Latin or Eastern Liturgy

[voxpopulisuxx]

Part of it was that in the east bishops were fewer and further between then in the west so it was a practical matter

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

Greek liturgy PWNS you.

Sorry, but you Latins are insane, with your separating the sacraments of initiation and everything else.

*scoffs to himself*

Ha...Some of the Theology students had a debate in class today over whether Confirmation should be administered at Baptism (or at least before First Communion), so as to preserve the traditional order of Sacraments that was kind of skewed when Pope St. Pius X lowered the age for receiving Communion.  They lost to the ones who want to keep the current practice, but perhaps there's a growing movement for it.

[Resurrexi]

I find it impossible to choose between the usus antiquior and the Byzantine liturgy.

So, you attend the NO because you can't make up your mind? You stay at home?

It must be possible to choose.

Haha clever.

I go to the usus antiquior since there is no Catholic Byzantine liturgy nearby. If there were one, I'd go to both or alternate.

[serviam]

This may be a very stupid question, but what is the usus antiquior  ?

[Resurrexi]

This may be a very stupid question, but what is the usus antiquior  ?

The TLM

[serviam]

This may be a very stupid question, but what is the usus antiquior  ?

The TLM

ahh. Thank you.

[Melkite]

Just so I'm clear:

I was being sardonic in my earlier post.

Since you're a Byzantine Catholic, maybe you can help me with this. Why is it that Easterns recieve Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist all as infants?

It was the original practice to receive baptism, confirmation and eucharist all together.  Actually, there were plenty of bishops in the East, but rather it was the West where there weren't so many bishops, although this doesn't really have anything to do with the reasoning for the sacraments being kept together.  In the West, greater emphasis was placed on the bishop being a priest in the fullest sense, so that as Christianity became more common, and there were too many Christians for the bishop to baptize everyone, the priests baptized, but the bishop retained the right to confirm.  The East placed greater emphasis on the unity of the sacraments of initiation, so they were kept together as in the original practice.  Something that I think many Latins don't realize is that the priest's ability to confer sacraments is a delegation of the bishop.  The bishop has always been the primary conferer (is that a word?) of sacraments.  So, in the East, the priest can baptize and confirm because of the bishop's authority.  Likewise, in the West, normally the priest can only baptize because the bishop has given the priest no authority to confirm, except for the Easter vigil, when the bishop can't go around to every parish, so it is the priest that confirms during this liturgy.  As far as giving the Eucharist to infants, this is again the most ancient practice, and the East, our perspective is more one of the sacraments being a mystery.  So, a child not being able to understand what they are receiving is not an issue for us, because we would say the adult doesn't even understand fully what they are receiving, they only can have a glimpse of what is truly taking place.  Jesus came to save all, whether they can understand or not, so because of this we have a hard time justifying separation of these sacraments due to age.

[veritatem_dilexisti]

Your post, Melkite, reminds me of this article: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/11/naming-bishop.html

[serviam]

Just so I'm clear:

I was being sardonic in my earlier post.

Since you're a Byzantine Catholic, maybe you can help me with this. Why is it that Easterns recieve Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist all as infants?

In the West, greater emphasis was placed on the bishop being a priest in the fullest sense

What does the East place emphasis on

[Vetus Ordo]

What does the East place emphasis on

Heresy.

[Resurrexi]

What does the East place emphasis on

Heresy.

That's just plain rude and disrespectful. There are many Eastern Christians who are in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and who believe in all the dogmas defined by the Holy Roman Church. To say that the East places an emphasis on heresy is not only uncharitable, but also false.

[Melkite]

Just so I'm clear:

I was being sardonic in my earlier post.

Since you're a Byzantine Catholic, maybe you can help me with this. Why is it that Easterns recieve Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist all as infants?

In the West, greater emphasis was placed on the bishop being a priest in the fullest sense

What does the East place emphasis on

  the integrity of keeping the three sacraments of initiation together, and the administration of them in their proper order.

[Vetus Ordo]

What does the East place emphasis on

Heresy.

That's just plain rude and disrespectful. There are many Eastern Christians who are in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and who believe in all the dogmas defined by the Holy Roman Church. To say that the East places an emphasis on heresy is not only uncharitable, but also false.

Of course there are, thank God! I never said the contrary.

Let me clarify: when I said "heresy" I meant it in a historical context. Unfortunately, it's true that the East has been a cradle of heresies since Apostolic Times, particularly the See of Constantinople. It's a historical fact, no matter how painful it may be. The rebellious spirit of the eastern sees towards the see of Rome, due to many factors throughout the history of Christendom, is somewhat latent still, even in those particular churches who have re-entered the Holy Roman Church after the Great Schism, due to their recent reapproach with the Eastern Schismatic Church disgracefully instigated by Vatican II. There are many things to be laudable in Eastern Catholicism - liturgy, spirituality - but the spirit of heresy and rebellion towards Rome is most unfortunate and a historical certainty.

[anthony]

Just so I'm clear:

I was being sardonic in my earlier post.

Since you're a Byzantine Catholic, maybe you can help me with this. Why is it that Easterns recieve Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist all as infants?

Because all three are sacraments of initiation into the Christian faith, and such was the common practice until Bishops had dominion over larger areas, and more families converted. That confirmation is now understood by many Catholics (Latin) as a Christian bar or bah-mitzvah, a kind of "coming of age" (which is nonsense), is a totally reasonable reading into its current place in the life of pre-teens in the Church.

Also, this traditional way of receiving the three sacraments of initiation sticks it to Protestantism, which largely protests (no pun intended) against the baptism of infants (even children). We don't have to be at the age of reason to receive baptism - the primary of the three initiating sacraments. Nor do we need to be at the age of reason to receive Our Lord, be one with Him, and to receive Holy Chrism in the Spirit.

[anthony]

What does the East place emphasis on

Heresy.

I understand that you are joking. Not like everyone else.

But you certainly cause scandal through misunderstanding. Always have some cue in a post that might hint at your joking.