it). But, further, I do not find any fault in the fact that this tradition (based on theological reasons) disappeared from the East and Orient, for I accept that it is the prerogative of the Church (or in this case, the local Church) to regulate the ways and means by which the Sacraments are distributed in and to the Church. However, on the same basis, I do not fault the Latin Church for their own traditions on the distribution of the Sacraments, since it is within their power to regulate.

Blessings,
Marduk

There are not exclusive. The followers of Jesus undoubtedly went daily to the Temple to pray. As good Jews, they would naturally continue to do this. They also would say the Berakah over the bread at every meal, because, like good Jews, this is what they did. But they only celebrated the Eucharist--that is, memorialized the Last Supper and Sacrifice of Christ by the consecration of Bread and Wine, on the first day of the week. Your conflation of the Eucharist with the Corban is not warranted by the evidence; i.e., you argue from silence (Acts doesn't say they did not, therefore they did).

But Taft also notes that the faithful took portions of the consecrated elements home with them, and communicated throughout the week--a practice he says continued to the seventh or eighth centuries (and which is attested in a number of saints lives as well). As Taft notes, frequent communion for many of the Fathers meant home communion. But that is not the same as celebrating the Eucharist daily, nor is it permitted any longer for the faithful to carry the Sacrament home with them for daily consumption.

Taft also notes that the Eucharist is more than communion, and that its celebration is wrapped up in a wider symbolic matrix which cannot be reduced to one simple function or act.

S
Christians were seldom if ever "underground", and their persecution was generally local and highly sporadic. Most of the time, Christians lived quite openly in their communities, and everyone knew who they were, which is why they were easy to persecute when politics or local conditions encouraged it. The Church owned property, had distinct buildings and was growing rapidly. Underground movements don't do those things. See Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians--still one of the best books on the subject.


That puts the cart before the horse. There is no evidence of daily celebration of the Eucharist in Rome before the sixth or seventh century (see quote from Taft, above). If it was an ancient tradition, then at best, Rome "restored" it--but the evidence points to just Sunday Eucharist in Rome in the earliest days, perhaps combined with communion in the home with presanctified Gifts.

Dear brother StuartK,

All I've got to say is:

1) My statement on Corban is not an argument from silence. Rather, it is a valid interpretation of the Scriptural statement that they daily participated in the "breaking of the bread." Besides, I'm not aware that "breaking of the bread" refers to anything other than the Eucharistic celebration, not merely self-communion.

2) If Rome did not celebrate it early on, then that is understandable because the Christian community there was in the heart of the the empire that persecuted them. But the practice of the Jerusalem community (before the Sacrifice was no longer offered in Jerusalem, as Scripture predicted in the OT) should be taken as the primordial standard, don't you think?

3) I don't deny that frequent (even daily) communion through self-communication was the norm in many places. I'm more concerned with the practice of frequent communion (whether through frequent or daily self-communication, or frequent or daily Eucharistic celebration).

Blessings,
Marduk