[Insight] The Mass and inculturation of Christianity in Africa

Question by Pious (Sir Pope):

My Lord, why does the Church still use the chalice, grape wine, hosts and Italian vestments for the celebration of Mass?  Why does the Church not adopt the local items that the people use? For example, before the advent of Europeans, our forefathers used the calabash, palm wine, and local food.  Why can’t we replicate the use of these local items to represent the body and blood of Christ instead of having to europeanize our culture?

Answer by Bishop Joseph Osei-Bonsu:

The question raised by Pious (Sir Pope) brings into focus the issue of the inculturation of Christianity in Africa.  Inculturation can generally be defined as the integration of the Christian experience of a local Church into the culture of its people, in such a way that this experience not only expresses itself in elements of this culture, but becomes a force that animates, orients and innovates this culture so as to create a new unity and communion, not only within the culture in question but also as an enrichment of the Church uni­versal. ^[1]

The importance of relating the gospel to the culture of the people being evan­gelized has been addressed in several papal statements. Here I would like to draw attention to just two of them.  Pope Paul VI, in his address for the closing of the inaugu­ral conference of the Symposium of the Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) in Kampala in 1969, explicitly encouraged the Africanization of Christianity.  He talked about the need to adapt the Gospel and the Church to African culture.  He asked, “Must the Church be European, Latin, Oriental…, or must she be African?” ^[2]

In his address to the Zairean bishops (3 March, 1980) Pope John Paul II noted that one of the aspects of evangelization is “the inculturation of the Gospel, the Africanization of the Church”. ^[3]   He was of the opinion that “it should be possible for Christianity to unite with what is deepest in the Zairean soul for an original culture, at the same time African and Chris­tian”. ^[4]

ADVERTISEMENT

In his address to the Catholic Bishops of Ghana in 1980 Pope John Paul II had this to say:

The Bishops must carry on the task of inculturation of the Gospel for the good of each people, precisely so that Christ may be communicated to every man, woman and child. In this process, cultures themselves must be up­lifted, transformed and permeated by Christ’s original message of divine truth, without harming what is noble in them.  Hence worthy African tradi­tions are to be pre­served.  Moreover, in accordance with the full truth of the Gospel … living and dynamic African Christian traditions are to be consoli­dated. ^[5]

It is against this background that we should approach the question posed by Pious (Sir Pope).  In the celebration of the Eucharist, bread and wine are used.  The use of wine made from grapes poses a problem for many Third World countries which do not produce such wine and have problems importing wine from Europe or America because of foreign exchange constraints.

The use of bread does not pose such a big problem since in many African countries bread is eaten and is easily available.  Even so, the question that can be raised is: Can some local food other than bread be used in those places where the use of bread is not so common?  In place of bread, could we use yam, eba, kenkey or rice, etc.?  Is there any theological justification for the use of some other type of food apart from bread?

To be able to answer this question, we must first deal with the question of why bread and wine were chosen by Jesus for the celebration of the eucharist.  According to Joachim Jeremias, a distinguished German New Testament scholar, “Jesus made the broken bread a simile of the fate of his body, the blood of the grapes a simile of his outpoured blood”.^[6]

If this interpretation is correct, then it would seem that in principle at least, some local food that portrays the brokenness of the body of Christ can be used in place of bread.  Indeed, in the view of Most Rev. Peter Kwasi Sarpong, “it is probable that if Jesus had been born a Ghanaian Fante, we would be using palm wine and kenkey for Mass, not bread and wine.  Jesus chose the latter two symbols, probably because they were the nearest at hand”.^[7]  It seems to me, however, that the use of bread in the Eucharist can be retained since bread is eaten in practically all African countries and its use does not cause any financial difficulties.

The use of wine, however, is a different matter.  The importation of wine, as we have seen, causes economic problems, and some people are of the view that there is no reason why a good, reputable local drink cannot be substituted for wine from grapes.

It is their view that the various episcopal conferences can be trusted to exercise a mature judgment in the choice of such local drinks.  In such situations, it is suggested that there should be a long and adequate period of preparation during which the reason for the change is explained to the people.

There are, however, people who are opposed to the idea of using elements other than bread and wine in the eucharist. They argue that we ought to make a distinction between “being together and eating (different meals)”, and “being together and eating the same meal”.^[8]  In the case of the former, being together entails eating, perhaps, the same meal but separately.

The latter involves sharing in one meal – the same kind of meal, and, for the African, perhaps, eating from one large bowl.  Attention is drawn to the fact that for West Africans, eating the same meal from the same pot or bowl is a sign of mutual trust.  It shows that we put our lives together: if the food is poisonous, we die together.  For Africans, this raises togetherness to a new level and commitment.

It implies that we partake of the same kind of nourishment from one source and are ready to die together.  One who refuses to partake of such a meal is considered by the other participants to be either setting himself above them or to be a dangerous person.  Against this background it argued that if the body of Christ is food that is intended to unite all Christians in love, then all believers should have it in common under the same species, and draw nourishment from one “cup” if it is to express the universal unity and communion of all the faithful.^[9]

A second reason is given for the need to retain the bread and wine.  It is argued that the use of these elements all over the world ensures a continuity between what Christ did at the last supper, what believers have done from the time of Christ up to our time and what we do.

In using the same elements at all times, we “ensure communion of the Church Militant with the Church Triumphant and, for Africans, the Church unborn, through the continuity of what the Church does in imitation of Christ.  Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow; and we must capture this in the central act of worship”.^[10]  The reasons given for this latter view for the need to retain bread and wine in the eucharist – especially the first reason – provide an example of inculturation because the justification is taken from the cultural context of Africans.

Pious (Sir Pope) also refers to the use of “Italian vestments for the celebration of Mass”.  It is not quite true that we use “Italian” vestments for the celebration of Mass.  There are vestments from Germany, France, Spain and other European countries that are as old as the Italian ones. A short history of the origins of vestments will be in order here.  In the early centuries of the church, the liturgical vestments of the clergy were the same as the ordinary clothes worn by lay people.

These were the clothes of the Graeco-Roman civilization.  They consisted of the tunic, an undergarment fastened at the neck and tied with a belt at the waist, and the mantle, an outer garment wrapped around the body.  In the fourth century, clerical vestments were often made of slightly better material; nevertheless, it did not differ much from the clothes of the lay people.

While the secular clothes changed in the course of time, the church retained the traditional style.  As a result, there was a growing difference between the secular and the clerical dress, so that by the end of the fourth century they had become quite distinct.

In our own times, not all the symbols used in the European vestments are meaningful to us as Africans.  Attempts should, therefore, be made to educate the people about the significance of some of the designs and symbols found on vestments from the West.

Inculturation does not mean the rejection of everything non-African. But where certain designs and symbols do not make sense to us as Africans, or where more meaningful local symbols can be found, these should be used.  The possibility of doing this is offered by the Second Vatican Council which says: “The territorial bodies of bishops are empowered to adapt matters to the needs and customs of their different regions; this applies especially to the materials and forms of sacred furnishings and vestments”.^[11]

In line with this, many vestments are made locally, sometimes with local symbols.  Among the Akan, for example, there are some traditional designs and symbols that express attributes of God, and can be used for the vestments.  One of these is the Gye Nyame sign, which expresses God’s power, God’s omnipotence.  In fact, this symbol has been used by some priests in Ghana in their chasubles.  Another symbol that can be used is that expressing God’s immortality from which the human person’s immortality is also derived.

Moreover, there are certain geometrical figures that can be used by the Church in Ghana.  One of these is the circle.  Found in the constructions of things regarded as sacred, the circle is the symbol of God’s the presence and power in Ghana.^[12]  The temples of some deities in Ghana are all circular in shape.  The circle stands for the life-stream which, as it were, flows continuously.

The square or the rectangle is the symbol of holiness in the male aspect of both God and the human person.  It also stands for the territorial power and extent of a male ruler. On many regal ceremonial chairs among the Akan, especially the Asipim chair, one sees a combination of square and circular figures known as Nyame Ntaakyire, which can roughly be rendered into English as “God’s support and protection”. These geometrical figures could be used in the making of vestments.