George Herbert in clerical garb |
The great
composer W.A. Mozart (who pops up fairly often on this blog) is reported to
have said that “Protestantism was all in the head”, that “Protestants did not
know the meaning of the Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi [Lamb
of God who takes away the sins of the world]”.
I would not put it so harshly, but with all due respect to my friends
among the separated brethren, but I think he has a point. Protestantism
on the whole is very uncomfortable with the corporeality of more traditional expressions
of Christianity, starting with its rejection of the True Presence of Christ in
the Eucharist and the efficacy of sacraments in general, and carrying that same
mind-set through to a suspicion of any physical expression of faith apart from
the Scriptures (and, in some congregations, speaking in tongues). As a consequence, the Sign of the Cross,
genuflection, rosaries, icons and statues all seem foreign to them. It almost
appears that many of our Protestant friends, relying on Sola
Scriptura and focusing on just the Word, are trying to uncarnate
(so to speak) the Word made Flesh.
Many of them, but
not all: there have always been some members of the reformation churches who
nonetheless understand and embrace the sacramental outlook that has been
preserved in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. One such is the 17th century
English religious poet George Herbert.
Herbert was an Anglican cleric in addition to being a poet, and so
devoted a portion of his poetry to defending his church. Being an Anglican, he directed some of his
fire at the Catholic Church, as one would expect, mostly criticism of the
papacy and what he considered a certain superficiality (needless to say, I
don’t concur in these objections). He
reserves his harshest and most substantive criticism, however, for the
Puritans, accusing them of being “undrest” in his poem “The British Church”. One needs to look at his Latin poetry (which
is, unfortunately, rarely read today) to get the full context for this
criticism. The Puritans, according to
Herbert, miss the importance and implications of the Incarnation. In his poem “In Angelos” (“On the
Angels”) he says:
The
perfected mind of Angels is not like ours at all,
Which must
by nature look to our senses
For
concrete images . . .
If it weren’t for concrete things,
we ourselves could not by thinking
find
what we are
in ourselves.
Intellectus
adultus Angelorum
Haud nostro similis,
cui necesse,
Ut dentur species,
rogare sensum . . .
Si non per species,
nequimus ipsi,
Quid ipsi sumus,
assequi putando.
While Angels are pure intellect, we mortals must rely on
sense experiences to attain knowledge.
That, it follows, is why God became Man, and why he continues to speak
to us through Sacraments, sacramentals, liturgies, devotions, etc. The Puritans, however, have lost this vital
understanding. In “De Rituum Usu” (“On the
Use of Rites”) Herbert says:
And so the
Puritans, while they are covetous of a
Lord’s
bride bare of sacred rites, and while they wish
All things
regressed to their fathers’ barbaric state,
Lay her,
entirely ignorant of clothing, bare to conquest
By Satan
and her enemies.
Non
alio Cathari modo
Dom sponsam Domini
piis
Orbam ritibus
expetunt,
Atque ad barbariem partum
Vellent Omnia regredi,
Illam tegminis insciam
Prorsus Daemoni et
hostibus
Exponunt superabilem.
Herbert uses clothing to represent liturgical rites, which
are the concrete channels of God’s grace.
By doing away with such outward signs, the Puritans are aspiring to an
Angelic state of understanding and failing to take into account our human
limitations. In denying our physicality,
the Puritans have actually eliminated the means of achieving spiritual
understanding.
I don’t believe
that Herbert’s choice of symbol was lightly made. He was fully committed to a very catholic
version of Anglicanism. The fact is that clothing has important, often
unconscious, symbolic meanings for people in every time and place (consider all
the various uniforms, traditional attires, kinds of ritual or formal wear, etc.
throughout the world), but especially for Catholic Christians because of our
sacramental view of the universe. Think
back also through scripture to how often clothing is mentioned prominently: not
just those first primitive garments worn by Adam and Eve that were the outward
sign of their fall from grace, but Joseph’s coat that became a focus of his
brothers’ jealousy, the special garments God commands the Aaronic priests to
wear (which King David puts on to dance in front of the Arc of the Covenant),
Jesus’
John the Baptist, dressed for prophecy |
John the Baptist
is an interesting case. One reader of my post on Mass attire last week [here] asserted that God must not
care how we dress, citing John the Baptist’s less-than-formal clothing in the
desert as proof. It may seem that way at first, but in fact John the Baptist is
actually not a refutation, but a very good illustration of the deep
significance of dress. He was very aware of his appearance. Like the Old Testament prophets, he carefully
chose his dress and actions in order to represent spiritual truths in the
physical realm (this is also at least part of the reason for the habits worn by
religious orders, which another commentor mentioned). By dressing like the Prophet Elijah (see 2
Kings 1:8) John asserts his prophetic authority, and the austerity of his
apparel is a rebuke to the extravagance of the Temple priests and the legalism
of the Pharisees. If only we were all as
conscious of our dress as John the Baptist!
For me, that
earlier discussion of how we dress for Mass should be situated in the larger
context of the sacramental view of the universe. Catholics and Orthodox Christians are
particularly aware of the deeper meaning of clothing, even when we resist it.
Our tradition helps us to understand that how we dress for Mass is not
important for its own sake (except, as I point out in the original post, for those
cases in which one person’s provocative dress is a temptation to others to
violate the sixth commandment in their hearts) so much as for what it says
about the importance we place on the Sacrament, and an expression of our love
for Jesus Christ. We used to know a
family in which the father drove a delivery truck for a living; he was required
to wear a company uniform on the job, and his work schedule was such that he
could not attend Mass with his family unless he came straight from the job without
changing, so he attended Sunday Mass in his worn blue coveralls. Very few of us would find fault with his attire;
in fact, we would see his determination to be present as the spiritual head of
his family as an exemplary thing. It’s a
very different matter when we show up for Mass dressed for a barbeque or the
beach simply because we didn’t bother to put on something more formal (and
perhaps a little less comfortable), which sends the message that attending Mass
is nothing special.
How does all of
this fit together? I think we all have a
tendency to get stuck in our own heads, as Mozart accuses the Protestants of
doing, and Herbert likewise accuses the Puritans. We don’t open ourselves up to God’s Grace as
he wants to confer it, but try to put everything in neat categories of our own
devising. Taking our focus off our own
will and desires has always been at least part of the point of spiritual disciplines,
including fasting and other mortifications, and of liturgical prayer like the
Liturgy of the Hours. If we find
ourselves saying “God will understand .
. . “, well, of course, God understands everything. The question is what, and how, do we
understand?
No comments:
Post a Comment