ARTICLES

Priest as Entertainer

Three Local Clerics Deconstruct Upcoming Ratzinger Book

By Robert Kumpel

The May edition of the Adoremus Bulletin featured a preview from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's upcoming book The Spirit of the Liturgy. In the excerpt, Ratzinger argues against priests facing the congregation at Mass. He suggests that ignoring the ancient tradition of celebrating "ad orientem" (to the east) and celebrating "versus populum" (towards the people) has reduced the Mass to a symbolic meal. Three younger priests from the diocese of San Diego -- Father Richard Perozich of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart church and two who wished to remain anonymous -- discussed Ratzinger's commentary with me. ("Father Green" and "Father White" serve parishes in the eastern and northern areas of the diocese, respectively.)

Should the liturgy be offered only towards the east?

Father White: "Absolutely. We're totally out of step with the liturgical tradition of every other rite in the Church. All the eastern and oriental rites did not make this change. It's strictly a change that's been made within the Roman Rite that has been imposed on the Church, not by law or dogma, but by some kind of trend that once started, couldn't be stoppped."

Father Green: "I agree with both ways. There's an element of truth and value in both ideas. For instance, in facing east, everybody faces the same direction, the priest represents everybody gathering their prayers together at the altar. They're facing the risen Lord, offering sacrifice to the Father. That really focuses on what we are there to do -- to worship and offer sacrifice and the priest is the one gathering the prayers together and offering them on the altar along with the body and blood of The Lord and with the gift of ourselves. Something Cardinal Ratzinger never mentioned in that article was that it was good when facing the same direction, that if the altar was a far distance from the people, to bring it closer to the people.

"On the other hand, there is something of value in the priest facing the people. It can perhaps draw them more into the mysteries that are taking place. They can see the priest saying the prayers and consecrating the bread and wine into the body and blood of the risen Lord. That's what I've been doing, and that's what I grew up with. I have an appreciation for both. One of them I missed out entirely on, but I've seen liturgies done that way, read about it and the points that Cardinal Ratzinger makes are very valid. It's important that you maintain the sacred nature of the liturgy whether it's facing the people or everyone facing the same direction. I've heard people who grew up with the old liturgy complain that the priest would ramble through it very quickly and it wasn't all that solemn or all that beautiful. Today there is the danger of the priest just carrying on a dialogue with the people -- some people call it the 'Dialogue Mass'. It can get carried away, because even though the priest is facing the people, ultimately he's addressing God during the time of the celebration of the Eucharist. So it can't just turn into this thing between the priest and the people and the circle enclosed in on ourselves as Ratzinger mentioned. It leaves out that whole dimension of everything being addressed to the Father through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I can value both -- I hate to sound wishy-washy."

Has there been too much emphasis on the Eucharist as a meal?

Father White: "To call it 'The Lord's Supper' is ridiculous because we're not at the Lord's Supper, we're at Calvary. The Lord's Supper is something that happened on Holy Thursday. Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist to commemorate the Last Supper. He instituted the Eucharist to commemorate His saving death and restoration to life."

Father Perozich: "First and foremost the Mass is a sacrifice. There is no doubt. It is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice on Calvary, the Passion, Death, and Resurrection and Ascension of the Lord. It is always to be seen first and foremost as a sacrifice. It is also a sacred meal, and there are other things you can use to describe it as, but they're a little lower on the scale."

Father Green: "The point that Ratzinger makes is that they wouldn't have been sitting in circular form like we do at a meal -- so that's a misunderstanding right there. He also mentions removing the crucifix. Once that's gone, you lose the sacrificial imagery that goes on in the Mass. One practical aspect of the problem is that it has destroyed a lot of our churches--they went in and removed altars and put up this little portable table down in the center and it becomes more like a Protestant Last Supper and that's not our theology of the Eucharist.

"When it comes to the placement of the altar, what you will hear the 'experts' say, the liturgists, etc., is that 'We're trying to place more emphasis on the altar itself as the place where sacrifice is offered,' and they'll use all the appropriate terminology, but what it comes down to is that the altar will be just a little table that doesn't call any attention to itself because of its lack of prominence or beauty. The [presider's] chair is enthroned and it doesn't place emphasis on the altar as the place of sacrifice as the most important symbol within the church. Especially when the tabernacle is so separated from the altar that there's no connection between sacrament and sacrifice. That's lost. I've heard people say that if we don't have an appreciation for the presence of Christ in the tabernacle, it's not going to mean that much on the altar either."

Has this had an effect on the behavior of people before and after Mass?

Father Green: "Absolutely. If the church is simply a gathering place or community center, then what does it matter?"

Father Perozich: "Some people have been told by catechists and some people at some conferences want you to respond to 'the Body of Christ' with 'I am.' Well, while we are the Body of Christ, the proper response is 'Amen', meaning that the Host being given to you at that time is the true Body of Christ."

Father Green: "They'll use traditional terminology, 'Oh you have to show respect for the Blessed Sacrament, therefore it has to be in a separate chapel.' They'll use all the words to try to convince you, but I don't think they believe in the Real Presence or they wouldn't want Jesus out of the church and in a closet somewhere and in new churches built here, that's exactly where He is."

Father Perozich: "There are four general points of focus in the Mass: The priest as presider and the presider's chair, the altar, the ambo (lectern), and the assembly. Things are always moving back and forth between the assembly and the other three points of focus. What they'll say is that the tabernacle is a 'static presence' i.e., it does not participate in the Mass. That is true -- it's just that a church is used for liturgy on Sunday for about five hours. For the other seven hours that it might be open, it's really a chapel of reservation for prayer."

If, as Ratzinger says, Vatican II says nothing about "turning to the people," how did this practice become so widespread?

Father Green: "I think it was the way it [Vatican II] was interpreted. For the sake of participation, you were allowed to face the people and that quickly became the norm. Maybe it was the misguided notion of participation. You know: 'Everybody's got to be in the sanctuary and we all have to be in a semi-circle hovered around the altar to participate, the folk group going as loud as they can,' etc.

What's been done with the placement of the tabernacles, where it's been taken out of the churches and put into little side rooms or what have you. Was that called for? Was that the intention of the Council? Because it seems like it was not, because now tabernacles are being put back and even bishops are addressing that issue. There was a lot of abuse and misinterpretation."

Who or what is responsible for the misinterpretations that led to such widespread abuse?

Father Perozich: "Lack of clear catechesis on the part of bishops and priests."

Father Green: "From my experience now, I would say many bishops and pastors and their notion of the way things should be. It took place during the 60s and 70s and they wanted to be up to date, modernized and 'with it' and 'cutting edge'."

Father White: "There are two things: First of all, it comes from the work of the liturgical historians who, prior to the Second Vatican Council, promoted as one idea the belief that the priests faced the people, based largely upon archeological evidence and the evidence of the basilicas.

"In reality, when the priest said the Great Prayer, what we call the Eucharistic Prayer [in the basilicas] the people separated. Like the Red Sea, they divided. They didn't stand in front of the altar, they all moved to the sides. So he [the priest] faced the east with nothing between him and God as he said the Great Prayer. He wasn't facing the people. The center aisle in churches is a reminder of that custom. It was segregated with the men on one side and the women on the other, coming from the tradition of Judaism. This was from the fourth century on, as they didn't have any proper churches before that. The custom of separating stopped later. My guess is that that began to let up by the end of the first millenium. So there was this perception, based on archaelogy, that this [facing the people] was the ancient way of doing it. We know now that that's not correct because of documentary evidence The actual writings on the subject all state an orientation to the east.

"The second point, more immediate to us, is that prior to the Second Vatican Council, they introduced the Dialogue Mass. Now everybody would recite back the prayers, in Latin, where as beforehand, only the servers would recite them. After the introduction of the Dialogue Mass, under Pius XII, some priests, as an experiment -- I think it started in Germany -- began to celebrate this Mass at a free-standing altar. It was thought that that made the Dialogue Mass easier and facilitated more participation. It was thought that the free-standing altar with the priest facing the people made the Dialogue Mass was more participatory and...successful.

"After Vatican II, the idea of the direct participation of the people was one of the points in the document on Sacred Liturgy. The Dialogue Mass went from being something occassionally used to something always used -- especially with the 1965 Sacramentary, which puts the people's parts in English and the priest's part stayed in Latin. The '65 Missal was mandated, but not the orientation of the altar. The orientation of the altar was never mandated.

Do you agree with Ratzinger that the newer concept of the priest as "presider" makes him too much of a focal point?

Father Green: "When everyone is facing the same direction it's not so much the personality of the priest and all those other problems that you can get into. It keeps everything in its proper place. When the whole thing revolves around his personality -- especially at the altar -- that's when you get into the problem. It just going to leave God out of the picture and it's all about us and personality and ego, from the people in the pews to the priest, in entertainment, etc., and let's face it -- the Protestants are a lot better at that than us.

"I think there's still a problem with so much emphasis on the priest as presider in terms of personality. You see it visually in many churches where the tabernacle has been replaced by the presider's chair. That may be appropriate in a cathedral, to symbolize the authority of the bishop over the local church, but it's not necessary in a parish church. It's very throne-like. One priest said that we've dethroned Jesus and enthroned the priest."

Father White: "I still don't see myself as a presider, even though that's what they call me. I see myself as the priest-celebrant."

Has the laity, as Ratzinger asserts, been taking too much control of the liturgy, with "groups of people who are to make a contribution of their own"? Is this "Unprecedented Clericalism" a widespread problem?

Father Green: That's definitely been the case, but I think it's getting better. For instance, the Eucharistic ministers used to be vested up in the sanctuary, sitting with the priest. We did clericalize the laity with this almost Protestant notion of 'elders'. They were up there, assisting the priest. At least now they're back down in the pews and they come up from the people as members of the Body of Christ."

Father Perozich: "That's not a problem in my church!" (laughs) "I haven't been to too many places recently where bad liturgy has been done. I know it was poorly done for a long time in a lot of places, but right now I think it's done fairly well in most parishes."

Father White: "I think he [Ratzinger] hit the nail right on the head. If you take away the priest as Alter Christus, standing in the place of Christ, for Christ, if you take away the concept of the Eucharist as sacrifice -- as a kind of metaphysical, sacramental, mystical re-presentation of Calvary -- if you take that away, then what you have left is someone up there to entertain you. We've formed people to expect entertainment.

"What do people talk about when they come out of Mass? About the joke that was told. And sometimes that's a good thing to do -- if you can get their attention, sometimes they'll listen better. But you'll always hear Catholics saying, 'We like Father so and so because he always tells a good joke.' But you rarely hear anybody saying, "We really like Father so and so because he gives us good, solid teaching.'"

Cardinal Ratzinger's book will be published by Ignatius Press in the fall of 2000.

TOP