Liturgy as Theological Norm Getting Acquainted with Liturgical Theology

Prof. Dr. Joris Geld ho f, Faculty of Theology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, Joris.Geldhof@theo.kuleuven.be

This article is meant to be an exercise in critical thinking about a subject which is still surprisingly uncommon in systematic-theological circles, namely liturgical theology. I do not think that I exaggerate when I state that many theologians have certain biases concerning the liturgy, especially when it is held that the liturgy, as liturgy, contains or even is theology. Usually, the liturgy is looked upon as a practical field, a field of applications and implementations liable to contingency. Theologians only rarely interpret the liturgy as formative or constitutive for their theoretical enterprises. Nevertheless, there is a strong case to be made for considering the liturgy as theological norm par excellence. That is at least what I aim to do in this paper. My contribution is divided into five parts. First, I elucidate the concept of liturgical theology. This is a first and necessary step to take, because among scholars and commentators there is considerable confusion as to what liturgical theology really means and does and how it operates. Second, I demonstrate how liturgical theology in general became increasingly influential in the course of the twentieth century. This is also an important preliminary step, for it enables me to contextualize what I discuss in the third part, namely a particular line of thought represented by three leading thinkers who deliberately call themselves developers of a genuine liturgical theology. They are Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh, and David W. Fagerberg. In the fourth section I discuss the central themes and concerns of their theologizing and try to point out the uncompromising radicalness of their position. In particular, I draw attention to the reversal of the doctrine-liturgy relation, which can be considered as the crux of their thinking. There is no doubt that Schmemanns, Kavanaghs and Fagerbergs theology poses a huge challenge to contemporary systematic-theological reflection. Therefore, in the fifth part of this article, I propose a critical evaluation of their thought. I will argue that there are many strong points amongst which, most notably, is an invitation to keep a vital dialogue between systematic theology and the liturgy but also that it entails possible risks and weaknesses.

NZSTh, 52. Bd., S. 155 176 Walter de Gruyter 2010

DOI 10.15/NZST.2010.010

156

Joris Ge ldh of

I.

The Concept of Liturgical Theology

With a view to answering the question of what liturgical theology is, it is helpful first to clearly indicate what is not.1 It must be said immediately, however, that the following nuances and distinctions are not agreed upon by everyone engaged in the field. Much more than trying to present the tiny common ground shared by those who have an opinion about or a view on the essence of liturgical theology (if this is at all possible), it is my goal to slowly introduce the reader to the thought-world of the three authors which will be discussed in greater detail. As a matter of fact, this thought-world is no less than the liturgy itself. First of all, liturgical theology is not to be equated or confused with liturgical studies (Liturgiewissenschaften or Liturgik). Whereas the aim of liturgical studies is to gain more knowledge about the liturgy, liturgical theology is interested rather in the meaning of the liturgy. Therefore, liturgical studies can be a necessary condition for liturgical theology (and, actually, it usually is), but the liturgical theologian does not simply accumulate knowledge about phenomena. The difference between liturgical studies and liturgical theology is also reflected at the methodological level. Liturgical studies predominantly use a comparative, anthropological, pastoral, philological, and/or historical-critical method, whereas liturgical theology aims at a much more encompassing approach, which integrates and synthesizes the findings of analytical work.2 Second, liturgical theology needs to be distinguished from a theology of the liturgy. For a theology of the liturgy, the liturgy is the object about which one reflects by making use of theological frameworks and interpretational patterns. It is a theology which constructs theological ideas and systems relating to the liturgy. As such, it is honestly convinced of the importance of the liturgy for both the content and the method of theology as an academic discipline. Accordingly, it complains about a lack of attention for the liturgy from the side of many a systematic theologian.3 It argues

A noteworthy attempt at defining what can be meant by liturgical theology has been undertaken by Dwight W. V O G E L , Liturgical Theology: A Conceptual Geography, in: Dwight W. V O G E L (ed.), Primary Sources of Liturgical Theology: A Reader (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press 2000), 3 14. In this context it is meaningful to refer to a recent introduction to liturgical studies written by Albert Gerhards and Benedikt Kranemann, who consider this area to consist of three major approaches: a historical, a theological, and a pastoral one: Albert G E R H A R D S /Benedikt K R A N E M A N N , Einfhrung in die Liturgiewissenschaft (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006), 45 53. The American Jesuit Edward J. Kilmartin is a good example of a theologian who sincerely deplored the neglect of many systematic theologians for the liturgy. He says: Systematic theologians, working in all branches of theology should consider it a matter of the highest priority to show how their subjects can contribute to a better understanding and practice of communal

Liturgy as Theological Norm

157

that the liturgy should be a field of interest not only for liturgists but also for fundamental and systematic and even moral and pastoral theologians. However, liturgical theology differs from a theology of the liturgy in that it considers the liturgy not as a field of thorough theological reflection and research next to other possible fields of interest. For liturgical theology, the study of the liturgy is not an option. Rather, it is a necessary condition for any theology. Likewise, the liturgy is not primarily an object that can be isolated from other objects and approached separately. On the contrary, according to liturgical theologians the liturgy is the conceptual and existential framework par excellence for any theology worthy of its name. The liturgical is an essential dimension of all theologizing. Liturgy is the ultimate norm for theology. In this context it may be helpful to draw a parallel with the distinction between a philosophy of religion and a religious philosophy.4 Whereas the philosophy of religion approaches religion as an external object, a possible phenomenon that attracts attention, or an area of interest, a religious philosophy is a philosophy which looks at reality from a religious standpoint and takes into account the religious in whatever theory it develops. Something similar is true in the case of liturgical theology. It does not deal with the liturgy as something outside itself but takes up the challenges of doing theology from an inextricably liturgical point of view, which it moreover considers as unavoidable. Yet, it is possible to understand the phrase theology of the liturgy in a different way, because, grammatically speaking, the liturgy can also function as a subject instead of an object. Then it means that the liturgy is somehow doing theology. It does not mean that the liturgy contains theological ideas which can thereupon be distilled or derived with the aid of theological-analytical tools. That is not untrue of course, but taken in a more radical sense, it implies that the liturgy is an active theological player, expressing in its own way God-talk, literally theo-logy. If the phrase theology of the liturgy is interpreted in the way just described, it comes fairly close to the thrust of Schmemanns, Kavanaghs, and Fagerbergs liturgical theology, or to the model which Robert Taft interestingly called theology as liturgy. In an article with precisely this title, Taft writes: Not only is liturgy an object of theology, so that we must have theology of liturgy. There is also a very real sense in which all true Christian theology must be liturgical theology that is, doxological inworship. And: Systematic theology, as systematic theology of the liturgy, completes its task only when it demonstrates how the liturgy serves in its particular way as transparency for the mystery of salvation (Edward J. K I L M A R T I N , Theology as Theology of the Liturgy, in: V O G E L , Primary Sources (see above, n. 1), 103 109, resp. 104 105; 108). Vgl. Jean G R E I S C H , Le Buisson ardent et les Lumires de la Raison: Linvention de la philosophie de la religion, vol. 1 Hritage et hritiers du XIXe sicle, (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 34 36.

158

Joris Ge ldh of

volved with Gods unending saving activity and mens and womens prayerful response to it throughout the ages. Otherwise our theology is not the study of how a living God saves.5 His conclusion is as succinct as it is logical: Liturgy, therefore, is theology.6 Third, however, liturgical theology needs to also be distinguished from both doxological theology and theology of worship. The distinction between these two kinds of theology is comparable to what has been said about theology of liturgy and liturgical theology, but it focuses on the aspect or dimension of praise. The reason why there is a difference with liturgical theology is not to deny that in a very general sense every theology is or should be, directly or indirectly, ultimately contributive to the laudation of God which every Christian believer is invited to (cf. the idea of ad maiorem Dei gloriam). The reason is that not every act of worship is liturgical and that, by extension, the essence of the liturgy cannot be reduced to its doxological aspect, no matter how important it is. In addition, Dwight Vogel clearly observes: Worship as a human activity appears in both individual and social expressions. It does not have to be corporate in nature. Liturgy is corporate by nature; worship is not. Liturgy involves ritual action; worship may or may not.7 After this threefold negative characterization, in and through which elements of a positive description of liturgical theology already shone through, it is appropriate to present a working definition of liturgical theology even if it must remain preliminary and limited. Two essential features or criteria have been established, again by Dwight Vogel: Liturgical theology must deal with the liturgy and it must be theological in nature.8 Vogel himself realizes that this description remains too minimal, although the definition does what it ought to do, namely prevent that it can be contradicted. A more nuanced and comprehensive understanding is provided by the renowned American scholar Kevin Irwin, who has offered solid introductions to liturgical theology in several publications. Irwin distinguishes between different meanings of liturgical theology, which he says intrinsically belong together. First, there is theology of liturgy. This term describes what Christian liturgy is and what it does in terms of actualizing the reality of Christs paschal mystery for the Church, gathered and enlivened by power of the Holy Spirit.9 Second, there is theology drawn from the liturgy. This meaning of liturgical theology concerns how the means of communication and interaction in liturgy, especially words and symbols,

5 6 7 8 9

Robert T A F T , Liturgy as Theology, in Worship 56 (1982), 113 117, 114 115. T A F T , Liturgy as Theology (see above, n. 5), 115. V O G E L , Conceptual Geography (see above, n. 1), 6. V O G E L , Conceptual Geography (see above, n. 1), 13. Kevin W. I R W I N , Context and Text: Method in Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1994), 46.

Liturgy as Theological Norm

159

can be utilized as a generative source for developing systematic theology.10 According to Irwin, a theology drawn from the liturgy additionally entails a moral and spiritual theology.11 II. The Emergence of Liturgical Theology in the 20th Century The specificity of liturgical theology is something which is embedded in a certain historical evolution. It is relevant to briefly appeal to this history, for it allows one to better grasp the particular line SchmemannKavanaghFagerberg. Surprisingly enough, this history involves a quite recent evolution. According to Irwin, the term was coined and first used in the work of M. Cappuyns, which is to be situated in Belgium in the 1930s.12 The context in which the term liturgical theology emerged and rapidly became an incontrovertible one, is undoubtedly the Liturgical Movement. The Liturgical Movement is the name for the movement which, through the work of the French Benedictine monk and abbot of Solesmes Dom Prosper Guranger (1805 1875), successfully propagated a deeper understanding of and a more lively engagement in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. It was an encompassing movement which exceeded the boundaries between generations and denominations and which cannot be reduced to a single series of initiatives, a single group of likeminded thinkers, or a single body of literature. It is all of this and so much more. In any case, a more profound awareness of the beauty, truth, and goodness of the liturgy was its major aspiration, to be realized through an active participation. Moreover, due to changing historical circumstances it constantly adapted itself, sometimes even reinvented itself, and underwent significant metamorphoses. Notwithstanding the many vicissitudes it went through, a case could be made that it still persists today. I would suggest that the Liturgical Movement continues its efforts in and through the work of all those who display an active sympathy for liturgical theology. The scholars representing the Liturgical Movement in the first half of the twentieth century had a primarily historical and philological background and interest, or else they concentrated on pastoral initiatives to foster genuine existential participation in liturgical celebrations, like for instance Romano Guardini did in Germany.13 There is no doubt about the invaluable contribution of all those who delved into the history of the

10 11 12

13

I R W I N , Context and Text (see above, n. 9), 50. Cf. I R W I N , Context and Text (see above, n. 9), x; 46. Thomas F I S C H (ed.), Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann (Crestwood, NY: Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1990), 5; I R W I N , Context and Text (see above, n. 9), xiv. Frdric D E B U Y S T , Lentre en liturgie: Introduction luvre liturgique de Romano Guardini (Paris: Cerf, 2008).

160

Joris Ge ldh of

Churchs liturgical tradition with a view to coming up with surprising data and insights, and of all those who provided future generations with trustworthy editions of long-forgotten texts, accompanied with thorough introductions and commentaries. However, in the second part of the twentieth century, a new interest seemed to arise. In addition to the gigantic historical, philological, and pastoral efforts, a search for synthesis and understanding saw the light or, at least, became more prominent. That was the birthplace of liturgical theology. In a certain sense, liturgical scholars and representatives of the Liturgical Movement had always been convinced of the theological significance of their endeavors. Irne-Henri Dalmais, the famous French specialist of oriental liturgies, voiced the opinion of many when he wrote in 1964 that the liturgy is and ought to be treated as a locus theologicus of the utmost rank.14 It is a little strange, then, though neither surprising nor unfounded, that the German theologian Teresa Berger, who is at present professor of liturgy at Yale Divinity School, argued and complained as late as 1987 that the liturgy was still an almost forgotten subject matter of theology.15 One could legitimately ask whether a lot has changed after another twenty years, and which images on the liturgy prevail among the majority of systematic theologians (in the academy). In view of the apparent lack of (systematic-)theological attention for the liturgy, it is moreover interesting to refer to an article written by Albert Houssiau, a former professor of liturgy and from 1986 till 2001 the Roman-Catholic bishop of Lige. In this notable article Houssiau discusses the rediscovery of the liturgy in the field of sacramental theology. According to him, a slow process of rediscovering the liturgy can be observed in the time span between 1950 and 1980.16 Strangely enough, sacramental theology had developed itself as a discipline in its own right which had become increasingly alienated from the liturgical embedding of the celebration of the sacraments. Representatives of the Liturgical Movement generally agree that this was due to the influence of scholastic theology. This kind of theology was found to have a predominantly rationalistic and deductive approach, from which it is not difficult to understand that it somehow looked down on the liturgy. The liturgy was something merely practical and unworthy of serious theorizing. As such, scholasticism, which originated in the Middle Ages and dominated the theological scene at least in Catholicism up until the

14

15

16

Irne-Henri D A L M A I S , La liturgie comme lieu thologique, in La Maison-Dieu 78 (1964), 97 106. Teresa B E R G E R , Liturgy A Forgotten Subject-matter of Theology, in Studia Liturgica 17 (1987), 10 18. Albert H O U S S I A U , The Rediscovery of the Liturgy by Sacramental Theology (1950 1980), in Studia Liturgica 15 (1983), 158 177. Original French version: La redcouverte de la liturgie par la thologie sacramentaire, in La Maison-Dieu 149 (1982), 27 55.

Liturgy as Theological Norm

161

middle of the twentieth century,17 established a huge contrast with the first millennium. Still, according to the majority of the Liturgical Movement, there had always been very close connections between liturgy, theology, and pastoral activities. The idea and the ideal of a mutual dependence of liturgy and theology as it was practiced in the patristic era became a major source of inspiration and a clear focus for research in the field of liturgical theology. There are obvious traces of this in the work of Schmemann, Kavanagh, and Fagerberg, to which we now turn. The Line Schmemann Kavanagh Fagerberg

III.

Alexander Schmemann was born in Estonia in 1921 to Russian immigrants but fled with his family to Paris. There he became a prominent member of the large community of Russian-Orthodox expatriates. In challenging times he studied and taught at the Institut Saint Serge and was deeply affected by the evolutions in liturgical scholarship as they were embodied in the Institut Catholique de Paris. After the war Schmemann was ordained a presbyter (1946) and moved to the United States (1951), where he was to spend the rest of his life. He was professor of liturgical theology and dean at St Vladimirs Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York, and a talented preacher and pastor. He is one of the most influential Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century and was widely respected for his ecumenical openness, vision, and expertise. He died of cancer in 1983. In 1959 Schmemann received his doctorate from the Orthodox Institut Saint Serge in Paris. The title of his dissertation was The Churchs Ordo. Introduction to Liturgical Theology. Bruce Morrill and Don Saliers observe that it was [from] the great figures of the Roman Catholic theological and liturgical revival in Paris during the forties and fifties that Schmemann learned the principles of liturgical theology.18 Later on, in 1966, the work was translated from Russian and published under the shortened title Introduction to Liturgical Theology.19 There have been numerous reprints and translations of this work. There is no doubt that Schmemann
17

18

19

It has been convincingly demonstrated, however, that there have been significant shifts in the history and conception of scholasticism and Thomism. See Gry P R O U V O S T , Thomas dAquin et les thomismes: Essai sur lhistoire des thomismes (Cogitatio Fidei 195), (Paris : Cerf, 1996). Bruce T. M O R R I L L /Don E. S A L I E R S , Liturgy as Life for the World, in: V O G E L , Primary Sources (see above, n. 1), 52 53, 52. Alexander S C H M E M A N N , Introduction to Liturgical Theology (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2003 [1966]). In the introduction to this book Schmemann himself explicitly discusses the Liturgical Movement (pp. 13 16). Among the figures from the French scene that had a special impact on his intellectual development are certainly Louis Bouyer, IrneHenri Dalmais, Jean Danilou, and Bernard Botte, as well as other authors who were broadly

162

Joris Ge ldh of

really initiated liturgical theology in the twentieth century,20 after it had been neglected for so long. Aidan Kavanagh was a Benedictine monk from the monastery of St. Meinrad, Indiana, USA. He was born in Texas in 1929, entered the Benedictine order in 1951 and was ordained a priest in 1957. Because of his exceptional intellectual skills, he was sent by his superiors first to Ottawa, Canada, and afterwards to Trier, Germany, where he obtained a doctoral degree in theology in 1964. He became professor of liturgical studies at St. Meinrad School of Theology but soon moved to the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, and in 1974 to Yale University. He was the first Catholic priest who served as the dean of Yale Divinity School (1989 1990) and stayed there until his retirement. Aidan Kavanagh died at the age of 77 in 2006. Kavanagh wrote several seminal studies that profoundly influenced theory and practice of the so-called RCIA, the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. The Second Vatican Council had ordered the reestablishment of such a rite and the RCIA was the concrete result of that order. At the same time, Kavanagh was one of the most ardent defenders and developers of liturgical theology in the Anglo-Saxon world. He knew Schmemanns work from a very early date and substantially agreed with him. In 1984 he bundled two prestigious series of lectures he had been invited to deliver into a book entitled On Liturgical Theology.21 The work is dedicated to Alexander Schmemann, on whose work Kavanagh obviously relies.22 David Fagerberg was one of Aidan Kavanaghs most promising students at Yale University and got to know Schmemanns work very intensively under his guidance.23 Fagerberg was born in 1952 to Protestant parents and became a minister in the Lutheran Church in 1977. In 1991 he converted to Catholicism and one year after that an adaptation of his doctoral dissertation was published as What is Liturgical Theology? A Study in Methodology.24 At present Fagerberg is Associate Professor of Liturgy at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. In the preface to his 2004 monograph Theologia prima, which in its turn is a thorough adaptation of What is Liturgical Theology?, Fagerberg witnesses how deeply he is marked by the thought of Alexander Schmemann and Aidan Kavanagh. At the same time he stipulates what liturgical
received, eventually translated, and intensively studied in Paris (such as Odo Casel, Gregory Dix, Anton Baumstark, and Oskar Cullmann). Cf. Kevin W. I R W I N , Liturgical Theology: A Primer (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1990), 7. Aidan K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1992 [1984]). I R W I N , Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 20), 47. David W. F A G E R B E R G , The Cost of Understanding Schmemann in the West, Hitherto unpublished lecture, given at St. Vladimirs Theological Seminary on January 31st, 2009. Cf. http://ancientfaith.com/specials/svs_liturgical_symposium (accessed December 16th, 2009). David W. F A G E R B E R G , What is Liturgical Theology? A Study in Methodology (Chicago, IL: Liturgical Press, 1992).

20 21 22 23

24

Liturgy as Theological Norm

163

theology is all about: My working definition of liturgical theology continues to be owed to Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh, and Robert Taft. I take the term to mean the theological work of the liturgical assembly, not the work done by an academic upon liturgical material. He significantly adds a typically Schmemannian or Kavanaghian (or Taftian) idea: It may seem easier to approach the idea as theology considered in the light of liturgy, or liturgy in the light of theology, but I consider this approach misleading because it leaves the impression that there are two subjects (liturgy and theology) instead of one subject (liturgical theology).25 After this short survey of the life and work of my three main interlocutors, I think it is legitimate to make mention of a consistent line of thought between Schmemann, Kavanagh, and Fagerberg. Let us now have a closer look at some salient features of their peculiar account of liturgical theology, while realizing that each of these three authors has his own style of writing.26 And form and content always correspond, in particular with regard to the liturgy.

IV.

The Reversal of the Dogma-Liturgy Relation

In the same passage which was quoted above, Fagerberg defines liturgical theology in the following way: Liturgical theology is normative for the larger theological enterprise because it is the trysting place where the sources of theology function precisely as sources. Liturgical theology is furthermore normative for liturgical renewal because such efforts should arise out of the tradition of the Church and not our individual preferences. The subject matter of theology is God, humanity, and creation, and the vortex in which these three existentially entangle is liturgy.27 This quota-

25

26

27

David W. F A G E R B E R G , Theologia Prima: What is Liturgical Theology? (Chicago/Mundelein, IL: Hillenbrand Books, 2004), ix. It is difficult if not impossible to appropriately categorize these differences in style. One should also be aware that these differences are dependent on the contexts in which the respective works came into being. Schmemanns original Introduction to Liturgical Theology was a dissertation but there is a significant difference between Western academic customs and Eastern Orthodox standards. Schmemanns book is more the development of a well-researched vision imbued with patristic patterns of reasoning than a distanced study about a well-defined object. Kavanaghs rhetoric writing style is certainly not common among academic theologians. He writes fresh, lively, and engaging prose but is not so concerned about footnotes and references. The fact that On Liturgical Theology is the fruit of lectures is telling, but also in his other books Kavanaghs style is something unique. Finally, Fagerbergs works What is Liturgical Theology? and Theologia prima come closest to what academic theologians are familiar with, but still he writes in a rich literary style which is quite unusual among contemporary theologians. Apart from the content that these liturgical theologians stand for, I consider the richness of their styles momentous and inspiring. F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), ix.

164

Joris Ge ldh of

tion makes it clear that liturgical theology reverses the way in which one usually looks at the relation between liturgy and dogma. Whereas one tends to give primacy to dogma (contents of faith or faith convictions) over liturgy (the expression of these ideas in a material way), liturgical theology deliberately reverses this relation. According to liturgical theology, there is first the actual celebration of the liturgy, which shapes both the community itself and the way it reflects on its faith. The primacy of liturgy over doctrine is claimed to be both historical and systematic. Let me now concretize this general scheme of reversal by discussing several important thoughts which are typical of liturgical theologians, with particular reference to Schmemann, Kavanagh, and Fagerberg.

IV.1. Concrete Liturgies and Rubrics First of all, the actual celebration of the liturgy is taken as the point of departure for any theological explication of it. The concrete forms and shapes of the liturgy as celebrated by ordinary people in diverse liturgical families and cultures constitute both the origin and the framework for liturgical theology. On this point Kavanagh expresses himself as follows: Liturgical theology, as distinct from other sorts of theology which may be about the liturgy, is obliged to begin and end with an accurate perception of what a liturgy is in itself.28 And the liturgy in itself is, according to Kavanagh, proletarian rather than elitist, communitarian rather than individualistic or idiosyncratic, quotidian rather than random or infrequent.29 What this means is further elucidated as follows: A liturgical act is a theological act of the most all-encompassing, integral, and foundational kind. It is both precipitator and result of that adjustment to the change wrought in the worshipping assembly by its regular encounter in faith with its divine Source. [] [I]t is proletarian in the sense that it is not done by academic elites; it is communitarian in the sense that it is not undertaken by the scholar alone in his study; and it is quotidian in the sense that it is not accomplished occasionally but regularly throughout the daily, weekly, and yearly round of the assemblys life of public liturgical worship.30 As a corollary, the rubrics and other liturgical prescriptions are of great importance to liturgical theologians. It is not the case, however, that they fall back into the much-despised rubricism of previous ages, nor do they aim at a restoration of a quasi-juridical rubric-commenting kind of theologizing. On the contrary, their whole enterprise can be seen as a search for the deepest meanings of what steers and motivates these rubrics.
28 29 30

K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 135 136. Ibid. 93 94. Ibid. 89. The last part of this passage is quoted in F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 39 40.

Liturgy as Theological Norm

165

Therefore, they sharply criticize the attitude of those who want to get rid of the rubrics as a kind of overreaction against a narrow or exaggerated rubricism. It is suggested that those who throw overboard the rubrics have not entirely grasped what the liturgy really is. In his inimitable style Kavanagh says about rubrics: They are not booby traps of divine wrath meant to go off should the unwary blunder into them, nor the arbitrary products of crazed medieval bishops who cared more about the shape of a miter than about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Liturgical laws and rubrics are [] a kind of liturgical proverb, each containing a grain of truth, but not the whole truth, to be used with discretion and not isolated from others of their kind. [] Taken together, rubrics and laws constitute a checklist of the factors to be considered in the art of putting a liturgy together and celebrating it.31 Apparently, according to liturgical theologians, the concrete always prevails over the abstract.

IV.2.

The Adage lex orandi-lex credendi

A second line of argument is developed with reference to the famous adage lex orandi, lex credendi. Much has been said about this adage, but it is simply impossible not to say anything about it in the context of a discussion of liturgical theology. What is especially striking is Schmemanns, Kavanaghs and Fagerbergs insistence on the most radical interpretation of this adage. When explaining the method and task of liturgical theology, Schmemann boldly states: The theological synthesis is the elucidation of the rule of prayer as the rule of faith, it is the theological interpretation of prayer as the rule of faith.32 Kavanagh and Fagerberg have each in their own way further elaborated the idea of lex orandi determining lex credendi, and not vice versa. Both Kavanagh and Fagerberg remind us of the original phrasing of the adage, namely ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.33 This formulation is borrowed from Prosper of Aquitaine, a fifth century author and secretary to Pope Leo the Great. The original context of the adage is a discussion with a group of semi-Pelagians in Gaul. In order to defend the position that grace is necessary, Prosper appeals to the traditional Good

31

32 33

Aidan K A V A N A G H , Elements of Rite: A Handbook of Liturgical Style (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1990 [1982]), 8. Schmemann confirms the importance of the study of rubrics in liturgical theology: A study of ecclesiastical rubrics, understood not simply as the expounding of the rules governing the Churchs liturgical life but as the general and basic structure of this life, must necessarily be a preliminary step in the study of worship (S C H M E M A N N , Introduction (see above, n. 19), 25). Ibid. 21. K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 83; F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 120.

166

Joris Ge ldh of

Friday intercessions, in which the community prays for a variety of people in need of Gods grace for all kinds of reasons. Thus Prospers argument is in the Augustinian tradition about the need for Gods grace to initiate, sustain and complete justification. Prospers point in referring to the Good Friday intercessions is that in asking that Gods grace come to various groups of people the Church asserts its belief (against the Pelagians) that it is grace and not works that leads to salvation. The basis for this argument is the theology reflected in these prayers, not necessarily the specific prayer texts used.34 With an appeal to the original context and formulation of the adage, Kavanagh clarifies: [T]he predicate statuat does not permit these two fundamental laws of belief and worship in Christian life to float apart or to be opposed to each other, as in the tag form lex orandi, lex credendi. [] The verb statuat subordinates the law of belief to the law of worship in just the same way, and for just the same reasons, as our reception of Gods Word is subordinated to the presentation of that Word to us in the act of its being revealed and proclaimed to us.35 In the discussions after the publication of Kavanaghs book, this radical standpoint has been questioned and debated upon. Not everyone agrees that the law of prayer, or the liturgy, constitutes, grounds, or determines the law of faith, or dogma. The question is not so much a technical one, as to whether Kavanagh had rightly understood and interpreted Prospers text against the background of church-historical evolutions in the fifth century. Rather, the debate is about whether one could reasonably uphold the systematic priority of liturgy over dogma, and whether it is not more apt to speak of a mutual dependence between two equal partners. The famous British-American Methodist theologian Geoffrey Wainwright in a book review did not conceal a sense of unease towards Kavanaghs vision and position. He may even be said to overtly repudiate it, or at least to severely disapprove of the style and language used.36 More elaborately, Wainwright had already exposed the core of his thought in his seminal study Doxology.37 According to him, there must always be a bal-

34

35 36

37

I R W I N , Text and Context (see above, n. 9), 5 6. For some additional background, see Paul D E C L E R C K , Lex orandi-Lex credendi: The Original Sense and Historical Avatars of an Equivocal Adage, in Studia Liturgica 24 (1994), 178 200; I R W I N , Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 20), 11 17. K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 91. Cf. ibid., 92; 150. Geoffrey W A I N W R I G H T , Review of Aidan Kavanagh, On Liturgical Theology, in Worship 61 (1987), 183 186. In this regard one can additionally refer to a discussion between Kavanagh and Wainwright (originally a lecture by Wainwright to which Kavanagh responded): Geoffrey W A I N W R I G H T , A Language in Which We Speak to God, in Worship 57 (1983), 309 321; Aidan K A V A N A G H , Primary Theology and Liturgical Act, in Worship 57 (1983), 321 324. Geoffrey W A I N W R I G H T , Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life: A Systematic Theology (London: Epworth Press, 1980).

Liturgy as Theological Norm

167

ance between liturgical action and theological reflection. He agrees that there are many illustrations, mainly historical ones, whereby worship largely led doctrine, but he warns against occasions in which worship may get out of hand.38 A good illustration of such a distortion is provided by the ecclesial revolutions in sixteenth-century Europe: The Reformation may be read as a doctrinal revolt against a deformed liturgical practice and understanding focused on the sacrifice of the Mass.39 Wainwrights position was vehemently criticized in turn by Fagerberg. Fagerberg profoundly respects Wainwrights major purpose, which consists in [p]ersuading systematic theology to be cognizant of the Churchs liturgy. A systematic theology written from a liturgical perspective would certainly bring liturgy and theology into closer conversation []. I applaud that accomplishment. But there are differences between the approach Wainwright urges on the individual theologian, and the corporate quality of liturgical theology.40 As a matter of fact, according to Fagerberg, Wainwright represents a theology from worship but not a liturgical theology, the latter of which gives evidence of an uncompromising deference to the determining anteriority of communal worship. Fagerberg concludes on Wainwrights position:
From the perspective of liturgical theology, there is a problem with describing worship as an expression of the Christian dogma or concentrated vision. It opens one to the idea that dogma or vision can precede their expression, as I can precede my body. [] It leaves the impression that there is a truth to be embodied, which can be done either in a coherent articulation (theology) or a concentrated existential vision (liturgy), and the current can flow in both directions between the law of prayer and the law of belief because they each express the abstract faith. [] Worship may provide the existential matrix, but doctrine exercises control over worship because the latter is not theological.41

In other words, liturgical theology is in one way or another ardently anti-Hegelian, in the sense that liturgical practice and images (or Vorstellungen) can never be completely aufgehoben in reflexive-theological contents (or Begriffe). In the meantime, some scholars have attempted to develop a more moderate position, trying to find a path between a perfect mutuality and equality on the one hand, a scenario which Kavanagh and Fagerberg argue somehow ends up in theology ruling the liturgy, and an absolute priority of liturgy over theology on the other hand, which might result in a collapse of intelligibility and the abandonment of theologys search for plausibility. An excellent illustration of this mediating position is provided by the renowned American theologian Catherine LaCugna, who significantly con-

38

39 40 41

Geoffrey W A I N W R I G H T , The Praise of God in the Theological Reflection of the Church, in V O G E L , Primary Sources (see above, n. 1), 112 124, 121. W A I N W R I G H T , The Praise of God (see above, n. 38), 121 (italics are mine, JG). F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 58. F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 62.

168

Joris Ge ldh of

tributed to the theology of the Trinity in the wake of Karl Barth and Karl Rahner. She recognizes the importance of the distinction between primary theology, namely the liturgy itself celebrated as a communal rite, and secondary theology, which is the reflexive explanation of it. This distinction was drawn by Aidan Kavanagh; its meaning and import were substantially enlarged by David Fagerberg.42 LaCugna contends: Secondary theology inquires into the nature of the liturgy, whereas primary theology is concerned with the liturgical act. Even if the distinction between primary and secondary theology is somewhat artificial, it serves to point up the theological nature of the liturgy, and the liturgical nature of theology.43 According to her, the liturgy constitutes the context of theological work: Liturgy provides a constant check on the tendency of theological reason to over-emphasize one or the other dimension of our knowledge of God. Liturgy serves to prevent the type of theology which becomes fascinated with itself rather than with God.44 At the same time, these ideas do not inhibit her from supposing that the liturgy can be legitimately corrected by theology.45 In the end, I presume that liturgical theologians of the strict observance46 will continue to resist any kind of equating liturgy and theology, and that they at the same time will reject any allegation that the theology they aim at is not genuinely theological. Undoubtedly, fundamental questions remain and the debate goes on. But in the search for truth that theology is called to be, this is probably not a bad thing.

42

43

44 45

46

A revealing passage where Kavanagh explains how liturgical theology arises is: This is how liturgies grow. Their growth is a function of adjustment to deep change caused in the assembly by its being brought regularly to the brink of chaos in the presence of the living God. It is the adjustment which is theological in all this. I hold that it is theology being born, theology in the first instance. It is what tradition has called theologia prima (K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 74). Kavanagh himself employed the opposition between primary and secondary theology to shed critical light on the historical evolution of the relationship between liturgy and theology (ibid., 109ff). Fagerberg, in his turn, expanded the notions in a conceptual and systematic way (cf., e.g., F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 66 68). He moreover joins the concepts of theologia prima and lex orandi: Liturgical theologys two defining characteristics are: 1) it is genuine theology, although it is theologia prima and not theologia secunda, 2) and it is lex orandi (ibid., 109). Catherine L A C U G N A , Can Liturgy Ever Become a Source for Theology?, in Studia Liturgica 19 (1989), 1 13, 2. Ibid., 8. Ibid., 9. Besides this, one can also find a similar moderate position in the work of Kevin Irwin on the nature and function of liturgical theology. In any case, Irwin is milder than Kavanagh and Fagerberg, while he sincerely tries to go along with them as far as possible. Interestingly, Irwin adds a theologia tertia to primary and secondary theology (I R W I N , Text and Context (see above, n. 9), 46). Cf. V O G E L , Conceptual Geography (see above, n. 1), 13.

Liturgy as Theological Norm

169

IV.3.

The Concept of Orthodoxy

A third line of thought typical of liturgical theology is the interpretation of the concept of orthodoxy. Kevin Irwin rightly observes: The first meaning of orthodoxy is right praise. A derived meaning is correct belief47 something which was said a little more pointedly by Kavanagh: orthodoxy means first right worship and only secondarily doctrinal accuracy.48 Again, it is obvious that liturgical theology aims at a reversal of the way in which one usually sees the relation between liturgy and dogma. Kavanagh uses the definition of the original meaning of the word orthodoxy as a hermeneutical key for understanding and criticizing a historical evolution which has marked modern Christianity, both in the Roman-Catholic Church and in the churches of the Reformation. Orthodoxia, right worship, in both translations and in the mentality which produced them, has become orthopistis, right believing, or orthodidascalia, right teaching, and both are by the context centered upon church officials. Right worship was ceasing to be the ontological condition of theology, of the proper understanding of the proclaimed Word of God, becoming instead a locus theologicus in service to correct belief and teaching by church officials and secondary theologians, who were using the liturgy as a quarry for stones to set into argument shaped by increasingly rigorous methodologies worked out in academy. The antithesis of orthodoxy has become heresy rather than heterodoxy, wrong worship. Praxis and belief have grown apart.49 For Kavanagh, orthodoxy is a notion which encompasses the whole of life.50

IV.4.

The Liturgy: Ordo and rite

The fourth idea which shapes liturgical theology circles around the profound awareness that the liturgy, at its deepest levels, is a pre-given structure anterior to the participating subject, and because of this it is

47 48

49 50

I R W I N , Text and Context (see above, n. 9), 52. K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 3. Fagerberg does not seem to state things as sharply. He certainly agrees with Kavanaghs enlargement of the concept of orthodoxy; at the same time, he stresses that liturgical theologians deal with doctrinal correctness, as is evident in the following passage: The question liturgical theology wants to ask is why the raw material of worship must be translated into a second order form before it can be called theology, and why only second order theology can exercise guardianship over orthodoxy. Liturgical theology should certainly be concerned with correct doctrine. Liturgical theology is theology, and not merely the investigation of rubrics, aesthetics, and ceremonial ritual. But is the only form adequate for this theological work an academic one? (F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 63). K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 82. Cf. ibid., 109 110. Ibid. 94 95.

170

Joris Ge ldh of

structurally similar to the concept of revelation.51 It is certainly not wrong to suppose that some kind of structuralism has had an impact on Schmemann and Kavanagh, and at least indirectly also on Fagerberg.52 Schmemann consistently emphasizes the importance of the liturgys ordo, whereas Kavanagh considers the liturgy to be first and foremost rite. According to Schmemann, liturgical theologys major task and concern is to lay bare the meaning of the ordo. The Ordo is the collection of rules and prescriptions (rubrics in the language of western liturgics) which regulate the Churchs worship and which are set forth in the Typicon and various other books of rites and ceremonies.53 However, two things must be clear. First, the ordo cannot simply be identified with these rules, certainly not in their material and written form; the ordo rather embodies and expresses them. Second, no single actually celebrated liturgical ceremony perfectly accords with the ordo. Schmemann is fairly realistic about that: Quite evidently liturgical practice follows its own logic, which does not always coincide with the logic of the Ordo, and in many ways clearly contradicts it.54 Hence, it comes as no surprise that the very notion of the ordo is deeply problematic. Does this view of the Ordo as a Law, as an incomprehensible Rule, or finally as Custom does this view correspond to the worship in Spirit and Truth which is to be offered to God by the Church as the People of God, a royal priesthood, a chosen people, the Body of Christ? This is the real and fundamental problem of the Ordo.55 Nevertheless, Schmemann takes for granted that there is such an ordo, and that its consistency and continuity can be shown if an appropriate theological method, namely liturgical theology, is employed. Admittedly, the ordo has developed throughout the centuries, but it has somehow remained the same. For the ordo of the liturgy ultimately corresponds with Gods revelation and the salvific work culminating in the Christ event and carried on by the Church through the ages, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. One of the essential features of the ordo is that it precedes consciousness; the liturgy is the configuration through which believers are constantly reconfigured in their relationship with God.

51

52

53

54 55

An elaborate argument in favor of the revelatory character of the liturgy is made by Laurence P. H E M M I N G , Worship as a Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy (London/New York: Continuum Intl. Pub. Group, 2008). Kavanagh amply refers to the work of Claude Lvi-Strauss (1908 2009) (see, e.g., K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 25), 79 80; 130). Also, it is generally known that Robert Taft, who exerted a great influence on Fagerberg, was a structuralist too (cf. Robert T A F T , The Structural Analysis of Liturgical Units: An Essay in Methodology, in Worship 52 (1978), 314 329, which is extensively quoted in F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 41). S C H M E M A N N , Introduction to Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 19), 33. For Fagerbergs appropriation of these ideas, see F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 99 100. S C H M E M A N N , Introduction to Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 19), 36. Ibid. 38.

Liturgy as Theological Norm

171

Aidan Kavanagh undergirded this heavy theological idea with a more anthropological insight, which is no less radical. Kavanagh called liturgy rite. Liturgy is not fundamentally prayer but rite.56 A liturgical act is not simply a creed, a prayer, or worship without qualification. [] It is rite. [] Rite can be called a whole style of Christian living found in the myriad particularities of worship, of laws called canonical, of ascetical and monastic structures, of evangelical and catechetical endeavors, and in particular ways of doing secondary theological reflection.57 Kavanagh further specifies why the liturgy outstrips being reduced to prayer alone, as its several parts demonstrate. Creed and homily are not prayers but declamations; Sanctus and Agnus Dei are not prayers but acclamations; lessons and gospels are not prayers but proclamations.58 In other words, one doesnt grasp the liturgy if one overemphasizes its verbal character, let alone if one reduces it to words. The liturgy is not only Scripture, but Scripture embodied in celebration and molded by both oral and written traditions. What would Christmas be like if Christians had only read the beginnings of Lukes gospel and given it a theological understanding from the perspective of the first chapter of Johns gospel? Clearly, according to Kavanagh, there is a pre-given structure in the liturgy which shapes our faith.

V.

Promising Ideas and Possible Weaknesses

In the last part of this article I intend to give some hermeneutical tools for further investigating into the core of liturgical theology as it has been developed by Schmemann, Kavanagh, and Fagerberg. By no means am I aiming at a definitive evaluation. On the contrary, the points that I mention are merely indicative they certainly need additional refinement and precision through criticism and research. However, I would like in particular to address four issues which deserve further clarification and discussion anyway. Each of these four issues in one way or another affects the basic claims of liturgical theology.

V.1.

Liturgical Theologys Broader Relevance

First, attention must be directed to the social, moral, and pastoral relevance of liturgical theology. This is because it may seem that liturgical theologians care too much about ceremony and tradition, without this en56 57

58

K A V A N A G H , Elements of Rite (see above, n. 31), 44. K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 100. Cf. K A V A N A G H , Elements of Rite (n. 31), 44, where almost exactly the same sentence can be read. Ibid. 44.

172

Joris Ge ldh of

abling them to face the real problems with which contemporary Christianity is struggling. Interestingly, Schmemann himself explicitly tackles this problem in the preface to his work on The Eucharist, which was published posthumously. He discerns a serious eucharistic crisis in the Church, which consists in a lack of connection and cohesion between what is accomplished in the Eucharist and how it is perceived, understood and lived.59 There is indeed a deep spiritual crisis. Schmemann continues: Perhaps many people will be astonished that, in response to this crisis, I propose that we turn our attention not to its various aspects, but rather to the sacrament of the Eucharist and to the Church, whose very life flows from that sacrament. Yes, I do believe that precisely here, in this holy of holies of the Church, in this ascent to the table of the Lord in his kingdom, is the source for that renewal for which we hope. And I do believe, as the Church has always believed, that this upward journey begins with the laying aside of all earthly cares, with leaving this adulterous and sinful world. No ideological fuss and bother, but a gift from heaven such is the vocation of the Church in the world, the source of her service.60 This reaction to the modern world and religions fate in it may be strange but it is nevertheless supported by Gordon Lathrop, the American theologian who received and elaborated Schmemanns thought and, as a consequence, liturgical theology in the Lutheran Church. He is aware that it is difficult to see the application of word and sacraments to the universe we currently know and to the aching and complex needs of the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first.61 But he deliberately adds: We urgently need liturgical theology as we seek bearings for both public thought and personal hope. That is, we need it if its explanations of the assembly intend to make life-orienting symbols newly available to us and to the circumstances of our time.62 Therefore, the third part of his book Holy Things is an elaborate pastoral liturgical theology.63
59

60 61

62 63

Alexander S C H M E M A N N , The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1987), 9. Ibid. 10. Gordon W. L A T H R O P , Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 1998), 4. Ibid. 4. Besides this, Kavanagh also addresses the issue of liturgical theologys pastoral relevance. He contends that liturgical theology involves disciplined reflection on the present and actual state of life in the faithful assembly due to the liturgys quality of canonicity which means that a liturgical theology is inherently pastoral (K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 144; italics are mine, JG). In this regard, it is telling to recall that the first part of On Liturgical Theology is entitled Liturgy and World, where Kavanagh realizes that it is clear that the modern demand for total, factual, and impersonal objectivity presents serious difficulties for one whose object of study is the faith in which one put ones trust and to which one has dedicated ones life (ibid. , 11). Kavanagh is particularly critical towards the modern world with its hectic life in great cities and the bond between state organization, science and

Liturgy as Theological Norm

173

V.2.

Liturgical Theologys Ecumenical Potential

Second, one could object to liturgical theology that its thick or robust vision on the liturgy and its ritual embodiment expresses certain biases and sensitivities which are not shared by all Christians, and that this causes ecumenical difficulties. Personally, I think this is a delicate issue. I am very careful not to generalize the matter. On the one hand it might be true that Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant believers have a different attitude towards rite and ceremony Geoffrey Wainwright speaks of the preponderance of the didactic over the latreutic in Protestant services,64 but I dont think many Catholic services are more doxological than catechetical either. On the other hand, particularly with regard to liturgical theology, I see that the work of Alexander Schmemann has not only been continued in Orthodox circles and warmly received among Catholics, but that Protestant theologians also are deeply influenced by it. I have already mentioned Gordon Lathrop in the Lutheran tradition, but one could equally think of Simon Chan for the evangelicals.65 In addition, one must mention the many ecumenical contacts and efforts of many a liturgical theologian. Clearly, one should not underestimate liturgical theologys potential for the future of ecumenism. An intelligent case could be made that the ultimate reconciliation of the Christian Churches will not in the first instance be realized through secondary theology, i.e., through scholars and officials debates about doctrinal statements, declarations, documents, etc. It is imaginable that the longed-for reconciliation will happen instead through primary theological acts, i.e., through the common celebration of the mysteries of faith.

V.3. Liturgical Theologys Historical Claims Third, I think it is indispensable to question the historical accuracy of many claims made by liturgical theologians. Basically, the three liturgical theologians I discussed tend to idealize the patristic age to the detriment of other epochs. There is little doubt that this started with Schmemanns sharp polemic against scholastic theology and in particular the approach to the sacraments in the Middle Ages (mainly in the West). Schmemanns Introduction to Liturgical Theology reads as a justification of the Byzantine traditions loyalty to the legacy of the Fathers of the Church. In

64 65

business (ibid., 30). Finally, it is noteworthy that, according to Kavanagh, it is in worship alone that the church [is] gathered in the closest obvious proximity to its fundamental values (ibid., 62). W A I N W R I G H T , The Praise of God (see above, n. 38), 124. Simon C H A N , Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006).

174

Joris Ge ldh of

Schmemanns eyes, there is a strong continuity to be traced between the liturgical ordo (lex orandi) of the earliest phases of the Christian religion and the way in which the Orthodox Churches actually celebrate (and venerate) the liturgy. In The Eucharist a thoroughgoing critique of scholastic theology intersperses Schmemanns discourse a critique which was not so dominantly present in his early work. According to Schmemann, scholastic theology reduced the meaning of the liturgy to the moment of consecration.66 Therefore, he reproaches its one-sidedness, insufficiency, and even depravity.67 It is unclear whether these were Schmemanns original ideas, or whether he had somehow taken them over from authoritative voices in the Liturgical Movement, which is known to have been fascinated above all by the fourth and fifth centuries. In any case, Schmemanns stance needs to be put under critique, not only because of its probable historical incorrectness but also because it may undermine the claims defended by liturgical theology. It is not true that scholastic theologians were silent about the liturgy, that they operated with an exclusively deductive rationality, or that they were unable to see the symbolic character of rites and rituals. In the case of Kavanagh and Fagerberg, it must be said that they do not seem to argue with scholastic theology as grimly as Schmemann did, but there is a similar tendency to focus too one-sidedly on patristic thought and patristic liturgy.68

V.4.

Liturgical Theology and Philosophy

Fourth, I think that the philosophical solidity of liturgical theology needs to be improved. As it stands, liturgical theologians do not attach great weight to a philosophical underpinning of their theoretical endeavors. When reading them, one sometimes has the impression that liturgy and tradition are all-encompassing, but one only has to know a little bit of hermeneutics to understand that such appeals necessarily require nuance, interpretation, and critique. Geoffrey Wainwright certainly went too far when he suggested that Kavanaghs position runs the risk of liturgical fundamentalism and isolationism,69 but it is telling that this reproach could be made.

66 67 68

69

S C H M E M A N N , The Eucharist (see above, n. 59), 27 28; 31; 39; etc. Ibid. 160. According to Kavanagh, the Church Fathers were pastoral theologians par excellence (K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 17 18; 49 50), an idea which is almost certainly meant to be at least partially critical of posterior evolutions. Fagerberg, for his part, does not in any way discuss the (liturgy of the) Middle Ages, nor does he engage in reflections of or about scholastic theology, but this very silence is revealing. W A I N W R I G H T , Review (see above, n. 36), 183.

Liturgy as Theological Norm

175

In this context one needs to be reminded that the philosophical current which most profoundly influenced Kavanagh (and Fagerberg) was without any doubt Wittgensteinianism. At Yale, Kavanagh might have come into contact with a version of Wittgensteins philosophy of language which had a strong impact on the philosophy of religion and fundamental theology.70 The cross-fertilization between Wittgenstein and theology sometimes resulted in a kind of fideism.71 It did so because of a so-called contextualism, communitarianism positions according to which one can only absorb an identity on the condition that one is immersed in a certain group or context, whereby rational critique is not unlikely to be excluded. Applied to the liturgy, this means that one can only grasp it by participating in it. Of course, this is not untrue at a social and practical level, but if the adherence to and conformity with a given community is the ultimate horizon of the liturgy, it implies that it is only meaningful for insiders and that a reasonable comprehension of it is not a guaranteed option. Hence, liturgical theology risks giving rise to particularism(s), whereas Christian faith is always called to universalism. Much more could and should be said about this, but let me finish with a suggestion. Liturgical theology can and needs to be substantially supported by philosophical theorizing. This does not imply that liturgical theology should betray itself or that it needs philosophy because the liturgy is somehow insufficient. The philosophical import I suggest is not meant to fill a gap but to assist in a more convincing and encompassing way the work of clarification and understanding inherent in any theology. More specifically, I suggest that, if the aspirations and ideas developed and promoted by liturgical theology really bear truth which I think they do then they should not only rely on philosophies of language but also on sound metaphysics. If the liturgy is the ontological condition, and therefore the norm for theology something which Schmemann said, and Kavanagh and Fagerberg repeated then metaphysics is not to be rejected but included. In the final analysis, I think that systematic theologians would profit from taking the liturgy more seriously. For the liturgy indeed forms the matrix for theology and can be considered as the ultimate norm with
70

71

It is striking on how many occasions Kavanagh compares the nature of language with the nature of the liturgy. For a nice illustration of this, see the following passage: All this might suggest to us that the effect of doctrine upon liturgy, like the effect of philology upon language, is a truth but not the whole truth. It might also suggest to us that liturgy and language have more in common with each other than either of them have with doctrine and philology (K A V A N A G H , On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 84). As for Fagerberg, one can suffice with a reference to his understanding of the grammar of the liturgy, of which he explicitly says this notion is borrowed from Wittgenstein (F A G E R B E R G , Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 2 3). On many other occasions, Fagerberg even more so than Kavanagh refers and appeals to Wittgensteins philosophy of language. Cf. G R E I S C H , Le Buisson ardent (see above, n. 4), vol. I, 68; vol. II, 537 541.

176

Joris Ge ldh of

which it must be in accordance. It is in any case not normal for theology to ignore, neglect, or reject the liturgys embodied wisdom and its primordial theological relevance.

SUMMARY In this article a case is made for considering the liturgy as theological norm par excellence. The case is built up by relying on an emphatic current of thought within the field of liturgical studies, namely the liturgical theology as it was developed by Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh, and David W. Fagerberg. After presenting the concept of liturgical theology and the context out of which it emerged, its major characteristics are discussed. Particular attention is devoted to the radicalness of their position. It can be called radical because the reversal of the relation between doctrine and liturgy is by no means evident for the vast majority of modern believers and theologians. However, liturgical theology claims that it is not doctrine which determines liturgy but liturgy which determines doctrine. According to liturgical theologians, the liturgy is not simply the ritual expression of the content of faith, but itself theology, even theologia prima. Correspondingly, liturgical theologians point to the original wording of the famous adage lex orandi lex credendi, which is the following: ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi. Whereas the usual formulation suggests equality and mutual dependence, the original context lays bare a clear priority of the rule of prayer over the rule of faith. In the final part of the article I explore some avenues to the evaluation of liturgical theology. I argue that there is need for a more profound philosophical underpinning and historical adequacy. But nevertheless the idea that the liturgy constitutes a theological norm stands firmly and should be considered far more broadly and seriously among contemporary systematic theologians.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Dieser Artikel argumentiert dafr, die Liturgie als die theologische Norm schlechthin anzusetzen. Das Argument wird entwickelt, indem auf die Liturgische Theologie als eine wichtige Bewegung innerhalb des Feldes der Liturgiewissenschaften rekurriert wird, die von Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh und David W. Fagerberg entwickelt wurde. Nachdem der Begriff der Liturgischen Theologie und der Kontext, aus dem heraus sie entstand, vorgestellt wurden, werden ihre zentralen Charakteristika diskutiert. Die Radikalitt dieser Position wird besonders betont. Die Radikalitt liegt darin begrndet, dass es fr die breite Mehrheit der modernen Glubigen und Theologen keineswegs offensichtlich ist, dass die Beziehung zwischen Dogma und Liturgie umzukehren ist. Doch die Liturgische Theologie betont, dass nicht das Dogma die Liturgie, sondern die Liturgie das Dogma bestimmt. Die Liturgischen Theologen meinen nmlich, dass die Liturgie nicht einfach der sich im Ritual vollziehende Ausdruck des Inhalts des Glaubens ist, sondern dass die Liturgie vielmehr selbst Theologie ist, sogar theologia prima. Entsprechend verweisen die Liturgischen Theologen auch auf die ursprngliche Wortwahl des berhmten Adagios lex orandi lex credendi, welches lautet: ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi. Whrend also die gewhnliche Formulierung Gleichheit und wechselseitige Abhngigkeit zwischen beiden nahe legt, legt der ursprngliche Kontext eine klare Prioritt der Regel des Gebets gegenber der Regel des Glaubens offen. Im letzten Teil des Aufsatzes werden einige Wege erforscht, auf denen die Liturgische Theologie bewertet werden kann. Ich argumentiere dafr, dass die Liturgische Theologie in strkerem Mae philosophisch untermauert werden muss als bisher geschehen, und dass sie zudem historisch prziser arbeiten sollte. Dennoch bleibt ihre Grundposition mit guten Grnden erhalten, die besagt, dass die Liturgie eine theologische Norm darstellt, und diese Grundposition sollte in umfassenderem Rahmen und auf ernsthaftere Weise von gegenwrtigen Systematischen Theologen diskutiert werden.

Copyright of Neue Zeitschrift fr Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.