I'm cradle Episcopalean, so take this with a grain of salt as you will.
I grew up with a "high church" liturgical tradition (common in many Episcopal churches in the diocese of Chicago). That is, we often used incense and would ring the Sanctus bells at various points before and during the consecreation of the elements. This has sometimes been referred to as "smells and bells". I remember feeling a real and tangible sense of the sacred during that service, especially the first that when I was old enough to move from 2nd acolyte to 1st acolyte (who helped the prist with the lavabo bowl, and who was reponsible for ringing the bell), and the first time I was allowed to serve as the thurifer.
I also remember our priest doing a special series where we celebrated the service as it would have been held during the early church (before Emperor Constantine), during the Medieval periods, etc. So we got to see the reason behind the Sanctus bell --- when many of the attendees didn't speak latin, and couldn't see the priest because the entire altar was hidden behind a veil, the sound of the bells was the only way attendees could understand where they were in the service.
It also impressed upon me why it was so important to undertand the underlying symbolism behind various liturgical actions --- if one doesn't understand why the priest, deacon, and subdeacon change where they stand during the Gloria, it could easily seem like football players shifting formations before the snap. It's not the motion, but what it helps to inspire in the participants of the service. I don't believe the use of incense, sanctus bells, etc., is pleasing to God except insofar that it helps to evoke a sense of the sacred for the participants. The liturgy was made for man, not man for the liturgy.
I've also seen and participated in eucharists where the music was provided by a guitar, and the altar was a conference room table. It had a different sense of the sacred, but insofar as it was (for example) during Diocesan Council retreat, where we had a large number of lay and clergy people who were working towards strengthening our particular corner of God's Kingdom, I also felt very close to God in that moment. We didn't need an organ, or incense, or sanctus bells, or elaborately clothed deacons and subdeacons.
At least for me, the liturgy is a tool, but it is not itself "religion" ---- just as in the Eastern Church, icons are viewed as windows to the sacred, but the icon is not worthy of worship of itself. As such, a particular liturgical setting is not necessary "true", and just as theater critics can argue whether a modern revival of a golden age musical is "more powerful" or "better" than other versions of that musical --- there is a large part which is ultimately going to come down to personal taste, and the important question is whether a particular theatrical production moves you and helps you to get a glimpse of the Truth. (And having worked with my priest in a church on how to stage the lighting of the Easter Fire for an Eastern Even service for maximum impact, I strongly believe that there is an element of the theatric which is an important part of the work of the liturgy committee --- all for the Glory of God. The trick is not setting off the fire alarms or burning down the sanctuary while you are at it. :-)
In my religious tradition, we don't have a Pope who can dictate a single liturgical form. Perhaps because we have a lot more freedom in that regard, we also tend not to fetishize a particular liturgical form to have more importance than it seems some traditional catholics would seem to attach to it. I appreciate a good liturgy, but it's unlikely that a priest's liturgical choices would in and of it self cause me to change churches or cause me to travel hours to attend a particular church. Things like the priest's sermons, the priests pastoral skills, and the quality of the community of the congregation would be far more important to me personally.
I think we just romanticize history too much. I think that the cultural and societal aspects of religion are much more fluid than we imagine they are. I am not a historian, except by hobby, but my readings of church history tell me that people in different times and places expressed their Catholicism both privately and publicly very differently. All you have to do is pick something like “fasting” and ask, what is the “traditional” practice? Once you go to do the research you quickly realize there is no such thing as a “traditional” fast. Basically every diocese had its own practice that changed over time. Did it matter to any of those people? It did not. I don't mean to sound glib, but I think perspective matters. As you said in your essay, it matters what questions you’re asking, it also matters what things you are concerned over.
Right, but it’s a matter of penance. We have to fast in some effective way as a penance. Maybe without a good, strong Catholic environment we are left to our own devices and getting legalistic. This is why I just live according to 1962 era norms. Catholicism, before the modernist takeover.
Yes. I understand why we fast, and I am not advocating against it (though I confess I don't really like fasting!). The point I was trying to make was that the instability of religious practice both, approved and otherwise, isn’t something shocking and shouldn’t speak against the veracity of a religion. I know a lot less about other religions, but I would be willing to bet that the situation is exactly the same everywhere else. The uniformity and standardization of stuff is all late modernity (last two centuries) because it was only then that such uniformity was even remotely possible. We shouldn’t project our circumstances on other eras, I guess, and then be worried the past doesn’t look like the present.
I see, but the unfortunate times we find ourselves in are not Catholic with its horizontally different ways of practice, by locality and time. Instead it’s vertical and we’re lower than the correct standards of Catholic practice. Perhaps I miss the point of what you’re saying.
I agree that, relatively speaking, we fast much less than most Christians of the past. And I am not saying that we don’t need to look to the past as a form of inspiration for renewal.
The point I was trying to make here is that when you actually sit down to do your homework and look at the past to be inspired as to what you might do now, you quickly find out that the past is messy and diverse. For example, the “traditional” Lenten fast in some parts of Switzerland involves eating donuts on Fridays. A practice which to reformist trads sounds like decadence. Or, the “traditional” Lenten fast in Quebec involves eating beaver meat on Fridays because beavers “live in the water” like fish and so the local bishops approved it as an acceptable protein source. So when you look to the past and see things like that and then think to yourself, “well none of this fasting business is possibly true because it was practiced so differently and incompatibly in different times and places”, you are thinking about the question in the wrong way. The Lord asked you to fast, so fast. But don’t get too caught up in comparisons.
Yes and we were denied an actual and beneficial update at the V2 Council, according to the original rubrics. Instead of the “modernizing” updates which could have harmonized us with with modern world (which is technologically a new era) we got torpedoed by “modernism.” Also Marian dogma was intended to be advanced, which would have advanced us spiritually.
You wrote a lot, but this stood out:
"I have a “good” Mass to go to but it is clear this is fragile and temporary in a way that true religion can’t really be."
I have had such similar thoughts so many times. It really seems to work against the idea of it being true.
I'm cradle Episcopalean, so take this with a grain of salt as you will.
I grew up with a "high church" liturgical tradition (common in many Episcopal churches in the diocese of Chicago). That is, we often used incense and would ring the Sanctus bells at various points before and during the consecreation of the elements. This has sometimes been referred to as "smells and bells". I remember feeling a real and tangible sense of the sacred during that service, especially the first that when I was old enough to move from 2nd acolyte to 1st acolyte (who helped the prist with the lavabo bowl, and who was reponsible for ringing the bell), and the first time I was allowed to serve as the thurifer.
I also remember our priest doing a special series where we celebrated the service as it would have been held during the early church (before Emperor Constantine), during the Medieval periods, etc. So we got to see the reason behind the Sanctus bell --- when many of the attendees didn't speak latin, and couldn't see the priest because the entire altar was hidden behind a veil, the sound of the bells was the only way attendees could understand where they were in the service.
It also impressed upon me why it was so important to undertand the underlying symbolism behind various liturgical actions --- if one doesn't understand why the priest, deacon, and subdeacon change where they stand during the Gloria, it could easily seem like football players shifting formations before the snap. It's not the motion, but what it helps to inspire in the participants of the service. I don't believe the use of incense, sanctus bells, etc., is pleasing to God except insofar that it helps to evoke a sense of the sacred for the participants. The liturgy was made for man, not man for the liturgy.
I've also seen and participated in eucharists where the music was provided by a guitar, and the altar was a conference room table. It had a different sense of the sacred, but insofar as it was (for example) during Diocesan Council retreat, where we had a large number of lay and clergy people who were working towards strengthening our particular corner of God's Kingdom, I also felt very close to God in that moment. We didn't need an organ, or incense, or sanctus bells, or elaborately clothed deacons and subdeacons.
At least for me, the liturgy is a tool, but it is not itself "religion" ---- just as in the Eastern Church, icons are viewed as windows to the sacred, but the icon is not worthy of worship of itself. As such, a particular liturgical setting is not necessary "true", and just as theater critics can argue whether a modern revival of a golden age musical is "more powerful" or "better" than other versions of that musical --- there is a large part which is ultimately going to come down to personal taste, and the important question is whether a particular theatrical production moves you and helps you to get a glimpse of the Truth. (And having worked with my priest in a church on how to stage the lighting of the Easter Fire for an Eastern Even service for maximum impact, I strongly believe that there is an element of the theatric which is an important part of the work of the liturgy committee --- all for the Glory of God. The trick is not setting off the fire alarms or burning down the sanctuary while you are at it. :-)
In my religious tradition, we don't have a Pope who can dictate a single liturgical form. Perhaps because we have a lot more freedom in that regard, we also tend not to fetishize a particular liturgical form to have more importance than it seems some traditional catholics would seem to attach to it. I appreciate a good liturgy, but it's unlikely that a priest's liturgical choices would in and of it self cause me to change churches or cause me to travel hours to attend a particular church. Things like the priest's sermons, the priests pastoral skills, and the quality of the community of the congregation would be far more important to me personally.
I think we just romanticize history too much. I think that the cultural and societal aspects of religion are much more fluid than we imagine they are. I am not a historian, except by hobby, but my readings of church history tell me that people in different times and places expressed their Catholicism both privately and publicly very differently. All you have to do is pick something like “fasting” and ask, what is the “traditional” practice? Once you go to do the research you quickly realize there is no such thing as a “traditional” fast. Basically every diocese had its own practice that changed over time. Did it matter to any of those people? It did not. I don't mean to sound glib, but I think perspective matters. As you said in your essay, it matters what questions you’re asking, it also matters what things you are concerned over.
Right, but it’s a matter of penance. We have to fast in some effective way as a penance. Maybe without a good, strong Catholic environment we are left to our own devices and getting legalistic. This is why I just live according to 1962 era norms. Catholicism, before the modernist takeover.
Yes. I understand why we fast, and I am not advocating against it (though I confess I don't really like fasting!). The point I was trying to make was that the instability of religious practice both, approved and otherwise, isn’t something shocking and shouldn’t speak against the veracity of a religion. I know a lot less about other religions, but I would be willing to bet that the situation is exactly the same everywhere else. The uniformity and standardization of stuff is all late modernity (last two centuries) because it was only then that such uniformity was even remotely possible. We shouldn’t project our circumstances on other eras, I guess, and then be worried the past doesn’t look like the present.
I see, but the unfortunate times we find ourselves in are not Catholic with its horizontally different ways of practice, by locality and time. Instead it’s vertical and we’re lower than the correct standards of Catholic practice. Perhaps I miss the point of what you’re saying.
I agree that, relatively speaking, we fast much less than most Christians of the past. And I am not saying that we don’t need to look to the past as a form of inspiration for renewal.
The point I was trying to make here is that when you actually sit down to do your homework and look at the past to be inspired as to what you might do now, you quickly find out that the past is messy and diverse. For example, the “traditional” Lenten fast in some parts of Switzerland involves eating donuts on Fridays. A practice which to reformist trads sounds like decadence. Or, the “traditional” Lenten fast in Quebec involves eating beaver meat on Fridays because beavers “live in the water” like fish and so the local bishops approved it as an acceptable protein source. So when you look to the past and see things like that and then think to yourself, “well none of this fasting business is possibly true because it was practiced so differently and incompatibly in different times and places”, you are thinking about the question in the wrong way. The Lord asked you to fast, so fast. But don’t get too caught up in comparisons.
Yes and we were denied an actual and beneficial update at the V2 Council, according to the original rubrics. Instead of the “modernizing” updates which could have harmonized us with with modern world (which is technologically a new era) we got torpedoed by “modernism.” Also Marian dogma was intended to be advanced, which would have advanced us spiritually.