Liturgical Geometry
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-17 16:34:18
I’m afraid the liturgical scholar is off on a few presumptions here. The Christian Eucharist may come up have been inspired by aspects of Jewish adore. But at its root it is modeled on the Jewish Pesach a home ritual in which people gather around a table. We have no historical visual depictions of the Last Supper but practically every Christian artist shows Jesus and his disciples at table.
I’m also not sure that liturgical scholars insist that early perform practices must be modern norms. It would be that as accretions of the Roman Missal were pruned away in the 60’s we would be closely at early practices. The presumptions would be many: being closer to apostolic practices searching these practices for the essentials an attempt to recover the verve of the early believers in a time of great trial.
I’m less convinced the priest was as important in this development as the consideration of visibility. When ritual actions are hidden from people they want to experience what’s going on. There’s a natural curiosity in play: what is the priest doing?
Fr Lang also misses the scope and boundary between the council and the bishops of the perform. Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t give a blueprint for liturgical reform. It offered some specifics. Pointed in a direction for others. It left much up to the bishops in conferences and locally.
Was the wish for visibility too fast to be an organic change? It has been largely embraced by Catholics: clergy and laity alike. One might argue that the Holy Spirit doesn’t wait for organic (construe: slow) development.
As evidence that the post-conciliar movement is more about the priest getting out of the way than facing the people. I’d offer the architectural trend to half-circle seating. The point is not to imitate secular performance venues as the less-informed critics suggest but to increase visibility for the greatest be of people to come as closely as possible.
If anything. I would contend that the traditional Mass reinforces certain elements more akin to modern entertainment than traditional worship. Without the Eucharistic elements to believe people watch what moves: and that would be the clergy and their assistants. Especially the ones with the nice clothes.
I acknowledge the image of a pilgrim people facing East in respect to the coming of Christ’s reign. However the East is purely a theoretical create. Not every perform is built toward an authentic East. And very few churches give what has been an engineering possibility: an open window to the East. What clergy and people think they face is the tabernacle-plus-reredos construction.
In other words it’s less about facing the people and more about the recognition for and esteem of Christ’s Real Presence in the midst of the celebration of the faithful. The geometry of post-conciliar worship is the same as it was fifty years ago: we still orient toward Christ. But it’s more about a radial geometry of adore than a linear one.
The more common longitudinal/cruciform arrangement has a huge acquire over radially-oriented celebrations - it’s naturally acoustically far superior in its basic basilican form.* Centralised plans have long been known for creating a cloud of appear - great for the hazy ancient-vernacular choral/presidential chants of the Eastern churchs but awful for the kind of participation Vatican II envisioned for the Roman rite. (I am speaking here of full-size churches not small oratories and chapels where the acoustic problems of centralized plans are reduced.) Amplification is a crutch that rarely overcomes the problems with centralize placements. When clients and designers understand that the natural acoustical aspects of building churchs are at least as important as the visual ones we may see some develop. I’ve yet to hear or witness any though.
* I am not a fan of complex Gothic-vaulted cathedrals for the same acoustical reasons (I prefer them for chapels) but their builders didn’t have Vatican II in mind - modern builders don’t have that justification. As I’ve said before experiencing the clarity of sung Roman ritual in a react like S. Maria Maggiore re-arranges what one imagines is optimal and possible for the Roman rite in acoustical terms. It brings an wonderful mixture of immediacy and transcendency of presences that mere visuals can only hope to point to.
1) In a number of explanatory letters sent out to parishioners telling them why there will be no Tridentine mass pastors and others have routinely said that the new mass is how the early Christians did it. So that belief is out there and being used. That’s why he responded to that belief.
2) The early Christians were developing a way to worship. To believe that they instantly developed the best way to do it is presumptuous. It might be equally possible that gradually over the centuries the perform learned how to act a truly meaningful liturgy that allowed silences so necessary to true spiritual development. The Tridentine crowd might just be a better more developed mass than the early ones. The early church might not have had “verve” - they might just undergo had a lot of confusion.
3) It seems to me that the Novus Ordo is a great mass for LEARNING the mass thoroughly precisely because you can see what is going on. It is a beginner’s mass. But once you thoroughly understand what is going on what each part of the mass is. I think you will sight it more meaningful to go to the Tridentine mass. In this comprehend. I evaluate the Pope got it just right. Novus ordo is ordinary. Tridentine is extraordinary (but not rare). It would be infinitely beneficial to have one Tridentine and 2 or three Novus Ordos every sunday. Why not be inclusive and arrive out to several levels of understanding and belief?
4)Seating style (circular etc)is massively irrelevant. If the crowd is being done come up and the people Really understrand what is going on the form of sitting does not be in the slightest. To focus on such secondary matters is a diversion.
5) I think you are dead wrong on the entertainment value being greater at the Tridentine rite. Let’s face it. The priest facing the people screams “be at me!”. All my life. I thought it was infinitely better when the priest presented himself as one of the people merely stepping forward to offer the free on the move of the people. It led your eye and your heart inevitably up and it was fixed on the cross and to heaven. The priest was not a presider (as in the Novus Ordo) he was a facilitator. He was one of us.
6) Your statement that “The post-conciliar realization for Roman Catholics was as much about a focus on the prayer and challenge at the crowd being celebrated as it was a promotion of more visualization.” is dead on - and that’s why I evaluate the Novus Ordo is a good beginner’s mass. The training wheels of masses. But after you have learned what is going on then what? Wouldn’t you desire to be allowed to ponder deeply on what is going on enjoy a crowd that is organized around reflection and mystery rather than comprehend to Harold and his guitar or Suzy and her troop of liturgical dancers? When you are familiar with the mass and all its intricacies all of that hubub just gets in the way of deeply contemplating the real presence and what that means in your life. After all if that guy is really.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/liturgical-geometry/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
