Time of first communion

[jimkhong]

Change of rite is local, and does not involve the Vatican. There are two avenues. If you are married to someone of another rite/jurisdiction you can simply state that you wish to make the change to the local pastor of your spouses jurisdiction. He notes it in the church registry and you are done. There is no paperwork involved. The other way is that you write a letter, with your proposed jurisdiction priest as a guide, to your proposed jurisdiction bishop asking to be accepted into his jurisdiction for your spiritual welfare. He then writes to your local bishop and obtains your release. After that, you sign a document making the whole thing official and that’s it.

O, Ok. That sounds simple.

I always understood that other than in mixed ritual marriages, you need the permission of the Apostolic See to change. That is in Roma-Rite as well as Oriental Rite Canon Law. (CIC 112, CCEO 33).

Mmm

 

[5Loaves]

In the past ten years there have been three in my parish who have made the formal change from the Latin Church to our Russian Greek Catholic Church. We are in an atypical situation where the Russian Catholics are under the jurisdiction of the local Roman Catholic Ordinary. For my parish which is in San Francisco that Ordinary is the Archbishop of San Francisco.

Two of those making the change lived in the East Bay, in the territory of the Diocese of Oakland. These two, I was one, in different years had the same process of simply writing to the Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, his consent for the change going to the Archbishop of SF, and the Archbishop of SF accepting the transfer. It was a simple process. In both cases we had been active in the parish already for some years.

The third person’s request was sent to Rome and took longer, as one would expect. We didn’t know why it was sent to Rome, but I speculated that it was because that person resided in San Francisco, so was residing within the territory of the Archdiocese of SF. That meant there was a single bishop for both roles- releasing him from the Latin Church, and accepting his transfer to the Russian Church. The transfer came through without any difficulty, other that the additional time one would expect, having been sent to Rome.

 

[Constantin]

jimkhong:

Constantin, I understand you (or at least I think I do) that the Eastern churches were faithful to the original practice of confirmation and communion at birth. I am not sure what you mean by that this will achieve us nothing. Do you mean that we now have a different practice in the West and it is therefore the starting point in the discussion and not whether it was the original practice? So therefore there is no point in trying to make that leap back to the original practice?

Imho we should return to the original practice but I do not think there is a way to that
for many people in the Roman part of the Catholic church. Also, obviously the question of the point of time of
first communion is not at all a sufficient reason for a change in rite.
Truth be told, I have seriously considered and sometimes still consider swimming the Bosporus
(or drown in the attempt ), but not for the Eastern Catholic shore, but the Orthodox one - for personal reasons. Infant communion is only a minor concern, but it is one more argument in favor of the East.
As FatherSebastian says, “lex orandi, lex credendi” - how very true.

 

[Vico]

Since when does the Western church not give communion to infants?
The orthodox do it together with baptism and confirmation all at once. I am familiar with the reasoning (discernment), but I am looking for some apologetic ammunition once more - the older the better, apart from Paul.

1215 A.D. The original order is baptism, confirmation/chrysmation, and communion.

The tradition is for the bishop to confirm (originally the imposition of hands) rather than for the priest to chrismate with the Holy Myron from the eparch.

Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition (earliest Verona edition 215 A.D.) describes this original initiation practice in this order:

Baptism

1. bishop makes oil of thanksgiving and oil of exorcism
2. anointing with oil of exorcism
3. nude baptism (by triple immersion)
4. anointing with oil of thanksgiving (then dry and get dressed)

Confirmation/Chrismation
5. then in the church, bishop says dismissal rite over the neophytes: “Lord God, you have made them worthy to receive remission of sins through the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, etc.”
6. laying on of hands together with oil
7. sealing with oil on the forehead
8. the kiss of peace prayer

Eucharist
9. deacons bring oblation (bread and wine, water, milk, and honey)
10. the oblation is blessed
11. the milk and honey are mixed together
12. the bread is distributed
13. each tastes of the water, milk, and wine, three times.
bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html

Baptism and Latin confirmation were separated due to insistence that the bishop must administer it. Pope Innocent I (d. 417) instituted the change to oil administered only by the bishop suggesting the Paraclete Spirit is given and only through the bishop.

Infants were excluded from Latin communion when bread only began to be used (1215 A.D.).

West: emphasis on Christology.
East: emphasis on Spirit.

Exodus 30:22‑25 has the formula for the Holy Myron.

References:
Aidan Kavanagh, Confirmation: Origins and Reform (New York:
Pueblo, 1988).
Gerard Austin, Anointing with the Spirit: The Rite of Confirmation (New York: Pueblo, 1985).

 

[jimkhong]

In the past ten years there have been three in my parish who have made the formal change from the Latin Church to our Russian Greek Catholic Church. We are in an atypical situation where the Russian Catholics are under the jurisdiction of the local Roman Catholic Ordinary. For my parish which is in San Francisco that Ordinary is the Archbishop of San Francisco.

Two of those making the change lived in the East Bay, in the territory of the Diocese of Oakland. These two, I was one, in different years had the same process of simply writing to the Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, his consent for the change going to the Archbishop of SF, and the Archbishop of SF accepting the transfer. It was a simple process. In both cases we had been active in the parish already for some years.

The third person’s request was sent to Rome and took longer, as one would expect. We didn’t know why it was sent to Rome, but I speculated that it was because that person resided in San Francisco, so was residing within the territory of the Archdiocese of SF. That meant there was a single bishop for both roles- releasing him from the Latin Church, and accepting his transfer to the Russian Church. The transfer came through without any difficulty, other that the additional time one would expect, having been sent to Rome.

Hmm, from the experience of yourself and FatherSebastian, it looks like that Canon is not enforced. Maybe it is only enforced the other way so that there will be no domination of Roman Rite to push Eastern Rite to change to Roman Rite.