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.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Classroom Heals the Wounds of Generations
“Hope,” wrote the German-American polymath Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, “is the deity of youth.” Wholly dependent on adults, children…
Still Life, Still Sacred
Renaissance painters would use life-sized wooden dolls called manichini to study how drapery folds on the human…
Letters
I am writing not to address any particular article, but rather to register my concern about the…
