>>>While icon screen are common and traditional in the Byzantine Church, it is hardly essential. I beleive it is commonly the last element
of a church to be constructed and communities may worship for years without one depending on the success of the the parish building
campaign. Biritualists seem to love building little "quickie" icon screens that wouldn't survive a good breeze when holding Liturgy
outside a regular church. I think most Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would take it more casually.<<<

Actually, Kurt, liturgical canons of the Byzantine rite require an icomostasis in order to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. This close linking of the icon screen with the Liturgy was one of the post-Iconoclastic developments instituted by the Byzantine Church to ensure that iconoclasm could never again emerge as a heresy (but they never met Nicholas Elko). Thus, portable iconostases are among the most common of ancient icons, because they allowed intenerent priests and military chaplains to celebrate the Liturgy anywhere they could spread an antimension. Other liturgical services, such as Vespers, Orthros, Compline, Moleben, Akathistos, etc., can be said anywhere, and do not require the screen. But the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Byzantine Church most assuredly does, and only through the exercise of oikonomia in exceptional circumstances (e.g., in the prison camps) can it be omitted.

I would like to thank everyone who answered my questions about the Royal Doors. I have learned so much about the traditions and the practices.

Now, for a new question: Even though I have been a life-long Byzantine Catholic (I remember calling myself a "Greek Catholic"), I must admit that I'm not well-versed in the history of the Byzantine Rite. Is there a book I can read that can give me more insight into our faith?

Thanks in advance.

Roryie

This is an old post but a good one and worthy of "resurrection." (Whatever happened to StuartK, Doulos of Fatima, and Moose, anyway?)

To me the opening and closing of doors symbolically represent accessibility to God's throne: Open for the little entrance with the gospel (Christ as Revelation), Open for the Great Entrance (Christ as sacricifial lamb), and for the Eucharist itself (the Perfect Offering). The times when the doors are closed represent us, who by our own effort, are removed from the throne as a result of the fall. We cannot "see" the face of God but he does hear our petitions. I have never read this however.

This thread is also fascinating in that it brings up another often argued concept: does Orthodoxy evolve? I for one do not like the use of the curtain for the very reason highlighted in Stuart's explanation. I do like the prayers of the anaphora being said aloud as is our current practice. This, to me, returns the anaphora to the prayer of all of the faithful. Is this a Vatican II Latinization or an appropriate Eastern evolution?

Fr Dcn John

I've never seen the Royal Doors opened and closed during the Divine Liturgy in the Passaic diocese. Isn't the rubrics to leave them open throughout? Will that change with the revisions that are forthcoming from Rome?

On the rare occasions when vespers are celebrated, yes, I've seen them opened and closed, and of course during the Matins of Pascha, they remain open the whole time.

Just my thoughts?

John
http://www.byzantines.net/HolyTrinity/

My $0.02 is that the Anaphorae taken aloud are not a latinization, but they are a reflection of the 20th Century (and continuing) liturgical movement common to all Christian communities. Each Christian community has worked this out differently, and at a different rate (Orthodoxy has been the slowest by far), but each has been impacted by it. IMO, the Anaphora being taken aloud is a most welcome and legitimate development within the Byzantine liturgical rite, and isn't a latinization.

Brendan

does Orthodoxy evolve?

The essence of Orthodoxy is changeless but liturgical practices can and do change, but do so organically and very slowly. There is also room for variety, of course!

The abandonment of Orthodox practice with the royal doors seems more like a foreign imposition than a natural development so of course I am happy at least some Ruthenians are restoring the original custom, which isn't that different from the late-medieval Russian practice I live with (we have a curtain and close it during the anaphora and the priest's Communion).

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Friends,

The opening and the closing of the Royal Doors, to be sure, celebrates those parts of the Divine Liturgy where it commemorates Christ's public proclamation of the Gospel, reveals Himself to the world versus those aspects of His life that are shrouded in mystery etc.

The fact that Ukrainian CAtholics are notorious for not following the rubrics is because this was often considered something the Orthodox did, or what the Russians did, and therefore we don't do it since "we're Catholics."

But the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches also tended not to open and close the doors, they were also "tempted by Latinization."

Churches in Britain and France that I've visited also have remnants of "Rood Screens" or Iconostases, especially in England during the time of the Greek St Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury.

In Chartres, there is the Black Virgin "de la Pillier" which used to adorn the very top of the Rood Screen there.

In the Sarum Rite in the 9th century there is evidence that Communion was distributed to the faithful right before the Royal Doors and underneath the "Rood" on top to indicate that we are nourished by the Fruit of the Tree of Salvation.

The opening and the closing of the Royal doors is just one of those things that the Eastern Catholic Churches need to reconsider within a general framework of a return to their ancestral and Eastern traditions that they share with their Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Alex