Glory to Jesus Christ!

To my absolute horror and consternation, my Byzantine Catholic parish church yesterday introduced the use of lay eucharistic ministers. I know the Particular Law permits this practice, but may I ask: why, in the midst of all this talk about returning to our authentic Orthodox traditions, has the Byzantine-Rusyn Church decided to adopt this problematic (to say the least) Western practice?

Two points you should note: I belong to a fairly large parish (distribution of communion can last as along as 20 minutes); and my parish priest is older, but hardly decrepit or incapable of distributing the Eucharist.

My main question, however, is this: by what authority did the Roman Church create lay eucharistic ministers? Is there any biblical, patristic, or theological justification?

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

To my absolute horror and consternation, my Byzantine Catholic parish church yesterday introduced the use of lay eucharistic ministers.

#$@?*!!!!!!!

I know the Particular Law permits this practice, but may I ask: why, in the midst of all this talk about returning to our authentic Orthodox traditions, has the Byzantine-Rusyn Church decided to adopt this problematic (to say the least) Western practice?

You're right; it's a big-time contradiction. It seems there is still a strong countercurrent to the Orthodoxizing one, among those who perhaps don't really want to be Eastern and prefer to copy the Novus Ordo.

http://oldworldrus.com

My understanding is that it was done "for convenience" in larger parishes -- as was the case with the Latin rite, initially. Of course, there it has largely become a way for people to feel "involved" in the liturgy, or to offer lay persons the ability to "serve" (in addition to dealing with the practical realities of the mega parishes in the Latin Church).

May I ask -- how is the Eucharist transferred to the lay ministers?

Brendan

Dear Friends,

Lay ministers are certainly not "on" in our tradition, but sometimes circumstances demand adaptation.

Even St John of Kronstadt adapted to the circumstances of his time.

There is the story of how he wanted everyone to come to Communion.

The people whispered that they hadn't been to confession.

So Father John told them he would give them a communal confession.

Any relief they might have initially felt would have been gone when Father asked them to publically tell him all their sins, which they did.

Gives public confession a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

Anyway, when it comes to Orthodox, Brendan and Serge, I know I'm preaching to the converted . . .

Alex

I guess the other question is by what authority did it restrict it?

Let us remember that this is no longer an innovation, since it is presented and regulated by the Particular Law of our Byzantine American Metropolia. (For us, female altar servers would be an innovation if not also a violation of our Particular Law, which states that servers must be males.)

In fact, the law states that every parish may have one lay eucharistic minister at a Liturgy; only additional ministers are based on the number of communicants. Therefore, we can expect that once our people become aware of this, there will be people in every parish who wish to take advantage of their right to serve the Church in this way.

So what is happening in Theophilos's parish is exactly the normal course of things, as designed by those who wrote the Particular Law and accepted by our bishops who promulgated it.

Just something to keep in mind before bombarding the respective chancery offices with protest letters...

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: RichC ]

It's just a shame that our church doesn't more widely ordain subdeacons and then bless them to distribute communion in such cases (oh by the way I'm not against subdeaconesses! he he)

anastasios

Rich:

But you miss my main point. Why did the Byzantine-Rusyn Church adopt a practice which, to my knowledge, has absolutely no foundation in the Orthodox/Greek Christian tradition? It is, no matter how it was created, an obvious and rather obnoxious Latinization, no?

Don't worry, I'm not about to write any letters or start yelling or leave the Church over this (if -- when? -- my wife, son, and I convert to Orthodoxy, it will be for different and far more substantive reasons, as God knows). But, even if we adopted lay eucharistic ministers in a properly Eastern manner (i.e., as a sui juris Church, without directive from Rome -- which is not, of course, actually true; see October 1998 posts herein, if they still exist), that does not explain why we adopted a Roman practice, nor does it justify that adoption.

So, if you want to argue that it's acceptable, you can't say the law was created and promulgated properly, therefore it's okay -- there's a parallel to natural law/positivism here, for any who care -- you must instead show that this practice is fully consistent with Orthodox tradition, i.e. that it is scripturally and patristically-defensible. Is it?

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Theophilos ]

Why did the Byzantine-Rusyn Church adopt a practice which, to my knowledge, has absolutely no foundation in the Orthodox/Greek Christian tradition?

My guess is that among an influential faction of Ruthenians there is a combination of imitation of the Novus Ordo and indifference to the Orthodox.

It is, no matter how it was created, an obvious and rather obnoxious Latinization, no?


Yes.

http://oldworldrus.com

Theophilos, are you saying that you think lay people should have been consulted?

Or were you privy to something else about the way the law was composed that makes you say that the Orthodox factor was not considered?

The competent scholars/authorities have already made changes to the Liturgy far beyond what exists in contemporary Orthodox practice. Perhaps contemporary Orthodoxy is not the sole criterion on which our reforms must be undertaken. If something is just the "right thing to do" will we be held back because the Orthodox are not already doing it?

At the time of the Union of Uzhhorod, seminary education was also for us a Latinization. But where would we be today without it?

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: RichC ]

Dear Theophilos,

What you say is true.

But in the realm of "Latinizations" it seems to me that we Easterners call everything a "Latinization" until we adopt it for ourselves.

It's like that old joke about Catholic morality, that everything is forbidden until it becomes mandatory . . .

I've seen things I was convinced were "rank Latinizations" in Orthodox Churches that had them because of practicality or because they were liked by the congregation etc.

For example, none of the "Latin" services of the Moleben to the Sacred Heart etc. that we have were created to somehow "adapt" to the Romans.

In fact, Father Isidore Dolnitsky wrote those services because many Eastern Catholics liked those devotions and felt pulled toward the Latin Church to attend them.

The same is true of the Rosary. The history of the Eastern Catholic Churches is punctuated with "returns to Orthodoxy" of entire eparchies whether coerced or not. (As if there was no coercion to join the Unia . . .).

As these people returned to Orthodoxy, they brought with them certain Latin practices that were then maintained for fear of doing them spiritual harm etc. St Alexis Toth, in fact, was famous for leaving Latin practices of new Orthodox converts alone for this reason.

With the advent of Western Rite Orthodoxy, the differences between the two confessions in liturgical terms becomes even more minimal and in this our friend, Edwin, is certainly right (rite?).

And we know that the early Christians not only communicated themselves, but also took Holy Communion home with them to keep in their "Home Church" and to receive Holy Communion, (which they obviously gave themselves) each morning before breakfast throughout the week.

This practice was later abolished due to the "lack of fervour of earlier times" as Chrysostom said.

But ultimately I think that a practice should be received or rejected not only on the basis of its supposed history in the Latin Church, but also on other, more pastoral-based grounds.

Alex

Very true what you say, Alex.

If the Latin Church discards universal celibacy of its priests, and then we follow suit (not in the "provisional" way we've done so far), will some of our people deride married priests as a Latinization?

Dear RichC,

One never knows . . .

Or else we could say, as a number did in the aftermath of Vatican II, that the Western Church is coming around to thinking the (correct) Eastern way.

In the aftermath of the Unia of 1596, when one of our ancestors was asked why the Pope was being commemorated in the Orthodox Church, he would have replied, "The Pope must have become Orthodox!"

Besides, I think His Holiness looks much better in Byzantine robes than Latin ones!

Don't you?

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I agree with Orthodox Catholic, but wish to note that I am not rejecting the practice of lay eucharistic ministers (LEM) simply becuase it is a Latinization -- which we all seem to agree it is. I am instead questioning both the practical and theological justifications for LEM. It raises a fair, if loaded question: are we Gnostics, trading amongst ourselves different offices (hey, John, wanna be pope today?), or are we Christians?

That said, my first question is this: does LEM raise any theological problems (as I suggested in my initial post)? Is there a theological-ecclesiological issue with unordained men distributing the Body and Blood of Christ? Do we really need to create another office in addition to bishop, priest, and deacon? Is there a scriptural or patristic justification for this addition?

But, I am willing to grant, arguendo, that this question cannot be answered affirmatively with any kind of certainty. My second question, then: is there a legitimate practical, i.e. pastoral need for LEM?

I'm glad Orthodox Catholic has offered the example of what the martyred Church did. But is their practice necessarily applicable to our situation? Is it analogous? Would Chrysostom not agree that the fervor of modern times, in contrast to the early Church, is even more lacking than among his fellow Antiochians of the fourth century?

In all seriousness: what is our situation that we need LEM. (1) Too many parishioners? (2) Too many old priests / not enough priests? (3) Too many people unaware that participation in the Cosmic Liturgy does not require their distributing the Eucharist?

These, I suppose, in the absence of a sure answer to the theological question, are the right questions. And their answers? (1) We wish this were the case; even my large church is rarely filled to capacity; (2) Perhaps, but aren't there alternative means to remedying this problem -- ordaining more deacons, e.g.?; (3) If we Byzantine-Rusyns feel we aren't being entertained enough, maybe we should spend some time thinking about why we go to church in the first place.

So, what are the most convincing pastoral reasons for LEM, an unscriptural, unpatristic, and at best, ecclesiologically problematic creation? I await responses.

Rich: I'm not sure how to take your response. The standard is not what the Orthodox are or are not doing, but what is "right." The issue between us seems to be how we define what is "right" I suggest the answer is found in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Lover of God (Theophilos),

We up here don't have LEM (we have LEMKO's, but that isn't the same I don't think . . .).

Our Roman brothers have them and everyone seems to think it is a sign of the times what with fewer priests et al.

Others think that it is a way to underline the "Priesthood of all believers."

I used to get into arguments (I know that is hard to believe) with our priests in Catholic college when I refused to take the Chalice into my own profane, non-sacerdotal hands.

The Ethiopians have embroidered cloths with which they use to hold their hand crosses so that their skin doesn't touch the sacred object! (I have since procured one for myself).

You are right. Unless there is an extreme need, there really is no excuse for LEMs.

Cardinal Suenens was the one who wanted the Latin Church to eventually get used to the idea of married deacons and married priests.

I don't know what you think of him, but I think he was ahead of his time on this issue.

Alex