It's good to be a Melkite
#41
(02-13-2012, 12:56 PM)Melkite Wrote: Which is why the churches that still use them are basically liturgical museums, exhibiting a rite that is effectively extinct.

Rites can fall into extinction. There's no divine mandate to preserve rites no matter the circumstances. Rites exist to convey and preserve the faith, not the other way around.

Quote:Ok, I started the thread about our bishop requiring that children receiving chrismation and eucharist immediately upon being baptized.  Rosaries and eucharistic processions are one thing, but if you're suggesting that this practice is just some mere oddity that could be done away with at the flick of a pen with no negative consequences, you're seriously off your rocker.

Just for the sake of the argument, why couldn't chrismation and the reception of eucharist be delayed unti the child reaches the age of reason like it's done everywhere else and like it was done in the Eastern churches for centuries after the reunion?

Is that another thing that, unless kept at all costs, would "hurt" your faith?
Reply
#42
(02-13-2012, 01:07 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Just for the sake of the argument, why couldn't chrismation and the reception of eucharist be delayed unti the child reaches the age of reason like it's done everywhere else and like it was done in the Eastern churches for centuries after the reunion?

Is that another thing that, unless kept at all costs, would "hurt" your faith?

For the sake of argument, it could be delayed.  It's certainly not of absolute necessity that they be performed together.  But that then begs the question, why would you want to separate them?  It is the apostolic practice to keep them together, and this was even the Latin practice originally, so what reason is so compelling to make the seperation more desirable than the apostolic practice?

I have only heard two reasons proposed by Latins.  If you are aware of others, please inform me.  The first, as you mentioned, is that the child should be at the age of reason so that he can comprehend what he is receiving.  But that reason is easily dismissed.  For reception of the eucharist, the mystery of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is so great, not even an adult can truly comprehend it.  Asking an infant to not receive because he doesn't understand yet is in a sense like saying we won't teach quantum physics to a kindergartener because it's too complicated for him to grasp, so will wait until 4th grade.  I promise, he's not going to have a much better grasp on it then, either.  For confirmation, it is often seen as a rite of passage, but as explained earlier, this is a failure to understand the nature of the sacrament.  If these two can be delayed because of inability to comprehend, why not also delay baptism?  'Because baptism is necessary for salvation!'  Yes it is, as are chrismation and the eucharist, although, admittedly, not so severely as baptism.  But the Latin practice admits as much.  Are not infants in danger of death confirmed and given first communion in the Roman rite?  Your own rite implicitly admits the necessity of these sacraments for salvation.  Just as the Son and the Spirit both originate in the Father, chrismation and the eucharist originate in baptism.  You can no more enter fully into the life of the Church without receiving all three sacraments of initiation than you can believe in God if you reject the Trinity.

The second reason given is more practical.  An infant can't be careful in the reception of the eucharist, and so crumbs may be spilled.  This is also easily dismissed, because we still hold cloths underneath that go from the chalice to underneath the communicant's chin.  Any crumb or drop that might fall is caught by the cloth; there is no danger of accidental trampling.  Also, infants who do not yet eat solid food only receive the consecrated wine.

For Easterners (at least, for those of us who know why we practice the way we do), this is different from merely demanding the bread consecrated be leavened or allowing married men to be ordained.  I prefer the use of leavened bread inn the eucharist, but this is entirely subjective on my part.  I recognize that the use of either leavened or unleavened bread is irrelevant as far as validity is concerned.  I certainly don't think one receives Christ more fully if the bread is leavened (that would be a heresy).  I could live with unleavened bread being used for the eucharist.  I could live with mandatory clerical celibacy for all major orders.  Neither of these are consequential in terms of salvation.  But for reception of the eucharist and chrismation as infants, I dare say our practice is far superior.  To fully initiate a child into the life of the saving Ark of Christ can only increase one's likelihood of salvation.  A similar argument, however, can in no way be made for the practice of delaying their reception.  That is why this issue harms our faith (and really, it harms yours as well, you just don't realize it) wheras the other, more minor issues, do not.
Reply
#43
(02-13-2012, 09:21 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 04:20 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Ridiculous.

They're just playing into the hands of the Eastern Orthodox. It's the old Eastern intellectual scleorosis all over again. Remove any "taint" from Latin traditions.

Is Nicholas going to suppress the rosary too? That is, if he even prays that perverse latinism!

Of course not!  Why would he suppress a private devotion?  Stop being emotional!  And try showing some respect to a bishop!  I doubt people around here would much like if I started referring to Marcel, Richard or Bernard.

Funny reading that and seeing the text that was liberally inserted over a photo of a member of clergy "proudly" displayed in the avatar.

:hmmm:


Kind of makes it apparent why the OP was posted on a Roman Catholic forum in the first place.
Reply
#44
(02-13-2012, 06:54 PM)Whitey Wrote: Kind of makes it apparent why the OP was posted on a Roman Catholic forum in the first place.

The last time I checked this was a Catholic forum and not a Roman Catholic forum. Melkite and I are Catholic as well, tho' many of the Roman Catholics on this forum, for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom, seem to want to deny that fact.
Reply
#45
(02-13-2012, 06:54 PM)Whitey Wrote: Funny reading that and seeing the text that was liberally inserted over a photo of a member of clergy "proudly" displayed in the avatar.

:hmmm:


Kind of makes it apparent why the OP was posted on a Roman Catholic forum in the first place.

Try and get over yourself.
Reply
#46
(02-13-2012, 07:44 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 06:54 PM)Whitey Wrote: Funny reading that and seeing the text that was liberally inserted over a photo of a member of clergy "proudly" displayed in the avatar.

:hmmm:


Kind of makes it apparent why the OP was posted on a Roman Catholic forum in the first place.

Try and get over yourself.

I was just wondering how you were going to explain the hypocrisy.
Reply
#47
(02-13-2012, 07:53 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 07:44 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 06:54 PM)Whitey Wrote: Funny reading that and seeing the text that was liberally inserted over a photo of a member of clergy "proudly" displayed in the avatar.

:hmmm:


Kind of makes it apparent why the OP was posted on a Roman Catholic forum in the first place.

Try and get over yourself.

I was just wondering how you were going to explain the hypocrisy.

Melkite has had that avatar for... less than 24 hours.  So it's less "apparent" why he posted on a Catholic forum-- yes, the forum is not just used by Romans.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#48
(02-13-2012, 06:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: The first, as you mentioned, is that the child should be at the age of reason so that he can comprehend what he is receiving.  But that reason is easily dismissed.  For reception of the eucharist, the mystery of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is so great, not even an adult can truly comprehend it.  Asking an infant to not receive because he doesn't understand yet is in a sense like saying we won't teach quantum physics to a kindergartener because it's too complicated for him to grasp, so will wait until 4th grade.  I promise, he's not going to have a much better grasp on it then, either.

This is an absolute strawman. If a full and encompassing understanding of the miracle of the real presence were required to all communicants, no-one could ever partake of it since it's an unfathomable mystery in and of itself. I don't know where you get these ideas from. What is required is a proper discernment of the Body and Blood of our Lord, as Scripture itself demands: "For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:26-29)

In other words, the communicant, besides being baptised and alive, must be free from mortal sin (granted in the case of infants) and understand that Christ is truly and substantially present underneath the species of bread and wine (not granted under the age of reason). This, of course, is not an absolute requirement otherwise giving Holy Communion to infants as done in the Eastern churches would be sacrilegious.

Quote:For confirmation, it is often seen as a rite of passage, but as explained earlier, this is a failure to understand the nature of the sacrament.  If these two can be delayed because of inability to comprehend, why not also delay baptism?  'Because baptism is necessary for salvation!'  Yes it is, as are chrismation and the eucharist, although, admittedly, not so severely as baptism.  But the Latin practice admits as much.  Are not infants in danger of death confirmed and given first communion in the Roman rite?  Your own rite implicitly admits the necessity of these sacraments for salvation.  Just as the Son and the Spirit both originate in the Father, chrismation and the eucharist originate in baptism.  You can no more enter fully into the life of the Church without receiving all three sacraments of initiation than you can believe in God if you reject the Trinity.

You're jumping into conclusions, Melkite. The sacraments of the New Law are, generally speaking, necessary for salvation but only the sacrament of Baptism is clothed with both the necessity of means and precept. A necessity of means indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. A necessity of precept is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Confirmation constitutes only a necessity of precept while Holy Communion, regarding infants, constitutes neither a necessity of means nor of precept. The Council of Trent under pain of anathema, solemnly rejects the belief that Holy Communion is absolutely necessary for salvation when it comes to infants, (Sess. XXI, can. iv) and declares that the custom of the primitive Church of giving Holy Communion to children was not based upon the erroneous belief of its necessity to salvation, but upon the circumstances of the times (Sess. XXI, cap. iv).

As concerning adults, Holy communion is prescribed to them "not only by the law of the Church, but also by a Divine command (John 6:50 sqq.), though for its absolute necessity as a means to salvation there is no more evidence than in the case of infants. For such a necessity could be established only on the supposition that Communion [i]per se constituted a person in the state of grace or that this state could not be preserved without Communion. Neither supposition is correct. Not the first, for the simple reason that the Blessed Eucharist, being a sacrament of the living, presupposes the state of sanctifying grace; not the second, because in case of necessity, such as might arise, e.g., in a long sea-voyage, the Eucharistic graces may be supplied by actual graces. It is only when viewed in this light that we can understand how the primitive Church, without going counter to the Divine command, withheld the Eucharist from certain sinners even on their deathbeds. There is, however, a moral necessity on the part of adults to receive Holy Communion, as a means, for instance, of overcoming violent temptation, or as a viaticum for persons in danger of death. Eminent divines, like Francisco Suárez, claim that the Eucharist, if not absolutely necessary, is at least a relatively and morally necessary means to salvation, in the sense that no adult can long sustain his spiritual, supernatural life who neglects on principle to approach Holy Communion. This view is supported, not only by the solemn and earnest words of Christ, when He Promised the Eucharist, and by the very nature of the sacrament as the spiritual food and medicine of our souls, but also by the fact of the helplessness and perversity of human nature and by the daily experience of confessors and directors of souls."[/i] (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Quote:But for reception of the eucharist and chrismation as infants, I dare say our practice is far superior.  To fully initiate a child into the life of the saving Ark of Christ can only increase one's likelihood of salvation.  A similar argument, however, can in no way be made for the practice of delaying their reception.  That is why this issue harms our faith (and really, it harms yours as well, you just don't realize it) wheras the other, more minor issues, do not.

Confirmation and Holy Communion are not absolutely necessary for salvation by necessity of means and pecept as Baptism is. And even when it comes to Baptism, in the case of adults, it can and ought to be delayed if the minister sees that the catechumen is unworthy to receive it.
Reply
#49
@Jovan,

Jovan, I respect you, your opinions, and your choice of Liturgy. The Fisheaters Home Page implies, via the content, that this is a Roman Catholic site, but you are correct. It's a Catholic forum.

@ Mithrandylan

I think you may be missing my point and the entire context of my reply. I just see some hypocrisy in one of Mekite's posts.

Let him fight his own battle on this one.
Reply
#50
(02-13-2012, 07:53 PM)Whitey Wrote: I was just wondering how you were going to explain the hypocrisy.

Simply put, there is no hypocrisy to explain.  Take care now.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)