Top 5 Reasons People Think You Aren't Catholic

[Jegudiel]

This really is not astonishing. And it’s not just a wanna-fit-in Latinization - if there is such a thing. I don’t think ACROD made this restoration until the 1980’s.

It is not clear, to me, or to those whom I’ve asked, what, exactly, was the practice of, say a few centuries ago. Communion was infrequent, in particular among the Slavs. So while an infant may have receive communion at baptism, it is not at all clear that they would continue to receive regularly. Would their parents fully expect them to participate in an arduous preparation - including confession - for communion? Would that be considered too arduous, and thus the children would not communicate?

Now everything is different. People commune frequently. Preparation is not so arduous, One poster here said that a certain deacon advised that no sin is so great that one should refrain from approaching the chalice without prior confession. We also have the very new idea in contemporary American Orthodoxy that children should be left free to wander and act out against their parents in whatever manner during the liturgy, then be brought up to communion. I can tell you that, however wonderful parents find this, others are scandalized by it.

IMO, the question of restoring the ancient practice was muddled first by the terribly poor relations with the Orthodox. The idea of doing something because it is more Orthodox had zero traction for a long, long time - and still evokes some negativity. Later, as those issues waned, we entered an era of frequent communion in which it clearly seemed that something was amiss. Is there a possibility that a child can receive unworthily? Is this something that parents need to be mindful of? I suspect that it will take some time for us to get through those issues.

As well as it should in some cases! The practice in my Eparchy has been for daily Divine Liturgy for decades. Now some priests insist on celebrating the Divine Liturgy only on Sunday “to be more like the Orthodox.” I find that tragic.

Actually I find the reverse of what you suggest to be true. When something is “more Orthodox”, it’s like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As well as it should in some cases! The practice in my Eparchy has been for daily Divine Liturgy for decades. Now some priests insist on celebrating the Divine Liturgy only on Sunday “to be more like the Orthodox.” I find that tragic.

That should only be the case during the Great Fast (i.e. from last Monday until Holy Week).

From the Norms of Particular Law of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh:

Canon 707 §l

§4. The Divine Liturgy may be celebrated at any suitable time, although the morning hours are preferred. Rather than the Divine Liturgy, the Office of the Presanctified Gifts, preferably celebrated in the evening, is prescribed for the ordinary weekdays of the Great Fast.

That is the tradition, now law of this particular sui juris Church - daily DL (Mass) during the Great Fast was the Latinization.

Any decision not to have DL on weekdays outside of the Great Fast should be for pastoral reasons only.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Not around here (Byzantine Ruthenian.) We refer to our deacons as “deacon”, not “father” or “deacon father.” While our Lent begins on Monday our Easter Sunday is the same as the Latin Rite.

With the re-institution of the permanent diaconate, that is indeed a proper way to formally address an ordained deacon throughout the entire Metropolia. While we may still address them as “Deacon” alone in the course of personal, direct conversation, in correspondence or any other formal setting/occasion, they are properly addressed as Father Deacon.

This is straight off the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh’s website:

Q: What is the proper way to address a deacon?
A: He may be called “Deacon” or “Father Deacon.”

archeparchy.org/page/ministries/diaconate.htm

 

[5Loaves]

With the re-institution of the permanent diaconate, that is indeed a proper way to formally address an ordained deacon throughout the entire Metropolia. While we may still address them as “Deacon” alone in the course of personal, direct conversation, in correspondence or any other formal setting/occasion, they are properly addressed as Father Deacon.

This is straight off the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh’s website:

Q: What is the proper way to address a deacon?
A: He may be called “Deacon” or “Father Deacon.”

archeparchy.org/page/ministries/diaconate.htm

I think it is for this reason that when we write out names for prayer requests for use in the Proskomedia or other prayer intentions (Moleben etc.) one is to write “Priest Kyrill” and “Deacon Tikhon” because “Fr. Andrew” could be either a priest or a deacon. I don’t know if the Byzantine/Ruthenian in American write out these prayer requests for use in the Proskomedia. We laity and clergy often call our deacons simply “Father”.

In informal settings, for example, in normal conversation, it is appropriate to simply refer to a deacon as “Deacon [John]”, “Father [John]”, or “Father Deacon [John]”, depending on the tradition.

According to the practice of the Greek Orthodox Church of America, in keeping with the tradition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the most common way to address a deacon is “Father”.Depending on local tradition, deacons are addressed as either “Father”, “Father Deacon,” “Deacon Father,” or, if addressed by a Bishop, simply as “Deacon”.

(Emphasis mine.)

 

[dvdjs]

As well as it should in some cases! The practice in my Eparchy has been for daily Divine Liturgy for decades. Now some priests insist on celebrating the Divine Liturgy only on Sunday “to be more like the Orthodox.” I find that tragic.

I agree. This is a laxity among the Orth0odxo that we should not take as an example

Actually I find the reverse of what you suggest to be true. When something is “more Orthodox”, it’s like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

Mileage varies; times have changed. And attitudes vary with location, as well. I like keeping in touch with ACROD or the Orthodox in the Carpathians. I haven’t the least interest, however, in Russian practice, and think it more than a little odd that anyone would see the adoption of certain Russian practices as a restoration.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think it is for this reason that when we write out names for prayer requests for use in the Proskomedia or other prayer intentions (Moleben etc.) one is to write “Priest Kyrill” and “Deacon Tikhon” because “Fr. Andrew” could be either a priest or a deacon. I don’t know if the Byzantine/Ruthenian in American write out these prayer requests for use in the Proskomedia. We laity and clergy often call our deacons simply “Father”.

While we probably may not write such in our formal requests for intentions, I have always heard our priests use that exact same convention during the Rite of Preparation (while placing the prosphorai on the diskos).

In a Moleben or Panachida, our priests would generally refer to clergy as “your faithful/priestly servant ____”, “High Priest” in the case of a bishop or other hierarch, in the petitions.

 

[dvdjs]

That should only be the case during the Great Fast (i.e. from last Monday until Holy Week).

Unfortunately that isn’t the case.

That is the tradition, now law of this particular sui juris Church - daily DL (Mass) during the Great Fast was the Latinization

.Yes, celebration of the DL rather than the Presanctified was a sad departure from tradition. I am not sure certain of when it began, or why, but I do know that the Presanctified was celebrated during my father’s boyhood in the US. It might not have started until the time of Bishop Elko.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I agree. This is a laxity among the Orth0odxo that we should not take as an example

Mileage varies; times have changed. And attitudes vary with location, as well. I like keeping in touch with ACROD or the Orthodox in the Carpathians. I haven’t the least interest, however, in Russian practice, and think it more than a little odd that anyone would see the adoption of certain Russian practices as a restoration.

I don’t know if one could call it laxity. There are prohibitions against having a divine liturgy when the priest is alone. Combine that with the requirement that priests (and presumably the laity) abstain from marital relations before communing, and serving a daily divine liturgy becomes problematic, especially with your average married parish priest. What is a rather grave abuse, however, would be Orthodox parishes which do not regularly hold vespers on the day before in anticipation of the liturgy.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

That should only be the case during the Great Fast (i.e. from last Monday until Holy Week).

Unfortunately that isn’t the case.

I am (sadly) aware, but I do not think it should be attributed to any of movement to become more like the Orthodox, nor would I think it appropriate to comment on Orthodox practice, out of respect - I’ll assume they have their reasons, if that is the case.

In many of the situations of which I am aware, the priests are (i) tending to more than one parish and/or (ii) attendance at weekday DL is either low or non-existent.

.Yes, celebration of the DL rather than the Presanctified was a sad departure from tradition. I am not sure certain of when it began, or why, but I do know that the Presanctified was celebrated during my father’s boyhood in the US. It might not have started until the time of Bishop Elko.

From all accounts of many of the older and knowledgable priests in the Eparchy that I have heard, that chronology and attribution would be plausible. It was slow to return, however, even in spite Bishop Elko’s rather swift reassignment.

 

[5Loaves]

While we probably may not write such in our formal requests for intentions, I have always heard our priests use that exact same convention during the Rite of Preparation (while placing the prosphorai on the diskos).

In a Moleben or Panachida, our priests would generally refer to clergy as “your faithful/priestly servant ____”, “High Priest” in the case of a bishop or other hierarch, in the petitions.

Thank you for that insight. Being a woman I’m nearly never in the position to hear the Rite of Preparation, although I have a couple of times. Fro example, very recently the celebrant at Orthodox Christian Fellowship DL did the Preparation in the presence of the students which I thought was very nice. A few of the males may be altar servers but I think most of those present had not ever seen the Rite before. There are no written prayer intentions at OCF so I didn’t get to hear what you say would have been spoken.

I was just reminded that our Monk Moses here on CAF is a “Father Moses” though not a priest.

 

[mardukm]

Hi,

I’m currently writing an article for beneaththyprotection.blogspot.com/, and I’m looking for more information on some Eastern Rite Catholics. Specifically, what are the top 5 reasons you’ve encountered that cause other Catholics to think you’re not really Catholic or, at the very least, that you are wrong in your beliefs? Examples might be “married priests” or “leavened communion bread”. Your responses are greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

I don’t have 5 since I haven’t been in the Catholic communion so long.

(1) When Latin Catholics ask me who the head of my Church is, they think I am not Catholic because my response is not “Pope Benedict XVI” but “Patriarch Antionios Naguib.”

(2) The term “Roman” is not on the name of my Church. I am not really insulted by this because there are independent “Catholic” churches in the U.S.

(3) I invited a Latin Catholic friend to Mass once, and he was new to intinction. The order o the Mass is also slightly different. After Mass, because of those differences, he asked me “are you sure you guys are Catholic?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jegudiel]

That should only be the case during the Great Fast (i.e. from last Monday until Holy Week).

From the Norms of Particular Law of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh:

That is the tradition, now law of this particular sui juris Church - daily DL (Mass) during the Great Fast was the Latinization.

Any decision not to have DL on weekdays outside of the Great Fast should be for pastoral reasons only.

Sorry about that but daily Divine Liturgy is a GOOD THING no matter how you want to spin it. It’s a 50+ year old tradition here. The local ordinary approves of it. Several people attend each morning. This tradition within the Eparchy predates the Particular Law you mentioned. The “pastoral reason” is God’s grace.

Daily Divine Liturgy is far, far too important to simply write-off as a “Latinization.” Oddly enough those that constantly whine about Latinizations (the ex-pat Latin Riters) typically have no clue the Particular Law even exists. If they did, the would be dismayed that daily “Mass” as they call it was a Latinization.

While I’m on this subject I have a question. Our parish deacon was ordained a few years back. An extremely bright, spiritual and educated man. We were planning a huge Divine Liturgy and needed more than he and our local priest to distribute Holy Communion. I said there was no problem that for every xxx communicants (it’s either 100 or 150) a non-ordained male may distribute communion if there are no other priests or deacons available. He asked for proof so I gave him a print-out of the Particular Law of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh. He had never heard of it before. It had never been mentioned at seminary in Pittsburgh. I have always wondered about that.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Daily Divine Liturgy is far, far too important to simply write-off as a “Latinization.” Oddly enough those that constantly whine about Latinizations (the ex-pat Latin Riters) typically have no clue the Particular Law even exists. If they did, the would be dismayed that daily “Mass” as they call it was a Latinization.

I did not intend to suggest that daily Divine Liturgy (or more broadly, daily worship) is not important, but only to clarify that it is indeed the tradition that Divine Liturgy is not to be taken during weekdays of the Great Fast, except on great feasts (e.g. when the Annunciation falls on a weekday).

And of course it is not weekday Mass that is a Latinization, rather it was the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on aliturgical days of the Great Fast that was the Latinization. I do believe that all who experience the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts instead would feel equally enriched. To your point, many would probably not even realize that it is not a Mass / Divine Liturgy.

While I’m a “cradle” Byzantine Catholic (with a mom raised in the Roman Catholic Church), I do not “whine” about Latinizations per say, but I do marvel and rejoice when our traditions are restored. This IMO is the real story and opportunity for catechesis and growth in our Eastern Catholic faith.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

While I’m on this subject I have a question. Our parish deacon was ordained a few years back. An extremely bright, spiritual and educated man. We were planning a huge Divine Liturgy and needed more than he and our local priest to distribute Holy Communion. I said there was no problem that for every xxx communicants (it’s either 100 or 150) a non-ordained male may distribute communion if there are no other priests or deacons available. He asked for proof so I gave him a print-out of the Particular Law of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh. He had never heard of it before. It had never been mentioned at seminary in Pittsburgh. I have always wondered about that.

A provision for “Eucharistic Ministry” was indeed added to the Norms of Particular Law
of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui juris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., 1999 (“Norms”):

Canon 709 §2

§l. In cases of true necessity, deacons may distribute the Divine Eucharist.

§2. In the same cases, even minor clerics and members of the laity can be designated to distribute the Divine Eucharist.

 1. A parish may have one person designated for this purpose plus another for each 75 communicants at the Liturgy.

 2. The metropolitan Liturgical Commission is to prepare a program of training that includes theological and spiritual formation, the selection process for candidates and a practicum.

 3. Those persons may take communion to those who, by reason of illness, infirmity or age, cannot attend the Divine Liturgy regularly.

 4. If any priest or deacon is present at the Liturgy, in any capacity whatever, he is to make himself known to the principal celebrant and shall distribute the divine Eucharist, vested insofar as possible, and taking precedence over any minor cleric or lay person present.

It is odd that a recently ordained deacon would not be familiar with these Norms, but understandable as well, given the focus of their training. Pastors of course are required to know and understand these Norms.

 

[5Loaves]

While I’m on this subject I have a question. Our parish deacon was ordained a few years back. An extremely bright, spiritual and educated man. We were planning a huge Divine Liturgy and needed more than he and our local priest to distribute Holy Communion. I said there was no problem that for every xxx communicants (it’s either 100 or 150) a non-ordained male may distribute communion if there are no other priests or deacons available. He asked for proof so I gave him a print-out of the Particular Law of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh. He had never heard of it before. It had never been mentioned at seminary in Pittsburgh. I have always wondered about that.

It would be a nice opportunity to have priests of the Latin Church concelebrate and assist with the distribution.

 

[5Loaves]

A provision for “Eucharistic Ministry” was indeed added to the Norms of Particular Law
of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui juris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., 1999 (“Norms”):

Canon 709 §2

So this revision allows for designated laity to take Eucharist to these folks? Do you know, does this actually happen?

Do you know are there other ECCs which permit this?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

So this revision allows for designated laity to take Eucharist to these folks? Do you know, does this actually happen?

Do you know are there other ECCs which permit this?

I couldn’t say for certain WRT other ECCs, but I do know this provision is used sparingly. Normally reserved for readers or those who at least have been ordained in minor orders, I know of only two instances otherwise. Oddly enough, they are both in my parish, brothers who have been altar servers for many years. Our pastor used this as an opportunity to advance their interest in vocations as well as to serve the needs of the parish. They only assist at the Divine Liturgy.

Other than this, I know of no other instances where Eastern Catholic lay persons are used for distribution of the Eucharist, either during worship or in ministry to the sick and infirmed. Our eparchial deacons often perform this if the work load for the parish priest becomes problematic.

 

[Mort_Alz]

1. Don’t follow Thomistic/Scholastic theological concepts
2. Only venerate first seven Ecumenical Councils
3. Don’t hang on the Pope’s every word, but prefer to listen to my Patriarch, Synod, and Bishop
4. Don’t pray the Rosary
5. Don’t participate in Eucharistic Adoration

These are just a few. There are many more.

What do you mean, “Only venerate first seven Ecumenical Councils?”

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What do you mean, “Only venerate first seven Ecumenical Councils?”

We have a specific Feast Day in which we venerate the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There is a great deal of speculation among both Eastern and Roman Catholic scholars over whether or not the later 14 Councils can even be considered ecumenical. But that is a conversation for another thread. Point is, Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics do not venerate the later 14 Councils liturgically.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

We have a specific Feast Day in which we venerate the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There is a great deal of speculation among both Eastern and Roman Catholic scholars over whether or not the later 14 Councils can even be considered ecumenical. But that is a conversation for another thread. Point is, Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics do not venerate the later 14 Councils liturgically.

My dear brother, commemorate may be a better term, but I know and appreciate exactly what you are trying to say.

As we on the New Calendar approach the Second Sunday of the Great Fast, I am reminded that we also commemorate on this specific Sunday and venerate, as a holy, St. Gregory Palamas , who of course was canonized by the Orthodox Church after 1054 but before many of the Eastern Catholic Churches reunited with Rome.