www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West E C children receiving communion at R C Mass?

Steve,

I only meant that a certain reading of yoru question, prompted more on the basis of the responses, led one to seeing the question related to Latin concerns.

Obviously, where one goes when travelling is highly individualistic. If looking for social aspects of this, I would only observe:

Some persons intellectually or spiritually intriged by Eastern Christianity, ususally as something interesting different from their Protestant or Roman Catholic background will use travel as an opportunity to expose themselves to the variety of eastern communities or a particular variety that attacks them.

Eastern Catholics of a particular culture (i.e. Ukrainian) may visit communities of that same culture, sometimes indifferent to commmunion, sometimes not, and with no particular draw to similiar liturgical patrimonies of a distinct culture.

Some may go somewhere because it is familiar, some because it is exotic, some because it is accessable (physically), some because it is their host's worship community.

In Europe and the Middle East, many of our people are in situations where their would be high cultural barriers to certain options. Here in North America, that is not the case with Americanized Eastern Catholics going to Americanized parishes. But, some people have convinced themselves that they MUST go to a particular kind of community, but these would be the minority of our people.

K.

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear Inawe,

Actually, I've been Latinized for years (being Ukrainian Catholic) but I didn't know I was until a number of things were pointed out to me:

1) Fish is also a meat because it has a backbone;

2) Rosary beads are O.K. as long as they're made of wool or rayon and don't make a "clicking" noise when you move them in the air;

3) Prostration is a form of bow, and not a medical condition;

4) When it comes to the Sign of the Cross and some other things, once is not enough;

5) A short service is a set of small knives and forks;

6) "Lent" is what we call an item after someone has borrowed it from us;

7) Being critical and asking questions about our traditions is wrong, unless, of course, one is talking about the Latin West;

8) "Roamin' Catholic" is how some of us describe the theology and liturgy of western Christians following Vatican II;

9) "Latin devotion" refers to any form of prayer that Eastern Christians didn't think of first;

10) We jealously guard our true Eastern identity and name against the Latin bullies - and we'll get better at it just as soon as we reach a consensus on what that identity and name really is.

In other words, I thought your points were perfectly legitimate.

Some have difficulty relating to you Latins. Not me, though. I even dated a few when I was growing up.

O.K., O.K. I'm going . . .

Alex

Thank you, Kurt!

Steve
JOY

Dear Alex,

And those dates are a part of Latin folklore to this day! The retelling is becoming Mythic in proportion!

Thank you for your insight. As always it is most appropriate and useful! I really wanted to ask a reasonable question about something that was (is) not clear to me.

The reason that Anthony gave for his choice to attend the Latin Liturgy, to receive the Lord in His Eucharistic form is what I thought was common reasoning and practice among members of our Communion. That was before coming to this forum. Here I learned that some whose input I value do not share that understanding or follow that practice.

So I asked.

Dr. John's comments on the spirituality in which one lives are clearly a valuable insight. Kurt seemed at first to think that as a Latin I was bringing Latin concerns to the group and that this was somehow in appropriate and somehow silly.

I believe that he knows that this is not the case. He has shared some reasons that persons for social or convienence issues would choose to participate in other services.

The questions that I asked sought information about theological/religious reasons. Persons whom I respect, members of our Communion, have said more than a few times that they would participate in the Eucharistic Liturgy or even non Eucharistic Liturgical Actions celebrated by Christians who are members of another Communion rather than participate in a Liturgy that is celebrated by those who are members of their own Communion when both are reasonable options. I wondered if there was something in Eastern Catholic theology of the Church or of the Eucharist or of the liturgy which was a source of this behavior.

I am not trying to find out if the decisions are right or wrong. I am not saying that they are right or wrong. They were simply decisions about participation that posters reported here. They led me to think. I wondered.

I asked. I still wonder.

Perhaps I should just close the door on this kind of question behind me? Are relations among us so sensitive and painful that some questions should not be asked with respect? What do you think?

Long may the legend of your kindness and strength grow!

Steve

Steve,

Perhaps the recent statement on intercommunion between the Chaldeans and Assyrians can be of help since you are looking for an offical position on this issue. Here it is:

GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST BETWEEN
THE CHALDEAN CHURCH AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

Given the great distress of many Chaldean and Assyrian faithful, in their motherland and in the diaspora, impeding for many of them a normal sacramental life according to their own tradition, and in the ecumenical context of the bilateral dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, the request has been made to provide for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. This request has first been studied by the Joint Committee for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The present guidelines subsequently have been elaborated by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

1. Pastoral necessity

The request for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East is connected with the particular geographical and social situation in which their faithful are actually living. Due to various and sometimes dramatic circumstances, many Assyrian and Chaldean faithful left their motherlands and moved to the Middle East, Scandinavia, Western Europe, Australia and Northern America. As there cannot be a priest for every local community in such a widespread diaspora, numerous Chaldean and Assyrian faithful are confronted with a situation of pastoral necessity with regard to the administration of sacraments. Official documents of the Catholic Church provide special regulations for such situations, namely the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 671, �2-�3 and the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, n. 123.

2. Ecumenical rapprochement

The request is also connected with the ongoing process of ecumenical rapprochement between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. With the 'Common Christological Declaration', signed in 1994 by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV, the main dogmatic problem between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church has been resolved. As a consequence, the ecumenical rapprochement between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East also entered a further phase of development.

On 29 November 1996 Patriarch Mar Rapha�l Bidawid and Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV signed a list of common proposals with a view to the re-establishment of full ecclesial unity among both historical heirs of the ancient Church of the East. On 15 August 1997 this program was approved by their respective Synods and confirmed in a 'Joint Synodal Decree'. Supported by their respective Synods, both Patriarchs approved a further series of initiatives to foster the progressive restoration of their ecclesial unity. Both the Congregation for the Oriental Churches and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity support this process.

3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.

- In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

- Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15).

- Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.

4. Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist

Considering the liturgical tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East, the doctrinal clarification regarding the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the contemporary context in which both Assyrian and Chaldean faithful are living, the appropriate regulations which are foreseen in official documents of the Catholic Church, and the process of rapprochement between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, the following provision is made:

1. When necessity requires, Assyrian faithful are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in a Chaldean celebration of the Holy Eucharist; in the same way, Chaldean faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist.

2. In both cases, Assyrian and Chaldean ministers celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the liturgical prescriptions and customs of their own tradition.

3. When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East.

4. The above considerations on the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and the present guidelines for admission to the Eucharist, are intended exclusively in relation to the Eucharistic celebration and admission to the Eucharist of the faithful from the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, in view of the pastoral necessity and ecumenical context mentioned above.

Rome, July 20th, 2001

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
31 October 2001, page 4

While this statement seems only a reiteration of what is already found in Canon Law it is very much a recognition of what has already been occuring in these two communities. For example in places where only an Assyrian Church exists Chaldeans attend and commune without changing their offical membership. The same is true where only Chaldean Churches exist. The whole physically or morally impossible thing is very vague and open to wide interpretation. How far away physically impossible is has never been defined. Morally impossible is also not clearly defined. Given the state of some Latin parishes it could easily be considered morally impossible to attend a parish where abuses are grevious or where pressure is made to abandon one's native Church altogether.

Also while not clearly stated in the Canons, while one may fulfill their obligations in any Catholic Church it is not required that one fulfill them outside their own Church. Therefore, if I as a Byzantine move to Fiji where there is no Byzantine Church, while I may attend the local Latin Church, I may also choose to never attend the Latin Church and fulfill my obligation by reciting Vespers and/or Othros and/or Typica by myself at home. To force one to fulfill one's obligation in another Church is to basically force a transfer to another Church in fact if not in law.

As far as where to go while on vacation, I think some go a little overboard. If we invite Latins to attend our Liturgies so that they may become familiar with our Church can we not reciprocate? I will go to a Roman Mass if an Eastern Liturgy is not available while on vacation. However, if I were to go somewhere for a long period or move where the was no Byzantine Church I would go to an Orthodox Church for Vespers on Saturday and the Latin Church on Sunday so I may receive the Eucharist.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Dear Lance and All,

Thank you for your response to my question. I appreciate the information that you provided. It is most useful.

I have read the article on the agreement on participation in Eucharisitc Celebrations by memebers of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church. It is a true gift to those of us who long for the resumption of Communion among the Chruches. In it the Churches evidence deep pastoral concern for active particpation in Eucharist by Christians on the part of the Hierarchies of both Churches.

May such full participation in Eucharistic Celebration between members of the Catholic and Orthodox Communions become the norm, and not the exception.

In the meantime, thank you for sharing information about the ways in which Eastern Catholic Chrisitans can fulfill their obligation to worship God (Eucharistic Celebration, Orthodox or Catholic, or by reciting part of the Liturgical prayers of their Church without participating in the Eucharist). That, of course is the canonical explanation that underlies the choices I have described hearing here. I respect that.

Thank you for the example of your participation as fully as possible in Eastern Liturgical Prayer in the Orthodox Church and Eucharistic Communion in the Latin church. It is a example of a choice that helps me understand a bit more. It shows respect for the customs and traditions of both Communions as well as the importance that you personally place on complete participation in the Eucharistic Liturgy as a form of worship.

I guess that the answer to my questions, then, is that it is a matter of the personal choice. That preference is based in options for choice of worship in Eastern Canon Law. The choice is not a matter of the centrality of participation in Eucahristic Celebration as the form of worship.

Some may choose not to receive communion and worship in Orthodox Eucharistic Celebrations or other Liturgical prayer. Others may choose to participate in full communion in the Eucharistic Celebration of the Latin Church. Still others can do what you do. God is woshipped by all!

Thank you again!

Fraternally,

Steve

JOY!

Dear Steve,

As always, I am "in awe" of your eruditon! (Plus I can't ever help not say something like this whenever I have the privilege of speaking with you on this Forum!).

I could not agree with you and our Brother Anthony more.

The true and ancient Byzantine tradition, expressed so well in the canons and practice of our Church, is that Holy Communion is to be received at each and every Divine Liturgy we attend, which expresses the fullness of our participation in it.

I have been to an Orthodox Church where I asked and was invited to attend Holy Communion, which I did. I did that at a time when no other Catholic Church was available.

But most Orthodox Churches would not invite a Catholic to participate in Communion and I understand and respect that.

There was a time when Met. Andrew Sheptytsky advised his flock to attend Orthodox Churches rather than Catholic ones as a result of problems with Latin clergy trying to "pull them over" to the RC Church.

But, today, I don't see a problem, unless someone wants to become either RC or Orthodox. (During my last visit to an OCA Church in Florida, the pastor told me that I was welcome to stay, but no Communion and that when I was ready, he would receive me into Orthodoxy himself.).

As a Catholic, I see the Church as having a diversity of particular Churches with their respective Rites and traditions.

And they belong to us collectively. Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky also warned Blessed Leonid Fyodorov not to become an "Eastern chauvinist" and Leonid certainly was not.

Leonid Fyodorov personally practiced devotion to the Adoration of the Eucharist and the Sacred Heart as well as the Rosary and to St Ignatius Loyola and St Anthony of Padua.

Patriarch Josef Slipyj said his Rosary daily and spent at least an hour in Eucharistic adoration at the Church of St Neilos in Rome every day as well.

We shouldn't be paranoid of the West. Pope Paul VI recommended that Catholics of all Rites and Churches participate in the Liturgy, Confession and Communion in one another's parishes.

I have done so in the Catholic Rites of the Chaldean, Melkite, Malabar, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Rumanian, Belorussian, Italo-Greek, Maronite, Latin-Hawaiian, Latin-First Nations, Latin-Hispanic, Latin-African American, just plain Latin,Ruthenian, Anglican Use and, of course, Ukrainian traditions.

All these Churches and traditions helped me see Christ more clearly and understand His Body that is the Church better.

In each of them, I was given an opportunity to worship God even a little differently than what I was used to in my own Particular Church.

Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is a devotion that has grown up in Eastern Catholic Churches by way of borrowing from the Latin Church.

Borrowing can be a good thing. I have seen Latins pray the Akathist. When I don't have time to pray the Akathist, I can recite a shorter Litany, that was derived from the Akathist way back when.

If we are so insecure about our religious identity, then we will eventually lose it anyway or else find our way to joining Orthodox groups that are so insular that even mainstream Orthodoxy won't have much to do with them.

For me, our friend Serge sets an example for all of us to emulate.

He is deeply committed to Orthodoxy and is one of the most knowledgeable people I know on the subject of the Eastern Church (he knows a lot more on many other things too).

Yet, he is very conversant with the Western tradition, recites the Angelus and Rosary daily and somehow he doesn't feel this is a threat to his Byzantine-Slavonic liturgical identity.

The Russian Church was always prepared to welcome Roman Catholics and even allowed for an Orthodox Tridentine (and Anglican) Liturgy.

Russian emigres in France also developed devotion to St Theresa of Lisieux and even to Our Lady of Lourdes and La Sallette.

We should expand our horizons and have a look at both Western and Oriental traditions through the various Catholic Rites and Churches.

A Latin friend of mine asked me of I was going to come to Mass this Sunday to his Church again. I said that I wasn't as I was "doing" the Syrians that week.

Alex

Actually, Kyr Sheptytsky had a total of one Orthodox parish in his jurisdiction. If he said this, I wuld guess it would have been inthe theoretical rather than the practical.

K.

Dear Kurt,

Yes, I forgot to mention that this was for Ukrainian immigrants to western Catholic countries who petitioned him to ask for his guidance and approval on this.

In Poland, it was common practice to ask for one's baptismal certificate to see if one was RC or GC for employment purposes. Some, including my wife's grandfather, had his certificate formally changed to "RC" to get a job.

These and other pressures are what may have led Blessed Andrew to try and protect his people etc.

The Basilian Fathers, on the other hand, would have none of this and their prayerbooks taught that one was to attend an RC Church when a GC wasn't available - period.

Your wide knowledge and sympathetic understanding of the Ukrainian and other Eastern European Byzantine Catholic Churches is appreciated and gratefully acknowledged!

Alex

In Poland, it was common practice to ask for one's baptismal certificate to see if one was RC or GC for employment purposes. Some, including my wife's grandfather, had his certificate formally changed to "RC" to get a job.

This TICKS me off! Is this true? If so could you please explain further!


Thanks ahead of time!

Many European countries have or had religion listed on one's official documents. The result is (or the listing is a result of; this could be a chicken & egg thing) the tendency to see religion as an ethnicity apart from faith. It also facilated ethnic based discrimination.

Discrimination against Ukrainians and Lemkos in Poland was widespread during the interwar period and under the Communists. We now hope for a better day. See my post on Jackson-Vanik.

K.

Dear Friends,

It is as Kurt has said and Kurt's cause deserves ALL our support, to be sure. Thank you, Kurt, for making it your cause - and now ours.

Religion was always a good indicator of one's ethnicity, to be sure.

The Kozaks, when asked what their religion was, replied, "Orthodox." Their nationality? "Orthodox." Their language? "Orthodox."

This helped me to see more clearly why the Old Believers in Russia refused to accept a change to the spelling of the Name of Jesus in Slavonic as "heretical." (They spell it, "UCYC" rather than "ICYC.")

If one was a heretic, then one's language was also heretical, which is why Peter the Great was considered as tending towards heresy when he signed his name "Petrus" in the language he truly loved.

A priest I knew took his exams at the palace of Bl. Andrew Sheptytsky where a Polish Catholic priest was also in attendance.

The priest in question was, of course, Greek Catholic, but didn't want to fail his exams. The Polish priest then asked him which Rite, in his view, was "better," the Latin or the Greek (Byzantine).

"Why the Latin, Father!" the scared seminarian replied.

"The Latin Rite, my son, cannot hold a candle to the glory of the Greek Rite!" the RC priest replied.

You just don't know who your friends are anymore . . .

Alex

This helped me to see more clearly why the Old Believers in Russia refused to accept a change to the spelling of the Name of Jesus in Slavonic as "heretical." (They spell it, "UCYC" rather than "ICYC.")

Minor detail: I think it's Iсусъ vs. Iисусъ/Иисус (the last is modern Russian spelling). My crucifix says IHЦI, not ИHЦИ.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Serge,

Oh! My Old Believer calendar from Byelayakrinitsa has "Jesus" as "UCYC" in Slavonic (they do everything in church Slavonic it would seem!).

Is "U" pronounced as "I" in Slavonic or Russian? I just find this whole thing fascinating.

There was and is a western devotion of an Our Father and Hail Mary in honour of each letter in the name of "Jesus."

Alex

Oh! My Old Believer calendar from Byelayakrinitsa has "Jesus" as "UCYC" in Slavonic (they do everything in church Slavonic it would seem!).

Probably the old style rendered in modern Russian spelling. Since the Old Rite people in ROCOR, in Erie, PA, use English, why not?

Is "U" pronounced as "I" in Slavonic or Russian? I just find this whole thing fascinating.

"U' [backwards N; flip your browser's encoding to Cyrillic (Windows) to see this: И, и ] is "ee' or "yee': Ии is "eeyee'. In old Russian spelling, I, i is "ee' before a vowel.

There was and is a western devotion of an Our Father and Hail Mary in honour of each letter in the name of "Jesus."

Thanks, I never knew that.

http://oldworldrus.com

P.S. Вижу, что теперь с новым сервером можно писать здесь на форуме по-русски (и тоже по-украински ), правильно с буквами кириллическами. Очень хорошо!

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]