What is in Kelvin's Head?

Thanksgivingukkah

28/11/2013

Double blessings today. Blessings upon American friends celebrating Thanksgiving and blessings too on Jewish friends celebrating Hanukkah. It is very unusual for the two holidays to coincide. The last time was in 1888. The next time will be in 70000 years. (I know, that does seem incredible but calendars are calendars).

I was in the States last year for Thanksgiving. It is a slightly odd festival to observe as a single non-American to whom the feast has little meaning. For me it meant thinking very carefully about how I was travelling at that time as so many Americans try to fly around the country that airports are very busy, often at a time when weather is tricky. In the end I settled on spending Thanksgiving on an island in Florida and hired a bike to explore a wildlife park for alligators and other extraordinary things and sat on the beach looking at snowy egrets and pelicans.

The thing that really surprised me was going to church on Thanksgiving morning and discovering that it was a harvest festival. Somehow I hadn’t made the connection at all.

As for Hanukkah, we had readings from the first book of the Maccabees last week at Daily Prayer in the Scottish Episcopal Church. So the swashbuckling exploits of Judas Maccabeus are fairly fresh in my mind. We only get anything from Maccabees once in the two year cycle of the readings at Daily Prayer. Always make me realise that there is so much from Jewish history that I don’t know that much about.

Anyway, to everyone celebrating today, many blessings.

And yes, it really is 70000 years until these two festivals will co-incide again.

alligators, egrets, hanukkah, thanksgiving

6 responses to “Here or there?”

Gary

01/04/2007

Up there. High altar. No doubt.

Reply
Tom Allen

01/04/2007

I am very much with Richard Giles on this one – there should liturgically only be one main altar – ideally this is achieved by romoving the former High altar and dedicating that space to some other purpose – where that is not possible as in historic cathedrals then it should be left dormant (covered in a simple cloth perhaps) and only the altar which is being used for worship should be dressed since this is in fact THE altar.

Despite all the reservations about removing former altars in the end it solves long-term problems, and provides a single visual focus for Eucharistic worship. At times when a high altar is needed then the new altar can moved there.

This kind of fuzziness illustrates that our liturgical practice has become dominated by hertiage criteria.

I am about to replace our main altar with something moveable and aesthetically more appropriate, but am facing a Registrars ruling that the current altar (and former eastward facing number more recently provided with wheels and moved to the chancel!) must be burnt, and that the wood frontal cannot be used for a screen.

Dont’ we get ourselves tied up in knots!
Tom

Reply
Stewart

01/04/2007

A thought came to my mind this afternoon. At the Creed we all face east. This results in the choir turning their back on the Nave Altar and in most cases put the High Altar in their sight.

Considering Tom’s comments, another thought thinking about some English Cathedrals which have multiple altars around the building, it is not usually possible to see more than one at a time. Some have a chapel behind the High Altar – behind a screen.

Turning back to St Mary’s – all the action at the 10:30 service is centred and focused around the Nave Altar. However there is still the High Altar, the Pheobe Traquair Reredos and Gwyneth Leach mural of Our Lady at the East End. To my mind their presence enhances the worship around the Nave Altar and does not detract from it.

Reply
Andrew

02/04/2007

The Altar is a table, where we commemorate a meal together. Clearly (to my mind) we should all be sitting round it, as we do (more or less) at present. The table reminds me that Jesus instituted the Last Supper when he was among us (HERE), not somewhere else (THERE).

I very much hope that the Altar in St. Mary’s can be left where it is.

Reply
kelvin

03/04/2007

It seems to me curious that the practice that I inherited was to light and dress the high altar whilst using the nave altar. It makes no sense, except perhaps to highlight St Mary’s puzzling parallel worlds of deep conservatism mingled with radical liberalism.

Whist tending to agree with Andrew’s sentiments, it is worth remembering that the nave altar could hardly be said to have stayed in one place these last 20 years.

Reply
Elizabeth

17/04/2007

Here. Both. Loving the paradox.

But maybe I only say that beccause the only church I’ve regularly worshiped in where there are clearly two visible altars is St Mary’s and that’s what I’m used to. I’ve never found it distracting that the high altar is dressed and lit, even though the nave altar is where the action is, so to speak. But then, would I notice if the high altar wasn’t dressed and lit? Probably not.

I do love the nave altar, peripatetic as it is!

Reply