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

[malphono]

We are not talking about the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches …

We are talking specifically about the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, one of the 23 sui juris Churches of equal dignity to the Roman Catholic Church within the Catholic Communion.

And the document referenced in my cited post speaks to the 22 Eastern / Oriental Catholic Churches in the Catholic Communion

Frankly, it is extremely challenging to understand your points, and respectfully, it does seem that your lack of familarity with the Eastern Churches (Eastern Catholic Churches, specifically) leaves us somewhat handicapped here as to how to both interpret and address your points. …

All that said, it does appear from your last post in its entirety that you are somehow confusing Eastern Orthodox Churches with Eastern Catholic Churches …

Thank you for saying that. I had considered addressing the matter myself (and in just about the same way), but thought better of further involving myself in this argument.

 

[RyanBlack]

Let’s put an end to any nonsense that any Eastern bishop should not insist that infants of their churches be chrismated at the time of their baptisms. From the CCEO: Canon 695

"1. Chrismation with holy myron must be administered in conjunction with baptism, except in a case of true necessity, in which

case, however, it is to be seen that it is administered as soon

as possible. 2. If the celebration of chrismation with holy

myron is not done together with baptism, the minister is obliged

to notify the pastor of the place where the baptism was administered."

Given that chrismation should be administered in conjuction with baptism (generally done in infancy), there is no reason for a tradition of “First Communion” celebrations (which are not in and of themselves bad) to exist in the Eastern Churches.

 

[RyanBlack]

To my previous post, I would add this from the CCEO: Canon 697

"Sacramental initiation in the mystery of salvation is perfected

in the reception of the Divine Eucharist, and thus the Divine

Eucharist is administered after baptism and chrismation with holy

myron as soon as possible according to the norms of the particular law of the each

Church sui iuris."

It is a perfectly legitimagte tradition, and in accordance with, and obedience to, Canon Law, for Eastern Churches to baptism, chrismate, and commune infants all within the same liturgy.

 

[RyanBlack]

Pope John XXIII convened Vatican II for the express purpose of reviewing all aspects of Roman Catholicism from liturgical practices to moral issues to the role of the Church in society, and it’s relationship with the seperated churches, he is known as the initiator of the ecuemenical reforms and outreach that have as the highest priority the restoration of Unity of all Catholics as it has to do with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Sacred Doctrines and Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church were not changed; at all.
The encouragement and the prescriptions to the Eastern Orthodox Churches to restore, each to their own, liturgical practices even in cases where vestiges of Roman Catholic Tradition would be supplanted was meant in the spirit of charity and in being respectful of the dignity of the Church Fathers, past and present of those Churches. It was not meant as an license or a mandate to uproot and expunge anything and everything even if it is good simply because it is a Latin tradition.

Carefully read the highlights,

I don’t understand why it is that you either cannot understand or refuse to understand that Bishop Nicholas is not expunging something simply because it is a Latin tradition. Rather, he is restoring authentic Melkite tradition. It is the tradition of his Church, and a matter of obedience to Canon Law, to baptise, chrismate, and admit to communion all within the same Liturgy. Given that we generally baptise infants, there is simpy no place for a separate First Communion celebration within the context of the Eastern Churches.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t understand why it is that you either cannot understand or refuse to understand that Bishop Nicholas is not expunging something simply because it is a Latin tradition. Rather, he is restoring authentic Melkite tradition. It is the tradition of his Church, and a matter of obedience to Canon Law, to baptise, chrismate, and admit to communion all within the same Liturgy. Given that we generally baptise infants, there is simpy no place for a separate First Communion celebration within the context of the Eastern Churches.

Exactly.

The First Holy Communion happens ordinarily on the day of Baptism, that’s a day for celebration for the entire community. The church has no business collaborating in a ‘pseudo-First Holy Communion’ just because people want a party (when it should have happened already seven or so years before anyway).

[sign]SAY ‘NO’ TO FAKE FIRST HOLY COMMUNION CELEBRATIONS[/sign]

 

[brumano]

We are not talking about the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches

juris

Churches of equal dignity to the Roman Catholic Church within the Catholic We are talking specifically about the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, one of the 23 suiCommunion].

And the document referenced in my cited post speaks to the 22 Eastern / Oriental Catholic Churches in the Catholic Communion

Frankly, it is extremely challenging to understand your points, and respectfully, it does seem that your lack of familarity with the Eastern Churches (Eastern Catholic Churches, specifically) leaves us somewhat handicapped here as to how to both interpret and address your points.

I can assure you, as a “cradle” Eastern Catholic with a mom raised in the Roman Catholic Church, most of my extended family in the Roman Catholic Church, a godfather who is a reader and Eucharistic Minister in the Roman Catholic Church, and being a frequent and active witness and participant in the Roman Catholic Mass, I do well understand the Roman Catholic Church.

For the sake of beating a dead issue, we’ll once again state this subject has nothing to do with suppressing Roman Catholic practices simply because they are Roman Catholic, nor does it say anything about the dignity of the Roman Catholic Church and its distinct traditions.

If you’d like to make a point, and you cite something that I or other knowledgeable Eastern Catholic contributors have offered honestly and factually, then I pray and ask that you kind be specific about that to which you object or beg to differ. The cite in you last post, together with your commentary, IMO misrepresents that which I offered honestly, factually and fairly.

Further, the final statement, with no reference as to what you intend us to read, is rather directly stated and thus borderline ad hominem. Nothing that has been offered here to explain this matter from the inside out was directed to anyone else in this manner.

All that said, it does appear from your last post in its entirety that you are somehow confusing Eastern Orthodox Churches with Eastern Catholic Churches …

We are talking about two divergent sacramental practices and applications of one Sacrament, one of those practices is known in it’s totality as First Holy Communion this is a Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church or the Latin, or the Western Church. The other practice of giving of Holy Communion to infants at the same time of their Baptism and their Charismation and from then on is a practice or a traditional practice of the Byzantine Catholic Church, and other Eastern Churches: Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Etc. Etc.Orthodox Churches, some are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church some are not. One practice or Sacred Tradition is identified with all Roman Catholics, the other closely but much less conspicuously identifies Eastern Catholicism. That is what the subject of the thread has been about, and it is the subject of the Melkite Bishop’s letter. That is what we are talking about.

The Melkite Church is of equal dignity, equal means no greater than, no less than; Am I correct? Then how do you justify demeaning, trivializing and suppressing their existing practice that they wish to continue of holding and celebrating a solemn Holy Communion Rite. Keep in mind equal is equal, even if a Bishop says or were to say it is not.

The docuement referenced in your post shows clearly that the successive Popes since Pope JohnXXIII have all supported and worked very strenuously toward reunification with The East.

It has everything to do with suppressing a Latin Practice that maybe the challenge that you are having such a difficulty with

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It has everything to do with suppressing a Latin Practice that maybe the challenge that you are having such a difficulty with

I’m an Eastern Catholic, and I have no problem with what Bishop Samra is trying to accomplish

I also have no issue with the traditions of the Latin Catholic Church,also part of my family heritage

I have no idea what you are trying to say

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

We are talking about two divergent sacramental practices and applications of one Sacrament, one of those practices is known in it’s totality as First Holy Communion this is a Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church or the Latin, or the Western Church. The other practice of giving of Holy Communion to infants at the same time of their Baptism and their Charismation and from then on is a practice or a traditional practice of the Byzantine Catholic Church, and other Eastern Churches: Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Etc. Etc.Orthodox Churches, some are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church some are not. One practice or Sacred Tradition is identified with all Roman Catholics, the other closely but much less conspicuously identifies Eastern Catholicism. That is what the subject of the thread has been about, and it is the subject of the Melkite Bishop’s letter. That is what we are talking about.

 

[Hesychios]

It has everything to do with suppressing a Latin Practice that maybe the challenge that you are having such a difficulty with

It’s pretty clear that it is not the suppression of a Latin practice which is the issue here, but a restoration and correction of the Melkite practice.

The Melkites have traditionally (until the last few generations) had First Holy Communion on the day of Baptism. If the family wants a party, they should have it on that day. There is no reason to delay giving the holy and life-giving sacraments to the infants and small children in the Melkite community. Those priests who might wish to delay giving the holy Eucharist have now been notified without question that should they continue to delay reception they are being disobedient to their bishop.

These people are struggling to restore their authentic traditions and practices, a worthy goal. I think we should encourage them.

In my opinion it would be nice if the Latin church followed suit and started once again giving holy communion to it’s infants and young children, but no one is advocating that here, that is for the Latin Catholic church to decide.

 

[Art321]

It’s pretty clear that it is not the suppression of a Latin practice which is the issue here, but a restoration and correction of the Melkite practice.
The Melkites have traditionally (until the last few generations) had First Holy Communion on the day of Baptism. If the family wants a party, they should have it on that day. There is no reason to delay giving the holy and life-giving sacraments to the infants and small children in the Melkite community. Those priests who might wish to delay giving the holy Eucharist have now been notified without question that should they continue to delay reception they are being disobedient to their bishop.

**These people are struggling to restore their authentic traditions and practices, a worthy goal. I think we should encourage them.**In my opinion it would be nice if the Latin church followed suit and started once again giving holy communion to it’s infants and young children, but no one is advocating that here, that is for the Latin Catholic church to decide.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s pretty clear that it is not the suppression of a Latin practice which is the issue here, but a restoration and correction of the Melkite practice.

In a way it is a suppression of a Latin practice. But it is a suppression of a practice that should not be there in the first place so it matters not that it is a Latin practice.

 

[brumano]

I’m an Eastern Catholic, and I have no problem with what Bishop Samra is trying to accomplish

I also have no issue with the traditions of the Latin Catholic Church,also part of my family heritage

I have no idea what you are trying to say

Well no you don’t because as a Byzantine you recognize that he is trying to Byzantinize his Melkite flock, and that requires the prevention of traditions that are Latin from resurfacing in the Sacramental life of the Melkite Church. So sure you favor what he is doing,

I don’t know how you can make both of the above without contradiction; if you have no problem with the Latin tradition why would you have no problem with what Bishop Samra is trying to accomplish.

Oh well.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well no you don’t because as a Byzantine you recognize that he is trying to Byzantinize his Melkite flock, and that requires the prevention of traditions that are Latin from resurfacing in the Sacramental life of the Melkite Church. So sure you favor what he is doing,

I don’t know how you can make both of the above without contradiction; if you have no problem with the Latin tradition why would you have no problem with what Bishop Samra is trying to accomplish.

Oh well.

With due respect, I find these remarks and castigations to be injurious and contrary to the charitable nature of commentary offered here by knowledgeable Eastern Catholics, Eastern Christians, and Latin Catholics of good will.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well no you don’t because as a Byzantine you recognize that he is trying to Byzantinize his Melkite flock, and that requires the prevention of traditions that are Latin from resurfacing in the Sacramental life of the Melkite Church. So sure you favor what he is doing,

I don’t know how you can make both of the above without contradiction; if you have no problem with the Latin tradition why would you have no problem with what Bishop Samra is trying to accomplish.

Oh well.

Because the Melkite Church did not do first communions until maybe a century or two ago. They are a Byzantine Rite Church through and through and they are simply rooting out what is an innovation. I cannot understand why you are having so much trouble understanding that. Do you think that the Latin Church should start offering to chrismate and commune infants? If not, why then should the Melkite Church be forced to use a Latin practice which is not part of its tradition, if you do not want the Latin Church to do the same? Is the Lain Church superior to the others? Should the Melkites start using the OF of the mass as well, and change its calendar so that lent for Melkites starts on Wednesday instead of Monday?

 

[Art321]

Because the Melkite Church did not do first communions until maybe a century or two ago. They are a Byzantine Church through and through and they are simply rooting out what is an innovation. I cannot understand why holy are having so much trouble understanding that. Do you think that the Latin Church should start offering to chrismate and commune infants? If not, why then should the Melkite Church be forced to use a Latin practice which is not part of its tradition, if you do not want the Latin Church to do the same? Is the Lain Church superior to the others?

I know that this post was in no way directed towards me but I hope you’ll accept my answer. No, the Latin Church is in no way superior to the others in any possible way. Although it may be the biggest Christian Church in the world, the other churchs share in equal diginity that the Latin Church holds.

The traditions of the Melkite Church should be fully restored and I support that decision. Simply imagine if another church imposed its traditions on another one. Over time, the sacred traditions of the church that forced to accept the other church’s traditions will lose theirs!

That is something that I hope never comes to pass. God bless this holy bishop!

 

[MonkMoses]

Well no you don’t because as a Byzantine you recognize that he is trying to Byzantinize his Melkite flock, and that requires the prevention of traditions that are Latin from resurfacing in the Sacramental life of the Melkite Church. So sure you favor what he is doing,

I don’t know how you can make both of the above without contradiction; if you have no problem with the Latin tradition why would you have no problem with what Bishop Samra is trying to accomplish.

Oh well.

The fact that Latin traditions are good for the Latins and Byzantine traditions are good for the Melkites…what is it you don’t get?

Why do you think the Melkites should retain traditions that are NOT theirs?

 

[Vico]

Historically the Melkites followed the West Syrian Tradition of Antioch, the Liturgy of St. James, but gradually moved to the Byzantine Tradition from the time of the Islamic Siege of Damascus (634 A.D.) and later, particularly in the time of the Byzantine reconquest of Antioch which was 960 to 1085 A.D. This illustrates how change takes place over hundreds of years due to various influences.

East and west both had infant communion. See St. Augustine, Sermon 174, 7:

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves”.

Schaff, # 68:

After the public service the deacons carried the consecrated elements to the sick and to the confessors in prison. Many took portions of the bread home with them, to use in the family at morning prayer. This domestic communion was practised particularly in North Africa, and furnishes the first example of a *communio sub una specie. *In the same country, in Cyprian’s time, we find the custom of infant communion (administered with wine alone), which was justified from John 6:53, and has continued in the Greek (and Russian) church to this day, though irreconcilable with the apostle’s requisition of a preparatory examination (1 Cor. 11:28).

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

 

[RyanBlack]

Brumano,

It is actually against the Eastern Code of Canon Law to separate chrismation and administration of Holy Communion from baptism except in cases of “true necessity.” The desire on the part of some to imitate the practices of a another sui iuris Church is not a matter of true necessity. Not only is Bishop Nicholas asking priests to act in accordance with the traditions of the Melkite Church, he is asking them to be obedient to canon law. What is the problem you have with a bishop expecting his flock to be obedient to Church Law, as well as tradition?

 

[brumano]

brumano;9044213:

Brumano,

You are really missing the issue here on so many points. First: the practice of “First Holy Communion” even in the Roman Church is not

Sacred Tradition. It is a small “t” tradition/practice. First Holy Communion was not a practice of any Church, East or West, in the first centuries of Christianity. The original practice of both East and West was to baptize, chrismate/confirm, and communicate infants as well as adults all at once. This practice gradually fell out of use in the West for a number of reasons, one of which, I’m sure, is the splitting of the Sacraments of Initiation and putting off Confirmation until the bishop could be there to officiate. So in reality Bishop Samra is restoring the more ancient practice to his particular sui iuris Catholic Church (Melkite). He is completely within his rights in doing so as such a practice has always been the norm for Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine tradition. Any divergence from that norm among the Byzantines constitutes a liturgical abuse. Bishop Samra is simply correcting that abuse. As a Latin Catholic I’m sure that you are quite familiar with liturgical abuse and quite adamant that it be corrected within your tradition and according to the norms of that tradition. Please extend Eastern Catholics the same courtesy.

Secondly: Bishops Samra is not “demeaning, trivializing, and suppressing” a practice that is traditional to the Byzantine tradition, or the Melkite Church for that matter. The practice of First Holy Communion or Solemn Communion is a practice/abuse that evolved within many of the Catholic Churches of the East in order to “prove” to the Roman Church that they too are… well, Catholic. What Bishop Samra is actually doing is restoring the authentic traditional practice of the Melkite Church entrusted to his care (i.e. the Eparchy of Newton).

We, as well as the Bishop’s letter, have provided you with plenty of sources that prove that the bishop is completely within his rights with what he’s doing, he’s restoring the authentic traditional practice of his particular Church within his diocese, and in doing so he’s also being obedient to Rome (not that he actually needs Rome’s permission to restore that which rightfully belongs to his Church). What more do you want? Would you rather the bishop permit what constitutes a liturgical abuse within the Byzantine tradition to persist and continue? And yes, whether you like it or not, First Holy Communion does constitute a liturgical abuse within the Byzantine tradition.

First, there’s a little bit of polemical sleight of hand being used in everyone of your posts on this thread. The Latin Sacred Tradition: big T has to do with knowledgeable reception of the Holy Eucharist, not little t tradition of whom may receive under what conditions in any certain time in history or in the present. We have in our small t traditions that under certain conditions some who normally cannot receive, may receive; for instance a baptized Catholic receiving the Last Rites or very near to death is given Holy Viaticum even though the person’s concious faculties, to say Amen, are gone.
Sir, the first time that anyone receives the Holy Eucharist is their First Holy Communion, unless somehow Byzantines can stop all communicants throughout their lives from gaining this knowledge they cannot stop First Communions.
The Melkites who were practicing the solemn communions were not violating any Sacred Tradition Latin Or Byzantine, they did not start withholding the Eucharist from the infant baptism rites, did they? Now you say they commited an abuse.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

First, there’s a little bit of polemical sleight of hand being used …

Indeed, but by whom?