Several years ago, Archbishop Rembert Weakland who was a part of the Consilium to redesign the Mass after Vatican II, and very progressive in matters of liturgy and otherwise, the law of prayer is the law of belief, lamented the fact that many progressive liturgists and parishes focused more an the "extravagant" signs and symbols of the liturgy which is idolatry and less on what these signify, Jesus Christ.
For example, in the modern post-Vatican II era, the focus was on the ingredients of the bread and wine used, did it look like real bread and have a lovely, chewable taste and quality, was it like real food. The same for the wine, was it pleasing to the nose, tantalizing and sweet to the tongue and did it have a rich, colorful bouquet?
Tied into this, did people actually eat and drink, chew and chug? After all, Jesus at the Last Supper told the Apostles take and eat, take and drink. He didn't say, receive, kneeling, and on the tongue and forget about taking and drinking.
Of course, at the Last Supper Jesus was talking to the Apostles as he instituted both the priesthood and the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, the first priests/bishops of the Church and not to the laity. And today, priests and bishops must take and eat, take and drink, but the laity have always "received" never taking!
In the Latin Rite, the belief that Jesus' Body and Blood is "whole" because we are receiving the Glorified and Risen Lord whole and complete, but under sacramental signs and symbols, and we are not receiving dead flesh and blood taken as though from a carving plate or a blood vile means that if the laity receive only the consecrated Bread or only the consecrated Wine, they receive Christ, pure and simple!
But listen to liturgists who focus on a misunderstanding of the Last Supper and what they think is the primary sign and symbol of the Communion Rite. It is processing to the Communion station, taking the bread that looks like real bread, eating and chewing and the same for the consecrated Wine, taking it and drinking, guzzling and moving on. This is the action that is primary to the Communion Rite and all this while they are singing a communion chant.
But actually, isn't the primary emphasis during the Communion Rite, receiving our Lord "hidden or veiled" under the sacramental signs of bread and wine. We're not receiving bread and wine as though these are an end in and of themselves, we are receiving Christ, in a physical/spiritual sense, not just spiritual.
For example, a person receives Christ spiritually when one asks the Lord to come into their heart and soul during prayer or during Holy Communion when unable to receive Him sacramentally, they do what is called a "spiritual" communion. While actually receiving the Body and Blood of our Risen and Glorified Lord is primary or the source and summit of receiving Christ, there are other ways to receive Christ and call it eating and drinking, like eating the Word of God and drinking it in and do so not in the literal sense but in the figurative sense at Mass during the Liturgy of the Word.
For example, when I eat cereal, I eat and drink the milk with it by using a spoon. When I was a baby, my mother spoon-fed me. In either case, I was eating and drinking.
The same with Italians who know quite well and fabulously wonderfully, that when one takes a good piece of Italian bread and drunks it into a fine class of Chianti that they are eating and drinking that bread and wine even though it is by "dunking" the liturgical side which is called "intinction!"
Now for kneeling or standing for Holy Communion. The liturgists say that standing better symbolizes being "raised up" in Christ. I say, bull! If I receive kneeling, I am still raised up in Christ. If I receive while sick and in bed, I am still raised up in Christ. And if I died in Christ and lay in my coffin before the altar at my Requiem, I am still raised up in Christ! Just who are these liturgists kidding by their silly reductionism as it concerns the symbol of being raised up?
Yes,the Mass in either form, OF or EF must show forth Jesus Christ under the various signs and symbols used. The Proclamation of the Word of God must appear to be proclaimed to God's people for them to "eat and drink" it in.
Yes, the one Sacrifice of Christ, re-presented in an unbloody way through the "mystery of the Paschal Mystery, or better yet, the Mystery of the eternity of God's plan and salvation of His Chosen People" should appear to be a sacrifice as the Old Testament has understood sacrifice and the best of the Tradition of both the East and the West has shown that sacrifice.
Yes, the Communion Rite, should be a "Sacrificial Meal" where after the Sacrifice is completed, and in the Mass, like Melchizedek's sacrifice in the Old Testament that is "unbloody and nothing is killed" we consume what is sacrificed, the Holocuast. In the Old Testament bloody sacrifices it was the flesh and blood of the aninmal sacrificed, in the Mass it is the Body and Blood of our Risen Savior, but He is alive not dead, like the holocausts of the Old Testament bloody sacrifices.
In this sense, we can call the entire Mass a Sacrificial Meal, from start to finish, including the "eating and drinking" of the Word of God during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Mass itself is the eternal wedding banquet of heaven, or points to it!
Like on disciples on the Road to Emmaus, from the start of Mass to its ending, we are walking with the Lord who speaks to us and we come to recognize in the Breaking of the Bread, both Word and Sacrament. We are sent from Mass to "glorify the Lord by our life." The Mass always has a moral and ethical dimension to it, it signifies how we as individuals and as a Church must conduct our lives in the world concerned about "Christifying" the world through evangelization, especially the manner in which we conduct our lives and using words only when necessary!
8 comments:
Since my days in college where I was a "liturgical assistant, I have made fought against this notion that the Holy Sacrifice is a meal, in the first place. It is not.
It is true that Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, but it was not completed until the Sacrifice on Calvary. The liturgy is not, as Weakland and his cohorts would have us believe a meal, with sacrificial undertones.
And that is the shift in theology. And this shift in theology from the Mass being a sacrifice to the Mass being a meal vis-a-vis insitution narrative v. the consecratory prayer. Ultimately, this is the problem with the Novus Ordo. It can be argued that the architects changed the intention of the Mass from that which it was understood to be into something wholly and completely new. And that argument has legs.
We can go on and on and on about the liturgical direction, the posture of the faithful, the attitude of the faithful regarding participatio actuosa v activa, the placement of the pax, etc, etc...those things are all very important discussions, as I can attest, but if we bring it down to brass tacks, it is this theological question, "What is the Mass, primarily, Meal or Sacrifice?"
If the Mass is a Sacrifice, we have 1965 years of theological certainty to back up our position. If the Mass is a meal, we have 47-64 years to defend a theological shift. We can find reference to the "meal aspect" going back to the first century, but that aspect is always, always couched as being secondary and subordinate to the Sacrificial action. This is not the case since at least 1965 and most likely 1948. When the Mass loses it's Sacrificial nature, it loses it's validity, because while the Eucharist was instituted on Holy Thursday, it was not completed until Good Friday. And without the bloody Sacrifice of Our Lord and Savior, we have nothing more than a symbol. There is no sign. For what is a Sacrament? An outward sign instituted by Christ to bring about Grace. Without the Sacrificial action of Christ at Calvary, there cannot be an unbloody sacrifice at each Holy Mass.
So, we can argue all we want about postures and positions, they make the Mass more reverent, but the real question is how do we defend the unbloody Sacrifice against the notion of a meal? The theological question is in front of us, we must answer it and defend it, in an orthodox manner.
To be a little more blunt, What did Luther want the Mass changed to? What did the Consilium change the Mass to? Do the math, so to speak.
I don't think the term 'liturgist' existed before the Council. Now every parish seems to have one, not to mention a 'liturgy committee' consisting of middle-class busybodies who don't actually know anything about liturgy.
Apropos Rembert Weakland, did the archdiocese ever recover the $450k he misappropriated to pay off his erstwhile catamite?
@ John Nolan,
There were liturgists prior to the Council. Most were priests however, very few, if any were laymen. As it stands to reason, with the lack of priests since 1965, there must be an uptick in liturgists. Sadly, 99.99% are influenced my modernism and those 0.001% (such as myself) cannot find a job in the field.
But, getting back to your point, most of today's liturgists are not truly liturgists, they are an adapted form of musicologist. Since most liturgists are responsible for the music direction and environment of the church and Mass, that is the real skinny. Again, those of us (I do include myself, as my Masters is in Systematics with an emphasis on the Liturgy) who are true liturgists can't get a job in the field because we don't play guitar, piano, or organ (perish the thought).
I think John gently inserts the lance. I have not had the pleasure of meeting any lay liturgists that were not complete disasters.
Andy, don't give up. I've heard that one only needs to know two chords on a guitar to get a job as a liturgist. Surely you could buy a cheap guitar and qualify in an afternoon?
Incidentally, I prefer to spell it "liturgeist". Pronounced litur-geist, as in polter-geist.
At any rate, the last time I commented at Fr. McDonald's beloved PT blog, one of the regulars there--who I understand cuts a wide swath among English liturgists--accused me of not qualifying as a "self-respecting liturgist". I was tempted to suggest that this would be a contradiction in terms, but decided to just accept my exclusion from this category as a complement, whether intended or not.
Ironically, if they knew anything about music (familiarity with the Liber Usualis or Graduale Romanum would be a start) they would perforce know quite a lot about liturgy. But they don't know a podatus from a clivis.
@ Henry;
Don't worry, where one door closes another door opens.
Lulz on the guitar comment. Hilarious. In all of the churches I've worked I have NEVER made provision for guitar or piano. As you well know, both are forbidden via papal mandate in the 20th century.
My views regarding the liturgy are not overly conservative, but they are orthodox and they hold strictly to the line of what the Mass is expected to be. I have spent a good number of years attempting to do what Fr. McDonald is trying to do. It is very hard and I don't tend to make excuses, but I will call BS when I see it.
Several things that one can be assured of when I am working as a liturgist...
1. In the EF, it will be strictly by the book. Nothing changes. Liturgical Law is followed as closely as possible, with the only adaptation coming via space requirements
2. Banners down and worship aids burned
3. Pianos returned to the music room
4. Guitars and other band equipment back to the parish hall
5. Girls phased out as servers via the gentle request of Redemptionis Sacramentum
6. The implementation of a schola from members of the choir
7. The use of the chanted propers, as opposed to 4 hymns
8. The use of the high altar as often as possible (usually once a week during the week and once on Sunday)
9. The implementation of Latin into the Mass, with the goal of a fully integrated Latin Mass within a year. This usually means that I am working with Father on his Latin pronunciations, diction, syntax and understanding
10. The start of lay MCs
11. Regular liturgical catechetical meetings with both the altar servers corps and the choir
and finally, I take the organist and the music director to dinner once a month and they can voice anything they wish without interrpution. Afterward, I offer catechesis on the liturgy that is more in depth than the general meeting.
These are the expectations I have. Obviously, I work and collaborate closely with Father Pastor and his curate (if applicable). Nothing is done without Father Pastor first being made aware, but once I get the green light, Father Pastor does not have to sweat the small stuff.
This is how I work as a liturgist. There is something of an orthodox zeitgeist which takes place. I live and I die by Fr. Z's rule of Say the Black, Do the Red. I've known Fr. Z for almost 20 years and between he and my mentor, my path as a liturgist is set. I carry that reforming spirit with me wherever I go.
Obviously, under most circumstances, I cannot get a job. LOL!!!
That's fine though...the Church needs men like me who are not afraid to say what they mean with regard to the Church. It may not be popular, but it is honest and it is in line with the Church as seen through the prism of 2000 years...not through the shards of the last 64.
"The liturgists say that standing better symbolizes being "raised up" in Christ. I say, bull! If I receive kneeling, I am still raised up in Christ. If I receive while sick and in bed, I am still raised up in Christ."
I say "bull," too.
Besides, if we're going to talk about being "raised up by Christ," doesn't kneeling to receive Him communicate that better?
...i.e. you can see the symbolism of being "raised up" far more clearly when you stand up after kneeling to return to your pew.
Post a Comment