LITURGIA

LITURGY. – From λήκτων ἔργον = *publicum opus*. Among the Greeks it implied the concept of a public work, undertaken for the good and in the interest of all citizens, by those possessing a census exceeding three talents; in this way provision was made for public festivals, national games, etc. Subsequently, the meaning was restricted to a public work, but of worship to the gods, and from then on it was not an honor for the wealthy citizen, but for the public treasury (cf. Aristotle: *Politics*, VII, 9).

OUTLINE:

I. Liturgy in non-Christian religions

II. In the Catholic religion

III. Origin and division

IV. Liturgical movement

V. Liturgical writers

VI. Liturgy as a theological science

VII. Liturgy as a dogmatic source

VIII. Liturgy and piety.

I. LITURGY IN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

All religions have a liturgy, that is, a norm upon which sacred action is modeled. Two elements are indispensable in every liturgy: action and word. Action, which in primitive groupings occupies the principal place, expresses through gesture and various movements of the person (dance, mime, etc.) what it intends to achieve; word is reduced to the minimum necessary either to explain and provoke the effect on the part of the one directing the action or to approve a judgment or formulate the assent of the group attending the rite. Word tends in the liturgy of more advanced civilizations to assume an ever greater moral development and height (v. PRAYER), and from a simple imperative formula, or a request for benefits according to the *do ut des* formula, it ends by becoming an aspiration of the heart, especially in private prayer. In liturgy, given its public character, word is never separated from action because every liturgy is a drama that refers back to a historical moment or to a collective aspiration of the group and that is drawn from the deposit of the group’s oral tradition or is codified in its sacred books. In all organized liturgies the association of word with action through formulas of assent (amen, so be it, alleluia; canticles, hymns, psalms, dance) is constant, and is indeed essential at the culminating moment of the sacred action.

Silence also forms part of liturgy and is imposed with specific formulas (e.g., among the Romans, *favete linguis, parcite linguam*) not only to prevent sacred action from being disturbed by profane noises, but also because silence fosters spiritual recollection and enables one to experience the active presence of the divinity, just as the darkness of the sanctuary aids the soul’s concentration in God. The priest’s exhortation at the beginning of the Preface in the Catholic liturgy invites this: “Sursum corda!”

In all human groups that have fixed and organized places of worship, liturgy is twofold: daily for the daily service of the temple and the particular piety of devotees; and periodic according to the various times of the year, in coincidence with the rhythm of the seasons, with the recurrence of historical events that have affected the life of the group, or with the commemoration of the mythical or historical vicissitudes of the group’s patron deity. Thus in Egypt the death of Osiris and the discovery of his body (*Inventio Osiridis*) are commemorated; the ritual market recalls the death (*Sanguem*) and resurrection of Attis (*Hilaria*); the Christian religious calendar is essentially devoted to recalling the life of the Redeemer from Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Death and Resurrection up to the Ascension. The periodicity of liturgical celebrations serves to renew the sense of social unity by recalling the ideas and facts that presided over the constitution of the group itself and thereby to consolidate its structure. Without this periodic reminder effected by liturgy, the cohesion of the group would dissipate into individual manifestations often regulated in diverse ways.

II. IN THE CATHOLIC RELIGION

In the sense of worship rendered to the divinity, the term liturgy was introduced into the Bible by the Septuagint to denote, therefore, the sacred office of priests and Levites in the Temple; so too did the writers of the New Testament use it (Lk 1:23 with reference to Zechariah), even to designate the acts of Jesus as eternal High Priest (Heb 8:2); similar expressions are found in the *Didache* (15:1) and in Clement of Rome (*To the Corinthians*, 44:2). Later it came to signify only the act of worship par excellence, the Mass (perhaps in correspondence with Acts 13:2), as is attested in the Councils of Ancyra (314), Antioch (314), Laodicea (375), in the *Apostolic Constitutions*, by the Fathers and in Greek sacred texts.

The Greek noun and verb were translated in the Latin Bible as “ministrare, ministerium, officium” (Lk 1:23; Acts 13:2; Heb 8:2, 6), which, with the addition of the adjectives “divinum, ecclesiasticum,” were likewise used by medieval writers. The classical scholarship of the 17th century adopted the Greek term in Latin “liturgia,” giving it the office of indicating the historical forms of a rite (thus Mabillon with the work *De liturgia gallicana*; Muratori with *Liturgia romana vetus*, etc.) as well as the living complex of rites. When, however, an attempt was made to render its meaning more precise, discussions began. Aestheticians and rubricists described it as “the complex of rites and prescriptions that form the ceremonial of Christian worship,” exposing liturgy to becoming mere external ritualism; attempts therefore to affirm its essential spiritual element were definitions such as: “cultus publicus ab Ecclesia quoad exercitium ordinatus” (Callewact), or “the complex of public prayers and acts of worship ordered by Jesus Christ and the Church” (Eisenhofer) and others similar (cf. J. Hanssens: *La definition de la liturgie*, in *Gregorianum*, 10 [1929], pp. 204-28), all perhaps inspired by can. 1257 of the *Codex Iuris Canonici*. The best definition is that of M. Righetti: “it is the worship of the Church” (*Storia liturgica*, I, Milan 1945, p. 6 ff.). Today the discussions appear closed by the encyclical *Mediator Dei* of 20 November 1947: “Liturgy is the integral worship of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, of the Head and its members”; in other words, “it is the public worship that our Redeemer renders to the Father as Head of the Church and it is the worship that the society of the faithful renders to the Head and, through Him, to the Eternal Father.” This definition contemplates the “fact,” which in itself does not exclude the “manner” in which liturgy is realized: this, however, is better indicated by the term rite. For this reason there is only one Christian liturgy, while there can be many rites. From this it follows further that liturgy is synonymous with Christian worship, a single and immutable trunk from which rites arise, varying according to times, places, and persons; they represent a particular way of feeling and cultivating the virtue of religion. Each rite has its own testimony in liturgical books that collect the prayers, passages from the Bible, and chants for the Mass (lectionary, epistolary, evangelary, antiphonary, sacramentary, Missal), for the Divine Office (Bible, homiliary, passionary, martyrology, hymnal, collectary, Psalter, antiphonary, responsorial), for the Sacraments and sacramentals (Ritual), and also the rules (rubrics) for the ordering of ceremonies (“ordo,” ceremonial).

The study of these direct testimonies, together with those drawn from the most varied monuments of Christian tradition, and the comparison of different rites, can reveal the origin of each and the grouping of them so as to constitute a genealogical tree, always alive and flourishing, even if, after the Council of Trent, the growth of new branches does not appear possible. At the present state of studies, the rites can first be distinguished into the two fundamental groups of East and West, each with numerous derivations, stemming from Churches particularly important in the early centuries of Christianity.

###

III. ORIGIN AND DIVISION

East and West share a common history of the origins of the liturgy and its development up to the year 313. It is the history of Christian worship with the birth and early development of those local elements which, from the 4th century onward, would reveal the existence of the different rites.

1. **East.** — Three periods can be distinguished:
a) 4th–5th centuries. — The organization of the Church led to the predominance of certain centers which, by virtue of their acquired importance, produced two opposing effects: on the one hand, they caused the disappearance of the liturgical particularities of small Churches, which, due to persecutions, had existed in forced liturgical autonomy; on the other, they better organized their own liturgy, which, either by its own authority or by conciliar and synodal canons, imposed itself on neighboring small Churches. Proof of this is the fact that the Council of Chalcedon (451) established the four patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, which became four liturgical centers, the last two being the most important and influential even in later centuries. The former because it was a destination of continuous pilgrimages, the latter because it was the capital of the Empire, where political affairs were easily conducted.
b) 6th–7th centuries. — By this time, the Byzantine, Armenian, Syriac, and Coptic rites were established, each of which would have its own history under the influence of the evolving civilization, yet always remaining alive.
c) The first printed editions (16th century) of Eastern liturgical books fixed the *ordo* of each rite, often with an advantage over manuscripts that contained many variants.

2. **West.** — The origin and history of Western rites are rooted in that of the Roman rite, even though there is still debate over how many liturgical centers existed in the 3rd–4th centuries—whether two, Rome and Milan, or only Rome. Today, although some Churches or religious orders preserve minor liturgical particularities, all countries of Western civilization, and others that converted to Christianity from the 16th century onward, follow the Roman rite, with the exception of Milan and the surrounding region where the Ambrosian rite survives. The Gallican, Celtic, and Mozarabic rites held great historical importance. North Africa adopted the Roman liturgy. The final blow to particular rites was struck by Pius V, who permitted only those rites to survive that could demonstrate vitality for at least 200 years.

As for historical development, regardless of how the liturgy unfolded in individual Western countries, general lines of common development can be established:
1) Up to 313. — For the West as well, the history of Christian worship in the same period applies. While in the past it was thought that New Testament writings and the apostolic age influenced the formation of liturgical texts, today the tendency is rather to see in them the first documents of a lived certainty.
2) 4th–5th centuries. — A consequential development, marking a separation from the East, was the introduction of Latin as the liturgical language; the 5th century saw the common era for the official drafting of liturgical books, which, in their essential lines, have come down to us, having been composed in their main parts, the liturgical year established, sacramental discipline regulated, and public prayer organized. The work of Pope Leo I and especially of Gelasius I had great resonance.
3) 6th century–first half of the 8th century. — The details vary in number, scope, and importance according to the regions. The monumental work of Gregory I must be noted, as well as, for Italy, the events provoked by Byzantine and Lombard rule, and, perhaps for all the West, the influence of Greco-Syrian currents, refugees from their lands, whose importance is indicated by the Greek popes of this period.
4) Second half of the 8th century–12th century. — Frankish influence and the Carolingian Renaissance dominate. The liturgy tends more to add to the markedly theological structure of previous centuries a humanistic note, with the affirmation of feasts commemorating episodes in the life of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, the addition of symbolic meanings to the rites, and a greater attention to the needs of man on his journey toward heaven. The restoration of ecclesiastical discipline carried out by Gregory VII also aimed at liturgical unity.
5) 13th–14th centuries. — Decline becomes more pronounced as devotions gain an ever-larger place in the liturgy, with the multiplication of feasts, texts, and the desire to assign a spiritual meaning to every gesture, indicated by a formula accompanied by...
6) From the Council of Trent. — The need to defend doctrine and a concern for discipline led to a rigidification of the positions reached, though freed from accretions and better adapted to the new conditions of Christendom. Official editions of liturgical books were prepared (the Breviary in 1568, the Missal in 1570, the Martyrology in 1584, the Roman Pontifical in 1596, the Ceremonial of Bishops in 1600, the Ritual in 1614, the Roman Octave in 1623), which, apart from minor particularities and additions of feasts, are the same as those used today. The institution, established by Sixtus V in 1588, of the Congregation of Rites removed from bishops any possibility of innovation. Canon 1257 of the Code of Canon Law confirmed this discipline.
7) 19th–20th centuries. — As a result of studies conducted according to the most modern textual and historical criticism, there is a tendency toward purifying the texts of centuries-old corruptions and reconstructing the liturgy along strict, dogmatic lines, in which the Christological cycle predominates over the sanctoral cycle. The work is overseen by the supreme authority of the Church, which seeks to harmonize it with the sometimes strongly innovative demands of the "liturgical movement."

###

IV. LITURGICAL MOVEMENT

The movement originated in France in reaction to the revolutionary Terror: Chateaubriand in *Le Génie du christianisme* celebrated the beauties of worship and the liturgy; Abbot Guéranger drew from the Benedictine spirit, always exquisitely liturgical in homage to the "Rule," teachings and energies to restore worship to the splendor that, as an effect from a cause, stems from unifying discipline, from the spiritual penetration of every part, and from the return of every rite to the purity in which it was constituted. Gregory XVI, on September 1, 1837, erecting the Solesmes community into a Benedictine Congregation, blessed and approved Guéranger’s intentions, assigning the monks, among other aims, that of "reviving the sound traditions of canon law and those now in decline of sacred liturgy." The writings and work of Guéranger immediately gave solidity to the liturgical movement, which found precise echoes in kindred souls: in Germany through the Benedictine abbey of Beuron, home to Dom Bihlmayer and Dom Schott, who disseminated the Missal and Vesperal among the people and initiated a movement for the restoration of sacred art; in England through the efforts of Cardinal Newman, who stated: "He who ignores the liturgy understands only half the greatness of the Catholic religion"; in Belgium (centered on the abbey of Maredsous) through popularizing works by Dom Van Caloen and scholarly studies by Dom G. Morin in the *Revue bénédictine* (from 1887 onward); in Italy chiefly through the work of Fr. G. Amelli, founder of the St. Cecilia Association for sacred music, while at Solesmes the restoration of Gregorian chant was being prepared; and through the influence of the journal *Rassegna gregoriana* (1902–1914).

The liturgical movement had covered the first stretch of its path, blessed but not yet directly organized by the supreme authority. The first beginning of the second phase is marked by the motu proprio *Tra le sollecitudini* (22 Nov. 1903) of Pius X, in which, while the central theme is Gregorian chant and sacred music, it is repeatedly stated that their restoration depends on a renewed liturgical spirit. From that time the liturgical movement had three aims, not equally pursued everywhere: 1) active participation of the faithful; 2) return to the Church’s sacred art (music, ornamentation, furnishings, etc.); 3) scientific study of the liturgy.

The best organization and principal development occurred again in Belgium (1909), with very active centres at Maredsous, Mont-César, Malines, St-André-Lez-Bruges, etc., where congresses and several liturgical weeks were held, the proceedings of which were published; an excellent contribution was made by the journal *Questions liturgiques* (from 1910 onwards); at Antwerp in 1930 the first international liturgical congress was held; in Germany (1914), with its centre at the abbey of Maria Laach, whose work tended especially to reveal the depths of the theological content of the liturgy, alongside a scientific endeavour of the most rigorous kind, drawing on every ecclesiastical and secular discipline and showing marked sympathy for the Eastern Church; in Austria (c. 1919), with its centre at Klosterneuburg and the zealous leadership of Prof. Pius Parsch, author of several valuable publications, always of a popular character, some of which were translated into Italian; in Portugal from 1921; in the United States of America from 1940, with its centre in Chicago, annual liturgical weeks were held with the publication of their proceedings; in other American countries too the liturgical movement was active, as is shown by ecclesiastical journals containing studies and commentaries on the liturgy; and from 1940 in France, with its centre in Paris, the *Centre de pastorale liturgique* began (publishing from 1945 the journal *La Maison Dieu*), with influence in all Latin countries. In Italy, after 1903, the liturgical movement first took on a scholarly aspect, in which great honour was done to Cardinals G. Mercati, F. Magani, A. M. Ceriani, A. Ratti (Pius XI), M. Magistretti, the “Greek” scholars of Grottaferrata, and, with a popularizing character, Fr G. Semeria. Soon, however, the second phase began, when historical research became the basis for the science of spiritual life, combating abuses introduced in previous centuries and restoring balance between the liturgy and devotions. In 1914, under the care of the Benedictines of Praglia and Finalpia, the journal *Rivista liturgica* was founded, proposing a programme of solid liturgical dissemination. In 1913 in Milan *Arte cristiana* was born, later becoming the organ of the Scuola superiore d’arte sacra B. Angelico, in which the liturgy is the inspiration. A particular impulse and formative influence on the clergy was given by the *Liber Sacramentorum* (1919–28) of Cardinal I. Schuster. Meanwhile (1923) in Vicenza the *Bollettino liturgico* was founded for the faithful; in Rome the new series (from 1927) of the journal with an international character, *Ephemerides liturgicae*, today the best and most complete of its kind, whose editorial office is a centre of activity and propaganda; in Turin the journal *L.* existed for a few years, interrupted by the Second World War; in Milan from 1931 the *Opera della regalità di Cristo* at the Catholic University disseminated booklets for the people; *Ambrosius* (1925) treats extensively of the Ambrosian rite (the scholarly aspect, in a more extensive form, from 1949 is developed in the volumes of the *Archivio ambrosiano*); it also promotes the movement for altar servers and young choristers (the counterpart organization, with the journal *Il chierichetti*, for the Roman rite is at Parma) and since 1946 has been the organ of the *Associazione dei SS. Ambrogio e Cecilia*. In Genoa the *Apostolato liturgico*, founded by Mons. Moglia, organized in 1934 the first national congress, which called for a “liturgical action centre” for Italy, whose foundations, however, could only be laid in 1949 at a national meeting held in Parma.

During and immediately after the Second World War the liturgical movement caused concern to the Holy See because some appeared too eager for novelty and strayed from the path of tradition and prudence. Pius XII addressed this with the encyclical *Mediator Dei*.

V. WRITERS ON THE LITURGY — In the broadest sense of the expression, some Fathers of the Church and other writers may be so described. But for the lack of liturgical texts which they comment on, their writings must be counted among the sources. These consist of the smallest and greatest liturgical testimonies scattered in pagan and Christian writers of the first centuries, in councils and synods; excellent material is provided by archaeology, epigraphy, the history of music and, finally, by liturgical books from the most ancient to the modern redactions. The writers properly so called belong to three periods:

1. 8th–15th centuries. — The Carolingians begin with Alcuin, Amalarius, Agobard, Florus of Lyon, Walafrid Strabo, Rabanus Maurus: in them there is an attempt at criticism and allegorical symbolism emerges as a means of support for ceremonies no longer understood or having lost their primitive efficacy because of changes in Christian life. They are followed by the so-called allegorists, for their minute and often exaggerated search for the mystical-symbolic meaning of liturgical things: Odelric of Milan (d. 814), Berno of Reichenau, St Peter Damian (d. 1057), Bonizo of Piacenza (d. 1089), John of Avranches (d. 1079), Bernold of Constance (d. 1100), Odo of Cambrai (d. 1131), Ivo of Chartres (d. c. 1117), Bruno of Segni (d. 1123), Rupert of Deutz (d. 1135), Hugh of St Victor (d. 1141), Honorius of Autun (d. c. 1145), Berold of Milan (12th c.), John Beleth of Paris (d. after 1165), Sicard of Cremona (d. 1215), Innocent III (d. 1261), William Durandus (d. 1296), Radulph of Rivo (d. 1403). All these are sometimes considered rather secondary sources because with their descriptions and commentaries they complete the picture given by the liturgical books.

2. 16th–18th centuries. — As a reaction to the pseudo-Reformation, studies of positive theology, history, archaeology, biblical studies, etc., take on great importance. For this reason the 16th century may be seen as the birth of liturgical science, whose proponents were concerned to scrutinize the sources, to publish the most ancient texts, to compare them and to comment on them according to a criticism which over four centuries was continually refined. The most important are: Johannes Dobereck, called Coelhovius (d. 1532), Giacomo Pamelo (d. 1587), Melchior Hittorp (d. 1584), Onofrio Panvinio (d. 1568), Angelo Rocca (d. 1620). Of great importance for Greek and Eastern liturgies are the publications of Jacques Goar (d. 1653), Leone Allacci (d. 1669), Eusebius Renaudot (d. 1720), Angelo Quirini (d. 1755), Giuseppe Luigi Assemani (d. 1728), Giuseppe Simone Assemani (d. 1768). As for Western liturgies, important texts were published by Hugues Ménard (d. 1644), Jean Mabillon (d. 1707), Edmond Martène (d. 1739), Giuseppe Bianchini (d. 1764), Giuseppe Maria Tommasi (d. 1713), Lodovico Antonio Muratori (d. 1750), Alexander Lesley (d. 1758), Domenico Giorgi (d. 1764), Martin Gerbert (d. 1793). Serious commentators included, among others: Giovanni Battista Visconti (d. 1633), Giovanni Gavanti (d. 1638), Germain Morin (d. 1659), Giovanni Bona (d. 1674), Louis Thomassin (d. 1695), Pierre Lebrun (d. 1729), Jean Grancolas (d. 1732), Benedict XIV (d. 1753), Giovanni Catalani (d. 1755), Charles Chardon (d. 1757), Carlo Trombelli (d. 1778), Angelo Zaccaria (d. 1795).

### 19th–20th Centuries

It is impossible to provide a complete list: only those are mentioned who, through their works, addressed the most varied themes, laying the foundations upon which many others continued to build and were effectively stimulated to study liturgy in France and Belgium: Dom P. Guéranger (d. 1875), L. Duchêne (d. 1922), U. Chevalier (d. 1923), P. De Puniet (d. 1938), F. Cabrol (d. 1932), H. Leclercq (d. 1947), P. Batiffol (d. 1928), G. Morin (d. 1946), P. Cagin (d. 1923), G. Corblet (d. 1886), C. Callewaert (d. 1943), A. Wilmart (d. 1946), R. Aigrain, A. Gastoué, H. Netzer, V. JALABERT, LOUIS, M. Andrieu, J. Hesbert, B. Capelle, J. Froger, B. Botte, L. Brou. In England: H. A. Wilson (d. 1927), C. Feltoe (d. 1926), E. Bishop (d. 1917), A. Fortescue (d. 1923), I. Mearns, I. Thurston, H. Connolly, F. E. Warren. In Germany: A. Ebner (d. 1898), G. Dreves (d. 1909), F. Probst (d. 1899), S. Bäumer (d. 1894), A. Kellner, A. Baumstark (d. 1948), A. Schönfelder, J. Brinktrine, K. Mohlberg, A. Döld, F. X. Funk (d. 1907), L. Fischer, B. Albers, P. Wagner, A. Franz, N. Nilles, L. Eisenhofer (d. 1941), J. Dölger (d. 1946), T. Klauser, P. Browe, M. Hanssens, F. Oppenheim (d. 1949), O. Heiming, O. Casel (d. 1948). In Spain-Portugal: A. Coelho (d. 1938), G. Suñol (d. 1946), Gr. Madinez de Antonana, Juan B. Ferrers. In Italy: L. Barbieri, P. Silva-Tarouca, Pio Alfonso (d. 1946), A. Paredi, P. Borella, A. Roberti, G. Destefani, L. Barin, M. Righetti.

**

For individual topics cf. *DACL*, with caution regarding articles signed by H. Leclercq, a scholar of undoubted value but who, from about the midpoint of the work, became the dictionary’s almost sole author. Excellent articles are also found in *DThC*.

Bibliographical works are always necessary:
For the past cf. especially: F. Cabrol, *Introduction aux études liturgiques*, Paris 1907; K. Mohlberg, *Ziele und Aufgaben der liturgiegeschichtlichen Forschung*, Münster 1919; d) From 1921 onward, excellent guides include: i) *Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft*, published by the Liturgical Center of Maria Laach (Germany). The bibliography appended to the journal *Ephemerides liturgicae* is particularly well curated from 1946 onward. For the Ambrosian rite, in addition to what is reported under the entry **V. AMBROSIA, LITURGIA**, cf. vol. 2 of *Archivio Ambrosiano*, Milan 1950, with bibliography from the 19th century to 1949. On the liturgical movement: G. Zunini, *Le composizioni del p. Pio Parsch*, in *Ambrosius*, 5 (1929), pp. 26–32; A. Hammenstädt, *Principi e scopi del movimento liturgico promosso dall’abbazia di Maria Laach*, ibid., pp. 104–12; O. Rousseau, *Il movimento liturgico in Belgio*, ibid., pp. 173–80; C. J. Grimshaw, *Il valore della rinascita liturgica in Inghilterra*, ibid., pp. 253–69; A. Ferreira, *Il movimento liturgico nel Portogallo*, ibid., 6 (1930), pp. 192–95; A. Bernareggi, *Il movimento liturgico in Italia*, ibid., pp. 162–74; M. G. Tissot, *Movimento liturgico in Francia*, ibid., 7 (1931), pp. 241–46; L. Andrianopoli, *La rinascita liturgica contemporanea*, Milan 1934; O. Rousseau, *Histoire du mouvement liturgique... depuis le début du XIXe siècle jusqu’au pontificat de Pie X*, Paris 1945; R. Pierret, *Le mouvement liturgique fondé à Paris*, in *Ephemerides liturgicae*, 59 (1946), pp. 151–68; E. Fei, *Il movimento liturgico negli Stati Uniti*, ibid., 60 (1947), pp. 100–106. Current journals include: *Ambrosius* (Milan, since 1925); *Ephemerides liturgicae* (Rome, since 1887); *Les questions liturgiques et paroissiales* (Louvain, since 1911); *Liturgia* (Silos, since 1946); *Liturgia* (Singerville, since 1947); *Liturgy* (Birmingham, since 1929); *Maison-Dieu* (Paris, since 1945); *Paroisse et Liturgie* (Bruges, since 1946); *Revista Litúrgica Argentina* (Buenos Aires, since 1936); *Revista Litúrgica* (FINALIA, since 1944); *Sacris erudiri* (Bruges, since 1948). Ascetico-liturgical works: *Cours en conférences des semaines liturgiques*, 1913–35, published by the Benedictines of Louvain; G. Morin, *L’ideale monastico e la vita della società cristiana nei primi secoli*, Italian trans., Sorrento 1927; R. Guardini, *Lo spirito della liturgia*, Italian trans., Brescia 1923; M. Zundel, *Il poema della sacra liturgia*, Italian trans., Rome 1939.

---

VI. LITURGY AS A THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Canon 1365 §2 lists “liturgiology” among the subjects to be taught in major seminaries, designating that part of theological science which considers and treats scientifically all that pertains to divine worship (its object), under its various aspects: essence, history, parts, and execution (the last of which is more specifically called rubricistics). A satisfactory division of liturgy as a theological science has not yet been achieved; in general, the study proceeds along two main lines: general or fundamental liturgy, which treats the essence of worship, its general history, its constitutive elements, sacred times and places; and special liturgy, which examines the various modes under which liturgy is enacted—sacrifice (the Mass), prayer (the Divine Office), sacraments, and sacramentals (blessings). Each individual part may be studied and presented from three distinct perspectives: the purely historical-evolutionary, the contentual or meaning-oriented, and finally the concrete and practical execution (rubricistics). It should be noted, however, that in the teaching of liturgy in seminaries—where the aim is the complete and organic formation of the young cleric—the rigid separation of these perspectives is neither necessary nor desirable. The purpose of this instruction must be to form the young cleric for liturgical life within and with the Church, both in his personal life and in relation to the entire Christian people. This requires not only a solid knowledge of liturgical history but, above all, an understanding of its inner grandeur and pastoral-educational value, since the priestly ministry, in its essential aspect, unfolds precisely through the liturgy, which unites clergy and people in the common duty of worship owed to God (see below: *Liturgy as a Source of Piety*). Thus, the encyclical *Mediator Dei* (20 November 1947, AAS 39 [1947], pp. 591ff.) also emphasizes the necessity of a solid and comprehensive liturgical formation for the clergy. Ultimately, even purely historical-liturgical studies attain their most fruitful purpose insofar as they serve the living, present-day liturgy.

As for its origin and development, liturgy (l.) as a proper theological discipline separated from theology only during the past century, although prior to this liturgical studies and treatises were not lacking. The credit for this evolution belongs above all to Prosper Guéranger in France (v.), to Schmidt and to Lüft in Germany (Fr. X. Schmidt, *Liturgik der christl. Religion*, Passau 1832; J. B. Lüft, *Liturgik*, 2 vols., Mainz 1844-47). With J. Fluck’s *Katholische Liturgik* (2 vols., Ratisbon 1853-55), liturgy can be considered a separate theological discipline. However, some of the most authoritative authors of pastoral theology in Germany still prefer to treat liturgy as an integral part of pastoral theology (v. Amberger, Benger, Schüch), with a treatment that is certainly less precise historically but furnished with solid pastoral doctrine, still very useful today. From that time onward general introductions and particular works, especially of a historical-liturgical nature, multiplied immediately (cf., e.g., Ph. Oppenheim, *Introduzione historica in litteras liturgicas*, 2nd ed., Turin 1945).

VII. LITURGY AS A DOGMATIC SOURCE

The probative value of liturgy as a dogmatic source is summed up in the well-known axiom *Lex orandi, lex credendi*. This derives from a passage by St. Prosper of Aquitaine in his *De gratia Dei indiculus*, written between the years 435 and 442, which later came to be attributed to Pope Celestine I (*Capitula Caelestini*): «Observatio namque quaeque sacerdotalium Sacramenta respiciamus, quae ab Apostolis tradita, in toto mundo atque in omni Ecclesia catholica uniformiter celebrantur, ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi» (PL 50, 535; *Enchiridion symbolorum*, 26th ed., Freiburg im Br. 1947, no. 139; cf. E. Portalé, in DThC, II, 2025). A similar deduction, but in a more general form, is made at the same time by St. Vincent of Lérins in his *Commonitorium* (ca. 434), in another celebrated passage: «In ipsa item catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum, quod ipsa vis nominis ratioque declarat» (PL 50, 640; *Enchiridion symbolorum*, no. 120).

1. in its substantial meaning as a science and means of sanctification. From this vision it also draws its highest justification for the sound liturgical movement, directed especially toward the benefit of priests themselves. Indeed, sincere and conscientious liturgical piety safeguards the priest from the easy danger of routine and imparts to his priestly activity the necessary supernatural unction.

3. Liturgy and private piety

Liturgical piety represents, so to speak, the official piety of the Church; yet it in no way dispenses individuals, including priests themselves, from private and individual piety. Sole participation in the liturgy is an objective attained for its efficacy only if it is preceded by personal asceticism, without which vices are not uprooted nor Christian virtues developed. Meditation and individual prayer are indeed indispensable presuppositions for a liturgical piety that is penetrating and reformative; this, in turn, perfects, elevates, and broadens private piety, which is too often in danger of becoming sterile within its own narrow self. Therefore, for the priest as for the faithful, the starting point for fruitful participation or celebration of the liturgy remains always personal piety, practiced through the ordinary means of Christian perfection. Hence private piety and liturgy stand in a relationship of continual mutual aid, complementing and perfecting each other, uniting personal action with the universal action of the Church in the liturgy, while, on the other hand, liturgical action itself gains greater merit and effect in proportion to the personal holiness of the celebrant or participant. Fruitful liturgical education, whether of clergy or laity, must begin and proceed on the foundation of sound and effective ascetical education; liturgy will be able to penetrate deeply and permeate all Christian life, in its manifold activities, only when the subject is prepared to fulfill the duties of a convinced and good Christian. Persuasive testimony to this is found in popular, paraliturgical piety, which flourished especially in the Middle Ages, invading all fields of life with its customs and traditions. To ensure the efficacy of the liturgy, therefore, it is necessary to prepare priests and laity through the daily practice of Christian life.

2. Literature: A. Grea, *La Sainte liturgie*, Paris 1909; M. Festugière, *Qu'est-ce que la liturgie, sa définition, ses fins, sa mission*, 1914; L. Beauduin, *La piété de l'Église*, Louvain 1914; E. Caronti, *La pietà liturgica*, Turin 1920; G. Lefebvre, *Liturgia. Ses principes fondamentaux*, 4th ed., Abbaye de St. André 1929; Ph. Oppenheim, *Introduzione in scientiam liturgicam*, Turin 1940; id., *Principia theologica liturgica*, 1914; Th. Filthaut, *Die Kontroverse über die Mysterienlehre*, Warendorf 1947 (with extensive bibliography); Th. Bogler, *Liturgische Erneuerung in aller Welt*, Maria Laach 1950; *Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft*, Ratisbon 1921-41, formerly edited by O. Casel, is the richest and most varied liturgical bibliography and scholarship of our time; since 1950 the title of the periodical has been: *Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft*. Giuseppe Löw