End of "First Communion" Celebrations in US Melkite Greek Catholic Church

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by brumano

What you just posted, Latin traditions are good for Latins but Byzantine traditions are good for Melkites, why couldn't Melkite traditions be Melkite if they are good?

The Melkite tradition is Byzantine. The very name Melkite is derived from the Syriac word for imperial.

[brumano]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The Melkite tradition is Byzantine. The very name Melkite is derived from the Syriac word for imperial.

It's etymology wouldn't have anything to do Melkezidek would it, the King of Salem? I think it's in Kings I'll have to look it up, who brought the bread and wine to the altar of sacrifice amidst all the bloody sacrifices of the the other Kings? He's a very important figure in the development of the true priesthood and the truly authentic Eucharistic practices. If so maybe the Byzantines should consider following their rediscovering of authenticity as preeminent, not the other way around.

Or maybe Melchior on eof the Kings of the East who travelled to see themselve the virgin and child at Bethelhem.

[malphono]

The word "Melkite" derives from the common Semitic word for "king" ("malko" in Syro-Aramaic, "melekh" in Hebrew, "malik" in Arabic).

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by brumano

It's etymology wouldn't have anything to do Melkezidek would it, the King of Salem?

Melkite and Melchizedek both contain the root for "king". Melchizedek is mentioned in Genesis, but I forget the chapter #.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Melkite and Melchizedek both contain the root for "king". Melchizedek is mentioned in Genesis, but I forget the chapter #.

Wow, look at all the references in Hebrews:

Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, Hebrews 6:20, Hebrews 7:1,9-11,15,17,21

[Chris_McAvoy]

It is clear from this document that Rome expects the Eastern Churches to restores their traditions and liturgical practices without delay.

Would Rome be so kind to insist upon the same of her own Rite, she would perhaps be taken more seriously by the Eastern Churches. Having created outright bans on many older Latin traditions, for 40 years and dioceses not opening Latin masses in a single parish ever until the SSPX opens on nearby does not encourage us to view these requests with seriousness. Until recently most dioceses stated that we "did not fulfill our Sunday obligation" if we attended the only traditional latin mass in the area, when it was FSSPX. Many people chose the byzantine rite instead if it was available to avoid that confusing game.

At the present time the entire concept of "Holy tradition" and what it means and what is genuine is somewhat dubious from the double speak we hear in churches and vatican departments.

Yeah, so the tradition for the Latin church now is that the priest is supposed to face liturgical West away from the apse for most of the Mass, whereas the tradition for the Byzantine is to continue to face liturgical East.

The tradition that's been established is the tradition of "do-it-yourself make it up as we go along and call it early christian archaeology".

It seems madness to me.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Chris_McAvoy

Would Rome be so kind to insist upon the same of her own Rite, she would perhaps be taken more seriously by the Eastern Churches. Having created outright bans on many older Latin traditions, for 40 years and dioceses not opening Latin masses in a single parish ever until the SSPX opens on nearby does not encourage us to view these requests with seriousness. Until recently most dioceses stated that we "did not fulfill our Sunday obligation" if we attended the only traditional latin mass in the area, when it was FSSPX. Many people chose the byzantine rite instead if it was available to avoid that confusing game.

At the present time the entire concept of "Holy tradition" and what it means and what is genuine is somewhat dubious from the double speak we hear in churches and vatican departments.

Yeah, so the tradition for the Latin church now is that the priest is supposed to face liturgical West away from the apse for most of the Mass, whereas the tradition for the Byzantine is to continue to face liturgical East.

The tradition that's been established is the tradition of "do-it-yourself make it up as we go along and call it early christian archaeology".

It seems madness to me.

This is not really pertinent to the topic at hand. We are discussing here a Melkite bishop insisting on the authentic traditions of the Melkite Church. This bishop has authority by the fact of being a bishop to insist upon the reintegration of the authentic traditions. He does, however, cite Rome's insistence in order to support his own insistence. However, he does not cite Rome for the sake of obedience to Rome, but simply for support.

That being said, Rome has also consistently urged Roman Catholics to return to their own roots and traditions, as well as a more authentic expression of her own Liturgy. The fact that a great number of people have insisted on being disobedient to Rome's insistence is no fault of Rome herself.

[brumano]

Originally Posted by Vico

Wow, look at all the references in Hebrews:

Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, Hebrews 6:20, Hebrews 7:1,9-11,15,17,21

Thank you, I think it's Heb ch 5 St. Paul talks about infants being given milk, not solid food and that some adults can't even be given solid food, because they are spiritually infants. There's just so much scripture and sacred tradition that weighs for the reception of the Eucharist at an appropriate age of concious reason I don't see how anyone can be so adamantly opposed to an innocent solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by brumano

Thank you, I think it's Heb ch 5 St. Paul talks about infants being given milk, not solid food and that some adults can't even be given solid food, because they are spiritually infants. There's just so much scripture and sacred tradition that weighs for the reception of the Eucharist at an appropriate age of concious reason I don't see how anyone can be so adamantly opposed to an innocent solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately.

This is because you are a Roman Catholic and approaching this from that mindset.

It is obvious from this thread that you have no experience of the Byzantine Tradition.

There is nothing wrong with that except for when you try to promote the Roman way of doing things for us in the Byzantine Church.

As an Orthodox friend of mine says, he can not understand how the Roman Catholics welcome a child into the Faith at baptism and then excommunicates them until the age of reason.

Just an aside, when Paul speaks of milk for infants he is not talking about actual infants, he is talking about anyone new to the faith, a neophyte. I am sure that you are not against the reception of the Eucharist by an adult who is entering the Church.

The East and West have different traditions and ways of doing things. You must respect this. You must not try to force your ways upon us and we will do likewise.

[brumano]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

This is because you are a Roman Catholic and approaching this from that mindset.

It is obvious from this thread that you have no experience of the Byzantine Tradition.

There is nothing wrong with that except for when you try to promote the Roman way of doing things for us in the Byzantine Church.

As an Orthodox friend of mine says, he can not understand how the Roman Catholics welcome a child into the Faith at baptism and then excommunicates them until the age of reason.

Just an aside, when Paul speaks of milk for infants he is not talking about actual infants, he is talking about anyone new to the faith, a neophyte. I am sure that you are not against the reception of the Eucharist by an adult who is entering the Church.

The East and West have different traditions and ways of doing things. You must respect this. You must not try to force your ways upon us and we will do likewise.

One aside deserves another if it leads to better understanding, next time your orthodox friend bring this up you can tell him that when as Catholics we are Baptized in the name of all three persons of the one God with water, the punishment for original and all sin is clensed away and the individual whether infant adult or elderly adult person is brought fully into the real life of God in His Holy Church. This is the communion that takes place by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament that is entered into by the will of the infant's parents and Godparents in conjunction with all the church. The person is fully in communion with all of the church, not excommunicated in the least, but growing toward the day of the Sacrament of his or her First Holy Communion.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by brumano

One aside deserves another if it leads to better understanding, next time your orthodox friend bring this up you can tell him that when as Catholics we are Baptized in the name of all three persons of the one God with water, the punishment for original and all sin is clensed away and the individual whether infant adult or elderly adult person is brought fully into the real life of God in His Holy Church. This is the communion that takes place by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament that is entered into by the will of the infant's parents and Godparents in conjunction with all the church. The person is fully in communion with all of the church, not excommunicated in the least, but growing toward the day of the Sacrament of his or her First Holy Communion.

Excommunication means being excluded from the communion of the Church, which is symbolized in its most concrete reality through the denial of the individual to receive Holy Communion. The comparison of an infant being "excommunicated" after baptism in the West is very appropriate, even if it does misunderstand the West's reasoning behind it.

But that is not what this discussion is about.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

Excommunication means being excluded from the communion of the Church, which is symbolized in its most concrete reality through the denial of the individual to receive Holy Communion. The comparison of an infant being "excommunicated" after baptism in the West is very appropriate, even if it does misunderstand the West's reasoning behind it.

Separation of baptism, confirmation, and (first) communion is a very ancient Western practice, although in modern times some have taken it to the point of absurdity -- for example, someone on this forum recently mentioned that she wasn't confirmed until the age of sixteen!

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by brumano

Thank you, I think it's Heb ch 5 St. Paul talks about infants being given milk, not solid food and that some adults can't even be given solid food, because they are spiritually infants. There's just so much scripture and sacred tradition that weighs for the reception of the Eucharist at an appropriate age of concious reason I don't see how anyone can be so adamantly opposed to an innocent solemn communion rite or liturgy being offered and celebrated legitimately.

I'm not too worried about that. There will still be plenty of solemn communion masses, just not in the Melkite Church.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

This is not really pertinent to the topic at hand.

Perhaps not, but Chris makes a very good point nevertheless:

Originally Posted by Chris_McAvoy

Would Rome be so kind to insist upon the same of her own Rite, she would perhaps be taken more seriously by the Eastern Churches.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Perhaps not, but Chris makes a very good point nevertheless:

But Rome does insist upon the same for her own Rite. The problem is not on Rome's insistence, but on other's obedience.