Apart from being an easy excuse to impose private intents and purposes on the whole, Inculturation appears to be the most abused concept in the Church recently. Here, it may be necessary to state that ‘liturgical vestments comprise a special case of ceremonial clothing and are, therefore, part of a complex pattern of communication. They serve both to express the nature of the occasion when they are worn and to distinguish the respective role and rank of each participant’ (Aa. Vv., The Study of Liturgy, SPCK, London 1992).
Without sounding repetitive of what has already been said in previous articles about Inculturation and its associated authorities, if Inculturation is basically the right use of organic cultures or traditions to make ‘liturgical sense’ and to facilitate its spirit, then one may wonder how the use of ‘Collar’ (crossed cloth around the body and tied to the neck) by Mass Servers in Eucharistic celebrations substantiate the Church’s intended character of vestments as stated above.
And when the defense of such trends is merely based on unrealistic comparisons, a perceived ‘Inculturation,’ or that ‘transubstantiation will still take place no matter what,’ then one may not only wonder why celebrating priests in such ‘spectacle’ do not put on ‘ɛtam’ or traditional cloth, but is also left to wonder the degree of foundational crisis that constantly threatens the Church’s cultic life.
Indeed, generally in Ghana, if no one amongst those who ‘matter’ in a purely FESTIVE traditional setting puts on ‘Collar,’ what will be the important association of that cultural element in a liturgy of equal dignity but distinct roles (cf. Lumen Gentium, 10)?
According to no. 336 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and the Ceremonial of Bishops (65), the ‘sacred garment common to ordained and instituted ministers of any rank is the alb.’ And in Ghana, for instance, where the institution of acolytes seems to be restricted to the process of becoming an ordained minister, the general practice has been to duly initiate Mass Servers to properly perform the liturgical functions of instituted acolytes. Rightly so because, ‘in the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon’ (GIRM, 100).
Therefore, even though Mass Servers may not be ordained or instituted ministers, the GIRM (339) explicitly states that ‘acolytes, lectors, and other lay ministers may wear the alb OR OTHER SUITABLE VESTURE THAT IS LAWFULLY APPROVED BY THE CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS’ (GIRM, 390), not what individuals merely desire or perceive to be good, and that which may spread like wildfire if not immediately nipped in the bud.
Indeed, as established in previous articles, Inculturation is not left to the arbitrary decision of individuals. Rather, it is the end of an established process that may (in)directly be determined by the Bishops Conference or Local Ordinary.
Not even to talk of strange practices like using ‘Collar’ as a liturgical vestment, it is improper in Ordinary circumstances for others other than mandated authorities to approbate and reprobate in matters beyond their jurisdictions. No matter how the Church’s hierarchical nature is perceived, it is a great sustaining pillar we cannot afford to sacrifice on the limpy altar of loosed principles and subjectivism.
And when it comes to the degree of impact ministers are to have on Mass Servers especially, Mother Church expects that they may be given (in)direct liturgical example of ‘careful zeal and exactness’ (Mediator Dei, 200). Every detail counts in the celebration of the Church’s Mystery, and we cannot disappoint.
Kyrie Eleison!
Discussion about this post