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

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

Very well stated, my brother!

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

I think we have a winner.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Whats wrong then with having that First Communion go together with Baptism and Chrismation? Is the only way to have First Communion is have it as a separate event years apart from the Baptism of a child (and before Chrismation! )?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

Shouldn’t the celebration of the Sacraments of Initiation, Baptism, Chrismation, First Eucharist, of the infant child be a good cause for great celebrating in the family?

Its not the celebration that is at issue.

It is the latinization of breaking the Sacraments of Initiation and taking them out of order that is the issue.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I seem to have forgotten, is it the Spirit which gives life or Latin practices?

 

[brumano]

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.

My post was in response to: die Latin innovations die! If that poster and any number of Eastern Catholics, and I’m sure it’s not the majority, sense inadequacy if any of their practices retain or reconnect in any way, shape, form or nuance with anything that could be labelled as a Latin innovation, then maybe they have put religious pride, to some extent, above impartiality.
How would I feel? Confused, because that question is not fairly drawn from the post you quoted. But to tell you the truth, I can understand from a certain perspective why the Eastern Church would confirm infants, but all in all no I don’t agree with it; that’s rather a side issue however because your church is precluding seperate Holy Communion because it is a Roman Catholic tradition; that is not good reason to preclude it.
Did the Lord not say to them, “judge not by appearances but use right judgement”.

 

[RyanBlack]

My post was in response to: die Latin innovations die! If that poster and any number of Eastern Catholics, and I’m sure it’s not the majority, sense inadequacy if any of their practices retain or reconnect in any way, shape, form or nuance with anything that could be labelled as a Latin innovation, then maybe they have put religious pride, to some extent, above impartiality.
How would I feel? Confused, because that question is not fairly drawn from the post you quoted. But to tell you the truth, I can understand from a certain perspective why the Eastern Church would confirm infants, but all in all no I don’t agree with it; that’s rather a side issue however because your church is precluding seperate Holy Communion because it is a Roman Catholic tradition; that is not good reason to preclude it.
Did the Lord not say to them, “judge not by appearances but use right judgement”.

No, you are simply wrong. We do not preclude a (first) Holy Communion because it is Roman Catholic, but, rather, because it is our authentic tradition to administer baptism, christmation, and first Eucharist all in the same liturgy, even to infants. As to your disagreement, that’s OK, but this actually was the universal practice, both East and West, in the first millenium.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

My post was in response to: die Latin innovations die! If that poster and any number of Eastern Catholics, and I’m sure it’s not the majority, sense inadequacy if any of their practices retain or reconnect in any way, shape, form or nuance with anything that could be labelled as a Latin innovation, then maybe they have put religious pride, to some extent, above impartiality.

How would I feel? Confused, because that question is not fairly drawn from the post you quoted. But to tell you the truth, I can understand from a certain perspective why the Eastern Church would confirm infants, but all in all no I don’t agree with it; that’s rather a side issue however because your church is precluding seperate Holy Communion because it is a Roman Catholic tradition; that is not good reason to preclude it.
Did the Lord not say to them, “judge not by appearances but use right judgement”.

Dear friend, it is not that the Eastern Churches preclude separate Holy Communion because it is a Latin practice. Rather, we prefer to adhere to our ancient tradition (which was that of the Latin church as well) of administering all of the sacraments of initiation (baptism, chrismation / confirmation and eucharist) at the same time.

There was a period of time where practice of the Latin church were adopted, both voluntariliy and involuntarily, and that is now being reversed with the full knowledge, support and encouragement of Rome.

No disrespect is intended to Latin Catholic practice, custom and tradition.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My post was in response to: die Latin innovations die! If that poster and any number of Eastern Catholics, and I’m sure it’s not the majority, sense inadequacy if any of their practices retain or reconnect in any way, shape, form or nuance with anything that could be labelled as a Latin innovation, then maybe they have put religious pride, to some extent, above impartiality.
How would I feel? Confused, because that question is not fairly drawn from the post you quoted. But to tell you the truth, I can understand from a certain perspective why the Eastern Church would confirm infants, but all in all no I don’t agree with it; that’s rather a side issue however because your church is precluding seperate Holy Communion because it is a Roman Catholic tradition; that is not good reason to preclude it.
Did the Lord not say to them, “judge not by appearances but use right judgement”.

Its not about the inadequacy of the Latin practice, but it doesn’t fit with Eastern spirituality. Remember that the practice of any traditions stands on the entire theology of that tradition. What Latins do works with Latin beliefs, but it doesn’t work with Eastern beliefs. And vice versa. Do you think traditionalist Roman Catholics would accept not kneeling for Mass because that is the traditional way to do it in the East? We reject Latin practices not because it is inferior, but because it doesn’t fit our spirituality. You can’t expect a Chinese man in China to live an American lifestyle, not because American lifestyle is wrong and the Chinese lifestyle is superior. But because American lifestyle just doesn’t fit in Chinese society.

 

[brumano]

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.

Hmm, I’m certainly grateful to the Magisterium of our Roman Catholic Church, especiallly Pope John Paul II that he did not adopt such an approach when the practice of receiving and sharing in the preciuos blood from the cup by the congregation was allowed even though it is known as a Eastern Catholic practice

 

[RyanBlack]

Hmm, I’m certainly grateful to the Magisterium of our Roman Catholic Church, especiallly Pope John Paul II that he did not adopt such an approach when the practice of receiving and sharing in the preciuos blood from the cup by the congregation was allowed even though it is known as a Eastern Catholic practice

And you in the West don’t have a history of having Eastern traditions imposed upon you. We in the East do. First Holy Communion separate from baptism and chrismation is simply not part of our liturgical tradition. Why can’t you leave it at that?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hmm, I’m certainly grateful to the Magisterium of our Roman Catholic Church, especiallly Pope John Paul II that he did not adopt such an approach when the practice of receiving and sharing in the preciuos blood from the cup by the congregation was allowed even though it is known as a Eastern Catholic practice

Here’s the thing, prior to Trent the Cup was offered to the laity in the Roman Catholic Church. And some time before that too that infants were Confirmed and given Communion. Adapting those things is not an Easternization of the Latin Rite because it belonged in the tradition of the Latin Rite. If the Bishops of the Latin Rite want to take their faith in a new direction, its their prerogative and people should submit. Same with the East. One of the hallmarks of Eastern spirituality is our penchant for doing thing the same way they were done in the First Millennium. As much as we can of course.

I think we need to get over the fact that difference between Rites means the superiority of one over another.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 9:22[/BIBLEDRB]

God, though his Apostles (in this case St. Paul) has made the faith all things to all men so that some (hopefully all) will be saved. This is why we have different traditions because we are different people.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

As I skimmed through these five pages of this thread, and I read the four pages of Sayedna’s Pastoral Letter, the message of the Melkite Church is obvious towards the First Communion Latinization and its removal from all parishes under his omophorion.

What I want to ask here is whether the “First Reconciliation” ceremonial practice, that replaced the First Communion practice, would still be allowed in the Eparchy?

It does not seem to be addressed much by the letter. In some parishes the ceremony is much more low-key than the First Communion celebrations done by other rites, so personally I am indifferent towards it in the sense that the Holy Eucharist is not denied to infants.

Any information on this?

God Bless you all during this Blessed Season of Lent.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As I skimmed through these five pages of this thread, and I read the four pages of Sayedna’s Pastoral Letter, the message of the Melkite Church is obvious towards the First Communion Latinization and its removal from all parishes under his omophorion.

What I want to ask here is whether the “First Reconciliation” ceremonial practice, that replaced the First Communion practice, would still be allowed in the Eparchy?

It does not seem to be addressed much by the letter. In some parishes the ceremony is much more low-key than the First Communion celebrations done by other rites, so personally I am indifferent towards it in the sense that the Holy Eucharist is not denied to infants.

Any information on this?

God Bless you all during this Blessed Season of Lent.

There has been no word from Sayedna Nicholas one way or the other on First Reconciliation. To my knowledge, however, First Reconciliation has always been somewhat of a big deal among Christians of the Byzantine tradition. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sayedan encouraged the practice, unless my information is wrong…

 

[theistgal]

I don’t know if you mean this as satire or as if in cheering.

Are there NO other “Simpsons” fans reading this thread?

(Sorry, my links aren’t working - but “Die, Bart, Die” was Sideshow Bob’s tattoo, so obviously, “Die, [insert whatever you dislike], Die” is, yes indeed, satire.)

 

[brumano]

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.

I do not get this understanding that you have about the practice of First Communion, not from the Scriptures; and as you note that you understand the reasoning for the Latin practice as we have it now then you should agree or at least not contest too much,prw the freedom of the Melkites in America to distinguish which of the two…ways of practice to elect for their own. You can’t deny that the Latin practice has foundation in Sacred tradition

 

[Ghosty]

Are there NO other “Simpsons” fans reading this thread?

(Sorry, my links aren’t working - but “Die, Bart, Die” was Sideshow Bob’s tattoo, so obviously, “Die, [insert whatever you dislike], Die” is, yes indeed, satire.)

Perhaps they should have put “The, Latinizations, the” and we would have gotten the joke.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I do not get this understanding that you have about the practice of First Communion, not from the Scriptures; and as you note that you understand the reasoning for the Latin practice as we have it now then you should agree or at least not contest too much,prw the freedom of the Melkites in America to distinguish which of the two…ways of practice to elect for their own. You can’t deny that the Latin practice has foundation in Sacred tradition

But if we can “not contest too much” then neither can you.

It is not our place to question the bishop when he decides to follow tradition.

Not only that but following a tradition of a sui iuris Church is in no way making a comment on the practice (tradition) of another sui iuris Church when they differ. To be offended by the practice of tradition of another sui iuris Church when it differs from your own is to be overly sensitive and not at all appropriate. The bishop did not say that the Latin way is wrong, he only stated that the Latin way is wrong for Melkites (non-latins) which is within his authority to say.

Anyways it is an illogical to celebrate first communion at the age of reason for a child who has been receiving communion since their baptism.

 

[coco2]

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?

I believe the quote says that Roman Catholics “think it is cute to dress up the young ones and have a party and gifts”. That is in no way the reason for Eucharist being celebrated at the age of 7, and yes it does make light of it. I haven’t read every post on the Eastern thread, but I don’t remember reading about people complaining about how the Eastern church celebrates Mass.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The bishop did not say that the Latin way is wrong, he only stated that the Latin way is wrong for Melkites (non-latins) which is within his authority to say.

And we should note that the Vatican itself, via the Congregation for the Eastern Churches and in its Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches once again emphasized in 1996, over five years after the promulgation of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), its expectation that the Eastern Churches fully restore their liturgical traditions.

In order to highlight in summary, the following are the first two stated objectives of the Instruction:

• to lead to a more profound understanding of the immense richness of the authentic Eastern traditions, which are to be scrupulously maintained and communicated to all the faithful;

• to arrange the liturgical norms valid for all the Catholic Eastern Churches in an organic summary and to introduce recovery, where necessary of the Eastern liturgical authenticity, according to the Tradition which each Eastern Church has inherited from the Apostles through the Fathers;

[Chapter 1, section 5 (emphasis added

)]
This is not from a single bishop, but rather from a Congregation of the Roman Curia acting on behalf and with the guidance and direction of the Holy Father.