Recently in a letter to ‘The Times’ a Reverend Canon ( Church of England) from East
Anglia stated ( pontificated?) the following: “……the congregations that are growing are
those which present the old faith in a modern way. The least successful are those which
combine radical theology with a traditional liturgy.”
Is it that simple?
What does ‘presenting the old faith in a modern way’ mean and involve?
What is ‘radical theology’?
What is ‘traditional liturgy’?
Going round various parishes to say Sunday Masses is fascinating. It is better than an
Episcopal visitation since for such rare events and in honour of such an august visitor all
the stops are pulled out, ladies wear their best hats, the parish priest is there, servers flock
in and the Mass is adapted to the needs of the Bishop. Getting in a ‘supply priest’ simply
means you can turn up, be utterly and naturally gormless and simply agree to do whatever
is normally done in that church, at that particular Mass.
After a year doing such occasional supply work in some 15 different parishes the
attendances have varied from 33 people at the one Sunday Mass to a church packed
‘standing room only’ with music, processions, children wandering in and out in an
apparently haphazard manner ( although I was assured it was all organised), Deacons and
ministers efficiently and in a dignified manner doing so much that the priest tends to feel he
is there just for the words of Consecration. Masses in the same church vary widely. Some
have singing to rival the Methodists while at other Masses one is tempted to tell the
congregation not to give up their day jobs. At some Masses the responses are
enthusiastic, loud and clear, the Creed said with gusto and the Sign of Peace a flurry of
amicable embraces. At other times the response to the initial greeting seems downright
grudging, the Creed left to the priest so he cannot even afford a cough without this
proclamation petering into silence and the Peace a cold and apparently surprised
acknowledgement of other people’s presence.
One gets a different ‘feeling’ in different parishes and at every different Mass - which is as
it should be, to some extent, and justifies the claim that there should be more than one
Mass in any area to allow for different needs of people. It is, surely, unreasonable and
even cruel to maintain that all worshippers in an area should worship in exactly the same
way; young and old, singletons and families, musical and tone-deaf, natural exhibitionists,
extroverts and introverts, the shy and the self-confident, the fortunate who have no
theological doubts and those who cling on out of good habit and keep despair at bay
through desperate prayer and blind faith - must they all change and adapt their natural
approach to life for an hour each Sunday?
Must it be an hour?
Is it really so helpful for the priest to introduce a normal Sunday Mass
with his theory of what the readings are about? Must there be rather automatic repetitions
of the Response ( unless sung and then only to give the cantor pause for some puff)?
Does it enhance one’s devotion, increase one’s intake of Grace, more fully fulfil one’s
Sunday obligation just sitting and waiting for the collection to be taken, having another
such breather to digest the sermon (and how long/clear/audible/repetitive/appropriate is
that ?), making a ceremony of washing up, clearing the altar etc after Communion? What is
the point of reading out notices which are clearly printed in news sheets to be taken away
by the faithful (unless to add to or correct some ‘deliberate mistake’ in the sheets)? Is it
not possible to consider, at least, the possibility that our attention span is not what it used
to be; that we are used to visual aids of all sorts, not just listening, and to change that
attitude just once a week in church does not seem all that reasonable.
What is very clear is that there are some Masses ( some parishes) where the presence of
anyone under the age of 45 or so is as rare as hens’ teeth. At other Masses there are
certainly families with small and growing children, even the odd teenagers. But the glaring
gap seems to be in the 20 to 45/50 age range; singles or couples, and reasons for this are
as many and varied as there are individuals. Are the basic reasons for this ‘gap’ really the
‘radical theology and teaching’ and the ‘traditional liturgy’?
Would ‘presenting the old faith in a new way’ and less traditional liturgy – even a new
liturgy - solve the problem?
It could hardly be that simple.
But it may well be part of a problem and worth
considering as also a part of a solution.
The question simply is: would a more simple ( but accurate) teaching of theological
facts plus a more realistic and understandable liturgy ( still
dignified and prayerful) solve, slow down or even just
slightly impinge on the slide in Mass attendance?
The ‘old faith’ must remain and not be diluted where it is essential and fundamental. But
even such basics as the Trinity, Incarnation, Real Presence, Revelation and the Bible,
Heaven and Hell can be taught in a more modern way with less ancient and esoteric
language and imagery while the Immaculate Conception is in dire need of being explained
properly. The Sacraments, devotions, practices and traditions are crying out for a more up-
to-date understanding of symbols ( oil in the sacraments does NOT symbolise pollution!
Rosary beads in themselves are just beads - the Rosary can be prayed just as well on
one’s knuckles) and for a far simpler and down- to- earth teaching. Nor need the concept
of ‘The Church’ continue to be such a mystery to people in general as they still look upon it
in a very hierarchical way - Pope, bishops and priests; rather than the people of God ; the
ordinary believers, those in the pews, who are by far the majority and who are not there
just to be told what to believe, do, practise. Very little is changing in that respect –
‘parishioners’ continue to be an amorphous mass and have priests, liturgies, changes and
developments ( especially spending of moneys) simply imposed on them - [as do priests,
for that matter, waiting for over a year for a diocesan Bishop!].
But where is the emphasis on Christ as a person, someone to know and love individually,
someone who had, and certainly continues to have, a daily and positive effect on those
who believe in him? Why not encourage all to say, even occasionally, “What would Jesus
have done, said, in this is or that situation?” – then think about it and talk about it?
The ‘old faith’ need not be damaged if genuine attempts are made to put it into modern
language and concepts. This, surely, is the job of theologians, intellectuals, preachers and
priests under the care of our bishops. ‘Radical theology’ need not be a rude phrase and
should and can be explained more simply and more effectively than simply stating – in
effect – that things are what they are because “ Holy Mother Church in her infinite wisdom
says so!” In preaching and teaching – why not consider issuing instruction leaflets to back
up the word of mouth? – mysteries such as Transubstantiation, Trinity, Eternity, Free Will
and many more cannot be solved but can be explained in a far simpler way and to a far
greater degree than they have been in the past. Sacraments must be more than just rites,
ceremonies people come to church for, blessings and approvals by priests, opportunities
for families and friends to have a booze-up. How many people actually remember when
they were baptised/confirmed? When is their spiritual birthday, their spiritual ‘coming of
age’?
None of these changes – in attitude and emphasis, not basics – can be brought about
overnight. Not much good – and quite a lot of harm - can come from just changing names
and talking about ‘blessed bread’, christening, rites of reconciliation, eucharistic
celebration of the mysteries of Christ’s death and resurrection ( Mass to you and me!). But
a deliberate and conscious and continuing attempt should be made to simplify things as far
as orthodoxy allows, not obfuscate by introducing new terms, inventing constantly
changing and new catechetical methods or ‘dumbing down’ definitions and doctrinal
statements.
Supposing we achieve this ideal of teaching the old faith in a new – and accurate – way,
will the survival or continuation of ‘traditional liturgy’ still sabotage Mass attendance?
Claims are made that lots of people ( young ones among them) wish for and need the
mystery, the magic, the devotional atmosphere and immutability of the old Latin Mass and
liturgy. That in the hurly burly of life the Sunday Mass in the traditional form is a refuge, a
rock, which anchors their busy lives, strengthens their faith and reflects the love of God.
There must be some, perhaps many, who feel like this. Many who find it a support and
value the security this gives them; as does the traditional setup in the Church of priests
and bishops, robed, with special titles and established functions not only in the liturgy but
all aspects of church life. This must be respected to some extent and not abandoned just
for the sake of novelty, simplicity or even financial savings if only to avoid the danger of
throwing out the baby with the bath water.
But all such claims and counterclaims are anecdotal. Perhaps a careful and general
census should be undertaken, real and detailed opinions sought and honestly discussed,
tabulated and recorded. Because the gut feeling one gets ( and this can be dangerous
and quite wrong) is that we want to understand our liturgy, take an active part and interest,
pray the liturgy [ defined as a form of public,common worship/prayer] see it as being a part
of our daily life, see the purpose of the ceremonies and have a simplicity which is not
rushed, sketchy, trivial, a passing phase but expressing that basic worship and prayer in
which we are taking part.
There seems to be a growing tendency to return to ( or continue) lots of incense and holy
water, voluptuous and rich vestments ( getting longer as time goes by – unless I’m
shrinking), richly decorated chalices, masses of candles ( all 65% pure beeswax to keep
with liturgical laws!) altar frontals and tabernacle covers. Liturgical language is not
improving either, what with ‘celebrating the mysteries’ and ‘partaking of the eternal
banquet in heaven’, ‘sharing in one bread and one cup’, ‘celebrating the paschal
mystery’, going along ‘pilgrim ways’, celebrating ‘the festival of your holy city, the
heavenly Jerusalem, our mother’.
Yet so many prayers in the missal are clear, apt and to the point: ‘ show us the way to
peace in the world’, ‘fill us with your Spirit and make us one in peace and love’, ‘ let our
offerings make us holy and lead us to salvation’, ‘in you we live and move and have our
being’ - to quote just a few.
What – just listening – does a ‘banquet’ mean in this day and age? What picture does it
conjure up? How full of meaning and how realistic is a ‘paschal mystery’ when most of the
time we are talking about Easter and celebrating Our Lord’s resurrection? Is such a
vocabulary not just as bad as that of some modern hymns which are now in the firing line
and facing the chop - ‘I danced in the morning’, ‘Morning has broken’, ‘The bakerwoman
in her humble lodge’, ‘Colours of day’ and so many others?
If the Canon correspondent to the ‘Times’ is to be proved right; if we manage to update the
language and teaching of old truths without distorting them, then could the
‘traditional liturgy’ be modernised somewhat along the following lines:
To aim at clarity and simplicity.
This does not mean making the Mass in any way
pedestrian, not pretending it is a meal, any kind of natural, ordinary, humdrum activity.
Rather stressing it is unique, it is the highest form of prayer, it is the gift or present we give
of God the Son really present among us to God the Father - as Jesus did of himself at
Calvary. The Mass is first and foremost a prayer, a communication with God ( both ways:
us to him and him to us) and as such containing all the usual purposes of prayer
(adoration, contrition, thanksgiving, supplication) plus the giving of this unique gift which, of
course, we can only do because God gives the Real Presence to us in the first place -
and that is what is meant by ‘sacrifice’; if we want to keep that word we must make it crystal
clear what it means.
To do this by using words which are understood ( explained whenever necessary) and not
to be confused with modern meanings, new shades of meanings which accrue with time in
any living language ( which is the one reason why Latin – dead – was ideal; but had
obvious drawbacks of having to be translated by the worshippers). With care and good
instructions the sublime nature of the Mass will not be lost by using simple language.
Fundamentally, also, it must be made clear that attending, taking part in our Sunday Mass
is not an obligation just because the ‘Church says so’. It is each individual’s prayer, duty of
worship of God, source of inspiration for the week to come, thanksgiving for the week that
has passed, cry for help and support and a means of getting to know and love God more.
Attendance, participation, is even a mutual support and encouragement to ourselves and
others, an opportunity for friendship, a sign to the world around us that each attending
person believes in God enough to get up, get shaved and dressed and make his/her way
to church. The actual celebration and ceremony can and should be used by each person
according to her/his needs that day – cheerfully, mournfully, desperately, lovingly or
hopefully; even, at times, without much thought and simply as a (good) habit.
To aim at ‘neatness’ and brevity.
The ‘neatness’ meaning uncluttered, no frills, no
extravagant vestments or sanctuary furniture or accessories such as incense or special
and multiple candles which are so deeply symbolic that one has deliberately to remind
oneself of their meaning. [ Perhaps such symbolism is specially obscure when the Bishop
comes with a staff, tall hat and skullcap]. Incense symbolises prayer rising up to heaven -
who actually thinks of that when in use and why vary the number of ‘swings’ of the thurible
according to the dignity of the thing or person being so incensed? Candles are to be seen
as consuming themselves in the service of the Lord – and who, without a deliberate effort,
is aware of that when there is a cross draught which makes the candles splutter and make
a mess?
This approach in no way suggests that the sanctuary
should be neglected, the altar unadorned or the priest unvested or – even worse – have a
scruffy alb of the wrong size. Vestments and how they are worn are a very potent sign of
the importance of the event but surely just to stress the dignity of our worship and not to
be flaunted and admired in themselves.
This idea of ‘neatness’ also applies to the
priest as the leader of this communal prayer to God. He is there not quite as a necessary
evil but as a ‘facilitator’, a conductor who by the authority of Christ’s Church and the ability
given to him freely by God then brings about that Real Presence the presenting of which to
God the Father – for and in the name of all believers - is the whole purpose of the
exercise. Again, does it increase our devotion to have the priest constantly intervening by
introducing the Mass, explaining the readings, giving a long ( even if brilliant) sermon and
allowing his own idiosyncrasies and foibles and personal ‘body language’ to intrude on the
rite? Each priest, of course, has his own voice, intonation and manner of saying Mass but
the aim should be for a priest to be as neutral as possible, be heard and understood, be
seen but not hog the stage.
‘Brevity’ must never mean rushing, skimping or giving any hint of hurry or
impatience, wanting to beat the clock or in any way rationing the time being given to God.
But it does mean that time spent on a long procession, on meditation pauses after
readings and/or sermon, delays in bringing up the offerings, waiting for the collection to be
taken, purifying chalices, having a lengthy breather before the final Prayer and, worst of
all, rambling on with notices and announcements before the Dismissal may all be counter-
productive. A full church – children, wearers of funny hats, restless mothers worried about
the chicken in the oven, dads feeling guilty about how they parked the car – is seldom
quiet and restful and the value of a prayer (thanksgiving after Communion or whatever) is
not in its length but its quality.
Even with some hymns and the singing of parts of the Mass it should not be beyond the
ability of priests to say a reverend and worshipful Mass in an hour, flat, or less.
It would be interesting if some of these points and, perhaps, many others could be put to
and discussed by an average congregation (whatever that means) to see whether some
such positive, constructive and practical approach would go towards giving us an even
partial solution to the problem of falling Mass attendance - as the Very Reverend Canon
(whose letter initiated all this verbiage and who must be Church of England because our
own Canons are no longer ‘Very’; just Rev. Canons) so strongly suggests.
Anyone reading this so far must have some interest in the subject and also personal, even
strong, views. If added to this he/she/they have some statistical abilities, why not get hold
of your priest and suggest a carefully and fairly formulated questionnaire for the
congregation or even a discussion in smaller groups such as meetings of ladies, parish
council, other committees or those partaking of a cup of coffee after Mass?
Who knows, the consensus of opinion may well point very clearly one way or the other. It
may well be proved that most people do seek the mystery, the magic, the ethereal
experience, the language and terminology of very traditional liturgies and we ought to go
back to square one.