www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Proskomedia and the Faithful in the New Divine Liturgy

Interesting. Though the text I cited was from the GOA Liturgy which has the particles put in after the Communion of the Faithful.

Are we dealing with a development of the Liturgy that the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy has adopted? Father Maximos' explanation of the theology behind it makes perfect sense.

Actually I think we are "dealing" with legitimate divergent practices within the larger Eastern/Orthodox tradition. I think (this is my opinion based on observations of many traditions) that there are a host of "acceptable" liturgical practices within the larger ethos of the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox tradition.

As a priest once reminded me when I asked, "The Church is not a Museum where you go to see things done the way they used to be done. It is a living organism which like all other living organisms changes and adapts to the present while retaining a living, authentic connection to the past."

IMHO, the proskeimede service has morphed and changed so much over the centuries that it is anachronistic (at best) to speak of the "true" practice. I do think that the symbolism which has been added to the Proskeimede, while wonderfully reassuring to individuals, has tended to obscure the communal nature of the Liturgy. So preparing the Bread has now become a way to get the priest to pray for "my" people rather than an offering of creation to the Lord so that He can bless all of creation and return it to us as filled with His life.

NA, the Union of Brest was 1596, and the Nikonian reforms in the Muscovite Church in 1666. Therefore from the time of Union in the Ruthenian Church (I use this term in the larger sense, whether Galician, Kyivan, Rusyn, etc.) there would have already been a significant amount of existing pre-Nikonian usage.

I do agree about a "spirit" of Zamosc, in that although the specific liturgical changes were few, a general "inferiority complex" with the Latin Rite arose from even the removal of those few certain aspects which were consistent with Orthodox practice.

Greek Orthodox practice varies regarding the placing of the commemoration particles into the chalice. My priest (who went to Holy Cross in the 80's) puts all the particles into the chalice before the communion of the laity. Yet there is an older "supply priest" in the Metropolis who has served here several times recently (and who went to seminary in Greece) and he places the particles into the chalice after communion.

However, in some of those traditions that add the commemorations before communion, the rubrics specify that the commemorations are *not* to be used for communion. How can one reconcile adding the commemorations to the chalice before communing the laity, but explicitly stating that they're not to be used for communion? It seems to me that when communion was infrequent, and when there were often no communicants at a given Liturgy, it would make sense to put everything from the diskos into the chalice, (open the curtain and Royal Doors,) turn around, invite the faithful to receive, have no one approach, bless the faithful with the chalice, and then return to the altar. Even if there was one communicant, the particles of the Lamb would be easily discernable from the commemorations, which would either be triangular or crumb-sized. (This is an explanation I've also heard from Greek clergy.)

Now, Orthodox views regarding *what* specifically on the diskos is consecrated are another story! Given the above, I can see how it was only a small leap for Ruthenians to begin making larger commemoration particles and to begin using them for communion.

But is it the best liturgical practice? Probably not!

Dave

NA,

I refer you to the promulgation letter of the 1942 Slavonic Liturgikon.
http://www.patronagechurch.com/Ordo-English-1955/htm/xi.htm

If the Russian practice were more ancient it would have been included.

Beyond that the Syrian Liturgy is the one of the forerunners of the Byzantine Liturgy and she has preserved more ancient forms, the smaller Proskomedia being one of them. Fr. John Shaw of ROCOR also translated A Byzantine Liturgy of St. Peter from a Hilander Monastery manuscript and claims it has the oldest existing manuscript source for the Byzantine Proskomedia, it also does not have the commemorations.

However, one further comment from my experience at the Seminary. Even if put in before Communion the tiny commemoration particles saturate quickly and sink to the bottom and would not be used to commune the faithful.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dave,

Excellent post! If the Prokomedia isn't served properly (pre-cuts, etc.) then one might as well dump everything into the chalice for communion.

I've taken a look at my copy of Huculak's "The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Kievan Metropolitan Province during the period of Union with Rome (1596-1839)", Rome 1990 [but mine is the Ukrainian translation, L'viv 2004]. It appears that in texts considered it is in the 1600's that we see rubrics stating that the people are not to be communed from the commemorative particles but only those taken from the Lamb. It is in the L'viv Sluzhebnyk of 1712 that one finds a rubric directing that the people are to be communed with the commemorative particles. ['one quarter of the Lamb goes into the chalice, the other three are to be consumed by the celebrant(s)].

As with many things liturgical, one time-saving innovation after another just leads to further problems and the need for new solutions.

"Some ancient elements that disappeared in the more modern Russian and Greek traditions have also been preserved in the Carpatho-Rusin Church, and with it the Church of the Russian Old Believers. The former preserved these things because of the isolation that the Unia history brought about from the rest of the Orthodox world � the latter from the self-imposed refusal to accept the liturgical changes brought upon the Russian Church in the 17th century by Patriarch Nikon.

One of the most prominent of these features is found at the Presanctified Liturgy�s Post Communion ritual. Instead of singing, �Let our Mouths be Filled� as is done in the present Greek and Russian practice, in the Carpathian Church the ancient Eucharistic Thanksgiving Hymn of the Liturgy of St. James is sung: �We give thanks to You� (Blahodarim Tja). There are other points of contact as well.

It is tragic that the Carpatho-Rusin Typica has never been studied in depth. Many things written off as �Latinizations� are in fact older usages than those of the Russian and Greek Churches in present-day practice."

excerpted from Metropolitan Nicholas' Archpastoral Address
Delivered In Uzhorod, Subcarpatho-Rus On the Occasion of the 100th Anniversary of Fr Boksaj's Edition of Protopinje

Just to make clear. Are there in Orthodoxy varying ideas of what on the diskos is consecrated? Is it just the "Lamb"? Or, are the commemorative particles also consecrated?

I mean no disrespect, Father, but I'm puzzled by your comments. Are you arguing that our current practice of not involving the Faithful in the rite of proskomedia is an improvement? Couldn't we stress both aspects? The Latin Church saw the need to restore a symbolic involvement of the Faithful in the presentation of the gifts at Mass. Rarely are our Faithful involved with prosphoras used at the proskomedia.

Thank you, Father Deacon Lance, for the historical info. What I was looking for was specific reference to this element of the Liturgy and not general statements about the antiquity of the Ruthenian Rescension. I think Dave's post was enlightening as it possibly explains the variance and shows how this is not just a Russian practice.

Obviously, Communion is supposed to be from the Lamb and not from pre-cuts or the commemorative particles. Do you agree with Father David that the use of pre-cuts is a serious latinization?

Yes, there is disagreement over this just as there is disagreement over what exactly one receives in the Presanctified. There are two views. One states that only the Body is received during the Presanctified because only the Body was sanctified at the previous Liturgy. This is why some Rubrics stipulate that the Priest does not commune from the Chalice before communing the people. This is also why in some traditions infants are not communed at the Presanctified. The theory is that since infants are only given the blood and there is no blood in the Chalice, it makes no sense to "commune" them with wine. The other view (variously stated) is that the Body of Christ (which has been intincted with the Blood) when it is placed in the Chalice "consecrates" the wine and thus both Christ's Body and Blood are received in the Presanctified.

NA,

Well that is the thing, other than the Oriental Congregation's research that produced the Ruthenian books I don't think anyone but Archimandrite Robert Taft and Fr. Casimir Kucharek have published scholarly research in English on it. Fr Casimir's book doesn't address it and I haven't read Archimandrite Robert's: The Pre-Communion Rites yet.

Do I agree with Fr. David? In part. I don't believe it is a Latinization, simply an abbreviation having nothing to do with Latin practice. Would I prefer it done according to the book? Yes. Do I think use of pre-cuts is a serious abuse? No, a deviation to evetually be phased out yes, a serious abuse no. But that is just this deacon's opinion for what it is worth.

I think you may be misunderstanding to what I am refering though. The commemoration particles were the last addition to the Proskomedia, so before their existance obviously the rubrics would have had all the Particles placed in the chalice as they would all have been from the Lamb. The next progression would have been a rubric to put them in the chalice but not use them for Communion, as Dave describes some Greeks doing, the final stage would be the practice of leaving them on the discos until after Communion and placing them in after with one or more prayers.

The question of are they consecrated or not is an entirely different question. I would suggest that if the priest intends to consecrate them they are, if he does not they are not.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I think I've come across the explanation to the "variance" in Greek practice. I was reading today in The Divine Liturgy Explained, with parallel Greek-English texts (copyright 1966) and it has the priest pray after he takes Communion:


I think Dave is right. In the era when there would be few or no one communicating it was a moot point whether to delay putting in the commemorative particles and probably the diskos was cleaned off all at once.

Is the current Ruthenian practice indicative of an earlier tradition or does it reflect the era when few people went to Communion?

So, this definitely is not just a "Russian practice" but is done by Greeks and Antiochians also. And, apparently, in Orthodox practice today it is preferred to wait until after the Faithful have communed before adding these particles to the Chalice.

Thanks for the reply. Well, I guess I side with Father David on this one. Latin practice is to have communion bread readied beforehand in individual pieces. Interesting how our Church has also done this. Did our Church have any Latin influences in the past? I think everyone would say so. Yes, it's also an abbreviation but isn't that one of the differences between the Latin and Byzantine Churches? We tend to repeat and elaborate things, at least in traditinal practice. I think Father David is right that this abbreviation of readying communion bread beforehand reflects the Latin practice.

Glad you'd prefer that things were done by the book. For those of us who hold to "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter," the way things are done now is troubling.