Ritualistic aside
Another blogger, linking our last post, used the killing initials “tl/dr” to warn against its length (a mere two thousand words, or 2.67 newspaper pundit columns). The letters stand for, “too long / didn’t read.”
Let us assure gently alarmed reader that it is really just ten much shorter posts, elaborately woven together. In our limited experience as lyricist & librettist (“the Ira Gershwin of Edith Street” as we hope to be remembered), we thought two or three minutes enough for a song. Some songs might be extended to four or five minutes, but making a habit of it suggests prolixity. Still, occasionally, one should go for fifteen, & explore the possibilities of the Ode form. (We have always adored Pindar.) Of course one will lose one’s audience about three minutes in, but why should they call all the shots?
That previous post makes (arguably) ten related points. But there is an eleventh signalled by a single word: “reverence.” This in turn reprises the subtext in several recent posts before it.
*
“Anger makes you blind,” a blind person once told us, to explain why, when he was angry, he would bump into things he would never have hit when tranquil — white cane or no white cane. He was confirming something any blind person could tell you. But he told us something else, too, that was very interesting: “Reverence makes you sighted.”
If there were one criticism to make, about the whole tendency of contemporary life — one criticism, for starters — it would be this. Not only in the celebration of the Mass, but in the celebration of life at large, “reverence” is too often omitted.
The Hindus in India — or shall we say, the “traditional” Hindus, for their religion like ours has taken a pounding & is endlessly run over in the streets — were very good at this. Our heart stopped once, watching a poor Hindu in his dhoti, immersed near the bank of a rather polluted river (the Ganges). It was dawn & he was saying his dawn prayers, beyond mudflats illumined as if by the brush of J.M.W. Turner. In all our travels in India, perhaps we never saw something so beautiful, as the stature of reverence in this frail little man. In despite of all the carnage & squalor of modern urbanizing Indian life, there he still was, as he had been for perhaps three thousand years. Our love for India overflowed: for all India, & as we imagined, all her twenty billion people (only a small fraction on Earth at this day). Each one of them known to God.
And to our mind as a Christian, Christ heard his prayer. (“There are other sheep I have, that are not of this fold.”)
To our mind, the Catholic Mass is the ritual, par excellence. Which is why it must never be said or sung in any perfunctory or irreverent manner. Yet the Mass also requires the support of a manner of life that includes ritual, in every small thing. In the world we contemn, nothing is sacred. But in the world for which we long, everything is sacred, including the way we knead the dough for our naan, & the way we make our tea.
Nice piece – yes “Reverence”, a level well above Respect. This inhabitant of The City That Rocks will be off line for next two weeks but on returning will want to catch up – as long as the content is not self damned by being tl/cbb – “cannot be bothered”.
Too long? Never! It’s a pleasure to read your blog, David, and often I wish you would blather on longer….
As for reverence, yes. The First Commandment covers this I think. God is God after all. Reverence is the least of it.
Jesus hid His Glory from the Apostles until the Transfiguration because He knew they would not be able to stand, literally, in His presence. And many now give the Tabernacle the merest nod. Reverence?
Never too long David. Never too long…
Lovely meditation on ritual, David, and what an exquisite passage about the Hindu man at prayer!
Today I purchased Diana Eck’s new book “India: A Sacred Geography” as a Christmas gift for my wife.
Have you read it?
Have not, Mr MKD. Alas, Diana Eck is too “liberal” for us, & her activities on & off campus as an Inquisitor of Political Correction have inspired a mean little prejudice in us against her scholarly work. But we gather that book offers a perfectly charming tour of the Subcontinent’s holy sites, & since she has herself been attacked by people farther Left for “Orientalism” & other imaginary crimes, perhaps we should give her another look.
We have long been a “Comparative Religion” junkie, but for the last generation have found the whole field mined with political agendas. Our instinct is simply to drive through it in a heavily armoured tank, enjoying the explosions, while reading the older scholars for basic map directions.
I read her book on Banaras and could discern no political agenda or what is called “politcal correctness.” On the other hand, that was many years ago. Perhaps she has other works of a more political nature that I’m not aware of.
Nor am I aware of the Left attacking her for “Orientalism.” I would venture to say that you, as a self-confessed comparative religion junkie, are better read than I am when it comes to books about India.
I tend not to notice politcal agendas where others do. Years ago I mentioned to a friend that I was reading Elaine Pagels’ “Origin of Satan” (which I found quite interesting) and he replied that her political agenda was off-putting.
I recall that Wendy Doniger’s book “The Hindus” was disliked by many Hindus. I’ve only read her book on Shiva — and that too was many years ago, it accompanied a marvelous exhibition of Indian art.
What did you think of Dalrymple’s “Sacred India”?
If there are any “apolitcal” books on the sacred aspects of India you might recommend I would be grateful. Thanks.
Off msg – I am reading a book by a Mr. Keillor about the effect of rebelling against God. He speaks of the late Middle Ages as a monolith of worldly abuse by all in clerical garb especially the hierarchy. He argues that the Protestant inflammation was God’s punishment for clerics run amok – and it well may be, but I would like to be pointed toward the truth of the matter. Was it as bad as our dear friends across the denuded aisle describe, or has Mr. Keillor leaned on the scale for his own purposes? Anyone? Ten point toss-up?
Alas, reverence has been thrown out with the bathwater–along with Truth and Beauty–in our mad rush to reduce all experience to banal materialism. (Although reverence still remains the 12th point of the Boy Scout law. When left to their own devices I think boys and men are naturally reverent–along with being naturally irreverent; just part of the mystery of masculinity.)
In any case, reverence is not just simply an attitude, as important as that is. With regard to sacred ritual–especially the Mass–reverence also requires that certain harmonies be maintained: an unbroken connection with sacred tradition, a taking into account the physical aspect of human spirituality, and a leaving behind of the mundane.
Practically, for the Mass, this means the restoration of the use of Latin–at least in part, the return to the ad orientem position for the priest, restoring Gregorian and polyphonic chant to pride of place, and banishing pianos, guitars, drums and other assorted musical instruments in preference for the organ or simply voices a cappella. Architecturally, it would mean no more auditorium style churches, eliminating the pseudo-gothic crap that passes for sanctuary furnishings, etc. Of course, not many churches built after 1960 would survive such a re-dedication to reverence.
One could argue that reverence will return to the Mass when the capacity for reverence returns to society at large. Of course, it is equally arguable that the West will regain a sense of reverence when the Church reinstates it in her liturgies.
How can we talk of reverence when we don’t ask why? What is the point of being reverent? We talk about “sacred ritual” and “the Mass” and chant, and architecture, and liturgies. But isn’t the whole point the fact that Jesus Christ Himself, Body and Soul is really and truly present in our Catholic Churches?
Advice for Other Joe: stop reading books by NPR hosts. You’ll go blind.
Thank you Conrad. I could not continue with Keillor, but switched to Tony Esolen and am sighted once again! While blind, with other senses more acute, I thought I caught a whiff of overcooked agenda.
Fwiw, I read the offending piece, unaware of the tl/dr rating, without once wishing for less. Even when DW starts waxing esoteric on the religious file I read on, hopeful of, and often rewarded with, something useful and understandable at the hoi polloi level.