www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology BC Divine Liturgy

A friend lent me the Liturgikon published by the Byzantine Seminary Press apparently with the Sacred Oriental Congregation's approval, and copyrighted by the Byzantine Liturgical Conference 1965. Since I am an altar-server in my Orthodox parish and fancy myself familiar with our liturgy, I wanted to look at this liturgikon and see how similar or dissimilar it is. Being a former BC I thought I was more familiar with the BC texts and usages. I guess I was wrong.

What got me was the order (or lack thereof) from the fraction thru communion and the return of the Gifts to the altar.

There is NO indication that the commemorative particles are left on the diskos, on the contrary after the fraction and the dividing of the portions NI and KA into smaller portions for the communion of the faithful it says "puts these and the other particles together with the consecrated lamb into the holy chalice" I am presuming that the "other particles" are the commemorative particles.

There is not a word of the prayer "Wash away, O Lord, the sins..." anywhere, this should be taken when the commemorative particles are placed in the chalice after the communion of the faithful. There is no "Having beheld..." no "Shine, shine!" no "O Christ, great and most holy Pascha". All those accompany the return of the Gifts to the Holy Table.

There is "Be exalted" after "Save your people"

It does presume that the Lamb is left whole until "Holy Things to the Holy".

These are signifant divergences from the corresponding Orthodox practice. Someone was saying in an earlier thread that the liturgy was the same, I disagreed but could not offer details, now I can.

What can account for this?

Nikonian reforms? :rolleyes: give me a break!

Difference between Greek and Slav practice. Well, Ruthenians are Greek Catholics, not Slavs, right? (I heard that plenty of times)

Bob

[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

I will be brief for the moment because time does not allow me to expand on this, but the liturgy you are familiar with appears to be that of the Russian recension. Regarding the post-communion private prayers of the priest, including the paschal texts you mention: "Having beheld the resurrection of Christ . . . "; "Shine in splendor, O new Jerusalem . . . "; "O Christ, great and most holy Pascha"; etc. are not found in all liturgikons but reflect Russian usage and its emphasis on the connection between the Eucharist and the Resurrection. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it is important to note that it merely reflects one tradition's interpretation of this theological concept. You should not be so quick to criticize the Ruthenian usage, especially before comparing it to liturgikons other than the ones designed from the Russian recension.

When someone becomes "Orthodox" they are not becoming "Russian." It disturbs me that, for so many people, whose exposure to Orthodox liturgy has been primarily that of the OCA or other Russian-based churches, it is automatically presumed that all Orthodox traditions follow the same liturgical redaction. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The prayer, "Wash away, O Lord, the sins of all those commemorated here, by your precious blood, through the prayers of all your saints" is also not an original or even integral part of the "received liturgy." That is not to say that it is not an appropriate prayer for that particular moment of the service or that churches or clergy of various backgrounds may not have adopted its use. In fact, I say this prayer myself when I place the particles into the chalice - one of the few practices that I have borrowed from the Russian liturgy and incorporated into my own personal manner of celebration. I do this because I find the words beautiful and meaningful, not because it is "more correct" to do so.

I do not recall any liturgikons or deviations therefrom, that call for the fraction of the ahnec (lamb) at any time prior to the "One is holy . . . " Why is it a surprise that our recension follows this action that is universal practice?

The custom of placing all of the particles into the chalice before the communion of the faithful and using them to distribute the Eucharist to those who come forth to receive is another issue altogether, which I don't have time to discuss right now. I will address it however, as soon as I have time, because I think that it is important to present the various viewpoints on exactly how the sacred bread is consecrated and what portions thereof.

Thank you Bob, for a stimulating discussion of liturgics.

Fr. Joe

[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: Fr. Joe ]

Another difference you may have noticed in the post-communion rite of the Divine Liturgy, is the action taken by the priest at the words, "Save your people O God and bless your inheritance."

Bob, what is the practice in your parish at this moment in the liturgy and how might you feel this differs from our Ruthenian usage and/or others?

Fr. Joe

Hey Bob:

Good one!
A few days ago you were ranting over your reading into another's post that " 'all Rusins are Ukrainians' ".
Now you are treating us to Russian (practice) = Slav (practice).
Good one!

djs

1) The situation that I was ranting over was a simple one, someone who identified himself as Lemko Rusin was told by another "to me you are Ukrainian." My point was simple: that is what the Russians say to the Ukrainians "you are all Russians." The Ukrainians fought for their ethnicity and national state and finally won it; they were a people however before this. How are the Rusins different? That was that point.

2) To the best of my knowledge there are two basil Byzantine liturgical 'usages' Slav and Greek. The Slav being Russian as you have aptly noted and the Greek being Constantinopolitan. Apparently even Rome acknowledges this. Of course there are some churches of mixed usage. These churches, however, tend to be the ones that actually were under jurisdiction of a Greek usage body at some time then Slav another, such as Bulgaria. The Ruthenians do not appear to be in this category. While I have no doubt that there are certain local customs that the Ruthenians have, I have also heard over and over that the Ruthenians are Greek and not Russian. I always ask how this can be. The liturgical books that were available until the Union were from Kiev or Moscow for the greater part. "Our people" did not read or use Greek significantly in the liturgy for certain.

So, friend, I am asking a question. I take it that you no longer welcome sincere questions?

I will tell you for sure tomorrow after liturgy. I think the priest while facing the people elevates the chalice and says "Save your people..." and blesses with the chalice in a cross-wise fashion. I seem to remember someone somewhere blessing with the hand at this point. From what I recall the BCs bless with the chalice.

I do not claim that what is done in my parish is right and what is or was done anywhere else is wrong.

It is obvious to me that Orthodox practice =/= (does not equal) Russian practice. Again, however, there appear to be two basic groups and then smaller groups among those.

Re: the Lamb, I am not sure you understood my observation. I will try to be clearer: According to the BC text the Lamb is left whole until the fraction (then broken into 4 pieces) at which time one portion is placed in the chalice one portion is divided for communion of the clergy and the other two remaining for the communion of the faithful. I have seen this in only one BC parish. Everywhere else uses precut particles and a little Lamb that basically breaks into four particles. My observation was not entirely about the commemorative particles being used for communion (although I am interested in this) but rather about the use of a pre-cut Lamb.

In general this is true but there are some differences between the Ruthenian, the Russian and other liturgical recensions. This is why there are different sets of books for the Ruthenian Church than the Russian Church. I seem to remember that Rome published a complete set of liturgical in the 1940's and only a few for the Russian recension a bit later.

Regarding the post-communion rite, there are distinctive differences in the action taken by the priest. The liturgicon provides one rubric, the Ordo another and common usage yet another.

Sure, no dispute. However, the differences that I recall (subject to error of course as I do not have texts in front of me)in the Rome books (between Ruthenian and Russian) are more language and spelling differences.

Ah�no. Go check your books. The differences are small but they are more than just language and spelling differences. Fr. Joe's post above gave a few examples. Either way, it's a molehill and not a mountain we are talking about.

The Russian Recension Divine Liturgy has different saints commemorated during the Prothesis than the Ruthenian Recension, just to add one more difference than those noted above.

Also, as an OCA priest who frequently joins the pastors of the Antiochian and Greek Orthodox churches in the area for worship, I can attest to divergences in practice. The most pronounced being partaking of the chalice at Presanctified Liturgy. Those who follow the Typikon of the Great Church partake of the chalice with the words "..partake of the precious Blood..." To my knowledge the Russians and the Ruthenians do not partake of the chalice after receiving a portion of the Lamb. See Uspensky's book, "Evening Worship" p. 146 for more details.

Fr. Matthew, yes apparently one of the differences between "Greek" and "Russian" usage. Sit tight and wait for the backlash of putting Ruthenians and Russians in the same category.

Bob:

Sincere questioning is good!

If I mistook the sincerity of your first post, I am very sorry. Perhaps, you may agree, it was the capitalization, rolling eyes, "What got me...", "gimme a break", that led me astray.

At any rate, I am happy to see a discussion of the differences between Russian and Ruthenian recensions. And the similarities that they share as compared to Greek and Slavic variants.

Oh Bob!

djs

[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

This thread brings up so many issues regarding the liturgy and especially the communion rite. From the initial post, have come a variety of points and questions, some of which may be beyond the original scope of the topic, but I think that that's ok because it demonstrates the importance that the liturgy and especially the factors surrounding the reception of holy communion hold in our lives. The Eucharist is such a great and wonderful gift that discussion of the many aspects of its place in our Christian lives can never really be exhausted.

As our Administrator pointed out, the variations in ritual being discussed here, go beyond the issue of Muscovite vs. Ruthenian pronunciation of Church Slavonic. However, this is another interesting issue - The use of the soft "h" sounds instead of the hard "g" in Slavonic is said by most scholars and students of the language, to represent an original and still proper today, pronunciation. The Slavonic "h" (I don't know how to reproduce Cyrillic characters here or I would rather), was in Russia, made to correspond to the Muscovite hard "g" pronunciation, thus bringing the Russian usage of Church Slavonic into greater similarity with the vernacular. This explanation is also affirmed by members of the Russian Synodal Church (ROCOR) at Jordanville, where it is reported that Slavonic is still pronounced by some, using the "h" instead of hard "g" sound. Their Archbishop Laurus, a person of Carpatho-Rusyn origin teaches this usage of Church Slavonic.

Regarding the fraction of the ahnec or lamb, the action taken is the same, whether the bread has been "pre-cut" or extracted at the time of the proskomedia. Even when the ahnec is cut from a large loaf of prosphora, far prior to the liturgy - during the proskomedia rite the same prayers are said over it as when it is extracted from the round loaf at the actual time of the prothesis.

Granted, the use of pre-cut "chastitsi" or particles is not the most correct method of placing the commemorative particles on the diskos, but it does have some practical points that justify its use in some minds. Primarily, the pre-cut particles make for a much neater and more sanitary altar and diskos, avoiding the vast amount of "crumbs" that plague many antimensia. I am always shocked when visiting another priest's church, there are so many crumbs in the antimension, around the altar and on the zhertvenyk (proskomedia altar). Different people have different mentalities and concerns, but I firmly believe that out of respect for the Eucharistic species, which we profess to be the body and blood of the Lord, the utmost care must be taken to avoid the presence of so many discarded crumbs left over from the cutting and breaking of the prosphora. It does not matter much at which moment these crumbs occurred, because once the liturgy is consummated, how can one tell from where the crumbs originated?

Again, usages differ among the various ethnic groups, but it would appear that the Slavic churches typically give greater concern to both the style of the prosphora (pure-white in most Slav traditions) and what happens crumbs originating from it. In this instance, scrupulosity would seem to be in order, given the great care that should be taken regarding the Eucharistic bread.

While in the Ruthenian and some other traditions, the commemorative particles are neatly cut in either triangular or square pieces and arranged in parallel rows on the diskos, other recensions tend to simply "pluck" the particles out of a prosphoron, and then groups these together on the diskos, creating large piles of what appear to be simply "crumbs" - one for the living and one for the departed. While there is nothing inheritently wrong with this second practice, my training and reasoning would have me rather use neatly cut particles instead of what appear to be mere crumbs. If I was being remembered on the diskos, I think I'd rather be a particle than a crumb, but regardless, this is an example of how customs and training differ. What appears important to some of us is not all that relevant to others.

The main factor in how a priest conducts the proskomedia and treats whatever crumbs may be left over from the sacrifice, should of course be respect and concern for the sacred species. The antimension should be checked regularly to make sure that it is not full of Eucharistic crumbs. I regularly clean the antimension by shaking the leftover pieces of bread into the chalice before communion - at least once a week or so, a practice which I think many priests follow.

Another benefit of neatly cut particles, whether they are cut at the proskomedia or beforehand, is that they facilitate the communion of the faithful much easier. Of course this presumes that all the particles are consecrated and placed into the chalice for distribution. To me, it is much harder to "chip" off a piece of the ahnec with the spoon, and try to place it easily into a communicant's mouth (in which cases it often is difficult for the particle to separate from the spoon because of the "stickiness" resulting from sweet wine, causing the communicant to have to try to "grab" it with their lips), than it is to simply take a neatly cut particle with the spoon and drop it into the widely open mouth of the one receiving. But, everyone is different and as I've mentioned before, communicants are taught different practices by their pastors.

In traditions which use a soft type of prosphora and a very syrupy-sweet altar wine, the result is similar to when regular white (wonder) bread is placed into sweetened milk (as with cereal). The bread tends to begin to disintegrate immediately and the sugar in the wine causes it to stick to the spoon and sides of the chalice. It's not a pretty picture.

In the preparation of the prosphora, in order to have the least amount of crumbs possible, it is advisable to kneed the bread several times over, even more than the recipe might call for, to create a compact and "tight" bread that holds up well when it comes into contact with the wine. There will always be some crumbs, but care taken in the preparation of the bread will help avoid having so many.

These are all "practical" matters, and the discussion thereof may sound odd or even disrespectful to some laity who do not run into this side of the distribution of communion, but they are concerns nevertheless.

We still have not discussed the issue of exactly which particles of prosphora "get consecrated" during the course of the Divine Liturgy, but my time has run out for now. I hope to address this matter a little later on, if there is interest.

God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

While modern Russian practice places the commemoration particles/chastici into the chalice after the distribution of Holy Communion, modern Greek practice and, interestingly, the pre-Nikonion practice places them into the chalice before Holy Communion. See Prof. Paul Meyendorff's "Russia, Ritual and Reform" for information on the latter's practice.

It is debatable whether or not those commemoration chastici were used to commune the laity (I don't believe they were); however, the Ruthenian rubric of placing them into the chalice before Communion is not so far off from the practice of other Byzantine traditions.

-Dave