OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 09:02:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church  (Read 181208 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #630 on: May 19, 2006, 10:33:28 AM »

Yeah! Right on! How dare St. Theodore the Studite "speculate" about such things!
I'm still waiting for you to present evidence that this saint advocated the ordination of women.

And re: divorce, do you agree (or not) with the following...

"... the faith held by the Church is that which was handed by Christ to the apostles. Nothing is added to or subtracted from that deposit of faith which was "handed once for all to the saints" (Jude 3)
http://www2.orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Church
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Benjaminw1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: English Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #631 on: May 19, 2006, 11:16:33 AM »

Right. It's a good thing God created men with special biological traits in order to allow them to serve as priests.

Absolutely!
Logged

Arma Pacis Fulcra
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,068


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #632 on: May 19, 2006, 11:28:37 AM »

Hmmmm...

Okay a few thoughts occured to my mind.

1.  I don't think the exclusion of females in priesthood was "silence of Church tradition" so to speak.  I think it was just as clear as saying that "Christ is co-essential with the Father" even though one cannot find that in Scriptures.  With that in mind, the argument is strongest whether to look at the Holy Fathers' beliefs as culturally motivated or theologically motivated.  However, I seem to see a third possibility:

2.  Using Scriptures, and also what PetertheAleut, Pedro, or I did was STRONGLY advocating a theological position, and I believe that these arguments using Scripture and logic from what the Scriptures give us, were strong.  At the same time, I confess that there are strong arguments on, especially St. John Chrysostom, who seemed to have been influenced by cultural prejudices to make certain judgments on women.  But I don't think he uses Scripture to support his thinking, I think he uses his thinking to support Scripture.  Bear with me, there is a difference if you haven't seen it yet:

There are some people who when seeing a perfectly good theological argument, take this argument to an unnecessary extreme and talk about things influenced by the people's thinking around him.  It's like reading something and then saying, "Aah, no wonder this happens," when really the latter has nothing to do with what he was reading.  I can't think of many good examples, but one such example could be the idea of schizophrenic or other psychologically ill peoples to be demon-possessed, who were in fact not, and they could have misinterpreted science into theology.  Or how the Apostles assumed that all men born blind resulted from the sin of their parents or them.

Therefore, the issue of women's ordination still seems to me stand very firm on a good theological argument based on Scripture and Tradition without misogynistic views, but the issues of inferiority of women (which contradicts Scripture, and also St. John Chrysostom in some ways as well, since it was he who said a husband and wife is like the Father and Christ), are clearly cultural and were only used as an unnecessary "extra-thought" that the fathers mistaken them for (might I add that if any Father did believe women did not have the Image and Likeness of God, then I wouldn't hesitate to call that heresy, and we know it is nothing new that a pious father would hold some heretical/semiheretical thoughts, like Origen or St. Augustine).

If we look at the articles written today about the roles of women in the Orthodox Church, which seem to have some sort of official approval by their bishops or priests, you can understand that if there will be an ecumenical council today addressing the issue of female priesthood, then they will adopt these arguments as official dogma and tradition of the Church affirmed by Scriptures and Tradition, and not to mention infallible decrees of ecumenicity.

Also, I don't think ALL fathers had the same misogynistic views of women.  Perhaps a lot of fathers did, just as a lot of fathers did not like Apokatastasis, but did ALL fathers thinking poorly of women?  Surely, since these specific issues were not theological, there had to be disagreements, unless I'm wrong, and please do correct me if I'm wrong.

So what's the third possibility:

The Fathers may have been right on the exclusion of women to the priesthood on theological grounds, but took it to an unnecessary/wrong turn on the cultural misogyny of their days.  Good theological arguments can lead to misunderstood and unnecessary extremes.  In fact, using the same theological arguments, I believe we can destroy the cultural misogynistic ideas of their days, but not to destroy the female exclusion in priesthood.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 11:34:23 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #633 on: May 19, 2006, 02:34:48 PM »

Concerning the ongoing argument about Pauline theology, I'll quickly say that the analogy is problematic even if only comparing natures. The suggestion that the Comparison beteen the Father and Christ is a comparison between God and Man, likewise is the comparison between Christ and Men, but following your analogy are we to conclude that a) the Men and Women do not share the same Nature, that of all ανθροπος, as the church traditionally taught and b) that this unique nature of Men is to the unique nature of Women as Divine Nature is to Human...did Christ assume only the Nature of the Man? If so is salvation only for Men? You see, the logic you are using is still quite problematic.

Right. It's a good thing God created men with special biological traits in order to allow them to serve as priests.

In all my time here at Seminary, I fear I have yet to come across the Liturgical Rite that requires men's, ummm, unique biological appendages...and, quite frankly, if such a rite exists, I really have no desire to either see or learn about it Wink

While I'd like to address a few more of these concerns and issues brought up in more detail, I really dont have time, I have finished my finals, but have to pack up my room and leave by Sunday, with various events between now and then to work around, thus, this is probably my last post for at least two or three weeks, when I finally get home and have a reliable internet connection again.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #634 on: May 19, 2006, 04:15:32 PM »

Here's another example of circular reasoning, if I have the concept right.

Q.  Why must we not ordain women?

A.  Because we never have in 2000 years.

Q.  Why is this?

A.  Because the Holy Spirit has guided us into this decision.

Q.  What evidence do we have that the Holy Spirit has guided us to not ordain women?

A.  We've never ordained women before.

Can you see how I'm presupposing my conclusion, then using my presupposition to prove my conclusion?  That's why I argue that we need a solid Patristic/theological/ecclesiological reason why we've never ordained women before.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,068


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #635 on: May 19, 2006, 06:24:56 PM »

Concerning the ongoing argument about Pauline theology, I'll quickly say that the analogy is problematic even if only comparing natures. The suggestion that the Comparison beteen the Father and Christ is a comparison between God and Man, likewise is the comparison between Christ and Men, but following your analogy are we to conclude that a) the Men and Women do not share the same Nature, that of all ανθροπος, as the church traditionally taught and b) that this unique nature of Men is to the unique nature of Women as Divine Nature is to Human...did Christ assume only the Nature of the Man? If so is salvation only for Men? You see, the logic you are using is still quite problematic.

I still don't see how proper Christology shows Pauline theology problematic or how it excludes women from salvation.  Did you read my post concerning the interpreting of this verse in answer to your comments on Arianism and Ebionism?

God bless and best of luck on your exams.

Mina

PS  No need to answer now.  We'll understand if we don't hear from you for three weeks.  But you better resurrect this topic afterwards Wink
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #636 on: May 19, 2006, 08:00:31 PM »

Here's another example of circular reasoning, if I have the concept right.

Q.  Why must we not ordain women?

A.  Because we never have in 2000 years.

Q.  Why is this?

A.  Because the Holy Spirit has guided us into this decision.

Q.  What evidence do we have that the Holy Spirit has guided us to not ordain women?

A.  We've never ordained women before.

Can you see how I'm presupposing my conclusion, then using my presupposition to prove my conclusion?  That's why I argue that we need a solid Patristic/theological/ecclesiological reason why we've never ordained women before.

Your reasoning here is circular only because of the last answer. If we in turn go to scriptures for support, then the reasoning is not circular.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #637 on: May 19, 2006, 08:07:55 PM »

We said that about receiving Communion in the hand. In fact, an Oecumenical Council decreed on it.If only it were that "easy".
Receiving Communion in the hand was an Oecumenical custom, then it changed. Not ordaining priests under 35 years of age was a universal custom, then it changed. Deacoonesses were a universal custom, then it changed. Male only Priesthood is currently a universal custom.......
Crossing oneself with three fingers was not a universal custom. It became the practice in the Byzantine Empire, but not in Russia, where they crossed themselves with two fingers until Patriarch Nikon's reforms in the 17th century.. So is crossing oneself with three fingers therefore not a Tradition of the Orthodox Church by the criteria you suggested since it was not universally observed?

Can you show me where a canon says to receieve it in the hand?

Likewise, who changed the custom of not ordaining priests under 35? I believe this is a canon that is still in force in canonical Orthodox churchs.

Again, deaconesses are still ordained, though there is less need for them. We don't ordain deaconesses just because we can.

As for crossing, there are variations in the form, but the basics are still the same, and the symbolism is preserved. But the crossing itself is universally observed.

Altogether, you have shown no real changes in Tradition or observance. And where are those canons being violated, if I may ask? Which schismatic group are they?
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #638 on: May 19, 2006, 08:47:13 PM »

Can you show me where a canon says to receieve it in the hand?
I already have....twice.....
This thread is so long that information is being lost- which is another reason to retire it. I'm kinda getting tired of having to repeat myself every 8 pages.
The Canon is Canon CI of the Council of Trullo (The "Quintisext Council" which is accepted as Ecumenical.)

Likewise, who changed the custom of not ordaining priests under 35? I believe this is a canon that is still in force in canonical Orthodox churchs.
Likewise, see back in the thread for references.

Again, deaconesses are still ordained,
Really? Name one Eastern Orthodox Church that has a Deaconess today. This Tradition has been broken.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 08:48:25 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #639 on: May 19, 2006, 08:56:53 PM »

I already have....twice.....
This thread is so long that information is being lost- which is another reason to retire it. I'm kinda getting tired of having to repeat myself every 8 pages.
The Canon is Canon CI of the Council of Trullo (The "Quintisext Council" which is accepted as Ecumenical.)

Likewise, see back in the thread for references.

Really? Name one Eastern Orthodox Church that has a Deaconess today. This Tradition has been broken.

We already discussed that canon. There is no mention of receiving it in the hands, only with the hands crossed. Even the Epitome makes it crystal clear:

"Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross, and takes it with his mouth"

What was the reference in regards to? A rebuttal of the canon?

I thought it was you that brought up the very ordination of one earlier on this thread, must have been someone else though. But the fact is the practice is still used, when needed. For example, I can build large statues of pink elephants, but there simply isn't need to. Likewise, while the Church can still ordain deaconesses, there simply isn't much need to.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #640 on: May 19, 2006, 09:00:45 PM »

We already discussed that canon. There is no mention of receiving it in the hands, only with the hands crossed.
So, you personally do not receive Communion in a "vessel of gold", (like, say, a gold plated Spoon) in accordance with the Canon?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 09:01:11 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #641 on: May 19, 2006, 09:04:13 PM »

You are just not reading what people say.
The Epitome of St. John Damascene on this Canon says:
"When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen."
Vide also St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, Lib. iv., cap. xiv. On the whole matter cf. Card. Bona, De Rebus Lit., Lib. ii., cap. xvij., n.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #642 on: May 19, 2006, 09:08:50 PM »

Bizzlebin,
I am not going to discuss this any further until you write three times in your next post:
"ST. JOHN DAMASCENE SAID: 'IN THE HOLLOW OF THE PALM RECEIVE THE BODY OF CHRIST.''"
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 09:09:32 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #643 on: May 19, 2006, 09:14:54 PM »

Bizzlebin,
I am not going to discuss this any further until you write three times in your next post:
"ST. JOHN DAMASCENE SAID: 'IN THE HOLLOW OF THE PALM RECEIVE THE BODY OF CHRIST.''"

St John Damascene didn;t write the canon of the Council, did he? Isn't it ironic that you ask for Ecumenical authority, yet when that contradicts you, you resort to a patristic source, and vise versa? Honestly, what is your standard? I must ask, are you reading things exegetically, or are you looking you justify what you "already know to be true?"
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #644 on: May 19, 2006, 09:18:48 PM »

So, you personally do not receive Communion in a "vessel of gold", (like, say, a gold plated Spoon) in accordance with the Canon?

I do not receive it in my hands or a vessel of gold, no, like the canon says. Let me make it more clear:

But such as, instead of their hands (those who make the cross with their hands, ie the communicants), (they, the communicants) make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and (they, the communicants) by these receive the immaculate communion, we (the clergy) by no means allow to come...

Hope that clears up who the canon is and isn't talking to.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #645 on: May 19, 2006, 09:23:08 PM »

St John Damascene didn;t write the canon of the Council, did he? Isn't it ironic that you ask for Ecumenical authority, yet when that contradicts you, you resort to a patristic source, and vise versa? Honestly, what is your standard? I must ask, are you reading things exegetically, or are you looking you justify what you "already know to be true?"
Bizzelbin,
I can read St. John Damascene's Epitome of the Canon in my copy of the Pedalion which is right in front of me as I type.
Why doesn't your Epitome that we shouldn't receive in the hand appear in the Pedalion?
I would seem that my "standard" is a Father of the Church...what's yours?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 09:24:56 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #646 on: May 19, 2006, 09:27:36 PM »

Bizzelbin,
I can read St. John Damascene's Epitome of the Canon in my copy of the Pedalion which is right in front of me as I type.
Why doesn't your Epitome that we shouldn't receive in the hand appear in the Pedalion?
I would seem that my "standard" is a Father of the Church...what's yours?

From the Epitome:

"Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross, and takes it with his mouth"

Does your Epitome not say this?
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #647 on: May 19, 2006, 09:34:14 PM »

From the Epitome:

"Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross, and takes it with his mouth"

Does your Epitome not say this?
It does. And it means exactley what it says. The Body of Christ is placed in the crossed palms and the palms are then brought straight to the mouth- which is exactley how High Anglicans still receive Holy Communion today.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 09:39:38 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #648 on: May 19, 2006, 09:44:38 PM »

It does. And it means exactley what it says. The Body of Christ is placed in the crossed palms and the palms are then brought straight to the mouth- which is exactley how High Anglicans still receive Holy Communion today.

Well, I don't think people need to be told to place in in their mouths, as opposed to some other location. Anyways, it doesn't say it is brought to the mouth, or taken to the mouth. Rather, it says a person "takes it with his mouth." It is crystal clear.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #649 on: May 19, 2006, 09:50:46 PM »

it says a person "takes it with his mouth." It is crystal clear.
Takes it from WHERE?
And speaking of "crystal clear", I would have thought St. John Damascene saying that the Body is received "in the hallow of the palm" is pretty "crystal clear" about what the practice was.....but perhaps not "crystal clear" enough for you? Cheesy
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 09:51:15 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #650 on: May 19, 2006, 09:57:20 PM »

I'm kinda getting tired of having to repeat myself every 8 pages.
Ah ironyÂÂ  Grin


You said earlier you're not in favour of women priests. I asked "why?" and I'd appreciate it if you state this/these reason(s)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 09:58:29 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #651 on: May 19, 2006, 10:03:05 PM »

Takes it from WHERE?
And speaking of "crystal clear", I would have thought St. John Damascene saying that the Body is received "in the hallow of the palm" is pretty "crystal clear" about what the practice was.....but perhaps not "crystal clear" enough for you? Cheesy

The canon trumps his statement. Just as I can find a few fathers that say one thing about anything, it doesn't mean they are the consensus, or even correct. That is what canons are for, in fact: people start arguing over simple matters and so a canon has to be written to spell it out.

The canon is addressing the use, by communicants, of vessels. This is part of the same reason why the priest must consume the extra Body and Blood while still in the Church: the Mysteries shouldn't leave the Church under normal circumstances. In doing this, it also hints at the proper practice of receiving the Body: the the hands in the form of a cross, receiving in the mouth. This is the same practice I have seen in every Orthodox Church I have visited, and it lines up 100% with the canon: the people in line for the Eucharist have their arms crossed, and receive it, via a spoon, in the mouth, and bring no vessel of their own (like is done for holy water). No contradictions.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #652 on: May 19, 2006, 10:51:51 PM »

Your reasoning here is circular only because of the last answer. If we in turn go to scriptures for support, then the reasoning is not circular.
That's what I hope people will do on this thread: give solid theological and scriptural arguments rather than rely on circular reasoning.  I see many posters on BOTH sides of this debate using the same circular reasoning and going nowhere.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #653 on: May 19, 2006, 11:02:06 PM »

The canon trumps his statement.
Do you have any idea of how little sense that makes? "His statement" is an EPITOME OF THE CANON IN THE PEDALION!
And do you think he plucked it out of thin air, or was actually describing the practice in his time?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 11:03:39 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #654 on: May 19, 2006, 11:21:56 PM »

Do you have any idea of how little sense that makes? "His statement" is an EPITOME OF THE CANON IN THE PEDALION!
And do you think he plucked it out of thin air, or was actually describing the practice in his time?

The Pedallian is younger than the canon. Anyways, let us look at another Epitome. Balsamon:

"this was invented from pious feelings, because the hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the Lord's body"

Is it clear yet?
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #655 on: May 19, 2006, 11:30:55 PM »

Is it clear yet?
Absolutely.
Balsamon says "this was invented..." In other words, "this was an erroneous innovation". And what is he talking about as having been "invented" Bizzelbin?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #656 on: May 19, 2006, 11:35:29 PM »

And what is he talking about as having been "invented" Bizzelbin?
Let me jog your memory. Here is actually what Balsamon said:
"At first, perchance, this was invented from pious feelings, because the hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the Lord's body, but, as time went on, piety was turned to the injury of the soul, so that those who did this when they came to receive with an arrogant and insolent bearing, were preferred to the poor."
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #657 on: May 19, 2006, 11:39:29 PM »

Absolutely.
Balsamon says "this was invented..." In other words, "this was an erroneous innovation". And what is he talking about as having been "invented" Bizzelbin?

It's Bizzlebin, but anyways, he is referring to it being an ancient Tradition, because he qualifies it with "at first," meaning this is the way it was done from the beginning. He is not calling it an invention in the sense of an innovation in the Faith, but simply uses the term, again with the qualifier, to show that it was invented/conceived/instituted in the earliest times. Again, this is the ancient practice. Two saints, and the canon itself, against one, and you.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #658 on: May 19, 2006, 11:42:23 PM »

Let me jog your memory. Here is actually what Balsamon said:
"At first, perchance, this was invented from pious feelings, because the hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the Lord's body, but, as time went on, piety was turned to the injury of the soul, so that those who did this when they came to receive with an arrogant and insolent bearing, were preferred to the poor."

Exactly. People were doing it as a form of self righteousness. By this, it is shown even more clearly that this was the ancient practice, but in some cases lost favor due to pride. So, they innovated in order to stop the pride. This is why the canon was made, to stop that innovation, and return to ancient pratice. Makes perfect sense.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #659 on: May 19, 2006, 11:44:28 PM »

Two saints, and the canon itself, against one
Huh
I hope you are joking. Your comprehension cannot possibly be that poor.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #660 on: May 19, 2006, 11:47:58 PM »

Huh
I hope you are joking. Your comprehension cannot possibly be that poor.

I must just be daft, you're right, because I keep seeing things like

"the hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the Lord's body"

and

"takes it with his mouth"

More than that, I think two distinct people said that! I am really losing it!
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #661 on: May 19, 2006, 11:50:28 PM »

I must just be daft, you're right, because I keep seeing things like

"the hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the Lord's body"

and

"takes it with his mouth"

More than that, I think two distinct people said that! I am really losing it!
So, you take phrases out of sentances and draw conclusions on the meaning of the sentance based on these partial strings of words?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 11:51:28 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #662 on: May 19, 2006, 11:55:53 PM »

So, you take phrases out of sentances and draw conclusions on the meaning of the sentance based on these partial strings of words?

Hardly. If there is some part of those two quotes (in full) that I have not adequately explained, I'd be more than happy to. I am simply quoting the relevant material as it seems to be misunderstood.

Seeing that St. John of Damascus was born around the same time as Trullo, I think it is ridiculuous that you asserting he followed the more ancient practice! His birth only predates the canon by some 2 years!! How in the world does that work?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 11:56:21 PM by Bizzlebin » Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #663 on: May 19, 2006, 11:57:30 PM »

Hardly. If there is some part of those two quotes (in full) that I have not adequately explained, I'd be more than happy to.
Please do.
Please quote the Canon and each epitome in full and explain each to me. That's the only way I can get a grasp of your argument.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 12:00:01 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #664 on: May 20, 2006, 12:14:19 AM »

Please do.
Please quote the Canon and each epitome in full and explain each to me. That's the only way I can get a grasp of your argument.

And while you are at it, could you please explain why the clergy are still given Holy Communion in the hand?
Let me give you a hint:
http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/v09i3.htm
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #665 on: May 20, 2006, 12:27:04 AM »

Please do.
Please quote the Canon and each epitome in full and explain each to me. That's the only way I can get a grasp of your argument.

Sure, I will start with the canon. Parenthetical information will be my "commentary" to show who is being addressed, etc. The Canon:

The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator (ie communicant) of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near (line up), arranging his hands in the form of a cross (which is still done today, with the arms are crossed), and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands (instead of the communicants crossing their hands), make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift (ie, the communicants bringing their own cup), and by these (or in these) receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come (they are not allowed to commune), as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God (ie, they defile the body of Christ with something unclean). But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them (if a priest serves the Body to a communicant in the communicant's vessel, and not out of the priest's Chalice and into the mouth, both are to be excommunicated).

First Epitome:

Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross (again, the person crosses their arms in reverence), and takes it with his mouth (the communicant receives the Body directly in his mouth, symbolizing not "taking" the Eucharist, but receiving it); whoever shall prepare a receptacle of gold or of any other material instead of his hand, shall be cut off (if anyone brings a vessel to take it in, instead of crossing their hands, they are to be excommunicated)

Second:

At first, perchance, this was invented from pious feelings (this was the original ("at first") practice of the Church, which came into being through piety, as not to defile the Body), because the hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the Lord's body (how much more unclean is a hand than a vessel, which has also been condemned!), but, as time went on, piety was turned to the injury of the soul (men started using this custom of piety as self-righteousness), so that those who did this when they came to receive with an arrogant and insolent bearing (again, they were arrogant), were preferred to the poor.

Finally, St. John of Damascus was a baby, as was pointed out, when this Council was held. His practice is not older than Trullo, much less St. Cyril, who as we saw above, expressly condemned the use of hands! There is nothing I can say about his comments, for he spoke after the Council, and never said anything of the antiquity of what he did.

So, a simplified timeline:

Early Church institutes practice of receiving in the mouth (likely 1st century AD)
       |
St Cyril says this practice (also by this we know it was common in his day, ie universality) was starting to be used for self-righteousness (4th century AD)
       |
Trullo, in light of people avoiding the practice out of humility (to avoid being seen as self-righteous), makes it clear that the ancient custom is to be followed (this is why the appeal in the beginning of the canon is made, to show that it is not inherently self-righteous) (692 AD)
       |
St. John the Damascene diverges from the ancient practice (8th century AD)
       |
Balsamom, being a legal scholar, comfirms the canon's meaning (12th century AD)

Hope that helps!
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #666 on: May 20, 2006, 12:29:25 AM »

And while you are at it, could you please explain why the clergy are still given Holy Communion in the hand?
Let me give you a hint:
http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/v09i3.htm

Well the article sure shows some of the innovation Trullo had to fight against! But anyways, if you'll notice, the canon says nothing about priests being communed, only laymen. Again, no contradictions exist...
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #667 on: May 20, 2006, 12:29:54 AM »

I hope you are joking. Your comprehension cannot possibly be that poor.

Why are you against the ordination of women?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #668 on: May 20, 2006, 12:53:42 AM »

Hope that helps!

It does help me to see why you misunderstood. Here is what actually happened:

1st century- Communion of the Body received in the hand by the faithful.
                                           |
3rd century- Rise of the heresy of Manichæism teaching (among other things) that human flesh is evil and only the soul is good.
                                            |
5th century- Some people, out of piety bring a "pyx" ("box") of gold to receive Communion, from which they Commune themselves through the week.
                                            |
7th Century- The Council of Trullo bans the use of the pyx and anathemises those who "instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift" because it is a form of Manichæism, since those who use a pyx rather than receive in the hand seem to be "preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God". Read the Canon again and you will see that it condemns those who use a vessel rather than receive in the hand.
                                           |
8th Century- Out of Economia, because people still felt unworthy to receive in the hand, the Church introduced the Spoon so that people would not stay away from receiving Holy Communion out of piety.

And this isn't just my version of history either, see for example: http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/v09i3.htm
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 12:57:20 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #669 on: May 20, 2006, 01:07:08 AM »

It does help me to see why you misunderstood. Here is what actually happened:

1st century- Communion of the Body received in the hand by the faithful.
                                           |
3rd century- Rise of the heresy of Manichæism teaching (among other things) that human flesh is evil and only the soul is good.
                                            |
5th century- Some people, out of piety bring a "pyx" ("box") of gold to receive Communion, from which they Commune themselves through the week.
                                            |
7th Century- The Council of Trullo bans the use of the pyx and anathemises those who "instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift" because it is a form of Manichæism, since those who use a pyx rather than receive in the hand seem to be "preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God". Read the Canon again and you will see that it condemns those who use a vessel rather than receive in the hand.
                                           |
8th Century- Out of Economia, because people still felt unworthy to receive in the hand, the Church introduced the Spoon so that people would not stay away from receiving Holy Communion out of piety.

And this isn't just my version of history either, see for example: http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/v09i3.htm

You have not shown that the flesh being evil is the rationale. Even today, we are to consider ourselves unworthy. Are we all Manicheans? No connection. Also, you forget to include St. Cyril (4th century), who explicity says not to use hands! Or was he a Manichean too? If a 4th century Saint says not receiving in the hand was a common, widespread practice, and was developed at the beginning, I am inclined to take his word above yours! Even yoour article admits:

"As regards the modernist revival of giving communion in the hands among some Non-Orthodox, this also often happens among those for whom Communion is not a sacrament anyway, but merely symbolic. I cannot see integrated Orthodox accepting this practice, because communion is so sacred. Although this revival is usually justified by the words: ‘This was the practice of the Early Church’, there is a lack of logic in this argument."
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 01:10:03 AM by Bizzlebin » Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #670 on: May 20, 2006, 01:20:06 AM »

You have not shown that the flesh being evil is the rationale.... Even today, we are to consider ourselves unworthy. Are we all Manicheans?

Calm down. This is irrelevant. You've missed the point. The point is that Council of Trullo in it's 101st Canon explicitly states that Communion must be received in the hand, and condemns those who use a gold vessel to do so. Here it is again, note the section in bold, and in particular the underlined words:
"The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."
So at the time of the Council of Trullo- Communion was received in the hand. The reason the Canon banned pyxes and ordered everyone to receive in the hand was because it seemed to be Manichaeism.
The point is- something you thought was always the Tradition of the Church (receiving Communion directly in the mouth) in fact was not always the Tradition of the Church. It changed. You were wrong about it.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 01:21:29 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #671 on: May 20, 2006, 01:33:14 AM »

Calm down. This is irrelevant. You've missed the point. The point is that Council of Trullo in it's 101st Canon explicitly states that Communion must be received in the hand, and condemns those who use a gold vessel to do so. Here it is again, note the section in bold, and in particular the underlined words:
"The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."
So at the time of the Council of Trullo- Communion was received in the hand. The reason the Canon banned pyxes and ordered everyone to receive in the hand was because it seemed to be Manichaeism.
The point is- something you thought was always the Tradition of the Church (receiving Communion directly in the mouth) in fact was not always the Tradition of the Church. It changed. You were wrong about it.

The problem is your assumption. You assume that it is saying "instead of [receiving in] their hands." However, this is incorrect, because the only time hands are mentioned is in the context of crossing them. So, the proper meaning is "instead of [crossing] their hands." This makes perfect sense contextually, where your interpretation draws upon the conclusion you already made, and not the actual text.

And perhaps you can explain why your own source agrees with me. I see a pattern developing  Cheesy
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #672 on: May 20, 2006, 01:43:47 AM »

However, this is incorrect, because the only time hands are mentioned is in the context of crossing them.
No. Read the Canon again.
"But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift..."
means :
"Those who, instead of using their hands for the reception of the divine gift, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift....."

....<SIGH>.....
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #673 on: May 20, 2006, 01:53:04 AM »

No. Read the Canon again.
"But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift..."
means :
"Those who, instead of using their hands for the reception of the divine gift, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift....."

....<SIGH>.....

Again, you are adding your conclusion, not going by what the text says. I repeat, the only other time hands are mentioned, it is in the context of crossing. Therefore, because the word "instead" is used, it must refer to this, because this is the only thing that it could be "instead" of! So, it means

Those who, instead of crossing their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift.....

This also makes sense if you try to imagine a person doing it, too. One cannot hold and receive in a vessel while keeping their hands crossed.

Further, why could a person not receieve it in their hand, and then place it in the vessel; this situation is not covered in the canon! Why not? Because it couldn't have happened if people took the Body drectly in the mouth! Again, there is so much evidence to support this, it is mind boggling!
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #674 on: May 20, 2006, 02:05:14 AM »

Those who, instead of crossing their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift.....
This also makes sense if you try to imagine a person doing it, too. One cannot hold and receive in a vessel while keeping their hands crossed.

Further, why could a person not receieve it in their hand, and then place it in the vessel; this situation is not covered in the canon! Why not? Because it couldn't have happened if people took the Body drectly in the mouth! Again, there is so much evidence to support this, it is mind boggling!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

Bizzlebin, I've grown to like you a lot in this conversation, despite the trauma!
The hands were crossed for the reception of Holy Communion in the same way that a Godparent crosses his or her hands according to the rubrics of baptism to receive the Blessed Oil to anoint their Godchild prior to their immersion. The back of the right hand is placed in the palm of the left hand. Do this yourself, and you will see that your hands form a cross. A pyx is a small box made of gold which could easily rest in the right palm. If crossing the hands is a stable enough way to receive Blessed Oil (which is a liquid), then it is a stable enough way to carry a small box, or receive the Body of Christ (both of which are solid).
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 02:11:41 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tags: ordination of women priestess Ordination priesthood priests deaconesses deacons cheval mort=dead horse laos laity 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.161 seconds with 73 queries.