Can any of the liturgical buffs tell me when the custom of two liturgies on the same liturgical day (and these days same altar/ antimins) came in in the byzantine rite?

Specifically, I am thinking Christmas, Epiphany, etc. where in my parish at least we serve Royal Hours + Vesperal liturgy of St Basil (the main liturgy of the feast really) on the morning of the eve of the feast, then Compline + Matins that night followed by the liturgy of St John Chrysostom in the morning.

So we end up having two liturgies in the same liturgical day since the first liturgy follows/ is part of vespers and the second liturgy precedes the next vespers.

Is it a Studite typicon thing? When does it date from?

Given the canon about multiple liturgies on the same liturgical day (vespers to vespers) on the same altar, I am assuming at some point big churches started doing two liturgies on different altars and parishes picked it up, but when does the custom date from?

I have heard about the custom of the patriarch celebrating a second liturgy on the tomb at Pascha, so asking about feasts other than Pascha where there is a vesperal liturgy of St Basil.

Sorry to take this in a different direction, I am sure someone will answer the question asked. I have been wondering for a while about how large an Eastern parish can get given the kinds of limitations like the one discussed here. I am Latin Catholic and my parish has six masses on a weekend, all on the same altar, of course. Typical attendance is about 3,000. The church seats about 900. At any one mass there is a priest, deacon and ten special ministers of the Eucharist. When I have attended EC Divine Liturgy it took about the same amount of time to distribute communion as it does in our parish but there were only about 150 people there.

My parish is not nearly the largest in the city so this is typical situation in RC parishes. So given the limits on one liturgy on the altar and how communion is distributed and I am sure there are others I am not aware of, how physically large can an EC parish become before it has to compromise on some of these rules?

To the best of my knowledge such situations, ether use more then one chalace and have enough priests and/or deacons to distribute the holy communion, or they serve on more than one alter. Some churches have 3 or more alters. In some cases they will the normal liturgy early in the day in which they would consecrate the hosts for the following liturgies. And then have 1 or more presanctified liturgy(ies)

"When I have attended EC Divine Liturgy it took about the same amount of time to distribute communion as it does in our parish but there were only about 150 people there. "

Got some place to be?

Actually, since the Liturgy was two hours long for the 150 people I was imagining how much time would be added by having 5 times that many. But in any case I think the responses miss the point. If it were possible to add priests and deacons with such ease I guess my parish wouldn't have to have six masses there could just be six parishes.

While the liturgy of the presanctified gifts is a very nice expression, it is essentially a prayer service with communion in the Roman Catholic Church and is not considered an alternative to the liturgy in which the consecration takes place,namely the mass.

It just strikes me that many of the compromises made in RC churches to accommodate the large numbers of communicants would be difficult within the constraints of the EC or EO liturgies.

The question was serious and simply was is this true? Personally, I do not find the procession of faithful coming forward to take communion to be the most edifying part of the liturgy and would not find it spiritually rewarding to have that time expanded by twenty or thirty minutes.

I don't know that the "limitation" of one liturgy a day has ever been an issue in many EC churches...I know a lot of Ukrainian churches with multiple liturgies per day.

I don't know anything for sure, but here are some random musings.

There are three times a year when you'd have two liturgies in a day. Pascha, Nativity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and Theophany. I do not think these are innovations, but hold overs from the pre-Constantinian Church. There is plenty of reference to the Eucharist being celebrated in the evening along with a communal meal, and later the meal being held afterwards. Then there was a movement to push the Divine Liturgy back in the day to the following morning. After the legalization of the Church, the situation changes dramatically, and there is a huge influx of catechumens, the Divine Liturgy is no longer celebrated in homes, but in stand alone Christian Temples. Now, I wonder if the movement of celebrating the Liturgy in the morning was not entirely complete at this time, and that the evening sacrifice was not fossilized into Byzantine practice, and also tied exclusively Pascha. It is interesting to note (for me, anyway) we see a strong gravation to modeling Christian temples after the Temple in Jerusalem and to the Meeting Tent as described in the Law. I wonder if there wasn't some sort of deference to the old Law in having the Divine Liturgy celebrated in the evening on Pascha, and this was carried over to Nativity/Theophany. At any rate, the ties between the Vesperal services is very remarkable, especially given the strong baptismal nature they possess, the reading structures, the use of the St Basil Liturgy, which by itself indicates a greater emphasis and solemnity on these services than on the subsequent St John Liturgy the following morning. It would be interesting to see where these vesperal services come from for sure, but I do not think these are monastic oriented, but that opinion is based solely on the fact there are two huge responsories in the middle of the OT Reading sequences, and these responses are well documented in asmatic rite choir books.

In Christ,
Adam

I found the answer to my question from Orthodxwiki's article on Theophany.

THe two Paschal liturgies are explained in my original post.

As to the two THeophany liturgies, it appears that the vesperal liturgy with the Emperor in attendance at the royal hours etc and the blessing of the waters in the church was the main service, and the second liturgy was for the outdoor blessing of the waters - which has now become far more popular than the one in the Church!

Today we got about a dozen people for the five hour marathon, tomorrow we will probably get 200 or more.

I vaguely recall Patriarch Nikon had some idea that the blessing of the waters should be done in some sort of different way, because people focused on that rather than the Church service?

ANyway, apparently the Christmas services used today were of a later vintage than the Theophany services, and they were modelled on the Theophany services almost exactly.

So there you go. Case closed.

I think the baptismal aspect is key to understanding the place of the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil for the vigils these feasts, especially in that the vigils of Pascha and Theophany were the premier times for baptisms in the ancient Church, and are two of the oldest specific feasts commemorated by the churches. Ancient observances on the highest of feast days does not easily go away, even when the liturgical "purpose" for these becomes mitigated. When the predominance of singular infant baptisms came into vogue, the liturgical orientation of these services becomes somewhat blurred. I would agree that (with the exception of added readings) these represent a "cathedral" (parochial) development rather than monastic.

I've seen many explanations and attempted reconciliations of the midnight-midnight vs. Vespers to Vespers reckoning of the liturgical day to explain these, with accessory comparisons of the Eucharistic fast from midnight on as an allowance for receiving communion at an earlier Vesperal liturgy, etc. I think what can be deduced is that these Vesperal Liturgies were specifically intended to fulfill both the need to celebrate the first Vigil service of these great feasts as well as provide a specific portal for baptisms in anticipation of the feast itself, when all of the newly baptized could attend, participate fully (no more dismissals as a catechumen, etc.) clothed in the baptismal garments during the feast day Liturgy itself.

As a side note, Vespers alone on Holy Saturday and Theophany are allowed by several versions of the Typikon (including Bulgakov) when there are no baptisms or for other reasons. Likewise Vespers alone is indicated in many versions of the Typikon after Liturgy on the eve when Theophany falls on a Sunday or Monday - indicating the "baptismal" aspect has already been diminished by the time of the development of these Typikons. Vespers alone in these cases still includes the reading of the prophecies, which forms the heart of the Scriptural content of these feasts.

If vespers alone is celebrated, does that imply that the Liturgy of St basil should then be used in place of St John Chrysostom, or is St Basil dropped? I thought St Basil was used on great feasts as the liturgy of first preference because of its greater age and solemnity.

If Vespers is to be served alone, the Vesperal Divine Liturgy part is dropped (that of St. Basil).

I am not sure about "first preference"; if we look at the Divine Liturgy appointed to be celebrated on the day itself of the Feast of Feasts, Pascha, it is St. John Chrysostom.

I suppose one could call it "first preference", though I've not seen that term used.

Basil does outrank Chrysostom. If, for example, Christmas or Theophany falls on a Monday the Church would not celebrate Vespers and the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil on Sunday, since the Sunday takes precedence over the Eve of the Feast. One would celebrate the Vespers of the Feast (Christmas or Theophany) on Sunday evening and then the Basil Divine Liturgy on the Feast itself (Monday morning). The rubrics would not prescribe an additional Divine Liturgy for the Feast, though in large parishes where there is need for an additional Divine Liturgy it is probably expected that the additional Divine Liturgy might be Chrysostom.

I'm a bit hesitant with the term "outranking" when applied to St. Basil - the Divine Liturgy appointed for the day of the Feast of Feasts (Pascha) which is St. John Chrysostom and always St. John Chrysostom (no if/and/or scenario with Basil as with Christmas and Theophany). One could as easily argue St. John Chrysostom is the one "outranking" since this Liturgy is taken on the day of the feast itself (the fulfillment of the feast) for the greatest of feasts without exception, with Basil arguably taking a secondary place in the earlier Vigil (as with Theophany and Christmas in most cases).

I was speaking only to Christmas and Theophany. When these feasts fall on a Monday the Divine Liturgy is not Chrysostom but Basil. It is that sense that Basil outranks (displaces) Chrysostom. Most likely this is simply because the Basil DL is older than the Chrysostom DL.

A study of the development of the rubrics for these feasts would be fascinating.