A bit more on perspective and confusion

I frequently laugh at myself, because, rational though I can be, I am such a Romantic at heart. Perhaps that is why I find my 19th century studies, brilliant though many of the 'characters' were, to have an undertone of amusement. It was an era when there was undue emphasis on progress, as if this had led to unmatched moral perfection, yet, on many other levels, an idea that, if the right century to which one could revert could be found, all would be well. I can identify with (I am saying this wryly!) Oxford Movement fathers who saw the ideal blend as 14th century liturgy and 4th century theology. (Though, with my being seasoned by 20th century liturgical renewal, I'd probably favour the fourth century on both... even if my own speciality is 14th century mysticism... And I have enough pragmatism to know that we have not the slightest notion of what was going on in worship of the 4th century, not to mention that the brilliant Christian theologians tended to be surrounded by pagans.)

One hundred years from now, I'm sure, young theologians may be reading documents from c. 1970, and picture that it was a glorious time. I could develop that idea at great length, but, for the moment, I'm going to include only one of my giggles. Annibale Bugnini and friends, to mention a single liturgical change, pictured a glorious Communion procession - the faithful raising one voice to the praise of Christ... The reality was perhaps the largest RC liturgical mistake. Most people saw the 'procession' as less reverent, and walking to communion with a hymnal in one hand (the more if one was holding a child or elderly parent with the other) had little glamour.

At parish and even diocesan levels, too often those charged with implementing liturgical changes had no background in liturgy or even theology (it more often was 'religious education' of children.) Those who did have the background tended to be priests, who could not comment lest they stifle the action of the Holy Spirit, seem paternalistic, or see correctness as superior to 'getting the people more involved.' I could relate a thousand stories of confusion, but one shall suffice to give the flavour. In the first revisions of the Roman rite, the priest would have said, "May the Body and Blood of Christ preserve my soul unto life everlasting." Later, quite appropriately, "my soul" was changed to "me," because mentioning 'soul' alone was inadequate in view of the doctrine of the resurrection. I head this explained, on a local level, as a move to get people not to think of their souls... lest they connect sin with the reception of the Eucharist.

Worship expresses truths which it is beyond human reason to adequately explain. It is unfortunate that public prayer too often wass seen as an 'obligation, ' or, worse (in some cases) as a practise to be valued solely for social benefits. (I have no notion of what 'family values' are - and am not sure I wish to know - but I have seen enough Internet sites to know that this is what prompts some churchgoing in this world.) By the time of the Reformation, there was such emphasis on atonement and forgiveness that Jesus never seemed to get off the cross. The Counter-Reformation moved in another direction - making the Sacrament a sort of relic and the church a shrine, and, though the Host was adored, to wish to communicate practically seemed ungrateful. Where did the element of eschatology hide?

In his brilliant work,Sacrament of Salvation, the Reverend Doctor Paul McPartlan emphasises that the New Testament texts were intended to be shared at celebrations of the Eucharist. Much of what he wrote was deeply impressive, and I should like to share one passage which had to do with Hebrews 12:18- 22-24 . Here is the scripture text itself:

It is not to the tangible, burning fire of Sinai that you have come, with its darkness, gloom, and whirlwind. No, you have come to Mount Zion, the city of your living God, to myriad angels, to the full concourse and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of new men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, whose sprinkled blood has better things to say than the blood of Abel.

Dr McPartlan explains this as follows:

“Hebrews teaches that what breaks upon this world whenever the Eucharist is celebrated is the assembly of all the angels and saints surrounding Christ in his glory in the heavenly Jerusalem; nothing less than the assembly of the last day, inaugurating the festival which is to last forever, the banquet of eternity. Stirred by the Holy Spirit, participants in this earthly liturgy are caught up into this heavenly scene… they see what is stored up as the fulfilment of God’s purpose, what is already overshadowing this world, actively moulding it for eternity. Christians are sure in their hope because they experience is fulfilment in anticipation every Sunday (do this in memory of me.)”