Siren Songs?

I have to admit I was a bit taken aback by the "In Depth Analysis" of 16 May, offered by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, president of CatholicCulture.org, admonishing people not to be mean-spirited and quarrelsome over liturgy. His point is well taken, but not in the context or terms he chose to couch his plea. The fifth point was the corker for me: "5. Recognize that we are all unworthy of even the ugliest Mass." In principle it may be true but in context it sounds like not only a capitulation to liturgical abuse but an utter failure to take the Holy Father seriously when he speaks about a rupture with the tradition (not to mention what the Pope says about the role of beauty in worship and life).

In a sense, I would prefer most anything to an analysis like that of Dr. Mirus. You could say, that there is something less lethal about a brutal refusal to face other folk's concern about the present state of not only parish liturgy and the scandal it represents especially for young people in their search for the Lord of their life. The president of CatholicCulture.org does not seem to understand the suffering of many over the last four decades, nor the role "ugly, uglier, and ugliest" has played in driving people away from the Church.

Too much of what we face in terms of opposition to the reform of the reformed liturgy might be compared to a "siren song". Even if you don't know the classics, Odysseus or Ulysses, you might have encountered the extraterrestrial counterpart of an ancient Greek or Roman siren in an old episode of Star Trek, where wicked aliens attempt to imprison Capt. K. masquerading as beautiful earth-women!

In my case, I have an otherwise fairly reasonable elderly woman who will not forgive me for going ad Orientem or as she lisps, turning my back on her. La La Land may be tempting for some, but I think we owe each other all sorts of encouragement for the task which is at hand of reconfiguring Catholic Culture (and not just the .org) such that worship is for the Lord and we really are about the business for which God created us and not just whiling away the hours to the strum of somebody's guitar or the beat of their drum.

Here's hoping that Dr. Mirus will have the time and the input to be able to appreciate what is really at stake and how urgent the business of reform is!

Cerebral Enough for You?

There is no small urgency to mounting a significant challenge to a wrongly and broadly held presumption that contemporary liturgy’s essential content is cerebral. It is when we are caught up in the faulty logic of presuming that contemporary worship is a catechetical content waiting to be embellished that we come up with all of the abuse and distortion of the last 40 years “in these or similar words” (substitutions for Psalms, use of all manner of puppets, pop music taped or otherwise, dance or aerobic gesturing, etc.). In a lot of ways we’ve painted ourselves into the proverbial corner and there is nowhere to go from here. The Mass as we find it on paper is not a basic premise for a catechetical event just waiting to be planned by a well-meaning committee. Lots of people are speaking will all kinds of enthusiasm about the rich treasure trove of the new Roman Missal for the English speaking world. Please, God, let it be so!

          The tragedy in all we experience to date, because of planning committees and the creativity imposed upon us, consists not only in the loss of any sense of good taste or reserve. Indeed it provokes a faith crisis at least among the young, who find the whole setup all too human and on the basis of the evidence presented begin to wonder what God really has to do with an operation which seems all too creative, a fabrication in a sense. One wonders at times whether Father isn’t suffering from the same crisis of faith as he too finds himself caught up in the charade. Maybe Father needs a “lifeline” to save him from the “logic” of the last forty years. Maybe he sees no way out; maybe he has despaired of anything better. I do not think what I am saying is farfetched. Take just the one example of a priest’s availability to those who seek the sacraments today!

Before all of the advances in technology, recourse to the telephone was rare and certainly prioritized such that if you needed Father for a sick call you phoned the rectory and he answered… and he came. If you didn’t have a phone, you sent the neighbor with a car to go and fetch Father for the person in need... and he came. Today Father hides from non-prioritized, spontaneous and unthinking use of the phone; he does so with answering machines and all sorts of other technology which perhaps restore priorities and the privacy which in the old days resulted from ordinary folks not daring to reach for the phone without a life and death reason. Today in lots of parishes we have a situation where the maze is so perfect that a loved one is no longer confessed, anointed and accompanied by the Lord of Life for that last journey. Does this trouble Father at all or is he having doubts about the operation as well? I had a bishop complain to me that he has never been able to reach one of his priests directly by telephone: the secretary or housekeeper takes the call and at Father’s convenience Father may or may not return the bishop’s call… Just think how much harder it must be for a lay person seeking him without the willingness to be subjected to the scrutiny of Mrs. So and So!

Without the habit of regular confession, all that remains for most Catholics is that weekly hour of power, which can be reshaped at will, it would seem, and used for all sorts of things, with “experts” taking to the pulpit in conformity with a logic inspired by truly entertaining shows on your friendly, not-so-local, devotional, cable channel. Mass becomes Sunday school, if I can simplify the expression a bit, and there is no doubt that the rupture with our liturgical past does indeed exist and is in fact complete.

          A film of a Low Mass celebrated at the high altar of St. Peter’s by Pope Pius XII in 1942 is making the rounds of the blogosphere these days. One is struck by the presence of what looks like an omni-directional radio microphone on the altar. The Basilica is packed and the Square is filled to overflowing with people as well. A sea of humanity, baptized humanity, stands or kneels before the Throne of God, not entertained by orchestra or choir, not even seeing anything on jumbo video screens, in touch (perhaps?) acoustically thanks to that microphone and minimal contact with the same Latin text they know so well from Sunday Mass in their parishes. What indeed is Mass really about? It would be most hard to attribute its intellectual or cerebral content to the words alone.

          A younger priest friend of mine, who has never celebrated Mass in Latin, shared with me his despair over the possibility of correcting or eliminating the liberties which priests take with the vernacular, rendering it discursive, casual and really a fabricated thing. Personally, I am not without hope because of my experience with the changes to my own mindset and ars celebrandi which oriented worship has brought me. Turning together to the Lord (ad Orientem) with those who gather in my chapel for Mass, from the Preparation of the Gifts until it is time for the Prayer after Communion, makes a positive difference in the way I preside and, I would dare say, it frees people to pray to the Lord together and directly, without the scrutiny of Father’s unwanted eye contact. I would urge priests to “turn to the Lord”; it might rekindle the faith or fan that spark into a blaze.

          The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass needs to be returned to its “pedestal” if you will. The “have-mass-kit-will-travel” mentality does not help matters. There are folks who have the stipend to command the baptism of a grandchild on their patio and make it easier to move right into the catered reception. Is this not a diminution of the sacrament? I know of folk who have managed by hook or by crook to get Father to come to their home to celebrate mass on their wedding anniversary each year. The mass becomes too little as Father bends to including all the special rights of holding hands or whatever which are dear to them as a couple from their college days. Do birthdays over a certain age need to get marked with a mass in the home before a supper with family and friends or as a prelude to some great holiday event? Can this be done just so without diminishing the Sacrifice itself?

          The Holy Father has infinite patience in these matters and I guess I should too. There are times, however, when I wonder if it isn’t time to call out the fire brigade…

PROPERANTES ADVENTUM DIEI DEI

4th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year A)

Whose Reckoning?

I love the Second Reading for this the 4^th Sunday Throughout the Year (Cycle A):

1 Corinthians 1:26-31

“Take yourselves for instance, brothers, at the time when you were called: how many of you were wise in the ordinary sense of the word, how many were influential people, or came from noble families? No, it was to shame the wise that God chose what is foolish by human reckoning, and to shame what is strong that he chose what is weak by human reckoning; those whom the world thinks common and contemptible are the ones that God has chosen – those who are nothing at all to show up those who are everything. The human race has nothing to boast about to God, but you, God has made members of Christ Jesus and by God’s doing he has become our wisdom, and our virtue, and our holiness, and our freedom. As scripture says: if anyone wants to boast, let him boast about the Lord.”

These words of St. Paul can (as they have for me) give perspective to a person’s vocational journey, reminding us that both celibate priesthood lived to the full and a truly blessed marital union, as vocations to which we are called by God, are gift and grace revealing the handiwork of the Most High for His greater glory and our joy always, but always, in Him Who has not only begun the good work in us but Who brings it to fulfillment with our cooperation.

It is another aspect of this reading, however, that I would like to reflect upon briefly. The penultimate sentence of this passage is the one which strikes me above all today: “The human race has nothing to boast about to God, but you, God has made members of Christ Jesus and by God’s doing he has become our wisdom, and our virtue, and our holiness, and our freedom.” It is another way of saying Christ is everything in all of us. That is a notion which has consequences for the way we lead our lives and for the sorts of causes we may choose or attempt to champion. Should everything else pass away, libraries, monuments or whatever, and we as a race or generation fail, we, God’s little ones, the common and contemptible can still boast about God’s handiwork as revealed in us through Christ. That accomplishment is reflected in lives lived so as to radiate the presence of the gentle Savior Who dwells in our hearts.

“…Members of Christ Jesus…”   Too often, I am afraid, we gloss over the wonder of our, by God’s doing, being incorporated into the Son of God made Man. By reason of our dullness or distraction, perhaps, we rarely pick up on more than the flutter of the emotions of those scholars and mystics who wax eloquent or gushing over the implications or import of words like “sanctification” or “divinization” for our lives. Maybe, in point of fact, the problem is less with our dullness or distraction and more with that of the bravado of some of those who try to limbo under the bar of human comprehension placed on what for casual party-goers, at least, is the impossibly low notch of these “–tion” words! It might be better to leave the low, low bar to the stage performers and professionals and dwell both simply and profoundly upon the consequences of our baptism, of our having put on Christ, but in a fashion more intimate and earth-shaking that can be rendered by just a perfunctory glance at the great images of the white garment and our candle catching fire from the Easter candle.

“…Christ Jesus … by God’s doing … our wisdom, and our virtue, and our holiness, and our freedom.”  Ours must be the mind of Christ. Jesus condemns hypocrisy and commands those among His listeners for whom the shoe fits to first pull the plank from their own eye before attempting to pull the splinter from their neighbor’s eye. In that regard, I have to say (at the risk of condemning myself by my own judgment) that I have been particularly troubled of late by encounters (both through the media and directly) with the intolerance of any number of prelates within the Church: intolerance not directed toward wicked people, but intolerance toward those who are attempting as best they can to be faithful, especially in matters concerning Divine Worship and the education of children and youth. 

Why, even three years after the issuance of Summorum Pontificum (just to name one example), are well-meaning lay folk still treated with such great disdain by no less than bishops, bishops in communion (of heart, soul, mind and strength?) with the Successor of St. Peter when they ask for Mass in Latin? Is this anything other than blind hypocrisy (the plank!)? You tolerate no small amount of bad taste, bad music and caprice, while begrudging some few a port in the storm of liturgical abuse which seems not to want to subside? Can we be after His own Heart and not just claim to be members of Christ’s Body while still acting so at odds with the example set by the Holy One of God, meek and humble of heart? Such prelates are at counter or cross purposes to the sense in which the Church wants to go; they are ignoring what the Spirit is saying to the Churches and doing so with a backhand to some who are branded common and contemptible, but certainly not in the eyes of Christ... Let me say it more clearly! My issue is with the contempt shown for an outstretched hand, contempt such as would not be shown toward someone asking for some other benefit. 

When the Holy Father speaks of his will to see these two forms of the Roman Rite (ordinary and extraordinary) enrich each other, when he and others express eagerness for a recovery of the sense of the sacred in our churches and in how we worship, I am convinced that he has indicated the true nature of the rupture which has indeed occurred and needs to be mended or healed. You would think that those in communion with the Pope would seek to understand him and embrace his point of view. There is too much room for caprice and hence the need to reform contemporary Catholic worship. This is evidenced time and again, by way of one example, in the sense of helplessness many priests experience when confronted by musical groups moving into church with inappropriate repertoires, not to mention the dance and puppet troupes which should have been banished long ago. If a bishop does not want to discipline at least he can respect and foster those seeking good order.

St. Charles Borromeo advised his priests to fight distractions and foster devotion the same way that you keep a stove lit with only a flicker of flame inside, and that is, by keeping that stove closed up tight until you get the fire going strong. I think that has to be the aim of the reform of the reformed liturgy. That was the genius over centuries of the old Latin Low Mass, tamper-proof and self-contained throughout the vicissitudes of time. The pendulum swing to the other extreme, which has swept away everything that was popular devotion and religious expression, while at the same time opening up that stove to nearly anything and everything, has had little more effect than to have diminished the liturgy’s capacity for providing heat and light. Contemporary worship is too often held hostage by caprice (tasteful or tasteless is not the point), by creativity, if you will, but still something not foreseen by legitimate authority. 

Among the things which contribute to the crisis of faith among our youth, among those things which contribute to their dismissal of the Sunday obligation to assist at Mass (see the statistics for Mass attendance by young Catholics!) is the absence in what they experience in their parishes and Catholic school settings of an approach to Divine Worship marked by the healthy fear and trembling which time and again brought His disciples to their knees before the Son of Man. Just the other day in an airport waiting lounge I caught a conversation, in the row of seats back to back with me, between two elderly Catholic couples who were miffed at Father for having admonished them to go to confession for having failed to fulfill their Sunday obligation on the day after Christmas! The grounds for their dismissal of Father’s well-meant admonition were that such rules are man-made anyway. This is to my mind a logical conclusion to be drawn from a Sunday service as free-flowing and de-sacralized as they probably experience, as anything on cable TV or to be found in a passing revival tent meeting.

“The human race has nothing to boast about to God, but you, God has made members of Christ Jesus and by God’s doing he has become our wisdom, and our virtue, and our holiness, and our freedom.”

Apart from this intolerance, I’ve been confronted again and again recently with the reality of how oblivious many priests, religious and laity are to the de-sacralized character of their liturgizing. Jeff Tucker at “The Chant Café” is swarming about all he sees as progress toward the reform of the reform. I wish I could see what he sees. The promotion of the extraordinary form is an encouragement to reforming vernacular liturgy. The hunger of many of the laity for a reformed vernacular liturgy marked by noble simplicity has been and continues to be fostered by encounters with the extraordinary form. My guess is that a more positive attitude by more bishops toward the extraordinary form would go a long way to moving some of the priests toward an examination of conscience concerning their approach to celebration.

Why do some successors to the Apostles seem so unaware of the injustice of the double standard they apply in reacting negatively to requests for Mass in the extraordinary form? If they are unwilling to restore decorum to vernacular worship “cold turkey” for lack of courage or whatever, then the least they could do is recognize and support those among them who seek better.

            Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto Thine!

PROPERANTES ADVENTUM DIEI DEI

A reflection on Liturgy celebrated "ad orientem"

A reflection on ad Orientem worship published by a very articulate parish priest stirred some thoughts about what I firmly believe to be the heart of the worship crisis in the Catholic Church  today, namely the confidence issue (the confidence of parishioners in the liturgical leadership of their parish priest) which stems from the more profound issue of a general disspiritedness or demoralization of the people in the pews brought on by the logic of caprice which has characterized the way we have worshiped for over 40 years. How do you convince people that Father is not making it up as he goes along even when he opts for ad Orientem worship or chant instead of hymns, given the "stuff" to which now grandparents, parents and children have been subjected over four decades. I can remember as a boy serving Mass when the first temporary altar suddenly appeared front and center in our cathedral, plywood finished in aquamarine (turquoise?) Formica right on top of the Persian rug upon which generations of men to be ordained had prostrated themselves during the litany of the saints. Was it not caprice when a priest, now long dead, opened a grave at the cemetery of his little country parish and smashed into that grave all the pretty plaster statues along with the decorative stucco of the high altar he tore out of a once pretty little church now stripped bare and white-washed? Who can you trust?

There are some descriptive elements in Father's reflection that deserve the largest possible diffusion. His outline of the basic rubrics to be followed by the priest celebrating Mass is particularly well done. Take a look at the article and the comments! Reverend Know-it-all: A reflection on Liturgy celebrated "ad orientem"

 Even so, Father is a captive of this logic of caprice. It seems from his post that he also has parishioners who bristle and hunch their backs at a change to ad Orientem worship suspecting that it comes by order of the Holy Father; if that be so well we really are in a mess! I don't necessarily think that Father was wrong to stop at the back of church after Mass and say, "Well, what do you think?", but he is bending to the same logic which has Californians processing in with dancers and giant puppets... caprice! It's all made up, isn't it? Where is God? What does He have to do with the dictates of a liturgy committee, or a willful little musical combo that likes to stand up front and direct or a most engaging priest who commands our attention and draws the focus toward himself.

How can a reform of the liturgical reform take place if people can't sort out the rightness of something from a simple predilection for lace and gold brocade? Were the burlap banners wrong?

At home last summer, I watched The Journey Home on EWTN one Monday evening, where the guest who described his journey to Catholicism had come from a Protestant church where he himself was pastor. When he entered the Catholic Church he brought most of his parish with him. During his own discernment process, he was moved at a certain point to share the faith experience he was preparing to embrace with his parishioners. He did it outside their Sunday worship time; he did it sincerely by making himself available to them. Not all appreciated his discovery of what he perceived to be the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church. It should come as no surprise that the same might occur when the parish priest discovers the sublimity of a liturgical experience in conformity with the rubrics which have always been there and in continuity with the worship experience of the past.

How do you take the caprice out of my choice of a worship experience not plinka-plinked along "on Eagle's wings" or without a "gather us in... all are welcome in this place"? If you have the credentials, there should be no worry; some may object, but those who walk away will be few and perhaps good riddance. Especially if they had been lording it over their fellow parishioners Sunday after Sunday.

St. Paul in his letter to Titus gives the criteria for the selection of elders to lead each community. He sums up by saying: "... and he must have a firm grasp of the unchanging message of the tradition, so that he can be counted on for both expounding the sound doctrine and refuting those who argue against it."

Father seems to me to be grandstanding a bit when he regrets the consoling experience of once having worshiped ad Orientem as the rubrics provide. Most men and women of good will would eagerly trade the caprice which has left them far from the sublimity of worship in spirit and in truth. They're just looking for that elder chosen according to the criteria Paul gave Titus for choosing the kind of leaders the Church needs to carry out its mission.

Mutual Enrichment

One of the blogs I enjoy following (more than many others), "The New Liturgical Movement", has published in their own English translation a French language interview with Fr. Claude Barthe. In the interview, Father Barthe gives the “rules” or the recipe, if you will, for the liturgical reform according to his understanding of the mind of the present Holy Father and expresses a fervent wish as to how the thing should go:

“The reform of the reform already exists in many parishes. It suffices to encourage, expand and especially raise it to diocesan level. It would be more fitting, that instead of it being done by priests at the bottom and the Pope at the top, for it to be the work of the bishops. Imagine the wonderful effect of restoration, not only liturgical but everything that goes with liturgy: vocations, doctrine, catechism, revival of practice, produced by a bishop, then two, then three, etc., turning the altar of their cathedral back, restoring communion kneeling, reintroducing Latin and Gregorian chant, having the traditional Mass regularly celebrated. I emphasize: this reform of the reform cannot be achieved without the widest celebration of Mass according to the traditional Missal. And, inversely, the traditional liturgy, to exist in ordinary parishes, needs a spirit of retuning to traditional sources represented by the reform of the reform.”

I think his description of the scenario is more than fair. It demonstrates his good sense, springing from wisdom and a lot of other virtues. Father obviously hungers for worship in spirit and in truth. Nonetheless, I am obliged to distance myself from him just a little bit. Those who know me will also know that I doubt whether the traditional liturgy part of the plan is a universal and a sine qua non for the reform. If we could get bishops and priests everywhere to adhere to the rubrics, opt for ad Orientem worship (even over the so-called Benedictine arrangement) wherever possible and face squarely the issue of sacred music as opposed to anything goes, our world would change and we could face many other liturgical matters in need of reform with relative ease.

The changes in liturgical expression over the course of the last 40 years have been brought about quite often by violence (by fiat from on high). Most of the changes good and bad which took place over these years took place at the instance of parish priests or with their cooperation. The approach was often heavy handed and not infrequently also high handed. People have been hurt more often than we would like to admit.

This explains the reactions which a zealous young priest may encounter from parishioners in his attempts to restore in his parish worship according to the 1962 Missal. It can happen that nobody understands what he is driving at or why they should trust his judgment. It wouldn’t be the first time that caprice has reigned in their parishes. This also explains how and why parishioners have risen up (rarely, but I know of cases) to oppose “Johnny-come-lately” iconoclasts with plans to dismantle an “unused” high altar or tear out a Communion rail which survived the 1970’s first wave of destruction. Confidence in their priest or trust is the name of the game and one cannot blame people for wanting to defend themselves from caprice. The people’s trust is to priestly pastoring what knowing how to be a “pack leader” is to the “Dog Whisperer” (no offence intended by the comparison).

 When on August 1, 2009 I started celebrating ad Orientem it was easy: the chapel of the Nunciature lent itself to that kind of celebration; it was my chapel where I am the ordinary named in the Eucharistic prayer; it is nobody’s parish. More than a year later I am continually (daily!) affirmed personally in my choice; I think the experience has also been enabling in terms of my understanding of the proper role of liturgical music; it has certainly been enriching in terms of my own understanding of the importance of silence in the liturgy. Furthermore, I think it has been a blessing in the lives of the lay people who join us for Mass on weekdays in the chapel. At those three times when I turn to address the congregation, I now see unguarded looks which the old confrontational (across the table) stance tended to repress! People are freed up for that which is their work (Origin: Fr liturgie < ML (Ec) liturgia < Gr leitourgia, public service to the gods (in LXX & N.T., ministry of priests), ult. < leōs, laos, people + ergon, work).

What I am poking at really is Father Barthe’s scenario with the bishops, rather than priests and pope, spearheading the reform. Father, I think reform is rightly happening where priests and people together move in this direction; I think it is rightly happening at monasteries like Clear Creek, Oklahoma, that the laity can seek out for refreshment; I think it is rightly happening where groups like the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius blossom and flourish. It has to be in order; it has to be proper; it has to be good for everyone involved; it has to fit like a glove and it can.

I’d like to see bishops renovate their private chapels before they start “…turning the altar of their cathedral back, restoring communion kneeling, reintroducing Latin and Gregorian chant, having the traditional Mass regularly celebrated.” Father, it is not a matter of intervention from on high or house cleaning, but of each priest recognizing to what greater or lesser degree he has been caught up in the spirit of the times, which is not the spirit of the Council and not the mind of Christ. The bishop’s witness has to be integral if it is going to be accessible to his priests who join him for the Chrism Mass and Ordination Liturgies in the Cathedral.

Cathedral liturgy, just like Papal liturgy, has always enriched our tradition and led the way. Once a bishop realizes in his own person what the sense of celebration ad Orientem and with full respect for the rubrics which are on the book, I think his step will be lighter as he moves up to the altar to prepare the gifts and pray the Eucharistic Prayer together with the people before the Lord. He can insist his priests respect the rubrics, but I think he has to win them for everything else, including good sacred music.

There is a real urgency for the sake of the young not to lose any more time. Even so, young and old are all too convinced that this business is arbitrary. If we would not be discredited again, the scenario must run a bit like that in the Old Testament during the period of the kings of Israel when the book of the law was discovered in the Temple. It was shared with the people and explained to them. People were shocked to discover that their covenant relationship with God had been neglected, but as the discovery was shared with them, not only were tears shed but a feast celebrated for joy at having overcome their ignorance. Would that it were to be so in our lives as well!

PROPERANTES ADVENTUM DIEI DEI

New Beginnings - Every Reason to Hope

Ad Orientem:
Priest and people together praying
with their hearts and eyes lifted to Christ

Conscious decisions to change things in our lives, major decisions like a change of jobs for instance, are usually or preferably provoked not by necessity (unemployment) but by a) a developmental crisis in the good sense, which brings with it personal growth and the desire to change, or by b) an irresistible opportunity or by c) a combination of the two, neither of which was big enough on its own to have precipitated something that important. I think the third is probably the option which best describes my present decision (which has no reference to unemployment).

In a sense, you might say I am finally coming to grips with the invitation from people I respect, first and foremost from the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI, to look again at certain aspects of the last forty years of liturgical reform and specifically for me as a priest and bishop to look at the question of the best stance for the priest when praying the Eucharistic Prayer at Mass.

This paper is intended only to deal with the orientation question; the other questions involving liturgical music, the worthy reception of Holy Communion and more are also profoundly important, but pamphlet size and context will limit us to the one question for now. Furthermore, the orientation question deserves separate treatment because it is the only matter regarding the reform which necessarily involves “moving furniture”.

Regardless of how seriously until now I might have taken the Holy Father’s call to return to sacred worship ad Orientem, I doubt, as a papal nuncio, if I would have had either the courage or the right to make structural changes in an established chapel or church without a directive or permission to do so from a higher authority (nuncios are accountable to the Holy See generally in terms of their behavior and cannot presume the authorization to make extraordinary expenditures or modifications in a building belonging to the Holy See). (Enter: b) the irresistible opportunity! And hence c) a little of both contributing to my choice) The need to remodel parts of the Apostolic Nunciature in Port of Spain early in 2005, to make convent space for the larger community of religious women arriving in September of that year, and from mid 2006 to mid 2007, major renovation following the authorization to replace an old leaky roof with a new one, and, at the same time, to rewire that part of the house while the roof was off, provided the opportunity to improve the utilization of available spaces in both houses and arrange a new chapel in the part of the house that would not be out of commission for months on end during the renovation of the old house.

As the family of the Nunciature and our friends know, the creation of this new worship space within an existing room has been an evolutionary process over the last couple of years, conditioned first by the need to move quickly so as to have a chapel in the new house and to have everything ready for roof work on the old house during the dry season of 2007.

Another factor which dictated the gradual approach to finishing the new chapel was what we’ll call simply “the sometimes availability of artists and craftsmen” to put the finishing touches on our somewhat hurriedly arranged new worship space. With really more success than most can boast in this lovely country, the project continues at a far better than average “Trini” pace and the bare essentials are gradually being embellished and some temporary appointments are finally giving way to what we hope will be their enduring form. Stained glass is taking the place of opaque white Plexiglas installed temporarily to eliminate distractions from windows which look out on the garage and the lane approaching the house. This was also a way to temper the morning rays of the sun since both windows face east. Temporarily too the beautiful poster reproduction of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Crucifix from the former chapel took their places, in about the only configuration possible given their size, in relationship to the Tabernacle, no longer at the side as in the former chapel but now centrally located on the south wall. With the installation of the new backdrop of paintings (altarpiece), consisting most notably in the center of the Crucifixion Scene with Adoring Angels in strict rapport with the Tabernacle flanked by Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Patroness for the chapel and the Patroness of the Americas, to one side and St. John the Evangelist to the other, the chapel is nearly complete.

The fixed furnishings in stone are those recommended by the relative instructions in the liturgical books approved by the Holy See: a free-standing Altar; a lectern; a seat, in our case a bench, for the priest and concelebrants from which he can preside over the Liturgy of the Word. In the land of termites, there is much to be said for the permanency of stone. With the Altar positioned front and center and with the new focal point provided by the altarpiece, the chapel invites not only to Eucharistic Adoration but also to the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with priest and people together lifting their eyes and hearts to the Lord: ad Orientem. Interestingly enough, the altarpiece has enhanced the appearance of the tiny Tabernacle, which was purchased years ago for a much smaller room.

In a sense, that says it all, but I want to take a little time to anticipate some legitimate questions and render what might appear to some as a radical change (namely, worshipping ad Orientem) understandable for what it really is, the deliberate choice of an option, one which the Holy Father and I believe is better for prayer and praise.

Let me first anticipate some of the spontaneous questions, which deal with the particular arrangement of the chapel in the Apostolic Nunciature of Port of Spain. Let it be said at the outset that much of what you see was conditioned by the available space (in what was designed as a formal room with adjoining guest bed rooms – hence the new wall to partition off the chapel) and by budgetary constraints (generous benefactors are always welcome and will never be discouraged). As the room itself runs north and south, facing east was never a serious consideration.

Why are there no steps up to the Altar?

Basically no platform for the lectern and priest’s bench and no steps up to the Altar and Tabernacle were foreseen for practical reasons. No theological statement of one kind or another was intended. The ceiling of the room, a given, is too low to admit of steps. Above the present plasterboard ceiling are only a couple handbreadths of space below the poured concrete base of the floor above (hiding water pipe and electrical conduit for the floor above) and so nothing would be gained by tearing it out. The existing wood parquet floor seems to be holding up nicely after more than two years of use. Use would seem to confirm the judgment that installing a stone floor was not urgent from a practical and economic standpoint.

Why isn’t the Altar longer?

The size of the Altar is dictated by the width of the room and the initial intention to accommodate the celebration of Mass with the priest facing the assembly. An Altar built against the back wall of the chapel could have been longer, perhaps even double its present length. Free-standing as it is in the room, there was a need to provide sufficient space to pass between Altar and lectern and to accommodate candlesticks and allow a reasonable space between the priest’s bench and the Altar on the other side. The present size of the Altar, both in terms of length and depth, generously accommodates the sacred vessels which are meant to stand upon it along with the sacramentary, the book containing all the Mass texts. Candlesticks set up on the Altar with any measure of height or dignity would have put the ceiling in danger from candle soot or fire/heat. To return for a moment to my introductory comments, if my a) “crisis” had come at the beginning of this process, the chapel might have been arranged differently. The present arrangement would allow a successor to return to celebrating the Eucharistic Prayer facing the assembly, if he were so to choose.

Why granite furnishings and not marble?

A lovely white marble Altar or a sculpted Altar in a warm Travertine would have been nice, but Europe is far away and transportation costs are prohibitive. More often than not New World Altars are stone facing on a support structure of less noble material. This is what we have done in the chapel as well.

The two colors of granite (both from Brazil, I believe) were chosen to harmonize with the woods of the floor and other furnishings, which have a reddish cast. I can imagine embellishing both the lectern and the Altar with metal sculptures. For the moment, any ideas I might have are still waiting for the artist to come on the scene who could interpret them.

The granite priest’s bench with the chromed steel back (chroming is readily available because of the steel pan, the national musical instrument of Trinidad and Tobago) behind the presider’s place was chosen as opposed to chairs. It was set to the side at a right angle to the rest of the room so as to respect the overall symmetry of the presbyterium and the chapel. The granite is more substantial than wood and the bench is cleaner cut and takes up less space than a set of chairs. Even though the Nuncio is named as Ordinary in the Eucharistic Prayer in the chapel of the Nunciature, his chapel is not a cathedral and as such does not have a cathedra where only the local bishop can be seated.

Where is the Communion rail?

A small private chapel or oratory might well have a Communion rail but this one does not. If a proper rail were added the overall space available for special occasions where chairs are added to accommodate about 60 people would be lost. Neither consideration really excludes the addition of a Communion rail or kneeler at some future date.

What changes with a celebration ad Orientem?

In a sense, nothing changes because this option has always been foreseen in the liturgical books of the last forty years. Nothing changes for the assembly in any case; only the priest’s stance changes according to the option used to celebrate. The Liturgy of the Word should be celebrated from the priest’s bench no matter on which side of the Altar he may stand for the rest of the Mass.

The expression ad Orientem refers specifically to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The priest goes to the Altar to prepare the gifts and then prays the Eucharistic Prayer at the head of the people, all focused together with him on Christ. You will notice even celebrating ad Orientem, that on a couple occasions when the priest speaks to the people during the Liturgy of the Eucharist he does so by turning to address them.

When oriented everything makes more sense, you might say, as the Eucharistic Prayer and the Communion Prayers are addressed to God. When facing the assembly across the Altar at this time the priest normally isn’t looking at the people anyway. He is looking at what he is reading from the sacramentary; otherwise his gaze should be lifted to heaven, to the Crucifix or focused on the Sacred Gifts upon the Altar. This explains the legitimacy, also as a preferred arrangement, of the one used by the Holy Father for the main Altar of the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome, where there is a lovely big Crucifix centered between six candles to provide the visual focus for the Eucharistic Prayer (I excluded this arrangement for the chapel of the Nunciature because of the ceiling height. Furthermore, it would still leave the priest with his back to the Tabernacle during the Eucharistic Prayer. St. Peter’s is big enough for a Blessed Sacrament Chapel).

Doesn’t the ad Orientem arrangement exclude people from what is going on at the Altar?

I don’t know how it could. The only real difference is that the priest needs to elevate the Host and Chalice over his head so that they can be seen after the words of consecration, but basically when oriented, the Eucharistic Prayer should be more meaningful or make better sense to all involved, because the focus of the action is more natural.

Will you be celebrating from both sides of the Altar?

No, I really am convinced that praying the Eucharistic Prayer ad Orientem makes more sense and is therefore better. I will celebrate that way in my chapel. In other chapels and churches, when I am invited, I will celebrate as is the custom there. Remember, the Holy Father has decided to teach by example in this case. I can find no evidence that things are otherwise. The liturgical books foresee both options. To date, no new rubrics have been issued on how to celebrate and no new directives given for the renovation of churches or the construction of new ones which require one arrangement to the exclusion of the other.

* * *

Appendix

Here are some quotes (borrowed from another author’s collection) from the Holy Father’s past writings on the issue of the proper orientation for worship:

[T]he positive content of the old eastward-facing direction lay not in its orientation to the tabernacle.... The original meaning of what nowadays is called "the priest turning his back on the people" is, in fact--as J.A. Jungmann has consistently shown--the priest and people together facing the same way in a common act of trinitarian worship.... Where priest and people together face the same way, what we have is a cosmic orientation and also an interpretation of the Eucharist in terms of resurrection and trinitarian theology. Hence it is also an interpretation in terms of Parousia, a theology of hope, in which every Mass is an approach to the return of Christ.

-- The Feast of Faith (Ignatius Press, 1986), pg. 140

Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning.

-- The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), pg. 75.

The common turning toward the east was not a "celebration toward the wall"; it did not mean that the priest "had his back to the people": the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together "toward the Lord".... They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us.... [A] common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord.

-- The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp. 80-81.

As I have written in my books, I think that celebration turned towards the east, towards the Christ who is coming, is an apostolic tradition.

-- Looking Again at the Question of Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger, ed. Alcuin Reid (St. Michael's Abbey, 2003), pg. 151.

[A]mong the faithful there is an increasing sense of the problems inherent in an arrangement that hardly shows the liturgy to be open to the things that are above and to the world to come.

-- Foreword to U.M. Lang's Turning towards the Lord (Ignatius Press, 2004), pg. 11