{Book Club: The Spirit of the Liturgy}
- I hope you will read along in this book club (or just read my posts, that’s okay): Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy.
- (When you buy something via our Amazon affiliate link, a little cash rolls our way… just a little. Thanks!)
- I’ll post on Fridays, although for this longer book, perhaps not every Friday. I’ll give you your homework, I’ll talk about what we read, we’ll discuss in the comments. Even if you read later, the comments will still be open.
Last week: Introduction
Homework: Read Chapter Two of Part I.
Chapter One, Part I: Liturgy and Life: The Place of Liturgy in Reality
Know that Chapter One will make a lot more sense to you if you have read this chapter of Guardini, or at least this post.
Further hint: if a chapter bogs down for you, try reading the end of it and then going back. Usually our dear Pope Benedict wraps things up.
And don't be fooled by his style. Very often he presents something someone says as if he is saying it himself, but he's not. If you are starting to get uneasy (“Wait, does he think THAT??”), just hang in there and things will generally clear up.
Since there are many, many more directions our thoughts can go in, do feel free to bring up other interesting topics from the reading in the comments.
Ratzinger starts with his mentor Guardini's point that liturgy is a kind of play (again, see the discussion here to understand what this means as a philosophical point). But (p. 15): “The analogy still lacks something, something essential…. a new approach, starting from specific biblical texts.”
He then speaks of Moses' negotiation with Pharoah regarding the freedom to worship. Sixteen years after this is written, I feel that we, dealing with our secular society, can find a prophetic quality to this discussion!
To obey God's command, Moses insists to Pharoah that “they must go out in order to worship.” (p. 15) “The manner in which God is to be worshipped is not a question of political feasibility.” Not, says Ratzinger, for the sake of the land in itself… but because “it is the place where God reigns.” (p. 17). At the bottom of that page he says something important for this study: “Israel learns how to worship God in the way he himself desires.”
This criterion — God's own desires — is of course the only escape from preference!
Here God solidifies his relationship with His people and confirms His intention with His covenant (Ex 24)… to include “life according to the will of God… ultimately it is the very life of man… that is the true worship of God, but life only becomes real life when it receives its form from looking toward God. Cult exists in order to communicate this vision.” [my emphasis]
(By the way, the word cult here has a specific meaning: how one worships, so you can see how it got the general, popular meaning).
Here (on p. 18) begins a very important discourse on the relationship between instructions on worship, the law, and morality — that is to say, the way of life.
“In the ordering of the covenant on Sinai, the three aspects of worship, law, and ethics are inseparably interwoven.” Without this recognition of God, “there is a belittling of man.” (p. 19). “Where that right of God totally disappears, the order of law among men is dissolved.”
Sinai, the place God wanted the people to go, gives “the interior land” — and if it's lost, the people will be in their own land but as if still in exile, in Egypt.
(p. 20) “Thus we can see what the foundation of existence in the Promised Land must be, the necessary condition for life in community and freedom… steadfast adherence to the law of God, which orders human affairs rightly… by organizing them as realities that come from God and are meant to return to God…. the ordering of the whole of human life…”
Put aside God in the name of “realism” and of “living life” and quickly fall away from reality and life itself — and go back into exile! The right relationship with God orders everything else, and to pretend otherwise is to take a step away from existence — from “the right kind of human existence in the world.”
The whole thrust of this chapter is against what modern man takes as an assumption, that worship, if it's necessary at all, is (as we would put it), a human construct. On the contrary. God has let us know how he would be worshiped, giving us our direction.
This truth we find when we read the Old Testament. And Ratzinger finishes this reflection with a surprising look at the infamous worshipping of the Golden Calf, emphasizing not the idolatry, pure and simple, but the “self-affirmation” of it, the do “what you please.”
“The apostasy is more subtle [than serving false gods]… They want to glorify the God who led Israel out of Egypt and believe that they may very properly represent his mysterious power in the image of a bull calf… presumably even the ritual is in complete conformity to the rubrics.
And yet it is a falling away from the worship of God to idolatry. This apostasy… has two causes. First… they want to bring [God] down into their own world… Man is using God… [Second], the worship of the golden calf is a self-generated cult.
Worship becomes a feast the community gives itself, a festival of self-affirmation… it becomes a circle closed in on itself: eating, drinking, and making merry.” [my emphasis]
These last paragraphs, on pages 22 and 23, amount to a sort of examination of conscience for worship, for liturgy. Is this what we do? Because if so, it would be terrible.
“The narrative of the golden calf is a warning about any kind of self-initiated and self-seeking worship…. a nice little alternative world, manufactured from one's own resources. The liturgy really does become pointless, just fooling around.”
Or worse, “an apostasy in sacral disguise.”
Do share with us what you think of this chapter! I look forward to your comments!
Terri says
Thank you for introducing me to this book, Leila. I confess to being a bit intimidated by Pope Benedict’s reputation for brilliance, and as a fairly recent convert, I have not spent a lot of time with his writings. This book is surprising accessible so far, thanks largely to the Guardini background and your notes. The discussion of the Golden Calf episode reminded me of a “young adult” mass I wandered into recently while traveling. I found it all to be so self-conscious and affected. Then I felt guilty later when, responding to a friend’s question about the mass, I was tempted to say “it was terrible!” 🙂 What’s the right answer? It’s lovely to hear your thoughts on these issues.
Lisa G. says
I suppose you could say, “It wasn’t what it should have been”, but I’m sure Leila will have some clearer thoughts for you. 🙂 Yes, Pope Ratzinger is brilliant, but understandable.
Leila says
Terri, you are most welcome! Thanks for reading along!
As to your response to the Mass, sometimes I wonder why some “authentic” reactions are fine, and others are not fine 🙂
If someone asks a question, they maybe should be prepared for an honest response from the heart.
Lisa’s “It wasn’t what it should have been” — or maybe “could have been” — might be the ticket. Or perhaps, a question of your own: “Does this sort of thing satisfy the heart’s longing for God? Does it quench the thirst?”
Lisa G. says
Leila, I fear that, for a lot of people, it may! I see lots of young folks at Mass, and they are definitely happy to be there, they know it’s important to go to Sunday Mass, but they’re occupied in smiling at their children and being too wrapped up with them, giving the kids the example that God is not the focus there. The notion that Mass should or could be something very different is totally foreign to them, I am imagining. Of course, I’ve taken no survey, and you don’t know the hearts of others. 🙂
Sherrylynne says
I read as you had recommended, Guardini’s chapter 5 first, and then moved to Ratzinger next. Thank you for suggesting this as it made the reading richer. Plus, as Terri said, Ratzinger’s writings are very accessible. I have gotten mired down in some JPII text with very lengthy sentences and ethereal points. I found Ratzinger’s style refreshing and ended up re-reading it all to my husband aloud. I loved the defining of a concrete covenant with minute description of how to worship (p. 17). Such clarity and wonderful scriptural references! Having recently read Pope Paul VI’s Sacrosanctum Concilium, I am excited to see Ratzinger’s treatment of the liturgy by contrast. If Guardini thought things were getting off track in the early 20th century, I imagine that Ratzinger was both sad and frustrated at the wide berth given to liturgical expression now. Also, PPVI’s language and style often permitted broad interpretation though it was clear that he loved the Mass. Will Ratzinger right the ship? The Table of Contents and first chapter gives me great hope! I am grateful that you have championed this book for our study.
Leila says
Thanks, SherrylLynn!
I think Pope Benedict did his best. I heartily believe that when the people awaken to their hunger for real food, then the priests will find that they can respond. The Holy Spirit will supply what is lacking. We have to clamor, though!
LJ says
This chapter changed my entire thinking about the liturgy. How do we worship? AS GOD TELLS US TO! He doesn’t leave us guessing!
This. Is. Everything.
LJ says
This chapter changed my entire thinking about the liturgy. How do we worship? AS GOD TELLS US TO! He doesn’t leave us guessing!
After some misfortunate graduate education, this was simply mind-blowing, and SO LIBERATING.
This. Is. Everything.
Leila says
Haha, LJ, yes. It is mind-blowing indeed!
sibyl says
I found this chapter so seminal in thinking about our duty toward God. I had always wondered why that thing that happens in church on Sunday morning is so often called a “service.” Well, it is if we realize that we’re there to serve God through right worship. In which case, it is much less about my interior experience and much more about giving Him the praise and worship that in justice He deserves.
Here’s the problem I have, however: We should be worshiping as God tells us to. Well, there’s so much dang variety! I know what I like, but if the Church says that it’s all equally worship and equally pleasing to God, then why be careful to follow rubrics? Why have a missal or a set canon? How are we to judge whether we’re gathered around the golden calf, calling it Adonai, and when we’re actually directing our praise toward God?
I know that this will probably be brought up later. But that’s what this first chapter made me think of.
Sharyn says
Coming off the top of my ‘morning sickness’ brain. If it is the ‘living renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross’. There are many different rites, but they must all have this one thing in common. It must be the ‘very same sacrifice which was offered up at the Last Supper, and consummated on Calvary’. It must be directed toward God. The four ends of which are: adoration, thanksgiving, atonement, and petition.
Books are written on this. But I think this is a good nutshell answer (I hope) 🙂 Could be that my pregnancy brain has taken me totally off on the wrong tangent. Hope it’s helpful anyway.
God bless you!
Quotes are from My Catholic Faith by Bishop Morrow
Sharyn says
Why rubrics, missal, set canon. Because we will invariably turn to self worship if we don’t. Again, pages and pages could be written in reply but basically people need rules to help them turn them away from themselves and toward God. Have you ever made a commitment to do something during Lent? And then found yourself changing it to suit yourself until the commitment was gone? Rules help us to learn obedience, the strength of character required to turn away from our own selfishishness to love and obey God. Becoming more and more like the image of Christ.
More than this does require pages and pages. But here is a beginning 🙂
Sharyn says
Thinking that I can add a little more for clarity.
The objective of rules is to show the truths of God. i.e. the rules must come from God in some way, and declare the truths of God in some way.
Even a rule we follow to make orderliness in our home can declare a truth about God, that He is a God of order, and that in loving God we seek to be orderly too.
Leila says
Sibyl, of course it shouldn’t be called a “service” — that implies something put together — rather than a “Mass” which is GIVEN.
And we can judge, precisely by the rubrics. We will be talking more about it, but be assured, the rules are to protect from preference!
Lisa G. says
It’s such a pleasure to read anything this man says. He understands deeply, but explains clearly. In Chapter 1 I underlined so many things! In the beginning of it he speaks of playing, and says “the trouble is that serious commitment to the rules needed for playing the game soon develops its own burdens and leads to new kinds of purposefulness”. And since you said that there are many other directions our thoughts can go in, I have to say this is a big problem for me. In my search for a balance in my daily life and responsibilities, every now and then I get an idea – I see a better way of doing things. It feels freer at first; then, I get that feeling that I “must” do it that way – whatever it is. It’s all a burden again! Of course I pray about it, etc. and it’s improving, but that is what came to me when I read that passage.
He then talks more about the theory of play and says we’re all children, and I was interested in that paragraph, but I’m not sure where he was going with it. He seemed to be speaking of that theory, not necessarily promoting that idea. I’m looking forward to seeing where he’s going with that.
Other things I underlined: “The land is given to the people to be a place for the worship of the true God.”
“[the land] only becomes a true good, a real gift, a promise fulfilled, when it is the place where God reigns. Then it will be the realm of obedience, where God’s will is done and the right kind of human existence developed.”
“Cult, too, is part of this worship, but so too is life according to the will of God.”
“God has a right to a response from man, to man himself, and where that right of God totally disappears, (we are there now!), the order of law among men is dissolved, because there is no cornerstone to keep the whole structure together.”
“…what took place on Sinai, in the period of rest after the wandering through the wilderness, is what gives meaning to the taking of the land.”
“Sinai gives Israel, so to speak, its interior land without which the exterior one would be a cheerless prospect.”
These are passages which just struck me as I read, but I haven’t anything to say about them at present.
Leila says
Lisa, I underlined those as well, so thank you for bringing them up. Note that “Sinai” stands for “the law of Moses — the 10 Commandments” as well as the specific law for how to worship, and that is what Ratzinger’s discourse seeks to elucidate: how “life” is connected to “worship” and how God’s thoughts about how we should live have meaning for how we should worship and vice versa.
So we can’t separate the two… I thought of this (to give an excessively specific example) when I saw the headline (but I admit I did not read the story) to the effect that “raunchy Prince was a believing Christian.” Raunchy and Christian can’t really go in the same sentence….
Melissa says
I found such hope and comfort in Ratzinger’s paragraph about the liturgy being “the rediscovery within us of true childhood, of openness to a greatness still to come, which is still unfulfilled in adult life.” As a mom of three boys (two toddlers and an infant so far) who is often overwhelmed by parental responsibilities and decisions, I liked that this made me feel so “little.” It was freeing.
The background reading of Guardini’s chapter on “The Playfulness of the Liturgy” also gave me great food for thought regarding the training of children at Mass. Consider this quote, “It is in this very aspect of the liturgy that it’s didactic aim is to be found, that of teaching the soul not to see purposes everywhere…but to understand the simplicity in life. The soul must learn to abandon, at least in prayer, the restlessness of purposeful activity; it must learn to waste time for the sake of God…” Although we have decided snacks and toys won’t be brought to Mass, we do have a bag full of books and I still find myself trying to find what religious books or “Mass packs” will best keep my kids’ attention. I’ve been steering toward less choices/less distractions and I think it is for this reason: Am I making it easier for them to be distracted from the Mass? Am I moving them away from this “simplicity” that the liturgy, itself, teaches? So, if I take away all the distractions that I bring, what’s next? I feel like my boys are so full of restless activity at Mass and IT is so distracting (to me, I don’t know about others). Do you constantly discipline them for movement and small noises that seem so difficult for them to control? (We try to practice this with quiet reading time and less movement/more focus during the Rosary at home, but it still seems like a constant struggle.) One idea was to do what Maria Montessori warns against, quietly explaining what is going on at Mass (during Mass). If this isn’t the answer, then what? (Can you tell this has been on my mind alot? Leila, if you have posts on age appropriate expectations for kids at Mass, please direct me to it. If not, please write one?! 😉
I have more thoughts about the relationship between worship, law, and ethics and modern society, but another time…
Thank you for this book club, Leila, and for the time you give us while writing these summaries/reflections.
Sharyn says
Your children are only very little Melissa. It will be a while before they will sit still for long. Don’t worry about them too much. Your own reverence at Mass is probably the most important thing for them at this stage. They see what you do and internalise it, and later on they’ll copy it (though they will copy little bits now).
I’ll tell you what I do, but there are many different ways too. We sit up front. It is more interesting if they can see what is happening. But even so they are going to get bored. It’s only normal. I mostly try to get them to sit on my lap. They also look at pictures in their Mass book, or I give them the hymn book when it’s time to sing. I point to Father at the Consecration/elevation and tell them there’s Jesus, I might point to statues. They copy as we kneel for a little bit and then crawl along the pew, and get into my purse, and scrunch up ‘giving envelopes’.
If they just can’t keep quiet enough (ie. I think they have got to the point where they will be bothering others)
I take them to the back of the church and we watch from there. Though I have often been surprised when other parishioners have come up to me after and said they weren’t bothered at all. It’s your call. If they are getting too noisy and fidgety best to take them out. I don’t let them play outside otherwise they catch on to just what to do to go outside. When we are outside I hold them or they sit at my feet, or rummage through the missals on the bookcase. But we are still participating in the Mass. I do believe it a good thing to explain what is happening during the Mass from time to time. Just a little. Whatever you feel is helpful for your child. I say again though that your own actions are the biggest lesson. As they get to First Holy Communion age you can start to do more in-depth study at home.
After Mass they light a candle each, and kneel before the statue of Our Lady and I lead them through a Hail Mary. Then they genuflect and wave to the tabernacle and say ‘goodbye Jesus’.
And off out to play with the other children outside and then a treat for breakfast.
At the end of the day taking little children to Mass is what it is. My eldest is 15. For the past 15 years I’ve being going to Mass with toddlers and babies. I can hardly think of a Mass in all that time where I just got to sit and ‘enjoy’ being there (maybe those rare times when they fell asleep). I don’t really experience Mass the way I’d really like to. But I’m still at Mass, experiencing the fruits of the Mass. I’ve had to let go of my expectations to find Christ in what I’ve been given, because that’s what I’ve been given. I have to let go of me, and find Christ in what is His will for me, in my vocation, at this moment.
So find Christ in what you are given at this moment. He is not elsewhere, at some perfect experience of the Mass. He is there with you with those wiggling little ones 🙂 And enjoy what are fleeting, and special days.
God bless!
Sharyn says
Am I making it easier for them to be distracted from the Mass?
No, sound like what you are doing is just right for their age.
Am I moving them away from this “simplicity” that the liturgy, itself, teaches?
Not at this point. They are still so very young. Show them stillness and reverence in your own actions. They learn much from watching the Mass (when you weren’t even aware that they were). The other week the altar boys rang the bell a little early before they entered with Father. My two year old looked at the door where they come in from and said loudly, ‘where’s Father?’. They learn much more than we realise, much younger than we think.
So, if I take away all the distractions that I bring, what’s next?
Don’t take away everything, keep doing what you are doing. From around 3-5 years (depending on the child) they can be mostly quiet and reasonably still and stay inside for the whole Mass, though if you take a baby out you will probably find them dangling off your legs to follow you out. From about 6 plus the beginnings of following a missal etc. (these are just rough ages to give you some picture)
Do you constantly discipline them for movement and small noises that seem so difficult for them to control?
Encourage them to be quiet. They are going to make noise, don’t fret every little noise and movement, concentrate on the Mass. If they get too noisy remind them to be quiet. If they can’t take them out.
We try to practice this with quiet reading time and less movement/more focus during the Rosary at home, but it still seems like a constant struggle.
You are doing all the right things! You are doing a great job 🙂
Ivy says
I have found daily Mass to be the perfect training grounds! Short and sweet.
Now that we have 5 kiddos I have given up any entertainment for babies and toddlers- too much to handle! Plus before I know it a book is being thrown, a sippy rolls down the aisle, a car clanks to the ground. Distracting! Littles that can’t be quiet are taken out of mass by dad, but it is excessively boring and involves discipline of some kind if there is actual naughtiness involved. After a while snuggling him in a pew looks pretty good.
You will get it figured out! And pretty soon your older kids will be additional examples to your younger kids so that just sitting there is what all the cool people do!
corina says
The most important idea for me was that the cult, the order of worship, goes beyond liturgy, to the ordering of the whole human life. I think that one of the main problems in Europe today is the fact that we lost this understanding and started to see the liturgy and the order of worship as either superficial formalism/bigotry that doesn’t have anything to do with reality, or preference, as auntie Leila explained so well when we discussed Guardini. The fact that worship, law and morality are interconnected and reflect reality made me finally understand something pope Ratzinger wrote about the intricated issues in our society that seems incapable of agreeing about the common good. He said that the only solution is to live “etsi Deus daretur” in order to overcome the current crisis. When I first read this I thought: how can he ask something like that from non Christians? How could it be possible to order life this way even if one doesn’t believe in God? After reading this I think I understand that he was only inviting people to be willing to look at reality and live accordingly.
Leila says
Corina, are you thinking of this audience https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20121114.html, in which Benedict speaks of people living “etsi Deus non daretur” — the only reference I could find at the moment. But he is deploring this, as did Pope John Paul II before him:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/schall_b16aquinas2_feb07.asp
John Paul locates in “etsi Deus NON daretur” — to act as if God does not exist (essentially the Enlightenment project and a direct result of locating knowledge in consciousness rather than in being — Descartes over Aquinas) — a basis for totalitarianism.
The Church calls on the believers to go to the world and insist that it recognizes the existence of God, lest reality itself slip away!
Or am I missing some other reference?
corina says
Yes, I was thinking of the audience you linked to. I think I have mixed up ideas a little bit. I went to check up where I have read the expression “etsi Deus daretur” and it was in an interview with Robert Spaeman (subsequent to that november 2014 audience), where he said : “Against the methdodical etsi Deus non daretur of science, he (Benedict) postulates a liberating etsi Deus daretur which is a refuse of the reduction of reason. In these circumstances it is the Christian faith who defends the basic claim of reason to be open to “what is”, the claim to know the absolute, to know God”. I’ve read this interview in the Tracce magazine of february 2013 (sorry for the bad translation) and somehow I have retained the idea that the pope was urging the modern world to live “etsi Deus daretur” and to save human reason from self-distruction.
Lisa G. says
I was surprised to read, at the beginning of the introduction, his mention of the Liturgical Movement in Germany. I googled it, and read here: http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-19
I had assumed that the Tridentine rite was just celebrated for several hundred years without a hitch, and had no idea of any abuses, misapprehensions or shenanigans! Well, at the risk of sounding flippant – is there anything new under the sun?
But I’m really not wanting to joke about it; I just thought that it was only in our time – post Vatican II – that any sort of confusion or abuse had tried to creep into the liturgy.
Leila says
Lisa, that’s a very interesting article that I will peruse more carefully later on. No question that the liturgy has had to undergo major upheavals at intervals. The Council of Trent itself represented a re-orienting of the liturgy, as we shall see in our reading here.
One little note, as I skimmed: it is good to remember that in this context, which is by definition critical (as it is looking at the movements that attempted to forge a different path and understanding), “Scholastic” philosophy, I believe, refers to neo-scholasticism and its hold over the universities in the period referred to, not to the original teachings of St. Thomas.
Mrs. B. says
Lisa, I think it shouldn’t surprise us that the devil attacks the liturgy – it goes back to the golden calf sorry episode, as this chapter shows 🙂 One might even say it goes back to the tempting of Eve: by tickling her pride, the devil succeeded in interrupting those conversations with God that Adam and Eve had enjoyed in the Garden, which we might see as some form of liturgy, if we really stretch definitions…
After all, the liturgy is our link to God, and through it the Sacraments happen, and grace flows – so, again, not surprising that devil works hard on it and on priests…
Leila says
I’m putting my response to Corina here, so that the indenting doesn’t get out of hand!
Corina, you are representing Benedict’s thought well — I couldn’t find the positive statement of “living as if God exists” but then I did, and then I understood you — interestingly, as a response to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. One has to admire the latter, yet there is always something in his theology that seems a bit desperate (understandably, considering the circumstances of both his formation and the times) — it ends by being self-generated.
In any case, in the attempt to provide a ground for his action in the face of uncertainty, Bonhoeffer had staked his all on responsibility, which led him to say that we must behave as if God did not exist. In this, the Kantian roots of his philosophy trumped his Christianity, although one still honors his willingness to lay down his life for the truth!
For Benedict, on the contrary, man is not set adrift, left to find “pure” action (action stripped of all necessity to be anchored in reality apart from himself) — he can and must find his grounding and his being in the Other — or totalitarianism is the result. That is because if man is the measure, then the strong-willed triumph.
Benedict issues the challenge to live “as if God exists” — here is a short little summary by him of what he means:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/catholic-faith/living-as-if-there-is-god.html
corina says
I’m coming back to this conversation to add a link with the positive statement of “living as if God exists”; it is the Subiaco adress of Cardinal Ratzinger (April 1st 2005): http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/cardinal-ratzinger-on-europe-s-crisis-of-culture.html
Here is an excerpt: “But at this point, in my capacity as believer, I would like to make a proposal to the secularists. At the time of the Enlightenment there was an attempt to understand and define the essential moral norms, saying that they would be valid “etsi Deus non daretur,” even in the case that God did not exist. In the opposition of the confessions and in the pending crisis of the image of God, an attempt was made to keep the essential values of morality outside the contradictions and to seek for them an evidence that would render them independent of the many divisions and uncertainties of the different philosophies and confessions. In this way, they wanted to ensure the basis of coexistence and, in general, the foundations of humanity. At that time, it was thought to be possible, as the great deep convictions created by Christianity to a large extent remained. But this is no longer the case. (…)
The attempt, carried to the extreme, to manage human affairs disdaining God completely leads us increasingly to the edge of the abyss, to man’s ever greater isolation from reality. We must reverse the axiom of the Enlightenment and say: Even one who does not succeed in finding the way of accepting God, should, nevertheless, seek to live and to direct his life veluti si Deus daretur, as if God existed. This is the advice Pascal gave to his friends who did not believe. In this way, no one is limited in his freedom, but all our affairs find the support and criterion of which they are in urgent need. “
Leila says
Melissa, Sharyn did a good job of channeling me in her answer 🙂
Just remember, these books we are studying are about how the Mass should be presented to us, not necessarily about how we should be receiving it (although, necessarily, they touch on what the effect of the Mass is on the faithful). We receive it as we always have and always will — with a considerable amount of distraction, naughtiness, abstraction, and irritation 🙂
I know it’s funny to my readers that this is what we are studying, when most blogs probably focus on how WE should act, respond, “what we get out of it” etc., not to mention how our children should behave.
But as the discussion with Corina shows, there are realities outside of us and our responses 🙂
My post on your question, should I ever get to it, will indeed be all about “remote preparation” — the “practice” the children must have in so many other circumstances, far from church, in obeying you, noticing your little shake of your head, walking quietly, not disturbing others… and in the meantime, these little boys of yours will grow a bit, and they will be nice young gentlemen who do you credit!
Lisa G. says
On re-reading this chapter, the word “wilderness” struck me. Exodus 7:16 “Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness.” And further down, Pope Ratzinger says, “The proper place of worship is in the wilderness”. What is this saying? Does it refer to our inner wildernesses? Does it mean to say that the world apart from God is a wilderness? Is there a connection between this wilderness and the desert Jesus went into to pray alone? Is this simply saying that we must remove ourselves from our Egypt/slavery to be able to properly worship God?
Are the words “wilderness” and “desert” interchangeable? Because I haven’t been to Egypt, but I thought it was mostly desert. Although I suppose a desert is a wilderness, too. I tend to think of Lent these past few years, as a going in to the desert, rather than a time to give up this or that.
Anyway, Leila, since you’ve read the whole thing – does he get into this more later?
Leila says
Yes, Lisa, the “wilderness” is a rich concept, is it not?
I don’t know if he really touches on it again here. However, this “wilderness” is the “land” and it is indeed a spiritual place, as the chapter is highlighting — you can be there in body but not in soul, so it has to be understood well.
There is an inner wilderness, but as the next chapter will show, it’s not ONLY inner. It is connected to the outer as well, to the cosmos itself. We are material, as well as spiritual beings, so we can’t dismiss the physical as irrelevant. But certainly the metaphorical sense can yield insight!
Melissa says
Sharyn and Leila, thank you for your advice and encouragement. I think I need one child out of toddlerhood to gain perspective. Right now it’s hard to see sometimes what is age appropriate behavior that will pass and what is due to my parenting. Your perspective reassured me.
Here are some other parts of the reading that stood out to me:
“…the land, considered just in itself, is an indeterminate good. It only becomes a true good, a real gift, a promise fulfilled when it is the place where God reigns.”
When I read this I thought of the presence (or absence) of the Eucharist in our churches. Land=a church.
And this…
“Law without a foundation in morality becomes injustice. When morality and law do not originate in a God-ward perspective, they degrade man, because they rob him of his highest capacity, deprive him of any vision of the infinite and eternal.”
I immediately thought of the legalization of abortion and homosexual “marriage” as well as the current controversy over bathroom privileges for LGBTs. Our culture constantly accuses people who oppose such laws of not “loving” women or those who claim to be LGBT. In REALITY, these laws are devoid of any true charity. They are, as Ratzinger says, an “injustice.”
Trying to summarize…
So, “law is essential for freedom and community; worship—that is, the right way to relate to God—is, for its part, essential for law…Worship, that is, the right kind of cult, of relationship with God, is essential for the right kind of human existence in the world. ”
At the end of this reading, my question is similar to the one Corina mentioned in response to Benedict’s appeal to people to live “etsi Deus daretur”… How is it possible to order society this way when only some people believe in the reality of God? Thanks for the link to Benedict’s summary. Looking forward to reading it!
Leila says
Melissa, your identifying the land with the church (i.e. the building) is intriguing. Later, Ratzinger says that a church without the Presence (without a tabernacle) is dead.
As to the justice issue, we are really challenged, are we not, to continually offer the gift of faith to others; it’s a mistake to accept any claim to be able to live a good (i.e. a Just) life without God. When we do accept such a claim and sort of move on, we are really being complacent (not to say lazy). We should know better. The natural law exists, but what Ratzinger is saying here, I think, is that man is not actually capable of living without the law direct from God, that things quickly devolve into injustice.
But let’s not forget his further point, that (on p. 20) law and ethics do not hold together when they are not anchored in the liturgical center and inspired by it… law is essential for freedom and community; worship — that is, the right way to relate to God — is, for its part, essential for law. We can now broaden the insight by taking a further step. Worship, that is, the right kind of cult, of relationship with God, *is essential for the right kind of human existence in the world….. precisely because it reaches beyond everyday life.* … that is why there are in reality no societies altogether lacking in cult. Even the decidedly atheistic, materialistic systems create their own forms of cult…. they can only be an illusion and strive in vain, by bombastic trumpeting, to conceal their nothingness.”
We don’t have to think, either, that everyone has to be on board for true worship to have an effect on life together. By its nature, true worship is substitutionary. The few can offer (and suffer) for the many. Just a thought, lest we lose hope.
MS says
This. There is so much hope! Every true worshipper of God makes an enormous difference. Think of the saints, right?
corina says
Thank you for the link to that summary, Leila, that book is on my Amazon wish list for the future. This paragraph – “God — and he alone — is our salvation. This unprecedented truth, which we so long regarded as a scarcely tenable theory, has become the most practical formula for our present history. And one who — even if perhaps at first only hesitantly — entrusts himself to this difficult yet inescapable as if, who lives as if there were a God, will become ever more aware that this as if is the only reality.”- struck me as similiar to Pascal’s bet. It seems to me also similar to the teaching of don Luigi Giussani, who said that the only way to verify the truth of the Christian faith is by following the teaching of the Church and trying to live it.
Mrs. B. says
I thought of Pascal’s bet as well. And the don Giussani quote reminded me of the famous Chesterton quip: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried”: this difficulty is the reason why so many have trouble accepting Benedict’s challenge to live as if God exists – and I think the difficulty resides in the fear of what our life would become if we truly converted.