Orthodox Reflections

On Sunday, August 9^th, 2020, during his sermon at the Canadian Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Chapel of St. John the Theologian, his Eminence Archbishop Sotirios asked the ladies who make prosphora (communion bread) to start baking them with wine in the bread. The reason given for this newest innovation of his was because he expects the multiple spoons to prove too impractical when the faithful flock to the churches during the more important feast days, such as the Dormition of the Theotokos, which is coming up in a few days. He worries that there will not be enough spoons to accommodate all the faithful who may wish to take Holy Communion. He also worries about ‘cleaning’ so many spoons. If I was a Greek Orthodox priest in Canada, I would worry about ‘licking’ so many spoons, not for fear of catching a disease, but for fear of having to spend hours upon hours of carefully licking hundreds of spoons, one at a time after a long service – but of course, the concerns of our priests do not worry or concern his Eminence. If they did, he would have heeded his priests and we would not have gone to the multiple spoons in the first place.

It is unfortunate that the live stream of his Eminence’s sermon that Sunday no longer exists. It has been taken down for obvious reasons, for no sooner had the infamous words left the mouth of his Eminence Sotirios, when social media was abuzz with the news of the ‘wine-bread’ from people who were present at his sermon. As soon as they recovered from the shock, they spread the news – and the shock waves – far and wide, much like the tremors of an earthquake.

Shocking, yes, but surprising? Sadly, no, for we have grown accustomed to such unpleasant surprises. The news of this new liturgical innovation reached us at the same time as Archbishop Sotiros’ response to those who had written him letters regarding the multiple spoons. I, too, was graced by receiving this response in my in-box, which was accompanied by  two ‘supporting’ documents – an excerpt of  the 101^st Canon of the Penthekti Ecumenical Synod and a history of the original ancient Holy Communion practice which involved the taking of the Body (bread) in the hand and the drinking of the Blood (wine) from a common chalice or cup. This is also how Christ instituted the Eucharistic Sacrament with His Disciples.

In essence, therefore, two different, but related concepts were simultaneously presented to us by his Eminence Sotirios with respect to how he envisions the future practice of Holy Communion – the ancient method of distributing the Body in the hand combined with the new innovation of distributing the Blood in the hand also, by baking the wine into the bread. What a convenient method of eliminating the common spoon and the common chalice! Unfortunately, his arguments in favour of this new innovation contradict one another in several ways.

First, by referring to our ancient history of Holy Communion practice, his Eminence wishes to give the appearance that he is supporting an ancient tradition, but in fact he is not, because by using ‘wine-bread’ he is doing away with the ancient use of the common chalice while introducing a brand new innovation which is contrary to 2000 years of liturgical practice which handles the wine and the bread separately in the Holy Sanctuary during the Divine Liturgy. Such changes require a drastic rewrite of our liturgical practices and the endorsement of an Ecumenical Synod. Therefore, such changes are not subject to the whims of a prodigal bishop.

Second, by referring to the 101^st Canon of the Penthekti Ecumenical Synod, his Eminence wants to incorrectly suggest that “vessels of gold or other materials” are not acceptable in the distribution of Holy Communion. In other words, he suggests that our 1000 year history of using a common metal chalice and a common metal spoon was not really legitimate in the first place. If this is his interpretation of the canon, which by the way is very wrong, then why did he direct his priests to use multiple metal spoons which have only multiplied the “vessels of gold or other materials”?

By having insisted on the multiple spoons, his Eminence has clearly demonstrated that he is not really worried about an apparently illegitimate communion practice involving “vessels of gold or other materials”. What he is mostly concerned about is the impracticality of cleaning so many “vessels of gold or other materials.” In other words, the canons do not really concern him, nor do any national or state laws preventing the common communion spoon (which never existed), because if these things did concern him, we would not have been subjected to multiple communion spoons in the first place.

Before we speculate on what the Archbishop’s concerns really are, let us properly explain the 101^st Canon of the Penthekti Ecumencial Synod. This is not a canon regarding how Holy Communion was to be distributed by the priests. Rather, it is a canon regarding how Holy Communion was to be received by the faithful. The “vessels of gold or other materials” do not refer to the Holy Chalice or the Holy Lavida. Recall how vessels of gold or other materials have been perpetually used in the preparation of Holy Communion on the Holy Altar table. Even Christ used a vessel made of some type of material, be it metal or wood, to pass around His Blood (wine) to His Disciples at the Last Supper. Therefore, to suggest that the “vessels of gold or other materials” could possibly refer to the Holy Chalice or a Holy Lavida is either utter nonsense or demonic deceit.

What then, do the “vessels of gold or other materials” refer to? As St. Nikodemos explains, this Canon was struck in the 7^th century, because at that time, some laity would not take the Body of Christ in their hand as the priest gave it to them, the way they were supposed to. Instead, they would bring with them, “vessels of gold or other materials” from home, which they had specially made, for the purpose of receiving the Body of Christ in these vessels as they approached the priest for Holy Communion. There were several reasons why the lay people would do this:

• They wanted to show off their wealth as these vessels were often made of precious metals and/or stones since the Body of Christ deserved only the best.
• They wanted to show off their piety for only a very pious person would go to the trouble and expense of procuring such an expensive vessel for this purpose.
• Rather than immediately consuming the Body of Christ in the church, they would take it home and lose it or worse, misuse it in sorcery or magic.
• They mistakenly thought that inanimate and expensive “vessels” were more worthy to receive the Body of the Lord than the temple of the Holy Spirit – the human body.

These “vessels of gold or other materials” therefore, were an innovation of the laity, and not of the Church, and the problem became so systemic, that it became necessary for the Church to hold an Ecumenical Synod and write a Canon to put a stop to this practice. This Canon, therefore, which describes the proper way of receiving the Body in the hand, was not written for the protection of the laity from any possible germs that could be transmitted from “vessels of gold or other materials.” Rather, it was written to protect the Holy Mysteries from the abuses of the laity.

Despite this Canon, abuses continued. For example, the laity would drop the Body or pieces of the body from their hands. Some would pretend to consume the Body but would still hide it in their hand and take it home to desecrate it. There were also issues with the Holy Chalice. It was difficult for some to partake of the Holy Chalice without spilling. When the priest would commune an infant, he would often dip his little finger into the Holy Chalice and offer the Blood, sometimes with a piece of the Body on it, to the infant, by inserting his finger into the infant’s mouth. This would slow things down and would sometimes get messy, and again, the Holy Host would be dropped and spilled. In addition, as the church grew, there were insufficient deacons to assist the priests with the distribution of the Body and Blood separately, and it soon became too impractical to continue the distribution of Holy Communion in this manner as people would have to line up twice – once for the Body and once more for the Blood if only one priest was serving the Divine Liturgy.

Whereas Christ instituted the Eucharist with His Disciples with bread in the hand and wine in a common cup, the Disciples were able bodied men who could physically partake of the Holy Host in a proper manner. Able bodied men are very different from unpredictable infants or trembling elderly people with poor coordination, now lining up twice for Holy Communion because the priest has no Deacon to assist him. For all these reasons, the Body was eventually added to the Chalice and both were administered with a Common Spoon or Lavida. This method which began approximately 1000 years ago continued to this day, because it worked well. It offered protection of the Holy Host from the innovations of the laity, a controlled delivery system which minimized accidents and no need for the assistance of a Deacon.

How unfortunate that his Eminence, Archbishop Sotirios does not understand, or pretends to misunderstand, or purposely misinterprets the 101^st Canon of the Penthekti Ecumenical Synod. How unfortunate that he does not include for us the canonical interpretation of St. Nikodemos. How sad that he only relates to us one part of a much longer historical narrative regarding our Orthodox communion practices. Whether he is ignorant, or feigns ignorance, or is purposely trying to confuse and deceive the laity, he is clearly showing that his agenda is very different from ours.

If our concerns are to preserve our Orthodox Faith with her Holy Traditions, Archbishop Sotirios’ concerns seem to be entirely different. He definitely is not worried about our health, for he, himself, said  that the Body and Blood of Christ cannot transmit any disease. Therefore, he has no concerns about our health, just as we should have no concerns about our health when we receive the Holy Eucharist. Since he is concerned about the cleaning of so many spoons, the problem would be easily solved by returning to the one common communion spoon, but he clearly does not wish to do this. What, therefore, is it that he wants that makes him resist the objections of the faithful and makes him conjure up ‘multiple spoons’ and ‘wine-bread’ communion?

Is it fame? Does he want to go down in history as the ‘foresighted’, ‘courageous’ and ‘innovative’ bishop who was ‘ahead of his time’ and led us out of our ‘stagnating’ Orthodox views and into a new ecumenist era of global tolerance and acceptance by revolutionizing our communion practices to the same level as that of other Christian denominations? Is this the legacy he imagines for himself?

Or is it fortune? Does he want to change our communion practices to approximate those of the Roman Catholic church, so as to lead us to the shared chalice with the Vatican? A shared chalice would imply a shared faith and shared wealth; and who or what is wealthier or more powerful than the Vatican? – not many.

But what is the Patriarchate’s role in all of this? Why is the Patriarch, who keeps insisting that our traditional Orthodox communion practices should NOT change, NOT intervening?

Is it because the ecclesiastical events here in Canada are too entertaining? They are, after all, rather ridiculous. Or, is the temptation of this Ecumenist Canadian experiment too great?  After all, is Canada not perhaps the best country in the world in which to conduct such an experiment? Look at the vast expanses of land in between Orthodox communities which easily isolates them from one another. Look at how very few monasteries we have. His Eminence made sure of that when he prevented the establishment of male monasteries with priest-monks that the laity could go to for spiritual refuge. Our Greek Orthodox Christians are mostly immigrants with a language barrier to varying degrees.

In addition, Canada is the most ethnically diverse country in the whole world which makes the Greek Orthodox population a very small component of all the colours and creeds represented here with an equally small importance for many to take notice of our ecclesiastical problems. Also, consider how, unlike the USA, we have only one Greek Orthodox Archbishop in the entire country, who has all the power to himself. What better combination of circumstances to impose on a ‘dumb’, ‘powerless’ and ‘socially awkward’ laity a diabolical experiment of ecumenist proportions. Surely is must be much too tempting to allow such a good crisis as the Covid-19 pandemic to go to such waste.

If that is the plan, then perhaps our hierarchs should remember that there are other Orthodox Churches in Canada; and many faithful who are not as ‘dumb’ as they think, have already left their Greek parishes and turned to other ethnic Orthodox churches for spiritual refuge. In addition, there are many first and second generation Greek Orthodox laity who are educated, who do understand Theology and the Canons and who are capable of standing up for their religious rights and freedoms. This laity has strong convictions and religious beliefs and they will not be easily fooled or manipulated by deceitful arguments, incomplete evidence or patronizing sermons. And finally, as his Eminence has told us himself, in so many of his sermons over the past 46 years, it is now our turn to assure him that energy, youth and good health are on our side, and with the help of our all-knowing and all-powerful God in whom we trust, we will make certain that Orthodoxy prevails in this country and not some heretical or blasphemous hierarchical innovation!

Irene – Greek Archdiocese of Canada

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.