Sit-Stand-Kneel: Liturgical Postures and Gestures

by Michael Raia

While Catholics joke about the sit-stand-kneel rhythm of the Mass that we often refer to as Catholic Calisthenics, it's easy for us to get into a monotonous routine and lose sight of the beauty and wisdom of the Church's intent for liturgical postures and gestures. This post is intended as a general guide for those seeking to understand more about this important part of Catholic worship. 

THE NATURE OF WORSHIP

The first thing to remember about liturgical postures and gestures is that they are liturgical – they serve an important role in public worship. The purpose of liturgy is to give God the glory he is due, and thereby to make us holy. It is an act that is innately human: conforming ourselves increasingly in humble obedience to the image and likeness of God in which we were made, and as a result being sanctified and made holy. As we do this, we experience a foretaste of heaven and move closer to the eternal reality of full and complete participation in the divine life of the Trinity. All of this is our purpose and destiny, as we are reminded in every liturgy. 

Because sin separates us from God, from the start of salvation history he has used material signs and symbols to reveal himself and re-establish the bond of family with his people. And because grace, sanctification, and love are invisible realities, we can struggle to grasp these concepts when depending solely upon our physical senses. Ergo, 'the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.' God who is pure spirit took on flesh to be known by us and to provide a place of intimate and relational encounter. Now all things created – everything material – participates in the redeeming work of Christ which is re-ordering and restoring all things to the beauty and dignity of their God-given purpose. Our sacraments and sacramentals are a foreshadowing of the complete removal of the effects of the fall and the complete restoration that is to come at the end of time. Not only do they let us glimpse a small piece of this glory, but they actually help to bring it about. A beautiful liturgy symbolizes the order and perfection of heaven, but insofar as each worshiper is being transformed in holiness, the liturgy also brings about this perfection. For a more thorough overview of key concepts about liturgical catechesis, see this post.

OUTSIDE ON THE INSIDE 

Our posture and gestures are an external sign of the intended interior reality: that each of us is being transformed as we are more fully conformed to God's image, likeness, and will. In liturgy we are outwardly acting in a way that we belong to Christ, but of course no one can really offer our heart and our will on our behalf. Many were taught the sign of the cross as children, but as we grow up we learn the meaning and depth of praying in a way that joins us to the source of life itself – the love of the Trinity. It is because of this fundamental mystery of the Church that 'we live and move and have our being' (Acts 17:28). This act is something we practice our entire lives as we grow in charity and in holiness. There are three ways to consider the profound importance of posture and gestures in liturgical prayer:

1. CONFORMITY. The act of worship is one of humble obedience because it is the process of learning to more closely follow Christ. It requires discipline and selflessness, and this is why the Church looks to solemnity in her worship. Like a soldier learning drills and military procedure as a member in a larger missional body, the process of learning to pray the liturgy marks us as belonging to the army of the baptized who are being trained to imitate Christ in spreading the Gospel. It allows all aspects of our sinful selves that would be at odds with this identity and mission to be surrendered and purged for the greater good of the Body. Our posture and gestures in liturgy present an opportunity to rid ourselves of all that is not from God to be fully disposed to the graces he offers in the sacraments. If we want to be effective disciples, we must be obedient and attentive in our training and practice.   

2. RITUAL. The second thing to remember is that solemnity marks important events in human history: graduations, birthdays, weddings, funerals, inaugurations and coronations; even if not strictly religious these events are often marked by ritual ceremony and solemnity across various cultures, because this is written into our God-given nature as humans. These observances materialize important invisible human realities – achievement, celebration, passing on, being imbued with a sacred duty. Not only is the Christian constantly practicing passing from the old to the new (a reason we often walk past a baptismal font as a reminder of our death in Christ in anticipation for the Resurrection) as we commemorate Christ's own passion, but our worship is also a regular reminder that we have been given a sacred commanded to go and baptize; to lead people into Christ's mission through selfless service. 

3. PIETY. Finally, true solemnity is also a mark of piety: the faithful reverence we give to people and things we love. In attentively conducting our bodies with care in worship, we show our belief in the truth and sacredness of the mysteries we celebrate, especially the eucharist, which is Jesus – love himself. The sacraments point us to God. It is not only the reception of holy communion that requires our reverence, but the Christ who is present throughout the entire liturgy. Sacramentally the Church believes Christ is present in various ways beginning with the procession, the proclamation of the Word, and also including the mystical Body to which the Word is proclaimed and the eucharist offered as nourishment. This assembled Body is a visible, sacramental reminder of the Word made flesh; we too embody the Word and let it take up flesh and dwell within us. It transforms us as the Bride of Christ becomes radiant for the Bridegroom. 

The Church desires that these actions be marked by beauty and dignity, as such are revelatory of the faith for the purpose of drawing us more deeply into the heart of worship. This is a common goal for all believers, and as such we are united outwardly by the gestures and posture of our prayer:

The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice. A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants. – General Instruction of the Roman Missal 42        

SPECIFICS & PREFERENCE 

Generally speaking, the liturgical instructions in the U.S. have us sit when we are being instructed and attentive in listening to the Word. We stand for times of communal prayer – times when it is especially important to join our hearts, minds, and voices in worship even if the priest is praying to the Father on our behalf. We kneel for times of adoration. This is spelled out in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal #43, and other areas of specific instruction are scattered throughout this document, including when we genuflect, bow the head or make a profound bow, strike our breast, and make the sign of cross. What is not necessarily dictated beyond these general postures is exactly what we do at all other times, especially with our hands. 

Personally, I do my best to respect the spirit of the posture and not introduce too many foreign elements of individual preference, in addition to doing everything the Church does specifically ask of me. Keeping my hands together similar to how altar servers are trained is a helpful reminder that I am a participant in the liturgy and that my reverence and attentiveness is no less important because I am not serving in a formal capacity as a liturgical minister. [Sidenote: I recently discovered that traditionally the practice has been right thumb over left to indicate the victory of the will over evil in accord with the Old Testament tradition of the right hand signifying blessing. It has become a wonderful tiny prayer to pray every time I think about something I otherwise have unknowingly done differently all my life.] With this understanding, I have come to desire for the external dimension of my worship to reflect the interior, and vice versa, to avoid causing others any distraction, and to encourage others to pray. I know that the piety and reverence by others often has a profound impact on my own prayer more times than I can count. 

As members of a hierarchical church (headed by a heiros, Greek for priest, and structured accordingly), we should also keep in mind that the priest and deacon serve in special roles, especially the priest. It is he who serves in the person of Christ the true Head. Particularly during the dialogues between the priest and people, it is helpful to remember it is Christ speaking to his Body and presenting it to the Father – the gestures of the priest are unique from those of the other ministers and the assembly, which should be unified in their action. According to the GIRM, the priest or deacon may give special instructions to the faithful, but they should always do so according to faithful observance of the rubrics of the liturgy. Ideally the faithful should be encouraged and inspired by the reverence of the priest, and the priest by the reverence of the people - each performing their duties as prescribed so as to practice holiness in anticipation of eternal life. It is in this way that we truly give God the most glory, and give him the most opportunity to make our hearts pure and holy like his own.  

Parish Renovation Considerations

by Michael Raia

Often times parish improvements are postponed until they can be pursued as part of a large project. At times this makes sense, and in other situations it can make a lot of sense to evaluate the handful of changes that could be made to keep facilities functioning well and looking great. Whether the project is a partial church renovation (sanctuary, restrooms, confessionals, narthex, etc.) or projects in another area (parish hall, meeting rooms, reception lobby, kitchen, youth room, library, etc.) these can often be addressed in a number of ways. Here are a few suggestions for thinking about areas of your parish campus that might be closer to a facelift than you think. 

Chapel at West Texas A&M Catholic Student Center – BEFORE

Chapel at West Texas A&M Catholic Student Center – AFTER (Phase 1, prior to Sacred Art & Furnishings)

Consider the Scope.

Are there functional or aesthetic issues with major and expensive elements such as HVAC equipment and plumbing fixtures, or are there easier problems to address such as repainting walls, replacing old ceiling tiles, or replacing old furniture? Some areas might be a bit harder to determine, such as flooring and lighting. For instance, an old ceramic tile floor would need to be removed prior to any sort of replacement, which is messy and can be costly. For floors that are carpet, sheet vinyl, or vinyl composition tile, however, it can be fairly simple and cost-effective to do something new. Similarly, lighting can also go either way. Sometimes fixtures just need to be upgraded in place and it can be simple and inexpensive to do so, such as the ubiquitous 2x4 fluorescent troffer lights in almost every classroom. There are hundreds of attractive, affordable, and efficient replacement options. Other times, fixtures may not be functioning well because they are the wrong type or are in the wrong location. Of course these fixes could be more difficult to execute.

Don't Overlook Regulations. 

Keep in mind many dioceses have a budget trigger for projects beyond a certain dollar amount needing approval at various levels, and in many places any liturgical changes need to be reviewed by the Diocese as well. In addition to Diocesan requirements, the various jurisdictions – city, county, state, will also have requirements that could be triggered. These would include building codes, state accessibility codes (ADA), county regulations for food service or fire, and city ordinances – all of these are structured differently for parishes in different locations. For instance, certain upgrades to a non-ADA-compliant restroom, or significant changes throughout other parts of a building with non-compliant restrooms may trigger full compliance in the restrooms and throughout the building. It is a very good idea to consult with the Diocese and a design professional such as an architect to discuss these considerations. Additionally, changes to structural systems (including load-bearing walls), mechanical HVAC systems, electrical, and plumbing should always be performed by licensed and insured professionals with the requisite permits.

Evaluate Delivery Method Options.  

In the design and construction industry, the term delivery method refers to how a project will be completed. For a renovation project, there would primarily be three options:

1. Construction Manager: Larger projects will typically be best completed by a trained professional who will manage the construction and contract any sub trades which might be needed. This approach offers a single point of contact and depending on the size of the project and the type of work the construction manager does, also offers the protection of proper bonding, insurance, and other industry standard protocols that ensure the work is done safely, up to code, and in a way that is fiscally transparent. Within this option, the benefits of larger and smaller contractors should also be weighed.
2. Self-Contracted: If the project will involve only a few major trades, especially if the parish has a staff member or volunteer with construction experience and the time to invest, this approach might be ideal. For instance, a project that will only involve 
3. Self-Performed: If there is a proficient facilities staff or group of experienced volunteers such as former or full-time contractors or groups like KCs who regularly complete construction projects, it may make sense for the parish to invite these individuals to complete all or some of the work without engaging a third party. There are obvious benefits in terms of saving money, but the work quality is something that could be compromised, and there are also safety and liability concerns. Volunteer labor does not always yield satisfactory results. 
4. Hybrid: A combination of the first three options could be ideal in certain circumstances. There may be major elements in a job that need to be coordinated through a skilled professional construction manager, such as a HVAC, flooring, and electrical. The parish may also desire to independently contract other professionals such as AV installers and security / communications specialists. Finally, if there are areas of work requiring little skill, such as flooring removal or painting, the parish may choose to utilize volunteer labor.   

Taking all of these things into consideration, it can seem that renovation projects can quickly become complex. On the other hand, it is not always the case that they need to be postponed until a lot of resources can be put into them. Hopefully these guidelines are helpful in considering which areas of your parish campus might benefit from a little attention and care.

If you have a renovation project idea you'd like to ask some preliminary questions about or discuss in greater detail, please contact us.

Seeds of the New...

by Michael Raia

From time to time one stumbles on a rare liturgical gem – a beautiful church with a beautiful and very intentional liturgy and a wonderfully engaged parish community. Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting a parish I had heard for some time was worth the visit: St. James in Lemont, IL aka St. James at Sag Bridge. The church building (1833) is one of the oldest in the state still in use, and it has been tremendously well cared for. Perched atop an idyllic hill in the center of its peaceful cemetery, the walk up through the gate to the front doors is picture-perfect. A plaque just inside the door describes a well-known incident in 1991 when the roof was lifted off by a tornado, and set right back down in place – an incident many locals are familiar with and proud of given the church's age. 

The interior has seen a variety of informed and tasteful updates in recent years; quality craftsmanship considerate of the original style, but also sacred art and furnishings arranged in a way that demonstrates a careful and deliberate understanding of the liturgy and a desire to engage the assembly more deeply. Many gothic churches can easily become an overwhelming collection of beautiful but unfocused sacred art, which can pose a challenge when it comes to respecting the need for a certain order and gravitas for principle furnishings such as the freestanding altar of sacrifice. In truth I was unable to locate historical photos to understand what the church looked like in its earlier days, but I do know that it is an exercise in discipline and good formation to keep a sanctuary neat and beautiful in symbolizing and making present the glory heaven.

St. James at Sag Bridge in Lemont, IL

Many folks who have spent time in Chicago are aware of the sometimes jarring contrast between city and suburban parishes; the former are older and often much more beautiful, and many of the communities that worship within tend to lean, to varying degrees, more traditional in observance (one poignant exception being Old St. Pat's downtown). Many suburban churches built in the 1970s or later, however, tend to be quite modern in style and progressive in liturgical leaning. Curious to witness and be a part of the community responsible for this little gem at St. James, I was very pleasantly surprised by how intentional and pastorally sound the liturgies were planned. Between the Ash Wednesday and First Sunday of Lent liturgies I attended, a few things stood out as worthy of mention. The first thing to mention is that the Extraordinary Form (known to some as the Latin or Tridentine Mass) is not celebrated here, and I did take notice that I didn't spot a single mantilla (veil) – that is to say that the congregation is not composed of Catholics who would otherwise only be attending the Extraordinary Form if it were offered. Like many Extraordinary Form / Latin Mass communities, St. James is diverse, young, and growing. More on that to come. The small church seats, by my count, just over 100 people comfortably – maybe up to 150 for packed Easter or Christmas Masses. 

One of the most remarkable aspects of the experiences on both Wednesday and Sunday was the gentle spirit of approachable orthodoxy. There was nothing that seemed out of place or forced. There was a peaceful joy and enthusiasm on the part of everyone present about what was being done, and it should be said that this was not a crowd that seemed ostensibly different from the average crowd at any other parish I've visited; it was your average Sunday Mass crowd. It was a very diverse crowd, in many sense of the word: ethnically and inter-generationally. The attendance included a fair number of elderly people, but also many young families. It is evident that the work of the Council – that of joining minds and hearts of the Mystical Body to those of Christ the head for the sake of transformation in holiness – was alive and well here; a testament to the latent efficacy that awaits a truly integrated approach to liturgical renewal and evangelization for parish communities.  

I'll briefly mention a few of the things that stood out as interesting. Again the backdrop to all of this is the often sharp contrast in extremes in many parishes in the area. To find such a balance was truly refreshing. 

For the distribution of holy communion, multiple clergy were present (3 priest and a deacon), meaning the parish had the means to use the ordinary ministers of holy communion without enlisting the help of extraordinary lay ministers and did so. Clearly this is not the reality in many parishes, but I was impressed that was something that was not taken for granted at St. James simply because it is a largely ubiquitous American practice. Furthermore, they provided an option for receiving kneeling at the altar rail or standing in line were offered. Aside from the gray area of how strict the interpretation of the norm for a united posture – all standing vs. all kneeling, whereas the norm via indult in the US is standing (read more on that here) – the fact that this was simply offered as an option in a very no-fuss fashion that accommodate all was very nice.    

For the Ash Wednesday liturgy, the celebrant used simple Latin chant settings alongside some of the well-loved and better Gather songs. It was clear he has a love of sacred music and the liturgy – enough to sing simple antiphons and teach the assembly – but also has the pastoral sensitivity to know he would have visitors who would feel more at ease with some of the known standby options. He also celebrated ad orientem for the liturgy (read more on that here), but it was not repeated the following Sunday. This indicated an ongoing and very gradual introduction to the practice, which seems very healthy. It's hard to describe how natural it felt in a typical Catholic parish, since the only other places I have typically experienced ad orientem celebrations have been the Extraordinary Form (and Latin Novus Ordo in typically Extraordinary Form parishes), Byzantine, and Ordinariate (Anglican Use) liturgies.   

The music for the Sunday liturgy was very well done; again it featured a balanced blend of music from different sources, saving the most traditional piece – Attende Domine (Latin polyphony) – for the communion meditation. While the schola clearly had the talent, in no way did they give the impression of being a performance or show choir; they did an excellent job of worshiping with the assembly and gently supporting the singing as a way to enter into the spirit and prayer of the liturgy. It is hard to describe something that is as it should be but is rarely experienced as such; the natural and peaceful experience of worshiping with a choir. 

My hats off to the clergy and lay ministers who work hard to do the good work that is being done at St. James. I pray the inspiration of their example might serve to encourage others. To close the loop with this post's title 'Seeds of the New...'; New what? Liturgical Renewal? Evangelization? Yes and yes. Perhaps if we begin to view these efforts at complementary, integral, and mutually inter-dependent, we will begin to more effectively realize the fruit of new life in Christ that has long been desired for the Church. 

A Case for the Christian Temple

by Michael Raia

The following summary essay was prepared for an academic independent study on sacred architecture during masters coursework at the Liturgical Institute, July 2017.

Dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. Source: Wikipedia Commons.

"The Church desperately needs to reclaim an understanding of the church building as a Christian Temple."

Throughout the course of Church history, the edifices built for worship have borne a sacred meaning that is inseparable from the faith and mystery celebrated within. While emphasized and articulated in various ways by different cultures and in different ages, this meaning unfortunately seems to escape the comprehension of many Catholics living in a modern age that is largely starved for authentic symbolic mediation of the sacred. This deficiency should alarm us, as this system of signs and symbols upon which church design has traditionally depended is also requisite for a meaningful comprehension of the very mysteries that underlie the sacraments. Yet when it comes to church design, efforts to reclaim this understanding have been challenged by extremes – both dominated by the emotional pursuit of the symbolic. Nostalgic efforts to reclaim a lost legacy of magnificent churches constructed during a triumphal era of American Catholicism have yielded a somewhat unintelligible paragon on the side of tradition. On the other side, an older but still prevalent dismissal of a church building as simply a skin for the act of worship, a shelter for community gathering, or even a theater for dramatically reenacting the Lord’s Supper finds sympathy with America’s general suspicion of matter and discomfort with a sacramental worldview. These approaches do little to truly serve today’s Catholics. The Church desperately needs to reclaim her ancient understanding of the church building as a network of signs and symbols that sacramentalize the liturgy and the Body assembled – an understanding of the church building as a Christian Temple.

In the spirit of the country’s puritanical roots, the evangelical zeal of the mainstream practice of Christianity in the US remains a heavy influence in our thinking, even among Catholics. As a result, many are fairly comfortable emphasizing the primary liturgical expression of the Mystical Body of Christ – promoted heavily leading up to and following from the Second Vatican Council – in a way that would seemingly require diminishing the important role of the building itself. This approach would suggest that too much in the way of visual sacred imagery or attention to the physical surroundings risks distraction from the ultimate reality of what Christ has done and is doing for us. But can an informed Christian believe that the church building plays a more vital role?

The building is an image of the Mystical Body, and images are important for Christians. St. Paul uses the example of marriage, which is describes as a great good precisely because it is an image of the love of the Trinity, and an image of that love shared with us by means of the relationship of Christ to his body the Church. A church building, therefore, is not less important because it is an image of another reality; no – it is even more important because it serves in this elevated capacity. If we want to emphasize the community’s role as the Body of Christ, we need to be building churches that reflect it. This is a place to carefully seek guidance from the Church’s rich artistic and architectural tradition. Too abstract an interpretation of the church building’s role encourages a communal navel-gazing that fails to direct the attention of the Body toward its head, Christ, and toward the Father to whom Christ directs his sacrifice. As a result, the world should look to each Catholic church as a navel of creation, for indeed this was the understanding of the early Church.

"The church building is a sacramental because it makes present the invisible mystery of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ."

The argument for physical representation of core spiritual truths is found in the sacraments and rooted in the Incarnation. Christianity is necessarily incarnational in its thinking; material in its operation. The sacraments are earthy and tactile, and they are constituted of material and actions that are not foreign to universal human actions: eating and drinking, washing and anointing, and marriage. Each follows the model of the ministry of Christ, the eternal Word of God who became flesh. The sacraments represent, materialize, and therefore make present an invisible mystery of the divine. The things that surround the sacraments likewise play a supporting role in divine revelation: sacramentals. They point to the reality of grace within the sacraments and better dispose us to receive it. They aid us in approaching the sacraments with understanding and reverence and treating them with the dignity they are due as efficacious signs of grace. Water is a sacramental of the sacrament of baptism, so by mindfully signing ourselves with water upon entering and exiting a church, we are reminded of our baptism – both the Christian family to which we belong upon our entry, and the mission to which we are called upon our exit. The baptismal font and holy water stoops can reveal and participate in this reality or obscure it. The liturgical rites of the sacraments provide a framework for understanding the sacramentals that are necessary to support them.

St. Cecilia Catholic Church in St. Louis, MO. Photo credit: Jeff Geerling.

It follows that functionally – because the sacraments are composed of both physical matter and a ritual form, and because they are therefore ritually tied to a temporal place for their celebration – the church building should be considered a sacramental. The church itself is composed of other sacramentals that shed light on the theological realities symbolized by the rites – the altar, the font, the sacred vessels, the crucifix. Each speaks a theology relevant to our worship. The church building is a sacramental because it makes present the invisible mystery of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. In the same way that in the liturgy the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, the members of the assembly partaking of this sacrament become members of this Body – the new Temple which is the heavenly Jerusalem described by the apocalyptic vision of John in the Book of Revelation. 

"Jesus himself explains the Father’s plan to rebuild the Temple in his resurrected Body... Christians now look to the Church that symbolizes Christ’s body..."

The image of a new Jerusalem is one that bears further meaning as well. To comprehend the ancient Jewish understanding of this prophetic vision requires knowledge of the central role of the Temple for worship and its status as a microcosm. For the Jews, the Temple represented the Kingdom of God on earth, but in a variety of representations: the primordial birthplace of all things created, the Garden of Eden; a microcosm of the ordered universe and a hope of its restoration to reverse the effects of the Fall; the abiding presence of God on earth among his people; a foretaste of the afterlife in perfect union with God. Everything in the Temple was layered with meaning. The proportions and geometry were set by God himself to represent his perfect designs for the universe. The veil, sewn by seven virgins – one of whom was the Blessed Virgin Mary, according to the Protoevangelium of James– was teeming with vibrant colors and symbols of the cosmos. The interior ornamentation represented the days of creation, stylized to imitate their perfected state – trees, plants, and animals all giving God glory. The bronze laver represented the seas, the altar the formation of the earth and the mountain of the Lord. The menorah recalled the seven days of creation. The material universe is inextricably involved in the divine worship of the Jewish people.

Creation of Eve. Photo source.

Similar precedents abound in other cultures; many peoples and cultures have looked to a place of ritual sacrificial worship to provide a nexus to the universe or a navel of creation; a place to connect to the divine and glimpse a realm beyond the visible. There is a consistent inclusion of matter in connecting to the divine – a sacrifice to conform the world to the divine plan. Humanity longs for such a system of worship as we can access as Catholics – gazing not just at our own navels as we reflect on what it means to be members in the Body of Christ, but seeing the Creator at the heart of his creation, the manifestation of his Word. We see Christ, the head of the Body, who took on the flesh he formed to share in his divine life. The Jews looked to the Temple for the promise of God’s abiding presence among them, which is why the Gospels – particularly Matthew, Mark, and John – point to Christ as the fulfillment of the Temple – the place of true worship. Jesus himself explains the Father’s plan to rebuild the Temple in his resurrected Body. Mary is paralleled to the Ark of the Covenant as the abiding place of God’s presence. Christians now look to the Church that symbolizes Christ’s body and the Tabernacle that contains his holy presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Here we see the heart of all things created – the divine life of the Creator being shared with his creation to join it to himself. For it is Christ who is the image of the Father, and he who is the Logos – the eternal Word of God through whom all things are created and brought to perfection. Sharing in his Passion, through the power of the Holy Spirit, “we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.” To find a summary of this theology, ideally one need only look as far as a well-designed Catholic church.

While the true purpose of a church building remains a point of confusion and debate for many, starting with a solid understanding of salvation history and the sacraments offers a viable remedy. If we believe that these sacred symbols indeed mediate the grace made available to the Church by the Pascal Mystery of Christ and complete God’s saving work, we do well to fully realize the earth-shattering implications of these sacred gifts. In the context of a building that both conveys their immediate meaning as vehicles of grace and provides a connection to the Paschal Mystery and to the larger story of salvation history, their substance is brought fully to light in a tangible way. Understanding the role of the sacraments as dispensers of grace, their role in God’s saving work, and their application for Christian living is exactly what the Magisterium has urged Catholics to make their focus. If the church building is the Christian Temple, it is exactly the remedy needed to aid the Church in her efforts to reclaim the symbolic system that is the lifeblood of the Catholic faith, deeply drawing us all into the sacred celebration of the Paschal mystery that is the summation of all of salvation history.

Popular Misconceptions About the Catholic Mass, Part 3: Communion Reception

by Michael Raia

Pope Francis gives communion to a child. Photo source: catholicherald.co.uk

This post was originally published on May 13, 2016 at JacksonGalloway.com. Clarifications / edits have been highlighted in bold.

It should be noted that the intent of this article is to clarify common misconceptions about which are or are not universal liturgical requirements of the Church. Within these guidelines the Church provides, however, it is always stated that the local ordinary (bishop) is to determine the norm or practice for his own jurisdiction.  

“The concept that communion in the hand is the only or preferred form of reception for Catholics since Vatican II is mistaken.”

Also in this series:
Popular Misconceptions about the Catholic Mass Part 1: Music
Popular Misconceptions about the Catholic Mass Part 2: Ad Orientem

With this third and final piece in our series on popular Mass misconceptions, we again approach a complex and somewhat heated topic for some: bodily posture for the reception of holy communion. For Catholic Christians, everything in the life of the Church flows from, revolves around, and returns to the Eucharist – our God with us, our food for the journey, our foretaste of the heavenly banquet – or as Pope Francis has stated, "not a prize for the perfect... but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak." The greatest of the sacraments, holy communion is the focal point of all spiritual pursuits in the Christian life. As such, it is very important how we approach and receive this most precious gift, both inwardly in our minds and hearts, as well as externally with our bodies. As with the previous topics regarding the use of Latin and chant in the Mass, and the use of ad orientem posture of the presiding priest, we have considered how our prayers and actions reflect the heart of our worship. And like these topics, the mention of communion on the tongue (sometimes kneeling) versus in the hand (usually standing) immediately stirs strong emotions for some about what is allowed or required since Vatican II, what is right, or what is best. In this final article we will attempt to outline the diversity of practices of communion reception with respect to both historical context and pastoral implications in the hopes of encouraging greater understanding and unity among the Catholic faithful. 

INTRODUCTION

During the 1970s, changes in practice began to take place within Catholic parishes and Catholic faithful in the United States in the physical manner of receiving communion – whether communicants receive the host in hand or on the tongue (whether standing or kneeling). Differences in practice remain to this day, and like certain other postures in the Mass that might differ from person to person or from place to place, these things can pose a risk of becoming an obstacle to the communion we should strive for – most especially while receiving holy communion! Seeing actions of others that differ from our own can present the temptation to pass judgement on our brothers or sisters in Christ as being too casual or overly pious, or perhaps too showy or too accident-prone. Many of us lack the historical and liturgical expertise to know the ins and outs of how the Church views certain individual practices, and without complete information these reactions can cause us to quickly dismiss an entire group of people based simply on their liturgical preferences.

HISTORY

Due to widespread change in practice, many Catholics today mistakenly assume that a change in posture for receiving holy communion was something that was changed by Vatican II. The concept that communion in the hand is the only or preferred form of reception for Catholics since Vatican II is mistaken. Similarly, in the U.S. and other jurisdictions where reception of communion in the hand is approved, communion on the tongue is not viewed as the more correct or preferred method. Both forms of communion reception are allowed for Catholics in the U.S. with oversight from the bishop or ordinary, who retains ultimate authority over the practice. No preference in jurisdictions where this has been approved has been issued for Novus Ordo / Ordinary Form liturgies. Bear in mind this does not yet implicate the question of a standing versus kneeling posture.

So when did this change in practice arise in the U.S.? The Congregation for Divine Worship under Pope Paul VI in the 1969 Instruction Memoriale Domini granted permission to certain jurisdictions to allow reception of communion in the hand while standing (confirmed by U.S. bishops in 1977), with a list of qualifications to be met if bishops' conferences did decide to implement this allowance in their respective countries. Some proponents of communion received on the tongue cite that this instruction was a compromise following a minority dissent with the then-current practice (of communion on the tongue while kneeling) which followed a universal survey of bishops. Paul VI discovered the majority of bishops felt the allowance should not be made, at least not universally. Indeed, the notes following the instruction list the actual numbers of votes and plainly state as much:

“From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.” 

Nonetheless, approval was granted with certain stipulations. Practice in different dioceses and parishes range in their faithfulness towards observation of these stipulations. The document is definitely worth the read and some prayerful consideration of the cautions cited by the Congregation when reflecting on our own individual disposition to reception of holy communion, particularly because Roman Catholics are afforded the option of both forms – in the hand or on the tongue. Memoriale Domini is clear in underscoring the importance of the instruction and reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament that are paramount regardless of the manner of reception:

“...it is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness. It preserves intact the already developed tradition which has come down to us, its riches having passed into the usage and the life of the Church.”

The reception of Holy Communion on the tongue remains the universal norm for the Church, with the exception granted to certain bishops' conferences, such as the U.S. It is important to bear in mind that the 1969 instruction lists several requirements, one of which states: "The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice." It should be clearly noted that the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal also stated that  both forms of communion reception are allowed for Catholics in the U.S.:

Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words "The Body of Christ." The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost." 

The GIRM further cites similar conditions for reception in the hand to those outlined by the Vatican prior to the change and prohibited any person from being denied reception on the tongue. Two years after the 2002 GIRM included this language, the Congregation for Divine Worship published another instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, which states that one “always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice” and that if anyone wishes to receive in the hand where this permission has been granted, he is allowed.

CAUTIONS AGAINST ASSUMPTIONS 

One should be careful not to assume that in places where the exception is allowed, such as the U.S., that communion on the tongue while kneeling remains preferred simply because it was previously normative and remains so elsewhere. The document cites that even when looking to our past for direction, prior practice has varied as well:

“The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms. In our own day the rites for the celebration of the Eucharist have been changed in many and important ways, bringing them more into line with modern man's spiritual and psychological needs. [...] It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.”

Conversely, one should also be careful not to assume that because communion in the hand while standing is the practical norm in many areas of the U.S. that it is somehow preferred or that it disallows the former practice. Again, Memoriale Domini spells this out very clearly: 

“This method of distributing holy communion [on the tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. [...] This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in 'ordinary bread and wine' that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which 'The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.' [...] Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which 'in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.' Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.'” (citing Justin Martyr's Apology, Eucharisticum Mysterium, and Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogical Catechesis) 

PASTORAL CONSIDERATIONS

An accompanying letter that was issued with the Instructions states "The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage..." There is concern that by some reports, certain pastors have illicitly banned the optional reception of communion on the tongue and refuse to distribute communion to persons wishing to receive in this manner. In addition, casual or even careless practices in distribution and purification during and after communion are frequently observed, typically from a lack of proper teaching – something Paul VI and the Congregation for Divine Worship clearly feared and vocally warned against.

It should be noted that there is a difference in how the simple reception of communion on the tongue and doing so while kneeling are treated. The GIRM clearly provides the option of receiving either in the hand or on the tongue. When it comes to the posture of kneeling, however, things are less clear. Uniformity of posture is a pastoral consideration, yet it is clearly stated that while standing is a normative posture in the U.S., those kneeling are not to be denied communion. 

Some parishes have retained or even built communion rails to allow or encourage the practice of receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling. Perhaps in combination with, or instead of a communion rail, some parishes have retained the custom of acolytes extending the communion plate below the mouth or hands of the recipient to protect against the loss of communion fragments – a practice instructed by Redemptionis Sacramentum (93) and mentioned in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (118) as well. In other parishes, the absence of these elements and practices, along with very narrow aisles for communion distribution seems to discourage the practices of kneeling or receiving on the tongue. Advocates of communion on the tongue might contend that in addition to reducing the risk of fragments being dropped, the nature of the action of receiving is more evident  in receiving communion on the tongue rather than in the hand, which then requires communicants to place the host in one's own mouth.

In accord with Memoriale Domini, other documents such as Eucharisticum Mysterium (Instruction on Eucharistic Worship, 1967),  Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (1973), Saint Pope John Paul II's 2003 Encyclical Eucharistia Ecclesia, and Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004) strongly urge any effort to foster recognition of Christ's true presence in the Eucharist and a devotion to worship of the sacrament (also known as latria) as an expression of this understanding. While all of these cite Eucharistic adoration as the supreme means of achieving both, could greater catechesis and instruction result in a more reverent reception of Holy Communion, whether on the tongue or in the hand? Memoriale Domini certainly says as much, and we do well to remember that this responsibility came as a necessary condition to the allowance of the change in practice in the first place. Perhaps this desire to catechize and encourage the faithful is why, as many have noticed, Pope Francis continues to practice many of the liturgical observances of his predecessor Benedict XVI – including a standing instruction (no pun intended) for Vatican Masses that communion is to be given on the tongue. All the while, Francis continues to urge Christian unity and promote a culture of life, authentic love, radical discipleship, equity, justice, and mercy – concepts that, despite the media's frequently misunderstanding, are entirely aligned with – and in fact are fruits of – the source and summit of life in Christ: the eucharist.     

SUMMARY

These articles have been written to shed some light on the current practices, options, and accompanying instruction, and to dispel some myths about what Vatican II actually mandated versus practices that have since changed due to a variety of circumstances. It should be stated again that each of these topics presents options for pastors, musicians, architects, and the lay faithful that should be prayerfully considered. The intent of the content in these three articles has been to acknowledge our diversity by virtue of the valid options at our disposal, and to strengthen and unify the Church by encouraging education, enrichment, and charitable dialogue. The practices we have explored above and in the two preceding posts not only present legitimate options, but can also change in time, as they are pastoral applications of the teachings and practice of our faith. Lest anyone be quick to accuse those who might prefer a Mass said in Latin or celebrated ad orientem (Ordinary or Extraordinary Form), or regularly receive communion on the tongue – or on the other hand, judge someone who prefers Mass in English or communion in the hand as being any less faithful or legitimate, let us remember the Church's primary concern in these matters: that the sacraments are understood to be the sacred sources of grace that they are and that they be treated accordingly. 

We might also bear in mind that any trend towards these (what might be considered more 'traditional') liturgical practices we have addressed could be understood in different ways. Perhaps the most constructive is to see them as a movement of the faithful towards a deeper understanding, appreciation, or profound reverence in approaching the sacraments. This sentiment extends beyond Roman Catholic boundaries and points to a culture that is starved for an encounter with the sacred in an increasingly secular culture. A resurgence of interest in 'traditional' liturgies particularly among millennials (including Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and even some non-denominational Christians), parallels those in the Catholic Church and has been documented widely. It seems to be a substantial opportunity for renewed intra-denominational dialogue. May the liturgy serve to fulfill Christ's prayer that we be one as he and the Father are one. And may the heavenly banquet of the lamb not be a source of division in this life, but instead be one of communion like that which we will have in the next.

Other good reads on the topic: 

Comparing the value of the two practices:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/carstens/why-communion-on-the-tongue-is-more-suitable-than-in-the-hand

Some additional history, including very good questions about the uniformity of posture:
http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/guestcolumn/2299-what-is-correct-posture-for-receiving-communion.html

This post is the third in a series of 3. See also Part 1: Music, and Part 2: Versus Populum.

Popular Misconceptions About the Catholic Mass, Part 2: Ad Orientem

by Michael Raia

Pope Francis celebrates Mass in the Sistine Chapel ad orientem on January 12, 2014. Photo credit: CTV

This post was originally published on March 18, 2016 at JacksonGalloway.com

It should be noted that the intent of this article is to clarify common misconceptions about which are or are not universal liturgical requirements of the Church. Within these guidelines the Church provides, however, it is always stated that the local ordinary (bishop) is to determine the norm or practice for his own jurisdiction.  

In the second of a series on popular misconceptions about the Catholic Mass – particularly a few widespread changes in practice since the Second Vatican Council that many assume to be required – I would like to address the issue of liturgical orientation. Many Roman Catholics who recall the Mass prior to the Council or who have attended Mass in the Extraordinary Form (aka 'Traditional Latin' or 'Tridentine' Mass) have attended a liturgy celebrated ad orientem. This term indicates a priest celebrant united in his physical orientation with the entire assembly, facing the altar and the rear apse of the Church – symbolically understood as leading the people in facing God. Many today understand this practice rather negatively – perhaps as outdated or inappropriate in comparison to the ubiquitous versus populum, where a priest celebrant is directly facing the assembly from the opposite side of the altar. With versus populum as the practical norm for many Catholics (perhaps the only option of which most are aware), it may seem that the ad orientem arrangement requires a priest to face backwards or to ‘turn his back’ on the assembly. This may seem cold and disengaged compared to the comfortable and more interactive norm many are used to. In fact, to those who have been rightly taught that Vatican II in part sought to foster greater liturgical participation, entertaining the option of  ad orientem today might indeed seem problematic. However, this ancient practice of the Church was never outlawed or changed by mandate. In fact, ad orientem celebration of liturgy has become more frequent on certain occasions, even for Pope Francis. With the recent increase in attention this practice has received, it is worth a brief look at the history and current teachings of the Church.     

RECENT HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF AD ORIENTEM AND VERSUS POPULUM PRACTICES

While the 1964 Vatican II document Inter Oecumenici directs that churches should be built to accommodate the option of a priest celebrating Mass from behind the altar opposite or facing the people, it does not directly require any change to the normative orientation. Practice of the now widespread versus populum orientation had been documented more than a decade prior to the Council and had gained popularity such that the required architectural changes yielded practical changes to the way the Mass was preferred to be celebrated by many priests. Some make the claim that even the previous Missal provided the option, which according to their claim, justified versus populum practice prior to the Council. 

Even still, many Catholics are unaware that priest are not required to celebrate Mass facing the assembly. Ad orientem is still perfectly valid as an option for the celebration of the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form of the Mass), provided the physical configuration of any new facilities allow the option of versus populum as well. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) on which these guidelines are based has historically allowed for a priest celebrant's physical and liturgical orientation to be chosen according to the configuration of the church, altar, tabernacle, and so on, including considerations for popular devotion as well as the celebration of special feasts and solemnities. However, GIRM 299 (as well as the USSCB Guidelines for church buildings Built of Living Stones which references this article) does state clearly that "[t]he altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible." Having the option is desirable, but a particular orientation is not mandated. When options are given, the liturgical documents almost always defer to the authority of the local Ordinary (bishop), who may have specific preferences in spite of leeway offered in the documents. In other words, pastors don't always necessarily have every listed option available to them if the bishop has voiced a preference.    

CATECHETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF LITURGICAL ORIENTATION

Why does this matter? Many of the faithful have been poorly catechized on the Mass, and much of this current state is a result of efforts to strip the Mass of certain sacramentals, postures, and practices that have been deemed an obstacle to achieving the objective of increased liturgical participation among the faithful set out by the Council. The effects of this trend are apparent in many parishes: generations of Catholics are missing out on important elements that have catechized the Church for centuries. We often downplay or think too little of the learning that comes through practice and action. The bulk of our catechesis is often expected to take place in the classroom, where the liturgy is not experienced or prayed. The connections just don't take place. As a result, the Mass is seen primarily as a community gathering, the mystical, supernatural elements are often entirely unnoticed. Liturgy is misunderstood to be a mere ritualization of our collective human endeavors, as opposed to our participation in the action that God is doing – this being the essential understanding of all seven sacraments. In another article, I have addressed the concept of Liturgy as the work of God on behalf of the people. Physical arrangement and spacial orientation play a huge part in understanding why we do what we do in worship – not to mention the things that we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. Here music, art, and architecture have a immensely important roles to play in communicating the "signs and symbols of heavenly realities" that Sacrosanctum Concilium stressed in liturgy after Vatican II. 

Arguably, accompanied by proper liturgical catechesis, one of the best ways to explain the Mass is demonstrated by a priest and assembly's liturgical orientation and is entirely non-verbal. Celebrating ad orientem, the priest and assembly are united in prayer as the mystical Body of Christ (most apparent in cruciform churches), oriented to God the Father. The priest acts as Christ the head to offers the sacrifice of his Body on our behalf to the Father for his glory and our sanctification. This idea is obscured visually in churches that are configured with the sanctuary as a stage around which spectators are gathered, with a priest acting as a presenter. In this case, it is harder to see that the common direction of worship is more appropriately up, and by default many assume that liturgy is entirely about the community. Even worse, it becomes indistinguishable from many other types of Christian worship services. By contrast, understanding the liturgy properly reveals a different picture of the priest leading all of us in communal prayer and sacrifice to God that is occasionally broken up by short dialogues with the assembly in the form of invitations to prayer, i.e. “lift up your hearts.” Is this a preferred approach? No one individual can answer that. Certainly pastoral concerns vary, but the option of re-introducing this practice may present the opportunity for better education and formation of the people in the pews. 

DESIGN IMPLICATIONS

Other complications have arisen in the arrangement of the physical space since the introduction of versus populum that pastors, architects, and consultants have gone to great lengths to solve liturgically – some more successfully than others. Many times it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet all guidelines or recommendations, so the built solutions are often less than ideal. Among these challenges are location of the tabernacle, accumulation of multiple crucifixes so as to be within sight of both priest and assembly, and so on. Many of these issues would potentially be simplified with a reconsideration of the universality of the practice of versus populum. In other words, in addition to providing valuable catechetical opportunities, celebrating Mass ad orientem could really help settle and unify several other discrepancies in environment and practice.

FOR FURTHER READING AND DISCUSSION

For some basic theology of the Mass and how it impacts architecture, see the two-part article Architecture and the Mind of the Church. For much more detailed and thorough examination of the specific topic of liturgical orientation from both liturgical and historical examinations, see Fr. Uwe Michael Lang's book Turning Towards the Lord (Ignatius). Please note that the goal of this series is to educate and promote dialogue, not to promote or lobby for a single favored solution where the Church, for good reason, provides legitimate options. We should be mindful of the dangerous and often destructive notion that simply returning wholesale to previous practices will solve all of the problems we have with liturgical participation and awareness, reverence, religious vocations, and general practice of the faith. We do well to consider the difficulty of balancing all aspects of liturgical life that Church has promoted before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council, and to prayerfully and charitably discern the areas where improvement might be possible.

This post is the second in a series of 3. See also Part 1: Music, and Part 3: Communion Reception.