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

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.

Of course not. That said, an increasing number of Latin priests and theologians are beginning to question the use of stamped-out, paper-thin hosts that are barely recognizable as bread, leavened or unleavened. I would not be surprised to see the Latin Church begin to take seriously once more the breaking of the bread by reverting to use of loaves more akin to the unleavened bread of the orient, which can be gnawed in the manner that Jesus told us we had to gnaw the flesh of the Son of Man.

I certainly defer to your view on the purpose of this thread since you are the originator. I don't mean to be harsh, but as explained here the topic seems to me self-serving: the verdict is in, no more looking at the evidence. In fact, while I too see the pre-cuts as a problematic issue, I took the devil's advocate approach (as I noted) because I thought the big picture was being missed. Narrowing the thread to a forgone conclusion basically excludes the big picture, and it's just a case of all who agree supporting the one conclusion.

Also, just to be clear, the rubrics speak overwhelmingly of breaking and nothing of cutting at the fraction rite of the liturgy. Those rubrics conform to the most primitive tradition of the prototype: what we are informed by scripture and the practice of the Church that Jesus Himself did. So I'm suggesting that's a tradition that in also Tradition; and if there is exclusive cutting and no breaking, then that tradition must yield to Tradition, no matter how Orthodox and widespread the source.

Also, reviewing the initial post, there may be a misunderstanding. There it is said:
Using pre-cuts and that the priest "uses whole prosphora loaves and when he does the Proskomedia he actually cuts the Lamb out and does the prescribed cuttings of that service" are not mutually exclusive. Nor does the use of pre-cuts, per se, exclude that all that is prescribed in the liturgicon (including the proskomedia) is not in some way done.

I appreciate your input, but I do not consider the topic self-serving. I accept as a given the principle that we are called to be faithful to our own liturgical tradition as expressed in various Church documents. Your approach seems to suggest these should be examined critically and changed. That's the stuff that fits in another thread, IMO. This thread is about Byzantine Catholics returning to their own tradition--not beginning a new one.


I never suggested exclusive cutting. As I understand, the clergy receive by breaking Bread from the Lamb. How the portion of the Lamb is to be put into the Chalice for the people is not spelled out (as far as I know). Perhaps others can elaborate?


Whole prosphora loaves are not used when pre-cut pieces are used. In very many parishes that use pre-cuts there is no seal used on the bread. You are correct in saying that some usages of pre-cuts attempt to "in some way" do all that is prescribed.

I still believe the Byzantine prosphora tradition is more fitted to our liturgical celebration.

I quoted Fr. David in support of the claim that the use of pre-cuts is a latinization in our Church. This is not a thread on the Revised Divine Liturgy and I do not want to have the discussion side-tracked onto that subject.

I believe it's important for us to recover our own traditions and appreciate the beauty of our own tradition. That was the sentiment in choosing the title of this thread: "Byzantine Catholics Returning to Prosphora Traditions."

I've been looking for material on the web that could be used to develop catechesis regarding Byzantine prosphora traditions. I found these two pages from St Elias in Ontario:

Proskomidia [saintelias.com]

Prosphora [saintelias.com]

I particularly like the idea of being able to offer a prosphora loaf that could have a particle removed to offer up in the Divine Liturgy. I'm just wondering, how often does that happen in parish churches? Is this something that happens very often in Orthodox parishes? Or, is this rare there too?

It is spelled out; see previous post, link .

Thanks. I meant, how are the pieces of the Lamb broken that are put into the chalice?

This is not correct as a blanket statement.

I can believe that.

ok, but I said nothing about "attempt." What I said:
The "in some way" only referred to the fact that not all the pieces for the communion of the people would be broken from the lamb; some, perhaps most, would be the pre-cuts. Otherwise the entire service could be entirely as in the book.

Originally Posted By: DTBrown
Whole prosphora loaves are not used when pre-cut pieces are used.

I've never seen a proskomedia service that used pre-cuts have a whole prosphora loaf present to be cut up.