Altered states.

Dear editor,

Re: Altering the altar, (January Journal). After reading this article I wonder whether the Journal will present the case for the sort of "liturgical renewal" that respects everyone's feelings, rather than insisting on a single solution? Clergy, liturgical renewalists and theologians, being only human, are quite as likely to be misguided as lay people, and should not, like Canon Michael McKinley, blithely replace "We never did it that way before" with "You traditionalists are just not with it."

Full marks to Mr. McKinley for extensive consultation with his parishioners; but did any of them leave as a result of the changes? Has he considered a (traditional) fixed-position altar for more "traditional" eucharists, plus a movable altar, which can be placed anywhere? Does he realize that bare polished floors and easily displaced chairs are a menace to seniors with failing eyesight and reduced mobility, and that pews generally are more comfortable than the wooden chairs shown in your photographs?

Speaking as an architectural historian, I think the placing of a plain yet visually obtrusive object in the crossing of nave and transept has made an architectural mess of the design of many of Europe's great cathedrals. Better to build new churches for the new liturgy, perhaps along the lines of St. Paul's (Roman Catholic) church in Gravenhurst, Ont. Also, elevated pulpits allow everyone to see and hear the preacher, and are still more satisfactory in focusing on a person "down here" rather than on the loudspeakers "up there."

Fred Winter 

Toronto