Q: I attended a Byzantine
Catholic Church for many years.
When the
Liturgy started the priest would open all the doors and leave them open until
the end of the Liturgy. He was transferred and the new priest would open the
doors occasionally. Most of the Liturgy was celebrated with the doors closed.
Most of the parishoners complained to him about this and he said it was
tradition.
Now I
have been to many Orthodox Liturgies (Greek, Romanian, Russian, ...) and the
Royal Doors were always opened.
My
question is this what is the tradition of the Royal Doors and if they were
always closed why have I not seen this in this age? I find it very annoying. I
like to see what is happening at the altar.
A: While I cannot speak for the traditions of
Byzantine Rite Catholicsm, I can say that within the Orthodox Church there are
various traditions surrounding the opening and closing of the Royal Doors.
There is
a tradition, especially among the Great Russians, where the Royal Doors are
left closed throughout the Liturgy. When there is need—for example, for the
Little and Great Entrances, reading of the Gospel, distribution of the Holy
Gifts, etc.—the doors are opened. At all other times—specifically when there is
no liturgical action which would require opened doors—they are closed. At
certain points, such as during the Litany which follows the Cherubic Hymn or
during the Communion of the clergy, the curtain is also drawn shut.
Rubrics
for the opening and closing of the Royal Doors is no where more complex, I
believe, than in the celebration of the Vigil—Vespers and Matins—where it is
quite clear that the doors are opened when there is a need for someone to exit
the altar while they remain closed when no obvious reason exists.
Further,
within the Russian tradition, the possibility of celebrating the Liturgy with
the Royal Doors opened, either for greater portions of the Divine Liturgy or
for the majority of the Liturgy, is often granted to clergy as a mark of
distinction for outstanding service or in recognition of an individual priest’s
ministry.
What I
have described is not necessarily common among Orthodox Christians of other
traditions, such as among the Greeks or Antiochians. In some cases, in place of
the Royal Doors as we know them, a large panel, often with an icon of Christ
portrayed as the “Hierarch of Hierarchs,” stands in their place. In such cases
the icon, which generally completely covers the entire opening of the doorway,
is placed on a track by which it might be slid to the side during services. I
have even visited churches in the Middle East, some of which are hundreds of
years old, in which one finds an iconostasis but no doors whatsoever, even
though there are openings.
What is
unusual, at least in my uneducated opinion on Byzantine Catholicism, is that a
practice which is common among Russians, but surely not common among Byzantine
Catholics—many of whose ancestors come from the Carpathian mountains which span
what is presently southeastern Poland, far western Ukraine, eastern Slovakia, and
portions of Hungary—would be introduced among people who traditionally had not
known the custom. In fact, in many Byzantine Catholic churches in these
regions, the iconostasis as we know it does not exist. Many Byzantine churches
in the US did not even have iconostases until recent times, and especially
after Vatican II urged the Eastern Rites to rediscover and preserve their
heritage in its fullness rather than to continue on a course of latinization.
Perhaps
in earlier times, before the Unions of Brest-Litovsk and Uzhorod, every church
in the Carpathian region did in fact have an iconostasis and did in fact follow
the Russian practice of closed doors, but this would be very difficult to
confirm for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that since this
period is at least 400 years in the past, no one personally remembers it.
So, with
regard to the specific scenario you describe, it is correct, on the one hand,
to say that celebrating the Liturgy with the doors closed for a greater portion
of the service is indeed “a tradition,” but it is not necessarily accurate to
imply that it is a tradition which is indigenous to the regions in which
Byzantine Rite Catholicism was introduced. The real question, then, revolves
around why this is being introduced: as a return to full Byzantine Rite
tradition [as opposed to the Byzantine Rite tradition of the Russian Typikon]?
as a restoration of the full Byzantine Rite as observed in Ruthenia [where many
churches did not have iconostases and did not have to contempate whether or not
doors would remain opened or closed]? or as a matter of taste and preference on
the part of the pastor?
With
regard to seeing what the priest does, I do not mean to be glib, but as a
priest I would have to say that there is very little to see. Most of the time
the priest stands at the altar in simple prayer. Of course, there are certain
actions, such as the waving of the aer over the Gifts during the Creed, the
making of the Sign of the Cross over the Gifts during the Epiklesis, the elevation
and fractioning of the Lamb, etc., which one may not be able to see when the
doors are closed, but in general even when the doors are opened there is little
to see. We might be reminded of the words of Saint John Chrysostom who said
“Christ will not appear until the priest disappears.” The goal of our
liturgical worship is to look beyond the priest, beyond his individual physical
or psychological characteristics, and beyond his unique personality, and to
come face to face with the Living God. If we do not encounter Him in our
worship, even the celebration of the Liturgy facing the people, as in the
contemporary Roman Rite, would only serve to enlighten us as to the priest’s
actions, and nothing more. Watching the priest’s every action can, in fact,
become an end in itself and an obstacle to “keeping watch” to the Lord’s every
action.
Source: https://oca.org/questions/liturgicalservices/royal-doors
CONVERSATION