Questions about orthodox eucharist

[Joshua G.]

Really? Why is that? Just curious.

I would also add that the West didn't have this (at least not as a norm) before the Counterreformation as a response to those who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In that light, I would say personally that this is MUCH preferred to the great heresy of denying what the the Eucharist is. If indeed tis practice helped save souls from that heresy, then that's wonderful.

As for transubstatiation vs consubstatiation.

1) No one believes in Consubstatiation. It was a term made up by Catholics to describe what they THOUGHT (wrongly) Luther and his followers believed about the Eucharist. What Consubstatiation is per the Catholic Church (and they are the only one's who use the term in any real sense, albeit against lutherans) is heretical by all means.

2) Those who are often acused of believing in consubstatiation simply believe that the bread and wine are still present in some real sense just as the body and blood are equally present in a very literal and real way

3) Now that I am not Lutheran, I feel that the squabble between the RCs and Luthereans on Transubstation vs the Lutheran belief is silly. You don't see this argument in the Early Church. You see both beliefs alluded to be rarely ever focused on. What IS consistantly focused on is that it IS truly Christ's Body and Blood and that shall never be denied by a true believer. I believe the Orthodox Church, in not entering into this squabble (except for a few local councils by bishops who were very obviously influenced more by the West than the East in many ways), reflects the true nature of how the Early Church tended to approach the Eucharist.

4) In saying this, I am not condemning the idea of transubstatiation by any means. I think it's fine. I am critiquing the RC penchant for forcing the unimportant details (about the bread and wine's presence) on others by measure of excommunication.

Josh

 

[Joshua G.]

That's interesting - in our prayer before communion we say: "...Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."

It sounds like a very similar idea.

I know you are not part of the group judging by past posts, but I wonder how, with a prayer like that, Anglicans can view Real Presence as an Adiaphora?

 

[MKJ]

I know you are not part of the group judging by past posts, but I wonder how, with a prayer like that, Anglicans can view Real Presence as an Adiaphora?

That is an excellent question. In the Book of Common prayer I would say the liturgy comes down pretty well on the side of the real presence. I know some people feel the Eucharistic prayer is a bit more open. To my mind, that is only true if you ignore the rest of the liturgy.

However, in the 39 articles, there is rather more ambiguity. It is clear that they think a sacrament is really something that God does; on the other hand, it clearly condemns transubstantiation. This could be understood to be the Catholic Church's insistence on that idea, but some people feel that it rejects anything that seems at all like transubstantiation. Also, in the section on the Lord's Supper, it says:

"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper of the Lord is Faith."

That seems to suggest a kind of receptionism, and really, what does it mean by a spiritual manner? - well, it could mean a lot of things.
But then one is not required to believe the articles, so how much weight that should get is a question.

 

[Michael G]

No. Except for latria beyond the Divine Liturgy, we and the Orthodox have very, very similar ideas concerning the Eucharist. Correct me, dear Eastern brothers if I err, but I believe our Latin term sanctificatio is, for the most part, equivalent to their Greek term theosis. In both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, ecclesial communion centers around the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. The Eucharist is the means by which we are incorporated into that Body. In addition, in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, being incorporated into that body contributes to sanctificatio/theosis. Ecclesial communion in Catholicism is not about "coercion."

Secondly, sanctificatio/theosis isn't a source of spiritual illness - both the Catholics and the Orthodox emphasize that salvation isn't just within a single moment but a lifetime process of conforming ourselves, with the help of God's grace, to the Personhood of Christ. The sacraments, including the Eucharist, are instruments of dispensing this grace.

Not so quick there. Especially among the more conservative Roman Catholics, Eucharistic Adoration plays a big part in Roman Catholic piety. There is no room in Orthodoxy for veneration of the Eucharist. It is to be consumed, not venerated.

 

[ArmyMatt]

we and the Orthodox have very, very similar ideas concerning the Eucharist.

that and transubstantiation, which we reject. and the idea of created grace.

 

[semper_virens]

In catholicism, eucharist is a mean of just sanctification, but in orthodoxy it is besides the breeding of eclessiological communion; in catholicism this is made by the ministry of the pope. In catholicism it is made by coertion, not by the action of the eucharist.

According of catholicism, eucharist is the main mean of sanctification, but sanctification for what? for sanctification itself. I think this is a source of spiritual illness, sanctification is just the obedience to God, so sacraments must lead to obedience to God according to their purposes: so eucharist leads to obey God through their body, the orthodox church.

In the end Catholics and Orthodox are much more alike then not.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy both wholly consider the Eucharist a sacrament, sanctifying, to be the real blood and body of Christ, to be sacred and that it to be treated with the utmost reverence. Really there is nothing either one disagrees about it with the other with the exception that Catholicism explicitly defines how the transformation takes place whereas Orthodoxy refers to it as a mystery but does hold that it really does make a transformation and is indeed the blood and body of Christ.

The major difference is in how they use it. Catholics reserve some for adoration without receiving it; Orthodox do not (but they do adore it before receiving). Besides that they are treated with the same reverence, right done to having special clothes to clean up the Eucharist with if it is spilled, nearly the same if not the same rules about what is to be done with it and everything.

 

[Michael G]

In the end Catholics and Orthodox are much more alike then not.Catholicism and Orthodoxy both wholly consider the Eucharist a sacrament, sanctifying, to be the real blood and body of Christ, to be sacred and that it to be treated with the utmost reverence. Really there is nothing either one disagrees about it with the other with the exception that Catholicism explicitly defines how the transformation takes place whereas Orthodoxy refers to it as a mystery but does hold that it really does make a transformation and is indeed the blood and body of Christ.

The major difference is in how they use it. Catholics reserve some for adoration without receiving it; Orthodox do not (but they do adore it before receiving). Besides that they are treated with the same reverence, right done to having special clothes to clean up the Eucharist with if it is spilled, nearly the same if not the same rules about what is to be done with it and everything.

No. As a former Roman Catholic Seminarian, I do not believe Roman Catholicism is like Orthodoxy. To the outside observer it might look that way, but once you get to know both religions you will see the attitudes are totally different.

I am not the only one who thinks this way. I listened to a wonderful talk by my bishop last Thursday in which he pretty much said the west (Catholic and Protestant) thinks very much alike and very differently from Orthodoxy.

Catholics treat the Eucharist with the same reverence that Orthodox do? That is why Roman Catholics hold the Eucharist in their hands before receiving? That is why Roman Catholics need only fast 1 hour before communion? I would suggest that Roman Catholic respect for the Eucharist has taken a large turn for the worse since the post Vatican II changes that brought about the N.O. Mass.

 

[Joshua G.]

that and transubstantiation, which we reject.

I don't see this on the whole. Someone could equally convince (via councils) that we demand Transubstantiation. In fact, an TAW member of yesteryear (Maximus, I believe?) vigorously defended it as the Orthodox belief and actually did a pretty good job. I'm not saying he convinced me that it was tantamount to dogma or official teaching of the Church Universal, but he did show me that this is an issue that is not black and white. Nor does it need to be. If you look at the early Church we can see those that seemed to stand up for a notion not unlike Transubstantiation and others who stood up for a view that did not reject the idea that the bread and wine were also present.

It's not Transubstatiation that the Church rejects on the whole (although I am sure you can find a few local councils to prove me wrong.. but then I can post some back at ya that say the exact opposit lol). It's the notion that what happens or doesn't happen to the bread and wine needs to be dogmatized. In other words, if an Orthodox holds to Transubstatiation as a theologumena, he can find good company within the Orthodox tradition dating way back. If she holds to the idea that the bread and wine are still present while not denying Real Presence (similar to what Confessional Lutherans do, which is not called consubstatiation- a totally different animal that exists in theory only and no so much in actual people believing it) it seems they are also within their right and among good company.

On the whole, however, it seems that most Early Church Fathers I have read are pretty ambiguous in the issue of the bread and wine and it depends through what lens one is reading their words. If you want to read about it, there is a great thread on it in Monachos. It won't convince you of transubstatiation at all, but I think it will demonstrate that the Church seems to accept the notion (albeit strongly objecting the notion that it is to be dogmatized EITHER way).

Josh

 

[Joshua G.]

In the end Catholics and Orthodox are much more alike then not.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy both wholly consider the Eucharist a sacrament, sanctifying, to be the real blood and body of Christ, to be sacred and that it to be treated with the utmost reverence. Really there is nothing either one disagrees about it with the other with the exception that Catholicism explicitly defines how the transformation takes place whereas Orthodoxy refers to it as a mystery but does hold that it really does make a transformation and is indeed the blood and body of Christ.

The major difference is in how they use it. Catholics reserve some for adoration without receiving it; Orthodox do not (but they do adore it before receiving). Besides that they are treated with the same reverence, right done to having special clothes to clean up the Eucharist with if it is spilled, nearly the same if not the same rules about what is to be done with it and everything.

I will say this:

Keeping in mind that I am the crazy liberal in terms of this issue here in the thread (i.e. I don't believe your are unOrthodox because of your belief in Transubstantiation and, although I intellectually assent to the position of most of my brothers and sisters here regarding Eucharistic Adoration, the practice doesn't offend me too much simply because the fruits of it seem to play out extremely positively and I get the necessity of it in a place where protestantism was running rampant), the great stumbling on the issue of the Eucharist here is honestly not the Orthodox, but the RCC. Most Orthodox I have read are actually quite conciliar on this specific issue (of Transubstatiation). It is the RCC who, officially, forbids themselves from acknowledging that we demand Transubstation as a belief from no one and in fact, many (if not most) believe other than Transubstatiation. It is the RCC's own hang up on this issue that is the true stumbling block, not ours.

 

[Joshua G.]

No. As a former Roman Catholic Seminarian, I do not believe Roman Catholicism is like Orthodoxy. To the outside observer it might look that way, but once you get to know both religions you will see the attitudes are totally different.

I am not the only one who thinks this way. I listened to a wonderful talk by my bishop last Thursday in which he pretty much said the west (Catholic and Protestant) thinks very much alike and very differently from Orthodoxy.

Catholics treat the Eucharist with the same reverence that Orthodox do? That is why Roman Catholics hold the Eucharist in their hands before receiving? That is why Roman Catholics need only fast 1 hour before communion? I would suggest that Roman Catholic respect for the Eucharist has taken a large turn for the worse since the post Vatican II changes that brought about the N.O. Mass.

I agree in part. You don't see the same treatment en Masse by Roman Catholics of the Eucharist.

However, in my experience, ironically perhaps, those who voluntarily and often attend Eucharistic Adoration, tend to be the outliers on this issue treating the Eucharist with the utmost respect. As for the fasting, it's all most of them have known. They fast for one hour because that's how they were taught. What if we found out that in some parts of Romania you are expected to fast on nothing but the bare essentials for a whole week before recieving the Eucharist. By the way, that's real. Are we irreverent? No. Fasting the evening (or midnight) before recieving is what we have learned. Your beef is valid, but is with Vatican II, not the individuals who are using the tools the best way they have been taught.

 

[Michael G]

I agree in part. You don't see the same treatment en Masse by Roman Catholics of the Eucharist.

However, in my experience, ironically perhaps, those who voluntarily and often attend Eucharistic Adoration, tend to be the outliers on this issue treating the Eucharist with the utmost respect. As for the fasting, it's all most of them have known. They fast for one hour because that's how they were taught. What if we found out that in some parts of Romania you are expected to fast on nothing but the bare essentials for a whole week before recieving the Eucharist. By the way, that's real. Are we irreverent? No. Fasting the evening (or midnight) before recieving is what we have learned. Your beef is valid, but is with Vatican II, not the individuals who are using the tools the best way they have been taught.

Using the tools the best way they have been taught includes women in very short skirts being "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist"? Using the tools the best they know includes having the priest sit down during communion while the "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" distribute communion? Rome's definition of extraordinary and mine are two totally different things. I am sorry, you have a very romantic view of how the Roman Catholic Church is and exists today. I mention both of these things because they were very, very common occurences for me to see all throughout my youth and while in college and even seminary. I fail to see how either of those facts shows that Rome uses the best tools it has!!!

 

[Philothei]

Using the tools the best way they have been taught includes women in very short skirts being "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist"? Using the tools the best they know includes having the priest sit down during communion while the "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" distribute communion? Rome's definition of extraordinary and mine are two totally different things. I am sorry, you have a very romantic view of how the Roman Catholic Church is and exists today. I mention both of these things because they were very, very common occurences for me to see all throughout my youth and while in college and even seminary. I fail to see how either of those facts shows that Rome uses the best tools it has!!!

Just to add to this I would say that the adoration does not show "more" respect to the Eucarist ...I would prefer to see them going back to fasting practices ...and like Michael said to show more respect by having deacons to serve as Communion "ministers" rahter than women ... etc etc.. I won't go into the liturgical expressions that are mere "secular" renovations either....

Adoration is just another practice that is questionable...as we are not again called /commanded to do this...but to consume the Eucarist.

 

[semper_virens]

Actually I'm not a Catholic and I do know Orthodoxy though I won't go into that. I only posted because the OP seems to find certain things about Catholicism over-the-top or objectionable (he made another post on this in the Catholic forum) but the things he really seems to have an issue with are also going to be found in Orthodoxy since he subscribes to his own "doctrine" of selective transubstantiation or something.

As for everything else in the Catholic churches I've been in I've never seen laity handling the eucharist and more than once the matuska and the girl preparing the antidoron table in the Orthodox churches I've been to were more scandalously dressed than anything I've seen in a Catholic church... what individual people choose to do any way doesn't change the doctrine of their respective churches or the belief that the sacraments are to be treated as holy, and that neither one would throw them in the trash like the OP has claimed occurs, in this and the other thread.

 

[Anhelyna]

MIchael

For the first time I feel I must disagree with you.

Sadly the abuse of Extra Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist in the RC Church is not down to the authorities in Rome - the decision was originally made that these lay people were not to be used unless it was really necessary - ie not enough Priests or Deacons , who as you well know are the Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Sadly in some areas even with sufficient Priests etc , they are still necessary because of the numbers presenting themselves for Communion [ rightly or wrongly it's not for either you or I to judge them ] If you have to have Celebrations of Mass every 90 mins on a Sunday morning then you have to have enough people to ensure that Mass is finished in time for one congregation to leave the Church Building to allow the next congregation in.

The habit of some Clergy to sit while their Extra Ordinary Ministers give Communion to the faithful is a very definite abuse and it is something that the local Bishops should be dealing with . I'm not really sure just how you can deal with people who 'know better ' and insist on doing it 'their ' way.

Fortunately , certainly in the UK, the younger priests do seem to be more willing to abide by the rubrics .

Now having said my piece I'm bowing out - this cannot become a debate

 

[Michael G]

MIchael

For the first time I feel I must disagree with you.

Sadly the abuse of Extra Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist in the RC Church is not down to the authorities in Rome - the decision was originally made that these lay people were not to be used unless it was really necessary - ie not enough Priests or Deacons , who as you well know are the Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Sadly in some areas even with sufficient Priests etc , they are still necessary because of the numbers presenting themselves for Communion [ rightly or wrongly it's not for either you or I to judge them ] If you have to have Celebrations of Mass every 90 mins on a Sunday morning then you have to have enough people to ensure that Mass is finished in time for one congregation to leave the Church Building to allow the next congregation in.

The habit of some Clergy to sit while their Extra Ordinary Ministers give Communion to the faithful is a very definite abuse and it is something that the local Bishops should be dealing with . I'm not really sure just how you can deal with people who 'know better ' and insist on doing it 'their ' way.

Fortunately , certainly in the UK, the younger priests do seem to be more willing to abide by the rubrics .

Now having said my piece I'm bowing out - this cannot become a debate

Anhelyna,
At what point do you get to where you really need to have Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist (EME for the sake of brevity)? Is 10 minutes too long for communion to take? It really comes down to one's priorities. In the United States the EME's are used at EVERY mass in a great number of parishes. While still Roman Catholic I had been to mass in atleast half of the states in the Eastern United States and EME's are used to the point where there is NOTHING extraordinary about them. I have been to so many masses where the priest sits down and the EME's distribute the Eucharist. I have seen it happen so many times when women who were not dressed appropriately where the EME's. The Roman Bishops here for the most part have done nothing to curtail this practice. So it really is not just the priests who have lost their reverence for the Eucharist, it is the Roman Bishops as well. The rubrics are not being enforced by priests or bishops in this country, and that is a huge problem!

And while I am on the subject, how can you talk about Eucharistic reverence when the Roman Church in the United States has folk masses at almost every parish on Saturday nights that are more like a guitar concert than a mass, and allows charismatic masses? I was once at a charismatic mass where after the Lord's Prayer a woman was dancing arround, instead of being focused on the altar!!!

I am sorry, I had enough experience with these kind of happenings while a Roman Catholic to stand by my comment that your average Roman Catholic has ALOT less reverence for the Eucharist than your average Orthodox Christian. I do not mean to offend you. You are my friend and I value your input in this forum. But I am not going to sugar coat my experiences.

 

[MKJ]

Using the tools the best way they have been taught includes women in very short skirts being "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist"? Using the tools the best they know includes having the priest sit down during communion while the "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" distribute communion? Rome's definition of extraordinary and mine are two totally different things. I am sorry, you have a very romantic view of how the Roman Catholic Church is and exists today. I mention both of these things because they were very, very common occurences for me to see all throughout my youth and while in college and even seminary. I fail to see how either of those facts shows that Rome uses the best tools it has!!!

I think maybe he meant the individual Catholics who have been taught certain practises - like fasting an hour - are simply doing what they have been told. There are lots of very pious Catholics who practice the way they do because that is what they have been taught, and would do something else if that is what they have been taught. We Anglicans are taught almost nothing about fasting, unfortunately - but many are still very pious with regard to the Eucharist. The lack of teaching is bad, and I am sure it contributes to stories like dogs receiving communion, but that does not mean the people who are just following what they have been taught are impious. They trust their leaders.

Maybe it wasn't your intention to make a judgement of individuals so much as to criticize the leadership that allows such practices, but it sounded like you were saying individual Catholics who did these things must therefore be impious.

 

[Michael G]

I think maybe he meant the individual Catholics who have been taught certain practises - like fasting an hour - are simply doing what they have been told. There are lots of very pious Catholics who practice the way they do because that is what they have been taught, and would do something else if that is what they have been taught. We Anglicans are taught almost nothing about fasting, unfortunately - but many are still very pious with regard to the Eucharist. The lack of teaching is bad, and I am sure it contributes to stories like dogs receiving communion, but that does not mean the people who are just following what they have been taught are impious. They trust their leaders.

Maybe it wasn't your intention to make a judgement of individuals so much as to criticize the leadership that allows such practices, but it sounded like you were saying individual Catholics who did these things must therefore be impious.

I am not going to judge your average Roman Catholic. My judgement is on the priests, bishops and seminaries in this country of whom the vast majority have so watered down what was the practice less than a generation ago with in Catholicism to the point where your average Catholic does not know any better. My dad can't help it that his parish has Sunday Mass at 4:30 on Saturday evening, every Saturday. It is not his fault that he goes to this when his local church tells him it is ok. He also can't help that he had no clue what vespers is when I asked him if they have Sunday Mass at 4:30 what time they have vespers. But at the same time his parish priest and diocesan bishop should be ashamed of what has become of customary Catholic practices.

 

[Joshua G.]

Using the tools the best way they have been taught includes women in very short skirts being "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist"?

I was refering very specifically to those Catholics that regularly and voluntarily go to Eucharistic adoration. While I am sure there are exceptions, I feel pretty confident in saying taht the girls in short skirts are not voluntarily taking time out of their day on anything close to a regular basis to woship Christ in the Eucharist. So, if you were asking a real question up there then, No, that is not an example of using the best tools because wearing a short skirt to Church (or anywhere, in my opinion) defies common sense. But yes, it happens all the time, I would agree with you that I see this nonsense more in a RCC parish in the US than in an Orthodox Parish in the US.

Using the tools the best they know includes having the priest sit down during communion while the "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" distribute communion?

This perhaps is a bit more to my point. I agree that the Eucharistic ministers is, at best, VERY abused in the Catholic Church. 1) there's a reason it's called "extraordinary" but you and I would both readily agree that no one would have ANY idea it were to be a practice reserved for "extraordinary" circumstances. 2) I believe it should be done away with completely, but I guess that's a different thread.

However, post Vatican II Catholics who are very devout might have no idea that a Eucharistic Minister is an abuse of a Catholic economia. My point is not that this practice (as an example) or the practice of only fasting for 1 hour (as the original example) is good in and of itself. They aren't. But we have to be careful to place blame and intention. EXTREMELY pious individuals don't wear short skirts to Church. BUT, they might follow bad form that was taught them (like the practices mentioned) because what made them pious in the first place (humility and listening to and learning from your priest, etc.) is what made them accept that fasting only 1 hour and being a Eucharistic minister is a good and pious practice.

Rome's definition of extraordinary and mine are two totally different things.

Agreed. But that's not the issue at hand. All of us agree that Vatican II brought about a lot of issues that have caused great spiritual distress on the RCC... and you know that better than I. Even an outsider like myself can see that.

I am sorry, you have a very romantic view of how the Roman Catholic Church is and exists today.

I disagree. I tend to be nuanced on my view at times to focus on the positive because this forum does plenty to be negative about the RCC. if everyone is saying waht's wrong about the RCC, that's great. But I don't think I need to repeat it. It's said. However, if not a lot of people are pointing out what is good about the RCC or Catholic individuals despite their Church's foibles, then I see that as a worthy issue to take up.

I also disagree in that I think our experiences are just as real. They are just different. no doubt, yours is more expansive and deeper. However, although I don't claim to have seen nearly as much as you have, that doesn't mean you've experienced everything I have.

Let's keep in mind that most of what my Catholic experience is based on is within the last 10 years, in which there has been an enormous resurgeance of young Catholics (my age and younger) thirsting for a more Catholic Catholicism. My experience is based on two years spent in Spain, one of which I became very close to a neo-catecumenal group, including a priest, who played major roles in my not living my life like every other foreign student using the year to "sow their oats". Honestly, if it were not for the Catholic Church (and yes, I was Orthodox then) in my weakness I would have probably made a LOT more mistakes than I already had. My experience is also based on a small student fellowship of serious Catholics who refused to meet at the Campus parish because (at the time) it was more liberal than what you describe here below (rainbow flag... the whole gammot.) and out of that small group, three went on to become priests and one is now a nun. No exaggeration.

Then thirdly my experience is based off of going to baptisms or whatever reason brings me to a Catholic Mass on a random Sunday and, yes, I see the priest turned around, the protestant hymns, the Eucharistic ministers and all of that that both you and I cringe at.

Now, the neo-catechumens and the fellowship group are not refelctive of the majority of Church-going Catholics. However, they are reflective of a movement in their respective cultures that is looking for a deeper, truer Catholicism that the craziness/abuse/use (however one sees it) of Vatican II that ensued soon after its implementation. And from what I understand that ressurgeance is about 15 years old. I don't know what precipitated it, but you see more Catholics voting pro-life and Republican, you see the results like the recent surprise election of the President of the USCCB and so on.

I mention both of these things because they were very, very common occurences for me to see all throughout my youth and while in college and even seminary.

I don't doubt it for a minute because I have seen it too... and I still do.

I fail to see how either of those facts shows that Rome uses the best tools it has!!!

And here is the crux of the issue. I never said ROME does. I said specifically DEVOUT CATHOLICS use the tools given to them in the best way that they can. If I know nothing about building a house and my mentor gives me a coconut for a hammer and I do the best I can wtih that... does that make ME absurd or my mentor? Clearly its the latter.

In the end, my larger point was simply that, interestingly enough, as much as we may disagree with Eucharistic Adoration, those who tend to go voluntarily on a regular basis, tend also to be the type that don't wear mini-skirts to church and use the most pious tools given to them by their church. many of them simply are unaware that fasting from the night before is actually THE Catholic practice whereas the hour before is what was meant to be the minimum (an economia).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Josh, oh what I mean was that it has been specifically defined. I know our best answer is that we don't know. that is my problems with the doctrine. sorry for not being clear.

 

[Jeronimomoulia]

...