|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In the bread or in the eating?
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Scot
quote:
Yes, we set up the conditions. Not the bread. Not the wine. We do. Which is essentially what I said before.
No it isn't. You said that it was the faith of the worshippers that was operational. When I say "set up the conditions" .... I simply mean: "lay the table" ... nothing more. He does the business.
Allow me to quote myself:
quote:
Still, I believe that it is Christ’s presence in the hearts and actions of the gathered believers which sanctifies the bread and wine, not the other way around.
I think if you will check again, you will see that I said it is an action (presence) of Christ which does the work.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
LD, where did you get the idea that I do not understand the Orthodox not commenting on the efficacy of other church’s sacraments? I didn’t say that. What I said was that I wish they’d expand the policy.
However, despite your brilliant defense of Fr. Gregory, he did make the claim that only those things specified by Christ had a place in communion.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
This discussion has become impossible for me to follow. I find Orthodoxy enormously attractive. It seems, at times, to be just a thin partition away from where I'm at, and then I come across a patch of assinine behaviour such as on this thread. I can't help wondering if the immense and unequivocal appeal that Orthodoxy has for its proponents doesn't consist in it offering for them a set of absolute answers and the freedom to just duck any tricky question that comes along.
Q: What do you Orthodox think about X?
A: Oh, we steadfastly refuse to have any opinions about anything tricky. We'll sound off amazingly pompously about the things we are sure of, but we reserve the right to go coy and quiet about everything else.
Ah, well. Back to the discusion.
What was it about? Oh yes, the presence of Christ. For brother Gregory, no beer and chips but large fries with what Mousethief said. Christ is equally present in everything to do with the eucharist, but there is a special case to be made for the bread and wine which are organically linked with the doctrines relating to the New Testament events.
You can see how confused I am. In fact the only way I can make sense of recent Orthodox posts is to assume you think that God has a sort of covenant with the Orthodox church like the covenant with Israel in the Old Testament. You do what you do (never mind the reasons), being faithful to your tradition, and God will turn up and honour you. What goes on elsewhere, only God knows. Your business as Orthodox Christians is to be steadfast and self-same and that's it. You set the table, and God does the rest.
I do hope there's more to it than that.
I would like to ask about the consecration of additional wine. Anglicans do this. If the wine is likely to run out, there are special words to say to consecrate extra. I would have thought that the extra wine, presumably to hand already, is already consecrated by the overall business of celebrating the eucharist, but this practice suggests it isn't the case. It suggests that consecration is the result of the saying of certain words and that it only operates on a bottle by bottle basis, not to all the wine in a certain area. Can someone explain this?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Your business as Orthodox Christians is to be steadfast and self-same and that's it. You set the table, and God does the rest.
I do hope there's more to it than that.
What more would you like it to be? Seems sufficient to me.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Your business as Orthodox Christians is to be steadfast and self-same and that's it. You set the table, and God does the rest.
I do hope there's more to it than that.
What more would you like it to be? Seems sufficient to me.
There's no resurrection in such a faith. It is static.
I believe the risen Christ comes to us in new ways and bursts our habits and customs and old patterns of thought. The God of resurrection is out of our control. If we set the table, God may not appear. If we are steadfast that may not be enough. To think otherwise is to settle for something less than God.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Resurrection is at the heart of our faith and colours everything we do.
But, as CS Lewis said, Christ's command to St. Peter was "feed my sheep" not "teach my performing dogs new tricks."
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I'm confused too,
If things are done in a particular way in the othodox church, and that way is the only way they are allowed to be done in the orthodox church, then it seems to me that that can mean only one of two things.
1. That the orthodox position is that other tradition's practice is incorrect.
2. That the othodox church is content to aim itself at only one sector of a number of equally valid beleifs (We do it this way here, if you want something different, then there are other valid churches).
IMO (I've said it before, and I'll say it again), there's nothing special about the bread and wine, nothing more special than tea and biscuits. The meaning is found though people and their understanding of the ceremony.
For some people meaning is found by believing the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Christ, and for those people, perhaps God makes this true (who knows), but it must be wrong for one person to tell another that what they're doing is wrong, when so much is down to personal understanding and interpretation. Also, if a denomination practices only one variety of belief, denying and expunging others, then it should be prepared to say why it does that.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Also, if a denomination practices only one variety of belief, denying and expunging others, then it should be prepared to say why it does that.
We have said. Because that is what was instituted by Christ and the Apostles. He quite clearly says of BREAD that "this is my body." Not chips, not papaya, not coconut, not biscuits. Bread. He quite clearly says of WINE that "this is my blood." Not Coke, not water, not milk, not orange juice. THAT is why we use only bread and wine.
Maybe I don't understand what it is you're not understanding?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
What kind of bread? Which type of grain was used, and how was it prepared? What sort of grapes were in the wine, and was it fermented? Where does he say that any bread can be his body and any wine, his blood?
No, it seems to me that there is more here than is readily admitted to.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Equinas
Shipmate
# 2907
|
Posted
Question, why do the Orthodox use leavened bread? I've always assumed unleavened bread was used by Christ at the last supper. Not meant as a tweak, I would really like to know, as it's been an issue for me that my own church uses leavened bread. (They also use grape juice instead of wine, a double groaner for me.)
--------------------
Linda
Posts: 567 | From: Deep South, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
No, it seems to me that there is more here than is readily admitted to.
I'm not sure what you want me to admit to. We do what the previous generation of Orthodox Christians did, and they did what the generation before them did. Some of these questions were answered early and the answers were codified in church canons and such; for the others we've just always done it that way. Thus we always use wheat bread with just three ingredients (flour, salt, yeast), but different wines are allowed. Why? Because we've always done it that way.
"Because we've always done it that way" is not merely an acceptable answer for the Orthodox; it is the preferred one.
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to the leavened/unleavened question. I do know that it was one of the contentions that caused the bull of excommunication to be laid on the altar of the Church of Holy Wisdom in 1054; at that time it was noted that the east had always used leavened bread, and the west unleavened.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
If things are done in a particular way in the othodox church, and that way is the only way they are allowed to be done in the orthodox church, then it seems to me that that can mean only one of two things.
1. That the orthodox position is that other tradition's practice is incorrect.
2. That the othodox church is content to aim itself at only one sector of a number of equally valid beleifs (We do it this way here, if you want something different, then there are other valid churches).
Maybe I can provide an analogy that would be helpful. Let's say that the world is flooded. God had us build a boat. We know that if you get in *this* boat, with us, you'll be safe from the flood.
What about the other boats? Well, we know there are other boats out there, and they're not exactly like our boat. Are they good enough to get you through the flood? We honestly don't know. We can't tell you that your boat is built wrong -- we don't have enough information to tell you that. We can't even tell you that you have to get in *any* boat. Maybe you're a good enough swimmer to survive the flood without a boat. But we can tell you that if you want to be *sure* to get through the flood, you need to be in our boat. Maybe something else is just as good. We don't know. But we *do* know about our boat.
To be more direct, neither your #1 nor your #2 is correct. We don't say that other practices are incorrect. Nor do we say that all practices are equally correct. We say that our practice *is* correct. As for yours -- we don't know.
We're not trying to be coy. We're trying to be as honest as we can.
Regards,
Charli
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Because it was a Passover meal, we know that the last supper would have included only unleavened bread.
Frankly I don’t care what sort of bread or wine your church uses. I also don’t care if you do it that way because you’ve always done it that way. However, if you are going to make bold statements that you do it what you do because Christ specified that bread and only bread was his body, then I am going to challenge you as to why you are using the wrong bread. Further, I would like to know what makes your leavened bread any more holy than my beer and chips.
The only admission I want to hear is that the source of this is a church, not the direct command of Christ.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
I think its fair to say you don't believe your beer and chips can sanctify anybody. quote:
I believe that it is Christ’s presence in the hearts and actions of the gathered believers which sanctifies the bread and wine, not the other way around.
Guess what, probably nobody else believes in the sanctifying power of your chips and beer. I'm pretty sure the Orthodox don't (which is not to say they're going to deny the possibility either) But they do believe in sanctifying grace in the eucharist. So the faith of several hundred million people makes their eucharist more holy than your chips and beer in which seemingly no one believes.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
To be more direct, neither your #1 nor your #2 is correct. We don't say that other practices are incorrect. Nor do we say that all practices are equally correct. We say that our practice *is* correct. As for yours -- we don't know.
We're not trying to be coy. We're trying to be as honest as we can.
Hi
personally, i dont think it matters. IMHO communion is not just about the bread and the wine, it is about being in communion with each other and with God. I know that in our church our vicar gives out smarties to the children, which makes them feel part of this communion.
If you use unleavened bread and wine, fine. If you use sainsbury's sliced and blackcurrent juice, fine. As long as God is present at theservice, as long as God is involved and the focal point then we will be in communion with him.
tom
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I think its fair to say you don't believe your beer and chips can sanctify anybody.
If the New Testament is translated into a language without a word for bread, because they never grow it, their staple food being cassava or millet or potatoes, should a new word be introduced into the language, or should the name of the staple food be used? When Jesus says 'humankind does not live by bread alone,' does he actually mean bread, that is a raised and baked dough of wheaten flour, or does he mean the staff of life, the necessities in a general sense, whatever they mean to you in specific terms?
When Jesus says 'I am the bread of life' - and bread here harks back to the manna in the wilderness, not exactly Hovis - does he not mean food in a general sense, just as to the woman at the well he declared he was the source of living water.
When he hands round artos (Greek for leavened bread) at the Passover (if it was a Passover, when only unleavened bread would be available) and says 'this is my body,' what is 'this?' Is it bread of a specific type? Is it the main carbohydrate source? Is it the action of passing, sharing, eating, and remembering the acts of God? Is it all of these?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
The only admission I want to hear is that the source of this is a church, not the direct command of Christ.
Between his resurrection and his ascension, we believe Our Lord spent a lot of time with the Apostles, and one of the things he did with them was teach them how to "do" church. They didn't wait for the NT to be written before they started doing church. They started doing church immediately.
We believe that anything vital about such things as the elements of communion was communicated at that time. In areas where our Lord did not specify one way or the other, we believe the apostles had the authority (which they passed on to their successors the bishops) to figure it out themselves.
Thus I can't tell you if the rules about which bread to use came from Jesus, or the Apostles, or the Bishops who followed them. Nor, indeed, can you. We weren't there; they didn't make records of such decisions that we can go and check. Our job at this late date (as we see it) is to hold fast to the traditions we have been given (cf. 2 Thess 2:15).
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Fair enough, Mousethief. I have no quarrel with your understanding so long as it is not promoted as definitive and authoritative for other churches.
Ley Druid, you are correct to say that I do not believe the beer and chips sanctify anyone. Neither do I believe that the bread and wine sanctify anyone.
How about if you stop putting words in my mouth, stop speaking for the Orthodox (who do not need your defense), and explain what you or your church believe and why you believe it?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
I can't see any difference between the Orthodox and Catholic understanding. The fact that the East uses leavened and the West uses unleavened bread is no more disturbing than the fact that direct commands of Jesus are quoted with different words in different Gospels. This does not affect our faith.
For those with no faith in the sanctifying grace of the eucharist? What can we do? We pray. We don't do things the way they do.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I'm quite prepared to believe that God is present in beer and chips. They are, after all, fruits of the earth, and I believe the life force of the creative Word is present in all living things. But that isn't the same as the way He is specifically present in the elements of the Eucharist when His presence is "invoked" by the priestly consecration. I once heard a protestent preacher saying that the Catholic Mass is akin to a magic ceremony. Though I disagreed with the sneering inuendo that it is therefore evil, there is a grain of truth in there.
The whole ceremony of the Mass is an invocation of Christ's presence into the Bread and Wine, and therefore into the presence of the congregation gathered. We use bread and wine as Bread and Wine, because that's what Jesus taught us to use. No beer and chips, holy though such things may be. As to whether one faith gets this presence better than another, well I'm not into all these big willy competitions between churches about who's orders are more valid. The fragmented state of the church is surely an affront to Christ, who is present whenever people gather in His name.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
A story... in the early 80s, my sister went on a medical mission. She joined a small team of medical folk, and under the auspices of a Swiss denomination, went into the most isolated part of the Papua New Guinea Islands. PNG is an island nation to the north of Australia, on the equator. It is still, even in its capital city, an undeveloped nation, plagued by poverty and violence.
Anyway, the only way into this isolated mountainous region was by helicopter. They joined a group of 5 who had been there for some years, and began the usual round of medical sessions, and worship services. Many of the folk they met had never seen white people before, as even those who lived there permanently rarely climbed the steep treks up the numerous montains around them. My sister remembers the awe folk had when their first sight of a white person was her, long golden hair and all.
Some of the language was known, but one the difficulties they faced was that these folk not only had no words for some English counterparts, but no concept of them either- like sheep, wine,
shepherd, wine or bread. No concept whatsoever. Even when they showed pictures of these things, they were still meaningless to the local folk, who could not even begin to comprehend these strange and bizarre items.
The Medical Mission station had, therefore, made unusual changes to the liturgies used in the worship services. My sister struggled with these at first, but she realised that local folk came- and understood what was happening. She came to a growing understanding and appreciation of what was happening. She said to me once that if an alien came into our midst and asked us to break qzxquwb, and drink llpwqxz and remember Jesus, then we would have been in a similar quandry.
I think some denominations may have had difficulty in this part of the world... where most food items grew mould as you watched the humidity scale rise hourly. Bread would have been revolting, my sister says.
Parts of PNG remain virtually untouched by the rest of the world today, and I imagine that missions face similar challenges still.
I think many of our ideas of "Church" are formed by our understanding of what it means to grow up in first/second world countries.
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
quote:
I have no quarrel with your understanding so long as it is not promoted as definitive and authoritative for other churches.
Er, did I miss something? I thought we (Orthodox) had said that we did not make comments about other peoples' sacraments. I suppose you can't cope with the idea that we would be so definite with ourselves and so open minded and laissez faire with others. However, if you or anyone else wanted to become Orthodox you would have to be OK with how we did things. One-person-indifferentists-or-reformers need not apply.
Essentially, the Catholic and Orthodox view of the Eucharist does not differ. We would place more emphasis on the epiklesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit) perhaps but that's not a make or break thing. Neith is the azymes (leavened or unleavened) issue. As an aside it is by no means clear that the Last Supper wasa Passover meal. The chronology of St. John's Gospel would seem to deny that, (see Joachim Jeremias' work on the Eucharist ... not an Orthodox writer!) Anyway, the reason for Orthodox using leavened bread and warm wine (hot water is admixed) is that it (Holy Communion / Eucharist) is for us as much a communion in the resurrection of Christ as his death. The "risen" quality of the elements is important to us. This, however, is not excluded by Catholicism ... just communicated perhaps in a different way.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Gregory,
Supposing some people in your church, started a house group, where they shared tea and broke biscuits and passed them round and they called the ceremony eucharist.
Unlikely, I know, but if it did happen. Would you welcome their acts as a wonderful expression of communion. Or would you condemn them?
Or perhaps one of your priests decides that for a change he would like to use ribena and potato cakes, would he be disciplined?
If the answer to either of these is yes, then I say why? Since the othodox position is that it doesn't know whether either of these acts is invalid.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Since the othodox position is that it doesn't know whether either of these acts is invalid.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
The Orthodox position is that the Orthodox do what we have been given, and that what God does outside our walls is His concern, and we will not presume to tell Him He can't honor in someone else actions he told us not to do.
I'll try to make this as clear as I can:
1. INSIDE The Orthodox Church, we have specific rules and guidelines for doing things, and if it's not done that way, it's wrong, and people are subject to disciplinary actions if they inentionally break the rules.
2. OUTSIDE the Orthodox Church, God is free to do whatever He pleases, and we do not presume to tell Him what to do vis-a-vis somebody else's eucharistic or quasi-eucharistic practices.
HTH,
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
If the answer to either of these is yes, then I say why? Since the othodox position is that it doesn't know whether either of these acts is invalid.
If you're in a symphony orchestra, you don't get to decide how to interpret the music that's being played. Maybe you think the first movement should be done quickly, brightly; no one can tell you that's "invalid," but if you try to do it that way, when the conductor is directing that it be done in a slow, dreamy sort of way, you may be asked to leave the orchestra.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Perhaps I missed the part where this post was restricted to the orthodox church:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
In the Eucharist ... specified ordinary things, actions and persons become a unitary focus whereby through and in them we are lifted into the Kingdom. Wherever the Kingdom is and focussed there is Christ .... in all, without reservation, without qualification and without choosing or setting one element against another.
Beer and chips? No ... Nominalism ... go figure. Christ sets the terms ... not us.
Also, I am confused as to how the following does not constitute comment on other churches sacraments:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I think the REAL problem here is the inherent dislike of Protestantism for holy OBJECTS .... holy actions - yes, holy persons - maybe, holy objects - no. It has to do with hyperpersonalism and a rejection of a theology of "being."
I am anxiously awaiting an answer to Bonzo’s question. Would tea and biscuits be invalid for Orthodox communion? If so, why? Biscuits are certainly in the bread family of foods.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I am anxiously awaiting an answer to Bonzo’s question. Would tea and biscuits be invalid for Orthodox communion? If so, why? Biscuits are certainly in the bread family of foods.
In your anxiety you appear to have missed the answer already given. Yes, it would be invalid, because there are rules and regulations in the Orthodox Church as to what constitutes a valid eucharist.
Please explain which part of the previous paragraph you don't get, if you respond.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I am anxiously awaiting an answer to Bonzo’s question. Would tea and biscuits be invalid for Orthodox communion? If so, why? Biscuits are certainly in the bread family of foods.
In the Orthodox church, bread for the Eucharist must contain only three ingredients: flour, yeast, and salt. That's it. So you can't use biscuits.
Likewise, for the wine, we use only fermented grape juice. If grapes had become extinct from that root disease that nearly wiped them out, would we have started using something else? Undoubtedly. But that didn't happen, so we still use what we've been using for the last 2000 years. Wine.
I think you've been given the reason several times already -- we use bread and wine because that's what we believe the Lord told us to use, and because we've always used it.
If you don't like our reasons, I'm sorry. But they are our reasons.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Mousethief, Josephine, I get what you are saying about doing things the Orthodox way. You have both been careful to confine your comments to Orthodox practice. I understand your position and respect it.
Several others on this thread have not drawn their lines nearly as carefully as you have. Statements have been made which have clear implications for those of us who belong to other Christian churches. It is those people and statements which I am attempting to engage.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ahhh. Thank you for making that clear, Scot. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Like I've said before, you're a good egg.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
quote:
Statements have been made which have clear implications for those of us who belong to other Christian churches.
Yes, just like my comment about many Protestant Christians not liking the idea of holy objects. That's just a fact .... not an interpretation. Saying that someone's Eucharist is no Eucharist is an interpretation ... a value judgement, not a fact.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I would like to ask about the consecration of additional wine. Anglicans do this. If the wine is likely to run out, there are special words to say to consecrate extra. I would have thought that the extra wine, presumably to hand already, is already consecrated by the overall business of celebrating the eucharist, but this practice suggests it isn't the case. It suggests that consecration is the result of the saying of certain words and that it only operates on a bottle by bottle basis, not to all the wine in a certain area. Can someone explain this?
I think I can answer this, Hatless.
In my part of the Anglican tradition (AC), if the Precious Blood* has been entirely consumed, then it is sufficient to communicate in one kind only - Christ is fully present in both elements, so you miss nothing esssential by reciving His body alone. But, if the PB looks as if it is running short, but there is a decent amount left, then it is permissable to add unconsecrated wine to the chalice, so long as it does not exceed one third (an arbitrary, but useful amount, it seems to me ...) of the current volume of PB - this just makes the PB go round further; it doesn't "dilute" Christ's presence, but you end up receiving His PB+wine. There is provision in the Scottish prayer book (I can't speak for the English) for the consecration of additional elements, but they have to be properly consecrated with all the full consecration prayer, because we only ask Christ's presence into the elements we place on the altar for that purpose - we don't want the whole of our current stock of Santifex/H&F becoming His PB, no matter how close at hand, for obvious reasons!
But rememeber, this is from an objectivist sacramentalist position; we belief unconditionally in the unique objective presensce of Christ in the consecrated elements - His presence there is guaranteed by what we do in accordance with His word, and that Presence is a special grace-giving one which He promises in the elements in a way which is not true of other ordinary "stuff".
* Please don't think I'm being, er ... precious by so referring to the consecrated species - that's what we really belive it to be, and reverence is required when speaking of it.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Equinas
Shipmate
# 2907
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Anyway, the reason for Orthodox using leavened bread and warm wine (hot water is admixed) is that it (Holy Communion / Eucharist) is for us as much a communion in the resurrection of Christ as his death. The "risen" quality of the elements is important to us.
This is helpful info, thanks, Fr. Gregory.
--------------------
Linda
Posts: 567 | From: Deep South, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Josephine wrote
quote:
In the Orthodox church, bread for the Eucharist must contain only three ingredients: flour, yeast, and salt. That's it.
That would make very strange bread. Presumably you're allowed water in it too?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Carys
Of course. We Antiochian Orthodox are a bit naughty since we also put a little sweet spice in there as well. Other Orthodox are a bit sniffy at us for that, but we rather like it. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Unless the communion bread is always pain de jour, I would assume it would require a dash of the finest Greek oil to keep it stable for several days.
Chesterbelloc mentioned communion under one kind. we have a couple of recovering alcoholics at my church who always take communion under one kind. I believe the idea is theologically sound.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Indeed, Paul - and don't forget, folks, that until VCII most Romans never received the PB (the reason being that one received the fullness of Christ under either species, and the PB was just too easy to spill).
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Well, given the answers to my questions, it seems that the orthodox chrch does disapprove of all other types of communion other than it's own. It's just too polite to say so!
It's quite prepared to tell its own people off for doing things in any different way, but it doesn't want to be seen to be telling the rest of us what to do.
This stance might be plausible if it were really only a certain sort of bread and wine that were allowable, however as Gregories lot put spice in theirs, it makes a stance against tea and buscuits ridiculous.
No, the objection to tea and buscuits is really an objection to change, to changing the way things have been done for so long, to changing tradition .
So why not say so. This is the nub of so much that the church (of all denominations) hides behind. We are comfy in the surroundings we know so well, like most humans we do not like change.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
No, Bonzo - no no no no no ... Sorry and all that, but well, I mean NO. Like, not at all.
I'm not Orthodox, but I'm sorry - all your last few posts demonstrate is that you just haven't read or understood the posts in this thread properly (or of course you might be being deliberately provocative ... ) IMHO, of course.
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
No, the objection to tea and buscuits is really an objection to change, to changing the way things have been done for so long, to changing tradition .
So why not say so.
Um, well, I did say:
quote:
We do our best to hold fast to the traditions we were taught, as we are commanded to do by St. Paul (2 Thess 2:15), because we believe God wants us to.
and
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Your business as Orthodox Christians is to be steadfast and self-same and that's it. You set the table, and God does the rest.
I do hope there's more to it than that.
What more would you like it to be? Seems sufficient to me.
and
quote:
We do what the previous generation of Orthodox Christians did, and they did what the generation before them did. Some of these questions were answered early and the answers were codified in church canons and such; for the others we've just always done it that way. Thus we always use wheat bread with just three ingredients (flour, salt, yeast), but different wines are allowed. Why? Because we've always done it that way.
"Because we've always done it that way" is not merely an acceptable answer for the Orthodox; it is the preferred one.
I don't know how to make it any plainer. To be accused of not coming out and saying it is ... well just silly.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Well, given the answers to my questions, it seems that the orthodox chrch does disapprove of all other types of communion other than it's own. It's just too polite to say so!
It's quite prepared to tell its own people off for doing things in any different way, but it doesn't want to be seen to be telling the rest of us what to do.
Not quite, Bonzo. We'd be more than happy to tell you what to do ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) . The thing is, we don't want to be seen to be telling GOD what to do. We are not prepared to tell God that He can't accept a Eucharistic offering of tea and biscuits, or beer and chips, or whatever it is someone else is prepared to offer. We might shudder or roll our eyes -- we do *have* opinions on the way others offer the Eucharist, and not all of us are too polite to express those opinions -- but we are not willing to say that God can't grant grace through them. That's not our business.
What *is* our business is to serve the Eucharist the way we understand that God wants us to do it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
Unless the communion bread is always pain de jour, I would assume it would require a dash of the finest Greek oil to keep it stable for several days.
It's always used the day it is consecrated, with the exception of bread that is set aside for the "pre-sanctified liturgies" during Lent. Even then we don't add oil.
To respond to somebody else's humorous point, yes, we do add water. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) Okay, so it's FOUR ingredients. Silly me.
Those wacky Antiochians I can't vouch for. Frankly I don't know exactly what the canons are on this one. And it doesn't matter. My priest does it the way his bishop tells him to and/or lets him do it, and Fr. Gregory does it the way his bishop commands and/or allows. Most of these slight variations go waaaaaaaaay back and nobody bats an eyelid to find out that some other tradition has a slightly different practice.
(Or, well, almost nobody. We have our lunatic fringe that make mountains out of molehills too. Alas. But for the most part they dissociate themselves from the larger lump which is to say they leave the Orthodox Church. But that's a whole 'nother thread!)
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I've killed it. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I would have said the eating until I read Freddy, so I'll have to say both whilst, of course Father Gregory (hi me old mucker!), denying the literalism in need of an Occamian shave of transubstantiation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We Antiochian Orthodox are a bit naughty since we also put a little sweet spice in there as well. Other Orthodox are a bit sniffy at us for that, but we rather like it.
Could you explain the principle by which this is more acceptable than the oft-mentioned biscuits?
Or does each section of the Orthodox church set its own rules and traditions? Will the orthodox Orthodox please stand up?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
Allow me ...
A biscuit is not bread (either with or without spice)
Bread is not a biscuit (either with or without spice)
Sigh ......
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
So how about... let me see.. beer and banana bread? I'm just trying to find out how far the othodox might go with additional ingredients.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine
Not quite, Bonzo. We'd be more than happy to tell you what to do . The thing is, we don't want to be seen to be telling GOD what to do. We are not prepared to tell God that He can't accept a Eucharistic offering of tea and biscuits, or beer and chips, or whatever it is someone else is prepared to offer.
But if you're prepared to tell orthodox christians that they're wrong if they try something different, then aren't you telling GOD what to do in just the same way as criticising another denomination?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine
Not quite, Bonzo. We'd be more than happy to tell you what to do . The thing is, we don't want to be seen to be telling GOD what to do. We are not prepared to tell God that He can't accept a Eucharistic offering of tea and biscuits, or beer and chips, or whatever it is someone else is prepared to offer.
But if you're prepared to tell orthodox christians that they're wrong if they try something different, then aren't you telling GOD what to do in just the same way as criticising another denomination?
No -- they are not telling God what to do -- they are obeying what He has told them to do.
I would go further than Fr. Gregory. I won't say that there is no value in what other traditions teach ( that is, what they teach that is particular to them -- the value of what we all teach is unquestioned) -- simply because I cannot judge them, and because I acknowledge that there are many different ways of going where we akk want to go. But I will say that on my reading of scripture and the tradition, Jesus set out a best way -- that certainly includes Orthodox/RC/Anglican teaching about the objective nature of whatever it is that happens in the Eucharist.
God can of course do anything He wants -- and I have to trust and believe that he will accept for good many of the things I do mistakenly believing that he wants me to do them. But in obeying what I believe he requires, I am not imposing my will on him.
Now if Fr. Gregory (and I) can admit that there is value in your approach at least for you, even though we think there is another way (ours) that would be better for you, why is it so hard for you to admit that there is value in what we believe, if only for us, not for you. Because I have to say that a lot of what you have been writing doesn't seem very far removed from a position that is so focused on its own correctness that it cannot accept anything else. But that, I admit, may be in my reading, not what you are meaning to say.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Some non-Orthodox on this thread seem unhappy with the responses given. Perhaps they are trolling for answers couched in this kind of language: quote:
We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge
Outside The Church There Is No Salvation The quote continues with some qualifications, limiting presumptions on how all of this might seem to God, but some people on this thread seem uninterested in such talk.
If I have satisfied anyone's need or desire to be the victim of intolerance, I was only too glad to oblige.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
