I am speculating, but it could be that this change reflected how the Old High Church tradition understood the significance of the North End during the Eucharist. As seen here in Wheatly's A Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer (1714), the position of the priest at the 'right side' of the Holy Table mirrors the place of the Ascended Lord in the heavenly sanctuary:
we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens - Hebrews 8:1;
he sat down at the right hand of God - Hebrews 10:12;
Thou sittest at the right hand of God - Te Deum.
The North End thus embodies the understanding of eucharistic sacrifice set forth by Wheatly:
we intercede on earth, in conjunction with the great intercession of our High Priest in heaven, and plead in the virtue and merits of the same sacrifice here which he is continually urging for us there.
Sparrow had earlier indicated a similar understanding with his statement that "the Chancel typifies heaven". This was also reflected in the Church of Ireland's 1666 'Form of Consecration, or, Dedication of Churches'. The prayer for the dedication of "the Altar, or Communion Table" declared:
thy holy Son ... also now sits at thy right hand, and upon the heavenly altar perpetually presents to thee the Eternal Sacrifice ... accept us in the dedication of a Ministerial altar, which we humbly have provided for the performance of this great Ministry, and in imitiation of Christ's Eternal Priesthood.
The North End, therefore, was understood to give expression to a richly patristic account of eucharistic sacrifice, a setting forth on earth of "the commemorative Sacrifice of the death of Christ, which does as really and truly shew forth the death of Christ" (Sparrow), reflecting the Ascended Lord's ministry in the sanctuary not made by mortal hands, like unto "a Lamb as it had been slain" (Revelation 5:6). It was on this basis, in his classic celebration of the Caroline tradition in the Church of Ireland, that F.R. Bolton defended the post-disestablishment Church of Ireland's "rubrical and canonical insistence" on the North End:
[this] should be regarded as a perpetuation of traditional Anglican usage, which cannot be condemned without condemning the Caroline Divines and early Tractarians who used it.
As George Herring reminds us, the North End was only abandoned by "some, but by no means all" Tractarian parishes in the 1840s and 1850s. Prior to this, it was a unifying practice within Anglicanism, an expression of Common Prayer and uniformity, embracing both catholic and reformed emphases - reflecting the heavenly sanctuary and ensuring that the manual acts were seen by the people. It was, in other words, a practice both catholic and reformed.
So what is the purpose of this post? Firstly, it is to attempt in some way to rescue the North End from "the enormous condescension of posterity", from its outright dismissal as an absurd eccentricity by the Parish Communion and Liturgical Movements. Secondly, it is to suggest that the portrayal of the North End as a 'low' practice - the view of that unholy alliance of Ritualists and neo-Puritans - deprives Anglicanism of an authentic understanding of a practice which was a part of eucharistic piety for generations of Anglicans. Thirdly, it is a reminder that contemporary use of either versus populum or ad orientem needs a rationale at least as theologically rich and coherent as that given by the pre-1833 High Church tradition for the North End.
And finally ... yes, perhaps it is to tentatively propose that the North End should not be entirely lost to the Anglican patrimony. Perhaps parishes and communities with a charism for restoring Common Prayer in an age of "[a]lmost ubiquitous liturgical chaos" (Milbank) might consider retrieving a practice at once richly catholic and authentically reformed.
I've had little to no luck finding any pics, let alone videos, of a parish celebrating this way, which I find to be a real pity. Admittedly it would take some getting used to, and is rather hard to visualize at first. But the more I sit with it and imagine it, the more it makes the most sense, especially with a classically Anglican understanding of the Eucharist. And yet, it's nearly unknown, and if you mention North End celebration, "What's that? What? Really?" "Eh, that's too weird" or worse is the response, at least here in the US. It just disappeared without a trace, and seemingly without regret, and that's the worst part. Obviously this was us for so very long...and then it wasn't. All done. All wrong. What do we do?
ReplyDeleteI did ask some US friends about it, and it seems that it is unknown now not only in TEC but also ACNA. It has also been pointed out to me that the PECUSA BCP 1928 rubrics seem to imply that the Eastward position will be normative. That said, the rubrics seem to me to be possibly open to either the North End or Eastward.
DeleteI am speculating at this point, but I do wonder if the departure of evangelicals for REC did undermine the use of the North End in late 19th century PECUSA.
As to the potential for restoring its use, I am cautious. Perhaps in some parishes used to versus populum, its use at a weekday Eucharist or early Sunday morning Eucharist (using a traditional rite) might work. Similarly, perhaps newly-formed communities, committed to traditional rites, might use it from the outset. Alternatively, perhaps it is impossible to restore, in which case reflecting on the theology of its usage amongst pre-1833 Anglicans could inform our current use of versus populum or ad orientem - there is a sense in which aspects of both might be taken to reflect some aspects of the theology of the North End e.g. versus populum echoes the North End's concern with the people seeing the manual acts; ad orientem echoes (however imperfectly) the North End's concern with the sacrifical aspect of the Eucharist.