The return to the sources prompted by the Liturgical Movement and the Second Vatican Council stimulated an increased interest and advancements in the field of archaeology. This newfound interest in antiquity has led to many new discoveries, and it is often said that we now possess more knowledge about the early Church than we did half a century ago. Stefan Heid’s 2019 monograph entitled Altar und Kirche: Prinzipien christlicher Liturgie, translated into English by Susan Johnson and published by the Catholic University of America Press in 2023, offers a comprehensive archaeological status quaestionis regarding the construction and liturgical use of altars in the early Church. Heid challenges many longstanding assumptions in liturgical scholarship, contending that they are not substantiated by the available evidence.
Monsignor Stefan Heid, Rector of the Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology and a professor of liturgy and hagiography for over two decades, brings considerable expertise to this study. In this work, Heid utilizes his specialty in archaeology to inform the reader about ancient liturgical practices.
Types of Altars
In the prologue, Heid sets forth his aim to provide “an unimpeded look at the beginning of the Christian Altar” (26). To do this, he draws distinctions between three kinds of altars: 1) the pagan immolation altars, 2) the holy table (mensa sacra), and 3) the profane dining table. Heid astutely points out that an argument maintaining that the immolation altar was not adopted by the early Christians does not logically imply that the dining table was adopted. Rather, he asserts that this ideological-theological argument, which is made by liberal Protestantism, simply assumes that one of the three was not adopted.
While Heid resists the common interpretation of the early Eucharist as a simple communal meal, he also disassociates Christian altars from pagan sacrificial prototypes. He emphatically dismisses any link between the Christian altar and the ordinary dining table of antiquity. Instead, he argues for the mensa sacra as a distinct third category. Whether Heid intends to make a theological claim—that the Mass is or is not a true and proper immolation—remains ambiguous, especially as he intentionally distances early Christian practice from pagan immolation practices.
Against House Churches
In the third section, Heid challenges the widespread assumption that the early Church celebrated the Eucharist in private homes or in catacombs during periods of persecution. He asserts that, even prior to the Edict of Milan, the Eucharist was not celebrated clandestinely, but rather centered on the bishop’s altar in each episcopal city (76–78, 93–95).
Heid relies heavily on early Christian writings rather than on archaeological data to support his argument that there was only one liturgy in each city around the episcopal altar. His approach is effective, as Heid dedicates nearly one hundred pages to demonstrating that early Christian writers consistently reference a single altar per city (69–163). He also observes that archaeology offers little conclusive evidence on this issue (72). His citations throughout this section are commendably comprehensive.
He places particular emphasis on the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, especially the epistle to the Philadelphians, where Ignatius writes: “Take heed then, to partake of the one Eucharist. For (there is only) one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for the union of His blood, one altar as one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons” (Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, 4; Heid, 49). While many readers interpret this as a metaphor for the one perfect heavenly altar of which all earthly altars are a foretaste (173), Heid maintains that there is no hint of metaphor in Ignatius’s letter, and that Ignatius shows us that there was only one altar and only one bishop per episcopal city.
In this section, Heid’s treatment of the Fermentum rite is notably inadequate. He devotes only a few pages to this crucial topic (141–143). The Fermentum, the Roman practice of distributing a portion of the bishop’s Eucharist to other churches, is highly relevant to Heid’s central claim. For his argument to hold, he must either contest the antiquity of this rite—perhaps by showing that Eusebius does not reference it in his account of Irenaeus’s letter to Pope Victor (see Ecclesiastical History, V.24.15)—or argue that these ancillary celebrations did not themselves constitute full Eucharistic liturgies, functioning instead as a kind of early Communion service. While the book is generally thorough, this section warrants more detailed engagement.
Ad Orientem
Nearly all of the rest of the book is dedicated to providing archaeological and historical data on the question about the orientation of the liturgy from early Christianity—whether and when it was celebrated ad orientem or versus populum. The extensive archaeological and historical data Heid presents here is a significant contribution to liturgical scholarship. Regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions, the scope and rigor of his research are noteworthy.
Ultimately, he agrees with Marcel Metzger and Klaus Gamber as he systematically refutes various arguments that claim the original practices were not east-facing. Heid claims that the practice of east-facing liturgy in the Roman tradition was confused during the popes’ “exile” in Avignon (289). The clergy who returned to Rome had lost the ancient understanding of the eastward orientation. This alienation was reinforced by the introduction and multiplication of side altars, without any common direction. The orientation of the celebration at Saint Peter’s in the Vatican has been a topic of much confusion. While the location of the relics of St. Peter has led archaeologists to assert that Mass could not have been celebrated facing east, Heid suggests that even in Old St. Peter’s, it was not as impossible as has been suggested by other archaeologists (289–312).
The book is richly illustrated with images of church buildings, catacomb art, sacramentaries, and other artifacts (416–419, 463–472, passim). Heid convincingly demonstrates that many depictions of seemingly versus populum liturgies represent non-liturgical events. Looking at these many arguments for and against the celebration at the so-called “people’s altar,” Heid urges the reader to “put an end to the meal-table ideology” which is suffused with versus populum arguments (438).
Scholarly and Popular Value
Altar and Church: Principles of Liturgy from Early Christianity offers considerable value to both liturgical scholars and those interested in Church history. It should become a normative academic text and an interesting, but difficult, text for non-specialists. Heid’s argument against the plurality of altars in early episcopal cities will either be refuted by scholarship or change the landscape of scholarship. Additionally, his extensive analysis of the orientation and evolution of the early Christian altar is equally significant.
The question of liturgical orientation continues to shape both scholarly debates and contemporary ecclesial life. Heid’s persistent critique of archaeological interpretations from the 20th century invites careful reconsideration. In the epilogue, he encapsulates a guiding principle that permeates the book: “The risk of archaeologism becomes quite apparent: old practices are copied simply because they are thought to be the original. In reality, however, when isolated from their historical context, they can take on a life of their own and set in motion something completely different from what was originally associated with them and intended” (415).
While the danger of archaeologism is articulated at its conclusion, the concept is a sure motif throughout the book. Given Heid’s archaeological expertise, it stands as a particularly timely caution. Much of what was once confidently asserted about principles of liturgy from early Christianity has proven to be overly simplistic or inaccurate. In offering “an unimpeded look at the beginning of the Christian altar” (26), Heid has demonstrated that the return to the sources around the Second Vatican Council was not a pure translation of past practice to current conditions.
