Self-explanatory liturgy?

A commenter on the thread on Missal Implementation in England and Wales said, Liturgy should speak to the people and be self explanatory.

I am not sure I entirely agree.

Certainly most of us recoil at the unnecessary didactic remarks that are often inserted into the liturgy (a personal favorite: I once heard a presider say, while lighting the Easter candle at the Vigil, “Now we light the Easter candle, which represents the light of the risen Christ” and then immediately hold up the candle and proclaim “Christ our light.”). There is certainly a sense in which the symbols of the liturgy ought to speak for themselves and not require constant explanation.

But if this were true in all circumstances, the genre of mystagogical literature would not exist. We might think that taking bread and saying “this is my body” should be clear enough, but Ambrose felt that more needed to be said — not of course during the liturgy itself, but in his post-baptismal homilies. Much of what we say in the liturgy is, frankly, puzzling, arcane, and subject to misunderstanding.

It is not necessarily a failure of a rite if its formulations are subject to misunderstanding. For example, et cum spiritu tuo could be misunderstood as implying dualism and pro multis could be misunderstood as endorsing a doctrine of limited atonement. But this is not necessarily a fault of the phrases themselves. The liturgy is a symbolic and linguistic world into which we need to be initiated, and this initiation inevitably involves some explanation. So while we want to avoid overly didactic liturgy, having to explain some action or phrase of the liturgy is simply part of the ongoing mystagogy of the Christian life.

Fritz Bauerschmidt

I am a professor of Theology at Loyola University Maryland and a permanent deacon of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, assigned to the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen.

Posted

in

,

by

Fritz Bauerschmidt

Tags:

Comments

20 responses to “Self-explanatory liturgy?”

  1. Philip Endean SJ

    Well said–many thanks. But when the catechesis involves us saying that ‘for many’ actually means ‘for all’ and ‘I believe’ means ‘we believe’ (because the ‘I’ is the person of the Church), then it’s getting daft.

    One particular problem here is that the adoption of what, in themselves, are defensible options to translate more literally acquire a sense that a rather disruptive correction is being made, given a history in which alternative and equally defensible options have established themselves in people’s consciousnesses. The costs of changing familiar texts–even when they ‘need’ to be altered–are high–the more so, the more familiar they are.

    Reply
  2. Fritz Bauerschmidt Avatar
    Fritz Bauerschmidt

    Philip,

    I agree. Context is, if not everything, at least something, and I suspect that the change from “all” to “many” (which Anglicans have used for centuries) will certainly cause some consternation.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      IIRC, English-speaking Catholics also used it from 1965-70. (Personally, I prefer “the many”).

      Reply
  3. Brent McWilliams

    I remember in my Lutheran days attending a Worship and Evangelization conference where the liturgist were bludgeoned over the head in regards to being liturgical and that the liturgy was too offputting for “seekers” and that what should be offered should be more “user friendly”. One of the best rebuffs to this position was given by someone (I think Gordon Lathrop) and if not, I apologize for not having a better memory. But basically, he said, “When one takes a visitor to an athletic event, do they spend time explaining the rules so that they can participate more fully? No, they allow them to experience the event without prejudice and then teach them the rules of the game.” If it works for something as inconsequential as sports, why wouldn’t this work for something as consequential as the celebration of the Mysteries of our Lord? Just saying….

    Reply
  4. J. Thomas

    Is part of the issue that we automatically first treat all symbolic issues, including the lack of apprehension, LINGUISTICALLY, when in fact the liturgy is supposed to be a body of inter-referential aural, visual, kinesthetic (just to name a few possibilities) events. Thus a poor linguistic symbol is not necessarily made up for by a linguistic explanation or mystagogy in a linguistic mode. What of visual mystagogy as the solution to linguistic shortfalls? Ideally, I like to think that mystagogy is not the explanation of what was weak, broken, or unclear to begin with, but the calling to new attention, new synthesis, of strong elements already present within the liturgical experience.

    Reply
    1. Fritz Bauerschmidt Avatar
      Fritz Bauerschmidt

      I agree with much of this, but it would be interesting to survey patristic mystagogical literature to see the sort of things that they need to explain. As I recall, Augustine and Ambrose seem to say things like “You may have been confused when you heard X” or “When the bishop said Y you asked ‘how can this be?’”

      Perhaps we shouldn’t think of this as the “failure” of the ritual or its being weak, broken or unclear, but simply as reflective of the fact that the ritual must be integrated into an entire mystagogical context that envelops the ritual act itself.

      Reply
      1. J. Thomas

        Interesting point. Yes, to read such homilies in for example Edward Yarnold’s “Awe Inspiring Rites” the phrases do occur often. What I think is important to note is that supposedly catechesis happened only after the rites and only minimally before. Thus my characterization of “failure, unclear” as it relates to the point of this author’s thread wouldn’t be the same as the patristic context. The point of ancient mystagogy seems to be that theologizing was anchored in ritual, and not the other way around. Contemporary problems seem to suggest linguistic responses to linguistic quandaries even without a pre-existing “secret” that provoked a purposeful withholding of key interpretive information – rather what we experience today is just the result of poor communication. But maybe when formation in the faith is lacking this distinction is just really semantics, in that the result is the same even if the point of departure is different.

        Most importantly I think we are too linguistically fixated. Mystagogy was never solely homiletic, nor linguistic, it was also visual/ artistic. I often question how adequately contemporary art, architecture, and music contribute to a mystagogical worship experience.

  5. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    In the seminary we had a professor who when he celebrated Mass would say “Behold the Lamb of God, look at who you are and see what you can become.” Lord, I am not…
    For Christmas, the seminarians gave him a mirror. I wonder if he should have explained himself right then and there!

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      Fr. Allan – understand concern about changing the words – but from last Sunday’s 2nd reading…..the beginning of Paul’s letter to the church of Corinth (which will continue over most of Ordinary Time this year)….here is Rev. J. Komonchak’s homily from that specific reading and what it means to him:

      “When St. Thomas ended his explanation of the holiness of the Church, he added this comment: “Having been made holy in these ways, we must beware not by sin to soil our soul, which is the temple of God.” He was explaining what Paul meant in his greeting to the Corinthians: Because they had been made holy, they were called to be holy. Christians then and now are called to live up to the blessings in which they stand in virtue of God’s gracious love. The obligations, the calls, the challenges of a holy life are not arbitrarily or externally imposed; they derive from within, as implications of the grace in which we stand, unfoldings of its virtualities, and there should be a naturalness to them, arising as they ought from a love that God puts deep within us–St. Augustine spoke of it as a “love of God inviscerated in our hearts” –inviscerated, the opposite of eviscerated!–that deep within us.

      “Become what you are” is an ancient adage of philosophers and poets. You have been made holy; you are holy: then be holy, live holy! Live lives worthy of the love with which you have been, and are, loved. Things and persons are holy because set apart for God, set apart by God, for himself, and that is what God has done for everyone of us: he has loved us and embraced us in Christ, and we have the years of our lives to try to be as holy as God has already made us.”

      Note his last paragraph – Become what you are! Your professor may actually have had a much deeper meaning than any of you realized.

      BTW – Komonchak taught at CUA for years in historical theology and is an expert on Vatican II

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Bill, the professor never explained himself and there was not a mystogogic moment afterward except making fun of him. Many would have applauded the long explanation you wrote if he had given it during Mass. It would have been considered cool! Thus some 35 years later we have this post to discuss explanations.

  6. Jeffrey Pinyan

    +JMJ+

    Thanks for starting a separate thread of discussion, Fritz.

    A few general norms of the Vatican II reform of the liturgy were based upon the (secondary) didactic/pastoral nature of the liturgy. (cf. SC 33-36)

    SC 34 said that “The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” But this was followed by an allowance for introductory phrases or exhortations: “short directives to be spoken by the priest or proper minister should be provided within the rites themselves. But they should occur only at the more suitable moments, and be in prescribed or similar words.” (SC 35.3)

    The Our Father in the E.F. had this already: Praeceptis salutaribus moniti… The O.F. introduced such a directive before the Penitential Act: Fratres, agnoscámus peccáta nostra… These directives are a more common throughout the other rites.

    As for the “for many” vs. “for all” matter, I still think the Roman Catechism does a good job of explaining what pro multis refers to: the words pro multis “serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.”

    Reply
  7. Jack Rakosky

    Unfortunately for the vast majority of Catholics, the only opportunity you have to explain the Liturgy is during the Liturgy. Not many people are going to show up for another event to get the explanation. The people who do show up for those events are usually the people who need an explanation the least.

    Fewer and fewer people are coming to Mass, probably for many reasons. But since half of Americans give God the most favorable rating of importance in their lives, and sixty percent pray daily, fewer people are probably coming to Mass because of their relationship to church ministers and their services rather than because of their relationship to God.

    The Vibrant Parish Life study which was biased toward people who attend Mass regularly, found that although people rated Liturgy as highest in importance among 39 items, it was rated as 24th in being well done.

    So we need to do liturgy better, much better. Maybe then it will explain itself better. Until then we are whistling in the dark if we think that somehow our favorite explanations (whether done during or outside the Mass) will keep them coming or bring them back.

    Reply
  8. Rita Ferrone

    Fr. Allen,

    The allusion is to Augustine’s Sermon 272.
    http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/augustine/sermon_272_eucharist.shtml

    And the seminarians mocked him. A foreshadowing of the mockery to be leveled at the new translation of the Roman Missal, no doubt.

    Fritz,

    I think the situation is substantially changed by having had other words for the past 40+ years, and when the “obscure” expressions are appearing now as something new, imposed where something else was clear before.

    Patristic mystagogy was not ever, so far as I can think, an accounting for contemporaneous decisions by church authorities.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Rita, too bad our professor didn’t pass that out during Mass as this thread is about explanations done during it. Our mocking was in good fun and he was present to receive his mirror. We didn’t give it to him, though, at Mass or hold mirrors up to ourselves immediate following his invitation during Mass. Even in our seminary the authorities would have exercised a rather harsh authority on us for doing that. But even in all my experimenting with the new translation at Mass and in classroom settings and asking for feedback, no one has yet mocked anything. I guess my laity are too dumb to do that. In fact they like it and many who are old enough to remember their English translation of the Mass from their St. Joseph Missal say it sounds like what they prayed for the first half of their lives.

      Reply
      1. Rita Ferrone

        Fr. Allan, the reference was for you, for your information. Not for passing out during Mass.

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Rita, you presume that we in 1976 didn’t know that. Most did some didn’t. The question is a liturgical one, a pastoral one, a catechetical one and the need for explanations during Mass. Shouldn’t the liturgy stand on its own as given to us or do we make it up as we go where one priest hijacks a prescribed text to insert his own “smart” idea that then needs an explanation for “some” people at that Mass? The “some” refers to what the “intelligentsia” consider the unwashed, dumb laity. It is really very condescending and a form of clericalism that goes beyond the clergy.

      3. Rita Ferrone

        Fr. Allan, give it up. I offered you a source, of which you seemed unaware. If you already knew it, you could have said you did. If you didn’t, a “thank you” would have been nice. End of discussion.

  9. Jack Nolan

    I recall some mocking going on in my youth when:

    a). we were instructed that we must clasp hands for the singing of the Pater noster.

    b). when the sacred dancers took over the sanctuary.

    I believe that the new translation will be less disruptive than the introduction of either one of the above to most laity & many devout priests. I know some ecclesiastical professionals who invested time & resources into a different understanding of liturgy & renewal will not agree with my experience. They don’t, however, represent the experience of the average pew sitter nor were they present with me when the above were introduced in my parish.
    I also believe that the introduction of the new translation pales in comparison to the introduction of the 1973 ICEL translation which the Church & her faithful managed to survive despite the parallel departure of thousands of priests and nuns from their vocations & the development of widespread doctrinal dissent & the scoffing at liturgical norms that only increased after 1973. Interestingly, the departures seemed always to occur in those places where the early liturgical renewal was both anticipated & then implemented most zealously. Please note that I know that there were other issues disrupting ecclesiastical life during the 1970s as well (I’m not only blaming renewal) but I can’t imagine anything impacting average mass goers or vowed religious more than those liturgical reforms and we’ve survived. My thought is that in comparison we’ve nothing to fear.

    Reply
    1. Joe O’Leary

      Sacred Dancers figured prominently in the beatification mass for Mother Teresa, celebrated in Latin by JP2 and Ratzinger. I do not recall anyone expressing the slightest discomfort.

      Reply
  10. Bill deHaas

    Fr. Allan – actually, appreciate you sharing your seminary experience. If I may, it reminds me of a Triduum in the seminary I attended in 1975. The rector used multiple lectors for the readings/Passion. Afterwards, at dinner (the faculty used to sit at one table in the middle of the dining room), the rector and our moral theologian (a VII peritus) got into a loud argument about the liturgical appropriateness in terms of the rector’s decisions about the multiple readers. They almost came to blows.

    What stuck with me, tho, was that this event never led to any type of liturgical class discussion; no research or dialogue about the various points of view and liturgical/pastoral approaches. In the name of uniformity, it was swept under the rug.

    Remember many other events that could have been capitalized on – why not a faculty debate open to all; etc. Again, this was in a seminary and classes only for priesthood candidates. So many missed opportunities?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *