« Potpourri | Main | Fr. Groeschel in the Times »
March 26, 2007
Hot and Hotter
The rumors are heating up that the famed and legendary Motu Proprio on the "freeing" of the 1962 Missal is on its way this week or Holy Thursday at the latest. This, added to everything else, From Fr. Z.
Update: Hmm. How to say this?
No, not this week or next. But soon - and that is not just a rumor "soon." I'm not being coy, but I really can't say anything else except...relax. Spring has sprung.
I am working on the "Motu Proprio Tip Sheet" you folks gave input on a couple of months ago, and hope to have it ready in the next day or two. It will be in the form of a blog (because the template's there, easy to do), and will have comments so folks can elaborate, explain and correct as need be.
This is such a crucial moment, I think, for Benedict. Some folks scoff at my interest in the writings and words of Pope Benedict, but I do come by it honestly, I think. I was fairly unacquainted with him before his election, was brought up short, in a good way, by the homily he gave at his installation Mass, in which he went through the symbols with which he was being vested (the pallium, etc) and explained each one in this amazingly clear, pastoral and rich way. "There's a teacher," I thought.
What my husband says all the time is that the striking thing to him about Benedict is not just his understanding of theology and so one, but that he gets the problems. He understands what the core issues are, and not in any abstract way. He understands modern alienation, the temptation of secularization and relativism, as well as the very ordinary and constant problems Christians have as we attempt to live out our faith every day.
And for him, the answer is Christ. A recent editorial in the NCR(egister) lays it out: The Key to Benedict - which is not, as some would have you believe, nostalgia, a desire to "roll back" Vatican II, authoritarianism, control, or anything like that:
Pope Benedict, also, is simply and deeply devoted to the person of Christ, in all of his clarity and depth.
When secular newspapers write about Pope Benedict’s new post-synodal apostolic exhoratation Sacramentum Caritatis (The Sacrament of Charity), they say things like “Pope Refuses to Yield” or “Benedict Loves Latin” as if the Holy Father were merely imposing his personal preferences on the Church.
But, from the very beginning, Benedict has been telling us exactly what he would do, and why he would do it. He started before the conclave that elected him, when he spoke about friendship with Christ, a concept he has returned to several times.
Noting that Jesus defines friendship as “the communion of wills,” he cited the old Roman definition of friendship — Idem velle idem nolle (same desires, same dislikes) — as the model of our friendship with Christ.
In his first message after becoming pope, he applied that lesson to the Eucharist. “I ask everyone in the coming months to intensify love and devotion for Jesus in the Eucharist,” he said, “and to express courageously and clearly faith in the Real Presence of the Lord, especially by the solemnity and the correctness of the celebrations.”
He wanted us to show our friendship with Jesus in the Eucharist not just by good feelings, but by a communion of wills — “by the solemnity and correctness” of our Masses.
This love for Jesus, which is both practical and passionate — we should say practical because it is passionate — is the key to Pope Benedict’s thinking. It is front and center in is private works (such as “On the Way to Christ Jesus”), in his official works before becoming Pope (Dominus Iesus — “The Lord Jesus” — foremost among them), and in his first encyclical and latest document on charity and the Eucharist.
As challenging as it will be, I think it will be important to hold this up high and speak of it constantly if and when the MP appears.
Speaking of the MP...
Fr. Z in Rome has a few posts today, including a "Rules for Engagement" when the MP comes
and Jeffrey Tucker at the New Liturgical Movement has a really fine post on various possible - and fantasy - outcomes of a MP here, It is not about streams of people demanding and getting the 62 Missal everywhere across the land - not going to happen. It is not about bifurcation in dioceses or parishes - let's hope not. His best case scenario:
However you look at it, the Motu Proprio revives the classical ideal as a kind of religio-culture currency. Its status will be re-legitimated. This is hugely important because of one of the grave defects in the modern rite: it lacks rubrics that dictate a certain liturgical result. For this reason, it is too often used as a vessel in which the celebrant and the liturgy team's agenda. Some of this is tendency results from bad intentions but lots of it is entirely innocent. People don't have the model of the old Mass in their mind. Sometimes it takes only one attendance to create the epiphany: oh so that's how Catholic liturgy is supposed to sound and feel! This impact here could be huge, and, I think, overshadow the bifurcation tendency mentioned above. There is also this interesting possibility: pastors will be inspired to fix up the new rite and make it more solemn and correct precisely to forestall what they consider a worse choice of actually having to learn the old rite and put it in place as a parish option.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
"Some of this is tendency results from bad intentions but lots of it is entirely innocent."
Agree. The MP will be good. I always thought of the Latin Mass as having "hedges" to delineate the proper way from the improper. The amount of time wasted on arguing about where the boundaries are could be put to better use, no doubt.
Posted by: Pauli at Mar 26, 2007 1:45:13 PM
It's cavilling, but instead of Veuve, I'll pop open that nice bottle of Prosecco I've been saving.
Posted by: Pes at Mar 26, 2007 2:18:37 PM
"Some folks scoff at my interest in the writings and words of Pope Benedict . . ."
They may scoff, Amy, but Benedict sealed the deal for this lifelong, increasingly wobbly Protestant. I've been on a theological tear, in recent years, reading thousands of pages from all angles since my father passed away five years ago (Isn't that how it so often happens?). On top of that, I had to do some research on the Mass and the Divine Office for some historical fiction I'm working on. Gradually, I began to see how much we Protestants have lost in our worship over the years, and how, once one untethers oneself from a clear theological foundation, just about anything can be justified.
I can't say I've been an easy sell; I've never met an idea I couldn't figure out how to argue with one way or another. When Benedict became pope, however, I, too, decided to see what the man was about. He is a remarkable thinker, and he has enabled me to see things in a way I had not previously imagined.
I have to put some things in order in my current church, as I sit on our council and am a longtime member of our choir, but I expect to begin RCIA at some point in the next few months. While my decision is the cumulation of many years of reading, reflection, and inquiry, I suspect, in the future, I'll simply point to the words of Benedict XVI as the reason I became a Roman Catholic.
Posted by: JCR at Mar 26, 2007 2:31:01 PM
I do not have any 'ins' of any sort in Rome or anywhere else for that matter lol so I can't speak about this MP going to happen or not happen, very soon or 'never'. But I do have two observations-one in regards to the actual Roman Rite of 1962 [so often called Tridentine Mass] and one comment in regards to Pope Benedict's own Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis
My first observation is precisely about the Tridentine Liturgy. Interestingly enough, those lovers and followers of the Tridentine Rite [and hear NO disparagement here] have experienced all these years since 1970 precisely what the generation living in 1570 experienced. Before 1570 and the promulgation of the Tridentine Roman Rite, there was more forms of the Roman Rite in use among the religious orders and in some geographical areas as well. Here I am not speaking of any of the rites and services arising from the Protestant Reformation, but instead legitimate forms of the Roman Rite with variations and addendums that had developed over the centuries[for example English Catholics experienced the Sarum Rite]. However due to the Reformation and the various liturgical experiments that proceeded from the Reformation due to the extirpation of any aspect of faith in or understanding of the Eucharist as Sacrifice or Real Presence [Body Blood Soul and Divinity], Pope Saint Pius V promulgated the Roman Missal of 1570 [the so called Tridentine Rite] and suppressed any and all rites not older than 200 years old. My point-there was quite a shock for Catholics in 1570 as well as the familiar form of the Roman Mass disappeared and was suppressed.
My second comment will be briefer. The Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council desired to reform the Roman Rite [the Tridentine Rite] The fundamental principles of reform can be found at the beginning of Sacrosanctum Concilium. One major aspect of reform that I remember as a boy being prepared for was 'participation of the congregation' in the responses both spoken and sung. In other words, the responses that used to be just the response of altar boys was going to be everyones [even in Latin] While I do not know what form or the content the MP will take, I would be surprised if this was not a necessary aspect of what is promulgated.
FInally I would like to point out Pope Benedict's own words that I believe are to be understood as the core of the basis of the 'reform of the reform' of the Liturgy which he is so obviously undertaking:
"Considering the two thousand year history of God's Church guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit we can admire the ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT of the ritual forms in which we commemorate the event of salvation From the varied forms in the early centuries, still resplendent in the Eastern Rites up to the spread of the Roman Rite, from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council.
In every age of the Church's history the EUcharistic celebration as the source of her life and mission shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety.
....In particular the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church's life of the liturgical renewal which began with Vatican II. The Synod of Bishops evaluated the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. Many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and abuses which took place, the Synod affirmed, CANNOT overshadow the BENEFITS AND VALIDITY OF THE LITURGICAL RENEWAL whose riches are YET TO BE EXPLORED."
I believe that the Spirit is calling us, certainly the Pope and Bishops of the Church are calling us to delve deeper and ever deeper in the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditions underlying the whole Roman Rite as it has developed from the time of the Latin Fathers [I am speaking of the Latin Rite here] to the present including the genuine reform of the Liturgy brought about n Vatican II
Posted by: Father Elijah at Mar 26, 2007 2:32:03 PM
Father Elijah,
I appreciate your comment, but your setting up 1570 as a parallel to 1970 is simply erroneous. None of the pre-existing rites that were suppressed by Trent was one tenth as different from the Tridentine Rite as the Missal of Paul VI is, for one thing; for another, it simply isn't true that it happened overnight, since nothing happened overnight in the Sixteenth Century. Furthermore, a number of pre-existing rites were allowed to remain in force - I'm sure that the unchanged Dominican rite would have been nearby almost anyone in Europe at the time.
One may say many things about the introduction of the Missal of Paul VI; but it is a fantasy to say that there are any parallels in all prior history to the magnitude and speed of the change in the liturgy it introduced.
Posted by: Ambrosius at Mar 26, 2007 3:19:00 PM
One may say many things about the introduction of the Missal of Paul VI; but it is a fantasy to say that there are any parallels in all prior history to the magnitude and speed of the change in the liturgy it introduced.
Ambrosius, then Cardinal Ratzinger made pretty much the same points in his autobiography "Milestones." It surprised me how forcefully he put it. I mean, really surprised me. It's worth checking out.
Posted by: Eileen R at Mar 26, 2007 3:26:20 PM
Some folks scoff at my interest in the writings and words of Pope Benedict.
Like, do we care?
I second JCR's observation. I've got Protestants writing to me via my blog telling me they love Benedict. One wrote in the other day telling me how impressed he was by the Regensburg address. He's considering coming into the Church, thanks to Benedict among other things.
Posted by: Aimee at Mar 26, 2007 3:42:31 PM
"I appreciate your comment, but your setting up 1570 as a parallel to 1970 is simply erroneous."
I have to second Ambrosius on that one. Equating 1570 and 1970 is too much of a stretch. I am sure some the changes in 1570 were unwelcome to many, but they simply were not done to the degree as the current missal, and not with instant suppression of the old rites (the ones that actually were suppressed that it).
Posted by: trm at Mar 26, 2007 3:47:30 PM
Understanding and correctly implementing what the Fathers of Vatican II meant by the active participation in the liturgy by the people is one of the places where the reform went off the rails and must be reformed.
For a few years I have prayed before the Blessed Sacrament in our Perpetual Adoration Chapel. Sometimes my prayer was active, and other times I was merely present before the Real Presence. My voice was silent in either case, and my body was still. Active participation does not equate to vocalizing and histrionics, but the misdirected good intentions of liturgy directors and pastors has led many parishes to what amounts to disruptive participation by excessive numbers of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, ushers, song leaders, lectors, welcoming committee-men, and so on.
I hope pastors will have the stones to shut down or sharply curtail the number of lay people popping out of the pews to "help" out around the altar and communion stations. We are now averaging ten EMHC's and six ushers for a 650-seat church. It looks like a Catholic wine party up there as they all make sure everybody has a cup and then go out to mingle with the guests. Then the ushers, having no place to stand but unwilling to stay out of the limelight, stand beside the priest at the altar rail looking so much like Minister Farrakan's bodyguards I want to buy them bow ties. And I don't even attend the Ass Mass, where the modern music group sways like satyrs as the oboe player and the drummer work their way through another Andrew Lloyd Webber-inspired number. Let's hope Benedict can reintroduce solemnity to American Catholic liturgy.
Posted by: Sidney at Mar 26, 2007 4:33:20 PM
I just hope that the motu proprio will encourage people to stop acting as if the laypeople are stupid. (Or even more perniciously, all the _other_ laypeople, the ones without religion degrees.) People will continue to see the horizontal dimension in the Tridentine, and the vertical dimension in the current Mass, and it will all be copacetic in all the various tongues. Though of course, people's understanding should be enhanced quite a lot by crosspollination, and that's good.
Because we're not stupid, and we can learn, and we'd like to.
But just last night at church, we had a visitor guy telling us that visible, prominent tabernacles would distract us from the importance of the Eucharist being confected.
Because we're so stupid.
And he said that all churches everywhere would have to put the tabernacles away in chapels to protect us from this, and that only "a few Vatican bureaucrats" weren't in favor of this.
Because we're so stupid.
The same guy also said that Vatican II had banned all private masses -- and didn't mention that practically the same thing is totally legal, but it's just officially called "missa sine populo".
Because, apparently, we are too stupid to look these things up on that big scary Interweb thingy. Which was invented by laypeople.
Posted by: Maureen at Mar 26, 2007 4:33:40 PM
Ambrosius, then Cardinal Ratzinger made pretty much the same points in his autobiography "Milestones."
Read a review with extensive quotes here.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Mar 26, 2007 5:34:54 PM
There is also this interesting possibility: pastors will be inspired to fix up the new rite and make it more solemn and correct precisely to forestall what they consider a worse choice of actually having to learn the old rite and put it in place as a parish option.
I think a lot of Bishops will keep a tight lid on this to forestall some pastors initiating the Latin Mass as a way to attract people from surrounding parishes.
Posted by: John M at Mar 26, 2007 5:51:27 PM
JCR- welcome!
Amy- I think Benedict's emphasis on Jesus is exactly right. Not to oversimplify, but JPII was very Marian in his devotion, and Benedict seems more Christo-centric. There is a place for both of course.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Mar 26, 2007 5:54:22 PM
Maureen-I think your visitor guy is stuck in 1980 or thereabouts. Isn't that when they hid away all the tabernacles?
I am afraid a lot of people don't want to learn what the old mass has to teach. I read somewhere-could have been here- about a group that went around evaluating churches and masses based on whether they "celebrated the community." Some of my fellow Catholics just do not understand any other purpose for mass or any other standard to judge it by.
Personally, I would like the old mass but with the people making the responses. It is not that I don't believe the people who say they can participate actively while being silent, but this doesn't work for me. I even avoid the times when the choir sings in the larger of the two Byzantine parishes I attend, even though it is a very good choir and they sing well, because it is so much harder to sing myself when they are singing to music I don't have in front of me. In the Byzantine church the ordinary responses are still made by the people even when the choir sings, but the choir at that parish tends to sing the longer people's parts, Such as O only begotten Son and Word of God...or It is truly proper to glorify you, who have borne God, with fancier music than the ordinary chant.) I love siging these, and don't have the knack of praying them when the choir is singing them and I am just listening. I felt the same way about the whole Tridentine mass, the two times I have attended it. I do know some Latin, certainly enough to follow the mass; but I wanted to be saying and singing it. Give me a "dialogue Tridentine mass"...a sung dialogue mass in which the people learned to chant all the people's parts, and the Latin rite just might win me back from the Byzantines.
But I certainly don't see any of it happening in the Diocese of Rochester any time soon, dialogue or not. There is a totally different ethos, a totally different sensibility, in which people have been raised, and in which even older people have been thoroughly immersed. I don't think that much will change around here any time soon just because the Motu Proprio comes out.
Alas,
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Mar 26, 2007 6:13:09 PM
I don't quite understand why some people act as if this motu proprio will magically restore dignity and solemnity to the Mass. Or why they seem to think that the freedom to use the Tridentine Mass without asking permission will mean that Happy Days Are Here Again.
A church that could wreck the "novus ordo" (the only Mass I've known, so there's nothing novus about it to me) could also wreck the Tridentine Mass.
I just don't really understand much of this.
And I dread the time when the secular media announces the Pope's decision. I already read an article from an Australian newspaper which speculated about the motu proprio. The headline was "Pope ignores protests to restore Latin Mass." They meant that he was ignoring people who were protesting his "plans to bring back the celebration of mass in Latin."
It went on to say "The decree would declare the Latin, or Tridentine, mass an 'extraordinary universal rite', and the vernacular mass, with which most Catholics are familiar, an 'ordinary universal rite'.
I'm certain that the author of the article thought that "extraordinary" means more special than "ordinary."
sigh
Posted by: Meggan at Mar 26, 2007 6:33:42 PM
Hi Maureen,
Sorry to hear you were so offended by the speaker at your parish. Obviously he did not phrase things well, but he did have some valid points. Maybe his talk was geared toward folks who know less than you?
For example, it is true that many people seem to be confused by how to deal with the tabernacle during Mass. At my parish I frequently see people receive communion and then genuflect to the (empty) tabernacle as they go back to their seats. I saw a post on another blog today where someone was complaining about people who stand during communion because it blocks her view of the tabernacle as she makes her communion thanksgiving. And I've read more than one person advocating for the return of "ad orientem" because they say the priest should face Jesus in the tabernacle during Mass because "that's who Mass is offered to." One bishop I know, a very devout person, pointed out once that the purpose of Mass was not merely to refill the tabernacle, and he endured protesters calling him a heretic.
So there were/are abuses in how people were taught or what they assumed about the role of the tabernacle during Mass. That's why some people tried to deal with this in various ways, some sound, some not so sound.
Similarly, he had a point about "private Masses." Probably what he was referring to was the pre-Vatican II requirement that every priest had to celebrate Mass every day as the celebrant. As a result you had situations like large monasteries with gigantic crypts filled with 40 or 50 private altars where every member of the community had to make an appointment to say "his Mass" alone with dozens of others saying their private Masses at the same time. Or there were situations such as Eucharistic Congresses where thousands of participating priests had to fan out to the churches of a city in search of altars, lined up vested waiting for their turn to celebrate their own private Mass. This kind of abuse was why concelebration was recommended for religious communities and large gatherings. So the speaker was right, but so are you: there is still an option for a Mass without people -- used in situations such as a priest on a private retreat, or in a remote place. "My own private Mass" is no longer the norm for priests, but the exception.
So maybe his tone put you off, but I doubt he meant to imply you were stupid! Or if he did, probably he was a poor speaker to communicate these issues.
Posted by: Eric at Mar 26, 2007 7:03:13 PM
No one thinks the motu proprio would result in any immediate dramatic changes. But it would mark another important step toward recovery of tradition and away from the post-Vatican II nonsense. The significance of this step (assuming it is taken) will be felt across decades and centuries. The immediately following days, months and years are not the appropriate tme frame for evaluating the impact.
Posted by: Dan at Mar 26, 2007 7:06:20 PM
So maybe his tone put you off, but I doubt he meant to imply you were stupid! Or if he did, probably he was a poor speaker to communicate these issues.
Or maybe he, like you, said things that are untrue, incomplete, or misleading.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Mar 26, 2007 7:23:12 PM
I am thoroughly enjoying this series of comments-all serious and passionate yet not disparaging of anyone's position....
A couple of further comments-remember that phrase 'hermeneutic of continuity', it is key to understanding anything concerning the Church today. If you think about it, it is but another 'application' of the 'principle of the Incarnation' that permeates our Catholic identity. In other words it is 'both/ and' not 'either/or' It prevents those from interpreting a complete break between what is termed 'pre-Vatican II' and 'post-Vatican II'
Anyone reading the teaching of Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict will pick right up on this 'hermeneutic'-and it applies for things liturgical as well as other aspects of Church life.
The hermeneutic of continuity does not mean 'the same' or 'unchanging'-this also is key. What it means is that what takes place is 'organic', growth from within the living organism-in this case as applied to Liturgy.
Read again from the very beginning of Sacramentum Caritatis and Pope Benedict's comments on the history or tradition of the Liturgy-he is spelling out his foundational 'hereneutic of continuity' between earlier forms of the Liturgy and the Tridentine Mass of 1570 (Mass of Saint Pius V) and the Tridentine Mass of 1570 and the Vatican II Mass of 1970 (Mass of Paul VI)
Now how was this 'continuity' experienced-that is another matter completely. For some it was a total disruption of their experience of Mass-while for others-for example those who had and used Sunday or even daily missals, or those in my generation already being prepared for an increased participation in praying, singing and responding in Mass [even if in Latin] it was experienced as far less of a disruption.
One thing I have found out is that you do NOT teach what you will have to unteach later [BTW this is not the same as the one teaching making an outright mistake lol] Many of us were taught "the Church never 'changes'" and "No matter where you go, Mass is always the same"---but see nothing could be further from the truth!!!!! No wonder so many got and some are still so angry at the 'changes' after the Council. Anyone who has read even a quick synopsis of Church history knows that while the Church remains One Holy Catholic and APostolic she 'changes' constantly through time. The essentials do not change but the non-essentials do-constantly! And the Mass? Of course, the Eucharist instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and handed down to us from Apostolic times in the Liturgy of the word and Liturgy of the Eucharist remains, but even as we were being taught 'no matter where we go it is the same Mass' there were 22 other rites celebrating the Catholic Mass in very distinct ways!
So the real issue for us in the Latin Church is-how can each of us and all of us go ever deeper into the Source and Summit of Christian Life, the Eucharist-and REALLY enter into the conscious and active participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass-in silence as well as song, in kneeling and standing, and bowing and genuflecting-with the whole of our body, and soul into this most AWESOME GIFT given to us, thi Sacramentum Caritatis
Posted by: Father Elijah at Mar 26, 2007 7:32:24 PM
I don't quite understand why some people act as if this motu proprio will magically restore dignity and solemnity to the Mass. Or why they seem to think that the freedom to use the Tridentine Mass without asking permission will mean that Happy Days Are Here Again.
I think the Holy Father agrees that it won't restore solemnity by itself. From his EWTN interview:
And so, I think we have to restore not so much certain ceremonies, but the essential idea of liturgy – to understand in liturgy, we are not representing ourselves, but we receive the grace of the presence of the Lord with the Church of the heaven and of the earth. And the universality of the liturgy, it seems to me, is essential. Definition of liturgy and restoring this idea would also help to be more obedient to the norms, not as a juridical positivism, but really as sharing, participating what is given to us from the Lord in the Church.
I think this is about restoring the continuity of the faith and of tradition. He also says in "Salt of the Earth" that "a community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent." If there is in fact some document on the way, the most important effect I think will be that the Tridentine Mass, which is the expression of so many Saints and so many truths and of a liturgical and spiritual tradition, is not indecent, and those Saints and that tradition are still valid today. We don't need to abolish the new forms, but we do have to give them life with that tradition.
Posted by: Jason at Mar 26, 2007 7:37:02 PM
HellO Eric,
And I've read more than one person advocating for the return of "ad orientem" because they say the priest should face Jesus in the tabernacle during Mass because "that's who Mass is offered to."
But this is not, nor has it ever been, the reason for worship ad orientem.
Maybe someone out there mistakenly thinks it is. But this is the very first time I have ever heard of such a justification.
Poor catechesis seems like poor justification for moving tabernacles away from their ancient and time-honored location.
Posted by: Richard at Mar 27, 2007 10:33:08 AM
I'm being received at the Easter VIgil and I read myself into that decision with Cardinal Ratzinger's books in hand. Praise God!
Posted by: trooper at Mar 27, 2007 3:26:58 PM
I've never heard of anyone in our area doing this sort of "tabernacle worship", as opposed to adoring Jesus in said tabernacle. Possibly this is because when priests around here take out the reserved hosts, they usually take out the container with _all_ the reserved hosts and leave the tabernacle door open, so that everyone can see that Jesus isn't in there at the moment.
What I do see, again and again, are people who have no clue that they should genuflect to the Real Presence in the tabernacle. Our tabernacle isn't positioned dead center behind the altar, which makes moving about the front of church a real pain to do fittingly. You can't just kneel to Jesus in the tabernacle and bow to the altar if you're approaching it, like we did back at home. Noooo, you have to bow to the altar, kneel to the tabernacle, go do your thing in the little non-sacristy sacristy, come back out, decide whether you need to kneel to the tabernacle or if you should just go down the aisle all the way back to the choir loft without kneeling....
*puff puff puff*
Meanwhile, if you're doing any sort of lector or psalmist business, you bow to the altar but have been told by the Worship Committee not to genuflect when entering or leaving the pew. So you're in the uncomfortable position of honoring the King's furniture more than the King.
And the kids all see this lack of unanimity of how to treat the Presence in the tabernacle. I can't tell you how many times they'll scoot right by the tabernacle without a second glance; or scoot by and only then remember, and have to come back to kneel. We never had that kind of thing happen in my old church, except maybe once in a blue moon when a _toddler_ would forget to genuflect -- but never an adult.
So in a situation where God's Real Presence is routinely disregarded and the pastoral problem is how to stop this, we're getting told that we pay it too much attention and ought to hide it away somewhere.
Yeah, we'll get right on that.
Oh, well. All the excess, inconvenient chapels will make nice Ladychapels sometime in the future. Right after all the boring walls get covered with frescos. :)
Posted by: Maureen at Mar 27, 2007 4:00:00 PM
