He begins with the end --the end of an open letter Romano Guardini sent to a group gathering in Meinz for the 3rd German Liturgical Conference in the heady atmosphere post publication of the Vatican II document on the liturgy. Guardini praised the work of Vatican II and had many positive things to say, but closed with a reflection on the nature of worship.
Is not the liturgical act, and with it all that goes under the name ‘liturgy,’ so bound up with the historical background—antique or medieval or baroque—that it would be more honest to give it up altogether? Would it not be better to admit that man in this industrial and scientific age, with its new sociological structure, is no longer capable of the liturgical act?That was radical, Chaput observes:
Guardini’s remark caused quite a stir. But there’s no evidence that theologians or liturgists ever took his concerns seriously. Let me say that I do. I think he put his finger on one of the key questions of mission in his time, and also in ours.The problem?
What Guardini meant by the liturgical act was the transformation of personal prayer and piety into genuine corporate worship, the leitourgia, the public service that the Church offers to God. He recognized that the Church’s corporate prayer was very different from the private prayer of individual believers.Chaput goes on to address that problem in a contemporary American context. RTWT.
The liturgical act requires a new kind of consciousness, a “readiness toward God,” an inward awareness of the unity of the whole person, body and soul, with the spiritual body of the Church, present in heaven and on earth. It also requires an appreciation that the sacred signs and actions of the Mass -- standing, kneeling, singing and so forth -- are themselves “prayer.”
Guardini believed that the spirit of the modern world was undermining the beliefs that made this liturgical consciousness possible.
