Orthodox communion does not draw the onus upon it

[Madaglan]

If it was happening then it was approved by the Bishop of Rome (so whether he partook of leavened bread does not signify), furthermore, in the Gospel of Matthew, the apostle describes “the Lord’s Supper” like so "On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread . … "

Note: Your statement said that the bread (leavened) and wine was always used in communion (pre-schism), and I just proved that this statement is misleading in that, no, leavened bread was not always used.

The Gospel of John suggests the Last Supper as a preparatory meal for the Passover, in which case unleavened bread was not necessarily used.

In any case, the Armenian Christians have used unleavened bread for over a millenium, and I don’t think it was due to the influence of Rome either.

.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Glad to see (most) of the contributions to the thread. . .

I’ve been making the preparations today for that ‘walloping storm’ prepared to bury us yet again and make the winter of 2009-2010 one for the history books, so haven’t been on the computer much. I’m hoping it won’t be as bad as the week before Christmas storm… .if y’all can spare any prayers I’d appreciate them especially as I’m supposed to be working this weekend too.

To think I moved to Virginia to get away from the heavy snows in Vermont --when as of now my old home town hasn’t had as much there as my new home has had **here.

**(It’s not my fault. The first year that I was here it was great!)

Can we say ironic?

Have a blessed evening and pray for reunification. I can see that our Orthodox brothers and sisters make formidable warriors for Christ (and I imagine that they can say the same for some of us too) --just imagine the witness we could offer **together. **

 

[jimmy]

For the record, it says “the sign… is more complete… the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” It does not say that the Eucharist itself is.

The Eucharist is ‘the sign’, so to say that the sign is more complete implies that the Eucharist is more complete.

 

[aspirant]

I’ve been making the preparations today for that ‘walloping storm’ prepared to bury us yet again and make the winter of 2009-2010 one for the history books

Oy oy oy. I hope I am prepared.

 

[crazzeto]

I find an interesting pattern of him being annoyed with anyone that disagrees on his point that the Catholic Church teaches heresy

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

I find an interesting pattern of him being annoyed with anyone that disagrees on his point that the Catholic Church teaches heresy

**Actually, I am comfortable with denials of “error” or heresy coming from RC contributors to this forum… that is to be expected.

What is enormously discomforting, however, is the persistent habit of some, who refuse to address the core issues of difference, blatantly misinterpret what has been said by Orthodox contributors, actually putting words never spoken into our mouths like calling the RC Church “of Satan” (Crazetto), falsely ascribing personal motivations to us (Aspirant) or just plain old personal sledging and name calling like Jahek Carnelian who thinks it’s fine to throw derogatory terms around at others like “bigot”.

It is also interesting that direct questions about RC teaching on the Eucharist are persistently ignored without even an attempt at a direct answer.

So, for about the sixth time - I will ask: What is the difference between an incomplete “sign” of the Eucharist, and an incomplete Eucharist - according to what is written in the RC catechism???**