Communion, Communion Spoons, and Irrational Fears

I recently came across a very insightful remark from a conservative writer (Denise McAllister) who was engaged in an online debate with someone over what the government should or should not be able to mandate. She wrote: "My freedom doesn’t end where your irrational fear begins." But of course the question of whether one's fears are rational or irrational is the question we have to consider.

There is unfortunately no risk free way for us to live in this world. If we were to avoid all risks, none of us would ever get into an automobile, but most of us do, because we consider that to be a manageable risk. If you drive while listening to the radio, or drinking a cup of coffee, you are adding to your risks... but these added risks are generally considered to be fairly minimal.

It is curious that while many local governments have closed churches, or severely restricted attendance, they have allowed marijuana shops and liquor stores to stay open. As a judge in Illinois recently pointed out, only 5 months ago, marijuana shops were not even legal, but they are now considered to be essential, but churches, which are protected by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution are not (at least in many states). But, apparently, some risks are worth taking -- it's just a question of what you think is important. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has said that it is not yet safe for churches to give communion to their people, when asked whether people should refrain from hooking up with strangers for sex, said:

"If you're willing to take a risk—and you know, everybody has their own tolerance for risks—you could figure out if you want to meet somebody. And it depends on the level of the interaction that you want to have.... If you're looking for a friend, sit in a room and put a mask on, and you know, chat a bit. If you want to go a little bit more intimate, well, then that's your choice regarding a risk" (Newsweek: "Dr. Fauci Says You Can Meet a Tinder Date 'If You're Willing to Take a Risk'" 4/16/20).

So it is all a matter of what your priorities are.

The question of how the various levels of government in the United States have handled the Coronavirus is something that we will probably be debating for years to come, but within the Orthodox Church, there is also an ongoing debate regarding how various bishops have handled this crisis. The bishops have responded to this crisis in various ways. Some only imposed restrictions on services in those places in which this was mandated by the local authorities; while others either restricted attendance or cancelled them altogether, regardless of government mandates being imposed or not. I have seen many who have argued that bishops who imposed such restrictions are outright heretics and apostates. But I have never heard such arguments when a parish has cancelled services because of severe weather. It may be, that as we reflect on this crisis, many bishops will regret that they overreacted. It could also have been that if this virus had proven to be as deadly as many were saying, that some bishops might have regretted under-reacting. So this is not a question of heresy, but a question of wisdom -- i.e., what was the reasonable thing to do under the circumstances. We might disagree with a bishop's decisions, but even if he judged wrongly, one has to assume his motivations were good, and that a desire to subvert the faith was not among those motivations. But what concerns me most at present, is where some bishops are headed with their responses to how we should go forward liturgically, in the wake of this virus.

We currently have bishops mandating the use of a different spoon for each communicate, and some who have instituted the practice of giving people communion in the hand (with a portion of the intincted Eucharist), all driven by the fear that giving people communion with a communion spoon, as the Church has been doing for nearly a thousand years now, might cause someone to get the virus. The question we should ask, however, is whether or not this fear is rational or irrational.

It has been pointed out that the practice of the Church in the first millennium was for people to receive communion much in the same way that Orthodox clergy still do: first with the Body of Christ in the hand, and then by receiving the Blood directly from the chalice. Why did the Church end that practice, and begin communing people with a spoon? Because people were carelessly dropping portions of the Eucharist, and because of some people taking the Eucharist home for superstitious purposes. There is little reason to believe that people in our time will be more pious and careful than people in the first millennium -- and there is plenty of evidence to assume just the opposite.

While many are appealing to the older practice as a basis for what they propose as a solution to concerns over this virus, none are actually suggesting we return to that practice, because obviously, if the laity were all partaking from a common chalice, this would not be an improvement over using a single spoon. In fact, while the spoon is dipped back into the chalice and washed in the Blood of Christ after each person is communed, this does not happen to the outside of the chalice.

Those advocating for the use of multiple, or even disposable spoons, appeal to precedents from the past for how those known to be sick with infectious diseases have been communed. But the key factor is that this is how people who were known to have an infectious disease were communed -- such methods were never used as a preventative measure. Also, when a priest is communing the sick, he normally does so with the reserved sacrament, and so the wine that is in the chalice is unconsecrated wine.*

The question I have asked many people who have advocated that such changes are necessary is very simple: Is there any evidence that anyone has ever gotten sick from receiving communion with a spoon?  There answer to this question is "no." But some people then retort that this is simply because no one has ever done a scientific study of the question, but this is not true. It is true that, to my knowledge at least, there have been no studies involving the use of communion spoons, but there have actually been several studies of people using a common chalice -- which would be more likely to be a means of transmitting disease than a communion spoon, for the aforementioned reason -- and so such studies are a good way to answer the question of whether we are dealing with rational or irrational fears.

John Sanidopoulos, in his article "Scientific Studies on the Transmission of Infectious Diseases Through Holy Communion" has pointed to 6 relevant studies done between 1943 and 1998. One study found that even under ideal circumstances (ideal for allowing transmission, that is), the use of a common chalice showed 0.001% of organisms being transferred, but when studying conditions that actually followed real world practice, no transmission could be detected. In another study, three groups of people were studied: those who go to Church and receive communion, those who go to Church but who do not receive communion, and those who do not go to Church at all. What they found was that even among those who received communion as often as daily, there was no increase in one's risk of infection. And so even if you do not believe in God, fears of getting sick because of getting a virus from a communion spoon are irrational -- and if you do believe in God, and actually believe what we confess before we receive the Eucharist (which is that the Eucharist is truly Christ's Body and Blood), then you should have nothing to worry about.

Fr. Alkiviadis C. Calivas, in his article "A Note on the Common Communion Spoon," says that he himself has no such fears, but expresses his concern for those who do:

"In my sixty-four years in the priesthood, I have consumed the chalice thousands of times after countless Divine Liturgies without fear or hesitation, as every priest does. I am not certain, however, that every faithful parishioner would do the same, if they were asked. My point is this. Holy Communion should be a source of joy, hope and strength for everyone and not a test or measure of one’s faith in God’s providential care (Matt. 4:5-7). St. Paul reminds us that the love of Christ requires that we care for all persons, whatever their situation and be sensitive and responsive to their just needs and concerns for the sake of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9: 19-23)."

I have not been a priest for even half as long, but my experience supports Fr. Alkiviadis' conclusion that there is nothing to fear. When I commune the faithful, the last mouth that I place the spoon into before handing it off to the deacon is my own (to ensure that there is nothing left of the Eucharist on the spoon), and I have not so much as had a fever since several years before I was ordained a priest. If a virus could be transmitted via a communion spoon, there should be widespread instances of priests with oral herpes (which can be spread by the use of eating utensils that have been used by someone with that virus), but as a matter of fact, there is no evidence that anyone has gotten such a virus in this way.

I can appreciate Fr. Alkiviadis' concern for people who have irrational fears, but why should we encourage such irrational fears to persist by acting in a way that communicates to those suffering from them that we believe those fears are well founded?

I am afraid that we as a society may be raising up a generation of germaphobes who will spend their lives paralyzed by such irrational fears, and be so concerned about dying from the many germs and viruses that abound in our world, that they are unable to actually live. But it is far more concerning to contemplate the message that the Church would be sending to the faithful, if we act as if receiving communion is a physically dangerous act. It is indeed spiritually dangerous to receive communion in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27-29), but which of the saints ever taught or suggested that the Eucharist could be a means of transmitting a disease? None did. In fact there is a well known episode from the life of St. John of Shanghai:

"Vladyka's constant attention to self-mortification had its root in the fear of God, which he possessed in the tradition of the ancient Church and of Holy Russia. The following incident, told by O. Skopichenko and confirmed by many from Shanghai, well illustrates his daring, unshakable faith in Christ. "Mrs. Menshikova was bitten by a mad dog. The injections against rabies she either refused to take or took carelessly… And then she came down with this terrible disease. Bishop John found out about it and came to the dying woman. He gave her Holy Communion, but just then she began having one of the fits of this disease; she began to foam at the mouth, and at the same time she spit out the Holy Gifts which she had just received. The Holy Sacrament cannot be thrown out. So, Vladyka picked up and put in his mouth the Holy Gifts vomited by the sick woman. Those who were with him exclaimed: `Vladyka, what are you doing! Rabies is terribly contagious!' But Vladyka peacefully answered: `Nothing will happen; these are the Holy Gifts.' And indeed nothing did happen."

If someone does not really believe that the Eucharist is what we say it is, then indeed they should not receive communion, because "...he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29).

Aside from all that has been said, when we speak of "risk" or "chance" as Christians, we should understand that these are simply means of referring to the many variable factors that we do not know. We, however, do not believe in a God that is a helpless observer, who fondly hopes that things will work out well for us. We believe, that if we are doing what God wants us to do, that we don't need to worry beyond that. The worst that can happen is that we will die, and go to be with Christ for all eternity. We believe that not a sparrow falls apart from the will of the Father (Matthew 10:29), and as St. Anthony of Optina said during a cholera epidemic (which killed far more people than the coronavirus is likely to):

"You should not be afraid of cholera, but of serious sins, for the scythe of death mows a person down like grass even without cholera. Therefore, place all your hope in the Lord God, without Whose will even the birds do not die, much less a person."

For more on this question, I would highly recommend the article: "A Response to "On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague""

*I personally wouldn't worry about it even then, but this is perhaps why more caution is shown.

Update: You could just skip my article, and go directly to Presbytera Eugenia Constantinou's "More Dangerous than Covid-19," which says it about as well as it can be said.

Stump the Priest: The Reserved Sacrament

A Communion Set for bringing Communion to the Sick

Question: "With access to services being limited due to the Coronavirus lockdown, we have been told that we can be given communion from the Reserved Sacrament, but this is something I know almost nothing about. Is there some form of prayer or other service used when receiving communion in this way? How should I prepare or fast? Are there differences that may be applicable if one is healthy and receiving or ill? What exactly is the Reserved Sacrament? Does include the Blood or is it just the Body?"

What is the Reserved Sacrament?

The Reserved Sacrament is very similar to the Eucharist that the faithful partake of at the Presanctified Liturgy. The Presanctified Eucharist is prepared at a regular Liturgy. An additional Lamb (the Eucharistic Bread to be consecrated at the Liturgy) is prepared for each Presanctified Liturgy that will be celebrated in the coming week. Before the clergy commune, they take these Lambs, and they are intinctured, which means that the priest takes the spoon and carefully pours small amounts of the consecrated Blood on the Lamb, and then this is placed into an artophorion (αρτοφοριον, which literally means a "bread bearer").

An Artophorion similar to the one we have in our parish.

An artophorion is designed to allow the Presanctified Eucharist to dry, without it drying too much. The Reserved Sacrament is prepared in exactly the same way, but it is not immediately placed into an artophorion or a tabernacle (which is a larger container, that is normally kept on the altar year round).

A Tabernacle

How is the Reserved Sacrament Prepared

Ideally, the Reserved Sacrament is prepared on Holy Thursday (which commemorates the Mystical Supper and the Establishment of the Eucharist by Christ), but it can be prepared at any full Liturgy. The difference between preparing the Reserved Sacrament and what is done with a Presanctified Lamb, is that rather than putting the whole Lamb into an artophorion, after the Liturgy is concluded, the priest cuts this Lamb into pieces appropriate for communion people. Some priests simply leave this in a diskos that is covered, and allow it to dry in that way. Our service books tell us to heat these particles so that they are completely dry.

The service book does not spell out exactly how this is to be done, beyond saying that a brick is to be placed on the Antimins, and that the particles are to be heated over burning coals, stirred regularly, and removed from the heat, and then returned to the heat as many times as is necessary to dry them thoroughly, but without burning them.

There may be a better method of doing it than the one I came up with, but what I did was to take a tin coffee can, with the bottom removed (the can needs to be a bit wider than the brick, for the air to flow properly). I took a pair of pliers to put crimps along the top, to allow the flow of air, and then used a ceramic bowl, which with sand in the bottom of it (in order to elevate the coals), and so those parts are arranged as is seen in this picture:

I then place the bottom of a larger tin coffee can on top of that, which then allowed me to place a liturgical plate on top on top of it, which looks like this:

The liturgical plate with the Reserved Sacrament is placed on it, and stirred.

 I found doing it with about 5 minutes on, followed by 5 minutes off, and repeating this for about 30 to 40 minutes, worked well. This allowed me to use two plates, and to rotate them. The particles were constantly stirred with the liturgical spear, while over the heat.

In the Tabernacle, there is a drawer that slides out, into which these particles are to be placed. The service books say that if the material of the tabernacle is not gold or silver, it should be lined with paper. Ours is gold plated on the outside, but not inside of the drawer, and so I use a large index card, and cut it to line the drawer, and then placed these particles in it -- after, of course, allowing them to cool down and to air on a covered diskos for about a day.

How is the Reserved Sacrament Brought to People?

Normally, the Reserved Sacrament is used to commune people who are too sick to come to Church, but it is also used to commune people who cannot come to Church for other reasons. For example, it is used to bring communion to prisoners who do not have access to a liturgy in prison. There are Communion sets specifically designed for this purpose.

A communion set similar to one of the sets that we use in our parish.

These sets have a container sufficient to hold as many portions of the Eucharist as will be needed, a small spoon, and a small chalice. Often, they also have a container that can hold some communion wine. This set is further placed into a pouch of some sort that the priest can carry around his neck.

How Should Someone Prepare to Receive the Reserved Sacrament?

Normally, you should prepare in the same way that you would when you are preparing to receive communion at a regular Liturgy. If someone is sick, obviously, their ability to fast may be limited or non-existent. Also, if someone was near death, there would be no time for them to do pre-communion prayers, at least not at any great length. You should also prepare for confession.

What Happens When the Priest Arrives?

The first thing I do, is to find a sturdy table that I can place the holy things on. Often, this is the family dining table. I lay out one communion cloth on the table, and then open up the Communion Set, pour some wine into the chalice (this wine is not consecrated), and then place the portions of the Eucharist into the chalice that will be necessary to commune those present. Doing this first allows time for these portions to soak in the wine, so that they will be soft by the time Communion is given. While the wine poured into the chalice is not consecrated, the reason why there was an intincturing when preparing the Reserved Sacrament was so that both the Body and the Blood would be in the Reserved Sacrament.

I then hear the confessions of those who will be communed. Then, we use the service of "The Office When in Extreme Urgency Occasion Arises To Give Communion to a Sick Person," If there are other people present, I will ask them to hold the Communion Cloth under the chin of the person who is being communed. Communion is given to those who have prepared, the services is concluded, and then I cleanse the chalice, and put things away. Those who have communed can say the prayers of Thanksgiving right away, or after the priest leaves, but they should say it one way or another, unless they are too ill to do so. If someone is too ill to read prayers, someone can read the prayers aloud for them to hear.

Stump the Priest: Communion and Celiac Disease

The Icon of the Inexhaustible Cup

Question: "What should a person with Celiac Disease do about receiving Communion?"

The answer to this question is very similar to a previous question with regard to concerns about the spread of germs by receiving communion (See: Stump the Priest: Communion and Germs). It does come down to whether we really believe what we say we believe about the Eucharist.

We cannot use gluten free flour to make the bread that we use for Holy Communion, and a person should be communed with both the Body and the Blood of Christ. Reviewing comments from Orthodox people who suffer from this disease, the comments generally suggest that they receive communion normally, and have no problems as a result.

I had someone who raised this issue with me, and because they were concerned about it, I made a point of giving them only a small portion of the Body. But as time went on, they eventually said not to worry about it any more, and never reported having any issues as a result.

Update: Also of interest is the following scientific study that concludes that a daily gluten intake of  less than 10 mg is unlikely to cause significant problems to those suffering from celiac disease, even in extreme cases:

Systematic review: tolerable amount of gluten for people with coeliac disease

Stump the Priest: Leavened Bread

Question: "Why do Orthodox Christians use leavened bread for the Eucharist?"

The biggest reason, and the one that is the most indisputable, is that this is how we have always done it.

Furthermore, when we read the accounts of the Mystical Supper (or "Last Supper"), there is nothing in the description itself to indicate that the meal was a Passover meal. And most importantly, the bread that is used in this meal is referred to in Greek simply as "artos" (ἄρτος), which refers to leavened bread; rather than "azymos" (ἄζυμος), which refers to unleavened bread.

There are different possible explanations. One is that the Passover actually began the next day, on Holy Friday evening, following the day on which the Passover lambs were slain (Friday, during the day) -- both the type (the sacrificial lambs) and the antitype (Christ Himself, the Lamb of God).

Dom Gregory Dix makes a very compelling case that this meal was actually not a Passover Meal, but a Chaburah Meal (see The Shape of the Liturgy, New Edition, New York: Continuum, 2005), p. 50ff). And interestingly,  the "Agape Meal" we find in Jude 1:12, clearly has the Chaburah Meal as its background (Richard Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary: Jude - 2 Peter, ol. 50 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983), p. 84f). And so this meal is very likely what the Lord observed, perhaps on the eve of the day the lambs were sacrificed, which was the day prior to Passover itself, which began that evening (Friday evening).

If this was a Passover meal, in some sense, it is also possible that the Lord simply broke with the usual patterns, and used leavened bread, though that seems to me a less likely explanation.

Why leavened bread? St. Symeon of Thessalonika addressed this question, in his commentary on the Divine Liturgy:

"And the bread is leavened, because it is in a sense living on account of the leaven, and it is truly complete, for it witnesses that the human nature which the Word of God assumed was fully complete. He became flesh without being altered, and having assumed human nature, He has a rational and intellectual soul. And he is complete God and complete man, so that He might refashion me completely.

And there are three ingredients in it, because of the three parts of the soul, and in honor of the Trinity: 1) wheat flour with leaven which represents the soul, 2) water which represents baptism, and 3) salt which signifies the mind and teaching of the Word. He said to His disciples, "You are the salt of the earth," that is, the teachers. And "Have salt in yourselves," representing knowledge and love at the same time, because He who is incarnate is one of the Trinity. The bread is cooked in fire, because He, being God, was wholly united to us, and He gave us a share of His power and His energy; or rather all of Him was wholly united to our whole original state" (St. Symeon of Thessalonika: The Liturgical Commentaries, trans. Steven Hawkes-Teeples, (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2011), pp. 187-189).

Fr. John Peck has a very good answer to this question that I would recommend for further reading:

Eucharistic Bread: Leavened or Unleavened?

George R. A. Aquaro also has a good article on this question:

Leavened versus Unleavened Bread: What's the difference?

Stump the Priest: Communion Spoons

Question: "Doesn't the 101st canon of the Council of Trullo forbid the use of communion spoons? Why are the laity not allowed to receive communion in the hand and from the chalice, as they did at the time of the Ecumenical Councils?"

The canon in question has nothing to do with communion spoons. It addressed the practice of some people who rather than receive communion in the hand, as was the practice at that time, would make vessels of their own, and would receive communion in these vessels, thinking it was more pious than to receive it in the hand. Some may also have used these vessels to take some of the Eucharist to their homes. This practice was specifically prohibited by that canon:

"The divine Apostle loudly proclaims the man created in the image of God to be a body of Christ and a temple. Standing therefore, far above all sensible creation, and having attained to a heavenly dignity by virtue of the saving Passion, by eating and drinking Christ as a source of life, he perpetually readjusts both his eternal soul and his body and by partaking of the divine grace he is continually sanctified. So that if anyone should wish to partake of the immaculate body during the time of a Synaxis, and to become one therewith by virtue of transessence, let him form his hands into the shape of a cross, and, thus approaching, let him receive the communion of grace. For we nowise welcome those men who make certain receptacles out of gold, or any other material, to serve instead of their hand for the reception of the divine gift, demanding to take of the immaculate communion in such containers; because they prefer soulless (i.e., inanimate) matter and an inferior article to the image of God. In case, therefore, any person should be caught in the act of imparting of the immaculate communion to those offering such receptacles, let him be excommunicated, both he himself and the one offering them."

The practice of distributing the Eucharist to the laity with a spoon became the norm because of the practical issue of laity accidentally dropping particles of the Eucharist when communing. If you pay attention when people come up to kiss the Cross at the end of the liturgy, and receive the antidoron, you can't help but notice that there are almost always crumbs on the floor. We should of course make every effort to avoid this, even when it comes to antidoron, but when it comes to the Eucharist, this is an infinitely more serious problem.

The clergy still receive communion in the hand, and drink directly from the chalice -- and they have the benefit of having the Holy Table to do this over, so that if something falls, it falls on the Holy Table, and can easily be consumed. However, even in the Altar, and despite the usual care that is exercised, accidents sometimes still happen. Such things are far more likely to happen outside of the altar.

If we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, we have to believe that when it makes a change, like the introduction of the use of communion spoons, there is a good reason for it. There are those who selectively advocate some ancient practice be revived because "this is how they did it in the early Church," but they usually do not advocate a return to the strict penitential system that they had in the early Church. Those who joined the early Church did so at a time when doing so could easily result in their martyrdom, and they were held to a very high standard, and so there are practices that made sense in that context that do not work so well in the context of a Church in which many people, unfortunately, grow up in the Church with a much lower level of piety.

We don't have to speculate about the results of returning to this practice in our time. We can look at what has happened in the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II when they began to allow laity to receive communion in the hand. The result was not an increase of piety, but just the opposite. I know of a pious Roman Catholic who says more cockroaches receive first communion each week than people, because particles so routinely drop to the floor -- and most people do not seem to be concerned about it, either.

No less than Pope John Paul II observed:

"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect toward the eucharistic species have been reported, cases that are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful toward the Eucharist" (Dominicae Cenae 11.9).

The wisest course for us is to humbly accept the Tradition as we have received it, and to trust that what the Church has established is for our salvation.

See Also: Communion and Germs

Stump the Priest: Sacraments in the Bible

Question: "Why does the Orthodox Church teach many sacraments, and that they bestow grace, when the New Testament only speaks of two sacraments as only memorials: Communion and Baptism?"

Your question is based on three false premises. Contrary to your assumptions, the New Testament does not only speak of two Sacraments, and neither does it teach that Baptism and Communion are "only memorials". Furthermore, your question assumes that if something is not explicitly taught in Scripture that we should reject it, but this doctrine of Sola Scriptura is itself not only not taught in Scripture, but is in fact directly contradicted by Scripture (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 2:15). See my article on Sola Scriptura for more on that subject.

How many Sacraments are there?

In the service for the reception of converts from heterodox confessions, one of the affirmations that a convert is asked to affirm is: "Dost thou believe and confess that there are seven Sacraments of the New Testament, to wit: Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, Confession, the Priesthood, Marriage, and Anointing with Oil, instituted by the Lord Christ and his Church, to the end that, through their operation and reception, we may obtain blessings from on high?"

Do we find them in the Bible?

Yes, we do. Let's consider each of the Sacraments aside from Baptism and the Eucharist:

1. Chrismation: One place we find Chrismation mentioned in Scripture is in 2 Corinthians 1:21-22: "Now he who establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." And 1 John 2:20: "But ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all things." We also see in the book of Acts that the Holy Spirit was imparted by the laying on of hands of the Apostles (Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:1-7). And not only that, but we find Chrismation affirmed as a sacrament in the earliest writings of the Church (e.g., Tertullian's Treatise on Baptism (ca. 200 A.D.), 7:1; The Apostolic Tradition (ca. 215 A.D.) of St. Hippolytus 21:19-22; St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lecture 21 (on Chrism)).

2. Confession: When Christ appeared to the Disciples after the Resurrection, we are told: "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John 20:22-23). Obviously for this to have meaning, there would have to be some occasion in which the apostles, or their successors would either confer forgiveness, or choose not to confer it. And this clearly was not merely a "memorial", because Christ clearly says that Heaven will confirm their decision.

3. Ordination: It is clear from Scripture that there were offices in the Church (deacon, presbyter, bishop), and so there was some way that the Church appointed people to these offices. We see, for example, in Act 6:6, when the Apostles had selected the first deacons the seven men chosen were "set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." St. Paul admonished St. Timothy that he "Lay hands suddenly on no man" (1 Timothy 5:22) -- in other words, he was to be careful about who he ordained, lest he "be partaker of other men's sins..." There is such an abundance of testimony from the early Church on this that it hardly needs to be cited. But we see these three ranks of clergy in the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and martyred in 112 A.D.): “Similarly, let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s council and as the band of the Apostles. Without these no group can be called a church” (Trallians 3:13). 

4. Marriage is called a "covenant" in Scripture which has God Himself as a witness (Malachi 2:14): "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to St. Polycarp said that: " It becometh men and women too, when they marry, to unite themselves with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be after the Lord and not after concupiscence. Let all things be done to the honour of God" (Epistle to Polycarp 5:1). And Tertullian speaks of the sacrament of marriage in his treatise "To My Wife" (ca. 200 A.D.): "Whence are we to find (words) enough fully to tell the happiness of that marriage which the Church cements, and the oblation confirms, and the benediction signs and seals; (which) angels carry back the news of (to heaven), (which) the Father holds for ratified? For even on earth children do not rightly and lawfully wed without their fathers' consent" (To My Wife 2:8:4).

5: Holy Unction: We find this sacrament clearly described in James 5:14-15: "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

Are the Eucharist and Baptism merely "memorials"?

Christ taught his disciples that if they did not eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, they had no life in them (John 4:48-69), and even Martin Luther took Christ's words "this is My Body... this is My Blood" (Matthew 26:26-28) to mean that the Eucharist is literally, not merely figuratively, the Body and Blood of Christ.

St. Paul speaks of the Eucharist in two places in First Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, he says:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

And then in 11:23-30, he says:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

St. Paul says that the Eucharist is the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that if we partake of it unworthily, we eat and drink damnation unto ourselves, because we have not discerned the Lord's Body, and so we are are "guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord." That all seems awfully extreme if we are talking about a mere "memorial."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who, once again, was a disciple of the Apostle John himself, and bishop of one of the most important centers of the early Church said of the Eucharist:

“Be zealous, then, in the observance of one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one chalice that brings union in His blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop, with the priest and the deacons, who are my fellow workers” (Philadelphians 4:1).

“But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how they oppose the will of God…. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against the gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again” (Smyrneaens 6:2-7:1).

“Flee from divisions, as the beginning of evils. You must all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and follow the presbyters as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop. But whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, in order that everything you may do may be trustworthy and valid” (Smyrneans 8:1-2).

“Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David's race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that ye may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 20:2).

It doesn't sound like St. Ignatius thought the Eucharist was a mere "memorial."

As for Baptism, Christ said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16). St. Paul says that we are buried with Christ in Baptism so that we can be raised with Him (Romans 6:4), and that Baptism is the "circumcision made without hands" (Colossians 2:11). St. Peter said  that the Ark of Noah was a type of Baptism, and that Baptism is "the antitype [that which was foreshadowed by the Type], which now save us" (1 Peter 3:20-21).

Only if you ignore what Christians have always taught about these sacraments could you reach the conclusions you assume in your question.

Stump the Priest: Communion and Germs

Question: "We Orthodox Christians Commune with the same spoon. What about the transmission of germs and diseases? I think germs were discovered in the 17th century. Before that, illnesses were attributed to demons."

The big question here is what do we really believe about the Eucharist. If we really believe that it is the body and blood of Christ, we shouldn't worry about it.

There is an illustrative instance in the life of St. John of Shanghai:

"Vladyka's constant attention to self-mortification had its root in the fear of God, which he possessed in the tradition of the ancient Church and of Holy Russia. The following incident, told by O. Skopichenko and confirmed by many from Shanghai, well illustrates his daring, unshakable faith in Christ. "Mrs. Menshikova was bitten by a mad dog. The injections against rabies she either refused to take or took carelessly… And then she came down with this terrible disease. Bishop John found out about it and came to the dying woman. He gave her Holy Communion, but just then she began having one of the fits of this disease; she began to foam at the mouth, and at the same time she spit out the Holy Gifts which she had just received. The Holy Sacrament cannot be thrown out. So, Vladyka picked up and put in his mouth the Holy Gifts vomited by the sick woman. Those who were with him exclaimed: `Vladyka, what are you doing! Rabies is terribly contagious!' But Vladyka peacefully answered: `Nothing will happen; these are the Holy Gifts.' And indeed nothing did happen."

Even if you take the nature of the Eucharist out of the equation, scientists who have examined the question say that the risk of getting an infection from a gold or silver chalice with wine in it is very low... and they are examining those churches that have the laity drink directly from the chalice, whereas we use a spoon. Also, if illnesses could be passed on through the Eucharist, the clergy should be perpetually ill, because after everyone else has communed, they consume the rest of the gifts, but there has been no history of such things. If you are a believer, you shouldn't be concerned. If you are not a believer, you shouldn't take communion at all, because then, according to St. Paul, you may in fact become ill as a result of your unworthily partaking of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:29-31).

As for the claim that in the ancient world, they thought demons were the cause of all illnesses, this is simply not the case, as is evident from the Gospels, which always distinguishes between those who were ill and those who were demonized. If you take Matthew 8:1-16 for example, you have a leper cleansed (1-4), and there is no mention of demons. Then you have the healing of the centurion's servant (5-13), and again there is no mention of demons. Then you have the healing St. Peter's mother-in-law (14-15), who was sick with a fever, and so clearly had some sort of an infection, and yet again there is no mention of demons. In verse 16 it says that they brought to Christ many who were demonized, and he cast out the spirits with a word. In Matthew 4:24, just before the sermon on the mount, we are told "and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them." The demonized are only one category among all the others that are listed. So there is simply no basis for the statement that people in the ancient world thought that illnesses were all causes by demons.

Stump the Priest: What about "closed communion"?

Question: "What is a considerate response to the question as to why we have "closed" communion, especially since none of us are really worthy?"

First we should talk about the reasons why we do not allow the non-Orthodox to commune, and then we can talk about how to explain them to people whom we do not want to unnecessarily offend.

The word "communion" in Greek is Koinonia, and that word can be translated as "communion" or "fellowship". When we receive communion, we are not just expressing our communion and fellowship with God, but also our communion and fellowship with one another. We are proclaiming our oneness of mind and our unity of Faith every time we commune. So if we commune with those who are not Orthodox, we would be proclaiming a lie, because we do not share a oneness of mind or a unity of Faith. If we did, they would be Orthodox. We do not judge them, or condemn them, but we cannot pretend that we have a unity that we do not. For more on this, see "What should Orthodox Christians do, when there is no parish nearby?"

Now as to how to present this without causing unnecessary offense, it would depend on who you were dealing with. If you are dealing with a typical Evangelical who denies that the Eucharist is really the Body and Blood of Christ, I would begin by asking them what they believe about communion, and when they express their belief that communion is simply a memorial of Christ's death, I would explain what we believe, and then point out that we cannot share communion when we do not agree on what communion is.

If you get into a more involved discussion about the meaning of Communion, you can point out what St. Paul says in 1st Corinthians:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

What he is saying is that if we do not recognize that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, and approach it with repentance, and awe, we are eating and drinking to our own damnation. And if someone does not even believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, they are clearly "not discerning the Lord's body." And so it is the priest's responsibility to ensure that people who are not prepared for communion do not harm themselves by communing unworthily.

It is true that none of us is worthy of communion, but we can prepare ourselves to partake of communion in a worthy manner, as St. Paul teaches... and being a member of the Orthodox Church, and sharing in the unity of our Faith is a basic prerequisite to that.

Now if the person does believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, then they come from a tradition that also understands closed communion, even if they have relaxed it to some extent in recent years. No group that I am aware of affirms the Eucharist to be the true Body and Blood of Christ, and does not have some measure of closed communion. Roman Catholics are told that they may receive communion from the Orthodox, and would be willing to commune the Orthodox; but the reverse is not true, and this is a very recent change on their part. The historic position of the Church is that only those that you are officially in communion with may share communion. Being in communion with someone or some group is synonymous with saying that we are in the same Church. If we are not in the same Church, we are by definition not in communion.

And after explaining that we cannot share communion so long as we are not of oneness of mind and faith, and members of  the same Church, be sure to point out that we would be happy to fix that for them if they would like, and refer them to your priest, if they are interested.