Mr. Clarke Is Standing Too Quickly
Regarding Donald Clarke’s letter “Further non-uniformity codified” (“Letters,” February 2004), Mr. Clarke writes: “Because no one remembers to stand before the priest says, ‘Pray, my brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God the Father almighty,’ my parish has settled into the habit of standing after the priest’s part as the congregation responds, ‘May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands’ etc. So we’ve got it wrong . . . I grit my teeth and stand before the priest’s prayer like we are supposed to, hoping that others will follow, but no one does.”
The others are correct in standing at the beginning of the congregation’s response. The new General Instruction of the Roman Missal states: “Upon returning to the middle of the altar, the priest, facing the people and extending and then joining his hands, invites the people to pray, saying, Orate, fraters (Pray, brethren). The people rise and make their response: Suscipiat Dominus (May the Lord accept)” (146).
Maria Maddox
Elgin, Illinois
Editor’s reply: The change in when the congregation stands as indicated by the new GIRM is problematic in the following respects:
- It is different than the traditional practice of changing position before or after our response, as indicated elsewhere in the Mass (e.g., the Great Amen or the Sanctus, where we are supposed to change position after our response).
- It is awkward to change position in the middle of an exchange, the result being that people are responding while exerting effort to stand.
- It is seemingly pointless (i.e., it does not make any theological point).
It is possible that the Vatican may have used this language without realizing its implications. If so, it would help to have Rome’s clarification.
Sin Made the Passion Possible
I enjoyed Paul Thigpen’s article about the Passion of Jesus (“Did Christ Have to Suffer?” February 2004). I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusions: Given that the Passion is the means of redemption chosen by our all-wise, all-powerful, and all-loving God, we should be moved to ponder it ever more closely in order to find the underlying treasures that are surely communicated within.
In addition to the many good reasons given in the article that point to the fittingness of the Passion, I’d like to add one that is particularly timely given the Lenten season at hand, and the “goriness” of Mel Gibson’s new film.
The utter brutality endured by the spotless Lamb of God in order to secure our redemption serves to underscore the absolute vileness of human sin in the presence of God’s incomprehensible holiness. I have often prayed during the rosary while contemplating the scourging at the pillar, “Lord please help us to recognize even our smallest sins as lashes upon your back; tearing at your precious flesh; wounding your entire body.” It was sin—my sin and your sin—that made the Passion possible, even if not absolutely necessary, as Mr. Thigpen pointed out in his article.
In this season of penance, I think we would all do well to contemplate the violence of the Passion as an illustration of the effects of sin upon the entire Body of Christ, and upon each of us as individuals.
Louie Verrecchio
Hampstead, Maryland
Humanity and Divinity United
I enjoyed reading Paul Thigpen’s article “Did Christ Have to Suffer?” (February 2004). One reason that is near and dear to my heart is that pouring out his blood on the cross made possible our divinization through the Eucharist. It enabled us to become partakers of the divine nature (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4) and to become one flesh, one blood with God (cf. 1
Cor. 10:16).
Indeed, one could call the cross the tree of life (cf. 1 Pet. 2:24, Rev. 22:14), his flesh and blood being the fruit. The Passion not only pardoned our sins, it not only demonstrated God’s love for us, but it united our humanity to his divinity because, according to Athanasius, “God became man that men might become God.” How fitting that our earthly flesh take on divinity by consuming the sacrificed flesh of God’s only begotten Son.
Eric Ewanco
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
The Church of Luther (Ingram)
Kenneth D. Whitehead (“Winds of Schism,” January 2004) correctly notes that presiding bishop Frank Griswold, Episcopal Church U.S.A., has affirmed his province’s “breathtaking reinterpretation of Scripture.”
To me, then bishop-elect V. Gene Robinson’s comment to the press just after his August 2003 confirmation in Minneapolis (to which Mr. Whitehead did not refer but that was wide reported in the media) was most breathtaking of all and illustrative of Protestantism’s fractious nature. He said, “Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong.”
Perhaps the lyrics of Luther Ingram’s 1972 hit song will be dubbed prophetic by this new “Christian” church: “If loving you is wrong, I don’t want to be right.”
Patricia A. Voelker
Charlotte, North Carolina
Forever Complaining
Regarding uniformity in the liturgy (“The Battle for Uniformity in the Liturgy,” December 2003): If these people who are forever complaining about this or that would spend their valuable time addressing the Lord of Lords, whom they just received in the Eucharist, giving him the love and adoration that he deserves, singing and praising his name, we would, as one body, be offering to him a perfect sacrifice of our prayers and deeds united to the sacrifice of his Son on the cross.
Do these complaining people really think that God appreciates the prayers of a kneeling person more than those of a person standing? Are we not supposed to be addressing him as one body and one voice?
Jesus requested the circumcision of the heart. Posture as we perceive it is irrelevant. What truly matters is obedience to God’s authority.
Please stop making the job of the bishops and priest any harder than it already is. Think of how those outside the Church view these arguments. Unity is what God’s kingdom should be all about. Love for one another should be our goal. In this way, we become pleasing to our Lord.
Garnet Wince
Albany, Indiana