tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post731598340994537700..comments2023-11-05T02:55:10.230-06:00Comments on Gottesdienst Online: Ceremonies RevisitedPr. H. R.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-22922546347046461982009-05-29T20:06:42.442-05:002009-05-29T20:06:42.442-05:00Fr. Beane,
This ia an excellant post, as are the ...Fr. Beane,<br /><br />This ia an excellant post, as are the comments of my Rev. Fathers and Brothers who have replied to it.<br /><br />I wish respond to your remark that "a newly ordained seminary graduate could sign himself with the cross from day one" by relating what happened to me even before I became a seminary graduate.<br /><br /> This happened during my first year at a synodical junior college. I was home for Christmas vacation and <br />was attenting my (then) home congregation. I received Holy Communion at the altar rail when, at the dismissal, I signed myself with the cross. There was no voice from above, nor did the roof fall in; but....<br /><br />The next day the vicar, when he came to visit my grandmother, cornered me and derided me "in loco pastores". I was informed that I, as a pre-ministerial student, should not cultivate habits such as crossing myself, etc. The reason being, if I should receive a call to a parish where this was not the custom, I would scandalize that congregation beyond repair. I had "no business" adopting such customs at this point in time.<br /><br />I will confess that my reply was less than evengelicel. I informed the vicar that if I did not adopt these customs now I would, most likely, never adopt them at all. Then, what if I were called to a congregation that practised these same customs; would I be scandalized if I were expected to practice them? Obviously, no reply was forthcoming.<br /><br />I also suggested to the vicar that, if the pastor had a problem with my making the sign of the cross when I had received Communion; it should be up to him to counsel me, and not send the vicar to do it for him.<br /><br />This was the last that I heard about this. And I continued to make the sign of the cross at the rail, after receiving Communion.<br /><br />Obviously, this incident did nothing to suppress my interest in, and study of, liturgical ceremony. Ceremony is nothing more than good manners.<br /><br /> If you never learned "please" and "thank you" as a child, you will never use them as an adult. And if you, then, end up in the midst of a "please" and "thank you" crowd; you will have not understanding of how you are expected to perform.Dcn. Muehlenbruchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12088586709685687573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-69725488783824005662009-05-26T22:25:51.730-05:002009-05-26T22:25:51.730-05:00Fr. Curtis,
I may in fact write such a DMin thesis...Fr. Curtis,<br />I may in fact write such a DMin thesis. Although it will have to be under my pseudonym, or I'll never move up in the Missouri Synod. Aapparently, the Party does not want to be confused with strange notions derived from theology, liturgy and confession. This is the language of the Lutheran bourgeois and problematic. Please don't report me... I have heard you get a "tenner" in the CRM Archipelago. <br />"Mason"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-11492324343985784022009-05-26T21:06:56.285-05:002009-05-26T21:06:56.285-05:00In one of my favorite quotes from Professor Marqua...In one of my favorite quotes from Professor Marquart, may his soul rest in peace, from a symposia "paper" years ago, he bemoaned those pastors who administer the Lord's Supper "like they were hawking fish at the market."<br /><br />A man who truly believes that the Lord is present in His very body and blood will not, and cannot, behave as though he were handling nothing more than bread and wine. Asking him to do so would be tantamount to asking him to love the praise of men more than God.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-70310571427127702292009-05-26T20:39:40.951-05:002009-05-26T20:39:40.951-05:00"Mason,"
You should totally write that into a DMi..."Mason,"<br /><br />You should totally write that into a DMin thesis.<br /><br />+HRCPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-90135145776459771542009-05-26T19:19:09.658-05:002009-05-26T19:19:09.658-05:00Teaching does not take place only through verbal c...Teaching does not take place only through verbal communication, mental cognition. Unfortunately, we have inherited our worship dogma from both the Liturgical Renewal Movement and Church Growth Movement, with their modern, Enlightenment assumptions. They generally argue that ritual and ceremony should be intelligible, comfortable, simple, immediate, transparent, relevant, spontaneous, and creative. I think they are dead wrong.<br /><br />As an atavistic troglodyte, Stone-Age caveman, homo religiosus, who believes that God Himself truly is present through His Word joined to hot air, water, bread, and wine, I must also confess that liturgical ceremony and ritual should testify to this biblical, other-worldly reality. As such, liturgy should emphasize the complex, opaque, transcendent, mysterious, formal, and reverent. It should be habitual. And it should make the participants just a tad uncomfortable and disturbed from time to time. In other words, sacramental ritual and ceremony should reflect the scriptural narratives where sinful creatures are in the presence of the One who is Holy, Holy, Holy... (cf. Leviticus, Isaiah, and Revelation just to start). <br /><br />I am convinced that ritual appropriate to our sacramental confession is the best teacher for it emphasizes the non-verbal and non-cognitive, treating human beings as human beings rather than modern angels, ghosts, and ghouls. I further believe that people are best instructed in the mysteries of faith when men move and act like men who believe that God is present rather than overgrown adolescents who may say God is there, but then act as if they are performing in Branson for a bunch of groupies and retirees. <br /><br />Well, enough of a rant . Father Hollywood, a very helpful post.<br />Pax,<br />+MasonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-21380328017173304122009-05-25T22:39:35.555-05:002009-05-25T22:39:35.555-05:00It is most certainly true that this is more of an ...It is most certainly true that this is more of an art than a science. I have served the same parish since I was placed here out of seminary eight years ago. I have always made the sign of the cross as it is a great comfort to me. The people had no trouble with it though none of them had the practice themselves. After eight years of teaching I notice a number of them making the sign of the cross as they leave the altar. We were given a crucifix from a congregation that closed and after much instruction it is now in the sanctuary. Some parishes may never have accepted it but they did here. I am confident that I could wear chausibles without a ripple - but I need to get the money first! :-) A pastor gets a "sense" of where the people are on these things. I have begun elevating the elements - not a problem. However, I know if I began genuflecting or kissing the altar it would be a problem. They would be uncomfortable. Though I would like to it is not something I will do until I teach. Perhaps I will never get there. However, in another parish perhaps one could introduce genuflecting without a problem but the elevation of the elements may present trouble. Who knows? But that is why it is an art. That is why specific pastors are called to specific parishes to practice the art in that place.Mike Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13555200228537464762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-14595298622489219972009-05-25T11:10:51.660-05:002009-05-25T11:10:51.660-05:00Now that I have been so bold...
Do you think the ...Now that I have been so bold...<br /><br />Do you think the root of the controversy below has to do with people's understanding of what a ceremony is and what it does?<br /><br />Some might view ceremonies as ornamentation. It's like paint on a wall; you can paint the wall blue or orange, or you can just leave it white. The result doesn't really change, and it's a question of taste and what happens to suit the people in the room. The result here seems to be utilitarian: do what provides the most utility for the greatest number (in the judgment of the individual).<br /><br />Maybe others see ceremonies as a direct outgrowth of essence. The best analogy I could come up with would be a flower on a tree--a magnolia tree is a magnolia tree, whether it's blooming or not, and it remains a magnolia tree even if you chop off branches. Still, a magnolia tree produces magnolia blossoms and not apple blossoms. As a result, there is an objective standard: you can examine a flower and distinguish what kind of flower it is; you can examine two different ceremonies or two different rites, and evaluate which one is a more faithful product of the Church's essence.<br /><br />I actually think Rev. McCain's question, "What ceremonies are of the 'essence of the Gospel?'" strikes close to the center of the disagreement.<br /><br />I also wonder whether this is why many say the Liturical Movement of the last century degenerated into aesthetic arguments.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360602965070109675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-75735695873302271272009-05-25T10:37:58.212-05:002009-05-25T10:37:58.212-05:00Yes, Phil, I understood your point and agree that ...Yes, Phil, I understood your point and agree that it is a good one. In my typical fashion, I managed to bury the good point under my tirade of too much rhetoric. Sorry for that. But thanks for your observation and insight.<br /><br />I would only add that, for the early church, the catechesis received in the Service of the Word, and in the Bible stories, was understood to be catechesis in the very Mysteries of God that were then received and realized in Holy Baptism and the Holy Communion. It was, after all, the same catechesis that God the Lord had provided for His people in preparation for the incarnate Christ (the "primordial Sacrament").Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-15865697319038673752009-05-25T10:21:39.868-05:002009-05-25T10:21:39.868-05:00The introduction of this thread into the discussio...The introduction of this thread into the discussion is, in my view, exceedingly helpful. In particular, reference to the fact that the catechumenate generally receive instruction in ritual only after they have first experienced it for awhile.<br /><br />Admittedly, this is a bit contrary to the fourth-century practice of the <I>disciplina arcana</I>, by which the catechumenate were not allowed to see or participate in any way in the mysteries until they were fully admitted. For instance, they were barred even from being present during the Our Father.<br /><br />Nevertheless our churches have rather universally agreed that the <I>disciplina arcana</I> generally took things a bit too far, though certain elements of it are worth remembering and considering.<br /><br />What is clear first of all, however, is that the disciples themselves most certainly first participated in the Lord's Supper before they understood it. Their eyes were not opened until after the resurrection.<br /><br />Thanks for a helpful post.Fr BFEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554699361739289492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-90394928164594351922009-05-25T09:43:36.141-05:002009-05-25T09:43:36.141-05:00I guess what I was getting at is that it seems har...I guess what I was getting at is that it seems hard to maintain that ceremonies absolutely must be explained completely and over a long period of time before they can be practiced (by clergy) or experienced (by congregation). If you maintain this, then the only conclusion is to condemn the early Church, which didn't even let the catechumens see the Supper and the ceremonies surrounding it until immediately after they were baptized, and didn't explain those ceremonies until after they had first been seen!Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360602965070109675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-63095786447011978432009-05-25T09:30:18.453-05:002009-05-25T09:30:18.453-05:00I think this is a helpful distinction, Phil, altho...I think this is a helpful distinction, Phil, although it was really a matter of two different aspects of an ongoing catechesis. Pre-baptismal catechesis focused on Bible stories, the Christian way of life, the Creed and the Our Father. Post-baptismal mystagogical catechesis focused on the rites and ceremonies of Holy Baptism and the Holy Communion, as the means by which the neophyte receives and participates in the life of Christ and lives as a member of His Body, the Church.<br /><br />Your point is apropos to the present discussions, in the sense that some catechesis could not be done until after a participation in the Mysteries of God has begun. That fits with what several of us have been trying to say; namely, that sometimes ceremonies are better introduced up front, with (mystagogical) catechesis following (and the ceremonies themselves are part of that ongoing catechesis).Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-14445016253344229732009-05-25T08:35:01.705-05:002009-05-25T08:35:01.705-05:00Would it be helpful to make a distinction between ...Would it be helpful to make a distinction between catechesis and mystagogy here? I believe catechesis was the pre-baptismal instruction in doctrine, whereas mystagogy came afterwards and was more about the education of those already baptized, primarily concerning the meaning of the liturgy.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360602965070109675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-49917118694195576322009-05-24T22:14:13.943-05:002009-05-24T22:14:13.943-05:00Great post, and well said, Pastor Beane. Thank yo...Great post, and well said, Pastor Beane. Thank you for this contribution to the discussion. I think that Phil has succinctly hit upon a key point in what you have said.<br /><br />At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll repeat (again) my point that there is no question of whether or not to have ceremony, nor a question of "how many" ceremonies to have, but only of which ceremonies one will use. The Baptists do, in fact, have their own ceremonies; they are simply different ceremonies. And their ceremonies, as well as "ours," also teach the people: something.<br /><br />The teaching that ceremonies provide is not analytical or propositional in character; nor is it absolute and unambiguous. It is visceral and relational, and it occurs within a context, in which the catechesis of the Word of Christ is primary. The ceremonies that one uses (whether by choice or by happenstance), and the way in which those ceremonies are conducted, will either be in harmony with the catechesis of the Word, or to some degree out of sync with that catechesis. So, along with catechesis -- before, during, and after the introduction of new ceremonies, whether that be done quickly or slowly -- there ought to be a consistency of practice that serves and supports the Word of God, rather than competing with it. Where there is that continuity of catechesis and ceremonial conduct, the ceremonies teach in a way that goes beyond the intellect and powerfully assists our confession of the Word of God. I find that to be especially true in the case of young children, but it is also true in the case of adults. Actions do speak differently and "louder" than words. Where actions are at odds with words, as where ceremonies are out of sync with catechesis, there is hypocrisy, or the impression of hypocrisy, or, at the very least, a confusion of the confession.<br /><br />The ceremonies we use as pastors, the ones we introduce and the ones we inherit and continue using, ought to coincide with our faithful catechesis and confession of the Word of God. So, too, the very way in which we go about changing ceremonial practice or introducing new ceremonies ought to accord with our confession of the Gospel, flow with our ongoing work of catechesis, and proceed in faith and love.<br /><br />The catechesis of the Word is primary, but the Word has also become flesh and tabernacles bodily among us. Jesus wants us to have ceremonies, and we frankly can't exist or live without ceremonies of one sort or another. It was God's idea when He created us, creatures of body and soul, and He could hardly have affirmed that intent more solidly then He did when the Son was conceived and born of the blessed Virgin Mary. Not only has He obtained our salvation by His bodily death and resurrection, but He has chosen to bestow that salvation upon us through bodily means of grace. The principle ceremonies of Christ are the preaching of His Gospel, the administration of Holy Baptism and the administration of His Holy Supper. Everything else, including catechesis, flows from that.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-34408156739801107222009-05-24T21:20:30.077-05:002009-05-24T21:20:30.077-05:00Reading the whole discussion, this question struck...Reading the whole discussion, this question struck me:<br /><br />Do ceremonies, as ceremonies, actually "teach," as the Book of Concord says? Or are they in some sense opaque, such that they need to be "taught"? Or is something else going on here?<br /><br />It seems like there's some doubt as to how ceremonies do their teaching. Before someone teaches me something, I don't understand it, or at least I don't understand it fully--there's something to be taught. If ceremonies are retained because they teach, or as Luther says in the LC "that God’s Word may exert its power publicly", isn't it the case that the ones being taught in some sense don't understand something to which the ceremonies witness?<br /><br />Too, no one seems to question how the verbal aspects serve to teach. The controversy seems to center around the nonverbal aspects--chanting instead of reading, vestments, elevations, genuflexions, incense, and so forth. Can these things teach--teach something not understood before?<br /><br />Putting aside some of the less edifying parts of the discussion below, I've appreciated the parts that have been constructive.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360602965070109675noreply@blogger.com