top of page



The Catholic doctrine is that after the bell is rung, and the magic trick of the hand signs and rituals is performed by the priest, the wafer and wine become"the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ." 


The Greek Orthodox version of the mass - with the term Metousiosis instead of transubstantiation.
After speaking to large numbers of Greek Orthodox believers they all insisted that the bread turns only into the flesh of Jesus, and the wine only into his blood. This made me think their doctrine is different to the Roman Catholic Mass, which is "That every crumb of bread, and every drop of wine, is the body, blood, soul and divinity of the crucified and resurrected Jesus." In fact on researching this I believe the Eastern Orthodox Religion doctrine is identical to the Catholic belief, except in the following ways:

1) There is more emphasis on the mystery of this ( to hide the contradictions of it ) .

2) Catholicism teaches the priest is himself is empowered to change the bread and wine into "God in the flesh", whereas the Orthodox believe the Orthodox bishop or priest calls upon God to do this, and is not empowered himself to do it.

3) Most Eastern Orthodox believers have had the actual doctrine of Orthodoxy about metousiosis hidden from them (perhaps because the Greek people are so world famous for their classical contributions to logical thinking that if it was explained they would see it is false.)

The oxymoronic belief of both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers is that they are superior in their doctrines on the eucharist to Evangelical Born Again Christians, because quote "We take the bible literally about the bread and wine and you do not". That is entirely wrong, as if they took the bible literally the bread would become only the body of Jesus, and the wine would become only the blood of Jesus. So as they say every crumb and droplet is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the crucified and resurrected Jesus, they infact do not take it literally, they add far more. Perhaps this is because if they did say "the bread is just his body", and "the wine is just his blood" it might lead to even more doctrinal contradictions. It would perhaps emphasize even more for instance that the latter literal belief would be confirming the resurrected body has blood in it. Are you sure it does?

If you take it literally, according to the bible, Jesus was made of bread, as he said "I am the bread of life" John 6:35.
If you take it literally, according to the bible, Jesus was a door, not a person, as he said, "I am the door" John 10:9.
If you take it literally, according to the bible, Jesus was a vine, as he said "I am the vine, ye are the branches" John 15:5

If you take it literally, according to the bible, Jesus was a lamb, a lion, a corn of wheat, a rose, a lily, a tree, a plant, a rod, balm, a bundle of myrrh, a cluster of camphire, manna, a rock, a stone, a shadow from the heat (Isaiah 25:4), an altar, a shield, a sceptre, etc, etc. etc.

​If you take it literally, according to the bible, a Christian is a sheep.
If you take it literally, according to the bible, a believer is wheat.
If you take it literally, according to the bible, a believer is salt.

If you take it literally, according to the bible, a unbeliever is a goat.

It is quite obvious though Jesus does not use the word "like" in these scriptures, as he does when he compares himself to a Hen and believers to her chicks in Matthew 23:37, that is what Jesus means, but the absurd Orthodox and Catholic religions take him literally. It shows they are not spiritual enough to discern the literal from the figurative, even if their theology leaves them cannibals!

And so the list goes on and on. Jesus spoke in such pictures all the time. He did not expect you to take him literally all the time, he expects you to be a spiritual person who can understand spiritual things. It is quite obvious Jesus did not expect the disciples in the last supper to take him literally when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood". He specifically said rather "do this in remembrance of me". How could they be eating him when his body was there with them? How could they be eating his crucified body when he had not yet been crucified? Or his resurrected body, when he had not yet been resurrected ? And when the bible clearly says the resurrected body is special and you are a fool if you think you know what it is like (1 Cor 15:35-58). Thinking the doctrine of holy communion is literally eating flesh and blood is credulity not Fath, and God calls it fornicaion or idolary in the Book of Revelation to think it is.

In the Book of Revelation chapter 17 it tells us about the Whore of Babylon, the Mother of Harlots, "having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:". It is a common doctrine among Evangelicals, born again Christians, and Protestants (and many others) that as it says she is a city, that City is Rome, and it is not just ancient Rome, as that certainly does not fit that "there will be no more music there; no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, the sound of a millstone, the light of a candle, and no bridegrooms nor brides ever again."  (Rev 18:21-24) Thus it is modern Rome too or it does not fit. Furthermore all these topics are identifying marks of Catholicism.
The cup she offers to the world "by whose sorceries all nations were deceived" is the cup of the mass and Orthodox eucharist (Orthodoxy are her daughters - the Mother of Harlots), and it is called fornication because that is the term God uses to describe idolatry, which is what calling a piece of bread "God" is, it is idolatry. And it is called "filthiness" and "abomination" because it would be cannibalism, they then supposedly swallow him and digest him in their stomach and intestines, breaking the scripture "you will not suffer your Holy One to see corruption." (Acts 2:25-32, Acts 13:34-37,)   and also if they eat the resurrected Jesus they eat him alive, and there are many other such blasphemous connotations.

It is very interesting that I can very easily give an Oxford English dictionary of the word "transubstantiation" or Martin Luther's doctrine "consubstantiation" but not "metousiosis".  

Oxford English Dictionary:
transubstantiation |ˌtransəbstanʃɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n, ˌtrɑːn-, -sɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n|noun [ mass noun ] Christian Theology
the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining. Compare with consubstantiation.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life...... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." John 6:47-58

The context is that believing in Jesus saves, just as it says in John 3:16, without sacerdotalism. He calls himself bread in the same paragraph, but he is not bread, he is fully God and fully human. So the context is not to take it literally. The context is spiritual. As Matthew Henry puts it in his Commentary:
"The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption; pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life. These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood."

The Catholic Mass or Orthodox Holy Eucharist, is a time also of worship. In Evangelicalism the taking of communion bread is also a time of contemplative worship of Christ, and thankful remembrance, but has nothing to do with a bogus change in the bread, we believe there is entirely no change in the bread, it is simply a symbolic remembrance. The pseudo change in the bread and wine is called sometimes bluntly by Protestants and Evangelicals and others "hocus pocus".

However by "corporate" many in Orthodoxy and Catholicism believe it is not just "corporate" as an assembly of people, but is somehow happening corporately in unity with Mary and saints and angels in heaven simultaneously, thus is "that" is happening it is implied transubstantiation or metousiosis must also happen. Its a bit like when a divorced and remarried Pentecostal backslider is confronted with bible evidence showing they are living in adultery in a second marriage, and insist "God told me to marry him" etc.

But this brings in the interesting issue of whether after the "change happens"  the bread and wine are worshipped. After all they are both supposed to be "God in the flesh, soul and divinity, crucified and resurrected body and blood of Jesus". Do the Orthodox or Catholics ever bow the knee to this bread, or fall down before it, or in anyway include it in worship, before or after eating it? I have seen Orthodox bishops and priests bowing and making the sign of the cross after "the divine rite" has been performed. If so this is idolatry. They worship of bread and wine. 

In Revelation 17.



quote: "The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark, The Disciple of the Holy Peter."

"St Ignatius is supposed to have tried to refute Gnosticism by referring to transubstantiation  St Ignatius was from Antioch and was supposedly taught by the Apostle John."

Also Justin Martyr. I am very suspicious of such quotes accuracy. Justin Martyr using the word "transmutation" seems like yet another anachronism 

It has been proposed by some Orthodox believers that the digestion of Jesus in the human gut is miraculous, as well as metousiosis occurring, in that the bread and wine become part of their body, every atom of it, a miracle. But this is a suggestion - I know of no official doctrine.


UNIFORMS, RITUALISM, GOLD AND ICONSCentral to the deception is the Orthodox Eucharist is the pompous way it is performed. Men dressed up in gold, , ritualism, the sign of the cross, icons galore surrounding them,  crosses and icons dangling around their necks, in a specially built so called "church" building found nowhere in the new testament, sporting old testament beards, songs like monastic chants,  lighted candles on golden candlesticks. There is even a rule I think about when they can and cannot wear the Dagon like miters on their heads, all to deceiving you with the trappings of religion, found nowhere in the bible, that God really is changing the bread into God in the flesh.

Lets us go back to the early church. First we lose the big church full of gold and icons. And do you really believe anyone in the early church gave out communion in a house dressed up in all that religious pomp and gold? How absurdly out of place it would look! The eucharist was a simple and worshipful remembrance of all Jesus had done for us in his death and resurrection. If you want to be deceived by pompous religious peacocks and trappings and add-ons all outside of holy writ, God gave you free will to do so. But he warned you of all that pomp and vainglory and deceptive religiousness in Revelation 18.


metousiosis is supposed to be theologically different in its definition than transubstantiation. But I am wondering if the word for the change of the bread and wine in the main languages where Eastern Orthodox Christianity prevails, is nearer to "transubstantiation" or "metousiosis" in Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Egypt, Lebanon, Lithuania. Syria, Uzbekistan etc. 
​" превращаться" or "денатурация"


1)  What good does eating a human body do for you? physically.
2)  How can you get the entire body of Jesus on a spoon? (Orthodoxy always feeds communion on a spoon - totally not in the bible)
3)  Why does it still smell, taste and look like bread and wine?
4)  How could the disciples eat Jesus if he stood in front of them?
5)  How could the disciples eat Jesus Christ crucified before he was crucified?
6)  How can they eat Jesus Christ resurrected before he was resurrected?
7)  If we eat Christ's resurrected body, that is a special transfigured body with special attributes and powers. It is in effect an altered body than the disciples are supposed to have eaten.
8)  Why isnt bowing the knee to (Roman Catholic) or prostrating yourself before (Orthodox) a piece of bread idolatry.
9)  Why isnt it blasphemy to call a piece of bread God? (it is called fornication to worship any thing or one except God)
10)  If you chew up Jesus and digest him, why does that not break the prophecy "You shall not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption"?  (Acts 2:27 & Acts 13:35 & Psalm 16:10) see 1 Corinthians 15:54 where it further says Jesus' resurrected body is incorruptible.
11)  The new testament says the crucifixion of Christ was a sacrifice ONCE for ALL.




12)  Why isn't eating human flesh and blood cannibalism?
13)  The cup the Whore of Babylon offers the world is obviously the mass.
14)  Why isn't multiple Christs across the whole planet in mass and holy euxharists a multitude of false Christs (a prophecy Jesus said would happen)
15)  (Catholics only) How can a man be empowered to create God in the flesh?
16)  The Book of Acts forbids drinking blood.
17)  Why does Jesus say the communion is specifically only a remembrance?
18)  If you have "no life in you" unless you have physically eaten Jesus, does that mean no one can be saved without the mass or eucharist supplied through men? (the real meaning is you should have an all consuming love for God that transcends even the love of your family, without which the relationship of a true believer is not there.) 
19) In Orthodoxy, they drop onto a spoon together:
a) bread (his body, blood, soul and divinity) onto
b) wine mixed with water (his body, blood, soul and divinity), so why is that not two of Jesus? Same eating the crumbs
c) The priest take the elements separately, as if it is a higher form of taking it, as trusted not to spill crumbs, whereas the masses must be spoon fed it in a mixing of the two. It may be the so called laity kept dropping crumbs on the floor and standing on them, thus this tradition evolved (?).
20)  Nowhere in the bible does it say to mix water and wine for communion (Orthodoxy).



21) In Orthodoxy the priest takes "the elements" separately, being careful every crumb has been eaten up, put on a napkin and take wine, so no separate droplets fall to the dust. That is simply a different communion than the laity in the same service.




22) The Jewish Passover (The Feast of Unleavened bread) did not use leaven, so the bread was unleavened and the wine was grape juice according to most Evangelical preachers. So how is the Holy Eucharist the same as Jesus gave if the bread and wine are different (in Orthodoxy - who use leavened bread and alcoholic wine?


23) It is as obvious to spiritual people that the eucharist or mass bread do not turn into flesh and blood, as it is that the Miracle of Holy Fire that occurs every year in Jerusalem is a complete and utter fake. It is as real sa saying "It is not raining, that is the angels crying." 

​24) Do you admit that if the bread and wine do stay the same, as Evangelical born again Christians say, then by saying the bread and wine are the "body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ, it is an act of idolatry (spiritual fornication), especially if you bow to them or prostrate yourself before them? Answer.

25) If the Orthodox Church do not believe they eat the flesh and blood of Christ, what do they think they eat, and when did they repudiate the Pope and the Catholics as heretics for thinking and saying they do?

26) The Orthodox religion (that performs infant communion) puts water into the communion wine. This is not found in scripture. Giving children and babes neat wine is against natural parental instincts, thus in order to practice their bogus tradition of infant communion (as if part of their salvation) water may have been added to the wine for this cause, to help to dupe people into the practice.

​27) In the Great Schism the Orthodox believers accused the Roman Catholics of "Judaising the communion" by using unleavened bread not leavened bread, but in so doing they pointed to the fact the first communion, a passover, did use unleavened bread.

28) The Roman Catholics and Orthodox believers DO NOT take the bible literally about the communion, if they did they would believe the wine is ONLY blood and the bread is ONLY his Body. If the Orthodox want to say they are different because they really do believe it is blood only, and body only, there seems to be few conflicts over it, as it would mean a VERY pronounced difference between transubstantiation and metousiosis.  It is worded in Orthodoxy as if they believe the change is that simplistic, but if they stick to this it brings up a lot of questions Catholics would not necessarily have to answer. Like drinking blood is forbidden even in the new covenant in Acts.

​29) "Do this in remembrance of me." How could they be remembering his death and resurrection when he had not died yet? the obvious answer the Orthodox might give is "it was an instruction for future eucharists"....... but then they stop and think < if I say that, the very first eucharist was just bread and wine, like Evangelicals say! > thus they decide to totally discount that possibility and instead prefer to believe they were remembering his death then, and were eating his crucified and resurrected body, with such fanciful excuses as "God dwells outside of  time!" Yes but Jesus died inside of time, and it had not happened yet, and they were not remembering him then, or his resurrection, neither were they eating his resurrected body.
​30) when the bread turns into the body of Jesus, is it his crucified body without resurrection, his resurrected body, or his ascended body?

​​29) When put in its simplest rendering it is "Eat and digest Jesus to "stay saved", this meal can only be provided via priests."

​25) If they supposedly eat the resurrected Jesus, they a) "eat him alive", and, b) "digest him alive". a) is quite painful, b) even more so unless you say he dies in the process of eating,

​26) If you chew the bread you have (say) 50 Jesus in your mouth at the same time, as each crumb is the "body, soul and divinity" of Jesus, and at very least 50 people in the communion queue eat 50 different Jesus.


The Orthodox way of taking the eucharist is unhygienic. Plunging the same spoon into people's mouths over and over again can spread several viruses and diseases, including the common cold, mumps, herpes simplex (cold sores), strep throat, mononucleosis (kisser's disease), and possibly meningitis. It is even possible, though it seldom happens, to contract foot and mouth disease in this way. The same napkin is used over and over again too.

In what year was a spoon even first used?

*) According to Orthodox historians the Roman churches celebrated the eucharist in Greek until well into the third century. Just wondering if the historians of Catholicism say the same thing?

Quote: "When the Pharaoh freed the Israelites, it is said that they left in such a hurry that they could not wait for bread dough to rise (leaven). In commemoration, for the duration of Passover no leavened bread is eaten, for which reason Passover was called the feast of unleavened bread in the Torah or Old Testament.[10] Thus matzo (flat unleavened bread) is eaten during Passover and it is a tradition of the holiday."
As you mentioned, the unleavened bread is bread of Affliction since it is the bread that they had to eat when they were wandering in the desert for 40 years. The new bread is the bread of life. Since Christ has come into the world we are no longer afflicted. The way to Paradise has been reopened and this leavened bread represents the New Covenant. - I am not a priest.
The word for unleavened bread (azumos) does not appear in any of the gospel narratives of the last supper. Only the word for leavened bread (artos). The most ancient tradition for the Eucharist is to use leavened bread. All of this is indisputable and commonly known among Orthodox Christians.
Just an fyi from the 1895 Patriarchal encyclical to Rome: "IX. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior, celebrated the divine Eucharist for more than a thousand years throughout the East and West with leavened bread, as the truth-loving papal theologians themselves also bear witness; but the Papal Church from the eleventh century made an innovation also in the sacrament of the divine Eucharist by introducing unleavened bread." 

​Luke 22:15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat ...
And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat
this Passover with you before I suffer. ... 

Mark 14:12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread ...
... it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where
do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" ... 

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread ...
... first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked,
"Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" ... 

Luke 22:11 and say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks ...
... and say to the master of the house, "'The Rabbi asks you, Where is the
room where I can eat the Passover with my disciples?' ...

WHO INVENTED the word transubstantiation?
I was given this bogus sounding quote supposedly by Justin martyr to "prove" he thought he ate human flesh
"And since you asked about Justin Martyr, here is a quote from him:
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.6
Justin Martyr. (1885). The First Apology of Justin. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 185). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. ?????????

"During the Eucharist, the Priest calls down (invokes) the Holy Spirit (in Greek: epiklesis) upon the gifts (the bread and the wine). They then change into the actual body and blood of Christ. The precise way in which this happens is a divine mystery"..... the doctrinal difference with Rome seems to be that the Catholics say the priest does this, and the Orthodox say Jesus possesses the priest and does it.
The gifts change completely into Christ's body and blood and this change is termed 'Transubstantiation' i.e. the outward appearance remains the same, but the substance changes. 

"The Council of Jerusalem 1672 uses several words "the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed "
but it completely rejects in very strong words the Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation.
"Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord""
"From the same Council, as to whether Christ is fully present in both bread and wine.
"Thus the Lord is in the Eucharist with **all His being,** and He is in each and every particle, down to the tiniest. He does not depart after the time of Communion, or at any time, so that the Body and Blood revert to their former nature. The Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist should be given the same worship and honor which we would give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. ""
​Thank you for that quote, Very interesting. I have some questions that arise from it
1) "the same worship and honor" do you ever bow the knee to the elements after you say it changes (Catholics bow the knee)? From other quotes from your colleagues I doubt it, as you believe there is no special moment it changes. Am I Right?
2) "He does not depart after the time of Communion" I heard once (I cannot verify it) that to avoid saying the body is digested, breaking the scripture "you shall not suffer thy holy one to see corruption" the Catholics evolved a doctrine that once the bread goes inside you it reverts to mean bread and wine. I think this is just a rumour. Right? Neither you nor they believe the change is reversed. Is that correct?
​ Orthodox don't actually "bow the knee." Instead we do either waist bows, or what we call earth bows (full prostrations when you touch your forehead to the floor - rather like what you see Muslims doing.)
Like · Reply · 3 mins
XYZ: We can say for sure that the change has occurred at the time the priest prays.... 
Priest: Again we offer to Thee this spiritual and bloodless worship; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.[5]
(Deacon [pointing with his orarion to the diskos]: Bless, Master, the Holy Bread.)

Priest: Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,
(Deacon [pointing to the chalice]: Amen. Bless, Master, the Holy Cup.)
Priest: And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,
(Deacon [pointing to both]: Amen. Bless them both, Master.)
Priest: Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit.
(Deacon: Amen, Amen, Amen.)
there is no real concrete difference between Transubstantiation and Metousiosis. Both have the same final claim. The difference is in the ontology. In Latin ideation there is an instant becoming, a singular moment where the Gifts become His Holy Body and Precious Blood. In Orthodox ideation its more like a process that begins at the Entrance during Divine Liturgy and culminates with the Dismissal. There no singular moment when the Gifts "change" in Orthodox, instead again its a process
You are right. The change is not reversed.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
XYZ: The change has occurred when the priest prays to the Father to send the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. See the prayer I posted above.
P.S. The consecrated Gifts, Christ's body and blood, are usually worshipped with a full prostration to the earth.






I think it would be artolatry to worship the bread and wine before the Spirit has made the change.

"Metousiosis" means a change of essence, (not of substance).

2) infant communion.

iconostasis - 

And after receiving the "Blood," the priest says, "Lo, this hath touched my lips and purgeth away my sins."

The Eucharist
The Eucharist, usually called the Divine Liturgy, fulfils the command of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper: "Do this in remembrance of me".
Singing hymns ©As in many Western churches the Eucharist is a service consisting, in the first part, of hymns, prayers, and readings from the New Testament, and in the second the solemn offering and consecration of leavened bread and wine mixed with water, followed by the reception of Holy Communion.
The Orthodox believe that by the consecration the bread and wine are truly changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Communion is given in a spoon containing both the bread and the wine and is received standing. A sermon is usually preached either after the reading of the Gospel or at the end of the service. At the end of the Liturgy blessed, but not consecrated, bread is distributed to the congregation, and non-Orthodox are often invited to share in this as a gesture of fellowship.
Both parts of the Liturgy contain a procession. At the Little Entrance, the Book of the Gospels is solemnly carried into the sanctuary and at the Great Entrance the bread and wine are carried to the altar for the Prayer of Consecration and Holy Communion.
The prayer of consecration is always preceded by the proclamation of the Nicene Creed, frequently by the whole congregation.
The Orthodox Church lays particular emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist, and in the Prayer of Consecration calls on the Father to send down his Holy Spirit to effect the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
There are four different liturgies used throughout the year:

  • The Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (used on Sundays and weekdays)

  • The Liturgy of St Basil the Great (used 10 times a year)

  • The Liturgy of St James, the Brother of the Lord (sometimes used on St James' Day)

  • The Liturgy of the Presanctified (used on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent and on the first three days of Holy Week)

in the Eastern Orthodox Church there must be candles on the Holy Table during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy

Not being provocative but, the practice of feeding communion on a spoon with both elements present together is unlikely to have been used in the first church as Im not even sure spoons were used much then for eating. One website claims:
"What would a meal be like without any knives, forks, spoons, napkins or plates? Would you be able to eat without these things? The people living in Bible times used none of these things. In fact, even today the Arabs say, "What does a man want of a spoon when God has given him so many fingers?"
​So...... in what year was putting both elements of the eucharist on a spoon not separately introduced? Any idea?

quote........  "The origins of this tradition can be found as early as 120AD in the practice of fermentum, whereby a piece of consecrated bread was broken off and sent to another community in another place for a separate - yet now connected - Eucharistic celebration, thereby expressing the unity of the Church through communion. When this practice of traveling leaven was no longer taken up, a piece of the locally consecrated bread was dropped into the chalice and the tradition was explained through various allegory and metaphor, one of which being: this commixture symbolizes the reunion (resurrection) of Christ’s body and soul which were separated at the cross."
As far as when it started, "In the Early Church everyone, clergy and laity alike, received Holy Communion in the same manner: receiving the consecrated Body of Christ (in the form of bread) in their hands and then placing it in their own mouth, and sipping directly from the chalice. In time, concern over the danger of crumbs being accidentally dropped on the floor or some of the consecrated Blood of Christ (in the form of wine) being spilt, lead to the use of tongs, with which the elements were mingled together and placed carefully into the mouths of the communicants. By the 9th century, the Church began to use the Communion spoon for the same practical reasons, and it is this practice that remains in place today (though the clergy still receive in the ancient manner as they stand at the Holy Table)."

here the priests take them separately, being careful (notice) to sup up every crumb, before moving onto the wine chalice, then using a napkin in case a drop falls to the table

​The spoon seems to have developed over time because in many thousands of communions, the clumbsy laity have dropped crumbs or droplets of wine, that the priests might have trodden on, being accused of blasphemy? 



2)  ​


Study note:

​anamnesis and prolepsis

3)  ​  according to my research this website over simplifies Catholic doctrine, and even the Catholic quotations on the page, as in actual fact the RC Church believe every drop of wine and every crumb of bread contains (or rather "is") the body AND blood, soul and divinity of Christ. ​

​so called quotes by St Ignatius, 
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.





​heterodox |ˈhɛt(ə)rə(ʊ)dɒks|
not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs: heterodox views.
heterodoxy noun
ORIGIN early 17th cent. (originally as a noun denoting an unorthodox opinion): via late Latin from Greek heterodoxos, from heteros ‘other’ + doxa ‘opinion’.

so doesnt that PROVE its a forgery?

Hmm. These sound really late. Words like heterodox and schismatic sound like glaring anachronisms.
​what we proved is, that two anachronisms in your quotations is a very strong indication that if these quotations are genuine (I doubt it) and in context of Peter (he was never even in Rome) then someone is deliberately mistranslating them. Thus it seems like proof that the Orthodox church is creating FORGERIES to try to prove a link with the first church and the blasphemy of the mass

2)  ​

Central to the deception is the Orthodox Eucharist is the pompous way it is performed. Men dressed up in gold, , ritualism, the sign of the cross, icons galore surrounding them,  crosses and icons dangling around their necks, in a specially built so called "church" building found nowhere in the new testament, sporting old testament beards, songs like monastic chants,  lighted candles on golden candlesticks. There is even a rule I think about when they can and cannot wear the Dagon like miters on their heads, all to deceiving you with the trappings of religion, found nowhere in the bible, that God really is changing the bread into God in the flesh.
Lets us go back to the early church. First we lose the big church full of gold and icons. And do you really believe anyone in the early church gave out communion in a house dressed up in all that religious pomp and gold? How absurdly out of place it would look! The eucharist was a simple and worshipful remembrance of all Jesus had done for us in his death and resurrection. If you want to be deceived by pompous religious peacocks and trappings and add-ons all outside of holy writ, God gave you free will to do so. But he warned you of all that pomp and vainglory and deceptive religiousness in Revelation 18.

​Study note
​anamnesis and prolepsis

in the FORGERY St Marks Liturgy more anachronisms, quote "Notice yet another set of anachronisms in this FAKE Liturgy.....
it says:
with all the orthodox bishops, elders, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, singers, and laity, with the entire body of the Holy and only Catholic Church
The quotation saying "Orthodox" "Catholic Church" and "sub-deacons are all anachronisms, mega unlikely to be spoken by St Mark even if he did write this (he never)"

bottom of page