You want pomp?

Gashwin Gomes on consistories and other manifestations:

I know there are many who look askance at all of this. Too triumphalistic. Too ritualistic. Too anachronistic. I cannot disagree more. This - the ceremonies, the rituals, the whole darned range of proudly anachronistic stuff is definitely part of what I so love about being Catholic. Of course, this "isn't what it's about." That's the Gospel. (Hey, and read the Pope's homily at the event. He wasn't about to let anyone forget that!) But these visible manifestations of ecclesial communion are so important. Especially in an era where everything would be dissolved by the vitriol of a secularism (and a mediocrity) that rages at any manifestation of the religious that is vibrant, and joyful, and beautiful.

I agree. I have been thinking a lot about these things since my visit to Rome and have many thoughts, most of them still unformed. But I think (and this will be no big news to those of you who do think and write about these things) the place of understanding I've come to is this:

Human beings will ritualize. They just will. In one of her letters, Flannery O'Connor remembers how the girls at her college in Milledgeville would take any opportunity they could to dream up ceremonies that involved lighting candles. It's just what we do.

We will dress up. We will invest places and things and even garb with symbolism and meaning.

And in the context of the Catholic Church, what all of this does  - this rich, layered ritual and ceremony - is keep everything steady. It embodies 2000 years of people believing in Christ and trying to express what that means. Some of us snicker at those who are positively enraptured with the minutiae of ecclesiastical garb and ritual, and some of that interest can get rather weird and off-subject, but I think one of the reasons people do get so intrigued in it all is because of the meaning those gestures, pieces of metal and stone, and even fabric, folded just so and bearing this or that color - bear. Forgive me, but it is like a code. Or, like a treasure box, perhaps? The more you dig, the more you see what things mean, and how, in the context of say, the 14th century, this gesture or vestment or ceremony evolved as an expression of faith, and keeping it going, hanging on to it, is a sign of continuity with that same faith.

Not that it doesn't need to be cleaned out at times. Not that it can't ever get in the way.

But when you think about the alternatives - Ritual-As-You-Go that runs just as much risk, and perhaps even more - of pointing to us rather than God, of physical objects that communicate nothing more than here and now, of a bunch of fellows in suits, perhaps, coming forward to get - what - a pen holder? A certificate? A special parking sticker? - from another guy in a suit - you might say, like I've come to - no thanks. This is better. It says a lot more, and it speaks loudly, not just of the present, but of where we're rooted.

Yes, it can be an obstacle. As can anything. But in graced moments, as Gashwin points out, when we have a Pope at the center who focuses us so clearly and resolutely on Christ and what discipleship means - it all comes together and makes about as much sense as anything else.

Comments

[Nancy C. Brown]

I totally understand. I was talking to a friend about putting a rosary on my rear view mirror. I was timid to do it, thinking what does this say to those who see it? That I'll be a good driver? Courteous? Allowing others to merge in on me? What?" and he said,
"At least the rosary stands for something REAL. What do fuzzy dice mean? What does a green fragrance-producing tree mean?"

[Matthew]

I have always been puzzled by the term "triumphalism". Did not Christ triumph? If we persevere to the end are we not guaranteed to share in that triumph? Is not His Church guaranteed to triumph? Why is there a problem with showing that? Does a football team gather before a game and have the coach give a speech on how it is very unlikely they will win and no one should get there hopes up? Perhaps he might to inspire them to further effort? But CHRIST HAS WON!!

[Mrs. Nash]

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

[Jason]

I'm conflicted about a lot of the ecclesiastical pomp. I do understand it, and can appreciate it. But a lot of times I think it obscures the Gospel, even though that is not the intent. When ordinary people see Bishops flying here and there, wearing jewels and crowns and getting rings in Rome and having lavish parties to celebate their lofty position as Cardinal and living in palaces and dressing up in meticulous costumes and having famous tailors diddy them up, I think it makes it hard for them to see the Church led by fisherman and a beggar from galilee. Hard working people get up every day, go to work, have real-life problems, maybe save up enough to get a nice car or go out to eat once in a while, and then they die. They don't care whether this red garment clashes with those purple shoes, but that's what they see. And when you add to that image the sins of the clergy, and the popular sentiment is that the Catholic Church is a rich, fat, corrupt organization. My father sees the Church this way, full of corrupt men and "prostitution" as he puts it. An ignorant perspective, yes, but I don't know if I can blame him.

[Amy]

I agree Jason - about the tension. But I think I've just come to see that in a 2000 year old organization with deep roots and a complex history, the ceremony serves a purpose and is almost inevitable.

But the risk is always there..which is why so many church reformers end up canonized as saints.

[Jason]

*And I do think the opposite witness does exist, on the local level. When people see a humble, self-giving, simple parish Priest who's not wrapped in pomp, they see the true face of the Church, and perhaps are more open to what it has to say.

[Amy]

And I think the truth is captured, actually, in the photo of the cardinal on the bike. Best of both worlds, eh?

[Jason]

LOL. Absolutely.

[Christine]

"Or, like a treasure box, perhaps? The more you dig, the more you see what things mean, and how, in the context of say, the 14th century, this gesture or vestment or ceremony evolved as an expression of faith, and keeping it going, hanging on to it, is a sign of continuity with that same faith."

Exactly. And why so many of us made the journey back to Rome.

[Christine]

I think that the Christian East sometimes has a much better grasp than many western Christians, especially Americans, that the humble Jesus of Nazareth was, before the beginning of time, the exalted Son of God, one in the Blessed Trinity and as is so beautifully imaged in the Book of Revelation has since his ascension once again taken up his glory in heaven. That's why Eastern Christians tend to make their churches look like the heavenly images portrayed in the Bible.

Even when it sometimes gets out of whack and needs to be pared back none of the liturgical beauty of vestments or other appointments used by bishops or other clerics are meant to glorify the men who wear them. They are pointers to the glorious and risen Christ who reigns in his Church.

Beauty is definitely one of the attributes of God.

[Gashwin]

Hey Amy -- I think "tension" is really the best way to grasp this. I think Innocent XIII and Francis (or maybe I'm just thinking too much of that psychedelic 70s thing "Brother Sun Sister Moon ... :-)). And especially that statue of St. Francis as he gazes towards the majesty of St. John Lateran.

As to humans ritualizing - maybe in America one tends to forget that (though, has anyone been to a college football game? :)). I grew up in India. Ritual is everywhere. Perhaps the clearest reminder of this deep human need struck home for me actually in Moscow, (when it was the capital of the USSR. I was there with a high school Russian language study group from India). There was a line of newly weds waiting to be photographed in front of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Kremlin. All of us in the group remarked: "Well. So much for atheism!" :-) [Of course, the atheistic states knew this -- tons of ritual and pomp there too ...]

[Sherry Weddell]

Yes, ritual, a repeated pattern of behavior, is a human instinct - but we must remember that ritual can be intentionally extremely simple (say a Quaker meeting) or baroque (Mass at the Brompton Oratory in London, perhaps). As someone who has participated in both, I can attest that both are based upon rituals intended to put worshippers in touch with God. But obviously their vision of how this works most appropriately are light-years apart.

Ritual may but does not necessarily equal elaborateness or "pomp". The more baroque the ritual, the colder it leaves me personally. Mass in a language I don't know (Latin, Arabic, Spanish, Indonesian, Italian, it doesn't matter) is just a massive invitation to distraction and boredom for me. I spent a lot of time studying the gorgeous architecture during the Italian homily at the Gesu in Rome, for instance.)

But that's just me - one person. I'm much, much more verbally oriented than gesture-oriented. When I lose the words, I'm lost period. I have to work incredibly hard to pray and stay attentive if I can't understand the words.

But the words are a critical part of the ritual. And some rituals - which have nourished millions of Christians for centuries (not Catholics) - are mostly words. Protestant churches are full of ritual - its just not our kind.

Even among Catholics, ritual varies hugely. The ritual of a venacular weekday Mass in a Cistercian monastary or Dominican priory is very different in gesture, color, and emotional tone than that in a traditionalist high Latin Mass.

I know I'm not alone. So just remember for every person who drools over fiddlebacks and the 1962 Mass, there is at least one whose instinctive reaction to the same gesture is "Yuk!" or "boring! I'm out of here." It not only has no natural attraction, it positively repells and while overcoming that revulsion is possible, it takes a lot of spiritual energy that might be better used elsewhere.

That's why I would be happy to have a number of rites, including the 1962 Mass, widely available. I haven't noticed in my travels or on the net that repeating the same gestures in lockstep has produced a great deal of unity. (I know, I know - Catholic liturgists on all sides of the question just go ballistic at the idea that some personal variations be allowed at the same liturgy.) But why not?

Do we really think that militantly insisting that people can't kneel or make some small personal gesture of devotion is producing unity?

[doctor j]

We're artists in aggregate.

We have a vision that won't go away, we keep slopping the paint on the canvas; we rework the poem endlessly but never reach the core, so we pass the mission on, generation after generation.

We're immersed in something that holds us and won't let go.

[Tim Ferguson]

I agree Sherry - and I think, as an example, St. Dominic's in San Francisco proves a good point. There is a conscious variance in the liturgical styles offered there at the different Masses on the weekend. Some who attend one Mass would be horrified, or bored at a different one. Yet, within the limits set by the Church for our Rite, the varieties exist. And, for the most part, they've not proven to be a source of unhealthy tension in the life of the parish.
Permitting healthy varieties in our Masses would not necessarily fracture the Church (which is by no means unified anyway), but would provide appropriate expression of the differences and different rituals which bring us closer to God in our hearts, minds, souls and bodies.

[Tominellay]

Amy, your thoughts on this are right on the mark...

[Christine]

But that's just me - one person. I'm much, much more verbally oriented than gesture-oriented. When I lose the words, I'm lost period. I have to work incredibly hard to pray and stay attentive if I can't understand the words.

Sherry, I can appreciate what you are saying and affirm its validity. In my case, the "verbal" part was already intact due to my Lutheran background with its emphasis on Scripture. I have to confess that I absolutely love Baroque, not only for its religious connotation but because it was so much a part of the artistic legacy of the culture into which I was born and thereby has a very strong attraction for me because it connected me to those of my ancestors who were Catholic before part of the family split off into the Reformation.

I guess a very rough analogy would be to the "ritualization" of American sports. Stadiums, beer, hot dogs, etc. are all very much a part of it.

Amy is spot on, human beings are ritual creatures in one form or another.

Amazingly, though, when I visited St. Andrew Benedictine Abbey in Cleveland from where the Benedictines who staff my parish church come, I absolutely loved their new church building, elegant and rich in its simplicity.

There is definitely room for both.

[Adam]

This caution, though, not so much for us in the "audience" as for the guys in the sanctuary -

Remember what Jesus said about widening your phylacteries. And about parading around generally. There is indeed something in the human being which loves being dressed finely, and having other people fall to their knees before one. Be careful, be careful.

[John Heavrin]

"Do we really think that militantly insisting that people can't kneel or make some small personal gesture of devotion is producing unity?"

Not to misdirect, the thread, but the above question should be directed at the Archbishop of Louisville (and many other bishops besides, I suspect) who has decreed that there should be no more kneeling in the pews during the reception of Communion, from first to last. This certainly hasn't produced unity, let alone reflected a supposed unity.

It occurred to me that rather than all standing, or all kneeling for that matter, some should stand, some should kneel, some should sit, some should wander around, one or two should stand on their hands...this would accurately reflect the state of the community, I'm afraid. Oh, and a few of the wanderers should probably wander out the door, to preserve the verisimilitude.

The less baroque the ritual, the colder it leaves me personally. So I shop around, as do others with other views. Guess we're all wandering, in and out the doors, wondering what's next.

[Christine]

It's one of the things I love about Benedict XVI. No one could have a better appreciation of the rich heritage of the Church than this Pope but at the same time his keen intellect and expertise on things scriptural and theological will serve to always keep him, in his own words, "a simple and humble laborer in the vineyard of the Lord."

[Jon]

I am puzzled by the criticism of rites and liturgy. Yet they communicate more than words. The avalanche of words since Vatican II simply confused many and many others did not even pay attention. Yet, in the past, illiterate peasants learned from the Tridentine Mass more than most collage trained candidates do in the storied RCIA programs.

[Adam]

Jesus engaged in fancy ritual surrounding himself when exactly?

Isn't he our model, rather that what we like/what people naturally do/what looks good.... ?

[Christine]

Adam, you keep missing the point that "ritual" is very apropos in an incarnational religion such as Catholicism. The angels were created pure spirits, not human beings. To set up the physical against the spiritual kind of goes against the goodness of creation, which is used in ritual worship to give glory to the God who made all things.

As much as I appreciated the good sermons and Bible studies of the tradition I was raised in I love "praying with the body" that Catholic (and catholic) worship represents. I found the emphasis on the verbal in Protestant worship restrictive.

The New Testament tells us that Jesus regularly attended the Synagogue (have you ever observed the procession with the Torah in the synagogue?). Jewish worship, too, has its rituals and the only rituals Jesus condemned were those that were done for show and not from the heart.

[Amy]

Another point, which I might bring up later in another post - this is why one of the big losses of teh post-Vatican II streamlining of ritual - whenever and however that happened - was the presence of the Franciscans with their flax which burned, and then flashed out. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Did they accompany the pope at all public processions or just after his election? I don't know. but I wish we still had them!

[Christine]

Thank you, Jon. The magnificent statuary and windows I saw in Europe imparted the stories of the Bible long before mass printing became available and continue even now to evoke amazement at the gifts of art that God has given humanity.

I prefer the word "liturgy", "work of the people" to "ritual" even though that has a very time honored basis. Liturgy is something we all do together, each in our own respective roles.

[Tim Ferguson]

Liturgy does not mean "work of the people," despite what liturgists have been saying for thirty years. Ask any Greek professor. A liturgy is a "public service" - a work done on behalf of the people.

[Charles Collins]

I remember a bishop I knew once sent a circular suggesting he stop appointing "Monsignors", because it was medieval.

He proposed the Diocese establish "priests of the year", who would get to have all the regalia of Monsignors, and all their rights, and maybe even a bumper sticker!

So, in other words, Monsignors in everthing but name - except without any connection to the past.

[Christine]

That's what it was in reference to secular activities, such as public works in ancient Greece. Like many other terms, the Church adopted it for her own use.

Here's just a small part of the definition of Christian liturgy from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"In the Apostolic Fathers the picture of the early Christian Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent homogeneous ritual. But this must be understood. There was certainly no set form of prayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals and Euchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book. The celebrating bishop spoke freely, his prayers being to some extent improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules. In the first place, no one who speaks continually on the same subjects says new things each time, Modern sermons and modern extempore prayers show how easily a speaker falls into set forms, how constantly he repeats what come to be, at least for him, fixed formulæ. Moreover, the dialogue form of prayer that we find in use in the earliest monuments necessarily supposes some constant arrangement. The people answer and echo what the celebrant and the deacons say with suitable exclamations. They could not do so unless they heard more or less the same prayers each time. They heard from the altar such phrases as: "The Lord be with you", or "Lift up your hearts", and it was because they recognized these forms, had heard them often before, that they could answer at once in the way expected."

So, yes, liturgy *is* the work of the people in the sense that Christian worship involves both clergy and laity offering praise to God. This is what Vatican II emphasized and in no way takes away from the unique role of the priest in offering the Mass.

[me]

the Archbishop of Louisville... who has decreed that there should be no more kneeling in the pews during the reception of Communion, from first to last.

What a crock. What would he do to me if I visited Louisville from my diocese (which has a great Bishop, one of Richard John Neuhaus's "JPII" Bishops)and knelt? Though we kneel here, a few people sit (bad backs maybe?) and there are no pew police!

[David Kubiak]

I am always highly amused when I see criticism of 'triumphalistic' ritual in the Church today. I cannot look at pictures of these events because they are only the tiniest shadow of the great ceremonies destroyed by Paul VI. If you want to see what it used to mean to get a red hat, look on Fr. Tucker's blog at pictures of Good Pope John bestowing the galero on cardinals kneeling in front of him with the train of their cappas billowing behind.

What goes on today is practically Presbyterian.

[Cathleen]

This reminds me of one of wisest things I've ever heard Amy say. A long while back, we were having the familiar discussion of bad liturgies, EM's, music, etc. Amy made the point that whatever is done, must be done prayerfully. What really galls isn't so much WHAT is done, but HOW it's done. Keeping God as the focus is the key (I know, hardly a sunburst, but really, if liturgists the world over kept that in mind, wouldn't that bring an abrupt end to most of our complaints?). Pomp that says, "Gosh, I'm so important! Look at me!" is intolerable. Pomp that says "Our love and reverence for God's merciful goodness demands that we give our utmost" can be lovely. Somehow you can just TELL the difference.

One anecdote: A while back Cardinal Egan visited our parish in upstate New York. He arrived in a chauffeur-driven black limousine with tinted windows, looking for all the world like a mafia don. I don't expect the guy to show up in a jalopy, but is a black stretch limousine REALLY necessary??

[Christine]

"I don't expect the guy to show up in a jalopy, but is a black stretch limousine REALLY necessary??"

No, no, and no.

[Anonymous Teacher Person]

With regard to "pomp" in ritual, music, architecture -

God gave some of us - a very slight few (just a couple of Bach-types for every teeming horde of Britney-types) the ability to create beautiful, elaborate art.

Is it sinful to construct beautiful, intricate buildings? Surely not.

Should the only beautiful, intricate buildings have secular functions, so that we can avoid giving the false impression that the Church is obsessed with pomp?

Or does it say something about our reverence for God that we try to save the *most* beautiful, reverent buildings (art, ceremonies) for Him?

[Sharon]

Thomas Howard in 'If Your Mind Wanders At Mass' has some beautifully poetic things to say about ritual in the Mass.

[Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B.]

Mk. 14:3-9. Lk. 7:36-50.
Jesus appreciates the extravagance spent--wasted--on him. The cost was 300 denarii--the salary for 300 days of labor.

Even though he criticized the Pharisees for their ostentatious display of piety, the Pharisees were laymen, not clergy.

Jesus never criticized the liturgical rites of the Temple, nor the vestments of the priests, nor the taxes for maintaining the Temple.

Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to ask what is really being done as a cultural or artistic expression of reverence for God (using our material world and ours skills for God), and what is really being done to falsely glorify ourselves.

As I ask that question, I nonetheless value the human need for visible signs of our dignity expressed by how we dress up for Mass or dress badly for Mass (whether we are clergy or laity). After all, we are the sons and daughters of the King, and the Banquet he feeds us is Himself.

If I had my druthers, every Baptized person should show up for the Easter Vigil Mass wearing a crown. The King is risen. Long live the King!

[Dina Swift]

It bothers me that you are conflating two very different things here --

"ecclesiastical pomp...Bishops flying here and there, wearing jewels and crowns and getting rings in Rome and having lavish parties to celebate their lofty position as Cardinal and living in palaces and dressing up in meticulous costumes and having famous tailors diddy them up"

Jetting around and wearing gorgeously tailored suits and living in palaces are men giving into the temptations to which men are heir and taking up the trappings of success as men see it.
Ecclesiastical pomp, vestments, badges of office, jeweled sacred furnishings, celebrating and worshipping the Divine in surroundings beside which earthly palaces pale -- these do not belong to and are not directed at the men whose privilege and duty it is to touch and wear and walk in them.

I would be very happy if our bishop wore costly and elegant and jeweled robes vestment, and took the bus to the office in a suit off the rack in Sears.
Unfortunately his suits are bespoke and his vestments look like THEY came off the rack, or more aptly, out of a bin of table cloths, at Sears.

[Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B.]

St. Francis of Assisi is a good example of a man who kept himself poor, but not when it came to the celebration of the Mass.

I posted the following comment on another blog, so please forgive me for repeating it here.

====
St. Francis of Assisi was INTOLERANT of poverty when it came to the Eucharist. He wrote a letter to his Order instructing them to always carry with them the finest vestments and vessels possible. He went so far as to tell them to REMOVE the Eucharist from churches that were in a bad physical condition.
====

I once had the precise source of that affirmation, but I no longer have it. I understand that the letter in which St. Francis gave this instruction still exists. Can any of you help me with a source?