End of "First Communion" Celebrations in US Melkite Greek Catholic Church

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br. David - I can see how you might have read this, especially projecting forward to the day that you might be on the receiving end of such a letter.

I do not agree with how this was done, that is all I will say on this.

As for me being on the receiving end, that is not something I have to worry about as I am a member of an exempt order. If I disagree with a bishop, I can say so and leave to work elsewhere.

We Carmelites do not have the same rule that the Franciscans have about questioning bishops.

Not that I disagree with this. I think that Bishop Samra is right, I just do not like how he went about it, actually I just do not like the last bit.

For me it calls into question the integrity of every priest in the eparchy.

 

[malphono]

I do not agree with how this was done, that is all I will say on this. …

Not that I disagree with this. I think that Bishop Samra is right, I just do not like how he went about it, actually I just do not like the last bit.

For me it calls into question the integrity of every priest in the eparchy.

Yes, I happen to fully agree with your position.

This particular case represents a restoration of a venerable (and living, at least among the Orthodox) tradition, and that is welcome. But the way it was done sets a very dangerous precedent. A bishop who is heavy-handed and calls into question the integrity of his own priests is something I’m well familiar with. And it’s not a pleasant familiarity.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

For me it calls into question the integrity of every priest in the eparchy.

Br. David - I must confess to you and all that I did not realize, despite the inclusion of the link in you OP, that this pastoral letter was posted publicly on the Eparchy of Newton’s website.

I hope this all plays out as it should. I do agree with the move, but the message perhaps could have remained private between the bishop and his priests …

 

[coco2]

Are these people in communion with Rome?

I am a Roman Catholic, and I want to tell you that I am 53 years old. I don’t remember many specific events in my younger life, but I do remember receiving the Eucharist for the first time when I was 7 years old. I remember it vividly, the entire Mass. What I do not remember is if there was a party or if I received a bunch of gifts. The only gift I know I did receive, was my first rosary that I still pray with today.

If it is your tradition, and you want to keep it, that is fine; but it pains me to see remarks made that make light of Romans receiving Jesus for the first time at the age of seven or eight.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Are these people in communion with Rome?

I am a Roman Catholic, and I want to tell you that I am 53 years old. I don’t remember many specific events in my younger life, but I do remember receiving the Eucharist for the first time when I was 7 years old. I remember it vividly, the entire Mass. What I do not remember is if there was a party or if I received a bunch of gifts. The only gift I know I did receive, was my first rosary that I still pray with today.

If it is your tradition, and you want to keep it, that is fine; but it pains me to see remarks made that make light of Romans receiving Jesus for the first time at the age of seven or eight.

The Melkites are indeed in communion with Rome.

And as an Eastern Catholic with a Roman Catholic family on my mother’s side, and having received my First Holy Communion at age seven (back when this was still the practice in my EC parish), I can understand your sentiments.

Keeping our tradition, that is to receive our infants into the Church via the full Rites of Christian Initiation (Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Eucharist, all at once), does come with challenges as well, as suggested in the letter posted by Bishop Samra.

It is especially incumbent on EC parents, catechists and clergy to instruct our youngsters on the importance and meaning of their sacramental life in the Church. We just do so now while they fully participate in this sacramental life, including the reception of the Holy Eucharist from a young age. In our tradition, we do not have two major points of “emphasized catechesis”, if you will, connected to the First Holy Communion and latter Confirmation as per Roman practice and tradition. A different path, but no less important and no less challenging on either side.

No disrespect of Latin Catholic tradition is intended.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are these people in communion with Rome?

I am a Roman Catholic, and I want to tell you that I am 53 years old. I don’t remember many specific events in my younger life, but I do remember receiving the Eucharist for the first time when I was 7 years old. I remember it vividly, the entire Mass. What I do not remember is if there was a party or if I received a bunch of gifts. The only gift I know I did receive, was my first rosary that I still pray with today.

If it is your tradition, and you want to keep it, that is fine; but it pains me to see remarks made that make light of Romans receiving Jesus for the first time at the age of seven or eight.

I don’t see where this “making light of Roman traditions” you are speaking of. Just because the Bishops says something against what is practiced in the Roman Church but strictly from the viewpoint of and directed towards his own Eastern Church, it doesn’t mean he’s making light of Roman traditions. In the same way, should Eastern Catholics take offense everytime a Roman Catholic complains why people are standing and not kneeling at any point of the Mass including when receiving Communion? Should we take it as a slight on the Eastern tradition of standing on Sundays?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

In defense of Bishop Samra’s statements I will say this: he makes a point from the very beginning that he is responding to a situation that has been brought to his attention by a number of clergy and laity within his diocese. His letter, therefore, is not out of left field.

He also mentions that the official policy of the Melkites since 1967 has been to reinstate the full celebration of infant initiation, which includes Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Communion. He then goes on to point out the Archbishop Joseph Tawil re-instituted the full Eastern practice in the 1970s, but by 1981 had to reaffirm the authentic Byzantine tradition and officially suppress the Latinized practice of First and/or Solemn Communions. Archbishop Tawil, like Kyr Samra, begged his priests to catechize the faithful on this matter.

Bishop Samra also rightly points out that, as bishop of our Eparchy, it is his responsibility to moderate, promote, and guard the entire liturgical life of the eparchy (as per Canon 199 paragraph 1). I find it sad that for the past 40+ years some priests have been disobeying their bishops, and even the Melkite Synod, when all the bishops are trying to do is restore and promote the authentic tradition of their sui iuris Church.

Finally Bishop Samra also points out that the Congregation for the Eastern Churches itself explicitly addressed this issue in its document Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches of1996. In it the Congregations stated that the competent authorities (i.e. the bishop and his priests) must adopt “measures suitable for returning to the previous practice (i.e. infant Communion) and to elaborate norms that are more conforming to their own tradition.”

So Rome, the Synod, and the past several bishops of our Eparchy have all been encouraging the priests to educate the faithful and to return to our ancient and authentic practice for the last 40+ years! The only reasons this practice can be said to have lingered in the Melkite Church are either ignorance or flat out disobedience. I pray that the latter is not the case.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I am saddened that he felt the need to do so in a public manner.

This undermines the credibility of all the priests in the eparchy.

Hi Br. David. Again I’d like to thank you for elaborating on this for me. I do want to clarify something, though. Although the letter was uploaded to the “Eparchial Policies” section of the Chancery’s tab, it is addressed to priests, not to the laity. The parish priests are encouraged, but not required, to share it with the laity, especially catechists. It doesn’t seem to me that Kyr Samra was intending at all to cause anyone any embarrassment or to undermine the credibility of any of his parish priests.

That being said, however, those parish priests that have continued the practice he is addressing have done so either out of ignorance or flat out disobedience to Rome, the Synod, and the past several Eparchs of our Eparchy - at least since Archbishop Tawil in the 1970s. Priests have had over 40 years to educate their faithful and reinstate the proper Byzantine practice. I can feel Kyr Samra’s frustration; why has this not happened all throughout our diocese? At the risk of sounding a bit harsh, insofar as a priest disobeys the policies of his bishop when those policies are not contrary to the Faith, and in fact are meant to restore our authentic tradition, then his credibility deserves to be undermined because he is usurping a power that is not properly his. There have been plenty of non-public communiques demanding that priests restore our authentic tradition within their parishes. Since such a restoration has obviously not fully taken place (hence the need for the letter), perhaps a more public appeal will jog the priests into obedience. I don’t know. I’m just throwing that out there.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What is there to elaborate on?

The bishop publicly stated “I ask you priests and deacons especially, to walk with me on this issue, even if you have personal objections. You should not be telling your faithful that you disagree with your bishop in a public manner; this only creates dissention. Teach our proper customs, and I expect your full support.”

Which brings to mind that he does not trust any of the priests serving in the eparchy.

I can understand how lay people might applaud such a statement.

I have a different perspective due to the state in life I am in. As one who is working towards the priesthood and am a consecrated religious, I think this is a very bad move on the part of Bishop Samra, up until this I greatly admired him. Now I just don’t know.

As I said, I am deeply saddened.

This can (and should be IMHO) on an individual basis. You do not tar the who group with disobedience. You take it on as it happens on a case by case basis.

I see your point here. Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps it would’ve been better/more pastoral had Bishop Samra dealt with this on a case-by-case basis.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So Rome, the Synod, and the past several bishops of our Eparchy have all been encouraging the priests to educate the faithful and to return to our ancient and authentic practice for the last 40+ years! The only reasons this practice can be said to have lingered in the Melkite Church are either ignorance or flat out disobedience. I pray that the latter is not the case.

There are more than just that. Thing is with Eastern Catholic parishes, we don’t have the throngs of people that the RC parishes have. Sometimes you’d want to do something but the people doesn’t, what are you going to do? Force them and watch them leave?

I know we’re having such a problem. People want their way even those who should be making decisions are leading people to the right path but they believe their way is the right way. Its tough. I’m sure people like us who love the old traditions applaud this move by the Bishop, but the majority of the laity who thinks the things they grew up with are the traditions, what do they think?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I see your point here. Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps it would’ve been better/more pastoral had Bishop Samra dealt with this on a case-by-case basis.

I think the letter was great and the correct was obviously needed. What I believe should have been handled on a case by case basis is the disobedience of any of the clergy.

So I think that the letter should have just lacked that last paragraph.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think the letter was great and the correct was obviously needed. What I believe should have been handled on a case by case basis is the disobedience of any of the clergy.

So I think that the letter should have just lacked that last paragraph.

As usual, I agree with you.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I am happy about this decision.

Probably the new Archepiscopos Nicholas realized that the best way for the Melkite Greek Catholic Church to survive and thrive in the USA is to continue to bring it closer to practices which are in line with the “Orthodox” C/churches. As they have preserved most of those which are historically their own original Melkite practices unchanged from the beginning.

The Melkite Eparchy of Newton, USA is in a state where it’s numbers of growth are rather small and fragile. With the growth of more traditional latin rite options (1962 Mass and Anglican-use), as well are more “Orthodox” (schismatic) churches as alterantives, the melkites have to keep themselves set up as a unique viable option among many competing options. In the future they are not likely going to have as much of a “boost” of ex-latin rite refugee members that they have had in the past 40 years. Surely some will still be there of course, for the byzantine rites are unique and timeless treasure in and of itself, but In fact I do hope they are able to succeed in existing here in the USA. I pray for this frequently.

The less latinization they have, the more genuine they are, the more their ability to be taken seriously and encourage their native members as well as newcomers to be a permanent part of their parishes.

The pictures of the church in venezuela were very disconcerting. I have heard of these practices and even witnessed them once (what a weird day that was). That is a recipe for disaster, for a church where many of it’s most distinctive and noticeable features are identical to more recent Latin practices which have little credibility historically, and are more properly labeled abuses. That much extreme similarity brings many melkites or interested cathologics abroad to simply not see enough difference and instead go to the dominant modern latin churches, or “schismatic” Orthodox ones. The melkites almost seem irrelevant when they are latinized in that extreme a manner. Thankfully in the USA that problem does not any longer exist.

There are not enough bishops who have the courage, self esteem or ability to be sacrificial victims, no matter what others think of them, to stand up for what is right, or to excommunicate people.

May the melkites have many years of guidance from Archepiscopos Nicholas Samra!

Axios Axios Axios!

I knew when he was elevated, by the look of this sakkos, how beautiful it was, that he would probably be suited to the position. I never saw such beautiful vestments used in the recent previous hierarchs.

 

[5Loaves]

Sayendna Nicholas is a wonderful bishop. He’s done what he’s done with purpose. In my opinion we best not evaluate his purpose, speculate about it etc. May we keep him in our humble prayers that he continue to be sustained in the great work he does for the Body of Christ. Many years!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Archepiscopos Nicholas

Just to clarify, Bishop Nicholas is not an archbishop.

While the last bishop of the Eparchy of Newton was an archbishop this was because he was bishop of an archeparchy in (I believe) Lebanon. When an archbishop is moved to an eparchy he is not demoted to bishop but retains the title of archbishop, that is why Archbishop Cyril was the eparch of the Eparchy of Newton. His successor is only a bishop unless he too is moved from an archeparchy.

Hence, Bishop Nicholas is “only” a bishop.

 

[xavierakx]

To the faithful today, who have lived a major part of their life in the latinized traditions and devotions of the ECCs, the feeling towards de-latinization could be no different from an import of new traditions. Will that lead to a case, where, more Eastern Catholics feel more at home in a Latin church ?

 

[Byz_Guy]

On the official level, according to Cyril Korolevsky, Rome has never officially mandated or supported the Latinization of the Eastern Churches. In fact, it has consistently spoken out against such Latinizations and encouraged Eastern and Oriental Catholics to be true to their Orthodox roots, and to reclaim those customs that have perhaps been abandoned and replaced by Latinizations. This is true especially since the Second Vatican Council.

One should be careful not to use the word “never.” At times, Rome has supported latinizations. See:

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9omnems.htm

“On the other hand, this concern of preserving intact the ancient liturgies, has not prevented certain rites, borrowed from other Churches, from being admitted into the Oriental ritual. Gregory XVI of blessed memory wrote about these to the Armenian Catholics, “your ancestors, either admired them because they seemed more fitting and beautiful or, introduced them at various periods as a distinctive mark separating themselves from heretics and schismatics.”…Liturgical innovations of this nature proposed for the purpose of purifying the Oriental rites and restoring them to their pristine integrity are a pretext and therefore invalid. Indeed the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See. If variations have occurred in this liturgy in the course of time, they have been instituted after consultation with the Roman Pontiffs and for the express purpose of freeing such rites from any taint of heresy or schism and expressing Catholic teaching more correctly and clearly for the preservation of the faith and the good of souls…Moreover, venerable brothers, We exhort you, also, who with such labor and singular zeal have undertaken the care of the Ruthenians entrusted to you, to preserve scrupulously the liturgical practice approved by the Apostolic See or introduced with its knowledge and without its censure. Reject totally any innovation, and take care to instruct pastors and priests to observe most accurately, even under the strictest sanction of penalties, if need be, the sacred canons on these matters, especially those of the Synod of Zamosi.”

This is not the case since Vatican II, however.

 

[brumano]

Die, Latin innovations, die!

I don’t know if you mean this as satire or as if in cheering. If the first Holy Communion of a Son or Daughter is not good cause for great celebrating in the family and in the family of the church, I don’t know what could be. I don’t think you should hope too whole heartedly for the death of all Latin innovations in your church, you may find your own to be quite lifeless without them.

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t know if you mean this as satire or as if in cheering. If the first Holy Communion of a Son or Daughter is not good cause for great celebrating in the family and in the family of the church, I don’t know what could be. I don’t think you should hope too whole heartedly for the death of all Latin innovations in your church, you may find your own to be quite lifeless without them.

Oh, so our Eastern traditions are in some way inadequate without the introduction of traditions particular to the Latin Church? How would you feel if I told you that your practice is quite lifeless because you don’t confirm infants?

We don’t need practices particular to the Roman Church, just as you don’t need practices particular to the Eastern Churches. My son was baptized, chrismated, and admitted to Holy Communion when he was 2 months old. When he is at the age that Roman Catholic children would be receiving First Holy Communion, I will have no regrets whatsoever that he will not be participating. I much prefer being faithful to our ancient tradition of fully initiating infants.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I don’t know if you mean this as satire or as if in cheering. If the first Holy Communion of a Son or Daughter is not good cause for great celebrating in the family and in the family of the church, I don’t know what could be. I don’t think you should hope too whole heartedly for the death of all Latin innovations in your church, you may find your own to be quite lifeless without them.

Please understand that the Latin/Roman practice of First Communion is not a universal practice of the Church; never has been. In fact, originally it wasn’t even a practice of the Latin/Roman Church. But for various reasons the Roman Church decided to innovate and the practice of “First Communion” upon the so-called “age of reason” came about (note that I do not necessarily condemn the innovation. It is a logical extension of Latin/Roman theology).

In the Eastern/Byzantine Catholic Churches - the Melkite Greek Catholic Church being one of them - the traditional practice of infants being baptized, chrismated/confirmed, and communicated (i.e. “First Communion”) has always been the norm, and with good reason. In our theology Baptism and Chrismation form an inseparable whole, Chrismation/Confirmation being the “completion” of Baptism, so to speak. Finally the fulfillment of Baptism and Chrismation is Communion. One is re-created in Christ through Baptism and new life is breathed into us at Chrismation/Confirmation. That new life must then be nourished by reception of Holy Communion. To delay Holy Communion is almost the equivalent of spiritually starving someone in the Byzantine mind, or worse, it is almost the equivalent of being excommunicated. For us it makes no sense to initiate someone completely into the Church and then tell them that they are not permitted Holy Communion.

All this being said, the initiation of new members into the Church, whether that person is an infant or an adult, is always a cause of great celebration. Just because we Byzantines do not normally celebrate First Communions does not mean that our Churches are lifeless without them. Quite the contrary I assure you.