|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: O Oriens: reassessing eastward position
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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...?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 11. September 2012, 22:18: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
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,
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Something like that. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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!]](eek.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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?
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
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...)
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Omnipresence doesn't feature highly on the list of your god's attributes then?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
"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!
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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?"
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
