|
1 members (San Nicolas),
367
guests, and
98
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,604
Members6,169
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Father Ambrose,
Whether it is a development or innovation depends on one's point of view and bias. There are tons of things both East and West could be blamed for as being "innovations." But some of them could merely be called "developments."
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Gordo,
As Patrick Dennis once said: "stir, never shake - [shaking] bruises the gin!"
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
This is all so terribly UNimportant in the realm of things.
It is nothing but idle talk...as well as the perpetual 'I am right, you are wrong' syndrome! ARGH!
Alice ALICE: Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!! This reminds me of the mention another brother here made about the sharing of the Eucharist in the Soviet Gulag. No less than Metropolitan Laurus of thrice blessed memory told this brother that in the darkest days of the gulag Christians of all stripes shared the Eucharist when they could get the necessary bread and wine for the Liturgy. As I recall, the statement that was made was that when you are facing the firing squad in the morning many of these things that separate us have little meaning--especially when you're being shot together. In Christ, BOB Brothers and Sisters, <chuckle> We have a whole Forum here devoted to the Old Believers whose existence and whose separation from the Church is based on these things.. Do we spell Jesus as Iisus or Isus? Do we use two fingers or three when crossing ourselves? Do we sing Alleluia once or three times? Do we do our processions round the church widdershins or deiseal? Now an entire unfortunate schism of 4 centuries and millions of Christians is based on these minutiae. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Dear Fr. Ambrose and others:
How do we decide what is important and what is not important? What is necessary in doctrine and practice and what is not? As for sharing Eucharist in the Gulag: which Christians should share and which should not? For example, should an Arian and an Orthodox share Eucharist in the Gulag? Or a Monophysite and Catholic? Or a Baptist and Catholic? Who is included in being a Christian and who is not and how much must one believe to be counted as orthodox? After all, my Baptist family members would say that the only thing important is to love Jesus and all these other discussions are just distractions. Why not say that all that matters is that we love God and that we try to be nice to people? Why go beyond that then? And why not, in the Gulag, admit the ethical Deist to communion? And if we say yes, let's admit all these to communion and let's not argue over things; then what do we say to St. Maximos the Confessor and the other martyrs and confessors who risked their very lives defending such technical matters as whether to say Christ had two energies or one?
Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 12/17/08 03:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Dear Fr. Ambrose and others:
How do we decide what is important and what is not important? What is necessary in doctrine and practice and what is not? As for sharing Eucharist in the Gulag: which Christians should share and which should not? For example, should an Arian and an Orthodox share Eucharist in the Gulag? Or a Monophysite and Catholic? Or a Baptist and Catholic? Who is included in being a Christian and who is not and how much must one believe to be counted as orthodox? After all, my Baptist family members would say that the only thing important is to love Jesus and all these other discussions are just distractions. Why not say that all that matters is that we love God and that we try to be nice to people? Why go beyond that then? And why not, in the Gulag, admit the ethical Deist to communion? And if we say yes, let's admit all these to communion and let's not argue over things; then what do we say to St. Maximos the Confessor and the other martyrs and confessors who risked their very lives defending such technical matters as whether to say Christ had two energies or one? Dear Joe, Here is the greatest little booklet for getting a grip on these things - Christianity or the Church written by one of Russia's holy newmartyrs Archbishop Hilarion who was swept away in the Russian holocaust.. http://web.archive.org/web/20050302165342/http://pravoslavie.ru/english/christchurchilarion.htm Tiny Url http://tinyurl.com/4wthhsI would really recommend getting a hard copy from your parish bookshop.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Thank you Father Ambrose, it is at the top of my list and I'll read it some time this afternoon or evening.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Whether it is a development or innovation depends on one's point of view and bias. There are tons of things both East and West could be blamed for as being "innovations." But some of them could merely be called "developments." Looking at the information which I posted, it is Roman Catholic liturgical scholars who are calling it an innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Is the fact that the Roman Church (I think others do as well) uses unleavened bread in the Eucharist a big barrier to unity? Is it that big of a deal?  Yes, it's a deal breaker for the Eastern Orthodox who make a direct connection between unleavened bread and the heresy of Monophysitism. This relates to the Armenian adoption of unleavened bread as a symbol of the mono- or mia- nature of Christ. It was in these heretical circumstances that the East first encountered unleavened bread. Fr. Ambrose, The Armenian maintain that while they adopted some things from the Latins (mitres, organs) they maintain thta unleavened bread was not one of them and they had this custom long before. They also state the use of unleavened bread and unmixed chalice have nothing to do with the natures of Christ but his purity. For them leaven is associated with the leaven of the pharisees and thus an impurity. The same goes for water, which is seen as an impurity as it weakens the wine. Since they are in communion with the other Miaphysite Churches that use leavened bread and mixed chalice I don't see how it can be maintained this use has any theological meaning. Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
The Armenian .......... maintain thta unleavened bread was not one of them and they had this custom long before. I've always understood that they adopted the use of unleavened bread quite late, from the 6th century onwards? It was to emphasize/symbolize that the human nature of Christ was entirely assumed into His divine nature and that Christ had no human soul. There is information scattered over the Net but one website which I have only just now encountered is from the Melkite Church in the States, the Eparchy of Newton. The site has an extract from a book on Liturgy by the Melkite Catholic Exarch Anthony Aneed of Milwaukee of last century. The Melkite Exarch says pretty much what I learned on this matter..... the Melkites and the Orthodox would seem to be agreed on this. "The Armenians unlike all the other Christians of the East, save the Maronites, use unleavened bread in the Holy Eucharist, as the Latin church does. The heretical Armenians, all of whom are "Monophysites" (that is, believers in but one nature, viz., the divine - in our Lord, after the teaching of Eutyches), abstain from mingling water with the wine in the Mass, in order to give as great a prominence to their belief as possible; for water is symbolic of the human nature of our Saviour, which these people maintain was wholly absorbed by the divine, so that a vestige of it did not remain. (Burder's Religious Ceremonies, p 180; Smith and Dwight's Travels in Armenia, passim; Vetromile, Travels in Europe and the Holy Land, art. "Eastern Rites.") Excerpted from Syrian Christians, A Brief History of the Catholic Church of St. George in Milwaukee, Wis. And a Sketch of the Eastern Church, by Exarch Anthony J. Aneed, Milwaukee, 1919. http://www.melkite.org/Liturgy.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
[The Armenian .......For them leaven is associated with the leaven of the pharisees and thus an impurity. Perhaps one reason why the Eary Church and the Orthodox today will not allow unleavened bread is that it is unsuited for the unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist; the Mosaic law prohibits its use in a sacrifice. Unleavened bread is the Bread of Affliction in the Old Testament. The Jews were forbidden to eat it except for seven days of the year. Given the Jewish attitude to unleavened bread it makes sense why the Church shied away from its use and chose to use leavened bread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
We are also forgetting the Miracle of Lanciano, occassioned by a Greek priest celebrating the Latin Mass and doubting if the unleavened bread of the Latins was valid for the Eucharist. The Orthodox who maintain unleavened bread is improper are simply wrong on this one.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
We are also forgetting the Miracle of Lanciano, occassioned by a Greek priest celebrating the Latin Mass and doubting if the unleavened bread of the Latins was valid for the Eucharist. The Orthodox who maintain unleavened bread is improper are simply wrong on this one. Fr. Deacon Lance, That happened with a Greek priest? Amazing. I never knew that. Thanks for sharing. Fr. Deacon Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
We are also forgetting the Miracle of Lanciano, occassioned by a Greek priest celebrating the Latin Mass and doubting if the unleavened bread of the Latins was valid for the Eucharist. The Orthodox who maintain unleavened bread is improper are simply wrong on this one. Fr. Deacon Lance, That happened with a Greek priest? Amazing. I never knew that. Thanks for sharing. Fr. Deacon Daniel Fr. Deacons, what is the miracle of Lanciano? Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,348 Likes: 99
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,348 Likes: 99 |
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano in the 8th century
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.
During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.
The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon. Joe: I didn't know the story either so I googled "Lanciano" and found a website. This is taken in toto from that site. www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html [ therealpresence.org] BOB
Last edited by theophan; 12/18/08 11:35 AM. Reason: additional information
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Joe:
After the consecration (in a Latin Mass celebrated by the Basilian monk) the host became real flesh and the wine became real blood. That was in 700s.
Today, both remain intact, still flesh and blood, and millions of pilgrims throughout the centuries have been to Lanciano.
This is one of the reasons why in the Latin rite Catholic Church we have "Perpetual Adoration!"
Amado
|
|
|
|
|
