Liturgical Silence

The classic Anglican book, Liturgy and Worship (SPCK, ed. Clarke and Harris), has a great chapter on liturgical silence, and discusses it in the context Holy Eucharist. Originally the entire eucharistic liturgy was recited audibly, but at a rather early date, in both and west, the most solemn parts of the liturgy began to be said softly or silently. It was meant to evoke a certain sense of awe and mystery in the worshipper. Various church fathers, such as Cyril of Jeruslam, spoke on this topic. The offering of the eucharist was, according to Cyril, the "greatest hour of trembling", so naturally the tone of the liturgy, and how it was said, began to express this.

Anyone who has done even a little bit of public speaking knows that changing your tempo, tone, and volume are very powerful communication tools. That is what all of the great preachers have done (e.g. just watch a classic Billy Graham sermon from the 50's on TV sometime). So naturally one would do that at the liturgy in appropriate ways. It can also be a pedagogical tool. I was trained to say the Words of Institution softly, but I must confess I like the practice of the clergy of the parish I attended in seminary better, where they said those words loudly and with clarity, in order to emphasize, I think, the Real Presence.
The first time I heard him say those words in that way I knew that he believed in the Real Presence.

Related to this is the whole problem of rushing through the liturgy and not saying the silent prayers in the missal because people find the silences "awkward". Personally, I think they need to just get over that. Silence is the most undervalued thing in the world (besides my art). When we sit through those longish pauses in the liturgy, it helps us slow down and really concentrate on what is happening so we can be more involved in the sacred action, and get more out of it. I think that our churches would be even more reverent and holy places if we sought to slow things down a bit and learned to observe and appreciate the periods of silence and quiet in our worship.

More Priesthood Reflections

Today is the date of my first mass a year ago (Low Sunday). I promised some more simple reflections on life as a priest so here goes...

Being a parish priest pulls you in a million different directions. You have to wear a lot of hats: administrator, teacher, counselor, etc. I spend much of my time throughout the day working on rather mundane things (not surprising, really, since life in general is pretty mundane). For example, I keep a running list of things I tell people on Sunday that I am going to do for them the next week ("I'll check that out, and e-mail you about it tomorrow." "I need to call A.B. and see how his recovery is going.", etc.). So I spend much of my mornings - especially Monday - following up on people, working the phones (updating phone numbers as necessary), sending resources to people, and so on. Then there are logistical things to work out regarding services and activities with other clergy and parishioners. There are sick parishioners to visit, and occasional weekday services to lead. And then there is sermon prep time, Bible study prep time, and other things to prepare for (e.g. I am playing guitar at the homeless ministry soon - so I have pick some songs out and rehearse them.). There are bulletins to make, and Sunday School rooms to decorate. In short, there's lots of different stuff to do... and that is just a small part of it! All of that stuff, however, is pretty mundane and ordinary. There is nothing magical about it, and I don't see visions of the Blessed Mother or Our Lord every other day. It's just... ordinary.

I mention that only to say that some aspirants to the priesthood think that being a priest only involves dressing up in fancy clothes, saying mass, and meditating on whether existence precedes essence. Some aspirants have no interest in serving people (i.e. being a pastor), or going to parish social activities (no matter how hokie they may be). Instead they want to be "ivory tower theologians" who wear a collar. They think that being a priest only involves "Sunday morning high mass". But all of that other, less glamorous stuff is really important, and is a vital part of the ministry; indeed, you can't have a succesful minstry without them. Theological study and reflection, and certainly celebrating the Eucharist is important, but priestly ministry is not consist only of those things. Related to this is the idea that because a person is devoted to the Lord, and has a certain interest in theology, he is automatically called to be ordained. That is not necessarily the case.

So, if you want gobs of thrills and constant whirring and excitement, don't become a priest. If you want to read theological treatises all the time, and refuse to answer the phone or follow up with people; and if you don't want to get out there and minister to someone who doesn't even know what "Anglican" is; and if you don't want to be involved in something that is beneath you, like helping take down the tables and clean up after a parish dinner, then don't become a priest. Because a priest, like St. Paul, must be in a certain sense, "...all things to all people." If you want the honor and glory of saying mass, administering other sacraments, and preaching and teaching the word of God, then you must accept and embrace along with that the more mundane things associated with the ministry.

When tragedy strikes, say nothing?

I am preaching this Sunday at St. Mark's and will spend some time talking about the horrible shootings at Virginia Tech. There are a number of continuing church parishes in that part of Virginia, so I hope they will say something about what happened.

Sadly, I have been to a number of continuing churches where nothing is said from the pulpit about a major national or international tragedy. Mass is not even offered for the sufferers or victims! IMHO, clergy are obligated to comment on such events. People want need to know how God and Jesus Christ relates to what has happened. People have questions, and want to see what light their faith sheds on sufffering and loss.

Reach Out and Touch Faith

Jeff Steel has a link to an article by a Catholic priest which I find very exciting. The priest lists eight principles of what he calls "Evangelical Catholicism". It is the first of these principles that I find the most exciting. Here it is:

" The Lord Jesus Christ is the crucified and risen Savior of all mankind, and no human person can fully understand his life or find his dignity and destiny apart from a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. It is not enough to know who Jesus is; we must know Jesus."

There is unfortunately a lot of baggage that goes with the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". It's too bad, though, because that is a good phrase. It signifies a deep investment and involvment with God the Son. A lot of people think that it cancels out the relationship between the believer and the Church. But I have never thought that. The two actually go together. Like in a family, I have a personal relationship with my father, but I am also part of a larger unit, and have my relationship with my father by being part of this larger unit (the family). It's the same thing here.

I wish more Anglicans had a grasp on what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and what it means to walk with Christ, and to know Him. This is something that our more "evangelical" bretheren can bring to the table. Our parishes would be a lot stronger if peoples' faith became more personal, and if people knew Jesus as they knew their best friend, or their spouse.

It's only dead if you make it dead.

Looks like Rome's chief Latinist may be wrong about B16's "Motu Proprio". But that doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong about Latin being a dead language. As many people know, I attended a Roman Catholic seminary, and let me tell you, they do not study Latin at many U.S. Catholic seminaries, neither do they actively promote it... not because they have anything against it, but because there is only so much time one can be in seminary, and only so many subjects a person has studied. At my school most of my classmates were required to take Spanish, because of the huge pastoral need. They didn't take Latin (which was only offered sporadically), or Greek... and much less Hebrew! There just was not enough time to take all of those extra classes. Nowadays, in addition to the ever-present philosophy requirements (though they too have been streamlined quite a bit), Catholic seminarians have to take several semesters of preaching, catechesis, counseling, professional ethics, social justice, etc. in addition to the Biblical studies, Church history, systematic and fundamental theology, etc. And so, there is only so much time available to take other courses. Eventually you have to graduate, and get out there to minister! So is Latin truly dead? Are they just too busy teaching other desperately needed courses to fit it into the schedule? Time will tell, I guess.

I think that a language like Latin or Greek is dead only if you make it dead. A seminarian can always study those langauges on his own, or take a summer course to at least get him going for private study. And when he graduates it is incumbent upon him to stay with those languages and keep using them and studying them, just as he must continue reading and studying theology, scripture, etc. I study my Latin regularly, and use my Greek everytime I prepare sermons, and I do that on purpose (so I don't forget it). That is how a language stays alive. Even if the leadership at Catholic seminaries does not teach the language for lack of time, they can at least create a favorable and enouraging environment to promote the study of it, and urge seminarians to pursue it on their own. We Anglicans, by the way, should also study Latin, even though we have our own liturgical language. It is the theological language of the western Church, and knowing it even on a small level enriches theolgical study and devotion in manifold ways. But again, there are no Latin police out there to make sure we do that. We must do it on our own, so it stays alive to us, and so we can reap its benefits.

Out with the new and in with the old...

There is a lot of talk out there about the possibility of Benedict XVI granting some sort of universal indult for catholic priests to say the old Tridentine mass. Apparently some people think it could happen at any time. On the other hand, I read an article in NOR by Rome's chief Latinist who said that the whole thing was a farce, and that Latin is deader than ever. So it will be interesting to see what happens.

Even though I am a traditionalist, I do not think it would be wise for B16 to allow this, and here's why. There are lots of practical problems that are going to come about as a result of this. First, who is going to teach all of these men to say the old mass properly? It is a lot harder to do than the Novus Ordo mass, and they must be trained to do it correctly. Second, how are they going to do it in newer churches that are not designed for that sort of service? Third, is it going to create even more of a "church-within-a-church"? That is to say, are the traditionalist/Blue Army types going to become even more estranged from their brothers and sisters in Novus Ordo parishes? Fourth, is it going to create strife and factionalism among the clergy? What if you are a young curate, and, as the saying goes, "The curate is always higher than the rector.", you want to do the old mass, but your boss - the rector - says "No, we do the Novus Ordo here." How is that to be resolved? Fiftth, are other Latin language devotions going to be brought back as well, and how will that impact things? Sixth, will this cause a liberal backlash? Those are just a few questions (there are many more) that I think need to be addressed or planned for ("change management" is the business term). If they do not, I predict that a universal indult will do more harm than good.

I think the Roman Catholic Church should cut its losses and just stick with the new mass, only issue stricter guidelines with regard to vesture, music, lay participation, and so on. They could bring back certain things, such as kneeling for most of mass and communion, in order to make a more holy atmosphere without causing a major disruption in peoples' faith and life. And they simply have to consider the average Joe catholic who grew up with the new mass and thinks it is fine.