Encountering Christ in the Words of the Mass

Here's a very brief summary of Encountering Christ in the Words of the Mass by Carstens and Martis

This book is formatted as a significant catechesis (my spell check is protestant and doesn't like that word) on the liturgy of the mass. The mass was revised recently to more closely translate that of the latin text. Interestingly this highlights the importance of tradition to the Roman Catholic Church, for the book is very clear that the reason for the new translation is to more closely follow tradition not to more closely follow Scripture (necessarily). Of course, the focus of mass is the eucharist and the outworking of the physical presence of Christ uniting Christ's body unto salvation. This is true on a highly thought out theological level and maybe problematically clear on the level of the laity. If its not clear in the book, its clear when one watches the dozens of people walking out of a Roman Catholic Church after they have received communion even though mass has not ended.

So here are some thoughts from a Protestant raised boy now working with the Roman Catholic Church.

1) The difference of values, background, and subsequent understanding is made apparent through reading. The book constantly takes for granted themes foreign to me, yet of which I do not have an immediate defense against.  There are numerous examples in the book of orthodoxy that says something true without going beyond the limits of understanding. Of course, orthodox examples are challenging to me because I know that the average Catholic would understand the true statements in the book differently than I would.

2) I was reminded of the practices in my own tradition that are in place primarily because of the Catholic Church. For example, the words of institution over eucharist/communion is an antecedent of Roman Catholic Tradition. Yes, we have it historically in the gospels and the continuation of it in Paul, but it is never specifically commanded to take place in the way that it does (with the words of institution, weekly or monthly beyond the original practice of the yearly passover that was being celebrated).

3) The book argues that a principle aim of the gathered congregation is to give symbolic life to actual life. That is, in revelation we have a picture of right worship of the Lamb. The mass is to replicate the eternal reality as closely as possible, as the mass itself states before the gloria: "And so, with Angels and Archangels, with Thrones and Dominions, and with all the hosts and Powers of heaven, as we sing the hymn of your glory without end we acclaim: Holy Holy Holy Lord God of hosts..." Of course, the highlight of symbolism marking actual life is the eucharist. "For the Church, the liturgy's signs, symbols, sacraments, and sacramentals are truly, really, and actually full of Christ. To engage in the liturgy's signs, symbols, and sacraments is to encounter the living God." If its merely a memorial with absolutely no reality, Paul wouldn't warn us that it can cause sickness or even death for those who are eating in an unworthy manner. Yet on the other hand, is there really a substance in the host itself that disregards the accurate celebration of the partaker or the time of the celebration (as seen in adoration of the uneaten host)? More fundamentally: Do we see Scriptural evidence or even traditional evidence that this should be the principle aim of the gathered congregation?

Speaking of questions, here are some that I'm thinking of as I finish the book:

a) I think I have some grasp of the protestant stress that Scripture can be the only infallible rule of faith and also the Roman Catholic rebuttal that tradition inherently guides our translation and understanding of Scripture. How much then, are we to continue the traditions of the church merely because we don't have a reason to not. That is, maybe coconuts are the only thing available for the celebration of the eucharist on a given day in a foreign land, but doesn't that detract something from our understanding? More generally speaking, though Paul does not command the celebration of the eucharist, do we not rightfully continue to celebrate because it is a clear tradition? Though I hope we are not close to this being popular, I have heard of those who advocate potlucks without words of institution because it accomplishes the same purpose of the "love feast." So if a tradition does not conflict with Scripture, might it not be wise to continue its practice wholeheartedly?

b) How important is emphasis? I continue to be faced with examples where varying tradition have different emphasis. The action itself is not wrong, but the emphasis seems misleading sometimes. For example, my church emphasizes the community that takes place in the foyer after church. to scuddle out after communion would be horrendous. Yet, its not like the same people are making a point to be admonishing and encouraging throughout the week, its just something we do from 1200 to 1215 on Sunday and don't you dare skip it. Take for example how many Catholics place a significant emphasis on being a kingdom of priests. They seek to mediate through prayer in what a Protestant might consider an entirely unevangelistic way. To overstate it: A Protestant church might pray for the salvation of a nations president. A Catholic church would pray for the just and right decisions of the president entirely abstract from his own state of salvation. Now I don't think the Catholic church doesn't care about the presidents salvation or that the Protestant church doesn't care about the presidents actions. It shows however the difference in the way emphasis effects practice. Closer to Scripture, consider how a Protestant might ask a Catholic how it is right to designate so much thought to Mary. Whether a theology hinging on one verse of Scripture is right or wrong, do we really see the emphasis in Scripture or tradition that we now see in the Catholic church?

I pray we are reminded once again that we are utterly dependent on Christ not only for salvation but for faith in His work, understanding of his teaching, and the power to carry out his commission.