My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

[jmdrake]

The Roman Catholic Church has never officially denied The Holy Trinity or the Person and Deity of Christ, the hypothetical conversation between the 7th Day Adventist and the Jehovah's Witness has the Adventist accusing the Jehovah Witness of denying these two things (they do, if you ever discuss these subjects with a Jehovah's Witness, they will tell you that Rome developed the Holy Trinity as a counterfeit version of Christianity during the reign of Constantine), whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses still worship on Sunday, something that Adventists believe was invented by Rome during the reign of Constantine.

Ummmmm....no. Read "From Sabbath to Sunday" by Samuel Bacchiochi. (I posted a link earlier in this thread). It lays out the position of the SDA church which is that prior to Constantine some Christian communities, most notably Rome, began observing Sunday as a way to differentiate between themselves and the persecuted Jews. Constantine passed the first law requiring Sunday observance throughout the empire.

One bizarre aspect of both these sectarian groups, which have their roots in Independent Baptist and Revivalist Churches, is that they both come to these opinions based on conspiracy theories about the early church councils. Both churches have essentially revived ancient heresies, the Jehovah's Witnesses reviving Arianism, whereas the Adventists are essentially proponents of classical Chiliasm with a side order of Judaizing legalism. You can defeat almost every argument that an Adventist makes for their innovative practices simply by opening up Galatians, the Jehovah's Witnesses are somewhat harder to convince with scripture since they have their own official translation which purposefully rewords much of the Gospel of John and a few other key NT passages to erase any trace of Trinitarian language.

You know what I find laughable? You're accusing Adventists of "legalism" while ignoring the true legalism in this thread. Legalism is when you are trying to impose law on others. Choosing for yourself to keep Sabbath (or Sunday for that matter if that's what you believe) is not legalism. It's not legalism to say adultery is wrong. It's legalism to say that adulterers should be stoned.

I had to look up Chiliasm. I'm more familiar with the term "millennialism." So I take it you don't believe in the millenium at all? What do you do with Revelation 20:1-6? Just ignore it? (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...36&version=ESV)

[Christian Liberty]

Wrong, CL. Again, you fail to see the nuance. The Seventh Ecumencial Council did not label those who do not venerate images of Christ as being heretics. What they call out to be heretics are those within the Church who are iconoclastic

So we're still heretics because we believe it is wrong to venerate images.

and make the same false accusations you are making against the baptized believers as being idolaters and worshiping images, when in fact the faithful do not worship images.

I wouldn't say you're conscientiously worshipping them. I do think you're committing second degree idoaltry, and that you're giving honor to them that only belongs to God. I am not making a judgment on your spiritual standing.

As for Dobson, I know very little about him or what he teaches, but if it is true what your are saying, then I can't understand why anyone would chose him to be a teacher of the faith.

Because they're baptists

I will not take communion with grape juice.

Neither will I. Its disrespectful. I dissent.

Furthermore I'm one of those people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...

I'll tolerate Presbyterian churches who screw this up for reasons discussed earlier, but I agree with you here as well. The cup Jesus used was singular, the one that ought to be used by the church ought also to be singular.

That's true. Good point.

I never understood how some Protestant faiths talk about taking the Bible literally but they don't celebrate the Eucharist with wine - or even regularly. I just don't get it.

"Pure" literalism is untenable, the Bible is meant to be taken as literally as the authors intended it, something dispenationalists do regularly.

That said things like wine instead of grape juice and some type of real presence seem very clear to me, and I think the NT supports weekly observance as well, though on the latter point most covenanters don't agree with me, hence my curiosity on what HU thought about it. i don't agree with pretty much any way that evangelicals and fundamentalists handle this issue, though I can't condone the mass either.

[Christian Liberty]

You know what I find laughable? You're accusing Adventists of "legalism" while ignoring the true legalism in this thread. Legalism is when you are trying to impose law on others

No, legalism is when you say certain works have to be performed in order to be justified

[TER]

So we're still heretics because we believe it is wrong to venerate images.

You would have to be an unrepentant Orthodox Christian in order for me to call you a heretic. Your belief is indeed heretical as defined by a Holy Ecumencial Council, but you yourself are not a heretic since you are not a baptized member of the Orthodox Church.

I wouldn't say you're conscientiously worshipping them. I do think you're committing second degree idoaltry, and that you're giving honor to them that only belongs to God. I am not making a judgment on your spiritual standing.

I understand you cannot see the difference between worship and veneration. I leave it up to God to convince you. In the meanwhile, make sure you don't kiss your mother on the cheek when you see her, lest you commit idolatry according to your heterodox standards.

[jmdrake]

No, legalism is when you say certain works have to be performed in order to be justified

The "work" that Jesus said Christians are to do is to believe. Seventh Day Adventists do not teach that one has to keep the Sabbath in order to be justified. Never have and never will. That said, legalism is seeking to force your definition of the law on others. That's why the Pharisees were legalized. It wasn't that they were seeking justification. They believed they were justified by being descendants of Abraham. They were seeking to condemn others. I know that's a hard pill to swallow but you are walking in the steps of the Pharisees.

Edit: Let's quit pretending that we can make up our own definition of words. Here's the dictionary definition of legalism. Note that it says nothing about justification.


Definition of legalism

1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>

2 : a legal term or rule

[Natural Citizen]

I'm of the view that Legal and Lawful are two entirely different phenomena. The latter being adherent to and a product of the Natural Law (God's Law) and the former being Man's twisted whims on how he wants morality to be defined in accordance with his wordly principles. The former is most often the consequence or application of an anti-moral Man-over-God philosophy by anti-moral men. There are very few legalities that are based on the primary foundation for moral code (God's Law. The Natural Law) these days.

I'll tell you, boys, the second you start attaching "ism" to something, it turns way more complicated than it has to be. And for what? I mean, really. For what? To stimulate agreement or disagreement in different religious factions?

End of the day, the core difference in what is lawful and what is legal remains the same.

[Christian Liberty]

You would have to be an unrepentant Orthodox Christian in order for me to call you a heretic. Your belief is indeed heretical as defined by a Holy Ecumencial Council, but you yourself are not a heretic since you are not a baptized member of the Orthodox Church.



I understand you cannot see the difference between worship and veneration. I leave it up to God to convince you. In the meanwhile, make sure you don't kiss your mother on the cheek when you see her, lest you commit idolatry according to your heterodox standards.

That's a very different issue. I wouldn't kiss my mom on the cheek as part of a worship liturgy, nor would I kiss a picture or statue of her, period.

The "work" that Jesus said Christians are to do is to believe. Seventh Day Adventists do not teach that one has to keep the Sabbath in order to be justified. Never have and never will.

I wasn't throwing that at you, just in general

.

That said, legalism is seeking to force your definition of the law on others. That's why the Pharisees were legalized. It wasn't that they were seeking justification. They believed they were justified by being descendants of Abraham. They were seeking to condemn others. I know that's a hard pill to swallow but you are walking in the steps of the Pharisees.

No I'm not. I don't believe I'm justified based on my lineage.

Edit: Let's quit pretending that we can make up our own definition of words. Here's the dictionary definition of legalism. Note that it says nothing about justification.


Definition of legalism

1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>

2 : a legal term or rule

That's not a very good theological definition. Or at least if that's the case, its a meaningless insult.

[RJB]

I understand you cannot see the difference between worship and veneration.

I somewhat understand his objections. I feel a bit of discomfort myself. As a man from a mid-western state, my father and I never hug. We love each other, but we're just not huggy people. Some of the old world sentiment that I see at a lot of Orthodox Churches, hugging and kissing on cheeks is a bit much for me. This same display directed at the icons and saints behind them can be baffling. For the Orthodox, the saints who wrote scriptures, and other early writings are very much alive. It is no difference than a husband kissing the picture of his departed wife or talking to her tombstone. It's not worship of saints, but rather that we are merely aware that we worship with those who have gone before us.

However, most churches have 1500 years of separation between them and the Church Fathers. To them, the ancient Church isn't just dead, it's almost forgotten. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Paul, and others are as distant as Zeus. For the Orthodox, they are remembered as family who died in Christ only recently.

In the Orthodox Liturgy the separation of Heaven and Earth is gone. We stand with the cloud of witnesses, with Jesus as the "Lamb standing as if slain," from Revelation. The Liturgy is timeless from it's beginning 2000 years ago, to present, and to the future.

I leave it up to God to convince you.

That's why I stay out of these these days. His wisdom is far grater than mine

[jmdrake]

No I'm not. I don't believe I'm justified based on my lineage.

You believe you are justified by your election. Same song different sheet of music. The point is that both you and the Pharisees believe/believed they were the "chosen people" for justification. And both you and the Pharisees are/were trying to impose your vision of law on others.

That's not a very good theological definition. Or at least if that's the case, its a meaningless insult.

What's insulting about it? That's an odd reaction. And if you have a theological dictionary that you would like to quote from then please post it. But you can't just make up meanings for words to suit the argument you are trying to make.

[TER]

That's a very different issue. I wouldn't kiss my mom on the cheek as part of a worship liturgy, nor would I kiss a picture or statue of her, period.

If you kissed a picture of her out of love and piety, does that mean you are worshipping her? Or the picture?

RJB hit the nail on the head. We kiss pictures of our fellow members in Christ (the Saints) out of love. It does not mean we are worshiping the Saints or the picture. Our love is directed to the one whose image is on the picture, just as it is when I kiss the picture of my beloved departed grandmother. I am not worshipping my grandmother just as I am not worshiping the Saint, who is also a beloved member of my family through Christ.

The Christian Faith is above all about love, and indeed a love enfleshed. It is love with movement and form. It is also a love with spirit and light. In fact, the closest thing we can say regarding the essence and ontology of God is the word 'love'. That is why St. John said "God is love". Our very ontological being in life is in relationship through love. Through communion with the other (both God and neighbor), we find true personhood, true being. That is what it means to be in the image of God - as a person who gives and receives love. This is the very mystery of the Holy Trinity, and our growth in theosis (that is, in the likeness of God) pertains to our ability to love and be loved.

Images and pictures are an extension of our great love for God Who has entered into the world and sanctified it. If God is love, and God is infinite, so too is love infinite. Thus while we worship the Uncreated God in Holy Trinity alone for through Him all love finds its source and being, we too have love for those dear to us, such as our family members by birth, our friends by choice, and our baptized brothers and sisters through Christ. There is plenty of love to go around when one has allowed Christ to enter into their hearts and transform them with divine love. From this overflowing love, we find the pious acts of veneration.

It is not mandatory to venerate an image of Christ or of a Saint. One is not a heretic because he feels uncomfortable doing so. It can be difficult for some due to cultural upbringing or previous indoctrination. It can be difficult also for some to differentiate between worship and adoration, especially for new converts. Having personal discomfort is not heresy, yet it does demonstrate there is room to grow spiritually. Yet because we may personally find discomfort or unease for our various reasons does not mean that those who do not are necessarily idolaters. And that is when a person is called a heretic within the Church - when they stubbornly place their individual beliefs, interpretations, and judgements to be above all and accuse their brethren falsely simply because they don't yet fully understand or comprehend.

No one is going to be shut out of the Kingdom for not using icons in their worship service or not venerating and kissing holy relics and icons. What will shut them out is placing their personal knowledge and wisdom to be greater than the Church and falsely accuse their brethren. That is why the Seventh Holy Ecumencial Council was done, in order to proclaim what is good to the Church and the Holy Spirit and lead the faithful towards God Who is love.

[Christian Liberty]

However, most churches have 1500 years of separation between them and the Church Fathers. To them, the ancient Church isn't just dead, it's almost forgotten. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Paul, and others are as distant as Zeus. For the Orthodox, they are remembered as family who died in Christ only recently.

I believe Ignatius was part of the same church that I am, as was Paul. That's not to say that Ignatius necessarily affirmed 100% of what I affirm. Unlike the Orthodox, I believe both church fathers and councils can err. But I also believe we need to tread carefully when it comes to such things and recognize the weight of what we're dealing with. Reformed and other Magisterial Protestants are a bit different than baptists and pentecostals in this regard.

[TER]

I believe Ignatius was part of the same church that I am, as was Paul. That's not to say that Ignatius necessarily affirmed 100% of what I affirm. Unlike the Orthodox, I believe both church fathers and councils can err. But I also believe we need to tread carefully when it comes to such things and recognize the weight of what we're dealing with. Reformed and other Magisterial Protestants are a bit different than baptists and pentecostals in this regard.

St. Ignatius lived in a different time, in a different world. There will be distinctions for sure. But with regards to eternal truths, there must be unity and confirmation. Otherwise, it would not be truth.

[Christian Liberty]

St. Ignatius lived in a different time, in a different world. There will be distinctions for sure. But with regards to eternal truths, there must be unity and confirmation. Otherwise, it would not be truth.

There's only one truth, but I believe the church's knowledge of that truth has progressed over time as understanding of rules of hermaneutics have been standardized and improved etc. I'm not opposed to the idea that someone like Ignatius could have had some theological errors.

[TER]

There's only one truth, but I believe the church's knowledge of that truth has progressed over time as understanding of rules of hermaneutics have been standardized and improved etc.

Have you ever sat around with friends and played the game of 'telephone'?

St. Ignatius is like second in the circle.

I'm not opposed to the idea that someone like Ignatius could have had some theological errors.

Are you opposed to the idea that you may have some theological errors and misinterpretations, and it is St. Ignatius, who is second in the circle, who is correct?

[Christian Liberty]

Have you ever sat around with friends and played the game of 'telephone'?

St. Ignatius was like second in the circle.

Perhaps, but its also like we have the original guy's writings.

Are you opposed to the idea that you may have some theological errors and St. Ignatius, who is second in the circle, is correct?

No, I'm not. I do, however, believe that hermaneutical skill as a whole has improved since Ignatius' day. A presupposition that I realize the Eastern Orthodox in particular would majorly object to. Different presuppositions leads to different conclusions.

[TER]

Perhaps, but its also like we have the original guy's writings.

Which guy?

No, I'm not.

That is a good answer. May you be blessed by God.

I do, however, believe that hermaneutical skill as a whole has improved since Ignatius' day. A presupposition that I realize the Eastern Orthodox in particular would majorly object to. Different presuppositions leads to different conclusions.

Hermaneutical skills? How about the hymns and liturgies of the Church, and the hagiography and writings of the Saints. Should these not play in our hermaneutical approach to finding the true and everlasting understanding of the verses in the Scriptures? Does not how the Christians lived and worshipped and understood and applied these verses give some light?

This isn't deciphering ancient Egyption codes. This is holding fast to the teachings of our fathers and mothers in the faith, who did the same going back to the Apostles. A hermeneutics which ignores time and space is one that is not centered on reality and truth, but many times on convenience and error. If we cannot easily believe and humbly confess that St. Ignatius had a closer understanding of the faith handed down by the Apostles than ourselves, than we need quickly to learn and believe. Otherwise, it is pride which consumes us and makes waste of us and keeps us from the truth.

[hells_unicorn]

I'll tell you, boys, the second you start attaching "ism" to something, it turns way more complicated than it has to be. And for what? I mean, really. For what? To stimulate agreement or disagreement in different religious factions?

I don't fully disagree with the spirit of your notion of "legal" vs. "lawful", though how you mean "legal" is where I think you lose the plot. Every person's idea of "the plain truth" usually involves a lot of hidden caveats, such as that sneaky little thing where various Baptist groups will talk on about God's plain spoken words, but boy do they get complicated on things when it comes to their unnecessary hangups on baptizing children.

Everybody has an "ism" attached to their faith sir, some are just a bit more honest with themselves and others about it.

[hells_unicorn]

No, legalism is when you say certain works have to be performed in order to be justified

I'm not going to be responding to Drake directly because I'm tired of the two of us talking past each other and it's extremely aggravating, but I kind of differ with you regarding this definition. Legalism has to do with terms of communion, or being subject to church censures for something that is either morally neutral or otherwise outside the purview of the Christian faith. Given that most Baptist-founded churches have a warped view of the relationship between the Visible and Invisible Church, there's a lot of ambiguity on what counts of "justification" vs. what is sanctification. Granted, the Adventists may not be threatening censure or excommunication for their views on dietary practices and doctrinal views of Christ's human nature, but the fact that they are preaching and making publications to bind the consciences of their congregations is highly problematic.

My biggest hangup with Seventh Day Adventism (apart from where it came from) is not only that they are reviving the defunct OT Sabbath Day, but also that while misinterpreting the letter of the 4th commandment (viewing the specific date as natural law rather than positive law), they don't actually apply a natural morality to the Sabbath day as a binding day of rest within the week. The 4th commandment is tied to the 1st table of the Decalogue, which deals with "loving God with your whole heart", if we're not obligated by natural morality to improve upon our observance of The Lord's Day, we have 9 commandments instead of 10.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not going to be responding to Drake directly because I'm tired of the two of us talking past each other and it's extremely aggravating, but I kind of differ with you regarding this definition. Legalism has to do with terms of communion, or being subject to church censures for something that is either morally neutral or otherwise outside the purview of the Christian faith.

Fair point, the word is sometimes used this way, and I'm OK with that. My hesitance here also comes back to my baptistic background. I've had plenty a person call me legalistic because I believe its not lawful to make images of Christ or because I believe its sinful to refuse to use wine in the Lord's Supper or because of my view of the sabbath (which probably isn't as strict as yours but is still far, far stricter than what is practiced in most dispensational leaning circles) and so on. I've seen it used to shut down conversation too many times to be willing to use it as an argument, even though of course on this matter I agree with you.

Given that most Baptist-founded churches have a warped view of the relationship between the Visible and Invisible Church, there's a lot of ambiguity on what counts of "justification" vs. what is sanctification. Granted, the Adventists may not be threatening censure or excommunication for their views on dietary practices and doctrinal views of Christ's human nature, but the fact that they are preaching and making publications to bind the consciences of their congregations is highly problematic.

I don't know what the SDA views of Christ's human nature is. I'd actually be significantly more worried about SDA Arminianism than the soft judaizing of being against the eating of certain foods, but then, I'm kinda weird like that

My biggest hangup with Seventh Day Adventism (apart from where it came from) is not only that they are reviving the defunct OT Sabbath Day,

Yeah, I don't agree with them, but I'd honestly rather someone keep Saturday than keep no day at all. I've encountered individuals who I don't see as heretical who hold that view.

but also that while misinterpreting the letter of the 4th commandment (viewing the specific date as natural law rather than positive law), they don't actually apply a natural morality to the Sabbath day as a binding day of rest within the week.

They don't? I thought they did. What am I missing here?

The 4th commandment is tied to the 1st table of the Decalogue, which deals with "loving God with your whole heart", if we're not obligated by natural morality to improve upon our observance of The Lord's Day, we have 9 commandments instead of 10.

Are they saying otherwise? Again I'm confused here.

[Christian Liberty]

If we cannot easily believe and humbly confess that St. Ignatius had a closer understanding of the faith handed down by the Apostles than ourselves,

I actually doubt it, but not because I believe I would have done as well or better in his position. I believe Ignatius believed in the essence of the trinity, but its highly unlikely that he could have formulated it with the precision that we do today, for instance. There have been developments in the understanding of scripture at times. And there are definitely times (I don't remember the details now) where the church fathers used sloppy exegesis. The difference between me and an Orthodox Christian is that the Orthodox don't really believe we have the right to question the patristics, while I believe they need to be carefully questioned

[Natural Citizen]

Baptist groups will talk on about God's plain spoken words, but boy do they get complicated on things when it comes to their unnecessary hangups on baptizing children.

Well. Firstly, baptism is not...not...not in Scripture. It is impossible to support any claim that infant baptism is justified by God's Word in the Bible. Infant baptism is not any place in the Bible. There is no incident of it at all. There is no mandate for infant baptism in it at all. There is no call for infant baptism in it at all. And there is no description of infant baptism in it at all. None. It's something that evolved after the second or third century and went mainstream by the fourth as far as I can tell.

Now, there are several other points I'd make here, but what say you about what I just said here? Let's start with Scripture because that alone should suffice. Irrelevant of that, I do have other points and It's easier to start there and move on down the list. That way things don't get lost/removed from relevance/context.

Speaking of Scripture, none of you have rectified why He said that He was going to bring a drought to corn and new wine in the same sentence. If he was talking about wine on the vine from the perspective of a manufactured good, then, why didn't he call corn some kind of manufactured good? Why didn't He call it...oh...I don't know...bread? You all patted each other on the back and high fived one another but none of you rectified the inconsistency in your translation of the latter of the scripture with the former. Didn't even acknowledge the inconsistency in the actual Scripture. You know? God's word? The true context is right there.

But we can put His word with regard to the corn and the fruit of the vine aside.

I maintain what I'd mentioned in the initial paragraph here with regard to infant baptism not being supported by Scripture. What say you about it? Let's do the infant baptism argument.

[jmdrake]

I'm not going to be responding to Drake directly because I'm tired of the two of us talking past each other and it's extremely aggravating, but I kind of differ with you regarding this definition. Legalism has to do with terms of communion, or being subject to church censures for something that is either morally neutral or otherwise outside the purview of the Christian faith. Given that most Baptist-founded churches have a warped view of the relationship between the Visible and Invisible Church, there's a lot of ambiguity on what counts of "justification" vs. what is sanctification. Granted, the Adventists may not be threatening censure or excommunication for their views on dietary practices and doctrinal views of Christ's human nature, but the fact that they are preaching and making publications to bind the consciences of their congregations is highly problematic.

LOL. So rather that talking to me you'll talk about me. Very Christian of you. /sarcasm. Yes churches shouldn't have publications because that's evil.

Interesting story. I once was putting up an announcement about a vegetarian cooking class at a health food store. The guy at the cash register, who had multiple tattoos and piercings, asked if I was a Seventh Day Adventist. I said "Yes." He replied "Great! I love reading the Ellen G. White lady. She's got a lot of good ideas." Note he didn't feel at all "bound" by her writings or any other SDA publication. He just felt her writings were a good resource for living healthy. And science backs up that view. Adventists tend to live 7 to 10 years longer than the average U.S. population. But if you'd rather die sooner rather than later I'm not going to stand in your way.

My biggest hangup with Seventh Day Adventism (apart from where it came from) is not only that they are reviving the defunct OT Sabbath Day, but also that while misinterpreting the letter of the 4th commandment (viewing the specific date as natural law rather than positive law), they don't actually apply a natural morality to the Sabbath day as a binding day of rest within the week. The 4th commandment is tied to the 1st table of the Decalogue, which deals with "loving God with your whole heart", if we're not obligated by natural morality to improve upon our observance of The Lord's Day, we have 9 commandments instead of 10.

Ummmmmm......huh? How do you feel you have "improved upon the Sabbath" specifically? How do you feel most of Christiandom has "improved?" By making sure they are out of church soon enough on Sunday to catch the NFL? Great improvement!

[jmdrake]

Once I read how a Roman Catholic parish was transitioning to gluten free wafers because of concerns of allergies. Now, if we truly believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, why in the world would we be concerned about gluten allergies? Or communicable diseases for that matter? There is not one single case of people getting sick or contracting an illness from sharing of the communal cup. In fact, the priest must consume all of the Holy Eucharist after all the other faithful have communed. Priests are not getting illnesses at a higher rate than the average person. In fact, during the Divine Liturgy on the Holy Thursday service which occurs once a year, a chalice of the Holy Eucharist is kept as an emergency reserve in cases of life threatening illness. This is used for the year ahead until the following Holy Thursday. The priest must consume whatever is left over during the service of the following year's Holy Thursday's service. After being kept open on the altar and servicing it to the parishes most ill members of the year, the Eucharist is as fresh as new, as if the first day it was consecrated, and no priest has ever gotten sick from partaking it. These are just a snapshot of the workings of God within the sacraments of the Church.

I'm curious. Considering the fact that wine kills germ on contact, why would you expect anything different miracle or no miracle? And isn't it only the priests that touch the wafers? Allergies are a totally different animal.

[TER]

I actually doubt it, but not because I believe I would have done as well or better in his position. I believe Ignatius believed in the essence of the trinity, but its highly unlikely that he could have formulated it with the precision that we do today, for instance. There have been developments in the understanding of scripture at times. And there are definitely times (I don't remember the details now) where the church fathers used sloppy exegesis. The difference between me and an Orthodox Christian is that the Orthodox don't really believe we have the right to question the patristics, while I believe they need to be carefully questioned

There is much to unpack here, but I will first start with your misrepresentation of what the Orthodox believe and don't believe with regards to the Church Fathers. We do not believe the Saints before us to be infallible. We do not believe them to be above question. We do not believe in running carelessly after men and succumbing to their teachings, especially when they go counter to what is the shared experience and beliefs of Christians before them.

It is true that in time, as the generations went past, it became necessary to use more precise terminology to describe the Christian understanding of God. Using the limits of human reason and the human language, doctrines and terms were written to describe what is actually undefinable and unexpressable, namely God and our experience of communion with Him, in love and abiding in Him. The reason it became necessary to proclaim certain beliefs and dogma, such as the economy of the Persons of the Holy Trinity and the Christological definitions, was because of the various heresies which had grown and caused unrest within the Church.

But even with that all said, this greater means of expressing the human experience of an encounter with God was not in itself creating a new experience. It was not describing a different experience of God. It was rather trying to describe what was already known and experienced by Saints of every generation.

It is indeed the same Holy Spirit Who revealed the truths to the Apostles as He did to those who followed them. Humans have invented words and terms to describe these truths, but the faith remains the same faith "which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3).

The point is that even though the Holy Evangelists did not use the words 'ὁμοούσιον' or 'consubstantial' in the New Testament, doesn't mean that this is not what they believed. The Church had to contend against heresies and the pressures in the world, and so she did. But the Christian experience of the God-man Jesus Christ within a man's heart and the peace, joy and wisdom which comes from it, is something which is indeed personal, but shared and in union through unity, with all who have experienced His presence. Thus while Saints may have erred on particular things, it is not these errors which glorify them to be called 'pillars' and 'fathers', but rather those things they taught which resonate far and wide as being true to the people's own common understanding and knowledge about God and how Christians have always believed and experienced and handed down (namely, the catholic and orthodox faith).

St. Ignatius did not use the word 'Trinity' but his writings do not teach against the Trinity. In fact, the Trinity can be discerned thoughtout the letters he wrote if one looks carefully. But because he did not describe it using philosophical terms borrowed from Ancient Greek philosophers doesn't mean he did not experience the fullness of God as Trinity.

The reasons we should weigh heavily the words of St. Ignatius is because of his proximity to the Apostles, the evident truth of his grace-filled writings, his obedience and love of those who came before him, and the received agreement and acceptance of what he taught by the rest of the Church, both during that time and all they way through the centuries.

We should especially consider him heavily if we are trying to understand the life of the Church of Christ at the turning of the first century and what the Apostles established and handed down in faith and form to their immediate successors.

[TER]

I'm curious. Considering the fact that wine kills germ on contact, why would you expect anything different miracle or no miracle? And isn't it only the priests that touch the wafers? Allergies are a totally different animal.

In the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the priest uses a spoon to feed the faithful the Holy Eucharist from a chalice, like this:





This can be a line of scores or even hundreds of people.

Wine does not kill most germs on contact. Grain alcohol, maybe. But not wine. Especially watered down wine which is used in the Holy Eucharist service. It would require high ethanol content and some time to kill many of the common bacteria and viruses, but there are PLENTY of pathogens that would normally not be destroyed in the short time between putting spoons in people's mouths one after another and then finishing the entire cup. Thus, it is a miracle people do not get sick (especially the priests who consume whatever is left).

Also, unless the wine is well preserved (read: in a vacuum), it turns into vinegar in a short time. This is not the case with the Holy Eucharist when it is left on the altar. This too is a miracle.

[jmdrake]

In the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the priest uses a spoon to feed the faithful the Holy Eucharist from a chalice, like this:

This can be a line of scores or even hundreds of people.

Wine does not kill most germs on contact. Grain alcohol, maybe. But not wine. Especially watered down wine which is used in the Holy Eucharist service. It would require high ethanol content and some time to kill many of the common bacteria and viruses, but there are PLENTY of pathogens that would normally not be destroyed in the short time between putting spoons in people's mouths one after another and then finishing the entire cup. Thus, it is a miracle people do not get sick (especially the priests who consume whatever is left).

Also, unless the wine is well preserved (read: in a vacuum), it turns into vinegar in a short time. This is not the case with the Holy Eucharist when it is left on the altar. This too is a miracle.

Sorry TER but science says you're wrong on this.

http://www.livescience.com/7326-wine...s-contact.html

Speaking of science, you haven't even cited a study that says that priests don't get sick more than the general population. I would, overall, expect priests, especially in 3rd world countries, to get sick less than the general population because they have access to better hygiene. Doctors and nurses in 3rd world countries get sick less than the general population for the same reason without any Eucharist miracle. Sorry. Them's just the facts.

[TER]

Sorry TER but science says you're wrong on this.

http://www.livescience.com/7326-wine...s-contact.html

Speaking of science, you haven't even cited a study that says that priests don't get sick more than the general population. I would, overall, expect priests, especially in 3rd world countries, to get sick less than the general population because they have access to better hygiene. Doctors and nurses in 3rd world countries get sick less than the general population for the same reason without any Eucharist miracle. Sorry. Them's just the facts.

I understand the science a bit (being a physician) and what I wrote in my previous post is accurate. You made the statement that wine kills germs on contact, and that is an inaccurate statement.


The article you posted expresses that wine does indeed have antiseptic properties, which I am not arguing. It most certainly has antiseptic properties. That doesn't mean there are not myriads of bacteria and viruses that cannot survive in diluted wine, especially in the short time it takes to dip the spoon into the chalice. This is science as well. I am arguing about your statement that wine is some kind of powerful disinfective agent that is incapable of transmitting disease. How wonderful that would be! We could wash our dirty, bacteria ridden pots and soiled children in wine and then drink the run off when we are done!

As for the fact that the Holy Eucharist stay fresh and does not turn to vinegar while sitting on the Holy Altar for a year, you seem to have ignored. Any science you know which can explain that?

If there are any studies which have compared the illness rate of Orhodox Christian priests to the general populations, please let me know. I haven't seen any. I guess you will just have to take it on faith until someone spends the money and time to scientifically prove or disprove this claim. Anectodaly and historically, it does indeed appear to be the case.

[jmdrake]

I understand the science a bit (being a physician) and what I wrote in my previous post is accurate. You made the statement that wine kills germs on contact, and that is an inaccurate statement.


The article you posted expresses that wine does indeed have antiseptic properties, which I am not arguing. It most certainly has antiseptic properties. That doesn't mean there are not myriads of bacteria and viruses that cannot survive in diluted wine, especially in the short time it takes to dip the spoon into the chalice. This is science as well. I am arguing about your statement that wine is some kind of powerful disinfective agent that is incapable of transmitting disease. How wonderful that would be! We could wash our dirty, bacteria ridden pots and soiled children in wine and then drink the run off when we are done!

As for the fact that the Holy Eucharist stay fresh and does not turn to vinegar while sitting on the Holy Altar for a year, you seem to have ignored. Any science you know which can explain that?

If there are any studies which have compared the illness rate of Orhodox Christian priests to the general populations, please let me know. I haven't seen any. I guess you will just have to take it on faith until someone spends the money and time to scientifically prove or disprove this claim. Anectodaly and historically, it does indeed appear to be the case.

Hello TER. I didn't know you were a doctor. Cool! So is my ex wife.

Okay, back to the discussion. Warning. Long response. But I hope you find it interesting.

You've made the extraordinary claim right? That there is a miracle involved with priests not getting sick from finishing off the communion wine and bread? So....isn't the burden on you to support that this is indeed miraculous? The claim was made in conjunction with you commenting on some priests choosing to go with gluten free wafers rather than risk the health of parishioners with allergies. As a physician you probably know more about gluten allergies than I do. I do know that peanut allergies can be deadly. So I'm guessing that it's possible that gluten allergies can be as well.

So lets go with "Gluten allergies are deadly." Should people risk death or at the very least a severe reaction because priests don't get sick more than the general population even though they consume all of the communion? That's the thesis? If I'm stating your position wrong, please correct it. I think we can rule out any pathogens from the communion bread because, at least in the Catholic church, the parishioners do not touch the bread, only the priests.



I've never seen an Orthodox communion but perhaps you can explain this image to me that I found searching for "Orthodox communion."



Is that a piece of communion bread on a spoon? It doesn't look that the parishioner's mouth touches the spoon. So I see little opportunity for pathogen transfer.

Alright. Back to the wine. I'm assuming that when it comes to the wine, the parishioner's mouth touches the spoon. (Otherwise there's no chance for pathogen transfer.) So the question becomes, what effect does the wine have on the pathogens?

I was not familiar with the practice of diluting sacrament wine until you mentioned it. I did a little Google research on diluting communion wine. This is what I found.

http://net-abbey.org/cupbact.htm
CAN YOU GET ILL FROM TAKING THE COMMUNION CUP? A Physician's opinion

...to the Healing of soul and body...

By Emanuel Kolyvas, M.D.,

The Sign [of the Theotokos], Montreal
Contrary to popular opinion, wine, and other beverages of antiquity produced through fermentation, were probably more important in providing disease-free drinking fluids than in their tendency to intoxicate. Ancient Greeks drank their water mixed with wine, and also used wine to cleanse wounds and soak dressings. More recently, military physicians of the last century observed that during epidemics of cholera, wine drinkers were relatively spared by the disease, and troops were advised to mix wine into the water.

Wine has been shown to be an effective antiseptic even when the alcohol is removed. In fact, 10% alcohol is a poor antiseptic, and alcohol only becomes optimally effective at concentrations of 7;0%. The antiseptic substances in wine are inactive in fresh grapes because these molecules are bound to complex sugars. During fermentation these antiseptic substances are split off from the sugars and in this way become active. These molecules are polyphenols, a class of substances used in hospitals to disinfect surfaces and instruments. The polyphenol of wine has been shown to be some thirty-three times more powerful than the phenol used by Lister when he pioneered antiseptic surgery.

Same year wines can be diluted up to ten times before beginning to show a decrease in their antiseptic effect. The better wines gradually improve with age over the first ten years and can be diluted twenty times without a decrease of the antiseptic effect. This effect then remains more or less constant over the next twenty years and becomes equivalent to a new wine after another twenty-five years. (Modern antiseptics and antibiotics for disinfecting wounds have surpassed wine effectiveness because the active ingredients in wine are rapidly bound and inactivated by proteins in body tissues.)

In preparing communion, the hot water that is added to the wine will increase greatly the antiseptic effect of the polyphenols. Disinfection occurs more rapidly and more effectively at 45 degrees centigrade than at room temperature (22-25 degrees). Another contribution to the antiseptic effect comes from the silver, copper, zinc that make up the chalice itself, ensuring that microbes are unable to survive on its surface.

Throughout the centuries, no disease has ever been transmitted by the taking of Holy Communion. Diseases, such as Hepatitis B, known to be transmitted by shared eating utensils, have never been acquired from the communion spoon. HIV is known not to be transmitted through shared eating utensils, and considering the antiseptic qualities of the Holy Communion received by the faithful, there is no likelihood of acquiring HIV infection through the Common Cup.

So according to at least one Catholic physician, even diluted communion wine, especially if it's diluted with hot water, contains antiseptic properties. Thus we have a natural explanation for why people don't get ill from taking communion from a common cup.

Oh, and I did a litte research on glueten free communion. Here's what I found. It looks like some Catholic nuns have gone through a lot of trouble to develop bread that respects church tradition while safeguarding the health of people with wheat allergies.

http://www.catholicceliacs.org/Options.html
Catholic Communion and Celiac Disease: the Options
by Barbara Coughlin M.D.

For the Catholic with celiac disease, the most painful aspect of living on a strict gluten free is the inability to receive the host, or bread, at Communion. Catholics believe that the bread is transformed into the Body of Christ. This transformation and the reception of the Body of Christ, called the Eucharist, takes place at Mass. It is the center around which the religious life of a Catholic revolves. To be suddenly denied this by virtue of having celiac disease is devastating to many Catholics.

Because the Catholic Church states that Communion bread must be made of only wheat and water with "sufficient gluten to attain the confection of bread," the only option for the Catholic celiac has been to receive Communion under the species of wine alone. According to Catholic doctrine, the whole of Christ is contained in the Precious Blood alone. As such, the person who receives Communion this way is still receiving the whole sacrament. Since part of the rite of the Mass includes placing a small piece of bread into the wine, the person with celiac disease needs to arrange for a separate chalice into which no bread is put. The priest is required to do this, as each Catholic in good standing has a right to receive Communion. At churches where Communion is offered to the congregation under both species, this might not be a problem, as the chalices that are brought out to the congregation generally do not have bread in them. As this is not universal, each individual should become aware of the procedures in her own parish.
Although receiving the Precious Blood alone provides a satisfactory theological answer, many Catholic celiacs still feel a deep sense of loss and isolation by being denied the ability to receive the Body of Christ in the form of bread as they have since childhood. Likewise, parents of celiac children are troubled by having their child receiving Communion differently from other children or by having their child drink wine.

Now there is another choice. The Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration in Clyde, Missouri, have developed a Communion host that is extremely low in gluten. They have worked for ten years on this project. The host is made from gelatinized wheat starch. The hosts have been tested for the presence of gluten. According to the Sisters, they were tested to a level of 0.01% gluten. At that level, the lowest that could be tested, no gluten was detected. This means that there is less than 0.01% gluten in one of these hosts; however, it is not known how much less. The Secretariat for the Liturgy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that these meet the requirements of the Code of Canon Law and may be validly used at Mass with permission of the person’s pastor. They are manufactured by hand in a separate facility from the ordinary wheat hosts and are shipped separately from the wheat hosts so that there is no danger of cross contamination.

I spoke to Sister Jeanne Patricia Crowe, Pharm D, R Ph. of Immaculata College in Pennsylvania. Sister Crowe (who is in a different order from the nuns who developed the host and has no relationship with them) does not have celiac disease herself, but she has a particular interest in it and often speaks at celiac conferences. She weighed these hosts on an extremely accurate pharmaceutical scale, and then calculated how much gluten would be in one IF it actually were 0.01% gluten. The result was approximately 32 micrograms; a quarter of a host would have about 7 micrograms of gluten. For those (like me) who are little shaky on the metric system, 7 micrograms is 7/one millionths of a gram. To put this into perspective, a very small bread crumb contains about 10 milligrams, or 10/one thousandths of a gram--substantially more.

But, of course, the question in everyone’s mind is, "Is this safe?" The answer from the experts is, "Probably." Alessio Fasano MD of the Celiac Center at the University of Maryland has stated that the gluten free hosts are safe for people with celiac disease; however, he has not explained why. I have attempted to contact him, but he has not responded to me or to another person who has been researching this.

In 1993, Dr. Catassi published a study showing that the lowest level of gluten that produced a visible change in the biopsies of celiac volunteers was 100 milligrams of gliadin (equal to 200 milligrams of gluten) a day. Some experts have extrapolated from that to state that the maximum amount of gluten a celiac should ingest in a day is 10 milligrams. Clearly, the amount of gluten in one of these hosts is significantly lower than that, which suggests that it is a safe amount, However, no studies have been done on this, so it is impossible to know if there are any risks or dangers of long term exposure to this level of gluten.
I also spoke to Michelle Melin-Rogovin from the University of Chicago’s Celiac Disease program. She told me that no one knows how much gluten is safe, and that in the Real World, we are all probably ingesting some low level of gluten. She stated that she could not say that it would be safe for someone to use these hosts, but that it might be considered an "acceptable risk" that would be a valid decision for some. She recommended taking only a quarter of a host once a week at most. She also suggested that it would be wise for someone choosing to do this to check her antibodies beforehand and then several months later. She would not recommend someone who had elevated antibodies to use these hosts.

I realize that the policy of our support group and, therefore, of this website is to advocate that a person with celiac disease should do her utmost to avoid any consumption of gluten. As such, this article may seem to be in conflict with this message. As a Catholic celiac myself, however, I understand the deep sorrow that not being able to have the Body of Christ can cause. In the past four years, I have come to accept my gluten free life; I live fully and joyfully and eat very well. But the one issue that has continued to be painful and difficult to live with has been my loss of the ability to receive the Body of Christ at Mass. I also realize that non-Catholics may find it hard to grasp how vital the sacrament is for us, and why even those of us who are scrupulous to avoid any other source of gluten may choose this as an acceptable risk, and I hope they will look at it without judgement. I felt it important to gather as much information as I could about the low gluten host so that each person can make her own decision. The latest issue of Gluten Free Living also contains an article on the low gluten hosts, with comments from experts on celiac disease regarding their safety for someone on a gluten free diet.
My mentor in college once told me, "For the rest of your life, you will be making decisions based on insufficient information." That certainly applies to life with celiac disease! Whether or not one decides to accept the use of the low gluten host or to allow one’s child to receive it is a personal decision. Having had to make it myself, I know how difficult it is. If anyone would like to speak to me personally about the low gluten host or the logistics of using it in a way that avoids cross contamination, please feel free to call or to email me.


The low gluten hosts can be purchased from:
Congregation of Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration
Altar Breads Department

[hells_unicorn]

Well. Firstly, baptism is not...not...not in Scripture. It is impossible to support any claim that infant baptism is justified by God's Word in the Bible. Infant baptism is not any place in the Bible. There is no incident of it at all. There is no mandate for infant baptism in it at all. There is no call for infant baptism in it at all. And there is no description of infant baptism in it at all. None. It's something that evolved after the second or third century and went mainstream by the fourth as far as I can tell.

Oh yes it is, you just have to read the entire New Testament instead of hanging on the words of Baptist ministers who think raising their voices makes their arguments more compelling (not that their arguments were compelling prior to upping the volume). The concept of "Believers Baptism" as defined by Baptists is nowhere to be found in scripture, nor is there a direct command by Jesus to refuse baptism to the infant children of believers, and a couple of good verses that indicate that he frowns upon Baptist sectarians going against 1,500 years of official church history (see Matthew 19:14; Luke 18:16 and Mark 10:14). But rather than write a chapter of a book laying out why Baptists are both wrong and heretical on this issue, I'll let you have a gander at this website. (I don't endorse the OPC as an institution, largely because they are too soft on Baptist heretics and have even adopted some of their errors like using grape juice in communion, but on this point they have remained orthodox).

Oh, and the notion that infant baptism evolved "after the 2nd or 3rd century" is categorically false if we look at the writings of Iranaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nazianz, and John Chrysostom. Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. It stands to reason that the words of Iraenaeus, who said that baptizing children was the common practice for his entire lifetime, carry a bit more weight than some jive-shouting pastor who was immersed "down by the riverside". This goofy conspiracy theory/delusional raving that infant baptism was some 4th century Roman invention that is regularly spouted by Baptists who can't explain away the early fathers of the church being 100% pro-infant baptism is a testament to why so many cults have sprouted out of Baptist circles.

Now, there are several other points I'd make here, but what say you about what I just said here? Let's start with Scripture because that alone should suffice. Irrelevant of that, I do have other points and It's easier to start there and move on down the list. That way things don't get lost/removed from relevance/context.

Okay, we'll start with some basic bible quotes since I have a feeling what I provided to you earlier in this post will be brushed away with a typical Baptist "Dat ain't in da bible" retort. Consider the following:

Acts 2:38-39 : "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Luke 18:15–16: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

Care to explain these away. It's pretty cut and dry from where I stand.

Speaking of Scripture, none of you have rectified why He said that He was going to bring a drought to corn and new wine in the same sentence. If he was talking about wine on the vine from the perspective of a manufactured good, then, why didn't he call corn some kind of manufactured good? Why didn't He call it...oh...I don't know...bread? You all patted each other on the back and high fived one another but none of you rectified the inconsistency in your translation of the latter of the scripture with the former. Didn't even acknowledge the inconsistency in the actual Scripture. You know? God's word? The true context is right there.

Uh, what point are you trying to make here? Do you think the King James actually trumps the original Hebrew word used for wine in that passage? While we're on the topic, why don't we ask why the KJV calls it "corn" instead of the generic "grain", since the former term is now universally used to describe a type of grain that was alien to people in ancient Israel. The King James is the best English translation we have available at present, but like with any translation, there are flaws that can rise with the fluid nature of language following the confusion of tongues, hence why falling back on the original Hebrew and Greek is necessary when theological controversies arise.

"God's Word" requires discernment, hence why scripture itself instructs in Acts 8:30-31 that the church should provide a qualified guide for all of those seeking to understand scripture. Baptist ministers fail this requirement by default, and you couldn't even keep the Hebrew terminology for different types of wine straight when this topic was discussed, you lost, and the rest of us supposedly began high-fiving each other.

But we can put His word with regard to the corn and the fruit of the vine aside.

Baptists have a common practice of "putting his Word aside" whenever they hear something from it they don't like.

I maintain what I'd mentioned in the initial paragraph here with regard to infant baptism not being supported by Scripture. What say you about it? Let's do the infant baptism argument.

Your move, I think the points in this post should kick things off sufficiently, and I have the benefit from being severely jet-lagged since I just got back from my 2 week vacation in Kharkiv so it may prove to be a fair competition. lol

[TER]

Hello TER. I didn't know you were a doctor. Cool! So is my ex wife.

Okay, back to the discussion. Warning. Long response. But I hope you find it interesting.

You've made the extraordinary claim right? That there is a miracle involved with priests not getting sick from finishing off the communion wine and bread? So....isn't the burden on you to support that this is indeed miraculous?

Not really. I don't need to prove it. I already understand the great power of the Holy Eucharist by my own personal experience. Also, I have spoken with enough priests and read enough writings to believe that what I wrote above is true with regards to the miraculous nature of the Holy Gifts (which are in no way limited to the few examples I have provided). You are free to not believe it. and if you wish to disprove it, then you can go and conduct an evidence-based study to do so. But I have seen enough evidence in my own life to believe it and don't need to see a scientific study to do so. If that is not enough proof for you, I understand. I'm okay with that.

The claim was made in conjunction with you commenting on some priests choosing to go with gluten free wafers rather than risk the health of parishioners with allergies. As a physician you probably know more about gluten allergies than I do. I do know that peanut allergies can be deadly. So I'm guessing that it's possible that gluten allergies can be as well.

Gluten allergies are not deadly and do not cause anaphylaxis as peanuts can.

So lets go with "Gluten allergies are deadly."

Well, they aren't, so your example does not apply.

Should people risk death or at the very least a severe reaction because priests don't get sick more than the general population even though they consume all of the communion? That's the thesis? If I'm stating your position wrong, please correct it.

No, that is not my thesis at all. The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and thus to be concerned about gluten allergies demonstrates a lack of faith. Now I can't speak for the Catholic Eucharist, but no one with gluten allergies is getting sick from the Orthodox Holy Eucharist. There are people who are sensitive to alcohol (indeed, a true allergy) (one person whom I know), and they never have any reaction to partaking of the Holy Eucharist.

The reason I bring up that priests don't get sick more often than the general population is because some people (like yourself) require more evidence about the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist. If you don't accept that as proof, that is okay. Again, I don't need to prove it to you. You are free to wait for a scientific study to confirm it if that is what you need. In the meanwhile, as a physician, if a patient or friend tells me they have a gluten allergy and are concerned about taking Holy Communion, I would tell them if they have faith, they have nothing to fear.

I think we can rule out any pathogens from the communion bread because, at least in the Catholic church, the parishioners do not touch the bread, only the priests.

Again, I am speaking about the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, whereby the priest communicates the Holy Gifts using a spoon and a chalice.

I've never seen an Orthodox communion but perhaps you can explain this image to me that I found searching for "Orthodox communion."

Since that is an image of Pope Benedict giving Catholic communion, and not an Orthodox priest offering Orthodox communion, I guess my suggestion to you is not trust everything you search for on Google. In Orthodoxy, the elements of bread and wine and consecrated together into the chalice and the communicant receives both with a spoon.

Is that a piece of communion bread on a spoon? It doesn't look that the parishioner's mouth touches the spoon. So I see little opportunity for pathogen transfer.

The image you posted in not coming through on my device, so I can't comment. As someone who has seen numerous Divine Liturgies, most people close their mouths over this spoon, like this video:

Alright. Back to the wine. I'm assuming that when it comes to the wine, the parishioner's mouth touches the spoon. (Otherwise there's no chance for pathogen transfer.) So the question becomes, what effect does the wine have on the pathogens?

It has some, but it certainly does not naturally sterilize the contents, which you seem to want to claim.

I was not familiar with the practice of diluting sacrament wine until you mentioned it. I did a little Google research on diluting communion wine. This is what I found.

The zeon (or water) added to the wine during the consecration is an ancient tradition going back to the very early history of the Church.

CAN YOU GET ILL FROM TAKING THE COMMUNION CUP? A Physician's opinion

...to the Healing of soul and body...

By Emanuel Kolyvas, M.D......

Thank you for that article which says that "Throughout the centuries, no disease has ever been transmitted by the taking of Holy Communion.". You didn't bold that part, so I don't know if maybe you missed it. I am actually familiar with that article from several years back, and it was written because of concerns by some fearful members of the Orthodox Church who had concerns about getting diseases (particularly HIV) from sharing the same spoon. In order to reassure them (since their faith was not strong), this article was written.

As for you posting it, I am not exactly sure why you did, seeing that you require proof and scientific data to believe, and there is not one single research experiment or citation provided. I don't think you are being fair or consistent.

So according to at least one Catholic physician, even diluted communion wine, especially if it's diluted with hot water, contains antiseptic properties. Thus we have a natural explanation for why people don't get ill from taking communion from a common cup.

Actually, that is an Orthodox Christian physician and not a Catholic one, and I don't doubt that diluted communion wine has antiseptic properties as I already wrote in a previous post. The fallacy which you are making is that that is the (only) reason why nobody gets sick from taking communion from the common cup. This is a conclusion that the very author you are citing does not even make. You are making you own conclusions based on your own presuppositions. If you don't wish to believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist, than that is your own loss. But so far, you have tried to disprove what I wrote initially above several posts ago and have yet still not done so. I am not sure why it bothers you so much that the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Divine Litrugy may be a miracle. No one is forcing you to believe.

Oh, and I did a litte research on glueten free communion. Here's what I found. It looks like some Catholic nuns have gone through a lot of trouble to develop bread that respects church tradition while safeguarding the health of people with wheat allergies.

Catholic Communion and Celiac Disease: the Options
by Barbara Coughlin M.D.

Again, I am only speaking for the Orthodox Church and their liturgical practice, not the Roman Catholic one which is brought up in the second article you posted. I can assure you with 100% confidence that no Orthodox Church is worrying about gluten in the bread or with concerns of gluten allergies. And that is not because they are being careless, but because there is no need to. I have never heard of someone with gluten sensitivities/allergies getting adverse reactions from partaking of the Holy Eucharist in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. If this is a particular problem in the Roman Catholic Church, than that is something you should ask them about. I am specifically referring to the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Church.