The importance of Contact Consecration at presanctified IS the infants (and the rare individual unable to take solids)...

Every year there is a discussion on this question on the clergy lists.

We have discovered such interesting things as the late Metropolitan Laurus of the Russian Church Abroad not communing infants at the Presanctified because the wine was simply wine and this is what was (is still?) taught at Jordanville seminary while he was in charge there.

We have also just heard that the OCA's Metropolitan Jonah has instructed OCA clergy to commune infants at the Presanctified, which implies that some priests are not doing so.

This is an excerpt from an article by the late Bishop Basil
Krivoschein, referred to on the "Typikon" list:

"It would seem that the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts would have
one and the same meaning both for the Greeks and Russians.

"The people like that service and many do attend it, especially if it
is celebrated in the evening, as it should be, although this "daring
novelty" still meets up with strong objections and is not widely
practiced, except among the Orthodox in the West.

"But even if there are no observable differences in the celebration of
the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, which could impact upon the
spiritual experience of the people, still there are some serious
theological differences, although not officially formulated, which
underline the actions and words of the celebrants behind the
iconostas.

"Here (to the great surprise of many lay people and even the clergy
that do not even suspect it) arises the question: does the wine in
the chalice, during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, change
into the Lord's Precious Blood, as it does during the Liturgies of
John Chrysostom and Basil the Great, or does it remain what it was,
except that it was blessed and sanctified?

"The Russian Liturgy, since the time of Peter Mogila in any case,
answers in the negative: the wine is not changed. This understanding
is demonstrated by the fact that the celebrant partaking of the
presanctified Body of Christ, which was intinctured with the Precious
Blood sanctified at the Liturgy of Chrysostom or Basil the Great,
drinks from the chalice without pronouncing those words, which he
would when partaking during a "full" Liturgy.

"Furthermore, if he is celebrating without a deacon and would later
consume the remaining Gifts by himself, he does not drink from the
chalice. The deacon that would consume the remaining Gifts at the end
of the Liturgy never drinks from the chalice even when he receives
Communion.

"To drink from the chalice is viewed as an impediment towards
consuming the remaining Gifts, as is explained in the "Notes
concerning certain procedures for the celebration of the Liturgy of
the Presanctified Gifts," which go back to the time of Peter
Mogila: "If the priest is celebrating alone . . . he does not drink
from the chalice until the end of the Liturgy. Even though the wine
is sanctified by the placing of the particles (of the sacred Body),
it is not transubstantiated into the Divine Blood, since the words of
institution were not pronounced over it as occurs during the
Liturgies of Ss. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great."

"This same opinion is expressed in the Russian Church's practice of
not admitting infants to communion during the Liturgy of the
Presanctified Gifts since, because of their age, they are unable to
swallow a particle of the Body of Christ and the wine is not
considered to have been changed into the Precious Blood.

"The Greek practice, as indicated in the service books, although not
too clearly, presumes what appears to be completely different
theological beliefs. Concerning the Liturgy of the Presanctified
Gifts it briefly states: "The priest partakes . . . of the Sacred
Gifts just as during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom." Meaning
that, as he drinks from the chalice he says: "The precious and sacred
Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me..."

"Thus, what is in the chalice is considered to be Christ's Blood. This
is supported by the practice of drinking from the chalice three
times, just as at the Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil the Great,
which would not have been of much significance if this was said just
about wine and not the Sacred Blood.

"After all this, the celebrant consumes the Sacred Gifts as during the
usual Liturgies.

"As for the theological explanations, we can find these in the
Byzantine liturgists beginning with the 11th century: during the
placement of the particle of the Body of Christ into the chalice the
wine changes into the Precious Blood of the Lord through contact with
His Body."

Thus, there are two different "theologoumena" on this subject --
and the Church has never issued a final, conciliar definition.

But perhaps that is best:
In Orthodoxy, we speak of "the Holy *Mysteries*", and we accept the
idea that some things are mysterious, and beyond our ken. At the very
least, it is good for our humility...

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

I have seen babies in the Greek and Antiochian Churches receive only from the Chalice at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Obviously, there's a difference of opinion between the Churches of the North and East on this matter.

Whether the Assyrian recension of Addai and Mari do not have clear Words of Institution, or have them implicitly (which sounds to me like a bit of waffling), it is still clear to anyone with two wits to clap together that the Assyrians intend to accomplish the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. It's the only way this Anaphora makes sense.

I found the following on the web site www.absoluteastronomy.com, concerning Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (I believe it is from Wikipedia):
When it comes time for Holy Communion, the clergy make their communion as normal, except that no words accompany their drinking from the chalice. Those portions of the reserved Lamb which will be used to give communion to the faithful are placed in unconsecrated wine in the chalice. Local practice varies as to whether or not this unconsecrated wine must be thought of as the Blood of Christ (even if the bread was intincted). The only practical effect of this variety is that the celebrant (priest or deacon) who must consume all the undistrubuted communion at the end of the service might or might not partake of the chalice when he communes himself: if the wine that was poured into the chalice is not the Blood of Christ, he would need to consume all of the consecrated elements before drinking any of the wine because drinking unconsecrated wine breaks the Eucharistic fast.

Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified does not have an Anaphora, so a comparison with the Assyrian Church of the East is not applicable.

Not sure if that make sense. Since the Lamb (apart from the 1/4 portion used for the priest's communion) is all immersed in the wine, how could the priesty avoid consuming both consecrated Lamb and unconsecrated wine since he is spooning them into his mouth simultaneously from the Chalice? In other words, it is impossible for him to consume all the consecrated elements before drinking any of the unconsecrated wine.

When a portion of the dried Lamb, even if not intincted, is placed into the cup at the Fraction during Pre-Sanctified, then the wine, by contact with the Lamb, becomes the Blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. There is no need to ask the Holy Spirit to come down and change, as the contact is enough.

However, the Lamb is not placed in the cup at Pre-Sanctified just to make it moist again. The idea is to receive our Lord under both species.

This seems like a great deal of legalist thought going on here...

Partaking of the Eucharist breaks the fast, so whether one considers that the chalice (of the PreSanctified Liturgy) contains wine or not is of no consequence, the fast was already broken when the priest/deacon received the Eucharist in the form of the Holy Body. As a practice, when I consume the chalice, I do consume the elements of the Holy Body before consuming the Precious Blood (or unconsecrated wine of the PreSanctified Liturgy).

Now, one could wonder what touches the tongue first in the reception of the faithful from the chalice, the unconsecrated wine or the Holy Body of Our Lord, but in the end does it really matter?

I respectfully disagree. If this were the case, then there would be no problem with the clergy partaking of the Most-Pure Body, and then, for example, eating a nice tasty egg and sausage breakfast before partaking of the Precious Blood.

Fr. Deacon James,

You may disagree but you are incorrect. The Eucharist is always held to break the fast which is why Presanctified Liturgies and Liturgies on fasting days (the Vesperal Liturgies of: Christmas Eve and Theophany Eve if Mon-Fri, Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, and Annunciation if Mon-Fri during the Lent) are in the evening because to serve the Liturgy in the morning as usual would break the fast.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dearest Brother,

Of course the Eucharist breaks the fast! Forgive me if I implied otherwise. What I was referring to in my other post was that one would not partake of the Eucharist, pause, eat something else, then partake of more of the Eucharist. For those who believe that the wine in the chalice becomes the Blood of our Saviour by touching the Reserved Sacrament, there is no problem here. For those who believe that the wine in the chalice is simply wine, then there is a problem in drinking that wine, and then later partaking of more Eucharist. There is divide in Eastern Christianity as to which is the case here. Many a bishop in the Church instructs their clergy during these services to not partake of the wine if they are consuming at the end of Liturgy. The idea is to finish taking communion before eating anything else. We have Ukrainian, Russian, and Antiochian parishes in my small town and during Lent we serve the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts together. We all understand that depending on who will consume the Gifts afterwards, that clergyman may or may not partake of the Precious Blood/wine during the service, and we respect each other. I humbly ask your forgiveness, Father Deacon.

Fr. Deacon James,

No please forgive me for misunderstanding your statement.

Fr. Deacon Lance