Author Topic: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy  (Read 289 times)

TKGS

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2018, 11:27:12 AM »
I would honestly like to know how a custom arose of adding boiling water to the chalice.  It seems to me quite odd for such a custom to arise at a time in which having to use primitive means to boil water would seem to have been a disruption of the Divine Liturgy rather than conducive to it. 

I understand, though, that I am viewing this through modern eyes and world-view.  But reading the historical development of the practice could provide an understanding in the cultural significance.
 
The following users thanked this post: Mithrandylan, Troubled Teen

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2018, 11:37:07 AM »
Hi Mith and TT,

Yes the Teplota is not really the problem, but it can become an occasion for abuse -especially if the modern rubrics for how much water may be added to the chalice are not there (i.e. usually a few drops). Although I have never been to a Divine Liturgy where the Teplota is used, the hot water is added into the Chalice just before the faithful say the prayers before Holy Communion (i.e. as I was told). As you say, TT, this is after the consecration. Consider the following from St. Thomas in the Summa
(ST III, q. 77, a.8 ) [URL: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm#article8 ]

Quote
Article 8. Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?
I answer that, The truth of this question is evident from what has been said already. For it was said above (Article 3; Article 5, Reply to Objection 2) that the species remaining in this sacrament, as they acquire the manner of being of substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise do they obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive whatever their substance could do or receive, were it there present. But it is evident that if the substance of wine were there present, then some other liquid could be mingled with it.

Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both according to the form and according to the quantity of the liquid. For if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all through the wine, then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now what is made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting from both: hence it would result that the former wine would remain no longer. But if the liquid added were of another species, for instance, if water were mixed, the species of the wine would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species. But if liquid of the same species were added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would remain, but the wine would not be the same numerically, as the diversity of the accidents shows: for instance, if one wine were white and the other red.

But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not permeate the whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only part of it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous matter: still it would remain the same specifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it, but even if it were of another species, since a drop of water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine (De Gener. i).

Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as stated above (Article 4; III:76:6 ad 3); because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species, Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will remain under the rest.

Note: I am not accusing any Ukrainian priest of abuse and its probable that in most parishes this is certainly not a problem.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2018, 11:49:10 AM by Wenceslav »
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2018, 08:03:01 PM »
Once again, it doesn't matter whether the Precious Blood is still present by the time the faithful receive communion so I don't see how the Teplota could even become an abuse (unless some of the faithful are communing under the sole species of wine).
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2018, 09:58:32 PM »
TKGS asked for more info about the “Teplota” (Slavic word) or “Zeon” (Greek word).
Here is a blurb from Fr. Meletius Solovey’s ( O.S.B.M.) book “The Byzantine Divine Liturgy”, p. 317.

Quote
Significance and symbolism of the zeon.
What is the meaning and sense of this seemingly strange rite so unknown to all other Liturgies? The prayer accompanying the rite does not give us a full answer. The priest in blessing the vessel containing the warm water calls it the "zeon of the holy." The deacon, pouring the "zeon" into the chalice utters the words: "The fervor of faith, the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Amen." Both expressions would indicate, therefore, the “fervor of the holy.” What the word "holy" means, we do not know. Besides, in both Greek and Slavonic Liturgical manuscripts, the prayers that accompany the rite of the "zeon" vary greatly. It is difficult to decide which of the accompanying prayers is the oldest and most appropriate. In certain Slavonic manuscripts no mention at all is made of the "fervor of faith" or "the fervor of the holy"; instead the priest, while pouring the warm water, says:
He shall come down like rain upon the fleece: and as showers falling gently upon the earth always. (Ps 71:6)

It is evident, then, that the text of the concomitant prayers do not help us much in explaining the significance and meaning of this rite. Even the Byzantine commentators give no satisfactory answer because they interpret the rite symbolically. Pseudo-Herman sees in the “zeon" a symbolic allusion to the piercing of Christ's side from which flowed blood and water. The rite is performed before Holy Communion to remind us that our life flowed from the side of Christ. Theodore Andides offers the same interpretation.
 
The following users thanked this post: Mithrandylan, TKGS

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2018, 12:19:40 AM »
TT said :
Quote
Once again, it doesn't matter whether the Precious Blood is still present by the time the faithful receive communion so I don't see how the Teplota could even become an abuse (unless some of the faithful are communing under the sole species of wine).

I can refer you to St. Pius V’s Bull “De Defectibus”. Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, I realize that applies solely to the Latin Rite. But the general principle would still apply wrt to defects that can occur within the Holy Sacrifice.

For example:
Quote
1.......There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant. If these things are present, the Sacrament is valid, no matter what else is lacking. There are other defects, however, which may involve sin or scandal, even if they do not impair the validity of the Sacrament.