1 Cf. Casel, Dom Odo, “Altchristlicher Kult und Antike” Mysterium, Gesammelte Arbeiten Laacher Mönche (Münster i. Westfalen: Asehendorff, 1926), PP. 26–28.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Hellriegel, Magr. Martin B., “The Mother of All Vigils,” Proceedings of the National Liturgical Week, 1948 (Conception, Mo.: The Liturgical Conference, Inc., 1949), pp. 119–130.Google Scholar

3 Jungmann, Josef A., S. J., “Der erstedeutsche liturgische Kongress,” Stimimen der Zeit, CXLVI (08, 1950), 387.Google Scholar

4 (Wien: Verlag Herder, 1949), II, 126–128Google Scholar; 156–159; 168–169.

5 Orate Fratres, XXIII (1948–1949), 7–17, 61–67, 116–121, 154–160Google Scholar; quotation from P. 160.

6 Such research has also served to accentuate the indebtedness of the Christian liturgy to civil ceremonial. The lesson Father Klauser draws from this is in keeping with the emphasis on the content of the liturgy mentioned above: “This new insight into the secular origin of these external elements in the liturgy might well prevent us from attaching too much importance to these things. For not rarely does it seem that over-emphasis of such externals distracts the mind of the faithful from the sublime interior values of the liturgy.” Ibid., p. 17.

7 Quoted by Birnbaum, Walter, Die katholische liturgisehe Bewegung: Darstellung und Kritik (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1926), pp. 96–97.Google Scholar

8 Cf. P. Theodor Bogler, O.S.B., member of the important Liturgical Commission inaugurated by the German hierarchy, “Zum Verständnis,” Liturgische Erneuerung in aller Welt. Ein Sammelbericht (Maria Laach: Verlag Arsliturgica, 1950), p. 11Google Scholar: “Dem sachlich überlegenden Menschen wird es völligeindeutig sein, dass, wenn man zur Feier des Herrenmahles ‘eingeladen’ ist, man dabei nicht etwas Andersartiges tun dürfe, was zu jener Feier in keiner unmittelbaren Beziehung steht. Ein solches Verhalten verbietet im gesellschaftlichen Bereich der gewöhnlichste Anstand. Jeder weltliche Gastgeber würde es als eine grobe Verletzung seines Gastrechtes ansehen, wenn die geladenen Gäste zwar in das Hatis des Freundes kämen, sich auch mit ihm zu Tische setzten, jedoch durch ihr lautes privates Gespräch oder durch das Singen ihrer Lieder die Tischgemeinschaft stören wollten. Dass das mutatis mutandis heute immer noch der Fall in vielen Gemeinden der Weltkirche ist, wird offenbar übersehen. Da aber liegt, ganz simpel und primitiv gesprochen, der Sinn der Liturgischen Erueuerung. Sie versucht, die Gläubigen wieder zu dem hinzuführen, was in den heiligen Handlungen wesenhaft geschieht.”

9 (Conception, Mo.: Altar and Home Press, 1945), p. 28.

10 “Architecture and the Liturgy,” Liturgical Arts, V (1935–1936), 13–18.Google Scholar

11 For a discussion of this sociological classification as it applies to the Liturgical Movement cf. Koenker, Ernest B., The Liturgical Movement in the Roman Catholic Church (Chicago: Unpublished dissertation, University of Chicago, 1950), pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

12 Ellard, Gerald, S. J., The Mass of the Future (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1948), p. 128.Google Scholar

13 Cf. Stedman, Msgr., “The Liturgy in Military Life,” Proceedings of the National Liturgical Week, 1944, pp. 99–112.Google Scholar

14 Cf. Winzen, Dom Damasus, “Progress and Tradition in Maria Laach Art,” Liturgical Arts, X (1941–1942), 20.Google Scholar This may be said in spite of the fact that the Dialog Mass was tranferred to Germany from Belgium. The research and understanding achieved at Maria Laach served to give the Movement its present distinctive character.

15 Cf. Rémond, Bishop of Nice, “Messe face an peuple,” La Maison-Disu, VIII (1946), 83.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Dom Lambert Beauduin, “La Messe chantée, sommet de la vie paroissiale,” and de Chabannes, Dom Bernard, “Messe dialoguée ou messe chantée” La Maison-Dieu, IV (1945), 104–123Google Scholar; 124–128.

17 Ibid., p. 202.

18 Cf. Ward, Maisie, France Pagan? (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1949)Google Scholar, passim.

19 Cf. Chéry, R. P., O. P., “Une liturgie vivante et missionnaire,” Paroisse communauté missionnaire (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1945), pp. 63–101.Google Scholar

20 Cf. Chéry, , Communauté paroissiale et liturgie, Notre-Dame Saint Alban (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1947).Google Scholar

21 Pp. 61–68.

22 Heitz, Alphonse in his important “Dernières étapes du renouveau liturgioue allemand,” La Maison-Dieu, VII (1946), 66Google Scholar, estimated that in seventy-five percent of the parishes community Masses had been introduced. Father Heim's figures for Switzerland exceed this estimate.

23 XXI (1946–47), 524.

24 Periodica de re morali canonica liturgia, XXVII (1938), 163–167.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., p. 163.

26 Ibid., p. 165.

27 (New York: The America Press, 1948), Par. 108.

28 Cf., e. g., Griffin, William A., Bishop of Trenton, “An Episcopal Instruction,” Orate Fratres, XXI (1946–1947), 35.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Rahner, Karl, S. J., Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, LXXI (Fall, 1949), No. 3.Google Scholar

30 Cf. Ellard, , “How Near Is Evening Mass?” American Ecclesiastical Review, CXXII (05 5, 1950), 331–344.Google Scholar

31 Number twenty-one of La Maison-Dieu is devoted in its entirety to the treasures of the divine office and possibilities of reform. Cf. also Parsch, Dom Pius, Le Breviaire expliqué dans l'esprit du renouveau liturgique (Mulhouse, Haut-Rhin: Editions Salvator, 1947).Google Scholar

32 The works by Schuster, Parsch, Loehr, Hellriegel, and others on the Church year have enjoyed a wide sale.

33 Dekkers, Eligius, O. S. B., “Belgien und Holland,” Liturgische Erneuerung in aller Welt, p. 44.Google Scholar

34 “Two Suggestions,” Orate Fratres, XXI (1946–1947), 229.Google Scholar

35 Cf. Jungmann, Josef, Missarum Solemnia, I, 57 ff.Google Scholar; 65; 103–104.

36 Vers l'unité chrétienne du point de vue catholique (Paris: Aubier, 1949), p. 43Google Scholar. The German original was not available to the writer at the time of writing.

37 Cf. the eleventh number of La Maison-Dieu devoted to “Langues et traductions liturgiques.”

38 Rev. Gosling, S. J., “The Parish Priest and the Vernacular,” The English Liturgist, IX (03, 1950), 12.Google Scholar

39 The English Liturgist, IX (03, 1950), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

40 Josef Jungmann, “Der erste deutsche liturgische Kongress,” op. cit., p. 387.

41 Cf. Gelineau, J., “Enquête sur le chant religieux,” La Maison-Dieu, XIII (1948), 93–96.Google Scholar

42 Cf. Hellriegel, , “A Pastor's Description of Participation.” Proceedings of the National Liturgical Week, 1941, pp. 82–92.Google Scholar It should be noted that this was written ten years ago, and after the pastor had been at Holy Cross for only one year.

43 Dieckmann, Dom Godfrey, “With Christ in the Mass,” Proceedings of the National Liturgical Week, 1917, p. 47.Google Scholar

44 Voguls, H., Hochland, XXXIII (1935–1936), 289 ff.Google Scholar

45 XII, 415.

46 Jungmann, , “Christus-Gemeinde-Priester,” Borgmann, Karl, ed., Volksliturgie und Seelsorge (Colmar im Elsass: Alsatin Verlag, 1943), pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

47 Par. 95.

48 Par. 83.

49 Cf. Jungmann, , “We Offer,” Orate Fratres, XXIV (1949–1950), 97–102.Google Scholar

50 “Liturgy and Lutheranism,” Una Sancta, VIII (Annunciation, 1948), 7.Google Scholar

51 Liturgische Zeitschrift, IV (1931–1932), 2.Google Scholar

52 Histoire du mouvement liturgique (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1945), p. 80.Google Scholar

53 Mysterium, Gesammelte Arbeiten Laacher Mönche, pp. 4–5.

54 “Memorandum de S. E. Mgr. Groeber, Archevêque de Fribourg,” La Maison-Dieu, VII (1947), 99.Google Scholar

55 (New York: The Paulist Press).

56 Reinhold, H. A., “Monolithic Catholicism,” Orate Fratres, XXIII (1948–1949), 215.Google Scholar

57 Guardini, Romano, L'Esprit de la liturgie (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1929)Google Scholar. This translation of Guardini's epoch-making work was made by Robert d'Hareourt and accompanied by an excellent introduction, to which reference is made here, pp. 5–9, “Le Mouvement liturgique dans L'Allemagne d'apres-guerre et Romano Guardini.”

58 Bogler, op. cit., pp. 18–19.