Thread: O Oriens: reassessing eastward position Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024906
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I have just read an interesting article 'reassessing Eastward Eucharistic Celebration.'

As the title says the author suggests that rediscovering Eastward position for the Eucharist is worthwhile. Not he says, if the rediscovery means a return to clerically dominated liturgy. He says the people are not well served by a president turning his or her back to do mysterious things to which they are uninvited.

Rather the people close by, is suggested. Encouraged to fully participate in gesture, and word. Perhaps in a semi circle close to the president, all facing east.

What is suggested is a fresh approach to eastward position, which can hold together the paradox of the transcendent mystery of the Eucharist, and the immanence of the food for the people of God.

Any comments or thoughts?

It seems to me this could be especially helpful in a celebration with a small number of people, with the president central.

Whatever, it's interesting, I think.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Here at my shack the altar was pushed back against the wall over a year ago, and I find that the spirituality beams shooting out of the priest bounce off the wall and hit the congregation with just as much strength as before.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
To be honest, I think it's all to do with how you understand it. You can read the president's back turned as an exclusion - this is something only the priest does and is party to; or you can read it as everyone on the congregation facing east together, worship all addressed to God and the priest simply being in on that action, in other words, praying with and alongside the people and the fact that he/she is facing the same way is symbolic of that.

You will always get various types who will shout that oriens can never mean this, that or the other, but I'd leave them to their own little corner.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
The only Eastward-facing worship in the Bible is in Ezekiel 8:16, where it's a sign of apostasy.

Jesus did not say "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am, hiding at the front".
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Back when I had a bit more hair.

Thurible
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
To be honest, I think it's all to do with how you understand it. You can read the president's back turned as an exclusion - this is something only the priest does and is party to; or you can read it as everyone on the congregation facing east together, worship all addressed to God and the priest simply being in on that action, in other words, praying with and alongside the people and the fact that he/she is facing the same way is symbolic of that.

You will always get various types who will shout that oriens can never mean this, that or the other, but I'd leave them to their own little corner.
I agree Fletcher C., and thanks for putting it more clearly than I could.

However, if it is to do with how we understand it, then I think the author I read has a point about looking at the liturgical space.

And so if the president presides in looking to God in worship (if I can use that shorthand for the Eastward position), then I think the idea of the people being close to the celebrant is a good one - and the suggestion that through word and gesture the people join in this celebration a little more than was the case (and sometimes still is) when a president is distant at a far altar and the people are rather cut off from what is going on.

I can only really picture what I'm wondering about in a small congregation. Here at the Eucharistic Prayer the people could stand in a semi circle around the front of the altar with the celebrant in the centre of the circle as it were, facing the altar. Then at times of bowing or genuflexion by the president people could bow.

Then in these places they could receive the Sacrament.

I'm not at all saying this is how the Eucharist should be celebrated, but rather as an alternative way.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
The only Eastward-facing worship in the Bible is in Ezekiel 8:16, where it's a sign of apostasy.

Jesus did not say "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am, hiding at the front".
And with all respect, Custard, the relevance of that is...?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
My opinion is that having the president face the people makes the president the focus. He is a performer and the laity the audience. When all face the same way, the focus is beyond the president, symbolically everyone is facing God.

Describing eastward-facing presiding as "turning his back on the congo" seems to me to show exactly the wrong attitude toward the congo and the importance of the president's face. They don't need to be looking at his face. They need to be looking to God.

Another way to look at it: His back becomes just another back. Unless you all sit or stand in a circle like the Friends, everyone except those in the front pew are looking at backs.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
You took the words right out of my mouth, mousethief. This is exactly the explanation I give when I'm asked (not very frequently, actually) why our clergy "turn their backs on the people."
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I've always been an enthusiast for 'ad populum' as I believe the jargon has it. Though 'facing the people' misses the point IMHO. Custard's implication that we should be focussed on Christ 'in the midst' describes the rationale for it much better. We are not 'all facing the priest'; we are all, priest and people together, gathered around the Lord's Table celebrating his presence in our midst.

That's why the business of pulling a high altar a metre or so away from the wall is not helpful. We are no more gathered 'around' in that situation. And I would agree that it might be better for all to face in the same direction if that is the constraint imposed by the building.

I can see the attraction of all facing in the same direction. As the OP suggests, as long as it is not used as an explicit or implicit justification for clericalism, and the people can gather round the Table along with the priest, that is fine. But it works best in small groups rather than vast gatherings.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Angloid, usually I see it written as "versus populum" (toward the people). And in an architectural setting where it makes sense, I'm fine with it. But merely putting a card table in the midst of the sanctuary doesn't address objections on account of clericalism. The point remains in any case that the Eucharist requires an ordained presbyter, which to some people is going to seem clericalist no matter what you do.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Percy B:

quote:

I can only really picture what I'm wondering about in a small congregation. Here at the Eucharistic Prayer the people could stand in a semi circle around the front of the altar with the celebrant in the centre of the circle as it were, facing the altar. Then at times of bowing or genuflexion by the president people could bow.
It's a little difficult to get a sense of what your author is referring to as it sounds like he has a particular place, or type of space in mind. In terms of standing around the altar in a semi-circle, I can't see anything wrong with that, but I can't see any real difference between that and standing a few feet away in rows or in pews doing....well, exactly the same thing just not so close (or am I missing something?)

I do understand what he says about liturgical space, and sometimes architecture can play heavily into this. For instance in a church that has a squat, fattened cross with the altar in the middle and the choir and organ to the top of the cross and the people in the other three sections, then oriens is not going to work at all. It's better to work with the architecture rather than against it in that case, and try to emphasis the sense of collective gathering around the altar for a shared meal.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I've said this before, and will say it again. I cannot understand why anyone should want to go back to the 'turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' of forty years ago.

The theological arguments of those who advocate this retrogression are too abstract for most of us.

If you really don't like the priest standing behind the altar as now, then by all means put him or her at the left/north end, as was also the widespread practice in those days and more compliant with the rubrics as they were at the time.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've said this before, and will say it again. I cannot understand why anyone should want to go back to the 'turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' of forty years ago.

The theological arguments of those who advocate this retrogression are too abstract for most of us.

If you really don't like the priest standing behind the altar as now, then by all means put him or her at the left/north end, as was also the widespread practice in those days and more compliant with the rubrics as they were at the time.
I think, Enoch, the point is what is being proposed as an alternative is certainly NOT 'turn your back on everyone, crouch mumble' but rather an imaginative approach to celebrating the Eucharist in a time honoured way, which could emphasise unity on our pilgrimage to God's kingdom, say.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've said this before, and will say it again. I cannot understand why anyone should want to go back to the 'turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' of forty years ago.
"Go back"? We never stopped!
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've said this before, and will say it again. I cannot understand why anyone should want to go back to the 'turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' of forty years ago.
I think absolutely anything can be spun as negative, or ridiculous, or irredeemably awful. That's called caricature, and it's a favorite technique of radio chat hosts.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
Disclaimer up front: I've never taken part in a Eucharist celebrated facing east. But is there something wrong with simply having the celebrant announce up front why it's being done that way, to avoid any confusion? I could imagine myself seeing it as quite exclusive to do it in that way, but on explanation it actually sounds very reassuringly egalitarian. In my parish announcements tend to be between the Liturgy of the Word and Holy Communion, so this wouldn't interrupt the flow of things in any case. Just a thought.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I have celebrated facing east, facing west and at the north-end. For me, the big factor is the building and its layout - what makes for an effective celebration of the liturgy in that space. The north-end is the only one I really don't like.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
I have visited this thread twice now with the intention of writing something, only to find that I simply can't get impassioned about this anymore.

I've tried to think about why and I realise that, back when the westward-facing position was a common experience for me, and something deplorable to be decried, and the eastward was the ideal to be hoped for, I would write at length, here and elsewhere. Now that the eastward position has, for some years, been something I can take for granted, the westward position just doesn't enter into my consciousness unless somebody mentions it. I just don't have a dog in the "fight" anymore.

"Over the counter", "In the round", or whatever other descriptors are used for these variants just don't make sense to me.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I have visited this thread twice now with the intention of writing something, only to find that I simply can't get impassioned about this anymore.
Well I think the Orthodox have the perfect solution to the problem of which way the clergy face - stick the buggers in another room, while the laity get on with the real religion.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
Mercifully, the Eastward to the exclusion of Westward and vice versa is becoming a thing of the past. Both have their merits, and I can't see why both can't be used in a parish if space and building allows.

A deciding point can be aesthetics. In the village next to us is a gem of high Victoriana with no expense spared, small, and clearly the result of the influence of the first generation Oxford Movement. The sanctuary is exquisite with an amazing reredos, designed to draw the worshipper in as a part of the tableaux of the Last Supper. To pull the altar forward would be to destroy the architectural dynamic and feel of the whole building. It would also place the celebrant (or 'presider' to use an uncomfortable word) with his or her back to the reredos and therefore defeat the whole dramatic effect. The place of The Lord at the head of the table would have been upstaged.

On the other hand, a more modern church nearby, almost circular in shape, would look absurd with an altar at the end and an Eastward ceebration.

Both postions are valid. Both positions illustrate different eucharistic truths. I would personally recommend a parish where the westward postion is the norm to have the occasional Eastard facing mass, and the Westward for a normally Eastward facing church. It would provide a good teaching point for various parts of eucharistic theology.

It is a cause of wonderment sometimes that ACs who are now virulently opposed to anything Eastward, are the very people whose party fought for this position for centuries. They were also the ones who alienated a cleric here a number of years ago for daring to celebrate in the evening. They have changed - or rarher Rome has so they followed. But now Rome is changing again, so lets wait and see.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Adeodatus, with his usual perceptivity (Is that a word?) said
quote:
Well I think the Orthodox have the perfect solution to the problem of which way the clergy face - stick the buggers in another room, while the laity get on with the real religion.
No 'like' button so [Killing me]

[ 11. September 2012, 22:18: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
Or the other way around. Close the curtain, convect the sacrifice whilst the jabbering gesticuating peasants drop their money into a basket at the door,
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I have visited this thread twice now with the intention of writing something, only to find that I simply can't get impassioned about this anymore.
Well I think the Orthodox have the perfect solution to the problem of which way the clergy face - stick the buggers in another room, while the laity get on with the real religion.
[Paranoid]

Something like that. [Biased]
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
What interested me in the article I mentioned was not that it proposed a return to the Eastward position done as it used to be, but rather it suggested re-visioning that position and being more creative, thus incorporating more involvement by worshippers through looking again at posture position, word, ritual ...

It was the fresh look at the tradition which interested.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
What interested me in the article I mentioned was not that it proposed a return to the Eastward position done as it used to be, but rather it suggested re-visioning that position and being more creative, thus incorporating more involvement by worshippers through looking again at posture position, word, ritual ...

It was the fresh look at the tradition which interested.
For many of us, Percy B, there is no return to the eastward position because that's just how it is, and it works in harmony with our doctrinal understanding and liturgical participation. To make it relatable, suggest re-assessing how it may be done if we return to it sounds much like suggesting re-assessing how we breathe. We've never stopped breathing and the way in which we do it works perfectly well.

That isn't to say that the discussion cannot happen but without knowing what the article says, or better yet, being able to read it for ourselves, it is difficult to engage with the ideas that it expresses. Do you have a link or a reference that we can access?
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
The issue I think is not relevant to Orthodox Christians. As I understand it there isn't scope in the Orthodox world for this kind of change or experiment in liturgy.

The article is not available on line. It is in a recent issue of the Anglican Theological Review. Sorry I can't post more of it or a link.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
Thank you for that, Percy B. I have looked at the Anglican Theological Review website and it seems that articles are made public there once an issue is no longer current, so it may be made available in the future, for the benefit of those reading who may be interested to read it.

Perhaps you're right about its lack of pertinence to the Orthodox situation. The only occasion that we have the priest celebrating facing the people is in some versions of the Liturgy of St James. However, if I understand correctly, (and I haven't researched this myself so cannot say), that is really due to a museum approach to rubrics, due to the Great Church in Jerusalem being inverse-oriented so that the altar was at the west end of the church, so the priest, in facing east, also happened to be facing the people, much like in some of the early Roman churches, due to the lay of the land and the desire to build the altar over the burial site/martyrdom site of the saints. Other places, when serving the St James Liturgy, do so in a more normal way.

So, quite apart from the fixed forms of worship that we employ, it might be that another reason this matter doesn't speak directly to us Orthodox is that we perhaps have a different set of presuppositions, and our particular issues and experiences of celebrating ad versus populum are different from those that Anglicans might have.

Still, I would be interested to see what unfolds, and what are the particular areas of concern for Mr Shaver in seeking to avoid what he perceives as clerical domination.
 
Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :
 
Seasick's post makes an excellent point: it is seldom effective to fight the building in which one is worshipping. In my view, the encounter with our Lord in the Eucharist should elicit a sense of astonishing intimacy and a sense profound awe. In any single act of worship or particular church building one or the other of these responses is likely to predominate, but both are valid and valuable. As a designer of churches, I have learned how one can bring everyone in a nave seating 600 within 75 feet of the altar; on the other hand, I happily worship in a Neo-Gothic church of similar seating capacity where the closest pew in the nave is 60 feet from the high altar.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I have celebrated facing east, facing west and at the north-end. For me, the big factor is the building and its layout - what makes for an effective celebration of the liturgy in that space. The north-end is the only one I really don't like.
A Methodist celebrating facing East? [Eek!] [Ultra confused]

M'dear eccelsial cousin, what circumstances called you to celebrate facing East?

Over here the UCCan's rubrics are only guidelines, but no United Church or Methodist church in previous years here in Canada ever celebrated facing East.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I have celebrated facing east, facing west and at the north-end. For me, the big factor is the building and its layout - what makes for an effective celebration of the liturgy in that space. The north-end is the only one I really don't like.
A Methodist celebrating facing East? [Eek!] [Ultra confused]
Is this unusual?

The local Methodist church where I used to live had the Communion table against the east wall. I never went to a service there so don't know if this was a permanent arrangement, but I thought it noteworthy at the time. I remember thinking that there was very little room in the sanctuary for pulling it out, and no ostensible carpet marks to suggest that it was moved in the way.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I will look up the exact reference for the article later today, so those who have access can read it. It is bit frustrating, i know not to have the full article available for our discussion.

What also interests me is this re-interpreting the tradition for today. It's not liturgical fogey ism but rather, the author suggests something which if done sensitively enhances the provision for today.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
As Angloid noted, my point is that God has promised to be present in the midst of his people when we meet in his name. Hence facing the East when presiding is not facing God, it is facing away from God.

(And yes, God is also present sacramentally in the consecrated bread and wine, but the priest is facing them anyway).
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
SPK: I am sure Mr Wesley would approve! As my post suggested, the layout of the building. Two examples: the first a small chapel in an ecumenical project for a midweek Eucharist. The table was very small and fixed against the wall. Because it was not very deep the north-end position is awkward. East-facing made a fair bit of sense. [Table has since been unfixed so west-facing is now the norm there.]
With a retreat group worshipping in an ancient Catholic church (with permission) where the altar is stone and against the east wall. The footpace didn't extend around the sides so north-end a practical impossibility (and would not really have been effective anyway given the geography of the rest of the building.
So in both cases east facing was the best choice.

The Scrumpmeister: It'd be a minority practice I'd say. I used to worship in a Methodist church where it was normal practice because of the layout and another place I used to worship had a similar situation in the side chapel. However, I think most of my fellow clergy would think north-end before they'd think east (and they probably wouldn't use those terms...)
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Omnipresence doesn't feature highly on the list of your god's attributes then?
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
Kind of, in the sense that God is with us wherever we go and can act at any point in space.

But this whole discussion is predicated on the idea that God is somehow more present in some places than others.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:

But this whole discussion is predicated on the idea that God is somehow more present in some places than others.
No it's not. None of us I hope believe that God isn't omnipresent. The point of the discussion is which symbolism is most effective. God in our midst, or God the goal for which we strive? In our mixed-up world of realised and not-yet-realised eschatology, both can make sense.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
Yes, but God is omnipresent in such a way that when he says "When two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them." or even "This is my body" is somehow not just an obvious trusim.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:

But this whole discussion is predicated on the idea that God is somehow more present in some places than others.
No it's not. None of us I hope believe that God isn't omnipresent. The point of the discussion is which symbolism is most effective. God in our midst, or God the goal for which we strive? In our mixed-up world of realised and not-yet-realised eschatology, both can make sense.
I didn't intend the discussion to be about which 'symbolism is most effective'! Rather is there scope for both, and can we reassess or revise how eastward position is done so that what it signifies further enriches the practice of the liturgy, along with westward position.

I strongly suspect its a case of both...and, rather than either ... or.

However, I also know I have been at eastward facing celebrations in large churches with few people where the people simply couldn't hear the celebrant, and the people were left, rather like in medieval times, to their own devices.

I think liturgical reform tried to move away from this, but in doing so, some of the mystery around the eastward position may have been lost.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
"Versus populum" creates a closed circle between the priest and congregation, whereby the 'dialogue' is between them and not oriented towards it's proper recipient, God. It is a terrible innovation based on exceedingly poor scholarship and archaeologism that has been thoroughly and utterly discredited by, among others and most famously, Msgr Klaus Gamber in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background (the preface for which was written by the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger). Early proponents of "versus populum" such as Bouyer and Jungmann also repudiated it as error when the truth of the matter emerged.

Turning the altars around was the single most damaging "reform" to come out of the post-Conciliar period. It reduces liturgy to a performance with the priest and his personality as the centre of attention. Anathema!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Turning the altars around was the single most damaging "reform" to come out of the post-Conciliar period. It reduces liturgy to a performance with the priest and his personality as the centre of attention. Anathema!
Rubbish - or to put it more politely - I don't agree. 'Turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' gave a far stronger impression that it was all about the priest. And at least with the modern practice, you can hear and see what is happening. I'd assume most of us would agree that Christ is present in the bread and the wine, not either a back or a front view of the celebrant.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Friends,

Here is a link to the abstract of the article in The Anglican Theological Review:
Click here

Fr Shaver tackles the paradox of honouring the immanent and the transcendent in a celebration. He makes one suggestion - that the presider and people may stand in the same direction for the anaphora, and for the distribution of Communion they could surround the table on four sides.

He writes: "The more transcendent moment of the anaphora, when the community lifts up its heart to God, is balanced by a more immanent moment when it is being fed."

He quotes Sarah Coakley
quote:
These bodily reversals and movements in the liturgy serve to destabilize false universals and allow the liturgy to express a richer, deeper, paradoxical truth
That last point about Liturgy expressing paradoxical truth is a fascinating one, I think.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
'Turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' gave a far stronger impression that it was all about the priest. And at least with the modern practice, you can hear and see what is happening.
I truly mean no personal disrespect to you, Enoch. However, I am always astounded that proponents of celebrations facing towards the people who frame their position in this way seem not to realise the assumptions that it betrays.

The Eucharist, celebrated traditionally, whether in eastern or western forms, has various people performing various roles according to their order within the sacramental life of the Church, of which the Eucharist is the epitome: laity, singers, servers, subdeacons, deacons, bell-ringers, priests, and so forth. These roles converge and diverge throughout the course of the service, sometimes being done in dialogue, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes sequentially, but they all are important and all come together to form a corporate, communal offering of worship.

The fact that people feel that their participation in the corporate offering is dependent on always seeing and hearing what the priest is doing shows that something has gone very wrong. It suggests that they do not understand their own role as being full and proper participation but that seeing and hearing the priest perform his role is the only true way of participating.

If this is the result of liturgical revision according to clericalist principles that has diminished the role of the laity and made their participation dependent on seeing and hearing the priest then this is a problem that needs to be addressed but it seems to me that to place the priest so that he faces the people is not a solution to the problem but rather reinforces the problematic mindset behind it, as well as disrupting the common eastward position that is our heritage as the people of God in Christ.

Keep the priest and people facing east together. They have come together with "in one place with one accord", to hear the Holy Scriptures together, to confess their faith, to leave behind their sins and be reconciled to God and each other, to take part together in the Church's offering the Eucharist, in communion with each other, and to take part in the fullest expression of that communion with each other and the Holy Trinity by receiving together, within themselves, the Body and Blood of the Saviour with all of the grace that accompanies this.

This is a full expression of God in our midst, and it is very difficult to see how the priest facing the people could possibly add to this, or that God being in our midst could be reduced to such a simplistic dynamic.

If there are still difficulties in the balance of participation because of how linear the rite has been forced to become (to pick up on one of the problems of how some of the modern western rites are done), or other problems that detract from the role of the laity, then my opinion is that it is in fixing these where the focus ought to lie.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Thank you Scrumpmeister for a detailed and helpful comment.

I do think, as with so many things, we run the risk of forcibly defending what we like or attacking what we don't. Pause! What helpful thing is being said, what is good about westward position, what is good about eastward...

The Fr Shaver article points out the paradox of trying to hold views of transcendence and views of immanence together. He suggests we hold the paradox, and look also to see if the way we celebrate may be revisited, reassesed, perhaps even refreshed.

I think its probably obvious, but may be worth restating, that what is not necessarily being suggested is pushing altars back against a wall. Shaver suggests free standing, but with the presider in the Eastward position, rather, indeed as the arrangement in the Orthodox tradition, where, if I understand it correctly, the altar is free standing.

Of interest is this, albeit more polemical and less scholarly in approach, article from the US again by an American Episcopalian. He suggests taking the Eastward position, but also emphasises a facing the people first part of the Eucharist.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
'Turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' gave a far stronger impression that it was all about the priest. And at least with the modern practice, you can hear and see what is happening.
I truly mean no personal disrespect to you, Enoch. However, I am always astounded that proponents of celebrations facing towards the people who frame their position in this way seem not to realise the assumptions that it betrays.
I sing in the choir in a church where Sunday eucharists are celebrated "versus populum" at a nave altar, but where the large choir still occupies the stalls in the chancel. It never seems to bother the people in the congregation who condemn eastward facing as "turning your back on everyone" that this is what we see - and don't complain about - every Sunday morning.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Scrumpmeister: I agree with every word of your impressive post except this:
quote:
Keep the priest and people facing east together.
To my mind, this is a non-sequitur. If you had written "facing the altar together" that would be fine. But the direction we face is (symbolically) towards Christ in our midst. Or to Christ the One who is to come, if you want to emphasise the eschatological aspect. But either way, towards the altar, wherever it is.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Scrumpmeister: I agree with every word of your impressive post except this:
quote:
Keep the priest and people facing east together.
To my mind, this is a non-sequitur. If you had written "facing the altar together" that would be fine. But the direction we face is (symbolically) towards Christ in our midst. Or to Christ the One who is to come, if you want to emphasise the eschatological aspect. But either way, towards the altar, wherever it is.
Thank you for your kind words, Angloid. I'm glad that we agree on so much.

I do, however, stand by my reference specifically to the east rather than the altar.

I am not sure of the origin of what I would term the over-emphasis of the altar/holy table to the exclusion of other symbols but I'm not sure that this imbalance goes back very far. I no longer have Uwe Michael Lang's book on the subject of the direction of liturgical prayer - it is one of those that was lent out and never found its way home; perhaps somebody else can corroborate this with a quotation - however, I have a strong recollection of his referring to some of the Roman basilicas that were given over to Christian use or possibly some of the earlier Roman purpose-built churches. For topographical reasons, in some of these churches, it was necessary to place the sanctuary at the west end of the church (perhaps, I suspect, for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post). Therefore, in order to face east, the priest would be facing across the altar towards the people. Yet, when it came to certain parts of the worship, particularly the Canon, I seem to recall Lang mentioning that the people would turn around to face east along with the priest, although he and the altar would now be behind them. Placing the altar somewhere other than at the east was not the ideal but, when the Roman Christians were faced with the situation where this was done out of necessity, so strong was the Christian instinct that prayer is offered facing east that it prevailed over any desire to see the altar or the priest.

This touches, in large part, I think, on what Percy B says:

quote:
The Fr Shaver article points out the paradox of trying to hold views of transcendence and views of immanence together.
I agree with your earlier statement that there are different elements to the eucharistic rite and I think that, while the altar as a focal point is one, signifying Christ in our midst, a common turning to the east, with what it signifies, is also indispensible, as an an expression oft he exchatological nature of the Eucharist as well as what is cited in that PDF. (Also very good is the point about revelation made by then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger in this chapter.) I actually think that the two should not be separated.

The prevailing focus on turning towards the east described by Lang is still to be found in the Byzantine Rite. As Percy B has rightly said, our Holy Tables are usually freestanding, (only in tiny chapels where there is insufficient room is the Holy Table placed against the wall). We honour the Holy Table greatly. Only those ordained to a certain rank or above may touch it, and then only when they have some particular reason for doing so as part of their duties of service. When we enter the altar (sanctuary, in western parlance), we make three prostrations before the Holy Table before we do anything else. Priests and deacons kiss it at this point.

However, at least in Russian usage, when passing from one side of the altar to the other, clergy and servers make a bow, not to the Holy Table but towards the east. Before leaving the altar for any procession or ceremonial action, the servers gather at the easternmost part of the altar, face east with the Holy Table behind them, and they bow to the east, before bowing to the priest. They repeat this action when they return to the altar. Similarly, when I was last at our cathedral, at the Gospel, the deacon went out into the midst of the nave to read the Gospel, while the bishop and his clergy were standing at the presbyterium around the east end of the altar, which we call the High Place. When the deacon announced the Gospel, the bishop and his priests all turned to face the east, with the Holy Table (and the Gospel Book, for that matter) behind them, in order to make a reverenece at the words "Glory to Thee, O Lord: glory to Thee!"

The Russians have name for this action. It confused me the first time I heard it. I was new to episcopal services at the time and was being instructed through the service step by step by the cathedral's subdeacon. He took me to the High Place and said, "Pray to God". I lagter understood that that he meant is "Cross yourself and bow to the east" and that this is the common expression for it. It speaks volumes that showing reverence towards the east has taken on the name "Praying to God". Of course, it doesn't negate the prayerfulness of other actions but it does reveal something of the deep-rooted place of the east in our Christian heritage of prayer. I would be very, very guarded against losing it because of a recent change of thought.

[ 12. September 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I think there's a romantic attachment to the eastward position that forgets what it was usually like. (There's a lovely exchange in I, Claudius between a poet and an out-of-work actor. The actor says, "Things in the theatre aren't what they were," to which the poet replies, "And I'll tell you another thing - there never were what they were.")

In the Tridentine liturgy, at least at a low Mass, not only did the priest face east, but most of the words of the liturgy were inaudible. The few that could be heard were in Latin. Few people would receive Communion and if they did, it would normally be from the tabernacle and not from the hosts that had been consecrated during Mass. Sometimes, the laity would pass the time by saying the rosary, because there was nothing else for them to do.

Eastward-facing Anglicans were usually either aping Rome or resuscitating Sarum. They had all the pictureque gothicism of an eastward-facing celebrant without all those other elements of the Tridentine rite that almost completely removed active participation in the liturgy from the people.

Which of these is it that were talking about here? The Roman practice or its fence-sitting Anglican imitation? And why has no-one asked the question, "Apart from God (obviously), to whom does the liturgy belong? God's priest or God's people?"
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
Further to my previous, I have also seen this eastward-prevalence in Anglican churches that have been arranged in the way that Pre-Cambrian describes. The altar has been moved to the entrance to the chancel with the choir east of it. Yet, come the Creed, the choir has turned to face east because the understanding that it is the east, and not the altar, that is the direction to which there is a common turning, has still lived on among them, even if the confusion brought about by various church arrangements and directions means that they may no longer properly understand or be able to articulate why.

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think there's a romantic attachment to the eastward position that forgets what it was usually like. (There's a lovely exchange in I, Claudius between a poet and an out-of-work actor. The actor says, "Things in the theatre aren't what they were," to which the poet replies, "And I'll tell you another thing - there never were what they were.")

In the Tridentine liturgy, at least at a low Mass, not only did the priest face east, but most of the words of the liturgy were inaudible. The few that could be heard were in Latin. Few people would receive Communion and if they did, it would normally be from the tabernacle and not from the hosts that had been consecrated during Mass. Sometimes, the laity would pass the time by saying the rosary, because there was nothing else for them to do.
I think that this is what the article is perhaps talking about. It isn't the facing east that is the problem but the exclusion of the laity due to the manner of celebrating or even structure of the services themselves that is the problem.

So, assuming the eastward position is left intact, what about the rest can be corrected? You seem to have identified some of the points that could do with consideration by those who would like to return to an eastward-facing position but without some of the unrelated problems that have come to be associated with it.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I sing in the choir in a church where Sunday eucharists are celebrated "versus populum" at a nave altar, but where the large choir still occupies the stalls in the chancel.
That is probably the norm in the Church of England. Or as near to a norm as you can get in a denomination where in practice all the details of liturgy are decided by each church separately. Well, sometimes the choir isn't large, but whatever size it is they often sit in choir stalls with the minister(s) between them and the rest of the congregation, and they rarely turn to face in any ritual direction but just sit looking at each other or maybe at whoever is speaking.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
I mean no more disrespect to the Scrumpmeister than he himself meant, but his post seems to have just as many assumptions as the one he criticises.

In particular it assumes that one set of rituals directly equates to everyone taking their proper role while a different set of rituals amounts to an excessive interest in the role of the priest.

I can only speak for myself in saying what I am taking an interest in, but it is not the priest, rather it is the fact of being present as a miracle/mystery of some kind occurs. My focus is not on the omnipresent God but on the God who becomes especially present in bread and wine.

Some may say that it is not my proper role to witness this miracle but it is the role I want.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Rubbish - or to put it more politely - I don't agree. 'Turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' gave a far stronger impression that it was all about the priest. And at least with the modern practice, you can hear and see what is happening. I'd assume most of us would agree that Christ is present in the bread and the wine, not either a back or a front view of the celebrant.
But Enoch, what if we don't want you witnessing the Ritual of the Most Sacred Crab?
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I mean no more disrespect to the Scrumpmeister than he himself meant, but his post seems to have just as many assumptions as the one he criticises.

In particular it assumes that one set of rituals directly equates to everyone taking their proper role while a different set of rituals amounts to an excessive interest in the role of the priest.
That's ok, moonlitdoor. No disrespect was understood.

I do disagree, however, with the placing of both customs on a par with each other, as simply alternative sets of rituals. If that were the case, then what I said would rightly be regarded merely as assumption. Rather, the universal tradition common to seemingly all rites across various cultures reflects the same thing, and is an expression of the ecclesiology in which these different identities do exist within the sacramental body of Christ. This isn't a subjective reading. It is demonstrable by examining the different rites and their development. Even those of which I know next to nothing appear to express the same thing when I look at the texts and rubrics, or see them served in Youtube clips, insofar as any flavour of worship can be gleaned from such media.

By contrast, the culture of seeing and hearing everything done by the priest seems to stem from a Protestant reaction in the period following the Reformation against the "privatisation" of the Catholic mass. That is to say that one went too far in one direction while the other reacted against it by going too far in the other. The result of both is a distortion of what the Liturgy is to express.

In an earlier post, Adeodatus listed some of the fruits of that and I struggle to see how the insistence on seeing and hearing everything pertaining to another person's role is not another of these fruits. The 1662 Prayer Book, for instance, already bears the marks of it. 450 years later, it has become so much a part of the culture of how some churches think of corporate worship that a suggestion to the contrary understandably seems like something quite alien.

It seems from this article by Fr Stephen Shaver is trying to call Anglicans to re-think some of this: to go out and find the beloved baby without gathering up all of the mucky bathwater that rightly went out with it.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I can only speak for myself in saying what I am taking an interest in, but it is not the priest, rather it is the fact of being present as a miracle/mystery of some kind occurs. My focus is not on the omnipresent God but on the God who becomes especially present in bread and wine.
I like to think that we can God is both immanent and transcedent; present among us here and now but also eternal and beyond our perception and grasp; Incarnate Creator in Bethlehem, crucified, risen and glorified Redeemer present in bread and wine, and Righteous Judge in the age to come. The eucharistic rite expresses all of this in different ways.
 
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think there's a romantic attachment to the eastward position that forgets what it was usually like. (There's a lovely exchange in I, Claudius between a poet and an out-of-work actor. The actor says, "Things in the theatre aren't what they were," to which the poet replies, "And I'll tell you another thing - there never were what they were.")

In the Tridentine liturgy, at least at a low Mass, not only did the priest face east, but most of the words of the liturgy were inaudible. The few that could be heard were in Latin. Few people would receive Communion and if they did, it would normally be from the tabernacle and not from the hosts that had been consecrated during Mass. Sometimes, the laity would pass the time by saying the rosary, because there was nothing else for them to do.

Eastward-facing Anglicans were usually either aping Rome or resuscitating Sarum. They had all the pictureque gothicism of an eastward-facing celebrant without all those other elements of the Tridentine rite that almost completely removed active participation in the liturgy from the people.

Which of these is it that were talking about here? The Roman practice or its fence-sitting Anglican imitation? And why has no-one asked the question, "Apart from God (obviously), to whom does the liturgy belong? God's priest or God's people?"
Well, I have no romantic attachment to east facing masses- They are all I know from the entirety of my catholic life. For one, thing, the characteristic of low mass before the council wasn't how it was everywhere. There were dialogue masses in many places, and the movement to remove devotions from masses had already occurred by the 20's.

I am a Catholic who supports east facing masses, not to ape tridentine practice or Sarum, but because it is (Or maybe it's better to say 'was') the tradition of Christianity in the West. My parish has had east facing masses since before I was a member of it, and it does nothing to destroy active participation. It doesn't somehow make singing hymns, listening to the readings, responding with the responses or hearing the prayers of the liturgy impossible.

We have masses in both the tridentine missal and the modern Roman missal, and it's fair to say that our east facing masses don't somehow create a culture of silent watching of the priest.

I know what an east facing mass is like. I think it's quite silly to discourage a practice based on the abuses that were once unnecessarily attached to it. Personally, I think this is the greatest strength of using it nowadays- We no longer have that baggage. People often tell me that we don't live in the 40's/50's/60's as a way of discounting older liturgical practices, but it's a bad counter. Because now that we're free from those abuses, we can salvage what's good from older practices and avoid the bad. Just because we may face east does'nt mean we also have to do it in a whisper, with silent laity praying devotions that have nothing to do with the liturgy.

And as to the last, I see no reason to pit them- The liturgy belongs to the Church, which encompasses both priests and laity. And in that sense, it only belongs to the priest or the people as representatives of the greater church.

In the end, I find east facing masses to be a fuller liturgical sign of what I think the Eucharist is.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
I don't think the 'facing Christ in our midst' symbolism comes out except in places where extreme changes have been made to the building or the building itself is quite modern. For example, I think it requires the altar to be in the center of the building, or near enough, so that the laity are numerous on all sides of the altar.

The general arrangement in older buildings seams to result in the priest and few servers are behind an altar pulled a few feet away from the East wall, on a dias or other elevated section, then perhaps a giant gap where the choir stalls are (and perhaps no choir) and then the rest of the laity all in rows facing them. This resembles nothing more or less than a theater in which the priest is the focus and the servers have bit parts in some sort of play.

It doesn't work without a pretty good circle with the priest and altar at the center. And, in fact, in this case, the priest will still have his back to a fair number of people.

[ETA: That said, the same arrangement can work just fine with very small numbers. What you don't want is masses of laity all on one side and the priest and a couple of servers on the other side.]

[ 13. September 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
My point exactly, Choirboy.

The problem is exacerbated in many Anglican churches because of the legacy of the Victorian 'reformers' who insisted on robed choirs in the chancel, quite unlike contemporary RC practice and, despite their claiming medieval precedent, more or less unknown pre-reformation except in 'quires and places where they sing' (ie cathedrals and similar).

[ 13. September 2012, 21:48: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
What is odd, and almost universal among English Anglicans, is to have a central altar, but leave the old altar at the East End. Then when clergy, choir and servers leave or move around they bow to the East End altar, in other words the altar that isn't in use.

If you're going to have a central altar (and fine) then bow to it facing the people. Don't poke your bottom out at it when you think you are reverencing the (wrong) altar.
 
Posted by David Powell (# 5545) on :
 
I know nothing about such matters, but is it not the case that the focus is on the Body and Blood of Christ; and I presume that the president has these in front of her/him whichever way she/he is facing? Or am I missing something?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
We've gone round and round on this many times. I really don't care all that much...my feeling is that one should build new churches with west-facing capability, and refrain from attempting to renovate existing east-facing places. The result is almost invariably lackluster.

What really grinds my gears is when the presider turns his/her back on the east-facing altar and holds the elements during the words of institution. Silly and unnecessary.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
I know nothing about such matters, but is it not the case that the focus is on the Body and Blood of Christ...?
No.

The Body and Blood of Christ are made truly present among us, and we give them honour and revere them as is right and proper but our prayer is not directed towards them, and the honour that we extend to them is but one part within the liturgy that we are offering to God.
 
Posted by David Powell (# 5545) on :
 
So is God to be found only in the East?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
So is God to be found only in the East?
There has to be some sort of Sydney Anglicans joke in this somewhere.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
I know nothing about such matters, but is it not the case that the focus is on the Body and Blood of Christ...?
No.

The Body and Blood of Christ are made truly present among us, and we give them honour and revere them as is right and proper but our prayer is not directed towards them, and the honour that we extend to them is but one part within the liturgy that we are offering to God.
The exact nature of these things is a matter encompassing some difference of opinion within Anglicanism, never mind in wider Christian circles. In any case, at the start of the prayer, they are merely the elements; at some point Christians assert something else is going on somewhere. So it is a bit difficult to make this point stick without narrowing the field of opinion as to exactly what is going on.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
So is God to be found only in the East?
Is this a genuine question, David Powell? Please forgive me, if so. It is just that it is difficult to see how somebody, having followed this discussion, could possibly arrive at the conclusion that anybody is trying to suggest that God is only to be found in the east. Where does this idea come from in light of everything that has been said already?

I do not mean to dismiss your question if it is genuine. If it is, might I suggest re-reading the points made on this thread (including the first link I included in this post) and on the thread to which Thurible linked here, where the significance of the traditional Christian practice of praying towards the east is dealt with in some detail?
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
Late to the party, and my thoughts are undoubtedly colored by my own background, but
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My opinion is that having the president face the people makes the president the focus. He is a performer and the laity the audience. When all face the same way, the focus is beyond the president, symbolically everyone is facing God.
My experience is that having the president face the people makes the meal -- the altar/table and the bread and wine/chalice on it -- the focus. When the president faces east, those things can't be seen for the most part.

But as I said, I come from a tradition in which the preference is for people to be gathered as much as possible around the Table and in which there is a natural aversion to the Table being too far removed from the congregation.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Late to the party, and my thoughts are undoubtedly colored by my own background, but
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My opinion is that having the president face the people makes the president the focus. He is a performer and the laity the audience. When all face the same way, the focus is beyond the president, symbolically everyone is facing God.
My experience is that having the president face the people makes the meal -- the altar/table and the bread and wine/chalice on it -- the focus. When the president faces east, those things can't be seen for the most part.

But as I said, I come from a tradition in which the preference is for people to be gathered as much as possible around the Table and in which there is a natural aversion to the Table being too far removed from the congregation.
Understood, but in other traditions the Eucharist is not a meal, but a ritual which includes some references to a meal. Or perhaps we could say that the meal is its etymology, but not necessarily its meaning.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Understood, but in other traditions the Eucharist is not a meal, but a ritual which includes some references to a meal. Or perhaps we could say that the meal is its etymology, but not necessarily its meaning.
Are you sure of that? It sounds a very odd statement.

I've encountered many different understandings of Holy Communion/the Mass/the Lord's Supper/the Eucharist/the Holy Liturgy etc. Unless I've missed something, they are all a meal, which is in various different ways has become ritualised, been 'liturgisised' if such a word exists, rather than a ritual which just happens to have some sort of vague ancestral relationship with what was once a meal.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Understood, but in other traditions the Eucharist is not a meal, but a ritual which includes some references to a meal. Or perhaps we could say that the meal is its etymology, but not necessarily its meaning.
Are you sure of that? It sounds a very odd statement.

I've encountered many different understandings of Holy Communion/the Mass/the Lord's Supper/the Eucharist/the Holy Liturgy etc. Unless I've missed something, they are all a meal, which is in various different ways has become ritualised, been 'liturgisised' if such a word exists, rather than a ritual which just happens to have some sort of vague ancestral relationship with what was once a meal.
I see where Fr Weber is coming from and generally agree with him, although I perhaps wouldn't have gone quite so far in my expression of it.

The Eucharist was instituted within the context of a meal but is not itself just a meal. In fact, some of would go so far as to say that the meal aspect of it, from an earthly standpoint, is minimal, and that emphasising that in the manner of celebrating the Eucharist is to largely miss the point.

As far as the eschatological aspect of the Eucharist goes, it certainly points to the heavenly banquet in the Kingdom of God (and many Orthodox churches, for this reason, will depict the Mystical Supper over the entrance to the Holy of Holies, which signifies the Kingdom), but it doesn't do so in isolation from the sacrificial aspect, the creation-encompassing aspect, as well as all of the events of creation and redemption that are made present or rather in which we are made present when the Church gathers to make Eucharist. Laying all of that aside for the time being, even if the heavenly banquet were the predominant focus here, I am not sure that a helpful way of expressing that is by enacting an earthly meal. Wherever the focus may lie, what the Eucharist certainly is not is a re-enacting of the Last Supper.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I would say:

Firstly, if the Eucharist is a supper, then most churches hold it an a dashed odd time. Perhaps 'the Lord's Breakfast' would seem more appropriate?

And secondly, the primary purpose of a meal is physical, bodily nourishment, which is why I would hope any meal I attended would be slightly more substantial than a fragment of bread and a thimble of vino. I think this makes it clear that the emphasis has shifted away from an earthly meal and towards a rite which aims to provide spiritual (rather than bodily) nourishment. The meal still provides aspects of the framework, and in so doing sanctifies all our eating, drinking and fellowship, but this is no longer the primary focus of the Eucharist. Again, I don't think I would phrase things quite like Father Weber, but it is clear that the meaning of the Eucharist has moved away from simply dining.

As a final point, the 'meaning' of the Last Supper, whether we think it was a seder or passover or whatsoever, was not that simple either, even if it was held in the evening and provided a proper dinner for the disciples.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I see where Fr Weber is coming from and generally agree with him, although I perhaps wouldn't have gone quite so far in my expression of it.
Oh, I see where he was going, too, and I anticipated it. That's why I gave the caveat that I knew my view is influenced by own tradition's practices. It's a fair point.

quote:
The Eucharist was instituted within the context of a meal but is not itself just a meal. In fact, some of would go so far as to say that the meal aspect of it, from an earthly standpoint, is minimal, and that emphasising that in the manner of celebrating the Eucharist is to largely miss the point.
Agreed, but I think that the converse can be said as well -- emphasizing the sacrificial and eucharistic aspects of it while minimizing the meal aspect of it -- both in eschatological terms of the heavenly banquet and in more immediate terms of the community gathered together at the Lord's Table -- is to also largely miss the point.

The Sacrament is eucharistic.
The Sacrament is sacrificial.
The Sacrament is memorial (anamnesis)
The Sacrament is eschatological.
The Sacrament is prandial.

The mistake too often made in Christian history, it seems to me, is assuming that these aspects of the Sacrament are mutually exclusive, or emphasizing one or a few at the expense of the others. It shouldn't be "either/or"; it should be "all of the above."

It seems to me that versus populum orientation can accomodate and honor "all of the above," while ad orientem cannot. But again, that could just be my own biases showing.
 
Posted by David Powell (# 5545) on :
 
Scrumpmeister, I may have been both ever so slightly sarcastic, but also probably out of my depth. I'm beginning to realise that these boards are for people steeped in theology and churchy matters, whereas the reason I read them is to educate myself and perhaps I should not contribute. Sometimes, for me as a lay person, the posts end up being rather long-winded and impenetrable. I am however keen to get my 50 posts and become a shipmate!
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Keep it up, David Powell. It's good to have you with us!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Seconded - and don't believe everything that 'experts' say.

When it comes to liturgy, there is often a 'correct' way to do things.

But, more importantly, it is sometimes good to things the 'incorrect' way if it helps people to pray better.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Another layperson's opinion. In my Anglo-Catholic church, with the smells and bells going on it feels like the priest's and congregation's worship are being sent upwards to God as they meet in the middle (facing west if that wasn't clear), rather than the congregation focusing on the priest. Something about the visible smoke rising makes it work, particularly when the Gospel is censed and read in the aisle.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
When considering eastward-facing liturgics, it should be remembered that most western altars were pulled away from the altar at the same time that the rubrics were reorganized to downplay the altar. The priest was placed at a celebrant's chair, facing the people, for most of the liturgy. One ends up with a couple minutes at most of the priest facing east nowadays. If s/he elevates properly, then there is little cause for concern.

[ 14. October 2012, 19:16: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
Scrumpmeister, I may have been both ever so slightly sarcastic, but also probably out of my depth. I'm beginning to realise that these boards are for people steeped in theology and churchy matters, whereas the reason I read them is to educate myself and perhaps I should not contribute. Sometimes, for me as a lay person, the posts end up being rather long-winded and impenetrable. I am however keen to get my 50 posts and become a shipmate!
David Powell, let me gently modify that one sentence to read "... these boards are for people who are interested in theology and churchy matters, and frequented by some people who are steeped in these." Your contributions are welcome here. Conversations sometimes get robust because they deal with matters of ultimate concern, but don't let that put you off.

[ 15. October 2012, 20:52: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by David Powell (# 5545) on :
 
Well put Scrumpmeister, and I will not let it put me off. I just wish I'd understood how to retain anonymity when registering by using a nom de plume. Host, can I get one when I become a full shipmate?
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Hi David:

Unfortunately, the custom aboard the Ship is to avoid name changes except at occasional 'Amnesties' which happen about once a year. The last one happened quite recently so you may have to wait a while.

If you have queries about name-changes or other areas of how the website is run, the Styx board (at the top of the boards list) is the place for it.

... and now back to your regularly scheduled thread!

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by David Powell (# 5545) on :
 
Sorry Mamacita, I thought your reply was from Scrumpmeister doooh
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
No problem. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other. If the priest takes the first part of the Eucharist at the lectern, and sits within the semi circle, then at the offertory he moves forward to the table and faces east as the people form a semi circle around too.

This would then be eastward for all but a little more 'intimate' than traditional eastward form.

It could, if used as a part of what a church offers, point to the transcendence of God as the westward position could point to the immanence.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other.
Dean Giles, is it really you?!
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other.
Dean Giles, is it really you?!
[Overused]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
To be fair, as a liturgical troglodyte (well, not really - Reform of the Reform-esque rather than Proper Traddie), I thought it sounded quite reasonable.

It's sometimes handy to point out that the important thing, the important truth, about the eucharistic offering is that it should be offered facing east. Pretty tat and pews don't come into it.

Thurible
 
Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :
 
The most important thing about the eastward position is that the celebrant is facing east. Which side of the altar the congregation occupies is secondary. In the earliest Roman basilicas, the altar and apse are at the west end. Thus the celebrant faces east, and coincidentally faces toward the people.

Frescos and mosaics, however, as well as surviving curtain rods, testify that during the consecration curtains were drawn to veil the altar and celebrant from the congregation's sight. The iconostasis of the east and the chancel screen of the west perform a similar role. A desire for cozy domesticity in the setting for eucharistic worship is a very recent development.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
The most important thing about the eastward position is that the celebrant is facing east. Which side of the altar the congregation occupies is secondary. In the earliest Roman basilicas, the altar and apse are at the west end. Thus the celebrant faces east, and coincidentally faces toward the people.

Frescos and mosaics, however, as well as surviving curtain rods, testify that during the consecration curtains were drawn to veil the altar and celebrant from the congregation's sight. The iconostasis of the east and the chancel screen of the west perform a similar role. A desire for cozy domesticity in the setting for eucharistic worship is a very recent development.
I agree entirely. However, I think that the developments of the past half-century mean that the liturgical culture in most places is one that expects, nay even demands, a cosy domesticity. Let's work with that but develop it.

Thurible
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
The most important thing about the eastward position is that the celebrant is facing east. Which side of the altar the congregation occupies is secondary. In the earliest Roman basilicas, the altar and apse are at the west end. Thus the celebrant faces east, and coincidentally faces toward the people.
Wouldn't many of the early fathers (including Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr) have said that the most important thing is that those who pray should face east (whether priest or people)? I recall reading that, if the apse and altar were at the west end, at the prayers the people would turn to face east (thus presumably having their backs to the priest).

I forget who, but one of the fathers said something like, 'When you pray, go into your room and face east. If your room doesn't face east, face east anyway'.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Changing the direction a bit.

There's been an argument that the president behind the altar facing the people is more like a meal.

The meal is at communion. A central altar (and I'm all in favour if it is used with conviction) can look like a demonstration bench used by a TV personality chef demonstrating a recipe.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other.
Dean Giles, is it really you?!
[Overused]
Sorry the reference is lost on me.
Who is Dean Giles, and its not me...
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other.
Dean Giles, is it really you?!
[Overused]
Sorry the reference is lost on me.
Who is Dean Giles, and its not me...
Your comment upthread about church design reminded me of Richard Giles, retired dean of Philadelphia Cathedral. This is his claim to fame. As a result of his tenure, the cathedral now looks like this. It's easy enough to guess what it once looked like.

I have heard good sermons from him, and that he is rather patient and level-headed with those of us who prefer a more traditional set-up and a traditional liturgy. Still, one can see he is rather, um, ahead of his time (shall we say?) in his church design opinions.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Chapel head makes a good point in all this. Traditionally all faced east to pray.

Did all use the orans posture too, I wonder. If so an eastward facing all gathered round posture with orans could be like a con celebration but emphasise the priesthood of all believers.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Richard Giles, retired dean of Philadelphia Cathedral. This is his claim to fame. As a result of his tenure, the cathedral now looks like this. It's easy enough to guess what it once looked like.
Wow. That arrangement of Philadelphia Cathedral looks wonderful. Altar and Ambo fully prominent. It is all thoroughly liturgical with not an overhead projector in sight. The sad thing is that the few chairs imply a very small congregation. (The book link doesn't work.)
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Is the altar the white-covered thing on the left, or the bare wooden thing in the centre?

Thurible
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I think it's the former. I like the layout: ambo at one end, altar at the other. But I can't understand why it's set out at 90 degrees to the orientation of the building. Confusing.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
One lot of people who aren't bothered about facing geographical East, but very concerned for the priest to have his back to the altar are the London Oratorians.

Brompton Oratory faces North. Westminster (RC) Cathedral faces South. Neither are in Gothic. It as though they are saying to Tractarian Anglicans "Look we don't need to be imitating the Middle Ages, we're the Real Thing.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Richard Giles, retired dean of Philadelphia Cathedral. This is his claim to fame. As a result of his tenure, the cathedral now looks like this. It's easy enough to guess what it once looked like.
Wow. That arrangement of Philadelphia Cathedral looks wonderful. Altar and Ambo fully prominent. It is all thoroughly liturgical with not an overhead projector in sight. The sad thing is that the few chairs imply a very small congregation. (The book link doesn't work.)
It is very wow! Elegant in it's simplicity.

I know that it is an old book, but Pocknee's The Christian Altar: In History and Today. is a pretty good book for looking at the history of the altar and general Church architecture.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
One lot of people who aren't bothered about facing geographical East, but very concerned for the priest to have his back to the altar are the London Oratorians.
From Fr Hunwicke.

Thurible
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
One lot of people who aren't bothered about facing geographical East, but very concerned for the priest to have his back to the altar are the London Oratorians.
It's not about geographical east or not (I personally couldn't care) but that it just seems unnatural and perverse for the liturgical action to take place at right angles to the dominating lines of the building.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
My geographic comment wasn't about Philadelphia, just general, given some here were making much of facing literally East. (Do we need a compass to pray, just like Muslims?)

Having looked at the picture of Philadelphia, I give a distinctly modified wow.

Instead of the altar being in the middle, it is in a side aisle, where those sitting nearest to it are partly turned away. The centre of attention is the credence table, (which I at first took to be a too small altar).

And there's a perfectly good apse with seats round it at the liturgical East End, where the new arrangement would fit perfectly.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Angloid - just had a thought.

Perhaps Philadelphia Cathedral as building faces North or South? In which case the new altar faces East or West.

I doubt it though.

I think I'll give up this board for Lent and study some serious commentaries and theology.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Even if it does, it was clearly designed with its own 'internal' orientation as it were. Not a very good reason IMHO for going against that with a re-ordering. Though maybe the good Dean Giles (and I don't share the general distaste of ecclesiantophiles for him and his works) had good reasons of his own.

There was a fashion in a few places some years ago to re-order gothic or neo-gothic churches in a way which violated the structure of the building. Putney parish church did this (though it is a very 'neo' gothic church in that it has more of a classical plan), and I know of a RC church in north Liverpool that did too, though I think they have reverted.) Classical buildings - especially the 'squarer' preaching houses - are often more amenable to this sort of thing. But a basilican type church with an apse, like Philadelphia cathedral, has a very strong dynamic of its own and it is confusing and distracting to go against it.

That said, I like the absence of clutter. And the furniture is movable so no harm done.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
That said, I like the absence of clutter. And the furniture is movable so no harm done.
When I see radical "declutterings" like that one, though, I get a sad sense that "there used to be a lot more going on here" and that all that's left is but a muted remnant.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
There is a season to be cluttered, and a season to do away with all the clutter. [Smile] (or perhaps more to the point, horses for courses or it's a good job we're not all alike)
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Angloid - just had a thought.

Perhaps Philadelphia Cathedral as building faces North or South? In which case the new altar faces East or West.

I doubt it though.

I think I'll give up this board for Lent and study some serious commentaries and theology.
The cathedral is correctly oriented. However, the arrangement in the photograph isn't typical . Generally the (enormous) ambo is at the west end and the (rather tiny) altar is nearer the east end in front of the presbytery. The cathedral has a rather small congregation except for diocesan services.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
That said, I like the absence of clutter. And the furniture is movable so no harm done.
When I see radical "declutterings" like that one, though, I get a sad sense that "there used to be a lot more going on here" and that all that's left is but a muted remnant.
I agree.

I am not opposed to the sort of configuration which Dean Giles supports.*

That said, it works best when incorporated into the design of a new church. In Philadelphia Cathedral, particularly in the configuration linked in the above picture, it seems rather empty.


*In fact, I rather like this new-ish Roman Catholic church in the Archdiocese of Chicago.

I also like the very flexible configuration of St. Benedict the African Church, Chicago, which at times has had the altar-opposite-ambo configuration. (This was the best pic I could find.

I even like the octagonal St. John's Lutheran, Atlanta, although I don't so much like the idea of kneeling for prayer while half the congregation is looking directly at me.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0