www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Icons & Iconography Styles of Iconostases

Small steps are better than no steps at all.

We teach A, B, and C...and would love to move on to D but find that we must teach A, B, and C all over again.

Oh, okay...so it's not necessarily, then, just a fluke of the area I live in or simply a matter of an architect's fancy. The Orthodox actually do like their iconastases to be the more traditional solid "walls" of icons whereas Eastern Catholic parishes may have a bit of an issue with them on account of lingering Latinization, thus the shorter or see-through style iconastases I have encountered in all except one Eastern Catholic church around here. I think that's interesting.

Personally, I seem to prefer the "wall" style iconastases; I think they're fascinating. They mezmerize me. Something about that very certain and definite separation, decorated with holy icons, really does bring home to me the idea of the sanctuary of the church as the "Holy of Holies". There is something that makes me almost want to gasp whenever I see someone enter through one of the doors...like they shouldn't be doing that...which is a strange reaction for a sacristan to have.

In the Roman Catholic church at which I am a sacristan, I'm in and out of the sanctuary constantly. Although I'm always very reverent about it, still, I've never been behind an iconastasis before and I wonder if I would ever want to go behind one. I've peeked through the royal doors, the way one peeks through the gates of the White House or Buckingham Palace, curious as to what's beyond them but knowing that one's place is not on the other side of them.

I was given a tour of a Coptic Orthodox church not long ago and the sacristan was pleased to show me the Holy Table in the Holy of Holies. Before he opened the curtain and walked through the iconastasis, however, he removed his shoes. Until he did that I imagined I would follow him, but that reverent gesture of his emphasiszed the sacredness of the place and I was content to stay put and simply peek in from outside the icon screen. I'm okay with perhaps never fully seeing what lies behind the icon screen. I know that the altar table is there with its candles and tabernacle, and that there are two metal fans and a cross standing behind the altar...and the rest is sort of unclear to me, which is fine. Knowing only a part of what's back there but not everything lends a sense of mystery that I appreciate.

Actually "The Altar" is the floor where the Holy Table sits upon.
(Think Jewish sacrificing of animals)

The Royal Doors are the doors from the Narthex to the Nave snd are often mislabeled (even by the orthodox) The Royal doors are not the main middle doors of the iconostasis - those are Angelic Doors - or Holy Doors not Royal.

One is never supposed to walk into the Holy Doors unless he represents Christ (a priest - a Bishop - sometimes the Deacon but very rarely) and sometimes the priest does not enter them either (when he is not explicitly representing Christ).

You are allowed to go behind the Iconostasis - but you should know what you are doing back there ... move in a counter clockwise direction unless there is a reason not to - enter by the south leave by the north etc. know what and where to bow to know the way to cross yourself at various places etc.

It is a good thing that we have reverence for the Holy Place.
Pardon me for saying this but you can see what the Latin Church has lost by the way they move around their altar. Once I saw a church where all the Eucharistic Ministers milled around the front and back of the Table and moved about without regard to reverence at all. (but don't get me started on Eucharistic Ministers)

One thing - The Iconostasis - is not a separation of the people from the Holy Table - rather it is an invitation - the doors open to reveal His Mysteries - all blessings come out to the people - and the Doors , icons etc. are revelations for the people.

The Iconostasis reminds us of Heaven and Earth as God is with us now.

I heard a great saying - for the first 2 years the priest fears the Holy Table - after that the Holy Table fears the priest.

haydukovich:

Thanks for correcting me about the terminology; one day I'll get it right.

I hear you about the sense of the sacred that we have, by and large, lost in the RC Church...but that's a larger issue that goes back a long time. Still, some older RC churches do retain their Communion rails (my own church does, for example), and one hears of a trend toward restoring them in churches from which they were moved, or even newly installed in contemporary churches that never had them to begin with.

I recall reading that the iconostasis began as a short barrier in ancient basilicas between the altar area and the nave. Back in those days the faithful sort of piled into the church following an outdoor procession, and the short barriers basically told the throng where to stop, the space beyond the barrier, where the altar was, being for the clergy only.

Following the defeat of iconoclasm in Constantinople, icons were mounted onto these short barriers by way of sticking it to the iconoclasts. Then more icons appeared...then more...until finally the short barriers developed into tall barriers with doors, the iconostasis of today.

In the West the barrier became an open screen of columns in some cases, or grilles (rood screens), but eventually disappeared for the most part in favor of the very short barrier that we call the Communion rail.

Don't worry about terminology. The Ruthenian Recension of the Euchologion (original Slavonic edition) is not at all consistent in what it calls the altar, the Holy Place, the Sanctuary, the High Place. Not to mention what to call the various doors, both in the iconostasis and the church building. The Ordo Celebrationis, the set of expanded rubrics for the celebration of Orthros, Vespers, and the Divine Liturgy, is just as inconsistent.

The Latin Church, because of it's intimate relationship with the Syriac Church, also had a curtain across the sanctuary at one time. This fell into disuse sometime in the middle ages.

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/06/ciborium.html

Syriac/Malankara altars:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2376/1683275607_3e70743f0f.jpg

(Incorrectly labeled Malabar, but is in fact the main Syro-Malankara Cathedral in Trivandrum):

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/articles/syro-malabar-rite.jpg

Have you seen Renaissance or Baroque rood screens? May not have been a curtain, but served equally well to obscure the altar.

Stuart - I have read the Euchologian with it's rubrics and yes even they mislabel everything.

Many of the rubrics in service books call for the opening of the Royal Doors (versus angelic doors)

I prefer to be specific about what items are called and where they go - probably due to my sailing and navigation habits.

Port side is not called LEFT because as soon as a crew member is told to grab a line on the LEFT side of the boat (and he is facing AFT) you are screwed!

Well, the same inconsistency is true of the terminology of items found in a Roman Catholic church. For some, the "High Altar" (pre-Vatican II altar) is the "Original Altar" or, if there is no Vatican II-style table altar in front of it (which is extremely rare), it is the "Main Altar". The table altar is usually called the "Main Altar" and if it sits in front of a "High Altar", the "High Altar" is not the "Main Altar". The "Communion Rail" is also called the "Altar Rail". Some call an architectural canopy above the main altar a "baldachin", others call it a "ciborium". The "monstrance" is to some an "ostensorium" and the "censer" is also a "thurible". Some refer to the Holy Water "font", others to the Holy Water "stoop". "Sprinkler/Aspergilum", &c. &c. &c.

As far as rubrics go, if you want to get completely confused, refer to more than one source. None of them ever completely agree.