Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
We already discussed that canon. There is no mention of receiving it in the hands, only with the hands crossed.
So, you personally do not receive Communion in a "vessel of gold", (like, say, a gold plated Spoon) in accordance with the Canon?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
You are just not reading what people say.
The Epitome of St. John Damascene on this Canon says:
"When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen."
Vide also St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, Lib. iv., cap. xiv. On the whole matter cf. Card. Bona, De Rebus Lit., Lib. ii., cap. xvij., n.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin,
I am not going to discuss this any further until you write three times in your next post:
"ST. JOHN DAMASCENE SAID: 'IN THE HOLLOW OF THE PALM RECEIVE THE BODY OF CHRIST.''"
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Bizzlebin,
I am not going to discuss this any further until you write three times in your next post:
"ST. JOHN DAMASCENE SAID: 'IN THE HOLLOW OF THE PALM RECEIVE THE BODY OF CHRIST.''"
St John Damascene didn;t write the canon of the Council, did he? Isn't it ironic that you ask for Ecumenical authority, yet when that contradicts you, you resort to a patristic source, and vise versa? Honestly, what is your standard? I must ask, are you reading things exegetically, or are you looking you justify what you "already know to be true?"
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
So, you personally do not receive Communion in a "vessel of gold", (like, say, a gold plated Spoon) in accordance with the Canon?
I do not receive it in my hands or a vessel of gold, no, like the canon says. Let me make it more clear:

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

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

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
St John Damascene didn;t write the canon of the Council, did he? Isn't it ironic that you ask for Ecumenical authority, yet when that contradicts you, you resort to a patristic source, and vise versa? Honestly, what is your standard? I must ask, are you reading things exegetically, or are you looking you justify what you "already know to be true?"
Bizzelbin,
I can read St. John Damascene's Epitome of the Canon in my copy of the Pedalion which is right in front of me as I type.
Why doesn't your Epitome that we shouldn't receive in the hand appear in the Pedalion?
I would seem that my "standard" is a Father of the Church...what's yours?
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Bizzelbin,
I can read St. John Damascene's Epitome of the Canon in my copy of the Pedalion which is right in front of me as I type.
Why doesn't your Epitome that we shouldn't receive in the hand appear in the Pedalion?
I would seem that my "standard" is a Father of the Church...what's yours?
From the Epitome:

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

Does your Epitome not say this?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
From the Epitome:

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

Does your Epitome not say this?
It does. And it means exactley what it says. The Body of Christ is placed in the crossed palms and the palms are then brought straight to the mouth- which is exactley how High Anglicans still receive Holy Communion today.
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
It does. And it means exactley what it says. The Body of Christ is placed in the crossed palms and the palms are then brought straight to the mouth- which is exactley how High Anglicans still receive Holy Communion today.
Well, I don't think people need to be told to place in in their mouths, as opposed to some other location. Anyways, it doesn't say it is brought to the mouth, or taken to the mouth. Rather, it says a person "takes it with his mouth." It is crystal clear.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
it says a person "takes it with his mouth." It is crystal clear.
Takes it from WHERE?
And speaking of "crystal clear", I would have thought St. John Damascene saying that the Body is received "in the hallow of the palm" is pretty "crystal clear" about what the practice was.....but perhaps not "crystal clear" enough for you? :D
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
I'm kinda getting tired of having to repeat myself every 8 pages.
Ah irony ;D


You said earlier you're not in favour of women priests. I asked "why?" and I'd appreciate it if you state this/these reason(s)
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Takes it from WHERE?
And speaking of "crystal clear", I would have thought St. John Damascene saying that the Body is received "in the hallow of the palm" is pretty "crystal clear" about what the practice was.....but perhaps not "crystal clear" enough for you? :D
The canon trumps his statement. Just as I can find a few fathers that say one thing about anything, it doesn't mean they are the consensus, or even correct. That is what canons are for, in fact: people start arguing over simple matters and so a canon has to be written to spell it out.

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

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Bizzlebin said:
Your reasoning here is circular only because of the last answer. If we in turn go to scriptures for support, then the reasoning is not circular.
That's what I hope people will do on this thread: give solid theological and scriptural arguments rather than rely on circular reasoning.  I see many posters on BOTH sides of this debate using the same circular reasoning and going nowhere.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
The canon trumps his statement.
Do you have any idea of how little sense that makes? "His statement" is an EPITOME OF THE CANON IN THE PEDALION!
And do you think he plucked it out of thin air, or was actually describing the practice in his time?
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Do you have any idea of how little sense that makes? "His statement" is an EPITOME OF THE CANON IN THE PEDALION!
And do you think he plucked it out of thin air, or was actually describing the practice in his time?
The Pedallian is younger than the canon. Anyways, let us look at another Epitome. Balsamon:

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

Is it clear yet?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
ozgeorge said:
And what is he talking about as having been "invented" Bizzelbin?
Let me jog your memory. Here is actually what Balsamon said:
"At first, perchance, this was invented from pious feelings, because the hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the Lord's body, but, as time went on, piety was turned to the injury of the soul, so that those who did this when they came to receive with an arrogant and insolent bearing, were preferred to the poor."
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Absolutely.
Balsamon says "this was invented..." In other words, "this was an erroneous innovation". And what is he talking about as having been "invented" Bizzelbin?
It's Bizzlebin, but anyways, he is referring to it being an ancient Tradition, because he qualifies it with "at first," meaning this is the way it was done from the beginning. He is not calling it an invention in the sense of an innovation in the Faith, but simply uses the term, again with the qualifier, to show that it was invented/conceived/instituted in the earliest times. Again, this is the ancient practice. Two saints, and the canon itself, against one, and you.
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Let me jog your memory. Here is actually what Balsamon said:
"At first, perchance, this was invented from pious feelings, because the hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the Lord's body, but, as time went on, piety was turned to the injury of the soul, so that those who did this when they came to receive with an arrogant and insolent bearing, were preferred to the poor."
Exactly. People were doing it as a form of self righteousness. By this, it is shown even more clearly that this was the ancient practice, but in some cases lost favor due to pride. So, they innovated in order to stop the pride. This is why the canon was made, to stop that innovation, and return to ancient pratice. Makes perfect sense.
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
???
I hope you are joking. Your comprehension cannot possibly be that poor.
I must just be daft, you're right, because I keep seeing things like

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

and

"takes it with his mouth"

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

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
I must just be daft, you're right, because I keep seeing things like

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

and

"takes it with his mouth"

More than that, I think two distinct people said that! I am really losing it!
So, you take phrases out of sentances and draw conclusions on the meaning of the sentance based on these partial strings of words?
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
So, you take phrases out of sentances and draw conclusions on the meaning of the sentance based on these partial strings of words?
Hardly. If there is some part of those two quotes (in full) that I have not adequately explained, I'd be more than happy to. I am simply quoting the relevant material as it seems to be misunderstood.

Seeing that St. John of Damascus was born around the same time as Trullo, I think it is ridiculuous that you asserting he followed the more ancient practice! His birth only predates the canon by some 2 years!! How in the world does that work?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
Hardly. If there is some part of those two quotes (in full) that I have not adequately explained, I'd be more than happy to.
Please do.
Please quote the Canon and each epitome in full and explain each to me. That's the only way I can get a grasp of your argument.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
ozgeorge said:
Please do.
Please quote the Canon and each epitome in full and explain each to me. That's the only way I can get a grasp of your argument.
And while you are at it, could you please explain why the clergy are still given Holy Communion in the hand?
Let me give you a hint:
http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/v09i3.htm
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Please do.
Please quote the Canon and each epitome in full and explain each to me. That's the only way I can get a grasp of your argument.
Sure, I will start with the canon. Parenthetical information will be my "commentary" to show who is being addressed, etc. The Canon:

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

First Epitome:

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

Second:

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

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

So, a simplified timeline:

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

Hope that helps!
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
And while you are at it, could you please explain why the clergy are still given Holy Communion in the hand?
Let me give you a hint:
http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/v09i3.htm
Well the article sure shows some of the innovation Trullo had to fight against! But anyways, if you'll notice, the canon says nothing about priests being communed, only laymen. Again, no contradictions exist...
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
Hope that helps!
It does help me to see why you misunderstood. Here is what actually happened:

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

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

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
It does help me to see why you misunderstood. Here is what actually happened:

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

And this isn't just my version of history either, see for example: http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/v09i3.htm
You have not shown that the flesh being evil is the rationale. Even today, we are to consider ourselves unworthy. Are we all Manicheans? No connection. Also, you forget to include St. Cyril (4th century), who explicity says not to use hands! Or was he a Manichean too? If a 4th century Saint says not receiving in the hand was a common, widespread practice, and was developed at the beginning, I am inclined to take his word above yours! Even yoour article admits:

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

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
You have not shown that the flesh being evil is the rationale.... Even today, we are to consider ourselves unworthy. Are we all Manicheans?
Calm down. This is irrelevant. You've missed the point. The point is that Council of Trullo in it's 101st Canon explicitly states that Communion must be received in the hand, and condemns those who use a gold vessel to do so. Here it is again, note the section in bold, and in particular the underlined words:
"The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."
So at the time of the Council of Trullo- Communion was received in the hand. The reason the Canon banned pyxes and ordered everyone to receive in the hand was because it seemed to be Manichaeism.
The point is- something you thought was always the Tradition of the Church (receiving Communion directly in the mouth) in fact was not always the Tradition of the Church. It changed. You were wrong about it.
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Calm down. This is irrelevant. You've missed the point. The point is that Council of Trullo in it's 101st Canon explicitly states that Communion must be received in the hand, and condemns those who use a gold vessel to do so. Here it is again, note the section in bold, and in particular the underlined words:
"The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."
So at the time of the Council of Trullo- Communion was received in the hand. The reason the Canon banned pyxes and ordered everyone to receive in the hand was because it seemed to be Manichaeism.
The point is- something you thought was always the Tradition of the Church (receiving Communion directly in the mouth) in fact was not always the Tradition of the Church. It changed. You were wrong about it.
The problem is your assumption. You assume that it is saying "instead of [receiving in] their hands." However, this is incorrect, because the only time hands are mentioned is in the context of crossing them. So, the proper meaning is "instead of [crossing] their hands." This makes perfect sense contextually, where your interpretation draws upon the conclusion you already made, and not the actual text.

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

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
However, this is incorrect, because the only time hands are mentioned is in the context of crossing them.
No. Read the Canon again.
"But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift..."
means :
"Those who, instead of using their hands for the reception of the divine gift, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift....."

....<SIGH>.....
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
No. Read the Canon again.
"But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift..."
means :
"Those who, instead of using their hands for the reception of the divine gift, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift....."

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

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

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

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

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
Those who, instead of crossing their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift.....
This also makes sense if you try to imagine a person doing it, too. One cannot hold and receive in a vessel while keeping their hands crossed.

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

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

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

Bizzlebin, I've grown to like you a lot in this conversation, despite the trauma!
The hands were crossed for the reception of Holy Communion in the same way that a Godparent crosses his or her hands according to the rubrics of baptism to receive the Blessed Oil to anoint their Godchild prior to their immersion. The back of the right hand is placed in the palm of the left hand. Do this yourself, and you will see that your hands form a cross. A pyx is a small box made of gold which could easily rest in the right palm. If crossing the hands is a stable enough way to receive Blessed Oil (which is a liquid), then it is a stable enough way to carry a small box, or receive the Body of Christ (both of which are solid).
I was under the impression this was different. For example, I see everyone crossed over their chest and up towards their shoulders, not crossed in front of themselves. Perhaps it hinges on which type of crossing is implied here, so let us see if we can establish that. Knowing that the type of crossing you suggest would place the box in the hands, and not the arms, let us see if this is the situation suggested.

"But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels..."

This seems to imply that those who had vessels also didn't cross their hands, else the canon wouldn't say "instad of" but rather "in addition to," or "upon." And why is this? If the crossing you suggested was implemeted, it would be a peice of cake. But, if the arms were crossed over the chest, as I see practiced to this day, it would be next to impossible to be crossed and hold a vessel at the same time. So, the answer appears.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
I was under the impression this was different.
And it has just dawned on me that this was the case!
This is what St. John of Damascus means when he says:
"placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King"
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
And it has just dawned on me that this was the case!
This is what St. John of Damascus means when he says:
"placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King"
A great quote for someone who was a baby at the time of the Council! It is ultimately inconclusive. The only way we can get the answer of the early Church is to go back to someone in the early Church, St. Cyril. However, seeing as his quote has been beaten to death, let us look for another. From Dionysius the Great, Epistle III:

"The boy returned bearing the portion; and as he came near, and before he had yet entered, Serapion again recovered, and said, "You have come, my child, and the presbyter was unable to come; but do quickly what you were instructed to do, and so let me depart." The boy steeped the morsel in water, and at once dropped it into the (old man's) mouth; and after he had swallowed a little of it, he forthwith gave up the ghost."

Hopefully that is sufficient. And, you should still explain how the canon failed to mentioned the box being held in crossed hands.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
dropped it into the (old man's) mouth;
That's strange....the boy (who was not a clergyman) "dropped" it into the dying man's mouth....Why did he "drop it" if he was using an impliment to "place it" in his mouth? Was he perhaps not using an impliment but handling It with his hand?
Have you ever cared for someone who is dying? I have...many times...
They don't even hold their own glass to drink from, you have to do it for them.
Hardly conclusive.
 
Top