Altar or Communion Table

[Bingley]

In something I'd written I referred to the altar, and was told by the vicar's wife that I should change it to communion table. She said there was only one altar, and that was the one used for sacrifices in the temple. She promised to give me references backing up her point of view, but does anybody know of any support for the traditional name, so I can hear both sides.

[Wigglesworth]

This is from a brochure distributed at a local Episcopal church I attended . . .

The Altar and Chancel Furnishings

The ALTAR - a designation first used by St. Paul, and common to early Christian speech - is second only to the cross as a symbol of the sacrifice of Jesus' 'oblation of himself once offered . . . for us.' Our MAIN ALTAR is the most prominent feature of St. Stephen's. It is from the Altar that the Sacrament of Holy Communion is consecrated and administered among us in every Holy Eucharist. Here the MAIN ALTAR of carved stone intentionally recalls an ancient tomb from which the Lord arose. The CHAPEL ALTAR, in wood, recalls the table at which our Lord first instituted the Sacrament at his Last Supper.
Figuartively or actually, there is some Scripture about an altar other than the one in the temple. This appears to be the passage referred to in the brochure:

10 We have an altar from which the priests in the Temple on earth have no right to eat. 11 Under the system of Jewish laws, the high priest brought the blood of animals into the Holy Place as a sacrifice for sin, but the bodies of the animals were burned outside the camp. 12 So also Jesus suffered and died outside the city gates in order to make his people holy by shedding his own blood. 13 So let us go out to him outside the camp and bear the disgrace he bore. 14 For this world is not our home; we are looking forward to our city in heaven, which is yet to come.

15 With Jesus’ help, let us continually offer our sacrifice of praise to God by proclaiming the glory of his name. 16 Don’t forget to do good and to share what you have with those in need, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God.

Hebrews 13:10-16 (NLT).

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a high church/low church distinction, but I shall await further explanation from more seasoned Anglicans.

[benedictine]

I have never heard an altar refered to as a table, excpet by my nine-year old brother.

[Father Rick]

No disrespect meant, but your vicar's wife was just wrong.
First, there was more than one altar in the temple area (an altar of incense in the Holy Place and an altar of sacrifice in the Outer Court). Secondly, there were many different altars built by different people throughout the time of the Old Testament. Noah built altars. Abraham built an altar to sacrifice Isaac (but God provide a ram instead.) Jacob built altars. Moses built altars, David build altars, etc.


Now, in the book of Joshua, there was an issue when the children of Israel moved into Canaan. 10 1/2 tribes moved to one side of the Jordan river, 2 1/2 tribes moved to the other half. (At this time there was one 'official' altar/tabernacle). Those that were not on the same side of the river as the tabernacle built themselves an altar 'not for sacrifice, but for a memorial' to remember/stay in continuity with the altar in the tabernacle. (Joshua 22:21-29)

After the one 'official' altar was built, God spoke to Gideon and told him to build an altar. (Judges 6:25) Elijah built an altar of stone, and fire came from heaven and consumed the sacrifice (1 kings 18:30-35). I could give more examples, but this should be plenty.


My guess is that your vicar's wife is reacting against the theology that states that Christ is sacrificed anew as an ongoing sacrifice for sins in the Eucharist. Most Anglicans hold that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but a sacrifice of thanksgiving not a sin offering-- since the work of Christ on the cross was sufficient for the forgiveness of sins.

[RobNJ]

In something I'd written I referred to the altar, and was told by the vicar's wife that I should change it to communion table. She said there was only one altar, and that was the one used for sacrifices in the temple.

Ahhh Good Calvinst Party Line!!!...... That IS a widely held belief among the Reformed..and one that I was taught, and taught, during my years in the RCA. I remember at one Classis Meeting (a level of church govenment, made up of ministers & elders in an area..same as a diocese), talking to a minster who had had a similar background of being a Refomed kid, in a Lutheran elmentary school. He designeda sanctuary for one of his classes, and was told to re-name the communion table as the alter.

[pmcleanj]

In something I'd written I referred to the altar, and was told by the vicar's wife that I should change it to communion table. She said there was only one altar, and that was the one used for sacrifices in the temple. She promised to give me references backing up her point of view, but does anybody know of any support for the traditional name, so I can hear both sides.
I heard of this several years ago, when one of the great churches in England commissioned a new "altar" to be designed by a prestigious architect. According to the news articles, the end result was a kidney-shaped lump of red stone. Conservatives took the matter to court to have it removed, making the argument that it was an altar rather than a Table and hence was illegal. The distinction made was that altars are for offering sacrifices, where as Christ is the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice who made future sacrifices unnecessary. According to the articles, there is an English law that prohibits setting up an altar.

I cannot recall which church this was, nor the name of the architect; nor can I testify that the lump of stone was indeed reddish, as this was back in the days when newspapers were "black and white and read all over".

However, the Book of Common Prayer doesn't use the term "Altar". It refers to the Lord's Table as "the Lord's Table".

I think we can all agree, that the Church has no need for the kind of sacrifices that actually require an altar to channel the sacrifice's blood appropriately into the ground, or to support a fire to consume the offerings. Most of us, except the most Calvinistic, will also agree that in the Lord's Supper we do actually participate in Christ;s "One Oblation of himself once offered", which is "a full, perfect, and sufficient oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world". The question is whether that kairic participation requires that we use an altar, or whether the chronic fact that it was "once offered and perfect" requires that we eschew any subsequent use of altars.

As long as we use either term in full celebration that Christ's one sacrifice once-offered was sufficient (hence "Lord's Table") and also in full celebration that through Holy Communion Christ's one sacrifice once-offered becomes manifest for us (hence "altar") then the two terms can be used interchangeably and are value-neutral.

[chalice_thunder]

Rubrically speaking, we more often use the term 'Table' - it is more expressive of the feast to which all are called.

[pmcleanj]

This is from a brochure distributed at a local Episcopal church I attended . . .

I think you're right that Hebrews 13:10 is the passage referred to in the brochure. Altar guilds are rarely focussed on Biblical study, so their attribution of the Book of Hebrews to Paul was probably just a passing reference rather than a firmly-held opinion.

The word translated "altar" here is "thusiasterion" and literally refers to an altar for slaying or burning of sacrifices. It's being used metaphorically and refers in counterpoint to the temple altar, being bracketted between two references to animal sacrifice:
(9)Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. (10)We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.(11)For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
(12)Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.(13)Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.(14)For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.(15)By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.(16)But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. When the author of Hebrews returns again in verse 15 to the specific topic of sacrifice, he refers to abstracts and not to the physical sacrifice of the Mass. It's not an obvious precedent for naming the Christian Altar/Table.

In letters more overtly attributable to Paul, he does use "thusiasterion" many times, but in historical references. He also refers to "kurios trapeza" or "the Lord's Table":You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

This is also metaphorical, since there is no physical "table of demons". But it is a more direct reference to the Eucharist than the Hebrews passage is, and would appear to support the use of "the Lord's Table" as liturgical terminology drawn from Scripture.

[gtsecc]

If the Priest faces the Congregants, it is a table.



If the Priest faces East, it is an Altar.

[pmcleanj]

If the Priest faces the Congregants, it is a table.
If the Priest faces East, it is an Altar.

What if the church were atraditionally built with the altar at the west end, and the priest faces east, toward the congregation? ;) ...it does happen...

[gtsecc]

What if the church were atraditionally built with the altar at the west end, and the priest faces east, toward the congregation? ...it does happen...



Then they likely don't even believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrament is invalid? I am not sure. I think the acid test is whether the Altar is against the wall or a “picnic” table in the middle of the sanctuary.

[chalice_thunder]

...“picnic” table...

Oh my!!! :eek:

[RobNJ]

OK...someone with time on their hands (or a quick link ;) ), make an attempt to explain what difference the direction a churc is laid out in, is supposed to make?

Or..should I try to stump my priest, by asking him tomorrow, in my first confirmation class ? :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

Almost all Anglican parishes face East.
The risen sun, risen Son, and Holy Land are all EAST.

[gtsecc]

Almost/all Anglican and Catholic parishes faced East with an altar against the East wall until Vatican 2. Then the Alter was moved away from the wall, and replaced with a table in the middle of the sanctuary. The Priest faced the congregation, westward. Some Anglican parishes followed suit.

[chalice_thunder]

Almost/all Anglican and Catholic parishes faced East with an altar against the East wall until Vatican 2. Then the Alter was moved away from the wall, and replaced with a table in the middle of the sanctuary. The Priest faced the congregation, westward. Some Anglican parishes followed suit.



Maybe my parish is a major anomoly - but it was built PRE-Vatican II (1947) and it is oriented North-South, in a cruciform, with the Table (altar) at the crossing.

[gtsecc]

Maybe my parish is a major anomoly - but it was built PRE-Vatican II (1947) and it is oriented North-South, in a cruciform, with the Table (altar) at the crossing.I could be completely wrong. I grew up hearing that, but I have never actually got any hard numbers. My priest did suggest that it was rare until after V2.

[UberLutheran]

A table or an area set aside in the home for the lighting of candles, crosses, prayers, etc. is also called an altar.

[pmcleanj]

I could be completely wrong. I grew up hearing that, but I have never actually got any hard numbers. My priest did suggest that it was rare until after V2.
It was probably rare to non-existent in the Vatican church prior to Vatican II. Keeping the altar against the wall is a medaeival custom. The Anglican church and the Vatican church share a common medaeival history. But Anglican congregations have more freedom to make changes to the adiaphora of liturgy -- like the position of the altar.

When liturgical scholarship began to suggest that other positions for the altar might be more liturgically effective, and more in keeping with the practice of the early church, some Anglican congregations implemented those other suggested positions. And of course, some Anglican congregations place minimal weight on customs that lack support from Scripture, and would have ignored medaeival usage anyway.

I suspect Vatican congregations, in contrast, felt constrained *not* to implement any suggested changes until they had Vatican approval for them -- which Vatican II gave.

[Bingley]

Almost all Anglican parishes face East.
The risen sun, risen Son, and Holy Land are all EAST.
All Saints was built on a N/S axis, with the altar/table against the South wall. However, it was built by a Congregationalist missionary, not an Anglican. Also, the Holy Land (and so presumably, the risen Son) is West from Jakarta.

[AveMaria]

Not much to add, other than to note that I've never heard the phrase "Lord's Table" (or anything similar) spoken in my church - although the BCP does use 'Holy Table'.

I'll also point out that we have 'Altar Guilds' and 'Altar Rails', not 'Lord's Table Guilds' and etc.