Orthodox Reflections

Esteemed Fr. Dassouras,

It is not my intention to get into “foolish disagreements or quarrels” with priests or academics.  I also have far better things to do with my valuable time.  However, when a controversial and biased opinion is “shoved down our throats” and presented as “fact” by people who flaunt degrees and PhD’s, it is necessary for us, the “logical sheep” to dissect that opinion if we find it to be illogical, as well as question the foundations on which it is based.  So, this is exactly what I’m doing, because debates about such serious matters are not “one-way streets”, and vestments and PhD opinions alone do not necessarily automatically imply alignment with Tradition.  Debate and Rhetoric (per St. Basil / St. John Chrysostom) is a Holy and noble thing, and at the end of the day, it is you who provoked this response with your public article, so let us begin the examination and dissection of your arguments without further delay.

You began your article with a statement concerning “molding” of Holy Communion:

1) Many priests have consumed a Consecrated Lamb that had molded due to natural conditions

Later on, you mention this from Professor Ioannis Fountoulis:

2) …it is extremely important for the priests that the drying (of the gifts) be complete and if possible within the same day or the next, in order to eliminate the possibility that the holy bread will be corrupted…

You also quote St. Nikodemos’ notation on Canon 32 of the 6^th Ecumenical Council:

3) “If, on the other hand, the holy pieces or bread should get moldy…the priest ought not to burn them up or throw them in the crucible, but ought first to dry thoroughly at the fire of a coal fire, with proper skill according to the directions of Nektarios of Jerusalem…Nevertheless, in order to prevent the occurrence of such moldiness, the priest ought to let the holy bread be aired enough until the dampness of the accident dried out…” A clear recognition that the holy gifts can be corrupted after consecration.

With the latter 2 citations, you have unintentionally contradicted yourself when making the first statement.  In your first statement, you mention “natural conditions”.  In your second statement, you reference that there actually exists a prescribed “process of drying”, that if followed correctly, will NEVER result in molding. The citations clearly suggest If a priest is negligent, if a priest is careless, if a priest is ignorant, this will be the root cause of the “molding” possibility that you reference… You also neglect to point out that “molding” occurred in the Desert in Exodus, when God sent the “Manna from heaven” to the Israelites.   Exodus clearly shows us that Molding of the Manna would occur precisely when the “prescribed process was violated” (a.k.a. when time was up to collect it).  They too “knew” that the “holy gift” of Manna was subject to corruption, because it was God’s will for it to become corrupted at a prescribed time.  So, in essence, when the Holy rules and protocols are followed properly, there will not be a problem with Holy Communion.  Otherwise, just as divine Grace “exited” the Manna of the desert, God can allow the “molding” of the Sacrament as a “lesson” to the negligent priest to be more careful about following protocol next time.  This notion of “natural conditions” that you are introducing is no longer valid in this context, because the “condition” you describe is 100% preventable if the priest is careful and not negligent.  Furthermore, if God is capable of keeping saints’ bodies “incorrupt” and “flowing with myrrh” years after burial, then God is perfectly capable of not allowing Holy Communion (his own Body and Blood) to “mold” the next day if He so chooses…let’s keep all this in mind next time so that we stop confusing the faithful, agreed?

And yes, the above references to “violation of protocol” creates a context, a different perspective that actually invalidates the “conclusion” you make in your article:

“…All these examples make clear that the Orthodox Church never understood the Holy Gifts to become something else after consecration than they were before- incorruptible or magic…”

Further along in your article, you make this claim about the legitimacy of introducing the “multiple spoons”

• So, the question in front of us is not if the change itself is legitimate, since it is

This is actually not a correct position, and it is disappointingly biased, because although you selected SOME quotes from St. Nikodemos where it was convenient for your narrative, you neglected to mention OTHER quotes specifically on this matter of why the single Lavida became prevalent.  Let’s examine the two main reasons that are actually referenced:

1. Absence of deacons made it difficult to distribute Holy Communion in two stages (the old way).
2. A growing trend of bad people secretly taking the Body of Christ in their hands and sneaking out of Church for purposes of desecration.

Therefore, as protectors of the Body and Blood of Christ, we see a totally different perspective…the clergy adopted the method which even Fr. Calivas points out used to be the method that the sick received Holy Communion – namely, the single Lavida that we know today.  Tell us please…how did the sick who were physically unable to place their hands in the shape of a Cross receive Holy Communion in the 1^st / 2^nd/ 3d / 4^th / …8^th centuries?  Perhaps there is a lack of specific codex-based evidence on this matter, but let’s not fool ourselves, we can fully understand that the single Lavida for all was derived from whatever that process was….In this light, it was NOT a true innovation as you suggest, if the practice of using some sort of utensil for the sick actually existed in previous centuries, correct?   Also, When the single Lavida came into common liturgical use, the decision makers were already covered by Canons of Ecumenical Synods – to do what was necessary to PROTECT the Body and Blood of Christ from “accidents” (lack of deacons to assist), and “desecration” (those who were doing bad things with Holy Communion).  This makes absolute sense, and doesn’t require a PhD. to understand.

In contrast, today’s “innovative” proposal about “multiple spoons” has been brought about because as you admit in your article, some of the “faithful” lack faith. This is not an issue about Protecting Holy Communion.  This is a debate about introducing YET ANOTHER in a long series of “modern-day concessions” that the Orthodox Church  is reacting with to accommodate dwindling faith, which is the core “disease” that needs curing today.  However, watering down the Orthodox Practice, Dogmas just because people’s faith is getting weaker and weaker is not the universal answer, because in the end, by enacting Economia upon Economia, we will end up with a mathematical calculation that will prove in retrospect how (in some pending future state) the Orthodox Church ended up being watered down like other Dogmas, such as the Vatican, which once upon a time actually was Orthodox as well… (unless that’s the ultimate goal here?…if yes, please just be honest and tell us in the open so we can make our own decisions, right here, right now… – sorry, just being a bit blunt here out of frustration).

Whatever happened to “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”  Doesn’t this mean that they have to “deny their faithlessness” before Communing?  If we are going to play “musical scriptural verses” by selecting only what fits our narrative and ignoring everything else, we will be no different than Luther who became fixated upon the notions of “Sola Scriptura” and “Salvation by Faith alone”…  Going after the “lost sheep” is certainly noble, but turning yourself and the rest of the flock into that “lost sheep” in order to join the “lost sheep” by appeasing their flawed mindset and weak faith is not the answer.  Yes, bring back the “lost sheep” to the flock, but NO, you can’t do this by taking the entire flock to where the “lost sheep” wanted to go (i.e. off the cliff, etc)….It’s kind of like the “tail wagging the dog”, don’t you think?  So there goes that argument you made, too…we’ve just invalidated it.

Then, there is another interesting point in your article worthy of discussion…I understand why you quote saints of the Church…I do not understand why you didn’t also include St. Symeon of Thessaloniki’s discussion about how items / vestments used in services also become holy (also found in Fountoulis vol. 1, question 8)…maybe it doesn’t help the narrative you are trying to support, but we can’t ignore St. Symeon’s opinion at this point, either…But what you actually do instead, which I also don’t understand, is why you quote people who are not canonized saints of the Church, like modern-day bishops of Pergamon, etc…Did St. Basil quote his peers who were not Canonized saints on matters of Dogma and Faith, or did he stick with the established saints, Apostles and Christ?  But allow me to quote St. Kosmas Aitolos at this point, and question if what we are witnessing in our day and age is what he meant by “Απο τους διαβασμενους θα ερθει το κακο»  (That which is evil will come from the “educated ones”)…it’s appropriate to recall St. Kosmas’ prophesy, and also a valid concern when we mysteriously see controversial innovations such as “multiple spoons” being defended by a tight (very small) circle of PhDs that might also be close friends behind the scenes, right?  That’s a foundation for dangerous bias, and valid suspicion among the faithful, don’t you think?

Finally, you quote 1 Corinthians 8:13 –

“If what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.”

So in this case, you are suggesting that you would rather “scandalize” (per the original Greek text) the overwhelming majority of the faithful by introducing multiple spoons that you yourself acknowledge is a response to “faithlessness”, in favor of going after a few (small minority) who are struggling with their faith and instead of working with them individually as a priest (you signed up for that after all) to change their mindset?  That’s totally illogical and not consistent with the spirit of 1 Corinthians 8:13. Certainly it’s also not consistent with St. Mark of Ephesus, who said “there cannot be any compromise on matters of Faith”… It is also not consistent with the Commandment in Mark 12:30  “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.“  If it is a Commandment, how is it possible for ANYBODY to justify “Economia” on a Commandment of God?  “Weakness” is the opposite of strength… Fix the problem at the core…don’t impose some half-baked solution that scandalizes those who have successfully set aside the impure thoughts about “contamination” via the single Lavida, and have managed instead to focus on trying to Love God with all their strength…  –

Finally, whatever happened to the old saying “If it ain’t broken, don’t try and fix it?”

Just so that we are clear, the ocean waves are countless as they head to shore, but their energy and momentum always diffuses upon the ROCKS that they hit.  Yet, the Rocks, remain standing…Likewise, I have just dissected and rejected the core positions in your article, treating it as yet another “wave” of similar previously published like-minded articles that I and many others have also dissected and rejected.   At some point, perhaps these “wave generating” winds will change direction, and the waves will cease, because like I said above, I really prefer to do other things than to respond to such provocations…in the meantime, know that multiple Rocks are committed to remaining vigilant.  Your efforts to legitimize an “innovative” theory via the “academic method” by cross-referencing multiple publications among your peers will be counter-acted by our responses, which will also be published and cross-referenced.  God will choose which opinion prevails in the end…

Ιωαννης Μ. (Αναγνωστης)

This article is a direct response to an article published on the blog Public Orthodoxy. That blog has been used to frequently advocate for changes to the Orthodox Faith.

Orthodoxy in Canada is in crisis! Sign the petition here to preserve Orthodoxy by upholding the HOLY TRADITION (PARADOSIS) of the SINGLE COMMUNION SPOON. Visit our petition page for more information.