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

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?