Clashing Symbols
In a culture that is so thoroughly imbued with Cartesian dualism, reductive materialism, and the perverse notion that equality means sameness even faithful Catholics can be led to miss the importance of symbolism in determining the appropriate roles for laity in the liturgy based upon their sex. What I am getting at is this. The other day at Mass we had two extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who both happened to be Franciscan sisters. I had not really thought about it before, but in this case what began as a subliminal sense of dissonance eventually became explicit. I was seeing a clash of symbols.
This is what I mean. Here we have two heroic women who have selflessly dedicated their lives to witnessing to the reality of the Church as the Bride of Christ in our marriage communion with God, which is of course a feminine relational reality. They have dedicated themselves, in their femininity, to furthering the Kingdom by proleptically living the eschatological Kingdom on earth. However, here is the dissonance. The sisters were assisting in a role that symbolizes (and effects) the Bridegroom giving Himself in this most perfect love of initiative, which is a masculine relational reality (for more on this see an earlier post here and here and especially read the Kreeft article). In other words, we have the feminine attempting to symbolize the masculine.
The Mass is a participation in the heavenly banquet; the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. In this feast the Second Adam consummates His marriage through His Sacrifice of the Cross in which He draws His Bride from His opened side in an act of re-creation as the anti-type of the first Adam. In the Mass we celebrate God marrying His people by entering into an ineffable one flesh union. In a Trinitarian paradox though, we eat the Host of the wedding feast. However, unlike a normal meal we do not consume what we eat. Rather, He consumes us. This mind-blowing encounter with Christ is made possible through the alter Christus, the priest. That is why the priest (or deacon) is the proper person to give to us this gift of Christ Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It is only because of the limitation of circumstances that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are permitted and perhaps too readily employed. So much so, that it is not unusual to see a priest sit down if one too many EMHCs happen to come to the altar.
Any way, as the liturgy teaches, it seems to me that this clash of symbols further attenuates our already dilute understanding of what is happening at Mass. This same logic applies to those assisting at the altar and mediating God’s Word during the Liturgy of the Word. While I admit this to be a very controversial and easily misunderstood suggestion, it seems to me that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, lectors and altar servers ought be a male, preferably those contemplating a vocation as a priest or deacon. However, the importance of the Mass militates in favor of even a very difficult proposition. Careful and complete catechesis and gentle pastoral application, both in reducing the use of EMHCs and in moving to the appropriate symbolism, could make something like this achievable.
I can only think of utilitarian arguments to the contrary, which even on a utilitarian basis would not be compelling. Anyone have any compelling theological arguments in the other direction?
.jpg)
One way in which the Church acknowledges this symbolic value is in the practice of only admitting men to the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte. In the vision of Vatican II our parishes would be equipped with instituted acolytes, but the back-door clause “in the absence of a priest, deacon, or instituted acolyte…” allowed anyone to perform the ministry of EMHC, so the practice is non-existent outside of seminary formation.
Comment by j d s — September 28, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
Jim - very good point. Thanks!
Comment by David — September 29, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Metaphors are intended to describe a reality with more fullness that words alone cannot accomplish. We err when we allow a metaphor to dominate the definition and dictate other expressions.
For example, we rightly honor Jesus through animal metaphors. However, mainstream Christianity doesn’t accord any particular honors to lambs or lions or hens or pelicans. When we see them depicted in art, or sung of in hymns, we make the connection and the meaning of sacrifice, strength, or motherly care is deepened through a single image.
The problem with extrapolating the image of bride and groom in everything is similar to the problem with a person who might insist that every encounter with a young sheep or a hen is sacred, and that Christians shouldn’t eat chicken or lamb.
This so-called “clash” of symbols happens when we latch on too tightly to our favorite few symbols, thereby missing more revelation about God that other symbols might give us.
On one level, it’s good enough for us to say, “I like bride-and-groom and women in habits giving Communion does nothing for me.” It’s another to suggest that all other Catholics must adhere to my particular symbols and only mine.
Comment by Todd — September 30, 2006 @ 7:59 am
Todd, while I need to put more thought into whether I totally agree with everything David asserts in this post, it seems that your arguement does not fully respect the distinction between images that represent personal attributes and images that represent relation. Considering that scripture (through St. Paul) presents the relational image of bride and groom as foundational to understanding the relationship between Christ and the Church, I don’t see how it can be argued that such a pursuit of preserving the meaning of this relationship is to “latch on too tightly to our favorite few symbols.”
Comment by Shawn — September 30, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Shawn - What do you mean you need to think about it more; of course you agree
I must thank Todd for providing an anecdotal example of the post-Cartesianism to which I referred in my post. Perhaps a post on Christian symbolism is in order.
It’s another to suggest that all other Catholics must adhere to my particular symbols and only mine.
Surely you jest. Are you unaware of the deep Judeo-Christian tradition of Bridegroom and Bride symbolism for YHWH’s relationship with His Church that goes back to the Prophets and which is a symbol reserved for God as Redeemer? As Shawn pointed out, have you not read Eph 5 where St. Paul expresses this symbolism as an ontological Great Mystery in which sacramental marriage is shown to be a participation in Christ’s marriage to His Church? Did you not read the first comment by a well informed Seminarian who reminded us of the Church’s long tradition of reserving service at the altar to men, and which only in recent years has been impinged upon by the widespread abuse of what is supposed to be an exception? Are you unaware of the immemorial Christian tradition, based upon Scripture, that understands the Church to be the Bride and the Blessed Virgin as the proleptic fulfillment of the Church in the eschaton? Perhaps I should have gone over this in my post but I mistakenly assumed all this would be well known to those who might respond.
We are talking here about sacramental symbolism, in which the earthly symbol derives its existence as a symbol in the heavenly reality that it symbolizes. Todd - your response mirrors the anti-sacramental response of many Protestant-Catholics who use this Protestant canard to reduce the Eucharist to nothing more than a psychological experience rather than an ontological reality in which God is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. I do not believe you follow them that far do you? Rather, I assume you are employing their faulty argument selectively in order to attempt to counter a conclusion you do not like. If you do recognize sacramental realism I would like to suggest that you ought not follow this faulty line of reasoning at all. I would like to recommend that you look into the ontological realism of symbolism in the Christian tradition more deeply. Johann Adam Möller, one of the 19th century Tubingen school progenitors of the 20th century Ressourcement, wrote an excellent book on the topic entitled appropriately enough, Symbolism. It’s still in print.
Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
Superb post!
Comment by Thursday — October 5, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
[...] My issue is that this image is too often used as a club to insist on a pattern of Church involvement. As a metaphor, it tells us something of both marriage and our relationship to Christ that words alone might not capture–or capture succinctly. I have to raise an objection when David, at his thoughtful blog, suggests that female Eucharistic Ministers are somehow a contradiction to God’s intended expression of bride and groom: ” … it seems to me that this clash of symbols further attenuates our already dilute understanding of what is happening at Mass. This same logic applies to those assisting at the altar and mediating God’s Word during the Liturgy of the Word. While I admit this to be a very controversial and easily misunderstood suggestion, it seems to me that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, lectors and altar servers ought be a male, preferably those contemplating a vocation as a priest or deacon.” [...]
Pingback by Bride and Groom: How Far Do They Go? « Catholic Sensibility — November 5, 2006 @ 10:48 pm