No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
On the face of it, the liturgical movement is one of the big religious success stories of the twentieth century, a paradigm case of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Churches. From small beginnings, Pius X’s encouragement of frequent communion, his reform of the breviary and his interest in Church music on the one hand and the renewed scholarly concern with ancient liturgical texts, manifested by men like Edmund Bishop, on the other, sprang up in Benedictine monasteries like Mont-César and Maria Laach a movement to rediscover and revive the principles embodied in the great liturgies of the patristic period. These principles have gained wider and wider acceptance and the official seal of approval was placed on them, first of all in a rather grudging manner by Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei (1947) and then wholeheartedly in the Liturgical Constitution of the Second Vatican Council promulgated in 1963. Parallel movements in the Church of England and among the Lutherans only confirm the authentic character of liturgical developments.
Yet, despite the evident signs of the movement of the Spirit, there are some disquieting features in the present situation. A substantial minority on the right remains stubbornly unreconciled to any change, while on the left there are some who are preoccupied with ‘underground’ or domestic liturgies and others who question any special concern with liturgical forms as, in effect, a gigantic irrelevance and a distraction from the Christian’s primarily political role. Consequently, it is worth the effort to distance ourselves from the liturgical movement and its principles and enquire if, among the many sound intuitions into the nature of worship which it has promoted, there are some attitudes and approaches which are of more doubtful value.
page 121 note 1 Burns & Oates, 1968, 35s., especially pp. 137–8.
page 123 note 1 Eg. by FrHowell, Clifford S.J., in Mean What You Say (Chapman, 1965)Google Scholar and the same author's article in The Clergy Review, Vol. 51, pp. 143–7 (although he does not want to eliminate a general confession altogether).
page 124 note 1 The Liturgy: renewal and adaptation, edited by Austin Flannery, O.P. (Scepter Books, Dublin, 7th ed. 1968, 25s.). Fr Myerscough's contribution falls below the general level of this useful symposium; the value of the book is enhanced by its dossier of Roman documents relating to the liturgy from the Constitution itself to the Instruction on eucharistic worship of 25th May, 1967, all in serviceable translations.
page 125 note 1 ‘The Three New Eucharistic Prayers’, New Blackfriars, October 1968.
page 127 note 1 Liturgy is what we make it, Sheed & Ward, 1967, 13s. 6dGoogle Scholar.
page 127 note 2 Vide Mrs Pratt's contribution to Experience of Liturgy, edited by O. and Pratt, I., Sheed & Ward, 1968, 13s. 6dGoogle Scholar. (The reference is to p. 64.)
page 127 note 3 The words are cited by Fr J. D. Crichton in his foreword to the English translation (=A handbook of the liturgy, p. xiii, Herder/Nelson, 1960) of Rudolf Peil's Handbuch der Liturgik für Katecheten u. Lehrer.
page 127 note 4 Cf. an earlier sentence in art. 41: '. All should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centred around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church'. (My italics.)
You have
Access