 |
| The Iconostasis at the Russicum in Rome. |
The Roman Rite has a very unique genius. The various Eastern Rites and the Rites of
Northern Europe were highly influenced by the Court ceremonial of the Emperor
or Kings, but Rome was ruled by the Pope and although the papal court developed
its own ceremonial it was mainly liturgical and not imperial at least up to the
Renaissance papacies. And while the
papal liturgies were more elaborate than the liturgy in a parish or monastic
church—due to the presence of the pope—the rite, as practiced in the local
churches maintained the Spartan dignity of its ancient character. However, even the papal liturgies were more
austere than the elaborate Gallican Rites practiced north of the Alps. The vestments in Rome remained the simple
dignified vesture of roman magistrates—the alb, the chasuble, the maniple and the
stole. The deacon wore a dalmatic in place of the chasuble, though there were
rituals in which the deacon too wore a chasuble. The vestments were almost
invariably of white wool—the wearing of white being a sign of one’s Roman
citizenship. (Red came to be used, as it
was in civil life, for the color of mourning.
It also was used for commemoration of martyrs—perhaps originally due to
its connection with death—and for the Passion of the Lord.) The basic structure of the liturgy: three
processions (entrance, gifts, and communion) each followed by a collect
remained clearly evident with the Readings placed between the first two and the
Eucharistic prayer placed between the second and the third. The congregation
stood through the entire liturgy, though there was seating for the clergy
during the readings and homilies. (In
the east there were frequent prostrations in imitation of the courtly
etiquette.) A Byzantine priest who has taught
liturgy in the seminary pointed out to me that the biblical model for the Roman
liturgy is the gathering around the throne of the Lamb in the Book of
Revelation singing the Thrice Holy Hymn while the liturgical model for the
Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite is Christ the Priest entering into the heavenly
sanctuary in the Letter to the Hebrews.
This makes some sense when one familiarizes oneself with the appropriate
scriptural texts and the very different geist
of each of the two rites.
My chief objection to the ad apsidem position of the priest in the Roman Rite is that it
bespeaks an ecclesiology in which the priest “says Mass” for the people rather than
celebrating the Eucharist with them. The
ad apsidem position privatizes the
Mass as the action of the priest when in fact it is the action of the entire
assembly, priest and people together. The
East, with its very different geist,
manages to include the faithful in the key actions of the liturgy despite the ad orientem position and even the
presence of icon screens or sanctuary curtains.
The Byzantine—and other Eastern Rites—have
developed a very different geist, one
that is highly dialogical, than the Roman Rite.
The Byzantine Rite is a series of litanies sung among the
(con)celebrant(s) at the altar, the deacon(s) standing at the Holy Doors, and
the faithful. There is a constant
exchange of sung dialogue between the altar and the faithful. Even the
Eucharistic Prayer contains one of these dialogical litanies. And don’t forget the priest is not only
standing with his back to the people, but the iconostasis blocks most views of
the altar entirely. (In fact, in the
more strictly observant churches the Holy Doors are often closed, at least
during penitential seasons, and the curtain behind them is drawn blocking any
view whatsoever.) Yet the sung
interchange keeps the faithful aware that they are an integral part of the
celebration.
In the West, however the prayers are usually said
by the priest alone. Kyrie, Gloria,
Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei are sung together in a high Mass, but usually by a
choir, and high Masses were rare: perhaps one a Sunday in most parishes with the
remaining five or six Sunday Masses being a simple low or “read Mass” with only
the priest and altar servers responding.
So the issue for me really is this: is the
Eucharist something the priest does on behalf of the people or is it something
that the entire Body of Christ—the Church assembled—does together with the
priest, as a sacramental presence of Christ in the assembly, does in
unity. The Tradition of the Church, as
found in the Fathers of the Church, make it clear that the Liturgy is the work
of the entire People of God albeit in their different functions. The versus
populum position of the priest at the altar, which is the authentic heritage of
the Roman Rite, preserves this in the face of a rite that would otherwise
reduce the People of God from exercising their baptismal royal and priestly
dignity to mere recipients of grace through the mediatorship of the ordained
priest. There is no way that I want to
go back to that faulty ecclesiology, nor do I believe the vast majority of the
faithful want to revert to being strangers at the Table of the Lord. My experience of those seminarians and clergy
who wish to go back is that they have a need to dominate and control others
that stems from an underdeveloped psycho-sexual self-identity and want to use
the Liturgy for their own aggrandizement.
They become, at least in their own minds, the indispensible mediators of
grace through whom alone we can approach the Throne of Grace and without whom
we would be bereft of the Love of God. Pray
for them for the judgment will be severe.
No comments:
Post a Comment