www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Holy Days

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidB:
[QB]

Alex,

>>>I must say this, please don't take it personally. What Met. Andrew Sheptytsky may have said would only be binding upon Ukrainian Catholics and I think one's own bishop could over rule this.<<<

But no Ruthenian bishop has ever ruled on it. And the Church indicates that it can be beneficial for Eastern Catholics to attend Orthodox liturgies as a means of fostering familiarity between the separated Churches and thus advancing the cause of unity (which is the only reason we Eastern Catholics have for existing as separate Churches).

>>>As for attending Divine Liturgies to avoid being "pulled over" and to maintain the continuity of one's Eastern spirituality, while a commendable idea, what does it say about the unity of the Universal Catholic Church? And what about one's Catholic spirituality?<<<

Please define this obscure notion of "Catholic spirituality"? What is it, precisely? As for the notion of the "universal Church", it consists precisely in the fact that the Church is incarnated in particular places using particular expressions of faith. As I said, one cannot be a "Vanilla Catholic".

>>>I am comming to believe that we are not Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite (as has been put forward elsewhere on the 'net<<<

Oh, well that's progress, of a sort.

>>>nor do I think of ourselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome, I think we are Byzantine (or Orthodox if you wish) Catholics, a third thing.<<<

There is no tertium quid, nor can there be. As Fr. Robert Taft said, in a speech directed to all the Eastern Catholic bishops in the United States, an Eastern Catholic Church that is not entirely faithful to its Eastern patrimony is of no use to the universal Church. Putting a more positive spin on this, Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham recently said "I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus: I am in communion with the Church of Rome". That is the proper model for us to follow. We are not some bizzare hybrid, nor can we be. Like it or not, when there is unity between the Church of Rome and our Mother Churches, we will have no reason to maintain our separate existence and we will disappear back into the communities whence we came.

>>>For myself, if I was in an area where there were no Byzantine Catholic Churches I would attend the Saturday Vigil Mass at a Roman Church, so that I should share in Catholic Worship and receive the Eucharist, then I would attend the Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox Church on Sunday morning.<<<

As I said, there is no need to receive the Eucharist every Sunday, and the specialness of Communion is one of the things which distinguishes the Eastern Churches. It's one reason why we do not celebrate the Divine Liturgy every day. Or, as the Liturgical Instruction puts it, the Eucharist is a banquet, not a meal.

Quote

But no Ruthenian bishop has ever ruled on it. And the Church indicates that it can be beneficial for Eastern Catholics to attend Orthodox liturgies as a means of fostering familiarity between the separated Churches and thus advancing the cause of unity (which is the only reason we Eastern Catholics have for existing as separate Churches).

So I guess becasue there is no ruling on it we can do as we like? When there lacks a ruling I would either take this up with my spiritual father, pastor, or look to what the Church teaches.

Look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2181. "The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.[Cf. CIC, can. 1245.] Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. "

Quote

Please define this obscure notion of "Catholic spirituality"? What is it, precisely? As for the notion of the "universal Church", it consists precisely in the fact that the Church is incarnated in particular places using particular expressions of faith. As I said, one cannot be a "Vanilla Catholic".

I am not too good at putting thoughts and feelings to words but you sort of say it here. As there is no such thing as a "VAnilla Cahtolic" I do not think that as Byzantine Catholics we are the same as Orthodox, we are Catholics. To deny this is to be Orthodox, not Byzantine Catholics.

Quote

There is no tertium quid, nor can there be. As Fr. Robert Taft said, in a speech directed to all the Eastern Catholic bishops in the United States, an Eastern Catholic Church that is not entirely faithful to its Eastern patrimony is of no use to the universal Church. Putting a more positive spin on this, Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham recently said "I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus: I am in communion with the Church of Rome". That is the proper model for us to follow. We are not some bizzare hybrid, nor can we be. Like it or not, when there is unity between the Church of Rome and our Mother Churches, we will have no reason to maintain our separate existence and we will disappear back into the communities whence we came.

I did not claim that we are a bizzare hybrid, but we are not Orthodox (as it is today) for Orthodoxy denys the role of the Holy Pontiff. We could claim to be Orthodox, but it is the Orthodoxy of the past, not the Orthodoxy of present day.

As stated by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches in response to the Melkite Initiative;

It is clear that this Patriarchate is an integral part of the Christian East whose patrimony it shares. As to the Greek-Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties. Besides, a correct formulation of the faith necessitates a reference not only to a particular Church, but to the whole Church of Christ, which knows no frontiers, neither in space nor in time.

Quote

As I said, there is no need to receive the Eucharist every Sunday, and the specialness of Communion is one of the things which distinguishes the Eastern Churches. It's one reason why we do not celebrate the Divine Liturgy every day. Or, as the Liturgical Instruction puts it, the Eucharist is a banquet, not a meal.

This is something I do not understand, to deny myself the Body and Blood of Christ.... Why?

Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1389. "The Church obliges the faithful 'to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days' and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.[OE 15; CIC, can. 920.] But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily."

Which I believe is also suggested, frequent communion, by our bishops in the Byzantine Catholic Church.

The Divine Liturgy is celebrated daily in some places, except for Great Lent. I even know, presonally, a priest that does this, if not daily at least a couple of times a week. Maybe he would care to respond on this idea.

Besides that, the Divine Liturgy is celebrated daily within monasteries. If monks receive daily, shouldn't we think of doing so?

For the life of me I can not understand why someone would chose not to receive the Eucharist when they are able to.

You can try to accuse me of "Crackerjack Sacramentology" but you would be wrong. I love the Church and all of its Liturgies, but on Sunday, when the Divine Liturgy is proper as well as reception of the Eucharist, I do not think it is wrong to suggest that everyone that is able should receive.


David

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidB:
[qb][qb]

>>>This is something I do not understand, to deny myself the Body and Blood of Christ.... Why?<<<

One reason would be to properly prepare for receiving it. Why do you think we do not celebrate the Divine Liturgy on any weekdays during Lent, but instead have the Liturgy of the Presanctified, and then only on two nights a week?

>>>Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1389. "The Church obliges the faithful 'to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days' and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.[OE 15; CIC, can. 920.] But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily."<<<

Here we have an excellent example of why the CCC is a Latin document that should not be used by Non-Latin Catholics. Quite simply, the notion that one should receive EVERY day is peculiar to the Latin Church (and is a relatively recent development of the Latin Church at that). The Tradition of the Eastern Churches is very different. Because of the esteem in which we hold the Eucharist, and the power of its transformative effects, OUR Tradition is NOT to receive every day, but rather only on certain days, so that we might better prepare to receive it. The Liturgical Instruction issued by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches enjoins the Eastern Churches to recover their authentic Tradition in this regard, so that, as it says, the Eucharist will be regarded as a banquet, rather than a meal. I don't know about you, but I don't go to banquets every day of the week.

>>>Which I believe is also suggested, frequent communion, by our bishops in the Byzantine Catholic Church.<<<

Frequent is not daily.

>>>The Divine Liturgy is celebrated daily in some places, except for Great Lent.<<<

This is a latnization and an abuse, which is slowly being suppressed.

>>>I even know, presonally, a priest that does this, if not daily at least a couple of times a week. Maybe he would care to respond on this idea.<<<

Tell him he's not acting in accordance with Tradition.

>>>Besides that, the Divine Liturgy is celebrated daily within monasteries. If monks receive daily, shouldn't we think of doing so?<<<

There you have the anomaly. The Divine Liturgy IS celebrated daily in SOME monasteries according to their own particular rule. But each monk in the monastery (and here I refer specifically to Byzantine monasticism, not Eastern rites of Western religious orders), is under the direction of a spiritual father, who usually determines if and when the monk receives communion. In other words, the Eucharist is celebrated every day, but not every monk is receiving every day--few if any do.

>>>For the life of me I can not understand why someone would chose not to receive the Eucharist when they are able to.<<<

It has something to do with fidelity to Tradition and a proper understanding of what it means to be prepared to receive within the context of that Tradition.

>>>You can try to accuse me of "Crackerjack Sacramentology" but you would be wrong.<<<

>>>I love the Church and all of its Liturgies, but on Sunday, when the Divine Liturgy is proper as well as reception of the Eucharist, I do not think it is wrong to suggest that everyone that is able should receive.<<<

We have slightly different priorities. But when WAS the last time you attended Vespers that was not for a major feast or was not part of a "vigil liturgy"?

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

Stuart,

Welcome back friend, where have you been?

You state:
"There is no tertium quid, nor can there be. As Fr. Robert Taft said, in a speech directed to all the Eastern Catholic bishops in the United States, an Eastern Catholic Church that is not entirely faithful to its Eastern patrimony is of no use to the universal Church. Putting a more positive spin on this, Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham recently said "I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus: I am in communion with the Church of Rome". That is the proper model for us to follow. We are not some bizzare hybrid, nor can we be. Like it or not, when there is unity between the Church of Rome and our Mother Churches, we will have no reason to maintain our separate existence and we will disappear back into the communities whence we came."

I have to disagree with you. I have come to the conclusion we are a third thing, but I don't think that means we are a bastard. Yes, we must live fully and completely our Eastern tradition but at the end of the day we accept Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, something the Orthodox today do not accept and possibly never did, nor ever will accept. I agree that if reunion occurs we will eventually be reintergrated into our Mothers Churches. Until that day we are Eastern Christians in Communion with (as well as under the authority of) Rome.

Glad your back.

In Christ,
Lance

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lance:
[qb]Stuart,

Welcome back friend, where have you been?

You state:
"There is no tertium quid, nor can there be. As Fr. Robert Taft said, in a speech directed to all the Eastern Catholic bishops in the United States, an Eastern Catholic Church that is not entirely faithful to its Eastern patrimony is of no use to the universal Church. Putting a more positive spin on this, Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham recently said "I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus: I am in communion with the Church of Rome". That is the proper model for us to follow. We are not some bizzare hybrid, nor can we be. Like it or not, when there is unity between the Church of Rome and our Mother Churches, we will have no reason to maintain our separate existence and we will disappear back into the communities whence we came."

I have to disagree with you. I have come to the conclusion we are a third thing, but I don't think that means we are a bastard. Yes, we must live fully and completely our Eastern tradition but at the end of the day we accept Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, something the Orthodox today do not accept and possibly never did, nor ever will accept. I agree that if reunion occurs we will eventually be reintergrated into our Mothers Churches. Until that day we are Eastern Christians in Communion with (as well as under the authority of) Rome.<<<

Everyone seems to operate under the assumption that the current definition and modalities of the Petrine ministry are set in stone, yet we have the words of the current Pope to set against that, as well as the witness of the history of the papacy. The issue is NOT whether the Church of Rome holds a universal primacy (which is admitted even by the Orthodox), but whether the current way in which that primacy is defined and exercised by the Church of Rome is correct and appropriate for the Church today. It helps to remember that no one is ordained pope. The office is therefore not a sacramental ministry, but a ministry of service. And it is at the service of the Chruch. The Church is not here to service the papacy. The Petrine ministry is one of strengthening the bretheren in faith and holding fast to unity. When the modalities of that ministry fail to support its objectives, then it is the ministry that must change, not the Church the ministry is designed to assist. As Christ said, "He who would be the first among you, let him be your servant", and John Paul II has taken this to heart. He has asked for assistance in redefining the way in which the Catholic Church understands primacy, so that the primacy will be acceptable to all. The tragedy is that NOBODY--Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant--seems to be taking him at his word.

But assuming someone does, the understanding of the primacy will continue to evolve. I do not think infallibility as a personal charism of one man will survive in any meaningful way. It probably won't be repudiated, but it will gradually be worn down to the right of the Bishop of Rome to speak on behalf of the entire Church when the entire Church is united behind him. There will be no further infallible declarations under those conditions, and I believe with time, the Orthodox will accept that solution.

As for the notion of papal "supremacy", you are claiming something that the Pope himself no longer claims nor wants. There is no question of unity through submission, for in a true communion of the Holy Spirit, there may be hierarchy, but there is no subordination--only absolute knowledge of the other, pure love, mutual respect, and sharing. The "return" and "submission" models of reconciliaton have been rejected by the Catholic Church in its dealings with the Orthodox. The Orthodox are skeptical because of the way we are treated. When we refuse to be treated in this manner any longer, but insist rather that the words Rome applies to some future relationship with the Orthodox Churches be applied to us NOW, then Rome will have the credibility it needs in the ecumenical dialogue. And so, because we as Eastern Catholics have a special vocation to foster unity, it is our job to make that happen. The way was shown by His Beatitude Patriarch Maximos IV at Vatican II, by his successor Patriarch Maximos V, and by the current occupant of Peter's See of Antioch, Gregory III. The path is laid out, but Eastern Catholics have to be willing to tred it.

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

StuartK,
I think this is one of those points that we will just have to agree to disagree on.


Can you point where I suggested that one receive the Eucharist when one is not properly prepared to? Can you also tell me how you judge that most people are not properly prepared to receive every Sunday or even daily?

You say we shouldn't receive daily and imply that only Sundays is all, but not every one but then you bring up Lent where we can receive up to 3 times a week. So which is it?



True the CCC is a latin document but it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for the whole church. It is suggested in this document tha the bishops of the other churches use this document to develop their own catechism, something that really hasn't been done yet so we are forced to rely on the CCC.


True but it could be, can you define frequent?



Prove this. And here I will agree with Alex, not all Latinizations are bad.

I will not comment on what this priest is doing or why he is, maybe he will reply here, if he is reading this thread.



Even the Eastern rites of Western religious orders have thier members in the care of a spiritual father (or director to use the latin term)

Do you know for a fact that they do not receive daily? At least the hieromonk who celebrates the Liturgy and the Deacon, if there is one, receives daily.


Again, I ask you where did I say one should receive when they are not properly prepared? And who are you to judge one's preparedness?


It is not my fault that Vespers is not offered in most churches today. But as a member of the liturgical commitee at the parish I currently attend I have been pushing for Saturday Vigil Vespers to be started and I have finally succeeded. We will start having a weekly Satruday evening Vespers in September.


David

>>>Can you point where I suggested that one receive the Eucharist when one is not properly prepared to? Can you also tell me how you judge that most people are not properly prepared to receive every Sunday or even daily?
You say we shouldn't receive daily and imply that only Sundays is all, but not every one but then you bring up Lent where we can receive up to 3 times a week. So which is it?<<<

I do neither of the things of which you accuse me, but rather point to the authentic Byzantine Tradition, which from a relatively early stage did not require or countenance daily reception of communion--even in monastic situations. One reason for that is the discipline associated with preparation for reception, which the Byzantine Churches believe requires some time. The Tradition of the Byzantine Churches is to receive on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, and then on one or two other days during the week. One should endeavor to receive regularly, but regularly does not necessarily mean "every day" or even "every Sunday".

>>>True the CCC is a latin document but it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for the whole church. It is suggested in this document tha the bishops of the other churches use this document to develop their own catechism, something that really hasn't been done yet so we are forced to rely on the CCC.<<<

In fact, they already have. There is a three-volume catechism called Light for Life, which is available through Gid With Us Publications. It has been approved by all the Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions in the US and Canada. It is also very Orthodox catechism--one could easily use it in an Orthodox parish with no conflicts or difficulties. Make of that whatever you wish.

But let us also note that the very notion of "catechisms" along the line of the CCC is alien to our Tradition.

>>>True but it could be, can you define frequent?<<<

Frequent means regularly--not daily, maybe not even weekly, but certainly at least monthly.

>>>Prove this. And here I will agree with Alex, not all Latinizations are bad.<<<

Refer to Robert F. Taft's essay, "The Frequency of the Eucharist Throughout History", in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding (Pontifical Oriental Institute) 1997. One could also write to Hegumen Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Monastery about this.

As for latinizations, they are all bad, when they affect our liturgical practices. No compromise on that one. And the Liturgical Instruction tells us to eliminate useages that unnecessarily divide us from our Orthodox counterparts. This is one such thing.

>>>Even the Eastern rites of Western religious orders have thier members in the care of a spiritual father (or director to use the latin term)<<<

Not in quite the same way. A reading of Eastern monastic practices will reveal startling differences.

>>>Do you know for a fact that they do not receive daily? At least the hieromonk who celebrates the Liturgy and the Deacon, if there is one, receives daily.<<<

Most monks do not receive daily. We do have a monastery, you can check with them.

>>>Again, I ask you where did I say one should receive when they are not properly prepared? And who are you to judge one's preparedness?<<<

The Tradition judges.

>>>It is not my fault that Vespers is not offered in most churches today. But as a member of the liturgical commitee at the parish I currently attend I have been pushing for Saturday Vigil Vespers to be started and I have finally succeeded. We will start having a weekly Satruday evening Vespers in September.<<<

Very good indeed. I am glad to hear it. I am working the problem in my own parish, but until such time as it happens, I can and do go to Vespers at Orthodox parishes. And, when I am away from home, if there is no Ruthenian parish nearby, and I need to attend liturgy, my priorities are (in order):

1. A Byzantine Catholic parish of another Church
2. An Orthodox parish
3. Stay home and read the Scriptures.

I have made the conscious decision, in conjunction with my spiritual advisors, simply to avoid Latin liturgies (particularly if I am travelling with my family) for the sake of my own spiritual development. That's my choice, your mileage may vary.

I think that this thread sheds light on a little recognized or acknowledged but never-the-less serious dilemma in the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. It is a situation that I have long noticed but which gets little attention amid the week-to-week schedules that we all keep.

I do not think that it is either Catholic or Orthodox to encourage more frequent reception of the Eucharist. Rather, it is a concern that all sacramental churches should be addressing. While the proper disposition must be achieved in order to approach the holy mysteries at all, they are at the same time, "medicines of immortality" and a "guide on the path to the kingdom of God." While we are all sinful people, subject each to our own spiritual infirmities, we are also people who are enjoined to continually grow more fully into the image of God, in which we were created. To help us conform more completely to the person of the Son of God, the sacraments are given by Christ, through the ministry of the church, not only as occasional milestones, marking significant steps of our journey, but as an integral part of our lives as Christians and as human beings. Communion should not merely mark the passing of another calendar year (Easter duty) or be reserved for special celebratory events (Christmas or other high holy days), but when approached rightly, should be that nourishment with which our souls are fed and cultivated, growing more and more each day, into that person that God would have us become.

Our own liturgy tells us that "Behold, this has touched your lips, it shall take away your iniquities and cleanse you of your sins." and again, "The servant of God (n) receives the precious, all-holy, Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, for the remission of their sins and life everlasting. Amen."

Still further, the liturgy teaches us, through the communion prayer, that "May the partaking of your holy mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation, but for the healing of soul and body. . . which I pray, make me worthy to receive, for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen."

These prayers make it quite evident that, besides the fact that the Eucharist is the "real presence" of Our Lord, in the mystery of the Divine Liturgy, by virtue of this reality, communion naturally effects a healing and a transformation, through the forgiveness of sin accomplished by the presence of Christ, for where God is, sin cannot abound.

Rather than being a form of latinization or a product of Western mentality, the more frequent reception of holy communion and the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice are quite in tune with the spirituality of the East. Many Eastern writers, Orthodox and Catholic would agree that the entire notion of only occasional reception of communion and the extreme emphasis placed on "unworthiness" to the point that it obstructs a normal reception of the Sacrament, entered the Eastern Church from the influence of the West.

A heightened scrupulosity in this regard, preoccupation with the exact numbers and occasions of personal sin, the necessity of confession directly prior to the reception of holy communion, lest one sin in the meantime, all originate from what A. Schemman called the "Western captivity of Orthodox theology" and that "school-theology" that takes its influence from scholasticism, which characterized most of Western thought for centuries. A more Eastern approach, views the sacraments not as legalistic items to be "attained" or "rewarded" through a blind obedience to church law and precept, but as an entire way of living, in and through what J. Ziziulous calls a "grafting onto Christ" being formed more and more fully into the person of Jesus, by attaching ourselves daily to Him and through this union, dying to ourselves so that we might live as a new person, working to become, as St. Paul says, that "perfect man who is Christ come to full stature." The way that we do this is by frequent participation in the sacramental life of the church, of which the Eucharist is the sacrament "par excellance" and the source of all the others.

Schemman calls the Eucharist the "Sacrament of the Assembly" emphasizing the fact that by coming together to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, the Eucharistic sacrifice, the People of God as the church, actualize this Sacrament's living and eternal qualities. The very idea that the faithful "assemble" or "come together" as the church, to affect the Eucharist, to celebrate their reality as a community founded on and in Jesus Christ, affects the presence of the Lord in a way that cannot be accomplished by any other means. It gives significance to the words of Our Lord that , "when two or three of you are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of you." When Christ is present, again, sin cannot win out over goodness nor can it "take us away from the love of God" (Romans 8) but rather, as the Body of Christ, visibly assembled, we can take great power and witness from that presence which becomes more complete and real when we together constitute the Eucharist - the symbol and sacrament of Christ's presence among us. By partaking of the sacred mysteries, we become one not only with God but with each other, because we all receive from the one source and origin - Jesus Christ, the "fountain of immortality."

What does this all have to do with the essence of the church, with what makes our church different from all others, with what distinguishes the "truth" of Orthodoxy or Catholicism from other Christian bodies? It is the very fact that we are a sacramental church, one that is centered around the Body and Blood of the Lord, ever nourishing us and leading us forward. It is a major distinction, but one that is in danger of being lost or hidden from view, if we do not continue to teach our people about the importance of more frequent participation in the Divine Liturgy and through it, in the Body and Blood of Christ.

A noticeable problem in today's Eastern Churches is not that we are wrongly emphasizing more frequent reception of the Eucharist, but the exact opposite. In many Eastern Christian churches today, we are at risk of becoming nothing more than "Sunday to Sunday" congregations. This is particularly due to the ever-expanding adaptations to modern American lifestyle, with all of its activities and demands. It is also connected to the misguided notion among some today that the liturgy is only to be celebrated on Sundays and perhaps, holydays, leaving the weekdays free for "bible study," religious classes, social events or even nothing at all going on at the church. There is the idea that one can profit more from a class about the church than from the living participation in what makes that church a reality - the assembly of people around the table of the Lord. It should suffice to say that, while educational endeavors are helpful and even necessary to bring a bout a deeper understanding of the faith, any religion that requires a series of courses to even begin to understand the essence of that religion, has some serious complications that need to be re-evaluated.

In short, many of the Eastern churches are in danger of becoming merely "Protestant churches with icons and incense," if the "Sunday to Sunday" mentality is allowed to continue. With all due respect to our Protestant friends, the idea of services only on Sundays and merely occasional reception of communion is very much likened to what is the normal Protestant custom. If we are a sacramental church, centered around the chief sacrament, the Body & Blood of the Lord, then we must encourage a more than token celebration of this sacrament.

It is true that in the mid-20th. century, many of the beautiful and proper services of our tradition were neglected, in favor of a sole emphasis on the "mass" or Divine Liturgy. This phenomenon is another extreme to be avoided - where importance is taken away from the complete cycle of prayer that is the foundation of all liturgical traditions. The Divine Office and other devotions however, are meant to compliment and surround the Eucharistic Liturgy, not to replace it. If it were possible, and surely in monastic communities, the entire office is meant to draw attention to and prepare one for, the ultimate prayer of the church - the Divine Liturgy.

Unfortunately, the constraints of our modern society, with a multitude of already over-committed lives, does not make it possible for most of us to devoted enough time to a complete cycle of prayer, as exists in the church's wealth of tradition. But, so that it be known that the Greek Catholic Church is not just based on the Roman, pre-concilliar emphasis on the "mass-only," we should remember that, not too long ago, before the high period of extreme latinization in the 1950s and 60s, and when life was a bit simpler and free from so many secular activities, a great majority of our parishes maintained a full liturgical cycle of vespers, matins and the Divine Liturgy. A typical day at church would have included time for prayer, food, socializing and the reception of the Eucharist.

The truth is that in the Eastern Church, we have gone through various periods of understanding and praxis in regards to the reception of the Eucharist and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Many of these phases were not healthy nor in keeping with authentic Eastern spirituality. We have surely had those periods, still at play in some jurisdictions today, when the Eucharist was viewed as something so sublime, so untouchable, so extreme, that one barely dared to approach it, save on that "once a year" requirement by canon law. The idea of personal "unworthiness" so much pervaded our understanding of the great gift that Our Lord left to us, that few dared to approach it without having "taken" confession immediately prior to it. But, we have come a long way in our appreciation of that sacrament which is the center of our Christian lives. Thankfully today, there is a general encouragement, in most Eastern jurisdictions, for people to participate in holy communion on a regular basis, which likewise is in closer keeping with the practice of the early church.

It has been mentioned that a certain priest of the Eastern Church celebrates the Divine Liturgy at least several times a week, not just on Sundays, when required to. While I do not think that I am that priest who was referred to, I gladly affirm that I do indeed make the celebration of the Eucharist a priority in my life and in the life of my parish, and encourage my people to do the same, offering the Liturgy on at least the better part of the days of the week. I certainly do not believe that I am "not acting in accordance with Tradition" by doing so. In this case anyway, from a theological perspective, it would not involve Tradition with the capital "T" which involves the living heritage of the belief of the church but tradition with the small "t" that refers to a variety of customs and usages not part of the "deposit of faith." While we should place great emphasis on remaining in congruence with the traditions on which our church is established, we cannot allow these traditions to speak for us, nor follow in blind obedience, to various customs and practices of time and place, that may or may not be appropriate for today's church. By saying this, I am obviously not referring to either dogma nor even the proper celebration of the divine services, but rather to those elements which by their functionality, are meant to assist us in living the life of faith within the church.

I would only hope that we can all come to a sincere appreciation for the meaning of the Eucharistic Liturgy in our lives, neither over-emphasizing its necessity nor falling short of giving to it, the due reverence and importance of place that it should hold for every Christian. Let us all join together in prayer, whether together in our parishes or in spirit, through means of this forum, as we "take the chalice of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord."

Fr. Joe

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fr. Joe:
[QB]I think that this thread sheds light on a little recognized or acknowledged but never-the-less serious dilemma in the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. It is a situation that I have long noticed but which gets little attention amid the week-to-week schedules that we all keep.<<<

I agree, but I think that there is a great deal of missed communication and misunderstanding in this thread as well.

>>>I do not think that it is either Catholic or Orthodox to encourage more frequent reception of the Eucharist.<<<

I entirely agree. The issue at hand is rather what constitutes "frequent" within a particular ecclesial Tradition, and whether what is normative for one Tradition should be blindly imitated by another without considerable reflection.

>>>Rather, it is a concern that all sacramental churches should be addressing. While the proper disposition must be achieved in order to approach the holy mysteries at all, they are at the same time, "medicines of immortality" and a "guide on the path to the kingdom of God." While we are all sinful people, subject each to our own spiritual infirmities, we are also people who are enjoined to continually grow more fully into the image of God, in which we were created. To help us conform more completely to the person of the Son of God, the sacraments are given by Christ, through the ministry of the church, not only as occasional milestones, marking significant steps of our journey, but as an integral part of our lives as Christians and as human beings. Communion should not merely mark the passing of another calendar year (Easter duty) or be reserved for special celebratory events (Christmas or other high holy days), but when approached rightly, should be that nourishment with which our souls are fed and cultivated, growing more and more each day, into that person that God would have us become.<<<

Again, we agree. I in no way intimated that we should return to the false practice of evading or avoiding communion due to a false sense of unworthiness. No one is worthy of the divine grace of the Eucharist, hence all may approach who do so with a contrite heart. The Fathers were of the opinion that if one was an initiate in the Church, and one showed up for Liturgy, one could not rightfully decline to receive communion. They were writing about and condemning people who declined communion out of a sense of unworthiness. Despite which, infrequent communion became the norm, East and West, by the turn of the first millennium. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have gone far in rectifying the situation, but one should also be wary of trivializing reception (as is the case in the Western Church, whose Eucharistic fasting rules are something of a joke). Therefore, a balance needs to be struck. Note, too, that the Fathers, while endorsing regular communion, did not speak of "daily" communion, nor did they ever endorse the notion that priests "must" celebrate the Eucharist daily, to say nothing of the notion that the priest has an obligation to "exercise his faculties" on a daily basis.

>>Our own liturgy tells us that "Behold, this has touched your lips, it shall take away your iniquities and cleanse you of your sins." and again, "The servant of God (n) receives the precious, all-holy, Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, for the remission of their sins and life everlasting. Amen."<<<

No argument from me there, either.

Still further, the liturgy teaches us, through the communion prayer, that "May the partaking of your holy mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation, but for the healing of soul and body. . . which I pray, make me worthy to receive, for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen."

These prayers make it quite evident that, besides the fact that the Eucharist is the "real presence" of Our Lord, in the mystery of the Divine Liturgy, by virtue of this reality, communion naturally effects a healing and a transformation, through the forgiveness of sin accomplished by the presence of Christ, for where God is, sin cannot abound.<<<

As divine nourishment, the Eucharist digests and transforms us, rather than we digesting and transforming it.

>>>Rather than being a form of latinization or a product of Western mentality, the more frequent reception of holy communion and the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice are quite in tune with the spirituality of the East. Many Eastern writers, Orthodox and Catholic would agree that the entire notion of only occasional reception of communion and the extreme emphasis placed on "unworthiness" to the point that it obstructs a normal reception of the Sacrament, entered the Eastern Church from the influence of the West.<<<

They would be wrong, since the problem arose simultaneously in both the East and the West, and was being discussed as early as the 4th century. It was an inevitable byproduct of the massive influx of imperfectly catechized converts into the Church. But that is neither here nor there, since nobody is discussing a return to the time when one only received the Eucharist at Pascha and the Nativity of the Lord. Rather, we are speaking of whether it is absolutely necessary to celebrate the Eucharist daily, and to receive at least every Sunday. I think that the Byzantine Tradition is unanimous in saying no to the first, and not necessarily to the second.

>>>A heightened scrupulosity in this regard, preoccupation with the exact numbers and occasions of personal sin, the necessity of confession directly prior to the reception of holy communion, lest one sin in the meantime, all originate from what A. Schemman called the "Western captivity of Orthodox theology" and that "school-theology" that takes its influence from scholasticism, which characterized most of Western thought for centuries. A more Eastern approach, views the sacraments not as legalistic items to be "attained" or "rewarded" through a blind obedience to church law and precept, but as an entire way of living, in and through what J. Ziziulous calls a "grafting onto Christ" being formed more and more fully into the person of Jesus, by attaching ourselves daily to Him and through this union, dying to ourselves so that we might live as a new person, working to become, as St. Paul says, that "perfect man who is Christ come to full stature." The way that we do this is by frequent participation in the sacramental life of the church, of which the Eucharist is the sacrament "par excellance" and the source of all the others.<<<

Again, no argument from me, but merely a note that you seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying.

>>>A noticeable problem in today's Eastern Churches is not that we are wrongly emphasizing more frequent reception of the Eucharist, but the exact opposite. In many Eastern Christian churches today, we are at risk of becoming nothing more than "Sunday to Sunday" congregations. This is particularly due to the ever-expanding adaptations to modern American lifestyle, with all of its activities and demands. It is also connected to the misguided notion among some today that the liturgy is only to be celebrated on Sundays and perhaps, holydays, leaving the weekdays free for "bible study," religious classes, social events or even nothing at all going on at the church. There is the idea that one can profit more from a class about the church than from the living participation in what makes that church a reality - the assembly of people around the table of the Lord. It should suffice to say that, while educational endeavors are helpful and even necessary to bring a bout a deeper understanding of the faith, any religion that requires a series of courses to even begin to understand the essence of that religion, has some serious complications that need to be re-evaluated.<<<

This is true, but a more frequent celebration of the Eucharist does not appear to be the answer, especially as it comes mainly at the expense of the celebration of the Divine Praises. Better, in my mind, for the faithful to reserve the Eucharist for Sunday, and for us to expand the liturgical horizons of the Church at least to include the regular celebration of Orthros and Vespers. As you note, ours is a busy society, and the notion that people will attend both the Eucharist and the Hours would appear unrealistic. Therefore, since most people do make an effort to attend the Divine Liturgy at least on Sunday, rather than expanding the opportunities to receive on other days, more effort should be made to revive the Divine Praises during the week, and especially on Saturday. For Eucharist seems to drive out other liturgies, which seriously unbalances the liturgical life of the Church; the celebration of the Eucharist to the exclusion of the Hours is akin to a banquet that has only one course.

>>>In short, many of the Eastern churches are in danger of becoming merely "Protestant churches with icons and incense," if the "Sunday to Sunday" mentality is allowed to continue.<<<

Then what is the Latin Church, despite its daily celebration of the Eucharist? The danger is not merely the Sunday-to-Sunday mentality (which ready availability of the Eucharist has not stifled in the Latin Church), but of a Johnny One Note liturgical life, in which it's either the Eucharist or nothing.

>>>With all due respect to our Protestant friends, the idea of services only on Sundays and merely occasional reception of communion is very much likened to what is the normal Protestant custom. If we are a sacramental church, centered around the chief sacrament, the Body & Blood of the Lord, then we must encourage a more than token celebration of this sacrament.<<<

Because you misunderstood the thrust of the arguments being made, you have posited a solution to a problem that was not being discussed. Besides, in Eastern Catholic Churches, when Eucharist is offered, everybody comes forward. And increasingly, I find the same thing is true in Orthodox congregations as well--certainly in the OCA, and even among the Greeks in some places.

>>>It is true that in the mid-20th. century, many of the beautiful and proper services of our tradition were neglected, in favor of a sole emphasis on the "mass" or Divine Liturgy. This phenomenon is another extreme to be avoided - where importance is taken away from the complete cycle of prayer that is the foundation of all liturgical traditions. The Divine Office and other devotions however, are meant to compliment and surround the Eucharistic Liturgy, not to replace it.<<<

That is true, which is why the Typicon specifies when the various services are to be celebrated.

>>>If it were possible, and surely in monastic communities, the entire office is meant to draw attention to and prepare one for, the ultimate prayer of the church - the Divine Liturgy.<<<

But not even in monasteries is the Divine Liturgy celebrated on a daily basis, unless it is part of the rule of that particular monastery. And not every monk receives every day.

>>>Unfortunately, the constraints of our modern society, with a multitude of already over-committed lives, does not make it possible for most of us to devoted enough time to a complete cycle of prayer, as exists in the church's wealth of tradition. But, so that it be known that the Greek Catholic Church is not just based on the Roman, pre-concilliar emphasis on the "mass-only," we should remember that, not too long ago, before the high period of extreme latinization in the 1950s and 60s, and when life was a bit simpler and free from so many secular activities, a great majority of our parishes maintained a full liturgical cycle of vespers, matins and the Divine Liturgy.<<<

And such should be the ideal today. The Liturgical Instruction even says that, in order to facilitate restoration of regular celebration of the Hours, attendance at the Saturday Vespers fulfills the "Sunday Obligation". Yet try to tell that to the typical parish priest, let alone the typical Greek Catholic. No Eucharist, no point--an all too common attitude.

>>>A typical day at church would have included time for prayer, food, socializing and the reception of the Eucharist.<<<

Not on every day.

>>>The truth is that in the Eastern Church, we have gone through various periods of understanding and praxis in regards to the reception of the Eucharist and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Many of these phases were not healthy nor in keeping with authentic Eastern spirituality. We have surely had those periods, still at play in some jurisdictions today, when the Eucharist was viewed as something so sublime, so untouchable, so extreme, that one barely dared to approach it, save on that "once a year" requirement by canon law. The idea of personal "unworthiness" so much pervaded our understanding of the great gift that Our Lord left to us, that few dared to approach it without having "taken" confession immediately prior to it. But, we have come a long way in our appreciation of that sacrament which is the center of our Christian lives. Thankfully today, there is a general encouragement, in most Eastern jurisdictions, for people to participate in holy communion on a regular basis, which likewise is in closer keeping with the practice of the early church.<<<

Quite right. We merely disagree about what is "regular".

>>>It has been mentioned that a certain priest of the Eastern Church celebrates the Divine Liturgy at least several times a week, not just on Sundays, when required to.<<<

It is actually proper to celebrate several times a week. But it is not part of the Byzantine Tradition to celebrate the Eucharist daily, outside of a Cathedral or monastic setting.

>>>While I do not think that I am that priest who was referred to, I gladly affirm that I do indeed make the celebration of the Eucharist a priority in my life and in the life of my parish, and encourage my people to do the same, offering the Liturgy on at least the better part of the days of the week.<<<

As is proper. But aliturgical days are also proper.

>>>I certainly do not believe that I am "not acting in accordance with Tradition" by doing so.<<<

I implied that a priest who celebrated daily would be acting contrary to Tradition, for the Tradition of the Byzantine Church is NOT to celebrate the Eucharist daily within a parochial setting.

>>>In this case anyway, from a theological perspective, it would not involve Tradition with the capital "T" which involves the living heritage of the belief of the church but tradition with the small "t" that refers to a variety of customs and usages not part of the "deposit of faith."<<<

If we want to be really persnickety, I would say we were dealing with "the proper useage of a particular Church".

>>>While we should place great emphasis on remaining in congruence with the traditions on which our church is established, we cannot allow these traditions to speak for us, nor follow in blind obedience, to various customs and practices of time and place, that may or may not be appropriate for today's church.<<<

Agreed, but as there are only so many hours in the day, how do you propose to celebrate Orthros, Vespers and the Divine Liturgy every day, and meet other obligations?

>>>By saying this, I am obviously not referring to either dogma nor even the proper celebration of the divine services, but rather to those elements which by their functionality, are meant to assist us in living the life of faith within the church.

I would only hope that we can all come to a sincere appreciation for the meaning of the Eucharistic Liturgy in our lives, neither over-emphasizing its necessity nor falling short of giving to it, the due reverence and importance of place that it should hold for every Christian. Let us all join together in prayer, whether together in our parishes or in spirit, through means of this forum, as we "take the chalice of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord."<<<

Amen.

I would say that Fr. Joe has expressed some very beautiful thoughts about the Eucharist. I would also say that Stuart has raised some valid concerns that I think I understand. I am a Byzantine Catholic who is in the unique position of making a living as an organist in a Latin Rite parish. What I see, if I can share from my strange perspective, is frequent reception of communion by nearly everyone - even with gum in the mouth. I see an RCIA program that often turns out Catholics who are still good Methodists in doctrine and practice. So I often see people who understand little about the Eucharist, the Church, and its traditions. In essence, the familiarity of very frequent communion has bred contempt. Of course there are exceptions, and I do see people who receive with great devotion. But there is something to the argument that people should be encouraged to prepare for proper reception of the Eucharist.

Sometime back in this thread, there was a discussion about the propriety of attending an Orthodox liturgy rather than a Latin Catholic Mass on holydays "of obligation".

For those who were of the opinion that one should automatically choose the Latin Catholic route, I have a puzzling situation for you to try to answer.

I am actually a member of the Latin church, although have been living and breathing the Byzantine fasts, feasts, and liturgies for the past three to five years, and look forward to the enthronment of Bishop Basil so that I can regularize on paper what is already happened in my life. (And to help prevent my children from getting ritualexia!)

Anyway, yesterday I eagerly celebrated the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul by attending the Divine Liturgy at an OCA parish. I had absolutely no qualms about doing so, since it was not a "holyday of obligation" in the Latin church, and there was no Byzantine Catholic church in the area with a Divine Liturgy. (But we did have a Reader's Service all-night vigil Friday night )

But, if I were already a member of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh where Ss. Peter and Paul is a "holyday of obligation", would it then be assumed that I would be required to attend a Mass in a Latin church?

This seems to be a truly odd line of reasoning. Latin Catholics can feely attend a Divine Liturgy, but Byzantine Catholics would be required to attend a Roman Mass. How very, very strange!

-- Ed Klages

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: EJKlages ]

I really think the time has come for me to ask for a little clarification here

Long ago I discussed the frequent/regular Reception of the Body and Blood of Our Lord with the priest who was to become my Spiritual Director. 'Twas indeed an interesting talk. His view was that yes, we should properly prepare for this, and how to prepare was something between the person and their Director. He also felt that Reception of Communion also gave us strength and we should therefore avail ourselves of this opportunity as often as was consistent with our life style - for me at that time it was 6 days out of 7 - and it was something I greatly appreciated.

Once I was retired this ability to Receive on a daily basis was not possible and I found it hard to cope with - I was hungry for spiritual food - yes my Prayer Life continued and indeed increased but I found that the desire for Spiritual food continued unabated. Father and I have continued to talk about this he tells me that I should Receive as often as it is possible for me - and he knows that I have Received the Sacrament in an Eastern Church on more than one occasion - his actual word was -"good".We discuss how to prepare , and have talked about the necessity for a person to receive earthly food on a regular basis and the necessity to Receive Spiritual Food on a regular basis also. How regular is regular - surely not something we should be discussing - it is personal and between Director/Spiritual Father and the person concerned. If one day Father told me that I should not approach the Altar - I would accept his advice unquestioningly, it would not be easy but I would obey because he would have said that with my best interest at heart at that time. He knows me better than I do.

Now here is where I am confused
One reason for that is the discipline associated with preparation for reception, which the Byzantine Churches believe requires some time. The Tradition of the Byzantine Churches is to receive on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, and then on one or two other days during the week. One should endeavor to receive regularly, but regularly does not necessarily mean "every day" or even "every Sunday".

Surely part of the necessary preparation is penitence ? Do we not express our sorrow for our sins and ask for forgiveness on a daily basis - in fact every time we say the Our Father, the Jesus Prayer and many other prayers ? Is it necessary, as some believe, to receive Sacramental Absolution before the Reception of Our Lord in His wonderful Gift of His Body and Blood ?

I apologise for the length of this.

Let my education continue [ actually I think I will have to put that in as my signature ]

Angela

[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

>>>Surely part of the necessary preparation is penitence ? Do we not express our sorrow for our sins and ask for forgiveness on a daily basis - in fact every time we say the Our Father, the Jesus Prayer and many other prayers ? Is it necessary, as some believe, to receive Sacramental Absolution before the Reception of Our Lord in His wonderful Gift of His Body and Blood ?<<<

Some Orthodox jurisdictions insist on this (and it was a common practice of the Roman Catholic Church through the 1960s), but most theologians, East and West, believe that this was a distortion of the proper understanding of the relationship between confession and Eucharist, brought about, paradoxically, by the infrequency of communion. That is, one should seek formal absolution through the Mystery of Reconciliation, when one is so soiled by sin as to alienate one from the Body of Christ (which doesn't mean that one can't or shouldn't confess to one's spiritual father more often--remembering that a spiritual father isn't necessarily a priest). The Mystery of the Eucharist is capable, as our liturgical prayers say, of washing away minor sins and transgressions. If one receives communion regularly, the power of the Holy Mystery serves both to keep one clean of minor sin, and to fortify against major ones. But if one receives infrequently, then sin builds up, like plaque on teeth, and needs to be chipped off. The longer one waits (and it used to be common for people to receive but once or twice a year), the greater the need for formal repentence and absolution through the Mystery of Reconciliation. And the longer one waits for that, the harder it is to do--a nasty cycle.

That is why enlightened Orthodox theologians like blessed Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemman took the position that if one is receiving the Eucharist regularly, one need not receive the Mystery of Reconciliation as a prerequisite for receiving communion. Rather, the necessity of confession should be a matter between the communicant, his spiritual father, and his priest. The general rule ought to be that, if one is receiving regularly, one need only go to confession according to the rule established with one's spiritual father, or when one is aware of a major sin that alienates one from the Chalice.

StuartK
OK - that I can follow however I return again to the difference between regular and frequent and the traditions of the Byzantine Church. From earlier in the thread quoted by Fr Joe I think

I do not think that it is either Catholic or Orthodox to encourage more frequent reception of the Eucharist. Rather, it is a concern that all sacramental churches should be addressing. While the proper disposition must be achieved in order to approach the holy mysteries at all, they are at the same time, "medicines of immortality" and a "guide on the path to the kingdom of God." While we are all sinful people, subject each to our own spiritual infirmities, we are also people who are enjoined to continually grow more fully into the image of God, in which we were created. To help us conform more completely to the person of the Son of God, the sacraments are given by Christ, through the ministry of the church, not only as occasional milestones, marking significant steps of our journey, but as an integral part of our lives as Christians and as human beings. Communion should not merely mark the passing of another calendar year (Easter duty) or be reserved for special celebratory events (Christmas or other high holy days), but when approached rightly, should be that nourishment with which our souls are fed and cultivated, growing more and more each day, into that person that God would have us become.

Here I think the first 2 sentences are very important and he follows it up with.... they are at the same time, "medicines of immortality" and a "guide on the path to the kingdom of God."

I could carry on emphasising parts of what he has written - but it seems to me that I can possibly sum it up as saying that The Sacrament of Communion has been given to us as necessary Food for our journey through life towards God, not as an occasional Banquet but as a regular part of our spiritual diet.

If this is so, and my understanding and belief leads me to this , should we not be partaking of this most Wonderful Food at all possible opportunities - providing of course that we are prepared properly ?

"This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His Supper. Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."


Let the education etc

Angela

Thanks for the clarification of where you stand on this Stuart. I was misunderstanding what you were saying, I thought you were for the practice of evading or avoiding communion. As I have met some people in my current parish who think this might be a good thing to do.

As for the question on where to attend church when you are in a place where no Byzantine Catholic Churches are.

I think the only proper answer we can give is to tell the person to bring this up with either their pastor or their spiritual father. As any answer we give could cause scandal.

We should not tell them what our spiritual father/pastor has told us to do, as each case is an individual thing.

But if one's Eastern spirituality is so fragile that an occasional attendance at a Mass will hurt it then I would truly suggest that this person get a spiritual father as they have bigger problems.


David