{Book Club: The Spirit of the Liturgy}
- I hope you will read along in this book club (or just read my posts, that’s okay): Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy.
- (When you buy something via our Amazon affiliate link, a little cash rolls our way… just a little. Thanks!)
- I’ll post on Fridays, although for this longer book, perhaps not every Friday. I’ll give you your homework, I’ll talk about what we read, we’ll discuss in the comments. Even if you read later, the comments will still be open.
Previously:
Introduction to the reading: Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy: A Book Club for Easter and Beyond
Nature or history in worship? Or both?
Homework: Read Chapter One of Part II.
A thought: Seriously, isn't this fun? Thinking that maybe this book is too much for you? I promise you — PROMISE — that your efforts will be rewarded with fireworks exploding in your mind and great vistas of immense understanding opening up to you. You can do it! And then come here and tell us about your experience. I'm on my fourth or so reading and it's all coming clear!
So, I encourage you to read the end of the chapters first if it seems like too much — in this case, tidily summed up in points starting on p. 48. You can also read their summary at the end of this post first — you have my permission! Dear Pope Benedict has this mental habit, which is that he muses over a thing for a while before presenting his conclusions, letting you into his thought process. Since his thoughts are fairly lofty, this can be a challenge — one met by consulting his conclusions first, if necessary. I keep on getting to the end of a chapter and thinking, “Right, here it is, should have started here.”
Chapter Three, Part I: From Old Testament to New: The Fundamental Form of the Christian Liturgy — Its Determination by Biblical Faith
Even the chapter title helps us, if we are paying attention. For so long — so long! — we have been, unbeknownst to ourselves, even, slipping into the attitude that we can determine the form of liturgy.
Maybe it has to do with all the options offered. Having options in some peripheral matters leads the unwary to conclude that all is optional — consult your local toddler for evidence of this syndrome!
Maybe it has to do with modern life relegating worship to “the weekend” — a more meaningful and upright pursuit than reading the Sunday Times over brunch, but not necessarily the most meaningful thing we ever do, in the sense of being anchored somehow in meaning itself. Is anything that?
Maybe it has to do with the professional liturgists among us; every profession has its promoters: people who make it their business to keep themselves in business with their new! improved! vibrant! sexy! ideas. I'm all for innovation in laundry detergent…
We are still on that mission to find “the spirit of the liturgy” and to escape preference. In other words, all this writing and scholarship is not meant to be an exercise is shoring up — or defeating, for that matter — my, or Ratzinger's, or Guardini's, or your preference, but to find objective principles to worship aright.
Let's see how the argument (argument in the sense of process of reasoning — Ratzinger is rarely contentious) proceeds.
We've seen that man everywhere wants to be at peace with the universe and with the Being who he suspects, even if he isn't convinced, is behind everything. We all long for unity.
Yet we are aware of our “fall and estrangement.” Longing for unity becomes “a struggle for atonement, forgiveness, reconciliation. The awareness of guilt weighs down on mankind.”
Worship is the attempt, to be found at every stage of history, to overcome guilt and bring back the world and one's own life into right order. And yet an immense feeling of futility pervades everything. This is the tragic face of human history. How can man again connect the world with God? (p. 35)
In the Old Testament, this desire to atone involves exterior sacrifice. It's complicated with Cain and Abel, right at the beginning. (Enoch, in contrast, simply “walked with God and was not, for God took him.”) In history generally (though not confined only to the past, let's not kid ourselves), this desperate need gets resolved, terribly, as human sacrifice, with the awful logic that one must offer what is best — and what is better than oneself (or, more often, another human being)? Is this the “gift of self” that seems to be at the heart of what it means to be human?
Ratzinger says that in resisting this worst of all outcomes, religion turns to “representation” — but again, can the sacrifice of an animal ever represent the offering from within? It's simply not commensurate with the greatness that is the One God. It becomes “replacement,” tends to idolatry, and without a doubt, this type of sacrifice is not sufficient.
“Something is missing,” he says.
Even with the “extensive sacrificial system, the meticulous regulations for which are set out in the Torah,” the heart's longing devolves into external worship. Ratzinger refers to Leviticus' “static… cyclical world order” — is it enough? Does it bring all the tensions into balance?
It's beyond the scope of this post to deal with Chapter 26 of Leviticus (referenced by Ratzinger), but do take a moment to read it and ponder it in light of Ratzinger's comments. There is something beyond the sacrifices that the Bible is pointing to, clearly.
There exists in the texts what he calls “prophetic disquiet.”
With Abraham and God's provision of the Lamb; and Moses and claim of God to “the first-born,” we begin to get a glimmer.
Ratzinger turns to the Discourse of Stephen. Again, take some time to read it over again (Acts 7). There's no accident that Stephen is martyred in the pattern of the Master for his words: there is great meaning in them for us.
Stephen recounts the whole of salvation history to the Patriarchs in order to bring to light what is meant by the Temple. Ratzinger offers three thoughts on this:
1. “The earthly Temple is only a replica, not the true Temple.”
2. There is tension between impermanence, as in the tent that held the Tabernacle, and permanence, as in the house of stones built by Solomon: Stephen says, “the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands.”
3. In the Old Testament itself are prophecies concerning the impermanence of the Temple, customs, and sacrifices: “This is the prophetic line that reached its destination in the Righteous One on the Cross.”
In fact, “Stephen does not contest the words he is accused of having spoken… but tries to prove [their] deeper fidelity to the message of the Old Testament.” (p. 42) You could say that's the theme of this chapter.
Then there is the development in the Exile. “There was no Temple any more, no public and communal form of divine worship as decreed in the law. Deprived as she was of worship, Israel was bound to feel immeasurably poor and pathetic.” We see a new idea of “spiritual worship” arising, to the point that it centers on the inner “word” that becomes the true sacrifice.
In Alexandria, the Jews eventually made contact with the Greek critique of cult, and from then on the concept of logike latreia (thusia) [worship and sacrifice with spirit and mind]… grew increasingly important. (p. 45)
Do you see? Let's set up the first part of the sequence of the development of worship in history like this:
Peace/unity → guilt/sacrifice → word/inner worship
To our modern ear, this sounds like all you need. Get rid of those messy animals (can you imagine how stinky) and tap into your inner spiritual life. For some, it's good to be spiritual, not religious, and this is what they mean, “a mystical union with… the very meaning of things.”
Religion maybe can be completely interior.
But, what happens in the Old Testament with all this? The expectation of the restored Temple does not go away! Go, go read Psalm 51. It begins by deploring externalities and ends by extolling them!
For its part, the Hellenistic Logos-mysticism, however grand and beautiful, allows the body to fall into insubstantiality… Something is missing. (p. 47)
He continues:
The idea of the sacrifice of the Logos becomes a full reality only in the Logos incarnatus, the Word who is made flesh and draws “all flesh” into the glorification of God… Logos is more than just the “Meaning” behind and above things… He… had become bodily… In Jesus' self-surrender [sacrifice] on the Cross, the Word is united with the entire reality of human life and suffering. There is no longer a replacement cult… the Eucharist is the meeting point of all the lines of that lead from the Old Covenant, indeed from the whole of man's religious history. Here at last is right worship, ever longed for and yet surpassing our powers: adoration “in spirit and truth.”
The torn curtain at Jesus' crucifixion, which represents the Temple as it was previously known, allows the world to see the face of God.
Jesus is the Temple. Jesus is the sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb.
So now our schema for the history of religion, culminating in Jesus Christ, could look like this:
Peace/Unity → guilt/sacrifice/Lamb (Old Testament) → word/spiritual worship (Old Testament) ⇒
LOGOS/JESUS CHRIST/Word Made Flesh
⇐ logike latreia (inner meaning)(Greek philosophy) ← guilt/sacrifice (pagan) ← Peace/unity
(I probably need a real graphic for that, but this will have to do for now.)
Four helpful summarizing points to end the chapter (starting at p. 48):
1. “Christian worship, or rather the liturgy of the Christian faith, cannot be viewed simply as a Christianized form of the synagogue service, however much its development owes to the synagogue service.” That service regarded itself as incomplete, precisely because of the absence of the Temple. The risen Christ is the Temple. Merely having a service of the Word in his memory negates what He came to do!
Ratzinger gets a little feisty on this point, regarding the idea that for some, the Temple
is regarded as an expression of the law and therefore as an utterly obsolete “stage” in religion. The effects of this theory have been disastrous. Priesthood and sacrifice are no longer intelligible. The comprehensive “fulfillment” of pre-Christian salvation history and the inner unity of the two Testaments disappear from view. Deeper understanding of the matter is bound to recognize that the Temple, as well as the synagogue, entered into Christian liturgy.
2. “This means that universality is an essential feature of Christian worship. It is the worship of an open heaven.” (Good to have read our Guardini.) “Christian liturgy is never just an event organized by a particular group or set of people or even by a particular local Church.”
3. Worship is not merely assembly, gathering, or meal.
We must regard St. Paul's concept of logike latreia, of divine worship in accordance with logos, as the most appropriate way of expressing the essential form of Christian liturgy… The logos of creation, the logos in man, and the true and eternal Logos made flesh, the Son, come together. All other definitions fall short.
4. Christianity is “a quest, the religious quest of human history, reaching its goal… The new Temple, not made by human hands, does exist, but it is also still under construction.”
Keep this point in mind as we keep reading. It's important.
Do share with us what you think of this chapter! I look forward to your comments!
(Emphases added in quotes are mine.)
Click here to see our previous discussion of Romano Guardini’s The Spirit of the Liturgy, which you can read free, online. You can also purchase it here, although be warned, this edition does not have the footnotes, which stinks.
Mrs. B. says
The other day the children and I were reading the pages titled “The Sacrifice” in Montessori’s book The Mass Explained to Children (Tiny rabbit hole: I am generally not a fan of Montessori, and Joseph Shaw, the chairman of the Latin Mass Society in the UK, recently wrote about how the evolution of her pedagogy turned out to be a disaster in the realm of the Mass, leading to the creation of Masses specifically for children that are NOT proper liturgy. Nevertheless, this little book we have is a gem: she walks children (and adults) through the (Traditional Latin) Mass and what is necessary to celebrate it, explaining not just what is going on, but why, and it’s very instructive. So far my only disappointment is that she forgets about incense!)
Anyway, she reminded us of how the idea of a sacrifice (that is, a victim set apart to be made sacred) expressed through a liturgy is present in us very naturally, even in everyday life. She makes the example of cutting the life of a flower short to offer it to someone we consider important (the liturgy being the effort we make to have a bouquet look beautiful and the care we take in how we dress and speak for the occasion).
She also makes the point that even in pagan religions the idea of sacrificing to the gods is absolutely central, and since we’ve been reading Greek myths, we were remembering how badly offended the Greek gods are when they don’t receive fitting offerings, or when they are neglected. Even pagans feel that the gods deserve the best from us. It’s interesting to note that the Greek gods did not approve of human sacrifice: king Tantalus thought he was doing his best when he stewed his own son to prepare a meal fit for the gods, but they were not amused… When human sacrifice happens, it’s never requested by the gods, but by a monster, or as a consequence of a person’s foolish, rash promise. I just love to see all the ways in which the ancient Greeks got many things right, though they did not receive any Revelation. It makes you think that some ideas, some needs simply ARE there, inscribed in the human heart and mind… and God put them there.
And yes, Paslm 50/51… David writes that God doesn’t care about a holocaust, but that a more fitting offering is a contrite, humbled heart: somewhere I read (was it Ratzinger in this same book?) that this was one of the hints, dropped here and there in the Old Testament, that the sacrificial system of the old law was not the perfect liturgy, and did not represent the true relationship between God and man. Jesus was needed.
My guess is that the Pharisees must have viewed this Psalm with suspicion!
Leila says
Yes, this book of Montessori’s is very good — really helpful for everyone. Your point about the Greek gods not being pleased fits in with Ratzinger’s point that the impulse to sacrifice (or the command to do so) degrades to the horror of human sacrifice and then gets corrected. But the notion of sacrifice — of some sort — is fundamental to religion and to being human!
A friend speaks of encountering supposed atheists in her farming work who place little shrines to the gnomes of the fields! You just can’t get away from it (although you may not notice its sillier aspects).
This connection of Psalm 51 to the notion that the Old Testament itself contains the seeds of replacement of its own system of worship is indeed here in this chapter.
LJ says
I love the fact that you are promoting this fabulous, fabulous book!!!! Xoxo!
Leila says
Thank you so much, LJ! Thank you for reading along! (Or for having read 😉
corina says
I recognized as very true, from my experience, the idea that priesthood and sacrifice are no longer intelligible in light of some modern theological theories. I did absorb somehow (although I don’t recognize the sources) in my youth the idea that the Old Testament was obsolete and with the New Testament we entered a totally new phase. Subsequently, through reading Ratzinger and Giussani I have internalized the idea of their unity and indivisibility and now this is made clearer when he says that ” the Temple, as well as the synagogue, entered into Christian liturgy”.
Regarding the sacrifice of the Mass, I find that the the lack of reverence, beauty and silence in most celebrations (especially children masses) obscures this important reality. I had redescovered the importance of Mass as Sacrifice while reading Senior’s “The Restoration of Christian Culture” a few years ago. I did learn in my childhood catechesis about that, but afterwards I forgot about it. Senior explained, in the first chapter, that whatever we do in the political and social order, the foundation is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He explains it in this brilliant way: “What is Christian Culture? It is essentially the Mass. That is not my or anyone’s opinion or theory or wish but the central fact of two thousand years of history. Christendom (…)is the Mass and the paraphernalia which protect and facilitate it. All architecture, art, political and social forms, economics, the way peple live and feel and think, music, literature – all these things when they are right, are ways of fostering and protecting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. ” It’s worth reading the rest of the paragraph, too long to write it here, to get to the idea that the world is sustained by the Holy Sacrifice which must go on unto the consummation of the world.
Leila says
Corina, there’s no doubt that some theological theories — and practices! — are serving to obscure the importance of the priesthood. I actually think that our current crisis of vocations can be traced to this phenomenon. If every person who wants to can give out Communion, visit the sick (bringing the Sacraments), and even give blessings! (which of course are not meaningful other than as a good wish when not given by a priest, but still, this is often done), then why would anyone go through the sacrifice necessary to become a priest?
I do think Ratzinger has in mind Protestantism, which focuses on the Word only, and the rituals of which are “synagogue worship.” Leaving aside denominations which have a liturgical element.
But still.
Interesting that you bring up this statement of John Senior’s, elaborated on at length in Joseph Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture, just now.
I was just reading the interview with Pope Francis in La Croix.
http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Pape/INTERVIEW-Pope-Francis-2016-05-17-1200760633
He says this:
“A completely free market does not work. Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy.”
That thought just did not end the way I thought it would.
I think John Senior or Joseph Pieper would have had a different “fulcrum.”
Lisa G. says
Yes. I would have thought he’d say that the Church, or faith, or religion would be the fulcrum. Or that when the people turn to God wholeheartedly, things would fall into place.
I really like Pope Francis. I wonder if he is more concerned with the preaching without words, like St. Francis said to do, and uninterested in nagging at people or always telling them what to do and not do, or criticizing. Or appearing to be critical. Perhaps that’s where he’s coming from.
sibyl says
In my rereading of this chapter, I was particularly struck by the way he talks about Jesus as the new Temple. I’ve had trouble lately trying to understand how we worship “in Jesus.” How do we enter “into Jesus” to offer sacrifice? How is He a place?
But the careful tracing of Israel’s developing knowledge of God’s will for worship helped me. At the top of p. 46, Ratzinger says, “The sacrifice is the ‘word,’ the word of prayer, which goes up from man to God, embodying the whole of man’s existence and enabling him to become ‘word’ in himself. It is man, conforming himself to logos and becoming logos through faith, who is the true sacrifice, the true glory of God in the world.”
This is one of the clearest things I have read that show how Jesus Himself is the perfect worship/sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was never enough, and interior purity and spiritual longing were never enough on their own, either. Jesus is both Lamb and word, and we can offer ourselves physically and spiritually by entering into Him, and it IS enough.
Jesus literally “went up” — first up onto the Cross, and then from earth into heaven. So his perfect human prayer, uttered by human lips but with a divine spirit, is the
sibyl says
Comment got cut off — the end of my sentence above is:
So his perfect human prayer, uttered by human lips but with a divine spirit, is the answer for us.
This helps me also to understand better why the Extraordinary Form of the Mass ended with the first part of John’s Gospel: it restates this dogma.
Leila says
Sibyl, yes, man enters into Jesus — I think you just left out the one step, which is simply — the partaking in the Eucharist, the reception of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.
Actual eating of it.
And this is how we ascend the cross with Him, how we ascend into Heaven with Him, and receive the Holy Spirit from Him, Who offers Him.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary at the Annunciation to effect the conception of Jesus in her womb, by the Father — the Trinity is there. And then at the Mass, again, the Father offers His son, effected by the Holy Spirit.
Only by receiving Him do we enter into this Life of the Word.
It’s true what you say about the “last Gospel” — the gospel read after Mass in the Extraordinary Form. It’s why we kneel or bow at the words “and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”
And it’s why we say the Angelus, which commemorates this moment, every day…
It’s all so that we can know that God became INCARNATE for this very purpose!
He became man that we might become divine.
Ashley says
Thank you for the encouragement! This has been a difficult read for me, but I’m keeping at it and enjoying reading your chapter “notes.”