Topic: two chalices

[Dart]

If two chalices will be used for communion, how should the second chalice be prepared? How should the communion be transferred to the second chalice?

[Benjamin the Red]

Unconsecrated wine is placed in the second chalice, and an amount of the Blood of Christ from the primary chalice is transferred into it, consecrating the whole chalice.

The body is Christ...is just really, REALLY big. I've seen pictures of patens (diskoi) the size of a dinner plate, supporting what looks like a full loaf of bread as the Lamb.

[zekarja]

At the GOC that I attend... The second (and third) chalice already has un-consecrated wine in it. Hot water is poured into all chalices. Consecrated Bread is put into all chalices. Then three spoonfuls of consecrated Wine (from the main chalice) is put into the chalices containing un-consecrated wine.

The effects are similar to that of Pre-Sactified Gifts in that, a little consecrated Wine on the Lamb consecrates the rest of the wine.


As-Salamu alaykum,
zekarja

[Dart]

What part of the lamb is transferred?

[zekarja]

What part of the lamb is transferred?

Whatever is left after the priests eat Christ's Body. We have a large Temple, therefore the priests each eat a tiny piece of Christ's Body. The remaining Lamb is divided approximately equally into all the chalices.


P.S. If a chalice is running low on the precious Blood, you can add more un-consecrated wine to the precious Blood and it will become the precious Blood.

[Fr. George]

What part of the lamb is transferred?

The IC goes into the main chalice immediately following the fracture.

The clergy commune from the XC.  In some traditions, they consume the whole piece of the XC, and in some, the remainder is put in the chalice(s).

So the piece(s) going into the additional chalice(s) would be from the NI, KA, and in some cases the remaining portion of the XC.

[Dart]

What part of the lamb is transferred?

The IC goes into the main chalice immediately following the fracture.

The clergy commune from the XC.  In some traditions, they consume the whole piece of the XC, and in some, the remainder is put in the chalice(s).

So the piece(s) going into the additional chalice(s) would be from the NI, KA, and in some cases the remaining portion of the XC.

Thank you
Just trying to know how the different pieces (IC,XC,NI,KA) are treated to understand if there is any difference in their meaning. I figured if the IC was divided equally like in zekarja's church then the IC is significant. If the IC and NI,KA were placed in the chalices interchangably then there is no significant difference in their meaning. I guess there is no consensus because in my parish the current priest dips the NI into the first chalice and then transfers it to the second. The previous priest did it like you do Father George.

I guess you don't appreciate these subtle things until a new priest comes and does things differently without explaining why.

[Fr. George]

Thank you

You're welcome!

Just trying to know how the different pieces (IC,XC,NI,KA) are treated to understand if there is any difference in their meaning. I figured if the IC was divided equally like in zekarja's church then the IC is significant. If the IC and NI,KA were placed in the chalices interchangably then there is no significant difference in their meaning.

Over-emphasizing meaning to one part or another misses the point, IMO.  Just as we say in our prayer of fraction that the Body of Christ is, "broken but not divided," the IC that is placed in the chalice first is uniting the whole of the Body with the whole of the Blood (with the words, "Blessed is the union of Your Holy Gifts, always, now and ever...").  There are traditions in some of the Churches, though, that emphasize that the clergy only commune from the XC, and the people only commune from the IC.  This is a tradition foreign to the "Greek" (Greek, Antiochian, Alexandrian, Jerusalemite, and Cypriot) traditions, IME.

I guess there is no consensus because in my parish the current priest dips the NI into the first chalice and then transfers it to the second. The previous priest did it like you do Father George.

Actually, our Deacon does dip the NI and KA into the first chalice before transferring them to the second and third chalices.  I was only making a statement of final destination.  I've been to Churches, however, where the NI and KA are placed in their respective chalices without being dipped in the first - but in those churches they also spoon or pour some of the Precious Blood into those other chalices.

I guess you don't appreciate these subtle things until a new priest comes and does things differently without explaining why.

This is one of the things that makes transitions more difficult than they should be - different practices & local variance aren't always bad, but not being open with the people about what you're doing and why you're doing it is.

[Basil 320]

I apologize for acting like a know it all, which I am not, but I feel compelled to note that priests consume the "Body," they don't eat it.

[Shanghaiski]

I apologize for acting like a know it all, which I am not, but I feel compelled to note that priests consume the "Body," they don't eat it.

I thought It was "Always eaten, yet never consumed."

[zekarja]

I've always figured eating was correct. It's in the Bible.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


As-Salamu alaykum,
zekarja

Edited to clarify.

[Basil 320]

Reply No. 9 is so right.  I don't now what got into my mind to write Reply No. 8.

Our Liturgy does tell us that "The Lamb is God is...always eaten and never consumed."

If a Moderator wants to delete Reply No. 8, please feel free; it will only confuse people.

Please excuse my lack of thought and promotion of erroneous information.

[Dart]

Thank you for your comments. A non-example is a great way to learn.
Never considered the difference between eat and consume before. How are they different in regards to communion?

[arimethea]

How does one consume something that consumes everything? We may eat or consume the body and blood of Christ but in return it consumes us. It fills our whole body just as a drop turns the whole chalice into the blood.

[Dart]

How does one consume something that consumes everything? We may eat or consume the body and blood of Christ but in return it consumes us. It fills our whole body just as a drop turns the whole chalice into the blood.

Hmm... I started with the Greek to see if there was a difference between eat and consume and found two verbs φάω and τρώγω which both seem to mean eat. I did not find "consume" in the bible. I am not very adept with Greek so someone please correct me if I am in error here.

So to answer the question is very simple. The eucharist does not act on everything and everyone. For example say a dog were to eat the Eucharist, would the dog be in communion with God? How about an unbeliever?

Another way to look at it is through the Old Testament. The Eucharist of the Old Testament can be understood as the manna from heaven and the Law of Moses. Clearly the law does not consume us unless we voluntarily submit to it.

So yes one can eat/consume the eucharist without it having any sacramental affect of "consuming" us. For it to have affect we must believe and accept it. And we must of course be human or at least have a soul.


the physical union of receiving the eucharist cannot be understood without also experiencing faith and love


I guess what is concerning me with the chalice and the new priest in general is an attitude of his that the clergy is "different" from laity. That somehow Jesus is not also man. That man is not meant to be joined to God but rather to be ruled. My belief is that man is made in the image of God and that we are meant to be joined to Him. That we are not slaves but His beloved children to grow and mature into His likeness. It is a big change to take in since the previous priests were truly humble servants of God and not seekers of a sceptre and mitre.

[Alveus Lacuna]

For example say a dog were to eat the Eucharist, would the dog be in communion with God?

Last week when we all went for the Presanctified liturgy on Wednesday night, a mouse had gotten into the tabernacle and eaten most of the Eucharist. My priest said that there was a very holy little mouse running around, so I would consider that an official affirmative that your hypothetical dog is in communion with God.  

[SolEX01]

Hmm... I started with the Greek to see if there was a difference between eat and consume and found two verbs φάω and τρώγω which both seem to mean eat. I did not find "consume" in the bible. I am not very adept with Greek so someone please correct me if I am in error here.

Although the Modern Greek word for consummation is συμπλήρωσις or τελειοποίησις.

Looking at 1 Kings 18:38 where fire consumed Elijah's water soaked sacrifice, the word used in English is devoured which is translated from the bolded word.

38 καὶ ἔπεσε πῦρ παρὰ Κυρίου ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατέφαγε τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ τὰς σχίδακας καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, καὶ τοὺς λίθους καὶ τὸν χοῦν ἐξέλειξε τὸ πῦρ.

38 Then fire fell from the Lord out of heaven, and devoured the whole-burnt-offerings, and the wood and the water that was in the trench, and the fire licked up the stones and the earth.

[Clare G.]

Last week when we all went for the Presanctified liturgy on Wednesday night, a mouse had gotten into the tabernacle and eaten most of the Eucharist. My priest said that there was a very holy little mouse running around, so I would consider that an official affirmative that your hypothetical dog is in communion with God. 

I've been wanting an excuse to share this magnificent story with more people:
http://isoutrage.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/dynamouse-and-magnificat/#more-13

[Dart]

Last week when we all went for the Presanctified liturgy on Wednesday night, a mouse had gotten into the tabernacle and eaten most of the Eucharist. My priest said that there was a very holy little mouse running around, so I would consider that an official affirmative that your hypothetical dog is in communion with God.  

I've been wanting an excuse to share this magnificent story with more people:
http://isoutrage.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/dynamouse-and-magnificat/#more-13

Interesting story. So the moral is we should allow ourselves to be chased around and harrassed until such time as the abuser converts to christianity or we are killed.

I think there is another possibility. That is a dog steps in and ends the terror of the cat. I believe all three exist. Those that abuse, those that are abused, and those that are sent to levy justice.

[zekarja]

Page 144 of the Hapgood Service Book says,

"...For if the wine be sanctified by placing in it the particles, yet hath not been transmuted into the Divine Blood, seeing that the words of consecration are not recited over it in this service, as they are in the Liturgies of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom.)"

"And the Communion is administered as usual. (As a rule, infants are not admitted to this Communion.)"

This would seem to imply that adding of the Divine Blood to a chalice of wine dilutes the Divine Blood rather than consecrating the wine itself.

[Dart]

Page 144 of the Hapgood Service Book says,

"...For if the wine be sanctified by placing in it the particles, yet hath not been transmuted into the Divine Blood, seeing that the words of consecration are not recited over it in this service, as they are in the Liturgies of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom.)"

"And the Communion is administered as usual. (As a rule, infants are not admitted to this Communion.)"

This would seem to imply that adding of the Divine Blood to a chalice of wine dilutes the Divine Blood rather than consecrating the wine itself.

So why does the priest drink and not the deacon? Is this like drinking unconsecrated wine after receiving communion? And why do infants not commune?

[zekarja]

^^^ I have know idea. I myself am trying to make sense of these things.  


EDIT: Hapgood does say that the Body sanctifies the wine. It doesn't, however transmute the wine into the Precious Blood.

[Michał]

And why do infants not commune?

I'm not sure if you are asking about the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy, or a two chalices-Liturgy, but as far as the former is concerned, I was told by my priest that this rule refers to the youngest infants, the ones who would have difficulties with swallowing the Body of Christ. Usually, they are given only His Blood, but in the case when the liquid in the chalice is merely blessed -- but not consecrated -- wine, they simply do not commune.

[arimethea]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology. The presanctified Lamb is prepared by infusing the blood(wine) from the consecrated chalice onto the Lamb before being placed in storage. When the lamb is place in the unconsecrated chalice, full of wine, at the presanctified liturgy it is placing both body and blood into the chalice and, thus consecrating the entire chalice.

[zekarja]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology. The presanctified Lamb is prepared by infusing the blood(wine) from the consecrated chalice onto the Lamb before being placed in storage. When the lamb is place in the unconsecrated chalice, full of wine, at the presanctified liturgy it is placing both body and blood into the chalice and, thus consecrating the entire chalice.

That is what I've heard at the Greek Church.

[Michał]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology.

You mean Hapgood-the-book, or Hapgood-the-person? As you know, Isabel Hapgood merely translated into English a service book which represents the Slavic Orthodox tradition, just like my priest does.

[arimethea]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology.

You mean Hapgood-the-book, or Hapgood-the-person? As you know, Isabel Hapgood merely translated into English a service book which represents the Slavic Orthodox tradition, just like my priest does.

Then yes, the Russia theology is bad. It makes no sense and is against the tradition of the Church. I would even say it comes close to heresy in that it denies the wine becoming the blood of Christ.

[admiralnick]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology.

You mean Hapgood-the-book, or Hapgood-the-person? As you know, Isabel Hapgood merely translated into English a service book which represents the Slavic Orthodox tradition, just like my priest does.

Not all Slavic Orthodox traditions are correct...... (Being a slav myself I can absolutely confirm this)

-Nick

[Dart]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology.

You mean Hapgood-the-book, or Hapgood-the-person? As you know, Isabel Hapgood merely translated into English a service book which represents the Slavic Orthodox tradition, just like my priest does.

Then yes, the Russia theology is bad. It makes no sense and is against the tradition of the Church. I would even say it comes close to heresy in that it denies the wine becoming the blood of Christ.

Is this your personal opinion or would you like to share your source for saying this?

[Michał]

It makes no sense . . .

What makes no sense? The Slavic theory regarding the "wine vs Blood" issue as far as the pre-Sanctified Liturgy is concerned, as far as a two chalices-Liturgy is concerned, or as far as both of these are concerned? I do understand how liquid Blood of Christ mingled with wine can change this wine into the Blood of Christ but I have problems with understanding how solidified Blood of Chirst could do the same thing...

[Fr. George]

I do understand how liquid Blood of Christ mingled with wine can change this wine into the Blood of Christ but I have problems with understanding how solidified Blood of Chirst could do the same thing...

What is hard to understand?  Contact with liquid re-liquifies it.  Besides that...

IT'S A BLESSING FROM GOD!

We do have to be careful not to try and over-explain it.  How does a piece of bread and a cup of wine + water become Christ's Body and Blood?  How does mere consuming of said Body and Blood make you one with Christ?  How does said Body and Blood penetrate into all your members and organs and cells?  At some point, the answer is, "Because God blesses it to be/do so."

[akimori makoto]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology.

You mean Hapgood-the-book, or Hapgood-the-person? As you know, Isabel Hapgood merely translated into English a service book which represents the Slavic Orthodox tradition, just like my priest does.

Then yes, the Russia theology is bad. It makes no sense and is against the tradition of the Church. I would even say it comes close to heresy in that it denies the wine becoming the blood of Christ.

Does anyone know whether the Lamb is intincted with the Precious Blood before being reserved for the Presanctified Liturgy in the Slavic practice?

What is hard to understand?  Contact with liquid re-liquifies it.  Besides that...

Father, bless.

Would the situation be different if the Lamb was not intincted before being reserved?

[Fr. George]

Father, bless.

Would the situation be different if the Lamb was not intincted before being reserved?

May the Lord bless you always!  The only rubrics I've come across - which are in Greek and Antiochian-tradition books - call for intincting the Lamb at the Sunday Divine Liturgy before moving the Presanctified Lamb to the tabernacle/artoforion.  I cannot imagine that the Russian-tradition liturgical books would not call for intinction.

[zekarja]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology.

You mean Hapgood-the-book, or Hapgood-the-person? As you know, Isabel Hapgood merely translated into English a service book which represents the Slavic Orthodox tradition, just like my priest does.

Then yes, the Russia theology is bad. It makes no sense and is against the tradition of the Church. I would even say it comes close to heresy in that it denies the wine becoming the blood of Christ.

Does anyone know whether the Lamb is intincted with the Precious Blood before being reserved for the Presanctified Liturgy in the Slavic practice?

The Hapgood Service Book which is translated from a Slavonic source, describes the preparation for the reserved sacrament.

"Then taking the holy spoon in his right hand, he dippeth it in the Holy Blood. With his left hand he taketh one of the breads, and toucheth it with the holy spoon, which hath been wetted with the Holy Blood, in the form of a cross, on the side whereon is depicted the cross, under the soft portion, and placeth it in the tabernacle." - Hapgood Service Book, Page 127

[akimori makoto]

Thank you, Father George and Zekarja!

[zekarja]

Read post 12 in this thread: http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?3793-Communion-with-multiple-chalices&p=46179&viewfull=1#post46179  It really explains the difference between Greek and Slavonic thinking.

Mods, I didn't see anything in the rules against with linking to another forum. If this is against the rules please forgive me and delete this post.

[Justin Kissel]

^ Not to speak for the mods, but fwiw, I think you can post links to other forums if it's contributing to the discussion and not just plugging the other forum.  Besides, the way I found out about this forum (oc.net) was a plug for it that Fr. Anastasios posted on monachos.net back in 2002 

[arimethea]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology.

You mean Hapgood-the-book, or Hapgood-the-person? As you know, Isabel Hapgood merely translated into English a service book which represents the Slavic Orthodox tradition, just like my priest does.

Then yes, the Russia theology is bad. It makes no sense and is against the tradition of the Church. I would even say it comes close to heresy in that it denies the wine becoming the blood of Christ.

Is this your personal opinion or would you like to share your source for saying this?

I have no source but the holy traditions. We believe that the lamb becomes the Body of Christ and that the wine becomes Christ's Blood. If they are both present in the presanctified lamb then when the wine comes in contact with the lamb, the blood present sanctifies the wine by mingling. If a cube of sugar, which is a solid, is introduced into water it become part of the water and makes that water sweet. Dare you say that the blood of our savior has less power then a sugar cube? Read the post communion prayers, the body and blood of Christ are viewed as running trough our own veins after we partake.

[Fr. George]

^ Not to speak for the mods, but fwiw, I think you can post links to other forums if it's contributing to the discussion and not just plugging the other forum.

B-I-N-G-O.

[Dart]

What Hapgood and Michal's priest are saying is bad theology.

You mean Hapgood-the-book, or Hapgood-the-person? As you know, Isabel Hapgood merely translated into English a service book which represents the Slavic Orthodox tradition, just like my priest does.

Then yes, the Russia theology is bad. It makes no sense and is against the tradition of the Church. I would even say it comes close to heresy in that it denies the wine becoming the blood of Christ.

Is this your personal opinion or would you like to share your source for saying this?

I have no source but the holy traditions. We believe that the lamb becomes the Body of Christ and that the wine becomes Christ's Blood. If they are both present in the presanctified lamb then when the wine comes in contact with the lamb, the blood present sanctifies the wine by mingling. If a cube of sugar, which is a solid, is introduced into water it become part of the water and makes that water sweet. Dare you say that the blood of our savior has less power then a sugar cube? Read the post communion prayers, the body and blood of Christ are viewed as running trough our own veins after we partake.

The Hapgood service book is also holy tradition and conveys a different truth than your tradition. Can you show how your tradition comes from the Church in a more valid manner than the presanctified liturgy translated by Hapgood and endorsed by Abp/St Tikhon? I am not saying either tradition is right or wrong just that without explaination it is dificult to understand. 

[Michał]

I do understand how liquid Blood of Christ mingled with wine can change this wine into the Blood of Christ but I have problems with understanding how solidified Blood of Chirst could do the same thing...

What is hard to understand?  Contact with liquid re-liquifies it.  Besides that...

IT'S A BLESSING FROM GOD!

We do have to be careful not to try and over-explain it.  How does a piece of bread and a cup of wine + water become Christ's Body and Blood?  How does mere consuming of said Body and Blood make you one with Christ?  How does said Body and Blood penetrate into all your members and organs and cells?  At some point, the answer is, "Because God blesses it to be/do so."

Thank you for the explanation, Father. I can see the point.

[Dart]

I do understand how liquid Blood of Christ mingled with wine can change this wine into the Blood of Christ but I have problems with understanding how solidified Blood of Chirst could do the same thing...

What is hard to understand?  Contact with liquid re-liquifies it.  Besides that...

IT'S A BLESSING FROM GOD!

We do have to be careful not to try and over-explain it.  How does a piece of bread and a cup of wine + water become Christ's Body and Blood?  How does mere consuming of said Body and Blood make you one with Christ?  How does said Body and Blood penetrate into all your members and organs and cells?  At some point, the answer is, "Because God blesses it to be/do so."

I guess the dificult part to understand is why the majority of the Orthodox Church disagrees. We have the Hapgood translation and the photos of huge chalices being needed in some traditions. What can I refer to within the GOA tradition to explain these discrepancies? Why, how, and when did these two different theologies occur within Orthodoxy?

[Shanghaiski]

I do understand how liquid Blood of Christ mingled with wine can change this wine into the Blood of Christ but I have problems with understanding how solidified Blood of Chirst could do the same thing...

What is hard to understand?  Contact with liquid re-liquifies it.  Besides that...

IT'S A BLESSING FROM GOD!

We do have to be careful not to try and over-explain it.  How does a piece of bread and a cup of wine + water become Christ's Body and Blood?  How does mere consuming of said Body and Blood make you one with Christ?  How does said Body and Blood penetrate into all your members and organs and cells?  At some point, the answer is, "Because God blesses it to be/do so."

I guess the dificult part to understand is why the majority of the Orthodox Church disagrees. We have the Hapgood translation and the photos of huge chalices being needed in some traditions. What can I refer to within the GOA tradition to explain these discrepancies? Why, how, and when did these two different theologies occur within Orthodoxy?

Don't the Russians also pray "I believe, O Lord, and I confess...that this is truly Thy most pure body and this is  truly Thy most precious blood" before communion at the Presanctified Liturgy?

[Michał]

Don't the Russians also pray "I believe, O Lord, and I confess...that this is truly Thy most pure body and this is  truly Thy most precious blood" before communion at the Presanctified Liturgy?

Regardless of theological approach, the Blood is there because the Body was earlier soaked with it. Besides, 1 Corinthians 11:27 suggests that the Blood is somehow always present in the Body and the other way round.

[Shanghaiski]

Don't the Russians also pray "I believe, O Lord, and I confess...that this is truly Thy most pure body and this is  truly Thy most precious blood" before communion at the Presanctified Liturgy?

Regardless of theological approach, the Blood is there because the Body was earlier soaked with it. Besides, 1 Corinthians 11:27 suggests that the Blood is somehow always present in the Body and the other way round.

Sounds like the Roman Catholic argument for communion in one species.