RC: Bishop of Tulsa Abandons “Mass Facing the People”

Another modern innovation begins to fall by the wayside.  Kudos to Bishop Slattery and to John Paul II and Benedict XVI for recognizing that some of the changes brought about by Vatican II were detrimental to the health of congregational worship.  Oh that more Anglo-Catholic parishes would embrace “ad orientem” worship.

Hooray!

If only my parish had built a church that ad orientem was possible.  The people face north.  We would have to do some major league work to face east.

Overall, though, it is a good idea and reminds us what the Mass really is.

Amen! Amen! Amen!

Good. The last of the new religion is being swept away.

This was one of the first things we did when we arrived at GS. Left it like that for a half year. One of the best decisions we ever made. Did it every Lent and Advent afterwards. We did it for different reasons than the bishop articulates—not being Catholic—but not altogether different.

Thankfully, the altar at my church is built into the wall, making it exceedingly difficult for “innovative” priests to get jiggy with it.

Tobias Haller wrote an excellent piece about ad orientem as opposed to versus populum entitled People, Look East.  It’s well worth reading.

I always thought that the priest facing the congregation made the whole thing look like a cooking show - I found it very distracting.  Ditto for celebrants who give their sermons while striding energetically up and down the center aisle!  The Episcopal church my family and I just left still has an altar that faces the priest away from the congregation which would occasionally rattle supply clergy who had never encountered such a thing and was actually a sticking point with a couple of candidates during a search process several years ago.  Despite that, we managed to call a priest who leaned so far left it’s a wonder he managed to stand at all.  Hence our departure.

If only my parish had built a church that ad orientem was possible.  The people face north.  We would have to do some major league work to face east.

Paul, ad orientem does not depend, ultimately, on geographical east.  It’s nice if it matches, but it doesn’t have to; liturgically, the end with the altar is always the “east end” of the church.  Celebration ad orientem has more to do with the common direction of priest and people than with compass directions.  The east is where the Lord is—and he’s coming on the altar, so the altar is east.  Ratzinger talks about this (I think) in The Spirit of the Liturgy, and there’s also a very good little book called Turning Towards the Lord (or something like that… I forget the author).

Sam Keyes….It is by U.m. Lang titled “Turning Towards the Lord Orientation In Liturgical Prayer”

<snip>...and there’s also a very good little book called Turning Towards the Lord (or something like that… I forget the author).

Uwe Michael Lang, and it’s published by Ignatius Press.

oops! That “m” should be capitalized “M”.

OK, I’ll be the turd in the punchbowl here. First, I empathize with many of the reasons that some people instinctively prefer ad orientem celebration. In all the liturgical churches, there has certainly been a loss of transcendence and mystery in liturgy since the reforms of the Liturgical Movement (culminating in Vatican II and norm of versus populum).  I agree that the winds of change blew indiscriminately in some places, with too much emphasis on the gathered community and not enough on the majesty of God. That said, sacraments and sacramental actions do not exist in a vacuum; they have a connection with real life. That’s not some abstract ideal; it’s part of their inherent nature. Baptism is a bath. Yes, it’s a particular kind of bath, a very stylized kind. But if the baptismal action does not somehow say “This is a bath!”, then something very crucial is missing. Similarly, the Eucharist is a meal. It’s a lot of other things as well, and I agree with Bishop Slattery’s observations about it’s character as a sacrifice. And it’s a very stylized sort of meal, of course. But if the action of the Eucharist does not, amid everything else it might point to, say, “This is a meal!”, then something of its essential character is being obscured. And in the symbolic vocabulary of virtually every culture on earth, when people gather for a meal, they gather around the table. I’ve occasionally consumed a meal seated on a stool at a counter against a wall, but I’ve always been alone, and it’s never been a happy experience. In my 20 years of ordained ministry, I have presided many, many more times ad orientem than versus populum, so it’s not like I’m unfamiliar with the practice. (Interestingly, Anglican clergy are much more likely to be familiar with it than Roman clergy.) I believe it’s possible to have a “best of both worlds” liturgical customary, wherein some of the Entrance Rite, and the post-communion, take place with the sanctuary party “facing God” along with the congregation. There is a great deal to be said for such symbolism. But I would still contend for some visual token of “gathered around the table” for the Eucharistic Prayer. Incidentally, with all due respect to Bishop Slattery, it is not an accurate generalization to say that ad orientem was the norm of 18 centuries. The early historical record is quite mixed from place to place for the first several centuries of the Christian era. It’s not until around the ninth century that we can say with certainty that ad orientem was a universal norm in East and West.

We built our church with an eastward orientation. Here’s the website if you want to take a look (just follow the “photos” link).

http://www.stmarksvero.org

I’d have titled this *OK Returns to Ancient Practise* rather than *abandons*.

With deference to my friend Fr Martins, whilst we can only say with certainty from the 9th century that the church had the universal norm had the ad orientem position, one can certainly say that it was the de facto norm for many centuries prior. The Immaculate Conception was only confirmed in the 20th century as official, but that doesn’t imply that it dates only to the 20th century.

I once asked a bishop with a ThD in liturgics about this, and he informed me that the reason for the versus populum was based on a 1950s misunderstanding of the layout of Churches. Some had a free-standing altar, so the assumption was that a versus populum was the norm; actually, it was so that the Celebrant could go round the altar completely to cense it. In fact, there was one instance of a bishop standing behind the Altar, but that was because that was where East was. The people didn’t face the Altar; they had their backs to the Altar. So, Celebrant and people faced the same way, but the people had their backs to the priest!

His observation was that the Liturgical Reforms of the 1950s got it all wrong, but that we probably can’t put the genie back into the bottle again.

For what it’s worth, Fr Martins’ description of the best of both worlds pretty much describes the Masses at Saint Bride’s.

I’m sorry, and it looks like I’m a distinct minority here, but I must take exception.

First, as the bishop notes, the underlying symbology he uses is that of a sacrifice—or at least, a re-enacted sacrifice, with the presbyter standing in the Old Testament position at the head of the people, much like Moses facing the mountain while his people cowered behind his skirts.

Aside from the fact that there is no New Testament warrant for a Christian to take on a priestly role—other than the priesthood of all believers—I must object on the basis that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was fully sufficient. That one great act closed off all further sacrifices, which if offered, put to the lie the claim that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient.

Secondly, it is a short leap from the appeal to the tradition of eastward-facing sacrificers to an appeal to efficacy, especially as perceived by the people. With no disrespect intended, I do not believe in magic. There is nothing in the direction faced by the worshippers that has any effect whatever on the sufficiency of the Eucharist when it is instituted with the Words of Christ.

I’m sure I’ve gotten myself in enough trouble already, so I’ll stop there. It’s probably evident that I would make a poor Anglo-Catholic. I do acknowledge the authority of the early church to institute quasi-priestly roles, such as the declaration of absolution. But my evangelical bones tell me that it’s more important for the presbyter to face the people in a prophetic role than for any appeal to the priestly role.

Now, as for this…

“Ditto for celebrants who give their sermons while striding energetically up and down the center aisle!”

well, I’d have to stop agreeing with you there. It’s not purposeful, but I really have a hard time not moving about while preaching.

[15] Michael Ward+

Your place is beatiful!!!

~jacob

Oh that more Anglo-Catholic parishes would embrace “ad orientem” worship.

We found one in a 1928 PB service at St Mary’s parish in Fresno. It has enriched our family’s worship and spiritual life to a level that we did not know could exist.
Thank you Fr. Sclafani for your reverance. What is old can be new again.
Intercessor

One problem at GS when I got there the idea that worship is about “us”—the “community”. The priest is like daddy and worship is just another word for us all gathering round the table and being a community.

Pushing the altar against the wall helped us to communicate that worship is not about “us”. It is grounded and centered and focused on a thrice holy God.

It does not have to carry tractarian or overly Anglo Catholic meaning

At our parish we have restored all of our celebrations to “ad orientem,” this included the rearrangement of the sanctuary. http://holyapostlesfortworth.org

Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
Book IV, Chapter XII. Concerning Worship towards the East.

It is not without reason or by chance that we worship towards the East. But seeing that we are composed of a visible and an invisible nature, that is to say, of a nature partly of spirit and partly of sense, we render also a twofold worship to the Creator; just as we sing both with our spirit and our bodily lips, and are baptized with both water and Spirit, and are united with the Lord in a twofold manner, being sharers in the mysteries and in the grace of the Spirit.

Since, therefore, God is spiritual light (I John 1:5) , and Christ is called in the Scriptures, Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2) and Dayspring (Luke 1:78), the East is the direction that must be assigned to His worship. For everything good must be assigned to Him from Whom every good thing arises. Indeed the divine David also says, “Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth: O sing praises unto the Lord: to Him that rideth upon the Heavens of heavens towards the East.(Psalm 68:32,33)” Moreover the Scripture also says, “And God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed (Genesis 2:8)”: and when he had transgressed His command He expelled him and made him to dwell over against the delights of Paradise, which clearly is the West. So, then, we worship God seeking and striving after our old fatherland. Moreover the tent of Moses (Leviticus 16:14) had its veil and mercy seat (Leviticus 16:2) towards the East. Also the tribe of Judah, as the most precious, pitched their camp on the East (Numbers 2:3). Also in the celebrated temple of Solomon, the Gate of the Lord was placed eastward. Moreover Christ, when He hung on the Cross, had His face turned towards the West, and so we worship, striving after Him. And when He was received again into Heaven, He was borne towards the East, and thus His apostles worship Him, and thus He will come again in the way in which they beheld Him going towards Heaven; as the Lord Himself said, “As the lightning cometh out of the East and shineth even unto the West, so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be. (Matthew 24:27)”

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten.

Dan+, St. John of Damascus in the 7th century considered it to be of apostolic tradition… I’m just saying…

[19] Jacob:

Thanks. It gets the job done, so to speak.

MLW+

Br_er Rabbit,
You shouldn’t get in trouble for that.  The problem folks have with the liturgy is you can have just the basic stuff of priest, bread, wine, words, for the eucharistic service but as we all know it is not enough.  There is much more at sake here.  We Christians need much more.

As a priest, I prefer ad orientem much more than ad populum.  The reason is the liturgy is spoken not to the people but to God the Father.  Why do I look at the people when I am praying to the Father?

About 10 years ago I would have had a different take on this, but I was in a phase of my life where worship was all about how “I felt”.  Now my take is very different.  When we ALL face the same direction, PERSONALITIES are taken out of the equation and PERFORMANCE is not needed.  Lord willing I am ordained someday, ad orientem is how I intend on celebrating, per my bishop’s permission.

Rabbit:  Exception duly noted, and there’s no way to argue around it.  If you don’t believe in Eucharistic sacrifice, you don’t believe in Eucharistic sacrifice, so this makes no sense.  I don’t think anyone is arguing, however, that the direction matters in terms of validity of efficacy—unless we mean efficacy in communication of what the sacramental action is about rather than efficacy of the sacrament itself.  Also, isn’t the sermon the time to be “prophetic”?  I don’t think that the Sacrament of the altar is meant to be “prophetic” in the sense you mean; it is not a big game of show and tell.  But it may be that, like in the question of sacrifice, we have radically opposed notions of the sacrament.

And Father Dan, I believe the good Curé is correct about the distortions of the 60’s.  Freestanding altar does not equal ad populem.  The question is not here one of historical evidence (which is equivocal and deeply dependent on who’s looking at it) but of received tradition, which is, consistently in both east and west:  we face east. 

Yes there is a “meal” aspect, but that was largely separated into the early “agape” meal.  Facing east we are gathered around the Table:  the Holy Trinity is facing us.  It is, I think, unfortunately anthropocentric to imagine that all symbolism of meal is lost simply because we’re looking to the Lord.  The Eucharist is not meaningful because it reminds us of meals; meals are meaningful because they remind us of the Eucharist.  It is our eating practices that need reforming—our hurried, efficient stuffing of our faces—not the Liturgy.

As far as the accuracy of the ad orientum tradition of the early church, this should be easy to show—or not—for it is an item of archaeology. The stones don’t lie; they tell us what the church was doing.

Reading Matt’s remarks, I want to qualify what I said above about sacrifice.  There are many “evangelical” and “low-church” parishes that have done and do ad orientem… one doesn’t have to buy into Tridentine or even Tractarian notions of sacramentalism.  I should think that a sober Anglican evangelicalism should be very happy, as Matt says, to insist that the sacrament is not about the priest but about God.

To Fr. Martin’s point: “But if the action of the Eucharist does not, amid everything else it might point to, say, “This is a meal!”, then something of its essential character is being obscured. And in the symbolic vocabulary of virtually every culture on earth, when people gather for a meal, they gather around the table.”

And so we gather ‘round the altar rail following the eucharistic prayer, and the celebrant and others appointed share the eucharistic meal with us in the distribution of the host and the administration of the chalice. That says to me that it’s a meal. But it’s not only a meal—the continuous sequence from offertory through post-communion prayer says it’s an offering and a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving—and to me, that offering and sacrifice are best presented with both celebrant and assembly directed ad orientam.

To Br_er Rabbit’s comment that it’s more important for the priest to face the peole in a prophetic role:  doesn’t your celebrant typically preach a sermon as well?

this should be easy to show—or not—for it is an item of archaeology.

Tell that to the people who are still trying to figure out what Stonehenge was really for.  Archeology is no more freed from tradition than any other kind of knowledge.

Epistemological cynicism aside, the archeological/anthropological evidence now does seem to point to consistent east-facing celebration—the key is that the people looking at the evidence are no longer hippy theologians trying to change the Church to the feelings of their generation.  (I could be wrong about all this, in which case I’d return to my epistemological cynicism.)

28…one such is St. Andrew’s Ft. Worth…a Classical 1928 Low Church parish…the Mother Parish of the Diocese of FW.  They retain the original ad orientem AND Rood Screen…and are by NO means Anglo-Catholic.

In the early part of the English Reformation, the Altar became the Holy Table and was brought into the chancel, with the length of the table running east to west.  The presbyter celebrated on the north side (it was in the rubrics to do so) and the congregation gathered around the table. Again, the rubrics told them to “draw near” (ie, to come to the chancel from the nave) and to make their confession together, “devoutly kneeling,” after which came the declaration of pardon and the sursum corda, moving on into the eucharistic prayer.

A good part of this change was to get away from the idea of a repeated sacrifice and from superstitious ideas about the bread and wine, and to focus on Christian community.  Since it was a correction to a deformation, it is not something that would need to be the way to celebrate for all time - but it does point out some significant things that had been lost.

Since my theological arguments in favor of celebrating ad orientum have been sufficiently covered by much of the above (excepting Brer Rabbit, obviously), I’ll merely repeat a remark that was made to me when I served as a chaplain with the US Marine Corps.

“The priest is leading the people in worshipping God.  It is not a sign of great leadership if he’s pointed in the opposite direction…”

Or as I have said, often, when questioned on this (and I’m now volunteering to serve in a nation where I have no choice but to face ad popularem, unfortunately)... the priest does not have his back to the people.  He is with the people, facing the altar, when praying to God, but faces the people when speaking to them (ie: whilst preaching, etc.). 

Having the priest standing behind the altar while they are kneeling facing him smacks a bit too strongly of ‘priest-worship’, at least to this priest.

The Rubric in the 1662 BCP at the beginning of the “Holy Communion” service, still the official BCP of the Church of England today, reads:

The Table at the Communion time having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said. And the Priest standing at the north side of the Table shall say the Lord’s Prayer, with the Collect following, the people kneeling.

#30 Sam, duly noted. For the very early church, archaeology may be a faint witness. Before Constantine, Christianity was not a legally recognized religion, and could not obtain the equivalent of a ‘building permit’ to construct an edifice for worship (known as a ‘shrine’ to the pagans). The solid evidence for Christian architecture does not begin until ca. AD 320.

My right knee hasn’t jerked this much since Matt admitted to using incense.  I didn’t like that idea much, and I still don’t.  Nor do I like this.  And once again, I don’t have a coherent argument against the practice in question so much as a visceral reaction against incorporating Catholic symbolism into Protestant worship.  But “If the RCs do it, then it must be suspicious” isn’t much of an argument.

Perhaps I have reacted this way because it smacks of ritualism.  In general, worship is defined by spirit and truth, and not by liturgy.  We are not slaved to precise performance of specific ritual.  So it should not matter which way anyone faces.  Push the altar against the wall or not as you see fit.  But don’t argue that one form is intrinsically superior to another.  So long as spirit and truth remain, the physical forms don’t matter.

carl

WHAT!!! St. Andrews, Fort Worth is not Anglo-Catholic?
Next you will be sayinf FATHER Bill is not a spike.
PShaw, indeed.

Carl:

Well, I guess I’ll start using a Shinto prayer to the ancestors, though in my head I’ll be praying to the Holy Trinity.  Who cares about form?

Okay, one more admission…probably violates all sorts of Anglo Catholic and Reformed principles in one shot…I wear a chasuble.

It was the tradition when I arrived at GS and there were more important things to do (like starting bible studies and teaching people about Jesus) than mess too much with the liturgical form.

But while wear a chasuble, I explain that in a Reformed context the chasuble symbolizes the imputed righteousness of Christ—a beautiful robe covering our sinful garments—without which no one may partake in the heavenly feast.

The parish I serve retains the eastward position and Rite 1. Quite apart from theological and liturgical tradition, the congregation is saved from contemplating my ugly mug at the holiest moments in the Liturgy!

[39] Matt:

Okay, one more admission…probably violates all sorts of Anglo Catholic and Reformed principles in one shot…I wear a chasuble.

Well, that’s good. That’s what you’re supposed to wear; otherwise, God can’t hear you.

Got maniples?

A couple of thoughts…
1. re Carl’s response that physical forms don’t matter got me thinking: They matter in that they are the only way to communicate the spirit and truth we believe in.  Materialism in this sense seems to me to be at the heart of the Christian faith, e.g. the Incarnation, the notion in James’ epistle that works are the evidence of faith, etc.  One of the fundamental problems with the homosexuality issue is that proponents of this agenda use the spiritualist argument, i.e. a person’s heart is all that matters to preach the gospel and to celebrate the sacraments not what he does with his body.

2. Having said that, variety in liturgical customs and unity in doctrine are becoming more appealing to me now than they used to.  I am reminded of an Eastern Orthodox priest who said that while his Antiochian liturgical customs were similar to a Russian’s, Greek’s etc they were not exact but their doctrine was.

3.  Finally I have often joked with parishoners that if they wanted to file a Title IV charge of violating the rubrics of the prayer book all they would need to do was cite the rubric at the following the sursum corda :“Then facing the Holy Table, the Celebrant…” The 1979 BCP it seems to me clearly presumed a eastward position.

Matt+, let’s put you in one of those high pulpits you have to climb stairs to get into.  THEN we’ll see what happens if you move about.

I wish I had had this knowledge about a year ago when my then 9 year old daughter, who is being raised in a Southern Baptist church for lack of an Anglican alternative, accompanied me to an Episcopal service for the first time.  Afterwards she asked me “what the priest had been making up there”.  When I probed her question, she explained that the “priest looked at the book on the table as he talked, did some stuff to the ingredients on the table, and used the things in the containers that the boy helper handed him”.  I guess from her perspective and experience it did, indeed, look like a cooking demonstration.  I muddled through with an explanation as best I could, but she seemed unconvinced.  Since then, I have found myself much more open to the practice of ad orientem celebration.

And make sure when wearing a chasuble, the chasuble covers the stole because the stole symbolizes authority and the chasuble symbolizes charity.  Charity covers all things.

Carl,
I like the reverence of the ritual.
I do so wish I could once make it to Matt+‘s service or one like it…

The Reverent Worship in full formality, AND real bible teaching.

I have no idea where this puts us in the discussion, but:

Our Anglican felowhsip has a mobile table (on wheels actually) we wheel it in before the service and out after (when you worship in borrowed space, you do as you must).

The priest does the sermon and the post communion stuff on the north side of the table.

He doesn’t do the north side when he does the communion part of the service.  That is done from the east / ‘otherside’ of the table with him turning to face east at prayer, and us during the repeating of the words.  Then we gather round (in the round) in front of the table for the sharing of the bread and wine.

Shane Copeland [34],
The Rubrics as appointed in the 1662 BCP are all that we follow in my parish. I feel that it is rather disingenuous for all these people running-around saying that they uphold the 1662 BCP as their standard of Worship, but who do not abide by it, nor use it properly. That is why I hope that they will completely abandon it, even in reference. Better that they invent their own sort of Prayer Book and abide by it and leave the 1662 BCP to those who truly honor it.

#15
Congratulations of a gorgeous church building!  I’d give much to have something similar.

“on”.  sigh.

#47
Why not use the form of Mass that had been around for a millenium before the invention of the 1662 Book?

My old TEC parish with its wonderful orthodox rector, Fr. Alan Hanson, followed the ancient custom of celebrating with the priest facing “ad orientem.”  When +Sauls the Litigator rode into town, one of his first proclamations was that he wanted the altars moved away from the east walls and the celebrants facing the congregation.  He didn’t insist on it except druing his visitations, when we had to have the altar positioned so we could gaze upon him as he intoned the words he obviously (now) didn’t believe.
Alas, in my new ACNA parish, the altar, excuse me, “Lord’s table,” is positioned so the celebrant is facing the people.  I suspect our rector would find the “ad orientem” orientation too “Popeish,” as he does the chasuble, making the sign of the cross, etc.

Cranmer put the “North side of the Table” rubric in the shortlived 1552 BCP. He did so for the reasons that AnglicanXn (#32) noted above.

The 1552 BCP also included this Rubric:
And here is to be noted, that the minister at the tyme of the Communion and all other tymes in his ministracion, shall use neither albe, vestment, nor cope: but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a preest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice onely.

This was changed in the 1559 BCP and remained as such in the 1662, which IS the official BCP of the CoE.

And here is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.

This Rubric brought about a lot of controversy in the later 1800’s in England becuase of the Oxford Movement. The American Prayerbooks never had these same Rubrics.

All I can say that as an AMiA priest who was never a part of PECUSA, is that I have taken seriously the AMiA’s commitment to the 1662 BCP as the “standard.” This has led me to try to follow the Rubrics of the 1662 BCP for the order of Holy Communion.

I have been using the AMiA Prayerbook with it’s 1662 in Contemporary English. I stand on the North Side of the Table through most of the service, but must admit, facing the people for the actual Prayer of Consecration. This discussion might actually move me to follow the North Side all the way through!

I have always felt that Mass said facing the people offered lots of distractions from the business at hand. I do understand that some feel that it’s a good thing for the people to see the actions of the priest; but I also think that the Mass is offered by preist and people together, and that that togetherness is more apparent when both are facing in sthe same direction - at least symbolically toward God. Also, I have been present at Masses where the priest seems to think he’s an actor giving a performance and is trying for an Oscar. The priest in our Episcopal parish offers Mass with sincerity and simplicity, without added dramatics, and you know that he believes in what he’s doing. The same is true of our last Catholic pastor. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen some pretty histrionic performances by priests who apparently think the Mass is all about them.

As a latecomer to this thread, let me rise to defend the same viewpoint expressed by Fr. Dan Martins in his fine #14.  But just to enliven the discussion a bit, how about if I throw in another controversial matter?  After all, it’s my wont around here.

In the eucharist, do you all favor the use of wafers, or real bread?

In some places it’s a matter of surprising agitation.  I strongly favor the use of real bread myself, although I’ve served several churches that prefered wafers, and would comply with local custom.  What seems strange to me is that I’ve been in congregations that were very low church/Protestant, and yet preferred wafers, which has historically been an Anglo—Catholic preference.  But then, we Anglicans have seldom been known for our consistency, have we??

David Handy+

If you want to see the mass celebrated flawlessly, go to St. John’s, Savannah.  It’s a tonic for the soul, as it should be.  Too bad it’s a bit far for me to commute on Sundays.

354
Wafers.  Although it’s not a practice I follow personally, I wonder how intinction would work with real bread.  Wouldn’t there be lots of sodden crumbs floating around in the cup?

Although it’s not a practice I follow personally, I wonder how intinction would work with real bread.  Wouldn’t there be lots of sodden crumbs floating around in the cup?

The celebrant simply consumes the “sodden crumbs” after everyone has communed.  This is the normal situation in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy; so we are obviously going to be more familiar with it.  A greater problem than crumbs would be the actual act of intinction, without having the bread fall apart completely.

Since leaving the west (and the priesthood in ECUSA) for the Orthodox east, such questions haven’t troubled me; and so I haven’t bothered to dig too deeply into our use of bread instead of wafers.  The only explanation I remember coming across was that bread is preferable to wafers because Christ is risen; and so the bread that becomes His Body should have “risen” as well.  This isn’t saying that using wafers is wrong; but I wouldn’t want to use wafers now…

Evan (#56),

I hear that same objection frequently.  It all depends on the type of bread used; some are more crumbly than others.

Maybe I should clarify why I brought this topic up.  I think there’s an inherent connection between the whole set of symbols involved in seeing the eucharist as a sacrifice (e.g., with a priest, at a stone altar, and wafers), and the other set of symbols revolving around the concept of the eucharist as a meal (with the father of the family blessing the food at the wooden table).  I don’t see the two sets as mutually exclusive, but I do think the latter set, the meal symbolism, is primary and more central to both the biblical and liturgical tradition than the former, the symbolism of sacrifice.

But to quote my esteemed mentor in ministry, the former Bishop of Albany, Dan Herzog, speaking rather derisively of using wafers in communion:  “I don’t have any trouble believing the wafers become the Body of Christ.  I just have trouble believing it was ever bread to begin with!”  To which I say, AMEN.

Of course, I also greatly prefer to baptize by immersion whenever possible, even with babies.

David Handy+

The Holy Communion has so many dimensions that I don’t to lose any of them - the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, the Passover seder, Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God and the scapegoat, and the capital R, remembrance of the Sacrifice , and well as celebrating the presence of the living Lord in our midst as the true Host.  The posture/position of the celebrant certainly reinforces some of these emphases in more explicit ways.  So, I would hope to not give up either EP or VP.  That said, I have been to celebrations of the HC in which the celebrant’s idiosyncrasies have been distracting no matter where they stood. Makes me think of the first verse of Geo. Herbert’s great poem about preachers. 

Lord, how can man preach thy eternal word?
He is a brittle crazy glass;
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.

May we ever seek to be windows of his grace.

hookemhooker [50],
Which particular “Mass” are you referring to? The reason we would not use such is that we are Protestants.

Regarding wafers Vs bread, it’s been my experience that the more evangelical the church is, the more likely they are to use leavened bread. In the same way, the more evangelical the theology, the more likely they are to require the Holy Spirit to travel through the power grid into the electric guitars, drums and microphones.

Oh, I forgot to mention the requirement that chorus words be projected upon large white screens.

Without these “means of grace”, it’s hard to have “spirit filled worship” on the sign out front.

Unfortunately there is not much market for a high church evangelical these days.

The tide is turning. Thanks be to God.

Which sacrifice and what Mass are some of the people posting referring to?  The only time in the BCP that these two terms are used together is in Article XXXI. “Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross” and I don’t believe it is a positive reference!

But then I’m just one of those low church evangelicals like Latimer, Ridley, Nowell, Whitfield, Wesley, Ryles, and Packer.  It’s probably that I haven’t spent more time on my Latin vocabulary!
Pax et Bonum!
Steve

[63] Etienne

Catholics believe the Mass is a bloodless representation of the sacrifice of Calvary.

carl

Carl,64
Don’t we all think it is done in remembrance of His death until he comes again?

Handy,
With you on real bread and dunk’em.

The 1662 calls for the finest wheat flour and ordinary bread.  Wafers would be ‘out’. 

It also calls for dunking those who are healthy enough.

*I’d support Real bread without the yeast (leaven) - think Pita bread - it breaks, it doesn’t leave a lot of crumbs, and it is still easily recognized as ordinary bread.

Sorry Cap’n.
I think I’d be in the market for a high church evangelical service….

Now there are two?

[65] Bo

Don’t we all think it is done in remembrance of His death until he comes again?

Catholics believe the Mass is a propitiatory bloodless representation of the sacrifice of Calvary.  No Protestant can accept this. 

carl

Carl,
Thanks,
I had ‘representation’ in mind, wasn’t making the propitiatory connection.

[68] Bo

I probably should have written ‘re-presentation’ so as to be clear.  Your question forced clarity, and that is good.

carl

Carl,
We believe that the mass is a making present of the sacrifice of Calvary, like a way of opening a window in time to that moment.  It is propitiatory just because it is the one sacrifice of Christ. 
Susan

Susan,
A recreation/re-instantiation rather than a remembrance?

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church

It is my understanding that “anamnesis” means something more like “making present”  than quite what we mean by remembrance. 
Recreation would mean making again, which does sound as if it refers to a new and separate event, so that isn’t quite right. 
I don’t know what re-instantiation means, really.

I prefer the “window in time”  idea.  I like to say that at mass we are standing at the foot of the cross. 

Susan Peterson

Susan,
re-instantiation (actually the term is used without the hyphen) is a database term, when an exact copy of database is made to exist on another disk, it is reinstantiation.

Everything is the same, except the place.

Same tables, same rows, same columns, same descriptions, same contents, same code, only the physical substrate has been changed.

(I’ve spent more time as DBA than as a Theologian, sorry for the cross-talk).

If I understand you, the ‘Mass’ is the same effective, once-and-for-all sacrifice made ‘present’ in a different physical substrate.

Ardent Anglican, with reference to your account of your daughter thinking the priest was doing a cooking demonstration and thinking ad orientem would be better because it wouldn’t look that way…

You should read Dom Gregory Dix’s account of what his aunt believed the Catholic mass was.  She believed a crab was dropped on the altar and the priest had to keep it from crawling off!  In the old mass there were many many signs of the cross made over the altar, so you can sort of imagine this. Fr. Dix said he suggested to her that the mass was some sort of Holy Communion service, but she was having none of this, she knew better. 

Just to illustrate the expression “from the sublime to the ridiculous”!
Susan Peterson

Bo, that sounds right…I think.
Except in the database example, you then have two equal copies of the same thing, no?  Which wouldn’t be analogous.  Unless I am thinking about this wrong. Sorry, it’s late.  But thank you for really thinking about this.
But yes, it is the same effective once for all sacrifice made present…at least in a different time….or gives us access to something which occurred both in time and in a moment outside of time. 
Susan Peterson

Carl, thank you for posting the catechism text. 
It seems to make my point for me.  The sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory because “the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross are one single sacrifice.” 
Susan Peterson

Susan,
In the database case, yes, you could have two copies, or more, but you can have the mass at however many church-houses there are too…..

God operates where we have no words.

The ‘time-window’ allows for multiple windows too,
The ‘extra bit’ was for me that the Lord’s Supper doesn’t ‘open a window’ it brings into the ‘now’ our Lord’s death until He comes again (through our remembrance).

It isn’t a new death, but His death (the lamb slain before the foundation of the world) made new in our spirit.  The same death reinstantiated in our hearts by faith.

Sorry,
The ‘real original’ is still back in time and in one place.
The ‘reinstantiated’ copies are everywhere and when we partake of the Lord’s Supper.

This are some arguments that run counter to much that has been said here, but I believe they need to be mentioned.

It can be argued, from a catholic perspective, that celebration of the Eucharist, versus populum better represents the idea of the priest as alter christus.  If we picture Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper with his disciples, it is difficult to imagine that he would have faced away from the disciples as he instituted that Supper—or that he would have needed to do so to stand with the people and “face toward God.”  He was (and is) God.  The priest as alter Christus is standing in the place of the Lord, re-presenting the sacrifice Christ has made for the people.

The quotation from St. John of Damascus, offered by Fr. Cantrell (#22), makes the point that congregations oriented their worship so that they faced, not merely liturgical east (meaning wherever the altar happened to be—that designation of “east” is a later liturgical development), but geographical east, wherever possible.  The Biblical references St. John of Damascus cites make clear this preoccupation with geographical east.  However, the question of which way the congregation faced in worship is a separate question from which way the priest faced in celebrating.  (I realize this is a difficult shift in thinking for those who have always read John of Damascus as supporting the ad orientem position.  But read Book IV, Chapter 12, again carefully.  In the part that speaks most closely of the eucharistic action, he mentions Christ on the Cross facing west.  Further, it can be argued that the priest’s facing the congregation and the visible eucharistic action are a better representation of those things that John cites as coming to the congregation from the east.)  Plus, as some here have mentioned, the archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest examples of Christian worship spaces provided for basilican or versus populum celebrations. 

Undoubtedly, by the late middle ages, ad orientem celebrations were the norm, and churches were built accordingly.  Coinciding with this liturgical development was the theological development that saw the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice that was offered by the priest to God.  And while, as the Roman Catechism states, “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,”  there was a definite shift of emphasis (or change in direction) that occurred between the early and medieval understandings of the Eucharist, and you can’t read historical theology without seeing it happen.

While, again to quote the Catechism, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross,” the difference is to whom the sacrifice is re-presented.  Is it a re-presentation of the sacrifice to God in a way that is propitiatory for the sins of the worshipers?  Or is it a re-presentation by the priest as alter christus to the people of Christ’s self-offering?  There are other ways to put these questions, but this at least makes clear the two distinct understandings that lie behind ad orientem and versus populum celebrations.  It is not a catholic/protestant issue, nor are all the arguments and evidence on one side of the question.

Robert S. Munday+
Nashotah House

ToAllTheWorld,
Thanks very much for the information, and all the more for the question:

“...[I]s it a re-presentation by the priest as alter christus to the people of Christ’s self-offering?”

Can one say ‘Yes’ and be in the good graces of Rome and the Anglo-Catholic theologians?

As long as we’re quoting Catechism’s how about our own BCP 1662:
“Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained?
Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ and of the benefits which we receive thereby.”
No Mass, no sacrifice of the Eucharist, just the Lord’s Supper for the remembrance of the ‘full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction’.
Pax et Bonum!
Steve

Shane [52]
I noticed that you made no mention of the anti-vestment controversy during the reign of Elizabeth I and the issuance of the Advertisements which required the wearing of the surplice in parish churches and permitted the wearing of the cope in cathedrals and college chapels. Early in Elizabeth’s reign a number of priests refused to wear even the surplice and read the service, preached, and administered the sacraments in street clothes. Bishop John Jewel himself in his correspondence with the Swiss Reformer Henry Bullinger expressed sympathy with their position. A number of these priests were fined and eventually deprived of their livings for repeated offenses but the practice did not disappear.

While the rubrics of the 1559 Prayer Book enjoined kneeling to receive communion, standing or even sitting around “God’s board” was not unknown in the Elizabethan church, a practice like the wearing of street clothes the Elizabethan bishops sought not always successfully to suppress. Although the declaration on kneeling was dropped from the 1559 Prayer Book, the doctrinal view associated with this declaration was nonetheless held and taught in the Elizabethan Church.

While the Holy Table was sometimes brought to the foot of the chancel in some churches, it placed in the midst of the nave in other churches and those who were going to receive communion gathered around it. The table was placed lengthwise with the priest standing at the north end or north side where the people could see what he was doing and hear what he was saying. The eastward position was avoided due to its strong association with the doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice and Transsubstantiation, which are rejected in the Articles of Religion of 1562 and 1571.

Archbishop Lancelot Andrews reintroduced the eastward position in his chapel. Andrews held and taught that the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion was a sacrifice in contradition to the Bible and the Thirty-Nine Articles as did a number of the Caroline High Churchmen. Archbishop William Laud reintroduced the eastward position in the Church of England with a number of other changes that were extremely unpopular with the general populace but were embraced by the English nobility who, like Charles I, preferred a High Church style of worship. In the mind of the general populace these changes were associated with the Church of Rome and papacy. Indeed the Roman hierarchy concluded on the basis of the changes that he had introduced in the English Church that Laud was sympathetic to Roman Catholicism and at least twice offered him a cardinal’s hat. The hope was that Charles I, influenced by his Roman Catholic wife, and aided by Laud would bring the English Church back into the Roman fold. Among the charges that were made against Laud at his trial was that he held and taught the doctrine of Transsubstantiation.

According to David Philips, director of the Church Society, the Church of England’s oldest conservative evangelical organization, standing at the north end or side of the Lord’s Table is the most appropriate position for the minister because the congregation can not only see what he is doing and hear what he is saying but also it emphasizes his role as a steward of God. The minister is not the host at the Lord’s Supper (the westward position); Christ is. The minister is not a sacrificing priest (the eastward position); Christ has offered once for all time the perfect sacrifice for our sins. No other sacrifice is needed. Christ does not reoffer his sacrifice or plead it. Having offered atonement for the sins of the world, he sat down at the Father’s side. Rather as God’s steward, the minister provides food and drink for the other members of God’s household from God’s store in the form of the Word and the sacrament of the Holy Communion. These are the provisions that God himself has set apart to feed his people.

It would appear that I elevated Lancelot Andrews from bishop to Archbishop. Andrews, however, was successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. He was never an archbishop.

#84
Would have made a great one though.

#85
In many ways Andrews exercised the influence of an archbishop.

Sub

Either versus populorum or ad orientam is fine with me. North side, too low church, no good. And a chasuble is a neccessity, as is the lavabo. In July I went to St. Patricks Incline Village, NV. The priest celebrated sans chasuble and did not wash his paws before he consecated the bread and wine. Not appropriate!

Last Supper. Passover. Un leavened bread.

Would you have me believe Christ, a Jew, ordained that he be “remembered oft as ye may” in the form of a fruit cake you buy from the VFW bake sale? I have had moments of silent hilarity watching a Trendy Piskie Rev scrabbling around after crumbs from his donut shop raisin bread hit the deck.

I vote for the matzoh look alike for the host, thank you. The other stuff is ok at a Clown Mass. Same sort of thing.