What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?

[tadoflamb]

You can negotiate with a terrorist.

Or so the joke went as told by our substitute pastor three Easters ago when I believe he may have detected the stress I felt at what he had done to the Holy Week liturgies.

Not that I'm a liturgist. I just that I love the liturgy and don't care for how the Holy Week liturgies, especially my favorite night of the year, the Easter Vigil had been rendered unrecognizable by this priest.

I guess you can't negotiate with a liturgist, because after 13 years of serving all the services of Holy Week, this year I can't bring myself to do it anymore. I love the Church and I love her liturgies and I've found that I can't be a part of something which I believe greatly diminishes their beauty and their meaning.

It's hard for me. I've been a faithful servant at my parish up to this point. On one hand I feel like I'm betraying my pastor and my parish, but on the other I feel like the faithful has a right to reverent and well said liturgies.

I'm not sure if I should tell the powers that be why I won't serve this year. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do it without getting mad and I'm sure I won't sway anyone's opinions. We did have plans to be out of town with my mother next weekend, but we decided to stay home instead. I guess I could tell them that my mom wanted to go somewhere else for mass that weekend, but that wouldn't be exactly true except that she'll let me do whatever it is that I feel like I need to do.

 

[Paidiske]

Tad, I think you should find a way to talk about it with your priest.

Critical feedback is hard to hear, but how will your priest even know people are unhappy, or have a chance to work with them, if the first clue he gets is that some people are quietly slipping away?

If you're worried about getting angry, maybe make a little list of dot points of the things which matter most to you, and use that to keep you on topic and away from emotions and making the comments personal.

Would it help to talk about it here? What are the particular things you feel are not being done well?

 

[tadoflamb]

Tad, I think you should find a way to talk about it with your priest.

Critical feedback is hard to hear, but how will your priest even know people are unhappy, or have a chance to work with them, if the first clue he gets is that some people are quietly slipping away?

If you're worried about getting angry, maybe make a little list of dot points of the things which matter most to you, and use that to keep you on topic and away from emotions and making the comments personal.

Would it help to talk about it here? What are the particular things you feel are not being done well?

Thanks for your reply, Paidiske, I wasn't sure on how much of a response I would get so I'm grateful that I could get some insight from someone who is in the know.

I suppose a little background would be helpful.

I've been a server since shortly after I was confirmed 14 years ago. While it was something I never desired or asked for it's been the greatest privilege to serve at the altar. Holy Week always took on a certain sweetness for me as it was a time when my pastor and I had to work more closely together.

My pastor has fallen into poor health and although he still is the head administrator, another retired priest has filled in for most of the sacramental duties. Normally, I love the guy. He's an activist and not shy about preaching on his pet issues. There's already been somewhat of an exodus from our parish because of this. It's really easy to tell that mass numbers are down and liturgical ministers are resigning for various reasons. We're a parish in transition.

Three years ago when my pastor couldn't celebrate the Holy Week liturgies anymore, our visiting pastor took over. Of course, I signed up to serve. That first year we had no instruction for the pastor nor the layperson who was reinventing the liturgy. Holy Thursday and Good Friday weren't that bad but the Easter Vigil was totally bizarre.

The first thing that I found odd was that we didn't light a fire at the beginning of the service. That came in the middle. Last year we lit a bunch of sticks in the middle of the church in a charcoal grill and smoked everybody out. Even my mother and wife couldn't figure out what that was all about.

Other anomalies including an abnormal amount of audience participation with the Old Testament readings being rewritten by the pastor and the congregation forced to sing along like it's some sort of public theater. The reading from Romans was deleted. The Exultant which is normally chanted by a member of the choir was instead read by the pastor. Last year we confirmed a 6 year old.

It's been just bizarre. The first year was a shocker, the second year I knew what to expect and took it as a lesson in humility and by the third, I decided I was done with this reinventing of the Easter Vigil. In the end, it didn't matter how much experience I had as a server. Everything had been turned around so much you could pull a couple strangers off the street and they would have had just as good of an idea what to do as I did.

I'm not sure if I should talk to this priest or the woman helping him rewrite the liturgies. Like I said, I'm still pretty upset about this. If anything I'd like to talk to my pastor, he's my main confessor and was my spiritual director, but given his poor health I'd hate to bother him with it.

Tomorrow's Palm Sunday and I'm scheduled to serve. I'm sure I'm going to be asked if I'm available to serve the Vigil. I'm not sure how I'm going to tell them I'm not.

 

[Tallguy88]

I haven't been catholic my whole life, so this point I don't understand. What's wrong with confirming a six year old? Isn't that within the usual range for confirmation in the Roman Rite?

 

[Paidiske]

It sounds to me, Tad, as if there are two separate issues.

1) Liturgical innovation
2) Lack of communication.

You may not be within your rights to ask the priest to do things the way you prefer (although you can always give feedback), but I think, especially as someone with a necessary role in the liturgy, you can definitely address the communication issue.

What are we doing, and why? Are not trivial questions. The server knowing what's being done, and what needs to be done, is not an unreasonable expectation. That's definitely a conversation you can have.

I mean, on a quick read, I don't know why he's doing things that way either; but it may be that if he has good, well-thought through reasons and can communicate them to the congregation, they might be willing to accommodate them even if they're not most people's personal preference. But expecting people to participate and be edified when they don't understand is not reasonable.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I haven't been catholic my whole life, so this point I don't understand. What's wrong with confirming a six year old? Isn't that within the usual range for confirmation in the Roman Rite?

Confirmations used to take place during the early teenage years, partly as a rite (A literal rite!) of passage, sort of like a Bar-Mitzvah. People viewed it as becoming an adult member of the Church and taking the baptismal promises your parents made on your behalf on yourself as someone who is well above the age of reason and understands what they are getting into. One might even be able to say no if one had doubts. Adults would also slip you a lot of money and bibles and such at parties afterwards. It was a thing.

Though the eastern rites confirm infants right after their baptisms in one Divine Liturgy, which means that, sacramentally, confirmations are valid at any age, there is a strong cultural and even theological or quasi-theological school of thought among some in the Latin Rite that this is a sacrament best bestowed at an older age- the traditional young teenagers, or even waiting for true adulthood when parental and/or peer pressure wouldn't be as strong that people would feel forced into it, so that it could instead be a completely free choice and thus more personally meaningful for those who chose it. Unfortunately, that point of view is losing out among our bishops, who keep pushing these sacraments of initiation to younger and younger ages.

Actually, if you go back far enough, and I am really only talking pre-Vatican II here, bishops (Who would of course be wearing white gloves) actually used to slap people across the face to symbolically "awaken them to the Holy Spirit"- usually just in a relatively token way, not hard- after the laying on of hands and the conferral of the sacrament. You can't do that with a six year old! You'd psychologically scar a 6 year old for life. A teenager would understand. That tradition actually went back a ways- I honestly don't know how long, so I'm not going to guess, but it was something that had been done as long as people could remember going back some generations for a while.

 

[Fantine]

My former pastor moved things around with the Easter vigil, too. He lit the Easter fire inside the church and and as he was elderly we had a near accident once that caused the congregation to gasp. This seems petty, but he had written a few responsorial psalm responses and put the quarter notes on stressed syllables and half notes on unstressed syllables. This is bad music theory and difficult to sing. I think the syllables fell in different places in his native tongue, but when I offered to adapt them on Finale to fit English words rhythmically he ignored me. I loved him in many ways but he didn't understand rhythm. You need to put the stressed syllables on the longer notes.

 

[tadoflamb]

It sounds to me, Tad, as if there are two separate issues.

1) Liturgical innovation
2) Lack of communication.

You may not be within your rights to ask the priest to do things the way you prefer (although you can always give feedback), but I think, especially as someone with a necessary role in the liturgy, you can definitely address the communication issue.

What are we doing, and why? Are not trivial questions. The server knowing what's being done, and what needs to be done, is not an unreasonable expectation. That's definitely a conversation you can have.

I mean, on a quick read, I don't know why he's doing things that way either; but it may be that if he has good, well-thought through reasons and can communicate them to the congregation, they might be willing to accommodate them even if they're not most people's personal preference. But expecting people to participate and be edified when they don't understand is not reasonable.

I think you have a pretty good take on the situation. I wonder how much leeway priests have in changing the liturgy. I know the head pastor did a few things to trim down the length of the Vigil and that never bothered me that much. I could still go home and watch the Vigil from the Vatican or the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception and recognize that what we just did at my parish is the very same thing that has happened in Rome or in Washington D.C. though in a much simpler and pared down form.

In the end, I'm off the hook for all three services. Holy Thursday and Good Friday was already covered and I just said I was unavailable for the Vigil. They seemed to understand. Everyone at church understands that I have been very busy lately, and I could tell that they still care about me even though I haven't been around as much.

Our assistant pastor encouraged us in his homily to take the events of Holy Week seriously and in effect, that's what I'm doing. The past three years have been a distraction to me more than anything else and I look forward to visiting some more traditional churches around us that my wife in I have gotten into the custom of attending. She prefers the larger, quiet churches where she can keep to herself and pray silently. She gets claustrophobic at our parish. It's small and the parishioners are kind of rambunctious.

So, I'm looking forward to attending some beautiful and reverent liturgies with my wife. It's going to be different, I've served almost every Holy Week service at my parish for the past 13 years but I think I'm OK with it. In a way it's a suitable end to what has been a very interesting Lent.

Thanks for letting me bend your ear, Paidiske, it's helped a lot!

 

[Paidiske]

I know how much leeway I have to change liturgy, but I don't know how it works in the Catholic system. It might depend on your bishop?

Hope the Triduum services are wonderful for you.

I need to get back to working on making sure ours are beautiful and reverent... actually the one that I always find hardest is Tenebrae. Partly because there I do have some leeway, and I need to make sure that whatever I do will actually work!

 

[tadoflamb]

Well, I got through Holy Week alright. It was a relief not to have to serve at all this year, and being able to sit back and absorb what was going on. All three liturgies are really hanging with me this year. They tend to soak in like a gentle rain. The Benedictine nuns were a lot of fun to celebrate Easter with. Of the three churches we visited, the sisters were the only ones who acted like they had been there before. My wife and I noticed they seemed a little giddy. Nice to see. We love that community and Tucson is going to lose them in a couple of years.

Although we skipped the Vigil for the first time I did catch it from Rome on EWTN. It really is the best night of the year. Too bad my parish has goofed it up so bad.

Thanks, again, @Paidiske for your help. I hope you had a blessed Holy Week as well.

 

[Paidiske]

Thanks, Tad, I had a lovely week. Very much one of mixed emotions as I will be leaving this parish soon, but all went well, people seemed to appreciate the liturgies, and I'm hopeful that one or two of our visitors might turn into more regular attendees, so... what more can you ask?

 

[Fish and Bread]

Thanks, Tad, I had a lovely week. Very much one of mixed emotions as I will be leaving this parish soon

Feel free to ignore this if it's too personal or you don't want to share (Or just pick the question or questions you feel comfortable answering and ignore the rest), but I'm curious:

Why are you leaving the parish?

Do you have a new parish lined up? If so, how does the new parish compare to your current one in churchmanship and so forth?

How does the Anglican Church of Australia handle clergy transfers and such? Do priests get assigned places by bishops, get hired by individual parishes (After ordination, of course) after putting forward job applications and doing interviews, or is there a hybrid system where the bishop is involve sometimes or to some extent but the parishes also get a say sometimes or to some extent? I know how the Episcopal Church (For those unaware, that is the American equivalent of Paidiske's church- both parts of the Anglican Communion, but different in some ways- both self-governing) works in the US in general terms, but I've also heard that this process differs from province to province in the Anglican Communion (province being roughly, but not always precisely, equivalent to "national church" for those who may not be familiar with the word in this context)?

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure how it works in America, but here, the general pattern (to which there are always exceptions, but it still holds as a pattern, iykwim) is that for your first three or four years after ordination you work as an assistant priest in a parish, under the supervision of someone more senior. This is my fourth year of being ordained, and so I've come to that point in the life cycle of a priest where it's expected that it's time to leave behind this sort of "apprentice" assistant role, and take on being in charge of a parish in my own right.

Which is pretty much what the bishop said to me when he came out to take a service in the parish in January; more or less a "Well, it's time, and by the way, here's the parish I'd like you to consider."

The new parish is lined up, I'm just waiting to pass all my police checks (which we do every time we are considered for a new role). It's a given that I'll pass them, I haven't done anything which would mean that I wouldn't, but officially the new role can't be announced until the archbishop has that piece of paper that says there's no professional standards-type reason why I can't be appointed.

In terms of comparison to where I am now, I think I might have mentioned before that at the moment I'm working across two neighbouring parishes; one more Anglo-Catholic and one more evangelical. The new parish describes itself as "progressive Catholic," and would, I think, be similar to the more catholic parish where I am now, only probably more self-consciously interested in social justice etc. Actually the bigger difference will be that the new parish is actually healthy, in terms of numbers of people and finances and so forth, so being there will be much less about "How do we prevent the closure of this church?" and much more about "How can we be effective in ministry and mission together?"

The appointments system is more of a hybrid. Each parish has an "incumbency committee," usually three people, charged with the search for the next vicar. Generally speaking, an appointment won't happen unless it is satisfactory to the incumbency committee, the proposed appointee, and the bishop; but how proactive and involved each of those parties is, is something that can be flexible. As I mentioned, in this case, the bishop steered me fairly firmly in their direction. Before that happened, I had actually applied to a parish I didn't get, and also been approached by a parish I didn't want!

If that all makes sense...?

 

[tadoflamb]

Which is pretty much what the bishop said to me when he came out to take a service in the parish in January;

What is taking a service in the parish?

 

[Paidiske]

I meant, he came and presided and preached at the main service of the day. Generally speaking, you don't manage to get a bishop to come and do that more often than about once a year.

 

[tadoflamb]

Thank you.