Thursday, May 28, 2020

A Response to “On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague”

This was sent to me and deserves a read. You can read the Calivas article here.

We can all agree that we are living in unusual times. However, the nature and extent of the illness that we face, and the proper response of the Church, is a matter of much disagreement. We have seen various responses to the COVID-19 epidemic: calls to close our Churches as infectious vectors, and demands to open them as places of spiritual healing. Directives a) ordering the cessation of sacramental life as part of an effort to “flatten the curve,” and cries for access to the divine grace that flows forth from those very mysteries; b) calling for the restriction of “at-risk persons,” and serious questions about the validity of such controls, c) instructions to liturgists to wear personal protective equipment during the celebration of the divine services and the distribution of the holy Mysteries, and uncertainty about the fitness of such practices. Who has been championing what and on behalf of whom?

The martyric foundation of the holy Orthodox Church, built upon the courageous offerings of countless men and women in the fulfillment of their selfless and self-sacrificial service to Christ for the communication of the holy Gospel has seemingly been radically altered in the briefest of historical moments and without any serious theological thought or reflection. Now, it would seem that our highest goal is to preserve our earthly lives, for which we ought to thank hand-sanitizer, N95 masks, and nitrile gloves, rather than to fulfill our apostolic obligations—of which we will be accountable before God. Certainly, it cannot be argued with any degree of seriousness that “by the self-preservation of our mortal selves, religion has been defended, the faith spread, and the Church strengthened.”1 Yet this seems to be exactly what certain Orthodox hierarchs and “scholars” throughout the USA believe, and is an ideology they seem eager to promote to the faithful.

Now that the stay-at-home orders are expiring, and state and local authorities are again granting permission for public gatherings, lengthy directives for disinfecting our parish facilities have surfaced, as well as new guidelines for the celebration of Divine Service. In some cases, these ‘reopening’ guidelines include provisions for altering the method of distribution of the holy Eucharist. Specifically, this includes permission for the use of multiple spoons, disposable spoons, and even “family” spoons. Additionally, these guidelines include instructions for the celebration (or simple postponement) of other sacraments, such as Baptism, Marriage, as well as the Burial of the Dead, with various suggested alterations in practice.

Recently, a brief paper surfaced, “On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague,”2 (hereafter OAHC) written by Fr A. Calivas on behalf of the “ad-hoc Liturgical Committee,” which included Fr. A. Vithoulkas, Archdiocesan Chancellor. The other member(s) are not named. Apparently this committee was “appointed by His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros,” and concerned itself with the celebration “of the Divine Liturgy in this time of crisis. In particular, the Committee focused on the traditional manner by which Holy Communion is distributed to the people, i.e., through the use of a common communion spoon.” (OAHC)

The quality of scholarship in this document is, at best, questionable.

  1. It makes various undocumented claims:

    “For example, during the AIDS, Sars, and Ebola epidemics of the recent past and now when the coronavirus pandemic first emerged, before the churches were closed, fewer than the normal communicants approached the holy Chalice.” (OAHC) What is the actual basis for this information? Is the ad-hoc Liturgical Committee able to tell us more about this important study, apparently conducted by Fr. Calivas? What was its sample size? What were its parameters of investigation?3

    “During every recent epidemic, many people expressed concerns and fears about the use of the common spoon.” Perhaps influenced by this unsubstantiated claim, on the evening of May 26, in a webinar with presvyteres from across the United States, His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros informed his listeners that the younger generation “was never comfortable” with the single spoon. This is anecdotal nonsense, little better than hearsay, and yet it is being used to introduce sweeping changes into the life of the Church.
  2. It makes an appeal to a single Father of the Church, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, for the suggested practice of disinfecting the common spoon. The reference provided in OAHC is not particularly clear, the entire context of the quotation is not given, and it remains uncorroborated. Again, it seems slender evidence indeed for justifying such far-reaching changes in centuries-old liturgical practices.
  3. The dating of the introduction of the spoon is vaguely cited, but whatever its origins, it has been in use, according to the author for roughly 900 years. The author does not provide a single piece of historical evidence of a) disease being transmitted through the distribution of the holy Eucharist, either to clergy or laity, or of b) any encyclical document, decree, or instruction to the clergy from a hierarch or synod warning them of the possibility of their contracting sickness or communicating disease through the common spoon during those intervening nine centuries they claim the common spoon has been used.
  4. The author makes various dubious suggestions about the distribution of the holy Eucharist moving forwards:

    i. “...dip the common spoon in alcohol after each communicant.”
    ii. The priest “drop or pour the Eucharistic elements into the mouth,” that is the communicant should not touch the spoon with their mouth.
    iii. “...replace the common spoon with multiple individual spoons.”
    iv. “...allow each family to bring its own “family communion spoon...”

    This ‘anti-catechism’ teaches the faithful that receiving holy Communion from the spoon is dangerous, and includes the possibility of the “transmission of parasitic microbes.” (OAHC) It is worth noting that, if one accepts this position, he must conclude that up until the appearance of COVID-19 (for a period of time extending 900 years into the past), the faithful were receiving the holy Eucharist in an unsafe manner—a foolish and ignorant practice that made them susceptible to disease and death, apparently at the willful neglect of the Church itself! Furthermore these views deny the sanctifying nature of the contents of the chalice itself — the Body and Blood of our Savior, the Word of God made flesh. If the spoon is to be rejected for remaining outside the sanctifying power of the Body and Blood of Christ, then we must also reject the Cross. St. John of Damascus, speaking of the wood of the Cross, writes, “So, then, that honorable and most truly venerable tree upon which Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for us is itself to be adored, because it has been sanctified by contact with the sacred body and blood.”4 But not the spoon as well? That which can sanctify wood can most assuredly also sanctify not only the spoon but every faithful recipient of the Mystery.5 It should also be noted that if sacramental grace does not extend to the spoon in Holy Communion, which Fr. Calivas is clearly arguing, it also does not extend to the baptismal font, the anointing brush, indeed, it does not even extend to the hand of the celebrant.6
  5. The author suggests that he is “very much aware of the growing concerns and fears of the people. I do not question their faith or their sincerity or their devotion to the Lord and the Church. Nor do I wish to belittle the hygienic sensibilities which are so heightened in the society in which we live.” (OAHC) But what faith or sincerity or devotion can exist without belief in God?7 Can a person come forward to participate in the great Sacrament, while at the very same time denying its true nature and efficacy? Is it proper to divide the mystery into parts, that which it heals and that which it does not sanctify? As for hygiene, it would seem wise to refer to Holy Scripture8, rather than “modern sensibilities,” which are founded upon a completely different worldview and telos. We would encourage Fr Calivas to read chapter 6 of the Gospel of John, in which the disciples express reluctance and concern about consuming the Body and Blood of the Lord. In response, the Lord did not tell them he was only speaking metaphorically, or engage in some other dismantling of his teaching in order to allay the fears of his disciples.
  6. The paper concludes with the claim that such suggested modifications to the distribution of holy Communion “...will not affect or undermine the doctrines and teachings of the Church on the real presence Christ in the Eucharistic Gifts.” (OAHC) Perhaps the author has not fully digested his own argument. The new order of things, as proposed, is fear, parasites, and illness, in place of confidence, blessings and health. Not to mention the mistrust this creates in the Church, her ministers and rites, and the destructive descent from joyful participation in the sanctified and sanctifying offerings of our Savior into bedlamic confusion. Of course, it will undoubtedly undermine the doctrines and teachings of the Church, since it stands opposed to them. It does so by proposing a secular, reductively rationalistic view that undermines the Church’s teaching about the sanctification of matter. As such, it tacitly denies the reality of the Incarnation, specifically the hypostatic union and the exchange of properties (between he uncreated and the created), and unwittingly lapses into a type of Nestorianism, in which there is no bridge between God and the world, between grace and matter, but only utter separation.9 Therefore, it appears that the author wishes to claim that the transformative power of divine grace available in Holy Communion is powerless and incapable of sanctifying inanimate objects such as the spoon, the communion cloth, or the holy icons, which, he would have us believe, are all under the power of corruption, disease, and death.
  7. However, the witness of Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church says otherwise: the burning bush (Ex. 3:1-4:17), the mantles of Elias and Elissaios (4 Kingd. 2:8; 2:14), the fringe of the Lord’s garment (Mt. 9:20, 14:36); the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:15-16), the sash of the Mother of God, countless holy icons, etc. We are not concerned about the spoon, as such, but about a theological program that, in its facile scholasticism, seeks to negate the overflowing merciful loving-kindness of divine benefactions upon mankind through God’s creation and replace it with a kind of dualist ontology. And are we to be at peace with this sort of faithlessness—with those who seek to misconstrue and ruin the deposit of the faith, and whether unwittingly or not, bring an onslaught of spiritual disturbances upon the faithful?10
What is needed today is not a confused and theologically vacuous quick slide into mindless liturgical revisionism, based on dubious facts and a weak grasp of the current epidemic, but an exhortation to faithfulness, courage, holiness, and an abiding trust in God’s promises that extend beyond this life. Certainly, it is not right for our scholars and leaders to encourage the faithful towards a fear of sickness and death. In the first place, the Lord encouraged His disciples against fear.11 In the second place, death is an unavoidable reality that must be faced, so much so that the Apostle experienced it daily12 as a proof of his willingness to endure it, and understood it as gain and not loss.13 We too, as Christians, must be willing to endure it, and especially so in the worship and service of God. In the third place, our Lord Himself endured it, and by enduring it, He swallowed it up, since it was not able to devour Him.14 Therefore, He has made us victors in spite of the death that we will die. It is not a common spoon that will infect and kill us, since it is filled, as it were, with Life itself. Rather, it is an empty heart, faithless and fearful, a fallen and worldly mind, moved here and there by every suggestion of the devil, blown about by every breeze of secular thinking, so that by a thousand cuts we will have already died long before our own death.

“Our remedy is the grace of Christ, and the body of death is our body. Let us, therefore, be exiled from the body lest we be exiles from Christ. Even if we are in the body, let us not follow what is of the body. Let us not neglect the rights of nature, but let us desire rather the gifts of grace.”15

--

1 “By the death of the martyrs, religion has been defended, the faith spread, and the Church strengthened.” (St. Ambrose, “The Christian Funeral Oration,” in Funeral Orations, vol. 22, The Fathers of the Church, p. 215)

2 This article, with Fr. Calivas as signatory, has appeared in more than one form. Because Fr Calivas is presenting himself as an “authority,” it should be noted that when he was appointed Dean of Holy Cross by Archbishop Iakovos, he did not have a doctoral degree. In response to faculty protests, he was sent to Greece where he was fast-tracked for a token PhD. His lack of serious scholarly training is evident throughout the essay in question and in all his written work, nearly all of it published through Holy Cross Orthodox Press, serving as his personal “Vanity Press.”

3 Incidentally, the author makes no effort to explain why this situation merits these changes today. Why is this pandemic is so radically different than the many that went before, even though previous plagues had far higher death rates, as to merit this hasty response? Smallpox is reported to have had a death rate of 30% in the 18th century. The Plague of Justinian is estimated to have had a death rate as high as 40%. Though we do not yet have an accurate measure of the COVID-19 death rate, it is far less deadly, with estimate below one percent to 1.3%.

4 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, 11 (vol. 37, The Fathers of the Church, p. 350-351). See also, the 3rd Stichera from the Vespers of the Exaltation of the Cross, “...ὅθεν σε καρδίᾳ καὶ χείλεσι, πιστῶς περιπτυσσόμενοι, τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἀρυόμεθα...,” which explains that the faithful are imparted with sanctification through physical contact with the venerable Cross. What sanctification? Indeed, “Christ, who is our sanctification,” as the Apostle teaches (1 Corinthian 1:30).

5 The entire Service of Preparation of Holy Communion is replete with references to the sanctification of the human person. A representative example: “Cleanse me of all defilement of flesh and spirit; teach meto achieve perfect holiness by fear of you, so that receiving a share of your holy gifts with the witness of my conscience clean, I may be united to your holy Body and Blood and have you dwelling and abiding in me...” (Prayer 2, Service of Preparation for Holy Communion). Are we to conclude that Holy Communion can sanctify a human being but not a spoon?

6 “...when you see the bath of water and the hand of the priest touching your head, you may not think that this is merely water, nor that only the hand of the bishop lies upon your head. For it is not a man who does what is done, but it is the grace of the Spirit which sanctifies the nature of the water and touches your head together with the hand of the priest.” (St. John Chrysostom, 10th Instruction, Baptismal Instructions, vol. 31, Ancient Christian Writers p. 47.)

7 “Without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever comes to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Heb 11:6.) “In matters that surpass the weakness of our reasoning we must turn to the teaching of faith.” (St. John Chrysostom, 11th Instruction, Baptismal Instructions, vol. 31, Ancient Christian Writers p. 166.) See also the Instruction 12: 6, “You are called ‘faithful’ both because you believe in God and have as a trust from Him justification, sanctity, purity of soul, filial adoption, and the kingdom of heaven.” p. 174–175.

8 “To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.” (Tit 1:15), See also Heb 13:14.

9 St. Maximos the Confessor explains how it is that created matter participates in “magnificent signs and wonders” by the principle of innovation, while a thing’s principle nature remains intact. It is worth quoting the Saint at length: “Every innovation, generally speaking, takes place in relation to the mode of whatever is being innovated, not in relation to its principle of nature, because when a principle is innovated it effectively results in the destruction of nature, since the nature in question no longer possesses inviolate the principle according to which it exists. When, however, the mode is innovated—so that the principle of nature is preserved inviolate—it manifests a wondrous power, for it displays nature being acted on and acting outside the limits of its own laws. Now the principle of human nature is that it consists of soul and body, and this nature consists of a rational soul and body, whereas its mode is the order whereby it naturally acts and is acted upon, frequently alternating and changing, without however in any way changing nature along with it. And this is exactly what happens in the case of every other thing, whenever God—in His providence for all that is subject to His care, and to demonstrate His power that is over all and through all things—wishes to manifest something new in His creation. Indeed this is exactly what He did from the very beginning, when, in the course of bringing about the unexpected, he wrought magnificent signs and wonders, all by this principle of innovation.” (Ambigua 42, On the Difficulties in the Church Fathers, vol. 1, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library)

10 “It is not true peace when adulterers seem to be peaceable toward each other, or when robbers and drunkards, slanderous and proud men appear to be mutually agreeable. This should not be called peace,...if a man desires true peace, he should first strive to possess it with God.” (St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 166, Sermons (1–238), vol. 2, The Fathers of the Church, p. 399)

11 Matthew 8:26

12 1 Corinthians 15: 31. See St. John Chrysostom, Against the Judaizers, Disc. 8, 3.

13 Philippians 1:21

14 “Divinity disguised itself in humanity and approached (death), which killed, then was killed: death killed natural life, but supernatural Life killed death.” (St. Ephrem the Syrian, vol. 91, The Fathers of the Church, The Homily of our Lord, 3, 1).

15 St. Ambrose, “The Christian Funeral Oration,” in Funeral Orations, vol. 22, The Fathers of the Church, p. 214.

46 comments:

  1. This is a truly outstanding article; I wish I had written it. But who did? Why is he or she anonymous?

    Dionysius Redington
    St Catherine Mission
    Lubbock, Texas

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps fear of retribution. It is not the party line.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I regret to observe that despite the noble intent made in the rebuttal, this anonymous writer makes something of an ass of himself. He accuses the author of the original piece of poor scholarship, and then makes this remarkable statement:

    "It makes an appeal to a single Father of the Church, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, for the suggested practice of disinfecting the common spoon. The reference provided in OAHC is not particularly clear, the entire context of the quotation is not given, and it remains uncorroborated. Again, it seems slender evidence indeed for justifying such far-reaching changes in centuries-old liturgical practices."

    The passage in question is indeed right there in the Pedalion, under Canon 101 of the 6th Council. If the author of this rebuttal is too lazy to check another author's citation and then has the gall to cast doubt on it and accuse him of being a bad scholar, he condemns himself out of his own mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It still remains that it is the only, single possibly quotation on this matter and itself is too vague to explain what exactly is being said and the context. Moreover it is essentially a commentary on the commentary on the canon. I think St. Nikodemos would be appalled to see his opinion be equated with the canons themselves.

      Delete
    2. Given the problem that the spoon is such a relatively recent innovation that it has had little time to overlap with major plagues, it's somewhat unrealistic to demand extensive patristic commentary on that highly specific subject.

      Until more comes to light, his (not at all unclear, really - what is there that is confusing about it?) commentary and eyewitness is of the utmost importance for determining what our living practice and understanding of the canons has historically been (I rather doubt people would be so cavalier with his commentary on, say, our marriage laws).

      But beyond the question of canonical practice in the administration of communion, this is also indeed a theological matter, and the anonymous author's grasp of St. Maximos (as illustrated in the comments below) and flirtations with a peculiar form of Transubstantiation (though his is not the worst example of that as of late, to be fair) should both give us pause. A tragic number of reactionary articles that have been flying about as of late remind me of nothing so much as the polemics of the Old Believers, who substituted raw emotivism for sound doctrine and liturgics and theology/ecclesiology under the guise of stalwart traditionalism. Nikon was a reprobate who was justly condemned in the end, to be sure, but far too many of those who resisted him were every bit as distant from the Church in the end.

      Delete
  4. I must respond to point #2 about Fr. Calivas. I was a student at Holy Cross when he began to teach there. Contrary to your statement, Fr. Calivas was not sent to Greece for a quick Ph.D. years later. He had a Ph.D. from a Greek university before he began to teach at Holy Cross in 1978. He was one of the best instructors that I had at Holy Cross. I know something about teaching in an American institution of higher education since I earned my Ph.D. 4 years before I arrived at Holy Cross and taught history on the college level before I became a student at Holy Cross. Once again Fr. Calivas was one of the best instructors that I had while I was in seminary.
    However, if he does argue for multiple spoons, I strongly disagree. Years ago during the AIDS crisis, Metropolitan Philip appointed me to a committee to study the way that we distribute Holy Communion to the faithful. I did a great deal of study on this issue including a visit to the library of a nearby medical school to look at scholarly articles that dealt with the distribution of Communion from a common cup. I found that scholarly studies show that there is almost no possibility of transmitting a pathogen through the common cup. This is because the alcohol in the wine kills most, if not all pathogens. Not only does the alcohol in the wine kill pathogens, the gold and silver of the cup and spoon also have an antiseptic quality. The health ministry of Greece did a study of the common spoon and agreed with the studies of the common cup that the common spoon does not transmit pathogens. Naturally, as Orthodox, we believe that we do not receive common bread and wine, but bread and wine that has become the sacred body and blood of Christ and, as the fathers wrote, the food of immortality. Therefore there is no way that the sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord could be the cause of sickness in the communicates.

    Archpriest John W. Morris, Ph.D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that, Fr John (= "anonymous").
      Apart from the merits or flaws of this article, many of us are concerned that we'll come out of this passing crisis with an impaired, obscured, or even changed understanding of the Mysteries of the Church. May God preserve us.

      Delete
    2. Fr. John,

      You are correct that there are no *known* human pathogens that can survive in wine (or beer!), the antiseptic properties of copper/silver/gold, etc. The aids virus actually dies upon contact with oxygen (O2), so alcohol is not even needed. This Wuhan virus is not an exception to these understood facts.

      That said, it is persistent. Assume the person communicating immediately before you manages to get a little spittle on the handle of the spoon (maybe they boorishly clamp down on the spoon as if they are excitedly eating chocolate cake), and when the next person communicates some of that spittle - protected from the alcohol in the Blood by being relatively high up on the spoon and not sufficiently mixed in with the Cups contents, manages to make contact with their moth, nose, etc.

      In such a scenario, what are the real risks? No matter what you believe "faithfully" about the Body and Blood, rather it is trans-substantiated into a Holy Antiseptic and/or is physically incapable of carrying a viral load due to alcohol et. al., is there not still a vector here? For those like Anon, how far does the "transformative power of Grace" extend? Up to viral load on the handle and the priests fingers? To the entire temple? To the parish parking lot?

      Delete
    3. the whole church.. but again if you take it unworthily thats another question.. check out Fr. Peter Heers latest video, an interview with Fr. Savvas. he expains it beautifully for you!

      Delete
    4. Thanks for mentioning this Susanna. I found it here (assuming this is to which you referred):

      https://orthodoxethos.com/

      I watched suffered about 2/3 of it. Unfortunately Fr. Peter and Archimandrite Savas simply assert, rather crudely (in that 'proof quoting' style from Fathers, cannons, etc.) strong assertions of temple and the like. I myself have seen the faithful get sick in church (e.g. fainting, probably from low blood sugar, etc.) and the like - and I am unwiling to judge their heart in the matter these two me do. This reduction of the faith to simple and simplistic terms of faith vs. reason, sacred space vs. profane world, and the like are a form of religiosity that is in truth not in keeping with the Fathers they quote (St. Maximus to name one example).

      There is no beauty in the crude and erroneous judgements of these two men. In their minds (and worse, hearts) they would say I am a "blasphemer", faithless, and willful ;)

      Delete
    5. The essay of elder Chrysostom Koutloumousianos that Fr. Peter posts just a couple up from that interview with Archimandrite Savas is a much more literate (to say nothing of faithful) explication of St. Maximus and the patristic mind. Ironic, given that it does not support either directly or indirectly F Savas's assertions...

      Delete
    6. My mother went to school for 2 months , she is 88 years old and still rides public transport and cant speak the English in Australia; she's about 4 ft tall but will bring down the distortion all your phd's with her phd in a simple faithful life. All heresies have come by wankers quoting scriptures.

      Delete
    7. "All heresies have come by wankers quoting scriptures"

      All too true, all too true...

      Delete
  5. I only skimmed past the second paragraph. This Anon author sets up the same emotive, even shrill, and ultimately false dichotomy that we have been hearing about since almost the beginning. It goes like this:

    1) The Church is built and vivified on the Blood of the Martyrs (true)

    2) Our normative liturgical, parish, and Sacremental life is integral and an absolute necessity in our salvation (true)

    3) This is a pandemic - a non-normative pattern of disease that effects society significantly, of which the Church as a people 'in the Body of the messiah' as Paul puts it, as a people in but not of the world, is unavoidably impacted by (true - though people like this author believe it is just One Big Conspiracy, manipulated by the Devil and his "secular" pawns in government, society, and the Church itself)

    4) Anon's metaphysical reasoning "...Therefore, it appears that the author wishes to claim that the transformative power of divine grace available in Holy Communion is powerless and incapable of sanctifying inanimate objects such as the spoon, the communion cloth, or the holy icons, which, he would have us believe, are all under the power of corruption, disease, and death..." is all we need to know, even though his retort is foundationally Docetic (despite his quoting of St. Maximus anti-docetic nature-principal-mode reasoning), he is faithful and the hierarchy is not, etc. etc. (false)

    This false dichotomy set up by Anon and all like him, centered Sacrementally in a "bread/wine vs. Body/Blood" mindset of magical proportions, and centered ecclesiastically as diverse arrogant (i.e. the opposite of humble) false conflict(s) between the Church vs secularism, government vs. martyrs, physics vs. faithful metaphysics, science vs. religion - these false dichotomies are not the Faith! On the contrary, they are products of the very secularism which Anon is ostensibly concerned with!!

    There are *real* distinctions to be made between the world and the Body, Faith and secularism, freedom and oppression (immaterially from the Devil and materially from our neighbor), and these distinctions are very very important. However, Anon is a Christian soldier upset with his religious and societal circumstances and he is lashing out at his fellow sojourners in Christ. Heck, his mind is captive of the very disease he purports upon others - Secularism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I largely agree. I also further suspect the author to be an American convert who doesn't get out much, because if he did, he would in fact know that icons do indeed frequently rot as they age. Additionally, I'm rather curious where the notion (seen here and in other recent pieces on the subject - the article on Trisagion Films' website being possibly the worst offender) that Orthodox theology teaches the 'Transubstantiation of Spoons.' They seem to adhere to the belief that God became gold, silver, and wood so that gold, silver, and wood might become God in some fashion.

      It strikes me that the likely culprit is at least in part a significant failure of contemporary Orthodox to actually understand our theology of icons and other holy things - a quick reading of the acta of the 7th Ecumenical Council and other fathers (such as those summarized by St. Nikodemos on the subject, as well as his own words) would demonstrate the weakness in such claims. Icons and crosses are holy because of what they represent, not because paint, wood, gold, etc possess divine qualities or are blessed in a fashion that makes them magically divine (in fact, the fathers all but universally condemn the now strangely popular practice of blessing icons for this very reason - it causes you to believe that the object is holy in and of itself, rather than because of what it is for, or what it depicts). Once the likeness of the image is gone, they cease to be sacred and become ordinary matter, and are burned or buried out of respect. It follows that the same is true for the spoon - a communion spoon melted down into dross is no longer sacred, and doesn't stay holy through some quasi-Catholic Transubstantiation that has fundamentally changed its matter for eternity.

      Delete
    2. "...some quasi-Catholic Transubstantiation that has fundamentally changed its matter for eternity..."

      It is ironic that Anon alleges "dual ontology", a species of "Nestorianism", and quotes Maximus's modalism all the while arguing for dualism itself - the domain of the "sacred" (e.g. Body and Blood, spoon, possibly parish parking lot) vs. the profane. The mode of being does not negate nature, which is exactly Maximus and our Holy hierarchies point in their humble directives. Anon (and those like him) ironically ends up arguing that it does!

      Anon is a poor (Orthodox Christian) metaphysician...

      Delete
  6. Thank you for this - common Orthodox sense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean as to the ridiculous Calivas article, not some of these responses.

      Delete
  7. To Archbishop Elpidophoros...a lament of a parent

    Why?

    Why your Eminence did you do this?
    Why did you do this to my children?
    Why did you make it difficult for me to look in my children’s eyes with sincerity...to share with them the conviction that we had?...the conviction of our faith, our trust, our life that we give to Him?
    Why did you turn Him into just an idea; a symbol in a cup?
    Why your Eminence did you do this to every Sunday School student who is taught that the Body and Blood of Christ can do no harm and that by extension anything He touches is healed....why did you relegate this idea to just an idea...to just a fairy tale?
    Why did you teach my children by what you may see as a concession to the faithful, to the circumstance, that the account of the woman with an issue of blood who touched His robe and was healed was just a story of trust...just a story of desperation?
    Why did you teach us that He does not really exist in the chalice, or if He does, that the robe of His chalice and His spoon may harm instead of heal?
    Please forgive this layperson’s perspective; this simplicity of thought, but why your Eminence did you do this to my children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The children, my God the children!!

      Did your read the article of Fr. Alkiviadis? He notes how Moscow, Romania, Ukraine (I assume Moscow's Ukrainian church) are all "turning Him into Just an idea; a symbol in a cup?"! Who will defend Holy Orthodoxy and the Holy Antiseptic and the Thrice Blessed parish parking lot?!?

      The children, my God the Children!!

      Delete
    2. So this doesn't happen to you and your kids:

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ukraine-church/head-of-stricken-kiev-monastery-says-underestimated-gravity-of-coronavirus-idUSKCN21S14F

      Delete
  8. To Archbishop Elpidophoros...a lament of a parent

    Why?

    Why your Eminence did you do this?
    Why did you do this to my children?
    Why did you make it difficult for me to look in my children’s eyes with sincerity...to share with them the conviction that we had?...the conviction of our faith, our trust, our life that we give to Him?
    Why did you turn Him into just an idea; a symbol in a cup?
    Why your Eminence did you do this to every Sunday School student who is taught that the Body and Blood of Christ can do no harm and that by extension anything He touches is healed....why did you relegate this idea to just an idea...to just a fairy tale?
    Why did you teach my children by what you may see as a concession to the faithful, to the circumstance, that the account of the woman with an issue of blood who touched His robe and was healed was just a story of trust...just a story of desperation?
    Why did you teach us that He does not really exist in the chalice, or if He does, that the robe of His chalice and His spoon may harm instead of heal?
    Please forgive this layperson’s perspective; this simplicity of thought, but why your Eminence did you do this to my children?

    ReplyDelete
  9. We seem to be witnessing the birth of a new heresy in the same vein as the anti-Nikonian Old Believers. People, mainly laity, are elevating rite to be equal to immutable theology and in doing so accusing bishops of apostasy for modifying rites which are well within their rights to do. I have even seen some demand that priests serve liturgies in direct opposition of their diocesan bishop's order, clueless as to an Orthodox priest's complete reliance on a bishop's authority to be able to serve liturgy, as symbolized by the necessity of a signed antemins. Is this novel theology a foretaste of the priest snatching practices of the priested Old Believers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I very much concur. To quote my comment above: "A tragic number of reactionary articles that have been flying about as of late remind me of nothing so much as the polemics of the Old Believers, who substituted raw emotivism for sound doctrine and liturgics and theology/ecclesiology under the guise of stalwart traditionalism."

      It's genuinely distressing to me how many people who imagine themselves as Traditionalists are slipping into the trap of Old Believer-esque anti-hierarchicalism and idolatry of (relatively new, no less!) praxis over genuine Tradition, as well as laying the groundwork for new and novel heresies.

      That is not to defend the modernists: they are absolutely using this crisis to their own ends as well, and are an ever-growing destructive force in the church. But even Nikon's crimes did not justify the Old Believers in the end, and indeed, their own misbehavior and arrogance only empowered him further and caused greater harm in Russia.

      Delete
    2. Nicholas Jackson:

      "During the reign of Aleksei Mikhailovich (r. 1645–1676), the young tsar and his confessor, Stefan Vonifatiev, sponsored a group, mainly composed of "white", non-monastic clergy and known as the Zealots of Piety. These included the archpriest Avvakum as a founder-member and the future patriarch Nikon, who joined in 1649. Their original aim was to revitalise the parishes through effective preaching, the orderly celebration of the liturgy, and enforcement of the church's moral teachings. To ensure that the liturgy was celebrated correctly, its original and authentic form had to be established, but the way that Nikon did this caused disputes between him and other reformers."

      "It is argued that changing the wording of the eighth article of the Nicaean Creed was one of the very few alterations that could be seen as a genuine correction, rather than aligning the texts of Russian liturgical books and practices, customs and even vestments with the Greek versions that Nikon considered were universally applicable norms.[17]:178–179 Nikon also attacked Russian Church rituals as erroneous, and even in some cases heretical, in comparison with their contemporary Greek equivalents. This went beyond the recommendation of Patriarch Paisios of Jerusalem, who suggested that differences in ritual did not of themselves indicate error, accepting the possibility that differences have developed over time. He urged Nikon to use discretion in attempting to enforce complete uniformity with Greek practice.[17](p48)

      Nevertheless, both patriarch and tsar wished to carry out their reforms, although their endeavors may have had as much or more political motivation as religious; several authors on this subject point out that Tsar Aleksei, encouraged by his military success in the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) to conquer West Russian provinces and Ukraine, developed ambitions of becoming the liberator of the Orthodox areas which at that time formed part of the Ottoman Empire. They also mention the role of the Near-East patriarchs, who actively supported the idea of the Russian Tsar becoming the liberator of all Orthodox Christians and who suggested that Patriarch Nikon might become the new Patriarch of Constantinople."

      I don't think the comparison holds.

      Delete
  10. On a serious note, I notice how Fr. Alkiviadis in note #9 pushes a realist Sacrementalism all the way up to, but not quite firmly in, consubstantiality (i.e. a two nature Eucharist, with bread/wine and Body/Blood both both present, hypostatically united). Fr. Cyril Hovorun does this as well.

    Anon and the like don't seem to understand this Sacramental Realism. For example, he says that Fr. Alkiviadi:

    "...unwittingly lapses into a type of Nestorianism, in which there is no bridge between God and the world, between grace and matter, but only utter separation..."

    But Nestorianism is a an assertion about how two hypostasis (Divine and human) "get into" as it were a single nature. Chalcedonian Orthodoxy responds with two natures "getting into" - hypostatically united - in one person (Jesus Christ). The question before us Sacrementally is what of the nature of bread/wine and Body/Blood, and how is it ontologically expressed in this world and in relation to disease vectors, pandemics, etc. Anon is not even following the details of the controversy and is erroneously bringing up Nestorianism as if it is relevant.

    Fr. Cyril, Fr. Alkiviadis, and others are at least addressing the right question with the right relavant history/theology. Their problem is that up until now there has been not strong/unambiguous assertion of consubstantiality of the Eucharist in the Church's theological tradition, at least not that I am aware. Fr. Alexander Schmemann walks right up to himself, but then dances around it, while at the same time strongly condemning the foundationally nominalistic, sacred/profane dichotomous metaphysics that the became "common sense" in the liturgical comprehension of the great mass of Orthodox believers (at all levels - including clergy/hierarchy) in the middle ages.

    Consubstantiality is "a" answer to this conundrum, but it also begs many questions. I personally think some kind of consubstantiality is almost required, but the difference between "this *is* my Body" and Christ incarnated, resurrected, and enthroned eschatologically would have to be accounted for.

    In any case, Anon's Manichean heavenly nature vs. fallen nature, where physics is simply "lawfully" overturned in a kind of continuous Eucharist miracle is just an expression of the deep secularism that so many Orthodox suffer from and which is a basic part of our culture...

    ReplyDelete
  11. St Cyril of Jerusalem:

    "Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ."

    "These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

    "After this you hear the singing which invites you with a divine melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and which says, 'Taste and see that the Lord is good.' Do not trust to the judgement of the bodily palate - no, but to unwavering faith. For they who are urged to taste do not taste of bread and wine, but to the antitype, of the Body and Blood of Christ."



    St. Ignatius of Antioch:

    "They confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you believe are the implications of these quotes to the current question(s) Fr. Alexis?

      Delete
    2. Dear Jake,

      I don't put much stock in what I think about what the Church teaches. I'm don't spend anytime on considering what the implications of our Theology is. I spend nearly all my mental free time on concerns of the faithful at the Missions I serve. I honestly don't have much of an answer for your question, sorry!

      But something did pop into my head.

      Does Christ have three natures?
      A human nature, a divine nature, and a bread nature?

      Regarding the Eucharist, if the bread nature exists alongside of the Body, how then is it “United”? Christ says this is my Body, this is my Blood. So if the Bread isn't His Body, but bread by nature, how is it Truly the Body of Christ? And likewise, the wine? How is it Truly the Blood of Christ?

      In the Incarnation, the Divine and Human Natures of Christ are Hypostatically United; two natures, one Person.

      So, what happens to the nature of the bread when it becomes the Body?

      It seems to me if the bread maintains the nature of bread and the wine maintains the nature of wine, well, it isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ after all.

      As an Orthodox Christian priest, I always present the teaching of the Church, not my personal teaching. I'm happy to be corrected where I'm wrong. What I was taught when I converted and what we were taught in Seminary to teach people is that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

      We were not taught to teach people to believe in impanation or consubstantiation. In fact, we were taught that those teachings are heretical and to hold those views are to hold heterodox views on the Eucharist.

      Delete
    3. Ha! Thanks for your thoughts Fr. Alexis. I would note that you apparently were taught that a Docetic view of the Eucharist *is* Orthodox, with the metaphysical details of the how/why as to nature(s) left unstated, unexamined, a "mystery", etc.

      The three poles of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and a docetic 'mystery' is where all this is at. It would all be "academic" if it were not for the present circumestances and these strong statements by some in the Church who question the faith and hearts of those who ask about bread and celiac disease, or spoons/cloths/temples and virus vectors. It's not just their questioning of others faith either - it's their implied physics, metaphysics, and theology as well for which they seem very reluctant (incapable?) of even admitting let alone supporting. Their many "the Fathers say" do not withstand scrutiny.


      “...The Purpose of the Eucharist lies not in the change of the bread and wine, but in the partaking of Christ, who has become our food, our life, the manifestation of the Church as the body of Christ. This is why the gifts themselves never became in the Orthodox East an object of special reverence, contemplation, and adoration, and likewise an object of special theological 'problematics': how, when, in what manner their change is accomplished.”

      Fr. Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom

      Delete
    4. ...


      Docetisim? Lol, nah, we weren't taught that.

      We were taught the teaching of the Church. Thanks for you reply. This is my last post for this thread.
      God Bless you!

      Delete
  12. Now dear Father should, I believe. settle the matter. Every so often I hear the name Fr. SCHMEMMAN mentioned. Each year I read his journal and am struck by his humility. Often he states so much that he has written falls short. I especially reread his entry for 12/3/81 and the lecture he gave on Holy Unction. I was a guest at that lecture and still marvel at his insights, which help me to prepare for serving that Holy Mystery

    ReplyDelete
  13. Seems like the big problem here is equating "sanctification" with "disinfection". Where on earth did that idea come from? We know from scripture that the sanctifying fire of God burns without consuming. Can't we assume that the bugs on the burning bush survived sanctification just like the bush itself? Since when did sanctification mean death sentence for microbes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I asked Fr. Peter Heers In the comments to one of his recent videos, why does the priest wash his hands before liturgizing? Granted germ theory was not original the ritualized ablution, the completion of the Vesting with prayers which might have Temple origins, but the time required to recite the psalm verses along with the washing does correspond to hygeinic principles we are taught contemporary to this pandemic; the thoroughness of the priest washing his hands before Proskomede suggests that Jewish ideas of bodily purification have some bearing on preparation for the service of the Holy, like the Mikvah which provides the basic form and concept of the physical aspects of Christian Baptism. My assertion is that the priest’s washing of his hands has something to do with avoiding contamination and therefore contagion. Heers countered that although contagious microbes may still be present on a priest’s hands, they are rendered harmless while he performs sacred functions and categorically cannot infect another to his harm.
      The monk Mr. Aghiorites lately interviewed stated that ‘social distancing of 2m in church is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.’ These statements by Heers and guests establish a hard line that forbids any effort to take into account physical risks of normal church attendance. To satisfy their claims of piety, them disavowal of all hygiene is required of clergy and laity.
      What we have in these champions of piety, including Fr. Josiah Trenham who also dismisses hygienic measures as government intrusion into his priestly business, is a new elite who gain their legitimacy through intolerance. It is a ‘revitalization movement’ in Orthodoxy similar to the appearance of Wahhabism in Sunni Islam, where upstart clerics grasp at influence and clamor for attention vaunting their superior piety and stricter intolerance of impiety as a new and better standard, distinguished from the old order with its compromises.
      In a crisis, these types always rush to the fore opportunistically.

      Delete
    2. Well stated Fr. John. The "categorical" reduction of the Faith to these simplistic either/or's in this matter around biology/physics, is at least in our North American context, the corollary to a "faith healing" and snake handling mode of religiosity.

      Fr. Peter, with no sense of irony, posted Hieromonk Chrysostom Koutloumousianos much more faithful reading of St. Maximus' and the Patristic Greek/Christian metaphysical synthesis of nature, ontology, and Faith...I suppose Fr. Peter believes that this essay supports these assertions by this Greek Archimandrite Savas about Grace/sanctification, sacramental theology, and disease/pandemics. Yet more erroneous "The Fathers Say!"

      That said, I don't quite agree with your strong 'Wahhabism' analogy. The fact is this child like piety and false either/or has always been with the Church through its history. Even on a healthy and mature level, there is this paradoxical tension between "the world" and Christians that is on every page of Scripture and in our very hearts. Fr. Josiah's and Fr. Peters may be falsely reactionary, but what they are reacting to, "secularism", "modernism", whatever you wish to call it, is nevertheless very real.

      The status quo of normative Orthodoxy is simply to (sometimes) acknowledge the elephant in the room but not really do anything about, falling back instead into the more usual piety, theology, and cultural ontology of post Constatine Church of the East praxis. The failure of this status quo hardly needs to be argued, and if it does then your arguing with delusion. The Fr. Peter's and Josiah of the world, whatever their errors, are at least not sitting on their hands like *most* of the rest of the Church, laity and clergy included. In their own way, neither are the "progressive" Orthodox like those Fordham boys. It's the great lethargic and impotent middle that these two poles are really pointing to, by their very existence, that is the *real* problem...

      Delete
    3. Also, does anyone know Fr. Peter's situation with his hierarchy? Was he not banished/exiled from Greece a year or two ago under threat of defrocking for his insistence that his bishop was an "ecumenist"? Who is his bishop/jurisdiction now?

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the bishops have chosen sensibly in this matter. We ought to trust in their good judgment. Surely God does not care how many or what kind of spoons we use! But he does care if we love our neighbor (which we do not if we expose him to the virus), obey the secular authorities (who are not persecuting us, but rather trying to *save* our ungrateful posteriors), and avoid tempting God (by demanding his miraculous protection from the consequences of risks we could easily avoid).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Perhaps of interest:

    Byzantine Catholic Diocese of Passaic's bishop's letter:
    https://saintspeterpaulbethlehempa.org/files/Misc/Pandemic-Letter-for-Pastors-5-12-2020.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wrong. Here is the reality:

    https://orthodoxethos.com/post/to-our-beloved-hierarchs-and-clergy-of-the-orthodox-churches-of-america-and-everywhere

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, Rev. Beal. They are patristically-minded clergy attempting to teach the faith of our fathers...while others (such as yourself) attempt to re-interpret and unleash innovations and misinformation...turning our Churches into a gathering of hypochondriacs at a Halloween party. Lord have mercy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you get a new flame job on your Civic Mikail?!?

      Delete