In reviewing the literature relating to the disposal of altars during the preparation of an earlier post, we began compiling an index of judgments on these and on other associated issued. Recent judgments relating to an altar frontal have now been added to the following links.
Re All Saints, Sanderstead [2011] Southwark Const. Ct, Petchey Following the removal of altar rails for a trial period, the applicants sought a faculty for their permanent removal to create more space in the sanctuary, to facilitate the distribution of Communion and to assist those who could not kneel to receive Communion owing to age or disability. After considering the history of canon law concerning the distribution of Communion, Petchey Ch. held that there is no canonical obstacle to receiving Communion standing nor to not providing altar rails. As regards the Equality Act, while divine service and the administration of Communion are public services they are not the actions of a public authority. Accordingly, neither the European Convention on Human Rights nor the Equality Act were applicable. As the removal of the altar rails would not adversely affect the aesthetic appearance of the church the Bishopsgate questions did not apply. Faculty granted.
Re St. Leonard Hythe [2023] ECC Can 2 The petitioner applied for a restoration order in respect of a portable altar which had been used on the chancel steps at the head of the nave. The Commissary General disagreed and dismissed the petitioner’s application. The petitioner applied for leave to appeal the judgment and in Re St. Leonard Hythe [2023] EACC 1, the Dean of the Arches refused to grant leave to appeal.
Re St. Mary Ecclesfield [2023] ECC She 2 The petitioners sought to create a prayer chapel in the north transept of the church by moving to the centre a stored medieval stone mensa resting on a stone base. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works did not affect the church as a building of special historical or architectural significance. [Re St. Mary Ecclesfield [2023] ECC She 2]
Re St. Michael le Belfrey York [2023] ECC Yor 2 As part of replacing the existing floor, “[t]here is also the mensa stone, thought to be the Medieval mensa of the Minster’s high altar reputedly relocated in 1617. If so…it is one of the most significant altar components in York. The mensa is the oldest part of the floor and a GPS survey revealed that it may cover a burial vault. As such the mensa is the main area of interest in terms of the flooring. There is no proposal to move it, rather the proposal is to carefully conserve it in situ” [147]. [Post]
Re St. Nicholas Leicester [2023] ECC Lei 1 The Petitioners sought to introduce a new altar frontal, based on a Progress Pride image with a white cross upon it. The Deputy Chancellor determined that three of the objectors had a sufficient interest. [Post]
Re St. Nicholas Leicester [2023] ECC Lei 2 Further to Re St. Nicholas Leicester [2023] ECC Lei 1, subsequent correspondence required the Chancellor to reconsider whether one of the three had a sufficient interest. He determined to give the person concerned a short period in which to provide further information before the Chancellor made a decision. [Post]
[For a more detailed summary, see Of altars…Weekly round-up, 14 May 2023]
Re St Nicholas Leicester [2023] ECC Lei 3, Rees Acting Chancellor set aside his original order in so far as he now considered that one of those three objectors did not have a sufficient interest in the petition. Since one of the two remaining objectors subsequently left the Church of England and did not respond to the Petitioners’ application, he too was no longer deemed to have “sufficient interest”.
“Sufficient interest” in faculty petitions – II, A summary of the four judicial considerations arising from the faculty petition in Re St Nicholas Leicester [2023] ECC Lei 1. (24 January 2024).
Re St Nicholas Leicester [2024] ECC Lei 3, handed down on 7 February, Gyane Ch concluded that a faculty should not be granted. The essence of her judgment was encapsulated at paragraphs [73] and [76]:
“[73]. The focus, purpose and celebration of the Holy Communion is for all to come to Jesus and remember His sacrifice. We come to the Communion table not to forget who we are or our identity but to remember the sacrifice of Jesus and our identity in Him. At the Communion table, ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for [we] are all one in Christ Jesus [ref 4]’. It is clear that there is not a unified belief that the proposed altar frontal achieves this message of oneness in Christ and, in my view, this is the purpose of the Altar frontal. The Petition is on the basis of drawing to the Communion table one group within the Anglican communion (albeit a marginalised one). It is therefore inherent in that objective that not all are represented in the design and the call to draw near…
Disputed altar frontal: St Nicholas Leicester. The substantive judgment Re St. Nicholas Leicester [2024] ECC Lei 2 was handed down by Gyane Ch. on 7 February 2024; she was not persuaded to grant a faculty. (20 February 2024).
Re St. Gregory Castlemorton [2019] ECC Wor 2 A follow-up phase of reordering included inter alia improving the layout of the chancel by the removal of some of the pews; removal of the 1944 communion rail; conversion of the Lady Chapel altar to allow the storage of altar linen; and the creation of new cupboard storage space [5] to [12]. Mynors Ch. granted a faculty for these aspects of the proposal.
Re Holy Trinity Cambridge [2016] ECC Ely 1. The faculty petition proposed a major reordering of a Grade II* church. The amenity societies involved objected to several of the proposals. Leonard Ch. commented:
“[5]. … It is unarguable that the present state of the Church is a mess, in particular the Chancel which is dominated by a drum kit between the altar and the congregation with no room to store it in that area, and such furniture which remains in the chancel is scattered and without order…The Chancellor did not set out the plans in extenso because many parts of the scheme are uncontroversial, noting “[s]ome of the more controversial plans, such as removing all the stained glass and doing away with the altar entirely have been abandoned. I am glad that they have”.
A faculty was granted for the majority of the items; one of the items the Chancellor declined to approve was the carpeting of the nave.
With regard to the (abandoned) proposal to completely remove the altar, Canon F 2 Of the holy table requires that “in every church and chapel a convenient and decent table, of wood, stone, or other suitable material, shall be provided for the celebration of the Holy Communion, and shall stand in the main body of the church or in the chancel where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said. Any dispute as to the position where the table shall stand shall be determined by the Ordinary.
In Re: St Stephen’s (1987) 3 WLR 726, (1987) 2 ALL E.R. 578, summarized here, the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved examined the scope for Canon F2 with reference to the well-known Henry Moore altar. Further consideration on the requirement regarding an altar was given in Re St. Michael Cumnor at paragraphs 12 to 14.