www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Stand or Kneel?

I have a question about the Divine Liturgy. In the missolet it says kneel during parts of the Divine Liturgy, but many stand. What are we suppose to do? Byzantine Newbie!

Saint Nicholas Please Pray For Us!
Ray S.

Stand.

O when, O when, are we going to get up to date Liturgy books?

Kneeling is reserved for times of contrition as in Lent and a few other times in the Eastern Church. Standing is the preferred mode of honor to God.

BTW I wish we could take the next step and eliminate pews.

Dan L

[This message has been edited by CD Lauffer (edited 05-20-2001).]

I'm glad you asked. The first time I went
to the liturgy, I started to kneel and friendly brothers gently held my arms and
shook their heads. What's funny for me is before I ever went I prayed al lot standing
and often facing East, not intentionally...
I'm still getting used to it.
Secco

We stand during the Liturgy a lot especially after Pascha.

Yes, let's get rid of pews! It's a Protestant invention. I love pewless churches.

Yes, we need to update our liturgy books...since the old ones probably were Latinized.

spdundas

Hello, At my Parish we kneel at all the proper times. The only times in which we do not kneel is from Pascha until Acsension day.
This is done to celebrate the Risen Christ.
Our parish will continue to kneel until the Bishops say we can not and even then there may be a fight over the issue. I am also fully in favor of kneelers and kneeling during the parts of the liturgy where it is required. We are after all Byzantine Catholics and not Russian Orthodox. I like being half way between east and west. A mixture of both faiths. Some say to get rid of the kneelers. Well do you want to go back to the days when women stood on the left and men on the right only ?? If we are to return to the old days there will have to be alot of changes and most of you would not like them and after a while would call for a return to the ways they are now. So I say leave them as the are . My oppinion !!

Yes, there were struggles when the kneelers were removed and new pews were purchased without them. Before that there were struggles when the statuary was removed and when English was introduced. Yet, if done slowly and with explanation things do change. I'm not opposed to women on one side and men on the other. As far as I'm concerned that is neither here nor there. In fact, my wife and I always worship separately. I'm a cantor.

But the real issue of pewless churches has to do with spirituality. If we are all one church let us all be one church. Let us avoid the separation between clergy and laity that pews force. Let us begin to move about and really get fully involved in worship and not be lulled into a spectator status.

It might be instructive to read Ezra and Nehemiah. The conservatives wanted things to remain as they were. After all, it had been three generations since there had been a kingdom in Israel. Three generations without the city of Jerusalem. Three generations without a temple. Who needed it, said the conservatives. We get along quite well without those things. We like the way things are. Who are these interlopers who are trying to force us to do things the old way? We don't like the old way.

Well, read the books. You will see what I mean.

Dan L

>>>We are after all Byzantine Catholics and not Russian Orthodox. I like being half way between east and west. A mixture of both faiths.

Response: Slava, I take it you don't ever read any Vatican Documents or read up on any liturgical matters discussed by the esteemed Fr. Taft, the expert, or perhaps you missed "the Courage to be OUrselves" by Archbishop Joseph Tawil (available online). We are NOT SUPPOSED to be a "mixture" of two "faiths"! First of all, Catholic and Orthodox are the same "faith"--Christianity--and second of all, the goal is to try and join the Catholic and Orthodox Churches back together--at which point we would be unified with all "those Orthodox" and expected to have a truly Byzantine liturgy.

That's what really gets me about people who think in the "BYzantine Catholics are a nice compromise" viewpoint--you try and remain Latinized to prove you are Catholic, but when the Pope himself tells you to delatinize, you drag your heels! Selective obedience! Please read the "Balamand Statement" signed by reps of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Kneelers DESTORY the whole worship experience! Hey--they're not even Catholic! Protestants invented them! Do you want your faith to be a little bit of Protestant thrown in too?? I guess you don't do full body Prostrations during Lent. Have you ever prayed the Canon of St. Andrew? Kind of hard to do 285 prostrations with kneelers.

Thank God we junked the pews!

anastasios

Some say to get rid of the kneelers. Well do you want to go back to the days when women stood on the left and men on the right only ?? If we are to return to the old days there will have to be alot of changes and most of you would not like them and after a while would call for a return to the ways they are now. So I say leave them as the are . My oppinion !![/B][/QUOTE]

Christ is Risen!

If it is any consolation, even the Eastern Orthodox have the same issue. After attending services in both schools of belief, I choose to align with the "No Pews" believers. I find that when I worship without pews, I am able to experience a more spiritual and physical worship of God fully using ALL of my senses.

As for the other issue "Well do you want to go back to the days when women stood on the left and men on the right only ??" Again I have worshipped in both the old and new way---I find that the men and women standing seperately eliminates a great deal of distraction during the liturgy.

It enables the man to properly support his wife by caring for the male children and gives the male children a great example of male spirituality. There is no stronger witness to the faith than when a boy sees his father actively participating in the act of worship. There is no stronger bond than can be built as the father teaches his son teh practices of teh Eastern Church. I find that boys in this environment learn to pray more quickly, learn to cross themselves reverently, and develop a very special relationship with Dad.

My daughters, likewise, surrounded by Godly women, have not questioned: why they should wear a head scarf? or What is the role of women in the church? and How does a woman serve in the church? because they were surrounded by the Godly women, and especially their mother modeling spiritual behavior and practice before them.

To both my sons and daughters, a visit to the monastery with their mother or dad was a special opportunity. My sons would come up to me and ask if they could go and spend some prayer time, "just me and you dad". How special are those memories.

My daughters would approach their Mother to see when she could arrange to go with them for a pilgrimage to the local women's monatsery to meet with the sisters and their spiritual mothers.

I don't know, but these things seem to be missing from the "newer" style parishes who have lost these traditions.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Christ is Risen!


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Syrian parish I attend does this (with pews unfortunately), and it's really lovely. Antiphonal singing sounds really good when the chanting is thrown back and forth between the two sides!

Just my two kopecks.

in Domino,

Edward

I believe there's something about there being neither male or female in the kingdom....

If you find that you pray better by standing separately from women, then by all means, do so. But please, don't be more Catholic than the Pope and require it. Or head coverings, etc.

Liturgy is a communal work. Community means all of us. The original separation of men and women in the synagogue was a reaction against the orgies common in pagan worship. I haven't observed any such activity in church lately...

Many newlywed couples in our parish have one "native" member, and one "newcomer." Being able to worship together builds their relationship, and means that the "newcomer" is with a loved one rather than people he or she may not know well. There's probably no theological value here, but there's a lot of comfort.

There's something very precious about worshiping together as a family. (If both of you are cradle Catholics, it may be a joy you take for granted.) For families with young, active children it's also very practical. Mom and Dad can work together to soothe, distract, calm, mediate, etc, and both (hopefully) get a chance to pray, too. We have one family at our church with six girls. They should be totally mom's responsibility in church? Thanks, but no thanks. And what about families where only one parent comes to church. Are the children of the "wrong sex" out of luck?

I'm glad that segregation by sex works for your family. It is by no means a universally shared preference.

In Christ,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Our congregation does stand separated by sex but that isn�t rigidly enforced.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

I think Sharon hit the nail on the head re:splitting of sexes.

It would have to be by choice in our culture, and not anyone would really choose it.

Even in the local Coptic Church, women sometimes stand next to their husbands. My girlfriend has a hard time going with me becuase she doesn't know anyone there and hey, I can't blame her for not wanting to sit alone for 2-3 hours!

anastasios

>>>I believe there's something about there being neither male or female in the kingdom....<<<

The custom of separating men and women on opposite sides of the aisle began in the 4th century, when John Chrysostom instituted the practice because of the scandalous behavior of the people during the liturgy (and remember, this was the "Golden Age" of liturgy, too!).

Stuart,

I was under the impression that it began with the Jews, and St. John C renewed the practice.


Best,

Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

I am by no means a liturgist, but I would answer the question thus:

1. It is appropriate to stand rather than kneel on all Sundays (except Pentecost when there are special "kneeling prayers" at the end of the Liturgy) and during Easter and the following days until Ascension day.

2. On weekdays it is appropriate to kneel except during the 40 day period between Easter and Ascension day.

3. If you are lucky enough to be in a chapel with out kneelers and pews, it is appropriate to do a prostration and remain prostrated during the entire time alloted for kneeling. (that is on days other than Sunday.)

In my current parish (the only Byzantine Catholic church for miles), everyone kneels all the time. I sometimes stand in the "overflow folding chair section" in the rear of the church in order to have more room to bow and do prostrations. Also I sometimes kneel on Sundays too when I regularly wouldn't prefer to as not to be a "sore thumb" or distraction for the other parishoners at the Consecration.

One question for you Ray, to think about is, which position (kneeling or standing) is the most appropriate for you at this point? If in a BC church, standing minimizes your sense of the Sacred at this point in your journey, then by all means choose the other option and kneel.

Hope this helps,
Christos Voskres!
Steve

Reply to Anastasios ,

If you do not like pews so much as to raise a big point over it, then why don't you go to a R.O.C.O.R. Parish who view themselves as "The Real Orthodox" ? They have no pews they also have preserved the old fashioned ways in the Russian style to the fullest. I am not Russian and neither is my church. I am Rusyn and my church , the Byzantine church predates the changes of Patriarch Nikon of the Russian church. He changed the Russian churches. Our Rusyn/Ruthenian ways are way older than that. Come up here to Pa one weekend and I will show you Rusyn churches that were here WITH pews before any Orthodox church was here. And yes we do do Prostrations during Lent. If you remove the pews here in America that will only enstrange the church even more so. Also then what about our Prostopinije chant? Should we drop congregational singing in favor of the Russian choirs only singing. Thats what goes on in Pewless Russian Rocor churches. What about children who would not be able to see the Liturgy do to their small size? What about the people always standing near the back at the doors always rendering the church crowded so you can not get to your saint's icon to light a candle? Do not compare me to dragging of feet and Latinizations. How do you know what was a Latinization verses a Russification? How come the Johnstown diocese said" Neither with Rome nor with Moscow?? Maybe you should come up here to the "Old country" in Pa and see how the old timers realy do it. I like the halfway between east and west church. My family after all is from the Carpathians and not Moscow. Have you ever seen the churches in Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine.? They have pews and both statues as well as Icon screens. So overall what I am trying to say is that I as well as others like Our churches the way that they are Eastern with a little bit of Rome. Is that so wrong ??
Afterall Budapest is closer to Ruthenia than is Moscow. St's Cyril and Methodios got the Pope's blessing when Moscow was still a Viking trading town. Nothing Personal here Russian Orthodox churches are very beutiful in their full style of Pewless worship. But our Ruthenian churches are just that Americanised Rusyn as well as Hungarian and Croatian and Slovak and not Russian.

Christ is Risen!


I suspect our friend should see an Old Rite parish - they've preserved the old Russian style best. More on this later.


Let's not fall into the silly error of thinking Ruthenian use is the last word in Byzantine usage, shall we? Whatever Patriarch Nikon did, he certainly did not put pews in or introduce the Obikhod melodies for the choir. Not all of the Ruthenian usages are older than the Russian usages. Some are, I agree, but by no means all. I'd like to see some shaven Basilian priest try to convince me that those disgusting Molebens to the Sacred Heart or Low Litugies are authentic Byzantine-Ruthenian practices.



Let's not generalise. I've seen some ROCOR parishes with impressive congregational singing. What does one do with children? That's easy - families with children go to the front! It's every pastor's duty to make sure he teaches proper pewless-church manners: families with children go in front and don't crowd anywhere.


How do we know? Compare your usages with the Old Rite. The Old Rite is known for tenaciously preserving the smallest bits of ritual and tradition - they're very useful. If you consider all things from Russia suspect, then have a look at St Peter Mohyla's Liturgikon and Trebnyk - the facsimiles were published some years back. Those two books surprised everyone - some things we thought were russifications/latinisations turned out to be authentic Ruthenian use, and vice-versa. Neither Rome not Moscow is all well and good, but one must remember the Johnstown people wanted a jurisdiction that wouldn't take away their horrid latinisations - Constantinople allows pretty much anything to happen as long as one commemorates them. See how the 'old-timers' do it? On their knees (on sunday no less) with rosaries in hand, reading indulgenced prayers to the Sacred Heart (byzantinised only by adding i vo vieki viekov at the end)? That's something I saw all the time in London's Ukrainian Cathedral, and a sight I could well do without.


They should dump the pews and statues.


YES. It's quite wrong. Until we recover our liturgical patrimony, we're a handicapped people. Rosaries and benediction of the Blessed Sacrament are nice, but keep them in Latin parishes - they have no place in ours.


I suspect this is less about being fully-Byzantine than not wanting to be Russian. Nevertheless Slava represents the latinised mentality and perhaps there are more of them around than we think. I'm not advocating having a secret police that tears rosaries out of the hands of old ladies, but we really should phase these things out slowly.

Yours in Domino,

Edward

The Tsar is dead. And we aren't anywhere near Budapest (unless there's one tucked away in some small valley in Pennsylvania.)

The key factor is that we live in America. When our ancestors came over here from where-ever and when-ever, they began to worship in rectory living rooms or later in church buildings they bought from somebody else. (My grandparents' church was built Unitarian, converted to a synagogue and later to an Orthodox church.) It has pews -- big long ones with NO center aisle -- which means the Great Entrance takes fully three minutes. It has balconies on both sides; a MASSIVE Hook and Hastings pipe organ (on the historic registry) and white frosted windows.

Our ancestors worshipped wherever they could and made do. A key point is: in contemporary American culture, there are things that are considered 'churchy'. And these things, like steeples, organs, stained glass, bell towers (with those abominable canned tapes), choir robes with stole-doo-dahs and tassels, microphoned lecterns, 'Roman collars', and the much-maligned pews, have had a profound affect upon ALL religious communities in our country. Even the Jews have 'fallen victim' to this American Religious culture.

The question is: is it necessary for us to abjure our culture's perception of what is 'religious'? Or can we get away with integrating what is in our contemporary culture with our inherited religious cultural values?

Too many folks seem to think that we should be emulating what was 'our tradition' in X year and in Y location. Some would have us eschew electric lights; others have a problem with central heating or air-conditioning. Some would have us remove any kind of seating. Still others want us to chant in foreign tongues because it seems to be more 'holy' or 'pleasing to God'.

Elsewhere in the forum there is raging debate about evangelization and what we have to do to spread the word about the Gospel of Christ. Isn't that the purpose of the ekklesia/community? Do we really want to invite 21st century unchurched Americans to a 2-hour worship service, where they can't comprehend the language, and can't even sit down? For a historical, theatrical experience of X century in Y country, sure. For a vibrant faith-experience? I don't think we'd be anywhere near the mark.

I love history, cultural anthropology, music and languages. But for preaching the Gospel of Christ, I've got to get beyond my own parochial interests and ecclesiastical fetishes, and truly investigate how I can best bring the unchurched into the fold of the praying baptized. Otherwise we're just 'playing baptized'.

Christ is Risen! (For another 2 days!)

Mr. Yong Your reply to mine acts as if I have a disease comprable to Leprosy or something and you call it "Latinisation". I may be wrong here but I suspect by your name that you are not originally or may not at all be Byzantine Catholic. So how can you at all condemn me or my views without knowing where or what I am from ? You do not know my family or background or things that motivate my thinking. Obviously many of us Byzantine rite Catholics are comfortable with the way things are or were. Are you saying that our previous Bishops were in Error when they allowed such "Latinisations" into our Churches? What are your comments on the great and well loved Bishop Basil Takach I wonder ? The only people I see that are wanting to so called "Change our churches back to the way they used to be" are newby converts mostly from Protestant faiths. All I am saying is that I am comfortable with the way things are done now and It is my choice to like them or hate them whether or not you do . My Church has responded magnificiantly in the restructuring process since Vatican 2. We have Liturgies every day as well as on Sat. Evening and two on Sunday. One of which is fully Slavonic. Our parish is vibrant and healthy {Praise be to GOD} We have Catholics of all rights attending as well as Orthodox too. So just to suit the fresh converts I am not going to throw out all of the things I was taught all thru Cathecism and First Holy Communion just like that . I do not think it is wrong to have pews or a couple of statues as long as I here my Liturgy sung and smell the Incense while looking at the icons on the screen as I pray..
It is pure testimony to me of a "Catholic" church in the universal meaning of the word.
I dare you to go to presant day Ukraine in the Carpathians and say to them to phase out the Rosary or get rid of your statues Mr Yong. Have you ever seen the Ukrainian version of the Fatima Icon ?? You call it Latinisation , I call it ecumenical, where East and West meet. Truly Catholic.

And just when I thought I'd read/heard it all, along comes this thread. We've got every opinion under the sun ranging from that "disgusting Sacred Heart moleben" to advocating emulation of the East-West hybrid Byzantine Catholic Church as supposedly exists in Europe.

But somehow in the midst of all this "PC" artificially de-latinized Byzantine Christianity (that truly exists only in cyberspace) you all missed the fact that several posters are under the impression that the "no Paschal kneeling rule" ends at Ascension!! Sorry, we have kneeling prayers at Vespers on Holy Pentecost, which is when we resume prayer "on bended knee."

I went to Liturgy on Sunday morning here in "old country" far northeast PA, in a "Ukrainian" parish that is the last holdout in the Archdiocese of Phila. and refuses to add "Ukrainian" to its title (its cornerstone reads, "Russian Greek Catholic Church" with "Uniat" added in later).

There was no incense, the people knelt at all the "proper" times (even though it is Paschaltide), there was a BVM statue beside the ikonostas (all "Mayed" up), a deacon assisted the priest, and the whole Liturgy was recited EXCEPT for the Christos Voskreses. (They have a cantor, in case you were wondering, but all he did was chant the Epistle.) Of course, no ektenias were omitted, the Anaphora was said aloud, and the propers of the 6th Paschal Sunday were all taken, so the caricature "low Mass" it authentically was not.

Since I fancy myself as only semi-Latinized, I sat rather than knelt, so as not to call undue attention to myself.

Oh, and God forbid, this Wednesday evening they're having recitation of the Rosary followed by the (disgusting?) Moleben to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Yet, I (as a stranger there) was greeted with warmth and openness the likes of which I've never found in a parish in the "new world."

I guess I should organize a field trip of the whole lot of you to go and teach those poor unenlightened Latinized people how to be Byzantine Catholics... maybe they could teach you all a thing or too as well.

[This message has been edited by RichC (edited 05-22-2001).]

Joj, Boz~e mij... my memory must be going in my old age. You know what they say, "starost' ne radost'" (with apologies to the moderator, who is probably lost now).

I almost forgot. The above-mentioned parish also recited "filioque" in their (hybrid?) creed, and the people genuflect before seating themselves in the pews.

I am **NEVER** going there again!!

And these things, like steeples, organs, stained glass, bell towers (with those abominable canned tapes), choir robes with stole-doo-dahs and tassels, microphoned lecterns, 'Roman collars', and the much-maligned pews, have had a profound affect upon ALL religious communities in our country.

Not ours.

The truth Edward Yong is telling, as are other Byzantine Catholics here, is that we �Constantinopolitan Christians� (as Dr John calls those of us of the Orthodox tradition) don�t need those foreign imports from the Latins and Protestants, any more than you need to rip out iconostases to �look Catholic� (ugh). If Vietnamese Buddhists and Arab and black convert Muslims don�t have to affect these things to be really American (despite assimilationist nonsense from some people), why should we?

Serge
a born American

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 05-22-2001).]

Are you saying that our previous Bishops were in Error when they allowed such "Latinisations" into our Churches?

Excuse me, as this question was directed to Edward, but yes. It was a mistake.

What are your comments on the great and well loved Bishop Basil Takach I wonder?

If he had defended the agreements of Brest-Litovsk and U�horod against infringement by Cum data fuerit, the 1929 ban on ordaining married men in North America, the Chornock schism (now the Johnstown Diocese) never would have happened and your Church would be considerably bigger and stronger today as a result.

I pray the Rosary at home and do sympathize with the older �Greek Catholics� who do such devotions. You also have a point about converts �telling you what to do�. But ultimately, objectively, they�re right.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 05-22-2001).]

Slava,

You should really go read the accounts of Ezra-Nehemiah and how the faithful tried to rebuild the city and the Temple. Read how much grief they got when they tried to bring back the true authentic ways against the "conservatives" who wanted little to do with the "new" ideas brought by the "newbies".

The bottom line: Will we be true to our patrimony or not? Will we be true to the call of the Holy Father to reclaim our true patrimony or not?

It is faithful both to the identity God has given us and true to our Pope. To be sure the changes should be carefully and gently done but they cannot be done without opposition. Nevertheless they must be done.

Why? Because our mission is to help reunite East and West. We cannot do it unless we are honest about who we are.

Dan Lauffer

>> Will we be true to the call of the Holy Father to reclaim our true patrimony or not? <<


Of course, you mean the present Holy Father.


Many Greek Orthodox activists want to know what Byzantine Catholics will do if the next, or any future Holy Father, agrees with Slava that Byzantine Catholicism should be what it currently is: a hybrid of the East and the West that, to some, is neither Catholic or Orthodox.


Also, what guarantees are there (for the Orthodox) that future popes, not so favorably sympathetic to the East, will not wreak havoc within the Eastern Christian communities by forcing Latin practices or ideology upon them?


Under the current papal system, there can be no guarantees that the rights of the Orthodox will be protected; this fact is the most legitimate reason to eschew even the thought of union/reunion.


"A fat fly in the honey," Greeks would say.


Also, in reference to Greek attitudes toward reunion with Catholicism, it has been posted that a small majority (56.8%) were favorably disposed toward "ultimate" reunion (according to a recent poll). However, these numbers quickly change to the negative when specific questions are asked, such as:


---Do you believe divorce should be banned by a Greek Church in union with Rome?

---Do you believe birth control should be banned by a Greek Church in union with Rome?

---Do you believe the Pope of Rome should have the right to intervene in the affairs of the Greek Church?

---etc.


The devil of division does seem to be in the details.


Vasili
---






[This message has been edited by Vasili (edited 05-22-2001).]

Slava wrote:
If you do not like pews so much as to raise a big point over it, then why don't you go to a R.O.C.O.R. Parish who view themselves as "The Real Orthodox" ? They have no pews they also have preserved the old fashioned ways in the Russian style to the fullest.

Anastasios: what do pews have to do with Russsian vs. Rusyn?

Slava: I am not Russian and neither is my church.

Anastasios: Hey, we have something in common because I'm not Russian either!

Slava: I am Rusyn and my church , the Byzantine church predates the changes of Patriarch Nikon of the Russian church.

Anastasios: Well I'm not ethnically Rusyn but my girlfriend is a Slav and I can conversationally speak Slovak and Old Church Slavonic a little, and when I tried to read a Rusyn newspaper I understood the basic jist of what was going on. Do you speak Rusyn?

Slava: He changed the Russian churches. Our Rusyn/Ruthenian ways are way older than that.

Anastasios: Ahhhh but he did NOT take out the pews---they were never there my friend--in our Church, the Rusyn Church, OR the Latin Church!

Slava: Come up here to Pa one weekend and I will show you Rusyn churches that were here WITH pews before any Orthodox church was here.

Anastasios: How is that a valid argument??? If Carpatho Rusyn Catholic Churches were in America first with pews before Orthodox Churches were in America without pews, that does not affect the fact that in Europe the first churches did not have pews!


Slava: If you remove the pews here in America that will only enstrange the church even more so.

Anastasios: We did, and everything works fine...

Slava: Also then what about our Prostopinije chant? Should we drop congregational singing in favor of the Russian choirs only singing.

Anastasios: Actually I prefer Prostopinije to Russian Choirs. Of course, I have been at Carpatho Rusyn Churches where only the choir sings, too!

Slava: Thats what goes on in Pewless Russian Rocor churches.

Anastsios: what are you talking about?? Just because I advocate pewless churches does not make me some sort of cryto Russian! you assume that the Russian Church is some monolith, too. For instance, if I don't like pews, I *must* hate singing because that's what "those Russians" do. You seem to be harboring some anti-Russian racism, at that. Stop stereotyping me.

Slava: What about children who would not be able to see the Liturgy do to their small size? What about the people always standing near the back at the doors always rendering the church crowded so you can not get to your saint's icon to light a candle?

Anastasios: Bring the kids up front. What about the prostrations I can't do due to someone's pew in front of me? What about trying to get around those who aren't going forward to receive? Without pews I can move about freely!


Slava: How do you know what was a Latinization verses a Russification?

Anastasios: It's called historical research. Fr. Taft and many others could assist you with that. You can read their works.

Slava: How come the Johnstown diocese said" Neither with Rome nor with Moscow??

Anastasios: You are rambling now. I don't particularly like Moscow. I am for an independent Ukrainian patriarchate, too.

Slava: Maybe you should come up here to the "Old country" in Pa and see how the old timers realy do it.

Anastasios: I did that and noticed a lot of their kids going to Roman Catholic Churches.

Slava: I like the halfway between east and west church. My family after all is from the Carpathians and not Moscow.

Anastasios: Give it up.

Slava: Have you ever seen the churches in Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine.? They have pews and both statues as well as Icon screens.

Anastasios: Why yes I have! Hey, here's a bishop of our church wearing one of those "funny Russian hats!" :-0 http://www.rcc.sk/kbs/biskupi/chautur.html Just because they have pews in Slovakia doesn't mean that's the older practice those. And Not all parishes have them. How many have you gone to?

Slava: So overall what I am trying to say is that I as well as others like Our churches the way that they are Eastern with a little bit of Rome. Is that so wrong ??

Anastasios: Well, liturgically, yes. Private devotion, no.

Slava: Afterall Budapest is closer to Ruthenia than is Moscow. St's Cyril and Methodios got the Pope's blessing when Moscow was still a Viking trading town.

Anastasios: I guess you forgot that Sts. Cyril and Methodius (no apostrophe like you wrote by the way) were Greeks. Many Greek Churches in Greece don't pews, either. I guess Patriarch Nikon forced them to add them.

Slava: Nothing Personal here Russian Orthodox churches are very beutiful in their full style of Pewless worship. But our Ruthenian churches are just that Americanised Rusyn as well as Hungarian and Croatian and Slovak and not Russian

Anastasios: Russian does not equal Orthodox. Sorry, you need to read up a little more.

anastasios

Dear Vasili,

You are right, of course.

The paradigm of church unity we Byz Catholics are under is still very Romanist.

Unity cannot imply absorption or a "takeover" of the East by Rome (as was happening at Florence even before the final union documents were signed!).

Rome has a very bureaucratic view of Church unity where one Church means one Church administration etc.

Apart from the sad experience of the Eastern Catholics, there is also that of the Western Rites that were suppressed by Rome as well.

Unity, I believe, will come through an inner conversion of heart according to God's way, not ours.

Alex

Once again, Dr. John, you attempt to end discussion on an issue by claiming that a discussion about pews "has nothing to do with Evangelization" or "contemporary 21st century culture."

You are right that it is not a major issue. But it is relevent and we are discussing it here. No one is going to stop evangelizing becuase we are busy throwing out pews. We can do more than one thing at a time, my friend.

I note an interesting paradox in your writings. You have an almost god-like veneration of our ancestors (rightly so), but then you ridcule those who would like to return to authenitic Byzantine practice. Perhaps you mean those who push every silly nuance like "pronouncing the v in viki vikov the 'correct' unoverly palatized Russian way". I'd agree with you there. But wanting to reestablish practices that are authentic to the Byzantine Rite DO have relevence to our times.

As far as not adhering to our culture's religious perceptions: it is my observation that when you are different, you attract those dissatisfied with the current mainline Protestant stuff. No one in our church (which regularly attracts converts) ever complains that we don't have pews, that no one wears choir robes, etc. We don't need to "fit in." The Byzantine Rite is so beautiful that people are drawn to it. So let's not water it down in a misguided attemtp to fit in and get more people. It will only make people think there is no difference between us and a Baptist church.

Dr J: Too many folks seem to think that we should be emulating what was 'our tradition' in X year and in Y location.

Anastasios: They didn't do it that way for no good reason, Dr. John. And us trying to restore that is a good thing. It's not about slavishly copying someone else's worship; it's about being part of the "natural flow" which is the Byzantine Rite and which has spawned countless generations.

Dr. J: Some would have us eschew electric lights; others have a problem with central heating or air-conditioning.

Anastasios: What?? Oh come on, you must be joking.

Dr. John: Some would have us remove any kind of seating.

Anastasios: That was a slick and subtle trick. Lump anti-pew people with those who don't like AC. You are incredibly condescending sometimes.

Dr. J: Still others want us to chant in foreign tongues because it seems to be more 'holy' or 'pleasing to God'.

Anastsios: Well I agree with you there.

Dr. J: Do we really want to invite 21st century unchurched Americans to a 2-hour worship service, where they can't comprehend the language, and can't even sit down?

Yes. 2 hour standing services are great. There are chairs on the side for those who are tired. I agree with the point about foreign languages, though.

Dr. J: For a historical, theatrical experience of X century in Y country, sure. For a vibrant faith-experience? I don't think we'd be anywhere near the mark.

Anastasios: Why don't you just become a Novus Ordo liberal, Dr. John?? Hey, you'd fit right in becuase you could just make up the rules as you go. Who needs rubrics and texts anyway? Those are just dinousaur holdovers from the dark ages!


I love history, cultural anthropology, music and languages. But for preaching the Gospel of Christ, I've got to get beyond my own parochial interests and ecclesiastical fetishes, and truly investigate how I can best bring the unchurched into the fold of the praying baptized. Otherwise we're just 'playing baptized'.

Anastasios: I agree. That's why we need to restore the Byznatine Rite to its fullest--becuase the parishes that do are gaining many converts, and the ones that don't slowly die out.

Christ is risen!
anastasios

Anastasios,

Not to leap in with both feet, but there really are parishes who don't use electricity, AC, etc. Dunno how intimately that's linked to evangelization, tho' somewhere along the line it probably is.

Everybody's got an idea of what is holiest & most beautiful.


Cheers,


Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Good morning,

I have seen pictures of a Maronite Catholic Church in Milawukee in the 1920s that looked identical to a Latin Rite church. On this particular Sunday, the children of the parish were celebrating First Holy Communion. Never mind that in the Maronite Church, as in all Byzantine Churches, the Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation [Confirmation to us Latin Catholics] and Communion were to be administered to infants. It is sad when the Eastern Catholic Churches have to make themselves look Latin to try and 'fit in.'

Archbishop Nicholas Elko has been categorized as a 'harsh Westerner' as to what he did to the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church. For instance, such Latin Rite traditions such as Stations of the Cross and the Rosary were mandated for Ruthenian Catholics during Archbishop Elko's tenure. So, to many Latin Rite Catholics [due to Archbishop Elko's Westernizations] Byzantine Catholics are, if Latin Rite Catholics know anything about Byzantine Catholics, Byzantine Catholics are 'Catholics with a funny Mass and perogies' and that is so sad.

After Archbishop Elko went to Rome to be the ordaining bishop for the Byzantine Rite, he became an auxiliary bishop to the Latin Rite archbishop of Chicago. He is buried in Cincinnati, not at Uniontown.

I have a friend who recently switched from being Latin Rite to Ruthenian who attended Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. He went to three Ruthenian Catholic parishes while attending SVC. Two of these Ruthenian parishes looked like a pre-Vatican II Latin Rite church - no iconstatus, no icons, communion rail, high altar, tabernacle, et cetera.


The Eastern Catholic churches in union with the Holy See have been instructed by the Holy See to return to their traditions. Some Byzantine Catholics who were growing up during the Elko years do not know their rightful traditions and want to stick to the hybrid Latinized church that they know. These people resisted Metropolitan Judson's efforts to reclaim the traditions of the East and to make the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church more welcoming of all and not just a church for people of Slavic origin.

From what I have read, the Eparchy of Van Nuys has been the Ruthenian eparchy that has been most open to being more of an inclusive Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church. The Van Nuys eparchy has ordained a Hispanic as a priest and, from what I have been told, also celebrates the Divine Liturgy in Spanish and some of the Asian languages as well.

Dear Michael,

I agree with what you say.

However, we have in our parish of St Nicholas in Toronto the tradition of "First Confession" in imitation of the Latin "First Holy Communion."

It is a tremendous event in the life of our entire community, focused on the young people when the parishes are filled to overflowing for the day, with family picnics and parties following.

The problem is, if someone could come up with a practice to replace this with, fine. Otherwise, it is something that is here with us to stay, Latinist or not!

Alex

Alex,

I do have something to replace "first confession". Actually, Father Loya does. It's called first public profession of faith. He suggests, "when we celebrate first confession we are celebrating the fall of humankind in which sin entered the world. Why celebrate that?" He has asked me to look into working out something that might be used to celebrate "First public Profession."

Any ideas would be most welcome.

Dan Lauffer

Reply to Anastasios:

Ok Mr Obi Wan of the Byzantines Let's say that you are the newly elected Metropolitan. What would you do to "Reform"
our churches from the evils of "Latinisation" since you are so properly educated down in Raleigh. I think you dislike the Roman church and vent it thru the Byzantine rite. Go ahead tell me what you would do and also tell me how you would make all of us go along with it. Tell it to a Ukrainian Baba that she needs to throw away her rosary beads because she has been "Latinised". Tell that to my Grandparents as well when you are removing the pews because the Greeks didn't have them 1000 years ago . The point is we have them now and this is what the church has evolved into. This is how it fits in with the melting pot of American life. Ofcourse Latinisations crept in. Our church was in Hungary for 1000 years. If you do not like pews well good for you. Our church has them and Likes them. But do tell me what you would do if you were the head honcho. I wanna hear this. I also want you to tell me what the church in Ruthenia was like 1000 years ago and back it up with facts. The truth is it doesn't matter what it was like 1000 years ago. This is a different world.
What about the calendar ?? Julian or Gregorian ?? Should we have segregated churches again Women on Left and fully headcovered with men on right ??? What about Slavonic ?? Our people used to say that the only Language in church to be allowed was Slavonic. They used to say English was a heretic language. You gonna re-implement that too?? Why stop there let's really make our churches like the old timer Orthodox and go with the "Domostroi" rules. Now that would really rid us of the evils of "Latinisation".

Let's pray for each other. :}

Slava,

You seem awfully testy.

We are evolving to be sure. Right now we are evolving into something that looks more like what the Church was before 1054 and before its Americanization. America needs an alternative Spirituality. So God will raise us up in part to provide that alternative. If you are a part of that wonderful. If not well perhaps God has a different and positive plan for you.

But why be so testy?

Dan Lauffer

Ok, so do we Stand or Kneel?

Glory to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is risen from the dead.

Welcome, Ray!

In response to your question: In the Byzantine tradition, Catholic or Orthodox, the faithful stand throughout the Liturgy. A deep bow is made during the consecration. Of course, people often sit for the sermon, and often for the epistle reading as well. We do kneel sometimes, and we prostrate ourselves, but this is usually during times like Lent and is not what we do at every Sunday Liturgy.

Of course, if a person is elderly, infirm, or tired, or is on crutches, or is very pregnant :-) , or for some similar reason, they are welcome to sit down. The point of standing is not to stand until your feet really hurt; the point of standing is to show that we are joyful about our Lord's resurrection. :-)

In many Byzantine Catholic parishes, you will find people kneeling during the consecration or sitting for much of the Liturgy (like during the litanies). Though this is very common, it is unfortunately not really the traditional Byzantine manner of liturgical worship. Kneeling during the consecration, for example, was borrowed from the Roman or Latin manner of liturgical worship. So while kneeling during the consecration is a good thing, it is part of the Latin tradition, not the Byzantine. Latinizations like this are like having two full jigsaw puzzles with all the pieces of the first puzzle being perfect for the first puzzle, and all the pieces of the second puzzle being perfect for the second puzzle, and having someone take a perfectly good piece out of the first puzzle and trying to replace it with a differently-shaped piece from the second puzzle. We have a Roman jigsaw puzzle and a Byzantine jigsaw puzzle, and the piece of the Roman puzzle called "kneeling during the consecration" (among other pieces) was put into the Byzantine puzzle in place of the Byzantine puzzle piece called "standing and bowing", where it just doesn't quite fit. (Pews in our churches are an example of this...the Byzantine way of worship, with its bowing and prostrations, was not developed with pews in mind. They get in the way, and I myself have accidentally knocked into them while bowing. :-)) This switching of pieces was done a while back in a misguided attempt to make ourselves like other Catholics around us, most of whom were Roman, and it lingers to this day, though we are slowly but surely beginning to follow the exhortations of our fathers the bishops, the Pope of Rome with whom we are in union, and Bishop Tawil, who wrote the excellent letter "The Courage to be Ourselves", and are returning to the richness of our true liturgical and traditional heritage.

I hope this has been helpful! I apologize for the long, pedantic digression on Latinizations, but I thought some clarification was necessary given the turmoil in this thread over Latinization.

I'm so glad you came to a Byz. Divine Liturgy! Did you like it? Had you been before? Have you gone again? I'd love to hear about it! :-)

God bless you, and again, I hope this helps!

Liz the Russian Byzantine Catholic :-)

Dear Dan,

Now this is truly a wonderful idea! You are absolutely right, why celebrate the First Confession? Depressing at best . . .

How could something like this be worked into a liturgical service, or perhaps be a part of the Divine Liturgy?

Perhaps this could be LIKE a monastic profession, with the children wearing white baptismal-style robes with red crosses on the back, holding a candle with perhaps a prayer rope, a Gospel etc.?

I just LOOOVE this!

Does anyone have any further comments about Dan's brilliant idea?

Alex

Dear Slava,

If you are "testy," I think you have a right to be.

The adoption of spiritual practices from other sources has a long history in the Slavic Churches.

As Dr. John has said before, the national-cultural question of a people's survival plays an important part here.

In areas of Eastern Europe where Russification was a concern, Roman Catholic practices such as the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, Eucharistic Adoration and the like actually contributed to a kind of cultural resistance against it.

We had a gentleman who said he was from the ROCOR and, judging from his invective against Ukrainian identity,(which he called "Galician") he must have been .

Again, in the Carpathians where there was a tremendous pressure to become Roman Catholic, strong Orthodox practices were maintained to protect oneself against cultural absorption in that way. The Three Bar Cross is prominent there in a way it isn't in eastern Ukraine, for example.

The practice of the Rosary is something that was definitely brought into Orthodoxy through the Unia and the Uniates returning to Orthodoxy.

Yet, this practice was adopted privately by many Russian Orthodox monks and nuns, even the great St Seraphim of Sarov. A legend grew up that the practice came to the East in the eighth century, before it came into the West!

I don't think we ever need to try and change people's devotion to the Rosary. Fr. Serge Keleher himself told me he practiced it and would never get people to stop saying it.

The East-West "hybrid" doesn't bother me. It exists in varying degrees throughout the Ukrainian Catholic parishes in Canada (except at St Elias' in Brampton which sets a Byzantine example unequalled anywhere).

The Ukrainian Church defended its people and preserved their very existence.

Ultimately, the purity of Byzantine tradition is not the main concern of this Church (Vatican imperatives notwithstanding).

It is what best expresses, protects and promotes Ukrainian Christian heritage, Rosary, Molebens et al.

You don't have to be Ukrainian to appreciate this, but it helps .

Slava, God bless you!

Alex

Great post, Liz. Reminded me of a couple of my little son's puzzles - different pictures, cut with the same dies. Amazing pictures you can assemble!


To the matter of celebrating "first confession" I think it isn't a Good Thing, but not for the reasons given. Personally, I think that assuming that All Children are ready for this mystery on a given convenient-to-the-parish date (and none are ready until that date) is a rather stupid one-size-fits-all herd mentality, rather at odds with reality and tradition. In most places it really IS a last-gasp attempt to have some date the parents & grandparents can dress the kid up, take lots of pictures and throw a big party. No mistake, I have absolutely no problem with celebrating (in both senses)the Most Neglected Mystery - Sin is sad; repentance and forgiveness bring healing and joy - but this isn't the way to do it.

Never considered a "solemn profession of faith." Hmmmmmmm. Interesting idea - is there any foundation for it in tradition? I know we all would like some rite-of-passage-ish event to latch onto, but is it really compatible with the idea that our kids are fully initiated members of the Church once they are baptized, chrismated & communicated? Jus' wonderin'


Cheers on a sunny Wednesday, and until tomorrow...

CHRIST IS RISEN!!


Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Dear Sharon,

Liz's post reminds me of Tsar Alexis IV, the father of Peter the Great.

He would make 1,000 prostrations daily during the services in Church and 1,500 during Lent.

Two Orthodox clerics from Antioch visited him and attended the Hours with him.

They found the length of the services, through which they stood, to be too much. They spent two days in bed and suffered from leg cramps for about a week afterwards.

They said that if anyone wanted to "shorten their days" they should go to Russia and "stand as a holy man."

Pews aren't the only things some people won't stand for

Alex

>>>What would you do to "Reform"
our churches from the evils of "Latinisation" since you are so properly educated down in Raleigh.<<<

Actually, there are many documents available that lay out precisely what is to be done. We can start with the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches, which enjoins us to restore the fullness of our patrimony, not only in liturgy, but also in spirituality, doctrine, theology and discipline. Then you can look to 1990 Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches, which lays out the same thing in the form of liturgical prescriptions. If those aren't clear enough, there is the 1996 Instruction for Implementation of the Liturgical Provisions of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches, promulgated by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. But perhaps the first step of all would be to require all eparchies and parishes to follow the provisions of the 1944 Ordo Celebrationis of the Ruthenian Recension for Orthros, Vespers, and the Divine Liturgy, and their associated liturgical texts.

This would be accompanied by an intensive course in liturgical theology for all priests, bishops, deacons and religious educators, which would then be transmitted through courses in liturgy and spirituality for adults and children.

Really rather simple, actually. The only thing we have lacked all along is the leadership to do it.

>>>Ok, so do we Stand or Kneel? <<<

On Sundays, you stand, except for the Epistle and the Homily; on other days of the week, do whatever the Spirit moves you to do. Just keep your clothes on, OK?

>>>Now this is truly a wonderful idea! You are absolutely right, why celebrate the First Confession? Depressing at best . . .<<<

Well, when you think about it, we are really celebrating the day that our children OFFICIALLY become sinners. We parents, of course, know that they have been de facto sinners for a long time already.

What I find amusing is the fact that the entire "Age of Reason" argument is entirely spurious, a post hoc attempt by the Roman Church to rationalize their abandonment in the 13th century (entirely by accident, it would seem) of their age-old tradition of administering the Eucharist to infants, just as ever other Church did. When the Latins restore infant communion and the integrity of the three-fold sacraments of initiation, what then will latinized Byzantines do? Continue yearning for a medieval latinism that even the Latin Church admits was a mistake?

Dear Stuart,

Leadership, yes.

But I tried something in my parish when our liturgical services resembled a bad cake - too much shortening.

I started a petition among the people, but with some explanation as to why we should have the Second Antiphon back and related Ektenias.

The response was excellent and we now have a much restored Liturgy. Our priests still resist other restorations. In my former parish, our priest said he would never do the Holy Thursday Washing of the Feet ("not as long as I am still a priest").

The Vatican also has ways of dealing with an intransigent Ukrainian Catholic Church that refuses to open and close the iconostasis doors - it basically forbids this practice from going over to other Churches!

But a major change was made when we stopped having the recitation of the Rosary in public.

Now can you boast of something similar in your parish, Stuart?

Alex

With regard to Dan's idea, some Syrian Churches do something like this. Usually during a pastoral visitation by the bishop, a bunch of adolescent age kids are asked to stand before the steps of the altar after Qurbana. Some introductory prayers are said after the Qawmo, as well as prayers for the kids, and litanies, and they are "confirmed". Actually, it's called a self-dedication servic, but some call it confirmation, since we use the term Mooron for Chrismation. It includes an exhortation by the bishop. Purely non-sacramental, non-liturgical service, but the bishop likes it, and so do the people, so it'll stay.

>>>Now this is truly a wonderful idea! You are absolutely right, why celebrate the First Confession? Depressing at best . . .<<<

>>Well, when you think about it, we are really celebrating the day that our children OFFICIALLY become sinners. We parents, of course, know that they have been de facto sinners for a long time already.<<

Am I the only one here who realizes that Confession isn't a celebration of being a sinner but rather a celebration of being a penitent?

The whole issue of whether or not there should be a big "class" of first time confessors aside, the whole viewpoint on celebrating one's sinfulness is spurious. Besides, EVERY sacarment is in some sense a litrugical celebration.

Dear Catholicos Mor Ephrem,

How are you today, Your Beatitude?

I think the Byzantine Church should adopt the Syriac Church's tradition in this respect, to be sure.

If you ever come across the text of the ceremony, please share it with us! The Syriac Church is way ahead here . . .

Alex

Dear Ignatius,

Agreed, absolutely!

But this came out of our discussion about the way in which some Byzantine Churches that want to keep something like the "First Holy Communion" do so by having a "First Holy Confession and Communion" since children start receiving Communion from Day One when they are baptized.

Whatever is done or whatever it is called, I think something like a big celebration where young people are brought into the Church like that is a good thing.

Until something else is proposed, First Holy Confession and Communion it is!

Dominus Vobiscum,

Alex

Slava,

I will ignore your attempt to attack me personally (and I admit I have no clue why I am "obi wan"??).

Slava: Ok Mr Obi Wan of the Byzantines Let's say that you are the newly elected Metropolitan. What would you do to "Reform"
our churches from the evils of "Latinisation" since you are so properly educated down in Raleigh.

Anastasios: I would ask our parishes to cooperate with the Orthodox on social projects, fundraisers, the down-to-earth stuff, and let it go from there.

I would find a rich donor (presumably being a Metropolitan I'd have connections) and get iconostasises built for those parishes that still don't have one (and can't afford them).

Then I'd mandate the priests celebrate Vespers and matins. I'd outlaw Saturday night "masses" and restore the principle that Vespers fulfills the Sunday obligation for those who need to travel or whatever.

I'd follow up by just implementing the 1944 Ordo published in Rome in its entirety. Then I'd be done and relax for awhile. Oh yeah, I'd get the cantors to work together on an updated book with all our chant and have it published, too.

Oh yeah, and I'd abolish kneeling on Sundays. :-) after all, I want to be in line with the Council of Nicea!

Slava: I think you dislike the Roman church and vent it thru the Byzantine rite.

Anastasios: Since I don't attend the Roman Church, why would I be "disatisfied" with it? I have never been a ROman Catholic. True, before becoming Byzantine and after leaving Lutheranism, I attended a Roman Church, and yes, it was disappointing, I still do not get worked up about it. One of my friends is a rather liberal RC priest. If they want to mess with their tradition, that's their businness. I'm Byzantine and that's all I'm concerned with (liturgically). I'm having enough of a hard time trying to learn the Chants for Vespers and Orthros (matins).


Slava: Tell it to a Ukrainian Baba that she needs to throw away her rosary beads because she has been "Latinised".

Anastasios: If you actually would have read my previous post, you would have noticed I said that only in public liturgy do we need to delatinize. I have a rosary and a Latin picture at my icon corner (along with two Coptic icons). If someone wants to pray the rosary, great! I prefer the Akathist, but I don't butt into people's private devotions.

Slava: Tell that to my Grandparents as well when you are removing the pews because the Greeks didn't have them 1000 years ago .

Anastsios: Tell that to the Pope who said to delatinize. But sure, I'll talk to your grandparents if you want. Oh, and the Greeks in many places STILL do not have pews.

Slava: The point is we have them now and this is what the church has evolved into. This is how it fits in with the melting pot of American life.

Anastasios: Not all evolutions are good, Slava. That's why the Pope (why don't you follow the Pope?) and Vatican II said to delatinize. I think you should read the documents first, buddy.

Slava: Ofcourse Latinisations crept in. Our church was in Hungary for 1000 years. If you do not like pews well good for you. Our church has them and Likes them.

Anastasios: It's not a matter of preference. It's not Byzantine, and sooner or later, it will go. Another pewless parish is Holy Transfiguration Melkite Catholic Church in Virginia. Vibrant worship, great parish, etc. No grandmas complaining, either.

What about the calendar ?? Julian or Gregorian ?? ---doesn't matter.

Should we have segregated churches again Women on Left and fully headcovered with men on right ??? ---headcovering, yes. My girlfriend and several other ladies in the parish use it. St. Paul said so. Now mandatorily, NO. But as an encouraged practice--YES.

What about Slavonic ?? --I like understanding the language I pray in.


They used to say English was a heretic language. You gonna re-implement that too??
--No, but I might encourage some more Spanish masses in the Southwest.


Would you please calm down, Slava, and tell me why you are so upset? Meanwhile I'll just follow the Pope and Metropolitan Judson's example. By the way, did it make you mad when they started communicating babies, Slava? Or when the filioque died?
anastasios

>>Am I the only one here who realizes that Confession isn't a celebration of being a sinner but rather a celebration of being a penitent? <<

>>The whole issue of whether or not there should be a big "class" of first time confessors aside, the whole viewpoint on celebrating one's sinfulness is spurious. Besides, EVERY sacarment is in some sense a litrugical celebration.<<

>Agreed, absolutely!
But this came out of our discussion about the way in which some Byzantine Churches that want to keep something like the "First Holy Communion" do so by having a "First Holy Confession and Communion" since children start receiving Communion from Day One when they are baptized.
Whatever is done or whatever it is called, I think something like a big celebration where young people are brought into the Church like that is a good thing.
Until something else is proposed, First Holy Confession and Communion it is!<

Alex,

What I was wondering about was why there�s such a feeling that Confession is depressing or a celebration of being a sinner. In fact, it is a celebration of one�s reconciliation with God. That�s GOOD news in my book.

If people don�t want to have a �First Confession� then don�t have one. But they should be aware of the very nature of the sacrament. Don�t say you�re celebrating something you�re not as a justification to stop a particular practice.

Perhaps getting one�s child to confession for the first time should be left up to the parents (who are the primary educators of their children). Even if there was a general guideline for age the parents would be the one�s with the final say (at least for going earlier � can anyone deny that a 13 year old, for instance, hasn�t sinned yet?). This would take into account the developmental differences of the children and also respect the parents� responsibility for the upbringing of their children. It�s also a system that can work with or without a parish-wide �First Confession.� (As an aside, there have also been cases of Latin parents having their children brought to the sacraments earlier than is normal in a parish or diocese BECAUSE they are the primary educators AND their children have a right to the sacraments).

Pax me amicus

Dear Ignatius,

Agreed, the Mystery of Confession is one of joy, to be sure.

I don't think anyone really meant it to be otherwise,(or perhaps they did!) just that First Communion is not of the Byzantine tradition (nor is it really of the older Roman tradition).

The issues of ongoing catechesis throughout a person's life and a close relationship with Christ in Holy Communion are pastoral concerns as well as vitally important for our overall Christian growth.

Our focus should always be on union with Christ in Holy Communion with Confession as the way to prepare properly for Communion.

Sorrow for our sins is also something that should be a daily spiritual exercise, even apart from Confession. Our entire life should be dedicated to repentance and self-renewal in the Spirit of Christ.

Alex

Ignatius,

"In fact, it is a celebration of one�s reconciliation with God. That�s GOOD news in my book."

Hasn't this occured through the three iniciatory sacraments?

Dan L

>>In fact, it is a celebration of one�s reconciliation with God. That�s GOOD news in my book.<<

>Hasn't this occured through the three iniciatory sacraments?<

Of course, and it continues to be celebrated each time we are reconciled with God via the sacrament of Confession. Just because one may go to Confession on a (relatively) frequent basis in no way reduces the nature of the sacrament; one of a celebration of God's mercy.

Please note that in my previous posts I in no way said that the practice of "First Confession" should continue in the Byzantine Church.

What I was saying was that people shouldn't misrepresent what Confession (and by extension, First Confession celebrations) are. They are NOT celebrations of sinfulness but rather celebrations of reconciliation and mercy.

I guess I don't see what the problem with my position is.

Dear Ignatius,

There isn't a problem with your position!

There is a problem with a "First Confession" in the Byzantine Church.

The univeral Church of Christ, Roman and Byzantine, administered the Sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist to infants for the first 1200 years.

It was only later that the innovation occurred in the West to separate the sacraments.

The medieval practice of not sharing the Chalice with the laity effectively cancelled the practice of Communion to infants. This didn't happen as a result of pastoral or theological argument, as Robert Taft and others have demonstrated.

The practice of Confession at the age of reason, although affirmed in the thirteenth century, refers not to a sanction against the reception of Communion by infants, but to the rule for annual Confession and Communion imposed on all at that time.

"First Confession and Communion" is an innovation that is foreign to both Roman (for the first 1200 years A.D.) and Byzantine Churches, and that brings us full circle.

Any suggestion on anyone's part that Confession is a "negative" thing is also foreign to Church teaching! Anathema

Alex

Athanasios :

Well I will try to answer some of your questions. First of all I am not attacking you , I am just responding to your writings, to me which I felt were a bit brash as well. Secondly I am very Pro Papal and I listen to our Pope and Bishops.I am definately going to miss Metropolitan Judson. I own the writings of the Pope on Our Eastern rite and the Vatican II documents concerning the Eastern Churches. I have never included the Filioque in the Creed when I recite it. It also doesn't make me mad at all when babies receive communion although I still prefer the idea of 1st Holy Communion instead but that is another topic sure enuff to open a can of worms here at this forum. I am sorry if you feel as if I need to calm down but quite truthfully that is the way that I am . I am known to be very outspoken and forward and it is a family trait of mine to be brash and arrogant when opposed. So as for that I apologise to you. I somewhat see your point if the long goal is to re-unite east and west
and I definately agree on putting Icon Screens in our churches.{They should have always been in}. I definately agree on the restructuring of the Liturgical schedules such as Matins and Vespers and having them as the Books call for them. I just don't think the pews and the kneeling should go.
I have been in pewless churches where they kneel when we do. I would be in favor of that. I just think that the Kneeling brings the proper respect to the Consecrated Blood and Body in the parish and I like that. If we could do that without the pews I would be in all favor of that. What about the Priests ? Do you think we should go back to the old ways with Priests and Bishops with Long hair and beards ? At what point do we declare what is a proper Byzantine custom as opposed to a Latin one ? The church in Ruthenia evolved differently than the Russian or Ukrainian ones. Why do most Ruthenians claim to be Slovak instead of Ukrainian or Russian ?? Simple they equate better with the Slovaks because of the mixed East West customs. The Ukrainian Catholics in the Ukraine seem in most cases to still be closer to the Russian or Greek Orthodox churches in Liturgical tradition and a Patriarchate in Kiev would be great, unless you are Patriarch Alexii of Moscow. But do you ever think that the world's different denominations will all be united ? I can only see that working if the different traditions were respected by drawing up diocese lines comprable to that specific faith. Another question sure to spark major controversy here: Sure the Pope speaks of re introducing married clergy but why is it still on hold ????? I am totally in favor of Married clergy and we need it as well. But then comes the issue {sure to open yet again another can of worms} what do we call our Pastor's wife ?? Pan'i , Matushka, Matka , Protopresbytera or what ?? So you see our Byzantine church can never really have just one straight out custom good for all so to speak. Even though our church originated from Constantinople it has took on many forms and adapted to whatever environment and culture it has visited. Hence why our churches in America are Latinised and Protestanised {if that is the correct term here}. At what point do we go,just to be able to say "And now our churches are Delatinised as we have returned to the true Byzantine customs" . Now the Russians and Greeks are sure to flock under the Pope in Rome. Yeah Right !!!

>>>What I was wondering about was why there�s such a feeling that Confession is depressing or a celebration of being a sinner. In fact, it is
a celebration of one�s reconciliation with God. That�s GOOD news in my book.<<<

Jeez, people! I was being SARCASTIC!

The basic problem I wanted to point out was that we have turned this thing into a "rite of passage", whereas the sacraments are not about that at all. Moreover, we instituted this pseudo-liturgical ritual because we are still hung up on this Latin "age of reason" crap. The matter of when to begin confessions is not subject to arbitrary age rules, but should be a pastoral matter among those who best know the person in question; i.e., the parents, the spritual father, and the child himself.

With regard to the entire "Age of Reason" discussion, I think the following will be "illuminating":

In the case of Christian initiation, modern historical research and theological reflection have shown that theuniversal primitive tradition of both the East and West viewed the liturgical completion of Christian initiation as one integral rite, comprising three moments of baptism, chrismation, and Eucharist, and without all three the process is incomplete. In Christian antiquity, to celebrate initiation without Eucharist would habe made about as much sense as celebrating half a wedding would today. For this reason, contemporary western Catholic experts on the liturgy have insisted on the necessity of restoring the integrity of this process which broke down in the Middle Ages.

I suspect that some of the Eastern Catholic clergy, educated in Latin seminaries, or at least in Latin categories of a previous epoch, are convinced that the practice of infant communion is not "Catholic"--or at least not as Catholic as the Latin practice of delaying first communion until children have obtained the use of reason. Why they might think this is no mystery. The provailing Latin thesis was that the use of reason was necessary to receive the Eucharist fruitfully. If this is so, then what could be the point of infant communion?

This problem, too, can be dissipated by a knowlege of the facts. From the beginning of the primitive Church in the East and the West, the process of Christian initiation for both infants and adultswas one inseparable sequence comprising catechumenate, baptism, chrismation (confirmation), and Eucharist. History is unmistakeably clear in this matter: every candidate, child or adult, was baptized, confirmed and given communion as part of a single initiation rite. This is the universal ancient Catholic practice. Anything else is less ancient and has no claim to universality.

For centuries, this was also the tradition of the Church of Rome. In 417, Pope Innocent I in a doctrinal letter to the Fathers of the Synod of Milevis, teaches that infant initiation necessarily includes communion:

to preach that infants can be given the rewards of eternal life without the grace of baptism is completel idiotic. For unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, they will not have life in them.

That this was the actual liturgical practice of the Church of Rome can be seen, for instance, in the 7th century Ordo Romanus XI, and in the 12th century Roman Pontifical, whcih repeats almost verbatim the same rule (I cite the latter text):

Concerning infants, care should be taken lest they receive food or be nursed (except in case of urgent need) before receiving the sacrament of Christ's Body. And afterwards, during the the whole of Easter week, let them come to Mass, offer, and receive communion every day.

Until the 12th century, this was the sacramental practice of the Roman Church, and the doctrinal teaching of Latin theologians. Christ himself said in John 6:53 that it was necessary for eternal life to receive His Body and Blood--"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you"--and the medieval Latin theologians applied this to everyone without exception, including infants.

The practice began to be called into question in the 12th century, not because of any argument about the need to have attained the "age of reason" (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and communion for those who have reached the "age of reason" (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist. Even the 1910 decree Quam singulari issued under Pius X mentions the age of reason as not required before communion can be received, but as the age when the obligation of satisfying the precept of annual confession and communion begins.

Nevertheless, the notion took hold that communion could not be received before the age of reason, even though infant communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of the Council of Trent denied the necessity of infant communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious--realizing undoubtedly that the same arguments used against infant communion could be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries the West had used the same theology to justify both. For the Byzantine rite, on 23 December 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering the Eucharist to infants.

So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the the universal practice of the entire Church East and West was to communicate infants. Hence to advance doctrinal arguments against infant communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant communion was not only permitted in the Latin Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church, the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the "age of reason" theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them communion. So the "age of reason" requirement for communion is a medieval western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give communion to infants. Present Latin useage is a medieval innovation.

From Robert F.Taft, SJ, "Liturgy in the Life of the Church", Eastern Churches Journal, Vol.7 No.2.

Dear Stuart,

Excellent point on First Communion as a rite of passage.

However, don't we already do this (and I am just wondering) with the Sacraments of Initiation, Marriage, Anointing, Priesthood?

Are they not a kind of Rite of Passage at the same time?

If there is a need for such a rite of passage for our children at a certain age, what could be done in keeping with our Byzantine traditions? Do you agree with Dan's proposal?

Alex

Alex,

I think you're realy onto something here regarding sacraments as "rites of passage."

It is very common to hear people say that they are NOT rites of passage. However, it seems to me that rites of passage are, in a sense, natural sacraments. I am not sure that this would mean that sacraments are supernatural rites of passage, but it seems possible. After all, grace builds on nature. Maybe the rites of passage of various civilizations were prefigurments of the sacraments.

Even the sacraments of initiation are rites of passage in the sense that they are what bring people into the New Covenant.

Dear Ignatius,

I think you are absolutely right, Friend!

The various Feasts of the Church also punctuate the year and its seasons, reflecting as they do our liturgical celebrations.

There are canonical ages for when a Priest and a Bishop may be ordained and consecrated.

But Rite of Passage perhaps has less to do with age and more with the actual Mystery being celebrated.

If First Confession and (something) Holy Communion is a kind of rite of passage, and if our Byzantine Churches have it (and they do, attendance at these things is amazing!), then what will replace it? If nothing, I really don't think there is a chance in, er, heaven that a change will take place or that it is desirable.

I am all for the Three Sacraments of Initiation given to infants, but there is a need for "something" later on.

God bless,

Alex

>>>However, don't we already do this (and I am just wondering) with the Sacraments of Initiation, Marriage, Anointing, Priesthood?<<<

No, they most definitely are NOT rites of passage, though undoubtedly many people view them that way. Rather, they are mysteries that integrate us more fully into the life of Jesus Christ. Living in Jesus Christ is ALL that Christianity is about. These mysteries open to us in a symbolic manner those aspects of His life which are necessary for our salvation.

Actually, a rite of passage is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a ritual associated with a crisis or change of status (as marriage, illness, or death) for an individual." Do not the sacraments of initiation fit this description? Do they not symbolize (and effect) a change of status for the person involved? You say yourself that they are "mysteries that integrate us more fully into the life of Jesus Christ." This seems like a change of status to me. Besides, there are sacraments which correspond to the above examples of marriage and sickness/death.

Alex, aren't you a sociologist? You could probably give a better definition of a rite of passage than I could, but it seems that the sacraments are supernaturalized rites of passage to some extent.

Anyway, don't want to get too far off topic about standing or kneeling.

Dear Ignatius,

Your definition of a rite of passage is better than that of many a sociologist!

As a sociologist, I would certainly define the situation in this way:

Rite of Initiation into the Community:

Byzantine Church - Baptism + Crismation + Eucharist.

Roman Church - Baptism + 0 + 0

And insofar as the Sacraments of Initiation are a kind of personal "Passover" where we die, are buried and rise with Christ (the triple immersion of Baptism, for example), then this is truly a rite of passage, from darkness to light, from death to life etc.

It is most definitely a spiritual rite of passage, as you say, in the supernatural sense, although not in the natural sense conditioned by age.

This is related to this thread since I most certainly do kneel before your wisdom (beyond your years)

Alex



[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 05-24-2001).]