« Pro-Life? | Main | Noah and the Conservatives »
July 20, 2006
If the Gold Rust
If you want to learn how to reach the conclusion you wish, regardless of the rules you are sworn to obey, you might pay close attention to the exegesis of somebody called the "Diocesan Liturgist" in the Roman Catholic diocese of Winona, Minnesota. The question is the appropriateness of using glassware for the Eucharist. Here is the relevant passage from Redemptionis Sacramentum, 117:
"It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in their common estimation in a given region, so that honor will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit, or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate." (italics mine)
Now, you want to use glassware for communion. What do you do?
1. Play Kreskin the Magnificent. For judges who cannot find in the Constitution what they need, there is always the handy Phantom of the Constitution in the closet, which phantom, conveniently vague and therefore conformable to any conceptual container, can be made to serve any purpose. Roman Catholics have their own Phantom of Vatican II, when they wish to make the documents of that council say what their drafters did not say or had no idea ever of saying. The Phantom, apparently, is a medium with acute psychological and eschatological insight, reading the tarot cards of history, knowing well what our forefathers really felt and also where we are all really going. In the case of the glassware, the Diocesan Liturgist reads the minds of the drafters of the document, making them say what they did not say, thus:
"This statement is regulating against the use of domestic wine glasses and crystal (common vessels) from household dining rooms."
But the document says nothing about household dining rooms; it proscribes glass because it is glass, simply. Glass is used all the time, as are clay and porcelain. Gold and silver are not.
2. Draw Factitious Distinctions. Yes, Saint Paul inveighs against sodomites. But our sodomites are not like their sodomites. Yes, the Bible proscribes fornication. But we don't fornicate the way other people do; we're in love. So the Diocesan Liturgist finds a difference between glass and glass. She notes that the glassware used in Winona is "approximately 3/8 inches or more thick" (sic). Therefore the vessels "do not break easily but could be broken if a person purposefully works at it" (sic). Well, plexiglass could hardly break at all, with normal use. Why shouldn't the manufacturers of windshields carve out a lucrative side business in communion vessels? The point of the instruction is not to guard against the breakage of vessels, but to proscribe materials of a sort that is perceived as breakable; some fired clay is actually hard to break, but we still consider porcelain as a sort of material that can be broken. That is why the instruction specifically states that even vessels that are not common and that do possess artistic merit are not to be used if they are made of glass or clay.
3. Blow a Trumpet before You. Yes, we do sin against the sixth commandment, but we're really good at following the seventh! Yes, we hate our neighbors, but look how we give to the United Way! Now usually, I daresay, people who trumpet their obedience of one law in order to divert attention from their disobedience of another very often are not really obeying either one. So when the Diocesan Liturgist writes, of the glasses, that they "are hand blown which qualifies the criterion of 'artistic merit'" (sic), I am only half willing to grant that the vessels might actually be finely crafted and artistically beautiful. But even if they were indeed so, they are still glass. Many excellent sculptures are made of terra cotta. But Luca della Robbia himself would not be permitted to fire a terra cotta vessel for use in communion.
4. Tar the Legitimate. Sure, abortion kills, but so do the Marines! Sure, homosexuals violate the law of God, but look at all the incest among heterosexuals! It is a neat tactic: after you have raised the illegitimate to the level of the legitimate, you lower the legitimate to the level of the illegitimate. Thus gold too becomes an obviously breakable material: "So it is with gold which could be scratched or bent if a person purposefully works at it. Any accidental drop could do damage to each." So determined is the Diocesan Liturgist to place gold and glass on an equal footing that she forgets her chemistry -- forgets the very reason why gold has ever been prized as a noble metal: "We could be concerned with some pewter communion ware in some parishes that is soiled with age or silver and gold that is not useable (sic) due to rust, lack of cleanliness, or careless handling." News to the Diocesan Liturgist: tarnished silver is not hard to clean. And gold does not rust. At least, the gold we dig up out of the earth does not rust. That's why it is so valuable. As for other, metaphorical, sorts of gold, we quote the words of Chaucer's Parson, who lashes out against slackness and disobedience in the clergy, as these will inevitably end in corrupting the laity too: If the gold rust, what shall the iron do?
Posted by Anthony Esolen at 08:59 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834d6804e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If the Gold Rust:
Comments
A very worthwhile post. What I am most impressed by is how Mr. Esola draws parallels between liturgical shell-games and the shell-games played with dogma and morals.
I'll be honest, it wouldn't have occured to me on my own that this introduction of glass communion vessels was all that problematic.
Posted by: J.D. | Jul 20, 2006 10:31:19 AM
Just a question since I've now been to a couple of Catholic masses...does this apply to all vessels used in the ceremony or only to those that are used in actual communion, this is, the platter and the cup? I know that in all three parishes that I've stoped in the decanters were glass while the cup/platter were either gold or silver.
Posted by: Nick | Jul 20, 2006 11:01:19 AM
Nick,
The instruction says that the wine should be poured into the cups before Consecration to avoid the possibility of spilling the Precious Blood. I am not sure about any regulations regarding the material of the decanter, but I think the important point is that we should take this precaution againt spilling if a decanter is used. IOW, if we are going to risk spilling it, do it before it is consecrated. From that standpoint, I doubt if the material of the decanter matters since it is only holding wine.
Posted by: Marc | Jul 20, 2006 11:27:28 AM
>>>Just a question since I've now been to a couple of Catholic masses...does this apply to all vessels used in the ceremony or only to those that are used in actual communion, this is, the platter and the cup? I know that in all three parishes that I've stoped in the decanters were glass while the cup/platter were either gold or silver.<<<
Typically, decanters or cruets have been made of glass or crystal for the simple reason that wine does not store well in metallic containers. Historically, chalices have been made of gold or silver, though cheaper ones are merely plated brass or tin (and the wine eventually eats through those, too, unless they are carefully cleaned and dried after each use). You can find liturgical chalices dating back to the third or fourth centuries, more than 99% of them are gold or silver.
>>>The instruction says that the wine should be poured into the cups before Consecration to avoid the possibility of spilling the Precious Blood.<<<
I am not that familiar with the Liturgical Instruction issued pertaining to the Roman Missal, but am intimately familiar with the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine rite. I have to say that I have never heard that rationale for decanting the wine--and from a liturgical and mystagogical perspective it makes little sense.
In the Byzantine rite, the Rite of Preparation (Prothesis or Proskemedia) precedes the Divine Liturgy, and includes elaborate prayers and rituals for the preparation of the bread and wine. Decanting of the wine into the chalice, and mixing it with water, are important elements of that ritual.
It is my understanding that the Rite of Preparation is much less elaborate in the Roman rite and occurs during the Mass proper. But in both cases--indeed, in all rites--the wine is always put into the chalice prior to the Anaophora or Eucharistic Prayer, for the simple reason that the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and the Anaphora in particular, is a representation of the Last Supper, during which the celebrant re-enacts the words and actions of the Lord. Thus, as Jesus took bread, blessed, broke and gave it to his Disciples, so, too the celebrant must take bread, bless and break it. And as Jesus took the chalice, blessed and gave it to his Disciples, so, too must the celebrant do the same. It is an inherent part of the liturgical action, and has been from the beginning (cf. Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, etc.).
Of what material was the chalice made in the Church of the first and second centuries? We do not know, because no liturgical vessels have survived from that time (that have been discovered, at any rate). We do know that the early Eucharist was a ritual banquet, an Agape or Love Feast. The festal symbolism of the Eucharist is found in Scripture and also in the works of the Fathers. We know that secular feasts of this nature involved a communal cup, and that this cup was usually the best and most ornate that one could provide. In the ancient world, glasswork was fragile and mainly decorative. Banquetware was made of silver and gold, often inlaid with jewels. It was the best the master of the house could offer, and the Christians adopted this symbolism with gusto, in that the offering is being made to God, and that Christ Himself is both offeror and offering, priest and sacrifice. And it is something the Church has followed (with exceptions for hardship and exigencies such as war) without interruption for 2000 years.
Something as mundane as the likelihood of breakage has nothing at all to do with the matter. On the other hand, breaking with Tradition by using base materials such as glass, ceramic, clay, wood or plastic has profound mystagogical significance, and one can only assume that those who want to do so have an underlying agenda. Either (to be charitable), they have bought hook, line and sinker the myth of the Church as composed of poverty-stricken peasants (there is more than ample evidence that the Church was actually attracting a disproportionate number of wealthy and middle-class people who, naturally, became patrons of the Church and donated ornate liturgical ware), or--to be more cynical--they see this as one more step in the process of "de-mystifying" the Liturgy and transforming the Eucharist from the Mystery of the Unity of the Church with God and the communion of saints through partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ into a purely horizontal communion of its members through the sharing of bread and wine with each other.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 20, 2006 11:54:37 AM
Dear Mr. Koehl:
You missed one "underlying agenda." Our church (Charismatic Episcopal Church) believes in the Real Presence, and we use a glazed pottery chalice and paten in Lent and Advent. In our experience, this has not had either effect you mention - instead, it has assisted us in remembering Him Who became poor for our sakes, and it has increased the penitential aspect of those seasons.
Posted by: Darren | Jul 20, 2006 12:54:16 PM
Stuart makes many good points. With respect to the pouring of the wine, however, it should be noted that in the Latin Rite, especially in many areas of the United States, it has become common to offer communion under both species, the Precious Blood being distributed by ministers [priests and deacons="ordinary" ministers of Holy Communion; commissioned laity="extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion"] each holding a chalice which is offered to the communicant, who takes the chalice, drinks from it, then hands it back to the minister. In some areas the practice developed whereby the priest would pour the wine from the flagon into a single large chalice prior to the consecration, and after the consecration he would pour the Precious Blood from the large chalice into the several smaller ones. (Or he would leave some of the wine in the flagon with the intention to consecrate it along with the wine in the chalice, and therafter pour it into the smaller chalices.) This is the practice that the Instruction reprobated because of the potential for spilling of the Precious Blood. This of course would not be an issue in the Byzantine Rite where there is a single chalice, containing both of the consecrated elements, and only the priest administers communion, by removing a particle of the consecrated bread from the chalice with a spoon and placing it in the mouth of the communicant.
Posted by: John V | Jul 20, 2006 1:01:06 PM
One last question...why is white wine so common (at least in my area)? I come from one of the "symbolic" traditions and that makes red mandatory. I've only seen white so far. I know its cheaper but that thought just makes me cringe...
Posted by: Nick | Jul 20, 2006 1:28:36 PM
Dear Nick,
White wine is ofen used not because it is cheaper (frequently it's not), but because its stains are far easier to remove than red ones from altar linens. While red is obviously closer in color to blood than is white, I am not aware of any canon mandating the use of red rather than white white (but perhaps Stuart knows of one, being well informed in that arrea). It is however absolutely necessary that it be wine (fermented), not grape juice (unfermented), for it to be a valid celebration of the Eucharist.
Dear Darren,
I don't think Stuart missed an "underlying agenda" or other rationale. Instead, it is first about safeguarding the precious consecrated elements, and secondly about who is truly believed to be present in those elements. That is, it is also a matter of the perspective and purpose of liturgy as worship. Specifically, are we commemorating God or man -- who God is in and of himself, or ourselves in relation to Him? For the traditional liturgies of the RC, Orthodox, and Anglican churches (at least), everything in the ritual is intended to point to the glory and magnificence of God. In much Protestant worship, the emphasis on simplicity and austerity is meant to emphasize our lowlinesss and humility in relation to God.
While not wishing to impugn the motives of the CEC usage you mention, there is a problem in the symbolism of that. For those of us who believe in the objecitve real presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, He who is present in the consecrated elements is no longer simply the meek and lowly Jesus who became poor for our sakes, but the resurrected and glorified Lord who now reigns at the right hand of the Father. Yes, His making Himself present in the elements of bread and wine in order that we might receive Him is once again an act of great humility on His part; but that does not mean that we who know who He is should treat him in an ordinary or mean fashion, because His Presence there, and the honor correspondingly due Him, concern who He is, and not our relation to Him. When the King comes calling, you don't serve him on paper plates, if and when you can use fine pewter instead, just because you are a commoner.
However, I think instead we are best off sticking with the point of Prof. Esolen's post, which is not so much the particular material used for Eucharistic vessels as it is the arrant disingenuousness of a person nominally in the service of the Church who uses his (her?) office as an occasion for disobedience and subversion. Even if glass or ceramic material were not otherwise objectionable, so long as no moral principle is violated obedience is owed to duly constituted authority as a matter of Scriptural principle.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jul 20, 2006 2:05:47 PM
So then, strictly as concerns my immortal soul, is the use of glass, which alas I have occasionally encountered in my parish, merely illicit or does it invalidate the mass? I might ask the same thing of the situation where the priest "politely" (and oh so egalitarianly) waits everyone else being served before taking of the host? Or where the priest simply cannot bring himself to say the word "victim" (since he believes in the nice god), and substitutes: "See the person..."
O St. Kreskin obfuscate our sins, save us from the beatific vision, lead all souls to hell, especially those most susceptible to thy sophistries...
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jul 20, 2006 3:01:13 PM
Steve,
I don't think it makes the Mass itself either invalid or illicit; it's just an instance of disobedience. And nothing good comes from disobedience. But aren't the mental and exegetical gyrations telling?
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Jul 20, 2006 5:47:38 PM
Interesting post. I commented in another board that I, being aware of the directive regarding eucharistic vessels, was most surprised to see that at the Papal Mass in Valencia, Spain recently broadcast on ESPN (yes, even Lutherans watch it), the vessels were white ceramic. The other curious thing I noticed is that the concelebrating priests were the only one to receive the eucharist under both species, and they did it by intinction (the concelebrants removed the Body of Christ from the ceramic ciborium and dipped it into the Precious Blood). I have never seen intiction used in a Roman Mass, though it is quite common in Anglican and some Lutheran Eucharistic celebrations in my part of the country.
Posted by: Pr. Dave Poedel | Jul 20, 2006 7:43:04 PM
>>>You missed one "underlying agenda." Our church (Charismatic Episcopal Church) believes in the Real Presence, and we use a glazed pottery chalice and paten in Lent and Advent. In our experience, this has not had either effect you mention - instead, it has assisted us in remembering Him Who became poor for our sakes, and it has increased the penitential aspect of those seasons.<<<
Different strokes for different folks. The Western Church strips the altars at Lent and suppresses the Alleluiarion, whereas in the Eastern Churches, we not only don't strip the altars, but have more Alleluias than normal.
On the other hand, the use of earthenware vessels during Lent can only be called an "innovation"--and from my perspective as an Eastern Christian, that's not a good thing. If nothing else, it diminishes the meaning of the Eucharist as Wedding Banquet. But then again, in the East during Lent we celebrate the beautiful if somber Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts during the week, reserving the Eucharistic Liturgy for Saturday and Sunday. We have different ways of looking at the issue. Of course, I happen to believe that the way of my Church is more consonant with the Apostolic Tradition than is yours, but that is the shame of Christian division.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 20, 2006 7:55:24 PM
>>>In some areas the practice developed whereby the priest would pour the wine from the flagon into a single large chalice prior to the consecration, and after the consecration he would pour the Precious Blood from the large chalice into the several smaller ones. <<<
While I don't consider this an abuse, I do consider the pouring of the Precious Blood into several subsidiary chalices to be just one more step away from the Patristic understanding of the Eucharist as sharing in the One Chalice and One Loaf. Certainly, the use of pre-cut Hosts in the Latin Church destroys the notion of all the people eathing from one common loaf. Pouring out the Precious Blood into several chalices after the Anaphora similarly disrupts the underlying symbolic matrix of the Eucharist.
That said, oikonomia--the practical stewardship of the Church--sometimes dictates deviations from the norm in order to meet the needs of the faithful. We in the Eastern Churches also use multiple chalices when the number of communicants dictates. In most cases, it is not necessary, for our parishes tend to be smaller (and in the Orthodox Churches, relatively few people receive on any given Sunday).
However, when we do use more than one chalice, we typically fill all of them with wine and water at the Proskomedia, and bring all to the Holy Table during the Great Entrance. All the chalices are veiled, and all are conjointly consecrated during the Anaphora. Why the Western Church chooses not to prepare multiple chalices during its rite of preparation I do not know. There is no practical imperative for doing so, and pouring wine from one chalice to another is inherently more messy than pouring wine from a cruet into several chalices at the same time.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 20, 2006 8:03:17 PM
and in the Orthodox Churches, relatively few people receive on any given Sunday
That varies by church - and maybe by jurisdiction. In my church (OCA) and the other local Orthodox churches at which I've attended liturgies (GOC and OCA), most peeople present on Sunday morning do receive.
Posted by: Juli | Jul 20, 2006 10:26:40 PM
The OCA and the AOC have for some time been teaching about the necessity of frequent communion. Individual Greek parishes may be following suit. However, I have attended the Divine Liturgy in a number of Greek parshes in New York and elsewhere (my sister is Greek Orthodox), and my observation is only about 10-15% of the people--mainly children and older women--receive communion on any given Sunday. Nativity, Palm Sunday and Pascha are different, though.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 21, 2006 5:41:42 AM
Stuart:
Why is it that so few receive communion? I remember coming across that in the book "Making God Real in the Orthodox Home," and I thought it very strange. I grew up Protestant, where everyone partook every time (unless you were conscious of grave sin in your life).
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my previous post.
Posted by: Darren | Jul 21, 2006 8:42:19 AM
The Orthodox churches have historically gone through cycles with frequencey of communion: at one time you have pretty much everyone receiving. Then there are concerns that people are receiving carelessly and there is increased stress on rigorous preparation. This leads to less frequent participation. Eventually it gets to the point where people regard not receiving as normal, and then the concern emerges that the faithful are indifferent to communion, and there are exhortations to receive more frequently. Soon you're back at the start of the cycle. Repeat every couple hundred years!
The Antiochian and OCA jurisdictions are now at the "pretty much everyone receives pretty much every week" phase of the cycle. Others are apparentlye at different places.
Posted by: Matthias | Jul 21, 2006 9:26:28 AM
Is this post and its accompanying comments a long, extended satire? If so, on what? I don't get it.
This could not possibly pass as a set of reasonable concerns that should occupy the minds of believers today. Whether a chalice should be made of gold or glass?? Why not have it trimmed with diamonds and sapphires?
Okay, this is a joke. I see it now.
Posted by: James | Jul 21, 2006 12:52:11 PM
However, when we do use more than one chalice, we typically fill all of them with wine and water at the Proskomedia, and bring all to the Holy Table during the Great Entrance. All the chalices are veiled, and all are conjointly consecrated during the Anaphora. Why the Western Church chooses not to prepare multiple chalices during its rite of preparation I do not know.
Stuart,
I may be having a problem with the different terminology, but it seems like you are describing the way things should be done, but often aren't done in the Roman church. If both species are to be distributed and more than one chalice is needed, then multiple chalices should be prepared before the consecration. Not only does it avoid risk of spilling, but it also allows us to share from a common cup (thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't thought about it before).
From the document:
[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.
[105.] If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the Priest concelebrants or Christ’s faithful, there is no reason why the Priest celebrant should not use several chalices.[193] For it is to be remembered that all Priests in celebrating Holy Mass are bound to receive Communion under both kinds. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.
[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.
Posted by: Marc | Jul 21, 2006 12:56:09 PM
This could not possibly pass as a set of reasonable concerns that should occupy the minds of believers today. Whether a chalice should be made of gold or glass?
Yeah, James, I guess today we're way too "hip-n-relevant" for banalities such as a fitting vessel for the actual body and blood of Christ. Seldom does a man so well display ignorance of a thing as when he holds it an object of derision. Why not spam & lemonade?
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jul 21, 2006 3:30:54 PM
Yeah, like Steve said. Catholic Christians (and this usage of "catholic" emphatically includes Orthodox) regard the Eucharist as the true Body and true Blood of Christ. We find it distasteful to consider the use of, say, plastic to contain the Gifts, as is, alas, quite common among Protestants. (I'm thinking of the one ounce clear plastic cups containing grape juice.) We also give a vote to our ancestors in the Faith, considering that, perhaps, we don't know it all ourselves.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Jul 21, 2006 10:26:34 PM
Since postings are apt to get pulled off target, it is important, I think, to emphasize Mr. Altena's comment, above:
"[T]he point of Prof. Esolen's post . . . is not so much the particular material used for Eucharistic vessels as it is the arrant disingenuousness of a person nominally in the service of the Church who uses his (her?) office as an occasion for disobedience and subversion . . . ."
It's not, of course, that Dr. Esolen isn't making a point about communion vessels, for he is, but that his objections to abuse of the canons in this regard are based upon larger and more broadly applicable principles.
As for the canons themselves, I can see why they might have been written differently, allowing, for example, the use of materials other than noble metals for the cup. But what reasonable objection can be made against this rule, as long as it is understood to be no more (or less) than a rule, as our Lord taught us in the case of his use of the shewbread? And why, once a church has decided, for good and sufficient reason--that is, to re-present the resurrected Lord--that the communion vessels should be made only of noble metals, should anyone who consents to be a member of that communion object except by dint of sheer perversity?
This would be like the case where my father installs a door with right-handed hinges for reasons that seem good to him (he is older than I, and outranks me in the household), but when he is gone I change the hinges to the left for reasons that seem good to me. The door still "works," but to make the changes I have flouted the laws of heaven and earth. We are taught what Father thinks of such things, and the sort of penalty he exacts, in the story of King Saul's illicit sacrifice in I Sam. 13. Rules that may seem arbitrary to us, when established in and by greater authority, may carry divine imprimatur. Superceding them, in that case, requires not simply the force of reason or some perceived exigency--even desperate exigency--but the approval of God.
Posted by: Steve Hutchens | Jul 22, 2006 11:37:05 AM
>>>Why not have it trimmed with diamonds and sapphires?<<<
If one can afford it, one should.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 22, 2006 11:52:18 AM
I am surprised to hear about pouring from one chalice into another; we use two in my (Anglican) congregation, one for the altar-rail on each side, and they are always both prepared and consecrated together.
I honestly can't understand why there would be anything fundamentally unworthy about substances other than precious metals. God should be honored, but I don't see why, say, a beautifully carved wooden vessel would necessarily show dishonor. Possibly this is a flaw in my understanding.
On Dr. Esolen's main point, it does seem curious to spend so much mental energy in finding clever ways to evade the rules of one's communion.
Posted by: firinnteine | Jul 22, 2006 1:17:49 PM
>>>On Dr. Esolen's main point, it does seem curious to spend so much mental energy in finding clever ways to evade the rules of one's communion.<<<
To me, it comes down to this; theology has been divorced from worship, and has become an abstract academic discipline in which various propositions are analyzed according to various sets of methodological categories. It has ceased to be a serious reflection on the experience of God in our lives, God as experienced through the prism of the Church's rule of faith expressed in her form of worship. Lex orandi lex credendi--the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. But when belief becomes divorced from prayer, the wellspring and touchstone of faith are severed, and the believer is tossed back on the resources of his own intellect. In that situation, it is very easy to substitute the voice of one's own desires for the voice of the Holy Spirit.
Modern theologians, therefore, reach their conclusions about God independent of prayer, contemplation and worship, and then seek to impose those views upon the forms of worship within their own communions--a total inversion of the process as it was understood by the Fathers.
That is why arguments about liturgy are not really dry and dusty discussions about arcane points of ritual. Rather, liturgy has been made a "privileged space" wherein far deeper arguments about the nature of the Church, its role in the world, and even tha nature of God Himself, are acted out. Because, for most people (though not for most "intellectuals") belief is still shaped by worship, he who controls the form of worship has the power to shape belief. Therefore, the stakes in such debates are much higher than one can imagine. Conversely, the need to renew and restore liturgy to its patristic understanding (which does not entail blind imitation of every patristic form and practice) is one of the most important tasks facing the Church today.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 22, 2006 1:32:29 PM
To those who question whether and why the choice of particular materials for Eucharistic vessels is of importance --
I think something about the central point of Prof. Esolen's post is being missed, that I sought to re-emphisize, and Steve Hutchens and Stuart Koehl also have sought to address in their excellent subsequent posts -- the essential need for reverence in worship, and the relation of that to obedience. (In what follows I speak generally, not of any of you in particular).
In one sense, the material used for a Eucharistic vessel is a matter of indifference, or relative to a given situation. E.g., if a military chaplain in the trenches only has available a paper plate and plastic cup for the sacred consecrated Body and Blood of Christ (his communion set having been lost or destroyed in battle), then of course he will use those to celebrate the Eucharist. But it is quite another thing if that minister has a proper communion set available, and deliberately chooses to use paper and plastic instead. Likewise, in some Asian or African cultures a chalice and paten finely wrought of some valuable and beautiful hardwood might be a suitable (perhaps even normative) choice. But it would be irreverent and disrespectful to spurn these when available in favor of bamboo sheets and hollowed-out coconut shells. The point is that we bring to our Lord the firstfruits, the best of what we have with respect to what is entrusted to our stewardship. The Christian life is (among other things) a calling to excellence, to self-sacrificailly offering our treasures to His glory, not what suits our ordinary tastes or enables us just to get by.
The same point applies to how one dresses for church. E.g., no-one should pass judgment on a man who comes to church dressed in blue jeans. He may be poor and have nothing better, or may be coming from work and not have time to change into better clothes. But there is a real spiritual issue involved if he deliberately comes to church dressed in blue jeans when he has perfectly good dress clothes available and ready for use -- especially if he then dresses in the latter to go out to dinner, a concert, or a business meeting instead. The choice of clothes constitues a statement about how highly we think of another person or the occasion. Where our treasure is, there also is our heart.
C. S. Lewis wrote of those who take pride in doing ceremonial things uncerimoniously, and thereby spoil "the proper pleasure of ritual." He did not mean that we engage in ritual for entertainment or personal gratification; rather, that since God is a God of order and not confusion, the right performance of ritual gives as God's gift that proper (condign or fitting) pleasure of the commendation, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
There is now deeply ingrained in contemporary American culture the habit of willfully despising the properly ceremonial, a studied insouciance and disrespectfulness towards others, that masquerades in the false plumage of humility and egalitarian democracy. Sometimes termed "slumming," its ostensible justification is to show that one is a "regular Joe," an ordinary guy, open, affable, modest, free from artifice, pretension, and extravagance. In fact, it is a pose. C. S. Lewis pointed out that the excessively fastidious and finicky eater is in fact guilty of a form of gluttony. Likewise, the person who makes a deliberate, self-conscious effort and show of ordinariness is in fact guilty of pride and arrogance. The problem is its self-assertion and self-centeredness -- the supposition that the objective is (and ought to be) to "make a statement" about one's self, rather than seeing that in fact the objective and statement properly is (and ought to be) about the occasion and the other persons involved. True humility consists not in thinking meanly about ourselves, but rather in not thinking particularly about ourselves at all. The more we are involved in making statements about ouselves, the less we are concerned for the words given to us of God.
This is precisely the problem at the heart of so many contemporary liturgies (and dumbed-down translations of Scripture) -- their self-centeredness, so intent on us making statements about ourselves rather than about God. As both Rome and Canterbury now show, big trouble ensues when the focus of the Eucharist gets turned from who Christ is and what He did for us on the Cross, to celebration of ourselves as a humble, joyful, celebrating community of love, etc. (Fill in the cliches from the modern rite of your particular church).
The same is true of the vessels used for the Eucharist. It is one thing to use ordinary materials in humility and thankfulness because nothing better is available. It is quite another to choose to use inferior materials when superior ones are available, in order to use the Eucharist as an occasion for demonstrating our supposed humility, or ostensibly to increase it. This is at bottom manipulative -- an effort to use God for our own ends, and (as the late Fr. William Deutsch of blessed memory once pointed out to me) the spirit of idolatry and witchcraft.
Worship (and hence ritual), rightly conceived and practiced, is about God, not about us. That includes such matters as the choice of materials to use for Eucharistic vessels. The objective and concern rightly should be to choose that which lies within our means to safeguard the consecrated Body and Blood from accident, irreverence, or contempt, and to show forth the glory of God.
Likewise, worship in general, and the Eucharist in particular, is inherently a ceremonial, ritual act. Whether done simply or elaborately, the degree of reverence is necessarily reflected in the degree of solemnity with which it is done, with the objective of giving honor to its proper object. It is inherently irreverent and disrespectful to choose to do something in a casual manner, or with ordinary materials, when that which is more excellent is readily available. All the minute particulars of OT tabernacle and temple worship, and the divine commands to use the finest materials avaialable, teach this. While we are no longer bounds to the exact particulars, the principle itself remains binding.
Worship also entails self-sacrifice. That includes not only thngs material, but also the surrender of our own wills, desires, and preferences to something greater. That includes submission to duly constituted authority. The priest does not have the right to make up his own version of the Mass; he is bound by his office and ordination vows to obedience to the usage of the Church. The same applies to the choice of proper Eucharistic vessels. (And one might note that to provide a parish with such vessels of fitting quality, to show reverence and devotion to our Lord, offers an opportunity for financial self-sacrifice.)
In the instance Prof. Esolen mentions, the issue is not the availability of Eucharistic vessels of noble metals, as most fitting to present to us the ineffable glory of the Word made flesh. (That is in fact not ordinarily a problem, and those with proper authority are perfectly capable of dealing with exceptional circumstances.) It is that of a person who knowingly, deliberately, willfully, is seeking to subvert and avoid their use, and do so by disingenuously twisting perfectly plain words for a personal agenda. And that agenda, plainly and simply put, is to be able to demonstrate disobedience to proper authority, and an ability to get away with it, and to incite the same in others. The person writing the words quoted by Prof. Esolen hasn't the slightest geniune pastoral concern for the faithful in the pews. A person who did would instead interpret the directives honestly and then ask the bishop what to do about the hard cases. (And, as always, "hard cases make bad law." General rules should never be formulated on the basis of extreme exceptions.)
The person involved is openly and consciously disobedient; and disobedience is a species or irreverence and sin of pride. God has appointed duly constituted earthly powers as authorities to be obeyed -- parents, teachers, magistrates, church elders -- so long as their commandments are not contrary to those of God's. No one can reasonably argue that the directive to use Eucharistic vessels of a certain character (barring exceptional circumstances) is ordinarily contrary to God's commandments.
It is of course easy (even a cheap cliche) to object that the person concerned with ritual is a judgmental Pharisee, preoccupied with scouring vessels rather than a clean heart within, intent on ostentatious display of wealth, etc. Of course, ritual or display pursued for its own sake, as an end in itself, is Pharisaism. So also, for that matter, are deliberate slovenliness in worship, or refusal to use ritual when done for the sake of showing refusal. But what is at issue here instead is the honor due to God and the obedience due to proper authority. G. K. Chesterton stated that "a Catholic is a person who knows that someone else is smarter than he is" -- and, one might add, thinks, speaks, and acts accordingly. The trouble with the person of which Prof. Esolen writes is that he (she) is a false Catholic.
Two thousand years ago our Lord refuted those who would pretend that costly things used to glorify His humble earthly body should instead be sold and the money given to the poor. It is high time that the Church once again paid heed to His words and example.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jul 24, 2006 9:29:54 AM
James,
I couldn't say it better. Thanks. Your point about the showiness and self-centeredness of the apparent egalitarian is well taken. Yesterday I had to suffer through a Mass presided over by a priest who descends from the pulpit to tell jokes among the people, calling himself not even Father Gary but just "Gary" -- while the people laugh and the altar boy and altar girl chat and smile and everybody has a pleasant time, and we all increase and Jesus decreases.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Jul 24, 2006 9:40:01 AM
Dear Prof. Esolen,
I am greatly humbled and astonished by your approbation. For a wordsmith of your vastly superior skill to say that you could not have said what I did any better . . . well, I'm dumbfounded. Thank you.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jul 24, 2006 8:11:22 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004