Has
this paper [
christendom-awake.org], by Fr Aidan Nichols, OP, been discussed here before?
I could not find it when I did a search of the forum, so I assume not.
In any case, it is unedited - and so a bit rough - but, as with pretty much everything Nichols writes, it is well worth our time.
So let us read and discuss.
Okay. In the hope of generating at least some interest in the paper, let me offer a few tantalising paragraphs.
1. [...] In the more than five hundred years since the collapse of the Florentine Union, Orthodox and Catholics had had time to practise yet more polemics against each other, to coarsen their images of each other, and also to add (especially from the Orthodox side) new bones of doctrinal contention though in one case, the definition in 1870 of the universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility of the Roman bishop, the dismay of the Orthodox was of course entirely predictable, as was pointed out by several Oriental Catholic bishops at the First Vatican Council.
We find for instance such influential Orthodox thinkers as the Greek lay theologian John Romanides attacking the Western doctrine of original sin as heretical, thus rendering the Latin Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception - Mary's original righteousness - superfluous if not nonsensical. Or again, and this would be a point that exercised those responsible for the official dialogue of the last fifteen years, some Orthodox now wished to regard the pastoral practice whereby many local churches in the Latin West delay the confirmation (or chrismation) of children till after their first Holy Communion as based on a gravely erroneous misjudgment in sacramental doctrine. [...]
2. [...] It is in this final perspective that one should consider the role of the Roman bishop as a 'universal primate' in the service of the global communion of the churches. One of the most loved titles of the Western Middle Ages for the Roman bishop was universalis papa, and while one would nor wish to retrieve all aspects of Latin ecclesiology in the high mediaeval period, to a Catholic Christian the universal communion of the local churches in their multiple variety does need a father in the pope, just as much as the local church itself, with its varied congregations, ministries and activities, needs a father in the person of the bishop.
It is often said that such an ecclesiology of the papal office is irredeemably Western and Latin, and incapable of translation into Oriental terms. I believe this statement to be unjustified. Just as a patriarch, as regional primate, is responsible for the due functioning of the local churches of in
his region under their episcopal heads, so a universal primate is responsible for the operation of the entire episcopal taxis or order, and so for all the churches on a worldwide scale. [...]
3. [...] The animosity, indeed the barely contained fury, with which many Orthodox react to the issue of Uniatism is hardly explicable except in terms of a widespread and not readily defensible Orthodox feeling about the relation between the nation and the Church.
There must be, after all, some factor of social psychology or corporate ideology which complicates this issue. Bear in mind that the Orthodox have felt no difficulty this century in creating forms of Western-rite Orthodoxy, for example in France under the aegis of the Rumanian patriarchate or more recently in the United States under the jurisdiction of an exarch of the patriarch of Antioch. And what are these entities if not Orthodox Uniatism - to which the Catholic Church has, however, made no objection.[...]
The paper looks well worth a discussion. So who would like to discuss it? I don't feel like just talking to myself.
Fr. Serge
Okay. In the hope of generating at least some interest in the paper, let me offer a few tantalising paragraphs.
1. [...] In the more than five hundred years since the collapse of the Florentine Union, Orthodox and Catholics had had time to practise yet more polemics against each other, to coarsen their images of each other, and also to add (especially from the Orthodox side) new bones of doctrinal contention though in one case, the definition in 1870 of the universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility of the Roman bishop, the dismay of the Orthodox was of course entirely predictable, as was pointed out by several Oriental Catholic bishops at the First Vatican Council.
We find for instance such influential Orthodox thinkers as the Greek lay theologian John Romanides attacking the Western doctrine of original sin as heretical, thus rendering the Latin Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception - Mary's original righteousness - superfluous if not nonsensical. Or again, and this would be a point that exercised those responsible for the official dialogue of the last fifteen years, some Orthodox now wished to regard the pastoral practice whereby many local churches in the Latin West delay the confirmation (or chrismation) of children till after their first Holy Communion as based on a gravely erroneous misjudgment in sacramental doctrine. [...]
2. [...] It is in this final perspective that one should consider the role of the Roman bishop as a 'universal primate' in the service of the global communion of the churches. One of the most loved titles of the Western Middle Ages for the Roman bishop was universalis papa, and while one would nor wish to retrieve all aspects of Latin ecclesiology in the high mediaeval period, to a Catholic Christian the universal communion of the local churches in their multiple variety does need a father in the pope, just as much as the local church itself, with its varied congregations, ministries and activities, needs a father in the person of the bishop.
It is often said that such an ecclesiology of the papal office is irredeemably Western and Latin, and incapable of translation into Oriental terms. I believe this statement to be unjustified. Just as a patriarch, as regional primate, is responsible for the due functioning of the local churches of in
his region under their episcopal heads, so a universal primate is responsible for the operation of the entire episcopal taxis or order, and so for all the churches on a worldwide scale. [...]
3. [...] The animosity, indeed the barely contained fury, with which many Orthodox react to the issue of Uniatism is hardly explicable except in terms of a widespread and not readily defensible Orthodox feeling about the relation between the nation and the Church.
There must be, after all, some factor of social psychology or corporate ideology which complicates this issue. Bear in mind that the Orthodox have felt no difficulty this century in creating forms of Western-rite Orthodoxy, for example in France under the aegis of the Rumanian patriarchate or more recently in the United States under the jurisdiction of an exarch of the patriarch of Antioch. And what are these entities if not Orthodox Uniatism - to which the Catholic Church has, however, made no objection.[...]
The paper, to judge from what you have quoted seems rather bitter about the Orthodox and it would be an uphill battle for Orthodox to discuss it since the playing field is uneven from the outset.
I don't think you would find it so if you read the whole thing, Father Ambrose.
I have no interest in seeing the Orthodox unfairly represented, so I was interested to read Aidan Nichols - whose work and thought is highly regarded by Catholics and Orthodox alike, and whose doctoral work was on Bulgakov (if I remember correctly) - expressing an idea about Orthodoxy I am not sure sits well with me.
I only quoted those paragraphs to entice people into following the above link and reading the whole paper. Now I would be especially interested to see what comes of it.
I don't have time to discuss now. But I've seen it before, and I'll hopefully have time to make some comments soon.
One thing: I wish he wouldn't quote Romanides. I know some people take him to be a key standard bearer for an anti-Latin confession, but I know serious Orthodox who aren't so keen on his work. Christos Yannaras is one (ref: his book "Orthodoxy and the West"). Speaking just for myself, I turned off when I started reading about "Romans vs. Franks" in a polemic based off of (at best) a high school level of historical scholarship. And I say this as someone whose family lived in the Eastern Roman empire and who can find (decidedly minor) personalities of that Empire who share the same family name.
Father Nichols will also find plenty of Greek Catholics who aren't keen on the present Latin practices on the sacrament of confirmation - though of course we wouldn't turn it into a confessional dividing line.
I don't think you would find it so if you read the whole thing, Father Ambrose.
Fair enough!
I was judging his approach and understanding of Orthodoxy from the extracts you presented to us.
I did an inward groan and thought - oh lordie it's Adrian Fortescue in a new body.
I don't think you would find it so if you read the whole thing, Father Ambrose.
Fair enough!
I was judging his approach and understanding of Orthodoxy from the extracts you presented to us.
I did an inward groan and thought - oh lordie it's Adrian Fortescue in a new body.
I've begun reading it, and it looks like only the most controversial portions were (intentionally) cited by the OP. The main point of the paper seems to be more about why the Catholic Church needs the Orthodox. Could be an interesting read.
Peace and God bless!
In the cause of the unity that Christ himself desires for the Church, it not us who? in not now when?
May God hasten the day!
Stephanos I
I generally find his writings very sound. It would be interesting if he wrote a whole book on the question of reunion.
I, for one, find the Latin practice of routinely communing children at 6 and confirming them years later at best bizarre and at worst deeply disturbing. This is certainly not a practice of the first millennium church and can't be considered a newly, drummed up complaint of the Orthodox. The problem became more serious in the 20th century when Pope St. Pius X dropped the age of first communion.
If it is any consolation, so does the Latin Church, at least where its leading theologians are concerned. The Second Vatican Council called for restoration of the integrity of the Rites of Initiation, including their proper order and significance. This has, alas, been one of the Council's signal failures, as neither infant communion nor the proper order of baptism-confirmation-Eucharist have not been restored.
In fact, in many dioceses, the age of confirmation has been pushed back into the late teens in order to keep kids coming to church longer. That is, they are using the sacrament to hold children hostage, which probably doesn't do much to improve the image of the Church in their eyes. Nonetheless, I have heard a number of religious educators say that only the promise of confirmation keeps parents bringing their children to Mass.
Furthermore, it is not entirely clear that the majority of the Latin faithful--or the clergy, for that matter--clearly understand the purpose of confirmation; one Latin theologian called it "a sacrament in search of a meaning". For most people, it is, quite simply, a rite of passage, a coming of age ritual, "Catholic Bar-Mitzvah", the purpose of which is to transfer wealth to the teenager from his extended family.
A number of bishops are finally taking note of this problem, and moving the age of confirmation back closer to first communion, though I do not think any have, as of now, put confirmation after baptism and before communion, let alone restored infant communion, which is the Tradition of the undivided Church both East and West.
So, in the West would you like to see Baptism at 8-40 days after birth (not a set of hard numbers here anytime close to the birth of the child will do) then Confirmation at age 5 or 6 and First Communion at 7 or 8? This practice of separating the Sacraments is by some accounts from the Council of Trent and in others as far back as the 4th Lateran Council.
I have read over and over that Confirmation was pushed back to allow the contact with the bishop again, as in the Early Church the bishop was the one who administered all 3 Sacraments to every one.
Or would you like to see all 3 Sacraments administered on the day of Baptism?
I would like to see restoration of the ancient Tradition of the united Church of the first millennium: baptism, chrismation and Eucharist administered at one moment for all catechumens regardless of age, and all the initiated receiving communion on a regular basis.
If bishops feel they cannot accommodate the needs of the faithful regarding the sacrament of confirmation, then they should surrender their role as exclusive minister of the sacrament. But, since they have already habitually delegated everything else, they hang onto it for dear life, to prove that they have some sort of essential role.
An elderly Spanish Benedictine monk from the only OSB Abbey of men in Australia told me that when he was born (my guess is about the time of WWI) in Burgos he was baptised in the parish church and taken the same day to the Cathedral to be confirmed by the Bishop. That was the practice then. He said he could recall the first seats to be put into churches in Burgos and the custom of giving out blessed bread at the end of the Mass. It was a very different from current practices there today.
It is not unusual for the bishop in Australia to delegate Monsignors & Abbots to do confirmation in their place. I think most Bishops try to do this themselves though.
Given the size of modern Roman Catholic dioceses, the bishops are going to have to make a choice between preserving their ancient prerogative or providing for the spiritual well being of their faithful. So far, prerogative has won, hands down, perhaps because the bishops themselves do not really understand the issue.
The Bishop is the "ordinary minister" of everything, but over the centuries most of the services have passed to the presbyters. The Latin Bishops have clung to Confirmation, since it's almost all they have left. Nowadays, even that is passing to the presbyters. That will leave ordinations, for which a bishop is indispensable. [There are some slight bits of evidence of the Popes authorizing ordinations by a presbyter in cases when a bishop absolutely could not be obtained. Some theologians insist that in giving such an authorization, a pope would exceed his authority.]
Fr. Serge
Once Latin bishops have authorized presbyters to administer the rite of confirmation, there is no excuse for not restoring all three of the sacraments of initiation to their original order; neither is there any excuse for not restoring infant communion, other than fear of the wrath of innumerable mothers, grandmothers and aunties who dearly love to dress up the little ones and take pictures--that, and the ignorance of too many priests and bishops who do not know the development of their own Tradition.
The big issue is routinely administering the sacraments in the wrong order and the confusion in theology conveyed by the practice.
Precisely. And the Orthodox are correct in being concerned, though I do not see it as a "deal breaker", insofar as the Latin Church is aware of the issue and is working to correct it. After all, it's not as if the Orthodox have stuck to their guns regarding all of the sacraments, particularly marriage (i.e., the widespread belief that second marriages are, or even can be, considered sacramental; and the removal of marriage from its proper Eucharistic context). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Fortunately, in the diocese of Portland, Maine, Bishop Richard Malone has delegated this role to the officiating priest at the Paschal Vigil Liturgy. Adults, having been prepared, are baptized, chrismated, and receive the Eucharist at this Liturgy every year. In the west, there is so much maudlin sentimentality surrounding these rites for children that I think it will take years before the laity will accept readily any changes, but they will come. Whenever I attend a Latin rite Mass I go to receive communion with my hands crossed in the eastern manner. Truth be told. Recently I observed the first communicants at this parish approach the Eucharist with their little hands crossed! I smiled and nudged my eastern Catholic wife. On the otherhand, I think it is important not to develop a religiously correct (call that RC) Phariseeism. Have patience, the west may eventually get it right. Fr. Aidan is correct. They really do need the east. Many just don't know it yet.
Utroque:
the OF Sacramentary approved by Rome specifies all pastors have the faculty to confirm individuals received into the church at the Easter Vigil, by virtue of being pastor. Only outside this is a specific faculty required. It's not Bishop Malone's doing. It's simply the Latin Way...
Sure. The Pope baptizes, confirms and communicates adults immediately at Easter. It is usually transmitted on TV.
Yet the ancient sacramentaries make no distinction between adult and infant catechumens. Up to the 12th century, all received the three sacraments at one time.
Apart from being "ancient custom" - why is it so important?
Because Christ himself said that unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. In short, reception of the Eucharist is essential for salvation, and the Fathers of both the East and West said as much. Beyond that, the Eucharist is the seal of all the sacraments, and is in fact the sacrament of the Church by which it demonstrates its earthly unity and its unity with Christ. Those who have not received the Eucharist are not full members of the Body of Christ.
Moreover, the Fathers were also clear, as was the practice of the Church, that both baptism (symbolizing death to the world and new life in Christ) and Chrismation (reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit) were essential preconditions for reception of the Eucharist, which is the culmination of the rites of initiation. If you think about it, the Latin Church has no right to deny the Eucharist to our infant children, who have received all the sacraments of initiation, while we routinely extend the Chalice to their children and adolescents, who have not yet been confirmed.
Because Christ himself said that unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. In short, reception of the Eucharist is essential for salvation, and the Fathers of both the East and West said as much. Beyond that, the Eucharist is the seal of all the sacraments, and is in fact the sacrament of the Church by which it demonstrates its earthly unity and its unity with Christ. Those who have not received the Eucharist are not full members of the Body of Christ.
It is possible to be saved without receiving Holy Communion, as it is the case of baptized infants. You're "member enough" to be saved. The concept of being "not a full member" is new to me.
Moreover, the Fathers were also clear, as was the practice of the Church, that both baptism (symbolizing death to the world and new life in Christ) and Chrismation (reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit) were essential preconditions for reception of the Eucharist, which is the culmination of the rites of initiation.
Maybe they were, although the Church Fathers are not necessarily infallible. But the custom is now different. This would mean that the Church is engaged in sinful practice concerning essential, sacramental matters, for hundreds of years. For me it seems somehow contrary to the guidance of Holy Spirit.
If you think about it, the Latin Church has no right to deny the Eucharist to our infant children, who have received all the sacraments of initiation, while we routinely extend the Chalice to their children and adolescents, who have not yet been confirmed.
For the sake of not causing scandal at least the Latin practice seems to be justified.
I'm in no position to pass judgement on Church practices but somehow I find the notion that when something was exercised in the first millenium it must be "right" while the practice of second millenium is "wrong" also contrary to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think the Church was equally stricken by disasters in the first millenium as it is today.
It is possible to be saved without receiving Holy Communion, as it is the case of baptized infants. You're "member enough" to be saved. The concept of being "not a full member" is new to me.
Not to the Fathers, though. To be a full member of the Church, one must receive all three sacraments of initiation--that is the Tradition of the undivided Church. The case of infants--or adults--baptized while near death is the exception, not the rule. To elevate the exception to the rule smacks of minimalism.
Maybe they were, although the Church Fathers are not necessarily infallible.
So, the Fathers were wrong, and so was the Latin Church for its first 1200 years?
This would mean that the Church is engaged in sinful practice concerning essential, sacramental matters, for hundreds of years. For me it seems somehow contrary to the guidance of Holy Spirit.
Stuff happens. In this matter, you happen to disagree with the Latin Church itself, and with the Second Vatican Council, which called for restoration of the integrity of the sacraments of initiation.
For the sake of not causing scandal at least the Latin practice seems to be justified.
Who should be more scandalized? Those whose actions prevent the fully initiated from receiving what is theirs by right of adoption? Or those who impose their own innovative usage upon another Church that has not deviated from the original Tradition?
I'm in no position to pass judgement on Church practices but somehow I find the notion that when something was exercised in the first millenium it must be "right" while the practice of second millenium is "wrong" also contrary to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think the Church was equally stricken by disasters in the first millenium as it is today.
The Catholic Church--and the Orthodox Church, for that matter--believes that the Church of the first millennium is normative because it was the undivided Church. They may disagree about certain aspects or interpretations, but on the essentials there is full agreement.
Originally Posted By: StuartK
Moreover, the Fathers were also clear, as was the practice of the Church, that both baptism (symbolizing death to the world and new life in Christ) and Chrismation (reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit) were essential preconditions for reception of the Eucharist, which is the culmination of the rites of initiation.
Maybe they were, although the Church Fathers are not necessarily infallible. But the custom is now different. This would mean that the Church is engaged in sinful practice concerning essential, sacramental matters, for hundreds of years. For me it seems somehow contrary to the guidance of Holy Spirit.
PeterPeter:
Perhaps you're not aware that the presetn practice of the Latin Church that allows for children to receive Holy Communion before being confirmed is of relatively recent origin. It will only be 100 years this year that Pope St. Pius X granted an indult for this practice to the Latin Church. Prior to that, people did not receive until they were confirmed and that came at about the age of 12 or 13. One of my family members was able to relate that this had been her case in the latter part of the 19th century.
This would mean that the Church is engaged in sinful practice concerning essential, sacramental matters, for hundreds of years.
BOB
The intention of Pope Pius was, ironically, to return to the patristic practice of frequent communion by allowing children who reached "the age of reason" to receive communion even though confirmation was usually deferred until age 12 or so; he did so by making the "age of reason" the floor at which children became covered by the precept of going to confession and receiving communion at least once per year.
The Latin Church never said that infant communion was not efficacious, only unnecessary. As Father Robert Taft pointed out ("Liturgy in the Life of the Church"), it could not do so without undermining the basis for infant baptism, since the arguments were the same in both cases.
In some parts of the world, infant communion in the Latin Church persisted until quite recently, though I do not know the historical reason for this failure to adopt the practice observed elsewhere.
Who should be more scandalized? Those whose actions prevent the fully initiated from receiving what is theirs by right of adoption? Or those who impose their own innovative usage upon another Church that has not deviated from the original Tradition?
When I go to an Eastern Church I don't insist on receiving Holy Communion kneeling. As to the imposition, the Eastern Churches are self-governing. The UGCC clergy tells me "we have our own Church and our own traditions which are not necessarily like the Orthodox".
It will only be 100 years this year that Pope St. Pius X granted an indult for this practice to the Latin Church. Prior to that, people did not receive until they were confirmed and that came at about the age of 12 or 13.
Actually it has been introduced as a rule, not an indult. I was aware of Quam singulari, but I thought that confirmation was even more delayed before 1910.
But why St. Pius X has not ordered confirmation to take place before the Holy Communion altogether?
When I go to an Eastern Church I don't insist on receiving Holy Communion kneeling. As to the imposition, the Eastern Churches are self-governing. The UGCC clergy tells me "we have our own Church and our own traditions which are not necessarily like the Orthodox".
Clueless.
Actually it has been introduced as a rule, not an indult. I was aware of Quam singulari, but I thought that confirmation was even more delayed before 1910
.
It was typical for confirmation to be administered around the age of 12, followed by first communion. Today, first communion is generally administered at age seven, while confirmation is now delayed until age 16--or, in some dioceses, even later.
But why St. Pius X has not ordered confirmation to take place before the Holy Communion altogether?
Good question. Perhaps because the Latin Church was having a hard time remembering the purpose of the sacrament? See what the Second Vatican Council had to say about it. I'm still not sure the Latin Church really knows why there is a sacrament of confirmation.