Several have asked for the rationale about why facing the altar for the Holy Verba is preferable to facing the people across the altar (or, as some noted, oddly turning one's back on the elements - or at least part of them - to face the people). The consecration bursts the bonds of the strictly sacramental/sacrificial distinction. It is a third thing; and as such it has both sacramental and sacrificial overtones. That is, it is both a Word from God in which He promises us His body and blood and for the forgiveness of our sins, and it is our prayer that this may be so (for prayer at its heart is speaking God's Word back to Him). The genius of the Lutheran rite was to figure out a way that combined both and lost neither. The sacramental aspect was addressed MUSICALLY. The Words were to be chanted and chanted in the Gospel tone. Luther made this shift in 1526 (originally he had assigned the Words to be chanted in the Lord's Prayer tone). The result in the ears of a people used to hearing the Gospel chanted was as clear as could be: "HERE'S the Gospel!" But by retaining the ad orientem position, the pastor made it plain that this was also our prayer to God that this would be so - that His Word would grant us exactly what He here promises, and that we are thus asking Him to do so (note that Martin Chemnitz referring to the consecration in our churches spoke of the "prayer formulas" we use - Examen II:514). Thus, physical posture confessed the one and musical posture confessed the other, and both together bring a distinct reverence that is very difficult to describe - so I'll punt to this: experience both and ponder what either says. Nothing of the Gospel is lost by the ad orientem position for the music carries it; but the reverent sense of prayer is lost if the pastor faces toward the people and not with them toward the Coming One to whom we pray. At least, that has been my experience of either position. I find the traditional posture with the Gospel tone ringing out to be the clearest confession of what's happening.Post-script: If I may put it so, we are not simply giving the people information; we are at Christ's command joining His Words to the elements so that they become for us what He declares them to be. Gerhard's description then is quite apt:
"When the preacher who is administering this holy Sacrament repeats, along with the Lord's Prayer, the Words of Institution, he first of all is testifying that he does not desire to perform, from his own opinion, a human action and institution; rather, as a householder (steward) of the divine mysteries, he is, in accordance with Christ's command, desiring to administer a holy Sacrament. Accordingly, he sets aside visible bread and wine so that it can be the means and instrument for the distribution and fellowship of the body and blood of Christ. *Further, he prays that, in accordance with His institution and promise, Christ would be present in this action, and that by means of the consecrated bread and wine he might distribute Christ's body and blood.*" *A Comprehensive Explanation*, p. 301,302
13 comments:
1 - Part of it can be thought of this way. Instead of sacrificial vs. sacramental - look where it is most important. When you are praying or confessing - that is towards God, look altarwards. When you are preaching,look towards the folks you are preaching. When celebrating the Supper, celebrating the wonder that God will come physically to us through these elements -- look towards the elements.
Now, I end up taking the Chalice and one (insert non-offensive term for piece of Christ's Body here), turn towards the congregation, and holding it up say the Pax Domnini. So I do face the congregation - when I tell them they have peace - but I see this peace through the Sacrament.
I understand your point, Bill, and I am highly sympathetic. I think that my difficulty with the logic is that in most (99.999%) of Lutheran congregations today, the Gospel is not chanted. The relationship between the chanting of the Gospel and the chanting of the Verba is obscured. It is beautiful and I have preached and spoken about it for years.
I will reflect on the rest of it for a bit. Thanks for your thoughts.
-Peperkorn
Amen, Eric! My practice is the same.
Todd, yes that is a HUGE difficulty. But one that we can teach our way out of. I throw it in whenever I can: Gospel tone, Gospel tone! And show them how it works. It really stands out if they get to hear the Passion chanted with the three traditional voices. You can hear the chronista and the voice of Jesus distinctly then in the Verba's chant.
Whereas if my congregation ever demands contemporary worship - I'll just start chanting. I can't carry a tune in a bucket - the service would be different every week!
Yes, it is a universal rubric: Pastors who cannot chant, should not. However, I also believe that most pastors CAN be taught to chant. It's just a matter of learning to listen to yourself, and mastering the speaking on a tone.
I cannot carry a tune in a bucket either, but have worked to the point that I can serviceably chant parts of the liturgy. I am working on the verba. Whether we pray in chant or appropriate speech, however, is not the issue. Aesthetics in our modern context quickly devolves into subjective preference (see Waddell among others). The Mass draws us into an objective reality of the presence of Christ. The celebration ad orientem directs us to that objective reality, not the facial gestures and flailing of the celebrant.
Our lack of shared rubrics and conduct of the liturgy has created a demonic atmosphere of anxiety, fear, and uncertainty around the Divine Service. Lutherans need canon for the sake of Christ and His Gospel. Rules and order provide the context for true freedom to receive the gifts of God and pray in the Spirit. This is my conviction and I will now have a beer to escape reality!
One of my favorite quotes from the current Bishop of Rome:
"The freedom with which we are concerned in the Christian feast - the feast of the Eucharist - is not the freedom to devise new texts but the liberation of the world and ourselves from death. Only this can make us free, enabling us to accept truth and to love one another in truth." Benedict XVI (Feast of Faith, p. 65)
Mason Beechcraft, who are you? You words (Our lack of shared rubrics and conduct of the liturgy . . . )are beautiful; nay, they are meet, right, and salutary! You seem a brother after my own heart.
Rich Futrell
Pastor Weedon,
Thanks for the further elaboration; I found it very instructive. Wouldn't it be nice if all our LCMS churches paid such attention to the theological import of ceremonial and taught appropriately?
Best,
Bethany
Thanks for clearing up some points. I see the argument well.
Would the AO position be ideal from the preface to the verba/pax?
Following the argument of the "Gospel tone" to let the people know "HERE is the Gospel"... in today's practice wouldn't the AP position behind the altar be the closest equivalent to the AP position in reading the Gospel, thus "HERE is the Gospel" That is the AP or Sacramental position in teaching (reading/preaching) and absolving, most correspond to the Sacramental in the supper? (Of course sacramental/sacrificial bounds are blurred here)
On the other hand the AO position makes a nice statement on who is host and who is servant.
One note on chanting. I have bad tonality, but chanting is learned and memorized so I have been doing it. The most worthwhile part has been the Verba which I can pull from memory anytime, anywhere. The music sticks to the text in my memory better than bare text.
Indeed I get requests for the chanted verba, and on High Feasts it sets the day apart nicely. So I encourage... practice, practice, practice.
Thanks for the link (in the previous post) and further discussion of this topic. I do, however, question the universality of your chanting rubric. I used to know the daughter of a horrendously tone-deaf Orthodox priest. He had no choice but to chant, even though it was a disaster. Maybe that's why she became Catholic!
Thanks all for the comments. I am happy to raise the issue because I think it is a case of careless mimicry of Rome, and in this instance, it wasn't a good move for Rome either.
I agree with Fr. Weedon that pretty much anyone can learn to chant. It's not singing, but speaking on a tone. Chanting the Verba is a little more singing than say chanting the introit (where long strings of words are chanted on one note) - but nevertheless, the verba are short and the tune never changes.
I have yet to meet anyone who insists on speaking the lyrics to "Happy Birthday" or "The Star Spangled Banner." Chanting is simply part of what we do. Having a phobia about speaking in public or even a lousy speaking voice doesn't excuse pastors from delivering the sermon. We simply have to get over ourselves and do it.
If a pastor listens to the tune over and over, and makes the effort, he can learn. He doesn't have to be Enrico Caruso. In all of the historic communions of the church, priests are expected to chant. We Lutherans sometimes play loose and fast with our Christian liberty in order to excuse our laziness, which has led a lot of the congregations in "the singing church" to think nothing of it when the pastor speaks his portion of the holy dialogue while the congregation chants.
I also find that chanting the verba makes the voice resonate better, especially when you're facing ad orientem and your voice has to carry behind you.
Post a Comment