www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Restoring Prosphora Traditions

It is my observation (and others may have different experiences--if so, please let us know) that one major difference still exists between many Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions and the practices of their Orthodox sister jurisdictions--that is in how we usually do not follow the prosphora traditions.

Some parishes distribute the "antidoron" at the conclusion of Divine Liturgy. Usually in the current Ruthenian tradition we distribute it as part of "mirovanije"--which actually is transferred from Vespers of a special feast. Strictly speaking, this is not the distribution of what is called "antidoron." Occasionally, someone will say that since we have frequent Communion and since "antidoron" means "in place of the gifts," it is no longer needed. Those Orthodox parishes which practice frequent Communion still distribute the "antidoron" at the end of Liturgy, however.

But, what is even more telling in refuting that view is that all Byzantine Orthodox parishes (at least the ones I've visited) distribute the blessed bread at the same time as Communion. You receive from the spoon and then you take a piece of two of the blessed bread from an altar server. This may be partially due to the strict fasting rules in most Orthodox jurisdictions. However, a beautiful tradition has developed in many Orthodox parishes with regards to this.

A couple of Sundays ago I visited my former Orthodox parish. It was the first time since I'd returned to the Catholic Church. I'd promised to visit occasionally but had not had a chance to do so. It was a bit awkward for me, of course. I didn't want to offend anyone there. At Communion time, everyone else went up and I was in prayer. Both the matushka and an old friend from the parish took some extra blessed bread and as they returned to their places gave me some as an expression of their love and friendship. It was most appreciated!

Since we are talking about restoring Eastern liturgical traditions...how about reviving the prosphora traditions in the Ruthenian Church?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dear Dave,

My Antiochian Orthodox neighbour always brings me Antidoron after Sunday Liturgy.

(Is that allowed?)

I think the practice of saving the Blessed Bread for morning prayer during the days of the week is a most invaluable aid to devotion and we need our priests to explain all this, including, of course, all you said, to the people.

Alex

That sounds like a beautiful tradition, Alex!

An interesting resource is:

http://www.prosphora.org/

Go down and read the interesting article on that link entitled: "The abuse of pre-cut prosphora" from the CINEAST archives.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

As I read this thread of restoration next to the other thread of innovation in the liturgy, I thought I might add a few notes.

To speak of restoring the tradition of Prosphora you must know that one is not supposed to keep some it to pass around after the services. One must fast to receive Andeethoron (phonetic spelling). In addition, one is not to receive it unless they are in communion.

So, even though you had a "pleasant experience" at your old church, I thought as long as you are talking about restoring a tradition, it might help to know that the people you are learning it from do not appear to be good examples.

Just a friendly note.

As a frequent visitor during my college years to the on-campus Orthodox mission's Sunday Divine Liturgy, the "matushka" (actually, she was a pani) would always bring me a handful of antidoron, even though I was a known "Uniat." (Then again, she was formerly a Uniat too!)

Hello Folks,

I have to very respectfully disagree with Orthodoxyordeath on his comments about the fact receiving antidoron limited to those who is in communion.

I am a Byzantine Catholic who goes to the Orthodox Church every Sundays. And I always receive antidorons from more than one people! Sometimes I'd make comments that I'm getting fat! LOL

But it's all about "breaking the bread" with people...to share Christ's love for us through genorosity and love from people who received Christ in Eucharist. It's all part of sharing love and fellowship that we have for one another.

It's a wonderful feeling to be part of the Church even though I'm not Orthodox. They have made me part of them and their families. I'm on the mailing list, I help serve their annual bake sales and Lebanese dinners, I go to their religion classes, etc. They KNOW that I'm a Byzantine Catholic. I'm every bit part of their lives and have been for many years.

The fact sharing antidorons is probably one of the most effective tools of bringing in people to God (mostly non-Catholic or Orthodox)...as in converts.

I do wish that the Byzantine Catholic Churches follow the example of the Orthodox Churches regarding to love and fellowship. Instead, many BCC have this "cold" attitude...mostly influenced by the Roman Catholics who tend to be cold to other people. Maybe cold isn't a nice word...perhaps more like "Anglo-saxons" rather than "Greeks."

I do wish that BCC is more loving, open and caring. And try their best to restore every ounce of tradition back to church...to de-latinize it completely...not stick with foreign languages,latinize traditions,latin-like attitudes...and not be so close minded. Then there would be more people coming....more growth of God's Church. But for right now...you would have to wonder why we are so small!

God bless.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

Are there any Byzantine Catholic parishes which have restored distribution of the blessed bread *during* Communion?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

From my understanding, OrthodoxyOrDeath is correct in saying that traditionally Antidoron is only given to people who have fasted.

This rule has been relaxed in most parishes and jurisdictions,(except by those who know better, of course).

I also understand that the antidoron given immediately after communion, in some cases including a sip of wine and warm water from a small cup, is to insure that all the Sacred Elements are swollowed.

An OCA priest told me that it is a Greek custom to take a portion of Antidoron home and to eat a little bit of it with a sip of holy water at the conclusion of morning prayers.

Thank you for the link about pre cut prosphora Dave!

With Best Wishes to All!
Stefan-Ivan

The Russian Catholic parish of St. Michael's in Manhattan has a tray with cups of wine that are set out as one returns from receiving the Holy Mysteries. Very nice practice, as is taking a piece of the Antidoron after morning prayers.

I guess from a practical view if Antidoron is really "instead of the Gifts" and one is receiving the blessed Antidoron precisely because they haven't fasted and prepared properly for receiving the Holy Mysteries (confession, Canons and Akathist for Communion, etc.) I don't get the fasting part. It's not the Holy Mysteries, after all.

And if you don't receive Communion, if you believe as Alexander Schmemann so brilliantly pointed out that the Eucharist is THE sacrament of the Church, of communion, then are you not in communion anyway, at least temporarily?

Just throwing that out.

[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

It's my observation that here is a situation where Greek and Russian practice diverge. As far as I know the Greeks do not have wine on a table to consume after one receives Communion as do the Russians. But, both do have the blessed bread at both Communion and at the end of Liturgy (the Russians have veneration of the cross--the Greeks usually receive the antidoron from the priest's hands).

I don't know where we Ruthenians would fall into this as far as the blessed wine goes. I don't know when that practice entered the Russian Church (perhaps after the Nikonian reforms?)

Since the distribution of blessed bread at Communion and antidoron at the end of Liturgy seems universal in Byzantine Orthodoxy shouldn't we at a minimum restore these practices as part of our liturgical renewal and reform (as well as lay participation in baking prosphora)?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Is there any scholarly evidence that the distribution of antidoron either right after Holy Communion or at the kissing of the cross (which we unfortunately no longer practice) was ever done in the "Ruthenian" lands, i.e., Subcarpathia and Galicia? If there isn't, then we shouldn't be in such a hurry to do it now. Most of our people are completely unfamiliar with it -- except perhaps observing it in an OCA parish -- and there is so much else more important we need to work on.

Dave, we have had distribution of Antidoron and veneration of the Cross at most every Liturgy in my Ukrainain Catholic parish since I have been attending there (12 years at my current parish). During that time we have always also had parishoners prepare and bake the prosphora. The Ruthenian parish I attend occaisionally generally never has distribution of Antidoron or veneration of the Cross. I think this may be an issue of local variation as much as church- or eparchial-wide practice.

Our 1988 Liturgikon promulgated by the Synod of the UGCC specifies that Antidoron is to be distributed while Psalm 33 is sung before the final blessing, "The blessing of the Lord be upon you with His grace" etc. The deacon is to be consuming the Gifts while the priest is distributing Antidoron.

But most priests do it after the dismissal "for He is good and loves mankind" and distributes Antidoron while the Polychronion (Mnohaya Lita) and other closing hymns are sung.

I think you are right about the post-Nikonian development of the wine after Communion. I don't see any mention of it in my Old Believer texts. The distribution of the Antidoron in the Old Believer usage occurs after the final dismissal while a specific verse is sung by the cantor for the veneration of the Cross. The Post-Communion prayers are then read/chanted recto tono by the Reader.

I wouldn't say this is the most important thing we should work on...but this (and the minamalistic view we Ruthenians usually have about prosphora bread) are major differences we have from our authentic tradition.

It would seem strange that the both Greek and Russian practice would converge on the use of antidoron and somehow we Ruthenians never had it, wouldn't it? I've been told that the use of antidoron is not a Ruthenian practice. Such is not true. It's a practice we abandoned. See this description by Fr Petras on the CINEAST archives:

http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/199706/0362.html

Also, the _Ordo Celebrationis_ (1944) refers to it on pp. 73-74: "Where it is customary, the priest comes out through the holy doors and distributes antidoron to the people, unless this is customarily done after the Apolysis." (This refers to the different traditions of *when* to distribute the antidoron--either right after the Ambon prayer or after the Dismissal...there are two different "customary" times. Whichever, that there was a distribution is a given.)

Sure, our people may be unfamiliar with this tradition as they are with many other things. This is something that catechesis should take care of as is the case with some other subjects (use of the term "orthodox," restoral of the Sunday of St Gregory Palamas, etc.) Unfamiliarity with something is not a reason to withold catechesis.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Lemko,

You raise quite the fascinating point that I've yet to come across on the topic of returning to Eastern traditions etc.

Our parish priest refuses to do the washing of the feet ritual on Holy Thursdays because that was not done in the Galicia of yesteryear with which he is familiar.

And that is the nub of the point.

Yes, we have an obligation to study our traditions and return to them.

But what about the living tradition of the people and the fact they are used to certain rites and rituals and their changing may lead to confusion and upset?

Alex

Dear Friends,

Yes, OOD is correct about the fasting before receiving the Holy Bread.

This is why Orthodox Christians traditionally keep this Holy Bread in a special place in their homes and have a piece of it in the morning following prayer, sometimes with a sip of Holy Water - and of course on an empty stomach.

The early Christians used to keep Holy Communion in their homes in this same way and give themselves and their family members Communion at home!

This was later forbidden due to the waning of the early devotion of the first Christians . . .

I thought that Daniil's parish of St Elias did this during the Liturgy.

I saw this at a Ukrainian Orthodox liturgy where the communicants were given warm water and the antidoron following Communion and having kissed the edge of the Chalice.

They then waited "in the wings" so to speak for the priest to come along with the Chalice and touch it to their heads as he moved toward the side altar or Proskomidiynyk.

Alex

Alex writes:


A valid point. No change should be just thrust on the people without clear and patient catechesis. Restoral of our authentic tradition should precede any other type of change, however.


Here is it nearly 50 years after the call at Vatican II for us to restore our traditions and on some issues there has been no effort to do so. The most popular objection I've heard for refusing to consider the restoral of the antidoron tradition is:

It's not a Ruthenian tradition.

Well, that's true only because it was abandoned by the Ruthenian Church. The Liturgical Instruction speaks of a time when our liturgical books were "corrected" in Rome:


It's my guess that the supression of the antidoron tradition (and the reception of blessed bread at Communion) come from that era when our liturgies were "corrected" in Rome (with I'm sure the cooperation of our leaders at that time.)

Thankfully, there is a different attitude these days and there has been great strides in many Churches.

The other objection I hear to the restoral of the antidoron is that it isn't needed any more since we have frequent Communion. This actually reflects an attitude of denigration towards our authentic tradition. What is really involved here is the need to restore the entire prosphora tradition. One reason for the distribution of the bread at Communion and after Liturgy was because there was a lot of it. People brought it to Liturgy. Nowadays, baking of the prosphora is often clericalized and the rituals so simplified that abuses occur.

True, the word "antidoron" means "in place of the gifts." That term may have developed in the era when Communion was infrequent. Perhaps a new term is needed now. The sharing of the leftover bread from the prosphora loaves can also be understood in different ways, breaking the fast is one of them.

The third objection I sometimes hear is:

The Orthodox do that.

This is the saddest objection. Here is where patient and persistent catechesis is needed. Not only catechesis, but a conversion of attitude.

[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dear Dave,

A thoughtful and incisive commentary with solid backup!

I'm jealous . . .

Alex

Huh?

djs

Thanks, Alex and djs...I think...

This has been a subject that has concerned me for many years and if I get a bit impassioned on it and go overboard, I apologize.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I see a direct link and coorelation with the degree certain churches have lost their external traditions and that of their theological traditions. After all, you do not put indifference in a box.

Even on this board it is amazing as an Orthodox to witness a discussion take root where ideas are expressed on how to change the DIVINE Liturgy. This type of conversation would be inconceivable in True Orthodox circles. And in keeping with my original point, it is not so surprising when I consider that it is also here where there is great theological indifference as well (at least from my perspective).

So to Dave Ignatius: Your hope for reinstituting a tradition is, while the right thing, against the core dynamic. You might say: "well, there are allot of people like me who want the traditions back", and that may be true, but there are many more who don't, many who want more change, and still more who don't care. As they say, the proof of what is happening and what has happened is in the perverbial "pudding".

The Roman Latins were once Orthodox. They used to use Leavened bread, they used to Baptize and Chrismate on the same day, they never used to have pews, they never used to have organs, they didn't always beleive in papal infallibility, they didn't always accept the filioque, they didn't always accept the council of 869, they didn't always worship to the cult of apparitions. The course for you is charted, all efforts against it will be swept away with time.

Dear OOD,

Organs and pews! Those Latin heretics! Thank you for giving full vent to my absolute LOATHING of the western crusaders . . .

And what about their sign of the Cross with the whole hand? Now there's the mark of the beast if I ever saw one, perdition take them all . . .

Weren't these also on the original list of the "Errors of the Latins?"

As for the cult of the apparitions, you mean your church doesn't celebrate miraculous icons, appearances of the Most Holy Theotokos to saints and the appearance of the Cross above Athens?

If not, then, sorry, but I'm going to have to start casting a few anathemas up your way too!

Am I the only one around here who believes in the Truth any more?

Alex

I would be more conservative about wanting to suggest changes, particularly with so little information as to the when and why of our loss of this tradition, if, indeed, we ever had it. Your "guess" is a nice hypothesis, but is it supported by actual facts?


Is that what you hear, or is it: the mere fact that the Orthodox do something is not a sufficient(nor a necessary) condition for our adopting the practice.

Our particular church has its particular history, particular customs, and authentic traditions. Respect for our patrimony, and for ourselves, demands that focus here first, and work with solid facts rather than guesses.

djs

djs wrote:


I cited both Fr Petras (who said that we Ruthenians had abandoned the practice) and the _Ordo_ published by Rome. My experience has been that the entire Byzantine Orthodox world (both Greek, Slavic and Antiochian) follow these prosphora traditions. (Anyone else have a differing experience?) How is it, then, that we Ruthenians are an island of no use of the antidoron?

My "guess" related to exactly how the tradition disappeared. That it disappeared is pretty plain.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

What about the apparition that the holy St. Andrew, fool for Christ, beheld on the day that has come to be commemorated as the Pokrova by both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic? The commemoration of Rus' Ukraine to the Pokrova by Yaroslav the Wise occurred before 1054. I can't buy the apparition stuff.

Most of the Greek, Serb, Antiochian, OCA, etc. churches I have visited all have pews. Some Greek churches still have organs. I'd say OOD needs to do some house cleaning in his own house before givng us advice.

I think there is a sort of phobia amongst some Orthodox of us Eastern Catholics returning to authentic Eastern tradition within the Catholic communion. It is in their best interest to use "reverse psychology" on us, telling us not to return to this or that tradition for whatever reason...that gives them some comfort and ammunition on the "latinization" angle...

Full speed ahead, mates! Vostochne or bust!

Dera Diak,

Actually, our friend OOD belongs to an Old Calendarist True Orthodox Church, so he would anathematize those "Greeks" who have pews!

The cult of the Pokrova or the Mantle of Protection in Ukraine is most interesting.

It was the princes Bl. Askold and Dir who took their fleet against Byzantium.

They witnessed the Archbishop take the Pokrova of the Mother of God and drop it into the water.

As he did, the waves began to move - so much so that most of their fleet was lost.

They then sued for peace, having themselves received Baptism and then went home to Kyiv where they preached Christianity and where the "First" Baptism of Kyivan Rus' took place.

They introduced the devotion to the Pokrova as a result of their humbling experiences and it later became a national holiday, the Protection of the Kozak Host etc.

The appearance of Our Lady with Her Mantle to protect Constantinople occurred several times and this is what the Akathist also commemorates.

Her appearance above Pochaiv, Terebovl (whose Icon and miraculous appearance were approved by the Pope Himself in 2000 with a papal Crown!) and other places are also well-known.

That the Mother of God can and does appear is certainly possible.

That the Church liturgically celebrates such appearances and believes in them accordingly is also a fact.

That neither you nor I have seen one is a fact as well.

That doesn't mean that we won't yet see one!

God is the God of surprises.

Alex

Another aspect to consider as to why there is resistance to restoring the prosphora tradition is that it could mean a loss of control by the pastor over its baking. Sometimes the bread is baked by one or two ladies in a parish. Sometimes it is something reserved to the priest.

I was talking one day in the office of a Eastern Catholic priest about this subject. I asked him about this issue. He replied that he made the bread himself. He would make it for a month or two at a time and then freeze it (he usually cut it up into pieces before freezing it.) I told him how in the Eastern Catholic parish I was then attending I had been priviledged to bake the prosphora bread a few times. The priest I was talking to was surprised at this and said that he preferred to make it himself since he knew what he would get. (I fully understood as I had a couple "flops" in baking the bread myself.) He then asked me if I used the seal. I said I did. I had purchased it from the bookstore of the Greek parish in town. He wondered if he could get one. He had always wanted to use the seal when baking the prosphora bread. I know that he did purchase a wooden seal to use. I don't know if he stopped the practice of using pre-cut pieces of prosphora bread, however.

Restoring the prosphora tradition to our Church might mean getting an occasional loaf that is not perfect. People will have to be trained to prepare it correctly. And, in the worst case scenario, a bad loaf can be cut up to use for the antidoron or the blessed bread distributed at Communion.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I would need to learn more from Father Petras, or others, about the evidence for this abandonment - as well as the when and why of this development - before deciding whether it is an authentic development of ours or not. Well-before the publication of the Ordo, the practice of Antidoron was not present among our people either in Europe or the US; the inferences that you draw from the Ordo are not consistent with our practice.

djs

djs

Alex and Diak,

I had a feeling that someone would zero in on the "pews" and not the "infalibility", after all, it was an easy target. But it all comes hand-in-hand which was the point I was making in that post.

Certainly pews do not make one a heretic, but it is simply wrong. Sure there are elderly who need to sit, for them we have stalls and folding chairs, but since everything is ordered towards the Glory of God, we stand if able, as even the Angels stand before the throne of God.

How is it that able bodied people who can do all sorts of other physical labors for more trivial reasons, cannot stand for the Lord, who was crucified for our sins? These people don't stand, not because they are "tired" or unable, but because their heart is not into it.

Inviting people to be lazy for the Lord by having a hundred pews waiting for them does not bring them to salvation. If they are persistent, let them go out of their way and grab a folding chair or something and be different than everyone else - still better for them to be there and witness the example of others than not at all I suppose.

While the Orthodox venerate miraculous icons they are sober about it. We see weeping icons as bad signs, apparitions are not major feastdays or see global pilgrimages. The Orthodox understand that apparitions have a dangerous side. The tens of thousands of people who have "pilgrimages" to Fatima and Lourdes are the same people who visit Hangar 46. Why do I need to have a pilrimage to a site of an apparition when I can see GOD in Church?

"If anyone comes preaching any other Gospel, even if they be an angel from heaven, they shall be called accursed by us." What did the apparition say at Fatima? "I am the lady of the Immaculate Conception" or something like that? At one time that term was unknown.

[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Friends,

This thread fascinates me. I have heard over-and-over "that is not a Ruthenian tradition" or "we are not Orthodox!"

A point brought out earlier in this thread was how could the Ruthenians/Rusins/Carpatho-Russians NOT HAVE a practice that all the other Byzantine Christians around them HAVE? Russians and Greeks (and to my knowledge Ukrainians and Serbs) bless boiled wheat (variously called kutia or kolivo). I have been repeatedly told that blessing boiled wheat is not an authentic Ruthenian custom. One priest told me very simply "I never saw that in one of our churches!" It seems that many of these customs fell by the wayside during/since the Union. It certainly appears that Rome is calling the Ruthenian Catholics to restore these customs. It is impossible to look to the contemporary Orthodox of Ruthenian persuasion becuase they most likely have suffered the same sad fate of loosing many of their customs.

Then again, what real value is there in restoring customs that may have been lost hundreds of years ago and people no longer understand? So what? Rome calls the BCs to it? And? Like many BC priests have told me, "what does Rome know about our church?"

Bob

QUOTE] I have heard over-and-over "that is not a Ruthenian tradition" or "we are not Orthodox!" [/QUOTE]

As I pointed out above, I think that people are saying: "We are us!" Respect our particular church and it's patrimony.

The fact that this practice is apparently universal within Orthodoxy is not in and of itself sufficient to establish it as proper for us. (Is "Right Reverend" Bishop, the way for us to render "bohol'ubivom" Bishop?

The idea that it is hard to imagine how this could not be an authentic tradition of ours is hardly persuasive: the implied argument is, in fact, a nice example of the logical fallacy of inconceivability.

But to help improve powers of imagination, here are some questions: What is the time-line of the development of this practice in Orthodoxy? Was the Antidoron still being shared only among the clergy or had the practice developed to include the laity at the time of the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. Was the practice part of the original ritual deposit of orthodox missionaries (then and later) or did it spread sometime after this original deposit by what biologists would call "lateral transfer"? If we did in fact have this practice either from our origins or through later interactions, and later abandoned it, when did that development occur and and why? Can it be demonstrated that this development was not an organic one?

Without facts (rather than hypotheses, however plausible) that answer questions such as these, the suggestion to make such a change can be viewed as containing an element of disregard for the "particularity" of our church and disrepect for our patrimony. With facts, the story and the reaction could be entirely different.

djs

djs - both the Ruthenian and Ukrainian hierarchies in the United States were originally united under Ukrainian Catholic Bishop Soter Ortynsky. I have spoken with some of the older people in my own parish which goes back to 1917 (well prior to the separation of jurisdictions between Ruthenian under Tkach and Ukrainian under Bohachevsky) about this issue and all of them remember antidoron as far back as they can remember. They also can never remember when the faithful did not bake the prosphora. I disagree with stating that it is not of the tradition. Some parishes of the Ruthenian/Ukrainian usage clearly had the practice and continued the practice.

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

Diak:

Thanks for this info. Here's some of what I had found.

The Catholic encyclopedia (ca. 1910), on the subject of antidoron says:
"... The giving of the antidoron is regularly followed in the Russian Orthodox and the Greek (Hellenic) Orthodox churches at every Mass, and it is an interesting sight to watch the worshippers crowding up in lines to obtain the blessed bread. In the Greek Catholic churches of Austria and Hungary the antidoron is given only on rare occasions during the year, chiefly on the Saturday in Easter week; while among the Greek Catholics of Italy and Sicily it is usually given only on Holy Thursday, the Feast of the Assumption, that of St. Nicolas of Myra, and at certain week-day masses in Lent;..."

Under "Ruthenian Rite" it notes:
"There is no distribution of the antidoron or blessed bread at the end of Mass in the Ruthenian Rite". This article notes distinctions between particular Ruthenian and other Byzantine practices, and in some cases traces them specifically to either latinization and Zamosc, or to pre-Nikonian vestiges. Unfortunately it gives no indication of how/when the antidoron practice developed.

Likewise on the matter of our prophora "minimalism"; it notes:
"In the Proskomide of the Divine Liturgy the Ruthenians are allowed to prepare for Mass with one altar-bread (prosphora) or with three, or even with the dry Agnetz (the square Greek host) if no prosphorae can be had, instead of requiring five prosphorae" I can't get on Cineast, where there is a relevant series of posts, but I think that this approach may be retain in the 1944 Ordo (maybe at the request of Bishop Ivancho). I have no idea when/where/why this practice developed. This practice is apparently related to the whole antidoron issue (no unconsecrated bread): but which development came first?

I find it very interesting that there are UC (or was it BC?) parishes in the US that have, if I understand you correctly, a continuous tradition of antidoron (rather than mirovanije). This may be related to the ethnic mix (including Serbs, for example) or the regional mix (Ukrainians from then Russian Lands). Or it may be that this was indeed traditional practice and was preserved in some parts.

djs

Bob King wrote:


My first reaction is to question why having the priest freeze pre-cut prosphora cubes to be used as needed for Liturgy is an "organic development"? Not all priests do this, of course, but it happens more than we'd want to admit.

There are two problems I see here:

1) The tendency towards abbreviation or "efficiency." The Ruthenian Church has the reputation of abbreviating things...just consider the recent discussion about abbreviating litanies from the Liturgy. Dispensing with prosphora loaves from the laity can be seen as more "efficient." The preparation prayers before Liturgy can go a lot quicker. And true, that allows more time for Confessions...we wouldn't want Liturgy to start late, would we?

2) The rejection of our own patrimony and the substitution of another patrimony in its place. There was nothing wrong with having the laity prepare prosphora loaves. Just as the laity have no role in preparing the gifts in the Roman Rite (except for presenting it at Mass) so we usually no longer have a part in preparing the gifts in our Church. If we were to restore lay preparation of prosphora we'd have to have antidoron at every Liturgy just to use it all.

Should we restore such traditions? Yes. Our patrimony is our special inheritance. Our traditions are not inferior because they're different. What is needed (and has been needed for awhile) is the courage to begin the catechesis necessary to restore such traditions (prosphora traditions, use of the word "orthodox," Sunday of St Gregory Palamas, etc.) The Melkites are way ahead of us on most of these issues. It's time we caught up.

Thanks to Diak for pointing out the more recent history of the use of antidoron in our Churches. I was guessing it was something that disappeared earlier. Perhaps the disappearance was a 20th century phenomenon?

Just a clarification: Mirovanije is not the Ruthenian equivalent of antidoron. Mirovanije has been transferred from Vespers of special feast days.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

djs - We have Mirovanije on feast days, as is the usual Ukrainian/Ruthenian practice. We have Antidoron at every liturgy, regardless of feast day or not.

These are distinct practices, the Mirovanija being a translation to the Divine Liturgy of applying the oil blessed during the blessing of wheat, wine and oil from Litya at Vespers. The Antidoron is of course those particles cut from the prosphora at the Proskomidia but not consecrated and added to the chalice but rather blessed and distributed separately.

Mirovanija is actually given at Matins when the faithful come up to venerate the festal icon and Gospel book after the Velichannya and proper Gospel reading, but Matins is a rarity at best in most Greek Catholic parishes except for Pascha which follows a somewhat different order than typical Sunday or festal Matins. If you have a parish that distributes Antidoron, and also has Mirovanije on feast days, both are administered at the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy.

I respect the Catholic Encyclopedia but would not consider that in any way definitive on any point of Eastern liturgy or spirituality. If the pre-Nikonian service books are any indication of general practice before the 17th century, then the practice of antidoron at the conclusion of the Liturgy was common as was the baking of prosphora by the faithful. It seems to me the omission of the antidoron is another later latinization/abbreviation.

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

Although the old Cath. Encyc. has a tone that often grates, it has a wealth of good information, and you may find the referenced articles interesting, but as I pointed out already, not definitive to the issue at hand. (You may also like to read the article on Greek Catholics in America, which anticipates the dividing of Ruthenians in to Russian, Ukrainian, and Rusyn jurisdictions.) I do not think that the pre-cut prosphora issue was addressed there, and I don't think that this practice is recognized in the Ordo.

I try to clarify:
I am not arguing for or against. I have no problem with Zapivka or antidoron. I am critical, however, about the idea of proposing and advocating changes to our practice without also undertaking prior work regarding authenticity, organic development, and pastoral sensitivity. (This principle would also apply against taking the practice out of Diak's parish.) I am very conservative on this point. I don't think it especially prudent to make people who have spent a lifetime in a church feel unfamiliar there, absent a strong case for the change.

djs

djs wrote:


I think there's enough evidence for authenticity. I'd be willing to listen to any evidence that someone may have that somehow we Ruthenians never had the prosphora/antidoron tradition.

I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of how eliminating lay involvement in making the prosphora was a legitimate organic development. (My experience is that people enjoy having the priviledge of making prosphora.)

As to pastoral sensitivity. I'm not sure why restoring the prosphora/antidoron tradition would be something hard for our people to accept. Certainly, restoring infant Communion was a much bigger step. I've seen the antidoron tradition restored in a Ruthenian parish in Arizona and it went over quite well.

Catechesis is the key.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

It may be interesting to point out that Mirovanije is correctly only an anointing. Often in BC parishes people use this word to refer to distribution of blessed bread as well but it is not the same thing. Miro(n) = oil, mirovati = to 'oil', the gerund (oiling/anointing) is mirovanie.

I have seen the practice of distributing blessed bread in a BC Matins service at the time of the veneration of the Gospel and Icon - which if I recall at this location was during the singing of the canon. This service was being celebrated in the morning before Divine Liturgy. It seems that this practice is potentially incorrect. The people were eating the blessed bread immediatley. By doing that the were breaking the eucharistic fast. It seems that at a vigil service when Vespers and Matins are joined this would be reasonable. We have to remember that the relaxation of the eucharistic fast has only come about since Vatican II in the BC churches. Prior to then all Catholics fasted from Midnight before receiving communion.

Also what is usually called Zapivka is only a 'washing down' a drink. Usually accompanied by bread no doubt. How much of this exists in BC parishes in the USA?

I am not advocating any position other than an informed one.

Bob

I just received a mailing from my old parish in Arizona. Included in it is a 8 1/2 x 11 sheet entitled "We Worship God." It appears to be answers to many questions on the Byzantine Liturgy and worship. It seems quite well done. I don't know what jurisdiction put it out. One of the questions asks:


My guess is this is a Melkite resource. Anyone else seen it before?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Friends

If you will excuse the intrusion, permit me to throw in my 2 bits into the discussion.

As I understand, re the Antidoron tradition, there are 2 rather different things going on.

1. Getting PROSPHORA (plus a bit of wine) after Holy Communion is actually an Ablution. That is it cleans one's mouth to make sure that all of the Holy Mysteries are consumed and no particles inadvertently are coughed out etc. So one takes some antidoron to soak up the Holy Gifts and having consumed that, one rinses one's mouth with a sip of wine.

2. Getting Antidoron at the end of Divine Liturgy is not an Ablution, but [and here I am on less solid ground] comes from either the Agape meal, and/or is a remnant of the distribution of bread to the poor after Liturgy [and has since the advent of spiritualities wherein people refrain from regularly partaking of Holy Communion] a replacement for Holy Communion.

3. In Ukrainian Churches, as far as I have seen, "Antidoron at the end of Liturgy" still exists generally and commonly, but is usually only done on festive occasions, probably because it is a bother, [and, as has been noted previously, it is connected with precut frozen mini-crouton-esque Altar-bread-host-things which alas are all too common in many Greco-Catholic parishes]. Thus if one does not bake prosphora but buy it or get it all cut up in mini-cubes in a bag, then one's is not going to have extra or make extra for Antidoron. And the distribution of same adds minutes on to the length of the Service.

4. Re the "Prosphora after Holy Communion thing", I believe it is making a small but very significant revival in one of the Ukrainian parishes in the Toronto Eparchy. Apparently no one's complained!

Hope this helps. Thanks.

[ 07-20-2002: Message edited by: Herbigny ]

[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: Herbigny ]

Some further on the blessed bread from The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom by Ukrainian Catholic Fr Casimir Kucharek:


Fr Kucharek also explains:


Can we not restore this beautiful tradition to our Church?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

At least in my own Ukrainian Catholic parish, we have never lost it. If you have lost it, in charity and patience work with your pastor to restore it. Some good reasons and resources have been laid out on this thread to help in your discussions. It's already in the Ordo Celebrationis, so any change will need to come from the grassroots.

I know ours is a parish where the laity bakes the prosphora, but the priest does pre-cut the loaf. He understands the symbol of unity (the one loaf) is lost. I guess the question I have is how and when does the priest (or deacon?) cut the Lamb during Divine Liturgy for 175-200 communicants? I don't see anytime in the Liturgy to do this properly, since according to the liturgicon this is to be done after the fraction rite, which seems to assume a small number of communicants. What am I missing?

It is only in the last 50-60 years, and pretty much in the West, where you will see "Orthodox" Churches with large congregations. Still more rare are the large congregations who all go for communion every week.

The problem is'nt "how do you prepare for so many during the liturgy", the problem is, if there are many to cause such a problem, then there would first be the problem, "how do you confess so many people often enough to be prepared?".

Dear bisantino,

It does take a couple of minutes. We should remember that the Lamb will be in blocks if you will so the first cut will make two pieces the second four and so one...I have been at BC liturgies when this was done. It did not seem rushed and did not seem to unduly delay the communion of the faithful.

I sense that there is more to this issue than just the time it takes to cut the Lamb. It is like the use or lack thereof of a lention at communion and its color. It is a distinguishing mark. Today in the Orthodox geographic East there are liturgies with large numbers of communicants. What happens there?

Bob

OOD has a good point, time to think about starting a new parish when it gets too big...

John Montalvo wrote:


What is done with the bread that is not used for the Lamb? Is it given out as blessed bread or antidoron? What is the custom at St Stephen these days?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

It is distributed as blessed bread on the Sunday after a major feast with mirovanje.

Dear Friends,

I've also read about the tradition of touching the Chalice to the heads of communicants.

Is that something that Eastern Catholic parishes do as well these days?

Alex

In my experience it was common practice among BCs that the priest would place the chalice on/over the head of a non-communicating child when he/she was brought up with an adult.

John Montalvo wrote:


I'm not sure if I'd agree that the traditional rubics assume a small number of communicants (frequent Communion is a restoration--not an innovation). Is there any evidence in the early Church for the use of pre-cut prosphora?

It's been my experience in visiting various Orthodox parishes which have restored frequent Communion that it takes a bit more time at this point of the Liturgy. Does anyone here know of any Orthodox parishes which use pre-cut prosphora to save time? It's not something I've seen.

The local OCA parish uses this time to have a cantor chant pre-communion prayers (and what beautiful prayers they are!)

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dear Bob,

Really? Communion would not be given to a child (before the 'age of seven') in BC Churches?

That would be a "Byzantinization of a Latinization" then?

Also, since we're on the subject of "exact precise definitions and terms" , what do you mean by "Byzantine Catholic?"

I understand that to be a rather generic term.

I sometimes get the impression that others MIGHT understand it to mean "de-ethnicized" Ruthenians etc.

Could you shed any light on this for me?

Alex

Alex,

I think it is evident from other posts that in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America communion was not generally given to infants/young children. There were variations on this theme in different places. In a parish I was familiar with the priest would give the baby the Eucharist at baptism then not again until "First Holy (sometimes called Solemn!) Communion. Other priests simply did not give the child the Eucharist at all until 1st communion. There are still hold-outs on this issue. FYI, in the GC Diocese of Preshov children are not communicated until 1st communion.

Byzantine Catholic is used conventionally in the United States (and I would venture to say on this board) to refer to Ruthenian Greek Catholics. For instance, most Ruthenian Catholic Church buildings such as the seminary and most of the parishes simply have "Byzantine Catholic" as the denominator not Ruthenian. The other Greek Catholics such as Ukrainians, Melkites and Romanians all use those names...not just Greek Catholic or Byzantine.

The Ruthenians have approprated this for themselves. It appears that Elko did this to make the Church less ethnic and avoid the confusing usage of Greek Catholic. Since on most maps there is no Ruthenia and that name is not even agreed upon it seems that Ruthenian is becoming more and more relegated to the realm of church-chat, etc.

Any others?

Bob

Dear Bob,

You mean questions?

No.

I'm currently surrounded by World Youths and they insist on dragging me outside to get some fresh air and otherwise loosen me up.

Perhaps it was that "chill out" comment they read in your other post to me . . .

Associating with these young people has made me feel young as well.

God bless them all - and you too!

Alex

No I mean, any others want to weigh-in on this one?

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

The old sign in front of our parish reads: St. Joseph Ukrainian (Byzantine Rite) Greek Catholic Church. How's that for a mouthful?

In our parish the priest holds the chalice up a little so people can either kiss and/or put their heads to the base.

We have "Solemn Communion" at the first Confession at many of the Ukrainian Catholic parishes. During the catechesis for confession the kids do not receive for a while so they understand the gravity of eucharistic preparation and the need for a good confession, etc.

My oldest son is 12 and he received as an infant and ever since in our Ukrainian parish. Reception of communion for infants is in our pew books for the initiation service which we have had since at least the Millenium (1988).

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

Since comments were solicited...

I am a bit surprised that in the "Rusyn Byzantine Catholic Church" (if you will excuse this non-legal, but somewhat clear way of refering to the Byz. Cath.) that infants etc. are not Communicated. I just presumed they (the Rusyn Byz Cath) were way "ahead" of the Ukrainians on this score.

I am sure people know that the most authentic tradition is to Communicate Anyone who is validly baptised and not in grave sin - including & especially infants. This is not only the Orthodox practice, but one of the major points in the Eastern Congregation's Instructions on Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the CCEC, no?

Of course it is "observed more in the breach", alas, though it is definitely making a comeback amongst the younger educated set.

At one parish, the Priest preached a "fervourino" about "letting the Children come unto" the Holy Mysteries, and the people paid no attention and in that very Liturgy barred (literally with their hands) the Priest from Communicating the infants, asking for a blessing instead.

So we've got a ways to go, but we're quite definitely "on the way".

H.

ps: The Pope, in his sermon to the youth at WYD, quoted St. Athansius: God became human, so that the human could become divine. (though he did not reference St. A. - I don't think).

I emailed an OCA priest re: whether it is an acceptable practice in Orthodox parishes to use pre-cut prosphora bread when one has a large number of communicants or whether that would be considered an abuse. Admittedly, my experience is limited and in most parishes that one might visit one cannot see behind the iconostas to see what actually goes on so I wasn't sure what is acceptable Orthodox practice. This priest pastors a very large parish in the Mid-West. I just got this reply:

Dave:
I agree that frequent communion is a restoration. I would say infrequent communion in the Orthodox Church is a "Jansenist latinization".

However, the rubric, which is found after the deacon partakes of the Chalice, in the 1964 Liturgicon states:

"It is to be noted that if there are any who wish to partake of the holy mysteries, the priest breaks the two particles, NI and KA, into smaller particles..." (my emphasis). This seems to infer not a large number of communicants.

So particles for communion come from the NI and KA particles after the fraction rite and the priest communion. Yet in your latter post re the reply from the OCA priest, I read that communion particles are cut during proskemedia and not after the priest's communion. So when are the particles supposed to be cut?

I, for one, did not say that BCs do not (currently as a rule) communicate infants and children. All of my references are in the past tense above. Except where I not that there are a few hold-outs. I understand that it is not the wish of this list to name names but there are parish priests in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy that I understand do not communicate infants and children.

I trust that you will find most of the BC parishes in the country do that now.

I am not sure that this is clear. 1) The 'particles that are cut at the Proskimedia are the commemorative particles ONLY and in standard Russian practice these are not used for the communion of either the faithful or the clergy. These are the particles 'representing' the commemorations and the 'intentions' to borrow a word that will sound more familiar to some. So if I want my deceased grandmother to be remembered on her anniversary of passing a particle is place on the diskos at the appropriate time. These particles are placed in the chalice after communion and are 'abluted' at the appropriate time. 2) The communion of the clergy and the faithful is from the Lamb. The Lamb is divided at the "Svjataja svjatym" and the remaining 'pieces' (meaning not the one placed in the chalice) are divided/cut into particle for the communion of the faithful and clergy.

So, the issue at proskomedia is not how many will receive but how many will be commemorated. If there will be a huge number of communicants the Lamb must be sufficienly large and/or the pieces sufficiently small to accomodate.

Having said all of the above. I belong to the OCA, and I routinly serve. Some priests, apparently following the Greek practice, place the commemorative particles in the chalice and distribute them for communion as well.

Again, the time issue is at the 'fraction' and not before.

Bob

You are supposing that the Lamb is small and the 'particles' at communion to be large. The communion of the faithful is simply not from the commemorative particles except in, apparently, the common BC practice.

I believe that the question to the OCA priest was not adquately stated. Perhaps he can be contacted again or another can provide another reply. I personally think that pre-cutting commemorative particles while leaving the Lamb whole would be less destructive (although I have never heard of this). When using all pre-cut particles what happens at "Svjataja svjatym"? Isn't a part of the liturgy, Eastern and Western, chucked?

Bob

The reply from the OCA priest in question seems to have confused things a bit, so permit me to clear things up (from my experience in the OCA):

The Lamb is removed from a prosphora during proskomedia. The size of the Lamb depends on the amount of communicants. For example, if you look at pictures from the ongoing OCA All-American Council, you can see a Lamb maybe 7x7x6" or so. You can also see Lambs this size and larger in pictures from large cathedrals in Russia. Someone once remarked that these are more like sheep than lambs.

After the fraction rite, the Lamb is cut up. When you're dealing with a Lamb this size, it is generally sub-divided first, then several priests cut it up. Whether you have 20 or 2000 communicants, the Lamb is left intact.

In my (OCA) parish, we have 60-75 communicants on a given Sunday. The Lamb is about 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 and only takes a couple minutes to cut up.

While I really appreciate the symbolism of the "one bread" I do wish at times we Orthodox could use pre-cut particles for large celebrations. I don't know what Orthodox would do in a situation like when the Pope went to Ukraine. Probably a) commune as many as possible (first 500, let's say) or b) not give Communion to the laity (a situation that I heard happened in Moscow at Christ the Savior Cathedral one Pascha). I thought what the Ukrainian Greek Catholics did was quite ingenious given the unusual circumstances, and allowed as many people to receive Communion as possible.

S'Bohom!

-Dave

My guess is that the priest was not totally familiar with the practice of some Byzantine Catholics which use pre-cut prosphora. I imagine there is a bit of variation with this practice as well. Perhaps those familiar with the use of pre-cut prosphora could explain how it is used in some Byzantine Catholic parishes at the proskimedia and at the fraction.

My take on the letter from the OCA priest is that to use any pre-cut prosphora (either for the commemorations or for the fraction) is totally foreign to Orthodox practice and could not be justified because of a large number of communicants.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

David,

Слава Ісусу Хрісту!

Thanks for your rather complete description of how things work. I, as usual mistakenly, presume that people who are discussing these are prehaps more familiar with the services.

Bob

I have never attended a BC Liturgy that was not a "specific intention" Liturgy for the health or repose of soul for some one, or couple, or for parish in general. The intentions, of course, are published in the bulletin.
Are all Eastern Catholic Churches so tied into the formally recorded "stipend" system -- I know that an eparchial chancery overseer is supposed to "check the books" of each parish -- that the Orthodox way is not possible?
Did the "Instruction" have anything recommend on this point?
Thank you for your reply(s).

Durak, we often have liturgies in my Ukrainian Catholic parish that are "nonintentional" (?) or with no specific "Mass intention" as the Latins would say.

Excellent point and one which I think is risky to bring up. The concept of 'stipend' is not offensive to me at least, it is just another way of 'buying' prosfora and submitting it with a list of living and dead to commemorate. The latter is what is offensive. The proskomedia in the Byzantine Liturgy is not limited to one commemoration. But the way that Rome, it seems, has enforced this in the United churches is offensive.

It is my understanding that that can only be one 'intention' per mass/liturgy. But our proskomedia does not work that way! Just another example of something that does not fit. I heard one BC priest acquantance mention that he wanted to eliminate this practice of stipends in his parish but whoever follows will put it back I bet.

If the priest is interested in receiving the stipend, what if small loaves were offered at the door and sheets were available? Don't you think he would get $10.00 a liturgy? Oh yeah you gotta figure the cost of the flour etc, so what? I still think the priest would come out winning. Of course then the names would not appear in the bulletin.

My understanding is that on each Sunday and HolyDay of Obligation one mass/liturgy is supposed to be said 'pro populo' that is
for the people.' Of course every Liturgy is for the people no matter how many intentions there are. This is one of the points of defending multiple liturgies on Sundays, etc. One mass has to be for the people the other(s) for 'intentions.'

Sorry to be so passionate on this issue but I think the BCs have lost so much in this it has to be said.

Friends,

As to pre-cut particles (from my genral experience): The Lamb is 2x2x1/4. The other particles are a uniform 1/4x1/4x1/4 and these are used for both the commerations and to commune the people. At "One is holy..." the Lamb is divided in 4 pieces.

As to commemorations: A priest may accept only one stipend per Liturgy, and at least one Liturgy on Sundays and Holy Days must be offered for the people stipend free. However, the priest may commemorate as many people he wants with the particles at the Proskomede at any Divine Liturgy. There is no real conflict between our traditions and Rome's directives other than one may think the priest gets jipped by not being able to get a little extra money by way of commemoration prosphora/particles.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance,

So then if someone wants a 'public commemoration' (perhaps a term I am inventing here) on Sunday, there must be two (or more) liturgies?

Bob

When I raised the topic of "specific intention" Liturgies, my concern was not what the priest could make dollar-wise. My concern was to inquire about the degree to which BC's must buy into the Roman idea that Graces "generated" (is that the correct term?) by a Mass/Liturgy are "applied" (I believe that is the correct term) to the intended one or ones as they are to no one else. I hear both both RC and BC Catholics who offered the stipend say, "This is my Mass/Liturgy for ......"
This seems very unEastern. To do away with the stipend system seems a way to get away from this Latin mindset. No?

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Yup, that's how I've seen it done.

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Sounds like what is done at the Uniontown "Otpust" to me.

Is this in the "Ordo" or in a LituRgikon?

Bob - so many typoes!

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Man, you guys are getting Latinized if you're going to start specifying dimensions of pre-cut particles

Us Ukies don't know nuthin 'bout that stuff.

I don't know anything either, but it is a fascinating dicussion. Must have something to do with a "Particular" Church, I guess. :p

Have a Blessed Day!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Dear Bob:

Thank you for the clarification. I am happy that my earlier impression (re the good liturgical example of the R-BCs) has been restored.

H.

ps: Re. the general topic of the Lamb and Particles...

1. I don't think that our parish has ever had a problem with running out of Holy Communion. For example, at Praznyks or other big events, we just bake a bigger Prosphora and we cut the Lamb as big as possible.

2. As far as particles, the normal particles (for the Theotokos; for the 9; for the living, for the dead) are taken from the 4 other smaller prosphora respectively. The trick isn't running out of bread, it would take MANY particles to used up a medium sized prosphora. The problem is running out of space on the diskos - ergo we try to make the particles as small as possible.

3. Re intentions, I am not aware of any Canon Law presently in force that restricts prayers or prayer intentions to just 1 per Liturgy. I believe Canon 715.1 just says that it is permissible to receive offerings for intentions.

Plus this 1 intention thing is [according to Archmandrite Victor (Pospishil)] a Latin Custom which Eastern Churches took on, but is certainly - at least so it seems to me - not where we should be going vis a vis obeying where the mind of the Church re where it want's us to go re returning to our roots etc. Besides which, it always strikes me as weird just to be able to pray for one intention.

All of which is to say, in my parish we do not restrict ourselves to 1 intention per Liturgy either, though of course, I know many that do. I guess my point is that theologically they shouldn't and Canonically, they don't have to.

4. At the parish where I go, small prosphora are provided in the Vestibule, with chits for the person to write down their prayer requestsd, and the particles are taken from those prosphora which are then returned blessed to the faithful sans the particle.

So there is no problem with running out of particles [though maybe we run out of prosphora], but people can still write in chits and particles will be taken from the larger 4 [the people just don't get a prosphoron to take home with them :-(

The Chits are used also by the clergy to pray for the faithful at the appropriate moments of the Liturgy.

5. As far as big numbers, our parish is no Hagia Sophia, but when we get big numbers, we use a mega Potirion and then at the Fraction it is divided into several regular sized Potiria for various Communion stations.

The Lamb is cut up at the Fraction, put not into little cubes (not enough time), the priests when distributing Communion, still have to do some "dividing" with the spoon.

But with a smaller crowd, we can still make do with 1 Cup at 1 Communion "station".

Sorry to go on so...

c.i.x.

H

A question for bisantino and Lance,

Is this the 'ideal' (pre-cut everything) that was presented in the deacon program? I am just curious and I will appreciate your reply.

Bob

Subdeacon Randolph,

There are no mandates on size. We aren't that silly yet. It is just what is commonly done.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Bob,

Quite the opposite, the traditional usage is presented as the ideal. However, the deacon, even if right, can't compel a priest to do anything. Now we can certainly nag him to death to do it properly, but ultimately the priests will have to reclaim this tradition. That is unless the Proskomede is given back to the deacons.

However, the problem is not with the amount of time it would add to the Liturgy, as I can't see it would be significant in the majority of our parishes, but with the scrupulosity of the older priests. They are absolutely horrified at the idea of cutting the consecrated Lamb and the crumbs that would be produced.

In Christ,
Lance

Durak and Bob,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by durak:
I have never attended a BC Liturgy that was not a "specific intention" Liturgy for the health or repose of soul for some one, or couple, or for parish in general. The intentions, of course, are published in the bulletin.
Are all Eastern Catholic Churches so tied into the formally recorded "stipend" system -- I know that an eparchial chancery overseer is supposed to "check the books" of each parish -- that the Orthodox way is not possible?
Did the "Instruction" have anything recommend on this point?
Thank you for your reply(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was wrong in my previous post. Rome did issue a decree forbidding Latin priests from having collective Masses whereby several offerings were satisfied at one Mass but this only effects the Latin Church.

The CCEO in fact makes it quite clear the traditional Eastern practice of prosphora offerings is acceptable.

I post the relevant Canons from the CCEO, Title XVI, Divine Worship and especially the sacraments:

"Canon 715 - �1. It is permissable for priests to receive offerings for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy for the intentions which the Christian faithful make according to the approved custom of the Church.

�2. It is also permissable, if it is thus established by lawful custom, to receive offerings for the Liturgy of the Presanctified and for commemorations in the Divine Liturgy.

Canon 716 - With due regard to Canon 1013, it is strongly advised that eparchial bishops introduce the practice, inasmuch as it is possible, according to which only those offerings are received on the occasion of the Divine Liturgy which the Christian faithful make on their own; individual priests should also freely celebrate the Divine Liturgy without any offering for the intentions of the Christain faithful, especially the needy.

Canon 717 - If they accept offerings for the Divine Liturgy from the Christian faithful of another Church sui iuris, priests are bound by the grave obligation of observing the norms of that Church, unless it is established otherwise by the donor."

Also from the Ruthenian Metropolia Particular Law:

"THE TEMPORAL GOODS OF THE CHURCH

The finance officers of each eparchy are to consult with each other to draw up a list of taxes to be proposed to the eparchial bishops for various acts of the power of governance, and of the offerings made on the occasion of the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, of the sacraments, of the sacramentals and of the other liturgical celebrations, They are to review this list annually and make suitable proposals for adjustments.

Canon 1016 - �1. In regard to offerings made by the Christian faithful for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy:

1�. The eparchial bishop can accept stipends, or designate another to accept stipends, to be persolved in the parishes or by the priests of his own eparchy.

2�. The pastor of a parish can accept stipends or designate another to accept stipends, to be persolved in his own parish.

3�. An individual priest can accept stipends thereby obliging himself to persolve those stipends."

Now perhaps a priest or canonist can better interpret this but I offer my own. The CCEO fully allows the traditional Eastern practice of prosphora offerings and the Ruthenian Particular Law also allows the stipend system. So it seems that the priest is left with the choice of how is going to do it. However, I would think that if the stipend system is used the Latin laws would apply: a priest may only accept one stipend per liturgy and one stipend for himself per day. If he has more than one Liturgy per day and accepts stipends for them they must be given to charity. As well stipends and intentions must be registered in a book which is subject to inspection by the bishop.

It seems that Ruthenian priests have a loophole by which they could accept a stipend for a Liturgy but also accept prosphora offerings at the same Liturgy since they aren't the same thing technically. While I would have prefered we had stayed away from the stipend system, it was actually formulated to prevent the abuse of priests accepting stipends and not offering for that intention.

In Christ,
Lance