Schmemann

Liturgy as Theological NormGetting Acquainted with ‘Liturgical Theology’

Prof. Dr. Joris Geldhof, 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 sub-ject which is still surprisingly uncommon in systematic-theological circles,namely liturgical theology. I do not think that I exaggerate when I statethat many theologians have certain biases concerning the liturgy, especiallywhen 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 applica-tions and implementations liable to contingency. Theologians only rarelyinterpret the liturgy as formative or constitutive for their theoretical enter-prises. Nevertheless, there is a strong case to be made for considering theliturgy as theological norm par excellence. That is at least what I aim todo in this paper.

My contribution is divided into five parts. First, I elucidate the con-cept of liturgical theology. This is a first and necessary step to take, be-cause among scholars and commentators there is considerable confusion asto what liturgical theology really means and does and how it operates. Sec-ond, I demonstrate how liturgical theology in general became increasinglyinfluential in the course of the twentieth century. This is also an importantpreliminary step, for it enables me to contextualize what I discuss in thethird part, namely a particular line of thought represented by three leadingthinkers who deliberately call themselves developers of a genuine ‘liturgicaltheology’. They are Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh, and David W.Fagerberg. In the fourth section I discuss the central themes and concernsof their theologizing and try to point out the uncompromising radicalnessof their position. In particular, I draw attention to the reversal of the doc-trine-liturgy relation, which can be considered as the crux of their thinking.There is no doubt that Schmemann’s, Kavanagh’s and Fagerberg’s theologyposes a huge challenge to contemporary systematic-theological reflection.Therefore, in the fifth part of this article, I propose a critical evaluation oftheir thought. I will argue that there are many strong points – amongstwhich, most notably, is an invitation to keep a vital dialogue between sys-tematic theology and the liturgy – but also that it entails possible risks andweaknesses.

NZSTh, 52. Bd., S. 155–176 DOI 10.15/NZST.2010.010©Walter de Gruyter 2010

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 immedi-ately, however, that the following nuances and distinctions are not agreedupon by everyone engaged in the field. Much more than trying to presentthe tiny common ground shared by those who have an opinion about or aview on the essence of liturgical theology (if this is at all possible), it is mygoal to slowly introduce the reader to the thought-world of the threeauthors which will be discussed in greater detail. As a matter of fact, thisthought-world is no less than the liturgy itself.

First of all, liturgical theology is not to be equated or confused withliturgical studies (Liturgiewissenschaften or Liturgik). Whereas the aim ofliturgical studies is to gain more knowledge about the liturgy, liturgicaltheology is interested rather in the meaning of the liturgy. Therefore, litur-gical studies can be a necessary condition for liturgical theology (and, actu-ally, it usually is), but the liturgical theologian does not simply accumulateknowledge about phenomena.

The difference between liturgical studies and liturgical theology is alsoreflected at the methodological level. Liturgical studies predominantly use acomparative, anthropological, pastoral, philological, and/or historical-criti-cal method, whereas liturgical theology aims at a much more encompass-ing approach, which integrates and synthesizes the findings of analyticalwork.2

Second, liturgical theology needs to be distinguished from a theologyof the liturgy. For a theology ‘of’ the liturgy, the liturgy is the object aboutwhich one reflects by making use of theological frameworks and interpre-tational patterns. It is a theology which constructs theological ideas andsystems relating to the liturgy. As such, it is honestly convinced of the im-portance of the liturgy for both the content and the method of theology asan academic discipline. Accordingly, it complains about a lack of attentionfor the liturgy from the side of many a systematic theologian.3 It argues

1 A noteworthy attempt at defining what can be meant by “liturgical theology” has been under-taken by Dwight W. VOGEL, Liturgical Theology: A Conceptual Geography, in: Dwight W.VOGEL (ed.), Primary Sources of Liturgical Theology: A Reader (Collegeville, MI: LiturgicalPress 2000), 3–14.

2 In this context it is meaningful to refer to a recent introduction to liturgical studies written byAlbert Gerhards and Benedikt Kranemann, who consider this area to consist of three majorapproaches: a historical, a theological, and a pastoral one: Albert GERHARDS/BenediktKRANEMANN, Einführung in die Liturgiewissenschaft (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-gesellschaft, 2006), 45–53.

3 The American Jesuit Edward J. Kilmartin is a good example of a theologian who sincerelydeplored the neglect of many systematic theologians for the liturgy. He says: “Systematic theo-logians, working in all branches of theology should consider it a matter of the highest priorityto show how their subjects can contribute to a better understanding and practice of communal

Joris Geldhof156

that the liturgy should be a field of interest not only for liturgists but alsofor fundamental and systematic – and even moral and pastoral – theolo-gians.

However, liturgical theology differs from a theology of the liturgy inthat it considers the liturgy not as a field of thorough theological reflectionand research next to other possible fields of interest. For liturgical theol-ogy, the study of the liturgy is not an option. Rather, it is a necessary con-dition for any theology. Likewise, the liturgy is not primarily an object thatcan be isolated from other objects and approached separately. On the con-trary, according to liturgical theologians the liturgy is the conceptual andexistential framework par excellence for any theology worthy of its name.‘The liturgical’ is an essential dimension of all theologizing. Liturgy is theultimate norm for theology.

In this context it may be helpful to draw a parallel with the distinc-tion between a philosophy of religion and a religious philosophy.4 Whereasthe philosophy of religion approaches religion as an external object, a pos-sible phenomenon that attracts attention, or an area of interest, a religiousphilosophy is a philosophy which looks at reality from a religious stand-point and takes into account ‘the religious’ in whatever theory it develops.Something similar is true in the case of liturgical theology. It does not dealwith the liturgy as something outside itself but takes up the challenges ofdoing theology from an inextricably liturgical point of view, which itmoreover considers as unavoidable.

Yet, it is possible to understand the phrase ‘theology of the liturgy’ ina different way, because, grammatically speaking, the liturgy can also func-tion as a subject instead of an object. Then it means that the liturgy issomehow doing theology. It does not mean that the liturgy contains theo-logical ideas which can thereupon be distilled or derived with the aid oftheological-analytical tools. That is not untrue of course, but taken in amore 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 justdescribed, it comes fairly close to the thrust of Schmemann’s, Kavanagh’s,and Fagerberg’s liturgical theology, or to the model which Robert Taft in-terestingly called ‘theology as liturgy’. In an article with precisely this title,Taft writes: “Not only is liturgy an object of theology, so that we musthave theology of liturgy. There is also a very real sense in which all trueChristian theology must be liturgical theology – that is, doxological – in-

worship.” And: “Systematic theology, as systematic theology of the liturgy, completes its taskonly when it demonstrates how the liturgy serves in its particular way as transparency for themystery of salvation” (Edward J. KILMARTIN, Theology as Theology of the Liturgy, in:VOGEL, Primary Sources (see above, n. 1), 103–109, resp. 104–105; 108).

4 Vgl. Jean GREISCH, Le Buisson ardent et les Lumières de la Raison: L’invention de la philo-sophie de la religion, vol. 1 Héritage et héritiers du XIXe siècle, (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 34–36.

Liturgy as Theological Norm 157

volved with God’s unending saving activity and men’s and women’sprayerful response to it throughout the ages. Otherwise our theology is notthe 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 fromboth doxological theology and theology of worship. The distinction be-tween these two kinds of theology is comparable to what has been saidabout theology of liturgy and liturgical theology, but it focuses on the as-pect or dimension of praise. The reason why there is a difference with litur-gical theology is not to deny that in a very general sense every theology isor should be, directly or indirectly, ultimately contributive to the laudationof God which every Christian believer is invited to (cf. the idea of ad maior-em Dei gloriam). The reason is that not every act of worship is liturgicaland that, by extension, the essence of the liturgy cannot be reduced to itsdoxological aspect, no matter how important it is. In addition, Dwight Vo-gel clearly observes: “Worship as a human activity appears in both indivi-dual and social expressions. It does not have to be corporate in nature. Li-turgy 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 whichelements of a positive description of liturgical theology already shonethrough, it is appropriate to present a working definition of liturgicaltheology – even if it must remain preliminary and limited. Two essentialfeatures or criteria have been established, again by Dwight Vogel: “Liturgi-cal theology must deal with the liturgy and it must be theological in nat-ure.”8 Vogel himself realizes that this description remains too minimal,although the definition does what it ought to do, namely prevent that itcan be contradicted.

A more nuanced and comprehensive understanding is provided by therenowned American scholar Kevin Irwin, who has offered solid introduc-tions to liturgical theology in several publications. Irwin distinguishes be-tween different meanings of ‘liturgical theology’, which he says intrinsicallybelong together. First, there is theology of liturgy. “This term describeswhat Christian liturgy is and what it does in terms of actualizing the realityof Christ’s paschal mystery for the Church, gathered and enlivened bypower of the Holy Spirit.”9 Second, there is theology drawn from the li-turgy. “This meaning of liturgical theology concerns how the means ofcommunication and interaction in liturgy, especially words and symbols,

5 Robert TAFT, Liturgy as Theology, in Worship 56 (1982), 113–117, 114–115.6 TAFT, Liturgy as Theology (see above, n. 5), 115.7 VOGEL, Conceptual Geography (see above, n. 1), 6.8 VOGEL, Conceptual Geography (see above, n. 1), 13.9 Kevin W. IRWIN, Context and Text: Method in Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, MI: Liturgi-

cal Press, 1994), 46.

Joris Geldhof158

can be utilized as a generative source for developing systematic theol-ogy.”10 According to Irwin, a theology drawn from the liturgy additionallyentails 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 embeddedin a certain historical evolution. It is relevant to briefly appeal to this his-tory, for it allows one to better grasp the particular line Schmemann–Kava-nagh–Fagerberg. Surprisingly enough, this history involves a quite recentevolution. According to Irwin, the term was coined and first used in thework of M. Cappuyns, which is to be situated in Belgium in the 1930s.12

The context in which the term ‘liturgical theology’ emerged and rapidlybecame 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 SolesmesDom Prosper Guéranger (1805–1875), successfully propagated a deeperunderstanding of and a more lively engagement in the liturgical and sacra-mental life of the Church. It was an encompassing movement which ex-ceeded the boundaries between generations and denominations and whichcannot be reduced to a single series of initiatives, a single group of like-minded thinkers, or a single body of literature. It is all of this and so muchmore. In any case, a more profound awareness of the beauty, truth, andgoodness of the liturgy was its major aspiration, to be realized through an‘active participation’. Moreover, due to changing historical circumstances itconstantly adapted itself, sometimes even reinvented itself, and underwentsignificant metamorphoses. Notwithstanding the many vicissitudes it wentthrough, a case could be made that it still persists today. I would suggestthat the Liturgical Movement continues its efforts in and through the workof all those who display an active sympathy for liturgical theology.

The scholars representing the Liturgical Movement in the first half ofthe twentieth century had a primarily historical and philological back-ground and interest, or else they concentrated on pastoral initiatives to fos-ter genuine existential participation in liturgical celebrations, like for in-stance Romano Guardini did in Germany.13 There is no doubt about theinvaluable contribution of all those who delved into the history of the

10 IRWIN, Context and Text (see above, n. 9), 50.11 Cf. IRWIN, Context and Text (see above, n. 9), x; 46.12 Thomas FISCH (ed.), Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann

(Crestwood, NY: Vladimir´s Seminary Press, 1990), 5; IRWIN, Context and Text (see above,n. 9), xiv.

13 Frédéric DEBUYST, L’entrée en liturgie: Introduction à l’œuvre liturgique de Romano Guardi-ni (Paris: Cerf, 2008).

Liturgy as Theological Norm 159

Church’s liturgical tradition with a view to coming up with surprising dataand insights, and of all those who provided future generations with trust-worthy editions of long-forgotten texts, accompanied with thorough intro-ductions and commentaries. However, in the second part of the twentiethcentury, a new interest seemed to arise. In addition to the gigantic histori-cal, philological, and pastoral efforts, a search for synthesis and under-standing saw the light – or, at least, became more prominent. That was thebirthplace of liturgical theology.

In a certain sense, liturgical scholars and representatives of the Litur-gical Movement had always been convinced of the theological significanceof their endeavors. Irénée-Henri Dalmais, the famous French specialist oforiental liturgies, voiced the opinion of many when he wrote in 1964 thatthe liturgy is and ought to be treated as a locus theologicus of the utmostrank.14 It is a little strange, then, though neither surprising nor unfounded,that the German theologian Teresa Berger, who is at present professor ofliturgy at Yale Divinity School, argued and complained as late as 1987that the liturgy was still an almost forgotten subject matter of theology.15

One could legitimately ask whether a lot has changed after another twentyyears, and which images on the liturgy prevail among the majority of sys-tematic theologians (in the academy).

In view of the apparent lack of (systematic-)theological attention forthe liturgy, it is moreover interesting to refer to an article written by AlbertHoussiau, a former professor of liturgy and from 1986 till 2001 the Ro-man-Catholic bishop of Liège. In this notable article Houssiau discussesthe rediscovery of the liturgy in the field of sacramental theology. Accord-ing to him, a slow process of rediscovering the liturgy can be observed inthe time span between 1950 and 1980.16 Strangely enough, sacramentaltheology had developed itself as a discipline in its own right which hadbecome increasingly alienated from the liturgical embedding of the celebra-tion of the sacraments. Representatives of the Liturgical Movement gener-ally agree that this was due to the influence of scholastic theology. Thiskind of theology was found to have a predominantly rationalistic and de-ductive approach, from which it is not difficult to understand that it some-how looked down on the liturgy. The liturgy was something merely practi-cal and unworthy of serious theorizing.

As such, scholasticism, which originated in the Middle Ages anddominated the theological scene – at least in Catholicism – up until the

14 Irénée-Henri DALMAIS , La liturgie comme lieu théologique, in La Maison-Dieu 78 (1964),97–106.

15 Teresa BERGER, Liturgy – A Forgotten Subject-matter of Theology, in Studia Liturgica 17(1987), 10–18.

16 Albert HOUSS IAU, The Rediscovery of the Liturgy by Sacramental Theology (1950–1980), inStudia Liturgica 15 (1983), 158–177. Original French version: La redécouverte de la liturgiepar la théologie sacramentaire, in La Maison-Dieu 149 (1982), 27–55.

Joris Geldhof160

middle of the twentieth century,17 established a huge contrast with the firstmillennium. 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 ofliturgy and theology as it was practiced in the patristic era became a majorsource of inspiration and a clear focus for research in the field of liturgicaltheology. There are obvious traces of this in the work of Schmemann, Ka-vanagh, and Fagerberg, to which we now turn.

III. The Line Schmemann – Kavanagh – Fagerberg

Alexander Schmemann was born in Estonia in 1921 to Russian immi-grants but fled with his family to Paris. There he became a prominentmember of the large community of Russian-Orthodox expatriates. In chal-lenging times he studied and taught at the Institut Saint Serge and wasdeeply affected by the evolutions in liturgical scholarship as they were em-bodied in the Institut Catholique de Paris. After the war Schmemann wasordained a presbyter (1946) and moved to the United States (1951), wherehe was to spend the rest of his life. He was professor of liturgical theologyand dean at St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York,and a talented preacher and pastor. He is one of the most influentialOrthodox theologians of the twentieth century and was widely respectedfor his ecumenical openness, vision, and expertise. He died of cancer in1983.

In 1959 Schmemann received his doctorate from the Orthodox Insti-tut Saint Serge in Paris. The title of his dissertation was The Church’sOrdo. Introduction to Liturgical Theology. Bruce Morrill and Don Saliersobserve that “it was [from] the great figures of the Roman Catholic theolo-gical and liturgical revival in Paris during the forties and fifties that Schme-mann learned the principles of liturgical theology.”18 Later on, in 1966,the work was translated from Russian and published under the shortenedtitle Introduction to Liturgical Theology.19 There have been numerous re-prints and translations of this work. There is no doubt that Schmemann

17 It has been convincingly demonstrated, however, that there have been significant shifts in thehistory and conception of ‘scholasticism’ and ‘Thomism’. See Géry PROUVOST, Thomasd’Aquin et les thomismes: Essai sur l’histoire des thomismes (Cogitatio Fidei 195), (Paris : Cerf,1996).

18 Bruce T. MORRILL/Don E. SALIERS , Liturgy as Life for the World, in: VOGEL, PrimarySources (see above, n. 1), 52–53, 52.

19 Alexander SCHMEMANN, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladi-mir’s Seminary Press, 2003 [1966]). In the introduction to this book Schmemann himself expli-citly discusses the Liturgical Movement (pp. 13–16). Among the figures from the French scenethat had a special impact on his intellectual development are certainly Louis Bouyer, Irénée-Henri Dalmais, Jean Daniélou, and Bernard Botte, as well as other authors who were broadly

Liturgy as Theological Norm 161

really initiated ‘liturgical theology’ in the twentieth century,20 after it hadbeen 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 Bene-dictine order in 1951 and was ordained a priest in 1957. Because of hisexceptional intellectual skills, he was sent by his superiors first to Ottawa,Canada, and afterwards to Trier, Germany, where he obtained a doctoraldegree in theology in 1964. He became professor of liturgical studies at St.Meinrad School of Theology but soon moved to the University of NotreDame, Indiana, and in 1974 to Yale University. He was the first Catholicpriest who served as the dean of Yale Divinity School (1989–1990) andstayed there until his retirement. Aidan Kavanagh died at the age of 77 in2006.

Kavanagh wrote several seminal studies that profoundly influencedtheory and practice of the so-called RCIA, the Rite of Christian Initiationof Adults. The Second Vatican Council had ordered the reestablishment ofsuch a rite and the RCIA was the concrete result of that order. At the sametime, Kavanagh was one of the most ardent defenders and developers ofliturgical theology in the Anglo-Saxon world. He knew Schmemann’s workfrom a very early date and substantially agreed with him. In 1984 hebundled two prestigious series of lectures he had been invited to deliverinto a book entitled On Liturgical Theology.21 The work is dedicated toAlexander Schmemann, on whose work Kavanagh obviously relies.22

David Fagerberg was one of Aidan Kavanagh’s most promising stu-dents at Yale University and got to know Schmemann’s work very inten-sively under his guidance.23 Fagerberg was born in 1952 to Protestant par-ents and became a minister in the Lutheran Church in 1977. In 1991 heconverted to Catholicism and one year after that an adaptation of his doc-toral dissertation was published as What is Liturgical Theology? A Studyin Methodology.24 At present Fagerberg is Associate Professor of Liturgyat the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.

In the preface to his 2004 monograph Theologia prima, which in itsturn is a thorough adaptation of What is Liturgical Theology?, Fagerbergwitnesses how deeply he is marked by the thought of Alexander Schme-mann and Aidan Kavanagh. At the same time he stipulates what liturgical

received, eventually translated, and intensively studied in Paris (such as Odo Casel, GregoryDix, Anton Baumstark, and Oskar Cullmann).

20 Cf. KevinW. IRWIN, Liturgical Theology: A Primer (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1990), 7.21 Aidan KAVANAGH, On Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1992 [1984]).22 IRWIN, Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 20), 47.23 David W. FAGERBERG, The Cost of Understanding Schmemann in the West, Hitherto un-

published lecture, given at St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary on January 31st, 2009. Cf.http://ancientfaith.com/specials/svs_liturgical_symposium (accessed December 16th, 2009).

24 David W. FAGERBERG, What is Liturgical Theology? A Study in Methodology (Chicago, IL:Liturgical Press, 1992).

Joris Geldhof162

theology is all about: “My working definition of liturgical theology con-tinues to be owed to Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh, and RobertTaft. I take the term to mean the theological work of the liturgical assem-bly, not the work done by an academic upon liturgical material.” He sig-nificantly adds a typically Schmemannian or Kavanaghian (or Taftian)idea: “It may seem easier to approach the idea as theology considered inthe light of liturgy, or liturgy in the light of theology, but I consider thisapproach misleading because it leaves the impression that there are twosubjects (liturgy and theology) instead of one subject (liturgical theol-ogy).”25

After this short survey of the life and work of my three main inter-locutors, I think it is legitimate to make mention of a consistent line ofthought between Schmemann, Kavanagh, and Fagerberg. Let us now havea closer look at some salient features of their peculiar account of liturgicaltheology, while realizing that each of these three authors has his own styleof writing.26 And form and content always correspond, in particular withregard to the liturgy.

IV. The Reversal of the Dogma-Liturgy Relation

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

25 David W. FAGERBERG, Theologia Prima: What is Liturgical Theology? (Chicago/Mundelein,IL: Hillenbrand Books, 2004), ix.

26 It is difficult if not impossible to appropriately categorize these differences in style. One shouldalso be aware that these differences are dependent on the contexts in which the respectiveworks came into being. Schmemann’s original Introduction to Liturgical Theology was a dis-sertation but there is a significant difference between ‘Western’ academic customs and EasternOrthodox standards. Schmemann’s book is more the development of a well-researched visionimbued with patristic patterns of reasoning than a distanced study about a well-defined object.Kavanagh’s rhetoric writing style is certainly not common among academic theologians. Hewrites 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 otherbooks Kavanagh’s style is something unique. Finally, Fagerberg’s works What is LiturgicalTheology? 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 theolo-gians. Apart from the content that these liturgical theologians stand for, I consider the richnessof their styles momentous and inspiring.

27 FAGERBERG, Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), ix.

Liturgy as Theological Norm 163

tion makes it clear that liturgical theology reverses the way in which oneusually looks at the relation between liturgy and dogma. Whereas onetends to give primacy to dogma (contents of faith or faith convictions) overliturgy (the expression of these ideas in a material way), liturgical theologydeliberately reverses this relation. According to liturgical theology, there isfirst the actual celebration of the liturgy, which shapes both the communityitself and the way it reflects on its faith. The primacy of liturgy over doc-trine is claimed to be both historical and systematic.

Let me now concretize this general scheme of reversal by discussingseveral important thoughts which are typical of liturgical theologians, withparticular 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 ofdeparture for any theological explication of it. The concrete forms andshapes of the liturgy as celebrated by ordinary people in diverse liturgicalfamilies and cultures constitute both the origin and the framework for litur-gical theology. On this point Kavanagh expresses himself as follows: “Litur-gical theology, as distinct from other sorts of theology which may be aboutthe liturgy, is obliged to begin and end with an accurate perception of whata liturgy is in itself.”28 And the liturgy ‘in itself’ is, according to Kavanagh,“proletarian rather than elitist, communitarian rather than individualisticor idiosyncratic, quotidian rather than random or infrequent.”29 What thismeans is further elucidated as follows: “A liturgical act is a theological actof the most all-encompassing, integral, and foundational kind. It is bothprecipitator and result of that adjustment to the change wrought in theworshipping assembly by its regular encounter in faith with its divineSource. […] [I]t is proletarian in the sense that it is not done by academicelites; it is communitarian in the sense that it is not undertaken by the scho-lar alone in his study; and it is quotidian in the sense that it is not accom-plished occasionally but regularly throughout the daily, weekly, and yearlyround of the assembly’s life of public liturgical worship.”30

As a corollary, the rubrics and other liturgical prescriptions are ofgreat importance to liturgical theologians. It is not the case, however, thatthey fall back into the much-despised rubricism of previous ages, nor dothey aim at a restoration of a quasi-juridical rubric-commenting kind oftheologizing. On the contrary, their whole enterprise can be seen as asearch for the deepest meanings of what steers and motivates these rubrics.

28 KAVANAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 135–136.29 Ibid. 93–94.30 Ibid. 89. The last part of this passage is quoted in FAGERBERG, Theologia prima (see above,

n. 25), 39–40.

Joris Geldhof164

Therefore, they sharply criticize the attitude of those who want to get ridof the rubrics as a kind of overreaction against a narrow or exaggeratedrubricism. It is suggested that those who throw overboard the rubrics havenot entirely grasped what the liturgy really is.

In his inimitable style Kavanagh says about rubrics: “They are notbooby traps of divine wrath meant to go off should the unwary blunderinto them, nor the arbitrary products of crazed medieval bishops who caredmore about the shape of a miter than about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.Liturgical laws and rubrics are […] a kind of ‘liturgical proverb,’ each con-taining a grain of truth, but not the whole truth, to be used with discretionand not isolated from others of their kind. […] Taken together, rubrics andlaws constitute a checklist of the factors to be considered in the art of put-ting a liturgy together and celebrating it.”31 Apparently, according to litur-gical 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 famousadage lex orandi, lex credendi. Much has been said about this adage, butit is simply impossible not to say anything about it in the context of a dis-cussion of liturgical theology. What is especially striking is Schmemann’s,Kavanagh’s and Fagerberg’s insistence on the most radical interpretationof this adage. When explaining the method and task of liturgical theology,Schmemann boldly states: “The theological synthesis is the elucidation ofthe rule of prayer as the rule of faith, it is the theological interpretation ofprayer as the rule of faith.”32 Kavanagh and Fagerberg have each in theirown way further elaborated the idea of lex orandi determining lex creden-di, and not vice versa.

Both Kavanagh and Fagerberg remind us of the original phrasing ofthe adage, namely ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.33 This formu-lation is borrowed from Prosper of Aquitaine, a fifth century author andsecretary to Pope Leo the Great. The original context of the adage is adiscussion with a group of semi-Pelagians in Gaul. In order to defend theposition that grace is necessary, Prosper appeals to the traditional Good

31 Aidan KAVANAGH, Elements of Rite: A Handbook of Liturgical Style (Collegeville, MI: Li-turgical Press, 1990 [1982]), 8. Schmemann confirms the importance of the study of rubrics inliturgical theology: “A study of ecclesiastical rubrics, understood not simply as the expoundingof the rules governing the Church’s liturgical life but as the general and basic structure of thislife, must necessarily be a preliminary step in the study of worship” (SCHMEMANN, Introduc-tion (see above, n. 19), 25).

32 Ibid. 21.33 KAVANAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 83; FAGERBERG, Theologia prima

(see above, n. 25), 120.

Liturgy as Theological Norm 165

Friday intercessions, in which the community prays for a variety of peoplein need of God’s grace for all kinds of reasons. “Thus Prosper’s argumentis in the Augustinian tradition about the need for God’s grace to initiate,sustain and complete justification. Prosper’s point in referring to the GoodFriday intercessions is that in asking that God’s grace come to variousgroups of people the Church asserts its belief (against the Pelagians) that itis grace and not works that leads to salvation. The basis for this argumentis the theology reflected in these prayers, not necessarily the specific prayertexts 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 fun-damental laws of belief and worship in Christian life to float apart or tobe 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 injust the same way, and for just the same reasons, as our reception of God’sWord is subordinated to the presentation of that Word to us in the act ofits being revealed and proclaimed to us.”35

In the discussions after the publication of Kavanagh’s book, this radi-cal standpoint has been questioned and debated upon. Not everyone agreesthat the law of prayer, or the liturgy, constitutes, grounds, or determinesthe law of faith, or dogma. The question is not so much a technical one,as to whether Kavanagh had rightly understood and interpreted Prosper’stext against the background of church-historical evolutions in the fifth cen-tury. Rather, the debate is about whether one could reasonably uphold thesystematic priority of liturgy over dogma, and whether it is not more aptto speak of a mutual dependence between two equal partners.

The famous British-American Methodist theologian Geoffrey Wain-wright in a book review did not conceal a sense of unease towards Kava-nagh’s vision and position. He may even be said to overtly repudiate it, orat least to severely disapprove of the style and language used.36 More elab-orately, Wainwright had already exposed the core of his thought in hisseminal study Doxology.37 According to him, there must always be a bal-

34 IRWIN, Text and Context (see above, n. 9), 5–6. For some additional background, see PaulDE CLERCK, Lex orandi-Lex credendi: The Original Sense and Historical Avatars of anEquivocal Adage, in Studia Liturgica 24 (1994), 178–200; IRWIN, Liturgical Theology (seeabove, n. 20), 11–17.

35 KAVANAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 91. Cf. ibid., 92; 150.36 Geoffrey WAINWRIGHT, Review of Aidan Kavanagh, On Liturgical Theology, in Worship

61 (1987), 183–186. In this regard one can additionally refer to a discussion between Kava-nagh and Wainwright (originally a lecture by Wainwright to which Kavanagh responded):Geoffrey WAINWRIGHT, A Language in Which We Speak to God, in Worship 57 (1983),309–321; Aidan KAVANAGH, Primary Theology and Liturgical Act, in Worship 57 (1983),321–324.

37 Geoffrey WAINWRIGHT, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life: ASystematic Theology (London: Epworth Press, 1980).

Joris Geldhof166

ance between liturgical action and theological reflection. He agrees thatthere are many illustrations, mainly historical ones, whereby “worship large-ly led doctrine”, but he warns against occasions in which “worship mayget out of hand.”38 A good illustration of such a distortion is provided bythe ecclesial revolutions in sixteenth-century Europe: “The Reformationmay be read as a doctrinal revolt against a deformed liturgical practiceand understanding focused on ‘the sacrifice of the Mass’.”39

Wainwright’s position was vehemently criticized in turn by Fagerberg.Fagerberg profoundly respects Wainwright’s major purpose, which consistsin “[p]ersuading systematic theology to be cognizant of the Church’s lit-urgy. A systematic theology written from a liturgical perspective would cer-tainly bring liturgy and theology into closer conversation […]. I applaudthat accomplishment. But there are differences between the approachWainwright urges on the individual theologian, and the corporate qualityof liturgical theology.”40 As a matter of fact, according to Fagerberg,Wainwright represents a “theology from worship” but not a “liturgicaltheology”, the latter of which gives evidence of an uncompromising defer-ence to the determining anteriority of communal worship.

Fagerberg concludes on Wainwright’s position:

“From the perspective of liturgical theology, there is a problem with describing worship asan ‘expression’ of the Christian dogma or concentrated vision. It opens one to the idea thatdogma or vision can precede their expression, as ‘I’ can precede ‘my body’. […] It leaves theimpression that there is a truth to be embodied, which can be done either in a coherent articula-tion (theology) or a concentrated existential vision (liturgy), and the current can flow in bothdirections between the law of prayer and the law of belief because they each express the abstractfaith. […] Worship may provide the existential matrix, but doctrine exercises control over wor-ship because the latter is not theological.”41

In other words, liturgical theology is in one way or another ardentlyanti-Hegelian, in the sense that liturgical practice and images (or Vorstel-lungen) can never be completely aufgehoben in reflexive-theological con-tents (or Begriffe).

In the meantime, some scholars have attempted to develop a moremoderate position, trying to find a path between a perfect mutuality andequality on the one hand, a scenario which Kavanagh and Fagerberg arguesomehow ends up in theology ruling the liturgy, and an absolute priorityof liturgy over theology on the other hand, which might result in a collapseof intelligibility and the abandonment of theology’s search for plausibility.

An excellent illustration of this mediating position is provided by therenowned American theologian Catherine LaCugna, who significantly con-

38 Geoffrey WAINWRIGHT, The Praise of God in the Theological Reflection of the Church, inVOGEL, Primary Sources (see above, n. 1), 112–124, 121.

39 WAINWRIGHT, The Praise of God (see above, n. 38), 121 (italics are mine, JG).40 FAGERBERG, Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 58.41 FAGERBERG, Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 62.

Liturgy as Theological Norm 167

tributed to the theology of the Trinity in the wake of Karl Barth and KarlRahner. She recognizes the importance of the distinction between primarytheology, namely the liturgy itself celebrated as a communal rite, and sec-ondary theology, which is the reflexive explanation of it. This distinctionwas drawn by Aidan Kavanagh; its meaning and import were substantiallyenlarged by David Fagerberg.42 LaCugna contends: “Secondary theologyinquires into the nature of the liturgy, whereas primary theology is con-cerned with the liturgical act. Even if the distinction between primary andsecondary theology is somewhat artificial, it serves to point up the theolo-gical nature of the liturgy, and the liturgical nature of theology.”43 Ac-cording to her, the liturgy constitutes the “context of theological work:Liturgy provides a constant check on the tendency of theological reason toover-emphasize one or the other dimension of our knowledge of God. Lit-urgy serves to prevent the type of theology which becomes fascinated withitself rather than with God.”44 At the same time, these ideas do not inhibither from supposing that the liturgy can be legitimately corrected by theol-ogy.45

In the end, I presume that liturgical theologians “of the strict obser-vance”46 will continue to resist any kind of equating liturgy and theology,and that they at the same time will reject any allegation that the theologythey aim at is not genuinely theological. Undoubtedly, fundamental ques-tions remain and the debate goes on. But in the search for truth that theol-ogy is called to be, this is probably not a bad thing.

42 A revealing passage where Kavanagh explains how liturgical theology arises is: “This is howliturgies grow. Their growth is a function of adjustment to deep change caused in the assemblyby its being brought regularly to the brink of chaos in the presence of the living God. It is theadjustment which is theological in all this. I hold that it is theology being born, theology in thefirst instance. It is what tradition has called theologia prima” (KAVANAGH, On LiturgicalTheology (see above, n. 21), 74). Kavanagh himself employed the opposition between primaryand secondary theology to shed critical light on the historical evolution of the relationship be-tween liturgy and theology (ibid., 109ff). Fagerberg, in his turn, expanded the notions in aconceptual and systematic way (cf., e.g., FAGERBERG, Theologia prima (see above, n. 25),66–68). He moreover joins the concepts of theologia prima and lex orandi: “Liturgical theol-ogy’s two defining characteristics are: 1) it is genuine theology, although it is theologia primaand not theologia secunda, 2) and it is lex orandi” (ibid., 109).

43 Catherine LACUGNA, Can Liturgy Ever Become a Source for Theology?, in Studia Liturgica19 (1989), 1–13, 2.

44 Ibid., 8.45 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 Kavanaghand 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 (IRWIN, Text and Context(see above, n. 9), 46).

46 Cf. VOGEL, Conceptual Geography (see above, n. 1), 13.

Joris Geldhof168

IV.3. The Concept of Orthodoxy

A third line of thought typical of liturgical theology is the interpreta-tion of the concept of orthodoxy. Kevin Irwin rightly observes: “The firstmeaning of orthodoxy is ‘right praise’. A derived meaning is ‘correct be-lief’”47 – something which was said a little more pointedly by Kavanagh:orthodoxy “means first ‘right worship’ and only secondarily doctrinal ac-curacy.”48 Again, it is obvious that liturgical theology aims at a reversal ofthe way in which one usually sees the relation between liturgy and dogma.

Kavanagh uses the definition of the original meaning of the wordorthodoxy as a hermeneutical key for understanding and criticizing a his-torical evolution which has marked modern Christianity, both in the Ro-man-Catholic Church and in the churches of the Reformation. “Orthodox-ia, right worship, in both translations and in the mentality which producedthem, has become orthopistis, right believing, or orthodidascalia, rightteaching, and both are by the context centered upon church officials. Rightworship was ceasing to be the ontological condition of theology, of theproper understanding of the proclaimed Word of God, becoming instead alocus theologicus in service to correct belief and teaching by church offi-cials and secondary theologians, who were using the liturgy as a quarryfor stones to set into argument shaped by increasingly rigorous methodolo-gies worked out in academy. The antithesis of orthodoxy has becomeheresy rather than heterodoxy, ‘wrong worship’. Praxis and belief havegrown apart.”49 For Kavanagh, orthodoxy is a notion which encompassesthe whole of life.50

IV.4. The Liturgy: Ordo and rite

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

47 IRWIN, Text and Context (see above, n. 9), 52.48 KAVANAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 3. Fagerberg does not seem to state

things as sharply. He certainly agrees with Kavanagh’s enlargement of the concept of ortho-doxy; at the same time, he stresses that liturgical theologians deal with doctrinal correctness, asis evident in the following passage: “The question liturgical theology wants to ask is why theraw material of worship must be translated into a second order form before it can be calledtheology, and why only second order theology can exercise guardianship over orthodoxy. Li-turgical theology should certainly be concerned with correct doctrine. Liturgical theology istheology, and not merely the investigation of rubrics, aesthetics, and ceremonial ritual. But isthe only form adequate for this theological work an academic one?” (FAGERBERG, Theologiaprima (see above, n. 25), 63).

49 KAVANAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 82. Cf. ibid., 109–110.50 Ibid. 94–95.

Liturgy as Theological Norm 169

structurally similar to the concept of revelation.51 It is certainly not wrongto suppose that some kind of structuralism has had an impact on Schme-mann and Kavanagh, and at least indirectly also on Fagerberg.52 Schme-mann consistently emphasizes the importance of the liturgy’s ordo, whereasKavanagh considers the liturgy to be first and foremost rite.

According to Schmemann, liturgical theology’s major task and concernis to lay bare the meaning of the ordo. “The Ordo is the collection of rulesand prescriptions (‘rubrics’ in the language of western liturgics) which regu-late the Church’s worship and which are set forth in the Typicon and variousother books of rites and ceremonies.”53 However, two things must be clear.First, the ordo cannot simply be identified with these rules, certainly not intheir material and written form; the ordo rather embodies and expressesthem. Second, no single actually celebrated liturgical ceremony perfectly ac-cords with the ordo. Schmemann is fairly realistic about that: “Quite evi-dently liturgical practice follows its own ‘logic’, which does not always coin-cide 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 isdeeply problematic. “Does this view of the Ordo – as a Law, as an incom-prehensible Rule, or finally as Custom – does this view correspond to theworship ‘in Spirit and Truth’ which is to be offered to God by the Churchas the People of God, a royal priesthood, a chosen people, the Body ofChrist? This is the real and fundamental problem of the Ordo.”55 Never-theless, Schmemann takes for granted that there is such an ordo, and thatits consistency and continuity can be shown if an appropriate theologicalmethod, namely liturgical theology, is employed. Admittedly, the ordo hasdeveloped throughout the centuries, but it has somehow remained thesame. For the ordo of the liturgy ultimately corresponds with God’s revela-tion and the salvific work culminating in the Christ event and carried onby the Church through the ages, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. One of theessential features of the ordo is that it precedes consciousness; the liturgy isthe configuration through which believers are constantly reconfigured intheir relationship with God.

51 An elaborate argument in favor of the revelatory character of the liturgy is made by LaurenceP. HEMMING, Worship as a Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy(London/New York: Continuum Intl. Pub. Group, 2008).

52 Kavanagh amply refers to the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009) (see, e.g., KAVA-

NAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 25), 79–80; 130). Also, it is generally knownthat Robert Taft, who exerted a great influence on Fagerberg, was a ‘structuralist’ too (cf. Ro-bert TAFT, The Structural Analysis of Liturgical Units: An Essay in Methodology, in Worship52 (1978), 314–329, which is extensively quoted in FAGERBERG, Theologia prima (seeabove, n. 25), 41).

53 SCHMEMANN, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 19), 33. For Fagerberg’sappropriation of these ideas, see FAGERBERG, Theologia prima (see above, n. 25), 99–100.

54 SCHMEMANN, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 19), 36.55 Ibid. 38.

Joris Geldhof170

Aidan Kavanagh undergirded this heavy theological idea with a moreanthropological insight, which is no less radical. Kavanagh called liturgyrite. “Liturgy is not fundamentally prayer but rite.”56 “A liturgical act isnot simply a creed, a prayer, or worship without qualification. […] It isrite. […] Rite can be called a whole style of Christian living found in themyriad particularities of worship, of laws called ‘canonical’, of asceticaland monastic structures, of evangelical and catechetical endeavors, and inparticular ways of doing secondary theological reflection.”57 Kavanaghfurther specifies “why the liturgy outstrips being reduced to prayer alone,as its several parts demonstrate. Creed and homily are not prayers but de-clamations; Sanctus and Agnus Dei are not prayers but acclamations; les-sons and gospels are not prayers but proclamations.”58

In other words, one doesn’t grasp the liturgy if one overemphasizes itsverbal character, let alone if one reduces it to words. The liturgy is notonly Scripture, but Scripture embodied in celebration and molded by bothoral and written traditions. What would Christmas be like if Christianshad only read the beginnings of Luke’s gospel and given it a theologicalunderstanding from the perspective of the first chapter of John’s gospel?Clearly, according to Kavanagh, there is a pre-given structure in the liturgywhich shapes our faith.

V. Promising Ideas and Possible Weaknesses

In the last part of this article I intend to give some hermeneutical toolsfor further investigating into the core of liturgical theology as it has beendeveloped by Schmemann, Kavanagh, and Fagerberg. By no means am Iaiming at a definitive evaluation. On the contrary, the points that I men-tion are merely indicative – they certainly need additional refinement andprecision through criticism and research. However, I would like in particu-lar to address four issues which deserve further clarification and discussionanyway. Each of these four issues in one way or another affects the basicclaims of liturgical theology.

V.1. Liturgical Theology’s Broader Relevance

First, attention must be directed to the social, moral, and pastoral re-levance of liturgical theology. This is because it may seem that liturgicaltheologians care too much about ceremony and tradition, without this en-

56 KAVANAGH, Elements of Rite (see above, n. 31), 44.57 KAVANAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 100. Cf. KAVANAGH, Elements of

Rite (n. 31), 44, where almost exactly the same sentence can be read.58 Ibid. 44.

Liturgy as Theological Norm 171

abling them to face the real problems with which contemporary Christian-ity is struggling. Interestingly, Schmemann himself explicitly tackles thisproblem in the preface to his work on The Eucharist, which was publishedposthumously. He discerns a serious “eucharistic crisis in the Church,”which “consists in a lack of connection and cohesion between what is ac-complished in the Eucharist and how it is perceived, understood andlived.”59 There is indeed a deep spiritual crisis. Schmemann continues:“Perhaps many people will be astonished that, in response to this crisis, Ipropose that we turn our attention not to its various aspects, but rather tothe sacrament of the Eucharist and to the Church, whose very life flowsfrom that sacrament. Yes, I do believe that precisely here, in this holy ofholies 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 theChurch has always believed, that this upward journey begins with the ‘lay-ing 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 voca-tion of the Church in the world, the source of her service.”60

This reaction to the modern world and religion’s fate in it may bestrange but it is nevertheless supported by Gordon Lathrop, the Americantheologian who received and elaborated Schmemann’s thought and, as aconsequence, liturgical theology in the Lutheran Church. He is aware that“it is difficult to see the application of word and sacraments to the uni-verse we currently know and to the aching and complex needs of the endof the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first.”61 But hedeliberately adds: “We urgently need liturgical theology as we seek bear-ings for both public thought and personal hope. That is, we need it if itsexplanations of the assembly intend to make life-orienting symbols newlyavailable to us and to the circumstances of our time.”62 Therefore, thethird part of his book Holy Things is an elaborate pastoral liturgical theol-ogy.63

59 Alexander SCHMEMANN, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (Crestwood, NY: St.Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987), 9.

60 Ibid. 10.61 Gordon W. LATHROP, Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press,

1998), 4.62 Ibid. 4.63 Besides this, Kavanagh also addresses the issue of liturgical theology’s pastoral relevance. He

contends that liturgical theology “involves disciplined reflection on the present and actual stateof life in the faithful assembly due to the liturgy’s quality of canonicity – which means that aliturgical theology is inherently pastoral” (KAVANAGH, 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 OnLiturgical Theology is entitled ‘Liturgy and World’, where Kavanagh realizes that “it is clearthat the modern demand for total, factual, and impersonal objectivity presents serious difficul-ties for one whose object of study is the faith in which one put one’s trust and to which onehas dedicated one’s life” (ibid. , 11). Kavanagh is particularly critical towards the modernworld with its hectic life in great cities and the bond between state organization, science and

Joris Geldhof172

V.2. Liturgical Theology’s Ecumenical Potential

Second, one could object to liturgical theology that its “thick” or ro-bust vision on the liturgy and its ritual embodiment expresses certainbiases and sensitivities which are not shared by all Christians, and that thiscauses ecumenical difficulties. Personally, I think this is a delicate issue. Iam very careful not to generalize the matter. On the one hand it might betrue that Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant believers have a different atti-tude towards rite and ceremony – Geoffrey Wainwright speaks of “the pre-ponderance of the didactic over the latreutic in Protestant services”,64 but Idon’t think many Catholic services are more doxological than catecheticaleither. On the other hand, particularly with regard to liturgical theology, Isee that the work of Alexander Schmemann has not only been continuedin Orthodox circles and warmly received among Catholics, but that Protes-tant theologians also are deeply influenced by it. I have already mentionedGordon Lathrop in the Lutheran tradition, but one could equally think ofSimon Chan for the evangelicals.65 In addition, one must mention themany ecumenical contacts and efforts of many a liturgical theologian.

Clearly, one should not underestimate liturgical theology’s potentialfor the future of ecumenism. An intelligent case could be made that theultimate reconciliation of the Christian Churches will not in the first in-stance be realized through secondary theology, i.e., through scholars’ andofficials’ debates about doctrinal statements, declarations, documents, etc.It is imaginable that the longed-for reconciliation will happen insteadthrough primary theological acts, i.e., through the common celebration ofthe mysteries of faith.

V.3. Liturgical Theology’s Historical Claims

Third, I think it is indispensable to question the historical accuracy ofmany claims made by liturgical theologians. Basically, the three liturgicaltheologians I discussed tend to idealize the patristic age to the detriment ofother epochs. There is little doubt that this started with Schmemann’ssharp polemic against scholastic theology and in particular the approachto the sacraments in the Middle Ages (mainly in the West). Schmemann’sIntroduction to Liturgical Theology reads as a justification of the Byzan-tine tradition’s loyalty to the legacy of the Fathers of the Church. In

business (ibid., 30). Finally, it is noteworthy that, according to Kavanagh, it is “in worshipalone” that “the church [is] gathered in the closest obvious proximity to its fundamentalvalues” (ibid., 62).

64 WAINWRIGHT, The Praise of God (see above, n. 38), 124.65 Simon CHAN, Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community (Downer’s Grove,

IL: IVP Academic, 2006).

Liturgy as Theological Norm 173

Schmemann’s eyes, there is a strong continuity to be traced between theliturgical ‘ordo’ (lex orandi) of the earliest phases of the Christian religionand the way in which the Orthodox Churches actually celebrate (and vene-rate) the liturgy.

In The Eucharist a thoroughgoing critique of ‘scholastic theology’ in-tersperses Schmemann’s discourse – a critique which was not so dominantlypresent in his early work. According to Schmemann, scholastic theology re-duced the meaning of the liturgy to the moment of consecration.66 There-fore, he reproaches its “one-sidedness,” “insufficiency,” and even “deprav-ity.”67 It is unclear whether these were Schmemann’s original ideas, orwhether he had somehow taken them over from authoritative voices in theLiturgical Movement, which is known to have been fascinated above all bythe fourth and fifth centuries. In any case, Schmemann’s stance needs to beput under critique, not only because of its probable historical incorrectnessbut also because it may undermine the claims defended by liturgical theol-ogy. It is not true that scholastic theologians were silent about the liturgy,that they operated with an exclusively deductive rationality, or that theywere unable to see the symbolic character of rites and rituals.

In the case of Kavanagh and Fagerberg, it must be said that they donot seem to argue with scholastic theology as grimly as Schmemann did,but there is a similar tendency to focus too one-sidedly on patristic thoughtand patristic liturgy.68

V.4. Liturgical Theology and Philosophy

Fourth, I think that the philosophical solidity of liturgical theologyneeds to be improved. As it stands, liturgical theologians do not attachgreat weight to a philosophical underpinning of their theoretical endeavors.When reading them, one sometimes has the impression that liturgy andtradition are all-encompassing, but one only has to know a little bit ofhermeneutics to understand that such appeals necessarily require nuance,interpretation, and critique. Geoffrey Wainwright certainly went too farwhen he suggested that Kavanagh’s position runs the risk of “liturgicalfundamentalism” and “isolationism,”69 but it is telling that this reproachcould be made.

66 SCHMEMANN, The Eucharist (see above, n. 59), 27–28; 31; 39; etc.67 Ibid. 160.68 According to Kavanagh, the Church Fathers were pastoral theologians par excellence (KAVA-

NAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 17–18; 49–50), an idea which is almostcertainly 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 reflectionsof or about scholastic theology, but this very silence is revealing.

69 WAINWRIGHT, Review (see above, n. 36), 183.

Joris Geldhof174

In this context one needs to be reminded that the philosophical cur-rent which most profoundly influenced Kavanagh (and Fagerberg) waswithout any doubt Wittgensteinianism. At Yale, Kavanagh might havecome into contact with a version of Wittgenstein’s philosophy of languagewhich had a strong impact on the philosophy of religion and fundamentaltheology.70 The cross-fertilization between Wittgenstein and theologysometimes resulted in a kind of fideism.71 It did so because of a so-called‘contextualism’, ‘communitarianism’ – positions according to which onecan only absorb an identity on the condition that one is immersed in acertain group or context, whereby rational critique is not unlikely to beexcluded. Applied to the liturgy, this means that one can only grasp it byparticipating in it. Of course, this is not untrue at a social and practicallevel, but if the adherence to and conformity with a given community isthe ultimate horizon of the liturgy, it implies that it is only meaningful forinsiders and that a reasonable comprehension of it is not a guaranteed op-tion. Hence, liturgical theology risks giving rise to particularism(s), whereasChristian faith is always called to universalism.

Much more could and should be said about this, but let me finishwith a suggestion. Liturgical theology can and needs to be substantiallysupported by philosophical theorizing. This does not imply that liturgicaltheology should betray itself or that it needs philosophy because the liturgyis somehow insufficient. The philosophical import I suggest is not meant tofill a gap but to assist in a more convincing and encompassing way thework of clarification and understanding inherent in any theology. Morespecifically, I suggest that, if the aspirations and ideas developed and pro-moted by liturgical theology really bear truth – which I think they do –

then they should not only rely on philosophies of language but also onsound metaphysics. If the liturgy is the “ontological condition,” and there-fore the norm for theology – something which Schmemann said, and Ka-vanagh and Fagerberg repeated – then metaphysics is not to be rejectedbut included.

In the final analysis, I think that systematic theologians would profitfrom taking the liturgy more seriously. For the liturgy indeed forms thematrix for theology and can be considered as the ultimate norm with

70 It is striking on how many occasions Kavanagh compares the nature of language with the nat-ure of the liturgy. For a nice illustration of this, see the following passage: “All this mightsuggest 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 havemore in common with each other than either of them have with doctrine and philology” (KA-

VANAGH, On Liturgical Theology (see above, n. 21), 84). As for Fagerberg, one can sufficewith a reference to his understanding of the “grammar” of the liturgy, of which he explicitlysays this notion is borrowed from Wittgenstein (FAGERBERG, Theologia prima (see above,n. 25), 2–3). On many other occasions, Fagerberg – even more so than Kavanagh – refers andappeals to Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language.

71 Cf. GREISCH, Le Buisson ardent (see above, n. 4), vol. I, 68; vol. II, 537–541.

Liturgy as Theological Norm 175

which it must be in accordance. It is in any case not normal for theologyto ignore, neglect, or reject the liturgy’s embodied wisdom and its primor-dial 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 liturgicalstudies, namely the ‘liturgical theology’ as it was developed by Alexander Schmemann, AidanKavanagh, and David W. Fagerberg. After presenting the concept of ‘liturgical theology’ and thecontext out of which it emerged, its major characteristics are discussed. Particular attention isdevoted to the radicalness of their position. It can be called radical because the reversal of therelation between doctrine and liturgy is by no means evident for the vast majority of modernbelievers and theologians. However, ‘liturgical theology’ claims that it is not doctrine which de-termines liturgy but liturgy which determines doctrine. According to liturgical theologians, theliturgy is not simply the ritual expression of the content of faith, but itself theology, even theolo-gia prima. Correspondingly, liturgical theologians point to the original wording of the famousadage 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 contextlays bare a clear priority of the rule of prayer over the rule of faith. In the final part of the articleI explore some avenues to the evaluation of ‘liturgical theology’. I argue that there is need for amore profound philosophical underpinning and historical adequacy. But nevertheless the ideathat the liturgy constitutes a theological norm stands firmly and should be considered far morebroadly and seriously among contemporary systematic theologians.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Dieser Artikel argumentiert dafür, die Liturgie als die theologische Norm schlechthin anzu-setzen. Das Argument wird entwickelt, indem auf die »Liturgische Theologie« als eine wichtigeBewegung innerhalb des Feldes der Liturgiewissenschaften rekurriert wird, die von AlexanderSchmemann, Aidan Kavanagh und David W. Fagerberg entwickelt wurde. Nachdem der Begriffder Liturgischen Theologie und der Kontext, aus dem heraus sie entstand, vorgestellt wurden,werden ihre zentralen Charakteristika diskutiert. Die Radikalität dieser Position wird besondersbetont. Die Radikalität liegt darin begründet, dass es für die breite Mehrheit der modernen Gläu-bigen und Theologen keineswegs offensichtlich ist, dass die Beziehung zwischen Dogma und Li-turgie umzukehren ist. Doch die »Liturgische Theologie« betont, dass nicht das Dogma die Litur-gie, sondern die Liturgie das Dogma bestimmt. Die Liturgischen Theologen meinen nämlich, dassdie 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 ver-weisen die Liturgischen Theologen auch auf die ursprüngliche Wortwahl des berühmten Adagioslex orandi lex credendi, welches lautet: ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi. Während alsodie gewöhnliche Formulierung Gleichheit und wechselseitige Abhängigkeit zwischen beiden nahelegt, legt der ursprüngliche Kontext eine klare Priorität der Regel des Gebets gegenüber der Regeldes Glaubens offen. Im letzten Teil des Aufsatzes werden einige Wege erforscht, auf denen die»Liturgische Theologie« bewertet werden kann. Ich argumentiere dafür, dass die »LiturgischeTheologie« in stärkerem Maße philosophisch untermauert werden muss als bisher geschehen,und dass sie zudem historisch präziser arbeiten sollte. Dennoch bleibt ihre Grundposition mitguten Gründen erhalten, die besagt, dass die Liturgie eine theologische Norm darstellt, und dieseGrundposition sollte in umfassenderem Rahmen und auf ernsthaftere Weise von gegenwärtigenSystematischen Theologen diskutiert werden.

Joris Geldhof176

Copyright of Neue Zeitschrift für 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.