www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Royal Doors

Could someone please tell me when the Royal Doors are to be opened during the Divine Liturgy?

Thanks!

In the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church the Royal Doors are opened and closed as follows:

1. The Royal Doors are opened at the Divine Liturgy for the first time at the Third Antiphon (just before the procession / entrance with the Gospel Book). They remain open until the conclusion of the proclamation of the Gospel (but generally they are actually closed after the sermon).

2. They are opened the second time at the Cherubic Hymn, just before the incensation by the deacon or priest. They remain open until the priest re-enters the sanctuary through the Royal Doors carrying the gifts.

3. The Royal Doors are opened the third time for the Communion of the Faithful (just before the chalice is raised by the deacon with the words "Approach with fear of God and with faith"). They then remain open until the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy.

The above is as given in "The Order for the Celebration of Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy According to the Ruthenian Recension" (Rome 1944). In some parishes, the Royal Doors are opened at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy and left open until its conclusion, but this is a clear variant on the part of the individual priest. Others open the Royal Doors at the beginning of the liturgy and close them after the Gospel reading and then the rest as above. During Bright Week (the week from Pascha to Thomas Sunday), the Doors are left open the entire time. A few priests extend this custom through the feast of the Ascension, but again, this is a departure from the traditional custom.

Moose,

Just curious, when did this closing of the doors and opening begin? As long as I can remember and have been going to Liturgy (I'm a life-long Byzantine), the doors have been kept open. Are you implying that for over 50 years, we have been doing it wrong?

Thanks!

Glory to Jesus Christ ! Roryie, the 1944 Ordo Moose cites was only officially promulgated, with many modifications, in the U.S. in the '70s in the Parma Eparchy. There are three reasons why the practice you describe was followed. 1) Your parish was founded by Ruthenians from a region where open royal doors were the custom. 2)The priests and laity of your parish were influenced by Roman Catholic practices. Roman Catholic churches have no templon or iconostas and no royal doors. 3) Your parish may have been influenced by the "Americanist" tendencies of the Exarchs Daniel and Nicholas. In the latter case your parish is fortunate to even have an icon screen.

Thank you for answering me so quickly. But, now I'm more confused. If this practice became "law" in the '70's, why then do the churches in my area keep the Royal Doors open? I've been to many Byzantine-Ruthenian parishes in my area and I've encountered no one closing the Royal Doors during the Divine Liturgy.

Another question: Should the "custom" of the parish of keeping the Royal Doors open during the Divine Liturgy be changed to follow this promulgation (hope I spelled that correctly) even if it means upsetting, to the point of outrage, the parishioners?

The closing and opening of the Royal Doors was the original custom of the Ruthenians (and other Byzantines) in Europe and the Mid-East. After entering into communion with Rome (1646 for the Ruthenians) we began to replace our own theology and practice with that of the Roman Catholics. Coming to America in the middle of the Americanist Movement within the Roman Catholic Church, our priests and people embraced even more latinization, in failed hopes of being accepted as equals by the Romans. Since Roman Catholics do not have an icon screen our priests kept the Royal Doors open throughout the Divine Liturgy. Bishop Nicholas Elko went so far as to remove icon screens from parishes to make them look more like Roman Catholic parishes (which he saw as American). New parishes built in that era were modeled after Roman Catholic parishes (three steps to the altar, a rectangular altar rather than the square ones of the Byzantine Church and etc.). Even while all this latinization was happening, Rome was beginning to take some efforts at undoing the damage it caused us. The 1944 Ordo Celebrationis (from which I took the rubrics provided above) was a step toward restoring our liturgy to the state pre-dating the Synod of Zamosc (it being the first major synod starting the latinization process). After Vatican II many of our priests began efforts to restore our authentic liturgical customs and some of our bishops began to encourage or require our priests to take things by the book. Since the parishes closest to Pittsburgh were the most latinized, and since Metropolitan JUDSON is the first metropolitan to see a future for our Church in America that is not primarily ethnic, these Pittsburgh parishes are the ones experiencing the most change as we re-embrace Byzantium. They are slowly catching up to the restoration begun in the rest of the country in the 1970's. All latinizations were not universal. The farther one got from Pittsburgh the better chance there was of escaping some of them. I have never conducted a survey, but I do know parishes that have always maintained the custom of opening and closing the Royal Doors at the proper time.

Should the custom of the parish keeping the Royal Doors open throughout the Divine Liturgy be changed to restore it to what we had in Europe? Yes. But certainly not without education. Those Byzantine Catholics in the 50-70 age range should not have their experience of Church dismissed without care. But if you ask those in the 70 and older age group, who remember the old churches with icon screens, they will most likely remember the priest closing and opening the Royal Doors. I can understand the confusion and hurt felt by many, since they have known nothing else. But the excuse "that's the way we've always done it" is just that - an excuse. If the parishioners experience approaches outrage then both the priest and people have failed each other. The priest has failed to educate and to appeal to the oldest members for them to witness what they remember from the very early days. The people have failed to understand that change (even in something seemingly unimportant as when the doors are closed) is done with purpose and a natural process of the parish growth in Christ. Both should come together to understand why this restoration of our customs is necessary.

Moose,
Thanks for explaining this to me. Unfortunately, I don't think the answer that those 70 & older remember the doors being open and shut throughtout the Divine Liturgy is accurate. My grandparents are in their 80's and so I called them to see what they remembered. They don't remember ever experiencing the Royal Doors being opened and closed during the Liturgy. They have visited the Old Country numerous times (relatives still live there) and don't recall the Doors being closed during the Liturgy.

If we are going to go back to the old customs and traditions, as you state, then we should be celebrating Christmas on January 7th. Both of my grandparents and my parents remember celebrating on the 7th. Is this the next thing that is going to happen?

Just some thoughts on this.

Dear Roryie,

Thank you for raising this interesting topic, and I want to thank Moose for his clear explanation. He is right of course, about the need for education and explanation.

I now understand 'when' the doors should be open and closed, and that it is the older tradition. But is that enough of an explanation?

Why are the doors closed at this time? What do closed doors 'say' to the congregation (especially when they are used to having them open)? What is the origin of this custom, and what is the theology behind the open and closed doors? That reason behind the custom is what is needed, and is what will make the closing of the doors acceptable.

I am ashamed to admit that I do not know the answer to these questions, and I have not seen it in a book. I would like to know the correct theology behind the custom, and would be grateful for help with this.

Elias, monk

>>>Why are the doors closed at this time? What do closed doors 'say' to the congregation (especially when they are used to having them open)? What is the origin of this custom, and what is the theology behind the open and closed doors? That reason behind the custom is what is needed, and is what will make the closing of the doors acceptable.<<<

I would not worry too much about when and why the Royal Doors are opened in the various useages. The introduction of the iconostasis is relatively late in the history of the Byzantine Rite, dating to after the iconoclasm, and probably to early in the second millennium. The development of the large, three-tiered, "closed" iconostasis that obscures all view of the altar is entirely medieval, while the Russian and Greek custom of drawing a curtain to obscure the altar even when the doors are open dates to the 15th or 16th centuries.

Many of these developments would seem strange to the Fathers, who considered themselves, as well as the unordained, to all be part of the Laos tou Theou. Gradually, however, and to some extent under the influence of the Latin Church (beginning after 1204, and accelerating after 1453), a creeping clericalism insinuated itself into the Byzantine Church, together with some whiffs of the "magical sacramentalism" of medieval Latin theology. Thus, the consecration of the offering became something "sacred" (well, it is, isn't it), too sacred in fact, to be viewed by "profane" laymen. This directly contradicts and undermines the Byzantine understanding of the Church as being all the People of God, as members of the Royal Priesthood of the Baptized; and of the laity (in the common sense) being necessary participants in the Divine Liturgy.

A similar process can be seen in many of the Byzantine Churches with regard to congregational singing, which gradually fell out of use as (a) Byzantine liturgical music abandoned its organic plainchant tradition and adopted Western polyphonic compositional styles beyond the ability of untrained voices; and (b) the influence of the "passive" participation of the laity in the Latin Liturgy. Thus, it is ironic that today many Orthodox decry Ruthenian Catholic congregational singing as being a "latinization", whereas in fact, it is Russian and Greek choral singing which actually reflects Latin influence.

As Alexander Schmemman pointed out in several of his books (Introduction to Liturgical Theology, The Eucharist, For the Light of the World), many of these post-1453 development in the Orthodox Church, while considered to be the essence of Tradition, are in fact relative innovations and distortions of Tradition, which create dichotomies between what the Byzantine Churches profess about the role of the laity in theory, and the role which is assigned to them in actuality of Liturgy.

One might say, therefore, that the opening of the Royal Doors at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, together with the use of a lower and more open iconostasis, is a return to a much older and more authentic Tradition, in which the implicit clericalism of closing the doors, erecting an impermeable barrier between the people (which treats them as "kosmikos" (worldly) as opposed to "laoikos" (the People of God)) is eliminated. Not coincidentally, a number of Orthodox jurisdictions are now experimenting with lower, more open iconostases, and who knows, perhaps they will discover that the closing of the doors was not something of which St. John Chrysostom would approve (after all, it isn't clear whether Hagia Sophia even HAD an iconostasis when he was Patriarch).

Doxa Theo!

Stuart,

While there is much of your post that I agree with (and my own Melkite Church opens the Royal Doors and the curtain at the start of the liturgy) there is one item that needs to be clarified.

In discussing the consecration you seem to imply that there is no difference between the sacramental priesthood of the presbyter and that of the common priesthood of all believers. While we all share in the common priesthood that is conferred with Baptism, there are some among us who are set aside for the sacramental ministry to the people of God.

This is why access to the Holy Place is restricted. It is not a place where just anyone can go. In fact, the holy doors are restricted to the priest and, in selected instances, the deacon. Only the bishop can pass through the doors unvested.

There is a holiness, a sacredness, in this place set apart. It's not that one form of the priesthood is more important, it's that there are different ministries that are carried out in different places. This is why, at the consecration, I do not extend my hands toward the bread and wine but, rather, extend my orarion.

Fr. Dcn. Edward

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your answer. I am not sure I am completely satisfied, and would like to know more.

I am not one of those who dismiss an evolution as unimportant merely because it is 'late'. Just because the iconostas and doors do not belong to the time of the early Fathers, it doesn't mean they are a mistake. They evolved, it is true, but they did not evolve mindlessly or without reason. I would like to know the reason why it evolved the way it did.

It doesn't sound right to me that they evolved to emphasize the clerical hierarchy, and separation of the priests from the laity. If that is their deeper meaning, then maybe the 'Americanizers' were right, and the icon screens should have been removed.

Was there a positive reason for the evolution of the iconostas, and the custom of opening and closing the doors according to the slav usage?

Is it really true that the iconostas and doors are a mediaeval corruption, and a western 'latinization'? Does it speak of a passive uninvolved laity, in imitation of the tridentine Liturgy? Does Fr. Alexander actually say that the iconostas is an innovation, and a distortion of Orthodox tradition?

There must be more to this story.

Elias, monk

[This message has been edited by Monk Elias (edited 02-08-2000).]

>>>It doesn't sound right to me that they evolved to emphasize the clerical hierarchy, and separation of the priests from the laity. If that is their
deeper meaning, then maybe the 'Americanizers' were right, and the icon screens should have been removed.

Was there a positive reason for the evolution of the iconostas, and the custom of opening and closing the doors according to the slav usage?

Is it really true that the iconostas and doors are a mediaeval corruption, and a western 'latinization'? Does it speak of a passive uninvolved
laity, in imitation of the tridentine Liturgy? Does Fr. Alexander actually say that the iconostas is an innovation, and a distortion of Orthodox
tradition? <<<

Dear Brother Elias,

Please forgive me if, in an attempt to compress and summarize a very complex issue, I have led you to misunderstand the import of what I was saying. I did not mean to imply that the iconostasis is medieval--it began to emerge as a low screen even in the time of the Fathers, but as a unique element of liturgical architecture, with a set order of icons displayed upon it, it dates to the period after the Iconoclasm, and in its present form emerged only in the second millennium.

The Russian-style 'closed' iconostasis, running from floor to ceiling, with several tiers of icons upon it, IS a medieval development, as the screen gradually became larger and more elaborate through the late Kievan and early Muscovite periods.

Originally, it seems, the iconostasis was developed precisely to reinforce the incarnational aspects of iconodule theology as enunciated by St. Theodore Studites and St. John Damascene. It would appear that at least through the fall of Byzantium, the screen was a relatively open structure, and that the Royal Doors were kept open throughout the Divine Liturgy.

It is mainly after the fall of Byzantium, during what Florovsky called the "intellectual captivity' of the Orthodox Church, that certain Latin assumptions began to permeate the Church, and it is during that period--from the end of the 15th through the end of the 17th centuries, that we see the development of having the doors closed at various points, having the curtain drawn, etc. These are the late development of which I spoke.

What Fr. Alexander actually said was that since the fall of Byzantium, the Orthodox Church has lost something of its sense of the Church as the Laos tou Theou, a loss symbolized by the exclusion of the laity from observing the consecration through the doors, and to a lesser extent, by the withdrawal of the laity from actively singing the Liturgy. He never implied that the iconostasis per say was either medieval, or an abuse.

In reading a few of the most recent postings on this topic, I noticed that it was said that the iconostas(is) dates until after the iconoclastic period, but I'm not sure I can agree with you. Nor is the iconostas a purely eastern practice. A form of iconostas, called a 'rood screen' was employed in England and the British Isles before the Norman Conquest of England and subsequent 'Romanization'. The basis I have to support this is an e-mail on the origins of the iconostas by my dear friend Fr. Aidan Keller of the Orthodox Monastery of St. Hilarion in Texas, which uses a restored Old Sarum Rite liturgy under the Most Holy Synod of Metropolitan Evloghios of Milan.
I am not sure, however, when the iconostas came to be. If it was a very ancient practice of Christianity, I would think that the Syrians, Armenians, and Maronites would have them, but I have not ever seen this to be the case. I believe I have read reports about a very primitive form of iconostas BEFORE the iconoclastic controversies (in Byzantium). This was usually a low screen (by modern standards), maybe with only one or two rows of icons. It was, as correctly pointed out, the Slavs (the Russians in particular) who made the iconostas into the 'wall' it is often today.
Please correct me if I'm wrong with any of these points, and if you would like to read the e-mail about the 'rood screen' in Western Orthodoxy, please contact me, and I'd be happy to mail it to you. My e-mail is wjtherman@webtv.net.
In Christ,
Theodosy, servant of God, future monk.

The treatment of the doors is an interesting issue, because I have seen a variety of practices in both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox parishes.

In my Melkite parish, the doors are opened at the beginning of the Liturgy and remain so throughout the Liturgy. However, when we celebrate the Liturgy of St. Basil during Great Lent, the doors are often closed, with the curtain drawn -- particularly during much of the Anaphora. Vespers and Matins/Orthros feature more opening and closing. I don't know why in our parish we display this much variety regarding our 'doors practice' -- I will have to ask my priest.

In AA parishes I have visited, the doors have remained open throughout the Divine Liturgy. In one of the local OCA parishes, which is quite "Russian" in style, the doors remained open for the entire liturgy except for the communion of the clergy -- during which they were closed and the curtain was drawn. In the local ROCOR parish, of course, the doors are successively opened and closed, with the curtain drawn and undrawn, in all of the services "by the book" (so to speak).

The interesting thing is that there is just as much variety on this relatively minor point of liturgical practice among Eastern Orthodox as there is among Eastern Catholics. I think this is one of those areas in which the actual practice of the Divine Liturgy has developed somewhat, organically.

Regarding the Iconostasis, it has always fascinated me that St. John of Kronstadt (one of the most vocally anti-Latin Orthodox saints of recent memory) instituted a very low Iconostasis at his parish -- something which I have seen noted in several Orthodox books without being criticized.

St. John's actions are not surpirsing. Latin Catholics often hold the false impression that those elements of the Eastern Church that are most distinct from their tradition are the ones most important to us. (Married priests being the other example).

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.

K.