Sacred Space

[MorEphrem]

Having paid attention to Oriental [Orthodox] liturgies, the three-tier gradation of sacred space seems very apparent (please bear with the use of Syriac terms):

1. • Qestrouma or bema; outer raised space where liturgically relevant individuals are allowed
   • Beth qudsho or sanctuary; only the ordained should enter, usually delineated by a sanctuary veil and required use of liturgical slippers
   • Qdosh qudshe or the Holy of Holies; really only the celebrant should be here (though the deacons can stand beside him), delineated by a raised step, baldachin and sometimes a second sanctuary veil
   The two later terms are clearly reminiscent of the Temple, especially with the presence of two veils and the Holy of Holies being restricted to the celebrant. I have seen the rule of restricted entry into the sanctuary very seriously applied amongst Syriacs to the point where people will stretch and contort to grab something in the sanctuary without touching the ground or stretch to grab something from the altar if they are a deacon without stepping into the highest step in front of the altar. To paraphrase Mor Jacob of Sarug, if the priests of old feared the sanctuary which was a shadow of what is how much more should the priests of the True High Priest fear ministration in His sanctuary?
   
   Some points of discussion I would like to raise are:
   • Does your parish maintain the distinction of sacred space? If so, how (e.g. altar rail, iconostasis, sanctuary veil)?
   • Why do Oriental Catholic parishes seem to (at least in my experience) fail in maintaining the distinction of sacred space?
   • Why is sacred space important?
   • How can it be reintroduced into Churches/parishes that have done away with it (particularly when it is seen as antiquated)?
   • How does this relate to Eastern Catholic prelates’ reluctancy to ordain minor orders (i.e. ability to enter the sanctuary)?

 

[Thomas48]

having paid attention to oriental [orthodox] liturgies, the three-tier gradation of sacred space seems very apparent (please bear with the use of syriac terms):

1. • qestrouma or bema; outer raised space where liturgically relevant individuals are allowed
   • beth qudsho or sanctuary; only the ordained should enter, usually delineated by a sanctuary veil and required use of liturgical slippers
   • qdosh qudshe or the holy of holies; really only the celebrant should be here (though the deacons can stand beside him), delineated by a raised step, baldachin and sometimes a second sanctuary veil
   the two later terms are clearly reminiscent of the temple, especially with the presence of two veils and the holy of holies being restricted to the celebrant. I have seen the rule of restricted entry into the sanctuary very seriously applied amongst syriacs to the point where people will stretch and contort to grab something in the sanctuary without touching the ground or stretch to grab something from the altar if they are a deacon without stepping into the highest step in front of the altar. To paraphrase mor jacob of sarug, if the priests of old feared the sanctuary which was a shadow of what is how much more should the priests of the true high priest fear ministration in his sanctuary?
   
   Some points of discussion i would like to raise are:
   • does your parish maintain the distinction of sacred space? If so, how (e.g. Altar rail, iconostasis, sanctuary veil)?
   • why do oriental catholic parishes seem to (at least in my experience) fail in maintaining the distinction of sacred space?
   • why is sacred space important?
   • how can it be reintroduced into churches/parishes that have done away with it (particularly when it is seen as antiquated)?
   • how does this relate to eastern catholic prelates’ reluctancy to ordain minor orders (i.e. Ability to enter the sanctuary)?

1. 
   View attachment 23305View attachment 23307
   
   The above two pictures are of my parish St. Mary’s Knanaya Catholic Church which is of a more simple design. An Un-Latinized Syro Malabar altar is divided into a few parts. They are as follows:
   • Two Podiums: One for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament
   • The Bema
   • Two/Three Steps
   • Sanctuary Veil
   • The Madbaha (Including the Holy of Holies)
   • Icons
   To answer your questions, yes my parish maintains a sacred space. Oriental Churches seem to all have some level of Latinization, the failure to maintain these traditions is based on this. However, there is hope due to the fact that some Churches at least attempt to restore their authentic traditions. The use of a sacred space is important because it creates a distinct barrier for the vicar to administer the most holy sacraments to the patrons. As one of my parish priests explained, after he (the priest) climbs the steps and passes into the Madbaha (sanctuary) he is now communicating directly with Christ and delivering His message to us. He faces the sanctuary in ad orientem because he too is praying. Reintroduction of a sacred space all depends on the people of the distinct Church. Many Oriental Catholics are reluctant to restore authentic traditions because they have been accustomed to Latinizations for hundreds of years and are in part familiar with it. The authentic traditions represent change and change is often alarming and unfamiliar. The best way to reintroduce an authentic custom such as sacred space is through education. Patrons must be educated on how sacred space was traditionally used and how it is the legitimate oriental custom for sanctuary outline. The concept of Latinization must be stressed as well. Education is simply the answer, as it is in many other facets and aspects of ecclesiology.

 

[Augustine]

http://ourladysmaronite.org/sites/default/files/tour/drupal_page/wideview3_0.jpg

Thankfully, my Maronite parish does have the bema and the sanctuary behind a veil. Unfortunately, many other Maronite parishes don’t, chiefly because they bought the buildings mostly from Protestants.