Phillip Rolfes;9044969:
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.
If I might say something.
Brumano, the point is that the traditional way of receiving First Holy Communion within those Churches that utilize the Byzantine rite is that it is given immediately after Baptism and Chrismation. After this, the newly illuminated Christian is given access to the Mystery of the Altar, presuming of course they are properly disposed (First Reconciliation does not take place until usually around 7-8 years of age, and from then on one must avail themselves of that Mystery to prepare for Communion). This is historical fact, and can be backed up without any issue.
The issue is that something that was foreign to the liturgical and pastoral praxis of the Churches of Byzantine rite (in this case, the Melkites) was inserted into their practice. The reasons for this are questionable and, given the circumstance, were in no way an authentic organic development. It would seem, on the contrary, that it was done under pressure in order to prove to those of the Latin rite that they were in fact Catholic.
As such, this would qualify as an imposition upon another Church’s tradition. Furthermore, it was seemingly done not because there was a massive shift in the practice of its persons; rather, it was done in the spirit of a child trying to prove to their siblings that they’re cool enough to play with them.
What the Bishop is doing is removing such an foreign intrusion from his people. And when he chides those who want “parties” and whatnot, he is not necessarily condemning them celebrating the child’s (or adult’s) First Holy Communion. Rather, he is condemning those who wish to maintain this foreign imposition for the such reasons as “fond remembrance” and “celebrating with a party”. Instead, he asks them to look to higher things and deeper meanings- namely, that they are returning to the authentic tradition of their forefathers.
This has nothing to do with condemning the Latin tradition (in and of itself) of having a separate time in which a person receives their First Holy Communion. Rather, he is taking that is which is foreign and was imposed upon his people and removing it. He does not condemn the Latins for maintaining their own tradition.
Perhaps it should also be mentioned that, broadly speaking, many aspects of liturgical praxis are considered to be apart of a Church’s patrimony, and therefore their Sacred Tradition. As such, it can (and in many cases, is) be viewed that separating the First Communion from Baptism and Chrismation was a violation of Sacred Tradition.
) while called “First Solemn Communion”?
).
