www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Restoring Prosphora Traditions

Alex writes:


A valid point. No change should be just thrust on the people without clear and patient catechesis. Restoral of our authentic tradition should precede any other type of change, however.


Here is it nearly 50 years after the call at Vatican II for us to restore our traditions and on some issues there has been no effort to do so. The most popular objection I've heard for refusing to consider the restoral of the antidoron tradition is:

It's not a Ruthenian tradition.

Well, that's true only because it was abandoned by the Ruthenian Church. The Liturgical Instruction speaks of a time when our liturgical books were "corrected" in Rome:


It's my guess that the supression of the antidoron tradition (and the reception of blessed bread at Communion) come from that era when our liturgies were "corrected" in Rome (with I'm sure the cooperation of our leaders at that time.)

Thankfully, there is a different attitude these days and there has been great strides in many Churches.

The other objection I hear to the restoral of the antidoron is that it isn't needed any more since we have frequent Communion. This actually reflects an attitude of denigration towards our authentic tradition. What is really involved here is the need to restore the entire prosphora tradition. One reason for the distribution of the bread at Communion and after Liturgy was because there was a lot of it. People brought it to Liturgy. Nowadays, baking of the prosphora is often clericalized and the rituals so simplified that abuses occur.

True, the word "antidoron" means "in place of the gifts." That term may have developed in the era when Communion was infrequent. Perhaps a new term is needed now. The sharing of the leftover bread from the prosphora loaves can also be understood in different ways, breaking the fast is one of them.

The third objection I sometimes hear is:

The Orthodox do that.

This is the saddest objection. Here is where patient and persistent catechesis is needed. Not only catechesis, but a conversion of attitude.

[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dear Dave,

A thoughtful and incisive commentary with solid backup!

I'm jealous . . .

Alex

Huh?

djs

Thanks, Alex and djs...I think...

This has been a subject that has concerned me for many years and if I get a bit impassioned on it and go overboard, I apologize.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I see a direct link and coorelation with the degree certain churches have lost their external traditions and that of their theological traditions. After all, you do not put indifference in a box.

Even on this board it is amazing as an Orthodox to witness a discussion take root where ideas are expressed on how to change the DIVINE Liturgy. This type of conversation would be inconceivable in True Orthodox circles. And in keeping with my original point, it is not so surprising when I consider that it is also here where there is great theological indifference as well (at least from my perspective).

So to Dave Ignatius: Your hope for reinstituting a tradition is, while the right thing, against the core dynamic. You might say: "well, there are allot of people like me who want the traditions back", and that may be true, but there are many more who don't, many who want more change, and still more who don't care. As they say, the proof of what is happening and what has happened is in the perverbial "pudding".

The Roman Latins were once Orthodox. They used to use Leavened bread, they used to Baptize and Chrismate on the same day, they never used to have pews, they never used to have organs, they didn't always beleive in papal infallibility, they didn't always accept the filioque, they didn't always accept the council of 869, they didn't always worship to the cult of apparitions. The course for you is charted, all efforts against it will be swept away with time.

Dear OOD,

Organs and pews! Those Latin heretics! Thank you for giving full vent to my absolute LOATHING of the western crusaders . . .

And what about their sign of the Cross with the whole hand? Now there's the mark of the beast if I ever saw one, perdition take them all . . .

Weren't these also on the original list of the "Errors of the Latins?"

As for the cult of the apparitions, you mean your church doesn't celebrate miraculous icons, appearances of the Most Holy Theotokos to saints and the appearance of the Cross above Athens?

If not, then, sorry, but I'm going to have to start casting a few anathemas up your way too!

Am I the only one around here who believes in the Truth any more?

Alex

I would be more conservative about wanting to suggest changes, particularly with so little information as to the when and why of our loss of this tradition, if, indeed, we ever had it. Your "guess" is a nice hypothesis, but is it supported by actual facts?


Is that what you hear, or is it: the mere fact that the Orthodox do something is not a sufficient(nor a necessary) condition for our adopting the practice.

Our particular church has its particular history, particular customs, and authentic traditions. Respect for our patrimony, and for ourselves, demands that focus here first, and work with solid facts rather than guesses.

djs

djs wrote:


I cited both Fr Petras (who said that we Ruthenians had abandoned the practice) and the _Ordo_ published by Rome. My experience has been that the entire Byzantine Orthodox world (both Greek, Slavic and Antiochian) follow these prosphora traditions. (Anyone else have a differing experience?) How is it, then, that we Ruthenians are an island of no use of the antidoron?

My "guess" related to exactly how the tradition disappeared. That it disappeared is pretty plain.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

What about the apparition that the holy St. Andrew, fool for Christ, beheld on the day that has come to be commemorated as the Pokrova by both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic? The commemoration of Rus' Ukraine to the Pokrova by Yaroslav the Wise occurred before 1054. I can't buy the apparition stuff.

Most of the Greek, Serb, Antiochian, OCA, etc. churches I have visited all have pews. Some Greek churches still have organs. I'd say OOD needs to do some house cleaning in his own house before givng us advice.

I think there is a sort of phobia amongst some Orthodox of us Eastern Catholics returning to authentic Eastern tradition within the Catholic communion. It is in their best interest to use "reverse psychology" on us, telling us not to return to this or that tradition for whatever reason...that gives them some comfort and ammunition on the "latinization" angle...

Full speed ahead, mates! Vostochne or bust!

Dera Diak,

Actually, our friend OOD belongs to an Old Calendarist True Orthodox Church, so he would anathematize those "Greeks" who have pews!

The cult of the Pokrova or the Mantle of Protection in Ukraine is most interesting.

It was the princes Bl. Askold and Dir who took their fleet against Byzantium.

They witnessed the Archbishop take the Pokrova of the Mother of God and drop it into the water.

As he did, the waves began to move - so much so that most of their fleet was lost.

They then sued for peace, having themselves received Baptism and then went home to Kyiv where they preached Christianity and where the "First" Baptism of Kyivan Rus' took place.

They introduced the devotion to the Pokrova as a result of their humbling experiences and it later became a national holiday, the Protection of the Kozak Host etc.

The appearance of Our Lady with Her Mantle to protect Constantinople occurred several times and this is what the Akathist also commemorates.

Her appearance above Pochaiv, Terebovl (whose Icon and miraculous appearance were approved by the Pope Himself in 2000 with a papal Crown!) and other places are also well-known.

That the Mother of God can and does appear is certainly possible.

That the Church liturgically celebrates such appearances and believes in them accordingly is also a fact.

That neither you nor I have seen one is a fact as well.

That doesn't mean that we won't yet see one!

God is the God of surprises.

Alex

Another aspect to consider as to why there is resistance to restoring the prosphora tradition is that it could mean a loss of control by the pastor over its baking. Sometimes the bread is baked by one or two ladies in a parish. Sometimes it is something reserved to the priest.

I was talking one day in the office of a Eastern Catholic priest about this subject. I asked him about this issue. He replied that he made the bread himself. He would make it for a month or two at a time and then freeze it (he usually cut it up into pieces before freezing it.) I told him how in the Eastern Catholic parish I was then attending I had been priviledged to bake the prosphora bread a few times. The priest I was talking to was surprised at this and said that he preferred to make it himself since he knew what he would get. (I fully understood as I had a couple "flops" in baking the bread myself.) He then asked me if I used the seal. I said I did. I had purchased it from the bookstore of the Greek parish in town. He wondered if he could get one. He had always wanted to use the seal when baking the prosphora bread. I know that he did purchase a wooden seal to use. I don't know if he stopped the practice of using pre-cut pieces of prosphora bread, however.

Restoring the prosphora tradition to our Church might mean getting an occasional loaf that is not perfect. People will have to be trained to prepare it correctly. And, in the worst case scenario, a bad loaf can be cut up to use for the antidoron or the blessed bread distributed at Communion.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I would need to learn more from Father Petras, or others, about the evidence for this abandonment - as well as the when and why of this development - before deciding whether it is an authentic development of ours or not. Well-before the publication of the Ordo, the practice of Antidoron was not present among our people either in Europe or the US; the inferences that you draw from the Ordo are not consistent with our practice.

djs

djs

Alex and Diak,

I had a feeling that someone would zero in on the "pews" and not the "infalibility", after all, it was an easy target. But it all comes hand-in-hand which was the point I was making in that post.

Certainly pews do not make one a heretic, but it is simply wrong. Sure there are elderly who need to sit, for them we have stalls and folding chairs, but since everything is ordered towards the Glory of God, we stand if able, as even the Angels stand before the throne of God.

How is it that able bodied people who can do all sorts of other physical labors for more trivial reasons, cannot stand for the Lord, who was crucified for our sins? These people don't stand, not because they are "tired" or unable, but because their heart is not into it.

Inviting people to be lazy for the Lord by having a hundred pews waiting for them does not bring them to salvation. If they are persistent, let them go out of their way and grab a folding chair or something and be different than everyone else - still better for them to be there and witness the example of others than not at all I suppose.

While the Orthodox venerate miraculous icons they are sober about it. We see weeping icons as bad signs, apparitions are not major feastdays or see global pilgrimages. The Orthodox understand that apparitions have a dangerous side. The tens of thousands of people who have "pilgrimages" to Fatima and Lourdes are the same people who visit Hangar 46. Why do I need to have a pilrimage to a site of an apparition when I can see GOD in Church?

"If anyone comes preaching any other Gospel, even if they be an angel from heaven, they shall be called accursed by us." What did the apparition say at Fatima? "I am the lady of the Immaculate Conception" or something like that? At one time that term was unknown.

[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Friends,

This thread fascinates me. I have heard over-and-over "that is not a Ruthenian tradition" or "we are not Orthodox!"

A point brought out earlier in this thread was how could the Ruthenians/Rusins/Carpatho-Russians NOT HAVE a practice that all the other Byzantine Christians around them HAVE? Russians and Greeks (and to my knowledge Ukrainians and Serbs) bless boiled wheat (variously called kutia or kolivo). I have been repeatedly told that blessing boiled wheat is not an authentic Ruthenian custom. One priest told me very simply "I never saw that in one of our churches!" It seems that many of these customs fell by the wayside during/since the Union. It certainly appears that Rome is calling the Ruthenian Catholics to restore these customs. It is impossible to look to the contemporary Orthodox of Ruthenian persuasion becuase they most likely have suffered the same sad fate of loosing many of their customs.

Then again, what real value is there in restoring customs that may have been lost hundreds of years ago and people no longer understand? So what? Rome calls the BCs to it? And? Like many BC priests have told me, "what does Rome know about our church?"

Bob

QUOTE] I have heard over-and-over "that is not a Ruthenian tradition" or "we are not Orthodox!" [/QUOTE]

As I pointed out above, I think that people are saying: "We are us!" Respect our particular church and it's patrimony.

The fact that this practice is apparently universal within Orthodoxy is not in and of itself sufficient to establish it as proper for us. (Is "Right Reverend" Bishop, the way for us to render "bohol'ubivom" Bishop?

The idea that it is hard to imagine how this could not be an authentic tradition of ours is hardly persuasive: the implied argument is, in fact, a nice example of the logical fallacy of inconceivability.

But to help improve powers of imagination, here are some questions: What is the time-line of the development of this practice in Orthodoxy? Was the Antidoron still being shared only among the clergy or had the practice developed to include the laity at the time of the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. Was the practice part of the original ritual deposit of orthodox missionaries (then and later) or did it spread sometime after this original deposit by what biologists would call "lateral transfer"? If we did in fact have this practice either from our origins or through later interactions, and later abandoned it, when did that development occur and and why? Can it be demonstrated that this development was not an organic one?

Without facts (rather than hypotheses, however plausible) that answer questions such as these, the suggestion to make such a change can be viewed as containing an element of disregard for the "particularity" of our church and disrepect for our patrimony. With facts, the story and the reaction could be entirely different.

djs