www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Byzantine Catholics Returning to Prosphora Traditions?

I have to admit I've been away from the Forum for awhile, but I've tried to keep up with things in the Ruthenian Church. I live a long distance away from any Eastern Catholic parish and attend a Latin Rite parish. On vacation this year our family did attend 2 Ruthenian parishes, however. I noted that both parishes still use pre-cut prosphora for Liturgy. However, I was told that in one of our Eparchy's parishes that the priest there does not use pre-cut pieces, but uses whole prosphora loaves and when he does the Proskomedia he actually cuts the Lamb out and does the prescribed cuttings of that service.

So, I'm wondering. Are there some other Byzantine Catholic parishes which are restoring this tradition? The use of pre-cut pieces has always struck me as such an abandonment of our tradition and the real meaning of the Liturgy for the sake of convenience. It also distances us greatly from our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Yes. The priests who have been serving @ St. Basil the Great parish in Irving, TX. (while we await the appointment of a resident pastor)prepare the bread in the traditional manner you describe.
For quite some time we have not been using what an Orthodox priest friend of mine laughingly calls "those pre-cut Byzantine host-ettes".

Before my internet connection was lost (I have an ancient, decrepit computer)I was going to add that St. Basil's is one of the few parishes that actually has a prosphora tree growing behind the rectory. When it's time for Liturgy, the priest just goes an picks a fresh prosphora from it.
No - just kidding. We have a rota of parishioners who take turns baking the loaves at home.

I sometimes wish there were such a tree.... But, despite the fact that I don't look forward to the work, making prosphora is emotionally satisfying.

Fr David Straut

I had no idea some byzantine catholic parishes did not prepare the prosphora. To be honest I am quite dismayed

We have designated bakers here in Illinois.

My wife might join them someday.

Well, it varies from place to place. The way it was a few years back was that the vast majority of Ruthenian parishes used pre-cut pieces. Very few used a traditional Lamb. Some parishes would prepare the loaf and then cut it up beforehand. Some never used a seal on the bread.

You can usually get an idea of a parish's practice during the Liturgy when the priest sings:

"We offer to You Yours of Your Own..."

and elevates the gifts.

That's often when you can see (depending how far you are from the altar) if the parish is using a traditional Lamb or not.

Also, if the parish does not distribute the antidoron at the end of Liturgy then they probably were not using a traditional loaf to begin with. The bread from antidoron comes from the part of the loaf that is not consecrated.

The logistics of returning to the proper use of prosphora in the Proskomide can be difficult for some Ruthenian parishes, given that the weekly reception of communion is almost universal. At Epiphany of Our Lord in Annandale, for instance, there are typically between 100-150 recipients, yet the Proskomide table is barely larger than a folding tray table, with hardly enough room for the Diskos, Chalice, candles, Lance, cruets and Aers. Typically, one or more women of the parish bake a number of prosphorae in advance, most of which are frozen. Each prosphora weighs about a pound and has two Lambs. Half a loaf is used at each of the two Sunday Liturgies (I know, I know). Another is used for the two or three weekday liturgies.

As there is no room at the Proskomide to cut up the prosphora into particle, typically the Lamb and a portion of the prosphora beneath it are left intact, and the remaining half of the loaf is cut up into particles for communion in the sacristy, just prior to the Proskomide. The Lamb and the underlying prosphora are used in the Rite of Preparation, the Lamb being placed on the Diskos and broken at the Fraction, the underlying bread used for the particles of the commemorations, and the pre-cut pieces added to provide enough particles for the communicants. Only a few particles are reserved (outside of Lent), and these are used for visits to the sick and shut-in, and for emergencies.

While this is hardly ideal practice, it does seem the most reasonable, given the physical layout of the sanctuary (the building itself was never intended to be the church), the small size of the Proskomide, and the large number of communicants.

I also note that there seems to be two different types of prosphora used in Ruthenian churches. Most seem to prefer one large loaf, according to the Greek usage, a few prefer to use the five smaller loaves of the Russian usage. Each has its defenders. Symbolically, it would seem to me that the single large loaf broken and shared is closer to the original intent, but I have no idea which usage is older.

Thanks, Stuart, for the explanation of your parish's practice.

I've visited various Orthodox liturgical celebrations over the years (some in "postage stamp" size locations) and never once have I seen them resort to pre-cut pieces.

My personal thought is it's all in how one views things. If a celebrant views this as important, then the celebrant will find a way to follow the traditional usage of prosphora and avoid the use of pre-cut pieces.

Having said that, I'm beginning to doubt that the Ruthenian practice of pre-cut pieces will ever die out until our Bishops ban it.

Stuart , please forgive my ignorance.

You said
Could you please explain that ?

I always understood there was but one Lamb

Well, there should be. I imagine it is for the sake of convenience. The prospora looks like an ordinary loaf of bread, roughly rectangular, with a Lamb on top near each end. The prosphora is cut in half, and one half is used at each Liturgy. As each Liturgy requires a Lamb, one loaf covers both the Liturgies on Sunday.

On the other hand, in most Orthodox parishes, relatively few people receive communion in a given Sunday, so it is usually possible for everybody to receive using just the commemorative particles, the rest of the prosphora being cut up for antidoron. In the case of parishes using the Slavic five loaf Proskomide, one loaf provides the Lamb and some of the commemorative particles, the other four loaves provide some of the commemorative particles, but after that, the loaves are available for antidoron. In parishes using a single prosphora, after excising the Lamb and placing the commemorative particles on the diskos, additional particle may not be needed.

Consider, on the other hand, how much space would be needed to cut up the prosphora if one or two hundred people were receiving at one time (generally only the case in the larger churches at Pascha.

I have also noticed that even the smallest Orthodox churches (some of the ones I visited in Eastern Europe were barely 25 x 25 feet) all seem to have fairly large preparation tables--or at least larger than the one in Epiphany. Now, it is more than likely that the table at Epiphany was sized taking into consideration the use of pre-cut particles, but that merely shows how past abuses can create conditions that make rectifying them difficult.

Out here in the West many Orthodox parishes have frequent Communion. From what I've been told if there are a number of expected communicants a very large Lamb is used. On the new ACROD site, there's a video of the dedication liturgy of the the new youth chapel with hundreds of people attending. The Lamb in that video was HUGE!

From what I've been told, many ACROD parishes had inherited the pre-cut practice as part of the latinizations they garnered as part of the Ruthenian Church. I understand they've basically eliminated the practice. Perhaps it's time for us to do so too?

True. But, isn't this something we should aim at restoring?

Without a doubt. However, the Ruthenian Church has far more serious liturgical problems right now.


Certainly. But one ought to prioritize, no? At present, the Ruthenian Church is groaning under the weight of a bowdlerized Divine Liturgy and unsingable music. These affect the faithful directly, whereas ninety-nine percent of them have no idea what goes on during the Proskomide, or what is supposed to go on.

I would not put the cart before the horse, but would make restoration of the Rite of Preparation an integral part of the reform of the Ruthenian Liturgy--meaning nothing less than full implementation of the Ruthenian Recension and the Ordo Celebrationis, the restoration of Orthros and Vespers, and a more full and effective translation of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.

There is certainly a great deal of work to be done, but somehow or other, the use of pre-cut particles, explicitly condemned by the Holy See on a number of occasions, was never high on the hierarchies List of Things to Do. Nor were many of the other reforms mandated by the Holy See. Taft pretty much covered all of these in "Liturgy in the Life of the Church".

I don't think it's necessary to bring in other liturgical issues into this thread.

Is there any defense to maintaining this latinization?

On the contrary, it is necessary to look at the entire liturgical life of the Ruthenian Church, for the use of pre-cut particles is but a symptom of the underlying disease.


None whatsoever. But you cannot enforce any mandate against it unless the clergy involved, from the Metropolitan on down are all convinced of the necessity of changing present practice. Saint Pragmatica and Our Lady of Perpetual Convenience have many devoted followers.

I understand your position, Stuart. However, this is something that does not have to be connected to other issues. But, as you say, it'll require that our leaders want it to change.

For one thing, the correct liturgical usage needs to be part of our catechesis. I noticed that Fr Petras' new commentary on the Divine Liturgy says very little about the Proskomedia service.

Perhaps our Church could begin with some catechesis on this?

I would disagree. I don't think it has to wait for a perfect moment. Nor does it have to be connected to other concerns.

I'll put it to you this way: a hierarchy that is willing to gut (or at least tolerate the gutting of) the Divine Liturgy is not likely to have any qualms about using pre-cut particles. Their liturgical consciousness is so defective that change will have to begin with catechesis of our own priests and bishops.

Hegumen Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Monastery put his finger on the problem as far back as 2001. At the time, I did not understand what he meant; today I understand all too well.

My concern on this is that I don't think this needs to be made part of the complaints about the RDL by some. This predates the RDL and exists in other Byzantine Catholic Churches, most notably the Ukrainian Catholic Church. It's not connected to the RDL in any way.

Connecting it to the RDL issues only makes it likely it will never be changed. The RDL is not the focus of my query about the restoration of the authentic practice and I hope this thread does not get hijacked into discussing the RDL.

OK, let's stay on the topic of prosphora here. For RDL issues there is a forum section dedicated exclusively to discuss those issues there, including a thread concerning this issue that is more broadly approached. I will not be making any more time consuming thread separations because of off-topic discussions. If this topic continues to drift off from the OP, I will just simply close it.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Thank you, Father.

I'm just wondering if Melkite and Ukrainian Catholic participants of this Forum could comment on the state of restoration of prosphora traditions in their respective Churches?

My last word on the subject; People who don't care about the big things are most unlikely to show any interest in the small things.

Dave-

I'm not necessarily defending the practice of pre-cuts, but..

Baking prosphora is an art. Some bakers (myself included) have yet to rise to the level of artists. On more than one occasion Father has cut into the bread only to discover raw dough in the center. I guess Father is rightly concerned about what is placed in the Chalice is Bread and not raw dough.

I understand the concern. But, certainly that shouldn't be a reason for not returning removing the latinization, should it?

How are issues of problems of baking dealt with in Orthodox parishes (or those Byzantine parishes which have restored the tradition)? Perhaps some other forum members have experiences to share?

Melkites apparently love baking prosphora, because a person offering a Divine Liturgy for the living or the deceased usually donates the prosphora used in that Liturgy. If the Liturgy is offered in the name of several different people, then multiple prosphorae might be used.

In contrast to the Ruthenians, the Melkites do offer Antidoron, consisting of the donated prosphorae not consecrated during the Liturgy. Our parish has held prosphora baking classes, and I have seen similar classes offered on the web sites of other Melkite parishes.

I do not think they use pre-cut particles at Holy Transfiguration; the full Proskomide is performed during Orthros, which immediately precedes the Divine Liturgy.

Greetings from Florida.
It has been a while, but I feel compelled to write about this thread -- I have some questions...
Will we make exceptions, for example, to the Pilgrimage (Otpust ) in Uniontown, where thousands of faithful attend the Liturgies and receive Communion ?
Or, perhaps, can we make an exception at the parish where the elderly pastor with arthritis, and no deacon, still has the ability to celebrate the Divine Liturgy for his parishioners ?
Are we missing the point here alltogether ? We celebrate the Liturgy to commemorate the sacrifice of Christ for us. We believe that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of our Savior.
A few weeks ago, we had no pastor for a Sunday -- I attended a Latin Rite parish, and received Holy Communion there. Because it was a host, and not prosphora, freshly sliced at the Liturgy, does that make it any less the Body of Christ ?
If we get caught up in the little arguments, do we lose track of the reality of our Christianity ? It does not matter who prepares the prosphora, or when, as long as it is consecrated, and because of the actions and words of the priest, it becomes our spiritual meal, uniting us to our Savior.
Pilgrim Cantor

Thanks, Pilgrimcantor, for these thoughts.

Nothing I've said was meant to denigrade the Holy Eucharist that is in our Churches.

Certainly, you've brought up some valid questions. I'd be interested in the experiences from our Orthodox brethren on this. How are these situations handled?

Having said that, are we not called to return to our authentic traditions? Why not restore the beauty of our own tradition?

I'm a bit puzzled. Pilgrim cantor asks:

Don't see much of a reason for the use of anything but prosphora on such an occasion - using large Lambs and a sufficient number of Priests, Deacons, and lances to cut the Lamb(s) into enough Particles.


Well, I'm 67 years old and an arthritic and still use prosphora as prescribed on a daily basis - doesn't seem to aggravate the arthritis.

Fr. Serge

Father,

I am curious as to why multiple Lambs are required. Looking through your estimable translation of the Ordo Celebrationis, Nos, 108ff, seems to indicate that only one Lamb is excised, and that while other commemorative particles are removed from the first and the other four prosphorae, it can be done with just one prosphora (No. 110). Nowhere is it indicated that particles must be taken only from the Lambs of each prosphora, particularly as all the commemorative particles may be taken from just one prosphora.

Can you explain the necessity of multiple Lambs, and how they are used if there is but one Diskos?

Also, in the case of large celebrations, is it necessary that all of the preparation be done at the Proskomide, or can the preparation of the Diskos be done at the Proskomide, and the cutting of the particles for communion be done at a different table?

The breaking or cutting of the Particles for Holy Communion is properly done at the Holy Table, after the Fraction.

Fr. Serge

OK. Mildly confused. So, after the Priest intones, "Holy things for the holy", and while the people are singing, "One is Holy, One is Lord", he then breaks or cuts up the consecrated Prosphora for communion? What does he use? How long does this usually take?

I have to admit, I have never seen any priest or bishop do this, whether Catholic or Orthodox. In every case, the prosphora for communion have been cut at the Proskomide, after all the commemorative particles have been placed on the Diskos.

Ordo Celebrationis makes no reference to particles for communion during the Proskomide, though it must be admitted that in 1942, frequent communion was the exception not the rule in both Greek Catholic and Orthodox usage, so that the Lamb plus the particles of commemoration ought to have sufficed for all present, except at feast days.

Of the Fraction, Ordo Celebrationis (Nos. 138-139) notes that the priest elevates and then breaks the Lamb into four pieces, places the piece IC into the Chalice, then adds the Zeon, at which point the communion of the clergy begins. There's nothing there about breaking additional particles for communion--and, in any case, how did they get there, given that after the Proskomide, the remaining prosphorae have been divided for Antidoron. As far as I can tell, the only particles that go from the Proskomide to the Holy Table for consecration are those on the Diskoi carried in the Great Entrance.

Is there a lacuna in the Ordo, or has usage changed together with the rise in frequent communion? "Proper" usage aside, what is normal practice in the Orthodox Church today?

And a niggling reminder--why do we need multiple Lambs?

I'm not Fr Serge, but I can also answer this. Orthodox usage is as follows:

1. Elevation of the Lamb at "Holy Things are for the Holy"

2. The priest breaks the Lamb into its four parts: IC, XC, NI, KA and they are placed on the top, bottom, left, and right edges of the Diskos respectively.

3. The IC portion is placed in the Holy Chalice with the words "The fulness of the Holy Spirit."

4. The Zeon (Hot Water) is blessed by the priest and added to the Holy Chalice by the deacon accompanied by the customary words.

5. The XC portion of the Lamb is divided by the priest into as many portions as there are clergy concelebrating and placed on the bottom edge of the Diskos.

6. The Clergy commune according to the appointed order with the proper words.

7. The priest dives the NI and KA portions of the Lamb for the communicants. In my experience there are two ways to do this: Russians do this with a lance on a special plate, cutting the Lamb into little uniform squares, then adding them to the Chalice; Greeks tend to do this with their fingers over the Chalice, crumbling the Lamb into small portions that fall directly into the Chalice.

8. An incorrect practise is often seen (though never among Russians ) of placing all the rest of the commemorative particles (Theotokos, Ranks of Saints, Living, and Departed) into the Holy Chalice at this point, thus inevitably resulting in communicants receiving these particles during Holy Communion rather than those of the Lamb only. This practise appears no where in the liturgical books. (The time appointed to add these particles to the Chalice is after the Communion of the Laity.) This practice arises from the misplaced desire to save time after Communion and/or to have more particles with which to commune the Faithful. It is based on an Eastern theory that ordinary bread is consecrated through being soaked in the Blood of Christ.

9. The Communion of the Laity.

I see no difficulty in following this traditional order of Holy Communion and am puzzled why anyone would introduce the practise of precut particles to Eastern Liturgical practise. Greek Catholics should reject these innovations and return to authentic Orthodox practise as regards the Proskomedia, the Lamb, the Communion of the Clergy and the Laity.

As far as multiple Lambs are concerned, they are never desirable. One simply needs to bake a large enough Lamb for the communicants one expects at a given Liturgy.

Fr David Straut

Father, bless! Thanks for this explanation.

I wanted to ask: when is the usual time the bread (the antidoron) is sliced up to be distributed after Liturgy?

The 65 Liturgicon states:

"... The other two particles: NI and KA break into as many small particles as you foresee will be be necessary for those who will receive."(page 40)

"It is to be noted that if htere are any who wish to partake of the holy mysteries, the priest breaks the two particles, NI and KA, into smaller particles and the deacon (with a sponge) puts these and the other particles together with the consecrated lamb into the holy chalice."(page 43)

The Ordo on Page 55 uses the same illustration as the 65 Liturgicon which simply notes: Give Communion to the people with these two particles.

Fascinating. As a mercenary altar boy, I have served for Ukrainian, Greek, Antiochian and OCA priests and bishops, as well as for Ruthenian, Melkite and Romanian priests and bishops--and I have never actually seen Proskomide done in this manner, let alone the exclusive use of Lambs for the communion particles.

Now, just how big a Lamb would you need if, say, your average Sunday communion was about 100-150 people.

Also, how do Russians avoid multiple Lambs if each of the five prosphorae has one?

May the Lord bless you!

There is no appointed time for this. It can be done any time after the last prosphoron is used at the Proskomedia. Ideally, this sort of action should be done when there are not important liturgical actions going on that should be paid attention to by all, including the servers. If it can be done before the actual Liturgy begins, so much the better. Otherwise, the Antiphons would be a good choice of time. If this is impossible, perhaps during litanies. Times it should not be done: the Readings from the Epistle and Gospel, the homily, the Anaphora, the Communion of the Clergy or Laity.

Fr David Straut

I'd like to go back a bit , if I may, with some questions .

Fr David you said

The part in bold is puzzling me - forgive my ignorance but if these particles are added to the Chalice after the Communion of Laity - what is the reason for this ?

Also DTBrown asked about the cutting of bread for Antidoron - I'd like to ask if that is also the same for the bread that is used for zapivka ?

Stuart-

I received a bread pan from our rector as gift last year. It provides a large prosfora to accommodate communion for 150 people. The bread pan came from: The Gifted Pan [thegiftedpan.com]

The particles of representing the Mother of God and the Saints, arranged on either side of the Lamb are not consecrated. They remain bread. They need to be consumed, and the best way to do this by consuming them in the Chalice at the end of the Liturgy. There is also symbolism associated with the liturgical actions of placing them in the Chalice. These actions make sense of the unique Byzantine usage of placing bread on the paten which is not intended to be consecrated as the Body of Christ.

My own practise is to place the particle of representing the Mother of God into the Chalice after Communion saying the following Paschal hymn addressed to the Theotokos:

"Shine, shine, O new Jerusalem, for the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee; dance now and be glad, O Zion; and do thou exult, O pure Theotokos, in the arising of Him Whom thou didst bear."

I place the nine particles representing the ranks of the Saints into the Chalice saying this hymn:

"O Christ, Thou great and most sacred Pascha! O Wisdom, Word and power of God! Grant us to partake of Thee more fully in the unwaning day of Thy kingdom."

The particles representing the Living and the Departed are placed in the Chalice by all priests with the following prayer:

"By thy precious Blood, O Lord, wash away the sins of those here commemorated, through the intercessions of Thy saints."

As for your second question: the bread for the Communicants taken with the Zapivka is cut up with the rest of the antidoron. Many Russians make a distinction between the two types of bread. The bread for the communicants is taken from the same prosphoron that the Lamb is taken from. The rest of the antidoron is taken from the other prosphora. I have not seen this distinction among the Greeks.

Fr David Straut

Have you been to that little (I think Russian) parish between Grants Pass and Medford? Talk about a small little chapel

One can use five identical prosphora with Lambs on them, just picking one for the Lamb itself. The other particles are taken from the other four prosphora without disturbing the Lamb imprint on top. Some prophora bakers have special imprints for the other four prophora and do not imprint a Lamb on them, but special seals representing the Theotokos, the Nine Ranks of Saints, the Living, and the Departed. I've never used such seals, but have seen pictures of them.

Fr David Straut

There is a lot of information on this website including baking videos:

http://www.prosphora.org/

Enjoy!

I've got some pretty large bread pans myself, but what I don't have is a seal that would make a Lamb capable of feeding the multitudes. The largest one I have ever seen was about three inches in diameter, and assuming that when you cut it out of the prosphora it would be about one inch thick, it would be 28.3 cubic inches of bread, of which about 14 cubic inches could be used for communion of the faithful (two of the four quadrants of the Lamb).

That in turn would yield about 28 particles, if each particle was 1/2 x 1 x 1 inch, or 56 particles if they were 1/2 x 1/2 x 1 inch. So, I guess it could be done if your congregation was small and you were careful about the cutting. Simply breaking the Lamb into pieces by hand probably would not be practical.

Father,

There is the rub as they say. I would guess most, perhaps all Orthodox priests do not intend to consecrate the commemoration particles. On the otherhand, I would guess the majority of Greek Catholic priests do intend to consecrate the commemoration particles.

I would also note the Ruthenian Liturgicon, which is based on older manuscripts than the Nikonian or Greek editions, simply calls for all the particles to be placed in the chalice before the Communion of the laity without any of the prayers you mention.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Linked Image]

Lambs can be quite large. The Lamb that's in the dedication liturgy video of the Church Camp on the new ACROD website is HUGE. With a very large Lamb I would think one could serve 150 to 200 people easily, perhaps more.

Stuart:

There are some pictures on the Moscow Patriarchate website of different Divine Liturgies where the Lamb on the diskos appears to be about six inches or more square and four or more inches thick. There are also some pictures of very large single Lambs on this forum when the discussion of large chalices came up. The picture I've found with the following link shows an even greater Lamb together with a huge chalice--the title of the thread.

BOB

link

I guess I was not clear in my previous post which had this link:


The Gifted Pan [thegiftedpan.com]


the seal is actually forged into the bottom of the pan.

Or like this one?

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Linked Image]

Father Anthony,
How do you put the IC consecrated particle into the chalice if it is that size? Have you ever celebrated a liturgy for which such a large agnetz was used? And how many communions do you estimate can be made from this Lamb?
Ray

This is the image that Father Deacon John was referring to. I have seen these demonstrated at our last clergy-laity congress.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

http://www.thegiftedpan.com/images/600_gifted-pan-photoshop.gif

Nope, but my guess is that the IC portion is cut for several chalices, and the large chalice is also divided into smaller chalices that will then be used to commune the multitudes. Looking at that lamb, I would estimate at least 1000+ communicants could receive from it.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Some years ago I saw a picture of a prosphora stamp in a religious catalog that was large enough to allowe for five Lamb seals--in the form of a cross--and four additional partial stamps in the corners all within one circle. But I haven't seen anything like it advertised recently.

BOB

Isn't that like cheating? The whole art is in stamping out the Lamb separately, then getting it to adhere to the top of the prosphoron so it does not fall off after it is baked.

As someone would undoubtedly say, "Were they having seals forged into bottom of pan in 19th century Russia? No, they were not! Is outrage!"

Though I do admire the ingenuity of the inventor--he saw a need and he answered it.

So, now that we know it is possible to distribute communion from one Lamb, other than clerical laziness and veneration of Our Lady of Convenience, just why do so many Greek Catholic clergy persist in not doing it right?

Another question:

What can be done to help restore the authentic prosphora tradition in Byzantine Catholic parishes?

Our Lady of the Latinized Byzantine Catholic is Catholic Roman rite hosts are pre-cut lets do the same thing Proskimidia?

There is absolutely no excuse for it, and it needs to be abolished. To continue do so is just a case of never ending Latinization.

Stuart-

She actually saw a need (the inventor was a woman.) Give credit to whom credit is due.

She actually saw a need (the inventor was a woman.) Give credit to whom credit is due.

Very well, "she". But, not being into the fad of inclusive language, and not knowing it was a woman, I used "he" rather than the grammatically incorrect "they" or the awkward and affected "one".

Good discussion. Please keep away from the references to "Our Lady of Latinization" and etc., as they detract from what is being said.

I think the way forward here, to get the Byzantine Catholic Churches to properly restore the prosphora tradition is to show our priests how beautiful it is, the theology behind it, and that it is worth the time involved.

Stuart:

Now I'm confused. I thought that the stamp was pushed into the dough and the dough allowed to rise around the seal before baking.

BOB

I've seen it done both ways.

There is an interesting site called Prosphora.org [prosphora.org] which has two videos showing different ways of making prosphora. The second (right-hand) video is interesting, because it shows the preparation of small prosphora in two pieces. Having mixed and kneeded the dough, the baker rolls it out into a sheet about half an inch thick, then cuts out circles of dough about 2-3 inches in diameter with a cookie cutter. He presses the stamp into half of these circles, then, wetting the underside of the stamped ones, he presses them on top of the unstamped circles. The result is a lump of dough with a Lamb impressed on top. Placed in the oven, they rise up into perfectly lovely little prosphorae.

This is an important post to consider. While it falls under the thread's subject, it could be a thread topic itself, and I have seen it discussed elsewhere in some detail.

According to this rubric from the Ruthenian Recension, the commemorative particles are added along with the broken particles of the lamb from the pieces designated for communing the people [The two rubrics for breaking these pieces are given at two different times, one right before the IC particle is put in the cup, the other before the deacon puts all the particles in the cup.], and along with the other particles from the lamb. This is done prior to the communion of the people. Are the commemorative particles consecrated? Are they to be distinguishable from the particles from the lamb and if so, how? Are they, or not, to be given as communion to the people?

I wondered when Father Vasiliy would speak up.


And, note, she and her happy priest are Orthodox, not Byzantine Catholic.

I participate in two quite small Russian parishes, one Byzantine Catholic, one Orthodox. This is an interesting discussion for me since I'd never considered the preparation required for much larger groups of the faithful. Do con-celebrating priests all share in this preparation? A thought which came to mind immediately then for me was no wonder con-celebrating has remained such a part of the Divine Liturgy.

(There were 6 priests con-celebrating with our Latin bishop last Friday noon in the Roman rite Mass. Was I ever thrilled?! Such a treat.)

Agreed. I think one way is to point out that Communion is a rite of unity where all are brought together in one body of Christ.

"Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." (1 Corinthians 10:17)

The Byzantine liturgy preserves this rich symbolism by having the faithful receive Communion from one consecrated Lamb.

Alas, there are still too many, both clergy and laity, who believe that the Eucharist is a personal channel of individual grace, and not an ecclesial action that manifests the unity and true nature of the Church as the Body of Christ. Considerable catechesis (and in some cases, reeducation) will be needed to restore the Eucharistic consciousness of the people before an appreciation for the integrity of the Proskomide becomes common.

I found this video from a GOA parish online which shows the Proskimedia service:

Proskomedia Video [video.google.com]

I have never witnessed the Proskomedia from the Ruthenian rescension and I don't know if it's much different. Perhaps someday our Church could prepare a video of it for catechesis?

Interesting. Is it Greek usage for the priest not to wear the Phelonion during the Proskomide?

Also interesting is the use of a seal that includes not only the Lamb, but also specified sections for the various commemorations.

I have seen this before with priests of other "ethnic backgrounds". I have always assumed since proskomide is performed "early" it is for convenience sake.

Greek rubrics have the priest vested in all his vestments, phelonion included, for the Proskomedia. In actual Greek practice (at least here in the US), the priest often delays vesting in the phelonion until the conclusion of Proskomedia.

Dave

By the (Ruthenian) book, the priest is to be fully vested for the proskomedia. So where, how, who determines when it’s ok to “cut” corners. I have been wanting to comment as something of a devil's advocate in this discussion. It's not that I disagree with the restoration of the proskomedia and fraction elements of the liturgy but rather to further consider such valid comments as, for example:


Considering such comments, I want to pinpoint the theology mentioned more precisely, and how that theology is properly embodied in the ritual. In my way of thinking, I'm coming at this from a number of angles, there are a number of considerations, and so the analysis can be involved. So it is with some trepidation that I proceed here only in part, aware of the adage that fools rush in ...

For instance, there’s a criticism of pre-cuts, but shouldn’t any “cuts” be considered a departure from the norm? The rubric in the liturgicon is to break the particle of the lamb, and adhering to what is considered an essential element of the prototype of the Divine Liturgy, Jesus took bread and broke it, He didn’t cut it.

Or is it ok if some particles are cut (not necessarily pre-cut) as long as there is a fraction rite, a breaking of the whole lamb into the four parts?

The liturgicon indicates that all communicate from the lamb. As correctly pointed out above in the quoted post, however, the basic theology of scripture, the primary written account of our theology, points to one bread, one loaf. Even though the lamb has liturgical significance, is not the primitive symbolism followed whenever all the bread for communion comes from a single loaf? This can be done -- one loaf, though not from the lamb -- with pre-cuts.

Further, we come together in the Eucharist as one body, the Church. While the parish liturgy is certainly a manifestation of being church, the classic ecclesiology is the gathering with the bishop. Ideally the one bread is offered by the bishop. We are members of the parish of xxx but belong to the church of Passaic, Parma, etc., those churches united to form the one body. Consider the practice and symbolism of the fermentum; see for example link [books.google.com]. Yet this practice and its symbolism has been abandoned if for no other than practical reasons.

The proskomedia service in its present location is already an accommodation; it is the preparation of the bread (and wine) of the eucharist and is displaced from the eucharistic portion of the liturgy, the taking of the bread, the Great Entrance. This accommodation is witnessed in the hierarchical liturgy, where the proskomedia is done only in part and is completed by the bishop just prior to the Great Entrance.

Also, pre-cuts, though they appear at the time of the prokomedia, do not influence how that rite is done (except for influencing the size of the lamb). Rather, they should be considered in relation to the fraction rite that takes place after the Anaphora and before Communion.

How then does one properly determine when an accommodation is too far outside the norm?

I'm not sure if I understand the argument. I don't think you mean to criticize the Byzantine tradition by your comments. I believe the development of the eucharistic rite in the Byzantine tradition is a valid expression of the living tradition of the Church.


There is a difference between what "is okay" and what is our tradition. I have never said that using pre-cuts pieces makes the Liturgy bad or invalid. I would here agree, however, with Fr. David Petras who writes on his website [davidpetras.com]:


Why perpetuate this latinization? Why not just follow our tradition?


That assumes that the pre-cuts were taken from the same loaf. When pre-cuts come from plastic tupperware containers, one never knows their history.

Again, the question: why not simply follow our tradition?


I'd be interested in the perspective of other posters on this question. One thing that I've wondered is this:

Say one day (hopefully sooner than later), we find a way to resolve our differences between Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. (You can say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one!) Will perpetuating the use of pre-cut pieces instead of following our prosphora traditions be something that would enhance our then unity of faith and worship with our Orthodox brothers and sisters? Or, would it cause some problems with concelebrating priests from the different jurisdictions?

Not to criticize the tradition but to look at it critically. Is a development of cutting rather than breaking correct? Some of our developments have been influenced by our union with the western church. It's easy to say "latinization" therefore wrong. The path of our Orthodox counterparts, though free of such kind of latinizations, should, based on the theology, be subject also to a critical examination.

I believe, and have so posted, that the "shape" of the liturgy consists of four essential elements: 1)taking bread; 2)blessing and giving thanks; 3)breaking; and 4)giving. Let's at least assume that is so. 1, 2 and 4 are basically self evident. But 3, even in the present rite, is something easily overlooked, even though the "breaking of bread" is the most ancient designation for the eucharistic celebration. And the theology and symbolism is quite profound, as indicated by the accompanying prayer:
Again breaking, not cutting, even if from the lamb, and even if done at this time and not before.

To further illustrate the point consider two alternatives.

In one, there are pre-cuts, say, from the one loaf (but not the lamb), and in the liturgy the lamb is broken as indicated.

In another case, no pre-cuts, but the lamb -- maybe because of its size or to avoid crumbs or whatever -- is also cut and not broken at all. There is only cutting, no breaking.

I think the latter case, with no breaking, is a very significant departure from the essential norm compared to the first example, no matter how badly one might say the first is tainted with a latinization.

Even if the lamb is broken, any subsequent cutting is also a departure from the rubrics and the biblically based norm.

When using fresh, leavened prosphora and there are several hundred communicants, ordinary prudence dictates the use of the Lance to "break" the Lamb at communion-time. Pascha is an obvious example of such an occasion.

Fr. Serge

Thanks for this example; it goes to my point: "ordinary prudence dictates" a pragmatic solution that departs from the rubrics and what is found in the prototype.

I'll say again, look at the theology and the essential symbolism: if there is all cutting and no breaking, this is a far greater departure -- one might even say abuse -- than pre-cuts and a properly performed breaking of the lamb.

As Fr. Serge's post indicates regarding the use of the lance, for instance at Pascha, what I have ask about being "ok" is the practice he says is done. Is it a custom or tradition? It is an accommodation that traditional usage appears to sanction.

The inquiry I propose is a theological one and therefore moves beyond the supposition of latinization and therefore wrong or misdirected. If the Ruthenian church had come up with pre-cuts on its own, rather than imitating the latins, there should still be basic reasons, appealing to fundamentals, to critique it.

Also, the quote from Fr. David gave me some pause, especially where he states "I have striven to make [the 1941 Ruthenian Sluzhebnik] my ultimate model, and to eliminate all latinizations from Ruthenian practice." Considering his role and defense of the RDL, I'm not sure what to make of it. Perhaps, one can unabashedly decimate the liturgicon in content and expression as long as there is the intent and appearance of getting rid of those damned latinizations. But all that's really accomplished is the throwing out of the baby with the bath-water.

So "Why perpetuate this latinization? Why not just follow our tradition?" I'd say it depends on whose tradition and what it directs, and that it is not automatically judged pure just because it came from the east and not the west.

That is the situation I propose, describe and consider.

That is another situation about pre-cuts, not the one I was considering, and you correctly state the issue about their history.

This might serve as the basis of another thread. This thread supposes that the Byzantine prosphora tradition is normative. Another thread could examine whether we should change that tradition to breaking bread instead of cutting the bread as the rubrics now say.


Again, that would depend on one's view of how tradition should develop in the Church. Latin traditions are not "unpure." Byzantine traditions are not "more pure" than Latin traditions. Byzantine traditions are own own.