Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

By now, most people have either read B16’s first post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of Christian Life, or they have read summaries of it. The last couple of weeks have been quite busy so I did not get through it until today. But since most of the blog “ink” has long been spilled on this I will not rehash it, but I will share some of my parochial interests.

I have mentioned before (here, here, and oh yea, here) that I expected B16’s pontificate to be centered upon an authentic implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s call to reform the liturgy. In the aforementioned posts, I mentioned some of those things which I believe will be brought back that were summarily dismissed with the “reform” stampede of the first decades after Sacrosanctum concilium. Sacramentum caritatis (SC) is, I would say, the first indication of what we will see from this pontificate, in terms of the authentic restoration of liturgical reform.

It is clear, as I have said before, that B16’s temperament is similar to that of JPTG’s. As such, he is embarking on a patient and gradual path to reform. He is beginning by slowly reintroducing some of those significant “babies” that went out the window with the bathwater in the rush to implement Sacrosanctum concilium according to an inorganic vision as to the path the reform ought to take. Many of these reintroductions he discusses under the heading, ars celebrandi; a venerable phrase that sets the tone for what the liturgy is…an art form (in the colloquial sense of the phrase) and so the perspective from which the adorning accidents associated with the liturgy must be viewed.

B16 does a very good job in showing how the entire Christian life is formed around, must be structured by, and is made possible through the Eucharist and the liturgy. The Mass is the one and only acceptable offering to God on the part of humanity. As such, Benedict recognizes that the accidents which surround and adorn the liturgy must accord with the liturgy’s nature. We therefore, must adorn the one Sacrifice that reconciles man with God with the very best that humanity has to offer. It is in light of this that he earnestly desires to reshape the way the average Catholic looks at and approaches the liturgy. Clearly he thinks that an important step in doing so will come in replacing the mundane adornments with the sacred.

The liturgy is where heaven touches earth, JPTG reminded us in his first visit to Los Angeles. Thus, to experience this transcendence, it is important that the accidents not only do not distract us from our focus on the liturgical divine condescension and our divinization. Rather, they must also serve to lead us from earth, being taken up in this act of the God-Man which reveals trinitarian love, into divine communion. This last point is especially important, we do not draw God down to the mundane and keep Him here; rather, He condescends to us in order to transform us into Him and thereby take us up with Him to the Communion for which He made us.

O.k., the preceding is not explicitly from the SC, but it is implicitly there (especially look at his treatment of the presentation of the gifts) and can be found throughout B16’s writings. Nevertheless, the major features he brings to the table include restoring the Latin language in a measured way, to the Mass in the Latin Rite. He also encourages the reintroduction of Gregorian chant, something that is proper to (uniquely associated with) the sacred liturgy. He warns against musical forms that are not appropriate to the liturgy. However, he also makes clear that this does not remove the possibility of inculturation. However, he is clear that this inculturation does not approach the liturgy as an infinitely plastic artifact. Rather, he points to the documents, especially the GIRM, that define the space for inculturation that still corresponds to the nature of the liturgy.

He makes a point about the importance of appropriate architecture, art, and the unity of the furnishings with the liturgical form. He points out that lectors/readers must be well prepared. In other words, becoming a lector is not on the job training or a place to learn to speak in public, or a “ministry” intended to get everyone more “actively involved” in the liturgy. For this role we should provide the best we have to offer.

He also admits of the generally poor state of homilies and asserts that they must be improved. Particularly, he emphasizes the catechetical and the moral exhortative aims of the homily. He is wont to correct the abuses associated turning the sign of peace into a “hug fest.” Why? Because of the fact that it interrupts the form of the liturgy. This is both a material and a formal concern. It has a detrimental psychological effect and also an improper formal concern. While Nominalists would not understand this, it is in fact, a significant issue. Beginning with excessive communal expressions (before and during Mass) obscures the fact that true Christian community arises from the Eucharist and not vice versa.

B16 also spends a significant amount of space correcting the mistaken notions of “active participation.” It is especially here where, in my judgment, great care must be taken not only in catechizing the faithful in order to make them aware of what the Mass is and the proper preparation necessary for entering into this ineffable event. Care must also be taken that the accidents, and here I am thinking especially of the musical forms selected, do not distract from the quiet contemplatio, that must be maintained if one is to keep his eyes focused on his encounter with Christ (personally and communally).

I realize that this post does not do justice from the perspective of an overall summary, even of this particular issue. But alas, I need to get ready for class so this must do for now.

P.S. I not intend to usurp The Curt Jester’s title to the last blogger in St. Blog’s to post on this. I really am this slow.