Ship of Fools: Reverencing two altars

Thread: Reverencing two altars 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=025865

Posted by AaronC (# 17750) on :

Hi all,
New here. In fact I joined just so I cask ask this question, but suspect I'll be sticking around?
My congregation (Episcopal) just inherited a new building (we've been renting the chapel of a congregational for the past six years). It has a lovely high marble altar (the story is President McKinley prayed at this altar a day or so before his assassination. The altar turned up at an auction at some point and it was purchased by a wealthy parishioner who is apart of local history and donated it to the parish). My Vicar however feels it is against our ethics to celebrate the Eucharist from so far away from the congregation, so we have brought a smaller altar table down between the choir and nave. So now we have two altars. I have been appointed Acolyte Director. I'm wondering, is it appropriate to reverence both altars? I don't want to ignore that the marble altar that we aren't using (God forgive us), but at the same time reverencing both almost seems a "bit much".
Thoughts?

[ 13. July 2013, 17:02: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by Cornish High (# 17202) on :

I would think it usual to reverence only the altar at which the Eucharist is actually being celebrated. Unless there is reservation on the 'old' high altar in which case it might seem appropriate to genuflect at the beginning and end. Only my humble opinion but based on experience!

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Despite your attraction to the big and shiny architectural altar, you and everyone else are obliged to reverence the card table which your ethically challenged rector has inflicted on your congregation.

The next question is, Where is the sacrament reserved? For that deserves reverence, too, over and above the card table altar.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Agree with Cornish High, above.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

The fact that the Eucharist is to be celebrated on something renders it more precious than any other surface, whether it be of high value in the eyes of the secular market or not. Of course, church design should take into account the desired focality of the altar, but the trainer of servers can't do anything about that. Reverence the space as used.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Card table or not, the altar used for the Mass is deserving of reverence before all others. The Blessed Sacrament is not usually reserved on the older altar (per Vatican II) but in a side altar. That altar is reverenced at the beginning and end of the Mass.

This is true in Canada. But it is not true in India, even in modern churches.

In my current parish, the Sacrament is reserved in a side chapel at the back of the church (and that must be OK, because Blessed John Paul II laid the cornerstone of the church and was presumably given a tour of the nearly completed church.), and so the Blesséd Sacrament is not reverenced). But it is my practise and that of many others to nip in for a few moments before mass.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

For most of our 10 Masses each week, we have a freestanding altar in mid-chancel. The celebrant comes in from the sacristy, preceded by the server, and both turn to the high altar and genuflect (to reverence the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle, which is in the middle of the high altar). Then they about-face and go to the freestanding altar, which the celebrant kisses as the server bows toward it. Then they go to the sedilia to begin the Mass. Similar thing in reverse at the end.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I was brought up with the rule of reverence the High altar and also the side altar at which the Mass is being celebrated, but no others. I suspect this is old Ritual Notes stuff. I tend to treat nave altars as being 'funny side altars' - if that is any help!

PD

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The altar which is being used. Obviously. In most cases, if the priest and ministers approach it in the right direction (i.e. from the back of the nave, so that they process through and associate themselves with the body of the congregation) when they bow to the nave altar they will also do so in the direction of any (permanently or temporarily redundant) high altar.

In my experience it is MOTR and MOTR-low churches which have most problems with this. Maybe because people have the mistaken idea that reverence is paid to the cross (which is more likely to be on a high altar) and not to the holy table itself.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Card table or not, the altar used for the Mass is deserving of reverence before all others. The Blessed Sacrament is not usually reserved on the older altar (per Vatican II) but in a side altar. That altar is reverenced at the beginning and end of the Mass.

The Second Vatican Council never, EVER said not to reserve the Blessed Sacrament on old high altars.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Despite your attraction to the big and shiny architectural altar, you and everyone else are obliged to reverence the card table which your ethically challenged rector has inflicted on your congregation.

The next question is, Where is the sacrament reserved? For that deserves reverence, too, over and above the card table altar.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

So when reverencing the altar we are in fact reverencing the altar, and not only coincidentally the altar because we're really reverencing the reserved sacrament which is in the tabernacle behind the altar?

And the reason for reverencing the altar is because the Eucharist is celebrated on the altar?

I'm looking for ways to convince people who are squeamish about reverencing the sacrament because they don't believe it's the Body and Blood of Christ, and thinking that maybe if I can explain that they're reverencing the altar, that is the importance of the celebration of the Eucharist at the altar instead, if that would help them to feel better about reverencing.

At my church the tabernacle is behind the altar, so it comes out to one and the same thing as far as external observable movements.

[ 10. July 2013, 16:42: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

If they don't believe the blessed sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ, why would they attach much importance to the table at which it is celebrated?

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Because people who don't believe the sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ, often still have strong feelings about the importance of the Eucharist and how it makes us all one body (or other things about its effect on us -- don't look to me to be a good summarizer of their view though!). But I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that the positive value they attach to receiving the sacraments, or the celebration of the Eucharist, extends to anything else associated with the Eucharist. They might be more likely to reverence the congregation, as being the body of Christ, rather than the altar which after all one might say is just a table with a jumped-up tablecloth.

Still, I'll give it a try the next time one of these conversations comes up and find out what the reaction is.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm looking for ways to convince people who are squeamish about reverencing the sacrament because they don't believe it's the Body and Blood of Christ, and thinking that maybe if I can explain that they're reverencing the altar, that is the importance of the celebration of the Eucharist at the altar instead, if that would help them to feel better about reverencing.

At this point the game is already over. If they believe not in the Real Presence, the rest is rather a moot point, especially their feelings about the matter. Sorry... [Votive]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

If there is no reserved sacrament, just have it in your mind that you are reverencing the Oriens. Hopefully God will note your intent and not pull out a copy of Fortescue and O'Connell on judgement day.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Card table or not, the altar used for the Mass is deserving of reverence before all others. The Blessed Sacrament is not usually reserved on the older altar (per Vatican II) but in a side altar. That altar is reverenced at the beginning and end of the Mass.
The Second Vatican Council never, EVER said not to reserve the Blessed Sacrament on old high altars.

Directives from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, where it is feasible, that the Blessed Sacrament be removed to a side altar or chapel so as to be more accessible to the people.

Perhaps you are in another jurisdiction.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Card table or not, the altar used for the Mass is deserving of reverence before all others. The Blessed Sacrament is not usually reserved on the older altar (per Vatican II) but in a side altar. That altar is reverenced at the beginning and end of the Mass.
The Second Vatican Council never, EVER said not to reserve the Blessed Sacrament on old high altars.
Directives from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, where it is feasible, that the Blessed Sacrament be removed to a side altar or chapel so as to be more accessible to the people.

Perhaps you are in another jurisdiction.

I am in the US, and am aware of the Canadian (and American) bishops' statements on this in the past. However, none of these were directives from Vatican II, as was erroneously asserted in this thread. There were several statements from the Holy See and the bishops after Vatican II, which did provide for the Blessed Sacrament to be housed in a separate area, if such seemed the best place. However, said decrees never required any specific place across the board, because of the vast differences in the style and architecture of churches.

Most recently, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2000) stated, “It is more in keeping with its meaning as a sign, that the tabernacle in which the Most Blessed Sacrament is reserved not be on the altar on which Mass is celebrated. Moreover, the tabernacle should be placed, according to the judgment of the diocesan bishops: (1) either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in the most suitable form and place, not excluding on an old altar which is no longer used for celebration; (2) or even in another chapel suitable for adoration and the private prayer of the faithful, and which is integrally connected with the church and is conspicuous to the faithful” (No. 315).

Clearly, for the parish church, option No. 1 is preferred; for churches with high volumes of tourist traffic, option No. 2.
This conclusion also appears the intent of the Code of Canon Law (No. 898): “The faithful are to hold the Eucharist in highest honor, taking part in the celebration of the Most August Sacrifice, receiving the sacrament devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with supreme adoration ... .” To have the altar and the tabernacle in close proximity in the sanctuary best enables people to fulfill this precept.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Card table or not, the altar used for the Mass is deserving of reverence before all others. The Blessed Sacrament is not usually reserved on the older altar (per Vatican II) but in a side altar. That altar is reverenced at the beginning and end of the Mass.
The Second Vatican Council never, EVER said not to reserve the Blessed Sacrament on old high altars.
Directives from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, where it is feasible, that the Blessed Sacrament be removed to a side altar or chapel so as to be more accessible to the people.

Perhaps you are in another jurisdiction.
I am in the US, and am aware of the Canadian (and American) bishops' statements on this in the past. However, none of these were directives from Vatican II, as was erroneously asserted in this thread. There were several statements from the Holy See and the bishops after Vatican II, which did provide for the Blessed Sacrament to be housed in a separate area, if such seemed the best place. However, said decrees never required any specific place across the board, because of the vast differences in the style and architecture of churches.

Most recently, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2000) stated, “It is more in keeping with its meaning as a sign, that the tabernacle in which the Most Blessed Sacrament is reserved not be on the altar on which Mass is celebrated. Moreover, the tabernacle should be placed, according to the judgment of the diocesan bishops: (1) either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in the most suitable form and place, not excluding on an old altar which is no longer used for celebration; (2) or even in another chapel suitable for adoration and the private prayer of the faithful, and which is integrally connected with the church and is conspicuous to the faithful” (No. 315). Note that the matter is left to the diocesan bishop, rather than the conference of bishops, who do not have the competence to make liturgical law, except where the Holy See has expressly delegated the matter to them. On a practical note, many, if not most, bishops allow pastors to make this deceision.

Clearly, for the parish church, option No. 1 is preferred; for churches with high volumes of tourist traffic, option No. 2.
This conclusion also appears the intent of the Code of Canon Law (No. 898): “The faithful are to hold the Eucharist in highest honor, taking part in the celebration of the Most August Sacrifice, receiving the sacrament devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with supreme adoration ... .” To have the altar and the tabernacle in close proximity in the sanctuary best enables people to fulfill this precept.

Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :

I personally wouldn't reverence either of the Communion tables.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If there is no reserved sacrament, just have it in your mind that you are reverencing the Oriens. Hopefully God will note your intent and not pull out a copy of Fortescue and O'Connell on judgement day.

Good Lord, one would hope not (although given what sins one could be required to give account of, an examination on Fortescue would probably be considered 'getting off lightly').

I think the salient point of the OP is however regarding the training of acolytes/servers. Making up your own mind what to reverence is fine, but if there is a tradition of servers bowing to the altar, it would probably be disruptive to the service if they were bowing to different places and at different times. So, for the good of not distracting the congregation, the question does merit some thought... No?

Oh, and in a marginally Hostly capacity, welcome to the Ship AaronC - I hope you are finding some of these discussions useful and will stay around!

Posted by AaronC (# 17750) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Despite your attraction to the big and shiny architectural altar, you and everyone else are obliged to reverence the card table which your ethically challenged rector has inflicted on your congregation.

The next question is, Where is the sacrament reserved? For that deserves reverence, too, over and above the card table altar.

Believe it or not, I think a card table was actually in conversation in preparation for the move. What I ended up doing before anyone had a say was I pulled the smaller altar from the side chapel and it works perfectly, and a parishioner is going to build one for the chapel.

As far as reserved sacrament goes, that's something the congregation isn't used to. We never had one as we were in a rented space. We also used baked communion bread as opposed to wafers. The altar guild and I are working on getting the RS back up and running.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
So when reverencing the altar we are in fact reverencing the altar, and not only coincidentally the altar because we're really reverencing the reserved sacrament which is in the tabernacle behind the altar?

And the reason for reverencing the altar is because the Eucharist is celebrated on the altar?

I'm looking for ways to convince people who are squeamish about reverencing the sacrament because they don't believe it's the Body and Blood of Christ, and thinking that maybe if I can explain that they're reverencing the altar, that is the importance of the celebration of the Eucharist at the altar instead, if that would help them to feel better about reverencing.

At my church the tabernacle is behind the altar, so it comes out to one and the same thing as far as external observable movements.

I personally wouldn't want to tell them they're reverencing the furniture rather than the sacrament. And we don't reverence the altar on Good Friday, right? Because there is no eucharistic service that day and no sacrament in the tabernacle.

Posted by AaronC (# 17750) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fletcher christian:

I think the salient point of the OP is however regarding the training of acolytes/servers. Making up your own mind what to reverence is fine, but if there is a tradition of servers bowing to the altar, it would probably be disruptive to the service if they were bowing to different places and at different times. So, for the good of not distracting the congregation, the question does merit some thought... No?

Oh, and in a marginally Hostly capacity, welcome to the Ship AaronC - I hope you are finding some of these discussions useful and will stay around!

Thanks, DJ
Why haven't I found SOF sooner?! This is all so excellent.

The acolytes as of right now are reverencing both altars. During the processions they reverence the altar closer to the nave, then they reverence the high altar right before turning right and going for their seats. It's all done very orderly. But the thought that one reverence gets both altars hadn't occurred to me before now.
Here is a pic from our first Eucharist last week to get a better idea of what the set up is.The only difference now is that the altar is up the steps.
Yours truly with the thurible.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151464639877307&set=a.10151060950162307.430800.257786902306&type=1&theater
Yours truly with

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

We have a similar situation in my parish . To bring people , choir and clergy we tried a big low altar too different then a former rector donated a light wood altar that can be moved and sits on the chancel step. The choir breaks left & right and sits facing the congregation. O why didn't we just move the High altar ? It's cast concrete and well it was not practible .
We bow to the altar in use .

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Despite your attraction to the big and shiny architectural altar, you and everyone else are obliged to reverence the card table which your ethically challenged rector has inflicted on your congregation.

Whether or not a provision is made for the celebration of the Eucharist facing the people is an ethical issue?
[Confused]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And we don't reverence the altar on Good Friday, right? Because there is no eucharistic service that day and no sacrament in the tabernacle.

True, but we do genuflect to the cross on that day.

All of these references to the moving of altars and addition of altars to be "closer to the people" amaze me. This has been going on for several decades now. How long will it take for folks to notice that such does not "bring people in"? The numbers have fallen, especially in TEC and the C of E, and I see no other evidence to suggest that anything has been strengthened. Quite the contrary, I see many instances of free-standing add-ons that do not mesh with their architectural surroundings, and no more understanding among those in attendance of what the Eucharist is really all about. The latter goes for RCs, as well.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I have known two large churches using a central altar and leaving the altar at the East end in situ.

Whenever servers or clergy are beyond the central altar and there is occasion to bow, they've always bowed to the other, East end, altar. (There is a sacristy door nearby in both cases.)

I'm aware that they are in fact pointing their bottoms towards the real High Altar.

A misplaced cultic mentality.

[ 11. July 2013, 07:19: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If there is no reserved sacrament, just have it in your mind that you are reverencing the Oriens. Hopefully God will note your intent and not pull out a copy of Fortescue and O'Connell on judgement day.

Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described should be compulsory reading for all western rite priests.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If there is no reserved sacrament, just have it in your mind that you are reverencing the Oriens. Hopefully God will note your intent and not pull out a copy of Fortescue and O'Connell on judgement day.

The way some people talk you'd get the impression that that's exactly how it's going to run on That Day.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It's quite strange from the pic actually. I had imagined some grand gothic chancel with an altar at the end of what looked like a dark tunnel, but in the pic the high altar looks close enough. I fear I'm from the school of movement that appreciates an approach to God, but I recognize that this is my gothic conditioning (and no doubt some would say, bad theology too!).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
we don't reverence the altar on Good Friday, right? Because there is no eucharistic service that day and no sacrament in the tabernacle.

Says who? The Good Friday Liturgy begins with the ministers prostrate before the altar BEFORE the Blessed Sacrament is returned to it from the altar of repose later on.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's quite strange from the pic actually. I had imagined some grand gothic chancel with an altar at the end of what looked like a dark tunnel, but in the pic the high altar looks close enough. I fear I'm from the school of movement that appreciates an approach to God, but I recognize that this is my gothic conditioning (and no doubt some would say, bad theology too!).

Agreed. This is positively homely! Abolish the Nave Altar (abracadabra: side chapel! &c) and move the pews closer if it still seems distant (which it really isn't. All issues of reverencing are then moot.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

AaronC, I'd imagined a situation like our local cathedral, where the original high altar is some 75 yards away in a stone choir, and there's another one at the crossing in the middle just in front of the congregation, with the choir, in the choir behind it. Having seen the photograph with the two altars in it, they are hardly any distance apart. Why have two?

I know this isn't within your powers. If the issue is that the incumbent doesn't like having to celebrate in 'turn your back on everyone and mumble' position, I'd agree with him. But if the historic President McKinley altar was bought in an auction, presumably it was moved then and could be moved now, even if it may require a block and tackle and a forklift truck. If it's absolutely essential because of its historical associations for your church to have it, couldn't it be moved forward to where the new one is?

I don't know much about President McKinley. He isn't all that well known here. Was he particularly saintly? I.e. is this altar of spiritual or civic significance?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Another oddity I have known with central altars is when the elements are prayed over or whatever you think happens at the central altar, and then they are carried up to the East end altar. The communicants then file past and ignore the altar actually used, to kneel at the communion rails and receive the sacrament from the altar that wasn't used.

I have no problems with central altars - there's plenty of primitive precedent. What irritates me is when they look apologetic, eg too small, on the same level as the congregation etc.

It ought to be obviously the most important piece of furniture.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And we don't reverence the altar on Good Friday, right? Because there is no eucharistic service that day and no sacrament in the tabernacle.

We do. In most Catholic churches in my parts the tabernacle is on the central axis on the 'back' wall (ie. behind the altar). On most days, most people would genuflect to this as they come in which 'trumps' the altar. However, on Good Friday, when the tabernacle is empty, they would bow to the altar in reverence. During mass, the altar is reverenced when passed (with a bow).

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have no problems with central altars - there's plenty of primitive precedent. What irritates me is when they look apologetic, eg too small, on the same level as the congregation etc.

It ought to be obviously the most important piece of furniture.

In a similar vein, it's bizarre when you have an elaborately dressed high altar (frontal, big six, the lot) and a nave altar with no frontal, an altar cloth of miniskirt length and two candles.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have no problems with central altars - there's plenty of primitive precedent. What irritates me is when they look apologetic, eg too small, on the same level as the congregation etc.

It ought to be obviously the most important piece of furniture.
In a similar vein, it's bizarre when you have an elaborately dressed high altar (frontal, big six, the lot) and a nave altar with no frontal, an altar cloth of miniskirt length and two candles.

What I call 'nave altar as after thought!' I am glad I am not the only one irritated by that.

IIRC the current Roman rules:

1. A new altar shall be free standing and so positioned that it can be used for Mass said both facing the people and facing east.

2. The tabernacle should not be on the altar used for Mass, but should be in a prominent position. e.g. former High Altar, or a prominent side chapel.

The local RC is a fail on this topic as the Blessed Sacrament Chapel can only be found be following the not overly large signs, and a certain amount of insider knowledge. The big clue is that the ordinary looking doorway next to Our Lady of Guadalaupe has "Blessed Sacrament Chapel' on the door. In their defense I would like to say that it can be found easily, from the outside if you know the door is on the right of the main entrance, but that door is usually locked. Needless to say the Church was built in the mid-1960s.

Meanwhile, over at St Hardup's, and I am trying to decide whether the final position of the tabernacle should be in the wall behind the high (and eventually only) altar, or let into the wall on the north side of the apse. The Tabby is currently on a side altar that cuases a certain amount of overcrowding on the north side of the building. Opinions appreciated.

PD

[ 11. July 2013, 15:03: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Despite your attraction to the big and shiny architectural altar, you and everyone else are obliged to reverence the card table which your ethically challenged rector has inflicted on your congregation.
Whether or not a provision is made for the celebration of the Eucharist facing the people is an ethical issue?

Well it seemed to be one for the the opening poster's vicar.

quote:
My Vicar however feels it is against our ethics to celebrate [the mass in such and such a way]....

Anyway, I happen to feel strongly the the Celebration of the Mass, the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, Gathering Together to Break the Bread, the Weekly Synaxis on the Eighth Day, what-have-you, is the fundamental ethical act we perform as Christians.

I was merely picking up and archly beating that vicar with his own cudgel.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

OK, I am confused. When we bow in church doing what I have normally called "reverencing the altar", what are we reverencing? The reserved sacrament? The altar? The general sense of God being in the Eastward position? Something else? All of the above?

If one of those is missing, do we still bow and reverence something else? For example I think it is Pete C who said they are normally reverencing the reserved sacrament, but when it is not there on Good Friday they reverence the altar (or some presence represented by the altar?) instead.

I grew up understanding (mostly by osmosis and inference rather than explicit teaching, though) that we were reverencing the presence of God represented in the altar.

When I came to our current church, our head of acolytes said, no, not the altar; we are reverencing the presence of Christ in the reserved sacrament (which happens to be behind the altar at my church).

Opinions seem to be a little bit all over on this thread, so I don't know why I'm expecting anyone to be able to clarify this for me, because for every view there seem to be at least two other opposing views, but it's worth a shot. Help?

[ 11. July 2013, 16:31: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

We do not worship a block stone (cf. Isaiah), nor do we worship spindles and lengths of deal.

We are not idolators, though our language clearly gets squiffy.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Thank you for what we are not, The Silent Acolyte. This is a helpful clue.

What is the positive side of the definition? In what direction or towards what object are we reverencing (while not worshipping the object), and why?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I wondered if "ethics" was a misprint for "aesthetics". OK the eucharist is an ethical act, but I don't see any overwhelmingly important ethical issue about the placing of the altar.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

They are not icons, in the usual sense, these altars and crosses that we reverence. Nor are the bishops to whom we genuflect when they pass by in procession, nor are the celebrants of the mass to whom we bow when they approach and retire from the altar.

Or, are they? We, our souls and bodies, are certainly icons of Christ when our faith and behavior comport with his will. Marriage is certainly an icon of Christ and his Church. The orphan, the widow, the prisoner, the sick, the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger—they are all certainly gospel icons of Christ.

When we swear by the altar are we swearing by the altar or by the gift that is upon the altar?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
When I came to our current church, our head of acolytes said, no, not the altar; we are reverencing the presence of Christ in the reserved sacrament (which happens to be behind the altar at my church).

My current understanding is that we genuflect to acknowledge and reverence the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of His Body and Blood (the reserved Sacrament in the tabernacle) and we bow to reverence the altar cross/crucifix. That's why on Good Friday before the Sacrament is brought back in from the altar of repose, there's nothing at the high altar to which we can genuflect, so we bow to the (veiled) crucifix that's up there. But maybe we're really bowing to the altar (too?).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The altar is the fundamental symbol of Christ's presence, so we bow to it because we are worshipping not it but the Lord whose table it is. This is common practice in all but the lowest C of E churches and hence I would assume in all RC ones and TEC ones too. Even where the MBS is reserved, these days it is reserved in a side chapel in most Anglican churches and many/most RC ones, and hence is not the focus of devotion during the celebration of the eucharist.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

That puts it nicely, angloid.

However I've noticed the BS reserved at the East end in a number of RC churches, which makes sense as lots of RC laity will know to pop in to church just to be silent before It/Him from the nave. Corpus Christi Maiden Lane, St Mary's Moorgate or St Patrick's Soho spring to mind.

In C of E churches, however informed the clergy and some laity may be, there will not be a constant stream of laity who know what to do, in which case I'm very glad of a side chapel for silent adoration.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Thank you, Angloid. That is rather tidier than what I was going to write. I bow to 'God's Board' because it is God's, and the Lord's Supper is celebrated thereon! It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

What strikes me as very odd these days is having more than one Holy Table in a church, unless there is a screened off side chapel. In never used to mind, but it has increasingly struck me as being odd to have multiple altars where there are not multiple celebrations of the Eucharist.

PD

[ 12. July 2013, 05:37: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Which is why in theory, if you are going to have a central altar, the one at the East end should go.

Either radical change or live with what you have.

I'm only being theoretical.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
All of these references to the moving of altars and addition of altars to be "closer to the people" amaze me. This has been going on for several decades now.

For values of "several" that include "fifty or so". Moving the table into the nave was a common thing in Reformation Lutheran as well as Anglican church re-ordering. They often got moved back again inthe 17th and 18th centuries (more in England than Germany I think) but not all of them.

Anyway, central altars have been in at least some Catholic churches for centuries. . Usually round or octagonal ones, but there you go.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

San Pietro in Vaticano has never had anything other.

I am coming to have some sympathy with ceremoniar's point. I don't think central altars are necessarily a good thing, particularly if they aren't dominant.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Central altars only work if you've got some Italian guy who can design a decent baldachino, and something to shove at the far end of the build that looks important - erm - like the Chair of Peter, or a bloody great tabernacle.

Otherwise they tend to end up looking a bit of a fail, especially in the average square ended English Gothic church.

PD

[ 12. July 2013, 23:25: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Central altars only work if you've got some Italian guy who can design a decent baldachino, and something to shove at the far end of the build that looks important - erm - like the Chair of Peter, or a bloody great tabernacle.

Otherwise they tend to end up looking a bit of a fail, especially in the average square ended English Gothic church.

PD

Agreed. They always look so apologetic - which, in fact, they are; an awkward half-way house between getting rid of the high altar altogether (which is obviously the work of Satan &c) and just manning up and using it...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'd disagree. They can work and be mighty impressive.

But so often they are favoured by those who don't want the worship of God through his incarnate, crucified and risen Son to be impressive, awe inspiring or converting.

There are plenty of East end altars that don't work, either through being too distant or too small.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'd disagree. They can work and be mighty impressive.

But so often they are favoured by those who don't want the worship of God through his incarnate, crucified and risen Son to be impressive, awe inspiring or converting.

There are plenty of East end altars that don't work, either through being too distant or too small.

Horses for courses, perhaps, but I think you're right when you say that the reasons for having them often predetermine that the worship offered at them will be lacking. It's particularly the case - I think, at least - when the central altar is in contest with (i.e. in opposition to) a 'high' altar in the far distance. Because there a deliberate decision has been made not to do something the way it was done before. Out with that bath water goes oft the baby of reverence (as it were).

Perhaps where the decision was made in the outset to have a central altar these issues don't arise, but I can't say I've ever felt that a nave, versus pop. altar was 'natural' for the space it occupied, or that it worked, liturgically or aesthetically. YMMV, of course, and I'd be interested in examples of it done well.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I came to catholicism through Pusey House, Oxford in the 70s with Series 2 Holy Communion and austere Vatican II ritual - five or so concelebrating priests behind a free standing altar. There were no altar candles. The acolytes held their candles at each end of the altar during the eucharistic prayer. The congregation stood for the eucharistic prayer (although kneeling for communion).

That's what got me - and the intelligent, informed and sophisticated preaching.

The big six and old stone altar were in place, but the altar was undressed and ignored.

And a lovely touch which I wish we had now if you are going to have the collect for purity. Father Cheslyn Jones (blessings on his name) gave out the notices before mass and ended with the collect for purity. He retired and we sang the introit hymn.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

I understand that when you reverance the altar you
are reverancing the relics in the altar....though obviously the Sacrament takes precedence.

I don't know whether that applies to card tables.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I have run into freestanding altars that have worked quite well, but it has generally been where the guilty party has had the courage of their convictions.

The best one that I remember had been thoroughly thought out. The church was a standard issue Victorian number with a polygonal termination to a relatively short and wide chancel. The choir stalls had been shortened, the sanctuary extended forwards by about 10 feet, and the floor levels inside the rail adjusted accordingly. The altar stood at the centre of a much enlarged sanctuary. The tabernacle remained in the old reredos, and the seats for the scared monsters were set on one of the canted sides of the apse. Very effect.

My own introduction/"conversion" to the catholic movement in the Church of England was in the days of ASB Rite A and very correct Novus Ordo ceremonial. The college chapel had a freestanding altar that did not apologize for its existence and the whole thing worked rather well. However, I have generally gone with 'ad orientem' since ordination, because unless one is prepared to do a rather extensive reordering, freestanding altars rarely work well in older buildings.

I am afraid my ceremonial preferences remain either Nervous Order or Dearmer. The Ritual Notes/Fortescue routine is literally before my time, and I am a bit non-plussed as to why a certain kind American Anglo-Catholics hang on to it with a fair amount of desparation.

PD

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The Ritual Notes/Fortescue routine is literally before my time, and I am a bit non-plussed as to why a certain kind American Anglo-Catholics hang on to it with a fair amount of desparation.

Which certain kind of American Anglo-Catholics who hang on are these? This is not a snarky question.

When I think of the Ritual Notes/Fortescue routine I think of places such as, say at the Shrine end of the spectrum, the Church of the Advent, Boston, and, at the sparrow-like parish end of the spectrum, Church of the Advent, South Baltimore.

Both know who they are, both have maintained to a greater or lesser extent the ceremonial their fathers and mothers celebrated, both have integrity in their worship, and both look to Ritual Notes/Fortecscue.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I wondered if "ethics" was a misprint for "aesthetics". OK the eucharist is an ethical act, but I don't see any overwhelmingly important ethical issue about the placing of the altar.

I'd have thought "ethos" was meant.

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Because people who don't believe the sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ, often still have strong feelings about the importance of the Eucharist and how it makes us all one body (or other things about its effect on us -- don't look to me to be a good summarizer of their view though!). But I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that the positive value they attach to receiving the sacraments, or the celebration of the Eucharist, extends to anything else associated with the Eucharist. They might be more likely to reverence the congregation, as being the body of Christ, rather than the altar which after all one might say is just a table with a jumped-up tablecloth.

Still, I'll give it a try the next time one of these conversations comes up and find out what the reaction is.

IME, many Episcopalians believe in the Real Presence during the celebration of the Eucharist, but don't believe it resides in the Reserved Sacrament. (Such Episcopalians wouldn't reserve Sacrament to begin with, at least if they're in charge of things at a parish.) If that's the case, they might be willing to bow if they're reverencing the altar where the Eucharist routinely happens.

For example, at the church where I became an Episcopalian, the priest actually said, "We don't have God in a box" - even though the Sacrament was kept in an ambry (at the end of a choir aisle, so off to the side of the sanctuary) with a sanctuary lamp, a kneeler, and votive candles! Another long-time parishioner told me re: bowing to the altar that she recognizes the altar as a place where people have encountered the Holy, which makes it worthy of reverencing. So there are some rather low-church opinions.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Everyone who has commented seems to have assumed the priest misspoke when saying "ethics." I don't see why. Whether or not we agree with her(?) moral judgment, I hope that how we worship has ethical force. I'm reminded of Kavanagh's dictum that liturgy is normal but not ordinary: how we worship should norm our actions and so can rightly be subjected to properly ethical tests.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I agree with that completely. I'm just not convinced a priest would describe altar placement as against one's ethics. But I could be wrong. Some people do feel awfully strongly about the matter!

To say it's unethical to have the altar in one place rather than another seems pretty harsh. To say it's "against our ethics" implies it's not against someone else's. Since many Episcopal churches do things differently, that would mean this parish conceives of a special set of ethical standards applying to them but not their fellow Episcopalians - or it would mean they're calling other Episcopalians unethical. Or so it seems to me.

That's why I think ethos would be the better word choice. Aesthetics would work, too, provided a pretty rigorous theological aesthetic (which recognizes the importance of aesthetics to ethics).

But ultimately we're not mind-readers; we'd need the priest to clarify what s/he meant (if the priest actually used the word; the OP isn't quoting).

ETA: There are still some priests who honestly believe east-facing altars were designed specifically to keep holy things away from the people. Were that true, it would be an ethical matter, but it's not a fair claim.

[ 13. July 2013, 20:10: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

That's why I think ethos would be the better word choice. Aesthetics would work, too, provided a pretty rigorous theological aesthetic (which recognizes the importance of aesthetics to ethics).

Indeed. We do things to move towards what we consider beautiful, so our aesthetics drives our ethics. I think I'm (probably poorly) paraphrasing your paraphrase of Mark Taylor here, actually.

quote:

ETA: There are still some priests who honestly believe east-facing altars were designed specifically to keep holy things away from the people. Were that true, it would be an ethical matter, but it's not a fair claim.

That was my assumption of what the priest meant. Or maybe the weaker claim that they have that effect, even if they weren't designed to do that. Yours may be the more charitable assumption!

[ 13. July 2013, 20:23: Message edited by: Hart ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Actually, I get it from Peirce. I'll have to read Mark Taylor, I don't think I have yet.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The Ritual Notes/Fortescue routine is literally before my time, and I am a bit non-plussed as to why a certain kind American Anglo-Catholics hang on to it with a fair amount of desparation.
Which certain kind of American Anglo-Catholics who hang on are these? This is not a snarky question.

When I think of the Ritual Notes/Fortescue routine I think of places such as, say at the Shrine end of the spectrum, the Church of the Advent, Boston, and, at the sparrow-like parish end of the spectrum, Church of the Advent, South Baltimore.

Both know who they are, both have maintained to a greater or lesser extent the ceremonial their fathers and mothers celebrated, both have integrity in their worship, and both look to Ritual Notes/Fortecscue.

Actually, I don't mind the Ritual Notes/Fortescue tradition when it is an authentic expression of a parish's tradition, but when it is rammed down the MOTR-Low throats at St Swithun by someone who has not the pastoral sense to go slowly, or go modern then I am inclined to be skeptical. One of the burdens of clerical life, especially when one is relative tradition, is dealing with the RadTrads who don't know enough to fathom out what is traditional and what's 'Ellis in Wonderland.'

I am probably in a small minority in that I am one of the few clerics in the Anglican Continuum who is sympathetic to the great liturgical clean-up. I am naturally inclined to be a bit snarky about the RadTrads and 'Vatican Museum' types. It is a loteasier to cange a vestment than convert a soul.

PD

[ 13. July 2013, 20:42: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Actually, I get it from Peirce. I'll have to read Mark Taylor, I don't think I have yet.

Oops, Pierce was actually who I meant. Hope I haven't sent you on a goosechase with Taylor!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0