Topic: Sharing sacraments?

[ialmisry]

The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

Go try to pass a counterfeit $100 bill at the bank and tell us how "the senseless bickering and one upmanship" goes.

<<John 4:33>>
"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know."

Btw, the "dead men's bones" we are full of-the relics of the saints upon which we celebrate our sacraments, are quite clean.

If I worship at a Catholic Church one day and the next I worship the same God and his son Jesus at the Orthodox Church , you who condemn that is the counterfeit bill or you will see that when you are judged by your divisiveness . Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers , and the Meek".

it is not divisieness to point out that chasm.

Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters."

Either the pope of Rome is the source of the church's unity, or he's not. Either the Orthodox Episcopate has preserved the Catholic Church or it hasn't.

Only one name can fit in the diptych. If you went into one wife day and the next day another wife, no matter how much you loved both, you would be an adulterer.

[podkarpatska]

The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

Well said.

[stanley123]

]

http://www.amazon.com/Church-East-Illustrated-Assyrian-Christianity/dp/184511115X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290028202&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.aina.org/books.html

and may our Lord's Relatives and his Apostles the Holy Patriarchs of the Church guide you in your reading.

Thanks for these links. The second link is especially good and all of the books are available online. 

[stanley123]

... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.

Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   

[ialmisry]

... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.

Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   

I know of infants who have been refused chrismation, either by Latinization or no priest of their rite available, and know of even more children (again either from Latinization or going to a Latin rite church because that is the only place for their Sunday obligation available) refused communion.  The refusal to commune infants by the Latins would be an immediate signal to the Orthodox that we are not of one mind in sacramental terms, upon which would come questions about the Latin theology of confirmation (it is not exactly the same, there being no affirmation of baptism aspect to it in Orthodoxy), the practice of communing children before confirmation, etc.  It is things like this which would raise doubts in the minds of the Orthodox, no matter what the bishops signed.

[Rafa999]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

[katherineofdixie]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

[elijahmaria]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

I do believe that we are slowly moving in that direction and I think you will see it come in a rush if we resume communion with Orthodoxy in the foreseeable future.

Everyone has horror stories about their Church.  That is no reason not to stay and work for what we know is the right thing.  It should not be an excuse to quit or be raised to anger.  Anger kills all holiness.

M.

[elijahmaria]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

Dear Katherine

The same way that the Orthodox do not want their traditions to be tampered with, so to do the Latins/Romans not want their traditions to be uprooted by someone from outside.

What happened with the Uniate Churches was a terrible thing.  Many have learned very hard lessons.  Some are not so agreeable, just as there are some in Orthodoxy who remain rigid. 

We don't break down those barriers successfully by throwing rocks, verbal or material.

In Christ,

Mary

PS:  I really do enjoy your contributions.  You seem honest and real and I love that!!

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chris mation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

Dear Katherine

The same way that the Orthodox do not want their traditions to be tampered with, so to do the Latins/Romans not want their traditions to be uprooted by someone from outside.

What happened with the Uniate Churches was a terrible thing.  Many have learned very hard lessons.  Some are not so agreeable, just as there are some in Orthodoxy who remain rigid. 

We don't break down those barriers successfully by throwing rocks, verbal or material.

In Christ,

Mary

PS:  I really do enjoy your contributions.  You seem honest and real and I love that!!

I agree. I think that moving in the direction of chrismating and communing infants is a good idea, but I think that this transformation needs to be an organic one, otherwise some of the faithful who do not understand that this is the ancient practice of the Catholic Church might be scandalized.
Also, because Priestly celibacy has become part of the spirituality of the Latin priesthood, even if we were to allow for married priests, I think that celibacy should still be encouraged in most cases.

[Papist]

... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.

Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   

I know of infants who have been refused chrismation, either by Latinization or no priest of their rite available, and know of even more children (again either from Latinization or going to a Latin rite church because that is the only place for their Sunday obligation available) refused communion.  The refusal to commune infants by the Latins would be an immediate signal to the Orthodox that we are not of one mind in sacramental terms, upon which would come questions about the Latin theology of confirmation (it is not exactly the same, there being no affirmation of baptism aspect to it in Orthodoxy), the practice of communing children before confirmation, etc.  It is things like this which would raise doubts in the minds of the Orthodox, no matter what the bishops signed.

I actually agree with you that this practice should be changed in the Latin Church and we need to be more senstive to the needs of Byzantines and Orientals who must attdent Latin Churches because of there might not be Eastern Churches nearby.

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

[Wyatt]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

[stanley123]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

I agree. It doesn't really make much sense to isolate Baptism and Chrismation.

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

I definitely don't think it should be a Church dividing issue. We  have much bigger fish to fry.

[ialmisry]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.

[elijahmaria]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

I definitely don't think it should be a Church dividing issue. We  have much bigger fish to fry.

Actually it is one of the greater fish, in my own estimation.

It is one where most clergy and bishops in the Roman rite see the sense of and the need for change, but we are so locked into the expression of "process" in these sacraments that we will just not bother with the fact that they have become sacraments in search of a theology in some very unavoidable ways.

How many people in Roman rite parishes notice that there is a seconding anointing with holy chrism in the Baptismal ritual that surrenders the baptizand to the Holy Spirit?  How many people realize THAT is the vestigial confirmation from when the three sacraments of Initiation were given in right order?

As a catechist I will tell you that it is a very difficult thing to do to try to explain that anointing without calling it a chrismation/confirmation...and once that slips out then what do we do with the sacrament of confirmation [called damnably the "sacrament of choice"] administered 10-17 years later.  It is madness and really needs to be stopped.  

However many dioceses have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars developing "Programs and Materials" for this sacrament of choice...

Very disturbing.

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.

Yes, it is disciplinary. We Latins need to fix it. But it's still disciplinary.

[elijahmaria]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.

Yes, it is disciplinary. We Latins need to fix it. But it's still disciplinary.

Let's be a little more flexible than this.  Not everything falls out into neat categories of doctrinal and disciplinary.   That works at some level for convenience sake but now and then we need to take things as they come to us pastorally and theologically.

This particular issue of the sacraments of Initiation has been one that the Roman rite and ritual have been working on for quite a while and it needs to be worked on a little more aggressively so that our practice comes closer to our theology.   Our episcopate knows that.  It is not a secret to the clergy who've been trying to teach sacramental theology all their lives.  I guess we have some priest still trying to learn it...but that's another story.  It is an issue of theology.

Do I think it is Church dividing?  No.  Particularly since we do have the second anointing in the Baptismal ritual, and why it was retained there...But that leaves us effectively with eight sacraments while we call them seven. 

I don't think that is worthy of schism.

M.