|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: O Oriens: reassessing eastward position
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I mean no more disrespect to the Scrumpmeister than he himself meant, but his post seems to have just as many assumptions as the one he criticises.
In particular it assumes that one set of rituals directly equates to everyone taking their proper role while a different set of rituals amounts to an excessive interest in the role of the priest.
I can only speak for myself in saying what I am taking an interest in, but it is not the priest, rather it is the fact of being present as a miracle/mystery of some kind occurs. My focus is not on the omnipresent God but on the God who becomes especially present in bread and wine.
Some may say that it is not my proper role to witness this miracle but it is the role I want.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Rubbish - or to put it more politely - I don't agree. 'Turn your back on everyone, crouch and mumble' gave a far stronger impression that it was all about the priest. And at least with the modern practice, you can hear and see what is happening. I'd assume most of us would agree that Christ is present in the bread and the wine, not either a back or a front view of the celebrant.
But Enoch, what if we don't want you witnessing the Ritual of the Most Sacred Crab?
--------------------
"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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I mean no more disrespect to the Scrumpmeister than he himself meant, but his post seems to have just as many assumptions as the one he criticises.
In particular it assumes that one set of rituals directly equates to everyone taking their proper role while a different set of rituals amounts to an excessive interest in the role of the priest.
That's ok, moonlitdoor. No disrespect was understood.
I do disagree, however, with the placing of both customs on a par with each other, as simply alternative sets of rituals. If that were the case, then what I said would rightly be regarded merely as assumption. Rather, the universal tradition common to seemingly all rites across various cultures reflects the same thing, and is an expression of the ecclesiology in which these different identities do exist within the sacramental body of Christ. This isn't a subjective reading. It is demonstrable by examining the different rites and their development. Even those of which I know next to nothing appear to express the same thing when I look at the texts and rubrics, or see them served in Youtube clips, insofar as any flavour of worship can be gleaned from such media.
By contrast, the culture of seeing and hearing everything done by the priest seems to stem from a Protestant reaction in the period following the Reformation against the "privatisation" of the Catholic mass. That is to say that one went too far in one direction while the other reacted against it by going too far in the other. The result of both is a distortion of what the Liturgy is to express.
In an earlier post, Adeodatus listed some of the fruits of that and I struggle to see how the insistence on seeing and hearing everything pertaining to another person's role is not another of these fruits. The 1662 Prayer Book, for instance, already bears the marks of it. 450 years later, it has become so much a part of the culture of how some churches think of corporate worship that a suggestion to the contrary understandably seems like something quite alien.
It seems from this article by Fr Stephen Shaver is trying to call Anglicans to re-think some of this: to go out and find the beloved baby without gathering up all of the mucky bathwater that rightly went out with it.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I can only speak for myself in saying what I am taking an interest in, but it is not the priest, rather it is the fact of being present as a miracle/mystery of some kind occurs. My focus is not on the omnipresent God but on the God who becomes especially present in bread and wine.
I like to think that we can God is both immanent and transcedent; present among us here and now but also eternal and beyond our perception and grasp; Incarnate Creator in Bethlehem, crucified, risen and glorified Redeemer present in bread and wine, and Righteous Judge in the age to come. The eucharistic rite expresses all of this in different ways.
--------------------
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
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think there's a romantic attachment to the eastward position that forgets what it was usually like. (There's a lovely exchange in I, Claudius between a poet and an out-of-work actor. The actor says, "Things in the theatre aren't what they were," to which the poet replies, "And I'll tell you another thing - there never were what they were.")
In the Tridentine liturgy, at least at a low Mass, not only did the priest face east, but most of the words of the liturgy were inaudible. The few that could be heard were in Latin. Few people would receive Communion and if they did, it would normally be from the tabernacle and not from the hosts that had been consecrated during Mass. Sometimes, the laity would pass the time by saying the rosary, because there was nothing else for them to do.
Eastward-facing Anglicans were usually either aping Rome or resuscitating Sarum. They had all the pictureque gothicism of an eastward-facing celebrant without all those other elements of the Tridentine rite that almost completely removed active participation in the liturgy from the people.
Which of these is it that were talking about here? The Roman practice or its fence-sitting Anglican imitation? And why has no-one asked the question, "Apart from God (obviously), to whom does the liturgy belong? God's priest or God's people?"
Well, I have no romantic attachment to east facing masses- They are all I know from the entirety of my catholic life. For one, thing, the characteristic of low mass before the council wasn't how it was everywhere. There were dialogue masses in many places, and the movement to remove devotions from masses had already occurred by the 20's.
I am a Catholic who supports east facing masses, not to ape tridentine practice or Sarum, but because it is (Or maybe it's better to say 'was') the tradition of Christianity in the West. My parish has had east facing masses since before I was a member of it, and it does nothing to destroy active participation. It doesn't somehow make singing hymns, listening to the readings, responding with the responses or hearing the prayers of the liturgy impossible.
We have masses in both the tridentine missal and the modern Roman missal, and it's fair to say that our east facing masses don't somehow create a culture of silent watching of the priest.
I know what an east facing mass is like. I think it's quite silly to discourage a practice based on the abuses that were once unnecessarily attached to it. Personally, I think this is the greatest strength of using it nowadays- We no longer have that baggage. People often tell me that we don't live in the 40's/50's/60's as a way of discounting older liturgical practices, but it's a bad counter. Because now that we're free from those abuses, we can salvage what's good from older practices and avoid the bad. Just because we may face east does'nt mean we also have to do it in a whisper, with silent laity praying devotions that have nothing to do with the liturgy.
And as to the last, I see no reason to pit them- The liturgy belongs to the Church, which encompasses both priests and laity. And in that sense, it only belongs to the priest or the people as representatives of the greater church.
In the end, I find east facing masses to be a fuller liturgical sign of what I think the Eucharist is.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I don't think the 'facing Christ in our midst' symbolism comes out except in places where extreme changes have been made to the building or the building itself is quite modern. For example, I think it requires the altar to be in the center of the building, or near enough, so that the laity are numerous on all sides of the altar.
The general arrangement in older buildings seams to result in the priest and few servers are behind an altar pulled a few feet away from the East wall, on a dias or other elevated section, then perhaps a giant gap where the choir stalls are (and perhaps no choir) and then the rest of the laity all in rows facing them. This resembles nothing more or less than a theater in which the priest is the focus and the servers have bit parts in some sort of play.
It doesn't work without a pretty good circle with the priest and altar at the center. And, in fact, in this case, the priest will still have his back to a fair number of people.
[ETA: That said, the same arrangement can work just fine with very small numbers. What you don't want is masses of laity all on one side and the priest and a couple of servers on the other side.]
[ 13. September 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
My point exactly, Choirboy.
The problem is exacerbated in many Anglican churches because of the legacy of the Victorian 'reformers' who insisted on robed choirs in the chancel, quite unlike contemporary RC practice and, despite their claiming medieval precedent, more or less unknown pre-reformation except in 'quires and places where they sing' (ie cathedrals and similar).
[ 13. September 2012, 21:48: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
What is odd, and almost universal among English Anglicans, is to have a central altar, but leave the old altar at the East End. Then when clergy, choir and servers leave or move around they bow to the East End altar, in other words the altar that isn't in use.
If you're going to have a central altar (and fine) then bow to it facing the people. Don't poke your bottom out at it when you think you are reverencing the (wrong) altar.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Powell
Apprentice
# 5545
|
Posted
I know nothing about such matters, but is it not the case that the focus is on the Body and Blood of Christ; and I presume that the president has these in front of her/him whichever way she/he is facing? Or am I missing something?
Posts: 41 | From: London UK | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
We've gone round and round on this many times. I really don't care all that much...my feeling is that one should build new churches with west-facing capability, and refrain from attempting to renovate existing east-facing places. The result is almost invariably lackluster.
What really grinds my gears is when the presider turns his/her back on the east-facing altar and holds the elements during the words of institution. Silly and unnecessary.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
I know nothing about such matters, but is it not the case that the focus is on the Body and Blood of Christ...?
No.
The Body and Blood of Christ are made truly present among us, and we give them honour and revere them as is right and proper but our prayer is not directed towards them, and the honour that we extend to them is but one part within the liturgy that we are offering to God.
--------------------
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
|
|
David Powell
Apprentice
# 5545
|
Posted
So is God to be found only in the East?
Posts: 41 | From: London UK | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
So is God to be found only in the East?
There has to be some sort of Sydney Anglicans joke in this somewhere.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
I know nothing about such matters, but is it not the case that the focus is on the Body and Blood of Christ...?
No.
The Body and Blood of Christ are made truly present among us, and we give them honour and revere them as is right and proper but our prayer is not directed towards them, and the honour that we extend to them is but one part within the liturgy that we are offering to God.
The exact nature of these things is a matter encompassing some difference of opinion within Anglicanism, never mind in wider Christian circles. In any case, at the start of the prayer, they are merely the elements; at some point Christians assert something else is going on somewhere. So it is a bit difficult to make this point stick without narrowing the field of opinion as to exactly what is going on.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
So is God to be found only in the East?
Is this a genuine question, David Powell? Please forgive me, if so. It is just that it is difficult to see how somebody, having followed this discussion, could possibly arrive at the conclusion that anybody is trying to suggest that God is only to be found in the east. Where does this idea come from in light of everything that has been said already?
I do not mean to dismiss your question if it is genuine. If it is, might I suggest re-reading the points made on this thread (including the first link I included in this post) and on the thread to which Thurible linked here, where the significance of the traditional Christian practice of praying towards the east is dealt with in some detail?
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Late to the party, and my thoughts are undoubtedly colored by my own background, but
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My opinion is that having the president face the people makes the president the focus. He is a performer and the laity the audience. When all face the same way, the focus is beyond the president, symbolically everyone is facing God.
My experience is that having the president face the people makes the meal -- the altar/table and the bread and wine/chalice on it -- the focus. When the president faces east, those things can't be seen for the most part.
But as I said, I come from a tradition in which the preference is for people to be gathered as much as possible around the Table and in which there is a natural aversion to the Table being too far removed from the congregation.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Late to the party, and my thoughts are undoubtedly colored by my own background, but
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My opinion is that having the president face the people makes the president the focus. He is a performer and the laity the audience. When all face the same way, the focus is beyond the president, symbolically everyone is facing God.
My experience is that having the president face the people makes the meal -- the altar/table and the bread and wine/chalice on it -- the focus. When the president faces east, those things can't be seen for the most part.
But as I said, I come from a tradition in which the preference is for people to be gathered as much as possible around the Table and in which there is a natural aversion to the Table being too far removed from the congregation.
Understood, but in other traditions the Eucharist is not a meal, but a ritual which includes some references to a meal. Or perhaps we could say that the meal is its etymology, but not necessarily its meaning.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Understood, but in other traditions the Eucharist is not a meal, but a ritual which includes some references to a meal. Or perhaps we could say that the meal is its etymology, but not necessarily its meaning.
Are you sure of that? It sounds a very odd statement.
I've encountered many different understandings of Holy Communion/the Mass/the Lord's Supper/the Eucharist/the Holy Liturgy etc. Unless I've missed something, they are all a meal, which is in various different ways has become ritualised, been 'liturgisised' if such a word exists, rather than a ritual which just happens to have some sort of vague ancestral relationship with what was once a meal.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Understood, but in other traditions the Eucharist is not a meal, but a ritual which includes some references to a meal. Or perhaps we could say that the meal is its etymology, but not necessarily its meaning.
Are you sure of that? It sounds a very odd statement.
I've encountered many different understandings of Holy Communion/the Mass/the Lord's Supper/the Eucharist/the Holy Liturgy etc. Unless I've missed something, they are all a meal, which is in various different ways has become ritualised, been 'liturgisised' if such a word exists, rather than a ritual which just happens to have some sort of vague ancestral relationship with what was once a meal.
I see where Fr Weber is coming from and generally agree with him, although I perhaps wouldn't have gone quite so far in my expression of it.
The Eucharist was instituted within the context of a meal but is not itself just a meal. In fact, some of would go so far as to say that the meal aspect of it, from an earthly standpoint, is minimal, and that emphasising that in the manner of celebrating the Eucharist is to largely miss the point.
As far as the eschatological aspect of the Eucharist goes, it certainly points to the heavenly banquet in the Kingdom of God (and many Orthodox churches, for this reason, will depict the Mystical Supper over the entrance to the Holy of Holies, which signifies the Kingdom), but it doesn't do so in isolation from the sacrificial aspect, the creation-encompassing aspect, as well as all of the events of creation and redemption that are made present or rather in which we are made present when the Church gathers to make Eucharist. Laying all of that aside for the time being, even if the heavenly banquet were the predominant focus here, I am not sure that a helpful way of expressing that is by enacting an earthly meal. Wherever the focus may lie, what the Eucharist certainly is not is a re-enacting of the Last Supper.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I would say:
Firstly, if the Eucharist is a supper, then most churches hold it an a dashed odd time. Perhaps 'the Lord's Breakfast' would seem more appropriate?
And secondly, the primary purpose of a meal is physical, bodily nourishment, which is why I would hope any meal I attended would be slightly more substantial than a fragment of bread and a thimble of vino. I think this makes it clear that the emphasis has shifted away from an earthly meal and towards a rite which aims to provide spiritual (rather than bodily) nourishment. The meal still provides aspects of the framework, and in so doing sanctifies all our eating, drinking and fellowship, but this is no longer the primary focus of the Eucharist. Again, I don't think I would phrase things quite like Father Weber, but it is clear that the meaning of the Eucharist has moved away from simply dining.
As a final point, the 'meaning' of the Last Supper, whether we think it was a seder or passover or whatsoever, was not that simple either, even if it was held in the evening and provided a proper dinner for the disciples.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I see where Fr Weber is coming from and generally agree with him, although I perhaps wouldn't have gone quite so far in my expression of it.
Oh, I see where he was going, too, and I anticipated it. That's why I gave the caveat that I knew my view is influenced by own tradition's practices. It's a fair point.
quote:
The Eucharist was instituted within the context of a meal but is not itself just a meal. In fact, some of would go so far as to say that the meal aspect of it, from an earthly standpoint, is minimal, and that emphasising that in the manner of celebrating the Eucharist is to largely miss the point.
Agreed, but I think that the converse can be said as well -- emphasizing the sacrificial and eucharistic aspects of it while minimizing the meal aspect of it -- both in eschatological terms of the heavenly banquet and in more immediate terms of the community gathered together at the Lord's Table -- is to also largely miss the point.
The Sacrament is eucharistic.
The Sacrament is sacrificial.
The Sacrament is memorial (anamnesis)
The Sacrament is eschatological.
The Sacrament is prandial.
The mistake too often made in Christian history, it seems to me, is assuming that these aspects of the Sacrament are mutually exclusive, or emphasizing one or a few at the expense of the others. It shouldn't be "either/or"; it should be "all of the above."
It seems to me that versus populum orientation can accomodate and honor "all of the above," while ad orientem cannot. But again, that could just be my own biases showing.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Powell
Apprentice
# 5545
|
Posted
Scrumpmeister, I may have been both ever so slightly sarcastic, but also probably out of my depth. I'm beginning to realise that these boards are for people steeped in theology and churchy matters, whereas the reason I read them is to educate myself and perhaps I should not contribute. Sometimes, for me as a lay person, the posts end up being rather long-winded and impenetrable. I am however keen to get my 50 posts and become a shipmate!
Posts: 41 | From: London UK | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Keep it up, David Powell. It's good to have you with us!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Another layperson's opinion. In my Anglo-Catholic church, with the smells and bells going on it feels like the priest's and congregation's worship are being sent upwards to God as they meet in the middle (facing west if that wasn't clear), rather than the congregation focusing on the priest. Something about the visible smoke rising makes it work, particularly when the Gospel is censed and read in the aisle.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
When considering eastward-facing liturgics, it should be remembered that most western altars were pulled away from the altar at the same time that the rubrics were reorganized to downplay the altar. The priest was placed at a celebrant's chair, facing the people, for most of the liturgy. One ends up with a couple minutes at most of the priest facing east nowadays. If s/he elevates properly, then there is little cause for concern.
[ 14. October 2012, 19:16: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
Scrumpmeister, I may have been both ever so slightly sarcastic, but also probably out of my depth. I'm beginning to realise that these boards are for people steeped in theology and churchy matters, whereas the reason I read them is to educate myself and perhaps I should not contribute. Sometimes, for me as a lay person, the posts end up being rather long-winded and impenetrable. I am however keen to get my 50 posts and become a shipmate!
David Powell, let me gently modify that one sentence to read "... these boards are for people who are interested in theology and churchy matters, and frequented by some people who are steeped in these." Your contributions are welcome here. Conversations sometimes get robust because they deal with matters of ultimate concern, but don't let that put you off.
[ 15. October 2012, 20:52: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Powell
Apprentice
# 5545
|
Posted
Well put Scrumpmeister, and I will not let it put me off. I just wish I'd understood how to retain anonymity when registering by using a nom de plume. Host, can I get one when I become a full shipmate?
Posts: 41 | From: London UK | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Hi David:
Unfortunately, the custom aboard the Ship is to avoid name changes except at occasional 'Amnesties' which happen about once a year. The last one happened quite recently so you may have to wait a while.
If you have queries about name-changes or other areas of how the website is run, the Styx board (at the top of the boards list) is the place for it.
... and now back to your regularly scheduled thread!
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Powell
Apprentice
# 5545
|
Posted
Sorry Mamacita, I thought your reply was from Scrumpmeister doooh
Posts: 41 | From: London UK | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
No problem. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other. If the priest takes the first part of the Eucharist at the lectern, and sits within the semi circle, then at the offertory he moves forward to the table and faces east as the people form a semi circle around too.
This would then be eastward for all but a little more 'intimate' than traditional eastward form.
It could, if used as a part of what a church offers, point to the transcendence of God as the westward position could point to the immanence.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other.
Dean Giles, is it really you?!
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other.
Dean Giles, is it really you?!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
To be fair, as a liturgical troglodyte (well, not really - Reform of the Reform-esque rather than Proper Traddie), I thought it sounded quite reasonable.
It's sometimes handy to point out that the important thing, the important truth, about the eucharistic offering is that it should be offered facing east. Pretty tat and pews don't come into it.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
The most important thing about the eastward position is that the celebrant is facing east. Which side of the altar the congregation occupies is secondary. In the earliest Roman basilicas, the altar and apse are at the west end. Thus the celebrant faces east, and coincidentally faces toward the people.
Frescos and mosaics, however, as well as surviving curtain rods, testify that during the consecration curtains were drawn to veil the altar and celebrant from the congregation's sight. The iconostasis of the east and the chancel screen of the west perform a similar role. A desire for cozy domesticity in the setting for eucharistic worship is a very recent development.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
The most important thing about the eastward position is that the celebrant is facing east. Which side of the altar the congregation occupies is secondary. In the earliest Roman basilicas, the altar and apse are at the west end. Thus the celebrant faces east, and coincidentally faces toward the people.
Frescos and mosaics, however, as well as surviving curtain rods, testify that during the consecration curtains were drawn to veil the altar and celebrant from the congregation's sight. The iconostasis of the east and the chancel screen of the west perform a similar role. A desire for cozy domesticity in the setting for eucharistic worship is a very recent development.
I agree entirely. However, I think that the developments of the past half-century mean that the liturgical culture in most places is one that expects, nay even demands, a cosy domesticity. Let's work with that but develop it.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
The most important thing about the eastward position is that the celebrant is facing east. Which side of the altar the congregation occupies is secondary. In the earliest Roman basilicas, the altar and apse are at the west end. Thus the celebrant faces east, and coincidentally faces toward the people.
Wouldn't many of the early fathers (including Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr) have said that the most important thing is that those who pray should face east (whether priest or people)? I recall reading that, if the apse and altar were at the west end, at the prayers the people would turn to face east (thus presumably having their backs to the priest).
I forget who, but one of the fathers said something like, 'When you pray, go into your room and face east. If your room doesn't face east, face east anyway'.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Changing the direction a bit.
There's been an argument that the president behind the altar facing the people is more like a meal.
The meal is at communion. A central altar (and I'm all in favour if it is used with conviction) can look like a demonstration bench used by a TV personality chef demonstrating a recipe.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other.
Dean Giles, is it really you?!
Sorry the reference is lost on me.
Who is Dean Giles, and its not me...
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am imagining a small chapel space with chairs in an oval or extended semi circle with altar as one focus of the oval and the lectern as the other.
Dean Giles, is it really you?!
Sorry the reference is lost on me.
Who is Dean Giles, and its not me...
Your comment upthread about church design reminded me of Richard Giles, retired dean of Philadelphia Cathedral. This is his claim to fame. As a result of his tenure, the cathedral now looks like this. It's easy enough to guess what it once looked like.
I have heard good sermons from him, and that he is rather patient and level-headed with those of us who prefer a more traditional set-up and a traditional liturgy. Still, one can see he is rather, um, ahead of his time (shall we say?) in his church design opinions.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Chapel head makes a good point in all this. Traditionally all faced east to pray.
Did all use the orans posture too, I wonder. If so an eastward facing all gathered round posture with orans could be like a con celebration but emphasise the priesthood of all believers.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Richard Giles, retired dean of Philadelphia Cathedral. This is his claim to fame. As a result of his tenure, the cathedral now looks like this. It's easy enough to guess what it once looked like.
Wow. That arrangement of Philadelphia Cathedral looks wonderful. Altar and Ambo fully prominent. It is all thoroughly liturgical with not an overhead projector in sight. The sad thing is that the few chairs imply a very small congregation. (The book link doesn't work.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Is the altar the white-covered thing on the left, or the bare wooden thing in the centre?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I think it's the former. I like the layout: ambo at one end, altar at the other. But I can't understand why it's set out at 90 degrees to the orientation of the building. Confusing.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
One lot of people who aren't bothered about facing geographical East, but very concerned for the priest to have his back to the altar are the London Oratorians.
Brompton Oratory faces North. Westminster (RC) Cathedral faces South. Neither are in Gothic. It as though they are saying to Tractarian Anglicans "Look we don't need to be imitating the Middle Ages, we're the Real Thing.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Richard Giles, retired dean of Philadelphia Cathedral. This is his claim to fame. As a result of his tenure, the cathedral now looks like this. It's easy enough to guess what it once looked like.
Wow. That arrangement of Philadelphia Cathedral looks wonderful. Altar and Ambo fully prominent. It is all thoroughly liturgical with not an overhead projector in sight. The sad thing is that the few chairs imply a very small congregation. (The book link doesn't work.)
It is very wow! Elegant in it's simplicity.
I know that it is an old book, but Pocknee's The Christian Altar: In History and Today. is a pretty good book for looking at the history of the altar and general Church architecture.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
One lot of people who aren't bothered about facing geographical East, but very concerned for the priest to have his back to the altar are the London Oratorians.
From Fr Hunwicke.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
One lot of people who aren't bothered about facing geographical East, but very concerned for the priest to have his back to the altar are the London Oratorians.
It's not about geographical east or not (I personally couldn't care) but that it just seems unnatural and perverse for the liturgical action to take place at right angles to the dominating lines of the building.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
My geographic comment wasn't about Philadelphia, just general, given some here were making much of facing literally East. (Do we need a compass to pray, just like Muslims?)
Having looked at the picture of Philadelphia, I give a distinctly modified wow.
Instead of the altar being in the middle, it is in a side aisle, where those sitting nearest to it are partly turned away. The centre of attention is the credence table, (which I at first took to be a too small altar).
And there's a perfectly good apse with seats round it at the liturgical East End, where the new arrangement would fit perfectly.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
