OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 06:37:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eucharist at Presanctified Liturgy  (Read 4446 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« on: September 15, 2010, 06:22:26 AM »

I've heard that some Hierarchs think that little children should not be given Eucharist at Presanctified Liturgies as only Lamb is consecrated and as they get "only wine" with no bread they don't get the Eucharist at all. Is it a common view?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2010, 08:34:08 AM »

It's not the practice in the OCA from any hierarch that I have ever heard of.

Father Thompas Hopko, in his book, All the Fullness of God, mentions this as a relic of Eastern Catholic practice.




Post modified to replace forbidden label with something more acceptable...  Please see this post for precedent:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.msg187933.html#msg187933  -PtA
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 04:11:08 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,908


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2010, 08:38:54 AM »

I've heard that some Hierarchs think that little children should not be given Eucharist at Presanctified Liturgies as only Lamb is consecrated and as they get "only wine" with no bread they don't get the Eucharist at all. Is it a common view?

It is an odd position, seeing that,

(a) All children, even infants, should be receiving of both kinds (body and blood), even if only in very small amounts
(b) The Lamb used at Presanctified Liturgy has been infused with the Blood, so even though we don't read consecration prayers over the cup of wine that it will be immersed in, it mixes/sanctifies the wine in the cup.

I've never encountered this view (i.e. the OP) in any interactions with Greek, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian, or OCA.  I haven't had in-depth liturgical discussions on Presanctified Liturgy with anyone else.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 08:39:03 AM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2010, 08:46:24 AM »

Father Thompas Hopko, in his book, All the Fullness of God, mentions this as a relic of Uniate practice.

Could you summarise what he wrote there? I doubt I will manage to get this book without spending much money.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 08:46:50 AM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2010, 08:49:41 AM »

Hmm...I had always been taught that all communicants were to receive both elements. In the case of babies or the infirm, very small pieces of Christ's Body are placed on the spoon.

Mike, can you let us know which hierarchs may have this opinion? I'm not trying to investigate anyone, but I am curious if by doing some research we can help understand their reasoning.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2010, 08:52:34 AM »

Well, it's Polish Bishop of Siemiatycze George. I've heard it from my friend that is close to the Polish Orthodox Metropolitanate and she knows him well too. He didn't write a book about it, it's his private opinion.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2010, 09:50:21 AM »

Well, it's Polish Bishop of Siemiatycze George. I've heard it from my friend that is close to the Polish Orthodox Metropolitanate and she knows him well too. He didn't write a book about it, it's his private opinion.

From what I have heard and read, the custom of not communing infants at a Presanctified Liturgy is a custom that developed years ago when those Catholics of the Byzantine Rite began to be influenced by the Latin Church and began to Latinize their liturgical usage and piety.  It was a pre-Vatican II development, and current Vatican directives call for the Eastern Catholics to return to the historic Orthodox practice of communing infants at the Presanctified Liturgy.

I don't remember the exact reasoning behind it, but I think it comes from two things:

1. A Latin-based hesitancy to commune infants, and strong urge to prefer waiting until age 6 or 7 for the age of "First Communion"
2. A very literalistic interpretation of the Words of Institution, where Christ says "Take! Eat! This is My Body ..." but says "Drink of it, ALL of you. This is My Blood ..."   A rather bizarre interpretation developed around this, claiming that infants could partake of the Precious Blood because of the dominical words "drink of it, ALL of you" but should wait for their First Confession/First Communion to partake of the Holy Body.  
3.  My theory is that this new interpretation served as a way to make the Eastern Rite less offensive to the Latin Rite members of the Roman Catholic Church.  The Eastern Rite people could claim that the "Host" was not given to anyone before their First Confession/First Communion, but the Orthodox piety of the Eastern Rite people could still be satisfied with the children being brought to the Chalice and being given some form of communion.

I find it quite ironic that such a position is being advocated by an ORTHODOX bishop today when in reality this is relic of Latinism that was introduced into Orthodoxy and which even Rome itself says ought to be eliminated as a corruption of the Byzantine Rite.




Post modified to remove forbidden label...  -PtA
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 04:12:59 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2010, 10:25:30 AM »

When I attended St. Seraphim's in Dallas about 10 years ago, this was the practice under Abp. Dmitri. The reasoning is that the Body has obviously been consecrated, but the wine that is put in the chalice has not, but is there only for the sake of making it easier to administer the Body, so if a child is young enough that they physically can't consume the Body, they shouldn't commune since all they'd be getting is wine. This also means that pretty much any child over the age of 6 months is getting communed.

I don't think it's a Uniate influence (for those of you who don't know Abp. Dmitri, he's certainly no Latinizer), but just logic. If the wine is changed into Blood just by putting the Body into it, without any accompanying prayers of consecration, why isn't the zapivka (wine and hot water mixture drunk after communion in the Russian tradition) also changed when it touches the traces of Blood on communicants' lips?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 10:27:18 AM by yBeayf » Logged
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2010, 11:28:06 AM »

Well, apparently, this is a more complicated matter than I thought.  Here is what one Orthodox Bishop has to say about the subject:

It would seem that the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts would have one and the same meaning both for the Greeks and Russians. The people like that service and many do attend it, especially if it is celebrated in the evening, as it should be, although this "daring novelty" still meets up with strong objections and is not widely practiced, except among the Orthodox in the West. But even if there are no observable differences in the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, which could impact upon the spiritual experience of the people, still there are some serious theological differences, although not officially formulated, which underline the actions and words of the celebrants behind the iconostas.

Here (to the great surprise of many lay people and even the clergy that do not even suspect it) arises the question: does the wine in the chalice, during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, change into the Lord's Precious Blood, as it does during the Liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great, or does it remain what it was, except that it was blessed and sanctified? The Russian Liturgy, since the time of Peter Mogila in any case, answers in the negative: the wine is not changed. This understanding is demonstrated by the fact that the celebrant partaking of the presanctified Body of Christ, which was intinctured with the Precious Blood sanctified at the Liturgy of Chrysostom or Basil the Great, drinks from the chalice without pronouncing those words, which he would when partaking during a "full" Liturgy. Furthermore, if he is celebrating without a deacon and would later consume the remaining Gifts by himself, he does not drink from the chalice. The deacon that would consume the remaining Gifts at the end of the Liturgy never drinks from the chalice even when he receives Communion. To drink from the chalice is viewed as an impediment towards consuming the remaining Gifts, as is explained in the "Notes concerning certain procedures for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts," which go back to the time of Peter Mogila: "If the priest is celebrating alone . . . he does not drink from the chalice until the end of the Liturgyþ Even though the wine is sanctified by the placing of the particles (of the sacred Body), it is not transubstantiated into the Divine Blood, since the words of institution were not pronounced over it as occurs during the Liturgies of Ss. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great." This same opinion is expressed in the Russian Church's practice of not admitting infants to communion during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts since, because of their age, they are unable to swallow a particle of the Body of Christ and the wine is not considered to have been changed into the Precious Blood. The Greek practice, as indicated in the service books, although not too clearly, presumes what appears to be completely different theological beliefs. Concerning the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts it briefly states: "The priest partakes . . . of the Sacred Gifts just as during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom." Meaning that, as he drinks from the chalice he says: "The precious and sacred Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me..." Thus, what is in the chalice is considered to be Christ's Blood. This is supported by the practice of drinking from the chalice three times, just as at the Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil the Great, which would not have been of much significance if this was said just about wine and not the Sacred Blood. After all this the celebrant consumes the Sacred Gifts as during the usual Liturgies. As for the theological explanations, we can find these in the Byzantine liturgists beginning with the 11th century: during the placement of the particle of the Body of Christ into the chalice the wine changes into the Precious Blood of the Lord through contact with His Body.

I will not express myself concerning this serious theological question. To form a decision about this difference (if indeed it exists, since one cannot make firm conclusions on the basis of different practices what concerns differences in belief) is beyond my competence since the Church, neither in Byzantium nor in Russia, adopted any conciliar decision on this account. I will only note that the explanation for the change of the wine into the Blood of Christ through contact with a particle of the Body appears strange to me and is unknown to the ancient Fathers. As for Peter Mogila's "Note," it is obviously inapplicable because of its Scholastic terminology ("transubstantiation") and its non-Orthodox theology according to which, the Epiklesis is replaced by the words of institution during the sanctification of the Eucharistic Gifts.

The publishers of liturgical books in Russia understood this well: although they include Peter Mogila's "Note" in the text, its more shocking segment, which we cited above in part, is shown in brackets. On the other hand, the theory of the change through contact carries with it a similar defect: it leaves no place for the Epiklesis. As for the Russian practice, it appears to be more correct but is contradictory in that it prescribes that the celebrant drink from the chalice three times (does it have any particular meaning if this is not the Blood of Christ?) And yet it is excessive in that it forbids him to drink if he is the sole celebrant.

by Archbishop Basil Krivoshein, Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium
 from a report given at the Liturgical Conference at the St. Sergius Theological Institute, Paris, on July 2, 1975


Here is a link to the entire article:  http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/krivoshein-greekandrussian.html


Apparently there is a divergence here between the Greek and Russian tradition, one that an Ecumenical Council has not resolved.

This is interesting.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2010, 11:55:42 AM »

When I attended St. Seraphim's in Dallas about 10 years ago, this was the practice under Abp. Dmitri. The reasoning is that the Body has obviously been consecrated, but the wine that is put in the chalice has not, but is there only for the sake of making it easier to administer the Body, so if a child is young enough that they physically can't consume the Body, they shouldn't commune since all they'd be getting is wine. This also means that pretty much any child over the age of 6 months is getting communed.

I don't think it's a Uniate influence (for those of you who don't know Abp. Dmitri, he's certainly no Latinizer), but just logic. If the wine is changed into Blood just by putting the Body into it, without any accompanying prayers of consecration, why isn't the zapivka (wine and hot water mixture drunk after communion in the Russian tradition) also changed when it touches the traces of Blood on communicants' lips?

Because that's not the intention of the act of consuming the zapivka?

I think this practice errs too much on the side of turning the mysteries into magical formulas.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2010, 12:06:25 PM »

I thought the OC is free from such scholastic explanations as Tikhon29605 posted.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 12:06:41 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2010, 12:08:39 PM »

I thought the OC is free from such scholastic explanations as Tikhon29605 posted.


Interesting thoughts, Mike.

It struck me as exactly that as well: pure scholastic speculation.  I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one that thought that.
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2010, 12:12:03 PM »

Quote
Because that's not the intention of the act of consuming the zapivka?

I think this practice errs too much on the side of turning the mysteries into magical formulas.

But Russian priests following this practice don't intend for the wine to change into the Blood.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2010, 12:38:10 PM »

Quote
Because that's not the intention of the act of consuming the zapivka?

I think this practice errs too much on the side of turning the mysteries into magical formulas.

But Russian priests following this practice don't intend for the wine to change into the Blood.

That's what I don't understand. I don't know why that would be the case, since the sanctified Body is placed into the wine. I don't know how you can have one without the other.

I mean, that is how priests make more Eucharist if they need more. They put some bread and wine into another chalice, and then spoon a little from the consecrated chalice into it, thus sanctifying the second. My priest does this most every week.
Logged
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2010, 12:48:53 PM »

We need to get a priest or bishop on here to explain this to us.  Now I'm really confused.
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2010, 12:58:15 PM »

Quote
That's what I don't understand. I don't know why that would be the case, since the sanctified Body is placed into the wine. I don't know how you can have one without the other.

If you can consecrate more Blood just by putting the Body into some wine, then what is the point of the Liturgy? As St. Nicholas Cabasilas says, we offer bread and wine, and receive back the Body and Blood. At the Presanctified, the wine isn't being offered.

Not only that, but, as a former priest of mine told me, the whole idea behind not having Liturgy during Lent is that the altar itself is "fasting", and the sacrifice of the Liturgy is not offered on it, so we have to commune from the reserved gifts. What you're saying would seem to defeat that -- if the elements can be consecrated, why is the Liturgy of the Presanctified using presanctified gifts rather than just consecrating them like at a normal liturgy?

Quote
I mean, that is how priests make more Eucharist if they need more. They put some bread and wine into another chalice, and then spoon a little from the consecrated chalice into it, thus sanctifying the second. My priest does this most every week.

I've never seen this done in a Russian church.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 01:01:35 PM by yBeayf » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,908


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2010, 01:20:25 PM »

I see a lot of semi-theological arguments against; half-formed thoughts of protest.

"Altar fasting" - Huh Where does this come from?  Altars always fast, as do demons and angels.

"Contact with the Body sanctifies the wine" - Huh The Body and Blood are together; the wine makes contact with both, and (inevitably) mixes with the Blood present in the Presanctified gifts. 

Once the Presanctified gifts are placed in the chalice, I think there is 0% chance of distinguishing the Presanctified blood from the wine, since (even on a molecular level) they have begun mixing.

I mean, that is how priests make more Eucharist if they need more. They put some bread and wine into another chalice, and then spoon a little from the consecrated chalice into it, thus sanctifying the second. My priest does this most every week.

Woah, there.  Maybe they pour wine into a new chalice, and spoon some of the Blood in there, but in my experience they won't put "bread" in there, only the Body of Christ.  You run out, you've only got 2 options: going to the presanctified "reserve" (for the sick and baptisms) for more, or ending communion.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2010, 01:51:38 PM »

Thank you for your comments, Fr. George. Could you tell us more about this, especially where the idea comes from that infants may not commune at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2010, 02:12:39 PM »

Thank you for your comments, Fr. George. Could you tell us more about this, especially where the idea comes from that infants may not commune at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts?

In reply #2 he stated that he heard of this for a first time.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2010, 03:06:51 PM »

Quote
"Contact with the Body sanctifies the wine" - Huh The Body and Blood are together; the wine makes contact with both, and (inevitably) mixes with the Blood present in the Presanctified gifts.

Once the Presanctified gifts are placed in the chalice, I think there is 0% chance of distinguishing the Presanctified blood from the wine, since (even on a molecular level) they have begun mixing.

So the zapivka should be treated like the Blood?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,908


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2010, 04:46:58 PM »

So the zapivka should be treated like the Blood?

Huh I know "what" it is, but I suppose your insistence on the question leads me to further questions, like, "are people swallowing communion before they drink the zapivka?" Or, "do many people backwash into the zapivka?"  I'm not asking this to be facetious, but as an honest inquiry that I feel should be resolved based on your question's underlying assumption (that communion and zapivka occupy the same space in your mouth at the same time, and that some of this returns into the cup).

I suppose, too, we should return to the delicate question of intent - the same question that leads to the debate of "what on the diskos/paten becomes the Body of Christ?"  I come from the "Lamb only" school (which is the dominant one, btw) - even though there are many pieces of bread on the diskos/paten at the time of consecration, only the piece cut as the Lamb becomes the Body of Christ because that's what is intended to become the body of Christ for the purposes of reception of the faithful (who then themselves become a part of the Body of Christ through their reception).

Applying the same question/logic, the zapivka is not intended to be an extension of communion, nor is it treated in any way like it, so I don't see why anyone should assume that it becomes communion.  However, wine mixed with the Body and Blood of Christ in the chalice for presanctified Liturgy is intended, IMO, to become the Blood of Christ; even if one argues that the wine in the Chalice does not become the Blood itself, it at least dilutes the existing Blood that is mixed in the presanctified Gifts, acting then as a vessel of the Blood of Christ.  Therefore, the contents of the chalice during Presanctified Liturgy should be treated differently than the zapivka.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,908


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2010, 04:48:13 PM »

Thank you for your comments, Fr. George. Could you tell us more about this, especially where the idea comes from that infants may not commune at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts?

In reply #2 he stated that he heard of this for a first time.

Indeed; I've never encountered the position before this thread.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 530


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2010, 05:03:03 PM »

So the zapivka should be treated like the Blood?

Huh I know "what" it is, but I suppose your insistence on the question leads me to further questions, like, "are people swallowing communion before they drink the zapivka?" Or, "do many people backwash into the zapivka?"  I'm not asking this to be facetious, but as an honest inquiry that I feel should be resolved based on your question's underlying assumption (that communion and zapivka occupy the same space in your mouth at the same time, and that some of this returns into the cup).

I suppose, too, we should return to the delicate question of intent - the same question that leads to the debate of "what on the diskos/paten becomes the Body of Christ?"  I come from the "Lamb only" school (which is the dominant one, btw) - even though there are many pieces of bread on the diskos/paten at the time of consecration, only the piece cut as the Lamb becomes the Body of Christ because that's what is intended to become the body of Christ for the purposes of reception of the faithful (who then themselves become a part of the Body of Christ through their reception).

Applying the same question/logic, the zapivka is not intended to be an extension of communion, nor is it treated in any way like it, so I don't see why anyone should assume that it becomes communion.  However, wine mixed with the Body and Blood of Christ in the chalice for presanctified Liturgy is intended, IMO, to become the Blood of Christ; even if one argues that the wine in the Chalice does not become the Blood itself, it at least dilutes the existing Blood that is mixed in the presanctified Gifts, acting then as a vessel of the Blood of Christ.  Therefore, the contents of the chalice during Presanctified Liturgy should be treated differently than the zapivka.


Thank you, Father George.  That was a very good explanation.
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2010, 05:06:19 PM »

Quote
I know "what" it is, but I suppose your insistence on the question leads me to further questions, like, "are people swallowing communion before they drink the zapivka?" Or, "do many people backwash into the zapivka?"  I'm not asking this to be facetious, but as an honest inquiry that I feel should be resolved based on your question's underlying assumption (that communion and zapivka occupy the same space in your mouth at the same time, and that some of this returns into the cup).

[...]

Applying the same question/logic, the zapivka is not intended to be an extension of communion, nor is it treated in any way like it, so I don't see why anyone should assume that it becomes communion.  However, wine mixed with the Body and Blood of Christ in the chalice for presanctified Liturgy is intended, IMO, to become the Blood of Christ

Communicants swallow communion before taking zapivka. While theoretically there should be no Blood on one's lips, many people close their lips around the spoon, and even if one doesn't, it's customary in the Russian church to kiss the chalice after communicating, where other people have also kissed it.

If the traces of the Blood on the reserved Body are enough to effect a change in the wine in the chalice, even if, as is the case with the Russian priests I've known, there is no intention for it to become the Blood, and it is not treated like the Blood, then the traces of Blood on the lips of communicants would be enough to change the zapivka as well.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2010, 06:30:04 PM »

Father Thompas Hopko, in his book, All the Fullness of God, mentions this as a relic of Uniate practice.

Could you summarise what he wrote there? I doubt I will manage to get this book without spending much money.
This is only snippet view:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PPstAAAAYAAJ&q=All+the+fullness+of+god+hopko&dq=All+the+fullness+of+god+hopko&hl=en&ei=b0SRTJSYMMyonQervtC0DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2010, 06:38:37 PM »

So the zapivka should be treated like the Blood?

Huh I know "what" it is, but I suppose your insistence on the question leads me to further questions, like, "are people swallowing communion before they drink the zapivka?" Or, "do many people backwash into the zapivka?"  I'm not asking this to be facetious, but as an honest inquiry that I feel should be resolved based on your question's underlying assumption (that communion and zapivka occupy the same space in your mouth at the same time, and that some of this returns into the cup).

I suppose, too, we should return to the delicate question of intent - the same question that leads to the debate of "what on the diskos/paten becomes the Body of Christ?"  I come from the "Lamb only" school (which is the dominant one, btw) - even though there are many pieces of bread on the diskos/paten at the time of consecration, only the piece cut as the Lamb becomes the Body of Christ because that's what is intended to become the body of Christ for the purposes of reception of the faithful (who then themselves become a part of the Body of Christ through their reception).

Applying the same question/logic, the zapivka is not intended to be an extension of communion, nor is it treated in any way like it, so I don't see why anyone should assume that it becomes communion.  However, wine mixed with the Body and Blood of Christ in the chalice for presanctified Liturgy is intended, IMO, to become the Blood of Christ; even if one argues that the wine in the Chalice does not become the Blood itself, it at least dilutes the existing Blood that is mixed in the presanctified Gifts, acting then as a vessel of the Blood of Christ.  Therefore, the contents of the chalice during Presanctified Liturgy should be treated differently than the zapivka.
To see it from a different angle: if I put a drop of poison in a cup of wine, would anyone drink it? Truth is, no matter how diluted (because it doens't make all the wine turn to poison), most would not because it makes every bit suspect, being mixed with the poison.

The dried drops on the lamb which begins to difuse in the wine poured in the chalice mixes with the wine. Although not every particular is consecrated, the mixture contains consecrated particles.  For the same reason, if rinsed a chalice out after the consecrated elements had been consumed, I'd drink the water rather than pouring it down the drain.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,908


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2010, 08:49:08 PM »

To see it from a different angle: if I put a drop of poison in a cup of wine, would anyone drink it? Truth is, no matter how diluted (because it doens't make all the wine turn to poison), most would not because it makes every bit suspect, being mixed with the poison.

The dried drops on the lamb which begins to difuse in the wine poured in the chalice mixes with the wine. Although not every particular is consecrated, the mixture contains consecrated particles.

Exactly.

For the same reason, if rinsed a chalice out after the consecrated elements had been consumed, I'd drink the water rather than pouring it down the drain.

This is precisely what we are instructed to do: we consume the gifts completely, but then we do a final rinse with the hot water (leftover from the zeon); that water is to be consumed no matter how "empty" we think the chalice is before pouring it in, so as to not potentially waste any particle of the Body and Blood of Christ. 

(This is, of course, the most uncomfortable part for me, as I drink no hot liquids - I dislike coffee, I drink my tea either at room temp or iced, and drink no other hot beverage - and therefore my body has 0 tolerance for it.  It becomes my morning internal sauna, which leads to at least one parishioner asking me the inevitable question - if it was really hot in the Altar during Liturgy. Grin )
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 08:49:39 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2010, 10:45:13 PM »

If you would really like to know the whole history behind all this order Nicholas Uspensky's book Evening Worship.   It goes into the whole history of this debate.   There really was no debate before the times of Peter Mohila.   As Uspensky's book shows, the Greeks/Arabs have always remained steadfast in the view that it is the Body and Blood, as did the Slavs for most of their history.  The Blood in the presanctified mixes with the wine in the chalice.   It is not magic, it is that this is purpose for the priest pouring the blood onto the Presanctified Lamb on a given Lenten Sunday, so that it may infuse the wine in the chalice at the Presanctified.   The refusal to give to infants is an innovative idea based on neo-Latin thinking, that somehow the Body and Blood at Presanctified is an "act of repentence" and therefore infants cannot receive it.  It is bogus theology.  I really do encourage all to read Uspensky's book if you have not already.   It is good for understanding both Presanctified and Vespers. 
Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 847



« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2011, 04:10:14 PM »

Thanks, FatherHLL.
What would a deacon who have celiac disease or be unable to eat bread do if the wine is not consecrated? How would he commune?
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2011, 06:27:16 PM »

Thanks, FatherHLL.
What would a deacon who have celiac disease or be unable to eat bread do if the wine is not consecrated? How would he commune?


I would suggest he read Uspensky's Evening Worship, where he will see that the wine is indeed consecrated with the commingling.   
Logged
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2011, 09:49:55 PM »

Thanks, FatherHLL.
What would a deacon who have celiac disease or be unable to eat bread do if the wine is not consecrated? How would he commune?


I know of a deacon who has celiac and only communes from the Blood on Sundays.  But at the Presanctified Liturgy I don't know what he does.  I remember seeing rubrics that when a priest serves alone he only receives the Blood and only drinks from the chalice when he is cleaning it.  The same also applied for the deacon.  I know in my parish I only receive the Blood alone, if I'm the one cleaning the chalice.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
mildert
Deacon Philip
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe - Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 113


« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2011, 07:57:15 AM »

Dear Fr Vasyl,

I have never seen Deacons or Priest only receiving from the Chalice when they are going to cleanse the gifts later.  My experience is mostly in Churches of the Russian tradition, and occasionally in the Greek - all those receiving will receive of both kinds.

In XC,

Deacon Philip

Thanks, FatherHLL.
What would a deacon who have celiac disease or be unable to eat bread do if the wine is not consecrated? How would he commune?


I know of a deacon who has celiac and only communes from the Blood on Sundays.  But at the Presanctified Liturgy I don't know what he does.  I remember seeing rubrics that when a priest serves alone he only receives the Blood and only drinks from the chalice when he is cleaning it.  The same also applied for the deacon.  I know in my parish I only receive the Blood alone, if I'm the one cleaning the chalice.

Logged

In XC,

Deacon Philip
mildert
Deacon Philip
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe - Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 113


« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2011, 08:10:02 AM »

Dear Father,

From my reading, according to the Russian tradition the wine is not turned into the Blood of Christ by co-mingling whereas according to the Greek tradtion it is - See "Some differences between Greek and Russian divine services and their significance", by Basil Krivoshein - Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/krivoshein-greekandrussian.html

"...does the wine in the chalice, during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, change into the Lord's Precious Blood, as it does during the Liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great, or does it remain what it was, except that it was blessed and sanctified? The Russian Liturgy, since the time of Peter Mogila in any case, answers in the negative: the wine is not changed. This understanding is demonstrated by the fact that the celebrant partaking of the presanctified Body of Christ, which was intinctured with the Precious Blood sanctified at the Liturgy of Chrysostom or Basil the Great, drinks from the chalice without pronouncing those words, which he would when partaking during a "full" Liturgy. Furthermore, if he is celebrating without a deacon and would later consume the remaining Gifts by himself, he does not drink from the chalice. The deacon that would consume the remaining Gifts at the end of the Liturgy never drinks from the chalice even when he receives Communion. To drink from the chalice is viewed as an impediment towards consuming the remaining Gifts, as is explained in the "Notes concerning certain procedures for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts," which go back to the time of Peter Mogila: "If the priest is celebrating alone . . . he does not drink from the chalice until the end of the Liturgyþ Even though the wine is sanctified by the placing of the particles (of the sacred Body), it is not transubstantiated into the Divine Blood, since the words of institution were not pronounced over it as occurs during the Liturgies of Ss. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great." This same opinion is expressed in the Russian Church's practice of not admitting infants to communion during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts since, because of their age, they are unable to swallow a particle of the Body of Christ and the wine is not considered to have been changed into the Precious Blood. The Greek practice, as indicated in the service books, although not too clearly, presumes what appears to be completely different theological beliefs. Concerning the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts it briefly states: "The priest partakes . . . of the Sacred Gifts just as during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom." Meaning that, as he drinks from the chalice he says: "The precious and sacred Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me..." Thus, what is in the chalice is considered to be Christ's Blood. This is supported by the practice of drinking from the chalice three times, just as at the Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil the Great, which would not have been of much significance if this was said just about wine and not the Sacred Blood. After all this the celebrant consumes the Sacred Gifts as during the usual Liturgies. As for the theological explanations, we can find these in the Byzantine liturgists beginning with the 11th century: during the placement of the particle of the Body of Christ into the chalice the wine changes into the Precious Blood of the Lord through contact with His Body."

In XC,

Deacon Philip

Thanks, FatherHLL.
What would a deacon who have celiac disease or be unable to eat bread do if the wine is not consecrated? How would he commune?


I would suggest he read Uspensky's Evening Worship, where he will see that the wine is indeed consecrated with the commingling.   
Logged

In XC,

Deacon Philip
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2011, 12:05:48 PM »

Thanks, FatherHLL.
What would a deacon who have celiac disease or be unable to eat bread do if the wine is not consecrated? How would he commune?


I know of a deacon who has celiac and only communes from the Blood on Sundays.  But at the Presanctified Liturgy I don't know what he does.  I remember seeing rubrics that when a priest serves alone he only receives the Blood and only drinks from the chalice when he is cleaning it.  The same also applied for the deacon.  I know in my parish I only receive the Blood alone, if I'm the one cleaning the chalice.



I was having a bad day at work,yesterday, and actually meant the deacon or priest would only receive the Body and not drink from the chalice.  My mind these days are like a sieve...lol
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2011, 12:38:02 PM »

Right.  That is why I suggested reading Uspensky's very thorough work, where he shows that the believe that the wine is not turned to blood is an innovative creation of the 17th century from the Striatin Sluzhebnik period onward (but particularly with Mohila), and a departure from the solid Orthodox believe of the first 16 centuries.  But it is a scientific fact that the blood on the Lamb once intincted liquifies and in dispersed throughout the chalice. 


Dear Father,

From my reading, according to the Russian tradition the wine is not turned into the Blood of Christ by co-mingling whereas according to the Greek tradtion it is - See "Some differences between Greek and Russian divine services and their significance", by Basil Krivoshein - Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/krivoshein-greekandrussian.html

"...does the wine in the chalice, during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, change into the Lord's Precious Blood, as it does during the Liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great, or does it remain what it was, except that it was blessed and sanctified? The Russian Liturgy, since the time of Peter Mogila in any case, answers in the negative: the wine is not changed. This understanding is demonstrated by the fact that the celebrant partaking of the presanctified Body of Christ, which was intinctured with the Precious Blood sanctified at the Liturgy of Chrysostom or Basil the Great, drinks from the chalice without pronouncing those words, which he would when partaking during a "full" Liturgy. Furthermore, if he is celebrating without a deacon and would later consume the remaining Gifts by himself, he does not drink from the chalice. The deacon that would consume the remaining Gifts at the end of the Liturgy never drinks from the chalice even when he receives Communion. To drink from the chalice is viewed as an impediment towards consuming the remaining Gifts, as is explained in the "Notes concerning certain procedures for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts," which go back to the time of Peter Mogila: "If the priest is celebrating alone . . . he does not drink from the chalice until the end of the Liturgyþ Even though the wine is sanctified by the placing of the particles (of the sacred Body), it is not transubstantiated into the Divine Blood, since the words of institution were not pronounced over it as occurs during the Liturgies of Ss. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great." This same opinion is expressed in the Russian Church's practice of not admitting infants to communion during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts since, because of their age, they are unable to swallow a particle of the Body of Christ and the wine is not considered to have been changed into the Precious Blood. The Greek practice, as indicated in the service books, although not too clearly, presumes what appears to be completely different theological beliefs. Concerning the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts it briefly states: "The priest partakes . . . of the Sacred Gifts just as during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom." Meaning that, as he drinks from the chalice he says: "The precious and sacred Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me..." Thus, what is in the chalice is considered to be Christ's Blood. This is supported by the practice of drinking from the chalice three times, just as at the Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil the Great, which would not have been of much significance if this was said just about wine and not the Sacred Blood. After all this the celebrant consumes the Sacred Gifts as during the usual Liturgies. As for the theological explanations, we can find these in the Byzantine liturgists beginning with the 11th century: during the placement of the particle of the Body of Christ into the chalice the wine changes into the Precious Blood of the Lord through contact with His Body."

In XC,

Deacon Philip

Thanks, FatherHLL.
What would a deacon who have celiac disease or be unable to eat bread do if the wine is not consecrated? How would he commune?


I would suggest he read Uspensky's Evening Worship, where he will see that the wine is indeed consecrated with the commingling.   
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2011, 12:41:49 PM »

Thanks, FatherHLL.What would a deacon who have celiac disease or be unable to eat bread do if the wine is not consecrated? How would he commune?
I know of a deacon who has celiac and only communes from the Blood on Sundays.  But at the Presanctified Liturgy I don't know what he does.  I remember seeing rubrics that when a priest serves alone he only receives the Blood and only drinks from the chalice when he is cleaning it.  The same also applied for the deacon.  I know in my parish I only receive the Blood alone, if I'm the one cleaning the chalice.
I was having a bad day at work,yesterday, and actually meant the deacon or priest would only receive the Body and not drink from the chalice.  My mind these days are like a sieve...lol

Correct, however these rubrics are an innovative and severe departure from all that had gone before in both Slavonic and Greek texts. 
Logged
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2011, 12:57:44 PM »

It's not the practice in the OCA from any hierarch that I have ever heard of.

Father Thompas Hopko, in his book, All the Fullness of God, mentions this as a relic of Eastern Catholic practice.

I've never heard of this not giving Holy Communion to infants in any Melkite or Romanian Catholic Church for that matter.  I've been going to a Melkite Church for 27 years and I attended two different Romanian Churches in Aurora IL when I was in college.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,088


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2011, 11:02:22 PM »

When I attended St. Seraphim's in Dallas about 10 years ago, this was the practice under Abp. Dmitri. The reasoning is that the Body has obviously been consecrated, but the wine that is put in the chalice has not, but is there only for the sake of making it easier to administer the Body, so if a child is young enough that they physically can't consume the Body, they shouldn't commune since all they'd be getting is wine. This also means that pretty much any child over the age of 6 months is getting communed.

I don't think it's a Uniate influence (for those of you who don't know Abp. Dmitri, he's certainly no Latinizer), but just logic. If the wine is changed into Blood just by putting the Body into it, without any accompanying prayers of consecration, why isn't the zapivka (wine and hot water mixture drunk after communion in the Russian tradition) also changed when it touches the traces of Blood on communicants' lips?

That's interesting.  I've witnessed priests take the Eucharist and soak it very much in the blood.  They get it extremely soft and mushy and give it to the baby or infant that way.  I've never heard of a child of any age not getting the Eucharist.  Surprised they do that at St. Seraphims.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #38 on: March 09, 2011, 05:06:46 AM »

Both the body and blood are consecrated (or rather, pre-sanctified) for the presanctified liturgy.
Logged
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 834


Christos Anesti!


« Reply #39 on: March 17, 2011, 01:55:02 AM »

I just thought it was interesting I served at  the presactifed liturgy tonight and the priest received both the lamb and the chalice with the usual formula its an OCA church. 
Logged

"Come ye take light from The Light that is never overtaken by night and glorify the Christ, who is risen from the dead"
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #40 on: March 17, 2011, 06:04:52 PM »

Both the body and blood are consecrated (or rather, pre-sanctified) for the presanctified liturgy.

Correct.  The priest consecrates 3 Lambs the Sunday before, one for that Sunday's Communion and two for Presanctified during the week.  The central Lamb is prepared for Communion on that Sunday and the other two Lambs are soaked with the consecrated Blood from the chalice and then put in the Artophorion.  The Blood-soaked Lambs will then be intincted for Presanctified on that following Wednesday and Friday.     
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 17, 2011, 06:16:07 PM »

This may be slightly OT, but I am curious why there is a need felt for Pre-Sanctified Liturgies during Lent when the Divine Liturgy is still served on Sundays, which is as often as it is usually served throughout they year anyway?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,442


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #42 on: March 17, 2011, 06:33:37 PM »

This may be slightly OT, but I am curious why there is a need felt for Pre-Sanctified Liturgies during Lent when the Divine Liturgy is still served on Sundays, which is as often as it is usually served throughout they year anyway?
In short, the Presanctified Liturgy is served as a means to offering the faithful sustenance from the Body and Blood of our Lord as we fast, pray, and give alms during Lent. With the exception of the Feast of the Annunciation, the Divine Liturgy is not permitted to be celebrated on a Lenten weekday because of its festal spirit. Thus, the Presanctified Liturgy was developed as an alternative so that the faithful could receive the Divine sustenance they so need during the Fast in a way that maintains the penitential spirit of Lent.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 06:36:53 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 17, 2011, 09:44:41 PM »

This may be slightly OT, but I am curious why there is a need felt for Pre-Sanctified Liturgies during Lent when the Divine Liturgy is still served on Sundays, which is as often as it is usually served throughout they year anyway?
In short, the Presanctified Liturgy is served as a means to offering the faithful sustenance from the Body and Blood of our Lord as we fast, pray, and give alms during Lent. With the exception of the Feast of the Annunciation, the Divine Liturgy is not permitted to be celebrated on a Lenten weekday because of its festal spirit. Thus, the Presanctified Liturgy was developed as an alternative so that the faithful could receive the Divine sustenance they so need during the Fast in a way that maintains the penitential spirit of Lent.

A new thought just came to mind that might shed light on the situation: was it developed in a time and place where the DL was celebrated more often than Sundays (that is during non-fasting periods)?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 09:44:56 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
mildert
Deacon Philip
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe - Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 113


« Reply #44 on: March 18, 2011, 09:58:00 AM »

This may be slightly OT, but I am curious why there is a need felt for Pre-Sanctified Liturgies during Lent when the Divine Liturgy is still served on Sundays, which is as often as it is usually served throughout they year anyway?
In short, the Presanctified Liturgy is served as a means to offering the faithful sustenance from the Body and Blood of our Lord as we fast, pray, and give alms during Lent. With the exception of the Feast of the Annunciation, the Divine Liturgy is not permitted to be celebrated on a Lenten weekday because of its festal spirit. Thus, the Presanctified Liturgy was developed as an alternative so that the faithful could receive the Divine sustenance they so need during the Fast in a way that maintains the penitential spirit of Lent.

A new thought just came to mind that might shed light on the situation: was it developed in a time and place where the DL was celebrated more often than Sundays (that is during non-fasting periods)?

Indeed.

In Russia, outside of the Great Fast, in many Churches the Liturgy is offered daily.

In Christ,

Deacon Philip
Logged

In XC,

Deacon Philip
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2011, 12:01:30 PM »

A new thought just came to mind that might shed light on the situation: was it developed in a time and place where the DL was celebrated more often than Sundays (that is during non-fasting periods)?

Partially correct. In the East, presanctified liturgies started in Syria and came to Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius (early 600s). Daily liturgy in parish churches was not the norm in the East outside of Lent during this time (the entire liturgical cycle was stational). However, presanctified liturgy became an integral part of the ramped up Lenten cycle of prayers in all churches. So, in 692, Trullo 52 mandates that "On all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord's day and the holy day of the Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be said."

At that point, Presanctified Liturgy in Constantinople was part of a daily quasi-vigil service. There are several early codices that preserve various forms of the liturgy and of the vigil (the earliest such codex dating to the 700s). The main source for this is J. Mateos, Le typicon de la Grande Eglise, 2 vols. (Rome, 1962-63).

Also, you'd probably be particularly interested to know that there are many manuscripts that preserve Non-Chalcedonian Presanctified liturgies in Syriac, often (incorrectly) attributed to Severus of Antioch.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Tags: Vesperal Liturgies 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.17 seconds with 72 queries.