Levels of Latinization

[malphono]

This is also what I understood, but he said that, at the Maronite Synod of Mt. Lebanon, the papal legate anathemized communing infants. This goes a huge step beyond what Trent did.

It’s my understanding that MorEphrem is more-or-less correct on that point. I wouldn’t say that the legate (and why there was “papal legate” present during the Synod in the first place is another matter entirely which I won’t address here) exactly “anathamized” the practice on his own, but rather that he pushed for the suppression of the practice in order to bring Maronite practice in line with that of the Latins. Evidently his lobbying efforts (for lack of a better word) were successful, and the Synod indeed suppressed the practice.

It’s not really much of step beyond what Trent did, since the practice was generally moribund in the Latin Church by the time of Trent anyway, and that Council certainly didn’t restore it.

Do you know the history of infant communion in the Byzantine Churches? We came into union nearly 100 years after the Council of Trent, and the practice of infant communion was not called into question at that time. I’ve tried unsuccessfully to determine when, and under what circumstances, it came to an end in the Byzantine Churches.

That I will have to leave for Aramis or another of our resident Byzantines.

 

[MorEphrem]

This is interesting, as the Council of Trent most certainly did not anathemize communing infants.

Holy Communion immediately after Baptism is to be given only to those with the use of reason. In fact, in a later chapter, the Synod forbids priests under penalty of automatic suspension to give Communion to infants.
-Chorbishop Seely Beggiani on the Synod of 1736

 

[malphono]

Holy Communion immediately after Baptism is to be given only to those with the use of reason. In fact, in a later chapter, the Synod forbids priests under penalty of automatic suspension to give Communion to infants.
-Chorbishop Seely Beggiani on the Synod of 1736

And that essentially follows the prescription of Trent’s Canon IV.

 

[dzheremi]

Not to drag things off topic too far, but since the thread has turned this way, are there any other practices for which it is traditional for Eastern/Oriental Catholics to involve infants/small children from which they have departed under Latin influence? It’s a bit hard to qualify with regard to Latin practice, but I’m thinking here of how Maronites and others have particular prescribed ways of exchanging the sign of peace. From what I remember of my time in the RCC there is no prescribed way of doing so in the Latin rite (or at least not that is followed consistently in the OF, so I guess it wouldn’t be possible for a child to not appreciate what it means, since it is not accompanied by any one set meaningful gesture), but as far as I have seen in videos of Maronite liturgies, deacons/altar boys (couldn’t tell who was functioning as what, really, but they were very young children, probably at least some within a year or two of what the Latin Church has defined as “the age of reason” for sacrament-receiving purposes) “pass” the peace to parishioners, who then pass it to each other via the same hand motion (I couldn’t see exactly what that was, but it didn’t look too different than what I’m used to in the COC, though perhaps the Maronites’ hands remain closed). I ask because it seems to me that if the age of reason is involved in (the Latins’) deciding that infants and very small children are not communed, then what then is required for further participation in other parts of the liturgy that also have meaning that a child may or may not understand beyond “Oh, this is what we’re doing now; I should do it too”? And on what grounds then is a child denied or kept from anything?

Our newest parishioner here at St. Bishoy (and I’m not going to lie, the cutest too ) is a two year old girl who is the daughter of one of our families. She and I were actually baptized on the same day (that means I’m two years old as of about two weeks ago, too! Hooray!). Her language skills are not quite there yet for her to participate in giving intelligible responses, let alone to sing hymns in any particular language (though she clearly knows some words in Arabic and English like “abouna”, “orban”, and “yummy”…that’s all you really need), but you can tell she follows along with everything to the extent that she can because she bows when everyone around her bows, she nods her head slightly when abouna comes by to cense the church or to bless her with the hand cross, etc. During the sign of peace, which is given in the Coptic Church with two hands holding briefly the recipient’s outstretched hand (who holds your hand with their other hand in turn), she delights in going down the row and giving little “salams” to everybody, with the appropriate hand motion. There’s no way you can tell anyone that she doesn’t know what she’s doing, or that she isn’t taking everything in even when she doesn’t know how to respond to it yet. So I do wonder about the rationale involved in restricting certain portions of the church’s life (and the most important portion, at that!) to those under a certain age, regardless of where the inspiration or order to do so may have come from.

 

[malphono]

Not to drag things off topic too far, but since the thread has turned this way, are there any other practices for which it is traditional for Eastern/Oriental Catholics to involve infants/small children from which they have departed under Latin influence?

Not that I can think of offhand. There was, of course, Chrismation, but that error was corrected (formally) with the 1942 restoration. And then we have the absence of non-transitional Minor Orders. Contrary to the custom in the other Syriac Churches, (including the SCC and Chaldeans) we do not have ordained non-transitional Cantors or Lectors. With the fairly recent exception of the restoration of the “permanent” sub-diaconate, Minor Orders are all transitional. We have altar boys (and in Lebanon and perhaps elsewhere, altar girls as well … and no one on this planet is going to tell me that’s not a Nouvs Ordo-inspired neo-latinization). Age is a bit of a factor in this (and so, too, in the other Syriac Churches which do have ordained Cantors and Lectors) simply because the boy has to be old enough to be able to follow instruction.

BTW, when the Peace is given, the passer holds his/her hands in the “Praying Hands” position, while the recipient places his/her hand over them.

 

[mardukm]

It appears quite impossible that someone from the Latin Church anathematized the Maronite practice of infant communion, for a decree in 1702 from the Propaganda asserted:

the Sacred Congregation has commanded that it be ordered, and by the present decree it is so ordered, that each and every missionary and prefect of Apostolic missions should not dare in future, in any circumstance or under any pretext, to give a dispensation to Catholics of any oriental nation in matters of fasts, prayers, ceremonies, and suchlike from the prescriptions of their own national rite…the Sacred Congregation has decided that it neither has been nor is permitted for those Catholics to abandon in any respect the custom and observance of their own rite…

 

[babochka]

And that essentially follows the prescription of Trent’s Canon IV.

:banghead:

No, it doesn’t really. It does align Maronite practice with the Latin practice, certainly. It might follow the prescription of some other aspect of Trent. It doesn’t follow the prescriptions of Canon IV, as Trent’s Canon IV doesn’t deal with whether infants should or may be given communion. It only deals with whether communion is necessary for the salvation of a person under the age of reason, or whether Baptism is sufficient in such a case. By the time of Trent, the Latin practice of delaying the reception of communion was well established.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Babochka,

From what I’ve read, your interpretation is absolutely correct. Infant communion was and has never been condemned – only the idea that infants were somehow not saved if they did not receive communion.

IIRC, the Benedict XIV’s encyclical Allatae Sunt (written AFTER the Maronite Synod) noted that the practice was current among the Melkites, Armenians and Copts.

Blessings

:banghead:

No, it doesn’t really. It does align Maronite practice with the Latin practice, certainly. It might follow the prescription of some other aspect of Trent. It doesn’t follow the prescriptions of Canon IV, as Trent’s Canon IV doesn’t deal with whether infants should or may be given communion. It only deals with whether communion is necessary for the salvation of a person under the age of reason, or whether Baptism is sufficient in such a case. By the time of Trent, the Latin practice of delaying the reception of communion was well established.

 

[Aramis]

Which Eastern Churches currently (or historically) have separated Chrismation from Baptism?

Also, does anyone know the history of the separation of communion from baptism? When and where did it first occur? Was it forced on our churches, or self-imposed, as so many latinizations have been?

UGCC, Ruthenian GCC, Maronites for certain; probably others.

In the case of the UGCC and RuGCC, it was self-imposed, and appears to have been early 20th C in the US for the Ruthenian Church; late 19th C in the UGCC, in the homeland and in the US, but not universal.

Maronites, i can’t speak to.

 

[malphono]

No, it doesn’t really. It does align Maronite practice with the Latin practice, certainly. It might follow the prescription of some other aspect of Trent. It doesn’t follow the prescriptions of Canon IV, as Trent’s Canon IV doesn’t deal with whether infants should or may

be given communion. It only deals with whether communion is necessary for the salvation of a person under the age of reason, or whether Baptism is sufficient in such a case. By the time of Trent, the Latin practice of delaying the reception of communion was well established.

From what I’ve read, your interpretation is absolutely correct. Infant communion was and has never been condemned – only the idea that infants were somehow not saved if they did not receive communion.

IIRC, the Benedict XIV’s encyclical Allatae Sunt (written AFTER the Maronite Synod) noted that the practice was current among the Melkites, Armenians and
[/quote]

In post #21, I thought I clarified that the practice was suppressed through the machinations of the so-called legate at the Synod, rather than “anathamized” by him (or anyone else for that matter). Well, I thought I clarified, Guess not. Maybe now?

And FWIW, whether the practice was still current when Allatae Sunt was written is neither here nor there. The prescriptions of the Synod of 1736 (aka the Black Council) were met with major resistance from among some Maronite bishops as having gone much too far by way of disposal of our authentic traditions in favor of Latinizations. It took some 150 years (basically until WWI) for that resistance to have dissipated more or less completely. Just as it took nearly that long for the furor from the Synod of 1598 to die down. In fact, there is still resistance in some quarters to both of those Synods and their latinizations. Just as there is resistance to the Synod of 2005 (“Son of Black Council”) and it’s Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations.

 

[babochka]

UGCC, Ruthenian GCC, Maronites for certain; probably others.

I was completely unaware that the Ukrainians and Ruthenians had ever separated Chrismation from Baptism.

In the case of the UGCC and RuGCC, it was self-imposed, and appears to have been early 20th C in the US for the Ruthenian Church; late 19th C in the UGCC, in the homeland and in the US, but not universal.

.

Is this for Chrismation or Communion? I didn’t know it to be so recent. What circumstances led to it? Could you refer me to some further reading on the subject? From what your saying, the suppression of infant communion occurred independently in the US and in Europe. Is this the case?

 

[babochka]

In post #21, I thought I clarified that the practice was suppressed through the machinations of the so-called legate at the Synod, rather than “anathamized” by him (or anyone else for that matter). Well, I thought I clarified, Guess not. Maybe now?

And FWIW, whether the practice was still current when Allatae Sunt was written is neither here nor there. The prescriptions of the Synod of 1736 (aka the Black Council) were met with major resistance from among some Maronite bishops as having gone much too far by way of disposal of our authentic traditions in favor of Latinizations. It took some 150 years (basically until WWI) for that resistance to have dissipated more or less completely. Just as it took nearly that long for the furor from the Synod of 1598 to die down. In fact, there is still resistance in some quarters to both of those Synods and their latinizations. Just as there is resistance to the Synod of 2005 (“Son of Black Council”) and it’s Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations.

You did clarify, but later confused me by saying this:

And that essentially follows the prescription of Trent’s Canon IV.

Thus the head-banging. I thought we agreed, but then you stated that Canon IV basically prohibited the reception of communion by young children, which it did not.

 

[Aramis]

I was completely unaware that the Ukrainians and Ruthenians had ever separated Chrismation from Baptism.

Is this for Chrismation or Communion? I didn’t know it to be so recent. What circumstances led to it? Could you refer me to some further reading on the subject? From what your saying, the suppression of infant communion occurred independently in the US and in Europe. Is this the case?

Rev. Fr. Chris Zugger’s book touches on it; in the UGCC it wasn’t universal, but in the Ruthenian Church in the US, it was specifically part of the US divergence.

Also note: the “1917” edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia has the lack of infant communion noted under the entry on the Ruthenian “Rite”… but it ignores the Ukrainian/Ruthenian separation.Since it references the Synod of Zamosc, it’s actually referring to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
newadvent.org/cathen/13277a.htm

Note that the Synod of Zamošč has no authority in the Podcarpathian region - the traditional locus of the Ruthenian GCC.

It’s bloody hard to ferret out the exact details without reading Ukrainian and Latin…

 

[MichaelinMD]

I was completely unaware that the Ukrainians and Ruthenians had ever separated Chrismation from Baptism.

Is this for Chrismation or Communion? I didn’t know it to be so recent. What circumstances led to it? Could you refer me to some further reading on the subject? From what your saying, the suppression of infant communion occurred independently in the US and in Europe. Is this the case?

Well…maybe some parishes or eparchies did. Certainly NOT the ***Byzantine-Ruthenian ***Greek Catholic church that I was baptized in. Or the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church my wife was, as an infant, baptized in. We both, she as an infant, I as an adult, were chrismated and received Holy Communion immediately after our baptisms.

So…which is the rule and which is the exception here??

In Christ,
MinM

 

[babochka]

Well…maybe some parishes or eparchies did. Certainly NOT the ***Byzantine-Ruthenian ***Greek Catholic church that I was baptized in. Or the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church my wife was, as an infant, baptized in. We both, she as an infant, I as an adult, were chrismated and received Holy Communion immediately after our baptisms.

So…which is the rule and which is the exception here??

In Christ,
MinM

History goes back further than our own lives and memories. I, too, was baptized, chrismated, and given Holy Communion as an infant, 44 years ago. I thought that was normal and that all Byzantines did it that way, I’ve since come to understand that my situation and parish were unusual for the time. Many Ruthenian parishes in the US did not restore infant communion until the mid 90s. My priest is from Europe. When he arrived here 5 years ago, his children did not receive communion. One had been baptized at my parish and had received at baptism, the others had not. His wife said that infant communion was just then being restored. Many babies would be given communion at baptism, then not again until age 7. We just cannot assume that our own experience is universal,

 

[MichaelinMD]

History goes back further than our own lives and memories.

Boy, I sure hope so!! Because, if not, either I’m as old as time or my memory is really shot beyond all imagining…

I, too, was baptized, chrismated, and given Holy Communion as an infant, 44 years ago. I thought that was normal and that all Byzantines did it that way, I’ve since come to understand that my situation and parish were unusual for the time. Many Ruthenian parishes in the US did not restore infant communion until the mid 90s. My priest is from Europe. When he arrived here 5 years ago, his children did not receive communion. One had been baptized at my parish and had received at baptism, the others had not. His wife said that infant communion was just then being restored. Many babies would be given communion at baptism, then not again until age 7. We just cannot assume that our own experience is universal,

I mention my own and my wife’s experience, not because I believe or think it is in some way universal, but only to illustrate that what others might think is and has been universal, ain’t necessarily so…So, dearest Babochka, methinks we be in agreement !

 

[Aramis]

Keep in mind: Bishop Nicholas + Elko was noted for his latinizations. So much so that Rome eventually removed him. I know he ordered removal of the Iconostasi (Very Right Rev. Fr. Artim, of Eternal Memory, kept for decades the letter ordering their removal); I’ve read he ordered an end to infant communion. In both cases, he was ignored by some parish priests.

Rev. Fr. Artim, he installed an iconostas after the order - but it was a VERY open grillwork of gold-painted iron.

 

[Thomas48]

Not to drag things off topic too far, but since the thread has turned this way, are there any other practices for which it is traditional for Eastern/Oriental Catholics to involve infants/small children from which they have departed under Latin influence? .

Mamodisi (Baptism), Holy Communion, and Confirmation are bestowed at infancy to Syro Malabar Catholics. Once again this is due to restoration, the Church has taken on a path of rapid Latin Removal and Syriac Revival. I believe I can prouldy say that the Syro Malabar Church no longer holds the title of “most Latinized”

 

[Vico]

…So…which is the rule and which is the exception here?..

CCEO Eastern Canon Law (1992)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.

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.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

 

[MichaelinMD]

CCEO Eastern Canon Law (1992)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.

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.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

Okay. Guess I should’ve worded my question a little differently. Thank you for citing the canons, i.e. the “official rule”, as it were. However, I think we’re talking more about what actually happens in practice amongst the various churches, as apart from what is codified. Seems there is a spectrum of practice and my concern had to do with what is (and was) most commonly practiced (the “rule”) as opposed to deviations from that practice (the “exception”). Hopefully the praxis is (was, and will be) a reflection of the codified “rule” and not an exception to it .

By the way, what did the canons say before 1992?

(And, you never did answer my question about where you got the list of Latinizations…I’m still curious .)

In Christ,
MinM