Liturgical items. Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev against the new practice of communion - the body of Christ and wine What is the name of the church cup

At the end of the 20th century, a most important change occurred in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church: almost everywhere, much more frequent communion of the laity was established than was previously customary.

Most laity and even clergy, especially those who came to the Church in the last twenty years ago, no longer remember that not so long ago the norm was considered to be communion several times a year: once or twice during Lent (usually during the first and Holy weeks ) and once or twice during the rest of the year (usually on the day of the angel; sometimes also on the Nativity or Dormition fasts). This was the practice of the pre-revolutionary Russian Church, reflected in the “Catechism” of St. Philaret of Moscow: “Ancient Christians received communion every Sunday; but few of today have such purity of life as to always be ready to begin such a great Sacrament. The Church, with a maternal voice, commands those who are zealous for a reverent life to confess to their spiritual father and partake of the Body and Blood of Christ - four times a year or every month, and for everyone - certainly once a year” (1). Nowadays, communion once a month, which St. Philaret speaks of as a special feat of “the few,” has actually become the norm for churchgoers, and many of them begin holy communion on every holiday and Sunday.

Another important change is the significant increase in the number of cathedral services. After many years of persecution, the Church gained freedom, and this led to a sharp increase in the number of clergy and, consequently, an increase in the number of communicants in holy orders at cathedral services.

This article is not devoted to an assessment of these phenomena in general, but to an analysis of one of their particular consequences, namely the practice of celebrating the Divine Liturgy using a large cup.

Nowadays, at the bishop's Liturgy, especially when there is a large crowd of worshipers, a chalice (chalice) of a very impressive size is often used during the service, almost half a man's height and a volume of three, five, or even nine liters. Eucharistic cups with a capacity of over a liter are also used in parish services, especially in large parishes on major holidays. When using multi-liter bowls during proskomedia, as a rule, only part of the wine and water prepared for the consecration is poured into the chalice, and the main volume is added after the great entrance, since it is not easy to carry a multi-kilogram vessel at the great entrance. Then, at the end of the Eucharistic prayer and at the cry of “Holy to Holies,” the most pure Blood of Christ is poured from a large chalice into bowls of regular size, that is, with a volume of 0.5-0.75 liters. Thus, the main volume of Eucharistic wine - and then the Holy Blood - is in the main chalice not during the entire Liturgy, but only during its “sanctifying” part, from the Great Entrance to the Communion of the clergy.

According to many clergy, the situation of a crowded service with a large number of communicants does not provide for any other way out than using a huge cup, adding wine into it and then pouring the Holy Blood from it into several cups. And to the question of whether it is possible to place on the altar not one huge bowl, but several bowls of regular size, before the consecration of the Holy Gifts, the answer is: it is not possible. At the same time, they also cite a “theological” argument: after all, we all partake of “one bread and one cup,” how can you put several cups on the throne? This, they say, violates the Eucharistic symbolism.

What did the tradition of the Ancient Church prescribe in a similar situation, in which the simultaneous communion of many communicants in huge churches (remember the basilicas built by St. Emperor Constantine the Great or the Constantinople Church of Hagia Sophia of the Wisdom of God) was by no means uncommon?

Of particular importance among ancient church testimonies are data on worship in Constantinople and Byzantium in general, since our liturgical tradition is the heir and direct continuation of the Byzantine one. Archaeological evidence suggests that even the largest Byzantine chalice did not exceed a volume of 0.75-1 liter (2). Obviously, one such bowl for worship in the Church of Hagia Sophia would clearly not be enough. What did the Byzantines do? Patristic and liturgical sources give a clear answer: they celebrated the Eucharist simultaneously on many vessels (3). By the way, there could have been several paten with Lambs lying on them.

For the first time, many chalices during the Divine Liturgy are mentioned in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (VIII. 12. 3) - a collection of early Christian documents, finally edited around 380 in Antioch (4). In relation to Constantinople, the “Easter Chronicle” of the 7th century testifies to the multitude of paten and bowls in the rite of the Divine Liturgy (5). These data are confirmed by St. Maximus the Confessor, who additionally gives a symbolic interpretation of why there must be an odd number of cups at the Liturgy (6). In a whole series of Byzantine collections of liturgical texts, starting with the Barberine Euchologia, the oldest surviving manuscript of the Byzantine Service Book and Trebnik (Vat. Barb. gr. 336, end of the 8th century), and especially in the lists intended for bishop’s services, in the rubrics of the rite of the Divine Liturgy, it is said not about the “cup”, but about “chalices” (7). Indications of many cups during the Liturgy are contained in the Byzantine order of the Patriarchal and Bishops' Liturgy of the 14th century, compiled by Demetrius Gemistos (8). Finally, the iconography of the great entrance in Byzantine and Balkan frescoes of the 14th-16th centuries also represents many bowls.

In addition to the simple mention of many cups in the Liturgy, some Byzantine sources also contain statutory instructions on how the Eucharist should be celebrated if there are several cups. Saint Simeon of Thessalonica writes that the words of the proskomedia do not change, “even if there are many cups” (9). The rite of the Liturgy described by Demetrius Gemistos says that at the great entrance the Patriarch places the paten on the throne, and places the bowls in pairs on both sides of the paten (10). In a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas III Grammar (11) written at the end of the 11th century to Bishop Paul of Gallipoli, it is said in detail that the paten is placed in the shape of a cross, and the bowls are placed between the shoulders of this cross.

So, the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on many chalices and many paten is not just some kind of incident, but a completely ordinary Byzantine practice, which, moreover, was even normative during the bishop’s service. Why did it disappear in the post-Byzantine era? Obviously, its disappearance is associated with the establishment of the practice of rare communion and the general tendency to reduce the size of churches (12). In small churches with a few communicants, the need to use significant volumes of Eucharistic wine disappeared - and along with it, the need to celebrate the Liturgy in many vessels also disappeared.

At the same time, for some time the practice of making the great entrance with the transfer of many cups in the procession was still preserved - but the cups, except for one main cup with wine, began to be carried empty. Already Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki describes such a practice and, moreover, gives an explanation for it, arguing that the transfer of empty cups at the great entrance occurs “as a sign of veneration of the honest Gifts” (13). A similar practice was known in pre-Nikon Rus': in the services of the largest ancient Russian cathedrals on holidays, not only the paten and the cup with Eucharistic bread and wine, but also other empty vessels, including sion, that is, tabernacles, were transferred to the great entrance (14). The custom of transferring during the great entrance, in addition to the paten and the chalice, also the tabernacle, is preserved to this day in the Russian Church in the rank of Patriarchal enthronement (15).

Returning to the modern church situation, we can pose the question: what prevents us today from returning to the Byzantine practice of celebrating the Liturgy with many cups? To answer this question, one should evaluate the positive and negative aspects of celebrating the Liturgy on one multi-liter chalice. The first positive side is that one large cup visually symbolizes the unity of the Church in the Eucharist and, as it were, illustrates the words from the anaphora of St. Basil the Great: “But unite us all, from the one Bread and Chalice of communion, with each other into the one Holy Spirit.” The second positive side is the solemnity and grandeur that can be seen in the celebration of the Liturgy on huge vessels.

But the same arguments can be turned in the other direction. Firstly, to some, unnaturally large paten and bowl may seem grotesque and unaesthetic. Secondly, even when using a huge chalice, the Holy Blood from it is still ultimately poured into many cups, from which believers receive communion: therefore, by the time of communion, one way or another, there is already not one cup, but many cups on the throne. In addition, when serving on one huge chalice, the liturgical symbolism is also violated, only in a different way. After all, wine is necessarily added to the chalice after the Great Entrance, but this added wine, unlike the one already in the chalice, was not poured at the proskomedia with the utterance of the prescribed words and did not participate in the procession of the Great Entrance. And this procession is also loaded with various symbolism.

Moreover, the very argument for the “single cup” as supposedly symbolizing the unity of the Eucharist can be contested. Firstly, the Byzantines knew the words of their own anaphora very well, which did not prevent them from celebrating the Liturgy with many cups. Secondly, and this is the main thing, in the anaphora of Basil the Great we are not talking about the cup at this or that specific Liturgy, but about the Cup of Christ as such - about the Cup of His most pure Blood shed for the whole world. This Chalice is the same in all churches around the world, no matter how many chalices there are on the throne. Just as many chalices in many churches are one and the same Chalice of Christ, so many bowls standing on the throne of one temple during the Divine Liturgy are one and the same Chalice.

However, we were prompted to write this article not by considerations of a theological or church-historical nature, but by practical ones. They are associated primarily with the need, when serving on one large chalice, to pour the Holy Blood from it into ordinary smaller chalices. The very volume of such a chalice greatly complicates any manipulation with it - and even more so when it concerns the Holy Blood, not a single drop of which should be lost during the process of pouring into the cups. The author of these lines has repeatedly had to witness very regrettable scenes: when, pouring the Holy Blood from a huge chalice, the priest spilled significant volumes of it on the antimension, the altar, his own vestments, even on the floor. Indeed, sometimes the chalice is so large that the priest, standing at the altar, does not even see its contents and pours the Holy Blood “by touch.” Visual evidence of such scenes are the antimensions filled with Holy Blood that lie on the altars of many of our churches.

Another practical difficulty is associated with the consumption of the Holy Gifts remaining after communion, since when using a large chalice it can be difficult to correctly determine in advance the required amount of Eucharistic wine, and washing out a large chalice is not always an easy task. Finally, the use of large chalices is not sufficiently justified economically - for example, in parishes, episcopal and crowded holiday services do not happen very often, but for the sake of them, parish communities have to spend a lot of money on purchasing expensive large chalices, which are then used only occasionally.

In our opinion, the described difficulties when using multi-liter chalice should make us remember the Byzantine practice of celebrating the Divine Liturgy on many bowls of regular sizes, repeatedly and unequivocally attested in a number of sources. In accordance with this practice, several cups should be placed on the throne not after the consecration of the Holy Gifts, but before their consecration - so that by the time the wine is transmuted into the Blood of Christ, all the cups will be on the throne, from which the believers will then receive communion. At the same time, if we are literally guided by the Byzantine tradition, then we should place the required number of bowls on the altar already at the proskomedia, and then take them all to the great entrance. It is possible, however, to propose a less radical, but more practical option: cups of wine are placed on the throne next to the main cup after the great entrance, for example, at the beginning of the singing of the Creed. In both cases, the risk of shedding the Holy Blood when pouring it from one cup into many will disappear. There will also be no need for huge chalices, the use of which during the Liturgy gives rise to so many practical inconveniences.

Notes

1. Long Orthodox Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church (any edition). Part 1. § 340.
2. Taft R.F. The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites. R., 2008. (A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; Vol. 6). (Orientalia Christiana Periodica; 281). P. 256-257.
3. Taft R.F. The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. R., 1978. (A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; Vol. 2). (Orientalia Christiana Periodica; 200). P. 208-213.
4. S.C. 336. P. 178.
5. PG. 92. Col. 1001.
6. PG. 90. Col. 820.
7. Taft R.F. The Precommunion Rites. R., 2000. (A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; Vol. 5). (Orientalia Christiana Periodica; 261). P. 366.
8. Dmitrievsky A.A. Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in libraries of the Orthodox East. T. 2. K., 1901. P. 310.
9. PG. 155. Col. 288.
10. Dmitrievsky A.A. Description... T. 2. P. 206.
11. Perhaps the author of the letter was not Nicholas III the Grammar, but one of the other two Patriarchs of Constantinople at that time - Cosmas I or Eustratius (Taft R.F. The Precommunion... P. 367-368).
12. This trend was caused both by external circumstances - the decline and then fall of Byzantium (and in Rus' - the Tatar-Mongol yoke), and by internal processes: in late Byzantine times, the construction of a series of small temples began to be considered preferable to the construction of one large one.
13. PG. 155. Col. 728.
14. Golubtsov A.P. Cathedral Officials and features of service for them. M., 1907. pp. 217-220.
15. Zheltov M., priest. Enthronement // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2010. T. 23. P. 124-131.

Due to the special significance of the Divine Liturgy due to the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist at it, the Church has determined its celebration with detailed regulations. The place where the Divine Liturgy is celebrated can only be a church consecrated by the bishop or having an antimension consecrated and sent by the diocesan bishop. In the latter case, “The order of how to place the consecrated antimension in the newly created church is carried out, given from the bishop to the archimandrite, or abbot, or protopresbyter, or presbyter, chosen for this and skilled” (Great Breviary). In both cases, the consecration of the temple is called great. If in a consecrated temple, during its restoration or other circumstances, the throne is damaged or shaken, or if the temple is desecrated by pagans or heretics, the great consecration is repeated. When repairing a temple, when the altar does not move, and also if during some accident the laity touched the altar and other shrines or some other violation of order occurred, a minor consecration of the temple is required, which is performed by sprinkling it with holy water after reading two prayers “for the renovation of God’s temple” (Great Breviary). The reading of prayers is usually preceded by prayer singing with the canon of the temple holiday and a small blessing of water.

In no other place than the consecrated Orthodox church and the holy throne can the Divine Liturgy be celebrated. In extreme cases, to perform it, an antimension is needed, at which, for example, if a fire breaks out in the church, the celebration of the liturgy that has begun ends in a suitable place. At one time, the Holy Synod allowed missionaries in foreign villages located far from churches to celebrate the Divine Liturgy on portable antimensions, both in prayer houses and chapels, and in other buildings adapted for this, as well as in the lap of nature.

It is prohibited to perform the Divine Liturgy in a desecrated church. If desecration occurs during the liturgy, before the great entrance, the priest must stop the service, consume the bread and wine prepared for the celebration of the Eucharist, and, having completed the exposure, leave the temple. If it occurs after the great entrance, the priest ends the liturgy, but does not perform it again until the consecration of the temple.

The ancient rule determines the time of the Divine Liturgy to be the third hour, which according to our calculation is the ninth. It can be performed earlier or later, as circumstances require, but not after noon and not before dawn. The only exceptions are some days when the liturgy is celebrated “porana” or combined with the evening service. These are the day of Holy Easter, the days of Holy Pentecost for the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, the days of the eve of the Nativity of Christ and Epiphany, as well as the days of Great Saturday and Pentecost.

A priest cannot perform more than one liturgy on one day. The participation of a priest who has already served on the same day in the conciliar celebration of another liturgy is unacceptable. Only one liturgy can be celebrated on one altar on one day due to the unity of the sacrifice on the cross made by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The priest is obliged to perform the Divine Liturgy strictly on all Sundays and holidays and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent.

The Orthodox Church requires that clergy adequately prepare themselves to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist. A priest serving the Divine Liturgy without preparation is not allowed, even during a conciliar service: he must be clean in body, and his clothes must also be clean; spiritually, he is required to have a prayerful mood and a sincere desire to partake of the Holy Mysteries. Therefore, he must strictly follow the Rule established by the Rule before performing the Divine Liturgy: in the evening, perform or listen to Vespers, Compline and read certain canons, different for different days: on Sunday - the canon of the Sweetest Jesus, the prayer canon to the Most Holy Theotokos or the canon to the Most Holy Theotokos, laid down at Compline in Octoechos, and the canon to the Guardian Angel; on Monday - a canon to the Sweetest Jesus, a prayer canon to the Most Holy Theotokos and a canon to the Ethereal Powers; on Tuesday - the penitential canon to the Lord Jesus, the canon to the Most Holy Theotokos, the canon to the Guardian Angel, the canon to John the Baptist; on Wednesday - the canon to the Sweetest Jesus, the canon to the Mother of God Hodegetria, the canon to the Guardian Angel; on Thursday - a penitential canon to the Lord Jesus, a prayer canon to the Most Holy Theotokos, a canon to the Guardian Angel, a canon to the holy apostles and a canon to St. Nicholas; on Friday - a canon to the Life-Giving Cross, a prayer canon to the Most Holy Theotokos, a canon to the Guardian Angel; on Saturday - a canon to the Sweetest Jesus, a canon to the Most Holy Theotokos and an akathist to Her (immediately), a canon to all saints and a funeral canon. All canons should be read in the evening so that in the morning the beginning of the Divine Liturgy is not delayed due to possible accidents. In the morning, the clergyman must perform or listen to the Midnight Office, Matins, Hours and Canon, along with prayers for Holy Communion. The deacon does not need to read the evening prayers and the prayers of the six psalms, since secret prayers are reserved for the priest. During services, the canons and prayers prescribed by the Charter should not be read.

If, due to circumstances beyond his control, someone is unable to fulfill the entire Rule, he must finish it after the Divine Liturgy; prayers for Holy Communion must be read before it. When fulfilling the Rule, it is necessary that its content penetrate the soul and bring it into a state of contrition for sins, tenderness and reverence.

A priest or deacon preparing to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, if he is married, must abstain from marital communication on the eve and on the day of its celebration. He can eat food and drink only until midnight, since the Holy Eucharist is celebrated according to the rules only with abstinence from food and drink (VI Ecumenical Council, rule 29; Council of Carthage, 419, rights 50, 58).

There are also some states of spirit that must be overcome by those preparing to celebrate the Divine Liturgy: absent-mindedness, which is driven out by prayer and diligent meditation on the passion of Christ; internal confusion or melancholy, which is overcome by reflection on the greatness of the gift received in the sacrament of Communion, and the hope of uniting with Christ in it; despondency or laziness, which must be eliminated by wakefulness and abstinence, and, finally, confusion or bodily movement, that is, such temptation in a dream when sperm flows out. If the latter happened to a clergyman, he should not begin to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist. However, he can read the “Sequence of the Priest who was Tempted in a Dream” (Trebnik) and then perform the Divine Liturgy if he does not feel guilty.

Even greater obstacles to the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist are enmity with neighbors and hatred of them. The rules of the Church require that clergy not begin to celebrate the Divine Liturgy while at enmity with someone and without reconciliation. If it is not possible to reconcile immediately, you need to reconcile in your soul and make a vow to reconcile at the first meeting, and only then, with contrition of heart about your unworthiness, begin to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist. Any grave sin of a clergyman is an obstacle to his performing the Divine Liturgy. In this case, he must first of all clear his conscience in the sacrament of Repentance. At the same time, it must be remembered that the priest performs the sacrament of the Eucharist, like other sacred rites and sacraments of the church, not because of his personal merits or merits, but because in the sacrament of the Priesthood he was given grace and the gift of teaching, the right to officiate and govern the flock entrusted to him, which remain in him always, unless he is defrocked or banned from the priesthood. Therefore, the sanctifying significance of the sacrament performed by the priest is beyond doubt, even if he did not begin the divine service with complete dignity. He will answer for his unworthiness before God, and those who should receive sanctification, since in the sacraments it is not man who acts, but the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit through the mediation of a priest.

The clergyman must celebrate the Divine Liturgy with all reverence and heartfelt tenderness. All his thoughts should be directed towards God, before whom he stands, serves, and whose image he represents during worship. He must read the prescribed secret prayers with attention and in full, without missing anything, and read them not from memory, but from a book, so that, due to forgetfulness, he does not miss anything and does not disrupt the reverent performance of the service.

When celebrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, pure wheat leavened bread and red grape wine are consumed, to which water and heat are added in small proportions during the proskomedia and the sacrament itself.

The priest must monitor the baking of prosphoras and always have a spare prosphora for the Lamb, as well as inspect the prepared prosphoras in advance to ensure their good quality. It is not permitted to use prosphora from which particles have been removed for the Lamb. If a priest, knowing about the poor quality of the prosphora, prepares a Lamb from it and celebrates the Liturgy, then he will “sin a sacrilegious sin.”

He must follow the same rules in cases where there is no wine or water in the chalice or they turn out to be unclean. In this case, you need to pour water or wine into some clean vessel and pour wine with a small amount of water into the chalice while pronouncing the words “And one of the warriors pierced His ribs with a spear.” Then, with the words “The cup likewise at supper, saying: drink of it, all of you,” he does everything secretly in order, without uttering only perfect words and without performing the prescribed actions on the bread, if it has already been consecrated. After the Divine Liturgy has been performed and the Holy Gifts have been consumed, the water poured from the chalice must be poured back into the chalice instead of the heat used to cleanse it and consumed. If, before the consecration of the holy cup, it turns out that no water was added to the wine, this must be done immediately with the words pronounced: “One of the warriors pierced His side with a copy, and he came out with blood and water: and he who saw it testified, and truly is his testimony.” If this is discovered after the consecration of the wine, water is not poured in, but heat is poured in at the appropriate time.

If the Holy Gifts are accidentally spilled and the priest has nothing with which to receive communion, he must again pour wine with a small amount of water into the chalice, while pronouncing the proskomedia words: “And he came forth blood and water,” and perform the usual consecration of the wine, beginning with the words “Like the cup.” after supper, saying” and so on, and proceed further as stated above.

In all cases of stopping the liturgy, in order to avoid a pause, the choir performs church chants appropriate for the occasion. The Divine Liturgy continues from the same place where it was stopped by the priest to perform sacred rites over the substance of the sacrament.

If the priest celebrating the sacrament of the Eucharist forgot whether or not he said over the bread and wine the words of the Lord or the prayer “Lord, Who is Thy Most Holy Spirit,” or the perfect words “And do this... translating by Thy Holy Spirit,” and he will be at a loss , whether the Holy Gifts are consecrated or not, without being embarrassed by this, he must quietly pronounce what is required, starting with the words “At night, in the night, surrendered” with the faith that the Holy Gifts are consecrated, if not consecrated.

If the priest falls ill before the consecration of the Gifts and is unable to complete the service or dies suddenly, the service remains unfinished. If this happens after the consecration of the Gifts and there is another priest in the church who is ready to receive the Holy Mysteries, he must finish the Divine Liturgy, starting from the place where it was interrupted, and consume the Holy Gifts. If there is no priest, then the deacon or one of the reverent men should cover the Gifts without touching them with their hands. Upon the arrival of the priest, a new full Divine Liturgy is celebrated, with the consumption of the previous and newly consecrated gifts. If the Gifts have not been consecrated, the priest consumes them according to the consumption of consecrated ones, and not as the Body and Blood of Christ, but as blessed bread and wine. If, after the sudden death of a priest, the consecrated or unconsecrated Gifts remain unconsumed for a long time, sour and it will be impossible to consume them, the priest must pour them into running water or burn them in the temple, and pour the ashes into an untrodden place.

If a priest serving the Divine Liturgy is called to administer the Holy Mysteries to a dying person or to baptize a dangerously ill baby, the service may be suspended until the great entrance, and during the absence of the priest the Apostle, Psalter or canons are read to the people, and upon his return the service ends in the usual manner. If a priest is forced to leave the service of the Divine Liturgy immediately after celebrating the proskomedia, and then for some reason is delayed, then he may not celebrate it at all on that day, and the next day after the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and consumption of the Holy Gifts, he must consume the previously prepared bread and wine separately. After the great entrance, the service of the liturgy cannot be stopped, and the patient is left to the will of God.

If a priest is in danger of being attacked by intruders, he can take security measures only after consuming the Holy Gifts in order to protect them from desecration.

In the event of a fire or other danger threatening the church during the Divine Liturgy, the priest must carefully take the Holy Gifts with the antimension and finish the service in another, suitable place.

If, before the consecration of the Gifts, a fly or other non-poisonous insect gets into the chalice, it must be taken out, wrapped in paper and burned, and the ashes placed under the altar or in another untrampled place. If a spider or other poisonous insect or substance gets into the chalice, the wine should be poured into another decent vessel, and new wine should be poured in its place, pronouncing the proskomedia words: “One of the warriors pierced His ribs with a copy, and from them came forth blood and water.” At the end of the service, the old wine should be poured into running water. If an insect falls into the chalice after the consecration of the Holy Gifts, they should be consumed in the usual manner, and the insect should first be removed with all precautions so that a drop of the Blood of Christ does not fall on anything, washed three times with wine over another vessel, wrapped in paper or a rag, and At the end of the liturgy, burn it and pour it into running water along with the wine.

If in winter the Blood of Christ freezes in the chalice, the priest or deacon warms it with heated covers or places the chalice in a vessel with boiling water. If the Lamb freezes in winter, the priest, having placed it on the paten and covered it with a star with a shroud, until the Lamb thaws, must keep it on the throne over a vessel with burning coals. To prevent the Blood of Christ from freezing during worship in winter, at the proskomedia you need to pour less water and more wine into the chalice, and then pour in more heat and prevent freezing.

During the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist or the communion of the Holy Gifts, clergy must take all precautions so that the Blood of Christ does not drip onto the antimension, altar, clothes or anything else, and even more so beware of spilling the chalice. The same precautions must be taken with regard to the Body of Christ, so as not to scatter its particles on the throne or anywhere else.

If a particle of the Holy Gifts falls on a board or stone, then in the first case this place should be cleanly planed, and in the second it should be wiped with a damp sponge. The shavings should be burned, the ashes should be placed in a non-trampling place, and the water should be poured into running water. If drops of the Blood of Christ fall on the throne indium, on the antimension, on the cover or on clothing, at the end of the service the priest must suck out the place where the drops fell, then wipe it with a sponge, wash it three times in clean water over the vessel, and pour the water under the altar or into running water. If anything from the Holy Gifts falls onto the carpet, this place must be wiped with a sponge, washed three times with water, cut out and burned along with the sponge, dealing with the ashes in the usual manner.

The priest must immediately and with a feeling of deep repentance inform his bishop about the shedding of the Holy Gifts, for whatever reason, and until he receives his decision not to begin celebrating the Divine Liturgy. If the Holy Mysteries are shed on the antimension, the latter must be handed over to the bishop. For the unintentional spilling of the Holy Gifts, penance is usually imposed at the discretion of the church authorities. According to ancient church rules, the culprit is subject to a six-month ban from the priesthood. For intentional spilling, the perpetrators are defrocked (Nomocanon, rule 158). If the Holy Mysteries are spilled during the communion of a sick person due to his carelessness or the inexperience of those around him, then, after careful testing, a prayer penance is imposed on the priest to cleanse and calm the conscience.

In the Russian Orthodox Church there is a custom of consuming the remaining Holy Gifts immediately after the end of the Divine Liturgy, before the correction of religious demands. However, in practice, the Holy Mysteries are not consumed, if there is a christening, until the newly baptized person receives communion.

If, after communion of the Mysteries of Christ, someone vomits, everything vomited must be collected in clean rags, burned, and the ashes poured into a place that cannot be trampled on. In modern church practice, it is customary that, out of a duty of conscience and out of reverence for the shrine, a deacon who is not properly prepared to participate in the celebration of the liturgy is excluded from certain liturgical actions: he does not go with the priest to the royal doors to read the entrance prayers before the proskomedia; does not take the usual beginning from the priest before “Blessed is the Kingdom,” but only quietly says: “Bless, Vladyka,” and, having received a blessing from the priest, kisses his hand and goes to the pulpit to proclaim “Bless, Vladyka,” and then pronounces the litany. After the great entrance, he does not turn to the priest asking for prayer for himself, but the priest, just as at the beginning of the liturgy, the deacon asks for a blessing, saying “Bless, Vladyka,” and, having received the blessing, retreats to his usual place for further service. When the priest shouts “Victory Song”, he does not raise the stars - the priest does this. During the consecration of the Holy Gifts, he does not approach the meal and, when shouting “Yours from Yours,” he does not raise them, but only while singing “It is worthy to eat,” and after the consecration of the Gifts he censes. He does not approach the meal or during communion. In some churches, a deacon serving without preparation does not bring out the Holy Gifts after communion and does not proclaim “With the fear of God.”

Response to the article by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk
"Eucharistic Chalice at the Cathedral Liturgy"

...I still believe that this is the most pure

Your Body, and this very thing is Your honest Blood...

(From the liturgical prayer before Holy Communion)

When there are a large number of communicants at the Divine Liturgy, after the completion of the Eucharistic canon, the Blood of Christ is poured from one chalice into several smaller bowls using a special ladle. This is a convenient, well-known and commonly used church practice.

The official printed organ of our Church, Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate No. 9 for 2011, published an article by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) “The Eucharistic Chalice at the Cathedral Liturgy,” in which he proposes to make a change in the traditional conduct of the Liturgy. At the end of the article, the author formulates his proposal as “a more practical option: the cups of wine are placed on the throne next to the main cup after the great entrance, for example, at the beginning of the singing of the Creed.”

The meaning of this “more practical option” for holding the Liturgy comes down to the following. All the necessary sacred rites are performed over one “main cup” - prayers at the proskomedia, the great entrance, blessing during the Eucharistic canon. At the same time, other smaller “cups of wine” do not participate in any way in the liturgical actions - neither in the proskomedia, nor in the Great Entrance, nor in the anaphora. Simply, after the clergy have received communion (from the main chalice), the Body of Christ is added to the wine contained in these smaller cups, and they are used to give communion to the laity. Thus, the laity receive communion not with the Body and Blood of the Lord, but with the Body of Christ and wine.

A thought previously unheard of. However, this article by Metropolitan Hilarion is devoted to the justification of precisely this radical liturgical innovation. At the same time, his argument raises many objections - both in general and in detail.

1. Failed “ecumenical” synthesis

The following types of communion are found in church practice.

1. Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. This is how Orthodox clergy receive communion at the altar and lay people in church. The only difference between them is that the Holy Mysteries are taught to the laity from the chalice using a spoon, while the clergy receive communion separately - first with the Body, then with the Blood.

2. Communion of the Blood of Christ. This is how infants and some sick people who are unable to swallow a piece of the Holy Body receive communion. This method of communion is used as a forced half-measure and is not considered normal and complete.

3. In the Catholic West there was a centuries-old tradition when the laity received communion only with wafers, which did not contain the Blood of Christ.

4. Finally, in the Protestant tradition, when remembering the Last Supper, all believers partake of bread and wine.

Let us note that at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, ordinary wine is poured into the chalice, but at the same time the Holy Lamb contains within itself the true Body of Christ, soaked in the true Blood of the Lord. It is no coincidence that infants who are unable to consciously receive a portion of the Holy Gifts are not given communion at this Liturgy. This is due to the fact that wine in this case is not a Shrine, but only a medium in which the Holy Gifts are placed.

Likewise, when communing the sick with the spare Gifts, the Body and Blood of Christ are immersed in a vessel of wine. If the patient is unable to swallow a particle of the reserve Gifts, communion should be carried out not with the wine in which the Holy Place is placed, but with the Blood of Christ taken from the last Divine Liturgy.

The Orthodox Church has never known communion with wine.

Metropolitan Hilarion offers just such a fundamentally new way of receiving communion.

This new method, in essence, represents an “ecumenical” synthesis, with all the worst taken from heterodox practice. Like Catholics, the laity are deprived of the sacrament of the Blood of the Lord. Like Protestants, believers are offered wine from a cup instead. Only one thing is missing - the communion of Orthodox people with both the Body and Blood of Christ, pointing to which the Lord said: Drink of it, all of you (Matthew 26:27).

At the same time, there is no deception among Catholics and Protestants. The first know that the Blood of Christ is not offered to the laity (such is their tradition), others have no doubt that the communion cup contains wine.

The new method of communion is based on forgery. While no liturgical rites are performed over the wine in the small cups, their contents are nevertheless for some reason offered to believers as the true Blood of Christ.

By the way, if you give communion to a baby from such a small cup, it will be another type of communion - just wine...

During the anaphora, the words are heard: “Yours from Yours, what is offered to You for everyone and for everything.” The deacon accompanies this prayer cry, “transpose your hand into the shape of a cross, and lift up the holy paten and the holy chalice,” but none of the laity are privy to the contents of this chalice, offered at the Liturgy. They receive communion from other cups into which no one has poured the Blood of Christ.

There is an obvious substitution and profanation of the Holy Place.

2. Wine - or the Blood of Christ?

There were at least two cups of wine at the Last Supper. One is the cup of praise (Luke 22:17), filled with the fruit of the vine (that is, grape wine). The other is the cup at supper (Luke 22:20), about which the Lord said: This cup is the New Testament of My Blood, which is shed for you. The wine could also be in other vessels from which it was poured into drinking cups. But all the other wine, except that which filled the cup of the New Testament, remained simply wine, and only this single cup was pointed out by Christ as containing His Holy Blood: This is My Blood of the New Testament (Matthew 26:28).

Any altar also usually contains wine - in bottles, decanters, and canisters. Wine is used for drinking after communion for the clergy and laity. It is necessary for the consecration of “wheat, wine and oil” at the all-night vigil before the Liturgy. But wine always remains just wine, with one exception - the Holy Eucharistic Chalice, in which it is converted into the Blood of Christ.

Not all bread is the Body of Christ, and not all wine is the Blood of Christ. But only those offered gifts become the Eucharistic Shrine, which the deacon points out to the primate - the bishop or priest.

“- Bless, Vladyka, the holy bread.

And make this bread the honorable Body of Thy Christ.

Amen. Bless, Master, the holy cup.

And even in this cup is the precious Blood of Thy Christ.

Amen. Bless the wallpaper, lord."

In this dialogue, the deacon certainly refers to exactly one “holy cup” (and not to “cups”), and the expression “wallpaper” refers to exactly two objects - one paten and one chalice.

No other bread contained in the altar is offered into the Body of Christ - neither the service prosphora, nor the antidoron on the altar, nor even those grain particles that, together with the Lamb, are on the paten on the throne at the moment of pronouncing the above words.

Likewise, no other wine, except that contained in “this cup,” is converted into the Blood of Christ and should not be called so.

3. “Relevance” of the topic

Metropolitan Hilarion justifies the “relevance” of his proposal by the fact that the previous norm of Russian piety “was considered communion several times a year,” while “in our days, communion once a month... has actually become the norm for churchgoers, and many of them They are given holy communion on every holiday and Sunday.”

The author implies that there used to be much fewer communicants, and therefore they made do with one cup. Now, due to the increase in the number of communicants, it is supposedly necessary to use several chalices during one Liturgy.

But is it?

In fact, in previous centuries there were no fewer communicants on certain holidays than in our time. Indeed, according to the most optimistic estimates, today the number of Orthodox Christians does not exceed 2-5% of the total population of the country. In the Russian Empire, during the first week of Lent and on Holy Thursday, many more believers fasted and received communion.

Therefore, the spacious volume of Eucharistic vessels was no less in demand in the past than it is today - at least on some days.

Another argument to justify the “relevance” of the author’s proposal: “After many years of persecution, the Church gained freedom, and this led to a sharp increase in the number of clergy and, consequently, an increase in the number of communicants in holy orders at cathedral services.”

There is no doubt that today there are much more clergy in our Church than in the years of militant atheism. But - significantly less than a hundred or two hundred years ago, when the clergy constituted an entire class. If we take into account that during a cathedral service, according to the canons, all clergy must receive communion, then the Metropolitan’s argument again turns out to be untenable.

This means there is no reason for liturgical innovations.

4. Rule - or exception?

Metropolitan Hilarion writes: “Nowadays at the hierarchal Liturgy, especially with a large crowd of worshipers, a chalice (bowl) of a very impressive size is often used during the service, almost half a man’s height and a volume of three, five, or even nine liters ".

It is difficult to imagine such clergy whose height would be the height of two nine-liter chalices - that is, about 1 meter. Nevertheless, Bishop Hilarion develops this idea in his article: “When asked whether it is possible to place on the altar not one huge bowl, but several bowls of regular size, before the consecration of the Holy Gifts, the answer is: it is impossible.”

“No” is the correct answer.

Why is it “not possible”? - Yes, because the Church does not know such a practice. None of the Most Holy Patriarchs from Tikhon to Alexy II ever served like this. No one has served like this at all over the last 1000 years in the Russian Orthodox Church. None of the Saints known to us spoke about serving the Liturgy at many chalices. The living Church Tradition does not teach this, and therefore one cannot serve in this way.

In fact, of course, you can serve it any way you like - either on one bowl or thirty-three. You can use grape wine, or you can also use fermented berry juice. You can celebrate the liturgy on five wheat prosphoras, or you can also say on a loaf of camp bread with chaff and bran. You can serve on the consecrated throne in an Orthodox church, or you can serve on a forest stump or prison bunk. In some cases, distortions of the statutory norm are justified and even inevitable. During persecution or in prison while serving the Liturgy, it is impossible to observe all the subtleties of pious instructions and requirements for the celebration of the Eucharist. You can serve without books, “from memory.”

But all such examples, permissible in exceptional cases, will be imputed to sin and will be condemned to those clergy who deliberately deviate from Orthodox piety. One cannot theologically justify a deviation from the sacred church tradition. It is impossible to distort the symbolic content of Orthodox worship without any reason.

It is one thing - in the absence of a normal, spacious chalice, to conduct the Liturgy on several cups for the sake of many communicants, recognizing this as a sin that requires correction. It is a completely different matter to provide a “theological basis” for such a violation and advocate for the “revival” of the imaginary “Byzantine” tradition.

At the end of his article, the bishop correctly noted: “If we are literally guided by the Byzantine tradition, then we should place the required number of bowls on the altar already at the proskomedia, and then take them all to the great entrance.” One should, of course, agree with this remark: if one is to serve at several chalices, they should all certainly fully participate in the service. Unfortunately, Metropolitan Hilarion does not at all propose to be “literally guided” by such a “Byzantine” tradition, but simply suggests placing small cups of wine on the throne “after the great entrance.”

What Metropolitan Hilarion calls for can be tolerated as an exception, as a temporary and unfortunate situation, when for technical reasons, poverty or other circumstances it is not possible to serve the Liturgy normally - that is, on one capacious chalice.

5. On the symbolism of the single liturgical cup

Metropolitan Hilarion conveys the thought of his opponents in this way: “At the same time (they) also cite a “theological” argument: after all, we all partake of “one bread and one cup,” how can we put several cups on the throne? This, they say, violates the Eucharistic symbolism."

It must be firmly repeated: the use of multiple cups does violate the Eucharistic symbolism. Undoubtedly, the single Eucharistic cup corresponds to both the literal and symbolic remembrance of the Last Supper. Many small bowls do not reflect the truth of the Gospel testimony and, in fact, violate the spiritual symbolism of the Divine Table.

This argument is theological (without quotes!) in the most original apostolic and patristic sense.

For there is one God, and one Advocate for God with man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself redemption for all (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica confirms: “And consecrating the sacred cup (and not “cups” - Archpriest K.B.) in Him, Christ our God, who gave Himself to us, we, as commanded, give in love to drink from it (and not “ from them” - Archpriest K.B.) and to all the brethren, becoming one, as He prayed (John 17:11), and, being one with Him and with the Father and the Spirit, as He said (John 17:21 )".

6. What does the entrance with empty cups confirm?

The author cites several historical facts from the liturgical practice of antiquity and makes the following conclusion. “So, celebrating the Divine Liturgy with many chalices and many patenes is not just some kind of incident, but a completely ordinary Byzantine practice, which, moreover, was even normative during the bishop’s service. Why did it disappear in the post-Byzantine era? .

In fact, the thesis about “normativity” requires more convincing evidence and elaboration. It is more like the author's interpretation and is far from obvious. It is an undeniable historical fact that this “usual Byzantine practice” has not been observed anywhere for the last thousand years.

The following curious evidence given by Bishop Hilarion is noteworthy: “For some time, the practice of making the great entrance by carrying many bowls in procession was still preserved - but the bowls, except for one main bowl of wine, began to be carried empty.”

There was a similar practice in pre-Nikon Rus': “Not only the paten and the cup with Eucharistic bread and wine, but also other empty vessels were carried to the great entrance.”

Perhaps this is the “Byzantine secret” of serving the Liturgy with many cups?

After all, if the vessels were brought in empty, it means that the consecration of wine was not carried out in them! In other words, both in Byzantium and in pre-Nikon Rus' the principle known to us was observed: the pouring of the Blood of Christ into small cups was carried out after the consecration of the Eucharistic wine in one chalice.

Thus, anaphora prayers (like ours today) were conducted over one Eucharistic cup filled with wine during proskomedia. Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica wrote about it this way: “The cup represents the cup in which the Savior celebrated His blood.”

The introduction of empty cups at the great entrance does not cause embarrassment, since no violation of liturgical symbolism occurs. In fact, although these vessels are used in further worship, they remain empty until the Eucharistic wine in the main chalice is converted into the Blood of Christ. Then the small cups at the end of the Liturgy will be filled with the Blood of Christ and will be needed for the communion of the laity. Therefore, their introduction at the great entrance is quite appropriate and even justified, since it gives the service additional solemnity. The bringing in of auxiliary bowls can be compared to the bringing in of a spoon and a copy at the great entrance.

7. About the liar and the copy

Metropolitan Hilarion asks: “What prevents us today from returning to the Byzantine practice of celebrating the Liturgy with many cups?” .

We answer: a thousand-year tradition.

Many ancient customs are a thing of the past. Ancient Byzantium knew the practice of giving communion to the laity without a spoon. It does not in any way follow from this that it is permissible for us today to do without this subject, just as Catholics do without it.

At the Last Supper and in the era of the early Church, the copy that is generally accepted today was not used during the breaking of bread. One may ask: “What prevents us from returning to the apostolic practice of breaking the Holy Bread with our hands?”

The answer will be the same: a thousand-year tradition.

Using a spoon and a copy is convenient and practical. But the main thing is not this, but the fact that their use organically corresponds to the content of the sacred rites of the Divine Liturgy from proskomedia to communion. Suffice it to remember that during the offering of the Bloodless Sacrifice, these two objects symbolically represent the Spear and the Cane, located on the throne next to the Cross of the Savior. Therefore, it is natural to carry them out together with the altar cross, as is customary, at the great entrance.

Unlike the liturgical use of a spoon and a copy, the service of several chalice with wine does not emphasize the gospel symbolism of the Eucharist, but destroys it.

Perhaps this is why the Orthodox Church abandoned such “Byzantine practices” (if it ever used it at all).

8. A few words about Orthodox aesthetics

Let us hasten to agree with Metropolitan Hilarion in two of his arguments.

1. “One large cup visually symbolizes the unity of the Church in the Eucharist and, as it were, illustrates the words from the anaphora of St. Basil the Great: “But unite us all, from the one Bread and Chalice who partake of communion, with each other into one communion of the Holy Spirit.”

2. “The solemnity and grandeur that can be seen in the celebration of the Liturgy on huge vessels.”

We would have been completely unanimous with the Bishop if he had stopped there. But…

But, unfortunately, he continued his thought, turning it “in the other direction”: “But the same arguments can be turned in the other direction. Firstly, to some, unnaturally large paten and bowl may seem grotesque and unaesthetic.”

If traditional Orthodox aesthetics seems “grotesque and unaesthetic” to “someone,” this is not yet a reason to abandon it. Some may find icons or crosses on churches, or liturgical vestments, or Orthodox churches themselves, “grotesque and unaesthetic.”

The following can be said in defense of the use of large paten and cup. Of course, in such grandiose cathedrals as the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow or St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, where huge altars contain altars of impressive size, it is quite decent and aesthetically justified to use large liturgical vessels in worship. (Harmony when using large vessels can be destroyed only in house churches, where the altar does not exceed a square arshin.)

9. On the inadmissibility of fragmentation of the Holy Gifts before their transposition

Another argument of the author: “Secondly, even when using a huge chalice, the Holy Blood from it is still ultimately poured into many cups, from which believers receive communion: therefore, by the time of communion on the throne, one way or another, there is already not one cup, but many bowls."

We should not talk about the fact that the Holy Blood before the communion of the laity “is still ultimately poured into many cups” (this is already obvious), but about the fact that all believers must receive communion with the Blood of Christ from a single chalice. After all, before communion the One Lamb is also split into many parts, but this does not mean that at the proskomedia it can be replaced with a pile of pieces of bread (like Catholic wafers).

Metropolitan Hilarion rejects the symbolism of the One Eucharistic Offering of the Lord Jesus Christ, arguing that the Holy Gifts are “still” fragmented.

Of course, the Body of Christ is “broken,” and the Blood of Christ is “poured out.” But at the same time, the Body and Blood belong to the One Lord, which is symbolically depicted at the Divine Liturgy in the form of a single Lamb on the paten and a single chalice.

The fragmentation of the Body of Christ and the distribution of the Blood of Christ to believers in the sacrament of communion is the goal and result of the Eucharistic prayer, its culmination. It is unacceptable to break bread and pour wine into chalices before the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts.

10. About adding wine to the chalice

Finally, the author presents another argument: “In addition, when serving on one huge cup, liturgical symbolism is also violated, only in a different way. After all, wine is necessarily added to the chalice after the Great Entrance, but this added wine, unlike the one already in the chalice, was not poured at the proskomedia with the utterance of the prescribed words and did not participate in the procession of the Great Entrance. And this procession is also loaded with various symbolism.”

It should be noted that it is not at all “necessary” to add wine to the chalice after the great entrance. It would be more accurate to say that, according to the Teacher’s News of the Service Book, adding wine is “allowed” if necessary (for example, if a large group of pilgrims unexpectedly arrived for the Liturgy on a weekday...). The clergy sometimes take advantage of this opportunity, adding the required amount of wine to the chalice before it is transmuted into the Blood of Christ. But, we repeat, this is not at all necessary.

Such an addition of wine partly violates the integrity of the liturgical action and its symbolic content. It should be recognized as the norm when the entire volume of Eucharistic wine used is involved in the proskomedia, the Great Entrance and the anaphora prayers. At the same time, we note that it is easier to pour into a large chalice than into a small one the required amount of wine so that there is no need to add it after the Cherubic Song.

However, it should be taken into account that adding wine to the chalice before the start of the service of the Eucharistic canon has a completely pious and justified goal - to fill the cup of Christ to the brim (His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II liked to emphasize this). “Liturgical symbolism” is not so much “violated” as “corrected” - who would dare deny the symbolic meaning of the Gospel fullness of the Chalice of Christ? For it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, making peace through the Blood of His Cross, both earthly and heavenly (Col. 1:19-20).

At proskomedia, wine is sometimes not poured into the chalice to the brim solely because of the risk of spilling its contents during the great entrance.

In any case, the actions of pouring wine to the brim into a single Eucharistic cup before the start of the anaphora and what is proposed in the article under consideration - using other wine in other cups that do not participate in any way in the liturgical anaphora - are incomparable.

11. About the Cup and the Chalice

Metropolitan Hilarion writes: “The very argument in favor of the “single cup” as supposedly symbolizing the unity of the Eucharist can be disputed.”

However, in order to “challenge” the symbolism of the single eucharistic cup, arguments more powerful than those offered by the author are required. The bishop’s argument is as follows: “Firstly, the Byzantines knew the words of their own anaphora very well, which did not prevent them from celebrating the Liturgy with many cups.”

We have already noted above that we are talking about a dubious interpretation of liturgical practice, rejected by the Church more than 1000 years ago (and, moreover, not proven).

The following argument of Bishop Hilarion: “Secondly, and this is the main thing, in the anaphora of Basil the Great we are not talking about the cup at this or that specific Liturgy, but about the Cup of Christ as such - about the Cup of His most pure Blood shed for the whole world.” .

Unfortunately, this statement is not true. And in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and in the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great we are talking about the very cup that stands on the throne during the sacred rite. In particular, in the anaphora of St. Basil the Great says: “We pray to You, and we call upon You, Holy of Holies, by the grace of Your goodness to bring Your Holy Spirit upon us and on these gifts set before us, and bless, and sanctify, and show...”.

Obviously, this refers to the proposed “gifts presented” at a “specific Liturgy”, and is not a discussion about the “Cup of Christ as such.”

The subsequent words in the dialogue between the deacon and the primate finally confirm that we are not talking about cups “in general”, and not about “the Cup of Christ as such” - but about “this” cup, to which the deacon points as an orator, and to which the priest extends his blessing hand :

“- Bless, Vladyka, the holy cup.

-...This cup is the most precious Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Deacon:

Amen.

Priest:

Poured out for the belly of the world.

Deacon:

Amen.

And again the deacon, showing the Holy wallpaper with the orar, says:

Bless the wallpaper, lord."

Only after the transfer of the Holy Gifts does the content of “this” cup at this particular Liturgy become identical to the content of the Cup of Christ. Therefore, the Eucharistic celebration refers specifically to that single cup that is blessed during a given Liturgy and the contents of which are transferred into the contents of the Chalice of Christ.

12. About the risk of shedding the Holy Blood

One phrase of Bishop Hilarion causes slight surprise in readers: “The author of these lines has repeatedly had to witness very regrettable scenes: when, pouring the Holy Blood from a huge chalice, the priest spilled significant volumes of it on the antimension, the throne, his own vestments, even on the floor.”

It seems that in this description the colors are somewhat thickened. Personally, it is difficult for me to imagine “significant volumes” that would spill in the altar from a “huge bowl” onto the altar, clothes and “even onto the floor.”

For the laity who have little idea how the Holy Blood is poured from the liturgical chalice into small cups, let us say that this is always done with great reverence and care. The small cup is brought close to the edge of the large chalice, and the Blood of Christ is carefully poured from one vessel to another in a ladle. In this case, a special plate is certainly spread over the antimins, which also covers the base of the large chalice. Personally, I have never had to observe that even one drop of the Blood of Christ, when poured into small cups, would fall on the antimension (much less on the throne or “on the floor”).

Of course, pouring the Holy Blood of Christ from one vessel into several small bowls is a painstaking process and requires the utmost attention and time. But perhaps we should all, as before, spare no effort and not abandon the traditional Orthodox practice of serving at a single liturgical chalice?

Addition of Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev to the article
"Against the new practice of communion - the Body of Christ and wine"

My article “Against the new practice of communion - the Body of Christ and wine” was published on the website “Bogoslov.ru” under the title “New practice of Communion?” and in the Live Journal of Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev under the title: “This cup...”. Much to my surprise, the wide-ranging discussion on the topic of the uniqueness of the Eucharistic cup did not shake a single one of my arguments and did not add essentially a single new argument. However, I managed to find one more argument, which I consider necessary, albeit belatedly, to add to the content of my article:

13. The number of liturgical cups is determined by the rite of the great hierarchical consecration of the temple

We can reliably judge the number of liturgical bowls used in the ancient Byzantine and Russian traditions based on the rite of the great bishop's consecration of the temple. The main moment of the consecration of the temple is the anointing of the throne with holy chrism.

Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica writes about this: “Then he brings what completes the consecration of the altar, the holy myrrh, and proclaims hallelujah... So the bishop from the world itself creates three crosses on the consecrated table, in the middle and on both sides, and anoints it all with three.” .

Archpriest Gennady Nefedov describes in more detail how the bishop anoints the holy throne with chrism: “The sacramental seal of chrismation is placed in three places on the surface of the meal, exactly where the Gospel, paten and chalice should stand during the Liturgy.”

Thus, when consecrating the altar, three points are highlighted on it (in honor of the Holy Trinity), one of which indicates the place for the altar Gospel, the other is the place for installing the paten with the liturgical Lamb, and the third is the place for the Eucharistic chalice. The rite of bishop's consecration provides for the installation on the throne of exactly one Gospel, exactly one paten and exactly one chalice. Obviously, increasing the number of sacred vessels would distort the symbolism of the consecration of the throne. It is also obvious that the holy chalice should be placed at the end of the great entrance not on any arbitrary place of the altar, but on the one that, in the rite of consecration, received the grace of the holy world and is intended for the implementation of the liturgical action.

The above is also true for the place where the paten was installed on the throne.

In fact, the question of the number and exact location of the placement of the paten and chalice on the throne during the service of the Eucharistic canon is determined by the rite of the bishop's consecration of the temple. This question does not allow for variations or improvisations.

Literature:

1. Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. "The Eucharistic Chalice at the Cathedral Liturgy." Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. No. 9. 2011.

2. Missal.

3. Blessed Simeon, Archbishop of Thessaloniki. Essays. St. Petersburg: Korolev Printing House. 1856.

4. Nefedov Gennady, prot. Sacraments and rituals of the Orthodox Church. M.: “Pilgrim”. 2008

(18 votes: 4.4 out of 5)

Liturgical items- items used during worship.

- a quadrangular table established in the middle of the altar, consecrated with a special rite and dressed in sacred clothes (srachitsa and indium).

(Greek - offering) - a small round loaf of bread, consisting of two connected parts, symbolizing the two natures of Jesus Christ: divine and human. On the top of the prosphora, special seals are used to make impressions of images of the cross, the Mother of God or saints.

(Greek - fan, small fan) - an accessory of the bishop's service, which is a silver or gilded circle on a long handle, inside the circle is an image of the face of a six-winged seraphim.

- a special lamp of seven branches on one stand, with a cup and a lamp at the end of each branch.

– a portable candlestick with three candles, used during the bishop’s service.

- sacred banners of the church, with the image of the Savior, the Mother of God, especially revered saints and holidays.

The readers of the portal are invited to an article by Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev, which is a response to the publication of the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Synodal Biblical Theological Commission, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk - “The Eucharistic Chalice at the Cathedral Liturgy” (JMP No. 9, 2011). The article by Archpriest Konstantin Bufeev is published in the author's edition, preserving the author's spelling and punctuation. Readers of the portal who are interested in liturgical issues and are ready to present their own reasoned opinion on the issue under discussion are invited to discuss the article. We remind you that the opinion of the editors may not coincide with the opinion of the authors of the publications.

...I still believe that this is the most pure

Your Body, and this very thing is Your honest Blood...

(From the liturgical prayer before Holy Communion)

When there are a large number of communicants at the Divine Liturgy, after the completion of the Eucharistic canon, the Blood of Christ is poured from one chalice into several smaller bowls using a special ladle. This is a convenient, well-known and commonly used church practice.

The ZhMP No. 9 of 2011 published an article by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) “The Eucharistic Cup at the Cathedral Liturgy,” in which he proposes to make a change in the traditional conduct of the Liturgy. At the end of the article, the author formulates his proposal as “a more practical option: cups of wine are placed on the throne next to main bowl after the great entrance, for example at the beginning of the singing of the Creed."

The meaning of this “more practical option” for holding the Liturgy comes down to the following. All the necessary sacred rites are performed over one “main cup” - prayers at the proskomedia, the great entrance, blessing during the Eucharistic canon. At the same time, other smaller “cups of wine” no way do not participate in liturgical actions - neither in the proskomedia, nor in the Great Entrance, nor in the anaphora. Simply, after the clergy have received communion (from the main chalice), the Body of Christ is added to the wine contained in these smaller cups, and they are used to give communion to the laity. Thus, the laity receive communion not with the Body and Blood of the Lord, but with the Body of Christ and wine.

A thought previously unheard of. However, this article by Metropolitan Hilarion is devoted to the justification of precisely this radical liturgical innovation. At the same time, his argument raises many objections - both in general and in detail.

1. Failed “ecumenical” synthesis

The following types of communion are found in church practice.

1. Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. This is how Orthodox clergy receive communion at the altar and lay people in church. The only difference between them is that the Holy Mysteries are taught to the laity from the chalice through liars, and the clergy receive communion separately - first with the Body, then with the Blood.

2. Communion of the Blood of Christ. This is how infants and some sick people who are unable to swallow a piece of the Holy Body receive communion. This method of communion is used as a forced half-measure and is not considered normal and complete.

3. In the Catholic West there was a centuries-old tradition when the laity received communion only with wafers, which did not contain the Blood of Christ.

4. Finally, in the Protestant tradition, when remembering the Last Supper, all believers partake of bread and wine.

Let us note that at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, ordinary wine is poured into the chalice, but at the same time the Holy Lamb contains within itself the true Body of Christ, soaked in the true Blood of the Lord. It is no coincidence that infants who are unable to consciously receive a portion of the Holy Gifts are not given communion at this Liturgy. This is due to the fact that wine in this case is not a Shrine, but only a medium in which the Holy Gifts are placed.

Likewise, when communing the sick with the spare Gifts, the Body and Blood of Christ are immersed in a vessel of wine. If the patient is unable to swallow a particle of the reserve Gifts, communion should be carried out not with the wine in which the Holy Place is placed, but with the Blood of Christ taken from the last Divine Liturgy.

The Orthodox Church has never known communion with wine.

Metropolitan Hilarion proposes just such a principle new way of communion.

This new method, in essence, represents an “ecumenical” synthesis, with all the worst taken from heterodox practice. Like Catholics, the laity are deprived of the sacrament of the Blood of the Lord. Like Protestants, believers are offered wine from a cup instead. Only one thing is missing - the communion of Orthodox people with both the Body and Blood of Christ, pointing to which the Lord said: Drink everything from her(Matt. 26:27).

At the same time, there is no deception among Catholics and Protestants. The first know that the Blood of Christ is not offered to the laity (such is their tradition), others have no doubt that the communion cup contains wine.

The new method of communion is based on forgery. While no work is done on wine in small cups no liturgical rites, their contents, nevertheless, for some reason are offered to believers as the true Blood of Christ.

By the way, if you give communion to a baby from such a small cup, it will be another type of communion - just wine...

During anaphora the words sound: “Yours from Yours, brought to You about everyone and everything» . The deacon accompanies this prayer cry, “cross your hand in the shape of a cross, and raise the holy paten and holy chalice» , but content this chalice, offered at the Liturgy, are not communicant nobody from the laity. They receive communion from other cups into which no one has poured the Blood of Christ.

There is an obvious substitution and profanation of the Holy Place.

2. Wine - or the Blood of Christ?

There were at least two cups of wine at the Last Supper. One is the cup of praise (Luke 22:17), filled Loznago fruit(that is, grape wine). Other - supper cup(Luke 22:20), about which the Lord said: This cup - New Testament with My Blood, even for you it is spilled. The wine could also be in other vessels, from which it was poured into drinking cups. But all other wine except the one that filled cup of the New Testament, remained just wine, and only this single cup was pointed out by Christ as containing His Holy Blood: This is My Blood of the New Testament(Matt. 26:28).

Any altar also usually contains wine - in bottles, decanters, and canisters. Wine is used for drinking after communion for the clergy and laity. It is necessary for sanctification "wheat, wine and oil" at the all-night vigil before the Liturgy. But wine always remains just wine, with one exception - the Holy Eucharistic Chalice, in which it is converted into the Blood of Christ.

Not all bread is the Body of Christ, and not all wine is the Blood of Christ. But only those offered gifts become the Eucharistic Shrine, which the deacon points out to the primate - the bishop or priest.

“- Bless, Vladyka, the holy bread.

- And do it this bread the honorable Body of Thy Christ.

- Amen. Bless, lord, the saint cup.

- And even in this cup- the honest Blood of Thy Christ.

- Amen. Bless, lord, wallpaper» .

In this dialogue, the deacon, of course, points to exactly one "holy cup"(and not on “bowls”), but the expression "wallpaper" refers to exactly two objects - one paten and one chalice.

No other bread contained in the altar is offered into the Body of Christ - neither the service prosphora, nor the antidoron on the altar, nor even those grain particles that, together with the Lamb, are on the paten on the throne at the moment of pronouncing the above words.

Likewise, no other wine except that contained in "this cup", is not transmuted into the Blood of Christ and should not be called that.

3. “Relevance” of the topic

Metropolitan Hilarion justifies the “relevance” of his proposal by the fact that the previous norm of Russian piety “was considered communion several times a year,” while “in our days, communion once a month... has actually become the norm for churchgoers, and many of them They are given holy communion on every holiday and Sunday.”

The author implies that there used to be much fewer communicants, and therefore they made do with one cup. Now, due to the increase in the number of communicants, it is supposedly necessary to use several chalices during one Liturgy.

But is it?

In fact, in previous centuries there were no fewer communicants on certain holidays than in our time. Indeed, according to the most optimistic estimates, today the number of Orthodox Christians does not exceed 2 - 5% of the total population of the country. In the Russian Empire, during the first week of Lent and on Holy Thursday, many more believers fasted and received communion.

Therefore, the spacious volume of Eucharistic vessels was no less in demand in the past than it is today - at least on some days.

Another argument to justify the “relevance” of the author’s proposal: “After many years of persecution, the Church gained freedom, and this led to a sharp increase in the number of clergy and, consequently, an increase in the number of communicants in holy orders at cathedral services.”

There is no doubt that today there are much more clergy in our Church than in the years of militant atheism. But - significantly less than a hundred or two hundred years ago, when the clergy constituted an entire class. If we take into account that during a cathedral service, according to the canons, all clergy must receive communion, then the Metropolitan’s argument again turns out to be untenable.

This means there is no reason for liturgical innovations.

4. Rule - or exception?

Metropolitan Hilarion writes: “Nowadays at the hierarchal Liturgy, especially with a large crowd of worshipers, a chalice (bowl) of a very impressive size is often used during the service, almost as high as half a man's height and a volume of three, five, or even nine liters."

It is difficult to imagine such clergy whose height would be the height of two nine-liter chalices - that is, about 1 meter. Nevertheless, Bishop Hilarion develops this idea in his article: “When asked whether it is possible to place on the altar not one huge bowl, but several bowls of regular size, before the consecration of the Holy Gifts, the answer is: it is impossible.”

“No” is the correct answer.

Why is it “not possible”? - Yes, because the Church does not know such a practice. None of the Most Holy Patriarchs from Tikhon to Alexy II ever served like this. No one has served like this at all over the last 1000 years in the Russian Orthodox Church. None of the Saints known to us spoke about serving the Liturgy at many chalices. The living Church Tradition does not teach this, and therefore one cannot serve in this way.

In fact, of course, you can serve it any way you like - either on one bowl or thirty-three. You can use grape wine, or you can also use fermented berry juice. You can celebrate the liturgy on five wheat prosphoras, or you can also say on a loaf of camp bread with chaff and bran. You can serve on the consecrated throne in an Orthodox church, or you can serve on a forest stump or prison bunk. In some cases, distortions of the statutory norm are justified and even inevitable. During persecution or in prison while serving the Liturgy, it is impossible to observe all the subtleties of pious instructions and requirements for the celebration of the Eucharist. You can serve without books, “from memory.”

But all such examples, permissible in exceptional cases, will be imputed to sin and will be condemned to those clergy who deliberately deviate from Orthodox piety. One cannot theologically justify a deviation from the sacred church tradition. It is impossible to distort the symbolic content of Orthodox worship without any reason.

It is one thing - in the absence of a normal, spacious chalice, to conduct the Liturgy on several cups for the sake of many communicants, recognizing this as a sin that requires correction. It is a completely different matter to provide a “theological basis” for such a violation and advocate for the “revival” of the imaginary “Byzantine” tradition.

At the end of his article, the bishop correctly noted: “If we are guided literally Byzantine tradition, then the required number of bowls should be placed on the altar already at the proskomedia, and then take them all to the great entrance." One should, of course, agree with this remark: if one is to serve at several chalices, they should all certainly fully participate in the service. Unfortunately, Metropolitan Hilarion does not at all propose to be “literally guided” by such a “Byzantine” tradition, but simply suggests placing small cups of wine on the throne “after the great entrance.”

What Metropolitan Hilarion calls for can be tolerated as an exception, as a temporary and unfortunate situation, when for technical reasons, poverty or other circumstances it is not possible to serve the Liturgy Fine- that is on one spacious chalice.

5. On the symbolism of the single liturgical cup

Metropolitan Hilarion conveys the thought of his opponents in this way: “At the same time (they) also cite a “theological” argument: after all, we all partake of “one bread and one cup,” how can you put several cups on the throne? This, they say, violates the Eucharistic symbolism."

It must be firmly repeated: the use of multiple cups does violate the Eucharistic symbolism. Undoubtedly, the single Eucharistic cup corresponds to both the literal and symbolic remembrance of the Last Supper. Many small bowls do not reflect the truth of the Gospel testimony and, in fact, violate the spiritual symbolism of the Divine Table.

This argument is theological (without quotes!) in the most original apostolic and patristic sense.

For there is one God, and one Advocate for God by man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself redemption for all.(1 Tim. 2:5-6).

Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica confirms: “And consecrating the sacred cup (and not “cups” - Archpriest K.B.) in Him, Christ our God, who gave Himself to us, we, as commanded, give in love to drink from it (and not “ from them" - Archpriest K.B.) and to all the brethren, becoming united as He prayed (John 17:11), and, being united with Him and with the Father and the Spirit, as He said (John 17:21).”

6. What does the entrance with empty cups confirm?

The author cites several historical facts from the liturgical practice of antiquity and makes the following conclusion. “So, celebrating the Divine Liturgy with many chalices and many patenes is not just some kind of incident, but a completely ordinary Byzantine practice, which, moreover, was even normative during the bishop’s service. Why did it disappear in the post-Byzantine era? .

In fact, the thesis about “normativity” requires more convincing evidence and elaboration. It is more like the author's interpretation and is far from obvious. It is an undeniable historical fact that this “usual Byzantine practice” has not been observed anywhere for the last thousand years.

The following curious evidence given by Bishop Hilarion is noteworthy: “For some time, the practice of making the great entrance with the transfer of many bowls in the procession was still preserved - but the bowls, except for one main bowl with wine, began to be carried empty» .

A similar practice existed in pre-Nikon Rus': “Not only the paten and the cup with Eucharistic bread and wine were carried to the great entrance, but also other empty vessels» .

Perhaps this is the “Byzantine secret” of serving the Liturgy with many cups?

After all, if the vessels were brought in empty- this means that the consecration of wine was not carried out in them! In other words, both in Byzantium and in pre-Nikon Rus' the principle known to us was observed: the pouring of the Blood of Christ into small cups was carried out after the consecration of the Eucharistic wine in one chalice.

Thus, anaphora prayers (like ours today) were conducted over one Eucharistic cup filled with wine during proskomedia. Blessed Simeon of Thessalonica wrote about it this way: “The cup represents the cup in which the Savior celebrated His blood.”

The introduction of empty cups at the great entrance does not cause embarrassment, since no violation of liturgical symbolism occurs. In fact, although these vessels are used in further worship, they remain empty until the Eucharistic wine in the main chalice is converted into the Blood of Christ. Then the small cups at the end of the Liturgy will be filled with the Blood of Christ and will be needed for the communion of the laity. Therefore, their introduction at the great entrance is quite appropriate and even justified, because it gives the service additional solemnity. The bringing in of auxiliary bowls can be compared to the bringing in of a spoon and a copy at the great entrance.

7. About the liar and the copy

Metropolitan Hilarion asks: “What prevents us from returning to Byzantine practice celebrating the Liturgy with many cups?” .

We answer: a thousand-year tradition.

Many ancient customs are a thing of the past. Ancient Byzantium knew the practice of giving communion to the laity without liars. It does not in any way follow from this that it is permissible for us today to do without this subject, just as Catholics do without it.

At the Last Supper and in the era of the early Church, the breaking of bread was not used as is generally accepted today. copy. One may ask: “What prevents us from returning to the apostolic practice of breaking the Holy Bread with our hands?”

The answer will be the same: a thousand-year tradition.

Usage liars And copy convenient and practical. But the main thing is not this, but the fact that their use organically corresponds to the content of the sacred rites of the Divine Liturgy from proskomedia to communion. Suffice it to remember that during the offering of the Bloodless Sacrifice, these two objects symbolically represent the Spear and the Cane, located on the throne next to the Cross of the Savior. Therefore, it is natural to carry them out together with the altar cross, as is customary, at the great entrance.

Unlike the liturgical use of a spoon and a copy, the service of several chalice with wine does not emphasize the gospel symbolism of the Eucharist, but destroys his.

Perhaps this is why the Orthodox Church abandoned such “Byzantine practices” (if it ever used it at all).

8. A few words about Orthodox aesthetics

Let us hasten to agree with Metropolitan Hilarion in two of his arguments.

1. “One large cup visually symbolizes the unity of the Church in the Eucharist and, as it were, illustrates the words from the anaphora of St. Basil the Great: “But unite us all, from the one Bread and Chalice who partake, with each other into one communion of the Holy Spirit.”

2. “The solemnity and grandeur that can be seen in the celebration of the Liturgy on huge vessels.”

We would have been completely unanimous with the Bishop if he had stopped there. But...

But, unfortunately, he continued his thought, turning it “in the other direction”: “But the same arguments can be turned On the other side. Firstly, to someone unnaturally large paten and cup may seem grotesque and unaesthetic» .

If traditional Orthodox aesthetics seems “grotesque and unaesthetic” to “someone,” this is not yet a reason to abandon it. Some may find icons or crosses on churches, or liturgical vestments, or Orthodox churches themselves, “grotesque and unaesthetic.”

The following can be said in defense of the use of large paten and cup. Of course, in such grandiose cathedrals as the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow or St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, where thrones of impressive size are located in huge altars, it is quite decent and aesthetically justified use large liturgical vessels in worship. (Harmony when using large vessels can be destroyed only in house churches, where the altar does not exceed a square arshin).

9. On the inadmissibility of fragmentation of the Holy Gifts before their transposition

Another argument of the author: “Secondly, even when using a huge chalice, the Holy Blood from it still ends up spilling into many bowls, from which believers receive communion: therefore, by the time of communion, one way or another, there is already not one cup on the throne, but many cups.”

We should not talk about the fact that the Holy Blood before the communion of the laity “is still ultimately poured into many cups” (this is already obvious) - but about the fact that all believers must partake of the Blood of Christ from a single chalice. After all, before communion the One Lamb is also split into many parts, but this does not mean that at the proskomedia it can be replaced with a pile of pieces of bread (like Catholic wafers).

Metropolitan Hilarion rejects the symbolism of the One Eucharistic Offering of the Lord Jesus Christ, arguing that the Holy Gifts are “still” fragmented.

Of course, the Body of Christ is “broken,” and the Blood of Christ is “poured out.” But at the same time, the Body and Blood belong to the One Lord, which is symbolically depicted at the Divine Liturgy in the form of a single Lamb on the paten and a single chalice.

The fragmentation of the Body of Christ and the distribution of the Blood of Christ to believers in the sacrament of communion is the goal and result of the Eucharistic prayer, its culmination. It is unacceptable to break bread and pour wine into chalices before the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts.

10. About adding wine to the chalice

Finally, the author presents another argument: “In addition, when serving on one huge bowl liturgical symbolism is also violated, only in a different way. After all, in the chalice Necessarily wine is added after the great entrance, but this added wine, unlike the one already in the cup, was not poured at the proskomedia with the utterance of the prescribed words and did not participate in the procession of the great entrance. And this procession is also loaded with various symbolism.”

It should be noted that it is not at all “necessary” to add wine to the chalice after the great entrance. It would be more accurate to say that, according to the Teacher’s News of the Service Book, adding wine is “allowed” if necessary (for example, if a large group of pilgrims unexpectedly arrived at the Liturgy on a weekday...). The clergy sometimes take advantage of this opportunity, adding the required amount of wine to the chalice before it is transmuted into the Blood of Christ. But, we repeat, this is not at all necessary.

Such an addition of wine partly violates the integrity of the liturgical action and its symbolic content. It should be recognized as the norm when the entire volume of Eucharistic wine used is involved in the proskomedia, the Great Entrance and the anaphora prayers. At the same time, we note that it is easier to pour into a large chalice than into a small one the required amount of wine so that there is no need to add it after the Cherubic Song.

However, it should be taken into account that adding wine to the chalice before the start of the service of the Eucharistic canon has a completely pious and justified goal - to fill to the brim The cup of Christ (His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II liked to emphasize this). “Liturgical symbolism” is not so much “violated” as “corrected” - who would dare deny the symbolic meaning of the Gospel completeness Cups of Christ? For it pleased the Father that she should dwell in Him. every completeness, and through Him to reconcile everything to Himself, pacifying through Him the Blood of His Cross, both earthly and heavenly(Col. 1:19-20).

At proskomedia, wine is sometimes not poured into the chalice to the brim solely because of the risk of spilling its contents during the great entrance.

In any case, the actions of pouring wine to the brim into a single Eucharistic cup before the start of the anaphora are incomparable and what is proposed in the article in question is to use other wine V other bowls, not participating in any way in the liturgical anaphora.

11. About the Cup and the Chalice

Metropolitan Hilarion writes: “The argument itself in favor of the “single cup” as supposedly symbolizing the unity of the Eucharist can be disputed» .

However, in order to “challenge” the symbolism of the single eucharistic cup, arguments more powerful than those offered by the author are required. The bishop’s argument is as follows: “Firstly, the Byzantines knew the words of their own anaphora very well, which did not prevent them from celebrating the Liturgy with many cups.”