The present issue combines the first two fascicles of volume 27 (2010). We are late because of the problems that have accompanied the new method of preparing the text (“print ready”), the change to a publisher in Germany (EOS Verlag of St. Ottilien) and the health problems of the editor. We apologize and hope to catch up with our publishing schedule in the near future.
The articles in this double fascicle cover materials that extend from the fourth century (Egeria) to the present. The article of Prof. Midili edits the reflections presented by Dom Adrien Nocent on an eventual lnstitute of Liturgy at Sant’Anselmo in January of 1961. The original text is accompanied by a useful commentary giving further context and scope to the Réflexions.
The present editor looks at the document on the liturgy of Vatican II and some of its unfulfilled hopes and recommendations. Too often the primarily pastoral objective of the constitution and the subsequent reforms are overshadowed by ideological issues and biases. The urgent necessity of formation and education in the liturgy has not always been realized.
Prof. Militello discusses the presence and action of Christ in the liturgy in the light of chapter one of Sacrosanctum concilium and other documents of Vatican Il. She underlines the fact the celebration is an act of the whole body of Christ – head and members.
A historical aspect of the much discussed cathedral office versus monastic office is illustrated in the article of M. S. Gros on the organization of the principal hours at Arles in the sixth century at the time of Bishops Caesarius and Aurelian. Is it cathedral or monastic or both?
The terminology (especially typus) of Egeria to describe the Jerusalem liturgy of the fourth century for Holy Week clearly shows that it is not a mere historical imitation (mimesis) but a true liturgical anamnesis (memorial celebration). According to the researches of Prof. Morozowich Jerusalem practice as presented by the pilgrim Egeria expresses an authentic liturgical reality and not simple historicism as sometim charged.
Prof. Mazza moves the reader to the twelfth century and the Baptistery of Parma part of whose decoration he illustrates and explains on the basis of the liturgy and of lirurgical commentators like Sicard of Cremona and Honorius of Autun. One can speak of art at the service of the liturgy.
Prof. Parenti deals with the multiplicity and diversity of liturgical rites within one liturgical tradition – the Byzantine. In interpreting a lirurgical text it is necessary to distinguish, as far as possible, the period of its origins and use as well as the place of origin. Chronology and geography are essential to a correct understanding and evaluation of liturgical materials.
The present is the context of the other three articles. Fr. Rector Flores Arcas begins with a consideration of H.U. von Balthasar and his understanding of “Glory’’ to develop a theological esthetic of beauty for a novel approach and appreciation of the ars celebrandi.
Ricardo Reyes, whose outstanding doctoral thesis for the PIL is in the press, contributes a balanced presentation of the liturgical theology of Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). The book Theology of the Liturgy has generated considerable discussion from different points of view. Reyes provides the reader with a lead to grasp the intentions and motivations that prompted the liturgical thought of Cardinal Ratzinger.
Finally, Prof. Cescon opens for us a door to see the celebrant as subject from the anthropological and philosophical perspectives of post-modernism and second modernism.
We trust this issue will be useful and thought-provoking for our readers.
EPHREM CARR, osb