Good advent post from Puritas Cordis
LC of PC has a great post outlining some of the liturgical changes Catholics will notice in Advent. For those of you who aren't Catholic but pride yourself in your ability to sing along, you might want to take note if you happen to find yourself in a Catholic church in the next 4 weeks. (Dumb question--do these changes apply to nuptial Masses? Funerals?)
And since Liturgy is one of my favorite things in the world, more favorite than a hot Krispy Kreme, I thought LC might particularly enjoy my Liturgical experience this morning in her home diocese. I am dog- and guinea pig- and house- sitting for a few days in Harrison City. When we pulled up to the building, Myles pronounced it a nice church. I am rethinking my older post about just letting toddlers tell you if the church is liturgically correct, or at least don't accept their pronouncement before they even walk into the building. I mean, I really don't care how many feet the altar is from the wall, and when you are in a poor church in particular, I really don't think God cares the material of the vessels of communion, but I have a definite problem not having an obvious tabernacle front and center or even front and off to the side. That was my first problem. The next was the music. The organist vamped from the end of the entrance hymn to the end of the Kyrie, at which point we sang another chorus of O Come O Come Emmanuel, you know, Rejoice, Rejoice.....And then right before the readings, when the children are being dismissed they are processed out to the congregation singing We are God's People or something like that. So, LC, are these all features I would see in your diocese?
I guess I should also explain to my non-Catholic readers on why it matters, whether the rubrics are followed or not when so many other faiths allow for greater liberties in the liturgy under a no blood no foul sort of rule. I don't even need to discuss the value of the rubrics, because it matters little in this case. It all boils down to something all Christians are called to observe--OBEDIENCE. We are to be obedient to God, whether we like it or not. And in the Church we are to be obedient to one another (to some extent and it is obvious how this is abused by people barely worthy of esteem). What this means as I understand it is that you are no greater than the instructions you have received. It doesn't matter if it sounds better to you if you word it this way, or play chords throughout the Eucharistic prayers, or whether you like for everyone to note how witty a priest you are for the funny jokes you make at Mass. The rubrics exist to be followed. It is the celebrant's duty to follow his instructions. Who told him he was a greater authority than the bishops or the Congregation of Divine Worship or the Pope that he can change what he wants? Who told whatever extraordinary minister that their unique flair was appropriate for whatever role they are performing at the Mass? God? Jesus? We cannot help but be human, but is it that much a hardship on anything but your own ego to obey simple instructions? for me, that is what these changes smack of--not a disrespect for the Church, or the authority of the Church, or a belief that you know better--but simply too much esteem for yourself. Narcissism, if you will.
And when I seem to nitpick about these liturgical liberties, I really don't want to come off as being greater than the folks who are taking these liberties. At the Mass I was at today, the congregation seemed perfectly fine with what was going on--and why wouldn't they? They are following the instructions laid out to them. Too often, though, we get carried away, high on our own self-esteem, and forget it isn't about us. So I go to Mass, and observe and reflect, but never withdraw my participation (unless suddenly Myles has transformed into Mr. Hyde). Because it isn't about me, either.
And then to end this post on a high note, Myles told me today he deserved a cookie after Mass because, "My was a good boy in the nice church." Since he slept from the preface to the Eucharistic Prayer to the dismissal, I couldn't argue with that.
And since Liturgy is one of my favorite things in the world, more favorite than a hot Krispy Kreme, I thought LC might particularly enjoy my Liturgical experience this morning in her home diocese. I am dog- and guinea pig- and house- sitting for a few days in Harrison City. When we pulled up to the building, Myles pronounced it a nice church. I am rethinking my older post about just letting toddlers tell you if the church is liturgically correct, or at least don't accept their pronouncement before they even walk into the building. I mean, I really don't care how many feet the altar is from the wall, and when you are in a poor church in particular, I really don't think God cares the material of the vessels of communion, but I have a definite problem not having an obvious tabernacle front and center or even front and off to the side. That was my first problem. The next was the music. The organist vamped from the end of the entrance hymn to the end of the Kyrie, at which point we sang another chorus of O Come O Come Emmanuel, you know, Rejoice, Rejoice.....And then right before the readings, when the children are being dismissed they are processed out to the congregation singing We are God's People or something like that. So, LC, are these all features I would see in your diocese?
I guess I should also explain to my non-Catholic readers on why it matters, whether the rubrics are followed or not when so many other faiths allow for greater liberties in the liturgy under a no blood no foul sort of rule. I don't even need to discuss the value of the rubrics, because it matters little in this case. It all boils down to something all Christians are called to observe--OBEDIENCE. We are to be obedient to God, whether we like it or not. And in the Church we are to be obedient to one another (to some extent and it is obvious how this is abused by people barely worthy of esteem). What this means as I understand it is that you are no greater than the instructions you have received. It doesn't matter if it sounds better to you if you word it this way, or play chords throughout the Eucharistic prayers, or whether you like for everyone to note how witty a priest you are for the funny jokes you make at Mass. The rubrics exist to be followed. It is the celebrant's duty to follow his instructions. Who told him he was a greater authority than the bishops or the Congregation of Divine Worship or the Pope that he can change what he wants? Who told whatever extraordinary minister that their unique flair was appropriate for whatever role they are performing at the Mass? God? Jesus? We cannot help but be human, but is it that much a hardship on anything but your own ego to obey simple instructions? for me, that is what these changes smack of--not a disrespect for the Church, or the authority of the Church, or a belief that you know better--but simply too much esteem for yourself. Narcissism, if you will.
And when I seem to nitpick about these liturgical liberties, I really don't want to come off as being greater than the folks who are taking these liberties. At the Mass I was at today, the congregation seemed perfectly fine with what was going on--and why wouldn't they? They are following the instructions laid out to them. Too often, though, we get carried away, high on our own self-esteem, and forget it isn't about us. So I go to Mass, and observe and reflect, but never withdraw my participation (unless suddenly Myles has transformed into Mr. Hyde). Because it isn't about me, either.
And then to end this post on a high note, Myles told me today he deserved a cookie after Mass because, "My was a good boy in the nice church." Since he slept from the preface to the Eucharistic Prayer to the dismissal, I couldn't argue with that.
Comments
Our chapel over here is less than 10 years old - and it is quite beautiful. One of the first emails I wrote home was about the stained glass Soldiers that were behind the altar, and how the architectural design is quite similar to St. James. The interesting part here is that only during Mass can there be anything that can be construed as "Catholic." I have no idea where our tabernacle is. I know it exists, and I know it takes almost the entire "Lamb of God" before the EME makes it back to the altar.
I was told that the reason that there is nothing "Catholic" in the chapel is because tax dollars pay for all of our buildings over here. Talk about definite separation of church and state...
The placement of the tabernacle (or the apparent lack thereof in the sanctuary) is a hot-button issue in St. Blog's, of course. But the problem is that the official documents have been more than a bit confusing on the issue.
In 1969 (revised in 1975) the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) said the following:
276. It is highly recommended that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a chapel suitable for private adoration and prayer. If this is impossible because of the structure of the church or local custom, it should be kept on an altar or some other place in the church that is prominent and properly decorated.
277. The Eucharist is to be kept in a solid, unbreakable tabernacle, and ordinarily there should be only one tabernacle in a church.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law says this:
Canon 938
1. The Most Holy Eucharist is to be reserved regularly in only one tabernacle of a church or oratory.
2. The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved should be placed in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.
3. The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is regularly reserved is to be immovable, made of solid and opaque material, and locked so that the danger of profanation may be entirely avoided.
4. For a grave cause, it is licit to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist in another safer and becoming place especially during the night.
5. The person who has charge of the church or oratory is to see to it that the key of the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is safeguarded most diligently.
Then Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
1183 The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor." The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.
So some sources say it should be in a prominent place in the main body of the church (my preference, and yours and a lot of other people's) but other official sources do say that a separate chapel is "highly recommended" and go on to specify that there should be only one tabernacle in any case. It gets confusing to figure out how to reconcile all of these, so this is one issue I'd like to have Rome to clarify once and for all. As it is, whether the tabernacle is placed in the sanctuary or in a separate adoration chapel, either option seems to have solid documentation behind it.