Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Chancels

Category:Chancels

The term "chancel" has two, possibly three, separate definitions, (1. the portion of the church behind the altar railings or rood screen including the altar and usually the choir; 2. the liturgical East end of a church; 3. a squared-off East end, as opposed to an apsidal one — I'm uncertain whether the last one is valid). The category "Chancels" and its sub-categories could thus refer to multiple things. Additionally, in the case of the third definition, the exterior of the building would be excluded, which has not been the case on the commons thus far, resulting in inconsistent use of categories. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

To be consistent with Chancel categories, use Webster's definition of "chancel". Liturgical east and apses have nothing to do with it.

• (1) For the background to the above question, please see the discussion at User talk:HwætGrimmalkin#File:West Bowling St Stephen (8).JPG. There is nothing wrong with the point 1. above, which says the chancel is: " the portion of the church behind the altar railings or rood screen including the altar and usually the choir".
• (2) My main concern in this matter is the problem that arises when the existing chancel category is removed, and an east-end-of-church category is substituted in its place. As explained by the initiator of this CfD above, there appears to be some misunderstanding of what a chancel is.
• (4) Webster's defines a chancel as the part of a church containing the altar and seats for the clergy and choir. This definition is easy to use on Commons, because if the church is a traditional Roman Catholic or Anglican church, for example, and is currently in use, then we can see those items in the picture. There would be no reason to remove a "chancel" category from such a picture.
• (5) In those countries which consider themselves to be west of Jerusalem, then architecturally, the concept of the east end of a church is always taken literally, i.e. geographically. Traditionally, altars have their back to the east, the priest faces east towards the altar at mass/communion, and has their back to the congregation, so it is convenient to place the altar (and thus the chancel) at the east end of the church. The problem for categorisation in those countries arises where a congregation creates or imagines a "liturgical east" within the church, especially where an awkwardly tiny inner-city site has, for example, forced the chancel into the north end (as happened with File:Mill Hill Chapel Leeds D (27).JPG). In such a case, it is not appropriate to remove the Chancels category and replace it with an East end of church category. We can extend this argument to certain late 20th and early 21st-century churches which were originally designed with a central altar, such as this example, File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral inside.jpg. The site of the altar and positioning of the choir in that case, is not the east end of the church, even if the altar table itself is perceived to face a geographical east.
• (7) Roman Catholic, Anglican and some similar Christian priests and altars have traditionally faced east because their churches were established west of Jerusalem. Today those churches have spread across the world, and their priests in Africa, for example, are not going to be facing geographical east if they want to look to Jerusalem. But they may still have a chancel, which (if fitting Webster's definition) should be categorised in our images as a chancel. We cannot decide for African congregations, though, whether they want to call the north-west end of their church the east end of their church. That is up to them, not us, and each congregation may take a different attitude. If they've got a chancel, it's a chancel. If they have e.g. a central altar, it is not a chancel and is not an east end. Simples.
• (8) The architectural shape of the geographical eastern end of an early church (such as the pre-1900 Christian churches in Europe and UK) does not affect the definition of the chancel for categorisation purposes. Bringing apses into it does not help. An apse by itself can never mean "chancel". Roman baths, used by non-Christians, had apses. In England we have a number of churches on a cross-shaped plan, with up to four apses on the ends of the arms. I daresay you could find an old church or two in Rome like that. Apses and east ends are not interchangeable expressions.
• (8) The fact of the geographical eastern end of a UK/European traditional church being squared off means nothing in respect of categorising chancels. In the very old UK churches, some were originally built with an apse at the east end, where the chancel happened to be. The reason why some of those apses disappeared was that the churches were extended as populations grew; thus the foundations of those early apses are probably still there under the nave floor somewhere, and the new chancel end happens to be squared off, it being easier that way to create a great east window (huge east windows required nice fat donations from rich neighbours, and brought in the pilgrims). So being squared off (and having or not having an apse) have nothing to do with whether or not we can (or should) identify and categorise a chancel as a chancel.
• (9) Regarding the exterior of the building, there is no problem with identifying and categorising the geographical east end of any building, churches included (if their ground plan permits the identification of ends). However, it is never going to be appropriate to identify the exterior geographical north, south, or west end of a church as an east end, just because it contains a chancel which is not placed in the geographical east end (as with the some inner-city churches as mentioned above).
• (10) I have no objection to the use of Apse and East end categories, when used appropriately, i.e. for an apse which you can see in the picture, and for an east end of a building which really is the geographical east end. However I do have an objection to the removal of Chancel categories where a chancel can be seen in the picture, and that Chancel category being replaced with an East end category on the grounds that "East end" means "chancel". As far as I am concerned, that activity is not helpful.
• (11) European and Middle Eastern Christian churches came first, and tend to have a fairly traditional design, including the ancient tradition of altars and priests facing east. Now we have Christian churches around the world, which may have an entirely different attitude to the construction and usage of their churches. If you cannot categorise both the early European and Middle Eastern churches - and the Rest of the World churches - in the same way, then perhaps we should continue to use "chancel" for those churches which conform to Webster's definition above, and use some other method for those which do not. But we cannot stop categorising traditional chancels as chancels.

Note: my sight is gradually failing now, which means I make typos and cannot spot them, although I have checked and copyedited this post numerous times (sigh). If puzzled about anything above, please alert me. The bolded title above is supposed to be a title and summary of my reply (equivalent to Keep and Delete in other AfD's and CfD's). But if it worries you and looks like shouting, just unbold it. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)