What is in Kelvin's Head?

Liturgical news

04/02/2013
Here is the liturgical news from St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow yesterday.
- The Provost announced during morning service that the church is responsible for far too much condemnation in the world and far too few blessings. He and the Vice Provost then went on to offer the ancient Blessing of the Throats traditionally performed by holding candles to the throats of the faithful on St Blaise’s Day. About 45 members of the congregation had their throats blessed.
- There have been no outbreaks of any diseases of the throat since yesterday.
- The Provost turned into a flailing jellyfish at two points during yesterday’s mass. The first was the result of him seeing the gospel procession going past him and on down the aisle before he had woken up to the fact that he was the deacon and due to read the gospel. The second was when he tried to retrieve and consume a fallen host during communion. This resulted in a manoeuvre that is known as being Slain in the Spirit amongst low church people and known as falling Amice over Tippet by high church people.
- The Provost was dismayed at the end of the mass to have it pointed out to him that the mass may not have been valid as he was wearing his stole in the manner of a priest rather than in the manner of a deacon.
- The Provost then used the fact that his stole was the wrong way round to justify the fact that he had forgotten to follow the gospel procession earlier in the service.
- Black shoes were worn throughout.

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