Interesting. What about the argument that the body of christ is not divided? If it all came from the same prosphoron, etc. ?? That is the basic argument of our professor.
I think it's a non sequitur in this conversation; the rest of the prosphoron isn't included in the communion - if we're arguing for continuity, then the whole loaf, which has been prepared and blessed in the Proskomedia, is ready to be Amnos tou Theou,
yet the rest is used as an antidoron
instead. I'd actually expect more from him than just that; common source does not denote common use, common purpose, or common destiny; reading enough St. Paul can demonstrate that.
Also, Cleveland, what do you say in response to what I have QUOTED Fr. Calivas, from his own text book. That's great that your proistamenos had a personal experience, but this is a publication by the selfsame person...so it should be tackled for what it's worth.
OK, fine. I don't think, however, that you'll get a conclusive answer about Fr. Calivas' position unless you ask him to write you an email answer to this issue. I'm sure he'd be glad to do it, especially for a senior at HC who is going into the Priestly service.
To answer this question in short...YES it would become the Body and Blood of Christ.
Yikes. Then what's the point of the parallel to the Mystical Supper; yes, we can use whatever we need to
to create Communion (e.g. grape juice in Alaska) - but when we have the alternatives, then we use what was used in the first instance: bread and wine. It's a big reason for the long debate on the use of leaven - we believe that leavened bread was actually used. If anything could be used regardless of actual parallel or availability of the original gifts, then why all the fuss?
Why is it that we cover the cup and diskos? why is it that we shake the aer for the Creed? Why is it that some chalices come with a metal cover, which is placed over the chalice all the way until communion? so that this kind of thing doesn't happen, BECAUSE by virtue of it being the body and blood, everything within the chalice is body and blood.
No - it's because we want to keep the gifts undefiled, unmixed with flies and the like; if any bug that fell into the chalice became a part of Christ's Body, then there would be no need to cover the chalice! We believe that anything that is part of God's Body cannot harm us, and the like - despite hundreds of people receiving communion per month from the same spoon, most of our clergy don't get sick! Things falling into communion, if they automatically became the Body of Christ, would fall into that category; however, we go to great lengths to keep things out, simply because we want to maintain the integrity of the bloodless sacrifice.
...the epiclesis, the invocation to the Father to send down his Holy Spirit upon the liturgical assembly and upon the gifts that have been set forth, that they may be changed to be the Body and Blood of Christ. (pg. 210)
Notice here he says upon the liturgical ASSEMBLY and the GIFTS that have been set forth. Also keep in mind that at the petition of the epiklisis we say "changing them by your Holy Spirit" replied by "amen, amen amen"...notice that we are using the plural here, not the singular. So if the consecration was only the amnos, wouldn't it be singular?
Um, there is Amnos and Wine - "them." Arguments on grammar work sometimes, but not all times.
And the praise leads to the petition. And the petition leads to the epiclesis, which in turn, through the consecration of the gifts, begins the fulfillment of the Divine Liturgy, the essence of what lies in communion, in our partaking of Christ and our union with each other. (pg. 210)
Notice again, how he says here the "consecration of the gifts" ...being plural...
At every Eucharist through the bread and wine - the distinctly unique human foods, and therefore symbols of human life - we offer humbly to GOd our life in exchange for his, which he freely gives to us through the consecrated Eucharistic elements, which are no longer bread and wine, nor symbols or icons, but the very Body and Blood of the risen Christ, having been sanctified and transformed by the power of the Father through the Holy Spirit. (pg. 211)
So here we see that the "bread" which technically was the WHOLE prosphoron, broken up into its various elements, is consecrated ENTIRELY to be the Body and Blood of Christ, NO LONGER BEING JUST BREAD, but fully Christ.
The Amnos starts as bread - the use of the term bread doesn't necessitate total inclusion. One part is bread (the Amnos), so the use of the term doesn't necessarily designate the whole.
In the Eucharist, Christ acts to make us members of his own body that we may "grow up in every way into him" (Ephes. 4:15). The mystery of our incorporation into the body of Christ begins with baptism, through our immersion into the life-giving font. (pg. 212)
I added this to make the distinction of HOW we become the body of christ, as a counter-argument against Cleveland's whole point of putting a piece of "cheek" on the patten.
Again, this line of argumentation fails to recognize diversification of roles within the Body; just as not all can be Bishops, Priests, Nuns, or Mothers, not all bread is used in Church, and not all Church bread becomes the Body of Christ.
In the Eucharist, Christ is forever present and immediate to his people; and his saving work remains constant and operative for every generation in every place, until he comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
So yah...if something drops in the Eucharist, it is eucharist. Otherwise, this statement above becomes no longer true.
I'm going to have to ask you how you came to that conclusion.
The very idea that the other elements (other than the amnos) are just sitting there is difficult to believe in light of the "patristic" thought on the idea of symbol. It is not just "symbolic" as we normally believe, but rather it is the VERY representation of what we say that it is. This might be an addition to the discussion.
Here is a short comment on that, with a good liturgical point connected to our discussion:
The Bread and Wine are a good example. If you read the liturgical texts, especially liturgy of St. Basil, because he uses the word “anti-type” and the word “symbol” which both mean the connection or true manifestation and participation in the event and the actual blood and wine.
Um, the argument that the other particles are active "symbol" actually bolsters my position, which is that those pieces which are called forth as symbols of Mary, the Saints, and the Living and Departed, are not "the Body of Christ, the Amnos" even though they are part of the Body of Christ. Their symbolism is inconsistent with use as the Amnos Tou Theou.
In terms of a counter argument, I came across this in my notes, in regards to the Fermentum. The fermentum was a piece of the AMNOS which was given to the presbyter, which "enacted" or "completed" the eucharist. So maybe there is an argument here for Cleveland...
One interesting phenomenon is “fermentum” which is when you have a city and the original church, like in Rome, breaking into different parishes in order to show the one of the local community, which is connected to the bishop. The fermentum developed out of this. It was the local church of the bishop, where the bishop would consecrate the gifts and give a piece of the gifts called the fermentum, to the new order of clergy called the Acolytes. The original job of the Acolyte was to be runners, who would take a piece of the fermentum and they would run to the surrounding parishes and area and in those parishes the presbyters would be consecrating his own Eucharist but to illustrate that there was a tangible connection to the one bishop in that region, a piece of the fermentum would be mixed in with the presbyter’s Eucharist. The Acolytes would have come into the church at the time of the Great Entrance, so this is why you sometimes see people with great reverence when the entrance happens, even though they are not consecrated, but it could be a remnant or memory of the Frementum.
We actually do something like this today. We take the part of the consecrated lamb which is marked “IC” and put it into the chalice, at the time of consecration and no one receives from it. Then the priest receives from the part marked “XC” and then the rest is put into the chalice. This is a remnant from the Fermentum. The piece from the bishop would come and go in the chalice FIRST, and then the rest of the portions would be put into the chalice.
I don't know...i gota do some more research.
Eh, I don't know how much it adds to my position, but it may be useful for others reading this thread.