Western Rite Critic

A Balance to Contagious Enthusiasm

Latinizations Revisited

LatinizationHistoric Western Orthodoxy vs. Heterodox Innovation

This article is a followup to Melkites Define Latinizations from March 1st, and is actually a comment appended to that article by Monk Aidan.

Let’s see how these practices compare to the liturgical practice of Orthodox Christians of the West before the Schism.

1. Unmarried priesthood

They had that, though many exceptions were made, and even advocated by Saints, and that even up to the very eve of the Schism of Rome.

2. Statues

They had statues, some of them wonder-working, though flat Byzantine-style iconography was also very common and even more prevalent.

3. Altar rails

They didn’t have those. Altar rails were invented during the Counter-Reformation.

4. Confessional boxes

They didn’t have those. Confessional boxes were invented in the Counter-Reformation.

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

They didn’t have those; the Stations of the Cross did not appear till Reformation times, and did not attain its current format until almost the 19th century.

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

They had those.

7. Western-style paintings

They definitely didn’t have Western-style paintings . By which I mean fleshy, post-renaissance realism in church art.

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

They didn’t have any problem preserving the liturgical hours. In fact, they kept them up much better than ER Orthodox do today.

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

They always had full Mass instead of Presanctifieds, except on Holy Friday. However, several Popes ratified not only the bulk of the canons of the Quinisext Oecumenical Council, but ALL its canons, which theoretically and legally, for a time, abolished this Western practice.

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil


11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

Western Christians back then didn’t use Western prayers . That is, they did not have the rosary, or other emotionalistic Roman Catholic devotions.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

They definitely didn’t have that . That is, the songs spoken of here, they didn’t use.

13. Use of musical instruments

They did not use musical instruments in worship, with the exception of some historical disagreement about how the organs in Anglo-Saxon churches were utilised. But as a general rule, musical instruments were not allowed in church services.

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

This stylism has to do with Melkite liturgy, which I don’t even understand.

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

They didn’t truncate things to the extent so many ER Orthodox do today.

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

They had no dearth of those, though fewer than in the Old Rite of the Russians.

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

They mainly knelt on penitential days, since kneeling was seen as an inherently penitential expression. They maintained the rule that we should never kneel on Sundays.

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

This they did constantly, and it is a legitimate expression of Western Orthodoxy. Of course to Melkites it’s an external imposition.

19. Not distributing the antidoron

They distributed antidoron.

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration

The West never had the tradition of hot water during the Liturgy, so… N/A.

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

They had curtains over the holy doors in the chancel screen.

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

This separation, it must be admitted, prevailed in the West from about the fourth or fifth century onward.

I don’t plan to draw any conclusions, just pointing out how many “Melkite Latinisations” are Roman Catholicisms that would be just as extraneous and inappropriate for historic Western Orthodox worship.

March 16, 2008 - Posted by | Western Rite Liturgics, Western Rite Pieties | , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. Related to the Sacred Heart Devotion… Catholics now for quite some time have the Divine Mercy Devotion… another fruit of private revelations (Polish nun, Jesuit spiritual director) which even some arch-conservative Catholics call into question… an image (pseudo-icon) and a chaplet prayers (much “inspired” by the Trisagion prayers/Orthodox “borrowings”).

    If one wants to see the ultimate effect of even the approved Fatima “revelations” one finds Catholics who believe in papal infallibilty criticizing at least 2 popes for not making the consecration of Russia in the right way, etc… (anti-popes?_the exit ramp from infallibility?)and expressing dismay that John Paul II may consider Orthodoxy the means of salvation for those “heretical schismatics.”

    Another Catholic movement (Polish, Maximilian Kolbe, Militia Immaculata) which intially was directed to the conversion of the Freemasons is also directed (and morphed) into prayers for conversion of the Orthodox. Sad.

    The Sacred Heart devotion like most Catholic devotions were designed to compensate for the flaws, fragmentation and “what lacks” in Catholic public worship. And at the same time, they frequently serve as counter-attacks to non-Catholics. They are frequently para-Liturgical. It would not be unfair to include the Charismatic Movement/prayer group supplement approach in this discussion, another “approved” devotion.

    One can find the icon image of “Our Lady of Perpetual Help” in many Orthodox ex-Uniate parishes. But let me say this: in my experience, this practice, unfortunately, though not on the same level of the Sacred Heart devotion, can also function in some parishes as a slippery slope towards a disturbed Orthodox identity.

    Catholic narratives of the return of the Kazan icon to Russia are quite revealing, even more so than Catholic private revelations.

    Through the prayers of the Theotokos, may those who convert to Orthodoxy truly convert.

    Comment by publican123 | July 22, 2008 | Reply

  2. […] Article: Sacred Body Parts This article is a comment contribution by its […]

    Pingback by Guest Article: Sacred Body Parts « Western Rite Critic | March 24, 2008 | Reply

    (c) 2008 St. John Cassian Press

    Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is a popular thing in the Roman Catholic Church of today. Frequently we see depictions of the Heart, and in Roman Catholic prayer books there are prayers to it, and consecrations of persons and places to the Heart. It is being called “God’s gift for our age.” What is this gift?

    Devotion to the Heart first appeared in the 1600s under the auspices of the Jesuit order, which sought to emphasise the humanity of Christ. This was part of their campaign to make Christianity less demanding, less “other,” more approachable. To forge their new “minimum Christianity,” Jesuit theologians, for example, tried to prove that for a sinner to be absolved, he need only fear hell, or regret the consequences of his sins. The so-called Jansenists, on the other hand, with others who upheld Catholic practice, countered Jesuit teaching, saying it is the love of God which must motivate penitents to come to confession. Whereas Jesuit teachers debated how often it is necessary to love God, one Jesuit divine of the times concluding it is enough if a person love God one time before he die, Orthodox Christianity concerns the fullness of life in Christ and is scarcely interested in what the absolute minimum to achieve salvation would be. The form taken by the newly forged devotion to Jesus’ humanity as popularised by the Jesuits also strayed outside the bounds of Orthodox doctrine. We know that there have been seven Oecumenical Councils of the Church, from whose dogmatic teaching there can be no appeal. The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), responding to the teachings of Nestorius, the heretic Patriarch of Constantinople, taught that the Word, the second Person of the Trinity, was made man–that He took a human body and a human soul–that He appeared in the world under the name “Jesus,” and under the title “Christ.” Thus there is only one Person of Jesus Christ, and this Person is to be worshipped with a single worship, that of latria, the kind of worship rendered to God almighty. Nestorius, however, attempted to separate the honour paid to Christ’s humanity from that offered His Divinity. Thus Nestorius had said in a Christmas sermon at Constantinople that it was demeaning for him to worship a babe!

    St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ’s body in a separate way, in these words: “We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that “the Word was made flesh,” we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God.” (Ep. ad Adelph., par. 3)

    Do those who worship the Sacred Heart worship, with a single worship, the whole Person of Christ, or do they really worship His body separately? How did this devotion come into being?

    The first theologian to have taught this devotion was the Jesuit priest La Colombiere (died 1682). He was the father confessor of a Visitation sister named Marie Alacoque (+1690), who, he said, had informed him of a number of revelations she received, revelations which passed from his papers into Jesuit publications, and into the life of sister Marie published by Languet, Jesuit bishop of Soissons. When Languet published her Life, it provoked such an uproar and scandal that he and his brother attempted to hide all copies. But it was too late; some had already been sold, and an Italian translation came out. Pope Clement XIV condemned it in 1772.

    What were these visions which so scandalised Roman Catholic clergy and faithful in the 18th century?

    Marie Alacoque claimed that devotion to the Sacred Heart was revealed to her by Jesus Christ Himself in the following manner. One day as she was at prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus came and showed her His heart, and said that He desired the Friday after Corpus Christi to be dedicated to the worship of His heart, “for the love He had given to me.” “Address yourself,” He said, “to My servant, the Jesuit father La Colombiere; tell him for Me to work as hard as he can to establish this devotion, in order to give pleasure to My heart.” Marie delivered this message, adding, “Jesus Christ has great hopes for your Society.”

    Then the revelations increased. Sister Marie spent whole nights in “amorous colloquies with her beloved Jesus.” One day, He permitted her to lean her head on His breast and asked for her heart. She consented. He removed her heart from her chest, placed it upon His own, then returned it to her chest. From that time she felt a continuous pain in that side, where her heart had been extracted and replaced. Jesus told her to bleed herself when the pain became too great.

    Marie Alacoque gave her heart to Jesus by a physical document, a deed, which she signed in her own blood. In return, Jesus gave her a deed, which designated her as the heiress to His heart for time and eternity. “Do not be stingy with It,” He said to her, “I permit you to dispose of It as you wish, and you will be a plaything for My good pleasure.” Upon hearing these words, sister Marie took a pocket knife and carved the name of Jesus into the flesh of her breast “in large and deep letters.”

    Bishop Languet’s Life dwells upon the “promise of marriage” which took place between Jesus and sister Marie, on their “betrothals and espousals.” (Actually, the terms he uses are too graphic to be used in a public Christian forum.) Languet also relates that the first Friday of every month the pains in sister Marie’s side were so sharp she had herself bled. Since this occurred from 1674 to 1690, she would have been bled 192 times in honour of the Sacred Heart, believing she was obeying Christ’s express injunctions.

    The Jesuits used their campaign of spreading devotion to the Sacred Heart as a means to spread other of their doctrines, including the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. Sister Marie Alacoque aspired also to sow the seeds of this belief: that the Mother of God was conceived in a manner beyond the human experience. She also insisted that those within her circle of influence swallow little slips of paper with pertinent messages written on them.

    “You promised,” she wrote to her brother, a priest, “that you would take the notes which I am sending you, one each day, on an empty stomach, and that you would have said nine masses, on nine Saturdays, in honour of the Immaculate Conception [of the Virgin Mary] and as many masses of the Passion, on nine Fridays, in honour of the Sacred Heart. I believe that none of those who shall be particularly devoted to It shall perish.”

    After these vigorous promotional campaigns, Rome’s Congregation of Rites was solicited to establish a feast of the Sacred Heart, a request denied in 1697. Thirty years the Order waited, using images, medals, booklets, pictures, stories, sermons, confraternities, and exhortations at confession to advance the Sacred Heart devotion.

    In 1727 and 1729, two more requests for a feast of the Sacred Heart were submitted. The Promotor of the Faith for the Congregation at that time was named Prospero Lambertini. He was a well-educated man and not much inclined towards the Jesuit programmes, and he denied the requests. In his work “On the Canonisation of Saints,” Lambertini left us an account of the affair. “If one requests a feast for the Sacred Heart of Jesus,” he marvels, “Why not also ask for one for the Sacred Side or the Sacred Eyes of Jesus? Or, even for the Heart of the Blessed Virgin!?” Prospero Lambertini later became the Pope-scholar Benedict XIV. Little could he have foreseen that what he knew to be so preposterous would, after his day, infect the entire Roman Church. In the 19th century, the Roman Church established a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Mary, and even instituted a feast day in its honour.

    It was observed that the new Sacred Heart devotion was not favoured by Rome, and was frowned on by Benedict XIV. But at the close of the 18th century Pope Clement XIII, a friend of the Jesuits, tried to reverse Rome’s negative position by the following means. He had some Polish bishops write him some letters begging him to approve the devotion, and alleged he had received a letter of the same import from Philip V, the King of Spain. However, the king was warned, and he made it known publicly that “his” letter was quite spurious. The Jesuits, the Pope, and the Pope’s minister Torregiani were involved in this sordid affair. As a result, in 1765, Clement XIII authorized a feast day in honor of the heart of Jesus. He did not dare to approve a feast of the physical heart, but of the symbolic heart of Jesus, as an emblem for the Saviour’s love of mankind. In fact, soon after, when a certain French bishop interpreted the feast as in honor of Jesus’ physical heart, Rome intervened. The canon lawyer Blasi published a dissertation in 1771 to prove that the cult of the physical heart was not authorized, and Pope Pius VI declared the same.

    The reticence of the Papal court at Rome was eventually powerless against the tide of popular Roman Catholic devotion. The majority of Roman Catholic bishops issued pastoral letters to establish worship of the Sacred Heart, naming the physical heart as the object of worship. Offices were composed and inserted into the Missals and Breviaries, and prayerbook devotions abounded. Apologists for the devotion tried to exonerate it from charges of Nestorianism. (Nestorius honored Jesus as man in one way and Jesus as God in another; the Faith teaches us that we must worship Jesus Christ as one Person both human and Divine, not as one or the other separately.)

    The apologists argued they worshipped the Heart for the sake of its union with the Godhead. What they forgot is that Nestorius himself, when cornered at the Council of Ephesus, also claimed he “adored what was visible for the sake of that which was hidden.”

    Such niceties could not conceal that the original devotion was an actual worship of the physical heart. The Jesuit Fr. Galifet wrote: “It is a question of the heart of Jesus Christ in its proper and plain sense and is by no means metaphoric. Jesus Christ speaks of His own literal heart [in the “revelations” of Sister Margaret Mary]; this is shown by His action of uncovering His heart and showing… Here then is the palpable object of the devotion…” He sought to validate worship of the Heart by seeking a precedent in the Feast of Corpus Christi. “The sole and proper object of the Feast of Corpus Christi is the flesh of Jesus Christ; from this it must be concluded that this feast was not really instituted to honor the Person of Jesus Christ, but in order to honor His flesh, His Body, His Blood, since neither His Divinity nor His Person is the formal object of this feast.”

    In the end, these qualms and counter-defenses in Catholic circles were rendered effectively obsolete by a single action from the Vatican. Pope Pius IX canonised Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque. There was no doubt how she intended to honour the Heart, so there was no longer any thought that the Sacred Heart could be confined to a symbol of God’s love. Its “palpitations,” “dilations,” “beating in heaven,” were worshipped, as they are today by Roman Catholics. The historian Father Rene Francois Guettee, in his polemic work “The Heretical Papacy,” remarks that by singling out for worship not only Christ’s human body as opposed to His whole Person, but the heart as opposed to the rest of His body, an error even worse than that of Nestorius has been devised. We may note that it was the same Pius IX who made other official Roman Catholic formulas which militate against Orthodox Christian traditions of the East and West. He formally taught (1) the Immaculate Conception of Mary; (2) the Divine right of the Roman Church to use armed force, and (3) Papal Infallibility.

    Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners.

    [This article was written by Fr. Aidan (Keller) in a series for the Sunday bulletin of St. Mary’s parish in Austin, Texas, in 1990. The above is adapted slightly from the original.

    May invocations to the “Sacred Heart” be banished from the threshold of the Orthodox, through the prayers of all Saints who shone forth in the Western lands.]

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | March 23, 2008 | Reply

  4. The gravest reservations I reserve for the Sacred Heart devotion. We know that the origins of this devotion are in the outpourings of a 17th-c. Roman Catholic nun whose revelations are frankly spooky, and deeply deluded if not demonic. The learned Roman Catholic priest and scholar Abbe Guettee, who ended his life as a Russian Orthodox convert priest (Fr. Vladimir), was able to combine his profound scholarly learning about all things Roman Catholic with the ageless Eastern Orthodox faith. He raised the serious question, writing at the close of the 19th century, whether the Sacred Heart devotion is not a throwback to the heresy of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople who was defrocked and anathematised in the 5th century for singling out the divine and human natures of Christ for distinct venerations. Fr. Vladimir showed that in a way, the heterodox, in inventing the Sacred Heart devotion in modern times (for it really has no pre-Schism origin), may have outdone the heresiarch Nestorius by singling out for devotion not only the human nature of Christ separately, but one portion of that human nature. I wrote an article on this topic years ago, and I will try to find it and post it here.

    But let it be clear: no Orthodox Christians should be venerating the heart of Jesus singly and specially, apart from worshipping the whole Christ as both God and man. May invocations to the “Sacred Heart” be banished from the threshold of the Orthodox, by the prayers of all Saints who shone forth in the Western lands.

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | March 22, 2008 | Reply

  5. The Stations of the Cross are not, in their particulars, derived from any practice of the Orthodox Church at Jerusalem. They also commemorate and meditate upon “events” which never happened.

    Western Christendom never fasted on Sundays, although they did fast on Saturdays. In some places, only a few Saturdays, in other places every Saturday of the year. I still maintain it would not hurt for WR Orthodox to observe the canons of the Oecumenical Quinisext Council, seeing that certain Roman Popes before the Schism embraced all its canons. Even if this “embrace,” doubtless done for diplomatic reasons, did not result in a lasting change in practice back then, it allows the canons’ observance in our day and age based on purely Western foundations. Plus, if their non-observance would scandalise brethren, why not observe?

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | March 19, 2008 | Reply

  6. My point, is that if the Stations of the Cross come out of a legitimately ancient practice of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church, then practicing the Stations in other locales in an appropriate way is not the practice of an “heterodox” piety that we are simply “cleaning up.”

    I don’t do the Stations of the Cross, and I don’t find them helpful. It could be that they have no historical basis in the Jerusalem Orthodox Church. If that’s the case, then perhaps the devotion should be discarded. I certainly don’t think the thing should be isolated and evaluated as “fine” or “not fine” within an intellectual-theological vacuum. If the Stations came from thin air and have always served heterodox purposes, then certainly – let it fall into abeyance.

    I just don’t know if that’s the case. And, if we want to criticize the enthusiasms of others, we need to do a good job of being accurate ourselves, and not letting an enthusiasm for criticism precede precision. I don’t know the answer to a question regarding the historical provenance of the Stations one way or the other – it should be looked into, is all I’m saying.


    Comment by fatheraugustine | March 19, 2008 | Reply

  7. I agree with your comments on celibacy and the current attitudes of (notably) modernist Eastern Churches and their luminaries on this subject.

    However, when it comes to Stations of the Cross, I don’t really agree. The comments made (can’t remember in which article) by (I think Monk Aidan) on the stations that don’t correspond to historical events, and what this implies for the pieties, give me great pause, even in a world (which I suspect is very small) where they stations are performed without the imaginitive content with which they’ve been associated since their very invention, since the beginning.

    By this logic, we can just as easily sing Protestant hymns, as long as we don’t *mean* what the Protestants meant. After all, those hymns too are totally invented after the schism, out of heterodox piety which has a residue of Orthodox experience, etc. But I think this is terribly unwise, deeply unneccesary, and spiritually dangerous. Same thing w. the stations. And the fact that it’s clamoured for, seems to me to be driving a wider agenda which actually desires some blurring (failure) of Orthodox boundaries of confession and faith and piety. Again, like the calendar. It is not enough, as it was not enough then, to look at a thing in and of itself, in isolation, and in a mythical ideal context, but it must be looked at as part of the historical process, and question therefore what ends it serves, what transformations it assists, and what purposes it satisfies. There are no Orthodox Churches on stilts – window displays – where all things are either fine or not; we’re engaged in an eschatological experience, even if we prefer to think all moments are unconnected. So all things are part of the war with the world.

    Comment by tuD | March 19, 2008 | Reply

  8. Married priests could be found in country churches of the West, centuries after the schism. The Western Church always stressed the virtue of celibacy to a high degree. I actually think this is appropriate, and a strength of that Church. “As much higher than heaven is than earth, and the angels are than men, so much higher is chastity than marriage.” That is because celibacy is, properly speaking, the truly angelic way of life, and the ideal path for Christian living. Yet, the Fathers tell us that marriage is a good thing, and that the blessing bestowed upon marriage – though more appropriate for the Old Covenant – is nevertheless still in effect for the New. In fact, the goodness of marriage is, according to the Fathers, one of the chief praises of virginity/celibacy (since it is better than even a good, rather than merely a mediocre thing). Anyway, I think the Orthodox Church could use a lot more emphasis on this teaching nowadays (when it has become very popular to praise the ‘mystic’ wonder of marriage in a way quite foreign to the Patristic Tradition, which always views it as a concession to human frailty). The West ultimately went too far in stressing this fact – but married priests existed for centuries after the schism. I’m told there are still some hanging about!

    I wouldn’t worry too much about altar rails. Before there were rood screens, there was a waist high partition separating the chancel/altar from the nave. If you look at Roman Churches from the first several centuries, this feature is plain. I don’t see much difference, architecturally, between this and the altar rail.

    It’s true that the “Via Crucis” devotion in the common sense is late. But I’ve heard that it is a recreation of something that was traditionally done by people in Jerusalem during Holy Week, and which the Crusaders brought back and turned into a devotional act. If the Via Crucis is done in a way devoid of trite sentimentality, imaginative “meditations” or theatrical showmanship, I don’t know that there would be any real objection to the devotion. Many Orthodox Saints counsel us to recall the events of Christ’s life and to “warm our hearts” with thoughts of His Passion so as to prepare ourselves for prayer. I think the Via Crucis, done properly, could be a way of doing that. I.e., if the Via Crucis is a way of remaining mindful of our Lord’s Economy for our salvation, and is a way of preparing ourselves for prayer (rather than being an end in itself), is there still an objection to it?

    There is a very good reason for celebrating a full Mass, even during Lent, in the Latin tradition. The Latin Mass is capable of great variation, and during Lent it took on an highly penitential character. Whereas the Divine Liturgy is more or less the same each time it is celebrated – and its appropriately festive character ill becomes Lent – the Mass can easily be modified to be Lent-appropriate. It is true that the Popes ratified the Quinsext canons. However, Rome understood the (very obvious fact) that many of the canons would be of purely local concern for the Eastern Churches. No Latin bishops were present for the Quinsext council. So, Rome ratified the Council as an whole to indicate her acceptance of the important items without reservation. But, she understood that canons regulating local matters of procedure for an entirely different Rite of the Church, had no binding authority on the Roman Patriarchate. Rome continued to fast a few Sundays of the year (Lent, and ember days), and to celebrate daily Mass in Lent. In fact, in the Latin Orthodox tradition, it is considered very important that each priest liturgize once a day (but no more, if possible).

    I know what you mean when you say the West didn’t use “Western” prayers, music or art. But, this subtly undermines the legitimacy of the “Western” Orthodox Tradition. It really would be better to say that the West didn’t use “realistic” or “sentimental” or “imaginative/creative/spontaneous” forms of art. Certainly, though, the West’s prayers, music and art were all Western, in the best sense of the word.

    Genuflection, if I understand aright, was used in the Roman Rite from very early times even on non-penitential days. Genuflection is different from kneeling, or “standing on the knees.” Standing on the knees was certainly penitential. But, brief genuflections would be made as passing signs of devotion and respect. In those parts of the Latin Patriarchate strongly influenced by the non-Roman Rites (i.e., Spain, France and the Isles), bows and prostrations (as in the East) were the standard forms of devotion.

    I don’t know that they had curtains on the chancel screen – although maybe they did. I know that the altars (with their baldechini) were hemmed about with curtains, that could be drawn at times such as the Canon. There was also a large curtain (separating the choir from the altar?) that was up during Lent (and was removed during the Passions-Gospel, at the phrase “and the curtain of the Temple was rent in twain.”

    I’d like to hear more about the separation of first communion and confirmation from baptism. If they were seperated, I don’t think it was by much, because we know that infants were being communed regularly into the Middle Ages. In fact, the Latin priests had a very good manner of communing the infants – he brushed the tip of his finger along the Blood, and touched his finger to the baby’s tongue. I saw a squirming baby in Church just this past Sunday, and there was dangerous flailing about next to the chalice… I thought how handy that technique would have been right about then! Also, what separation did occur, came about because the Latin Church liked to have the bishop confirm in person. In many places, though, the priests were allowed to chrismate – just as in the East.


    Comment by fatheraugustine | March 18, 2008 | Reply

Thoughts, Opinions, Comments?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: