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

I don't know anything either, but it is a fascinating dicussion. Must have something to do with a "Particular" Church, I guess. :p

Have a Blessed Day!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Dear Bob:

Thank you for the clarification. I am happy that my earlier impression (re the good liturgical example of the R-BCs) has been restored.

H.

ps: Re. the general topic of the Lamb and Particles...

1. I don't think that our parish has ever had a problem with running out of Holy Communion. For example, at Praznyks or other big events, we just bake a bigger Prosphora and we cut the Lamb as big as possible.

2. As far as particles, the normal particles (for the Theotokos; for the 9; for the living, for the dead) are taken from the 4 other smaller prosphora respectively. The trick isn't running out of bread, it would take MANY particles to used up a medium sized prosphora. The problem is running out of space on the diskos - ergo we try to make the particles as small as possible.

3. Re intentions, I am not aware of any Canon Law presently in force that restricts prayers or prayer intentions to just 1 per Liturgy. I believe Canon 715.1 just says that it is permissible to receive offerings for intentions.

Plus this 1 intention thing is [according to Archmandrite Victor (Pospishil)] a Latin Custom which Eastern Churches took on, but is certainly - at least so it seems to me - not where we should be going vis a vis obeying where the mind of the Church re where it want's us to go re returning to our roots etc. Besides which, it always strikes me as weird just to be able to pray for one intention.

All of which is to say, in my parish we do not restrict ourselves to 1 intention per Liturgy either, though of course, I know many that do. I guess my point is that theologically they shouldn't and Canonically, they don't have to.

4. At the parish where I go, small prosphora are provided in the Vestibule, with chits for the person to write down their prayer requestsd, and the particles are taken from those prosphora which are then returned blessed to the faithful sans the particle.

So there is no problem with running out of particles [though maybe we run out of prosphora], but people can still write in chits and particles will be taken from the larger 4 [the people just don't get a prosphoron to take home with them :-(

The Chits are used also by the clergy to pray for the faithful at the appropriate moments of the Liturgy.

5. As far as big numbers, our parish is no Hagia Sophia, but when we get big numbers, we use a mega Potirion and then at the Fraction it is divided into several regular sized Potiria for various Communion stations.

The Lamb is cut up at the Fraction, put not into little cubes (not enough time), the priests when distributing Communion, still have to do some "dividing" with the spoon.

But with a smaller crowd, we can still make do with 1 Cup at 1 Communion "station".

Sorry to go on so...

c.i.x.

H

A question for bisantino and Lance,

Is this the 'ideal' (pre-cut everything) that was presented in the deacon program? I am just curious and I will appreciate your reply.

Bob

Subdeacon Randolph,

There are no mandates on size. We aren't that silly yet. It is just what is commonly done.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Bob,

Quite the opposite, the traditional usage is presented as the ideal. However, the deacon, even if right, can't compel a priest to do anything. Now we can certainly nag him to death to do it properly, but ultimately the priests will have to reclaim this tradition. That is unless the Proskomede is given back to the deacons.

However, the problem is not with the amount of time it would add to the Liturgy, as I can't see it would be significant in the majority of our parishes, but with the scrupulosity of the older priests. They are absolutely horrified at the idea of cutting the consecrated Lamb and the crumbs that would be produced.

In Christ,
Lance

Durak and Bob,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by durak:
I have never attended a BC Liturgy that was not a "specific intention" Liturgy for the health or repose of soul for some one, or couple, or for parish in general. The intentions, of course, are published in the bulletin.
Are all Eastern Catholic Churches so tied into the formally recorded "stipend" system -- I know that an eparchial chancery overseer is supposed to "check the books" of each parish -- that the Orthodox way is not possible?
Did the "Instruction" have anything recommend on this point?
Thank you for your reply(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was wrong in my previous post. Rome did issue a decree forbidding Latin priests from having collective Masses whereby several offerings were satisfied at one Mass but this only effects the Latin Church.

The CCEO in fact makes it quite clear the traditional Eastern practice of prosphora offerings is acceptable.

I post the relevant Canons from the CCEO, Title XVI, Divine Worship and especially the sacraments:

"Canon 715 - �1. It is permissable for priests to receive offerings for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy for the intentions which the Christian faithful make according to the approved custom of the Church.

�2. It is also permissable, if it is thus established by lawful custom, to receive offerings for the Liturgy of the Presanctified and for commemorations in the Divine Liturgy.

Canon 716 - With due regard to Canon 1013, it is strongly advised that eparchial bishops introduce the practice, inasmuch as it is possible, according to which only those offerings are received on the occasion of the Divine Liturgy which the Christian faithful make on their own; individual priests should also freely celebrate the Divine Liturgy without any offering for the intentions of the Christain faithful, especially the needy.

Canon 717 - If they accept offerings for the Divine Liturgy from the Christian faithful of another Church sui iuris, priests are bound by the grave obligation of observing the norms of that Church, unless it is established otherwise by the donor."

Also from the Ruthenian Metropolia Particular Law:

"THE TEMPORAL GOODS OF THE CHURCH

The finance officers of each eparchy are to consult with each other to draw up a list of taxes to be proposed to the eparchial bishops for various acts of the power of governance, and of the offerings made on the occasion of the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, of the sacraments, of the sacramentals and of the other liturgical celebrations, They are to review this list annually and make suitable proposals for adjustments.

Canon 1016 - �1. In regard to offerings made by the Christian faithful for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy:

1�. The eparchial bishop can accept stipends, or designate another to accept stipends, to be persolved in the parishes or by the priests of his own eparchy.

2�. The pastor of a parish can accept stipends or designate another to accept stipends, to be persolved in his own parish.

3�. An individual priest can accept stipends thereby obliging himself to persolve those stipends."

Now perhaps a priest or canonist can better interpret this but I offer my own. The CCEO fully allows the traditional Eastern practice of prosphora offerings and the Ruthenian Particular Law also allows the stipend system. So it seems that the priest is left with the choice of how is going to do it. However, I would think that if the stipend system is used the Latin laws would apply: a priest may only accept one stipend per liturgy and one stipend for himself per day. If he has more than one Liturgy per day and accepts stipends for them they must be given to charity. As well stipends and intentions must be registered in a book which is subject to inspection by the bishop.

It seems that Ruthenian priests have a loophole by which they could accept a stipend for a Liturgy but also accept prosphora offerings at the same Liturgy since they aren't the same thing technically. While I would have prefered we had stayed away from the stipend system, it was actually formulated to prevent the abuse of priests accepting stipends and not offering for that intention.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance wrote:


I think there's a similar thing going on with the rejection of the common Byzantine practice of giving blessed bread to all communicants immmediately after receiving from the Communion spoon. One Byzantine Catholic priest I know was nearly offended by the practice. And yet, this is something that all Byzantine Orthodox jurisdictions do (at least in my experience.)

It's not much different, I think, from those who object to adding the Zeon to the consecrated chalice. It's something that catechesis should address and something, I think, should also be restored along with distribution of antidoron at the end of Liturgy.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Glory to Jesus Christ!

This is in response to the immediate previous post by Dave Brown.

Dave:

You are still conflating two totally different practices.

The giving out of blessed bread immediately after communion (usually accompanied with wine mixed with hot water) is not a universal custom in Byzantine Orthodoxy. It was certainly the custom in the ROCOR Cathedral in Chicago when I attended there in the 1970s, but I never saw it in any of the Ukrainian Orthodox parishes I attended in the 1980s. It was also not practiced in the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parishes of my acquaintance in the 1980s.

Antidoron is a more widespread custom, but again is not universal in Byzantine Orthodox churches. Again, you will find many or most Carpatho-Russian Orthodox churches in the USA do not practice this custom, or, if they do, it has been restored within the last 10 years.

These are both praiseworthy customs. But, always and everywhere, a cautious, scholarly approach will warn one from painting with too broad of a brush.

God bless you!
JMT

No! This was not presented as the ideal. In fact, the Liturgy professor, Fr David Petras is as strong an opponent against pre-cut prosphora as he is a proponent for an aloud anaphora.

John

Professor Thompson wrote:


In the Greek and Antiochian parishes I've been to the blessed bread at Communion was given out but they did not have the wine mixed with hot water. (Could the wine mixed with hot water be a Russian custom?) Would not the Carpatho-Russian practice reflect the shared latinization we have with them?

Its absence among Ukrainian Orthodox would be significant. Why would Ukrainian Orthodox be an exception? Anyone have thoughts on that? Alex, what is the practice of Ukrainian Orthodox in your area?


Again, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox churches are a reflection of a shared latinization, aren't they? It's praiseworthy that some of their parishes are restoring the traditional practice of distributing antidoron at the end of Liturgy. Shouldn't we follow that example? Wasn't the mandate from Vatican II for us to restore our authentic tradition?

I guess I am puzzled. There seems to be a great reluctance on this subject. All the sources (the Ordo, Fr Kurcharek's work, Hugh Wybrew's work, and the traditional liturgical works such as Cabasilas) are very clear about the traditional place of the antidoron at the end of the Liturgy (which flows out of the use of prosphora loaves). Why is there the seeming reluctance to restore the antidoron tradition and the traditional prosphora tradition?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

I remember reading (I think on the Indiana list) that distributing antidoron (and wine) after communion was a Russian practice, which is why it might not be found in ACROD parishes, or in many OCA parishes back east.

I think its a good idea. From what I remember, its primarily a utilitarian thing. Drinking the wine and eating the bread help to make sure that the communicant's mouth is clear of Holy Communion, so if the communicant venerates an icon or sings afterwards, there is less risk of accidentally getting the Body and Blood on anything.

In Christ,

Michael

I am not even quite sure that the Bread (and wine) given out after Communion can/should be called "Antidoron".

It is clearly not "instead of" or "in place of the Gifts", since the person has just partaken of the Holy Mysteries. (Whereas at the end of Div. Liturgy, for some the Antidoron is actually "in place of the Holy Gifts")

Besides which, the bread (as far as I know anyway) has not been blessed.

Antidoron is blessed either at the Vigil or some time during the later part of the Anaphora or even right after Holy Communion.

Does that make sense?

cix

h

CNB!

What is consumed after communion is commonly (meaning in my experience) called "zapivka."

Bob

Thank you, Bob.

A very apt name, I suppose it comes from "zapyvaty" - to wash down with a drink [according to my Uk. dictionary]? I suppose people include the bread as part of the Zapivka as well?

cix

h

[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Herbigny ]

Indeed bread is part of this whole 'zapivka.'