Author Topic: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?  (Read 2430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DennyB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
  • Moving Toward Orthodoxy
Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« on: July 29, 2012, 03:02:46 AM »
Isn't Liturgical unity a much better route for union , rather than a unity through reason and debate? That is why I think unification is a more obtainable goal,especially when I consider Eastern Rite Catholics. 

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,422
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian+Greek
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2012, 03:12:24 AM »
Problem is, theology is all wrapped up in the liturgy, and the liturgy is all wrapped up in theology.
Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς
Τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν

Offline DennyB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
  • Moving Toward Orthodoxy
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2012, 03:19:39 AM »
Problem is, theology is all wrapped up in the liturgy, and the liturgy is all wrapped up in theology.

Maybe I worded it wrongly, I merely meant seeking theological unity through a common liturgy,rather than through debating and lecturing each other?? Isn't it through the liturgy that God unifies us? That is why I mentioned the Eastern Catholics, they have a common liturgy,so to speak,with Eastern Churches,and many of them are more easily convinced of Eastern thought and practice,than their Western counterparts.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 03:23:07 AM by DennyB »

Offline Alpo

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,608
  • Holy Newmartyrs of Internets, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox. Truly, madly, deeply
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2012, 04:18:14 AM »
Nope. I feel much closer with a traditionalist Catholics who sticks faithfully with Catholicism than an Eastern Catholic who doesn't believe what Old Rome teaches but still maintains communion with her. The first attitude is much closer to Orthodoxy.
The user should probably be sleeping by now.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,157
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2012, 05:41:56 AM »
Isn't Liturgical unity a much better route for union , rather than a unity through reason and debate? That is why I think unification is a more obtainable goal,especially when I consider Eastern Rite Catholics. 
Hasn't worked for them, or the Anglicans.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,545
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2012, 06:09:00 AM »
Quote
That is why I mentioned the Eastern Catholics, they have a common liturgy,so to speak,with Eastern Churches,and many of them are more easily convinced of Eastern thought and practice,than their Western counterparts.

No, the Eastern Catholics don't have a common liturgy with us. Their Divine Liturgy might be almost identical, but you're forgetting their Vespers and Matins are often different in content to ours, such as their feast of the Conception by St Anna of the Mother of God, which has hymnography in it which proclaims the Immaculate Conception. There is no such hymnography in any Orthodox menaion, because the IC is not Orthodox doctrine.

 NicholasMyra is dead right. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 06:09:48 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2012, 03:12:15 PM »
Even if the liturgy were exactly the same, the grace of the Holy Spirit comes on those confessing the faith of the Church, the faith of the Apostles. Faith is theology. Bad theology is bad faith.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2012, 03:24:28 PM »
Absolutely not. The Church has NEVER maintained liturgical "unity." We've always had a plethora of liturgies and other rites. The unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Byzantine rite is an historical anomaly.
"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,429
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2012, 04:52:07 PM »
No, proper Orthodox practice comes from having the proper Orthodox Faith, NOT vice versa.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,298
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2012, 05:40:21 PM »
Isn't Liturgical unity a much better route for union , rather than a unity through reason and debate? That is why I think unification is a more obtainable goal,especially when I consider Eastern Rite Catholics.  

Interesting question.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 05:53:21 PM by Peter J »
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2012, 06:01:23 PM »
No it isn't, OP. Why would it be? Is it all about praxis, or is praxis somehow to be divorced from theology?

Offline William

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,354
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2012, 06:03:23 PM »
Absolutely not. The Church has NEVER maintained liturgical "unity." We've always had a plethora of liturgies and other rites. The unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Byzantine rite is an historical anomaly.

An anomaly which has occurred for about 50% of the church's existence?
Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2012, 06:56:48 PM »
Isn't Liturgical unity a much better route for union , rather than a unity through reason and debate?

Orthodoxy has had liturgical diversity for the majority of its existence, and while the diversity isn't that great, in mot cases, still does to a small extent within different eastern rite parishes depending on local custom and tradition. I can go to the Antiochian church here and here different antiphons in the beginning of the liturgy than in my own OCA church. There's differences from parish to parish even within a local diocese on what prayers  are read aloud vs silent, who says the "amen"s to what, and other small things. We also have three different eastern rite liturgies (St John, St Basil, and St James less commonly) that are used and we have (although a minority of parishes) a number of western rite parishes using a small handful of different liturgies under at least two different jurisdictions that I'm aware of. We're called to be united in a common faith, not a common liturgy, even though there is a common basic structure to our different liturgical traditions with common elements. So while right faith will produce right practice, there has been multiple ways of properly expressing the Orthodox faith for just about all of our history. Even in the west, liturgical unity wasn't imposed in the Roman Catholic Church until the 16th century, which even then just codified what was being used in Rome and made it a universal standard for those in commmunion with Rome, which still excludes the Eastern Rite(s) Catholics and the use of an Anglican liturgy which Rome has had for use but seldom allowed for a period of some time (I don't know how long off the top of my head) before the large ingress of Anglo-Catholics and the formation of their new ordinariate.

There's nothing wrong with liturgical diversity as long as the same truth is being proclaimed and put into practice. This is our history, not a "what if", but a "what is". If anything, the imposition of strict liturgical unity might be a source of division within Orthodoxy or continued division where it already exists.

Just a few thoughts.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,546
  • Shevchenko - extraordinary poet and top footballer
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2012, 03:38:02 AM »
An anomaly which has occurred for about 50% of the church's existence?

When?
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline DennyB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
  • Moving Toward Orthodoxy
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2012, 05:07:26 AM »
The reason I address this,is that I remember hearing a podcast involving an interview of an Eastern Catholic priest,and He was saying that their liturgy,or liturgies were the same as that of Eastern Churches. The only difference being that they submit to the Pope, and that for many Eastern Catholics even this is questionable,and they were discussing possible unification.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,545
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2012, 06:11:00 AM »
The reason I address this,is that I remember hearing a podcast involving an interview of an Eastern Catholic priest,and He was saying that their liturgy,or liturgies were the same as that of Eastern Churches. The only difference being that they submit to the Pope, and that for many Eastern Catholics even this is questionable,and they were discussing possible unification.

The problem is that this EC priest is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. See post #5 above.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Online Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,714
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2012, 07:31:53 AM »
Absolutely not. The Church has NEVER maintained liturgical "unity." We've always had a plethora of liturgies and other rites. The unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Byzantine rite is an historical anomaly.

An anomaly which has occurred for about 50% of the church's existence?

Perhaps he means anomaly in the sense of an accident or coincidence.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 07:32:12 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,138
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2012, 04:35:42 PM »
No, proper Orthodox practice comes from having the proper Orthodox Faith, NOT vice versa.
^ This.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,652
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2012, 04:38:06 PM »
The reason I address this,is that I remember hearing a podcast involving an interview of an Eastern Catholic priest,and He was saying that their liturgy,or liturgies were the same as that of Eastern Churches. The only difference being that they submit to the Pope, and that for many Eastern Catholics even this is questionable,and they were discussing possible unification.

The problem is that this EC priest is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. See post #5 above.

I agree with LBK.  Also agree with Isa's #4. 

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2012, 05:06:36 PM »
Absolutely not. The Church has NEVER maintained liturgical "unity." We've always had a plethora of liturgies and other rites. The unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Byzantine rite is an historical anomaly.

An anomaly which has occurred for about 50% of the church's existence?

Perhaps he means anomaly in the sense of an accident or coincidence.

Essentially, yes. The fact that the Byzantine rite has been the sole rite in the Eastern Orthodox Church says nothing about the Orthodoxy of other rites, especially the pre-schism rites of both East and West. The dominance of a single rite came about due to politics and schism, and not theological issues with the other rites. Also, no other Christian communion (Catholic or Oriental Orthodox) has ever been dominated by a single rite. Though, one can argue about the suppressing of western rites by the Latins, other rites (such as that practiced by the Melkites and Marionites of Antioch) have always maintained communion with Rome, which continues to allow more and more Eastern rites, and has also become friendlier towards other Western rites, such as the recent allowance of the Anglican rite. I believe there are also small pockets of others such as the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites that have been given more freedom than in the past.
"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Sth different than my heart belongs to
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2012, 06:53:58 AM »
Firstly, liturgical diversity is a richness of the Orthodox Church. It doesn't matter if I attend Liturgy in Poland, Serbia, if it's byzantine, Coptic or Armenian - I feel it's Orthodox, the basis is the same.

Secondly, the liturgical rite comes out from the theology, Liturgy illustrates the teaching of the Church. That's why Eastern Catholic Liturgy seems to be similar to the Orthodox one (and what Roman Catholics like to claim, especially if they see somebody who is interested in Eastern spirituality and they're afraid this person could convert into Orthodox Church), but in reality it is not. Latinizations, abbreviations, generally not maintained some traditions such as All-night vigil (or Vespers or Matins) etc. I know people who have attended Orthodox and Greek Catholic Liturgy; they were in agreement that they were different, in Greek Catholic church they felt almost like in Roman one. Sometimes I read also some forums of Polish Roman Catholic traditionalists. On the one hand, they appreciate byzantine Liturgy. But on the other hand, they would like to introduce such things as receiving Holy Communion in the kneeling position what's inappropriate in the Eastern Liturgy
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,298
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2012, 10:18:23 AM »
Hi Dominika. I notice you said that receiving Holy Communion in the kneeling position is inappropriate in the Eastern Liturgy ... is it permissible in WRO? (I just ask out of ignorance, since I don't have much experience with WRO.)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,546
  • Shevchenko - extraordinary poet and top footballer
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2012, 10:23:56 AM »
How would it be possible to receive Blood while kneeling?
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2012, 10:30:09 AM »
How would it be possible to receive Blood while kneeling?

Well back in my Protestant days I used to receive both Body and Blood whilst kneeling - it's not hard.

James
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,298
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2012, 10:42:27 AM »
How would it be possible to receive Blood while kneeling?

Is that an issue?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2012, 10:48:03 AM »
How would it be possible to receive Blood while kneeling?

On a spoon.  ;)
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Online J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,612
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2012, 10:50:24 AM »
How would it be possible to receive Blood while kneeling?

1.  Approach reverently
2.  If inclined to do so, bow deeply
3.  Kneel on right knee (or left if one cannot kneel on the right), or on both especially at an altar rail
4.  Say "Amen" after the Priest/Deacon/Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist (if necessary) presents the Chalice saying, "The Blood of Christ"
5.  Take Chalice and drink a small amount
6.  Cross yourself
7.  Rise
8.  Return to pew

Easy peasey  ;)!  Looks complicated but isn't.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2012, 10:53:03 AM by J Michael »
"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,304
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2012, 08:21:15 PM »
In the Antiochian Western Rite, we kneel for the reception of both Body and Blood.

Offline Alpo

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,608
  • Holy Newmartyrs of Internets, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox. Truly, madly, deeply
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2012, 08:25:25 PM »


That seems awfully risky. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to distribute it by intinction?
The user should probably be sleeping by now.

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,429
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2012, 09:48:47 PM »
/snip

That seems awfully risky. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to distribute it by intinction?
What's wrong with using a spoon?

Online Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,714
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #30 on: August 02, 2012, 09:53:41 PM »
/snip

That seems awfully risky. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to distribute it by intinction?
What's wrong with using a spoon?
They're not using a spoon in the picture.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,304
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #31 on: August 02, 2012, 09:53:59 PM »
A spoon is just as risky as putting the chalice directly to the lips, if not more so. Intinction is certainly done in the West.

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #32 on: August 02, 2012, 09:58:04 PM »
In the Antiochian Western Rite, we kneel for the reception of both Body and Blood.
Yep and served with a spoon.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,545
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2012, 10:53:50 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,304
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #34 on: August 03, 2012, 01:13:39 AM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 01:22:32 AM by Sleeper »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,545
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #35 on: August 03, 2012, 03:00:50 AM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #36 on: August 03, 2012, 05:32:35 AM »
That seems awfully risky. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to distribute it by intinction?
Why would drinking from a cup be risky? I have been doing it several times a day for most of my life and haven't lost an eye yet.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,298
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2012, 05:34:38 AM »
Hi Dominika. I notice you said that receiving Holy Communion in the kneeling position is inappropriate in the Eastern Liturgy ... is it permissible in WRO? (I just ask out of ignorance, since I don't have much experience with WRO.)

In the Antiochian Western Rite, we kneel for the reception of both Body and Blood.

Interesting, thanks Sleeper. (Incidentally, I don't think I ever knew that you were WRO.)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2012, 05:36:59 AM »
Isn't Liturgical unity a much better route for union , rather than a unity through reason and debate? That is why I think unification is a more obtainable goal,especially when I consider Eastern Rite Catholics. 
What do you mean by "Liturgical unity"? The whole point of the Liturgy is the Eucharist. Where the Body and Blood of Christ are not shared, there can be no unity.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Sth different than my heart belongs to
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #39 on: August 03, 2012, 08:04:10 AM »
http://www.galeria.bazylianie.pl/#/content/07/02/19720515/28-277-Resizer-800RW9.jpg - here you have photos that show receiving the Holy Eucharist by spoon in a Greek Catholic church in Warsaw in 70'. As for me, it looks so strange for byzantine rite and there is a risk that some pieces of the Christ's Body and Blood can just fall on the ground.

The things are different with Latin rites: there is no spoon so it's much easier and safer to receive the Eucharist while kneeling, so if our WRO brothers do it, there is no issue.  Both positions, kneeling and standing symbolize respect, but I just think that receiving Eucharist with kneeling is strange and risky for byzantine rite.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,304
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #40 on: August 03, 2012, 10:03:53 AM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

I don't doubt you are correct that a canon somewhere forbids this, but it seems odd to me that our lips and digestive system can receive the actual Blood of Christ, but we cannot touch the thing holding it. Is it because our hands have not fasted? :) Did not St Thomas stick his hand into the very side of our Lord?

At any rate, I agree it's better safe than sorry and deep respect needs to be shown toward all holy objects.

Online J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,612
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #41 on: August 03, 2012, 10:30:34 AM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

First of all, how do you figure the chalice is being "grabbed", rather than reverently received?  I don't think you can assume that from the photo at all.

And secondly, just because what's shown in the photo isn't the practice at *your* church does not make it wrong.
"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,429
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #42 on: August 03, 2012, 12:06:39 PM »
there is a risk that some pieces of the Christ's Body and Blood can just fall on the ground.
At our church we alway hold a piece of cloth under the spoon so that doesn't happen.

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #43 on: August 03, 2012, 12:52:52 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

Is the chalice holier than the Eucharist, because I hear some priests even let parishioners put it in their mouths, and with the bishop's knowledge!
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #44 on: August 03, 2012, 01:20:26 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

I don't doubt you are correct that a canon somewhere forbids this, but it seems odd to me that our lips and digestive system can receive the actual Blood of Christ, but we cannot touch the thing holding it. Is it because our hands have not fasted? :) Did not St Thomas stick his hand into the very side of our Lord?

At any rate, I agree it's better safe than sorry and deep respect needs to be shown toward all holy objects.

Quite right. As a point of information, there is no canon that "forbids this," i.e. touching the chalice. There *is*, however, an ecumenical canon that requires the faithful to receive the Eucharist via their own hand. The reality is that communion on a spoon of both species together via intinction (the current Eastern Orthodox practice) is, at best, a practice introduced in the 8th century, probably later. This is one area where the Romans have preserved the older tradition.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #45 on: August 03, 2012, 01:35:21 PM »
Isn't Liturgical unity a much better route for union , rather than a unity through reason and debate? That is why I think unification is a more obtainable goal,especially when I consider Eastern Rite Catholics. 

Diversity of rite is actually an important thing, since it illustrates powerfully and very tangibly the historical reality that unity never meant uniformity. This was as true of theology as it was of liturgy.

At this point, there is no reason to believe unification is an achievable goal. However, Orthodox theology has far more in common with Benedict XVI's theological program than it did with any recent Pope's. And that comes not from liturgy but from Benedict's emphasis on a return to the true catholicity of patristic theology, East and West.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,304
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #46 on: August 03, 2012, 01:52:48 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

I don't doubt you are correct that a canon somewhere forbids this, but it seems odd to me that our lips and digestive system can receive the actual Blood of Christ, but we cannot touch the thing holding it. Is it because our hands have not fasted? :) Did not St Thomas stick his hand into the very side of our Lord?

At any rate, I agree it's better safe than sorry and deep respect needs to be shown toward all holy objects.

Quite right. As a point of information, there is no canon that "forbids this," i.e. touching the chalice. There *is*, however, an ecumenical canon that requires the faithful to receive the Eucharist via their own hand. The reality is that communion on a spoon of both species together via intinction (the current Eastern Orthodox practice) is, at best, a practice introduced in the 8th century, probably later. This is one area where the Romans have preserved the older tradition.

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,304
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #47 on: August 03, 2012, 02:01:39 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

First of all, how do you figure the chalice is being "grabbed", rather than reverently received?  I don't think you can assume that from the photo at all.

And secondly, just because what's shown in the photo isn't the practice at *your* church does not make it wrong.

Grabbed does not imply an internal disposition, I was merely noting the manner in which the chalice is touched. Both hands around the base as opposed to a few fingers underneath. Helping guide the chalice to your lips is different than essentially giving yourself the wine by taking hold of the cup as pictured. Whether its a sign of reverence or not is a different matter.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #48 on: August 03, 2012, 02:25:45 PM »
That seems awfully risky. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to distribute it by intinction?
Why would drinking from a cup be risky? I have been doing it several times a day for most of my life and haven't lost an eye yet.
There is a risk of the Precious Blood spilling.

Offline Tikhon29605

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 643
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #49 on: August 03, 2012, 03:36:43 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

I don't doubt you are correct that a canon somewhere forbids this, but it seems odd to me that our lips and digestive system can receive the actual Blood of Christ, but we cannot touch the thing holding it. Is it because our hands have not fasted? :) Did not St Thomas stick his hand into the very side of our Lord?

At any rate, I agree it's better safe than sorry and deep respect needs to be shown toward all holy objects.

Quite right. As a point of information, there is no canon that "forbids this," i.e. touching the chalice. There *is*, however, an ecumenical canon that requires the faithful to receive the Eucharist via their own hand. The reality is that communion on a spoon of both species together via intinction (the current Eastern Orthodox practice) is, at best, a practice introduced in the 8th century, probably later. This is one area where the Romans have preserved the older tradition.

I've heard that line of reasoning before, but I don't believe it. Why does the Communion Spoon have to be such a late practice?  If it was only introduced in the 8th century, then why do the Coptic and other Oriental Orthodox churches also use the communion spoon?  From what I have been able to learn, the Coptic Church is very, very conservative liturgically and greatly resists innovations.  Since the Coptic Church and Constantinople broke off relations with each pther by 451 A.D., I highly doubt the conservative Coptics would adopted a "Byzantine innovation" like the Communion Spoon if it had not already by their tradition by that point.  I have read some liturgical scholarship that suggests the Church of Milan (St. Ambrose and friends) used a Communion Spoon in its very early years and got this idea from the Eastern Churches.

I would be interested in more scholarly studies on the history of the Communion Spoon. I find it very fascinating.

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #50 on: August 03, 2012, 03:56:00 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

I don't doubt you are correct that a canon somewhere forbids this, but it seems odd to me that our lips and digestive system can receive the actual Blood of Christ, but we cannot touch the thing holding it. Is it because our hands have not fasted? :) Did not St Thomas stick his hand into the very side of our Lord?

At any rate, I agree it's better safe than sorry and deep respect needs to be shown toward all holy objects.

Quite right. As a point of information, there is no canon that "forbids this," i.e. touching the chalice. There *is*, however, an ecumenical canon that requires the faithful to receive the Eucharist via their own hand. The reality is that communion on a spoon of both species together via intinction (the current Eastern Orthodox practice) is, at best, a practice introduced in the 8th century, probably later. This is one area where the Romans have preserved the older tradition.

I've heard that line of reasoning before, but I don't believe it. Why does the Communion Spoon have to be such a late practice?  If it was only introduced in the 8th century, then why do the Coptic and other Oriental Orthodox churches also use the communion spoon?  From what I have been able to learn, the Coptic Church is very, very conservative liturgically and greatly resists innovations.  Since the Coptic Church and Constantinople broke off relations with each pther by 451 A.D., I highly doubt the conservative Coptics would adopted a "Byzantine innovation" like the Communion Spoon if it had not already by their tradition by that point.  I have read some liturgical scholarship that suggests the Church of Milan (St. Ambrose and friends) used a Communion Spoon in its very early years and got this idea from the Eastern Churches.

I would be interested in more scholarly studies on the history of the Communion Spoon. I find it very fascinating.

Coptic liturgy has undergone plenty of evolution, including in this matter. A. 'Abdallah dates it to the 15th century in his study published in Cairo as part of Studia Orientalia Christiana, Aegyptiaca.

Over the last 1,000 years, there has been cross-pollination among OO, EO, and RC rites (just as there has been in theology).
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #51 on: August 03, 2012, 03:58:18 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Unfortunately our polemic and political differences are also codified within some of the prayers and commemorations of sometimes anathematized Saints (for example in Ethiopian tradition the divide goes so far as have a liturgy specifically for Saint Dioscoros), so that Liturgical unity is about as hard a gamble as theological :(

However, at the point where we and the priests pray for the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church and for the martyrs, at this point in my heart I also pray earnestly for Reunion and in the Spirit acknowledge our Orthodox sister churches as sisters, albeit sometimes separated by grief or gripe, but sisters all the same.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Online J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,612
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #52 on: August 03, 2012, 03:58:28 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

First of all, how do you figure the chalice is being "grabbed", rather than reverently received?  I don't think you can assume that from the photo at all.

And secondly, just because what's shown in the photo isn't the practice at *your* church does not make it wrong.

Grabbed does not imply an internal disposition, I was merely noting the manner in which the chalice is touched. Both hands around the base as opposed to a few fingers underneath. Helping guide the chalice to your lips is different than essentially giving yourself the wine by taking hold of the cup as pictured. Whether its a sign of reverence or not is a different matter.

If we're considering here *Catholic* practice for the reception of Holy Communion, it's only right that we should look at what the norms are for the Roman/Latin Catholic Church.  

The following is from the G.I.R.M. (General Instruction of the Roman Missal), the official "how-to" book of the Holy Mass:

41. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words "The Body of Christ." The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost." (51)

42. Among the ways of ministering the Precious Blood as prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Communion from the chalice is generally the preferred form in the Latin Church, provided that it can be carried out properly according to the norms and without any risk of even apparent irreverence toward the Blood of Christ. (52)

43. The chalice is offered to the communicant with the words "The Blood of Christ," to which the communicant responds, "Amen."

44. The chalice may never be left on the altar or another place to be picked up by the communicant for self-communication (except in the case of concelebrating bishops or priests), nor may the chalice be passed from one communicant to another. There shall always be a minister of the chalice.

45. After each communicant has received the Blood of Christ, the minister carefully wipes both sides of the rim of the chalice with a purificator. This action is a matter of both reverence and hygiene. For the same reason, the minister turns the chalice slightly after each communicant has received the Precious Blood.

46. It is the choice of the communicant, not the minister, to receive from the chalice .

http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/girm-norms-en.shtml/girm-texts.shtml

That Latin Catholic praxis is different from Orthodox praxis here is obvious.  But we're talking about "praxis" rather than "dogma".  Just because Latin praxis is different from Orthodox or Eastern Catholic praxis doesn't make one "right" and the other "wrong".  They are just different.
"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #53 on: August 03, 2012, 04:50:49 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

I don't doubt you are correct that a canon somewhere forbids this, but it seems odd to me that our lips and digestive system can receive the actual Blood of Christ, but we cannot touch the thing holding it. Is it because our hands have not fasted? :) Did not St Thomas stick his hand into the very side of our Lord?

At any rate, I agree it's better safe than sorry and deep respect needs to be shown toward all holy objects.

Quite right. As a point of information, there is no canon that "forbids this," i.e. touching the chalice. There *is*, however, an ecumenical canon that requires the faithful to receive the Eucharist via their own hand. The reality is that communion on a spoon of both species together via intinction (the current Eastern Orthodox practice) is, at best, a practice introduced in the 8th century, probably later. This is one area where the Romans have preserved the older tradition.

I've heard that line of reasoning before, but I don't believe it. Why does the Communion Spoon have to be such a late practice?  If it was only introduced in the 8th century, then why do the Coptic and other Oriental Orthodox churches also use the communion spoon?  From what I have been able to learn, the Coptic Church is very, very conservative liturgically and greatly resists innovations.  Since the Coptic Church and Constantinople broke off relations with each pther by 451 A.D., I highly doubt the conservative Coptics would adopted a "Byzantine innovation" like the Communion Spoon if it had not already by their tradition by that point.  I have read some liturgical scholarship that suggests the Church of Milan (St. Ambrose and friends) used a Communion Spoon in its very early years and got this idea from the Eastern Churches.

I would be interested in more scholarly studies on the history of the Communion Spoon. I find it very fascinating.

Coptic liturgy has undergone plenty of evolution, including in this matter. A. 'Abdallah dates it to the 15th century in his study published in Cairo as part of Studia Orientalia Christiana, Aegyptiaca.

Over the last 1,000 years, there has been cross-pollination among OO, EO, and RC rites (just as there has been in theology).

I should add that Assyrian and apparently some OO churches still do give communion under separate species and in the hand, at least on certain occasions.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,429
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #54 on: August 03, 2012, 05:03:33 PM »


Orthodox laymen are not allowed to touch or hold the chalice, other than to venerate its base after having communed in those traditions where this exists. Only ordained clergy are permitted to handle the holy vessels (chalice and paten).

It is common practice for some amongst Western Orthodox to help guide the chalice to your lips when you commune. Certainly not a grabbing of it, as shown in this photo, but under the base.

It still doesn't make it right.

I don't doubt you are correct that a canon somewhere forbids this, but it seems odd to me that our lips and digestive system can receive the actual Blood of Christ, but we cannot touch the thing holding it. Is it because our hands have not fasted? :) Did not St Thomas stick his hand into the very side of our Lord?

At any rate, I agree it's better safe than sorry and deep respect needs to be shown toward all holy objects.

Quite right. As a point of information, there is no canon that "forbids this," i.e. touching the chalice. There *is*, however, an ecumenical canon that requires the faithful to receive the Eucharist via their own hand. The reality is that communion on a spoon of both species together via intinction (the current Eastern Orthodox practice) is, at best, a practice introduced in the 8th century, probably later. This is one area where the Romans have preserved the older tradition.

I've heard that line of reasoning before, but I don't believe it. Why does the Communion Spoon have to be such a late practice?  If it was only introduced in the 8th century, then why do the Coptic and other Oriental Orthodox churches also use the communion spoon?  From what I have been able to learn, the Coptic Church is very, very conservative liturgically and greatly resists innovations.  Since the Coptic Church and Constantinople broke off relations with each pther by 451 A.D., I highly doubt the conservative Coptics would adopted a "Byzantine innovation" like the Communion Spoon if it had not already by their tradition by that point.  I have read some liturgical scholarship that suggests the Church of Milan (St. Ambrose and friends) used a Communion Spoon in its very early years and got this idea from the Eastern Churches.

I would be interested in more scholarly studies on the history of the Communion Spoon. I find it very fascinating.

Coptic liturgy has undergone plenty of evolution, including in this matter. A. 'Abdallah dates it to the 15th century in his study published in Cairo as part of Studia Orientalia Christiana, Aegyptiaca.

Over the last 1,000 years, there has been cross-pollination among OO, EO, and RC rites (just as there has been in theology).

I should add that Assyrian and apparently some OO churches still do give communion under separate species and in the hand, at least on certain occasions.
How does the EO Church typically commune?

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #55 on: August 03, 2012, 05:12:57 PM »
Clergy still receive according to ancient custom, bread in hand and then wine from the chalice. Lay people receive both species (bread and wine) mixed together in the chalice and delivered to the mouth on a spoon held by the priest.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #56 on: August 04, 2012, 12:29:12 AM »
Clergy still receive according to ancient custom, bread in hand and then wine from the chalice. Lay people receive both species (bread and wine) mixed together in the chalice and delivered to the mouth on a spoon held by the priest.

Is this also how it's done when the Liturgy of St. James is served, as I'm under the impression the rubrics still call for (whether or not followed I have no clue) communion in the hand?
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,429
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #57 on: August 04, 2012, 07:56:57 AM »
Clergy still receive according to ancient custom, bread in hand and then wine from the chalice. Lay people receive both species (bread and wine) mixed together in the chalice and delivered to the mouth on a spoon held by the priest.
That's how sometimes we do it in the West Syrian tradition as well. Though usually the priest pours the Blood over the Body inside the Diskos to mix and then places them in the laity's mouth by hand.

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #58 on: August 04, 2012, 09:11:17 AM »
Clergy still receive according to ancient custom, bread in hand and then wine from the chalice. Lay people receive both species (bread and wine) mixed together in the chalice and delivered to the mouth on a spoon held by the priest.

Is this also how it's done when the Liturgy of St. James is served, as I'm under the impression the rubrics still call for (whether or not followed I have no clue) communion in the hand?

The rubrics do, yes, and there are certainly individual EO churches that do that nowadays, but I'm not sure how widespread the practice really is.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #59 on: August 04, 2012, 09:24:26 AM »
That seems awfully risky. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to distribute it by intinction?
Why would drinking from a cup be risky? I have been doing it several times a day for most of my life and haven't lost an eye yet.
There is a risk of the Precious Blood spilling.
Well, I suppose we could always try administering it by IV infusion, but most people in the world tend to drink fluids from a cup.

Clergy still receive according to ancient custom, bread in hand and then wine from the chalice. Lay people receive both species (bread and wine) mixed together in the chalice and delivered to the mouth on a spoon held by the priest.

Is this also how it's done when the Liturgy of St. James is served, as I'm under the impression the rubrics still call for (whether or not followed I have no clue) communion in the hand?

The rubrics do, yes, and there are certainly individual EO churches that do that nowadays, but I'm not sure how widespread the practice really is.
There is an unbroken tradition of celebrating the Liturgy of St. James on the Island of Zakynthos on October 23rd each year.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Orthodox11

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,999
Re: Liturgical Unity,rather than Theological Unity?
« Reply #60 on: August 04, 2012, 10:01:17 AM »
Communion by spoon is actually prohibited by the canons. The reason for it was that some thought silver and gold utencils were holier than the human hand, and so its introduction for practical reasons among the Orthodox was not in violation of it. However, the use of a spoon is certainly in no way better.