 |
Dec.
11, 2003 |
 |
On
praying together |
|
By
Bishop Richard J. Sklba |
|
 |
Bishop
Richard J. Sklba |
|
Herald
of Hope is a weekly column started by
former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland
in the Catholic Herald and written by
the bishops of the Milwaukee Archdiocese. |
| Past
columns |
Midway into this new season of Advent, we’ve also
begun to experience the revised liturgical norms for Eucharistic
celebrations. The response at the parish level has stretched
from lack of notice or resignation to discomfort or upset
and even to sharp anger. Because it is always better to
communicate about things around us than to ignore them,
I take the risk of talking about that reality this week.
The good news, of course, is that we only argue about
things that really matter to us; the bad news is that
we are divided and even arguing about the very reality
which ought to be the source and celebration of our deepest
unity. That’s a great sorrow.
Indulge me for a few moments while I put my own perspective
on the table.
The fundamental issues at the moment are twofold: communal
posture at liturgical prayer, and the method of distributing
the Communion which provides personal access to the Lord’s
death and rising.
First the posture. The way respect is signaled externally
has always varied from one culture to another; yet there
are some basic uniformities, which seem to run through
human nature everywhere.
The fact that the very first Ecumenical Council at Ephesus
(325 AD) felt constrained to decree (canon 20) that worshipers
should stand at the Eucharist on Sundays and throughout
the entire Pentecost (i.e., Easter) season indicates that
kneeling was practiced at other times, and that many local
churches preferred to do at all times. Uniformity at the
church’s festive celebrations was the goal. The
fact that we are still arguing about it almost 1,700 years
later demonstrates its importance and its fundamental
ambiguity.
Our own American secular culture has lived with similar
ambiguity over the best manner of showing respect. Recall
how we teach children to stand as a sign of courtesy when
being introduced to an adult, and how we all rise at the
entrance of a judge or the president. Our ambivalence
shows, however, when a man kneels when proposing marriage
or when we instinctively kneel at the bedside of a loved
one passing through death to life. Each is appropriate
at its time.
It would seem that our traditional American Catholic custom
has a long history, perhaps over 200 years, of kneeling
throughout the entire Eucharistic prayer, as contrasted
with the European practice of only kneeling at the institution
narrative … possibly dictated by their use, not
of fixed pews, but portable wicker predieus which invariably
caused personal discomfort and sometimes even pain.
When this issue came to the floor of the American bishops’
conference a few years ago in the context of a new edition
of the Sacramentary, I was personally in favor of reconforming
our American practice to the more universal custom.
I recall that it was a moment of parliamentary tangle,
with more motions and (friendly) amendments on the floor
than anyone could unsnarl. Even our parliamentarian, Mr.
Roberts III, seemed confused at the time! My solution
didn’t pass. You win some; you lose some. “Blessed
be God forever,” as Job would say. There should
have been more consultation. The historically distinctive
American practice won out. Whatever the long history,
we really do need to pray together.
These days we are also very edgy about a more choreographed
method of distributing Communion. Some would say it is
needed to more clearly distinguish the roles of clergy
and laity. Many find that suggestion downright offensive.
I must say that I have never felt this to be a problem
in the parishes of this archdiocese. Ever since the Council,
however, our theologians have cautioned that it can become
a difficulty whenever the metaphor of “People of
God” becomes the primary defining image for the
church.
I gather that this has in fact become problematic in other
parts of the world, especially where all pastoral ministers
are paid by the government, and can hold onto their respective
prerogatives and ministries with a tenacity which would
make ancient upholders of the divine right of kings envious.
This, however, is clearly not our problem here in the
United States. The question does illustrate the danger
of solving any local problem by universal legislation.
What is our problem, however, at least in my experience,
is the wide diversity in current practice from one parish
to another. Those priests and communion distributors who
only know the rhythm of their own parish seldom sense
the difficulty. Those of us who travel from one parish
to another have a different vantage point. I remember
visiting five different parishes in a single week, and
becoming totally befuddled by the diversity. Even when
I sought instruction in the sacristy beforehand, the approach
of the moment of communion found me so confused that I
simply stepped back, begging “someone to do something!”
The one moment in the Eucharist when I did not preside
was the Communion!
Many of our retired priests report the same confusion
as they help out at different parishes.
There is value, I contend, to a basic uniformity in liturgical
practice throughout the archdiocese. We need to pray together.
As priests and presiders we are asked to follow the rubrics
of the church; the Eucharist after all does belong to
the whole church. At the same time, as priests and presiders
we are required to make each celebration appropriate to
the specific character of the assembly gathered at that
moment in that place. How often we are instructed by the
rubrics themselves to “use these or similar words!”
How often we are encouraged to develop and sustain a theme
throughout the entire celebration. That clearly depends
on the careful preparation of the priest in each case.
It recognizes legitimate diversity in our liturgical prayer.
These days there seems to be a sudden rise of unofficial
“liturgical police” who spend more time in
listing apparent rubrical violations, sometimes out of
ignorance, than in praying. It is true that the liturgy
belongs to the whole church, but it is also true, as the
Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy reminded
pastors, that “more is required than the mere observation
of laws governing valid and licit celebration (#11).”
Unfortunately, these changes approved by the bishops a
few years ago have landed like SCUD missiles into a very
different moment of history. Unfortunately too, the free
floating anger and general disaffection toward bishops
from so many fine people, priests and laity alike, has
focused on these two new rubrics.
I cannot find words to describe the sorrow of that reality.
I can only hope that the Eucharist never becomes a hostage
to problems arising from other spheres.
Both unity and cultural adaptation are important values,
especially in this era of globalization. Maintaining the
right balance is everyone’s job.
It would be very sad if these norms resulted in acrimonious
judgment of those who participate differently than ourselves.
Some people kneel, stand or sit because of personal physical
ailments or infirmities. No one should look with contempt
on another, certainly never at the Eucharist. No one should
ever become a barrier, physical or emotional, to another’s
full and active participation. It’s an ancient biblical
custom for community leaders to provide the example of
entering the covenant first, hence one more rationale
for the revised communion ritual.
When we gather each weekend, we come to pray together!
|
|
|
