www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Lamb

I have recently been exposed to many liturgies outside my own little world of brampton and have noticed it is the custom to place everything on the diskos into the chalice (and in some places they use the diskos instead of an iliton under the chalice). I was always tought (and I understand it is common orthodox theology) that ONLY THE LAMB IS CONSECRATED. If what i was tought is true, than there needs to be some serious work done amongst priests and bishops.
Another thing I don't understand and find quite odd is the consecration of wine in pitchers (sometimes plastic ones which they grab from the basement).
All I can say is
BAD LITURGICS=BAD THEOLOGY
and it's a slippery slope.

5 L chalices from the Sofrino factory is $630 Canadian.

We have a 3 L chalice and it would be perfect for any eparchial sized Liturgy.

There is no excuse for shotcuts and slacking off, if you are serious, be serious.

Ilya

Unfortunately Gresham's Law applies to more than currency! Incognitus

thats exactly it. spread bad liturgical habits, it turn killing off good tradition.

ilya

For the love of humanity...please make your ICON smaller!!! It's way too big and makes my eyes crossed more when I read the long column of your writing!!!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Ilya,

This has been discussed on more than one thread that I have participated in. I share in your concern. Be aware however that apparently most do not.

That only the Lamb is truly consecrated has been disputed at times although it seems the Orthodox consensus and certainly practice is that only the Lamb is consecrated. That Communion is only from the Lamb seems normative even in the Greek Catholic books. Aren't you concerned that the Lamb has actually already been basically all cut-up in some places? Add to this the lack of distinction between Lamb and commemorative particles. "One bread, on body" gets muddled.

I agree that "BAD LITURGICS=BAD THEOLOGY" but I would say that is a minority position among some.


Tony

You catch on fast. Welcome to reality outside of Brampton.

I completely agree, but unfortunately there are those who don't or are not serious.

This is also true and unfortunate. I recently on this forum (may have been several months ago by now) defended the abolition of pre-cut particles. I was amazed and saddended at how many people came out to defend pre-cut bits.

The points about the Lamb are well taken. The fraction of the Lamb itself is a most holy and vital part of the Liturgy, "broken but never divided...". This is a point of the Liturgy where there can be no confusion.

If we can't even be concerned with properly celebrating the very heart of the Divine Liturgy, which is itself the summit of the entire liturgical life of the Church, that is very disturbing.

Yes, our priests were not taught some points about this in the past. But ignorance is no longer an excuse given the mandates of the Holy Father, the Synods of the various churches, as well as the wealth of liturgical works in English now, especially the Ordo Celebrationis, the Instruction, etc.

The Liturgikon (1988) for the UGCC even has drawings of the arrangment on the diskos of the Lamb. And with regards to mixing the commemoratives with the Ahnets the UGCC Liturgikon is very clear:
"Take apart the two particles NI and KA into as many small particles as necessary for the communicants." It does NOT say "just throw everything in together". It's not hard. It's in the book.

Unfortunately this type of activitiy is not limited to Greek Catholic parishes.

As Tony said, this has been discussed on more than one thread, and I am sure it will be discussed again. It is just one of those recurring issues in Greek Catholic liturgics.

The issue of "pre cuts" is not news to me, but taking plastic pitchers, sometimes from the basement, and using them as vessels for the Eucharist is rather shocking and sad.

I have heard some Orthodox, mainly from more "Greek" circles, who say that everything on the diskos is consecrated. They also say only the Lamb can be distributed. Note that in modern Greek practice everything from the diskos is put into the chalice before the distribution of Communion. How one can tell the difference is beyond me. Yet, you will find Orthodox who say that everything, including the commemorations, are consecrated. Perhaps that is the first step to using commemorations as particles for Communion?

I don't know if we have anything systematically defined in the East regarding what is the Body of Christ and what is not. The theology of consecration in general is not terribly defined (not that it should be, but I'm just saying) hence you will find practices like "consecration through contact" and what not. "Greek" and "Russian" schools of thought differ in these issues. Just take the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts: To sip or not to sip, that is the question. Russians say it's not the Blood of Christ, Greeks say it is. Who is right? Who is wrong? But then Russians will place a ladle full of the Precious Blood into a chalice of unconsecrated wine and use that for distribution.

My point? I don't really have one. Sorry, folks.

Dave

But it would be a lot less entertaining and fun without you around, Dave. Post anytime without a point.

One of the rare occasions when I advocate a liturgical compromise: at the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, I suggest that the priest should drink from the Chalice without saying anything. Consecration by contact in this instance is debatable - but the priest needs that drink from the Chalice in any event. Incognitus

Dear Dave,

CIX!

This practice is not substantiated in the liturgical books of the Greek Church I have examined. I was once told the Greeks had done this (what you describe) in the past but now no longer do it.

The GOA has this "(Having returned the Cup to the holy Table, the priest transfers the particles of the Theotokos and the saints into the Chalice, and then those of the living and the dead saying:) Wash away, Lord, by Your holy Blood, the sins of all those commemorated through the intercessions of the Theotokos and all Your saints. Amen" on their site. [goarch.org]

One thought on how to distinguish in the chalice could be this. Commemorative particles are generally triangular and small. The Lamb is cut into cubes...the shape would be obvious if the size is not. Again, presuming a firm bread that holds its shape in liquid.

Tony

CHB!

Incognitus: I have seen your compromise practiced, the chalice being viewed as a sort of "zapivka" to wash down the usually dry particle of the Lamb. I should have been a little more specific about Russian practice, too: only the cleric (priest or deacon) who will be consuming the Gifts does not drink from the chalice. All other clergy drink from the chalice, saying nothing.

Tony: I agree, the practice is not substantiated in the liturgical books. I cannot comment on its prevalence, but it does seem to be common, even if it is discouraged. After some thought, I did remember being told how one differentiates between the Lamb and the commemorations: the Theotokos particle is a big triangle, the 9 ranks are often left as one large piece (another "abuse" I'm sure, but common), and the living and departed pieces are very small crumbs that sink to the bottom. The pieces of the Lamb are often left complete and broken in the chalice with the spoon (if there is a small number of communicants). Most of these practices I have described are not in the liturgical books but just in unwritten practice. Perhaps over time things will change.

Diak: I'm sure that if I wasn't around someone else would do the entertaining.

Dave

Glory be to Jesus Christ!! Glory be to Him forever and ever!!!

When I began to be trained to serve in the Latin Church, my pastor took me aside one day and said "The attention to detail that a man brings to his liturgical practice is a direct measure of his faith."

I have never forgotten that. It saddens me when people of whatever liturgical tradition cut corners for whatever reason--poor training, laziness, casual attitude, or just lack of caring. It's painful, but I have learned to pray for those who cut corners that they may be given more concern for the Lord Who is present under the appearances of bread and wine, whatever may be our explanation of how this Mystery occurs.

Brothers and sisters--continue to be concerned for your liturgical patrimony. Jesus Christ is always worth whatever effort we make on His behalf to live and pass the faith we have received. We receive it by preaching and liturgically. My Orthodox spiritual directors used to remind me that the Liturgy is the faith in action. Be concerned about how the faith is lived out liturgically. You all remain in my prayers.

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Friends,

Something I've noticed of late is that there appears to be a particular "Latinophrone" theology developing in Lviv.

There are some theology professors in particular, oft-quoted in "SVITLO" and other sources, who appear to maintain that:

1) The Ukrainian Church was never Latinized;

2) The Latin practices adopted were as a result of natural "osmosis" given the close proximity to Polish Catholics - no one forced them on our Church

3) One is justified in suspecting "Easternization" practices as part of a political "Russification" agenda since these were truly imposed by the Russian administration just before full union with the Moscow Church was imposed.

In fact, our friend, Peter Siwicki, seems to imply this last point in his book on the Martyrs of Pratulyn.

It would seem that ranks are being formed in our Church, once again, between the "Latinizers" and the "Easternizers" (also referred to by the Latinizers as "Russifiers") to do battle.

That would be most unfortunate.

But I'll give you three guesses how Latinizers will consider any attack on the use of "pre-cut" bread . . .

Alex

Very interesting Alex. It seems to me, however, that the theses of this group could be discussed objectively without breaking up into "ranks" and attaching epithets to them. And opting for the latter just interferes with a cogent discussion.

I recall the last thread somewhat differently than others posting here. I do not recall anyone advocating the use "pre-cut bits". Three things, however, were defended:
1) Proper respect in language used to refer to the Body and Blood of Christ.
2) Respectful charity to our priests. The assumption that this practice ipso facto represents: "slacking-off" "short-cuts", "ignorance", "poor training", "laziness", "casual attitude", or "lack of caring" very widely misses that mark, IMO.
3) Respect for our particular church. Ultimately, the hierarchs and clergy of our sui juris church will have to develop serious criteria and norms to discern what practices represent legitimate development and/or acceptable economy, and which don't. I hope that the criteria and norms developed will be thoughtful, but will accept the results of this discernment.

Dear djs,

Well, you are more than correct - we need to study and define what constitutes our legitimate liturgical usages and traditions.

I did not develop those epithets - they've been around in our Church for some time now.

One can hear them used when the question of liturgical usage is brought up.

Our pastor was called a "Russophile" until his death for bringing back what Patriarch Josef Slipyj himself advocated for our Church.

Again, these terms did not originate with me.

When it comes to theological discussions, arguments and, yes, name-calling, it has all been done before I came on the seen.

Or you, for that matter

Alex