Infant Communion

[babochka]

HomeschoolDad:

on the face of it, [First Solemn Communion] does indeed have all the appearances of an attempt to copy Latin Catholic practices.

You’re right; it definitely didn’t come from the Eastern tradition. I never heard of it before this thread. If (some) Eastern Catholics practice it, a likely source is Latin influence.

It is not unheard of in Orthodoxy.

Sunday 16 after Pentecost. A parable about talents. September 24, 2023. (ONLINE BROADCAST) | Ukrainian Orthodox Holy Ascension Cathedral

I remember reading somewhere that it is sometimes done in parishes that were once Greek Catholic. Mostly ACROD.

 

[ReaderT]

It is not unheard of in Orthodoxy.

First Confession and solemn Communion 2018 | Ukrainian Orthodox Holy Ascension Cathedral

I remember reading somewhere that it is sometimes done in parishes that were once Greek Catholic. Mostly ACROD.

Wow. Totally news to me - never seen this practiced anywhere.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Is that a combination of the TLM & DL?

 

[CathBoy1]

Is that a combination of the TLM & DL?

If I’m not mistaken, this is from Western Rite Orthodox.
The aim is to have a Western DL, conforming some parts of the Mass to fit in with Orthodoxy.
I believe that they have two different types of Western Rite Orthodox Mass and one is a direct translation of the TLM into the vernacular (with changes made to fit into Orthodox theology).

 

[CathBoy1]

I believe that they have two different types of Western Rite Orthodox Mass and one is a direct translation of the TLM into the vernacular (with changes made to fit into Orthodox theology).

Correction, there are 9 different uses, from wiki:

Western Rite parishes do not all utilize the same liturgy, but often use a particular liturgy depending upon their individual affiliations prior to entering Orthodoxy. At present, there are nine different uses available to Western Rite parishes:

• The Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon – This liturgy is currently used by approximately two-thirds of congregations in the AWRV. The Rite of St Tikhon was developed utilizing the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican Missal. The Book of Common Prayer was altered by removing the filioque from the text of the Nicene Creed, adding prayers for the dead, the invocation of the saints, and strengthening the epiclesis within the Eucharistic prayer, and by adding the pre-communion prayers from the Byzantine Rite. It is utilized primarily by former Anglican and Episcopalian background parishes.
• The Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory – Utilized by the remainder of the AWRV as well as some communities in ROCOR. As of 2016, The ROCOR Western Rite Communities use a Restored Gregorian Mass which is derived from texts that had been discovered and translated that are pre-Tridentine in origin and have no byzantine inclusions.
• The Sarum Liturgy – A British use of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory, which retained many local Anglo-Saxon, Gallican, and Celtic elements. It is celebrated within ROCOR by the St Bride Hermitage and by the Hermitage of the Holy Cross. The text is based upon a nineteenth-century Pearson English translation of the Sarum Missal, corrected of post-Schism insertions. An epiclesis from the Gothic Missal is included. St Hilarion Press and St Gregory’s Press editions of Sarum services were blessed for canonical use, in September 2008 and December 2008, respectively.
• The English Liturgy – The Russian adaptation of the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer according to the criteria set forth by the Holy Synod of Russia in 1907. This liturgy has been augmented with material from the Sarum Missal, Gothic Missal, York rite, and 1718 Scottish Non-Juror liturgy. An epiclesis from the Gothic Missal is included. This liturgy is not the same rite as the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, and the two rites differ in many respects.[32]

Continued

 

[CathBoy1]

Continued from above

• The Liturgy of Saint Germanus – Utilized by the French Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church of the Gauls, and the Orthodox Church of France, as well as some parishes of ROCOR and the Serbian and Romanian Patriarchates. The liturgy of St Germanus is a reconstructed version of the Gallican mass, supplemented with elements from the Byzantine, Celtic and Mozarabic rites.
• The Liturgy of Saint John the Divine – Utilized by a monastery of the Moscow Patriarchate, and in publication within ROCOR. It is a reconstructed version of the first millennium Celtic rite of the British Isles, from the Stowe Missal and other sources, and intended for modern use. The name is from the origin asserted by the Church in the British Isles before the Great Schism.
• The Mozarabic Rite – The Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles as well as the Holy Synod of Milan permit use of the Mozarabic Rite and the Sarum use.
• The Ambrosian Rite – The Ambrosian rite may be used in Western rite parishes of ROCOR. In 2018, a discovery was made of a very ancient missal which included a nearly complete Ambrosian Rite Liturgy that is in the process of being translated into English.
• The Glastonbury Rite – The Glastonbury Rite was at one time used in the Celtic Orthodox Church.[33]

In France, Bishop Alexis van der Mensbrugghe, of the ROC, published a missal in 1962 which contained his restored Gallican rite and his restored pre-Celestinian Italic rite.[34](p276)[35][36] Neither of Mensbrugghe’s restored rites are used by Orthodox groups.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Is that a combination of the TLM & DL?

It looks pretty much like the TLM translated into English, and “dressed up” a little bit. Feels a little Anglican-ish.

 

[babochka]

Margaret_Ann:

Is that a combination of the TLM & DL?

It looks pretty much like the TLM translated into English, and “dressed up” a little bit. Feels a little Anglican-ish.

But it has the epiclesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It’s very interesting.

 

[CathBoy1]

But it has the epiclesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It’s very interesting.

From what I had read in the past, the Divine Liturgy of St Gregory was meant to be a translation of the TLM, yet the wiki I quoted from above states otherwise (admittedly Wikipedia is far from the source of all knowledge).
I’m curious what (if anything) may have been translated from the TLM into the DL of St Gregory?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

On the topic of epiclesis and Hellenization of Latin Liturgies… there are some things to note

1. Original Roman Mass (before it was mixed up with French Liturgies) did NOT contain Nicene Creed. It is actually Hellenization itself. Even when Filioque was introduced into the Creed, Mass still did not contain it in Rome. What contained Nicene Creed and from where it came was Gallican Liturgies (which are in turn probably from Antioch and not “Western” at all).
2. There is somewhat plausible Liturgical theory that while Epiclesis was present in Roman Mass and other Liturgies, originally Epiclesis was not invocation of Holy Spirit but of the Son. In the end, Biblical account of Last Supper does not contain Epiclesis, so it is probably not absolutely necessary but it still makes it valuable part of Tradition (I mean… vestments are not necessary and neither is Creed but we all love them, don’t we?)

From historical standpoint it seems that First Christians were not really concerned with “when does the change in Eucharistic species occur?” and similar questions. They used to view services as a whole, not by parts. When Eastern Fathers are defending Real Presence, St. John Chrysostom points to Words of Institution as a point where Eucharist becomes Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Some other Eastern Fathers also mention Epiclesis- it is worth to note that their words were not meant to p(name removed by moderator)oint this moment but to defend Real Presence.

During Council of Florence, Orthodox theologians maintained that Epiclesis is absolutely necessary for Eucharist but that Roman Mass contains implicit Epiclesis and that it is enough (so I am quite unsure why would insertion of it be needed now). Latin Fathers defended doctrine that Words of Institution are what matters.

And last thing to note is that while older Liturgies do contain Epiclesis after Words of Institution, they actually speak in a manner that does not imply that there is yet need for Holy Spirit to come and consecrate the Holy Gifts (but mention Holy Spirit doing so). In the end, many things in First Liturgies are descriptive and have been result of many changes so they aren’t as reliable source. Roman Rite was known for shortening things which resulted into some bizarre phrases of “Let us Pray” and following part being removed so nothing like that really happened. Anyhow, Epiclesis is meant to emphasize that Holy Spirit consecrates Eucharist and that is precisely what it does. To draw conclusions from it’s placement or exact wording about when does Eucharist actually become our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is quite unhelpful because authors and editors of the Liturgy never intended to signal that through Epiclesis either way.

 

[DeniseNY]

It isn’t the same, no.

I belong to a Byzantine Catholic group on FB and there was a huge argument about this. Someone posted a picture of First Solemn Holy Communion that just happened to be from my parish, and people went off about how wrong it is.

 

[MrsAngelala]

I like this practice a lot. In fact, though a Latin-rite Catholic I wrote a letter my Bishop to allow my daughter to be baptized/confirmed/communed at the same time. He refused on the grounds that it was “against tradition.” I had to wonder which tradition he was talking about, since the Eastern practice follows the oldest, and remains the longest-lasting, tradition regarding the administration of sacraments to children.

Personally, I feel that the refusal to administer the sacraments other than baptism to children is a double-standard in relation to life. On the one hand, the Church that all human life is precious and fully human, regardless of its age or physical or mental status - when it comes to abortion, euthanasia, etc. - but on the other hand, we claim that children aren’t human enough (lacking the capacity to reason) to receive the sacraments. And what about mentally disabled children and adults, who never achieve “reason”? It just doesn’t make any sense.

The refusal to confirm and commune children also creates a double-standard with regard to the sacraments themselves. Is the Eucharist real, and does it matter, or not? Because if it’s real, how is it that children, baptized and incapable of sin, could possibly derive no benefit from it? If it matters, why in heaven’s name would we withhold those graces from them?

My pastor once told me it’s his job to protect the sacraments. I suppose that true enough. But - what is he protecting them from? He doesn’t protect the Eucharist from adults who receive in mortal sin, or who don’t discern the Real Presence. The Church says children are incapable of mortal sin, and without the capacity to reason they haven’t rejected the Real Presence. So… it’s more dishonoring to God to allow actually, completely sinless (baptized) infants to receive than improperly disposed adults?

The only argument I’ve seen to justify the Roman Church’s position on children and sacraments without contradicting doctrine is the good old-fashioned, “Because I said so.” I am not satisfied with that, but I’m also aware it’s not going to change.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

In fact, though a Latin-rite Catholic I wrote a letter my Bishop to allow my daughter to be baptized/confirmed/communed at the same time. He refused on the grounds that it was “against tradition.”

Your bishop was right. It’s against the Latin Tradition.

Yes, centuries ago the Latin Church did the same thing but over time developed its own sacramental theology, which reserves the administration of Confirmation to the bishop.

By the same token, I might like certain things in the Latin Tradition but that doesn’t mean I should adopt them because they’re not part of my Byzantine Tradition.

The Latin Church needs to be faithful to its own Tradition and we must be faithful to our own Byzantine Tradition.

 

[CathBoy1]

I like this practice a lot.

I do too.

the Eastern practice follows the oldest, and remains the longest-lasting, tradition regarding the administration of sacraments to children.

I agree, I’ve been attending exclusively at a Byzantine Catholic Church for the past couple of months (and have attended eastern catholic churches sporadically for years) and I absolutely love the Eastern traditions, recently my Eastern priest asked if I was interested in officially changing rites (I would love to, but my wife likes where we are now, Roman Rite, attending Byzantine Liturgy as often as we wish).

Personally, I feel that the refusal to administer the sacraments other than baptism to children is a double-standard in relation to life. On the one hand, the Church that all human life is precious and fully human, regardless of its age or physical or mental status - when it comes to abortion, euthanasia, etc. - but on the other hand, we claim that children aren’t human enough (lacking the capacity to reason) to receive the sacraments. And what about mentally disabled children and adults, who never achieve “reason”? It just doesn’t make any sense.

This is exactly what got me seriously looking at this issue as I have an autistic daughter who is of the age where normally she would be preparing to make her first communion, but with her current level of comprehension she will fall below the standards of the Latin Church.

I am not satisfied with that, but I’m also aware it’s not going to change.

I would love for a change on this rule for the Roman Rite but I have no idea how we could get the conversation started, perhaps a petition with X amount of signatures sent to Rome?

Changing the rules to allow for all the sacraments of initiation to be administered at once just makes so much sense, as there are so many disabled people in the world who would benefit greatly from this and seeing that it is an ancient tradition of the Western Church I cannot imagine that the ruling on this is absolutely final.

Your bishop was right. It’s against the Latin Tradition.

Yes, centuries ago the Latin Church did the same thing but over time developed its own sacramental theology, which reserves the administration of Confirmation to the bishop.

By the same token, I might like certain things in the Latin Tradition but that doesn’t mean I should adopt them because they’re not part of my Byzantine Tradition.

The Latin Church needs to be faithful to its own Tradition and we must be faithful to our own Byzantine Tradition.

Your absolutely correct, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could get this rule changed?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

1 Cor. 12: 12-26.

 

[MrsAngelala]

Actually, my Bishop suggested going to a Melkite church on the other side of the state and asking to have her Baptized/Chrismated/Communed. My husband refused me permission to pursue it, since he had only recently converted from Protestantism to Catholicism and was unwilling to step outside our Rite for any purpose.

Do you know why the Latin Church deviated from the tradition your rite maintained? Power. The Church was becoming too large for Bishops to perform all infant initiations, so they delegated Baptism to priests and reserved Confirmation for themselves in order to retain their “pastoral” role in the eyes of the faithful (because denying access to the sacraments is the very definition of pastoral). In the centuries before cars, they could only get to each parish once every so-many-years, and the years increased as the number of parishes increased, so Confirmation became more and more separated from Baptism - until we reached the sad state we are in now, where Confirmation is in many minds, hearts, and places regarded as nothing more than a Catholic rite-of-passage into adulthood.

The Eastern churches, on the other hand, maintained that the authority of the Bishop was represented by the oils used in Baptism and Chrismation, which he had blessed, and priests were therefore given faculties to perform all the rites necessary for the initiation of an infant into the Church.

Matthew 19:14 and 20:25-26.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

In the centuries before cars, they could only get to each parish once every so-many-years, and the years increased as the number of parishes increased, so Confirmation became more and more separated from Baptism - until we reached the sad state we are in now, where Confirmation is in many minds, hearts, and places regarded as nothing more than a Catholic rite-of-passage into adulthood.

I think this is also a reason why it would be nice to return to the smaller size parish vs. these mega-type parishes. Sadly b/c of the priest shortage I’m not sure that could happen again. But another idea is that the bishop could also confirm all infants that were baptized each year during his annual visit.

The Eastern churches, on the other hand, maintained that the authority of the Bishop was represented by the oils used in Baptism and Chrismation, which he had blessed, and priests were therefore given faculties to perform all the rites necessary for the initiation of an infant into the Church.

I often joke that in my family I was the only one who was confirmed by a Bishop so I’m the odd ball out; hubby and kids were all confirmed/chrismated by priests even though they were all Roman rite at the time.

 

[CathBoy1]

But another idea is that the bishop could also confirm all infants that were baptized each year during his annual visit.

This is a wonderful solution, perhaps the priest can baptize/commune infants and confirmation for infants/small children can be done annually by the bishop in the Latin Church.

Perhaps instead of a first communion or first solemn communion in the Latin Church we could have a special occasion for first confession.