Poor God. He has a terrible time trying to make himself understood. His troubles are compounded when he uses the crazy English language. When he says, “My son will rise” he means Jesus. But some could have interpreted it to mean, “My sun will rise”, and they began looking at the eastern horizon!
The Bible is often referred to as the “voice of God” in the “words of men”. God’s expression is limited by human comprehension, hence subject to misinterpretation. His language of love is reduced to cold print. When the teachers of religion propound that message, it gets further compounded.
As I’ve said already, this is aggravated in the English language. Here is another example. The preacher says, “You must be a prophet”. The congregation, seeing the luxurious lifestyle of the preacher interprets it as “You must be a profit”; something oft propounded by tele-evangelists and advocates of the prosperity gospel. Does this metaphor sound bizarre? Is the church in India a truly prophetic, or profitable venture?
Fr Josef Neuner SJ, in his book “The Prophetic Role of the Laity” describes a prophet as one having the following attributes: 1. He speaks in the name of the living God 2. The message is addressed to actual situations (specific and existentialist) 3. He is confronted by the powers of evil 4. His only weapon is the word of God 5. He does not live for himself; God has taken possession of his life.
To what degree can we Christians say that we are fulfilling our prophetic role? Does our message come from God, or our own pet theories? Is our message situational and contextualised, or vague and idealistic? Do we experience opposition from evil or well entrenched forces; or are we well accepted, invited to grace occasions, and offered the high seat at the table/ dais? Is our faith our strength, or do we rely on institutional, financial and political power? Finally, are our lives consumed by God, or are we living a consumeristic life? Should we proclaim, “The prophet is dead. Long live the profit”?
The profit’s philosophy of life is to live and let live. Don’t interfere, maintain the status quo, don’t rock the boat, keep your house clean and throw the garbage on the road for somebody else to collect. Have faith in your own resources, climb the ladder using others as rungs, avoid situations of responsibility and pass the buck.
Should we blame God for not having spelt prophet correctly, or are we ourselves to blame, for turning a deaf ear to his word? Do we think that the biblical concept of prophet is obsolete?
For that we need to go back in time to understand the prophetic office. In the Old Testament the three pillars of the chosen people were the Priest, King and Prophet. This troika finds repeated mention in the New Testament, and also in Vatican II teachings. We have already seen Fr Neuner’s definition of Prophet. He describes the King as entrusted with political guidance, and the Priest as responsible for instruction and worship. I would recapitulate these three roles in the following simple terms: the Priest makes the rules, the King actually rules, and the Prophet interprets the rules in specific circumstances.
These three functions are also the foundation of modern democracy. The Legislature that legislates or makes the rules, is like the Priest. The Executive that has the power, resources and governance in its hands, is like the King. The Judiciary that interprets the law in a given situation, is like the Prophet. For a healthy society it is important to have all three functions separated and clearly defined, with no encroachment on each other’s domain. What happened during the Emergency, when two wings of Govt were subjugated to the executive? It was a ruthless and insensitive dictatorship, in which the poor suffered the most. India is yet to emerge from its shadow.
A fourth pillar has emerged in modern society, appropriately called the Fourth Estate – the Press. When the Judiciary or Legislature is suppressed, the Press assumes the prophetic office of being conscience keeper to the nation, and a barometer of its health. When this also fails, then the fifth sinister option emerges. In World War II they were referred to as the Fifth Columnists – the undercover operatives, who conveyed their messages though advertisements in the fifth column of newspapers. In peacetime such operatives are either terrorists or extremists, who see violence as the only solution to perceived injustice. They will stop at nothing. As sociologists teach us, violence is the option of those who have nothing to lose.
What of the church in India? Who exercises the legislative/ teaching/ priestly office? Quite rightly the hierarchy. Who governs the church, its institutions, finance, aid agencies, and even what has to be announced from the pulpit? The clergy and the hierarchy. Who adjudicates on what is right and wrong, even in peoples’ bedrooms? The hierarchy. Who controls the Catholic press, and determines what should or shouldn’t be printed? To a large extent the clergy and hierarchy again. What is this if not a totalitarian regime?
Herein lies the danger. There are those who will say that the church, being a divine institution, cannot be compared to a democracy, or based on democratic principles. Rev D.S. Amalorpavadas, that great champion of the laity, had a counter point, that the church is more than a democracy, it is a community. And a community cannot function as an autocracy. Should we be prepared for the fifth columnist, who is bent on grabbing power by any means available? Do we want a repeat of the French Revolution?
However, Catholics have for centuries been docile, and our Indian psyche is one of tolerance, so we react somewhat differently. We become indifferent, complacent, or abandon ship – an exodus. Grandiose, but empty churches in Europe, bear mute testimony to this. The number of sheep stolen by smaller sects, with more personalised religion, from the monolithic Catholic Church, is increasing.
How do we remedy this? By restoring parity and clarity in the social structuring of the church, with each being true to their particular office or vocation. Let the clergy/ hierarchy put their heart and soul into their actual role of instruction and worship. The laity must assume control of the temporal affairs of the church, and be the spokesperson and torchbearer of the community in public life. We don’t want clergymen being appointed to political office, including various Minority Commissions. Lay organisations must build on their own strengths and resources. Funding agencies should be removed from the domain of the hierarchy. The Religious Orders and Congregations also need to emerge from the shadow of the hierarchy, to exercise their prophetic office, at the service of the word and the world. The Catholic press, in like manner, must be given far greater autonomy, and the laity need to evolve their own media strength.
When the scale is tipped in favour of one side there are only two ways of restoring parity; either decrease one scale, or increase the other. Power is never surrendered gracefully, and I don’t see a violent upsurge in the church. So the only option open is to strengthen the role of the laity in the church. It’s a long haul, but there is little choice.
Perhaps this piece will be a small step in that direction and will inspire or strengthen somebody to hear God’s invitation to the prophetic office; to be a voice in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord. The words of this once popular hymn are apt for the prophet.
It takes courage to answer a call
It takes courage to give your all.
It takes courage to say
What you know will not pay;
To be standing alone
One who no one will own.
It takes courage to be true.
Spellings may differ, but this, I believe, is how God spells Prophet.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
THE FIVE SHOPKEEPERS
It was business as usual in the marketplace. Shopkeepers were opening and cleaning their shops, as customers began trickling in. Each shop had a signboard vying for the customer’s attention. This is about the Five Shopkeepers.
The first shop’s sign was -ATA. The first letter had fallen off, and the shopkeeper hadn’t bothered to repair it. The customer looked at the board and wondered. Was it BATA selling shoes, TATA selling tea, or LATA selling music? Confused, the customer moved on.
The next shop was called TOUGHNUT HARDWARE. Being a computer geek, the customer entered to see the latest hardware. To his consternation he found it stocked with very different hardware – nuts and bolts! The customer realised that connotations change with time, the same word meaning different things to different people.
The third shop was called MADHUSHALA (a place for honey). Hoping to get some pure honey the customer dashed in, only to discover that it was selling country liquor, as Madhushala is a misnomer commonly used in north India for such dens. Names can indeed be deceptive and misleading.
Fourth in line was a posh, air-conditioned SUPERMARKET. Many well-heeled customers were going in. However, this particular customer was rather poorly dressed and felt intimidated by the grand ambience. The shop looked too expensive. In trepidation, he walked on.
The last shop in the row was called the ROSERY. At last, here was something nice. He could pick up a bunch of sweet smelling red roses for his dear wife. Alas, this too was not to be. The shop had no flowers. It was selling religious articles like holy pictures, statues, and ofcourse, rosaries. The customer felt a twinge of disappointment. But he liked the peaceful atmosphere of the religious stall. While leaving he couldn’t resist requesting the shopkeeper to please spell ROSARY correctly.
The customer had reached the end of the row of shops, and he was empty handed. A waste of time, an exercise in futility. Are there lessons to be learnt from this shopping expedition?
There is a school of psychology called Transactional Analysis, which applies to inter-personal relationships. In like manner a shopkeeper-buyer contact is also a transaction. In the aforesaid instances we find that the customer was looking for something that he didn’t find, despite the initial attraction of the external signboard. Each transaction was different. As a businessman of many years experience, I can vouch with authority that sales and marketing are all in the mind. The classic 4P’s in sales are - Price, Product, Placement and Publicity. What went wrong in these transactions? In the case of –ATA the carelessness of the shopkeeper left the customer bewildered. HARDWARES’ definition and understanding had changed. He was out of sync with the times. MADHUSHALA was deliberately misleading for those not in the know. The SUPERMARKET was an overkill, its very strength becoming its weakness. The ROSERY was just slightly off the mark. But then so often in business, sports or life itself, a hair’s breadth is all that makes the difference between winning and losing. Going off on a slight tangent can result in a wide margin of error.
So we need to analyse these transactions. Sometimes the product was wrong, sometimes the price, the placement or even the publicity (projection). Can we now juxtapose these shopping transactions on the church? Is our product selling? Is our placement correct? What about our pricing, and finally what is our publicity or rather public image (projection or common perception)?
For this we need to use another management technique – of backward integration. In this case we need to employ the principle of cause and effect. From the effect, let us work backwards to the root cause, just as a doctor diagnoses a disease from its symptoms. So what image does the church project? What message is it giving? This can be ascertained from what people are coming to us for. I won’t go to a Bata shop to buy tea, or a Tata shop to buy shoes.
I recall a missionary priest bemoaning that people only came to him asking for money, and the principal of a convent school lamenting that people only came to her for admissions! Such admissions (pun intended) are revealing. They are telling us that indeed that is all that we have to offer. Conversely we may ask, “How many people come to us asking for spiritual solace, healing or peace? How many come seeking refuge from injustice or strife?” We cannot generalise, but the answers could be revealing.
We must learn from the mistakes or misrepresentations of the five shopkeepers. Even a minor error like the spelling of Rosary had a negative impact. So too many good and zealous Christians don’t cut much ice in society for minor errors – be it in language, dress or liturgy. A small change could make a big difference.
From projections (exterior image) we could move to internal dispositions. We will again apply the process of reverse integration for a proper diagnosis. Where there is sugar, the ants will come. On the other hand, as Jesus said “Where there is a corpse, there the vultures will gather” (Mat 24:28). Are we sweet sugar (amrit), or a stinking corpse? Are ants or vultures attracted to us? Ants are always seeking, hardworking and communitarian. In contrast, the vultures are lazy, selfish and greedy, always on the lookout for a kill. If our constant refrain is that our people are lazy and greedy, then we are castigating ourselves; that we are a corpse, devoid of the Anima Christi. We are far from being Corpus Christi, the living body of the resurrected Jesus. Food for thought – for ants or vultures? Double entendre!
Let us get our price, product, placement and publicity correct. Let us be wise shopkeepers. In today’s market economy only the best will survive the competition. So too in the economy of salvation, there is no more protectionism or exclusivism. Sell or sink.
The first shop’s sign was -ATA. The first letter had fallen off, and the shopkeeper hadn’t bothered to repair it. The customer looked at the board and wondered. Was it BATA selling shoes, TATA selling tea, or LATA selling music? Confused, the customer moved on.
The next shop was called TOUGHNUT HARDWARE. Being a computer geek, the customer entered to see the latest hardware. To his consternation he found it stocked with very different hardware – nuts and bolts! The customer realised that connotations change with time, the same word meaning different things to different people.
The third shop was called MADHUSHALA (a place for honey). Hoping to get some pure honey the customer dashed in, only to discover that it was selling country liquor, as Madhushala is a misnomer commonly used in north India for such dens. Names can indeed be deceptive and misleading.
Fourth in line was a posh, air-conditioned SUPERMARKET. Many well-heeled customers were going in. However, this particular customer was rather poorly dressed and felt intimidated by the grand ambience. The shop looked too expensive. In trepidation, he walked on.
The last shop in the row was called the ROSERY. At last, here was something nice. He could pick up a bunch of sweet smelling red roses for his dear wife. Alas, this too was not to be. The shop had no flowers. It was selling religious articles like holy pictures, statues, and ofcourse, rosaries. The customer felt a twinge of disappointment. But he liked the peaceful atmosphere of the religious stall. While leaving he couldn’t resist requesting the shopkeeper to please spell ROSARY correctly.
The customer had reached the end of the row of shops, and he was empty handed. A waste of time, an exercise in futility. Are there lessons to be learnt from this shopping expedition?
There is a school of psychology called Transactional Analysis, which applies to inter-personal relationships. In like manner a shopkeeper-buyer contact is also a transaction. In the aforesaid instances we find that the customer was looking for something that he didn’t find, despite the initial attraction of the external signboard. Each transaction was different. As a businessman of many years experience, I can vouch with authority that sales and marketing are all in the mind. The classic 4P’s in sales are - Price, Product, Placement and Publicity. What went wrong in these transactions? In the case of –ATA the carelessness of the shopkeeper left the customer bewildered. HARDWARES’ definition and understanding had changed. He was out of sync with the times. MADHUSHALA was deliberately misleading for those not in the know. The SUPERMARKET was an overkill, its very strength becoming its weakness. The ROSERY was just slightly off the mark. But then so often in business, sports or life itself, a hair’s breadth is all that makes the difference between winning and losing. Going off on a slight tangent can result in a wide margin of error.
So we need to analyse these transactions. Sometimes the product was wrong, sometimes the price, the placement or even the publicity (projection). Can we now juxtapose these shopping transactions on the church? Is our product selling? Is our placement correct? What about our pricing, and finally what is our publicity or rather public image (projection or common perception)?
For this we need to use another management technique – of backward integration. In this case we need to employ the principle of cause and effect. From the effect, let us work backwards to the root cause, just as a doctor diagnoses a disease from its symptoms. So what image does the church project? What message is it giving? This can be ascertained from what people are coming to us for. I won’t go to a Bata shop to buy tea, or a Tata shop to buy shoes.
I recall a missionary priest bemoaning that people only came to him asking for money, and the principal of a convent school lamenting that people only came to her for admissions! Such admissions (pun intended) are revealing. They are telling us that indeed that is all that we have to offer. Conversely we may ask, “How many people come to us asking for spiritual solace, healing or peace? How many come seeking refuge from injustice or strife?” We cannot generalise, but the answers could be revealing.
We must learn from the mistakes or misrepresentations of the five shopkeepers. Even a minor error like the spelling of Rosary had a negative impact. So too many good and zealous Christians don’t cut much ice in society for minor errors – be it in language, dress or liturgy. A small change could make a big difference.
From projections (exterior image) we could move to internal dispositions. We will again apply the process of reverse integration for a proper diagnosis. Where there is sugar, the ants will come. On the other hand, as Jesus said “Where there is a corpse, there the vultures will gather” (Mat 24:28). Are we sweet sugar (amrit), or a stinking corpse? Are ants or vultures attracted to us? Ants are always seeking, hardworking and communitarian. In contrast, the vultures are lazy, selfish and greedy, always on the lookout for a kill. If our constant refrain is that our people are lazy and greedy, then we are castigating ourselves; that we are a corpse, devoid of the Anima Christi. We are far from being Corpus Christi, the living body of the resurrected Jesus. Food for thought – for ants or vultures? Double entendre!
Let us get our price, product, placement and publicity correct. Let us be wise shopkeepers. In today’s market economy only the best will survive the competition. So too in the economy of salvation, there is no more protectionism or exclusivism. Sell or sink.
Saturday, 16 July 2011
LAY PARTICIPATION – OH REALLY!
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)