Novel Catholic Practices

[TEX]

Fellow Catholics,

There are two areas where it seems that the Western Church may have introduced some very novel practices–some very un-apostalic practices in fact:

1. switching from levened bread to unleavened bread (for Communion) around the 7th century.
2. Seperating the three sacrements of initiation in the 12th century. Prior to the 12th century, baptisim, confirmation, and first communion were administered at the same time (to adults or infants) in the West. Twohundred years post facto, this was explained as a needed change because of the lack of intellectual understanding in young people (i.e., infants cannot be confirmed or receive communion because they do not “understand” these sacrements), but this explanation was not given at the time of seperation.

So…this forces the question: is the Orthodox Church, in fact, more in tune with original Christian litergical practice? Which leads to: is not the Orthodox Church the True Church? (I write this as a Catholic…one who is very curious as to what original Christianity was and one who believes that whatever original Christianity was…is what current Christianity should be…)

–Tex

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, Unleavened bread was what Jesus used at the Last Supper. The Passover Meal, the norms of which were dicated by God, the Father, Himself to Moses, call for using unleavened bread. Jesus celebrated the First Mass within the context of the Last Supper. The Passover meal was in anticipaton of Jesus’ sacrifice at Calvary. Jesus fulfilled the original meaning of the Passover by freeing us from the slavery of sin and leading us through the waters of death into the promised land of Heaven.

Please cite your sources regarding the matter used for the Host.

With all due respect, there is a danger, as I read your post, of falling into a heresy called “antiquarianism”. The liturgy, albeit the Church, is living and the growth bot th liturgy and the Church exprience is organic. Over time, the Church’s understanding of the Sacraments evolved as she was guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[TEX]

With all due respect, there is a danger, as I read your post, of falling into a heresy called “antiquarianism”. The liturgy, albeit the Church, is living and the growth bot th liturgy and the Church exprience is organic. Over time, the Church’s understanding of the Sacraments evolved as she was guided by the Holy Spirit.

Was Paul VI’s revision of the Mass organic? The 1970s seem a little late in the game to be discovering new understandings of the litergy, frankly.

Good call on sources. I will refind them and post them. Please give me time.

thanks,

Tex

 

[diggerdomer]

Fellow Catholics,

There are two areas where it seems that the Western Church may have introduced some very novel practices–some very un-apostalic practices in fact:

1. switching from levened bread to unleavened bread (for Communion) around the 7th century.
2. Seperating the three sacrements of initiation in the 12th century. Prior to the 12th century, baptisim, confirmation, and first communion were administered at the same time (to adults or infants) in the West. Twohundred years post facto, this was explained as a needed change because of the lack of intellectual understanding in young people (i.e., infants cannot be confirmed or receive communion because they do not “understand” these sacrements), but this explanation was not given at the time of seperation.

So…this forces the question: is the Orthodox Church, in fact, more in tune with original Christian litergical practice? Which leads to: is not the Orthodox Church the True Church? (I write this as a Catholic…one who is very curious as to what original Christianity was and one who believes that whatever original Christianity was…is what current Christianity should be…)

–Tex

Novel practices have always been inserted into the liturgy.

Catholic and Orthodox share the same sacraments so there’s no significant theological difference between the different Rites they practice regarding the “original Christianity” as you call it…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Fellow Catholics,

There are two areas where it seems that the Western Church may have introduced some very novel practices–some very un-apostalic practices in fact:

1. switching from levened bread to unleavened bread (for Communion) around the 7th century.
2. Seperating the three sacrements of initiation in the 12th century. Prior to the 12th century, baptisim, confirmation, and first communion were administered at the same time (to adults or infants) in the West. Twohundred years post facto, this was explained as a needed change because of the lack of intellectual understanding in young people (i.e., infants cannot be confirmed or receive communion because they do not “understand” these sacrements), but this explanation was not given at the time of seperation.

So…this forces the question: is the Orthodox Church, in fact, more in tune with original Christian litergical practice? Which leads to: is not the Orthodox Church the True Church? (I write this as a Catholic…one who is very curious as to what original Christianity was and one who believes that whatever original Christianity was…is what current Christianity should be…)

–Tex

 

[peary1]

Fellow Catholics,

There are two areas where it seems that the Western Church may have introduced some very novel practices–some very un-apostalic practices in fact:

1. switching from levened bread to unleavened bread (for Communion) around the 7th century.

**The use of unleavened bread is both theologically and biblically accurate. It was not a ‘novel’ idea. The use or omission of leaven in baking bread does not affect the reality of the end product as true bread. And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist. **

1. Seperating the three sacrements of initiation in the 12th century. Prior to the 12th century, baptisim, confirmation, and first communion were administered at the same time (to adults or infants) in the West. Twohundred years post facto, this was explained as a needed change because of the lack of intellectual understanding in young people (i.e., infants cannot be confirmed or receive communion because they do not “understand” these sacrements), but this explanation was not given at the time of seperation.

**Confirmation became separated from Baptism through a change in the social structure of ancient society. In the ancient world it was the bishop who performed all the duties that you might see a parish priest do today. The bishop was the one who celebrated Mass for the Christian community and led other rituals. This still holds true today, as the bishop is the “ordinary minister” of the sacraments of a geographical area, but people are so spread out that it would make it difficult for the bishop to lead the entire community in one celebration, especially in areas with a large Christian population. In the ancient world, the bishop led the only celebration of the Eucharist for that week. Ancient people did not have a choice of which Mass to attend.

People from other lands started moving in to the cities and the locals left the city to the rural areas because it was safer. This was a major change as the ancient Roman Empire was an urban culture. This left the Church with some new challenges in how to minister to the community.

Gradually bishops appointed presbyters to go live in the villages, preside over Eucharist, preach, and to keep in touch with the bishop so that he knew what was happening in the outlying communities. However, not all parts of the Church had the same idea as to how initiation should be carried out.

The Eastern Church was concerned with maintaining the integrity of the rites of initiation. Their philosophy was that it was okay if the presbyter anointed the new Christians so that the whole ritual would be performed at once rather than doing each part a different time.

The Western Church, however, wanted to preserve the idea of initiation into a whole community, with recognition by its visible head. Therefore, the bishop was the only one who could perform the anointing. Sometimes this meant people would have to wait a few years to be anointed so that the bishop could come out to the town. This is how Confirmation became a separate sacrament from Baptism in the Western Church.

There was debate among the communities as to which was most important: preservation of the rite or the importance of initiation into a community and recognition by its visible head. Both sides are legitimate and are both recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. However, in the Latin rite (or the Roman Catholic Church), most often Confirmation is not celebrated at the same time as Baptism.

Again, not a ‘novel’ practice but one based on different needs in the Christian community.**

So…this forces the question: is the Orthodox Church, in fact, more in tune with original Christian litergical practice? Which leads to: is not the Orthodox Church the True Church? (I write this as a Catholic…one who is very curious as to what original Christianity was and one who believes that whatever original Christianity was…is what current Christianity should be…)

Although the orthodox churches (you cannot say ‘Orthodox Church’ because there are many, not one) are part of the Catholic Church, they are in schism. So, the answer to your question is, no, they are not unified and thus cannot be considered as a ‘true’ church.

–Tex

 

[diggerdomer]

peary1:
The Catholic Church refers to Orthodox as “true Churches”

 

[japhy]

The Catholic Church refers to Orthodox as “true Churches”

Slight (but important) correction: “true particular Churches”. This comes from Dominus Iesus, the 2000 Declaration on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. From paragraph 17, first in Latin, then in English:
Unica ergo est Christi Ecclesia, subsistens in Ecclesia Catholica, cuius moderatio spectat ad Petri Successorem et ad Episcopos in communione cum eo. Ecclesiae illae quae, licet in perfecta communione cum Ecclesia Catholica non sint, eidem tamen iunguntur vinculis strictissimis, cuiusmodi sunt successio apostolica et valida Eucharistiae celebratio, verae sunt Ecclesiae particulares. Quapropter in his quoque Ecclesiis praesens est et operatur Christi Ecclesia, quantumvis plena desit communio cum Ecclesia Catholica, eo quod ipsae doctrinam catholicam non acceptant de Primatu, quem, ex Dei consilio, Episcopus Romanus obiective possidet et in Ecclesiam universam exercet.

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

 

[jlhargus]

Fellow Catholics,

There are two areas where it seems that the Western Church may have introduced some very novel practices–some very un-apostalic practices in fact:

1. Seperating the three sacrements of initiation in the 12th century. Prior to the 12th century, baptisim, confirmation, and first communion were administered at the same time (to adults or infants) in the West. Two hundred years post facto, this was explained as a needed change because of the lack of intellectual understanding in young people (i.e., infants cannot be confirmed or receive communion because they do not “understand” these sacrements), but this explanation was not given at the time of seperation.

JL: [ACTS 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, **Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And **they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 ** When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.]

In Acts19:1-6 we see Paul an APOSTLE administer Christian baptism and confirm by laying on of hands, at the same time. Notice there is no mention of communion.

[Acts8:5 Then **Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.]

Philip was a DEACON, see Acts6:1-6, where seven deacons were ordained.

Acts8:12 But** when they believed Philip preaching **the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then **laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. **]

In Acts we see the DEACON Philip preach and baptize, he was a deacon and could not confirm as this was reserved to the APOSTLES. Peter and John both APOSTLES went to Samaria to administer confirmation to those who were already baptized, but not confirmed. Again no mention of communion. So we see in apostolic times it was done either way.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\ctually, Unleavened bread was what Jesus used at the Last Supper.\

Not according to the Greek. It said He used ARTOS, which always means leavened bread.

 

[benedictgal]

\ctually, Unleavened bread was what Jesus used at the Last Supper.\

Not according to the Greek. It said He used ARTOS, which always means leavened bread.

However, the Last Supper was celebrated within the context of the Passover. The norms for the Passover called for the use of unleavened bread.

 

[diggerdomer]

However, the Last Supper was celebrated within the context of the Passover. The norms for the Passover called for the use of unleavened bread.

Interestingly, it was also the feast of the barley harvest, not wheat, and yet we now require wheat.

 

[diggerdomer]

Slight (but important) correction: “true particular Churches”. This comes from Dominus Iesus, the 2000 Declaration on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. From paragraph 17, first in Latin, then in English:
Unica ergo est Christi Ecclesia, subsistens in Ecclesia Catholica, cuius moderatio spectat ad Petri Successorem et ad Episcopos in communione cum eo. Ecclesiae illae quae, licet in perfecta communione cum Ecclesia Catholica non sint, eidem tamen iunguntur vinculis strictissimis, cuiusmodi sunt successio apostolica et valida Eucharistiae celebratio, verae sunt Ecclesiae particulares. Quapropter in his quoque Ecclesiis praesens est et operatur Christi Ecclesia, quantumvis plena desit communio cum Ecclesia Catholica, eo quod ipsae doctrinam catholicam non acceptant de Primatu, quem, ex Dei consilio, Episcopus Romanus obiective possidet et in Ecclesiam universam exercet.

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

Yes. I didn’t specify that…but for the purposes of this Thread does “particular” make a difference? How? thanks.

 

[japhy]

Yes. I didn’t specify that…but for the purposes of this Thread does “particular” make a difference? How? thanks.

Just trying to be precise. The Orthodox Churches are separated from the one true Church because they are not in full communion with her. They are true particular churches, insofar as they have a valid bishop with apostolic succession and celebrate a valid Eucharist and manifest, in an incomplete way, the Church herself.

 

[peary1]

The Catholic Church refers to Orthodox as “true Churches”

…yes, as in authentic ecclesial churches that share many if not most things considered valid and licit (i.e., the sacraments, a sacred liturgy, etc.). The poster referred to the Orthodox churches as ONE orthodox church, rather than ‘churches’. But they still are in schism.

 

[bpbasilphx]

However, the Last Supper was celebrated within the context of the Passover. The norms for the Passover called for the use of unleavened bread.

That is, itself, questionable.

However, one of the Synoptics refers to the “Eortis tis Azymoi” (Feast of Unleavened Bread) and says Our Lord took ARTOS.

Note the contrasting words.

 

[bpbasilphx]

…yes, as in authentic ecclesial churches that share many if not most things considered valid and licit (i.e., the sacraments, a sacred liturgy, etc.). The poster referred to the Orthodox churches as ONE orthodox church, rather than ‘churches’. But they still are in schism.

The Catholic Church is likewise a COMMUNION of 23 (or so) Churches, so by the same token, you cannot refer to “the Catholic Church” as a single entity, either.

Or, to put it another way, there is just as much reason to say “the Orthodox Church” in the singular as “the Catholic Church.”

 

[Montalo]

The Catholic Church is likewise a COMMUNION of 23 (or so) Churches, so by the same token, you cannot refer to “the Catholic Church” as a single entity, either.

Or, to put it another way, there is just as much reason to say “the Orthodox Church” in the singular as “the Catholic Church.”

catholics, correct me if i am wrong

we are one Church, however we celebrate it in different forms

if this is how the Orthodox view their churches, then I will stand corrected also

 

[peary1]

The Catholic Church is likewise a COMMUNION of 23 (or so) Churches, so by the same token, you cannot refer to “the Catholic Church” as a single entity, either.

Or, to put it another way, there is just as much reason to say “the Orthodox Church” in the singular as “the Catholic Church.”

You can’t refer to the Catholic Church as a single entity? That’s strange…that’s been done throughout history. Amazing how you yourself can revise an accepted practice.
The 23 so-called ‘churches’ are 23 different LITURGICAL RITES UNITED UNDER THE POPE. You make it sound as if they are comparable to protestant ecclesial communities. Not only are they united under the Pope, but ALL share VALID sacraments.

The orthodox churches are NOT united under the pope. They are ecclesial communities that don’t even share the same beliefs in some cases. They are entrenched in their own ethnicity, for the most part, and some patriarchates do not recognize other patriarchates as legitimate.

There is not reason to say “orthodox church” in the singular because they are not ‘one’ united church under the pope.

 

[japhy]

However, one of the Synoptics refers to the “Eortis tis Azymoi” (Feast of Unleavened Bread) and says Our Lord took ARTOS.

Some people question whether artos is strictly leavened bread.
By way of example, we see that manna is referred to as artos (John 6:31), as was the “showbread” in the tabernacle (Hebrews 9:2), specified in Leviticus 24:5. Yet these were unleavened loaves. source]
Now, I am under the impression that Jesus was celebrating the Passover early, and so He may very well have used leavened bread. However, when He manifested Himself in the breaking of the bread on the way to Emmaus with two disciples, it is very reasonable to believe the bread He used then was indeed unleavened, since it happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.