Cardinal Mahony's: Gather Faithfully Together

by Basil Cole, O.P.

Cardinal Mahony’s: Gather Faithfully Together

By Basil Cole

The purpose of this minor study is not to downgrade or insult a Cardinal of the Church nor to challenge his authority as the bishop of his archdiocese, but simply to pose certain problems that emerged from reading GFT. Since it is a public document guiding liturgical praxis in his archdiocese, perhaps there may be ideas in it which could be used with profit, improved upon or rejected based upon the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and John Paul II, and it is in this spirit that the following essay is written. And while his Eminence only mentions “sacrifice” and “transubstantiation” once without too much development, I will omit any rejoinders in this matter since it has already been commented upon by others. Neither will I discuss the issues surrounding the question of standing during the Eucharistic prayer or at communion time, nor the issue of singing during Holy Communion.

The desire of a bishop to want uniform practice of the liturgy is a mixed blessing because in fact there are some places in the liturgy that call for pastoral prudence on the part of the local pastor in adapting certain modes for specific congregations that the law of the Church permits which are too well known to be cited in this short article. Nevertheless, the Cardinal is absolutely correct when he writes that the Sunday Eucharist must be “a compelling and contemplative celebrating . . .” and it is an action both of “our doing and God’s” (#18). But speaking of “tensions” which begins paragraph 24, I become uneasy and find the following sentence problematic:

We do not choose between solemnity and festivity, between reverence and community. The vertical and the horizontal dimensions of liturgy must be held together to work for us.

What is disturbing is that both dimensions seem to be given an equal share and it would seem that he has neglected to say that the vertical dimension has a certain priority since the Mass is first and foremost the worship of God, not a celebration of self or its extension, the community, even though clothed somewhat in different cultural conditions of music, words and gestures.
Somehow, each community must get the idea that it is only part of one single assembly of Christ Jesus (#30) and this is something both primarily vertical and secondarily horizontal.

However, “communion” is more than merely “sharing in the full stature of his or her culture” (#31) but something trans-cultural being the result of sharing in God’s supernatural gifts more than his natural ones because nature does not outdo grace in dignity. And to call “sexual orientation” (#33) part of “ethnicity” mars the overall thought here since it is simply not true. There is no country or culture called “the land of sexual orientation.”

Further, to call the assembly “the basic symbol when the liturgy is celebrated” stretches the Catechism reference 1188 which refers to the physical building as God’s house first and foremost, not a house for the people of God.

When it comes to criticizing the use of the room for mothers with babies, it is certainly disputable or a matter of opinion to say that it is “not appropriate to have them in a separate room” (#45) which the Cardinal may have good reasons to favor but others before him thought the opposite. On the other hand, it seems unrealistic to have mothers suckling their babies in front of or around the assembly of the people since suckling (or changing diapers for that matter) is such a private and somewhat embarrassing matter when done in public here in the USA, though not in other countries. And, many churches with screaming babies make hearing the Word of God read from the sacred Scriptures or proclaiming of the homily relatively impossible. From another perspective, during the Sunday liturgy for children, they do go off to a separate room and hear the Word of God suitable for them. Having a separate room for babies with mothers, then, by analogy, does not seem to be so unreasonable after all even if one does not like the idea.

I also wonder why the priest has to make sure that everyone is not a guest at Mass (49) because it is quite clear that many people who come are not full members of the Catholic Church, and for some who have not darkened a church door in years, they may feel like guests. And even though the rest of us are incorporated into Christ by the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders, sometimes we feel even less than guests because we are still unfortunately sinners. Some of the great priests’ saints sometimes felt as if that they had been “degraded” when celebrating Mass because of their extraordinary humility which, of course, cannot be imitated unless under a special inspiration of the Holy Spirit to feel that way. ¹

Scattered throughout the document is the word “church”; it is never referred to as “she” or “her” but as “it” which is reasonable when speaking about a church building. This seems to neglect the notion that the Church is the bride of Christ par excellence, and everyone belongs to the bride and mother as a member of her.

In paragraph 53, the Cardinal wants the lectors to feel that when they read to a congregation, “this church is full of people hungry for the Word of God” which is true in the ideal order of things but not necessarily true psychologically. If everyone were hungering to do God’s will, which is what is implied in “hungering for the Word of God,” all would be saints. I think it would be a better pedagogy to assume that the two dimensions, at least, are present: those hungering for God and those that could care less. Everyone in church is at different spiritual levels; but, how that knowledge will affect the reader to do a better job in proclaiming the readings remains unknown.

In paragraph 57, the phrase “book-bearing presider” is not quite correct. Only the priest presides, not the deacon, and usually on Sunday the deacon is present but he is not a presider.

In #68, even though someone wrote that “the Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the Church,” it needs qualification because the Church has received the Eucharist from her bridegroom, Jesus, who “makes” the Eucharist principally and primarily, and then at the same time instrumentally through the action of the priest who consecrates (referred to in the first endnote of the document). Rather, it seems to me, it would be better to say that the Body of the Lord becomes confected so that all can offer themselves with him and also receive him, if properly disposed, and, all things considered, become more united to Christ and to the Mystical Body of the Lord as a result. The Church is his body rather than an isolated group related to him in an amorphous or independent kind of way.

Now how does the Mass “make” the Church? In what sense? By building up sacramentally her members who are disposed at various levels of understanding an adherence to follow Christ from the least to the greatest. But earlier in the previous paragraph #67, it is said:

When we say “Eucharist,” we mean this whole action of presider and assembly. That is the Eucharist whose grace and powerful mystery can transform us and, in us, the word (CCC 1368).

Does this not seem an exaggeration to say that a secondary element, the Church, referenced in the Catechism citation, is the meaning of Eucharist in 1368 when it plainly refers to the sacrament of Christ’s own physical body as the very sacrifice of the Church as well?

Paragraph 72 is odd because the priest and the extraordinary minister are supposed to concentrate on the recipient’s eye while ministering the body of Christ. Is it then inappropriate that both minister and recipient be concentrating on the body of Christ under the appearance of unleavened bread? Why look at one another when Christ is more present in the host than in either the minister or recipient?

In paragraph 80, it is suggested that each person should come to Mass with the idea that he or she is needed for this celebration. But is it not the case that the whole Church needs us at Mass not simply to fill the choir of voices but to pray and merit before the Lord the many graces and gifts for ourselves and those dear to us, the local Church and beyond throughout the world which desperately needs many favors from God? Has not the Lord Jesus shared with us his children the right to mediate for one another and for the world? This is far more important: to be with the Church universal than the simple desire to be with one’s parish. And from another point of view, do we not rather need the Mass more than others need us?

In paragraph 97, active participation is defined as something we all do together at Mass. But there’s another aspect which has been left out. Pius XII’s Mediator Dei followed St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae II-II 81, 8c where he says:

Accordingly, sanctity usually means that a man directs his actions to God, and thus it does not differ essentially but only logically from religion. The word religion is usually used to signify the activity by which man gives the proper reverence to God through actions which specifically pertain to divine worship, such as sacrifice, oblations, and the like, and the word sanctity is usually used to signify that a man offers not only divine worship to God but also works of other virtues by which he disposes himself for works of divine worship.

What all this means is that however lovely and beautiful the outer liturgy is and should be, and however much one participates in the ritual, this is secondary to the “liturgy” of doing God’s will day by day in one’s state of life. What is lacking in GFT’s teaching seems to be the sense that the Mass is composed of a plenitude of “spiritual sacrifices” united to the one sacrifice of the cross of Jesus Christ which is renewed and present on the altar at the time of consecration by the priest. Feeling in community with the people at Mass may come and go, but the rest of the week goes on with its ups and downs, joys and sorrows and how we deal with the situations in which divine providence places us. It is what God absolutely does at the sacrifice of the Mass that is more important than what priest or people do, even though what the priest does is essential and what the people do is important but still subordinate. Our part, priest and people, more importantly after the liturgy is finished is to live the Mass by becoming more and more conformed to Jesus crucified by exercising the infused virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the moral virtues of practical wisdom, fairness, tough-heartedness, and being self-possessed through purity and chastity. This is what we more deeply bring to the Mass: our successes in a spirit of gratitude to God for his grace to have accomplished his will during the week, and repentance over sins and other failures against his will, not simply a well-tuned voice (and I might add, while gawking at who is present or worse, not present).

John Paul II’s speech to the bishops Ad Limina

When the bishops of the Northwest and Alaska were visiting Rome as a body, the holy Father gave them a theological discourse in liturgiology.² After admitting that there have been problems, abuses and confusions about the changes in the liturgy in paragraph one, he calls for balance in the next paragraph of his treatise: “especially by entering more deeply in the Contemplative dimension of worship.” He does not leave it at that but then proceeds to say what it is: “. . . which includes the sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental attitudes in our relationship with God.” He does not lightly dismiss the contemplative dimension but then speaks of the liturgy as both “local and universal, time-bound and eternal, horizontal and vertical, subjective and objective.” With the emphasis on the word “and” one gets the impression that the latter word carries a greater weight than the previous word. So one’s worship is both in time and eternity because it is the “eternal worship of heaven.” Yes it builds up the community but it is also “the worship of the divine majesty.” For this latter reason, the liturgy of the Church transcends the local contribution because it is “the priestly act of Christ himself” and so in the final analysis the Mass does not ultimately depend on us. From these truths, the Pope derives another truth that the laws of the liturgy are not created by the priest or people. They are not inventors or creative producers because the core of the mystery of Christian worship “is the sacrifice of Christ offered to the father and the work of the risen Christ who sanctifies his people and through liturgical signs.” Hence it follows that “priests [I would add lay liturgists as well] can empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure its sacred character” if they fiddle around with it as if they were its creators or dominators rather than holding this treasure in trust from Christ.

Again, in the same context, the Pope calls forth the idea that it is “essential that in seeking to enter more deeply into the contemplative depths of worship the inexhaustible mystery of the priesthood of Jesus Christ be fully acknowledged and respected.” He says this so that everyone will believe that the common priesthood of the laity is not the same as the ministerial priesthood. The priest (and I would add even the deacon in his rank) is not simply a presider (or sacred minister/ servant) at Mass but represents the person of Christ the head (and servant) which is the point made at the very end of paragraph two.

What about the participation of the laity?

In paragraph three, the Holy Father wants everyone to avoid a one dimensional interpretation of the Council’s teaching. Full participation in the liturgy does not mean that everyone does everything which would clericalize the laity and laicize the clergy. Rather the liturgy is rooted in hierarchy. Active participation means singing and the like but it also includes and demands “silence, stillness and listening.” Certain kinds of passivity are very active when you strain to listen to the Word of God, for example. In a culture of noise, the Pope says this is not very easy to foster which means that the liturgy in this context is not only inculturated but also counter-culturated (my words).

The Holy Father is also aware that mere outward conformity to the liturgy can only create “ritualism” which leads to “verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman rite and end by trivializing the act of worship.” This act of creating new unauthorized rites within the liturgy deprives the people of their right to the authentic “rite” of the Church. Also, with this aforementioned problem there exists the possibility that a “devotional vacuum is created” because it becomes “too cerebral.” Here even Latin chants can be of great help, for the Roman rite feeds both the intellect and the emotions with symbols and the Pope refers to Latin chant as feeding the subconscious with emotion.

Finally, the Mass looks to mission. The phrase in Latin “Ite, missa est” signifies that each and all have an active role in the Church “to be sent out in the name of Christ to evangelize and transform the world around them.” But in order for this to happen, the Mass must be experienced as capable of enticing people “to a deep personal relationship with God.” Ultimately, everyone should try to fulfill the desire to experience God “especially in prayer both public and private.” Looking into each other’s eyes is not something intrinsically evil, but the question here is whether or not it fosters worship of the living God. In the final analysis of it all: do we go to Mass to feel good about ourselves or to give ourselves to God seems to be a mild if not a basic conflict between GFT and the Holy Father’s instruction.

St. Thomas Aquinas, when writing about worship and wondering if its outward manifestation can ever be excessive makes the following observations:

The purpose of divine worship is for man to give glory to God and obey him in mind and body. Therefore, whatever a man does that gives glory to God, or that submits his mind to God, and his body, too, by tempering its lusts, is without excess (in worship) so long as it be in harmony with the law of God, the rules of the Church, and the customs of those with whom he lives (ST II-II 93, 2).

It would be very helpful if all liturgists, musicians and readers as well, could come to the common conviction that at Mass, something far more theocentric is happening than homocentric: that is, we are in the midst of God doing something divine to and for us at the same time as we attempt to reach out to him and receive that touch of beauty which is ultimately called grace or divine life.

ENDNOTES

1. See the Liturgy of the Hours, Second Week, Ordinary Time; Second Reading: “From a treatise on Spiritual Perfection” by Diadochus of Photice, bishop.
2 Cf. “Fidelity to doctrinal foundations must guide all liturgical renewal” in L’Osservatore Romano, October 14, 1998, p. 3.

---

Reverend Basil Cole, O.P., is an assistant professor of moral and spiritual theology at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Music and Morals (Alba House, 1993) and the co-author of Christian Totality: Theology of Consecrated Life (Alba House, 1997). His last article in HPR appeared in July 1999.

© The Homiletic & Pastoral Review, 86 Riverside Dr., New York, N.Y. 10024, (212) 799-2600.

This item 1268 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org