Introibo

As you may have noted (how could you not?) I have complained somewhat about the goings-on of the clergy at Austrian altars. In my defence, I would have to say that this is partly because in other respects, the way masses are celebrated here is so much better than I am used to elsewhere, and the participation of the people, their singing of the music, and the music itself, it seems to me, deserve better. But this is not because the clergy are in any way careless or off-hand in what they do - quite the contrary. It has to do with the way in which they do it - with their style of celebration, if I can call it that.

Firstly, there is the matter of concelebration. I realise haw splendidly authentic and primitive this practice is, but the way it is now done in the west seems remarkably elitist. In the Byzantine Rite the priests gather about the altar, where for much of the time they are virtually invisible to the congregation. They are clearly concentrating on the altar, and that somehow reinforces the impression that they are thereby concentrating on God.

A few years ago the Coptic Pope, Shenouda III, came to Dunedin to consecrate the altar in the Coptic church which they had acquired from a pentecostal congregation - the church, that is, not the altar. The service was something of an oriental shambles, but it made no difference. The pope and his bishops were clearly away with the Lord and despite the outward awfulness of it all, it was a most inspiring service. God was present because he was the absolute centre of the concelebrants' attention, and thus of the congregation's attention as well. I call this real spiritual leadership.

But in the Stephansdom, the messages are very mixed. The clergy speak and act as though the service were about the people, and that they (the clergy) were there to welcome them to their - the clergy's - house, rather than God's. I'm sure that this is not what they intend, but that is what it looks like. Even the way the principal celebrant conducts himself gives the same impression. The little welcomes, introductions, explanations and the like, make you feel you are the new kid at school. The teachers are very nice, of course, but they are very much the ones up front.

Then there is the body language of the principal celebrant. During the collect, the prayer over the gifts, the High Prayer (as they call the Canon or Great Thanksgiving here) the principal celebrant's arms are spread really wide, embracing us all, it seems. But it's the Everlasting Arms we need, not Herr Pfarrer's. And when he is saying (or singing) the words he often seems to be looking at us as though we were the ones being addressed. The good intentions are without reproach, but in their desire to make us all feel at home, they have in some ways made the new mass more clerical than the old.

I like the old mass very much, and I am very glad the present pope has made it possible again. But I have no doubt that the so-called new mass promulgated by Paul VI is (if you will forgive me) the way to go - at least for the greater part of western Christendom. And that includes celebration 'versus populum', the vernacular, the new calendar and lectionary and so on. But it is still the Most Holy Mystery of our religion, and we always need to remind ourselves of the fact. It's not just a case of doing things well (as the clergy of the Stephansdom most certainly do) it's about our understanding of what exactly it is that we are doing well. If I recall correctly, the 39 Articles tell us that "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death."

Please note the "but rather."