OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 01:46:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Infant communion in the Western Rite  (Read 1404 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 295



« on: January 22, 2014, 11:48:57 PM »

How do priests commune infants in the Western Orthodox liturgy? As far as I know, in the Eastern Rites, infants are customarily communed with a spoonful of the Precious Blood when they can't chew. In the Western Rite, however, communion is not given with a spoon. So how is it given?
(Since as far as I know, Armenians are the only other rite which does not give communion with a spoon, giving it by intinction instead, I'd also like to know how they commune infants.)
Logged

"To believe [the Paraclete] when you wish it, and then disbelieve him when you wish it, is to believe nobody but yourself." --St. Augustine, Contra Faustum XXXII.16
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2014, 01:24:16 AM »

Not sure, but I think even in the Tridentine Mass a spoon is sometimes used for communicants, like a friend who has cannot eat gluten, which is required as a content of the bread in the canons. She cannot even take a small amount she told me so her priest said he could use a spoon to give her communion with the Precious Blood. It is a special spoon because of course it is rare in the Latin Rite traditionally for people to drink both species. I assume it would be something similar. Do infants commune in the Western Rite then? Maybe they do not. I do not know exactly when the Latins stopped doing it. It had something to do with not wanting to do possible sacrilege to the Eucharist by giving it to infants, at least that is what I read.
Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2014, 01:26:24 AM »

Not that they were saying it was sacreligious to do so, but because they were afraid the precious blood might spill or something. Some Latins scruple a bit about letting the host dissolve and not chewing, lest it get stuck in the teeth and then of course get mixed with other stuff in the mouth later. I think it's a bit silly to worry about that and chewing is by no means forbidden but traditionally kids were taught when making first communion not to chew. But that is at like 7.
Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,410


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2014, 10:00:01 AM »

Its not a big deal really, as the Eucharist is done by intinction. The priest dips the body into the blood and places it in the mouth of the communicant. Infants are done the same way, but more care is taken to make sure the baby doesn't be all......baby over it by dribbling, etc.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2014, 04:09:57 PM »

Do infants commune in the Western Rite then? Maybe they do not. I do not know exactly when the Latins stopped doing it. It had something to do with not wanting to do possible sacrilege to the Eucharist by giving it to infants, at least that is what I read.

Not communing infants is heretical.

lest it get stuck in the teeth and then of course get mixed with other stuff in the mouth later.

It still get mixed in the stomach. So?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2014, 01:05:28 AM »

Quote
Not communing infants is heretical.

Not if the infants have not been chrismated. Better to say that it is heresy to delay the chrismation than to say it is heretical to deny them communion. The order of the sacraments is part of the scenario, breaking down of the traditional order is the what led to this.

In general, I agree with same principles as you, however, and once upon a time so also did the latin church (some say even in the present day it does - in some confused inconsistent irrelevant way). In the 13th century it still had local canons demanding chrismation before being 2 years old.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 01:06:30 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2014, 01:44:11 AM »

Do infants commune in the Western Rite then? Maybe they do not. I do not know exactly when the Latins stopped doing it. It had something to do with not wanting to do possible sacrilege to the Eucharist by giving it to infants, at least that is what I read.

Not communing infants is heretical.

lest it get stuck in the teeth and then of course get mixed with other stuff in the mouth later.

It still get mixed in the stomach. So?

Heretical? How? I think it may be a departing form holy tradition, even a bad one with bad results, but heretical? How, at least in itself because I know I read that Pius X addressed whether it was wrong to commune infants and he said no. Some thought it might be because the infant lacked reason, but he said reason is not required for the sacrament, citing tradition, Aquinas even I think, and so forth. As long as person does not say it is wrong based on the lack of reason thing, which may be a heresy, how is waiting for commune until the age of reason heretical? Maybe not a good thing, but heretical? Just curious. Not saying you might be right.

As for the stomach comment, I have to admit that is a good point. It is not wrong to chew the host, but I know we were told in traditional Catholic circles to let it dissolve. On the other hand in RCIA the liberal nun said, "Now in the old days they told people to not chew the host but let it dissolve because it could get stuck in the teeth and later mix with other things but you can just chew it." I think she had a point that such a scruple as silly as you make with the stomach point, but this liberal was just wanting to go against tradition for no good reason other than to be a liberal. I think letting it dissolve is good because communion should be mental. If you chew the host (I think, at least) it distracts you. I find letting it dissolve is more simple. Chewing it gets rid of the host sooner and I find that having the host in your mouth for a few moments allows you to concentrate on how great an act it is. Chewing it all up makes that harder. Again we are talking about the unleavened hosts, not leavened bread like in the Eastern Church. Those things dissolve pretty easy. Tastes, to me at least, like sweet paper. I am find with unleavened bread. I know some Easterns object, but I am fine with it. Some Latins said the Eastern Rite Catholics having leavened bread was wrong and they should do like "us". These Latins fail to see the Latin incrusion on Greek custom that led up to the schism! They get so superior in their Roman pride that they forget the East has its tradition, often more traditional than their Romantic Tridentine idea of tradition. But many Latins are very ignorant of anything before the 11th century I fear.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 01:47:49 AM by wainscottbl » Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,972


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2014, 01:53:52 AM »

I think letting it dissolve is good because communion should be mental. If you chew the host (I think, at least) it distracts you. I find letting it dissolve is more simple.

The simplest thing would be not to even receive Communion.  Just think about receiving it. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,692


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2014, 03:58:59 AM »

I think letting it dissolve is good because communion should be mental. If you chew the host (I think, at least) it distracts you. I find letting it dissolve is more simple.

The simplest thing would be not to even receive Communion.  Just think about receiving it. 

Brilliance from Mor, as usual.  Cheesy
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2014, 11:06:10 AM »

Heretical? How? I think it may be a departing form holy tradition, even a bad one with bad results, but heretical? How, at least in itself because I know I read that Pius X addressed whether it was wrong to commune infants and he said no. Some thought it might be because the infant lacked reason, but he said reason is not required for the sacrament, citing tradition, Aquinas even I think, and so forth. As long as person does not say it is wrong based on the lack of reason thing, which may be a heresy, how is waiting for commune until the age of reason heretical? Maybe not a good thing, but heretical? Just curious. Not saying you might be right.

That's the ground. I have not heard of any other reasons cited by Catholics and as you say this one is heretical.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,972


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2014, 11:47:44 AM »

Heretical? How? I think it may be a departing form holy tradition, even a bad one with bad results, but heretical? How, at least in itself because I know I read that Pius X addressed whether it was wrong to commune infants and he said no. Some thought it might be because the infant lacked reason, but he said reason is not required for the sacrament, citing tradition, Aquinas even I think, and so forth. As long as person does not say it is wrong based on the lack of reason thing, which may be a heresy, how is waiting for commune until the age of reason heretical? Maybe not a good thing, but heretical? Just curious. Not saying you might be right.

That's the ground. I have not heard of any other reasons cited by Catholics and as you say this one is heretical.

Frankly, I don't understand what either of you are talking about, particularly wainscottbl.  "Heretical" gets thrown around a lot as if it was a synonym for "bad", and it's not.  Something needs to be more than bad to be heretical. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2014, 12:34:03 PM »

I think some Catholics think only baptism can be administered before the age of reason because of "Original Sin". But a learned trad Catholic knows better. I pointed out the Latins might want to eventually bring back infant baptism and confirmation like the East. He was familiar with Byzantine Rite Catholicism so he did not object in itself to infant communion as wrong but said, "I don't think we should give up our traditions just because it may be more traditional. We have had our celibacy and communion later as a long standing tradtion, etc, etc." But I am sure many Catholics are ignorant of the tradition of infant communion in their own Church. Most even will try to find every way to make celibacy a common early church and apostolic practice rather than just say, "Celibacy was something later made a universal rule in the West, but married clergy is actually more traditional." It seems their ideas of tradition and orthodox start at the 11th century, even if you cite clear evidence that even the Latins did certain things like have married clergy and infant communion. They may admit it was done, but try to find every reason not to.

Of course on that note I am not for giving up celibacy in the West just because the media thinks it is a good idea. Let's do it because it might give a healthier idea of the priesthood. Required celibacy may be part of the problem with the clerical scandal. I am afraid it has to have some effect, though I am not saying it is as big as the media makes it out to be, who does exaggerate like Protestants sometimes do with Catholic things. But I was more open to it, even as an SSPX Catholic. Since I believed the Pope had the right to change church rules by virtue of his office, like fasting and celibacy, married clergy would not be a doctrinal matter.
Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,329


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2014, 04:40:21 PM »

Heretical? How? I think it may be a departing form holy tradition, even a bad one with bad results, but heretical? How, at least in itself because I know I read that Pius X addressed whether it was wrong to commune infants and he said no. Some thought it might be because the infant lacked reason, but he said reason is not required for the sacrament, citing tradition, Aquinas even I think, and so forth. As long as person does not say it is wrong based on the lack of reason thing, which may be a heresy, how is waiting for commune until the age of reason heretical? Maybe not a good thing, but heretical? Just curious. Not saying you might be right.

That's the ground. I have not heard of any other reasons cited by Catholics and as you say this one is heretical.

Frankly, I don't understand what either of you are talking about, particularly wainscottbl.  "Heretical" gets thrown around a lot as if it was a synonym for "bad", and it's not.  Something needs to be more than bad to be heretical. 

And it needs to be more than 'wrong' to be heretical as well.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2014, 04:53:27 PM »

Quote
But I was more open to it, even as an SSPX Catholic. Since I believed the Pope had the right to change church rules by virtue of his office, like fasting and celibacy, married clergy would not be a doctrinal matter.

That remains I think the biggest problem within the Roman Catholic Church. The changes coming from the Pope vary with Pope to Pope and are accepted without enough grounding in holy tradition, particularly in the 20th/early 21st centuries. It ultimately creates disorder and chaos. Celibate clergy were there from the late 300's onwards nearly everywhere in the west. The only argument against the practice, other than that the eastern churches never adopted it, is that has not been very successful to the extent that throughout the last 1400 years there has constantly been instances of concubineage and children out of wedlock from the various priests. I consider myself neutral in the matter. The idea of "canons regular" seems to have been a partial solution to this, this variation of monasticization of all priests may be of benefit in the present day.

In southern italy during the 900's to 1100's there was a sizeable interest in reintroducing married men to the priesthood, coming from the influence of the byzantine priests there during that period. After the normans took over that idea went out the window. It has never gone away entirely. Most likely with greater contact with the eastern churches celibacy would not have the stronghold it has today within the latin church, when one has no awareness of the east, it gains much more solid grounding, even if perhaps still not as successful. Of course a number of married priests might also say it is still hard to be a priest, no matter what ones state.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 04:57:46 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
frfenton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 3


« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2014, 06:46:05 PM »

Hi. I've not visited here in a while because I'm usually quite busy. The busy-ness hasn't stopped, but I thought I'd drop in nevertheless to answer this question:

Quote
How do priests commune infants in the Western Orthodox liturgy?

Most commonly, I commune infants by intinction. This means that I take a small portion of the body of Christ, dip it into the chalice, and then place it in the infant's mouth. If the infant is very young (usually 6-8 months old or younger), I will often withdraw the intincted host (after giving the infant a moment) and then place the host in the mother's (or godmother's) mouth.

I hope this helps answer the question.

I am more than willing to answer other such questions, but can't promise that I'll diligently check this board. However, I'll try.

Asking your prayers,

Fr John W Fenton
Assistant to the Vicar General
Western Rite Vicariate
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2014, 03:07:16 PM »

Do infants commune in the Western Rite then? Maybe they do not. I do not know exactly when the Latins stopped doing it. It had something to do with not wanting to do possible sacrilege to the Eucharist by giving it to infants, at least that is what I read.

Not communing infants is heretical.

lest it get stuck in the teeth and then of course get mixed with other stuff in the mouth later.

It still get mixed in the stomach. So?

Heretical? How? I think it may be a departing form holy tradition, even a bad one with bad results, but heretical? How, at least in itself because I know I read that Pius X addressed whether it was wrong to commune infants and he said no. Some thought it might be because the infant lacked reason, but he said reason is not required for the sacrament, citing tradition, Aquinas even I think, and so forth. As long as person does not say it is wrong based on the lack of reason thing, which may be a heresy, how is waiting for commune until the age of reason heretical? Maybe not a good thing, but heretical? Just curious. Not saying you might be right.

As for the stomach comment, I have to admit that is a good point. It is not wrong to chew the host, but I know we were told in traditional Catholic circles to let it dissolve. On the other hand in RCIA the liberal nun said, "Now in the old days they told people to not chew the host but let it dissolve because it could get stuck in the teeth and later mix with other things but you can just chew it." I think she had a point that such a scruple as silly as you make with the stomach point, but this liberal was just wanting to go against tradition for no good reason other than to be a liberal. I think letting it dissolve is good because communion should be mental. If you chew the host (I think, at least) it distracts you. I find letting it dissolve is more simple. Chewing it gets rid of the host sooner and I find that having the host in your mouth for a few moments allows you to concentrate on how great an act it is. Chewing it all up makes that harder. Again we are talking about the unleavened hosts, not leavened bread like in the Eastern Church. Those things dissolve pretty easy. Tastes, to me at least, like sweet paper. I am find with unleavened bread. I know some Easterns object, but I am fine with it. Some Latins said the Eastern Rite Catholics having leavened bread was wrong and they should do like "us". These Latins fail to see the Latin incrusion on Greek custom that led up to the schism! They get so superior in their Roman pride that they forget the East has its tradition, often more traditional than their Romantic Tridentine idea of tradition. But many Latins are very ignorant of anything before the 11th century I fear.

There is no way that a Priest or Deacon could consume the gifts after Communion  without chewing the bread. The laity could possibly swallow Communion without chewing the small piece of wine soaked bread. However, we cleanse the mouth by eating antidorion (blessed bread) after we take Communion. The Russians drink a little wine after they take Communion to cleanse the mouth.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2014, 05:25:56 PM »

I doubt there is any formal law or rule about this in the Roman Church, or was in the past. It's more of a hang up I think, perhaps that sort of Baltimore Catechism nonsense that sometimes led to silly hang ups and scruples. I think there are some good points to the laity not chewing the host but I don't think it's as big a deal as traditionalists think.

The worse thing is communion in the hand and having lay men and women give the Precious Blood. Sometimes there is only one priest and no deacon but I think the liberals still use Eucharistic laymen, and moreso women, to go against the superior place of holy orders and the superior place of men in the Church regarding  leadership. Women certainly play an important part but they never had holy orders, even in the days of deaconesses. And allowing a women to handle the Eucharistic gifts I do not like when there are plenty of men to do so, even deacons. In the old days one priest gave out the body and everybody knelt altar rail (Western) as the priest went to each person. And he could use a deacon or layMAN if he needed help with the blood in the modern practice. Placing men and women on an equal level in Church practices is problematic and I do not think I am just raising these points to get a rise out of the St. Paul "women be silent" thing. There has always been an idea that women may play an important place, but there is a certain, forgive me for sounding "old fashioned", rule of submissiveness that they are bound to by virtue of the the sin of Eve. I know in the early days of Church women may have sometimes, but that was stopped in both the East and West. I am not totally against the idea of deaconesses, but there will never be women priests and they will always be bound to the command of the Apostle, "women be silent in Church", though the Church interprets that accordingly and we should not be rigorists.
Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2014, 05:32:16 PM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood. Most are against it even if you propose a priest or deacon giving it. Of course this is lacking so it would be a problem but assuming there were enough, even so Latin traditionalists oppose on grounds of alleged tradition, by which they mean their medieval/1950ist view of the Church. If you say it was once a universal practice and show the good points, they say, "That's find for the Byzantines but we should not give up our ways just because it was an early Church tradition." Which may have a point because I am not opposed to unleavened bread or Eucharistic adoration. The latter and things like Corpus Christi processions are a Western development to combat denial of the Real Presence by heretics. That was not so much a problem in the East. And we do not need to cause further turmoil in the East/West arguments by opposing each's rightful traditions, but I do thing some things are more problematic. Like not giving communion to infants for example in the West. But of course one has to realize how important first communion is as a cultural thing in Western countries. Or confirmation. It would be hard to change.
Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 295



« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2014, 07:19:03 PM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood. Most are against it even if you propose a priest or deacon giving it. Of course this is lacking so it would be a problem but assuming there were enough, even so Latin traditionalists oppose on grounds of alleged tradition, by which they mean their medieval/1950ist view of the Church. If you say it was once a universal practice and show the good points, they say, "That's find for the Byzantines but we should not give up our ways just because it was an early Church tradition." Which may have a point because I am not opposed to unleavened bread or Eucharistic adoration. The latter and things like Corpus Christi processions are a Western development to combat denial of the Real Presence by heretics. That was not so much a problem in the East. And we do not need to cause further turmoil in the East/West arguments by opposing each's rightful traditions, but I do thing some things are more problematic. Like not giving communion to infants for example in the West. But of course one has to realize how important first communion is as a cultural thing in Western countries. Or confirmation. It would be hard to change.
This is the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce (an international organisation for the promotion of the Traditional Latin Mass) Position Paper on the subject. It explains the logic rather well, and this is why I don't receive the Precious Blood even at NO Masses. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/fiuv-pp-reception-of-host-alone-by.html

Intinction would solve this problem, but when communion in both kinds is generally practised in the West it means handing the chalice to the faithful.
Logged

"To believe [the Paraclete] when you wish it, and then disbelieve him when you wish it, is to believe nobody but yourself." --St. Augustine, Contra Faustum XXXII.16
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2014, 07:38:10 PM »

Thanks Regnare for the link. Yeah, I like Rorate Caeli. It's a good middle ground for liberalism and I guess, for lack of, radical traditionalism. I used to be a RadTrad and may be to a certain degree, but the whole SSPX thing and completely rejecting the Novus Ordo and refusing to go to it, well it just got too much for me. It's one reason I am considering Eastern Orthodoxy, but very slowly. It looks like you are in between Rome and Constantinople, too. Good luck to you and God's blessing.
Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2014, 09:41:19 PM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood. Most are against it even if you propose a priest or deacon giving it. Of course this is lacking so it would be a problem but assuming there were enough, even so Latin traditionalists oppose on grounds of alleged tradition, by which they mean their medieval/1950ist view of the Church. If you say it was once a universal practice and show the good points, they say, "That's find for the Byzantines but we should not give up our ways just because it was an early Church tradition." Which may have a point because I am not opposed to unleavened bread or Eucharistic adoration. The latter and things like Corpus Christi processions are a Western development to combat denial of the Real Presence by heretics. That was not so much a problem in the East. And we do not need to cause further turmoil in the East/West arguments by opposing each's rightful traditions, but I do thing some things are more problematic. Like not giving communion to infants for example in the West. But of course one has to realize how important first communion is as a cultural thing in Western countries. Or confirmation. It would be hard to change.
This is the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce (an international organisation for the promotion of the Traditional Latin Mass) Position Paper on the subject. It explains the logic rather well, and this is why I don't receive the Precious Blood even at NO Masses. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/fiuv-pp-reception-of-host-alone-by.html

Intinction would solve this problem, but when communion in both kinds is generally practised in the West it means handing the chalice to the faithful.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we have a very strong sense of the sacred. Only a Bishop, Priest of Deacon is ever allowed to touch the sacred vessels. The modern Catholic practice of allowing laymen and women to administer the Sacrament is totally foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,692


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2014, 09:47:29 PM »


In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we have a very strong sense of the sacred. Only a Bishop, Priest of Deacon is ever allowed to touch the sacred vessels. The modern Catholic practice of allowing laymen and women to administer the Sacrament is totally foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. John W. Morris

I would add that this includes handling them for cleaning and storage purposes, not just during actual liturgical use.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2014, 09:59:20 PM »

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we have a very strong sense of the sacred. Only a Bishop, Priest of Deacon is ever allowed to touch the sacred vessels. The modern Catholic practice of allowing laymen and women to administer the Sacrament is totally foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Slavs, who are the numerical majority of Orthodox, kiss the chalice after receiving. I think that's touching.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,692


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2014, 10:05:35 PM »

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we have a very strong sense of the sacred. Only a Bishop, Priest of Deacon is ever allowed to touch the sacred vessels. The modern Catholic practice of allowing laymen and women to administer the Sacrament is totally foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Slavs, who are the numerical majority of Orthodox, kiss the chalice after receiving. I think that's touching.

And so is touching the spoons with one's lips. Your point?

The point is that only Orthodox clergy are permitted to handle the Eucharistic vessels. Touching the spoon during partaking or kissing the base of the chalice is a privilege granted to those communicating. Similarly, other holy objects which normally "live" on the altar, such as a priest's blessing cross and the liturgical Gospel book, are made available at appropriate times to be venerated by the faithful.

This is a world away from the notion of "lay eucharistic ministers", which, in my experience, have become the norm in many an RC parish, and have long ceased to be purely an "emergency back-up" in situations where there is a shortage of clergy.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 10:07:34 PM by LBK » Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2014, 10:14:05 PM »

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we have a very strong sense of the sacred. Only a Bishop, Priest of Deacon is ever allowed to touch the sacred vessels. The modern Catholic practice of allowing laymen and women to administer the Sacrament is totally foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Slavs, who are the numerical majority of Orthodox, kiss the chalice after receiving. I think that's touching.

And so is touching the spoons with one's lips. Your point?

The point is that only Orthodox clergy are permitted to handle the Eucharistic vessels. Touching the spoon during partaking or kissing the base of the chalice is a privilege granted to those communicating.

This is a world away from the notion of "lay eucharistic ministers", which, in my experience, have become the norm in many an RC parish, and have long ceased to be purely an "emergency back-up" in situations where there is a shortage of clergy.

Most Sunday masses have a priest and a deacon at least in every Catholic parish. Both Novus Orodo parish I go to do. Still they have those lay people giving out the Eucharist. I simply go to the priest, no matte what side I am on and cross my arms for a blessing since I do not take the sacraments, given my doubt of Roman Catholicism, lest I be receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Even when I was going to the Eucharist I would only take it from a priest or deacon.

But in most big trad Catholic parishes, like Institute of Christ the King one priest can give communion to everyone. If it becomes a real problem another priest helps. I remember at the requiem for the old priest who said Latin Mass for years they had a bunch of priests. Well a bunch of priests attended since he was known in the diocese for his piety and saying the Latin Mass. They had like four priests giving communion. Since many people there did not go to the Latin mass but were there either as family or friends many did not know exactly what to do. The altar rail was foreign to many of them.

Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2014, 10:26:55 PM »


In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we have a very strong sense of the sacred. Only a Bishop, Priest of Deacon is ever allowed to touch the sacred vessels. The modern Catholic practice of allowing laymen and women to administer the Sacrament is totally foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. John W. Morris

I would add that this includes handling them for cleaning and storage purposes, not just during actual liturgical use.

That is correct. Only a Priest or Deacon cleans the sacred vessels. The only exception would be if we had to send a chalice for replating or some kind of repair that a Priest or Deacon cannot do.

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2014, 11:44:01 PM »

I agree with Regnare here, and I think most all of us agree, both catholics and orthodox, that intinction is the traditional manner for reception of the holy blood of our Lord - if it is to be received.

Some of the "Anglican use" Personal Ordinariate of St. Peter Churches have an otherwise traditional mass looking mass, but occasionally the awkward post-1970 and or protestant influences make themselves felt.  As you can see from the videos of masses at Mt. Calvary Church in Baltimore, they have the odd position of a priest acting as deacon presenting a chalice at the communion rail, after the pastor has already given them the Holy body of Our Lord. It is awkward practice in an otherwise exemplary mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GoYyyOin0M

Many in the Roman Church simply wash their hands of the entire fiasco of the various experiments new ideas within their church post-1940s, but the more sophisticated amongst them recognize that intinction is a valuble solution that seems to please all the various factions and schisms from, within and amongst us. This is the weakness in human nature, but as the saying goes we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Restoration of the eucharist in both species is an important practice for the latin rite which was a sore and unnecesary controvery during the 16th century reformation time period. I for one am happy to see it in both forms - but only if intinction is used, otherwise.. I'd grudgingly go along with una voce's position.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 11:52:20 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2014, 12:00:52 AM »

Quote
completely rejecting the Novus Ordo and refusing to go to it

Ultimately, over time, this is the only way - the only way that the Roman Catholic Church can ever hope to be more orthodox, and more similar to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I would urge everyone who is Roman Catholic and cares about their faith to not totally abandon this position.

But yes, I have for the sake of my family attended the anglican ordinariate masses, but my heart is never fully comforteable with every element of it, because the lectionary that it uses is ultimately the product of an ecumenical committee. The mass ordinary at least in the options typically used, lines up more neatly with the tridentine in the integral aspects (such as the offertory prayer.) Essentially the personal ordinariates are in a more compromised position, whereas the latin masses are not (other than being post-'55). To the extent that this compromise is bridges a gap between the new liturgy and leads people to the old liturgy, it is useful.

I would bet my life that by the time I am an old man, the Mass of Paul the VI, the entire post-1970 liturgy will be abandoned and replaced with a mixture of a vernacular and latin liturgy and rite dating to before 1955, but with the addition of newer roman catholic saints to the calendar (including new St's such as Popes JP II and Paul VI themselves)

It is clear to me that the majority of people in the Anglican use Personal Ordinariates would prefer to have their liturgy be identical to that of the Antiochian WRV's liturgy if they had their say. As it is the cardinals and the curia seem to have an equal say, which has at times and may continue to be an extremely awkward relationship...
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 12:04:40 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2014, 12:12:35 AM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood. Most are against it even if you propose a priest or deacon giving it. Of course this is lacking so it would be a problem but assuming there were enough, even so Latin traditionalists oppose on grounds of alleged tradition, by which they mean their medieval/1950ist view of the Church. If you say it was once a universal practice and show the good points, they say, "That's find for the Byzantines but we should not give up our ways just because it was an early Church tradition." Which may have a point because I am not opposed to unleavened bread or Eucharistic adoration. The latter and things like Corpus Christi processions are a Western development to combat denial of the Real Presence by heretics. That was not so much a problem in the East. And we do not need to cause further turmoil in the East/West arguments by opposing each's rightful traditions, but I do thing some things are more problematic. Like not giving communion to infants for example in the West. But of course one has to realize how important first communion is as a cultural thing in Western countries. Or confirmation. It would be hard to change.

Medievalist is fine, I am a medievalist. Medieval extentds between 450-1450 technically. That is a wide range. Additionally a an almost equal number of the divergences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism occurred after the 1534, as after 1054.
For instance, Thomas Aquinas might have been replacing the Venerable Bede's writings in importance by 1300, but the full immersion during infant baptism was still occuring up until the reformation in england. In Spain confirmation of infants occured much longer as well. Many points of similarity continueing during the middle ages, even as too many were already gone.

My experience is that Roman Catholics who habitually frequent the old latin mass and are well studied in church history, liturgy and their faith go far beyond the 1950's view and in fact are very sympathetic to much of what is said on this forum here (without going so far as to consider becoming orthodox, however.) My experience is that the Roman Catholics who frequent the old latin mass and view the practices of the 1950's or 1850's as particularly "traditional" are a more ignorant of the history of their latin rite. They are still well intentioned holy people who may have their minds changed with better leadership.

Beyond prayer, education is the key to understanding what the essentials and most long standing historic practices of the faith have been. Education mutually reinforces tradition and purges away the misinterpretation of recent practices that may be miscontrued as immemorial customs.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 12:24:27 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2014, 01:27:03 AM »

I agree with Regnare here, and I think most all of us agree, both catholics and orthodox, that intinction is the traditional manner for reception of the holy blood of our Lord - if it is to be received.

Some of the "Anglican use" Personal Ordinariate of St. Peter Churches have an otherwise traditional mass looking mass, but occasionally the awkward post-1970 and or protestant influences make themselves felt.  As you can see from the videos of masses at Mt. Calvary Church in Baltimore, they have the odd position of a priest acting as deacon presenting a chalice at the communion rail, after the pastor has already given them the Holy body of Our Lord. It is awkward practice in an otherwise exemplary mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GoYyyOin0M

Many in the Roman Church simply wash their hands of the entire fiasco of the various experiments new ideas within their church post-1940s, but the more sophisticated amongst them recognize that intinction is a valuble solution that seems to please all the various factions and schisms from, within and amongst us. This is the weakness in human nature, but as the saying goes we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Restoration of the eucharist in both species is an important practice for the latin rite which was a sore and unnecesary controvery during the 16th century reformation time period. I for one am happy to see it in both forms - but only if intinction is used, otherwise.. I'd grudgingly go along with una voce's position.

What is wrong with receiving the Body and Blood of Christ separately?  That is how an Eastern Orthodox receives Communion. First he partakes of the sacred Body and then he drinks the sacred Blood from the Chalice. When a Bishop serves, first he gives the clergy the sacred Body and then he gives them the sacred Blood. The Latin Rite of Rome is wrong to withhold the sacred Blood from the laity, but it is also wrong to allow laymen and laywomen to distribute the Eucharist.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2014, 01:49:51 AM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood. Most are against it even if you propose a priest or deacon giving it. Of course this is lacking so it would be a problem but assuming there were enough, even so Latin traditionalists oppose on grounds of alleged tradition, by which they mean their medieval/1950ist view of the Church. If you say it was once a universal practice and show the good points, they say, "That's find for the Byzantines but we should not give up our ways just because it was an early Church tradition." Which may have a point because I am not opposed to unleavened bread or Eucharistic adoration. The latter and things like Corpus Christi processions are a Western development to combat denial of the Real Presence by heretics. That was not so much a problem in the East. And we do not need to cause further turmoil in the East/West arguments by opposing each's rightful traditions, but I do thing some things are more problematic. Like not giving communion to infants for example in the West. But of course one has to realize how important first communion is as a cultural thing in Western countries. Or confirmation. It would be hard to change.

Medievalist is fine, I am a medievalist. Medieval extentds between 450-1450 technically. That is a wide range. Additionally a an almost equal number of the divergences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism occurred after the 1534, as after 1054.
For instance, Thomas Aquinas might have been replacing the Venerable Bede's writings in importance by 1300, but the full immersion during infant baptism was still occuring up until the reformation in england. In Spain confirmation of infants occured much longer as well. Many points of similarity continueing during the middle ages, even as too many were already gone.

My experience is that Roman Catholics who habitually frequent the old latin mass and are well studied in church history, liturgy and their faith go far beyond the 1950's view and in fact are very sympathetic to much of what is said on this forum here (without going so far as to consider becoming orthodox, however.) My experience is that the Roman Catholics who frequent the old latin mass and view the practices of the 1950's or 1850's as particularly "traditional" are a more ignorant of the history of their latin rite. They are still well intentioned holy people who may have their minds changed with better leadership.

Beyond prayer, education is the key to understanding what the essentials and most long standing historic practices of the faith have been. Education mutually reinforces tradition and purges away the misinterpretation of recent practices that may be miscontrued as immemorial customs.

Yeah, and maybe I will not be so harsh on the "trads" after a while. I was involved in the break off from the SSPX. Not personally involve, but I was among the first to attend the "Resistance" chapel in Boston, KY under the good Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and am not very fond of Bishop Fellay. I just cannot stand the injustices he did to Bishop Williamson, but I could not stand dealing with the SSPX infighting and so I just began going to the Novus Ordo, though is annoyed me. There are also other personal reason but time has healed that. Like you I am somewhere between Rome and Constantinople. Actually culturally I feel more Western and medieval, particularly British. I'd love to attend a Western Rite parish and I am somewhere of an Anglophile.

I'd say communion will be in both forms in the future, but hopefully more reverent in the next fifty years in the Roman Church. I am not sure about infants though. That's a hard one to break for the Westerns. Like I said first communion at seven is a big thing.

Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,692


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2014, 03:32:06 AM »

What is wrong with receiving the Body and Blood of Christ separately?  That is how an Eastern Orthodox receives Communion. First he partakes of the sacred Body and then he drinks the sacred Blood from the Chalice.

Fr John omitted an important word, which could easily confuse people. What he describes is the way Orthodox clergy commune. Everyone else is communed with the Body and Blood mixed in the chalice, the spoon containing a fragment of Body amid the Blood.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 03:32:21 AM by LBK » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2014, 09:05:49 AM »

What is wrong with receiving the Body and Blood of Christ separately?  That is how an Eastern Orthodox receives Communion. First he partakes of the sacred Body and then he drinks the sacred Blood from the Chalice.

Fr John omitted an important word, which could easily confuse people. What he describes is the way Orthodox clergy commune. Everyone else is communed with the Body and Blood mixed in the chalice, the spoon containing a fragment of Body amid the Blood.

You are right that was a bad mistake.

Fr. John Morris
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2014, 11:34:37 AM »

That is correct. Only a Priest or Deacon cleans the sacred vessels. The only exception would be if we had to send a chalice for replating or some kind of repair that a Priest or Deacon cannot do.

Fr. John W. Morris

Is a subdiacon not allowed to touch the sacred vessels?
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2014, 12:00:04 PM »

What is wrong with receiving the Body and Blood of Christ separately?  That is how an Eastern Orthodox receives Communion. First he partakes of the sacred Body and then he drinks the sacred Blood from the Chalice.

Fr John omitted an important word, which could easily confuse people. What he describes is the way Orthodox clergy commune. Everyone else is communed with the Body and Blood mixed in the chalice, the spoon containing a fragment of Body amid the Blood.

But it's true, when you write Oriental Orthodox (sc. Coptic).
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2014, 12:35:49 PM »

That is correct. Only a Priest or Deacon cleans the sacred vessels. The only exception would be if we had to send a chalice for replating or some kind of repair that a Priest or Deacon cannot do.

Fr. John W. Morris

Is a subdiacon not allowed to touch the sacred vessels?

No. Not at least in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2014, 04:23:15 PM »

Clergy have probably always communed the eucharist that way, no one finds it abnormal for them to commune slightly differently than the laity. It is the communing of lay people with separate cups, separate ministers for both species, adding to unnecessary time and complications that people find inferior to intinction, the more historic longest used practice. Once again say that I think thoughtful catholics and orthodox, taking into account church history, usually agree that this is best practice for communing both Body and Blood of Our Lord for laity.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 04:28:42 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2014, 12:42:41 AM »

What is wrong with receiving the Body and Blood of Christ separately?  That is how an Eastern Orthodox receives Communion. First he partakes of the sacred Body and then he drinks the sacred Blood from the Chalice.

Fr John omitted an important word, which could easily confuse people. What he describes is the way Orthodox clergy commune. Everyone else is communed with the Body and Blood mixed in the chalice, the spoon containing a fragment of Body amid the Blood.

But it's true, when you write Oriental Orthodox (sc. Coptic).

Or historically, or when following the rubric in the Liturgy of St. James.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2014, 12:48:34 AM »

Clergy have probably always communed the eucharist that way, no one finds it abnormal for them to commune slightly differently than the laity. It is the communing of lay people with separate cups, separate ministers for both species, adding to unnecessary time and complications that people find inferior to intinction, the more historic longest used practice. Once again say that I think thoughtful catholics and orthodox, taking into account church history, usually agree that this is best practice for communing both Body and Blood of Our Lord for laity.

I agree and the good meaning conservatives like the priest who writes "What the Prayer Really Says" are likely right that the liberals hijacked a lot of things on purpose. I mean a priest and deacon can commune a large church, even with both species. Latin Mass priests do it and though the altar rail helps, it can still be done without one. But the liberals are in.

I guess the Roman Church will get better at that problem in our lifetime and the mass will be more traditional, facing the altar, but in the vernacular and still the new rite, though much more reverent. The Tridentine Rite will still be the Extraordinary Form and I doubt the rules of communion would change on that.
Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2014, 08:29:52 AM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood.

Yes, I agree. It is definitely sad when traditionalists aren't very big on tradition.

On the other hand, I'd like to ask: is it fair to say that not giving communion to infants is a legitimate Western tradition? Or where do you all (anyone who cares to respond) stand on that?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,366



« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2014, 12:50:06 PM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood.

Yes, I agree. It is definitely sad when traditionalists aren't very big on tradition.

On the other hand, I'd like to ask: is it fair to say that not giving communion to infants is a legitimate Western tradition? Or where do you all (anyone who cares to respond) stand on that?

IMO I think it's wrong, alongside separating and postponing Chrismation.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2014, 01:04:09 PM »

How do priests commune infants in the Western Orthodox liturgy? As far as I know, in the Eastern Rites, infants are customarily communed with a spoonful of the Precious Blood when they can't chew. In the Western Rite, however, communion is not given with a spoon. So how is it given?
(Since as far as I know, Armenians are the only other rite which does not give communion with a spoon, giving it by intinction instead, I'd also like to know how they commune infants.)

I've seen this in person.  I've seen a priest use the end of his finger and place the tiniest piece you ever seen (like a teeny tiny crumb) and the baby "gerbs" on it.

I've also seen this in Eastern Rites where the priest has removed a tiny piece off the spoon and put it in the baby's mouth.

I don't know if there is any formal way they are supposed to do it.  Babies are kind of "variable" and random.   I think it's more of a "you do what you gotta do" kind of thing.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 746



« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2014, 01:28:45 PM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood.

Yes, I agree. It is definitely sad when traditionalists aren't very big on tradition.

On the other hand, I'd like to ask: is it fair to say that not giving communion to infants is a legitimate Western tradition? Or where do you all (anyone who cares to respond) stand on that?

I think the western church stumbled onto something valuable by postponing confirmation and first communion.  Nobody remembers anything from their infancy, but older children will always remember their first communion and confirmation.  Even some Protestant churches retained some form of confirmation, without considering it a sacrament.  Rites of passage are important.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,166



« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2014, 01:31:58 PM »

PS....I am not sure why trad Catholics are so against the faithful receiving the precious blood.

Yes, I agree. It is definitely sad when traditionalists aren't very big on tradition.

On the other hand, I'd like to ask: is it fair to say that not giving communion to infants is a legitimate Western tradition? Or where do you all (anyone who cares to respond) stand on that?

I think the western church stumbled onto something valuable by postponing confirmation and first communion.  Nobody remembers anything from their infancy, but older children will always remember their first communion and confirmation.  Even some Protestant churches retained some form of confirmation, without considering it a sacrament.  Rites of passage are important.

"Remembering" communion isn't the point of receiving communion.
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2014, 02:32:53 PM »

"Remembering" communion isn't the point of receiving communion.

So ... good thing that nobody claimed it is the point of receiving communion I guess.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2014, 02:40:54 PM »

On the other hand, I'd like to ask: is it fair to say that not giving communion to infants is a legitimate Western tradition? Or where do you all (anyone who cares to respond) stand on that?

I think the western church stumbled onto something valuable by postponing confirmation and first communion.  Nobody remembers anything from their infancy, but older children will always remember their first communion and confirmation.  Even some Protestant churches retained some form of confirmation, without considering it a sacrament.  Rites of passage are important.

Well, I think at least the eastern churches should maintain their/our tradition of giving infants all three sacraments together.

But having said that, I'm also inclined to think that -- if the Western tradition is ancient and legitimate, which it appears to be -- then why not maintain it as well? (This may be because I'm an LC-gone-Melkite. Smiley)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 746



« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2014, 03:22:47 PM »

On the other hand, I'd like to ask: is it fair to say that not giving communion to infants is a legitimate Western tradition? Or where do you all (anyone who cares to respond) stand on that?

I think the western church stumbled onto something valuable by postponing confirmation and first communion.  Nobody remembers anything from their infancy, but older children will always remember their first communion and confirmation.  Even some Protestant churches retained some form of confirmation, without considering it a sacrament.  Rites of passage are important.

Well, I think at least the eastern churches should maintain their/our tradition of giving infants all three sacraments together.

But having said that, I'm also inclined to think that -- if the Western tradition is ancient and legitimate, which it appears to be -- then why not maintain it as well? (This may be because I'm an LC-gone-Melkite. Smiley)

Sure, there is room for legitimate diversity in this area.  The church's sacramental practices have varied a good deal from time to time and place to place.  There probably aren't many Catholics or Orthodox who would like to revive the practice of public confession.
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,472


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2014, 04:00:36 AM »

I am up for debate on it. I think it is good to do it in infancy but I also agree that if it is a Western tradition that goes back it is not wrong for Western Rite to wait until six or seven. There are a decent deal of people who do not want anything that is "Western" as if Orthodoxy is purely Eastern. Supposedly it was both east and west until the middle of the 11th century or thereabouts.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 04:00:57 AM by wainscottbl » Logged

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,119



« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2014, 07:18:09 AM »

There are a decent deal of people who do not want anything that is "Western" as if Orthodoxy is purely Eastern.

Just MTCFWIW (my two cents for what its worth), I don't particularly mind Orthodox wanting WRO to be more Eastern ... if they don't then turn around and complain about the latinization of Greek Catholicism.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,410


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2014, 07:55:39 AM »

I am up for debate on it. I think it is good to do it in infancy but I also agree that if it is a Western tradition that goes back it is not wrong for Western Rite to wait until six or seven. There are a decent deal of people who do not want anything that is "Western" as if Orthodoxy is purely Eastern. Supposedly it was both east and west until the middle of the 11th century or thereabouts.
So the East doesn't commune infants?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,692


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2014, 07:59:36 AM »

I am up for debate on it. I think it is good to do it in infancy but I also agree that if it is a Western tradition that goes back it is not wrong for Western Rite to wait until six or seven. There are a decent deal of people who do not want anything that is "Western" as if Orthodoxy is purely Eastern. Supposedly it was both east and west until the middle of the 11th century or thereabouts.
So the East doesn't commune infants?

PP

Of course it does!
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,410


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2014, 08:04:43 AM »

I am up for debate on it. I think it is good to do it in infancy but I also agree that if it is a Western tradition that goes back it is not wrong for Western Rite to wait until six or seven. There are a decent deal of people who do not want anything that is "Western" as if Orthodoxy is purely Eastern. Supposedly it was both east and west until the middle of the 11th century or thereabouts.
So the East doesn't commune infants?

PP

Of course it does!
Oh good. I've actually never attended an Eastern Rite Liturgy, so I don't know the ins-and-outs. I did listen to one on youtube because I was curious.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,366



« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2014, 01:02:33 PM »

I've actually never attended an Eastern Rite Liturgy

You're my favorite WRO.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.184 seconds with 80 queries.