Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
48
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
0
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
0
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.
 
Top