This is in response to the article “Lay Participation Down the Ages” that appeared in two successive issues of “The Examiner”, written by Rev Erasto Fernandez SSS. Some may not have read them, and others may not remember. It was about how the Eucharistic celebration evolved over time, with special reference to the role of the laity.
I was thrilled to read the first instalment, as it carried a wealth of information that is not easily accessible to the common lay Catholic. I presume that what Rev Fernandez wrote is common knowledge for our clergy. It therefore makes me wonder who is really responsible for the meaningless and insipid liturgy that most of us experience?
I was amazed to read that the etymological meaning of “liturgy” is “the work of the people”! Etymology apart, this is a cruel joke. Today’s liturgy is in no way the work of the people. It is solely designed and enacted by the clergy, with the people largely being passive spectators. Unless ofcourse reading the lessons and prayers of the faithful, or taking around the collection bag, is considered a high level of lay participation!
Let me run through Rev Fernandez’s pertinent observations on how the Eucharistic liturgy evolved over two millennia. It all began as a family gathering, informal and cordial. Rubrics and legislation later gained prominence, and it became a sacrifice. The table became an altar. An evening meal (supper) became a morning ritual (breakfast, shall we say?). Actual tangible bread became a symbolic wafer. The faithful were now estranged from the distant altar of sacrifice. It became the sacred preserve of the clergy whose role was now emphasised. The place of occurrence became a magnificent and artistic structure, an intricate court ceremonial and a solemn drama. The faithful had a passive role; busy reciting unrelated prayers. The high point became gazing at the sacred host, and not receiving communion. Emphasis was laid on Eucharistic miracles, and on an unhealthy multiplication of Masses, that led to several abuses. What a metamorphous?
This monolithic form remained unchanged for centuries, till Vatican II. Thereafter dialogue and vernacular Masses were introduced, and the priest now faced the people. Despite these far reaching reforms, Rev Fernandez rues that the Mass is still stereotyped and routine, not spontaneous and lively. He concludes by laying the onus on the “faithful”, for not going from the Cenacle to Calvary. He quotes the Prophet Isaiah, “Their worship of me is a human commandment learnt by rote (Is 29:13), for “this people approaches me only in words, honours me only with lip service, while their hearts are far from me” (Ibid).
After tracing the evolution, or should I say grotesque mutation, of the Eucharist over 2000 years; which by Fernandez’s own admission, has been the work of the hierarchy, he now lays the blame on the “faithful”, for what he calls a stereo typed and routine liturgy! Do Fernandez’s charges stick? They merit serious consideration.
One of my favourite punch lines is, “If you have the car’s steering wheel and keys in your hands how do you expect me to drive or deliver? If there is an accident why blame me?” It is more than evident that a hierarchically controlled church and priest-dominated liturgy must accept responsibility for its present morbid state.
Fernandez casually quotes Vat II, that the laity should be active, intelligent and fruitful. So let us examine what the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium) actually says. The introduction sets the tone by calling for reforms and practical norms to be established (SC 3), so it is not just theologising. By so doing, the liturgy will “be given new vigour to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times” (SC 4).
It says “In the liturgy the sanctification of man is manifested by signs perceptible to the senses” (SC 7). “The sacred liturgy does not exhaust the entire activity of the church. Before men can come to the liturgy they must be called to faith and conversion” (SC 9). “In order that the sacred liturgy may produce its full effect, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper disposition, that their thoughts match their words” (SC11). “Pastors must realise that, when the liturgy is celebrated, more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebration. It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part knowingly, actively, fruitfully” (SC 11).
The document goes on to say “With zeal and patience pastors must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation” (SC19). “The liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and elements subject to change. The latter not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features have by chance crept in which are less harmonious … or if existing elements have grown less functional” (SC 21). “Sacred Scripture is of paramount importance in the celebration of the liturgy” (SC 24). The liturgical rites “should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s power of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation” (SC 34). “The church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not involve the faith … Rather she respects and fosters the spiritual adornments and gifts of the various races and peoples” (SC 37). All emphases in the above quotes are mine.
Now comes the big question. Why has the hierarchical church not expounded or implemented the teachings of Vat II? Why blame the “faithful”, when the “powerful” have retained their “knowledge advantage” (management terminology) to keep the faithful ignorant and powerless? We have only seen cosmetic changes like bowing instead of the Roman Legionaries’ genuflection; and not the deeper attitudinal changes in the liturgy envisaged by Vat II. A shame.
From Vat II let us go back to our scriptural roots. On the road to Emmaus the two disciples were concerned about what had happened. Jesus joined them, explained the scriptures to them, broke bread and then disappeared (cf Lk 24:13-35). This is one of my favourite episodes in the Bible. See the sequence of events unfolding – concern or informed discussion – Jesus comes – scripture explained – bread broken – Jesus recognised – he disappears! Where? Inside! In the bread he has entered into the disciples. He is incarnated in them, and they are transformed. Amazing grace.
This sequence of events is critical for both the clergy and the “faithful”, for a fruitful liturgy. What is our disposition prior to the liturgy? Does a secularised school principal or social work director suddenly become a spirit-filled pastor when he dons vestments at the altar? What of harried parents and chilled out youth? What do we go to Mass for? How much attention or importance is given to the scripture readings? How much of the Spirit is a pastor able to convey in his Sunday sermon, especially if it is lifted from the net or sermon notes? I sometimes observe the congregation during a sermon. Most are turned off or bored stiff.
We need to again walk the talk to Emmaus. We also need to jettison millennia of extra baggage in the form of meaningless symbols, rituals, and clerical domination. Only then can we hope for a fruitful liturgy with active participation of the “faithful’’. Otherwise we will continue as we have over the ages. We won’t meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus. Instead of transformation we may just end up merely debating a theological definition like transubstantiation.
* The writer has no theological training. This article is based on self-study only.
JULY 2011
