The Holy Orthodox Catholic
and Apostolic Church of America
has blessed the historic Orthodox
Western Rites for use as well as the traditional Eastern Liturgies.
Prior to the Patriarchate of Rome breaking
away from The Orthodox Church, the Western Rites were a part of the Undivided
Great Church. Indeed, even after the year 1054 some Western Communities
continued in union with Holy Orthodoxy. There was a
Western Rite Monastery on
Mt Athos up to the year 1283. Recent scholarship has shown that a form of the
Western Roman Liturgy, though Byzantinized, was used in Turkey up to 1963. This
is called the Liturgy of St Peter.
For the last hundred years there has been a
steady stream of Western Christians coming into Holy Orthodoxy and using the
Restored Western Rites. Today one finds The Orthodox Church of France using the Gallican Rite, The Milan Synod using the Sarum Rite, The Antiochian Archdiocese
using the Liturgy of St Gregory and the Liturgy of St Tihkon, The Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia using the Dom Augustine Liturgy which is based
on the old Orthodox Roman Liturgy, and The Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic
Church of America which has blessed the old Orthodox Roman Rite, though, for
pastoral reasons the other Orthodox Western Rites may be used.
The Arrangements of Western Medieval and Byzantine Churches Compared
and their Relevance to Liturgy Today
Photo By: Christopher Rakowski
This article has been adapted from the opening sections of my work
Principles of Choir Ceremonial shortly to be completed. In it I hope to
demonstrate the close similarities which exist between the ordering of a large
Western medieval church and the arrangement which is still to be found in a
church of the Byzantine rite today. The architecture and arrangement of any
church are dictated primarily by the liturgical rites which take place within
it. By examining this ordering of the various parts and furnishings of a church
building we can often gain an insight into the meaning and significance of those
same liturgical ceremonies. Recently I have been increasingly struck by the
remarkably close parallels which one can find by comparing the liturgical
ceremonies of the Byzantine rite as still performed today and the Roman rite as
it should be celebrated according to the letter and spirit of its own
rubrics.
The parallels become all the more clear when one studies Western
liturgy in its medieval form. Today, a Western Christian attending a liturgical
function for the first time in a Byzantine church will probably experience a
very different ethos to that which he is used to in a Western rite church and
this irrespective of whether the Western liturgy is performed according to its
pre- or post-Vatican II recensions. Yet this has not always been so. The great
tragedy in the West is that since at least the time of the Renaissance
increasing liturgical minimalism (what I choose to call the " Low Mass
mentality ") and the demise of the public Divine Office have completely obscured
the nature of liturgy as a corporate act and duty.
Liturgy is not meant merely
to be attended out of a sense of obligation or even of piety but to be lived.
This concept of living the Liturgy still holds good in the Churches of
the East where the liturgy Is the common prayer of the people and provides all
their spiritual needs. It is my hope that by drawing attention to the common
values of Roman and Byzantine liturgy one can contribute not only to a
liturgical revival in the West but to a greater appreciation by both Western and
Eastern Christians of the essential Unity of their Faith as expressed in the
liturgy. An examination of the infrastructure of the liturgy - the
ordering of a church - seems to me as good a place as any at which to begin such
an undertaking. For those readers who are unfamiliar with architectural terms a
brief explanation of the more common ones may be useful. Churches in both East
and West are frequently designed with a plan which resembles a cross in shape.
The arms of this cross are known as the transepts and the area where they
intersect with the main limb the crossing.
By a very ancient tradition the Altar
of the church is usually placed at the east end of the building within the
eastern arm of the cross. The western arm is known as the nave (from the latin
navis meaning a ship) and is occupied by the laity during church
functions. In the East the plan of a church usually resembles that of a Greek
cross with the arms all of equal length. In the West the nave is generally
longer than the other arms so that the plan resembles a Latin cross in shape. I
have used the spelling " quire " to indicate that portion of the building which
is occupied by the " choir " made up of clergy and singers. This distinction is
useful to avoid ambiguity. The quire is normally situated within the eastern arm
before the Altar though in some medieval churches (particularly monastic ones)
the quire occupied the crossing or even extended into the (architectural) nave.
Our
Medieval Churches and their Screens
If
we compare the arrangement of large Western medieval church with that of an
Orthodox church of the Byzantine rite a number of quite striking similarities
become apparent. It transpires that the quire of a medieval church corresponds
closely in layout and function to the nave of an Orthodox church, while the
medieval nave really represents little more than a vastly enlarged Orthodox
narthex. In many of our medieval cathedrals the chancel (usually that limb of a
cruciform church building which lies east of the crossing and transepts) is an
enclosed and self-contained unit, often with its own set of (eastern) transepts,
and completely closed off from the nave by a heavy stone quire-screen or
pulpitum.
In the Middle Ages the pulpitum would have been supplemented by
another screen -the rood screen- one bay further to the west. This had a dual
purpose. It supported the Rood (the large crucifix, with accompanying images of
the Virgin and St John, which dominated the nave) and it also formed a reredos
to the Nave Altar. It would have been equipped with two doors, one on either
side of the Nave Altar, which in the Sarum rite, were used by the Deacon to pass
around the Altar while censing it. Where the High Altar in the chancel was also
given a reredos this too would have had two doors as one still sees today at
Westminster Abbey and Winchester Cathedral. The pulpitum, on the other hand
(often ten feet or more in thickness), would have possessed only a single
entrance in the form of a vaulted passageway into the quire.
This corresponded
to the "Royal Doors" in an Orthodox church which lead from the narthex
into the nave (as distinct from the " Holy Doors " of the Iconostasis).
While the rood screen still remains in many of our old English parish churches,
it survives in only one of our large cathedral or collegiate buildings -St
Alban’s Cathedral. Most rood screens, in contrast to the stone pulpita, were
made of wood and so have easily perished. At St Alban’s it was built of stone
and has survived, whereas the pulpitum has vanished.
In addition to these two
screens (the rood screen and the pulpitum), a large medieval church might have
had at least one more screen in the chancel. The sanctuary was often divided
from the rest of the chancel by an open wooden screen known as the presbytery
screen. Again, there is only one remaining example of this screen in Britain -
that in St David’s Cathedral, Wales. In other churches its original position is
sometimes marked by the presbytery step at which, more recently, altar rails
have often been introduced. It is this screen which would have corresponded to
the Iconostasis which one still finds in Byzantine churches separating
the sanctuary from the nave. Like the Iconostasis, the presbytery screen
may have carried sacred images, which could well explain its disappearance at
the time of the Reformation.
In parish churches (most of which, during the
Middle Ages, did not possess a quire with stalls) the rood screen would have
fulfilled a similar function to this presbytery screen as well as dividing the
church for legal reasons - the Rector being responsible for the upkeep of the
chancel, the parishioners for that of the nave - and on many of these rood
screens traces of the original images still survive. They were usually painted
onto the wooden panels which form the lowest part of the screen. Finally, in
many greater churches there would have been a fourth screen in the form of a reredos behind the High Altar, like those at Westminster and Winchester
mentioned above. In those places where a well-known saint was buried in the
retro-quire behind the High Altar (like St Cuthbert at Durham Cathedral) this
reredos would have screened off the saint's shrine.
Medieval and Orthodox Churches Compared
In the Middle Ages churches were used for many more purposes than is common
today. Few of our medieval cathedrals possess a narthex or porch at the west
end. Thus, profane practices, such as the payment of tithes, the administration
of justice and commercial transactions, as well as more irreverent activities,
often took place in the naves of our medieval churches. The pulpitum was
introduced in larger churches to close off the chancel so that the daily cursus
of the Mass and the Office would remain undisturbed.
Thus the laity were
relegated to the nave at the east end of which they were provided with heir own
altar (often known as the Jesus Altar) backing on to the rood
screen as described above. The close relation of the medieval nave to the
Orthodox narthex (in which similar activities take place today) therefore
becomes clear. Apart from occasional processions, the nave was not generally
utilized for any real liturgical function. In complete contrast, for the clergy
in the chancel the liturgy was a corporate act involving the entire community.
All those occupying the chancel, whether canons, clerics or monks (many of our
medieval cathedrals were served by a monastic community), constituted the choir
- unlike the modern practice of delegating that role to a small number of
professional or amateur singers.
In this respect, the medieval community which
occupied the quire was in a similar position to the Orthodox laity of today.
During the course of the liturgy the nave of a Byzantine church is used to a far
greater degree than in the Roman rite. Thus, for instance, at Vespers the priest
will pass around the entire church censing both the images and all those
present. The laity who occupy the nave, like the medieval clergy who occupied
the chancel in the West, know and love their liturgical rites and take an active
part in them finding no need for extra-liturgical devotions. It is only to be
hoped and prayed for that their brethren amongst the laity of the Roman rite can
come to a similar understanding and love for their own liturgical heritage, and,
in particular, that we see a revival of the public recitation of the Divine
Office the opus Dei - not as a private devotion of the clergy, which it
was never meant to be, but as part of the duties of the whole People of God.
The
Layout of the Medieval Chancel and its Relevance for Today
Now that our church naves are used only for religious activities the raison
d’être of a quire-screen has disappeared and few would advocate screening off
the chancels of our larger churches with a heavy pulpitum. To hide the chancel
in this way would also be to discourage the laity from taking a more active and
intelligent role in the liturgy. The use of such a screen was, in any
case, not universal even in the Middle Ages. As early as the twelfth century,
Abbot Suger dispensed with its use at his new abbey church of St Denis near
Paris. In contemplating the layout of the ideal chancel, however, we should bear
in mind the corporate nature of the medieval liturgy (which we should seek to
emulate) and the functional reasons behind the design of the medieval chancel.
In particular we should not be opposed to the idea of a screen per se.
As we shall see later, in larger churches the presbytery screen, and in
smaller churches with no quire, the rood screen which took its place, fulfilled
a very different role from the pulpitum. The removal of rood screens from some
Roman Catholic parish churches, like those designed by Pugin in the nineteenth
century, has been a most unfortunate act of liturgical vandalism and indicative
of the lost appreciation for the contemplative and mystical aspects of the
liturgy.
The chancel of a large church consists of two main parts, the quire and the
sanctuary (in the Middle Ages generally known as the presbytery). The quire
forms the western part of the chancel (the nave end) and is where the clergy and
singers attend the solemn functions of the Mass and Office. They occupy seats or
stalls arranged in rows on either side of the quire facing one another. In
medieval times the last few stalls at the west (or nave) end of the quire were
usually returned or placed at right-angles to the others along the back
of the pulpitum facing the Altar. These were occupied by the higher dignitaries
of the choir. With the demise of the pulpitum, returned stalls are no longer
used in the Roman rite and the more senior clerics now occupy the stalls at the
east (or Altar) end of the quire. A medieval quire was exceedingly long so as to
accommodate the very large number of clerics attached to the typical medieval
foundation (some cathedrals had as many as fifty canons in addition to numerous
lesser clerics). Today even the largest cathedrals are staffed by only a
minuscule fraction of the number of priests they would once have had (much to
the detriment of the liturgy) so that quires can afford to be somewhat shorter.
This does have the advantage of bringing the sanctuary (with the Altar) closer
to the nave to encourage the laity’s closer association with what takes place
there.
At the centre of the quire in the Middle Ages stood a large fixed choir
lectern which revolved on a pivot and had two or four sides for supporting
books, This was used by the cantors or rulers of the choir to intone or direct
the music of certain choral parts of the Mass or Office. It should be remembered
that books of any sort were then much scarcer and that clerics relied on their
memory to a much greater extent. The use of such a lectern, however, is no less
useful today. The placing of a surpliced quire in the chancel (rather than
hidden away in a gallery) is much to be encouraged in larger churches, and the
cantors then have a major ceremonial role to perform at Mass as well as at the
Office (as the rubrics of the old Roman Gradual will show), so that such a
lectern becomes a highly practical piece of liturgical furniture.
At the east end of the quire, roughly where the stalls ended, was a step or
set of steps (the first of a number of steps as one progressed eastwards) known
as the quire step. Designated soloists stood here to sing certain parts of the
liturgy (for example, the Tract at Mass in many medieval Uses). A second (this
time single-sided) lectern was placed, facing the Altar, at the middle of this
step for their use. It is still convenient to employ two lecterns in this way in
a large church, and to distinguish the purposes for which they are used. John
Harper in his book Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy from the Tenth to
Eighteenth Century points out that the two main types of chant were
distinguished by a different placing of the soloists. The so-called antiphonal
chants (like the psalms and canticles of the Office or the Introit, Offertory
and Communion of the Mass) were purely choir chants sung entirely within the
confines of the quire, and any solo sections were sung either from the stalls or
at the lectern in medio chori. For the responsorial chants (the Gradual
and Alleluia at Mass or the responses and versicles at the Hours) the soloists
sang their part from either the gallery of the pulpitum or the lectern at the
quire step - clearly implying a spatial dialogue between the soloists and the
choir. The lessons at Matins would also have been chanted at the quire step
lectern. The quire step marked the end of the quire and the beginning of the
presbytery.
The presbytery was divided into two large parts by a second step or set of
steps - the presbytery step - a number of feet further to the east, and the
presbytery screen (if there was one) was also positioned here. As we have
already seen, the siting of a screen at this place is exactly analogous to that
of the Iconostasis in an Orthodox church and many of the same arguments
for the use of the Iconostasis can be applied to a screen placed in this
position in a church of the Roman rite. The sanctuary with the High Altar is the
most sacred part of the church where heaven and earth meet in the celebration of
the Holy Eucharist. From very early times it became customary to hide the
sanctuary with curtains (still used in Armenian and Ethiopian churches) just as
in the Temple of Jerusalem the Holy of Holies was separated from the Holy Place
by a veil. Often these hung between the four columns of the Altar canopy and
were then known as a tetravela. During the fourth century in Rome, Syria
and Palestine a trellis wall of marble some three to five feet high was
introduced, dividing the sanctuary from the rest of the church and pierced with
gates. These walls were known as cancelli (from which are word chancel
derives) and are still to be seen in some of the ancient churches in Rome such
as San Clemente. It is only right and fitting that the sanctuary should be
separated to create an atmosphere of special reverence for the Altar and to lend
a sense of mystery to that most mystical of acts - the Eucharistic Liturgy. An
open-work wooden screen, like the rood screens which survive in our old parish
churches, does not cut off the faithful entirely from the actions which take
place within the sanctuary but helps to emphasize its awesome sacredness as the
abode of Christ the Heavenly Tsar. If the screen bears a Rood the symbolism is
enhanced - one passes beneath the suffering Christ on the Cross and enters the
sanctuary where the risen Christ returns to earth in the Eucharist.
The space between the quire and presbytery steps formed a raised platform
just as in an Orthodox church there is a raised space before the Iconostasis
known as the solea. The steps of the solea usually have a
semi-circular extension before the Holy Doors, known as the ambo, from
which in Russian churches, the gospel is sung. In some medieval Uses the Gospel
(together with the Epistle, Gradual and Alleluia) was sung from the platform on
top of the schola cantorum or quire. It would seem appropriate, then, for
the Gospel to be sung on this elevated portion of the presbytery in full view of
all, and that an ambo or lectern be placed here on the Gospel side just as it is
in a Greek church. In medieval churches this most often took the form of an
eagle (the symbol of St John the Evangelist) or, more rarely, a pelican in her
piety .
In English cathedral churches the bishop’s episcopal stall was also placed in
this area on the south side (the right when facing the Altar) - exactly the
position it occupies in a Greek church facing the elevated Gospel ambo on the
other side. In addition, on either side, there would have been doors leading out
of the presbytery and into the side aisles, for it should be remembered, the
quire and presbytery were also screened off from the aisles on both sides. These
would have been used during the Middle Ages for certain processions, and are
still useful today to gain access to the quire from the sacristy or elsewhere.
Beyond the presbytery step and screen was the sanctuary with the High Altar.
Just as today, it was usual to elevate the Altar on several steps. Three was the
usual number, to be occupied at certain times by the Priest, Deacon and
Sub-deacon respectively, but there could be more or even just one. By custom an
odd number is used. In many medieval churches these steps were carried across
the full width of the sanctuary so that when the Priest sat to the east of the
Deacon and Sub-deacon at the sedilia, placed against the wall on the
right hand side, he would be elevated slightly above them. The practice of the
Roman rite is that the priest sit between the Deacon and Sub-deacon and at the
same level, and that the altar steps be returned to form side steps on either
side so that one can ascend to the Altar from the sides as well as from the
front. The form of the medieval sedilia, however - in stone with richly
carved canopies and often combined in design with the piscina - is much
more pleasing than the plain wooden bench one usually sees today and one well
worth reviving.
Above the Altar there was always a canopy, usually in the form of a suspended
wooden tester square in shape, although the older form is that of a
ciborium standing on four columns. The canopy is an ancient sign of honor and
should never be dispensed with. The medieval altar was often quite long,
although in certain places the ancient form of altar - almost a cube in shape -
survived. It is possible that the altar was lengthened to give it greater
prominence when the use of a canopy on columns died out, but a return to the
primitive simplicity of the cubic-shaped altar, such as one still sees in
Orthodox churches, is much to be desired. Needless to say, the medieval altar
was never given shelves or gradines - a useless invention of the Renaissance
period - and its furniture consisted of, at most, a crucifix and two
candlesticks.
Any additional candles were place behind, not on, the Altar, like
the six large candles placed behind the High Altar, and lighted on double
feasts, at Salisbury Cathedral. The Celebrant, when standing at the Altar,
always faced the East - the place of the rising sun, the symbol of Christ -
and hence the whole church was oriented in this way towards the east.
The modern notion that Mass versus populum is a return to the
practice of the Early Church is a myth as several recent studies have shown. In
a greater church, where the Office is performed in quire, the Blessed Sacrament
should be reserved in a side chapel, not at the High Altar, and this is
appropriate in smaller churches too. In medieval times the Sacrament would not,
in any case, have been reserved in a tabernacle upon an altar but in an aumbry
in the wall or in a hanging pyx.
In recent centuries Eucharistic devotion has
got rather out of hand in the Roman Catholic Church, to the detriment of the
Office which is the sanctification of time. Fr. Robert Taft, in his book The
Liturgy of the Hours in East and West puts it very well when he says that
most Catholics now receive a very unbalanced spiritual diet based almost
entirely on the Eucharist - like daily serving dinner with only a main course.
The multiplication of masses we now have in the West is indicative of this
mentality. In the East the Eucharistic Liturgy is celebrated only once in the
same church on any one day. Attendance at the Sunday Eucharist therefore becomes
a true expression of Unity. Extra-liturgical Eucharistic adoration developed out
of the practice of reservation - not the other way round.
The principal reason
for reserving the Sacrament is so that It can be given in Holy Communion to the
sick. We adore simply because we happen to reserve; we do not reserve
in order that we might adore. Finally, in some of our medieval cathedrals
the Bishop’s Throne, or Cathedra, was still situated in its ancient
position behind the High Altar, facing westwards. This placing dates back to the
very dawn of the Christian Era when the Bishop on his Throne dominated the
assembly of the Faithful. It is not, as some commentators have assumed,
associated with a versus populum position at Mass, nor necessarily
with the practice in some churches of having the entire quire behind the Altar,
but it does, of course, exactly correspond with the arrangement of every
Orthodox church which is always equipped with a bishop’s throne behind the Altar
and where the Divine Liturgy is never celebrated facing the people.
The notable
example in England is that of Norwich Cathedral where the Throne occupies a very
elevated position in the centre of the apse immediately behind the High Altar.
During the course of the Middle Ages this position for the Throne came to be
abandoned in many places, probably as a result of the practice of burying a
saint in a shrine behind the Altar, which has been referred to above. The
Cæremoniale Episcoporum of the Roman rite still permits this arrangement for
the Throne, and, indeed, describes it before the alternative practice of placing
the Throne on the Gospel side of the sanctuary. When the Throne is thus situated
in the centre of the apse, seats are provided on either side, in the two
quarter-circles along the walls of the apse, for the use of the Canons when
accompanying the Bishop, just as an Orthodox church has seats in those positions
for the Bishop’s concelebrants. Also, the apse is often raised above the level
of the Altar by steps, as in the Basilica of St Ambrose in Milan - in an
Orthodox church it is actually known as the High Place.
