Liturgy and Mere Symbolism

Since we adopted a new liturgy in Advent, a number of church members have, quite reasonably, raised the question about our identity. What kind of church did we just become?

The very fact that changes in our liturgical practices can have this effect is intriguing. Many in the modern world, including many Christians, believe that symbolic and external changes are just window dressing. Externals and “mere symbols” don?t have any profound or important relation to how we think or how we live. Doctrinal changes are important, but changes in clothing, colors, decorations, gestures ?Ethese are not substantive.

But the fact that liturgical change occasions an identity crisis puts the lie to that. Our ?self-image?Eis profoundly bound up with these ?merely symbolic?Erealities. Symbols are never ?mere symbols.?E

In short, if liturgical change causes consternation, that can become part of a defense of a liturgical sensibility, and part of an argument against anti-liturgical sentiment. For on anti-liturgical grounds, such changes should be complete indifferent.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Letters

Joshua T. Katz’s (“Pure Episcopalianism,” May 2025) reason for a theologically conservative person joining a theologically liberal…

The Revival of Patristics

Stephen O. Presley

On May 25, 1990, the renowned patristics scholar Charles Kannengiesser, S.J., delivered a lecture at the annual…

The Enduring Legacy of the Spanish Mystics

Itxu Díaz

Last autumn, I spent a few days at my family’s coastal country house in northwestern Spain. The…