I don't like them.
The Master of Ceremonies in liturgical services strikes me as an example of what should have been an anomaly becoming the rule.
An MC is vested only in cassock and surplice (except in certain cases, such as the first Solemn Masses of a new priest where he gets an "assistant priest" in cope, like a bishop does, but who is really just sort of a glorified MC to help him through the services). This indicates his nature as a sort of extra-liturgical figure, as this is choir-wear (of course, acolytes and their lay substitutes began to wear that too; I prefer medieval albs for them, but that's another discussion). He is basically there to whisper in the bishop's ear (or even just the priest in many Solemn Masses now, though I'm not sure he is "required" as in a Pontifical Mass) and be his liturgical training-wheels.
This is disturbing because it is indicative of how bishops came to be detached from the liturgy. A bishops role, first and foremost, is as chief priest in his diocese. The administrivia comes second. And yet, at a certain point bishops celebrated (at least with full ceremonial) so infrequently that they needed these "experts" to specialized and then basically lead them by the hand through the whole ceremony. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need this; bishops and everyone involved in liturgy would know their parts without needing this sort of tutor to "guide" them through what should already be their expertise!
Now, I wouldn't ban MC's either. Especially for people just learning the ceremonies, I suppose one might be helpful. And I don't think there is anything wrong with having one as a "behind the scenes" role who orchestrates and prepares and rehearses things beforehand; I just think it looks a bit aliturgical to have him actually up there at the altar during the liturgy itself.
In a movie, the "director" is usually not on camera, is "invisible." This is how I'd rather MCs function. Turning them into a rubrically called-for feature of liturgy in-themselves (when, at best, they are not a liturgical role, but a facilitator of liturgical roles) seems to me a development that must have occurred as the pontifical office and liturgy became unnaturally separated, and as pontifical liturgy became unnaturally complicated by the rubricism and minutiae of the "feudal court" accretions of the prince-bishops.
The Master of Ceremonies in liturgical services strikes me as an example of what should have been an anomaly becoming the rule.
An MC is vested only in cassock and surplice (except in certain cases, such as the first Solemn Masses of a new priest where he gets an "assistant priest" in cope, like a bishop does, but who is really just sort of a glorified MC to help him through the services). This indicates his nature as a sort of extra-liturgical figure, as this is choir-wear (of course, acolytes and their lay substitutes began to wear that too; I prefer medieval albs for them, but that's another discussion). He is basically there to whisper in the bishop's ear (or even just the priest in many Solemn Masses now, though I'm not sure he is "required" as in a Pontifical Mass) and be his liturgical training-wheels.
This is disturbing because it is indicative of how bishops came to be detached from the liturgy. A bishops role, first and foremost, is as chief priest in his diocese. The administrivia comes second. And yet, at a certain point bishops celebrated (at least with full ceremonial) so infrequently that they needed these "experts" to specialized and then basically lead them by the hand through the whole ceremony. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need this; bishops and everyone involved in liturgy would know their parts without needing this sort of tutor to "guide" them through what should already be their expertise!
Now, I wouldn't ban MC's either. Especially for people just learning the ceremonies, I suppose one might be helpful. And I don't think there is anything wrong with having one as a "behind the scenes" role who orchestrates and prepares and rehearses things beforehand; I just think it looks a bit aliturgical to have him actually up there at the altar during the liturgy itself.
In a movie, the "director" is usually not on camera, is "invisible." This is how I'd rather MCs function. Turning them into a rubrically called-for feature of liturgy in-themselves (when, at best, they are not a liturgical role, but a facilitator of liturgical roles) seems to me a development that must have occurred as the pontifical office and liturgy became unnaturally separated, and as pontifical liturgy became unnaturally complicated by the rubricism and minutiae of the "feudal court" accretions of the prince-bishops.
9 comments:
"Now, I wouldn't ban MC's either. Especially for people just learning the ceremonies, I suppose one might be helpful"
Exactly. For the one mass I served as Torchbearer for Christ the King (New to TLM, 1st time serving), my MC was ESSENTIAL to learning. Even though I served NO masses till university, It's nothing like the EF.
Worse, my city doesn't exactly have many training centers/parishes for the EF/TLM in reasonable distances to me. The parishes in my city that do are 2 parishes joined to a seminary, so 1/2 the supply of servers is from there. For any other layperson, you have to enjoy slugging yourself on public transit to get to the parishes that do EF/TLMs and some of them are far, be it with Lay organizations, or in their parish locations.
Back to the MC topic, he was extremely helpful for us newtimers, but also to the Priests and deacon who were to serve the Mass. Sadly most priests don't get the "practical" training portion of experience needed for TLMs so the MC has to step in and cue and such. Until the situation in the Latin Rite of the Church really reverses itself, MC may need to serve in and outside of the Mass in this "extraordinary capacity" till 10-15 years down the road when hopefully the EF will be widespread enough to be stable in major/larger parishes in general.
I know they have their place, it's just sad that we've reached a place (and we reached it, with bishops at least, LONG before Vatican II) where the priests themselves don't know there own liturgy and have to have this sort of "museum curator" lead them through it like a puppet-master.
At that point, it's almost like the MC is the REAL "celebrant," and it certainly doesn't make the liturgy seem like a living organic reality, but more like a piece of historical reconstructionism that the Expert (the MC) is leading the actors through performing.
It almost reminds me of 18th-century aristocratic parenting: the liturgy's "real" father is the bishop, but it ends up essentially being "raised" by a servant (in terms of who actually knows and spends time with it), the MC, because the aloof father delegates its care and only shows up for the official important moments in its life.
Also, if you're reading this Young Canadian RC Male, please email me:
renegadetrad@gmail.com
The the absolute worst is a lay MC. I'm less bothered when they're at least a cleric (ideally at the same order as the celebrant).
I assume by "absolute worst" you mean it annoys you (as it does me) that a lay MC is practically an ADMISSION that a layman basically knows more about how to celebrate a Mass than the priest does, is teaching the priest how to do his own job...and yet because he's married or unwilling to go through the seminary hazing process or whatever...he can't actually be a priest himself. Yes, indeed, that is absurd.
Uh Robert, see my last paragraph. It's part of why we've got this situation in the first place.
In complicated Masses – e.g. Maundy Thursday, the Easter Vigil – especially where multiple priests are involved, a strong MC is essential. This is not because the priests don’t know their parts, but because someone needs to be sure that all of the many people involved (priests, servers, musicians, congregation) have someone they can look to for guidance. The celebrant is almost always too busy to do this. Things go wrong and someone needs to be vigilant and available to sort them out when they do. It is difficult, even impossible, for a celebrant to do this.
A great MC is almost invisible. In our celebrations (solemn Latin, Novus Ordo) the MC is vested and present but completely unobtrusive. He doesn’t stand at the altar with the celebrant but, during the liturgy of the eucharist, kneels at the side. For the liturgy of the word he is seated at the side of the sanctuary.
An MC is also helpful where there are concelebrants, visiting priests, a celebrant bishop, or priests who, because of age or fatigue, can forget “what’s next” in a complicated liturgy
This is one area where the NO gives us more rubrical freedom than the EF. For us the MC’s role is a matter of custom not rubric.
"In complicated Masses – e.g. Maundy Thursday, the Easter Vigil – especially where multiple priests are involved, a strong MC is essential. This is not because the priests don’t know their parts, but because someone needs to be sure that all of the many people involved (priests, servers, musicians, congregation) have someone they can look to for guidance."
Perhaps, but at the same time I have to believe that this "problem" must have developed AFTER these ceremonies were already established.
Having the role of "celebrant" and "curator of the liturgy" be two different things strikes me as a development only possible with the ossification of liturgy into an "act" (which then often has the role of "lead actor" and "director" separated) and the essentialization of the "clergy" even separate from the idea of liturgy.
I find it curious how everyone decided to tear me a new one when I had said this previously, but now everyone seems to be catching up. Sigh*
A good M.C. actually frees the celebrating priest to concentrate on celebrating, without having to worry about turning pages, finding places, whether servers and things will appear at the right moment . . .
Kind regards,
John U.K.
Post a Comment