My post about the the Romance of Religion and the need to be liturgical Lancelots and ceremonial Cyrano de Bergeracs attracted attention at Fr Z’s beautifully bombastic blog. One reader was not sure whether I was mocking or not. Was it mockery? Was it a masquerade? Am I puncturing pomposity with intentionally boorish buffoonery?
Not at all. I am recognizing the divine comedy of Catholicism. ‘comedy’ in the divine comedy is not a comedy like a situation comedy. The liturgy is not I Love Lucy (except on 13 December when it is indeed ‘I Love Lucy’)
The ‘divine comedy’ of the liturgy uses the word ‘comedy’ in the older sense of being a drama, of being a solemn re-enactment, remembrance, anamnesis of that most solemn drama of all–in which the demonic jester in the high king’s court was thrown down once and for all and trampled on by that twist in the plot we call the resurrection.
And for all this, the solemn pomp and ceremonial with which we celebrate the Mass is indeed most serious. The most serious enterprise that mankind can undertake. It is the one serious solemnity about which I would never be satirical. However, while the Mass is the most seriously solemn ceremony we can imagine, there is also a playful aspect to the Mass.
Just as a drama is a ‘play’ so the liturgy has a dramatic play acting dimension to it. Yes, we dress up. We play a part. We speak the noble words assigned in a lofty and transcendent way. We take a part. We become more than we are and more than we ever deserve to be. It is a solemn masque. It is a solemn ceremonial, and for all this there is another dimension to the ‘play’.
In this dimension there is indeed also a certain child-like play acting to it. As a child dresses up and plays a part and pretends to be a great hero or to mimic his elders, so he plays a part that is greater than he is, and as he does he learns to fill the boots, and looks forward to the adult hero he may one day be. Likewise, though we cannot hope to be worthy of the part we play, still we may hope one day to be transformed into his likeness for we shall see him as he is and we shall be like Him.
Finally, there is a part in this Divine Comedy that is playful and child like in another way. When you observe the child at play do you not see a soul absorbed in something other than himself? When you see a child at play has he or she not transcended himself and entered into another dimension of reality–one in which the self has been forgotten? One in which the soul has approached the Great Soul, and one in which the child of Time has entered the Timeless?
Was I being serious in my longing for the Romance of Religion? Oh yes, as serious as the grave, but also as playful and joyous as the Empty Tomb.
Father, I love your writing style. Every posts is just so beautiful. I’ve been reading for awhile but it was your Happy Here, Happy Hereafter post that really caught my attention. After today, ever feast of St. Lucy will have mehearing Ricky Ricardo in my head!I am thrilled that you will be on EWTN.
I love this. If we see this same or similar passage in your book, I will be glad. Such terrific descriptive prose should not be spent on a mere blog.When I became Catholic and friends asked why, I often said, well, you know I’ve always been a romantic. But the difference between us romantics and those who say they’re not is this: When they are sharply awakened at 3:00 a.m. by no one there, they are frightened.
I read the following a long time ago and clipped it. It is one of my favorite descriptions of priests since it reminds me of many of the priests that I knew growing up in the burbs.”Priests were optimists. They were builders and golfers, drinkers of Scotch. They bellowed their Latin. They drove fast in dark cars. They wore Hawaiian shirts to compensate for tragedy. Priests’ boyhoods were spent in dark, polished seminaries, as lovelorn, as masculine as my father’s Mexico. Priests wore skirts. Parishioners gave priests hand towels with crosses embroidered on, or pen sets with crosses for clips, or handkerchiefs with little crosses in the corners, or notepapers embossed with praying hands. Priests told jokes to cover the embarrassment of such gifts; priests told jokes to cover the embarrassment of collecting money; priests told jokes to cover the embarrassment of life, for priests had the power to forgive sins.”
Fr.Sorry about the off-topic comment but I thought you might enjoy this article on Anne Rice:http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task;=view&id;=4764&Itemid;=48
Your post about the Divine Comedy of Catholicism and the dramatic “play” dimension of the holy sacrifice of the Mass promts me again to urge folk to read(if they can find a copy) Msgr. Ronald Knox’s remarkable little book “The Mass in Slow Motion” in which–at one point–he likens the Mass to a dance! He wrote it in the early 1930s, long before Vatican II, so some of its detail is dated; but his timeles insights and reverence are memorable.
Beautiful.Just a thought: Mass is a ritual, but I have sometimes reflected that so many day-to-day things are rituals themselves. So the ritual is Life, and life is a ritual.
Father: I have read your book, Adventures in Orthodoxy, and loved it. I am also still enjoying your St. Benedict for Fathers (I was the one recommending all your books at the Chesterton Conference this year). I read it as a devotional. Keep it up! I’m looking forward to your new book.
One more thing:All that alliteration in your first paragraph there indicates that you’ve been hanging out with Joseph Pearce too much.
Thanks for this. I have been studying the phenomenon of play in the liturgy/liturgical life for a couple years now. In The Spirit of the Liturgy, then-Ratzinger says no to play (to a particular notion of play, I hope). See p. 13. I was studying Gadamer at the time and came across this passage from Ratzinger and I thought, depending on what is meant by play, there might be a positive way to approach this issue of play and/in the liturgy. Interesting that Guardini has a place for play in the liturgy, as does Pieper, two thinkers that have had some influence on Ratzinger. Fr. Schall too!Perhaps someone with a wide audience will communicate what it can mean to be at play during more formal prayer and how that can be very beneficial to those open to the Lord in the liturgy. It can really change the way we experience the liturgy, making it truly an e-vent, an encounter where a deeper experience and moment with the Lord comes out of our openness, our willingness to risk and play with the Lord.St. Thomas’ teachings on extasis have also helped.