Here's to John Macquarrie!

Just this morning, I read an online discussion of the use of 'president' rather than 'celebrant' to describe priests (or is using that term going to offend the 'we are a priestly people' crowd?) at the (select your preference) Mass, Eucharist, Communion Office. One contributor reminded me, all too well, of the liturgical committee discussions from a recent era. He insisted that 'celebrant' implies that the congregation are not all celebrating together.

I doubt that would occur to 99% of people, and to no one at all who did not attend committees of the sort I described or, worse yet, 'workshops.' Ideas which never would occur to people were spoken of as if they had far-ranging implications, whether for good or ill, and that disagreement with the earnest sort who presented this wisdom either indicated a lack of 'education' or some sort of resistance to the Holy Spirit.

I have had the privilege of studying many works of liturgical scholarship, some brilliant, others worth a look even if they are less distinguished. I particularly admire John Macquarrie's work, because it both shows a pastoral knowledge all too rare amongst the usual people (including me) who are caught up in theories and lofty concepts, and because he has the courage to say what others would fear was... well, let us say illustrative of a lack of 'education.'

Macquarrie, for example, though freely admitting that Confirmation as a rite apart from baptism was an accident of history (and one which stemmed from practical conditions, not theological considerations), reminds his readers not to overlook the value which this rite has developed during the past 5 centuries or so. He is cautious about administering Communion to infants - though the correct liturgical line is 'why excommunicate the young' - because of messages this may give which would evade those of us who spend too much time in libraries. I also appreciate that he has the honesty to admit that no one except liturgical scholars places such total emphasis on baptism.

I must add, of course, lest I seem uneducated, that I fully understand that (over)emphasis on baptism. Liturgists, unlike most of the world (including theologians of other varieties), are very focussed on public worship and sacraments, which I'm sure all are agreed are a privilege of baptism. Unfortunately, when such concepts are severed from the strictly liturgical connection, and freely interpreted by those who well may be unaware of the original context, we can be left with the distressing image of 'no vocation except baptism - the rest does not matter.' (Yes, I'm a cynic - but I have firsthand knowledge of how many in religious life were suddenly faced with the idea that their consecration was not a vocation, and that their contribution, which previously was presented as a blessing, was not appreciated.)

Liturgists are quite right to emphasise sign and symbol, yet, looking back to some idyllic fourth century rite (before all those troublesome Frankish innovations), they can forget that gestures may have quite a different meaning to those who are more used to what has developed over the past 1500 years. I well remember when, for example, the ancient practise of all standing for the Eucharistic Prayer was heralded. Trouble was, for all that worshippers in the patristic time (in the midst of their pagan neighbours) were equally unlikely to have Gregory of Nyssa in the next pew, the implications of standing which have been maintained in the Orthodox church were long superseded in the West. Standing for the Eucharistic prayer, whether people agreed or not, was taken for a denial of ordained ministry (or even the real presence), or as a lack of reverence. I dislike the practise myself.

Yes, I have read Annibale Bugnini. It is fun to see a firsthand view (and one for which the idealism would top mine at my most ethereal) of what liturgical innovations would mean, right from the time of Mediator Dei. But there were some huge mistakes along the way, where what happened in practise was a far cry from visions of branch outposts of Maria Laach on every corner. My vote for the worst RC innovation was the 'communion procession.' Bugnini and friends had an image of a glorious procession, everyone raising a voice in a common hymn of praise - probably a cross between the best of Corpus Christi processions and heavenly choirs at the last judgement. The result was more likely stumbling up to communion, a child in one hand and hymnal in another, being urged along by a song leader who is under oath to 'get the people to sing.'

I always hated hymns at communion, and still prefer reception kneeling (where one can find that.) I well remember discussions of this, usually led by someone who had two weeks of liturgical training (more than most priests) and remembered that Communion was the time when hymns were most important. The people who hated it saw it as a distraction and lack of reverence - those who loved it either applauded the lack of reverence (shades of Jesus is my friend) or liked having something to occupy them in the queue.

Looking back to antiquity can be very enriching - and I myself adore many patristic writings. Yet to transport 21st century congregations into what is imagined to be 4th century liturgy can be a case of tunnel vision.