The reception of communion in the Syriac Tradition

[shlomo3amrooh]

In the Syriac Tradition the mysteries of the Eucharist, namely, the body and blood of Christ is the summit of our worship. We become in communion with our Lord in a very spiritual and physical way.

In the Syriac Tradition, unlike that of the Latin Tradition, the main celebrant (if of an equal of higher rank than the communicant) always communes the communicant. That is, the communicant never communes himself. The theology of this is simply because it is a sacrifice being given by the celebrant. In addition to this we are simply mimicking Our Lord Jesus who did the same to his apostles.

To read more click below:

goo.gl/0KPrS7

 

[tee_eff_em]

Does the barbar who shaves all men who do not shave themselves shave himself? :yukonjoe:

That is: Are Syriac liturgies always concelebrated by clerics of equal rank? Or does a singular celebrant ***not ***communicate?


tee

 

[MorEphrem]

Does the barbar who shaves all men who do not shave themselves shave himself? :yukonjoe:

That is: Are Syriac liturgies always concelebrated by clerics of equal rank? Or does a singular celebrant ***not ***communicate?


tee

A single celebrant communicates himself (twice in fact). But when concelebration is performed it can only be between equal clergy (i.e. a priest should not be concelebrating with a chorbishop or a bishop).

 

[malphono]

Does the barbar who shaves all men who do not shave themselves shave himself? :yukonjoe:

That is: Are Syriac liturgies always concelebrated by clerics of equal rank? Or does a singular celebrant ***not ***communicate?


tee

Maybe it’s just me in my snow-bound state, but I’ve no idea what the question is. Would you mind clarifying?

 

[malphono]

But when concelebration is performed it can only be between equal clergy (i.e. a priest should not be concelebrating with a chorbishop or a bishop).

I think you mean that a bishop should not concelebrate where a simple priest (or even a chor-episcopus) is principal celebrant. In such a case, the bishop should simply preside from the throne.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Maybe it’s just me in my snow-bound state, but I’ve no idea what the question is. Would you mind clarifying?

Sure, the OP stated:

That is, the communicant never communes himself.

Which caused me to wonder:

[D]oes a singular celebrant ***not ***communicate?

Which might be re-worded: *Does a singular celebrant not -]communicate/-] *commune himself?
*Does a singular celebrant not -]communicate/-] *partake the sacrament himself?

tee

 

[malphono]

Sure, the OP stated:

Which caused me to wonder:

Which might be re-worded: Does a singular celebrant not -]communicate/-] commune himself?
Does a singular celebrant not -]communicate/-] partake the sacrament himself?

tee

OK kind of a strange question, but a single celebrant always communes himself. The point in that blog post is that lower clerics (deacons and below) should be communed by the celebrant. IOW, the idea of self-communication by a deacon is something of an abuse.

 

[tee_eff_em]

OK kind of a strange question, but a single celebrant always communes himself. The point in that blog post is that lower clerics (deacons and below) should be communed by the celebrant. IOW, the idea of self-communication by a deacon is something of an abuse.

If you say so.

I thought it was kind of strange to assert that *the communicant never communes himself *unless liturgies are always concelebrated by clerics of equal rank.

tee

 

[malphono]

If you say so.

I thought it was kind of strange to assert that *the communicant never communes himself *unless liturgies are always concelebrated by clerics of equal rank.

tee

OK,now I think I see what you’re saying.

In the case of concelebration (which is severely overused by the Maronites these days but I digress), where the principal celebrant is of higher rank than the concelebrant(s) he should, in theory at least, commune the other(s). If the concelebrants are of equal rank to the principal celebrant, they normally commune themselves. It should never happen that a bishop be a concelebrant where one of lower rank is principal celebrant.

Now, where clergy of equal or lower rank to the (principal) celebrant are assisting in choir, (i.e, not concelebrating), they should, by rights, be communed by the (principal) celebrant. (This is the case in the SOC photo in the blog post.) IIRC, this is also the practice in the Roman Usus Antiquior.

I hope that makes some sense. My snow-induced headache could be clouding things.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m confused as to how this could ever be otherwise/why this thread exists. Does it really happen anywhere in your communion that a priest will commune his own bishop? That’s craziness. It hurt just to type that. Granted, I can only go by the few times that HG Bishop Youssef has been with us here in the COC (never saw any form of concelebration during my time in the RCC), but that’s never happened so far as I’ve seen.

Weird stuff…

 

[Aramis]

I’m confused as to how this could ever be otherwise/why this thread exists. Does it really happen anywhere in your communion that a priest will commune his own bishop?

I’ve seen it done - but the bishop wasn’t a concelebrant. He was seated in choir due to illness, Roman mass. (the ABp. had a case of Laryngitis and a sore throat.)

Note that from Trent until VII, concelebration was restricted in the Roman Rite to only when a bishop was principle celebrant, and only for ordination masses, episcopal enthronements, Papal Masses, Chrism masses, and clerical funerals (and maybe one or two other situations that I’m forgetting). It was practically non-existent.

I’ve also seen a visiting bishop approach in the communion line. (Admittedly, he was late for daily mass, but arrived before the gospel…)