Pope Leo XIV (then Cardinal) on Mystery vs. Spectacle in the Liturgy
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Those with access to facebook videos may enjoy watching this video.

    https://www.facebook.com/reel/2369542020098034
    Thanked by 2LauraKaz CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    Hmmm… iconoclasm perhaps?

    A straightforward look is how I always see and say it… (seems people are a bit shy of commenting on this.)

    … did not God give us human senses that directly respond to the essence of truth, beauty and goodness?

    The term “spectacle” for me primarily has to do with the eyes and ears…

    The heresy of iconoclasm completely denies the beauty and truth that we take in through our senses. “We don’t need those!” What could be a better spectacle for the ears than the highest form of art found in the Gregorian chant?

    Our senses are gifts from God and through them we come to a realization of the Almighty here in this world, which leads us to the perfection of God, in truth, beauty and goodness in the eternal.

    A cathedral is a spectacle. Vestments are a spectacle. The pipe organ is a spectacle. A choir is a spectacle. You present us with a spectacle in the beautiful poetry and prose that you yourself create. And the ultimate spectacle is the Eucharist.

    Jesus was very concerned with the eyes… Was not Jesus totally into putting mud on the eyes of the blind man? The blind man followed Jesus because he was healed and now he could “see”. It was all about spectacle. But it was a spectacle that always leads to an ultimate spiritual reality.

    God created the world and it was good. He created the heavens and the Earth and it was good … it’s all a spectacle… one of breathtaking Beauty. …when we behold beauty we encounter truth. When we hear the gospel we encounter goodness, and truth, and we embrace the faith.

    (I saved this as a draft and waited a day because I always like to give it time before I post something serious.)
  • monasteryliturgistmonasteryliturgist
    Posts: 393
    I mean I think there is some truth to what he is saying in certain contexts....like what @francis notes to me invites into the mystery but sometimes I have seen overboard things like seminarians doing 360s with the thurible (literally I saw a seminarian one time almost hit the main celebrant in the face... he thought he was king of the thurible), liturgical dancers, overly dramatic lectors or psalmists, etc... so there could be some reason to what he said. Also, the fact that he was in South America, knowing some of the liturgical practices there, lead me to believe that he might have been pointing to some of these experiences... just a thought
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    I did not know what particular “spectacles” were being addressed… if abusive spectacles… we’ll, then he has a good reason for saying so.
    Thanked by 1monasteryliturgist
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,546

    M. Jackson Osborn February 2019 Thanks
    Posts: 8,440
    Ha!
    I knew someone would ask about Queen Anns. There must be a proper liturgical name for this - it is when the thuribler swings his thurible in a complete circle from the ground to over his head and back to ground. I do not know how the name Queen Anns got attached to this act. It's just what we have always called it. Queen Anns also will sometimes be done whilst in procession.
    WGS February 2019 Thanks
    Posts: 301
    The expression "Queen Ann(e)s" is new to me, but more often I have heard this maneuver referred to as "360s".
    Thanked by 3monasteryliturgist CHGiffen Chant_Supremacist
  • monasteryliturgistmonasteryliturgist
    Posts: 393
    yeah me neither but its just a guess knowing where he was missioned. My community has its origins in South America so we are very informed about some of the craziness there. A lot of it came from the marxist influence in those countries 70s-80s and then after that, liberally formed priests who confused incluturalization with permission to bring in pagan practices... we think we have it bad here in USA but its nothing compared to over there.
  • monasteryliturgistmonasteryliturgist
    Posts: 393
    @a_f_hawkings is there a proper name for it when it hits someone in the face :)
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,282
    The Liturgical Customary of The Church of The Advent*, Boston, touches on 360s:

    https://theadventboston.org/liturgical-customary/?id=4686

    (The rest of the Customary is no less fascinating to those for whom such things are fascinating.)

    Sadly, the online version of the Customary does not include the Appendix. (I think I recall a PDF of the Customary used to be accessible online....)

    * One of Boston's very High churches (another being All Saints Ashmont; very sadly, one of the great redoubts of Episcopal liturgy and music, St John's the Evangelist Bowdoin Street, was absorbed into the cathedral parish and sold for condos; at least its notable Ralph Adams Cram-designed sanctuary furnishings were salvaged and repatriated for further use). Boston even has what might be called a High Unitarian church, the mother church of Unitarianism in the USA, The King's Chapel.
    Thanked by 1Anna_Bendiksen
  • davido
    Posts: 1,068
    Wow, that’s awesome. Never read a customary before. I’ve imagined such a thing though. I get sick of seeing servers who can’t remember how to perform any of their roles.
    Thanked by 1monasteryliturgist
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    I know it's hard not to be suspicious, but I take his criticism to be in line with what previous popes taught about liturgical music vs. theatrical. There's something deeper than the emotion of the stage and we shouldn't distract from that depth.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen monasteryliturgist LauraKaz
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    Yes… should definitely not be a theater… however, it is the supreme drama on earth. If all the members hold reverence in their hearts and are truly making it a prayer, that would be the largest difference I suppose.
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 138
    From Jungmann's Mass of the Roman Rite:

    The Mass has been the called the central artistic achievement of Christian culture. The dramatist Hugo Ball (d. 1927) held the opinion: "For the Catholic there can really be no theater. The play which dominates his life and enthralls his every morning is holy Mass.'" Paul Claudel, after the initial impressions which culminated in his conversion, was thrilled by the sacred drama unfolded at Notre Dame in Paris. "It was the most profound and grandiose poetry, enhanced by the most august gestures ever confided to human beings. I could not sufficiently satiate myself with the spectacle of the Mass..."


    Jungmann goes on to properly qualify that of course the Mass is not merely an artistic achievement, but he gives this aspect of it some weight in passing.

    Granted this is laden with terminological and translation baggage around the word "spectacle," both in this quotation and in what Leo said, but I tend to agree with Francis that there is a core difference of perspective here, between one that values the "theatrical" or dramatic, and appreciates precisely the grandiosity and august (impressive) quality of the poetry and gestures, and one that seeks to make liturgy a little more externally ordinary.
Add a Comment