Sorry to those who have read my post on Catholic Answers Forum, but I wanted to post this here as well.

My wife and I are both canonically Latin Catholics. We both spent time in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Our son was chrismated and received communion in the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church at 1 year of age. We've since come back to the Latin Catholic Church, partially because there is no Syriac Church anywhere near us. We are now practicing in the Latin Church again and are very unhappy with it. We want to bring our children up in an Eastern Church and as such are planning to relocate whenever we are able to be somewhere there is an eastern Church.

Our problem is that in coming back into the Catholic Church, we recognize that we need to be in union with Rome, but we cannot continue as Latin Catholics, even if we are forced by circumstances to worship in the Latin Church for the time being. We really don't know what to do anymore and are torn between returning to the Orthodox Church and maintaining cummunion with Rome, which leaves us in a situation where we are under the authority of bishops of a tradition we can no longer find ourselves at home in.

Part of our issues are that the Latin priest and bishop here will not allow our child to continue receiving communion unless we formally return to the Syriac Orthodox Church or possibly do an official change of sui juris Church. We'd love to enter officially into the Syriac Catholic Church or Syro-Malankara Church, but their are none anywhere near us, the closest Eastern Churches are Ukrainian Catholic (5 hours away), which are Byzantine, and while we feel more at home with them than in the Latin Church, we don't want to use the Byzantine Church just as an escape from the Latin Church, we want to be Oriental.

Any thoughts? I don't want to belittle the Latin Church, but I have never been at home in it, however it was the only Catholic or Orthodox Church where I grew up, so that was the choice I had when I felt called to join the Catholic Church when I was in the 4th Grade.

Thanks
Countertenor

I will pray for you brother. (maybe if you fell called you could start a mission parish for one of the Oriental Catholic Churches, if there are others in your area and you feel called to do so?)

I just can't figure out what ails some of the Latin bishops when it comes to granting permission for a person to transfer canonically to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches. How would such a step hurt THEM? Why keep a person "imprisoned" in a ritual Church he/she no longer feels at home in? Bishops in general, especially the Latin ones, mystify me.

Latin bishops have a tendency to repulse me period. Though I'm still technically enrolled in a parish in my old diocese (it's only twenty minutes to the old diocese, and I also have a residence in that diocese) so I'd probably go with that bishop to request a transfer, because he's always been very helpful to ECs in my experience.

Honestly what mystifies me, is the Latin Canon law and the CCEC. And the other thing that mystifies me is how the Latin Church, spends more time creating some semblance of theology to back up their disciplines rather than teaching their people actual theology.

I would also point out the fact that the current situation makes it hard for all Eastern Catholics to evangelize to non-Catholics. Since if they are protestants and come into the Catholic Church through the Eastern Church, they are by Canon Law a Roman Catholic, even though they were catechized by an Eastern church, feel at home in the eastern church, ect. That needs to change.

What is the process one has to go through to switch Sui Juris Churches?
I know for me when I came into the Catholic Church I wanted to know my canonical Sui Juris Church. I was in the Greek Orthodox Church, was received into the Catholic Church by a Ukrainian priest, according to Canon Law (from the canon lawyers I emailed) I am a Melkite since the actual Greek Catholic Church which I would belong to is only found in Greece, and am currently in the process of switching (God willing) to a Ruthenian Parish.


I wish you well brother.

You need the written consent of the Bishops involved, e.g. the local Latin Bishop and the local Melkite Greek-Catholic Bishop, or the local Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Bishop and the local Syriac Catholic Bishop. If one of the Churches involved does not have a local hierarchy in place, the consent of the Holy See is needed.

I agree. That's one of the problems I'm having with maintaining myself in the Catholic Church at all. Thanks to the way canon laws are written it's like we are the property of a particular Church or Bishop.

I thought I'd say that I've spent time in both the Byzantine and Oriental Churches. I actually feel quite at home in both. While my sons godparents are Malankara Orthodox, and he was chrismated there, my daughter is to be baptized in the Byzantine Catholic Church. I love both, and am able to fully practice my faith and connect to their spiritualities and theologies even though I'm still processing and learning some of them. The place that I really can no longer maintain myself is in the Latin Church and in its theology. While I understand it, so much of it seems almost wrong to me, and often what passes as Latin theology is just plain wrong.

While I can generally harmonize official Latin theology, much of what I hear out of priests and people is different from the official doctrines. And what's not, tends to be a double speak. Even the filioque, while I don't think it's heretical (obviously, I'm Catholic) I do find it frustrating and I think it's ridiculous that the Latin Church still uses it.

I'm okay with practicing in the Latin Church when I have to, but not at what I see as the expense of my children (and honestly what I see as at the expense of their children). While I may not be able to "fix" the things I see wrong in the Latin Church I will do whatever I can to shield my children from it. I've put in countless hours with this priest, going over the liturgy, and working with parishioners to try to bring about some sense of liturgy to the parish. I've trained their musicians, I've borne the brunt of people who want to jump up and down and dance around during mass, for changing the "music" to something that has a sense of the sacred, they're asking me to help with catechism classes, ect. I'm at that parish all the time, but I will not be there when they deny my children the Eucharist, based on historical weirdness, and bad theology, just because of their age or in the case of others in the parish because of the their mental abilities.

On a side note, I as a musician, I absolutely love Byzantine sacred music.

Dear Counter,

May the Holy Spirit give you strength.
I take it that your son was baptised RC. And you and your wife are RC. Without knowing the circumstances or your son's age, he probably shouldn't have been chrismated by the Malankara priest.

I think the RC bishop is correct (assuming your son is under 14 or the godparents were the guardians at the time of chrismation. Unless you can be active in an Eastern Church, I suggest that you be obedient and patient until your children become First Communion age.

Its unfortunate that there isn't an Eastern Church in your area, but your patience will be rewarded.

Peace be with you.
Fr Deacon Paul

I should add to my comment that I would like to see the RC bishops follow canon law when his pastors accept (even encourage) Eastern Catholics to illicitly marry and have children baptized in their parishes. They should insist that non-Romans return to their Church.

I wish we didn't need to have such divisions in a Church that is supposedly in Union. There would be no need to send people back to their Church, if Rome would follow its early customs and the customs of the rest of the Catholic Church, in regard to the sacraments of initiation none of this would be a problem. I see why many of the Orthodox I've met were Eastern Catholics before, being in communion with Rome can seem like a very big price, especially when you're not somewhere with non-Roman Churches. It's honestly very difficult to even stay Catholic, but I do feel that it's necessary, but when I feel like I'm not even in the Catholic Church, when I'm there, it makes it very difficult. Granted this particular Latin parish is definitely something else and not indicative of many that I've been to.

I think that leaving comunion with Rome is not the end all answer though. I am happy to be in communion with Rome and I agree some of the practices of the current Roman rite is a little on the non-traditional side. Yet I see a hope in the future of the Western Church. Most of the younger priests are orthodox and there is a movement towards traditionalism among the college age students (at least thats what I have noticed).

Now if we can just get them out of the mind set that to be Catholic you have to be Roman.

Yes I agree with you.

CT,

I'm not going to win fans with this post, but ...

I have a long-standing issue with Latin clergy denying the Mystery of the Eucharist to our children who are baptized, chrismated, and communed in infancy, as should be the practice in our Churches. However, the more that I read this thread and its companion one at what passes for an EC forum on a Latin site, the more I feel that both you and those who are rallying to the cause espoused are doing so emotionally and without fully considering the circumstances.

You and your spouse are Latin Catholics. You speak of having practiced in the Syriac Orthodox Church, but not of having translated to it. You had your child receive the Mysteries there as an infant - let's consider the particulars of that.

Had there been a Syriac Catholic temple convenient to you, you might have done likewise - and the priest could have accommodated you by doing so. However, under Canon Law (both CEC & CCEO) of the (Catholic) Church, with which you wish to remain in communion by your own statement, a Syriac Catholic (or any EC/OC priest) should administer the Mysteries to a child not canonically of his Church in accord with the rubrics and prescriptions of the Church to which the child is ascribed and should so note that fact in the Sacramental Register.

A child is canonically ascribed to the Church sui iuris of its father, unless the mother is of a different Church sui iuris and the parents consciously express their desire to have the child ascribed to the mother's Church. That would not have applied in your case, since both parents are canonically of the same Church. We would (should) be able to expect the same courtesy of a Latin priest who, for reasons of non-availability - distance - etc, affords the Mysteries of Initiation to a child who is ascribed to an EC or OC Church by reason of its paternity (that it does not always happen is tangential to this discussion).

Ok - so what changes because it was a Syriac Orthodox, rather than Syriac Catholic, priest who administered the Mysteries to your child? Well, first of all, he is obviously not bound by the CEC or CCEO, so he 'can' do whatever he pleases within the canonical prescriptions of his own Church. Now, most Orthodox priests of my acquaintance, whether EO or OO, would be loath to administer the Mysteries of Initiation to a child whose parents were not themselves of the priest's Church - for the simple reason that to do so is to risk the likelihood that the child will not be raised spiritually in the traditions and theology of that Church. (There is certainly merit to such an exercise of caution.)

The priest in this case apparently was not concerned by that - or - and this is speculative - he had in mind the pastoral provisions in place between Rome and the Syriac Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, and considered that he was acting within that framework. But, he wasn't really, if you stop and consider the facts.

Relations between the Catholic Churches (and I would include not only Rome and the Syriac Catholic, but also the Melkite and Maronite) and the Syriac Orthodox Church are among the most positive - that pastoral agreement was the first formal one and has been a model for others, formal and informal. But, keep in mind that it was established principally to service the pastoral needs of Syriacs - Catholic and Orthodox - given the relative scarcity of their temples in various places both at home and in the diaspora. That other Catholics are occasionally served under it is an accommodation, not the norm, certainly in the diaspora and, most certainly, as it might be applied to Latin Catholics, who are unlikely to find themselves without access to a parish of their own Church sui iuris. So, whether he thought so or not, the priest was stretching the spirit and intent of the agreement, if that was the basis on which he relied.

Alternatively, he may have considered that you and your wife had the intent or a definite inclination towards translating to Syriac Orthodoxy. But, you didn't and, by your statement, you aren't planning to do so.

So, you approach the Latins with whom you are now communing (and, from your description, with whom you are actively participating in parish life) and ask that they allow your child to aproach the Mystery to which she has been validly (but not licitly, in the admittedly legalistic Catholic viewpoint) initiated. But, she's a Latin in their eyes and by the Canons of the Church to which you ascribe yourself - canonically, if not in your heart. I find myself sympathetic to you but inclined to consider that the bishop and priest are acting in accord with the Canons to which they are subject. Your daughter is neither an Oriental Orthodox nor is she an Oriental Catholic - like it or not, she is a Latin at the present time. Were she truly OO or OC, I'd be among the most vociferous in condemning the Latin decision.

On the matter of your decision to seek a transfer of canonical enrollment, I have to tell you that, historically, the likelihood of receiving consent for such is not enhanced when the reasons for doing so are so heavily encumbered by a hostile, critical, and bitter attitude toward the Church sui iuris from which one seeks to transfer.

It may not make sense to you ("if I hate it here, why make me stay?") but that attitude is often off-putting not only to the Latin hierarch involved, but to Eastern hierarchs who frequently see such discontent and disgruntlement as not boding well for the prospective member's future in their Churches.

It has often been said that we of the East are most pleased to welcome those who are running TO us, rather than those who are running FROM the West.

We endured decades of the latter in the post Vatican II era. It was disruptive, unsettling, had little positive and much negative impact on our parishes, and decidedly few of those who transitioned remained in the long term, finding us not up to whatever preconceived expectations they had of us.

I'm not suggesting that you don't find Oriental Christiaity to afford you a unique and deeply personal spiritual and theological peace that you don't experience elsewhere - but if your expression of that is accompanied by denigration of the spirituality and praxis of the sister Church of your origins, you need to step back and prayerfully consider what is motivating you to seek the change. Your focus at present seems to be more on your emotions than the spiritual aspects of doing so.

Finally, with all due respect to my Syriac Catholic brethren, you need to realize that their Church is still in the throes of recovering from a long period of latinization. You will likely find it to still be significantly less 'Oriental' than its Sister Orthodox Church and not as advanced in shedding its latinizations than the Byzantine Churches.

My prayers for the resolution of your concerns in a way that gives you spiritual comfort.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes I agree with you about the fact that the OCs are still recovering from much Latinization.

In regards to us practicing in the SO Church, but not transalting to it. We spoke with the priest and he put no particulars on us translating, he said if we wanted to be accepted as SO he would accept us, and I agreed, there was nothing formal about it, because as he said, there is no formal way of accepting a Catholic into the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. If you want to come in and the priest accepts you as part of his parish, that is it. So from my perspective I was Malankara Orthodox at that point, which is one of the reasons we had our son chrismated there.

In response to us now wanting to commune (by this I actually me worship in their Church) with the Latins. We don't really want to, but that's the only option in this area. Eastern Parishes are hours away. Yes it is true that we want to be in communion with Rome now, because we see that as a very important thing, however when we were in the Syriac OC, we weren't running from the Latin Church at all, we went there because we had the opportunity to find out about it, and loved what we learned there and the way we were spiritually fed.

While I'd like to run full speed from the particular Latin parish I'm in at the moment, that is peculiar to the parish, not other Latin parishes I've been in. The only "complaint" or thing I'd "run from" in all the other Latin parishes I've been in, is that they separate the sacraments of initiation. I'm not anti-Latin, I just am not as at home there as in terms of my spirituality, theology and praxis as I am in either the Byzantine Church or the Oriental Church.

Your comment of emotionality is well taken, and you are right that emotions take over and it doesn't look very good, and when we follow all the canon laws your statements are very true. I must admit I have a hard time respecting or even following canons that don't align with the Apostolic Traditions of the Church and this includes when canon laws prevents children from receiving the sacraments of initiation together. To be rather legalistic about it, how can a canon even be considered valid if it goes against the overall Tradition of the universal Church?

From a Catholic standpoint I want to officially go to the Eastern Church, because that is where I can experience Christ and the Church most fully. As stated above, there was no official document saying I was Malankara Orthodox, because it wasn't needed, however if it would make the Catholic Church feel better I could get something from Malankara Orthodox Church, attesting to my acceptance into that Chuch.

When I've said I am canonically Latin, it is because I was baptized in the Latin Church when I asked to be as a child, not because I've stayed Latin Catholic my whole life. I respect a great many things about the Latin Church. I dislike the Latinizations of the Eastern Churches, but in many ways the true concern for me, is that what we now call Latinizations ought to be looked at, because much of the problem with many Latinization in regards to the Eastern Churches, is that these Latinizations are not correct to the Eastern Church, but many of them really are not correct to the Latin Church either, because they don't follow the Apostolic Tradition. There are many things that are peculiar and right to the Latin tradition, but things that break with the universal Tradition of the Church, cannot really be considered proper.

Again, I do not want to run from the the Latin Church, but I do want to run to the Eastern Churches, there are a great deal of reasons for becoming an Eastern Catholic, and while issues with the Latin Church can play into it, or perhaps were the tipping point in this case (though this is because I considered myself to be returning to communion from the East, and was under the assumption that having been Orthodox I would be eastern, I had not looked into it. So it wasn't until a canon lawyer said I was still Latin, even though I had been Orthodox, that I even began the process of discerning whether or not to do the paperwork, or go back to the Orthodox)it is not the reason I am seeking to go canonically Eastern.

CT

Dear brother countertenor,

It doesn't seem right to charge the Latin Church with having a canon that "doesn't align with Apostolic Tradition." The Church has always had the power to regulate the manner in which the Sacraments can be given (notwithstanding the necessary basic matter). True, the Latin Church has separated the Sacraments of Initiation, which most early Church witnesses indicate were performed together. On the other hand, early Church witness indicates that both immersion and sprinkling (or pouring) were acceptable modes of baptism, but nowadays, some Orthodox Churches only accept immersion, going so far as to reject Catholic sprinkling as invalid. Is it the case that these Orthodox Churches no longer "align with Apostolic Tradition," or perhaps it is more simply the case that the Church has always had the authority to regulate the manner in which the Sacraments are given? Also, early Church witness indicates that the Eucharist was available to the laity daily, yet it seems only the Latin Church currently maintains this early Church practice. Is it the case that the Eastern and Oriental Churches no longer "align with Apostolic Tradition," or perhaps it is more simply the case that the Church has always had the authority to regulate the manner in which the Sacraments are given?

Blessings,
Marduk

The key point is the Latin Church has departed from its own Tradition, not for doctrinal or theological reasons, but from flawed pastoral practice, accident of history, and weight of custom. Vatican II recognized the need to restore the integrity of the Rites of Initiation, including the restoration of the proper order of the sacraments (does anyone see an irony in our allowing Roman Catholic children to receive communion, even though they have not been Christmated/Confirmed, while ours are denied communion strictly on the basis of age, even though they have been fully initiated into the Church?) and therefore, the practice of infant communion, which is the patrimony of the entire Church, not something specific to one particular Church (even if it is the big one).

The Latin Church practiced infant communion down to the thirteenth century, and only ceased doing so when the Fourth Lateran Council withdrew the Chalice from the laity (for reasons that proved unacceptable to the Second Vatican Council), and therefore it could no longer give the Eucharist to infants (who received only the Blessed Blood). Theories about the need to "understand" the meaning of the sacrament, and thus the need for communicants to reach the "age of reason" begin to emerge only a century later, as an ex post facto rationalization of a present practice.

The Latin Church never condemned infant communion (how could it, without condemning infant baptism?), it just died out. There is nothing, except the potential wrath of legions of mothers and grandmothers dying to see their little angels in tiny tuxedoes and bridal gowns, that keeps any bishop from restoring proper practice in his diocese by a wave of his hand. Some have, I believe, even done this.



Other modes were acceptable in unusual circumstances, but immersion in "a stream of living water" was always the norm, as can be seen by the existence of very large baptismal fonts dating back to the third century.



That is almost certainly incorrect (see Taft's essay, "On the Frequency of Communion" in Beyond East and West). The earliest stratum of Tradition (witnessed by Justin Martyr and by Pliny the Younger among others) is for Christians to gather together only on Sundays to celebrate the Eucharist. Extension of Eucharistic celebrations to other days emerged much later, and varied over the ages and among Churches--but the Apostolic Tradition was Eucharist on the Eucharistic Day. You may be confused by the practice of giving the consecrated Bread to the faithful to take home and eat at meals during the day (attested well into the post-Nicene period), but what the Church did when it was a small, elite body did not prove viable when it became a mass movement.



If pressed, I would say the Eastern Churches have preserved the Tradition in its fullness better than the Latin Church, but I think you mix apples and oranges. It is one thing for the Church to regulate the means by which the Eucharist is distributed--whether to use leavened or unleavened bread, whether to add water to the wine, whether to give it to the faithful each element separately or by intinction, etc.--and to regulate to whom it may be given, not as a matter of discipline (fasting, confession, membership in a particular Church, etc.) but ontologically. In essence, the Eastern Churches say that, as long as a person has received all the sacraments of initiation and is properly disposed, he may receive in any Church that is in communion with his Church (and we even make an exception for unconfirmed Latin children by way of oikonomia). The Latin Church adds to that an age requirement that has no theological basis, and which has the effect not only of excommunicating their own children, but ours as well. Communion is a 2-way street: if we bend our rules to allow their children to receive in our Churches, then, by gum, they need to bend their rules to accommodate ours.

Better still, they can read their own conciliar documents and restore their own proper practice and Tradition.

Dear brother StuartK


I wouldn't say it is "flawed" if it came from their God-ordained bishops.


On the other hand, the majority of ancient Christian mosaics depicting baptism in living water showed the recipients having water poured over them, while standing in the water. Please don't take what I am saying to mean that our practice as Easterns and Orientals is unpatristic.


When I speak of the "early Church," I had in mind the Church of the apostles. The Bible is clear that the Eucharist was celebated daily. St. Paul is seen to have done it only on the Lord's day while he was in captivity. It seems that to the early Church (i.e., when the Apostles were alive), daily communion was the norm, and infrequent communion was due to exceptional circumstances (communion on the Lord's day being the bare minimum), perhaps based on the Lord's teaching of the necessity of communion. Daily communion was practiced down to the latter fourth century in the Eastern Church (for certain), as attested by St. John Chrysostom (who also decried its infrequent reception). It seems that the bare minimum of receiving on the Lord's Day came about due to the underground status of the Church (when it was dangerous for Christians to come together, but nevertheless recognizing the necessity of at least celebrating on the Lord's Day). In any case, the practice of daily communion has altogether disappeared from the Eastern and Oriental Churches. Here seems to be a case where the exceptional circumstance became the norm in the Eastern/ Oriental Churches, as with the case in the Latin Church with regard to other Sacramental practices.

In any case, instead of criticizing what bishops of each Church have established as the norm for their Church, I think the best solution for peace on this matter is simply to recognize that the Church has indeed the power to regulate the celebration of the Sacraments, and to respect each others' canons pertaining to that celebration. If the authorities in some certain Church decided to restore a previous practice of celebrating the Sacraments, that is great, and that is within their prerogative to do so, just as it was their prerogative to change it in the first place.

I do acknowledge the "irony" you pointed out. I don't know how prevalent it is, since the Canon law in the Latin Church does provide for the celebration of the Sacraments by an Eastern or Oriental according to their own custom, but, as noted by brother Neil, this does not seem to be what is happening in brother Countertenor's case.

Blessings,
Marduk

Glory to Jesus Christ,

I do not want to go off topic but I was reading a post in this thread and something in it confused me:

"I would also point out the fact that the current situation makes it hard for all Eastern Catholics to evangelize to non-Catholics. Since if they are protestants and come into the Catholic Church through the Eastern Church, they are by Canon Law a Roman Catholic, even though they were catechized by an Eastern church, feel at home in the eastern church, ect. That needs to change."

My wife entered the Eastern Catholic Church (Ruthenian) last year (was formerly in a Baptist Church), and was catechized there and received the sacraments of initiation there. Are you saying that such a person is still a Latin Rite Catholic and would need to file petition with the Bishops (something I did recently because I was initiated in the Latin Rite Church) to be an actual Eastern Catholic canonically? That does not seem accurate to me.

Am I misunderstanding what was said here. I did not see anyone else clarify it to mean other than how I took it.

Thanks.

Bishops make dozens of errors. We could call them flaws, or we could call them mistakes, but if they didn't make them, then, of course, the Church would not have called for them to be rectified, would it?



Don't take artistic representations at face value. On the other hand, architecture speaks for itself.



Since almost no biblical scholars make this claim, you'll have to point out this evidence. You may have conflated the continued meetings of the Apostles in the Temple, and later in private homes for daily prayers (the Divine Praises), a continuation of Jewish praxis adapted by the Christian Church, with the celebration of the Eucharist. However, as far as I can tell, the New Testament is almost entirely silent about when, where and how the Eucharist was celebrated.



When Chrysostom (and the other Father) decry the infrequency of communion, they are not speaking of daily reception, but of reception on Sundays. We know from contemporaneous documents that the Eucharist was not celebrated daily in the Great Church of Hagia Sophia during the time Chrysostom was Archbishop of Constantinople.



No, it was never there, as Taft makes quite clear in his essay. It only became the rule in a small number of cathedrals and monasteries, and relatively late in the day.



No, the best solution is for the Church that has departed from the Tradition to return to it. After all, if Latin conciliar documents direct restoration of the integrity of the Rites of Initiation, then the Latin Church ought to comply with its own teachings.



Annoyingly common, as any Greek Catholic parent with young children can attest. That's why we do not go to Latin Churches when on vacation, but will find the nearest Orthodox church if no Greek Catholic parish is present.

My understanding of the Cannons is that yes she is a canonically a Latin Catholic. Since she was a protestant which is a church separate from the Latin Church. Just as I when I was received am a Greek Byzantine Catholic even though there is no Greek Byzantine Church in America. I don't think I am wrong here but that’s how I understand it. I don't think it is right and I think it does hurt our outreach but that’s for the Hierarchy to work out I suppose.

Unless, she wasn't baptized and received baptism in the Eastern Catholic Church. I think that makes it a different situation but I will digress to someone who knows more about that than I.

If the early Church witnesses indicate they were performed together how is it not right to charge the Latin Church with not following the Apostolic Tradition? You also mention them being God ordained bishops, but last I checked bishops were also people that can be and are swayed by many things, not just God.



Where Orthodox Churches reject this, and the early Church witness indicates both were acceptable, I would say that the Orthodox are also out of line. It is fine if each OC require their priests to use immersion, but if one of the OC chooses to use sprinkling (pouring) and the others reject it, they are out of line.

I am not here to say the Latin Church is doing a bunch of things wrong and the Byzantines and Orientals are doing everything right. If I thought the EO were in complete alignment with everything I'd be EO rather than Catholic.



This is the only Diocese I've ever seen this as an issue. I've never seen it in any other diocese in which I've lived.



Thanks StuartK, you practically responded in every way I would have. I think a big problem right now that I'm seeing is that there are ECs who want to rip Rome apart for everything they do that is different than the Eastern Churches, and others that don't want to say anything about other than to attempt to defend Romes practices no matter how off they are, because they don't want to look like they are against Rome. While others have spent so much time trying to harmonize and or justify things that cannot really be defended, that they just want to leave it all alone.

Do I think that what Rome is doing is a heresy? No, however because they make up bogus theologies to try to back up what they do, it does lead Latins to have an incorrect idea about many things, and you can call those ideas whatever you find convenient.

As far as denying communion to individuals who have received all the sacraments of initiation, who are also not capable of being in a state of sin, you can call it whatever you want, I'll just call it, wrong, especially when they're handing it out to people every week who are in a state of sin.

If the Latin Church doesn't want to its children to participate in the life of the Church, they should send them all home and tell them to come back when they're old enough to have "reason." But for now they can just treat them like they are currently. That is, people who keep them from Christ rather than bringing them to him.

Sorry for the typos, my son was taking care of two kids while I was typing.

I should point out that Rome does not really approve of baptism by aspersion (sprinkling), but, while seeing full immersion as normative, allows baptism by pouring water over the candidate, insofar as many parishes lack a font capable of allowing full immersion. This is quite different from "sprinkling"--think of what the priest does with your food basket on Pascha.

No Orthodox Church in my knowledge rejects those baptized by the pouring of water over the head (they would have to reject the baptism of a lot of Orthodox if they did), but they do object to the notion that one can be baptized by the mere sprinkling of water (as does the Church of Rome)--save in cases of grave emergency, when anything will do.

Of course, there are abuses and deviations from the norm all over the place, and on all sides, too.

Very true!

Dear brother StuartK,

I think we are on the same page regarding baptism, though we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of frequent (even, daily) communion. I believe it was the norm in the earliest days of the Church. As a Catholic, I don't see it as much of an issue since I can be fed at the Latin Church, when I have the spiritual need (which is often, I must admit, sinner that I am).

Blessings,
Marduk

From Robert F. Taft, SJ, "The Frequency of the Eucharist Throughout History", in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding:



Later, in Section 2-The Eucharist After Constantine, Taft reviews the evolution of Eucharistic celebration, and concludes:

Dear brother StuartK,

I am afraid I disagree with Father Taft on his interpretation of Acts 2:46. It specifically states, "Daily, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes..." The Christians in Jerusalem were faithful Jews who attended the daily prayers at the Temple. But being faithful Jews, they could not have neglected the other important part of the Temple service, which was the Corban, the daily sacrifice. Obviously, they could not participate in the Temple sacrifice because they knew, according to St. Paul in Hebrews, that Christ replaced all the Sacrifices of the Old Covenant. This, they did when they went to their "home churches," and this, they did daily, as Scripture states.

So, I will have to maintain my position. As mentioned earlier, this daily sacrifice was not able to be performed because of persecution (whence it was dangerous for Christians to gather), though the importance of celebrating the Sacrifice at least on the Lord's Day was maintained in their "underground" communities. When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, the ancient practice re-established itself slowly, but surely (as Fr. Taft points out). But, for whatever reason, it disappeared again in the East and Orient.

I should also point out that the Fathers who promoted more frequent communion did so for very theological reasons (based on Christ's teaching on the Bread of Life).

In any case, as stated, it is not a big deal to me if Eastern or Oriental Catholicism has not maintained this ancient tradition, because at least Latin Catholicism has done so, and since we are one Church (ontologically), the tradition still remains, and Eastern and Oriental Catholics have as much access to it as Latin Catholics (and for those who are "properly disposed," even our Orthodox brethren may take advantage of it). But, further, I do not find any fault in the fact that this tradition (based on theological reasons) disappeared from the East and Orient, for I accept that it is the prerogative of the Church (or in this case, the local Church) to regulate the ways and means by which the Sacraments are distributed in and to the Church. However, on the same basis, I do not fault the Latin Church for their own traditions on the distribution of the Sacraments, since it is within their power to regulate.

Blessings,
Marduk

There are not exclusive. The followers of Jesus undoubtedly went daily to the Temple to pray. As good Jews, they would naturally continue to do this. They also would say the Berakah over the bread at every meal, because, like good Jews, this is what they did. But they only celebrated the Eucharist--that is, memorialized the Last Supper and Sacrifice of Christ by the consecration of Bread and Wine, on the first day of the week. Your conflation of the Eucharist with the Corban is not warranted by the evidence; i.e., you argue from silence (Acts doesn't say they did not, therefore they did).

But Taft also notes that the faithful took portions of the consecrated elements home with them, and communicated throughout the week--a practice he says continued to the seventh or eighth centuries (and which is attested in a number of saints lives as well). As Taft notes, frequent communion for many of the Fathers meant home communion. But that is not the same as celebrating the Eucharist daily, nor is it permitted any longer for the faithful to carry the Sacrament home with them for daily consumption.

Taft also notes that the Eucharist is more than communion, and that its celebration is wrapped up in a wider symbolic matrix which cannot be reduced to one simple function or act.

S

Christians were seldom if ever "underground", and their persecution was generally local and highly sporadic. Most of the time, Christians lived quite openly in their communities, and everyone knew who they were, which is why they were easy to persecute when politics or local conditions encouraged it. The Church owned property, had distinct buildings and was growing rapidly. Underground movements don't do those things. See Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians--still one of the best books on the subject.



That puts the cart before the horse. There is no evidence of daily celebration of the Eucharist in Rome before the sixth or seventh century (see quote from Taft, above). If it was an ancient tradition, then at best, Rome "restored" it--but the evidence points to just Sunday Eucharist in Rome in the earliest days, perhaps combined with communion in the home with presanctified Gifts.

Dear brother StuartK,

All I've got to say is:

1) My statement on Corban is not an argument from silence. Rather, it is a valid interpretation of the Scriptural statement that they daily participated in the "breaking of the bread." Besides, I'm not aware that "breaking of the bread" refers to anything other than the Eucharistic celebration, not merely self-communion.

2) If Rome did not celebrate it early on, then that is understandable because the Christian community there was in the heart of the the empire that persecuted them. But the practice of the Jerusalem community (before the Sacrifice was no longer offered in Jerusalem, as Scripture predicted in the OT) should be taken as the primordial standard, don't you think?

3) I don't deny that frequent (even daily) communion through self-communication was the norm in many places. I'm more concerned with the practice of frequent communion (whether through frequent or daily self-communication, or frequent or daily Eucharistic celebration).

Blessings,
Marduk

The notion that Christians lived under constant persecution is false. What persecutions there were tended to be local and limited. After the Neronian persecution, which lasted all of one year and affected only the Church in Rome, Christians were pretty much left alone until AD 96, when Dormitian instigated a pogrom against Jews in which a number of Christians (still identified as Jews) were caught up. Again, this persecution was limited to the city of Rome and affected very few Christians. Over the next 150 years, Christians were only persecuted as individuals, not as a movement, and then only locally, as when Pliny wrote to Trajan about what to do when Christians were denounced by their neighbors. Trajan answered that when this happens, the governor should prosecute (giving the Christians multiple opportunities to recant), but under no circumstances should the governor go looking for Christians (nor should he accept the testimony of paid informers).

The largest persecution in the period seems to have occurred ca. 175, when there was a spontaneous lynching in Lyons that wiped out much of the local leadership, resulting in Irenaeus being sent in to be the new bishop. This was not an official persecution, but a riot much like those my Jewish ancestors experienced. Like the Jews, the Christians were not hiding--which is why it was easy for the mob to kill them.

The first official persecutions took place in the reigns of Aurelius and Decius (250-255), at a time of crisis in the Empire. Wanting to enhance public solidarity, and to restore the favor of the Roman gods, these emperors required everyone to offer sacrifice both to the gods and to the imperial cult. Both persecutions seem to have been spotty and inefficient. More important, for the first time there was large scale apostasy--the Church had not been persecuted for so long that Christians, used to openly professing their faith, and not given much thought to the possibility of martyrdom, and many did indeed recant (with serious ecclesiological implications down the road).

But after 255, nothing happened for another half century, until, sensing that the Christians were becoming too large and open a movement (the church in Nicomedia was the second largest building, after Diocletian's palace) in the Empire, Diocletian imposed a second (or third, depending on how you count) official persecution.

In this case, however, he did not go after individuals but after the infrastructure and leadership of the Church. Only bishops, presbyters and deacons were arrested. A number were tortured, but only a few were executed. Mostly, church buildings were demolished, books burned, plate seized and destroyed. But the very tetrarchy that Diocletian had created to save the Empire also served to save the Christians, since not every Augustus and Caesar imposed the ban on Christians with equal zeal; in fact, in the West, Constantius I (father of Constantine) did not impose any persecution at all, and with the exception of Galerius, nobody implemented it with much enthusiasm (perhaps they realized the tipping point had been reached).

In any case, by 308 the persecution was over in most of the Empire, by 313 Constantine had legalized Christianity, and by 325 it had achieved favored status throughout the Roman world.

In short, to say that Christians only celebrated the Eucharist on Sunday because they were persecuted is not supported by the evidence.

Regarding your other arguments:

1. Breaking of the Bread is an ambiguous statement, and looking at the Greek text of Acts, one cannot say definitively that the Breaking of the Bread either occurred daily or was in fact limited solely to the Eucharist. You can't have the Apostles being good Jews one moment to justify your perspective on the Eucharist, and have them ignore universal Jewish practice the next because it does not support your perspective on the Eucharist.

2. As Taft noted, the reception of communion is not an individual but an ecclesial action, and to view daily communion in terms of your own spiritual requirements without reference to the Tradition of your own Church and the guidance of your spiritual father can have serious consequences.