Melkite and Maronite Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter inquiring_abc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

inquiring_abc

Guest
Hi,

I am new here. I had a few questions I would like to ask. Does anyone know
  • If Maronites usually give Holy Communion under both kinds or just under one kind?
  • If Melkites usually give Holy Communion under both kinds or just under one kind?
  • If under both kinds, how do Maronites give the Blood?
  • If under both kinds, how do Melkites give the Blood?
Someone recently told me that they were at an Antiochian Orthodox church, and noticed when the Blood was given out to the congregation, the priest brings the spoon towards the mouth of the person who wants to receive the Blood and sort of flicks it in his mouth. So I would like to know if the Maronites and Melkites also do this also? Or do they place it in or near the mouth of the person who wants to receive it (so that the person can drink it by putting their mouth on the spoon or perhaps slightly touch the spoon by sipping it)?
 
Melkites, being Byzantie, give under both kinds. I believe the do this via intinction by hand instead of using the golden spoon as other Byzantine Rite Churches would.
 
For the sake of clarity, I should point out that the Maronites are not Byzantine but are, rather, from the West Syriac (Antiochene) Tradition.

In any case, the Maronites normally use Latin-style hosts, and (generally, at least) give communion under both Species, by intinction and on the tongue. In former times (from, at least the 16th century through the mid-20th century) the standard Maronite practice was latinized and was identical to that of the Latin Church, i.e, the host alone.

In some places, communion is still given with the host alone, and when this is done, it is also normally on the tongue. Unfortunately I have to add here that I’ve seen cases where CITH is practiced, which is clearly a Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization. However, when I’ve had the misfortune to witness that, there was no “minister of the Chalice” nor was the host intincted. On the more positive side, the number (and percentage) of communicants taking CITH was very small.

BTW, all of the above also applies to the Chaldeans who are of the East Syriac (Edesene) Tradition.
 
malphono said:
For the sake of clarity, I should point out that the Maronites are not Byzantine but are, rather, from the West Syriac (Antiochene) Tradition.

In any case, the Maronites normally use Latin-style hosts, and (generally, at least) give communion under both Species, by intinction and on the tongue. In former times (from, at least the 16th century through the mid-20th century) the standard Maronite practice was latinized and was identical to that of the Latin Church, i.e, the host alone.

In some places, communion is still given with the host alone, and when this is done, it is also normally on the tongue. Unfortunately I have to add here that I’ve seen cases where CITH is practiced, which is clearly a Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization. However, when I’ve had the misfortune to witness that, there was no “minister of the Chalice” nor was the host intincted. On the more positive side, the number (and percentage) of communicants taking CITH was very small.

BTW, all of the above also applies to the Chaldeans who are of the East Syriac (Edesene) Tradition.
Click to expand...
The Chaldean church I have been to uses leavened bread. I guess at least this priest is getting back to tradition. 🙂
 
malphono said:
For the sake of clarity, I should point out that the Maronites are not Byzantine but are, rather, from the West Syriac (Antiochene) Tradition.

In any case, the Maronites normally use Latin-style hosts, and (generally, at least) give communion under both Species, by intinction and on the tongue. In former times (from, at least the 16th century through the mid-20th century) the standard Maronite practice was latinized and was identical to that of the Latin Church, i.e, the host alone.

In some places, communion is still given with the host alone, and when this is done, it is also normally on the tongue. Unfortunately I have to add here that I’ve seen cases where CITH is practiced, which is clearly a Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization. However, when I’ve had the misfortune to witness that, there was no “minister of the Chalice” nor was the host intincted. On the more positive side, the number (and percentage) of communicants taking CITH was very small.

BTW, all of the above also applies to the Chaldeans who are of the East Syriac (Edesene) Tradition.
Click to expand...
The Assyrian Church of the East receives Communion CITH. How can you claim that the Chaldeans are Latinized for receiving CITH?
 
My Melkite Church uses both kinds. Once I have had it by spoon.👍🙂
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
My Melkite Church uses both kinds. Once I have had it by spoon.👍🙂
Click to expand...
You are the guy that is down at St. Ignatios’ right? Was that a time when Fr. Sean was there celebrating liturgy for you guys , or perhaps was it Fr. Damien celebrating ;).
 
Formosus said:
You are the guy that is down at St. Ignatios’ right? Was that a time when Fr. Sean was there celebrating liturgy for you guys , or perhaps was it Fr. Damien celebrating ;).
Click to expand...
It was Fr. Miguel that administered it during Pre-Sanctification last week.
Fr. Damien is my buddy, by the way. Brilliant guy. He rocks. 👍
I’m thinking on taking his class on icon-making one day.
Thanks for asking. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top