Along with the announcement regarding restoration of the married priesthood I read that a limited number of lay ministers would be allowed to distribute the Eucharist! Where did this come from? Is this a Latinization being introduced? I personally would not feel comfortable accepting communion from anyone but a Deacon or Priest. I know we are deperate for Deacons in the Eparchy of Van Nuys and there are actually about five men who wish to study from my church but they have been waiting for several years now for a training program to be established in our Eparchy. We had thought something like the OCA's late vocations program would be set up but we are still waiting. This would have surely helped the situtation of a lone priest distributing the Eucharist to over 100 people on a Sunday if that is the problem.

I have to agree with "dianep" on this on. Is it really a wise thing to do? I can only view laity ministering the Eucharist as a latinization. Do the Orthodox do anything like this? Look what has happened in the Roman rite. I am NOT against receiving from a lay minister. I have when I have attended Mass at Roman parishes. Who I am receiving is far more important than who I am receiving Him from! I can only see this hurting our relations with the Orthodox and as a step in the de-sacralization of the Liturgy. Again, look at the Roman Mass. I truly feel for priests who have large numbers of faithful to communicate. It can't be easy. At the same time, the Liturgy is not a race. If communion takes 15 minutes, it takes 15 minutes! Could encouraging more men to become deacons help? Are sub-deacons allowed to communicate the faithful? I'm not sure on this, or if there can be or is a "permanent" sub-diaconate. Just my opinion.

I am totally against the idea of Deacons, lay ministers or whatever else name may be given to people for the distribution of the holy mysteries. The Orthodox do NOT do this at all (that I have ever seen), and, some of their parishes are small, some are large but you never, ever see anyone other than the priest distribute Holy Communion. I dont know where this idea or whose bright idea it was but it has nothing to do with Eastern Christianity and should be left for the Roman Rite (and look what it has done there). I cannot help but think is this a political move? If, Rome "gives" the Greek Catholics their married clergy back, do "we" have to give them something in return for pacification? Whats next, guitars and turning the altars around? I for myself will never accept this, annoucement from the bishops, Archbishop or Pope himself, I would rater go Orthodox to keep my faith and tradtions then get the deal my ancestors got in the 1920's. I pray the Greek Catholic church in America will fight for her rights this time around the tract.

Hello all,

I can't find a message delete function, so I'm changing my original butchered message to a short intro. I'm a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic from Hershey, PA (St. Ann's parish in Harrisburg) currently residing in Washington, DC where I attend Epiphany B.C. Church in Annandale, VA (when I'm here, that is! ).

[This message has been edited by RichC (edited 08-27-98).]

Hello all,

I am no fan of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist in the Roman/Latin Church, but as I am not a member of said Church it's really none of my business. However, for the Byzantine Churches, especially our Ruthenian Catholic Church in America, I fail to see any need or benefit from introducing this blatantly non-organic development and foreign practice into our Church.

A few years ago I was speaking with somebody from a parish where the practice has been regular and ongoing, where the priest is not exactly a youngster but he is far from physically challenged or ancient. This parishioner's response to my skepticism of the need or value of said practice said, and I quote, "But it makes the Mass go so much faster!"

Now, I'm not one to criticize somebody else's spirituality, but it seems to me that if this is being codified into our Particular Law as a universal practice, it is plainly a "pastoral concession" to people who think like the above person, the same kind of people who LEAVE the Liturgy as soon as the priest returns the Holy Mysteries to the Prothesis Table. Frankly, I've never been in a Byzantine parish where it took more than 10-15 minutes to distribute Holy Communion even with just one priest and nobody else. Where are the "pastoral concessions" to the faithful members of the Church who don't want anything to do with this kind of thinking, "piety", or innovation? I don't recall ever being asked for my opinion -- apparently it's an idea which either originated from so-called "faithful" (big spenders? or loudmouths?) whose children don't even attend a Byzantine Church once they leave home, or from a small group of priests who are ashamed of where our Church came from and who we are now. I'm not!

[This message has been edited by RichC (edited 08-27-98).]

Rich C, you bring up some important points about not letting this practice into the Eastern Rites but, unfortunately, "foreign" practices were forced upon the Greek Catholic church in America and contine to be so. The problem is, which way are we going to go here? There are many, many points where latinization was forced upon the church, most just went right along with the program, many left in protest. I do believe a new agreement, treaty or whatever has to be drawn up, this way, everyone will know where they stand and no go on and on and on and on with things until before you know it, there is no Greek Catholic church left. If the people are "content" to go along with these things, then, there is only one answer left for those who dont agree, leave as it seems no one listens to those who protest these changes at times.

FYI to dianep

The Eparchy of Van Nuys will be offering a diaconal training program in conjunction with the Byzantine Catholic seminary. My limited knowledge of the program is as follows: diaconal candidates will be trained and mentored by their respective pastors in the home parish. Accompanying this there is to be independent study with 4 papers per year required. There is to be an intensive 2 week summer program at the seminary for these candidates. As I understand the formation will last about four years.

If you know someone who interested in the program have him write a letter of inquiry to his pastor.(it may not hurt to cc the chancery office in Phoenix, either.) There has been some discussion that the eparchy would be willing to bring seminary faculty to the eparchy of Van Nuys if any enough men are interested in diaconal formation for the two week intensive study.

John Montalvo III

Like everything else that has happened over the past 2 weeks, I'm afraid that this eucharistic minister thing has been blown out of proportion. All of you have raised valid concerns re the use of laymen to distribute the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist. the problem is,however, none of us has seen the actual text of the canon. All that there is is an unofficial summary. Even when there was a text of the new legislation available (I'm speaking about the married clergy issue), some members of the catholic press had the hierarchs ready to ordain married men next month. There was another report that stated that the Council of Hierarchs was preparing for a "showdown" with Rome over presbyterial ordination of married men.

IMO, I think prudence should dictate that restraint be exercised when speaking about legislation that we have yet to examine. None of us here would like to inadvertantly add disinformation to a situation already in a steeped in it.

Joy wrote:
<<I am totally against the idea of Deacons, lay ministers or whatever else name may be given to people for the distribution of the holy mysteries. The Orthodox do NOT do this at all (that I have ever seen), and, some of their parishes are small, some are large but you never, ever see anyone other than the priest distribute Holy Communion. >>
I do not have enough experience of any Orthodox Churches to know what practices exist for the distribution of Communion, but a Deacon is an ordained cleric of the Church and is granted the right to distribute Communion by the Bishop (at least in our Church). This has been a practice for a long time, although I do not know its roots. We agree that he is an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, but as a member of the clergy, he does have the right to do so.

-Fr Ron

Father Ron: I appreciate your comments but for myself, having attended Orthodox parishes for the last 30 years I have never once seen a Deacon distribute the Holy Mysteries, no matter how long the line was or for whatever other reasons. If Deacons are permitted to distribute communion in the Eastern Churches, then why has no one ever seen this practice before? It seems to me that the Roman Catholic church is getting to the point where she is only going to use a priest for confessions, and saying liturgy, the rest will be put upon the laity and deacons, as we have seen with the Roman Rite, this has not been a good influeance and many people have lost respect for the church with these practices. Again, if the deacons can give communion, then, why all this bally-who for a married priesthood and for lay members to do it?, why not open up the deaconate and thereby, they would solve many problems that are now within the church. The reason the Deacons were "pushed aside" to begin with was because everyone was rushing like heck to latinize the Greek Catholic churches and therefore, be "real Catholics", now, things are changing but you cannot have it both ways. One thing is for sure, the cat is now out of the bag and it will be interesting to see which way this entire situation goes.

I am a simple, cradle Irish Catholic who continues to be drawn towards the East. That being said, I read the following:

"The great theologian and bishop Saint Symeon of Thessalonica (died 1022) went so far as to remove the hearing of confessions from the work of the clergy and entrusted it exclusively to the ministry of the monastics - lay monastics at that!" Light of the East, A guide to Eastern Catholicism for Western Catholics , pages 22-23, Imprimatur by Robert, Bishop of St. Josephat in Parma and Nihil Obstat by Monsignior Thomas A. Sayuk, (published by the Ukranian Catholic Diocese of St. Joseph in Parma and the National Conference for Catechetical Leadership, 2000).

If the history of the Church allowed lay monastics to hear confessions, what is the problem with lay persons giving Communion?

As I said, I am just a simple, Irish Catholic.

JP

Yes, in case of real necessity an honest-to-goodness, fully ordained Deacon is able to give Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church, provided that he is specifically blessed for the purpose (just as a Deacon who is to preach must be specifically blessed for the purpose). Even this practice - which I have seen for myself - is quite rare.

Certainly there are Subdeacons who show every sign of intending to remain Subdeacons and find their service to the Church quite fulfilling. And it would be a great gift to have more of them. But the service of the Subdeacon does not include giving Holy Communion to anyone.

"Lay ministers of the Eucharist" is not a Latinization; it is a Protestantization which the Latins picked up after Vatican II.

Incognitus

If the history of the Church allowed lay monastics to hear confessions, what is the problem with lay persons giving Communion?

The part that would fit here, I beleive, is looking back to the earliest church. At that time confession was done in front of the whole congregation to the congration if my memory serves me right. It was some time before the priests began hearing confessions privately, and that happened when there were just too many to say their confessions before liturgy.

I am sure you will be better answers. I did find this in a search...
Baptism was an act whereby one committed his life to the discipleship of Jesus Christ. It was a decisive break with the life of sin and disobedience. What happened, then, when a baptized person fell into serious sin? Could such sin after baptism be forgiven? If so, how? Controversies raged in the second and third centuries about these questions. The Church rejected the position that serious sin committed after (adult) baptism could not be forgiven, and those who held it fell into schism (Novationists, Donatists).

Yet how could serious sins be forgiven? Both the Orthodox and the extreme rigorists held that certain sins were so devastating that they cut one off from the life of Christ, thus automatically effecting excommunication. All agreed that idolatry, murder, and adultery had this effect. Additionally, it was agreed that those sins listed by the Apostle Paul as preventing one�s entry into the kingdom produced the same result (see I Corinthians 6). Those who committed them were automatically excommunicated and cut off from life in Christ, which is the Church. The earliest form of confession, then, was a rite by which the Church acknowledged that a certain person had fulfilled the penance for his sin, possessed sincere repentance, and was to be re-admitted to the life of the faithful and allowed to receive communion again. Confession was handled in a much more public, open manner as an individual acknowledged his sin and was re-admitted to the assembly of the faithful. .....

In the modern era, as we know, confession is conducted much more privately between the priest and the penitent. This is unfortunate in some respects, because the sense of being publicly restored to the church community is much less tangible than when the community witnessed the act. Nevertheless, the fundamental meaning is the same: it is an act of reconciliation.

The early canons prescribe that a Christian who stays away from the Liturgy for three Sundays in row is automatically excommunicated. This is a little known fact among many contemporary Orthodox. Actually, the canons stipulate this for anyone who does not partake of Holy Communion, but of course, by extension, it is true of those who skip Liturgy.

http://www.stgeorgecathedral.net/article_0201.html

I would only offer that the distinction needs to be made between "hearing confession" and the sacramental practice of Holy Confession. Making a confession to a non-ordained monastic has great spiritual and therapeutic benefits, and can aid in disposing one towards full repentance and conversion, as well as holiness. (It is, in a way, almost a means of preparing one for the dispositions necessary to receive sacramental absolution.) Certainly one could also argue that to confess lesser sins and transgressions to a holy monastic (non-ordained) is a worthy practice that brings about the forgiveness of sins. The same can be said with receiving the Holy Gifts at the Divine Liturgy. The "fire in the Bread and Fire in the Cup" (as Saint Ephrem refers to) is truly a purifying fire!

With that said, the sacramental practice of Holy Confession to a priest also has a therapeutic end, in addition to resolving any canonical issues and providing the assurance (subjectively and objectively speaking) of absolution, especially for more serious offenses. Certain sins and transgressions not only have a spiritual impact, they also incur canonical penalties. This has been a tradition of the Church from the earliest times, as well as the lifting of those sanctions through absolution. The two practices (confession to a monk and Holy Confession) are similar, but not the same.

Regarding the lay distribution of Holy Communion...

We need to first appreciate the iconic nature of the liturgy and the service of the various ministries. The priest who offers the Holy Mysteries is to bring Christ present in those Mysteries to the faithful - bridging heaven and earth, just as the priests of the Old Testament would offer the sacrifices and share them from the altar with the people. He passes through the Royal Doors bearing the "Holy Things for the Holy" offered on the Holy Table. The laity, who have been anything but passive participants in the services, come and receive from his fatherly hand the gifts he has offered on our behalf.

As the representative of the bishop who is the spiritual father of every parish, each priest/presbyter is ordained to share in that spirit of fathering. (The laying on of hands was a common way of passing on the blessing of authority and inheritance of fathers to their first-born sons. This tradition is continued in the New Covenant in part through ordination.) In Holy Communion, we have the the beautiful image of a father feeding his children (giving them spiritual Bread, instead of stones, of course!). This is not mere sentimentality, but a true biblical image of God's care for His people.

The laity, who have made their offering through the priest, are then to "go forth in peace" and "in the name of the Lord" to bring Christ to the altars of their homes and the marketplace. This is the fulfillment of the "royal priesthood" given to us all in the spiritual power of chrismation. It is our own way of "distributing the Holy Mysteries" in a spiritual sense. (Not unlike the spiritual practice of confessing to a non-ordained monastic, or even a holy lay person.)

To me, the fundamental issue of lay distribution is the fact that the Eucharist does not come through our own hands, but rather through the hands of our priests in their fatherly ministry to us. It is, therefore, not fitting that a layperson should distribute, except in grave circumstances and with the blessing of the priest.

This being said, the lay distribution of communion is not completely unheard of in Eastern Churches when it has been a matter of necessity (e.g., health of the clergy). It is and certainly should be a RARE thing, however!

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Peace,

Gordo

I would ask again, and I knew this before, if the contemporary Orthodox practice is not in keeping with the early Church why are BCs obligated to follow that practice? Why should we ape contemporary Orthodox practices any more than we should ape contemporary RC practices?

Dan L

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, that is an important point!

What we often term "Latinization" is really a form of Protestantization in the aftermath of Vatican II.

I used to discuss this withy my Latin Catholic teachers, most of whom were priests.

They readily admitted and agreed that the Latin Church had embraced so much of the "Protestant rites" and added "there's nothing wrong with that."

Eugene Ivankiw of St Volodymyr and Olha's UGC parish in Chicago once wrote an article on this very subject for their "Visnyk."

In it, he said that it is "understandable that Western Catholics would adopt Protestant rites so as to culturally come closer to their Protestant neighbours whom they often share a national culture and identity with."

Alex

I think there is something wrong with it. In many parts of the world, Catholics seem to be having difficulty seeing any difference between the two. It seems to me that is a major reason Catholics are converting to Protestantism.

Dear Charles,

That is a very good point too!

When I did a study of the Catholic Charismatic movement, I came across Catholics who simply joined Protestant Pentecostal churches, however, there was a movement the other way, but not as pronounced.

At one of the tables at the meetings, there were bible-study pamphlets being given out to all the Catholics Charismatics.

I began reading them and found them interesting, until I got to one that said, "It is good that so many Catholics are reading the Bible and are getting saved. But they must take the final step and join a Protestant church . . ."

There was other literature like this and very little or nothing was done by the parish to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Alex

Christ is Risen!
And I know of cases where this is still done, BUT a priest gives absolution upon advice of the confessor, and so the sacrament is still administered by a priest!

Photius

Vladyko incognitije, christos voskrese!

I concur I concur with all you have written above. I can add a couple of points:
1) I have seen a deacon administer Communion in the presence of Metropolitan Philaret of ROCOR.
2) A subdeacon in the Orthodox Church may touch the holy vessels only when they are empty, which would imply that they can not administer Communion.

Photius

There's NOTHING wrong with the Catholic Church
embracing HERETICAL rites??
This sort of attitude is why so many Latin Rite
Catholics like me now attend only the
Eastern Church.............

Dear Antonius,

I didn't mean to cast aspersions and I certainly don't believe that the Latin Church practices anything that is "heretical!"

We should also remember that, for many years, Latin Catholics regarded the Eastern Churches as practicing "schismatical rites" and "put up" with it for purposes, as some believed, to bring the EC's into the full communion of the Latin Catholic Church.

In his diary, St Basil Velichkovsky, the Ukrainian Redemptorist hieromartyr and missionary, related his interview with a Roman Catholic bishop who told him that the whole idea of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" was a "Roman mistake."

He said, "How could they (Orthodox) ever be Catholics?" And he implied that even the Eastern Catholic Churches weren't "fully Catholic."

Alex

Dear Orthodox Catholic:

No, no, that's not what I meant at all.
I was lamenting the fact that IMO the
Latin Church has gotten far too "cozy"
with HERETICAL "rites" like the Protestants
since Vatican II, and has consequently
changed much of its Liturgy and Worship,
to the point where many of us Latin Rite
Catholics now only attend Eastern Catholic
Churches. I thought your original post was great!
Sorry for the misunderstanding............

The early canons prescribe that a Christian who stays away from the Liturgy for three Sundays in row is automatically excommunicated. This is a little known fact among many contemporary Orthodox. Actually, the canons stipulate this for anyone who does not partake of Holy Communion, but of course, by extension, it is true of those who skip Liturgy.

http://www.stgeorgecathedral.net/article_0201.html

I would ask again, and I knew this before, if the contemporary Orthodox practice is not in keeping with the early Church why are BCs obligated to follow that practice? Why should we ape contemporary Orthodox practices any more than we should ape contemporary RC practices?

Dan L


Dan,

We have many Orthodox at St. Georges and for many years after they came there I noticed a lot would not go to Communion. The reason was they had not gone to confession just before Divine Litugy started. So they would be at church every time the doors were opened, but would not receive. So I thought that statement was interseting. Let me clarify this article is not from our Church, St. George Melkite. I wonder how it is reconcilled in the Orthodox Church?

Pani Rose

Dear Antonius,

O.K.!

My Church has been blessed to have more and more RC and Protestant Christians (as well as unchurched) over the years.

We are a very UKRAINIAN parish but have come to accept these strangers whom God is calling to join us!

I'll never forget the day when a First Nations Canadian came in during the Liturgy on Palm Sunday. He crossed two pussy-willow branches and came near the iconostasis, praying with uplifted hands and the crossed branches!

We have people holding bibles standing at the doors praying and weeping as they pray.

Perhaps we'll learn to share what we have with those who are thirsty for it too!

That experience will doubtless teach us Ukies not to take our tradition for granted nor make light of our vocation in North America to reflect the Eastern Light!

Alex

Dan L,

I would say in short "because Rome calls you to this." However, you may not agree with Rome either. But, in any event, there are many early church practices that you may want to advocate, such as communion in the hand, for example.

To quote an oft cited but unknown source, "which century would you like to live in?"

Tony

19th century Russia, of course. Otherwise is OUTRAGE! :p

&#931;&#974;&#963;&#959;&#957;, &#922;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949;, &#954;&#945;&#943; &#948;&#953;&#945;&#966;&#973;&#955;&#945;&#958;&#959;&#957; &#951;�&#940;&#962; &#945;&#960;&#972; &#964;&#974;&#957; &#914;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#953;&#940;&#957;&#953;&#954;&#969;&#957; &#964;&#940;&#958;&#949;&#969;&#957;!

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Photius (and by the way, I am not now and never have been a bishop of any description!),
Thanks for your welcome post. As to subdeacons and Holy Communion, two closely related points are worth noting:

1. the ordination of a subdeacon does not take place within the Altar and need not necessarily take place within the Divine Liturgy; and
2) a Subdeacon receives Holy Communion outside the Royal Doors, hence not with the bishop, priests and deacons.

Therefore, I would conclude that outside of utter emergency (as may occur during a terrible persecution, for example), a subdeacon may not be blessed to administer Holy Communion to others. As you mention, a deacon may be so blessed. For that matter, a subdeacon may be ordained to the diaconate, but a bishop is required to serve the ordination, obviously.

Incognitus

I disagree, "lay ministers of the Eucharist" are a response of the Church to meet a pastoral need. Not every Protestant community has a regular Eucharist celebration. With Latin parishes in our area ministering to some 700+ souls at a given Mass, it is impractical to think that one priest (who may binate or even trinate) is able to distribute the Eucharist by himself.

I recently had the priviledge of serving as the deacon at the graduation Masses at my daughters' schools, a high school and grammar school. (I did not read the Gospel, but chanted the introductory dialogue and the ending, as well as the lesson itself, which was well received, but that's another post.) Even with the main celebrant, one deacon, 1 assisting priest, and 5 "lay ministers", the actual distribution of the Eucharist under both species lasted 10+ minutes. One can imagine how long the the actual communion rite would have lasted had there only been the priest celebrant and myself.

Now, as pertains to the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, the hierarchs legislated a norm to meet the pastoral needs of larger congregations and for those parishes whose priests may be infirm and unable to distribute the Eucharist.

Among the first who assist the priest with the Eucharist is the deacon, but not every parish in our Metropolia has a deacon. With some 150+ souls at our 10 AM Liturgy, I assist the celebrant with the distribution of the Eucharist. When I have the priviledge to deliver the homily for Sunday, I also serve at the 8 AM liturgy, but the celebrant alone distributes the Eucharist to about 50+ souls. On rare occasions, we have a priest who celebrates the Liturgy, but is unable to hold the Chalice in his hand for a sustained length of time. On those rare occasions, I distribute the Eucharist by myself.

In those parishes where the priest is unable to distribute the Eucharist and there is no deacon, should the faithful forego the reception of Our Lord in the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist?

IN TRUTH HE IS RISEN!
Mostly, I was being silly following some comment you made a few days ago when someone addressed you as "Father Incognitus". In Greece, at least, however, archimandrites and elders are frequently addressed as "despota", and I've heard Serbs and Bulgars on Athos use "vladyko" for the same. And, on the streets of Greece, any man in a rason may be called "despota", at least by unlearned folk, and I have been so called, inappropriate as that may have been.
Yes ... the distinction betwixt Ceirotonia (rukopolozhenie) and cheirothesia (rukobozlozhenie) ...

Photius (also not a patriarch of any sort)

But the Church manages for over 1900 years without resorting to this innovation!
You serve more than one Liturgy on the same day !?!?!? If so, THAT'S a Latinization and break with ancient custom.

Photius

That does not answer the Latin pastoral realities of today- more parishes, more parishioners, less priests. So your solution is to unduly prolong the communion rite so that ancient practice is served?

Admittedly, the practice at our parish is a break with custom, but it meets a pastoral need. There simply is no way to presently accomodate all the parishioners in the temple at one Divine Liturgy, nor are there enough priests to begin new parishes.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Photius,
You write that "on the streets of Greece, any man in a rason may be called "despota", at least by unlearned folk, and I have been so called, inappropriate as that may have been."

How true - it's happened to me in the post office in Athens any number of times, for no apparent reason. But I'm not complaining; the same phenomenon got me free admission without even the need to stand in line for the exhibition of the treasures of Mount Athos at the museum in Salonica a few years ago.

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

I think pastoral need bears defining a little more closely. I have seen a church that seats 600 people with 3 or 4 masses on Sunday. At mass 1 there are 60 people, mass 2 has 100, mass 3 has 150 and so on. Is there a pastoral need for an army of lay ministers to help poor overworked father at work here? No, this is a case of bad scheduling where one, or at most 2, masses would accomodate everyone. I have also seen elderly or even infirm priests who do need some help. In that case, the ministers are being used properly. I also think the arguments based on lenghth of time for communion could bear some scrutiny. If not using ministers increases the time from 10 minutes to 15, and the priest is well and healthy, then I don't see a valid need for the lay ministers. Part of the reason for using these ministers in the first place was a desire to emphasize the priesthood of believers and de-emphasize the role of the ordained priest. At the time these lay ministers originated, I don't remember there being any necessity in most places for using them. Granted, that has changed as more priests have aged, died, or retired. But I think the automatic argument that we have to have lay ministers is not always valid. In some places they are needed, in others they are used when they are not needed.