Below is an open letter to Archbishop Elpidophoros from a Greek MD about the multiple-spoon communion directive and its defense.
My dear spiritual family, I can keep silent no longer. Please edify yourselves with the Love of Christ by watching this 7 minute video a beloved in the Lord sent me.
Then, please read my open letter to his Eminence Archbishop Elpidoforos. I hope that he will read it too, or that at least others will draw his attention to it. Please forgive me if I offend anyone.
Your Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros (Lambrianidis)
As you can see, your flock is expressing confusion and distress over changes in Orthodox Liturgical Worship as a result of the coronavirus. They do not wish to be disrespectful to their Church’s hierarchs, and so they question themselves, their own faith and their own trust in God. In other words, they are questioning and examining their own hearts. Except for the odd (odd as in both very occasional and very strange) statements from church officials, the Orthodox flock is even wondering at the general silence of their hierarchs. We have read and heard a great deal from lay people, theologians, priests and monks, on the matter of how the coronavirus is affecting our Orthodox worship, but indeed, very little from hierarchs such as yourself; and the little that we have heard, has been confusing and upsetting, to say the least.
Please permit me therefore, to ask you a few questions as I would like to better understand your position. Please forgive the simplicity of my questions as I am not a trained theologian.
1. According to the Greek News, your Eminence, directed the parish priests of New York, Connecticut and Washington, D.C. to offer Holy Communion by using multiple metal spoons for single use during the distribution. You gave this direction in a memo dated May 18th, which was marked for priests only and which “should not under any circumstances be posted, shared or copied to email or social media.”
Can you please explain the reason for this secrecy?
Furthermore, yours, was the only Metropolis of the Archdiocese of America to direct the use of multiple spoons for the distribution of Holy Communion. In your memo, the priests of your Metropolis were directed to offer Holy Communion in this manner “as a temporary measure only…to protect our clergy and our faithful,” and “in lieu of a Communion Cloth, the parish will have disposable napkins…[that] will be burned the same day.”
Can you please clarify the reason for burning the disposable napkins? Is it to respect the remnants of the Holy Mysteries which our Church teaches do not transmit disease, or to destroy the coronavirus?
2. On May 25th, exactly one week after the circulation of your secret memo, Father Alkiviadis C. Calivas circulated “A Note on the Communion Spoon” which can be read here. In his “note,” Father Calivas supports your implementation of multiple spoons, using several arguments. I think I am correct in assuming that you agree with his arguments because you have not disagreed, because he published his support of your intention to use multiple spoons exactly one week after you circulated your secret memo, and because silence usually implies tacit agreement. I will not attempt to scrutinize his arguments as two well-written responses have already been presented, one by Father Peter Heers and another by Dr. Eugenia Constantinou. Both of these responders are well educated Orthodox theologians so I will not repeat their arguments.
I would, however, like to ask you a few simple questions. First, Father Calivas questions the incorruptibility of the Holy Mysteries when he says: “… Statements like, “the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and the medicine of immortality,” or “the Eucharist is a divine remedy, a divine medicine,” may be true…”
Is it not a dogmatic Orthodox truth that these statements are, in fact, true? If Father Calivas questions the truth about our Orthodox dogmas, does this mean that he does not really believe in them?
If you tacitly agree with him, does it mean that you do not really believe them? Please clarify your position and please ask Father Calivas to do the same.
Second, Father Calivas provides a lengthy and detailed explanation on the evolution of the various methods of distribution of Holy Communion. According to his explanation and my limited knowledge, these methods changed over time because of the changing practicality of the distribution of Holy Communion, not because of any changes in the underlying theology surrounding the nature of the Holy Gifts, and not because of any changes in our Holy Orthodox Tradition of the communal nature of their distribution. In other words, whether the Church used a common cup or a common spoon or a common priest’s hand, there was always something common that was shared by the congregation.
Is Father Calivas using the practicality of the past to justify a new and different theology of the Holy Mysteries in an attempt to make this new theology more acceptable to the Orthodox flock?
Third, Father Calivas justifies his position by quoting St. Nikodemos. I do not mean any disrespect to St. Nikodemos, but according to what I have learned, a saint is not someone who is perfect, sinless or infallible. These attributes belong only to God (and in Roman Catholicism, perhaps the Pope). In Orthodoxy, I believe a saint is someone who loves God more than anything else. Many of our saints are known to have erred on certain issues, possibly because they may not have been very well educated, but God, in His great mercy, looks at the heart and not the level of education. Nevertheless, isn’t this why our Orthodox Church does not rely solely on our saints to arrive at her Truths?
Isn’t this why our Orthodox Church relies on the Holy Spirit which reveals His Truths through the synodical system of our Holy Orthodox Church? I do not know of any Synod which accepted St. Nikodemos’ position on the distribution of Holy Communion during plagues. If there was such a synod, can you please let us know when that took place? And if it did take place, or if St. Nikodemos was correct by some other means, why were his methods not already widely adopted by the Orthodox Church in leper colonies, in TB sanitoriums, during the Spanish Flu, HIV, SARS, Ebola, Mers, and so on, all of which already existed or came about after 1809, when St. Nikodemos was around?
And finally, your Eminence, Father Calivas, with great concern for the feelings and safety of the flock, makes sweeping and unsubstantiated assumptions about our concerns with the deadliness of Covid-19 as pertains to Holy Communion. He also compares the deadliness of Covid-19 with that of past plagues and implies that our current plague is as serious or worse. He says, “As with the preceding epidemics, the highly contagious coronavirus has many people wondering and questioning the continued use of a common spoon for Communion.” He also says, “The real fears, reservations, and apprehensions of the people should not be dismissed with an air of superiority or a call to greater faith, as if the act of communing is void of human considerations and the limitations of the created order.” It seems, your Eminence, that you are in agreement with Father Calivas as you have not indicated otherwise.
Therefore, can you please clarify if there is any evidence that HIV, SARS, Ebola, Mers, Tuberculosis, Leprosy, or the Spanish Flu…and the more common Influenza and Pneumococcal Pneumonia which are always in the community, if any of these or other contagions have ever been shown to be spread through the Traditional methods of distributing Holy Communion?
This may be an unfair question because I think your answer would be no. In addition, I only personally know of one individual who stopped taking Holy Communion because of such fears. In comparison, many more heterodox have converted to Orthodoxy in spite of such alleged fears, which indicates to me that the number of people taking Holy Communion in North America has been increasing while all these plagues have been going on.
Even Father Calivas, himself, states in his note that “in [his] sixty-four years in the priesthood, [he has] consumed the chalice thousands of times after countless Divine Liturgies without fear or hesitation, as every priest does ”and he is still alive to this day and seems quite healthy as do most of our Orthodox priests. May they all continue to be so for many more yours, but this brings me to my next question:
How does father Calivas know what our “real fears, reservations and apprehensions” are? Has any hierarch conducted a survey or a poll? If we are to use the science behind coronavirus to alter the distribution of Holy Communion, should we not at least use a scientific survey to measure the real fears that your Orthodox flock may have? Otherwise, how can you assume that we are fearful? And why would you assume that we are fearful, when many of us lived through HIV, SARS (by the way, I was a front-line physician during SARS and I never stopped taking Holy Communion) and the annual Influenzas which can also be deadly, but we never stopped communing during these annual plagues?
I assure you, your Eminence, that the faith of your flock is not blind and we are no strangers to plagues. While the coronavirus may be unprecedented, plagues and death are not. We see and acknowledge the miraculous life-giving power of the Holy Mysteries in the robust health of our priests, and by his own admission, of Father Calivas, all of whom continue to thrive after consuming trillions of deadly microbes along with the chalice week after week, year after year. Although Father Calivas’ concerns for our feelings and our safety are touching, I could not help but feel that I was being categorized as a type of – forgive me for saying this – mindless sheep-shaped sponge, eager to absorb any feel-good compromises to my faith.
The fact is, if I wanted to always feel good, I would not be Orthodox, a faith which requires constant reflection, self-examination and humble repentance, among other things. Those feelings and the Orthodox way of life are hard. Also, if I wanted to feel safe, I would certainly never be Orthodox. There has never been anything more dangerous than being an Orthodox Christian in a secular world. Orthodoxy is not comfortable and that is one reason why I am Orthodox.
I was therefore, quite dismayed when Father Calivas wrote, “the real fears, reservations, and apprehensions of the people should not be dismissed with an air of superiority or a call to greater faith…” I wholeheartedly agree with doing away with airs of superiority, but why do away with a call to greater faith? Is there such a thing as having too much faith? Personally, I could always use more faith especially at this time, and I think I speak for everyone.
What bothers me the most, your Eminence is “the real fears.” Neither you, nor Father Calivas know what these actually are, or if you do know, you have not addressed them. Therefore, please permit me to clarify them for you; because I think my real fears are not just my own. I think these fears are shared by many others and these are the elephants in today’s Orthodox churches – fears which our hierarchs are ignoring and fueling with their condescending “air of superiority” by keeping silent, and when they do speak by assuming they know how we feel and what we want, by supposing we are ignorant pertaining to matters of our Faith, and by sending secret memos.
3. On June 2nd, Ancient Faith Ministries published on Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, the decision of our Patriarch, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, on the issue of the distribution of Holy Communion during the coronavirus pandemic, which can be found here.
On May 17th, just one day prior to your secret memo, your Eminence, His All-Holiness circulated a letter to all Orthodox primates (made public on June 1st) seeking synodical agreement on his position regarding the distribution of the Holy Mysteries during this pandemic. His letter to the primates clearly and emphatically indicates “no change (to the distribution of Holy Communion), and the communal spoon will remain.”
Your Eminence, were you unaware that his All-Holiness had sent this letter the day before you sent your secret memo? Or is this the reason why your memo had to be kept secret?
Did you then recruit Father Calivas’ support by pressing him to author that dreadful “note on the communion spoon” which surprised us all, considering the good reputation of Father Calivas as a faithful and excellent theologian?
Were you banking on Father Calivas’ excellent reputation to add credibility to your “temporary” heresy?
And did you also direct that this “note” of “his” come quickly and well in advance of the Patriarch’s public statement on the issue of Holy Communion, which it did on June 1st, by a time span of one week?
Were you, your Eminence, trying to make it appear as though you had already made your ecclesiastical decision before having any knowledge of the mind or intent of his All-Holiness Bartholomew?
If you did your Eminence, what is your agenda?
At this point, your Eminence, I will make no attempt to speculate on the possible answers to my questions. I do not wish to make wrong accusations but at the same time, I would be dishonest if I did not at least imply my “real fears.” However, do you now understand what these “real fears” are?
Your flock has many unanswered questions, not from our secular leaders regarding the coronavirus and church closures, but from our own shepherds. As Orthodox Christians, we expect misunderstandings and persecution from the world but not from within our own Church. I, for one, am not as much concerned about my physical health as the spiritual health of my Church which is my Holy Sanctuary.
As I said, I will not speculate, but I will confess that your ‘good intentions’ whether real or not, have personally caused me extreme spiritual pain. As you know, your secret memo and Father Calivas’ note came out in advance of our Patriarch’s announcement. During the intervening time, I nearly had a nervous breakdown, worrying about how the distribution of Holy Communion and its theology was going to be altered in our Orthodox Churches.
During that exact same time frame, my husband, who is a front-line health care worker, as I am, became ill with and tested positive for Covid-19. Thank God, all is well now, but none of us in my family experienced nearly as much fear, worry or anxiety from his illness as we did from your actions.
Perhaps, and I sincerely hope, I am very wrong in ‘fearing’ that you have betrayed your flock, your Eminence. Perhaps you truly care about how we feel and you genuinely want to take care of us and you just made an honest mistake. If that is the case, please accept my most humble apology, but, please understand that secrecy and silence is not the way to lead us, nor is giving way to what you imagine our fears to be. We, your flock, have God-given and constitutional rights to exercise our religious freedoms and the last people we expect to take those away from us are our own Church leaders.
Whether or not we feel fearful of taking Holy Communion in the Traditional manner remains our own personal faith issue, having freely chosen to be Orthodox Christians in the first place. I, for one, greatly resent others deciding for me where my faith lies or how strong I am or am not, in my moral convictions or religious beliefs. I have at least as much capacity to make my own decisions as do you. Even if your intentions were good, your Eminence, by assuming you know my spirit or my heart, you crossed a line. Only God knows me that well. Your job is the proper stewardship of our Holy Orthodox Church and the edification of our faith, not the dismantling of her Theology and the succumbing to our ‘fears’.
Again, I apologize if I have implied wrong accusations against you, your Eminence, but, the fact remains that the use of multiple spoons is insulting and an affront not only to our Crucified Lord, but also to His faithful. I hope that you will acknowledge your error and come to regret the heretical theology you have arbitrarily condoned surrounding the Holy Mysteries, something which has caused unnecessary and great spiritual pain to me and to many of my fellow Orthodox Christians.
I will not ask you for an apology, but I am praying for your repentance and for an immediate retraction of the use of multiple spoons on this continent within our Orthodox Churches.
By the way, please be assured that we are prepared for more plagues, trials and tribulations in the future. We know these are coming because our Lord has forewarned us. Please heed the call to greater faith yourself, and support us by leading us in a truly Orthodox manner, not by compromising Orthodoxy. We need Her now, more than ever.
Very Respectfully,
Irene Polidoulis MD
Please see additional correspondence with Greek bishops here.
While a saint is not someone who is perfect, a saint’s erroneous teaching would be clearly outlined in Church councils. For example, Gregory of Nyssa, though a saint and a Church Father, is considered wrong about his platonic reflections on the resurrection through the fifth Ecumenical Council which condemns apokatastasis. No council gathers to exonerate a saint’s opinion if there’s no controversy around him or the opinion he held. Palamas was exonerated in a series of councils in Constantinople only because there was a controversy. But no council will gather to exonerate a saint’s opinion on a matter in absence of controversy. If St. Nikodemus was indeed in error, a council would have said so. The Church, as represented in councils and bishops, would be the only entity entitled to condemn this teaching. Certainly, designating his opinion as wrong is not for the laity or even trained theologians. This sounds like the author disagrees with a saint on a subject therefore this disagreement must mean that the lay member of the Church from the 21st century is right and that’s where the saint from three centuries earlier is wrong. For the record, St. Nikodemus is probably the reason the author communes weekly because prior to him frequent communion was unheard of. A game of splitting hairs as to what a saint got right or wrong is the business of the ecclesial hierarchy not the laity.
Furthermore, I cannot help but notice the conspiracist mentality the author has with regard to the intentions of patriarchs and archbishops. It is not like bishops have enough time on their hands to look for ways to bring the church to ruins.
Now the question: “were you banking on Fr. Calivas’ excellent reputation to add credibility to your temporary heresy?” is out of line to say the least.
First, it implies that an archbishop needs to bank on a priest’s reputation to get his way as if the archbishop’s reputation is questionable. If it were, he probably wouldn’t have made it to the office he currently holds.
Second, in no way should a lay member accuse a bishop of heresy. This is simply not your place. The bishops and patriarchs who sent letters before you to His eminence did not dare use the word heresy which you so casually use.
Third, a heresy is to be declared as such by a council or a synod. It pertains to a wrong or selective teaching relating to the Trinity, Christology, Pneumatology, and Soteriology. Other issues are a matter of opinion where a disagreement can take place without a side being designated a heretic. If altering the use of spoons is heretical, then we might as well say the same thing about the calendar issue and join old calendarist schismatics. Heresy is a very serious word and accusing someone of it is reserved for the hierarchy in a synod (not even a single bishop in isolation).
Lastly, you mention knowing one person with fears of communion. What do you suggest we do with that one person? Should we ignore their presence and pretend they do not exist? Should we trample on the one for the ninety nine and be everything the world is and be nothing like our Saviour? I think the reasonable thing is to go for an alternative way that accommodates those in need which doesn’t have to be for everyone (whether it be a different spoon, the same spoon after sanitization or intinction). I am quite pleased that the Orthodox Church as an entity is much more accommodating through eikonomia than many Orthodox Christians are.
Just curious – and how would you respond to Metropolitan Alexios who also questioned Fr. Calivas? https://theorthodoxworld.com/greek-orthodox-metropolitan-alexios-of-atlanta-opposes-archbishop-elpidophoros-the-tradition-of-the-common-spoon-is-the-way-the-orthodox-church-teaches/
There is no Theological or moral or even historical reason to change our method of communion. The only reason would be out of fear that the spoon can cause infection. That is a medical question, so an MD is qualified to weigh into that debate.
Heresy is a loaded word. Absolutely. Your use of the word may be technically correct, but the reductionist movement to have “core” dogmas that are unchanging and a lot of flexibility elsewhere is potentially a huge problem. We address that here: https://orthodoxreflections.com/changes-to-communion-lead-to-transforming-the-orthodox-faith/ The term “heresy” is meant, I am sure, to indicate the seriousness of the contemplated change.
Maybe we should reverse the calendar change. It has caused all kinds of problems, and every time it seems that something like this comes up we hear “yeah, but we changed the calendar!” That kind of just proves the point. If the other bishops and the faithful go along on this, then it will be “But we changed the calendar and adopted multiple spoons and there was no problem, so why not…”
Not long ago, slippery slope arguments were dismissed outright. However, it appears that the past 20 years has been one accelerated slope downward culturally and, in part, religiously.
If there are some individuals who are in that much fear, then I am sure that while preserving the traditional liturgy some accommodations can be made. That is a pastoral issue, and would not be worth our time discussing.
Historically, the method has changed from drinking straight from the cup to intinction to spoon. I do not think the current situation is minor for us to ignore it or dismiss it. Yes the author is an MD but she has cited no medical articles or theological texts. As such, her opinion is simply that, an opinion. There’s nothing in it that compels me to think her opinion is in any way superior to that of the archbishop. She simply said what she thought about it on account of “no one got sick before” and no one is getting sick this time. If the method remains what it is, then we should be open to grant communion through other methods for those who are genuinely worried about their well being which it seems we agree on.
The calendar issue. I see your point. Maybe we should reverse it. Maybe not. All I am saying is that change in either direction didn’t amount to heresy. Other changes do not amount to heresy. The addition of four dismissal prayers to the liturgy wasn’t a heresy. The gifts being prepared inside the sanctuary rather than outside was not a heresy. There’s a danger in changing things haphazardly for sure. But rendering every change a heresy is, I think, an equally dangerous position.
Also, the definition I gave of what constitutes heresy is not reductionist. To my knowledge, no council gathered to weigh in on something as heretical other than things pertaining to the subjects I indicated. No council was convened to anathematize anyone for adding a dismissal prayer or developing something in the liturgy for example.
As for the article you posted, I have not read it yet. Regardless of what it says, I believe that, out of principle, the method in church is to not accuse someone of heresy unless you’re a bishop and then a condemnation or a designation of person as such would happen through a council or a synod. We cannot simply ignore the proper method within Church. I will eventually read the article you posted in your comment.
A few things to think about in the mean time:
Why is it okay for a lay to accuse a bishop of accepting a temporary heresy, accuse a saint of being wrong (In a matter she disagrees with him on with no evidence medical or theological) but not okay for bishops to have a discussion about a question proposed by other lay members? There are those, like Dr. Irene, who think communion spoon won’t transmit disease. God bless them. But there are those whom hierarchs cannot ignore either who are genuinely worried. If indeed saints apparently disagreed (and some held the opinion of Dr. Irene though I do not if anyone did while others held the opinion of St. Nikodemus), who are we to say that bishops disagreeing today means they’re succumbing to the world rather than genuinely worrying about their flock and its well being?
If there’s a way for me to keep things safe without deviating from tradition using traditional methods… then why shouldn’t we consider such methods at least for those who are fearful of disease? Why shouldn’t we consider applying them to all rather than tempting the Lord our God? Just a few thoughts.
It seems to me that we have a major gap in our vocabulary. In the past 10 plus years, I have been lectured that same-sex marriage, salvation for all, the universal authority of the EP, female priests, marriage after ordination, abortion, socialism, and a continuing list of other things were not “heresies.” Okay, but they are really, really bad ideas, some worse than others, that profoundly affect the way the faith is lived. So there needs to be a word in there, somewhere, that communicates how amazingly dangerous something is and how much of a profound effect it will have on the Praxis of the faith, while not implying that said thing was condemned at a council like Arianism. When that word is identified, I think we can stop the laity from using the word heresy. For now, I am positive that is the only word they know. I am just being practical here.
For those that are concerned, I truly believe you could work out an individual solution and let the rest of us continue on our way. One of the faithful at an OCA parish I was in had a serious auto-immune disorder. The priest had permission, only for him, to give him communion from a separate piece of bread and his own little spoon. Why? Because he was so afraid of the cloth, etc. One of Irene’s points is that, “How do you know we are all afraid?” I am positive that His Eminence Alexios would respond to individual parishioners requests communication via the local priest. There is no need to change the norm, simply because we have some individuals that may need more care. That serves everyone, and preserves the tradition of the common spoon at a time when many of our practices are under attack.
Yes. That list sucks and I know it has been abused by a lot of Orthodox “academics” with the claim these things are not actual heresies, which I disagree with BTW. I get it. I also get the danger there with these ideas. However, I would not equate the danger of these things with the use of an alternative method of administering communion. I think we can agree that these are not equally dangerous i.e. one of them is a method of communing (which has historically changed) whereas things on this list have been condemned by scripture, 2000 years of tradition, canons, and patristic texts. None of these say that “if anyone says that we can use multiple spoon if necessary, let them be anathema.” 🙂
If that is the purpose of the article, then yes by all means. I mean so long as the person is granted the option if needed, I am happy to have both methods and people can choose as necessary. The assumption that if someone is worried, then they have no faith is quite ridiculous however. It is a normal instinct when someone’s immunity is compromised.
Thank you for a respectful and enlightening discussion. God bless.
Hi Moses,
I don’t know the author, I don’t know you, I don’t know the Archbishop or any of the hierarchs for that matter.
Here’s what I do know…
Το δις εξαμαρτείν τ’ αυτόν ουκ ανδρός σοφού
– Menandros (4th century B.C.)
The Archbishop continues to publish a series of questionable “new” statements that do not always appear aligned with what the Church Fathers tell us and the traditions we grew up with…
1) Prior to becoming archbishop, he claimed the Patriarch of Constantinople is “first witout equals”…what Synod ever came up with this νεοτερισμο (please tell us)?
https://www.patriarchate.org/-/primus-sine-paribus-hapantesis-eis-to-peri-proteiou-keimenon-tou-patriarcheiou-moschas-tou-sebasmiotatou-metropolitou-prouses-k-elpidophorou
2) On July 14th, 2019 he insulted the intelligence of the congregation in Astoria, by saying “because we don’t understand ancient Greek well, this is what the sermon is for…”, and proceeded with …
“Is a heretic anyone who is not Orthodox? …No…the heretic is a person who argues, who creates divisions…”
focus on minute 10:35 until minute 11:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EssHKq-pqB0
Unfortunately, this statement directly contradicts what St. Basil the Great clarified as the difference between Σχισμα, Αιρεσις, and Παρασυναγωγη. Does the Archbishop know ancient Greek better than St. Basil did? That is a very controversial concept, and certainly very difficult for laity to accept.
It also contradicts the position of St. Mark of Ephesus when he insisted that the Latins were heretics for the many reasons that history declares.
As a matter of fact, the manner in which St. Mark of Ephesus was declaring the Latins “heretics” contradicts your statement above (Moses), where you claim that heresies are only declared and certified by synods…yes St. Mark of Ephesus was a bishop, but at the time, there was a contingent of bishops calling for his defrockment and removal, much like other contingents did to St. Nektarios of Pentapolis several centuries later…yet, who ended up being declared a Saint in the end?
Nevertheless, given the track record here, when the same man (Archbishop), is now being attributed by media sources as introducing new liturgical practices – lavides, etc – (outside of an Ecumenical Synod) that are not consistent with what we know as traditional Orthodox practice, it is very natural for the laity to react, starting with those who know how to read and write (MD’s included)….
3) In another controversial action during Holy Week (April 16th) he was bold enough to appear on Television with about 7-8 others in a very crammed chapel in the middle of COVID-19 stricken NYC, without masks, without “social distancing”, at a time when the pious were asked to stay home, and the Archdiocese mandates were for only a single chanter to be in the churches…it is unclear if any State Emergency orders were violated in this case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdiPMNcSNw4
4) In another interesting moment, he did not use a mask, used a single lavida, a single maktron, and even physically touched the heads of children during Pentecost Sunday (June 7th) at a time when other parishes are being forced to sign Pandemic waivers and “strictly” follow “other” protocols that are reportedly the guidance of the Archdiocese… (see starting at 1h49minutes mark)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRy_Cvo8X2Y
In the meantime, all sorts of articles are flying around about “lavides”, etc…
Is this what Christ meant by “let your YES be YES, and your No, NO?”…
Such inconsistencies in word and deed will naturally lead the laity to increased suspicion, disappointment, frustration, concern, and even to use terms like “hypocrisy” or “heresy”..
This is not only because we the laity are not inherently stupid, but also because we don’t “recognize” some of these words and practices as being consistent with the pillars of Dogma that kept the Church on track throughout the centuries(St. Basil, St. Mark of Ephesus, etc).
In light of such an inconsistent and controversial track record and historical pattern of provocative statements and actions , it is not surprising that educated laity become scandalized, including MDs… Trying to shame Dr. Polidoulis because she used a term you don’t like isn’t going to solve the problem of why we have the inconsistencies to begin with…fix the problem at the root, and ensure the clergy don’t deviate from what the Apostles, Synods and Church Fathers taught and did. Clergy should not provoke the people, or insult their intelligence, period. If you don’t fix the root cause, then Dr. Polidoulis using the word “heresy” will be the least of your worries, because you’ll end up with a big Schism the way things heading (you meaning you and those who you are defending while you ignore the root cause of the problem). Do you want to fix the problem? Fix it…we will support you.
As for the comments by St. Nikodemos that everyone is referencing, anyone who spends sufficient time looking at that footnote that he put into his compilation of the Canons (Pedalion) will realize that he is referencing some practice that some unknown bishops in an unknown land during an unknown time were practicing…it was not a Synod, it was not anything else but a singular opinion (so Moses, I fully agree with you on that, but why would an experienced “Theologian” like Fr. Calivas not point that out, and why would an experienced “Theologian” like Fr. Calivas not realize that he pasted an inaccurate English translation of the original Greek 101st Canon of Trullo into his article, expanding the confusion even more? The word was χωνευτηριον, and that does NOT mean “funnel”)…
So let’s get some facts straight here.
Yes, Priests and Hierarchs CAN make mistakes. However, making multiple controversial mistakes and even establishing a pattern will erode credibility and scandalize the faithful…this is not a good thing.
Yes, laity CAN read and understand basic Theology and Orthodox Tradition. There were only 3 people/saints with the title “Theologian” in all of history. Blindly following whatever a “rasoforo” says is not a viable expectation in an era of prevalent education and logic.
And while you are technically correct in Synods being the ones who FORMALLY declare “heresies”, the absence of an Ecumenical Synod for several hundred years to FORMALLY declare Papism, and most Protestant Dogmas as Heretical does not mean that these Heresies don’t exist, or that they are not heresies…
And No, there is NO Canon forbidding the use of the word “heretic” by laity…in fact, the epistle to Titus is for all of us…so even laity has the obligation of being able to identify what is heretical and what is not, and to “counsel” a heretical man once or twice before “abandoning” him.
The laity in Constantinople were jeering and throwing pieces of silver at the hierarchical delegation that returned from Florence in 1440…
Laity also has the Canonical authorization to speak up with the word Αναξιος in order to stop the tonsuring and enthronement process of a new clergyman, including a bishop. There is also a Canonical process for them to bring up spiritual charges against clergy if the clergy transgress, and this can include matters of “heresy”.
Therefore, it is clear that there is plenty of historical precedence for laity to not only understand heresy, but also to call it out when there is reasonable basis and factual comparison to Tradition.
Hi Ioannis and Moses:
Ioannis, thank you for your very intelligent response. Your points are bang on.
Just for the record, I am a lay person, yes, but my whole family has been teaching Sunday School for many years, I am in the process of publishing a book on Church History – something for our Sunday School Youth which explains how all the Christian “heresies” developed and their differences in Dogma, and my sister is a Theologian. So, although I am not a trained Theologian myself, and although I may not have all the right words I believe I can clearly recognize when something is a heresy, and yes, throughout history, there are other examples of lay people speaking out and preventing our Holy Church from going down the wrong path.
In addition, you may not like this, Moses, but fearing to take Holy Communion because of fear of contracting a disease DOES show a weak faith in the love and the power of God. If that is the case, it is best for that person to not commune at all. It is wrong to take Communion on the side, with separate bread or separate wine/spoon – doing so is insulting to the power of God and is detrimental to the individual doing it. That is why it says in 1 Corinthians 11: 28-30
“Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and ill, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” Fallen asleep means “died”.
So, taking Holy Communion with fear or doubt or not having confessed, or made peace with our brother or any other irreverent manner, is a dangerous thing to do. Imagine how much worse it is for a hierarch to actually encourage the taking of Holy Communion in this manner. Producing multiple spoons is exactly that because it encourages the FEAR behind the behavior. Analyzing the situation legalistically does not justify your arguments. God cares about the heart. It is the REASONS why Holy Communion is being changed that are important.
These changes also imply that Holy Communion is our right which it is NOT. It is a gift from God for those who BELIEVE in Him with a contrite heart. Instead, in arrogance, to have our rights satisfied, we demand to take Holy Communion the way that makes us feel comfortable. This is abominable and unacceptable. It’s not just about tradition, Moses. Christ offers you His very Body and His very Blood, the most precious material thing in the whole Universe, and you contort your face in disgust because of the common spoon? People with such attitudes scrutinize Paradise also. If that’s the case, maybe they shouldn’t go there.
You have the right to disagree, and the multi-spoon supporters have the right to go off into a splinter group and schism away, but they do NOT have the right to change Orthodoxy in this manner, especially not arbitrarily, and especially not after our own Patriarch already instructed all the primates to keep the common spoon. We would not be having this conversation if Archbishop Elpidophoros showed humility and obedience to his Patriarch.
May our Good Lord Have Mercy on all of us and give Divine Wisdom, Infinite Genuine Fear of God (Respect of God), Faith and Love especially to our Spiritual Leaders to guide all of us in Strengthing our Faith, Hope and Trust in the Lord, and in His Holy Sacrament of Holy Communion, the very Precious and Holy Body and Blood of Christ, which when received worthily effect the remission of our sins and Life Eternal and for Healing of Body, Mind and Soul, according to my understanding and belief in the Word of the Lord and His Holy Orthodox Church’s Teachings.
Please forgive me!
https://www.parembasis.gr/images/2020/284/MARTYRIA_GIA_THN_KOINWNIA.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3dCc4ZrhpEjaGapjojJJLNBQo_jSjJagNun9D-VOKgktw5gr-lmAOiVlg
Ted –
Any idea where we could get an English copy of this document? We would all love to read it. If you could summarize that gist, that would be helpful as well.
Thank you Irene for this article – Many of us have expressed our discontentment with the actions of Archbishop Elpidoforos for the past 4 months now – The Holy Communion issue was the target of many all over the world at the start of the pandemic – Please read the detail 42 thesis of Metropolitan of Naupaktos Ierotheos . He is spot on . But it is in Greek .
What are your thoughts, Nicholas, on the publications you posted? In particualar, what do you think our Patriarch Bartholomew means when he says: “May the challenges we are facing now in our participation in holy communion due to “social distancing” hygienic principles be the opportunity to consider and to reflect on the importance of the Eucharist for our spiritual life as well as for the communion of the Church in constituting the one body of Christ by being partakers of the same bread and of the common chalice.”
Which common chalice do you think he is talking about – the one in our Orthodox Churches, or one for all Churches?
I’m actually working on an article that you helped inspire. Your question – why now? After all the other epidemics we have weathered, why change communion now? Well, it got me thinking. So I went researching, and it is interesting that to me, all the usual suspects who are attempting to change the Orthodox Church (various academics, archons, thinktanks, and liberal priests) are also the ones who are so “all in” on changing the method of receiving communion. Remember the old joke, “How many Orthodox Monks does it take to change a light bulb?” The answer is, “Change??? What is this change?”
So I am concerned that there are individuals, some associated with the Fordham Institute, that are glomming onto health concerns in order to force a major change in how a sacrament of the Orthodox Church is administered. I’m going to explore that further before I write more about it. While it could all just be innocent, though misguided, concern for human life, it is also troubling.
As for the Archbishop, I believe at this point he is still talking about our common chalice. While he has called for the communion of unconverted spouses (my wife converted to marry me), he has not called for open communion in any way that I can find.
In 1439 the hierarchs of Constantinople were “selling” the faith to the Vatican in a pseudo-council of Ferrara (Florence), with the exception of St. Mark of Ephesus. According to contemporary historians such as Michael Ducas and others, when they returned to Constantinople, the people greeted them with spitting (who do we normally spit upon during the Baptism service?), jeers and pieces of silver as projectiles…because of the people NOT accepting what those hierarchs schemed, the pseudo-council of Florence never took effect in the East.
Today, it is once again the “ignorant” people of God who are proving more faithful and less cowardly than those who should be “leading”…
It is the same “ignorant” people that used to participate in the election of bishops in the early history of the Church, but in later years this turned into a “private affair”…
It is the same “ignorant” people who will defend Orthodoxy and holy tradition going forward.
The Orthodox Church was built upon the legacy of Martyrs and Confessors of the faith.
The question to ask today is what kind of a spine do our “spiritual leaders” have when compared to those Martyrs and Confessors that we venerate? The time has come to Confess the faith. Dr Irene’s letter is asking them to do just that…let’s see what happens…but we should all raise our voices to make the hierarchy aware that we are not “sleeping sheep”…We live in an educated society, and we can also read Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the Canons…
Here are a couple of my favorite quotes for this situation:
1) So because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of My mouth (Revelation 3:16)
2) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings (Hebrews 13:9)
3) Forgive me pater / your emminence/ beatitute / etc, but until your face is officially included among the saints on the walls of the Church, I will only pay attention to you when you are ALIGNED with what those saints and Church Fathers were saying… -(“dumb, disobedient sheep- laypeople”)
Ultimately, the hierarchy have to decide what they want…an exodus of the “luke-warm” who don’t want to Commune with a single lavida, or an exodus of the “faithful traditionalists”, who the “Fordham scholars” have been meticulously quoting as Orthodox Fundamentalists in preparation for this crossroad.
In the letter to Titus 3:10 we see justification of the faithful to abandon the “heretical man” who is advised/counseled once or twice (with letters like the one Dr. Irene has masterfully crafted), and then ABANDON that man (yes, this even means abandoning a hierarch who is not aligned with tradition) if they don’t return to tradition…
What will the hierarchy choose? Disappointing times, but we’ve seen this episode before in 1439 and other eras as well…
Hang in there, and let’s hope the leaders “snap out of it” and return to tradition. However, the lay people definitely have their role in guarding the faith right now, no doubt.
Ioannis
Perhaps a study can be done on the incidence of Covid-19 deaths among communing Orthodox Christians in North America. I think the results would be very interesting.
So the Fordham academics published this article https://publicorthodoxy.org/2020/05/27/the-eucharist-its-physical-elements-and-molecular-biology/
It was tweeted by Aristotle Papanikolaou Professor of Theology, Archbishop Demetrios Chair in Orthodox Theology and Culture, Co-Founding Director, Orthodox Christian Studies Center @fordhamorthodox
Another hierach also brought up the same topics you covered: https://www.goarch.org/-/koinonia-at-threat
Hi Nicholas,
Let’s take a quick look at that “Fordham article” authored by Hermina Nedelescu…
She makes this claim & citation:
“I do not recommend to conduct such an experiment in the Orthodox Church, others have experimentally demonstrated that the communion cup contains bacteria which is inadvertently transferred into the cup after administration of the sacrament [9].”
Unfortunately, there are 2 serious problems with her citation #9:
1) The referenced study was conducted on a non-Orthodox Chalice, and we already have past examples of Orthodox Holy Water lasting for years, whereas “Holy Water” from other denominations doesn’t seem to last that long.
2) The referenced (non-Orthodox) study even draws an exact opposite conclusion from the one that Hermina is trying to reference:
“It is concluded that in practice the silver communion cup is not an important vector of infectious disease”
http://www.recus.org/resources/CommonCupBacteria.pdf
If the non-Orthodox concluded this in 1943, why are the Orthodox hierarchs even discussing it in 2020?
Hermina quoted a study that concluded the opposite of what she is claiming in her citation…how is anyone supposed to take the remainder of the article seriously after this simple observation?
Perhaps Hermina and the remaining “Fordhamites” can be more productive by conducting a scientific study to explain at the molecular level how the 3 youths in the furnace survived the heat … or even how the 7 youths of Ephesus were resurrected, … or perhaps how the Holy Light in Jerusalem came out of the pillar that year when the Orthodox Patriarch was shut outside…
God takes over where Science ends…period. There are some things that Science won’t ever be able to explain, to the ages of ages amen…
Attempting to leverage “distorted science” in this manner to justify changes in faith and liturgical practice is unacceptable at all levels. It is also an insult to our intelligence, by the way…
The sheep are no longer dumb, folks…you can’t fool us, no matter how many PhDs you flaunt, sorry.
Dear PhD’s…
If you traded in your faith for your PhDs, that’s your problem, not mine…the door is open and you are free to go somewhere else at any time. I will live the faith as my forefathers delivered it to me, and I’m not changing it for anyone.
“Απο τους διαβασμενους θα ερθει το κακο” – St. Kosmas Aitolos
I’m not sure if this will help anyone, but I thought I would post this in response to the “scientific” information out there regarding Church matters in general and more specifically, Holy Communion. I think it’s important to be able to articulate the limitations of science.
Science in my Brain, Christ in my Heart
How Does an Orthodox MD Reconcile the Two with Honesty and Truth?
At the age of 9, I decided to pursue the Medicine, at the age of 10 my Science teacher introduced us to Evolution and at the age of 11, I began to read the Bible. What followed was a period of confusion and unrest because I knew in my heart that God does not lie but I could not reconcile the “science” behind Evolution with the story of Creation.
My conundrum was finally solved when many years later, I learned about the scientific method https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-biology-foundations/hs-biology-and-the-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology. Here it is in six simple steps:
Six Steps of the Scientific Method:
1. Ask a Question about an Observation
2. Conduct Background Research to find out if your Question has already been answered
3. If not, propose a Hypothesis or Theory that might answer your question
4. Design and conduct an Experiment to test your Hypothesis
5. Record your new Observations and Analyze your Data
6. Draw your Conclusion and make further Iterations
Evolution falls short at step 4. Who can conduct an experiment to test the Theory of Evolution when millions of years are needed to do so? Or, who can go back in time to observe Evolution in progress as an observational study? The best any honest scientist can do is to stop at step 3 and admit that Evolution is a Theory and not a Scientific truth. Therefore, ‘believing’ in the Theory of Evolution is the same as adopting a type of religion because it does not satisfy the criteria of the scientific method. Please note that evolution of species and natural selection are very distinct from one another and the latter does not scientifically support the former.
Science that is able achieve experimentation also has its limitations. Examples of these include but are not limited to:
– The background research done on any given question may be incomplete or wrong as it may be based on previously badly done research.
– The design of an experiment may be poor, allowing varying degrees of bias to enter
– Even if well designed, the conduct of the experiment may be poor or incomplete
– The observations recorded or the data collected may be inaccurate or wrong
– The statistical analysis of the data may be inaccurate or wrong
– If any of the above is wrong, the conclusions may be wrong
There are other types of human factors as well. For example, the scientist behind the experiment may be dishonest, fabricating false data and so on.
This is why there are many different qualities of research, which are conveyed as Levels https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124652/ and Grades https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138585/ depending on the type of experiment that was done (a Randomized Controlled Trial – RCT – carries more weight than an expert opinion) and the quality of the experiment that was done (the results of an excellent observational study would carry more weight and be more highly recommended than the results of a poorly done RCT)*.
In addition to all of the above, there are other limitations to Science. For example, no scientist has ever been able to create life in a lab. Also, Science cannot explain everything, such as the differences between identical twins – two people with the exact same DNA but different personalities, beliefs, likes, dislikes etc. How is that explained on a molecular level?
Although Medicine incorporates Science, it also must incorporate an Art which has very little to do with Science. Unlike the Science which deals with the bodily systems, the Art touches the heart (not the organ) and soul inside that body. If pure Science was all that was really needed to heal, computers could do a Doctor’s job much better than any Doctor could. In fact, they cannot do a good job at all because they cannot touch the heart or soul of the patient. The nuances of non-verbal communication (a tear, a sigh, a smirk, a vocal intonation) would be lost on a computer, as would many other things in the doctor-patient interaction, which creates the doctor-patient relationship which, in itself, has healing properties as important as the cold, hard Science. That, too, cannot be explained on a molecular level.
While Science and Technology have their uses and benefits, they are not panaceas. They are tools that helps us better navigate our lives. We can farm better, fish better, travel faster, skype, phone, and enjoy better health because of them. We can also use them to explore our Universe, and here is where I make a simplified but important distinction between two types of Science: Science 1 – the physical botanical, zoological, terrestrial and extra-terrestrial infrastructure that has always existed in the Universe since the beginning of linear time; and Science 2 – mankind’s blundering attempts to try to understand, control and replicate Science 1. Please note that this distinction is my own and cannot be found elsewhere. Science 1, created by God, has always been there and Science 2 is still trying to figure out Science 1.
There is nothing in Science 1, the created Universe – a divine reflection of God – that can possibly contradict its Creator. However, there is a great deal in Science 2 that apparently contradicts the Creator because Science 2 is humanly derived, prone to error and limited by the limited human brains that engage in Science 2. In Science 1, there is beauty, balance and sustainability. In Science 2 there are loopholes, retractions, (drug) recalls and scams – not always, but these things never occur in Science 1.
Science 1 is pristine, Science 2, is not. Science 1 teases Science 2. For example, the laws of Physics and Math are absolute, but there are no absolutes in Biology. In Biology, anything goes and it’s in understanding and controlling Biology that mankind’s Science 2 blunders the most. Most people look at Science 1 and Science 2 as being interchangeable or one and the same; and that creates problems. To many, Science is supposed to be logical and therefore true, so they will accept as true anything associated with a scientific label. This type of blind faith in science is unfortunate because it can be very misleading. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1 Corinthians 1:25)
Without exception, all of Science 1 points to God. A must read is The Case for a Creator, by investigative journalist, Lee Strobel. Knowing nothing about Science, the author embarks on a journey, armed with impossibly difficult questions, to interview a multitude of scientists to prove if Science supports the case for a Creator or not. By far, this is the best book I have ever read on this topic. Warning: if you think the Theory of Evolution might be correct, this book will change your mind and it will put Science and Creation in their proper perspective.
Just as there are two general kinds of Sciences (according to me) – Science 1 and Science 2 – there are also two general kinds of scientists – Evolutionists and Creationists. I belong to the latter camp. Creationists obviously believe in Creation and acknowledge the phenomena of Science 1 that support Creation. Evolutionists ignore these phenomena and use Science 2 as a pretext for believing less in God, or not at all, and more in themselves and their own capabilities.
Here, we see a repeat of the proverbial Tower of Babel as mankind challenges God with his pathetic arrogance and deluded self-importance. Science 1 knows that God is its Creator and that He can override any of the natural laws of the Universe He has created, including but not limited to the parting of the Red Sea, the Manna from Heaven, the Virgin Birth, the feeding of the five thousand, the Resurrection, and so on. The Old and New Testaments are filled with such examples. Why should the incorruptibility of the Holy Eucharist AND the common communion spoon dipped into it AND the Holy Chalice that holds it AND the communion cloth that protects it AND … be any different?
In fact, it is no different. It makes no sense to even attempt a Science 2 explanation of how the Holy Gifts do not infect us, because God, Himself, created and ordained them, outside the realm of the natural laws of even Science 1 – like the healing of the blind man, the raising of Lazarus and so on. Everything that we believe in, in the Orthodox Church, is not limited by the God-created natural laws of Science 1, as God transforms all things. Therefore, if it’s not in the realm of Science 1, how can Science 2 even begin to understand it?
When we embolden ourselves with attempts at Science 2 explanations of the incorruptibility of the Holy Mysteries, we smack of the type of extreme Roman Catholic Scholasticism, which tries to explain all things, including how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Roman Catholicism emphasized the rational approach at the expense of mystery and faith. The West tried to define in minute detail how the inner substance of the bread and wine actually change in a way understandable and describable by the human mind, to become the Body and Blood of Christ. In contrast, the East simply took Jesus at His word when He said, “This is My Body…This is My Blood.” (Matthew 26:26-28) The Orthodox always accepted that outwardly, the Gifts still appear as bread and wine, but inwardly, in a mysterious, miraculous and inexplicable way, they are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus.
So much for science? Well, there happens to be one excellent scientific Orthodox experiment whose results repudiate any claims made by the Fordham article, authored by Hermina Nedelescu and all other similar “scientific” claims. The Traditional practice of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is the longest on-going longitudinal observational study* ever conducted, spanning a 2,000 year period, with an immeasurably large sample size of study participants of all ages and races and all varieties of health status, who consumed bread and wine from a common physical element and avoided transmissible disease. The quality of this study, due to its excessively long duration and massive sample size, far outweighs in both Level and Grade any other possible type of scientific experimentation or speculation and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Holy Eucharist is, indeed, incorruptible and does not transmit disease.
Science 1 eyes can see and embrace this with their brain and their heart. Science 2 eyes cannot.
irene Polidoulis MD
Yes, yes, yes! I wholeheartedly agree with every word and believe the Holy Spirit gave you a voice for us all. May God bless your family, your faith, your courage and your conviction.
Elder Ephraim of Vatopedi on Mount Athos shared his opinion at the 2nd video teleconference of many doctors around the world this past Saturday 06-13-20. The meeting will be released soon… From what I understood, Holy Communion is believed by the faithful to destroy all sicknesses as soon as it touches saliva; however, to address the public outcry and to not prevent believers from avoiding the receipt of Holy Communion, The Greek-Orthodox Church may have to decide to modify some aspects of the delivery of Holy Communion.
Just another tidbit: Across many religions and spiritual practices as well as in current quantum physics research, there is 100% indisputable evidence that prayers “change the molecular structure of all matter on earth”, from food, wood, rock, plants, viruses/bacteria, metal, blood, water, and cells in the body. In other words, when a person with light AND love in his soul sincerely prays over/to something with “heartfelt emotional love” (regardless of the physical distance between them), it “physically” changes, and, in some cases, can become “sanctified”. For example, research on the molecular structure of food pre- and post-prayer is fascinating, meaning that the molecules of food look quite different “instantly after” you pray over it. The same goes for the prayers of our beloved Fathers on the Church who have sincere love in their hearts for God. The Mystery of Holy Communion will slowly become more revealed in the next 100-200 years, AND, there will be an acknowledgement of these indisputable objective scientific facts soon from all the Churches, which may actually unite some. Because of the heartfelt prayers of the Priest, Holy Communion may be found to not be impacted by anything not pure. In the name of our Lord Jesus, amen…
Dr. Michael Lafasakis
New York
It’s disgusting that the hierarchy doesn’t truly believe it is the body and blood of Christ and not concerned at all about the spiritual state of hapless parishioners instead feeding the flames of anxiety, depression, and fear.
It’s time to call a council and oust such who don’t believe the living .
Father Calivas sadly doesn’t have much faith. He’s got a comfy, cushy job, no worries, and doesn’t mingle with people just pontificates from an ivory tower to a few.
This is horrible! Our hierarchs don’t believe what they preach!
Perhaps a study can be done on the incidence of Covid-19 deaths among communing Orthodox Christians in North America. I think the results would be very interesting.
Right on target. Kind respectful but on point of many many Orthodox Christians.