www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Differences between Russian and Ruthenian usages?

Dear Diak,

Well, you know "our" people - such as they are.

I think liturgical maximalism is always the best.

In one parish I visited, the priest allowed the young people to come up to venerate the Gospel after its being read.

I then saw people looking at their watches, worrying that this extra rite will keep them from coming home in time for . . .?

When I saw that, I joined the youngins' and lined up to venerate the Gospel.

Just thought I'd give them some extra experience in the virtue of patience . . .

Alex

Please, Diak do not trivialize The Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Dave,

Exactly. The issue here seems to have little to do with the proskomedia or the fraction and all to do with cutting up the Lamb for the Communion of the faithful (and clergy of course). That the priest may not want to perform the proper (meaning what the books prescribe) proskomedia is possible, but I have never heard this used as a justification until now. What I have most heard is about all the time it takes to cut up the Lamb and that not being "practical." Crumbing has also been offered as an explanation but I must admit I have only heard that once before and that was on this board.

Tony

Dear Tony,

Crumbs on this board?

Alex

djs, do not ever accuse me of trivializing the Holy Things again. This is quite arrogant and you completely missed the point. I would ask that you not pass judgement on mine or anyone else's piety at the Altar again on this fourm. I do not see how any of my comments would imply disrespect for the Holy Mysteries when the entire point of my discussion was the full restoration of the respect due to Their preparation.

Diak,

Actually, I implored you rather than accused you.
I don't doubt your goodness of practice and intent for a moment.

I think that the remark that I previously quoted is written so carelessly as to lend itself to that interpretation. I had hoped that you might like your attention drawn to that.

More broadly, I think that you have written on this theme with disrespect. Apart from the "crispy-critters" crack, you focus on abbreviation and convenience (with the Basilians thrown in to boot) as the motivations for this practice. You don't seem to "get" the crumbling issue at all - how this problem may be seen as a serious one to a pious priest - and call "tepid" those who do get it.

Now the fact is that this practice exists with some prevalence, among men who deserve, as a default condition, our respect: men who when faced, like the young man in the Gospel, with the choice of abandoning all that the world has to offer and following Him, actually - unlike most of us here - did abandon the world and did follow Him. ISTM that this very fact should make it easy to have more understanding and to avoid an absolutist assessment of the practice. Failure to do so, ISTM, could be regarded as a sweepingly arrogant passing of judgment upon the Altar piety of all of these priests. I am confident that this is not what you want to convey.

djs wrote:

I'm sure no one meant to say that.

I still side with Fr Petras who referred to the 'practicality' issues for the reason for the development of this practice among Ruthenians.

It's obvious that pre-cut prosphora is not part of our authentic tradition. Accusing those who feel this is an abuse of disrespect for our priests is uncalled for, IMO.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

David,

There is no question that such a practice is a deviation from the Ordo, and - (perhaps on a different scale) like a litany taken silently, or a silent prayer taken aloud - it is not liturgically proper. There is no disrepect in saying this, or in advocating, per se, for proper practice.

"Abuse", however, is a heavily colored word to attach in that advocacy. Moreover, any assumption that this practice is a motivated by laxity without allowance for piety, is, IMO, disrespectful.

djs, as I said you have missed the point completely. All of my points were directed at the restoration of the authentic tradition. This in itself can only foster greater reverence, understanding of the tradition, etc. How this can be in any way disrespectful or wrong? Since you seem to read in things that are not there, I will take things one step at a time.

I did not understand there were pietistic justifications for not following the liturgical prescriptions of the Church which have to do with the higher calling of the priest, etc. I do apologize for any glibness that may be actual or perceived. With discussions such as it can bring that out.

The latinizing past liturgical influences of the Basilians are well known, since you do not appear to be aware of Greek Catholic liturgical developments since the 18th century. And since Metropolitan Sheptytsky is one of my favorite saints, I would not fire a blanket attack at the Basilians nor would I make one. I have too many friends who are currently Basilians that would track me down .

When one knows what the prescriptions of the Church and does not follow them I believe this could be called an abuse. And I would hope that none of our priests are standing at the altar without knowing the Ordo. I don't recall ever implicitly or explicitly judging the piety a priest in my posts. However, you seem ready to do so to me. The "assumption", as you stated, is entirely yours since I did not make it.

Huh? Where did this come from? These words are not mine and definitely not from my posts. And I see no relevance to this thread. As a clergyman I can definitely appreciate what any clergyman has gone through, goes through, and don't need a lecture about it, sir. I have no problem gently reminding anyone I serve with of the prescriptions of the Ordo. If the priest doesn't want to follow it, that is his decision. I don't question his piety or calling to the priesthood if he doesn't (you can ask the local Ruthenian pastor if you don't believe me ).

And with regard to "crumbling", I still do not believe that is a serious concern with the majority of clergy who adhere to this practice. A few seconds reverently cleaning the Antimenson shouldn't be a great bother. I have been blessed before by priests to do this to assist if necessary.

After your admitting that this practice is not in keeping with the Ordo, and we have established that it will only take a few minutes to remedy, your apparent defense is baffling. If this kind of obstinence is present for restoring aspects of traditional practice that are easily remedied, what about Vespers, Matins, fuller liturgical cycle, etc.?

I did not intend to condemn the intentions of any priest serving at the altar nor did I do so. Implicitly or explicitly, I believe that if our attitude to the preparation for the Sacrifice is concerned with convenience and abbreviation, as a Church even more so than individually with the clergy, how will this take us into the Divine Liturgy itself?

And at some point we need to pass a laugh test with the Orthodox. I say laugh because I had dinner the other night with a Serbian priest friend and he literally laughed with rolled eyes when I told him this practice still existed with some Greek Catholics. If we can't even start things right, where does that leave us? Arguing about crumbs, I guess. :rolleyes:

Friends,

While in my experience delay (lag time) between "Holy Things..." and the Communion of the faithful is the primary reason cited for using pre-cut particles for the Communion of the faithful (and basically everything else), I also have a theory of how this might have become custom before the time issue became such an important issue.

Once upon a time an acquaintance of mine, a deacon of the UGCC, was discussing some of the "divergences" in usage. The matter of the sponge came up. He was vehemently opposed to the use of the sponge as in his words (paraphrased now) "what happens when it is full of crumbs, is it the Body of Christ?" Well to that I would have to answer yes, but, of course, it should not be full of crumbs. A properly prepared sponge of adequate material should not have holes/pockets to collect crumbs like that. Huculak mentions this in his book and IIRC even mentions a "silk sponge" (I am too tired to look for all that now, maybe later). So, perhaps this issue of crumbs is really more pervading than just to the point of pre-cut particles. Of course there will be crumbing/crumbling at the cutting of the Lamb. When all of this is done before the Lamb is conescrated it makes disposal of the crumbs easier obviously.

Some have argued that the proskomedia as we have it today is a late development and is manifest in the local variations, I have no doubt that is correct. However, the proskomedia is a part of the liturgy and was from before the time of the Union and is shared by all the Byzantine Orthodox Churches. Given all of that I think that to dispense with it is not a light matter, but that is just my opinion.

The time spent to produce 150 particles let's say for the Communion of the faithful is the same no matter when that time is taken. The issue of taking that time at the appointed time (after the elevation and fraction) seems to be the issue.

It is my hypothesis that this custom of pre-cut particles came into usage at the time of the suppression of the sponge and seems to be related to the issue of crumbs. In more recent times this manner of producing particles became more convenient and is thus preferred. Again, this is just my hypothesis.

Perhaps a desire to imitate Latin usage is also there (individual Hosts) but again this is speculation as far as I am concerned.

Tony

Dear Diak,

Thanks for writing a lengthy post to clear the air. As you note, e-forum discussions lend themselves to a glibness of style, and I apologize for my misperceptions and for my own glibness.

Actually, I thought that this was the whole point that Lance and others, including Tony most recently, were making about the crumbs. And that this idea was also implicit in attributing this practice as an Latinization. Evidently you were not reading any of this in the same manner, which explains a lot, including your comment, which provoked me, about "greater concerns than a few crumbs".

I don't defend it, I don't condemn it. I endeavor to understand it. I don't see this practice as the sine qua non of restoration. The other practices affect me considerably more directly. As such, I hold them in higher importance.

I am agnostic on this matter. I do not have a belief that piety is not the issue. And I do not propose that convenience and abbreviation is the issue. This is the assumption that I am talking about. While this seems to me to be very harsh to our priests, you certainly disabuse me of any notion of disrespect. And your thought that this abbreviation derives from the church rather than individual clergy, I just missed that entirely.


djs

I was just going with the description on www.prosphora.org [prosphora.org] site.

This is the reaction from every Orthodox priest I've discussed this with.

djs wrote:

I'd be interested in hearing what you feel are the important things needed to be restored. Please share your thoughts on this.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I apologize for my impudence and temper, brothers and sisters. I feel very strongly about the prescriptions of my Church in returning to authentic pre-19th century Byzantine practice and often these issues strike in me great passion. When a liturgical aberration such as this has an obvious "quick and easy" fix, reticence to do so greatly disturbs me.

Our Liturgy embodies both symbol and action. The Fraction of the Lamb (Ahnets) is a most holy and crucial part of the Liturgy. "Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God, broken yet undivided" has always struck me as one of the most profound parts of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The physical action of fraction, of breaking, of separation at that time in the Liturgy is absolutely crucial.

These words, separated from the physical action of the fraction, are merely words devoid of action. Especially when the deacon, immediately before the fraction, exhorts the priest with "Master, break the Holy Bread". The Liturgikons of both the UGCC and Ruthenian metropolia make absolutely no allowance for any other practice than that of a full proskomidia and the physical fraction of the Lamb.

This is something much more serious in nature than just abbreviating the Proskomida. It goes to the very heart of the Divine Liturgy and needs to be remedied.

DTB:

I think that it is true that we learn most of what we know from the texts that we chant - a point that is made often by many on this forum.
Thus more faithful attention to all of the variable portions within the Divine Liturgy, Orthos, Vespers, are vital. Restoration of pre-sanctified and various festal services. These strike me as utmost in importance and fundamentally work of the people. Something we ourselves can do.

I don't think that there would be much "astonishment" as the instructions warn against, by their re-vitalization. For parishes that are behind in this process, it involves adding, more so than subtracting, and does not really involve a make-over of "home". And thus will be less controversial. And a good beginning.

Dear Diak:
Zeal for His house consumes you. You are in excellent company in that regard. I should have read your posts with more understanding and charity.

djs