The discussion over potential changes to Orthodox Christian communion is not at all limited to the Greek Archdiocese, but it does seem particularly intense there. As Orthodox Faithful, we should note that one of the Greek Archdiocese’s most eminent voices, Reverend Dr. Alkiviadis C. Calivas a Professor Emeritus of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, has promised us that communion will change whether we like it or not.
In his article called A Note on the Communion Spoon, Father Calivas concluded the following:
A change in the manner by which Communion is distributed to the people is unavoidable. It is already happening. The question is whether all the Churches will reach an agreement within the foreseeable future or, will local variations apply until the use of multiple individual metal spoons or some other form becomes the standard? In any event, the change is coming. It is important, therefore, that everyone – clergy and people alike – are properly prepared.
For those of us who want to get back to “normal,” Father Calivas has indicated that the “old” normal is, in his opinion, definitely going to end. Please don’t think this is a “Greek” issue only, as the OCA has also published an article that indicates some thinking about the method of providing Holy Communion is going on there as well.
In a previous article, Dr. Irene Polidoulis offered her opinion on the on-going communion controversy. Dr. Polidoulis is a front-line medical professional, a Greek Orthodox believer, and the wife of a Covid-19 survivor. Please read her previous article here.
In an article published on Public Orthodoxy, a site sponsored by the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University, author Hermina Nedelescu reached this conclusion:
The practice of utilizing a common spoon poses a severe and potentially fatal health risk not only to Orthodox Christians, but to the broader public.
Articles appearing on Public Orthodoxy have wide reach and are frequently read by those in power. As noted above, at least some hierarchs of the Orthodox Church are listening to opinions that indicate a change must be made.
After reviewing this article, Dr. Polidoulis was kind enough to provide the following response.
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
So it would seem that His Eminence Metropolitan Alexios agrees with the writing on this site:
https://mcusercontent.com/d843d668dde012c7ea79d97f4/files/d32d02cf-8c71-4aaa-bdc2-be01f54fa2cf/Rev._Dr._Alkiviadis_Calivas.pdf
and 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/
Until about 1,000 years ago, give or take, Communion was taken in the hand and by the common cup. This is essentially the same with the common spoon. Taken together the practice goes back to the Last Supper.
Let us not meddle with our sacraments. Science has deteriorated from a search for (secular) truth into “listen to me, I’m a scientist”.
I would rather trust in faith than in science, as least as the latter is now practiced.
I would add that I am scientifically trained and a physician for forty years (now retired).
Just a correction if you please: Before the page break of the featured post, it was not I who provided the next response, but Ioannis, and I wholeheartedly agree with him and with Dr. John Ward..
Also, in reference to the limitations of science, here is my post which can also be found elsewhere on this site. It was posted last night and is meant to clarify a few very basic things for lay people who may be wondering how to approach Science from an Orthodox perspective.
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.
Of course, the real Truth lies beyond any kind of Science, but Science 2 eyes cannot see that either.