Shouldn't the biggest ecumenical concern be the epiclesis?

[EphelDuath]

NOTE: Considering the apparent gravity of this subject, it seems almost impossible for me to phrase this question in a way that doesn’t offend anybody. So please take my word for it that I don’t intend to cause offense in any way, if I do.

I find it somewhat strange that about half of ecumenical dialogues with Eastern Christians seems to revolve around the filioque. While it would certainly be concerning if a profession of faith had a theologically erroneous statement in it, it seems like that should be entirely dwarfed by the difference between the Latin and Eastern sacramental theology of when the consecration occurs in Mass/Divine Liturgy.

In Latin theology, the consecration occurs at the Words of Institution. In Eastern theology, the consecration occurs at the epiclesis. This issue seems to be oft considered nothing beyond a coffee-table intrigue, but I don’t see why that’s the case. This is a pretty big deal.

If an Eastern Christian were to attend Holy Mass in the Roman rite, he would be inclined to worship (what Latins consider) bread and wine for the 30 seconds or so that happens between the epiclesis and the Words of Institution. That is idolatry. Whereas if a Latin Christian were to attend an Eastern Divine Liturgy, he would be inclined to view the (what Eastern Christians consider to be the) Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be bread and wine for the 30 seconds or so that happens between the epiclesis and the Words of Institution, whilst everybody around him is committing idolatry.

An easy way to sweep this under the rug would be to say that the consecration occurs at different times in the rites, according to the intention of the celebrant. But that also seems quite troubling to me, since that turns a supernatural, sacramental power of the priesthood into a subjectivity; quite contrary to the ‘catholic’ spirit of there being One Body in Christ. Furthermore, that would also seem to suggest that both Latin and Eastern Christians should not object to the fact that separated Christians with invalid priesthoods, like the Anglicans and Methodists, are not committing idolatry despite the fact that they have no power to confect the Holy Eucharist.

Perhaps I am missing something very significant in the matter? If somebody could point me int he right direction. God bless.

 

[malphono]

The concept of “the moment of Consecration” is strictly Western and totally alien to the Orient and East. It simply doesn’t exist. For us, the bare minimum for “validity” (to use another Scholastic concept) is the Preface (the Father), the Institution Narrative (the Son), and the Epiklesis (the Holy Ghost). Preferably, though, we consider the Anaphora as a whole to be consecratory. This is perhaps most evident in the ACoE recension of the ancient Anaphora of Ss Adai & Mari, which contains no explicit Institution Narrative, yes is considered (even by Rome) to be consecratory.

In particular to the Syriac Churches there is also the Rite of the Fraction which, while not consecratory in itself, is seen as the completion of the action. I believe it’s similar for the Copts.

 

[theistgal]

“Idolatry”?

 

[TimothyH]

As a Roman Catholic, I don’t really focus on when the consecration “occurs.” The exact instant of time it occurs isn’t really important to me.

I don’t usually even look at the altar but have my eyes closed in prayer. The consecration can’t be seen, felt or heard anyway so there is no moment to see or hear. Even for the priest holding the sacred species in his hand there is nothing to experience,

The calling down of the Holy Spirit at the epiclesis is an amazingly beautiful part of the Mass and rarely fails to take my breath away. The same Holy Spirit which was present with Mary in a special way and made Christ present in her womb is also present at the altar in a special way and makes Christ present under the appearance of bread and wine. In this way the Mass is not only a participation in Calvary but a participation in the annunciation and incarnation as well.

The above ^^^ paragraph are my own thoughts, not based on any theology or teaching of the Church. I just find the epiclesis to be sublime, and together with the words of institution and the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist, altogether breathtaking.

I don’t see why there has to be an “ecumenical concern” about this at all. Debating the moment of consecration is like debating the moment of Christ’s ressurection. He was hidden in the tomb for a reason, and the moment of consecration is similarly hidden from us. Why foment debate when it doesn’t exist? Why poke a bees nest with a stick?

-Tim-

 

[MisterCorduroy]

I’m so glad that Vatican 2 returned the epiklesis to the Latin Mass. It had been missing since the Council of Trent–so to an Orthodox Christian the Extraordinary form is invalid while the Ordinary Form would be. That is why Antiochian Orthodox parishes of the Western Rite tack on an epiklesis to validate the Liturgy of St. Tikhon (Anglican) and the Liturgy of St. Gregory (Roman).

Some Orthodox theologians say that the Bread & Wine actually become Jesus during the Preparation Liturgy (Proskomedia) before Matins and DL, so during the entire DL He is present in the Eucharist!

The idea that it occurs at the epiklesis dates to Metropolitan PETER in 17th century Russia, which incidentally, corresponds to the Council of Trent. Apparently no one decided to define when the change occurrs for 1600 years!

Before that most held the view of St. John of Damascus: “If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit … we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable”.

 

[EphelDuath]

The concept of “the moment of Consecration” is strictly Western and totally alien to the Orient and East. It simply doesn’t exist. For us, the bare minimum for “validity” (to use another Scholastic concept) is the Preface (the Father), the Institution Narrative (the Son), and the Epiklesis (the Holy Ghost). Preferably, though, we consider the Anaphora as a whole to be consecratory. This is perhaps most evident in the ACoE recension of the ancient Anaphora of Ss Adai & Mari, which contains no explicit Institution Narrative, yes is considered (even by Rome) to be consecratory.

But practically speaking the priest begins adoring the Holy Eucharist at the epiclesis, correct? To generally say that the consecration happens throughout the Anaphora, and not at a specific point, is consubstantiation, which has been anathamatized at the Council of Trent due to it being a talking point of Martin Luther. This actually makes ecumenical considerations of Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy even more troubling.

As a Roman Catholic, I don’t really focus on when the consecration “occurs.” The exact instant of time it occurs isn’t really important to me.

Oh? Why not? It is firmly canon in Latin theology that the consecration happens at the Words of Institution. That is the moment when the preparation should cease and adoration begins. The difference in the host between the two points is between bread and wine, and the Most Holy Flesh and Blood of God. The worship the former is idolatry, to worship the latter is religion.

I don’t see why there has to be an “ecumenical concern” about this at all. Debating the moment of consecration is like debating the moment of Christ’s ressurection. He was hidden in the tomb for a reason, and the moment of consecration is similarly hidden from us. Why foment debate when it doesn’t exist? Why poke a bees nest with a stick?

It could just be ignored entirely, swept under the rug; this is true. But why not do the same for Protestantism? Let’s just ignore the invalid priesthoods of the Anglicans and Methodists. It would be a betrayal of the truth, and of the First Commandment, but hey, why poke a bee’s nest?

I’m so glad that Vatican 2 returned the epiklesis to the Latin Mass. It had been missing since the Council of Trent–so to an Orthodox Christian the Extraordinary form is invalid while the Ordinary Form would be. That is why Antiochian Orthodox parishes of the Western Rite tack on an epiklesis to validate the Liturgy of St. Tikhon (Anglican) and the Liturgy of St. Gregory (Roman).

There is an epiclesis in the Tridentine Mass, both before and after the Words of Institution:

*Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quaesumus, bene ☩ díctam, adscríp ☩ tam, ra ☩ tam, rationábilem, acceptabilémque fácere dignéris: ut nobis Cor ☩ pus, et San ☩ guis fiat dilectíssimi Fílii tui, Dómini nostri Iesu Christi.

Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects, to bless, ☩ approve, ☩ ratify, ☩ make worthy and acceptable; that it may be made for us the Body ☩ and Blood ☩ of Thy most beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.*

And:

*Súpplices te rogámus, omnípotens Deus: iube hæc perférri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ maiestátis tuæ: ut, quotquot ex hac altáris participatióne sacrosánctum Fílii tui Cor ☩ pus, et Sán ☩ guinem sumpsérimus, omni benedictióne coelésti et grátia repleámur. Per eúndem Christum, Dóminum nostrum. Amen.

We most humbly beseech Thee, almighty God, command these offerings to be borne by the hands of Thy holy Angels to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine majesty, that as many as shall partake of the most holy Body ☩ and Blood ☩ of Thy Son at this altar, may be filled with every heavenly grace and blessing. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.*

Even if that were not the case, Vatican II didn’t “return” the epiclesis, since the Roman Canon of the Tridentine Mass was barely edited to become Eucharistic Prayer I in the Pauline Mass (the only minor difference being that some of the intercessory saints can be omitted in Pauline EP). If the Orthodox require an edit to the Tridentine Mass to makes its epiclesis valid, then the post-Vatican II liturgy requires an edit to its first Eucharistic Prayer as well.

And supposing you are right on this point, doesn’t this imply that the Latin Christians haven’t had a valid Eucharist since, what, A.D. the 3rd century? That literally makes ecumenical dialogue impossible, then, since that fundamentally would hold that the Catholic Church has had a defective liturgy for the majority of its history, something that the Church would never teach or compromise on.

 

[MorEphrem]

It seems that you’re being a bit difficult. I think malphono put a nail in the coffin when he explained a “valid” Eucharist (to put it in scholastic terms) requires a Trinitarian invocation: Father (Preface), Son (Institution), and Holy Spirit (Epiclesis). Clearly we’re not committing idolatry in the Eastern liturgies because all three are present by the Epiclesis and clearly the Latins aren’t committing idolatry because all they’re doing is shifting the order of the three, nonetheless, all three are still present. We wouldn’t consider the Eucharist true flesh of God at the Latin epiclesis because the three required parts are not present.

To say that an immediate completion event can be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in the Anaphora is mere speculation and it’s an attempt at full comprehension of a sacramentum, i.e. etymologically - a mystery. Such speculation creates a certain utilitarian legalism where it becomes a question if it’s just efficacious to have the principle parts why include those other prayers that “do nothing.” I dare to say that’s what the Novus Ordo is.

 

[Zekariya]

There is an epiclesis in the Tridentine Mass, both before and after the Words of Institution:

*Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quaesumus, bene ☩ díctam, adscríp ☩ tam, ra ☩ tam, rationábilem, acceptabilémque fácere dignéris: ut nobis Cor ☩ pus, et San ☩ guis fiat dilectíssimi Fílii tui, Dómini nostri Iesu Christi.

Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects, to bless, ☩ approve, ☩ ratify, ☩ make worthy and acceptable; that it may be made for us the Body ☩ and Blood ☩ of Thy most beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.*

And:

*Súpplices te rogámus, omnípotens Deus: iube hæc perférri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ maiestátis tuæ: ut, quotquot ex hac altáris participatióne sacrosánctum Fílii tui Cor ☩ pus, et Sán ☩ guinem sumpsérimus, omni benedictióne coelésti et grátia repleámur. Per eúndem Christum, Dóminum nostrum. Amen.

We most humbly beseech Thee, almighty God, command these offerings to be borne by the hands of Thy holy Angels to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine majesty, that as many as shall partake of the most holy Body ☩ and Blood ☩ of Thy Son at this altar, may be filled with every heavenly grace and blessing. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.*

From what I have read, the Orthodox acknowledge that the Tridentine Mass an implicit epiclesis as opposed to the preferred and more certain explicit epiclesis found in the Divine Liturgy.

As to when the Gifts change, we bow before the Gifts during the Great Entrance which occurs before the Institution Narrative and before the Epiclesis.

In the East, it is considered a mystery as to when the Gifts change. What is generally accepted by all is that we know that they have changed after the epiclesis is finished. They may have changed at any earlier point but, after the epiclesis, we know with certainty that they have changed by now.

 

[EphelDuath]

It seems that you’re being a bit difficult. I think malphono put a nail in the coffin when he explained a “valid” Eucharist (to put it in scholastic terms) requires a Trinitarian invocation: Father (Preface), Son (Institution), and Holy Spirit (Epiclesis). Clearly we’re not committing idolatry in the Eastern liturgies because all three are present by the Epiclesis and clearly the Latins aren’t committing idolatry because all they’re doing is shifting the order of the three, nonetheless, all three are still present. We wouldn’t consider the Eucharist true flesh of God at the Latin epiclesis because the three required parts are not present.

To say that an immediate completion event can be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in the Anaphora is mere speculation and it’s an attempt at full comprehension of a sacramentum, i.e. etymologically - a mystery. Such speculation creates a certain utilitarian legalism where it becomes a question if it’s just efficacious to have the principle parts why include those other prayers that “do nothing.” I dare to say that’s what the Novus Ordo is.

I’m not intentionally “being difficult”. My goal is not to argue for the sake of argument while ignoring the proper answer. I’m looking for intellectual satisfaction, which I have not gotten from the first batch of replies to my inquiry.

You don’t need to have full comprehension of the divine mystery to know the moment when the consecration occurs. I mean, Latin Christians believe “This is my Body” / “This is the Chalice of my Blood” are the words which confect the consecration; but they are words that have to be spoken, which take time, so I cannot give you a reasoned analysis backed by temporal physics for how the consecration happens here. Does it happen the nanosecond in which the priest pronounces the first “t” noise? Or is the transubstantiation a process that takes time, which happens over the course of the whole sentence? This I cannot answer. I’m willing to accept that it is not something that I am supposed to know, nor is it at all important to my belief in God and His Church.

It IS troubling, however, to think that if I am mistaken as to when the consecration occurs, that I am either worshiping bread and wine as if it were Christ, OR I am viewing Christ and thinking He is merely bread and wine. This is a serious problem for me, and the problem has compounded upon hearing the justifications for this.

From what I have read, the Orthodox acknowledge that the Tridentine Mass an implicit epiclesis as opposed to the preferred and more certain explicit epiclesis.

As to when the Gifts change, we bow before the Gifts during the Great Entrance which occurs before the Institution Narrative and before the Epiclesis.

In the East, it is considered a mystery as to when the Gifts change. What is generally accepted by all is that we know that they have changed after the epiclesis is finished. They may have changed at any earlier point but, after the epiclesis, we know with certainty that they have changed by now.

Well, that’s a much more satisfying answer: the consecration doesn’t happen AT the epiclesis (necessarily), it’s just that this is when the Eastern Christians KNOW FOR A FACT that the consecration has occurred at this point.

Still, this is at odds with the Latin understanding of it. If the Divine Liturgy is merely a different expression of the Holy Mass (and vice versa), then theologically speaking, it should be the same sacramental power (for it comes from the same Holy Spirit). Bearing that in mind, how can the consecration occur at a different time, simply because the Latin and Eastern theological opinions differ? And if they do occur at the same time, is this not the conundrum that I have pointed out before?

Imagine this hypothetical scenario: a Latin Christian is attending a Divine Liturgy. The Eastern priest has just finished saying the epiclesis, but before the Words of Institution can be spoken, he is stricken by lightning and drops dead instantly. So what is on the altar? The Latin Christian would say bread and wine, for the consecration has not occurred yet. The Eastern Christian would say the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Zekariya]

Still, this is at odds with the Latin understanding of it. If the Divine Liturgy is merely a different expression of the Holy Mass (and vice versa), then theologically speaking, it should be the same sacramental power (for it comes from the same Holy Spirit). Bearing that in mind, how can the consecration occur at a different time, simply because the Latin and Eastern theological opinions differ? And if they do occur at the same time, is this not the conundrum that I have pointed out before?

The Council of Trent says that the priest must say, “I absolve you from your sins,” for the absolution to occur. The Eastern priests don’t generally say those words (unless they are using a latinized text).

Here is the traditional Byzantine absolution formula:
“God it was who forgave David through Nathan the Prophet, when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial, and the sinful woman in tears at his feet, and the Publican, and the Prodigal Son: May that same God forgive thee all things, through me a sinner, both in this present world, and in that which is to come, and set thee uncondemned before his dread Judgement Seat. And now, having no further care for the sins which thou hast declared, depart in peace.”

Yet, we do not argue about whether or not an absolution occurs. This is the same with the Consecration.

 

[EphelDuath]

The Council of Trent says that the priest must say, “I absolve you from your sins,” for the absolution to occur. The Eastern priests don’t generally say those words (unless they are using a latinized text).

Here is the traditional Byzantine absolution formula:
“God it was who forgave David through Nathan the Prophet, when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial, and the sinful woman in tears at his feet, and the Publican, and the Prodigal Son: May that same God forgive thee all things, through me a sinner, both in this present world, and in that which is to come, and set thee uncondemned before his dread Judgement Seat. And now, having no further care for the sins which thou hast declared, depart in peace.”

Yet, we do not argue about whether or not an absolution occurs. This is the same with the Consecration.

I could argue that “May that same God forgive thee all things” is functionally the same as “I absolve you from your sins”.

 

[Zekariya]

I could argue that “May that same God forgive thee all things” is functionally the same as “I absolve you from your sins”.

When the Latin Priest says “May God give you pardon and peace,” but forgets to say, “I absolve you from your sins,” am I absolved?

I would argue that there are different local Church traditions and it does not really matter. If it did, the bishops would be hashing it out.

 

[EphelDuath]

When the Latin Priest says “May God give you pardon and peace,” but forgets to say, “I absolve you from your sins,” am I absolved?

I had to do some brief research on this question. From Fr. Z’s blog:

*Q: I am deeply distressed over this. I went to Confession today and for the absolution, the priest said “…and I forgive you of all your sins…” instead of “…I absolve you of your sins…” Is my Confession valid and am I still in a state of mortal sin and thus unable to receive the Eucharist?

A: I am not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the dicastery that makes determinations about the validity of sacraments. That said, I suspect that the absolution was valid.*

Source: wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/quaeritur-nitwit-priest-changes-the-words-of-absolution-wherein-fr-z-really-rants/

I would argue that there are different local Church traditions and it does not really matter. If it did, the bishops would be hashing it out.

I think it does really matter, for if the claims I am making are correct, then it is entirely possible for one to intentionally worship bread and wine as God out of ecumenical or theological error.

 

[Zekariya]

I had to do some brief research on this question. From Fr. Z’s blog:

*Q: I am deeply distressed over this. I went to Confession today and for the absolution, the priest said “…and I forgive you of all your sins…” instead of “…I absolve you of your sins…” Is my Confession valid and am I still in a state of mortal sin and thus unable to receive the Eucharist?

A: I am not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the dicastery that makes determinations about the validity of sacraments. That said, I suspect that the absolution was valid.*

Source: wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/quaeritur-nitwit-priest-changes-the-words-of-absolution-wherein-fr-z-really-rants/

I think it does really matter, for if the claims I am making are correct, then it is entirely possible for one to intentionally worship bread and wine as God out of ecumenical or theological error.

“I absolve you from your sins” and “I forgive you all of your sins” both convey the same meaning: the priest is absolving your sins. It is not the same thing as, “May that same God forgive you all things”.

Here is the Roman Rite Absolution in its full form:
“God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

If the priest only said, “God, the Father of mercies, through …] may God give you pardon and peace,” and did not finish, the Catholic apologists would say that the absolution is not valid.

However, if you visited an Eastern Catholic Church and the priest said, “May that same God forgive you all things,” the Catholic apologists would say that the absolution is valid.

It is the same with the Mass.

Also, Western deacons can bless things. Eastern deacons cannot bless things. The sui iuris Church determines these nuances.

 

[EphelDuath]

“I absolve you from your sins” and “I forgive you all of your sins” both convey the same meaning: the priest is absolving your sins. It is not the same thing as, “May that same God forgive you all things”.

Here is the Roman Rite Absolution in its full form:
“God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

If the priest only said, “God, the Father of mercies, through …] may God give you pardon and peace,” and did not finish, the Catholic apologists would say that the absolution is not valid.

However, if you visited an Eastern Catholic Church and the priest said, “May that same God forgive you all things,” the Catholic apologists would say that the absolution is valid.

It is the same with the Mass.

Also, Western deacons can bless things. Eastern deacons cannot bless things. The sui iuris Church determines these nuances.

I see what you’re saying. The Church has the power to regulate what the legitimate formulas for penitential absolution or Eucharistic consecration are. So consecration can indeed objectively happen at a different time in Divine Liturgy than in Holy Mass.

Still though, if the Eastern perspective is that the consecration happens throughout the Anaphora and after the epiclesis is just when it is factually known that it has already occurred, then what happens if the Eastern priest instantaneously dies in the middle of Divine Liturgy? How would you know if it is bread and wine or Body and Blood?

 

[Zekariya]

what happens if the Eastern priest instantaneously dies in the middle of Divine Liturgy? How would you know if it is bread and wine or Body and Blood?

In the Byzantine tradition, once a Divine Liturgy is started it must be finished. If a priest dies in the middle of the Divine Liturgy, another priest must finish it even if it takes some time to get around to finishing it.

 

[malphono]

It seems that you’re being a bit difficult. I think malphono put a nail in the coffin when he explained a “valid” Eucharist (to put it in scholastic terms) requires a Trinitarian invocation: Father (Preface), Son (Institution), and Holy Spirit (Epiclesis). Clearly we’re not committing idolatry in the Eastern liturgies because all three are present by the Epiclesis and clearly the Latins aren’t committing idolatry because all they’re doing is shifting the order of the three, nonetheless, all three are still present. We wouldn’t consider the Eucharist true flesh of God at the Latin epiclesis because the three required parts are not present.

To say that an immediate completion event can be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in the Anaphora is mere speculation and it’s an attempt at full comprehension of a sacramentum, i.e. etymologically - a mystery. Such speculation creates a certain utilitarian legalism where it becomes a question if it’s just efficacious to have the principle parts why include those other prayers that “do nothing.” I dare to say that’s what the Novus Ordo is.

And of course I have to add a few more words. :yawn:

It’s interesting that I recently had a conversation with a very eminent Canon Lawyer (a JOCD who happens to be a close personal friend) about just this topic. In discussing the “bare minimum” concept (i.e, Preface, Institution, Epiklesis), he said “absolutely right! If I presented it just that way to the CDW even they’ll agree.”

The entire Scholastic idea of p(name removed by moderator)ointing one particular moment is what I’ve called in the past “magic words syndrome” and is something 100% alien to Oriental tradition. For us, the manifestation of the Real Presence is a completion. And there are some who hold that that very completion is only accomplished with the Rite of Fraction. It is there that we have the first (“minor”) elevation, and it after it that we have the second (“major”) elevation.

 

[twf]

And of course I have to add a few more words. :yawn:

It’s interesting that I recently had a conversation with a very eminent Canon Lawyer (a JOCD who happens to be a close personal friend) about just this topic. In discussing the “bare minimum” concept (i.e, Preface, Institution, Epiklesis), he said “absolutely right! If I presented it just that way to the CDW even they’ll agree.”

The entire Scholastic idea of p(name removed by moderator)ointing one particular moment is what I’ve called in the past “magic words syndrome” and is something 100% alien to Oriental tradition. For us, the manifestation of the Real Presence is a completion. And there are some who hold that that very completion is only accomplished with the Rite of Fraction. It is there that we have the first (“minor”) elevation, and it after it that we have the second (“major”) elevation.

Yes, and even from a strictly Latin perspective, it would be, at the very least, gravely sinful for a priest to attempt to celebrate a Eucharist without a preface and full eucharistic prayer…even if technically valid from a Scholastic standpoint. Would Christ be present? Perhaps. Would the sacrifice avail the priest? Not at all.

 

[TimothyH]

It could just be ignored entirely, swept under the rug; this is true. But why not do the same for Protestantism? Let’s just ignore the invalid priesthoods of the Anglicans and Methodists. It would be a betrayal of the truth, and of the First Commandment, but hey, why poke a bee’s nest?

I don’t know why you feel the need to mock me. You seem very angry. I’m sorry if I have upset you.

-Tim-

 

[theistgal]

Still, this is at odds with the Latin understanding of it.

Yes. It is. Because we are not Latins.