TRUE PRINCIPLE of the LITURGY

Most important recent work on the theology of liturgy
By Fr. CLIFFORD HOWELL, S.J.
LIFE AND LITURGY, by Fr. Louis Bouyer (Sliced and Ward, 18s.).
Pi-1HE modern liturgical movement is constantly battling against a fundamental misunderstanding; so many people do not grasp what it is and what it seeks because they have been brought up with a concept of liturgy that is erroneous. They still regard it as the merely external and visible element in divine worship, or as the outward splendour of ceremonial;" or they "see in it a mere catalogue of rules and regulations issued by the Hierarchy of the Church for the conduct of the sacred riles-views which, according to Mediator Del (n.27) are a "total misunderstanding of the true meaning of liturgy".
Fr. Bouyer, a French Oreinrian who is among the most brilliant of the liturgical scholars who have come to the fore in recent years, does much to undermine this false concept in " Life and Liturgy " recently published by Messrs. Sheed and Ward.
His account of how such a concept ever arose and came to be accepted for so long is highly interesting. The idea that liturgy is something performed by the clergy and their assistants while the laity are but spectators is. hc Says, the immediate product of the court ceremonial which flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries. An earthly king was to be honoured daily by the pageant of court ceremonial and so also the heavenly King. The liturgy existed to provide, around the Throne of the Eucharistic King. a pomp and circumstance, a dignity and splendour surpassing in mysterious sublimity any other forms of honour which men could devise.
BUT the very mentality which could conceive of liturgy in such terms was itself the product of the Baroque period, How, then, has this concept su rv iv ed the succeeding Romantic period which was a reaction against the Baroque? If the 18th and 19th centuries were striving to undo what the 16th and 17th had done. why is it that this particular view of liturgy was not itself undermined and rejected?
The answer. says Fr. Bouyer, is that the reaction of the Romantic period was ton superficial. It was largely an aesthetic reaction, concerned with externals. The leading men of that time lacked scholarship. They were hardly to be blamed for this, since the necessary resgarels work had not been done. But that fact meant that their achievements were built tip to a considerable extent on opinions with no factual basis, on imagination and emotion. Their insufficient knowledge of the medieval period led them into seeing it through rose-coloured spectacles; they thought it had all the perfections which the Baroque had lacked.
What they did know (and this
was correct) was that it was an age of Gothic; hence we find in the 18th and 19th centuries an enthusiasm for everything Gothic Gothic architecture, Gothic vestments, Gothic singing and anything else connected with he Gothic period.
It was a well-meant but rather pathetic attempt to recapture the fancied excellencies of former days; but it was, after all. only an artificial reconstruction, and hence a failure. While it produced some features for which we of later days can be grateful, it was in fact vitiated by the error, denounced in Mediator Dei, of archeologisrn.
THAT same danger was not X absent from the attempts of the early 20th century to wrestle with the problem of liturgical
renewal. Just as the Solesmes school had fallen into the trap
of idealising and trying to imitate the Gothic period. so it seemed as if the Beuron and Maria Leach schools of thought were idealising and trying to copy the patristic period. If this tendency (which undoubtedly showed itself) had crystallised into a definite programme, it would have been as sterile as the former essay in archeologism.
But it did not; it was saved by the tremendous advances in learning which were maturing about the same time in the spheres of Holy Scripture, petrology and liturgical history. There emerged from the studies of Abbot Herwegen and his collaborators, and most of all from those of Dom Odo Casel. a view of the liturgy which Fr. Bouyer holds to be fundamentally sound. He maintains that now we really are in a position to understand what liturgy is, and what underlies it; and in proportion as this understanding spreads, so shall we learn to make use of the liturgy again as the basis of Christian piety.
Not that he accepts Dom Cases views precisely as that great monk propounded them. He feels that some of the lines of reasoning which led Dom Casel to his conclusion need very considerable modification in the light of still later studies. But the conclusion itself-that "the Mystery of Christ" forms the very core of Catholic worship stands more firmly than ever.
Here is the true concept of liturgy; it is the "Mystery of Christ" as prepared in the Old Testament, as manifested in the earthly Life. Death and Resurrection of our Saviour, as proclaimed by the Apostles (especially by St. Paul and St. John) and as
expounded by the Fathers. which is ever present and active in the liturgy.
WHAT is called the Mysteriengegenwartstheorie is quite the most important contribution made in recent times to the theology of liturgy. It has aroused enormous interest and very fruitful discussion ever since Dom Casel proposed it.
On the continent it is very widely held by many theologians of the first rank, though each proposes modificatious of some kind or other to meet objections raised by its many opponents.
To those who read Ciennan and French a very great deal of literature on the subject is now available; and this is constantly increasing, for the theory is so highly attractive and yet at the same time so bristling with problems.
In English, alas, little or nothing has appeared up till now. in consequence there .are comparatively few people who have even heard about Dom Casel and his work. That is a reason for giving a welcome to this book by Fr. Bottyer, conceived as it is in terms of Dorn Casel's theory.
Its exposition (of course with Fr, Bouyer's own suggested modifications) forms the substance of the seventh and eighth chapters; the ideas set forth in these are then applied in the rest of the book to a study of the Mass, the Sacraments. the Divine Office, and the Liturgical Year. These chapters are by no means easy reading, for the matter which they handle is itself difficult. But they open vistas of beauty and sublimity deserving of close study, and will do great good if they arouse in their reeders a desire to know more of the "Mysterytheory".
ORE immediate. though secondary, fruits are likely to spring from the salutary shock which the hook, in its early chapters, may give to those who are still adhering to the old misconceptions of the liturgy. They will find many of the facts and deductions of Fr. Bouyer somewhat disconcerting. But the very shock can he helpful in causing them to le-examine critically many things which. until now, have simply been accepted without adequate reflection, If they will approach the book with complete honesty of mind :mei a readiness to consider all (and not merely a part) of what the author writes, they will be able to hold in check their first reaction (which is likely to he hostile) until they find reassurance in his later chapters. For though Ft. Bouyer does not hesitate to voice criticisms of some practices widely current, he always. disengages from them certain basic elements which he shows to be sound and which can be salvaged. as Mediator Del indicates. by "being influenced by the spirit and principles of the liturgy".