In fairness, you do need to be a bit familiar with the lingo to find it easily (including alternate transliterations of “Panakhida”)
Actually, for the laity and minor clerics (ordained Acolytes, Lectors, and Subdeacons).
Which there WERE some present, so at least one is required… unless using the melkite rubrics… in which case, they could use manual intinction (dipping strips of the precious Body into the Precious Blood one at a time whilst communing the faithful).
So, the liturgical spoons are only for the laity? I did not know that. :eek:
Well in the Byzantine tradition, yes. According to Fr Robert Taft, Syriac clergy receive via the spoon and the Coptic and Ethiopian traditions use the spoon for the Precious Blood for both clergy and laity.
St. Elias communes their subdeacons as if they are major clerics. You can see it on their YouTube video.
The rubrics that I’ve seen are that subdeacons are supposed to be communed in the altar, but using the spoon… the ancient rubrics note that only deacons, deaconesses, priests, and bishops may take the cup.
Given that no Catholic Church Sui Iuris uses deaconesses… This sounds like a persistent latinization (as the Latin Church has, for centuries, considered Latin Subdeacons to be major clerics).
I’ll look for the video and post it and then you tell me if I’m seeing things. But essentially I remember the subdeacons received the Precious Body CITH and went to their spots at the far end of the Holy Table with one hand overing the other as with the other clergy, said their prayers in silence, and then received. I can’t recall how they received from the chalice.
How about the Maronites? :3
At the 3:30 mark
Interesting though if you notice, there is another subdeacon to the right who doesn’t receive with the other two.
Malphono will know more than me about that but the Maronites have only recently (relatively speaking) restored communion under both kinds for both clergy and laity. There was a period of time where only the priest and sometimes the deacon (and maybe the subdeacon?) would be allowed to receive the Precious Blood. The Latin practice of communion under one species was imposed for a while. The current practice envisions communion by intinction. That is the case in the US. In the territories…well Forest Gump would tell you “you never know what you’re gonna get.”
Yeah, why is that? Isn’t it customary for the senior-most cleric to be the main celebrant?
Well, the Liturgy wasn’t done in the Rite of the Church the Pope belongs to.
Is it not true that the Pontiff may celebrate according to any Rite practiced in the Catholic Church?
This is my understanding.
The papacy is an office of the Church universal, not of the Latin Church.
IIRC Adam Deville (a Byzantine Catholic) in his book “Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy,” taking his cue from a proposal by Cardinal Ratzinger, makes a distinction between the bishop of Rome’s role as Patriarch of the Latin Church, and his role as head bishop of the Church universal. I find it a cogent argument that the Absolutist Petrine view is based on a confusion of those roles – tt seems your own view of the papacy (from discussions in other threads) stems from the latter(?).
Someone else might know better, but just going by my own experience I would say that’s not necessarily true.
I’m wondering how difficult it could be to train the Pope (or any other Latin priest) how to celebrate an Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy.
That’s probably why Paul VI didn’t preside – he might have been too busy to train himself, it being during Vatican II and all.
If I’m not mistaken, Benedict XVI didn’t even celebrate a Maronite Divine Liturgy when he was in Lebanon.
Well I was just going off what the orthodox do. Since I was orthodox for a number of years and Subdeacon as well. I hold the orthodox way of concelebrating to be the standard for myself at at least.
Oops. I read wrong post. Sorry.
Yes … IIRC the practice of communion under both species (by intinction) was restored in the late 1960s, and that was a gradual process, first in the US then in the Patriarchal Territories and elsewhere. Prior to that, from at least the late 16th century, communion was under one species only. In the rare case where an ordained deacon was present, I believe he would have been communicated by the celebrant, at least for the Body. The chalice would have been presented to him by the celebrant. These days, of course, the deacon (and in some cases even an ordained subdeacon) self-communicates of both.
Now, the situation prior to the late 16th century is a little unclear, but AFAIK, use of the spoon had fallen into disuse long before, probably by the 13th century. I believe it’s related to the prevalence of unleavened bread (remember that there was a time when the Maronites used both leavened and unleavened bread). With unleavened bread, a spoon is totally unnecessary. I’m not 100% certain, but I think the SCC has also abandoned use of the spoon, even though they continue to use leavened bread.
The Melkites use leavened bread without the spoon, do they not?