At this point I realize well enough that the Eastern Catholic Churches were regrettably subjected to a "Latinization" that interfered, to one degree or another, with the "Greekness" of a number of Greek Catholic churches. One can find such "Latinizations" as Western art, Stations of the Cross, 3 dimensional crucifixes, images dedicated to Western Catholic heroes and private apparitions, &c.
There is one feature that I see from time to time in Eastern Catholic churches that I can only imagine must be the result of this "Latinization", however I cannot imagine what actual purpose they would have served, namely, side altars.
Is there any liturgical circumstance under which a side altar would actually be used in a Byzantine church? Or were they actually installed despite being good for nothing simply to impart a more Latin atmosphere to the worship space?
Do you mean true side altars capable of having liturgy celebrated on them or just the nominal type to put flowers and candles on? If the first, and some Orthodox parishes have them as well, it is so that a second liturgy may be celebrated without violating the one altar, one liturgy, per day rule. If the second, when removing or not installing icon screens was practiced the main icons of Christ and the Mother of God were moved to the extreme left and right of the sanctuary and supplied with side altars for candles and flowers, sometimes a side altar served as the prothesis table.
Generally, Byzantine churches don't have side altars, but in places where more than one Divine Liturgy might be celebrated in a day, a separate chapel or "parecclesia" would be built contiguous to the main church.
If you are referring to churches outside the Byzantine Tradition, however, side altars are not a latinization, per se. The Syriac / Malankara Churches need side altars for Holy Saturday Divine Liturgy, and days of daily non-feast Liturgy.
Going back many years, I've never seen a BC parish celebrate ANY services at a "side altar." There are services which are mainly done at the tetrapod, but that is Eastern tradition.
This is deviating a bit from the OP, but Stuart's comment got me to thinking..... Our American BC's don't generally abide by the "one altar, one DL" compared to the Orthodox (as I've been led to believe here on bycath.org.) But...my Eastern understanding is that it is the "Antimension", not the altar that is mandatory. That leads to my question....Does an OC parish which uses two different altars have two different antimensia? Either way, isn't that an abuse of said tradition?
Generally, Byzantine churches don't have side altars, but in places where more than one Divine Liturgy might be celebrated in a day, a separate chapel or "parecclesia" would be built contiguous to the main church.
A seperate chapel is not always feasible and often today a seperate room or extra space in the main church is used. The Cathedral in Munhall has a weekday chapel in a side room. The local Greek Orthodox parish simply has an altar with a minimal screen in the south choir area behind the bishop's throne:
Do you mean true side altars capable of having liturgy celebrated on them or just the nominal type to put flowers and candles on?
Father,
I'm thinking of altars that stand against a wall at either side of the sanctuary, just like one would see in most every Roman Catholic church constructed before the Second Vatican Council. For example...
Such altars, in Roman Catholic churches, were designed for the celebration of Low Mass in the Tridentine form. I wouldn't have imagined that an Eastern liturgy could be celebrated at such an altar.
Do you mean true side altars capable of having liturgy celebrated on them or just the nominal type to put flowers and candles on?
Father,
I'm thinking of altars that stand against a wall at either side of the sanctuary, just like one would see in most every Roman Catholic church constructed before the Second Vatican Council. For example...
Such altars, in Roman Catholic churches, were designed for the celebration of Low Mass in the Tridentine form. I wouldn't have imagined that an Eastern liturgy could be celebrated at such an altar.
And the total altars/Madbahas in a church may not be limited to 3. In some malankara churches its even 9 (each of main,2 side altars having again two side altars each) though liturgy may be celebrated on just three of it. Sometimes liturgy is celebrated in 3 altars simultaneously with three priests.
Actually, it is not limited to 3. I've seen Orthodox Liturgies with up to 101 altars set up, the Syriac Orthodox Catholicos as main celebrant in the Center.
This is not common to the Syriac Churches in the Middle East, however, and maybe an holdover-adaptation from contact with Latin Portuguese in India.
The terms used to describe simultaneous Divine Liturgies in the Indian Churches (only the OO, I believe - I don't recollect ever seeing it so celebrated in an OC temple*) is tied to the number of altars being used, e.g., mooninmel (three) Qurbana, anchinmel (five) Qurbana, ezhuinmel (seven) Qurbana, onpathinmel (nine) Qurbana. The literal translation of each is, I believe, 'Qurbana upon _____ altars'; the idiomatic would be '_____ simultaneous Qurbanas'.
*although, I seem to recollect that, the Chaldean Assyrian Church (the Assyrian Church in India - as opposed to the Chaldean Catholic Church) and the Ancient Church of the East may also allow this praxis on some occasions.
Michael is correct, that it is a holdover from the Latins who instituted the practice of simultaneous Masses when Canon Law forbade concelebration. The ideal was that the Masses not only be simultaneous, but be synchronized, both so as to minimize distraction and to emphasize that the Mass was 'one', rather than separate and distinct celebrations. The celebrant at the main altar would ordinarily be the only one heard aloud; the other presbyters would pray or chant in low voices.
In ordinary praxis (in the Indian Orthdox Churches), three is the most common number of such to be served at once, with five, seven, and nine being increasingly infrequent as the number increases. The 101 (or Nootoninmel Qurbana) to which Michael refers is only served in conjunction with the most solemn and major liturgical celebrations. (It was only first served, by the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox, in 2002, on the occasion of celebrating the 100th anniversary of repose of Saint Mar Gregorios of Parumala. And has only been served a few times since then.)
Other than the Indian Churches of the OO Communion, the only other OO to employ the practice appear to be the Ethiopian Tewahado Orthodox. However, as far as anyone seems to know, they limit service of the Ùér’ata Qéddase to three altars at any one time.
My thanks for what I know of this goes to my dear brother and friend, Phil/Mor Ephrem, whom old-timers here will remember as a valued poster.
Many years,
Neil
Last edited by Irish Melkite; 08/30/1208:58 PM. Reason: add parenthetical to clarify that reference to 3,5,7,9 such relates to the Indian Orthodox Churches - not the Latin Church
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Your original query has gotten somewhat side-tracked.
Obviously, one can also commonly find side altars in some EC and EO Churches as an artifact of those temples having been originally purchased from Latins and never fully revamped to conform to Eastern architectural norms. Less of these still in place than was once the case, but they are still to be found.
Many years,
Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Michael is correct, that it is a holdover from the Latins who instituted the practice of simultaneous Masses when Canon Law forbade concelebration. The ideal was that the Masses not only be simultaneous, but be synchronized, both so as to minimize distraction and to emphasize that the Mass was 'one', rather than separate and distinct celebrations. The celebrant at the main altar would ordinarily be the only one heard aloud; the other presbyters would pray or chant in low voices.
Typical Roman practice regarding simultaneous Masses (e.g. in Monasteries) was that they were all low Masses and not synchronised. In monasteries or Churches with many priests, the priests would celebrate Low Masses early in the morning and the community High Mass (i.e. with singing) would be celebrated later in the day after the Third or the Sixth hour depending on the season. Typically, only the celebrant (or in a parish Church perhaps a few lay people) would communicate at the High Mass, most of the participants (including the priests who were now ministers at or participating in choir at the High Mass) would have communicated at the the early morning Masses so that only the Hebdomadary (the officiant for the week) would have to prolong his fast until the High Mass later in the day.
For instance, Fr. Martin von Cochem [newadvent.org] , a 17th century Capuchin, writes in his Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass[/i] [books.google.com] (commonly known today in the TAN books edition retitled [i] The Incredible Catholic Mass ) has a chapter titled "Some Practical Hints Concerning the Way of Hearing Several Masses at One and the Same Time". That chapter makes no mention of "synchronized" Masses as we knew them in the 20th century and refers only to simultaneous Masses where it's merely incidental when 2 celebrants arrive at the consecration and elevation at the same time and where ordinarily these are separated (and so are the beginnings of the various Masses, etc.)
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
In ordinary praxis, three is the most common number of such to be served at once, with five, seven, and nine being increasingly infrequent as the number increases. The 101 (or Nootoninmel Qurbana) to which Michael refers is only served in conjunction with the most solemn and major liturgical celebrations. (It was only first served, by the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox, in 2002, on the occasion of celebrating the 100th anniversary of repose of Saint Mar Gregorios of Parumala. And has only been served a few times since then.)
If this is in some respect a Latinization, what's really puzzling about it is that it's expanded in recent years while the practice of synchronized liturgies was banned by the Latin Church in the Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy, De Musica Sacra et Sacra Liturgia [adoremus.org]:
Quote
39. So-called "synchronized" Masses, are, however, forbidden. These are Masses in which two or more priests simultaneously, on one or more altars, so time their celebration of Mass that all their words, and actions are pronounced, and performed together at one and the same time, even with the aid of modern instruments to assure absolute uniformity or "synchronization", particularly if many priests are celebrating.
It's often mistakenly believed that contemporary Roman Catholic practice forbids simultaneous Masses, but this is not true. What is forbidden with respect to simultaneous Masses, is a) "synchronized" Masses, as described above, and b) "celebrat[ing] the Eucharist individually, however, but not while a concelebration is taking place in the same church or oratory" (Canon 902) (and as a visit to St. Peter's early in the morning will also demonstrate.)
As far as I can tell, truly synchronized Masses were a twentieth century fad among Latins (dependent in part on the development of electronic amplification). The most famous (or infamous) example being the 35th International Eucharistic Congress in Barcelona in in 1952 as described by this post [newliturgicalmovement.org] (with photos!) on the New Liturgical Movement:
Quote
...the simultaneous ordination of 842 Priests which took place at the XXXV International Eucharistic Congress of Barcelona in 1952. In the Olympic Stadium of Montjuich, 21 altars were erected, at which 21 bishops celebrated synchronized Masses during which they ordained about 40 priests each. The bishop of Barcelona, Mons. Modrego Casáus, celebrated at altar 12, and his voice was amplified by microphone throughout the stadium. In the middle, a schola of 300 seminarians from all across Spain led the people in chant.
To me, anyways, this is clearly craziness and the practice was rightfully supressed.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
