Rita Ferrone, speaking on liturgical formation, at Societas Liturgica Congress

Rita Ferrone gave a thought-provoking presentation this morning at the 25th International Congress of Societas Liturgica in Quebec, Canada.  One of the questions she raised stayed with me in particular, namely: HOW are rites formative?

I wonder about that question especially in relation to claims by educators and/or catechists (which Rita guided the audience through) that those to be formed — in our case: liturgically — are to be active subjects of such formation, “conscious and co-responsible.”  I cannot possibly be the only one who confronts many people in her daily life who would not be able to be such subjects, whether it’s an elderly relative suffering from dementia, a mentally disabled parishioner who lives in the streets, or a neuro-non-normative teenager.  What about liturgical formation for all those with complex, broken subject formations?

Teresa Berger

Teresa Berger is Professor of Liturgical Studies at the Yale Institute of Sacred Music and Yale Divinity School in New Haven, CT, USA, where she also serves as the Thomas E. Golden Jr. Professor of Catholic Theology. She holds doctorates in both theology and in liturgical studies. Recent publications include an edited volume, Full of Your Glory: Liturgy, Cosmos, Creation (2019), and a monograph titled @ Worship: Liturgical Practices in Digital Worlds (2018). Earlier publications include Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical History (2011), Fragments of Real Presence (2005), and a video documentary, Worship in Women’s Hands (2007).

Please leave a reply.

Comments

9 responses to “Rita Ferrone, speaking on liturgical formation, at Societas Liturgica Congress”

  1. Jonathan How

    For those pondering such things I recommend a look at Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘Dependent Rational Animals’, not so much for a direct answer but for suggesting that our anthropology needs to take account of the fact that we spend most of our lives in situations of giving and receiving – that the simple portrayal of the human person as independent and rational misses out too much.
    It seems to me that complex, broken subjects are much closer to the mystery of the cross and and to Christ who has emptied himself for them. Participating already in this way in the mystery of the Godhead their need for formation is perhaps markedly different from those whose lives are yet to be refracted through the prism of the Pascal Mystery (to borrow a phrase from Kavanagh).

    Reply
    1. Teresa Berger Avatar
      Teresa Berger

      @Jonathan How:
      Ah, very interesting response. I appreciate your pointers.

      Reply
  2. Shannon O'Donnell

    “Complex, broken”? As if any of us fits “normal.”

    I’m grateful to be part of a community that expresses the gamut of creation: young, old, everything in between; verbal, hand signing, laughter the only vocabulary; canes, walkers, wheelchairs; Eucharistic ministers who must sit to administer bread or wine, congregants who receive from the ministers who search for them in the pews; all the rest.

    If anything, the question is “How are WE formed by all who surround and teach us?”

    Reply
    1. Teresa Berger Avatar
      Teresa Berger

      @Shannon O’Donnell:
      I envy you your community (in my experience, it is rare); and I think your question is a crucial one.

      Reply
  3. Philip Endean SJ

    Any chance of Rita’s paper being made available?

    Reply
    1. Teresa Berger

      @Philip Endean SJ:
      All major papers from the Societas Liturgica Congresses typically end up being published in one volume (and in a couple of languages), but that usually takes more than a year…

      Reply
  4. Jim Pauwels

    I always need to think for a moment when “subject” and “object” are employed as philosophical language. So to note that all of us are subjects of liturgical formation is to note that all of us are formators (formers?), correct? And presumably, all of us are, simultaneously, the objects of such formation, i.e. we are being formed while we are forming others?

    Assuming I’m thinking of this correctly: I guess it’s not immediately obvious to me that an elderly person with dementia, or a differently abled person, is not able to be both subject and object. Surely each of us participates as we are able, and that participation is formative?

    Our parish has a fair number of young children, and it’s not unusual for a presider or preacher to have to “compete” with the sounds of infants burbling – sometimes, there seem to be infant “conversations” being held across the church. Are those infants participating? According to their state of human development, I’d think an argument could be made that they are. They are present, with their parents, experiencing whatever sensory stimulation that the liturgy provides them. For them, that’s what active participation looks like. It’s not full, it may not even be conscious, but it’s where they’re at.

    Reply
  5. Rita Ferrone Avatar
    Rita Ferrone

    I’d like to thank Teresa for this kind shout-out for the talk, which was indeed a pleasure and an honor to deliver, and to add belatedly a couple of comments of my own to the discussion.

    How the liturgy forms us is, I think, a very interesting question and one which admits of a lot of different answers. I am not sure of the whole thing, by any means, but here are a few reflections.

    Certainly there are cognitive elements that enter our minds through the liturgy and exercise a formative function — texts of readings and hymns and prayers, words of instruction or admonishment, and so on. Having the Word proclaimed and preached is and ought to be formative (which is why it malforms people when done badly!). I think many people assume however that formation is limited to these sorts of things. But it’s really more than this, as I see it.

    The liturgy forms people in subtle, non-verbal ways, through sign and symbol. It sinks into our imagination, it informs our dreams. All the dynamics of the celebration are part of this. I’d also add that the time spent at liturgy attending to both the interior and the exterior world is really extraordinary by current standards. We may try to evade it by distractions, but if we let ourselves “be there” we actually absorb a quality of being, a slower tempo than many will experience elsewhere. We relax into a way of praying and being together that is routine and can shape the everyday as well as the life passages we go through.

    I’d also observe that people don’t sing anywhere else nearly as much as they sing in church, unless they are professional singers. This affects our bodies and our brains. I can actually feel a physical difference if for some reason I don’t go to Mass where I can sing. Because the vibrations that go on resonate with spiritual associations it’s quite a holistic experience. It’s rich with affective associations too, which are deeply formative.

    Reply
  6. Rita Ferrone Avatar
    Rita Ferrone

    As to Teresa’s thoughtful question about those whose abilities to fulfill the qualities of being “conscious and co-responsible” for their own formation are in some ways impaired, I cannot speak with authority on all the categories of persons, but I am sure there are many, many realities that play into this. The document from which that quote is taken is the General Directory for Catechesis, and I understand the aim of that paragraph is to acknowledge a definite role of the human subject for whom formation has been organized. In my experience, principally with persons who suffer from mental retardation or dementia, they do indeed co-operate or not, engage or not, respond or not — often on an emotional level and perhaps very simply — but their cooperation is active. Their freedom and subjectivity, in other words, are real ingredients in their formation. My sister worked for many years with severely disabled persons, many of whom had been considered incapable of preparing for sacraments. Not so. They do it in their own way, and are very sensitive to being included and loved in the process. Liturgy is better for these persons than the classroom, oftentimes. They respond to prayer and music and symbol. I think of Henri Nouwan’s experiences at L’Arche, and Jean Vanier’s witness in support of this too. Maybe some of you have seen Vanier’s book, I Meet Jesus: He Tells Me I Love You. The conscious and co-responsible role may consist simply in openness to divine love rather than in the willingness or ability to digest more complicated conceptual content.

    I think the other issue out there is that in many situations there has been a kind of paternalism about catechesis historically. Those being catechized have not always been treated as though they are partners in their own formation, or encouraged to be active. The GDC seeks to affirm that catechesis is indeed a process that requires dialogue and not talking-at or talking-down to those being catechized.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Teresa Berger

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading