BEND — There is a bit of building and growing going on in the Diocese of Baker and, with growth, there is always the possibility of growing pains.

I mentioned last week that the possibility of work beginning at the retreat center site at Powell Butte causes me a bit of anxiety and uncertainty because it will seriously impinge on my “comfort zone.” I do not see this as a negative but I do see it nonetheless. In our faith, complacency is a death knell. Perhaps a good barometer for us of the degree of our complacency is the way in which we respond to change. Most folks do not like change, particularly change which impacts in a very personal way on our own lives. The question which each of us needs to face is how we respond to changes over which we have no control. While I could talk about change in general my thoughts immediately go to changes in the Church, in the diocese, in the parish, in the liturgy.

There are changes in the Church and in the next couple of years there will be more changes. Those changes will not be about defined and settled matters such as the Divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the primacy of the Pope, priestly celibacy, ordination of men, heterosexual marriage, the evil of contraception and abortion, or a host of other firm Church teachings. The changes on the horizon have a lot to do with the central liturgy of the Church, Holy Mass.

For the past several years, scholars have been working on new translations of Mass texts from the Latin versions. Most of the changes which these translations entail will affect the priest in a very direct way. They will affect the laity only insofar as they will hear different prayers and phrases. The areas which will impact on the laity will be in a couple of very familiar responses.

For instance, the priest will still say, “The Lord be with you.” The Latin response, which some of us still remember is, “Et cum spiritu tuo,” which more literally translated is not “And also with you” as we are accustomed to saying but rather, “And with your spirit.” This is a change and while at first glance it is neither a monumental nor a life disrupting change, I can almost guarantee that even this little change will cause some hearts to be distraught with angst.

Another change is in the wording of the creed. The Latin is “Credo,” which literally translated is, “I believe.” For decades we have been saying, “We believe” and the revised translation, which will most likely not be official for a couple more years, uses the more literal, “I believe.” Again, an aversion to change may actually cause an angry response in our hearts. We have grown comfortable and perhaps a bit complacent about what we are saying and even a small change such as this crowds our “comfort zone.”

These changes coming for the English-speaking world will, of necessity, touch our own diocese, our priests, our parishes and each of us. I think this can be very healthy for our liturgical lives. This revision of all of the English texts of the Mass is an opportunity for us to renew the depth of our own reverence, attention and devotion at Holy Mass. It is also an opportunity to look at some of the personal accretions which have crept in during these past decades and determine if these enhance or distract from the “work” which Christ is carrying out in the liturgy. It is very possible that in our personal efforts to enhance our experience in the liturgy we may actually be impeding the work Christ intends.

In the realm of things about which there seems to be great angst, the posture of the laity during the Lord’s Prayer and the method of receiving Holy Communion seem to be particularly sensitive. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) does specify that the posture of the laity during the Lord’s Prayer is to stand. It does not, however, specify the gesture. This may give the impression that it is up to the congregation to determine which gesture they prefer. This, however, is unfounded. In the early section of the GIRM a general principle is enunciated.

“The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.” (42)

The GIRM does specify that the gesture during the Lord’s Prayer for the priest and concelebrants is: “with hands extended.” The GIRM is careful to indicate that both the celebrant and the concelebrants pray “with hands extended” and the fact that no mention is made, in this context, to the gesture for the laity would strongly indicate that they do not use the same gesture. The “orans position,” as the extended hands gesture is named, while perhaps frequent and popular, seems to fit into that category which the GIRM rejects as “private inclination or arbitrary choice.” The same must then be said of the practice of holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer. Unfortunately, while the GIRM itself indicates that “attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction,” it is much more appealing for many to prefer “private inclination or arbitrary choice.”

There have been rumors that the current permitted practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand is being revisited. There is certainly an ongoing concern that the reception of Holy Communion be accomplished in as fervent and respectful a manner as possible but, as far as I know, a change in the current practice is not being considered.

Interestingly, as relatively minor as such a change would be in the objective order, I could almost guarantee that nothing would produce in the hearts of many greater anger, angst or distress than this simple proposal. A continued reflection on why such a change would generate such trauma is perhaps very much in order. For now it is probably sufficient for each of us to ask, “What impact would such a proposal have on me and why?”