"Bad history. The Pseudo-Apostolic canons are of third or fourth century provenance"
That's news to me. Please state your authority.
If one of the canons is erronious as to the list of books to be considered Holy Scripture, this would seem to argue for a much earlier date than 4th century. Since that particular canon was apparently written by St. Clement, it looks more like 2nd century.
"'come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions' Certainly this is not a practice of the Catholic Church."
How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament? We all know these have been going on. It's positively notorious. Why deny it? I thought the NO people were proud of it.
Read the link I gave. Many are copied from a council held in Antioch in 348, for one thing. Another strong reason for doubting authenticity is that they were never entirely received in the Western Church - Pope St. Hormisdas, for instance, declared them apocryphal in the early sixth century.
Since that particular canon was apparently written by St. Clement, it looks more like 2nd century.
I suggest you look up the history of the Apostolic Constitutions, where the Apostolic Canons are derived from. They are a forgery in the name of St. Clement. Eusebius, when he gives St. Clement's writings, mentions only his First Epistle as valid, and his Second Epistle as doubtful. He certainly would have known about the Canons and the Constitutions if they had been written by St. Clement.
How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament?
That does not make "come one come all Eucharistic Hospitality sessions" a practice of the Catholic Church.
You wrote: "'come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions' Certainly this is not a practice of the Catholic Church." How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament? We all know these have been going on. It's positively notorious. Why deny it? I thought the NO people were proud of it.
I guess it's like you've always told me about the variety of "Orthodox" practices that don't agree: when someone does something they're not supposed to, they're doing it on their own authority, illicitly and in contradiction to the canon law and liturgical theology of the official Church. If that's true with the Orthodox - a gazillion different national churches, synods, and jurisdictions - how much more so for us Roman Catholics who have one Pope who, in the end, is Supreme Legislator?