Thoughts for Lent
A good friend of mine who loves good liturgy, and enjoys study of theology, often has had a difficult time with ideas that I have brought up in conversation, which alone can be enough to make our conversations stimulating. In my preaching I have emphasized how much our service of Holy Communion stresses the Gospel message of Christ's sacrifice, and also of the partaking/communion/fellowship we have with Him by receiving His life-giving Body and Blood. Our service emphasizes that we are celebrating a sacrament "generally necessary to salvation,"1 and that by faithful eating and drinking of it we have eternal life, feeding a future immortality that will be given to us by the Resurrected Christ when he comes on the Last Day. 2 In short, the emphasis of the Holy Communion service in Book of Common Prayer has everything to do with our salvation.
The very name of the service, "Holy Communion," has been added to a list of existing names. "Eucharist" is from Greek, and can be translated best as "good thanksgiving," but can be translated also "good grace." As such the whole idea is reciprocal and depends on Divine initiative; because he gives grace we are able to give thanks. The expression "the Lord's Supper" is also a name for the service, for obvious reasons. So is the word "Mass," which came from the uneducated peasantry hearing the word missa near the end, "depart in peace." Frankly, it is perfectly fine to use the word "Mass," but it is the least meaningful of the names. To say "I am going to Mass" makes me think of words sung by Groucho Marx- in Animal Crackers: "Hello, I must be going." We do not go to Church for the purpose of departing. We do go to be present at the Lord's Supper, where we give thanks for His goodness, because we are receiving the Communion (partaking, fellowship, κοινωνία-koinōnia) of His Body and Blood. As we have seen on this blog many times, the addition of the phrase Holy Communion to this list of names came in a historical context of most people receiving the sacrament very rarely if at all. The Book of Common Prayer emphasized, in its version of the Masse or Eucharist, the Holy Communion itself, that the people are meant to partake. This was no less than an emphasis on God's gift of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Against this emphasis, my friend has argued with me, "I am not in Church for my salvation, but to worship God." And, if in any sense that is true, it is not from the Divine perspective. From the Divine perspective it is all about our salvation. Before someone takes that to mean that I believe in an anthropocentric notion of the Church (i.e. human centered) rather than God centered, we need to understand His perspective as he has revealed it to us. From His perspective each of us was the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son in the successive parables from Luke chapter fifteen. From Christ's perspective, each of us is the one sheep that went astray, after which He sought until He found it, or the pearl of great price for which He paid the full value. So, from the Divine perspective, the emphasis is on the need not only of mankind, but of each person who is part of His Church.
Self-Deception
The other part of this has to do with a grand presumption that can amount to a flattering delusion in the human imagination. And, this is why the point I want to make here is so appropriate for Lent, for the truth of the matter leads only to humility. To say that our service is not about the salvation God gives to us, but about our worship of God, certainly makes us seem very holy, very spiritual in the best sense (i.e. not carnal), and capable of perfect love for God coupled with an enlightened understanding of the Divine nature. But, is that what our liturgy portrays? Here is the truth we tell, in various parts of our service, both in the presence of God and of one another:
"We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty...We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table...we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice..."
An extreme example of the opposite attitude, from the words we say about ourselves, was expressed in a song that a denomination springing from the Charismatic movement, called the "Vineyard churches," was singing in the 1980s, that had this embarrassing refrain, sung to address the Almighty: "There are many, many reasons why I love You like I do/But most of all I love You because You're You." Aside from the stomach-turning, maggot-gagging, flavor of the lyrics, they express presumption that transcends mere arrogance, proud boasting of sanctification on a level that is impossible in this Fallen mortal life, to the point where God is addressed in terms of impertinent familiarity. It is a far cry from the sobering truth taught by St. John in his First Epistle: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins...We love him, because he first loved us." (I John 4:10,19)
We, sinners by our own Fallen nature, cannot love God unless it is the reflection of His love coming from within our hearts by grace. He has expressed that love more clearly by the cross of Jesus Christ than by anything else, indeed, to the exclusion of everything else by comparison. We worship God because even the very possibility itself of doing so is one of His gifts, and because He sees that we need to worship Him; whereas He needs nothing. (Acts 17:25) We cannot worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23) unless He gives us the grace to do so, and that comes with gratitude that presumes nothing. The highest worship we can give requires us to receive His love as he gives it in Christ, by way of His cross, and with the taking of the Food and Drink of eternal life. Receiving this gift, with gratitude that springs from the work of the Holy Spirit within us, is the highest worship and the most true Eucharistic devotion.
What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD...
I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.
(Psalm 116:12,13,17)
This is humbling, as it ought to be. We have not the ability to love God by our own means, for we are sinners, one and all. Only by His grace and goodness can we offer any worship, praise and thanksgiving. We cannot love Him without first seeing and believing that He loved us. For the true experience of worship, we cannot even begin unless we comprehend, at least in part, the meaning of these words that open our Canon of Consecration:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."
True worship begins with believing that revelation.
1. Catechism
2. John 6:54
A good friend of mine who loves good liturgy, and enjoys study of theology, often has had a difficult time with ideas that I have brought up in conversation, which alone can be enough to make our conversations stimulating. In my preaching I have emphasized how much our service of Holy Communion stresses the Gospel message of Christ's sacrifice, and also of the partaking/communion/fellowship we have with Him by receiving His life-giving Body and Blood. Our service emphasizes that we are celebrating a sacrament "generally necessary to salvation,"1 and that by faithful eating and drinking of it we have eternal life, feeding a future immortality that will be given to us by the Resurrected Christ when he comes on the Last Day. 2 In short, the emphasis of the Holy Communion service in Book of Common Prayer has everything to do with our salvation.
The very name of the service, "Holy Communion," has been added to a list of existing names. "Eucharist" is from Greek, and can be translated best as "good thanksgiving," but can be translated also "good grace." As such the whole idea is reciprocal and depends on Divine initiative; because he gives grace we are able to give thanks. The expression "the Lord's Supper" is also a name for the service, for obvious reasons. So is the word "Mass," which came from the uneducated peasantry hearing the word missa near the end, "depart in peace." Frankly, it is perfectly fine to use the word "Mass," but it is the least meaningful of the names. To say "I am going to Mass" makes me think of words sung by Groucho Marx- in Animal Crackers: "Hello, I must be going." We do not go to Church for the purpose of departing. We do go to be present at the Lord's Supper, where we give thanks for His goodness, because we are receiving the Communion (partaking, fellowship, κοινωνία-koinōnia) of His Body and Blood. As we have seen on this blog many times, the addition of the phrase Holy Communion to this list of names came in a historical context of most people receiving the sacrament very rarely if at all. The Book of Common Prayer emphasized, in its version of the Masse or Eucharist, the Holy Communion itself, that the people are meant to partake. This was no less than an emphasis on God's gift of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Against this emphasis, my friend has argued with me, "I am not in Church for my salvation, but to worship God." And, if in any sense that is true, it is not from the Divine perspective. From the Divine perspective it is all about our salvation. Before someone takes that to mean that I believe in an anthropocentric notion of the Church (i.e. human centered) rather than God centered, we need to understand His perspective as he has revealed it to us. From His perspective each of us was the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son in the successive parables from Luke chapter fifteen. From Christ's perspective, each of us is the one sheep that went astray, after which He sought until He found it, or the pearl of great price for which He paid the full value. So, from the Divine perspective, the emphasis is on the need not only of mankind, but of each person who is part of His Church.
Self-Deception
The other part of this has to do with a grand presumption that can amount to a flattering delusion in the human imagination. And, this is why the point I want to make here is so appropriate for Lent, for the truth of the matter leads only to humility. To say that our service is not about the salvation God gives to us, but about our worship of God, certainly makes us seem very holy, very spiritual in the best sense (i.e. not carnal), and capable of perfect love for God coupled with an enlightened understanding of the Divine nature. But, is that what our liturgy portrays? Here is the truth we tell, in various parts of our service, both in the presence of God and of one another:
"We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty...We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table...we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice..."
An extreme example of the opposite attitude, from the words we say about ourselves, was expressed in a song that a denomination springing from the Charismatic movement, called the "Vineyard churches," was singing in the 1980s, that had this embarrassing refrain, sung to address the Almighty: "There are many, many reasons why I love You like I do/But most of all I love You because You're You." Aside from the stomach-turning, maggot-gagging, flavor of the lyrics, they express presumption that transcends mere arrogance, proud boasting of sanctification on a level that is impossible in this Fallen mortal life, to the point where God is addressed in terms of impertinent familiarity. It is a far cry from the sobering truth taught by St. John in his First Epistle: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins...We love him, because he first loved us." (I John 4:10,19)
We, sinners by our own Fallen nature, cannot love God unless it is the reflection of His love coming from within our hearts by grace. He has expressed that love more clearly by the cross of Jesus Christ than by anything else, indeed, to the exclusion of everything else by comparison. We worship God because even the very possibility itself of doing so is one of His gifts, and because He sees that we need to worship Him; whereas He needs nothing. (Acts 17:25) We cannot worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23) unless He gives us the grace to do so, and that comes with gratitude that presumes nothing. The highest worship we can give requires us to receive His love as he gives it in Christ, by way of His cross, and with the taking of the Food and Drink of eternal life. Receiving this gift, with gratitude that springs from the work of the Holy Spirit within us, is the highest worship and the most true Eucharistic devotion.
What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD...
I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.
(Psalm 116:12,13,17)
This is humbling, as it ought to be. We have not the ability to love God by our own means, for we are sinners, one and all. Only by His grace and goodness can we offer any worship, praise and thanksgiving. We cannot love Him without first seeing and believing that He loved us. For the true experience of worship, we cannot even begin unless we comprehend, at least in part, the meaning of these words that open our Canon of Consecration:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."
True worship begins with believing that revelation.
1. Catechism
2. John 6:54
19 comments:
I have always believed that we should be going to the Mass or Holy Communion because He commanded it. He said, "Do this . . ." and we believing in what he said elsewhere in that sentence from St Matthew which is included in the Offertory Sentences. In another place He is quoted as saying, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments," which is precisely what we are doing when we, priest and people, celebrate the Eucharist. But while it is important that we be there, it is even more important that our presence is for the purpose of receiving His body and blood after having made our best possible preparation for so doing.
But the really great thing about any of the classic Anglican canons is that opening sentence which you quoted. It is one of the most awe inspiring in all liturgical usage. Thank you for reminding us of it.
Fr. Hart,
Could you elaborate on this phrase from your post,
"and that by faithful eating and drinking of it we 'have' eternal life, feeding a future immortality that will be given to us by the Resurrected Christ when he comes on the Last Day."
Specifically, is eating and drinking of the sacramental elements in Holy Communion the means to 'have' eternal life; or is it Christ's instituted means of grace by which our faith is strengthened - thus further sanctifying us as we increasingly lay hold of that which Christ has already accomplished and given on our behalf, having secured the gift of eternal life for His chosen through His passion and death.... or? sorry for the run on sentence.
And I'm unclear as to "feeding a future immortality that will be given...."
Don't take me wrong. I agree with the thrust of your post. Christianity is a recipient religion. It is not about what we bring to God... how we love Him so. Rather God, through Christ, has given to us what we need and long for but in no way can supply. This is the drama of the feast we participate with thankfulness every Sunday in Holy Communion. Grace and peace, and again thank you for your edifying posts.
By the time we get to the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood we have been baptized, and (if taken rightly) have been absolved of our sins. By the time we get to the truth of the sacrament, we have believed in the Incarnation, His death for our sins and his rising for our justification. So, having opportunity, we are taking the sacrament within the whole context of our faith and his finished work, with the guarantee of what is to come.
But, as to how it works-it is enough to know that those who have no such faith receive none of the benefits even if they eat and drink, but only add sin to sin and further the judgment on themsleves. How it is, for believers, a means of grace remains a mysterious article of faith.
"So is the word "Mass," which came from the uneducated peasantry hearing the words missa solemnis at the end, which means "depart in peace"."
I think you mean "Ite, Missa est".
I have re-read this twice and have decided that it is very good prayer - at least for me. It consists of nothing except truths which I have known for as long as I have consciously been a Christian, but it is always good to come upon them in a form which creates thanksgiving, praise and adoration.
Last Sunday I carried the Blessed Sacrament to an elderly gentleman (he is about five years older than I am) in a nursing home. After I gave him Holy Communion, he asked me, "Father, what does 'propitiation' mean?"
I explained that propitation means to placate or assuage the wrath of God which rightly falls on our sinfulness, that the word derives from the Latin "prope" which means "near," because the Cross brings God near and close to us. He seemed satisfied and thanked me.
This parishioner is a well educated man, a cradle Anglican, who has been a faithful church-goer his entire life. I went away wondering why no one has ever explained "propitiation" to him before. What sort of sermons has he listened to all his life?
The Episcopal Church became apostate because of apostate preaching. Not overtly heretical preaching, but preaching which fails to teach the most basic doctrines of the Gospel. I wonder how long God will give us to remedy the defect.
Liturgist
Just a quick correction:
The term "mass" (Latin "missa") for the Eucharistic Celebration does no come from "missa solemnis" but from "ite, missa est", meaning, "Go, you are dismissed".
"Missa solemnis" or "Solemn Mass" is already a derived term, and the fact that "missa" and its derivatives have found their way into ecclesiastic Latin makes me doubt whether it was uneducated peasants who coined the term.
And while it is of course originally a rather meaningless term, it has the acquired meaning of "the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist" as opposed to any expressly Protestant understanding thereof. Can't imagine Baptists calling their once-a-month Communion service a "mass", nor the Plymouth Brethren their weekly Breaking-of-Bread gathering.
Fr. Hart,
Thank you. I love your answer, especially...
"So, having opportunity, we are taking the sacrament within the whole context of our faith and his finished work, with the guarantee of what is to come."
And your last sentence,
"So, having opportunity, we are taking the sacrament within the whole context of our faith and his finished work, with the guarantee of what is to come."
These two sentences are a very succinct in summing up, as you rightly emphasize, this mystery of receiving his body and blood.
Jack
Bp. Meade:
Oops-correction made. I was confusing the use of different languages. Solemnis, from which we get "solemn" goes back to the Hebrew word "shalom," the same as the Arabic, "salom." Too much etymology gets confusing.
Bp. Meade and wnpaul:
Oops-correction made. I was confusing the use of different languages. Solemnis, from which we get "solemn" goes back to the Hebrew word "shalom," the same as the Arabic, "salom." Too much etymology gets confusing. I made an assumption instead of looking something up, which was not excusable at all (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa).
And while it is of course originally a rather meaningless term, it has the acquired meaning of "the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist" as opposed to any expressly Protestant understanding thereof.
I agree with that;, but I want Anglo-Catholics to acquire a renewed appreciation for their Anglican heritage, and stop fearing the word "Protestant" or the word "Reformed" as if they were, for us, uncatholic. "Holy Communion" is not a rejection of the Catholic understanding, as the original Book of Common Prayer (1549) shows clearly in the long title:
THE SUPPER OF THE LORDE AND THE HOLY COMMUNION, COMMONLY CALLED THE MASSE.
I must confess that I loved your explanation of the beginning of the English word "mass." It is so totally like us to take a sound which was essentially meaningless to those kneeling in the nave (there were as yet no pews) and make it mean what had happened in front of them.
"ite, missa est", meaning, "Go, you are dismissed".
No. Ite, missa est means "Go, it [the sacrifice] has been sent."
"Go, you are dismissed" would be something likeIte, missimini.
Other than the grammatical clue, I distinctly remember being taught that the missa est referred to the sending of the sacrifice, and the people respond Deo gratias in thanks for the sacrament.
On the other hand, if we take missa as a simple first family noun in the nominative case, then it means, "Go, it is the dismissal" to which the people say "Deo gratias" because they want to get the heck out of the church! Then they take advantage of the priest turning to read the final Gospel to get a head start for the parking lot (and perdition).
Missa definitely means "depart,"and so it is translated in the polite Anglican Missal, "Depart in peace." I had thought the "in peace" part was from the Latin too; silly me. The indication seems to be that that muissa the word they longed to hear-who can blame them, inasmuch as they could not understand a word of it anyway?
"Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" I Cor. 14:16
Lest we think this a small matter consider, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17) Using "a tongue understanded by the people" the BCP Holy Communion makes sure that the people have heard the Gospel, that the service itself preaches the Gospel, even if the priest fails to do his duty from the pulpit.
"Missa" is a bit of a linguistic mystery. There are two possible constructions:
(1) It is the perfect passive participle of the verb Mitto, and therefore means "sent." If it is construed this way, a subject must be supplied. Possibly Ecclesia or (less likely) congregatio.
The meaning, then, would be "Go, the church has been sent forth."
(2) Missa is a noun (a Late Latin corrupt for of "Missio) meaning "Go, this is the dismissal."
The verb Mitto (in either case the root word) assuredly does NOT mean to depart. There was a verb, dimitto, which means to dismiss. (Latin had a number of verbs for Depart, such as abire, discedere, etc, none of them compounds of Mitto.)
The overly genteel "Depart in peace"
probably arose from a strong nervousness in the early 20th century (when our two Missals were cobbled together) over the use of the dreaded Popish word "Mass."
I once new a simple country priest who was obliged to serve as Deacon at a Solemn Pontifical Beanfeast in Columbia SC. When time came for the dismissal, someone had to nudge him and say, "Father, give the dismissal." Being more familiar with the Missale Romanum than Missale Anglicanum, he stood up and said, "You can go now, Mass is over."
And dear Father Hart, with all due respect, I would question your etymology for "solemnis." Forming a Latin adjective from a Hebrew root is a bit of a stretch. Cassell's informs us that it derives from an alternative form of "totus" with "annus" understood, "sollus annus" (meaning "a whole year'). Solemnis described a solemn annual observance.
LKW
Thanks for the lesson on the etymology of Mass. I have never been fully comfortable with the use of the term Mass in Anglican churches and I really did not fully understand why. I grew up in a very solid 1928 Anglo-Catholic parish in the 1980s and it was always called Holy Communion never Mass
Now I have a concrete reason, not just a feeling of discomfort because it seemed that the church I first heard in in was a wannabe Roman church ( in fact that Priest left the Episcopal Church and became Roman Catholic)
On the Prayer of Humble Access. As a child I remember the picture painted by "...crumbs under thy table."
I think it illustrates the grace of God perfectly
And dear Father Hart, with all due respect, I would question your etymology for "solemnis." Forming a Latin adjective from a Hebrew root is a bit of a stretch.
Even with the connection to Arabic and Aramaic speaking Christians, and St. Jerome's work in Hebrew? Languages have always borrowed from each other when in such close proximity. Nonetheless, it is not my own idea, but an old idea I read in books.
Joseph:
The word "Mass" is perfectly fine, and appeared, as we have seen, in the 1549 BCP. However, I hope that the Anglican and Biblical "Holy Communion" will be restored to its right place in our thinking and vocabulary.
Marvelous thoughts, Fr. Hart! I appreciate the focus during this season of Lent.
I don't have a problem with either name. On our parish web pages I list the service as "Holy Communion" when I have room, and "Mass" when the holy day has a long name such as "The Forty Holy Martyrs of San Sebaste." It is wonderful and convenient to have alternative names and descriptions of the same thing, one of the advantages of English.
Post a Comment