www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Presanctified liturgy-communion wine

What is the teaching of the Church regarding whether the unconsecrated wine used in the Presanctified liturgy becomes consecrated when mixed with the consecrated bread?
The bread itself is the Body (and Blood) of Christ. Is it not mixed with wine to soften it and make it more palatable, since it has dried up from the previous Sunday?

The Rubrics require it be consumed exactly the same as if it is.

I've had it explained to me by one of the moderators of this forum that the wine used in the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy becomes consecrated; it becomes the Precious Blood, through its contact with the particles of the Lamb.

A telling directive is in the Ruthenian Ordo, sections 246-47. The priest drops the IC particle into the cup (with the wine) as in the Divine Liturgy, but the priest and deacon communicate only from the Lamb, not the cup.

But this a late rubric introduced under latinization into the Slav books. This is an instance where the Greek books contain the older form, which is to communicate just as at Divine Liturgy.

Is this properly characterized as a "latinization"? Why only the "Slav books"?

What does the just promulgated RDL Pesanctified have?

Yes, the rubric was introduced some time after St. Peter Mohila who in his Euchologion commented: "But when you are drinking from the Cup or are giving it to the deacon, you should say nothing, for the Cup contains but ordinary wine and not the Master's Blood; it is used only for ceremonial reasons, as for the rinsing of the mouth."
Contradicting St. Simeon the Theologian wo stated: "Thus, that which is in the chalice at the Liturgy of the Presanctified is consecrated not by the calling down of the Holy Spirit and the sealing, but by the sharing and union with the life creating Bread, which is in truth the Body of Christ in union with the blood."

Because only the Slavs underwent a period of Latinization, with a leading hierarch (St. Peter Mohila) introducing Latinized theology and rubrics into the books

I could not say.

The above quotes are from Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church by Nicholas Uspensky translated and edited by Fr. Paul Lazor. I highly recommend this book.

I questioned the label "latinization" since it conveys to me something that is alien to the tradition, a development that is not suitable to the tradition. A western influence is not per se, automatically, a "latinization" by that criterion.

Note that St. Peter Mohila does not actually change the rubric but gives an explanation that points to why the rubric is superfluous or why its being dropped would reinforce his teaching. To the extent that this was accepted in Slav usage in general (as stated) also could be interpreted as a legitimate development and clarification of the intended theology. Application of the term "latinization" then should not be a prejudiced appraisal resulting from xenophobia; rather openness to good theology should be allowed and simply acknowledged, whatever the source.

What then is the true theology, St. Peter's or St. Simeon's, since they give different explanations with different results? I would note too that the rubric where the priest and deacon drink from the cup is in itself neutral; that they do not (while the people do) is, as I see it, the rubric denoting an underlying theology. This goes to answering the initial question:


Thanks for the reference.

I have not seen the RDL Presanctified liturgicon but expected that it would be used today for the service. Is it available anywhere online? If it follows the Ruthenian Ordo and Služebnik, and it indicates that the priest and deacon do not drink from the cup, is this a "latinization" that should be or should have been expunged from the liturgy?

Forgive my simplistic view, but isn't the "saved" lamb dipped prior to drying? so both elements are present from the beginning. Adding more wine would be like adding more water...no?

I'm not aware of that usage.

I don't have a problem with that idea.

Of course, this is because the wine in the cup has never touched the presanctified Lamb at this point, so the clergyman who will consume the gifts after Liturgy cannot drink of the "regular" wine in the cup. I think the OPs question is whether the Lamb sanctifies the wine after they have mingled in the cup, correct?

That is the original question. The directive of the Ruthenian Recension Ordo and the rubrics in the Služebnik do not have the priest and deacon receiving from the cup after the comingling as they would during a Chrysostom or Basil Divine Liturgy. At the Presanctified liturgy according to the Ruthenian Recension they do not receive from the cup but the people do.

I believe it's called intinction.

A few years ago the following was posted by the now Bp Jerome. Sory that it is a bit lengthy but it is worth the read for those with an interest:


From Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church by Nicholas Uspensky (pp. 147-151)

In the "Order of the Proskomedia" (of an unnamed Patriarch of Constantinople) [11th century], we read:

On the last Sunday, that of Cheesefare Week, at the celebration of the full liturgy, the holy breads are prepared in a greater than usual number. After communion they are preserved in a special tabernacle until Friday. The holy blood is not added to them, for on each of the fasting days, at the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified, the chalice, into which the bread-previously consecrated, elevated, and broken-is placed, is prepared, and sanctified. And what would be the need of mingling together the holy blood and the divine bread? For the Liturgy of the Presanctified is celebrated only for the sake of the sanctification of the chalice.

Perhaps the Patriarch, by saying, ".at the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified, the chalice, into which the bread-previously consecrated, elevated, and broken-is placed," and ".the Liturgy of the Presanctified is celebrated only for the sake of the sanctification of the chalice," had in mind several prayers or a particular prayer used for the sanctification of the chalice. Or perhaps he had in mind the sanctification of the chalice by placing into it of a portion of the presanctified lamb-such being the more frequent practice of the Greeks. Thus, in the "Report to the Emperor of the Ecumenical Patriarch Michael" we read:

According to holy tradition and teaching, the presanctified breads are consecrated on each of the Sundays of the holy days which we devote to the Fast. From the holy breads consecrated in this way, which are perfect, life-creating, and filled with every divine grace, a quantity determined by need and circumstance is set aside. To these breads, which are recognized as and truly are the very life-creating Body of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, not a drop of the divine blood is added; they are set aside without any sprinkling of the holy blood. And each day of the Fast, when the full liturgy is not celebrated, they are transferred from the chapel of the prothesis to the altar table in the sanctuary. No sacramental or consecratory prayers are said over them; the priest merely prays that he be made worthy of being a partaker of the holy mysteries set forth. Just before holy communion takes place, the deacons touch the holy chalices standing there (on the altar table) and invite the priest not to "Fill, master," as at the full Liturgy, but to "Bless, master." At the reply of the priest, "Blessed is our God, always.," the holy bread which had been presanctified and made perfect earlier is placed into the mystical chalice, and the wine contained in it is transformed into the holy blood of our Lord and is recognized as having been changed.

Leo Allatius cites the curious observations of an anonymous author regarding the celebration of the Liturgy of the presanctified. The author writes:

In many places I have observed how some priests, as they prepare to set aside the presanctified gifts for keeping, sprinkle them by means of the spoon with the Lord's blood and preserve them in that way, while others do nothing of the sort. Which practice is better? For us, as we try to compare spiritual things with spiritual, neither practice appears to be a deviation from the truth. Some, in their effort to preserve a certain portion of the presanctified and invisibly transformed blood, accomplish this through the sprinkling of the breads. Others, deeming that the use of the bread already transformed into the body of Christ is sufficient to change into the Lord's blood the wine with which it is united during communion-and by this means to sanctify those who partake of the mysteries-do nothing of the sort. They are content to reserve only the presanctified breads. Such is the situation as it appears to us. Since we observe, however, that the Great Church follows the second practice, we, too, should follow it as being far more accurate.

Constantine Harmenopoulos says that the anonymous author is John the Blessed, while Prof. I. Karabinov says that he is John, the bishop of Cythera, who died at the beginning of the thirteenth century. The anonymous author preferred the second practice because it was followed in the Great Church, i.e., the Church of St Sophia of Constantinople. The same order for communion is found in the previously mentioned "Order of the Proskomedia" of an unknown Patriarch of the eleventh century. It seems, therefore, that this practice is older than the custom of reserving and communing of the intincted presanctified bread. The church of Constantinople must have retained this practice even into the fourteenth century, otherwise Harmenopoulos would not have added the following scholion to the "Divine and Sacred Rules":

There is no need to sprinkle the presanctified gifts with the Lord's blood by means of a spoon in order to keep them for future use (so insists the blessed John very sternly), and in the Great Church we do not observe such a practice.

Apparently the custom of intincting the presanctified bread became the common observance in the fifteenth century. Symeon of Thessalonia, nevertheless, explains this practice only with such references as "in order to preserve the order of communion.and to be able to commune more people." He goes on to underscore the fact that ".that which is in the chalice at the liturgy of the presanctified is consecrated not by the calling down and the sealing of the Holy Spirit, but by contact and union with the Life-giving bread which, in truth, is the Body of Christ united with blood." To the question, "Is anything added to the presanctified gifts through the prayers?", Symeon answered:

"Nothing is added to the most holy presanctified gifts through the prayers said over them because these are perfect gifts. This is shown by the very prayers said at the presanctified liturgy. They are supplicatory and intercessory on our behalf. Through the dread mysteries of the body and blood of the only-begotten Son, the Father inclines mercifully towards us; by them we are prepared for a worthy entrance into fellowship with Christ.into the sacred chalice, wine and water are poured without the recitation of any prayer, so that, following the fractioning of the divine bread and after the particle lying upwards is placed into the chalice in the usual way, the contents of the chalice are consecrated by the particle. Then the priest, following the usual liturgical order, can himself communicate from both the bread and the chalice and can give communion to those in need of it: to the clergy in the sanctuary-in the customary way, and to the laity-by means of the spoon. And if we desire to give communion in the holy mysteries to someone outside the liturgy, we do it in the following way: taking a particle from the bread which has been reserved for this purpose, we place it into wine mixed with water-or frequently we use the dry, life-creating bread by itself, as being united with the blood. Here, however, at the liturgy of the presanctified gifts, as has been said, we do this (the placing of a particle of the holy bread into the chalice) in order to observe the (usual) order for communion, and because of the need to communicate a greater number of people. Thus, that which is in the chalice at the liturgy of the presanctified is consecrated not by calling down of the Holy Spirit and the sealing, but by the sharing and union with the life-creating bread, which is in truth the body of Christ in union with the blood."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 13th century Sluzhebnik online at one of the MP sites does include the entire Presanctified Liturgy, and after "The Presanctified Holy Things are for the Holy", it gives the rubric "and everything as normal". There is nothing about "not drinking from the chalice".

In that regard, it agrees with the Greek books; with the Romanian Liturgicon; with the Old Rite Sluzhebnik; with the pre-Niconian Kievan Sluzhebnik of Peter Moghila and with the early Serbian printed Sluzhebnik that was, for a time, online.

The only other source I have found that agrees with the rubrics in the modern Slavonic
editions, is the Roman Missal (of Trent).

Therefore, the circumstantial evidence certainly suggests that somewhere along the line,
in the 17th or 18th centuries, someone inserted that rubric (ie to partake of the Cup at Presanctified) based on the directions of the Roman Missal and the Council of Trent.


In Christ
Fr. John R. Shaw (now Bp Jerome of Manhattan)

Later in the same book the following is attributed to Patriarch Michael of Constantinople (1143-1146) in his Report to the Emperor:

"According to holy tradition and teaching, the Presanctified Breads are consecrated on each of the Sundays of the holy days which we devote to the Fast. From the Holy Breads consecrated in this way, which are perfect, life-creating and filled with every divine grace, a quantity determined by need and circumstances is set aside. To these Breads, which are recognized as and truly are the very life-creating Body of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, not a drop of the Divine Blood is added; they are set aside without any sprinkling with the Holy Blood. And each day of the fast, when full Liturgy is not celebrated, they are transferred from the chapel of the prothesis to the altar table in the sanctuary. No sacramental or consecratory prayers are said over them; the priest merely prays that he be made worthy of being a partaker of the Holy Mysteries set forth. Just before Holy communion takes place, the deacons touch the holy cups standing there and direct the priest not to "Fill, master" as at the full Liturgy, but to "Bless, master." When the priest replies, "Blessed is our God, always...," the Holy Bread which had been presanctified and made perfect earlier is placed into the Mystical Cup, and the wine contained in it is transformed into the Holy Blood of our Lord and is recognized as having been changed."

It is clear the original teaching was the wine is consecrated by means of union with un-intincted Holy Body. Given that teaching it is clear communion of the clergy would procede as normal.

I am sure the Latins and Latin schooled Byzantine clergy who published the Liturgicons down to this time could not imagine a consecration without the Words of Institution nor allow the clergy to commune as at a full Liturgy.

I presume that the parenthetical statement is not what was intended. What was? What specifically did Trent say about the Presanctified liturgy that is an issue here?

Great post!

Thank you Fr. Deacon.

Apart from the presumed appraisal of theological schools and movements, what is the current teaching (if any) of the Catholic and Orthodox on " the Holy Bread which had been presanctified and made perfect earlier is placed into the Mystical Cup, and the wine contained in it is transformed into the Holy Blood of our Lord and is recognized as having been changed."

But the faithful do communicate just as at the Divine Liturgy in the Mohylian Sluzhebnik. I don't always see a de facto scholastic boogeyman in St. Peter, especially with something the Church hasn't really been specific about. In his Liturgikon St. Peter instructs that the communion of the clergy should follow the usual order of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Just this inconsistency between his Liturgikon and Euchologion should give pause with regards to any presumptive judgement of St. Peter's intent.

There are two essential historical facts regarding the development of the Presanctified, as agreed to by Uspensky himself, namely that it arose from self-communion and that the self-communion was only made of the Holy Bread exclusively sometime during the Roman persecutions and was nearly universal afterwards. Many other aspects in the development are subject to conjecture and this is within the realm of theologumena rather than dogma. St. Peter seems to have understood these basic concepts.

Regarding the idea that somehow the Greek order is "more pure" with regards to "latinizations", much of the early Greek references appear to rely heavily on the Latin Sacramentary of Pope Gregory.

The reality is that the historical sluzhebniky are all over the place on the Presanctified as the service itself is an accretion of various other services, including Vespers, a self-communion service, etc.

When the Lamb is reserved, it is dipped into the Precious Blood, and then dried before reserving. When Pearls of the Lamb are placed in the unconsecrated wine, the Blood used in the Lamb mixes with the wine, making it all Blood. The least recognizable portion of the Blood is enough to consecrate the whole cup, for the Blood mingles with the wine. Who can tell which are the molecules of Blood and which are molecules of wine?

The sinner Brendan

Rev Father,

It can be established that not all traditions within the Byzantine rite use intinction of the reserved Body prior to reservation.

Further, not all who do intinct for reservation do so by immersion.

Logically, contact consecration when such intinction is done is almost irrefutable; without it, one must rely upon the wholeness of a single species of the Eucharist (itself a dogma for Catholics) for contact consecration.

In any case, it is best to err on the side of caution, and treat the wine in the chalice as if it were, even if uncertain, consecrated.

I was saying that all the wine was changed into Blood. As far as some Byzantine Christians not doing it the way that I described, well, there are always variations from one group to another. I was describing what I was taught

It's precisely because some don't intinct the body that the issue of contact consecration is an issue...

Dear Father Brendan,

If you jump back to message 343823 in this thread, the instructions there from several sources are not to touch the Lambs intended for the Presanctifieds later in the week with the consecrated Blood.

Of course, your milage may indeed vary, as you say, depending what you have been shown and taught as a young priest.

This is not the same practice as when reserving the Holy Gifts in the tabernacle for communion of the sick. In that instance every single particle of the Bread is intincted with a tiny amount of the precious Blood and all the particles are carefully dried before being placed in the tabernacle.

Again, this is how I was taught. I realize that practices vary, so I am not going to get tied up in a knot about whether the Lamb is intincted or not when preparing a Lamb for Presanctified. My original understanding is that the wine is not consecrated until the portion of the Lamb (whether with or without the Blood) is placed into the chalice at the Fraction. As there is no disagreement with anyone here about that, I can breathe.

This was my question: how can the wine be consecrated in the Pre-sanctified Liturgy if the words of institution and epiklesis were not said? Our Communion prayer states that we are receiving the most pure Body and precious Blood because the bread (and wine if consecrated) becomes both the Body and Blood--or don't Eastern Christians subscribe to this theology? Don't Eastern Christians mix the consecrated bread with wine because the consecrated bread has dried out and would be difficult to consume otherwise? This is not the same as mixing consecrated and unconsecrated wine.

You may be interested in the fact that the Holy See (of Rome) has approved for liturgical usage (in the Chaldean Catholic Church) the very ancient Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the text of which DOES NOT contain explicit, traditional words of consecration.

cf. the article by Fr. Robert Taft, SJ in the spring 2004 edition of the Eastern Churches Journal, in which he explains this topic in great detail.

Dr. Henry P--There is the teaching in some places of "contact consecration", that is, that in the Presanctified Liturgy, since a particle of the Lamb dyed with the Precious Blood is placed in the Chalice, the Precious Blood reverts to liquid form, and between the two, the entire contents of the Chalice is thereby consecrated.

But since Orthodoxy teaches the doctrine of Concomitance as well (why else would infants receive only the Precious Blood?) this is ultimately a non-issue.

sielos ilgesys--Actually, if you go to www.kaldu.org, you will see that the Chaldean Catholic Church indeed has the Words of Institution in her recension of Ss. Addai and Mari, and they must be said.

However, CDF, headed at that time by Cardinal Ratzinger, said that the Assyrian Church of the East in her celebration of this liturgy indeed do confect the Eucharist, even without the Words of Institution, and Catholic faithful (under certain pastoral situations where a priest of one church must minister to faithful of both churches) may receive the Eucharist from an ACoE priest.

Your Grace,

Consecration in the Anaphora of Addai & Mari

Daniel J. Castellano (2007)

Extract:

"The doctrinal question before the Pontifical Council is whether the incoherent verbal form of the anaphora's Institution Narrative retains the substance of the sacrament. The Council decides that the "the words of the Institution are not absent in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but explicitly mentioned in a dispersed way, from the beginning to the end, in the most important passages of the Anaphora." [Emphasis added.] Thus the Council upholds the traditional requirement that the words of Institution must be explicitly present in a valid Eucharistic Prayer. The oddity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is that these words are dispersed throughout the liturgy, but are nonetheless explicitly present."

_____________________

"In 2001, seven years after the Vatican's common declaration of faith with the (formerly Nestorian) Assyrian Church of the East, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued its Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, in order to improve relations between Catholics and schismatics of the Chaldean rite. This document is most noted for its surprising affrimation of the sacramental validity of the Assyrian anaphora of Addai and Mari, a Eucharistic Prayer that does not literally recount the words of Christ at the Last Supper. The product of years of careful analysis, this declaration has been widely misinterpreted, though understandably, as denying the Church's millennial doctrine that the words of Christ spoken by the priest are the form of the sacrament that effects transubstantiation.

"To correct such misinterpretations, and to appreciate the real value of this document, we need only examine the Pontifical Council's words more carefully, in light of what is known about the anaphora in question. First of all, the Council does not say that the anaphora lacks an Institution Narrative, only that it lacks a "coherent Institution Narrative". The Council acknowledges that scholars are uncertain whether the Anaphora of Addai and Mari originally contained a more coherent Institution Narrative. We will examine this question ourselves later, but the Council does not presume to decide this intractable historical question. "The validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, therefore, should not be based on historical but on doctrinal arguments."

"Far from setting aside the Church's traditional doctrine, the Pontifical Council explicitly cites the Council of Florence: "The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood." This solemn definition by the Council of Florence does not preclude variations in the specific wording of the Institution, as should be evident from the fact that such variations exist among valid orthodox rites, even to the extent of recounting the Institution in the third person. While the Church has no power to change the substance of the sacraments, "the Church does have the power to determine their concrete shaping, regarding both their sacramental sign (materia) and their words of administration (forma)," assuming such changes do not alter the substance of the sacrament.

"The doctrinal question before the Pontifical Council is whether the incoherent verbal form of the anaphora's Institution Narrative retains the substance of the sacrament. The Council decides that the "the words of the Institution are not absent in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but explicitly mentioned in a dispersed way, from the beginning to the end, in the most important passages of the Anaphora." [Emphasis added.] Thus the Council upholds the traditional requirement that the words of Institution must be explicitly present in a valid Eucharistic Prayer. The oddity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is that these words are dispersed throughout the liturgy, but are nonetheless explicitly present."

To continue reading please go to
http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/addai.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Deacon James,

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

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dearest Brother,

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

Fr. Deacon James,

No please forgive me for misunderstanding your statement.

Fr. Deacon Lance