Monday in Holy Week

I ought to say something more I think about the remarks I made yesterday (admittedly, in a spirit of frustration) about the inappropriate practice of having the faithful play the role of the faithless Jews who shouted for Christ's crucifixion. It is, first of all, certainly true (as kindly pointed out in the comment box) that by each sin we commit we share in the guilt that led Christ to the Cross. This adjective, "faithless," by the way, in reference to the Jews who killed Christ is necessary in order to avoid the implication that all Jews precisely as Jews were/are responsible for Christ's death. This adjective allows that there were in fact many faithful Jews (i.e. the first Christians).

On a rubrical level this practice is shown to be forbidden by the 1988 circular letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments Paschales Solemnitatis:

"33. The passion narrative occupies a special place. It should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is, by three persons who take the parts of Christ, the narrator and the people. The passion is proclaimed by deacons or priests, or by lay readers. In the latter case, the part of Christ should be reserved to the priest."

This, of course, says nothing explicitly about the congregation participating in the proclamation of the Gospel, but it must be read in light of its relation as the exception to the universal rubric, which is that the proclamation of the Gospel is reserved to priests and deacons. An exception is extended to a lay reader, but not to the congregation.

Anyone who is interested, by the way, can refer to a post from last year over at The New Liturgical Movement on Passion Narratives in English. The post is short, but quite a discussion ensued in the comment box. A certain Ephrem gets to the heart of the matter: Why ritually enact blashphemy?

Now of course, I will repeat it, it must be said that by every sin we share in the guilt that led to the crucifixion of Christ. But we certainly do not share in the specific (and most grievous) sin of killing Christ, as this practice would seem to indicate (although I am well aware that this is probably not the intention of those encouraging or participating).

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 47, A. 6. Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous?

I answer that, As stated above, the rulers of the Jews knew that He was the Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, it was affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as well as from the malice of their will. The Jews also of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect their crime was lessened by reason of their ignorance. Hence Bede, commenting on Lk. 23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," says: "He prays for them who know not what they are doing, as having the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." But the sin of the Gentiles, by whose hands He was crucified, was much more excusable, since they had no knowledge of the Law.

I've committed more than my share of sins, some of which were no doubt grievous enough, but never have I shouted for the murder of any innocent man, much less what is infinitely worse, that of the God-Man. In this holy season of repentance we ought to be shouting Miserere nobis! not Crucify Him!