www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Stand or Kneel?

With regard to Dan's idea, some Syrian Churches do something like this. Usually during a pastoral visitation by the bishop, a bunch of adolescent age kids are asked to stand before the steps of the altar after Qurbana. Some introductory prayers are said after the Qawmo, as well as prayers for the kids, and litanies, and they are "confirmed". Actually, it's called a self-dedication servic, but some call it confirmation, since we use the term Mooron for Chrismation. It includes an exhortation by the bishop. Purely non-sacramental, non-liturgical service, but the bishop likes it, and so do the people, so it'll stay.

>>>Now this is truly a wonderful idea! You are absolutely right, why celebrate the First Confession? Depressing at best . . .<<<

>>Well, when you think about it, we are really celebrating the day that our children OFFICIALLY become sinners. We parents, of course, know that they have been de facto sinners for a long time already.<<

Am I the only one here who realizes that Confession isn't a celebration of being a sinner but rather a celebration of being a penitent?

The whole issue of whether or not there should be a big "class" of first time confessors aside, the whole viewpoint on celebrating one's sinfulness is spurious. Besides, EVERY sacarment is in some sense a litrugical celebration.

Dear Catholicos Mor Ephrem,

How are you today, Your Beatitude?

I think the Byzantine Church should adopt the Syriac Church's tradition in this respect, to be sure.

If you ever come across the text of the ceremony, please share it with us! The Syriac Church is way ahead here . . .

Alex

Dear Ignatius,

Agreed, absolutely!

But this came out of our discussion about the way in which some Byzantine Churches that want to keep something like the "First Holy Communion" do so by having a "First Holy Confession and Communion" since children start receiving Communion from Day One when they are baptized.

Whatever is done or whatever it is called, I think something like a big celebration where young people are brought into the Church like that is a good thing.

Until something else is proposed, First Holy Confession and Communion it is!

Dominus Vobiscum,

Alex

Slava,

I will ignore your attempt to attack me personally (and I admit I have no clue why I am "obi wan"??).

Slava: Ok Mr Obi Wan of the Byzantines Let's say that you are the newly elected Metropolitan. What would you do to "Reform"
our churches from the evils of "Latinisation" since you are so properly educated down in Raleigh.

Anastasios: I would ask our parishes to cooperate with the Orthodox on social projects, fundraisers, the down-to-earth stuff, and let it go from there.

I would find a rich donor (presumably being a Metropolitan I'd have connections) and get iconostasises built for those parishes that still don't have one (and can't afford them).

Then I'd mandate the priests celebrate Vespers and matins. I'd outlaw Saturday night "masses" and restore the principle that Vespers fulfills the Sunday obligation for those who need to travel or whatever.

I'd follow up by just implementing the 1944 Ordo published in Rome in its entirety. Then I'd be done and relax for awhile. Oh yeah, I'd get the cantors to work together on an updated book with all our chant and have it published, too.

Oh yeah, and I'd abolish kneeling on Sundays. :-) after all, I want to be in line with the Council of Nicea!

Slava: I think you dislike the Roman church and vent it thru the Byzantine rite.

Anastasios: Since I don't attend the Roman Church, why would I be "disatisfied" with it? I have never been a ROman Catholic. True, before becoming Byzantine and after leaving Lutheranism, I attended a Roman Church, and yes, it was disappointing, I still do not get worked up about it. One of my friends is a rather liberal RC priest. If they want to mess with their tradition, that's their businness. I'm Byzantine and that's all I'm concerned with (liturgically). I'm having enough of a hard time trying to learn the Chants for Vespers and Orthros (matins).


Slava: Tell it to a Ukrainian Baba that she needs to throw away her rosary beads because she has been "Latinised".

Anastasios: If you actually would have read my previous post, you would have noticed I said that only in public liturgy do we need to delatinize. I have a rosary and a Latin picture at my icon corner (along with two Coptic icons). If someone wants to pray the rosary, great! I prefer the Akathist, but I don't butt into people's private devotions.

Slava: Tell that to my Grandparents as well when you are removing the pews because the Greeks didn't have them 1000 years ago .

Anastsios: Tell that to the Pope who said to delatinize. But sure, I'll talk to your grandparents if you want. Oh, and the Greeks in many places STILL do not have pews.

Slava: The point is we have them now and this is what the church has evolved into. This is how it fits in with the melting pot of American life.

Anastasios: Not all evolutions are good, Slava. That's why the Pope (why don't you follow the Pope?) and Vatican II said to delatinize. I think you should read the documents first, buddy.

Slava: Ofcourse Latinisations crept in. Our church was in Hungary for 1000 years. If you do not like pews well good for you. Our church has them and Likes them.

Anastasios: It's not a matter of preference. It's not Byzantine, and sooner or later, it will go. Another pewless parish is Holy Transfiguration Melkite Catholic Church in Virginia. Vibrant worship, great parish, etc. No grandmas complaining, either.

What about the calendar ?? Julian or Gregorian ?? ---doesn't matter.

Should we have segregated churches again Women on Left and fully headcovered with men on right ??? ---headcovering, yes. My girlfriend and several other ladies in the parish use it. St. Paul said so. Now mandatorily, NO. But as an encouraged practice--YES.

What about Slavonic ?? --I like understanding the language I pray in.


They used to say English was a heretic language. You gonna re-implement that too??
--No, but I might encourage some more Spanish masses in the Southwest.


Would you please calm down, Slava, and tell me why you are so upset? Meanwhile I'll just follow the Pope and Metropolitan Judson's example. By the way, did it make you mad when they started communicating babies, Slava? Or when the filioque died?
anastasios

>>Am I the only one here who realizes that Confession isn't a celebration of being a sinner but rather a celebration of being a penitent? <<

>>The whole issue of whether or not there should be a big "class" of first time confessors aside, the whole viewpoint on celebrating one's sinfulness is spurious. Besides, EVERY sacarment is in some sense a litrugical celebration.<<

>Agreed, absolutely!
But this came out of our discussion about the way in which some Byzantine Churches that want to keep something like the "First Holy Communion" do so by having a "First Holy Confession and Communion" since children start receiving Communion from Day One when they are baptized.
Whatever is done or whatever it is called, I think something like a big celebration where young people are brought into the Church like that is a good thing.
Until something else is proposed, First Holy Confession and Communion it is!<

Alex,

What I was wondering about was why there�s such a feeling that Confession is depressing or a celebration of being a sinner. In fact, it is a celebration of one�s reconciliation with God. That�s GOOD news in my book.

If people don�t want to have a �First Confession� then don�t have one. But they should be aware of the very nature of the sacrament. Don�t say you�re celebrating something you�re not as a justification to stop a particular practice.

Perhaps getting one�s child to confession for the first time should be left up to the parents (who are the primary educators of their children). Even if there was a general guideline for age the parents would be the one�s with the final say (at least for going earlier � can anyone deny that a 13 year old, for instance, hasn�t sinned yet?). This would take into account the developmental differences of the children and also respect the parents� responsibility for the upbringing of their children. It�s also a system that can work with or without a parish-wide �First Confession.� (As an aside, there have also been cases of Latin parents having their children brought to the sacraments earlier than is normal in a parish or diocese BECAUSE they are the primary educators AND their children have a right to the sacraments).

Pax me amicus

Dear Ignatius,

Agreed, the Mystery of Confession is one of joy, to be sure.

I don't think anyone really meant it to be otherwise,(or perhaps they did!) just that First Communion is not of the Byzantine tradition (nor is it really of the older Roman tradition).

The issues of ongoing catechesis throughout a person's life and a close relationship with Christ in Holy Communion are pastoral concerns as well as vitally important for our overall Christian growth.

Our focus should always be on union with Christ in Holy Communion with Confession as the way to prepare properly for Communion.

Sorrow for our sins is also something that should be a daily spiritual exercise, even apart from Confession. Our entire life should be dedicated to repentance and self-renewal in the Spirit of Christ.

Alex

Ignatius,

"In fact, it is a celebration of one�s reconciliation with God. That�s GOOD news in my book."

Hasn't this occured through the three iniciatory sacraments?

Dan L

>>In fact, it is a celebration of one�s reconciliation with God. That�s GOOD news in my book.<<

>Hasn't this occured through the three iniciatory sacraments?<

Of course, and it continues to be celebrated each time we are reconciled with God via the sacrament of Confession. Just because one may go to Confession on a (relatively) frequent basis in no way reduces the nature of the sacrament; one of a celebration of God's mercy.

Please note that in my previous posts I in no way said that the practice of "First Confession" should continue in the Byzantine Church.

What I was saying was that people shouldn't misrepresent what Confession (and by extension, First Confession celebrations) are. They are NOT celebrations of sinfulness but rather celebrations of reconciliation and mercy.

I guess I don't see what the problem with my position is.

Dear Ignatius,

There isn't a problem with your position!

There is a problem with a "First Confession" in the Byzantine Church.

The univeral Church of Christ, Roman and Byzantine, administered the Sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist to infants for the first 1200 years.

It was only later that the innovation occurred in the West to separate the sacraments.

The medieval practice of not sharing the Chalice with the laity effectively cancelled the practice of Communion to infants. This didn't happen as a result of pastoral or theological argument, as Robert Taft and others have demonstrated.

The practice of Confession at the age of reason, although affirmed in the thirteenth century, refers not to a sanction against the reception of Communion by infants, but to the rule for annual Confession and Communion imposed on all at that time.

"First Confession and Communion" is an innovation that is foreign to both Roman (for the first 1200 years A.D.) and Byzantine Churches, and that brings us full circle.

Any suggestion on anyone's part that Confession is a "negative" thing is also foreign to Church teaching! Anathema

Alex

Athanasios :

Well I will try to answer some of your questions. First of all I am not attacking you , I am just responding to your writings, to me which I felt were a bit brash as well. Secondly I am very Pro Papal and I listen to our Pope and Bishops.I am definately going to miss Metropolitan Judson. I own the writings of the Pope on Our Eastern rite and the Vatican II documents concerning the Eastern Churches. I have never included the Filioque in the Creed when I recite it. It also doesn't make me mad at all when babies receive communion although I still prefer the idea of 1st Holy Communion instead but that is another topic sure enuff to open a can of worms here at this forum. I am sorry if you feel as if I need to calm down but quite truthfully that is the way that I am . I am known to be very outspoken and forward and it is a family trait of mine to be brash and arrogant when opposed. So as for that I apologise to you. I somewhat see your point if the long goal is to re-unite east and west
and I definately agree on putting Icon Screens in our churches.{They should have always been in}. I definately agree on the restructuring of the Liturgical schedules such as Matins and Vespers and having them as the Books call for them. I just don't think the pews and the kneeling should go.
I have been in pewless churches where they kneel when we do. I would be in favor of that. I just think that the Kneeling brings the proper respect to the Consecrated Blood and Body in the parish and I like that. If we could do that without the pews I would be in all favor of that. What about the Priests ? Do you think we should go back to the old ways with Priests and Bishops with Long hair and beards ? At what point do we declare what is a proper Byzantine custom as opposed to a Latin one ? The church in Ruthenia evolved differently than the Russian or Ukrainian ones. Why do most Ruthenians claim to be Slovak instead of Ukrainian or Russian ?? Simple they equate better with the Slovaks because of the mixed East West customs. The Ukrainian Catholics in the Ukraine seem in most cases to still be closer to the Russian or Greek Orthodox churches in Liturgical tradition and a Patriarchate in Kiev would be great, unless you are Patriarch Alexii of Moscow. But do you ever think that the world's different denominations will all be united ? I can only see that working if the different traditions were respected by drawing up diocese lines comprable to that specific faith. Another question sure to spark major controversy here: Sure the Pope speaks of re introducing married clergy but why is it still on hold ????? I am totally in favor of Married clergy and we need it as well. But then comes the issue {sure to open yet again another can of worms} what do we call our Pastor's wife ?? Pan'i , Matushka, Matka , Protopresbytera or what ?? So you see our Byzantine church can never really have just one straight out custom good for all so to speak. Even though our church originated from Constantinople it has took on many forms and adapted to whatever environment and culture it has visited. Hence why our churches in America are Latinised and Protestanised {if that is the correct term here}. At what point do we go,just to be able to say "And now our churches are Delatinised as we have returned to the true Byzantine customs" . Now the Russians and Greeks are sure to flock under the Pope in Rome. Yeah Right !!!

>>>What I was wondering about was why there�s such a feeling that Confession is depressing or a celebration of being a sinner. In fact, it is
a celebration of one�s reconciliation with God. That�s GOOD news in my book.<<<

Jeez, people! I was being SARCASTIC!

The basic problem I wanted to point out was that we have turned this thing into a "rite of passage", whereas the sacraments are not about that at all. Moreover, we instituted this pseudo-liturgical ritual because we are still hung up on this Latin "age of reason" crap. The matter of when to begin confessions is not subject to arbitrary age rules, but should be a pastoral matter among those who best know the person in question; i.e., the parents, the spritual father, and the child himself.

With regard to the entire "Age of Reason" discussion, I think the following will be "illuminating":

In the case of Christian initiation, modern historical research and theological reflection have shown that theuniversal primitive tradition of both the East and West viewed the liturgical completion of Christian initiation as one integral rite, comprising three moments of baptism, chrismation, and Eucharist, and without all three the process is incomplete. In Christian antiquity, to celebrate initiation without Eucharist would habe made about as much sense as celebrating half a wedding would today. For this reason, contemporary western Catholic experts on the liturgy have insisted on the necessity of restoring the integrity of this process which broke down in the Middle Ages.

I suspect that some of the Eastern Catholic clergy, educated in Latin seminaries, or at least in Latin categories of a previous epoch, are convinced that the practice of infant communion is not "Catholic"--or at least not as Catholic as the Latin practice of delaying first communion until children have obtained the use of reason. Why they might think this is no mystery. The provailing Latin thesis was that the use of reason was necessary to receive the Eucharist fruitfully. If this is so, then what could be the point of infant communion?

This problem, too, can be dissipated by a knowlege of the facts. From the beginning of the primitive Church in the East and the West, the process of Christian initiation for both infants and adultswas one inseparable sequence comprising catechumenate, baptism, chrismation (confirmation), and Eucharist. History is unmistakeably clear in this matter: every candidate, child or adult, was baptized, confirmed and given communion as part of a single initiation rite. This is the universal ancient Catholic practice. Anything else is less ancient and has no claim to universality.

For centuries, this was also the tradition of the Church of Rome. In 417, Pope Innocent I in a doctrinal letter to the Fathers of the Synod of Milevis, teaches that infant initiation necessarily includes communion:

to preach that infants can be given the rewards of eternal life without the grace of baptism is completel idiotic. For unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, they will not have life in them.

That this was the actual liturgical practice of the Church of Rome can be seen, for instance, in the 7th century Ordo Romanus XI, and in the 12th century Roman Pontifical, whcih repeats almost verbatim the same rule (I cite the latter text):

Concerning infants, care should be taken lest they receive food or be nursed (except in case of urgent need) before receiving the sacrament of Christ's Body. And afterwards, during the the whole of Easter week, let them come to Mass, offer, and receive communion every day.

Until the 12th century, this was the sacramental practice of the Roman Church, and the doctrinal teaching of Latin theologians. Christ himself said in John 6:53 that it was necessary for eternal life to receive His Body and Blood--"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you"--and the medieval Latin theologians applied this to everyone without exception, including infants.

The practice began to be called into question in the 12th century, not because of any argument about the need to have attained the "age of reason" (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and communion for those who have reached the "age of reason" (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist. Even the 1910 decree Quam singulari issued under Pius X mentions the age of reason as not required before communion can be received, but as the age when the obligation of satisfying the precept of annual confession and communion begins.

Nevertheless, the notion took hold that communion could not be received before the age of reason, even though infant communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of the Council of Trent denied the necessity of infant communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious--realizing undoubtedly that the same arguments used against infant communion could be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries the West had used the same theology to justify both. For the Byzantine rite, on 23 December 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering the Eucharist to infants.

So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the the universal practice of the entire Church East and West was to communicate infants. Hence to advance doctrinal arguments against infant communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant communion was not only permitted in the Latin Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church, the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the "age of reason" theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them communion. So the "age of reason" requirement for communion is a medieval western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give communion to infants. Present Latin useage is a medieval innovation.

From Robert F.Taft, SJ, "Liturgy in the Life of the Church", Eastern Churches Journal, Vol.7 No.2.

Dear Stuart,

Excellent point on First Communion as a rite of passage.

However, don't we already do this (and I am just wondering) with the Sacraments of Initiation, Marriage, Anointing, Priesthood?

Are they not a kind of Rite of Passage at the same time?

If there is a need for such a rite of passage for our children at a certain age, what could be done in keeping with our Byzantine traditions? Do you agree with Dan's proposal?

Alex

Alex,

I think you're realy onto something here regarding sacraments as "rites of passage."

It is very common to hear people say that they are NOT rites of passage. However, it seems to me that rites of passage are, in a sense, natural sacraments. I am not sure that this would mean that sacraments are supernatural rites of passage, but it seems possible. After all, grace builds on nature. Maybe the rites of passage of various civilizations were prefigurments of the sacraments.

Even the sacraments of initiation are rites of passage in the sense that they are what bring people into the New Covenant.

Dear Ignatius,

I think you are absolutely right, Friend!

The various Feasts of the Church also punctuate the year and its seasons, reflecting as they do our liturgical celebrations.

There are canonical ages for when a Priest and a Bishop may be ordained and consecrated.

But Rite of Passage perhaps has less to do with age and more with the actual Mystery being celebrated.

If First Confession and (something) Holy Communion is a kind of rite of passage, and if our Byzantine Churches have it (and they do, attendance at these things is amazing!), then what will replace it? If nothing, I really don't think there is a chance in, er, heaven that a change will take place or that it is desirable.

I am all for the Three Sacraments of Initiation given to infants, but there is a need for "something" later on.

God bless,

Alex