QL 95 (2014) 194-215 doi: 10.2143/QL.95.3.0000000 © 2014, all rights reserved

CONGAR ON LITURGY AS A MONUMENT OF TRADITION

Introduction The celebration of the eucharist, Sundays, feasts, memorial days and seasons of the church calendar, sacramental ceremonies in the course of human life, the daily offices, blessings and processions, music, actions, texts and symbols used in worship – together they constitute a whole known as the church’s liturgy. The books that provide the script for these services in the Roman Catholic Church present a picture of the scope of the rituals, the diversity of texts and practices they entail and the various services held daily, weekly and in the course of a year. The liturgy performed in Catholic communities appears to be something that is discovered and received, that reaches the present from tradition and that is contained in books presenting the information. The Institutio Generalis in the missal refers to it as the early norm of the holy Fathers,1 which liturgical books attest and which demonstrates the continuity of liturgical tradition. The liturgy is a monument of tradition; the liturgical books provide the material to ‘erect’ it time and again.

The reference to liturgy as a monument occurs in the work of the theologian Yves Congar. At first glance his theory appears outdated in the present-day liturgical scene. Is liturgical worship not something that presupposes contemporary composition? Does the preparation for a ceremony not consist in interpreting the personal and communal experience of present-day people? Arguing on these lines, liturgists like G. Lukken advocate an inductive, adequate liturgy based on the specific situation of a particular individual or community.2 In this view liturgy is a variable, changing event rather than a monument of tradition. Even if one sticks to the framework of the church’s liturgical books it offers a multiplicity of options and scope for personal expression.

1. ‘Ad pristinam sanctorum patrum normam’, no. 6, cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 50. 2. Gerard Lukken, Rituals in Abundance: Critical Reflections on the Place, Form and

Identity of Christian Ritual in Our Culture, Liturgia Condenda, 17 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005) 338 and 347.

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 195

How does tradition relate to the contemporary character of Christian liturgy? That, fundamentally, is the question that concerns us. To answer it this article examines (1) what is the general meaning of a monument of tradition; (2) what exactly Congar means by liturgy as a monument of tradition; and (3) what a detailed study and analysis of his theory offers to further theological reflection on liturgy.

1. The Term ‘Monument of Tradition’ The concept of tradition occupies a focal position in the work of the French theologian Yves Congar O.P. (1904-1995), both in his ecclesiology and his theology of Scripture and revelation. Two of his works dating back to the early 1960s are devoted to the theme, namely the two parts of La Tradition et les traditions3 and the more comprehensive La Tradition et la vie de l’Église, which was reprinted in 1984 with a new preface.4 Both works deal with the concept of monument de la Tradition, the former in chapter VI (pp. 181-213) and the latter in the fourth chapter (pp. 97-115). Before exploring Congar’s use of the term we look briefly at its meaning and origin.

According to Van Dale a monument is (1) a memorial, something that continues to exist and perpetuates the memory of something or someone; or (2) a relic of a past culture, art, craft or science, especially with a view to conserving it. The adjective ‘monumental’ adds the further meaning (3) of − often but not necessarily − great, grand or impressive. Larousse gives four meanings: (1) a memorial, such a war monument or a monument on a grave; (2) a building of historical or public importance; (3) a (literary) masterpiece; and (4) a metaphor for a person, for example ‘the man is a monument of laziness’. Hence the term ‘monument’ refers to commemorating something or someone, conserving a relic of it and, possibly, its grandeur or splendour. It can also be used in the sense of ‘striking symbol’. In the case of the concept ‘monument of tradition’ we cannot, as in the first meanings, conceive of it exclusively as a material monument. Many of the monuments of tradition that Congar mentions are collections of texts. However, they have a conservational and

3. Part I, Essai historique (Paris: Fayard, 1960), abbreviation EH, and part II, Essai

théologique (Paris: Fayard, 1963), abbreviation ET, which was used for this article. 4. La Tradition et la vie de l’Église (Paris: Fayard, 1963, 1984), abbreviation Trad. In

the preface Congar expresses his love for this work and mentions the crisis following the Second Vatican Council, which made him see the reprint as a ‘chance qu’aujourd’hui m’offre’, an opportunity offered today to contribute to its relevance. English translation: The Meaning of Tradition (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2004), abbreviation TradE.

196 Johan te Velde commemorative function and each individually constitutes a grand, impressive whole.

According to Congar5 the expression ‘monument of tradition’ dates back to the nineteenth century. He mentions the names of J. B. Franzelin S.J.6 and two earlier theologians, G. Perrone7 and J. S. Drey. Franzelin8 sees monuments of tradition as instruments, means to preserve doctrine that has been passed down. Hence tradition is not the same as these monuments but is expressed in them. They are the means of preserving and communicating tradition. He maintains that they are mainly written works, attesting the doctrine that they articulate clearly and explicitly; as examples he cites texts of creeds that are to be found separately, in conciliar acts or in the writings of church fathers. Franzelin then summarises many varieties of documents, including conciliar and patristic texts, but also sermons, martyrs’ acts, sacramental texts, other liturgical books and ecclesiastic laws. These latter categories (may) form part of liturgical texts. The author also mentions other ecclesiastic monuments such as diverse forms of graphic art, architecture and epigraphic texts. In his view these monuments sometimes touch the soul more poignantly, for the mind does not perceive only written words, like ideas from books − the actions, religious life and worship of the early Christians are made visible to our eyes in artistic

5. ET 181. 6. Tractatus De divina traditione et scriptura (Rome/Taurini, 1870) 127ff: Sectio II De

conservandae traditionis documentis et instrumentis, C. 1 De monumentis traditionis per se spectatis. Thesis XIII. De monumentis traditionis quatenus exhibent consensum custodum depositi, et quatenus pro iisdem sunt instrumenta doctrinae: Traditio hucusque secundum divinitus institutum et pronceps suum organon considerata, spectari porro potest ut monumentis antiquitatis ecclesiasticae, potissimum documentis scriptis conservata est; haec enim monumenta suppeditant certum argumentum divinae traditionis, seu potius exhibent traditionem ipsam, quatenus ex illis consensus custodum depositi in aliquod doctrinae caput tamquam pertinens ad christianam fidem demonstrator; per se autem et in formali ratione monumentorum sunt subsidium conservandae traditionis, et instrumentum doctrinae prae ipso organo principe, quamvis cum hoc intime nexum et ei veluti connaturale.

7. See Walter Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition in der Römischen Schule [1962], in id., Gesammelte Schriften I (Freiburg: Herder, 2011) 99, n. 19.

8. Franzelin, Tractatus De divina traditione, 127: Monumenta igitur ecclesiasticae dicimus hoc loco opera multiplicis specie et ordinis ex antiquitate adhuc reliqua, ex quibus in cognitionem venimus sententiae, professionis et fidei, quae tum fuerit circa aliquod caput doctrinae et disciplinae christianae. Patet vero, primum locum in his monumentis tenere opera scripta (…) Huc pertinent tabulae symbolorum et publicarum professionem fidei (…), libri liturgici et Sacramentaria, libri poenitentiales, canones disciplinae, legum ecclesiasticarum (…). Monumenta ecclesiastica alia supersunt sculpta, picta, architectonica in cryptis, sacrariis, sarcophagis, cathedris (…) etiam aliquid scripturae in epigraphis intervenit. Cf. 133.

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 197 representations.9 Hence in this passage the concept ‘monument’ applies to texts and archaeological remains; his main concern seems to be with testimonies to early Christian history, emphasising that these articulate Christian doctrine. We also learn that it is not confined to verbal information but includes portrayals and descriptions of liturgical actions.

Perrone, quoted by W. Kasper, underscores the distinction between tradition and the monuments that attest it. Tradition is not the church fathers, councils, liturgies or other such monuments; the fathers and the other types of witnesses to antiquity are merely instruments, records, channels, monuments which conveyed tradition to us or through which we got to know tradition.10 Liturgy as a monument of tradition is a witness to the faith.11 Kasper points out the use by other theologians of the term ‘fixed’ or ‘embodied’ tradition, monuments that make the proclaimed faith visible and palpable. He cites the example of remains of church buildings, altars, statues and all kinds of symbols that speak of the faith of earlier times.12

According to Congar the concept ‘monument of tradition’ refers to entities in which tradition has been partly fixed and preserved. They are preceded by tradition and express it.13 Hence it signifies relics, texts or objects from church history that express its religious tradition and in which tradition crystallises. The monuments are testimonies, hence in a second-ary sense a source of religious truth. When we conceive of it we should think not so much of incontestable, immutable commemorative stones but of telling relics of the past: texts, art, rituals and practices based on these that testify to past events and ideas and for that reason continue to feature actively in the present.

In our definitions of the concept it is mentioned that Congar occasionally uses three synonyms. The main one is ‘witness’,14 used in both senses of the word: that of an observer and that of a person communicating what she has experienced. Derived from this there is

9. Franzelin, Tractatus De divina traditione, 128: … aliquando tamen etiam vividiore

luce velunt percellunt animos, quia non solum litteris eo modo ut libri ideas menti exhibent, sed actus ipsios vitam religiosam cultumque veterum Christianorum naturali artis repraesentatione oculis subiiciunt.

10. Kasper, Die Lehre, 286: “Überlieferung sind daher nicht die Väter, nicht die Konzilen, nicht die Liturgien, noch andere Denkmäler der selber Art; sondern sowohl die Väter als auch die übrigen eben erwähnten Gattungen von Zeugnissen des Altertums sind nichts als Mittel, Urkunden, Kanäle, Denkmäler, durch welche die Tradition zu uns sich fortpflanzte oder mittels derer wir die Tradition kennenlernen.”

11. Ibid., 291f. 12. Ibid., 555-557, in the work by Passaglia & Schrader. Also see 586f. 13. ET 181: “… ce sont les expressions dans lesquelles la Tradition est, au moins

partiellement, comme fixée et contenu … ont valeur de témoignage et de source.” 14. Témoin, witness ET 183; Trad 97, 100; TradE 129, 134.

198 Johan te Velde ‘testimony’,15 the witness’s oral of written declaration. Besides these Congar sometimes speaks of ‘instrument’16 and ‘document’,17 terms he encountered among his nineteenth century colleagues.

How does Congar define the term ‘monument of tradition’? He sees tradition as interpretation of Holy Scripture: “This interpretation is elaborated and expressed in a succession of static testimonies forming a system, either in writings or in other monuments: institutions, liturgy, art, customs, and so forth. These expressions taken collectively are often called ‘Tradition’… (which) signifies the monuments of Tradition.”18 His next question concerns their contents: “What are these monuments or witnesses of tradition that enable us to reach it?”19 Instead of defining them, he lists the various monuments: Scripture, the church’s magisterium, liturgy, the church fathers and the practice of spontaneous religious utterances. These are ‘intermediaries of the word’ (médiations de la parole),20 agencies communicating religious realities to contemporary people, media in which tradition is articulated without merging into them.

The Christian tradition is expressed in several testimonies or monuments. In his Essai théologique Congar identifies seven: Holy Scripture, the oral tradition of the apostles, the magisterium’s texts, liturgy, the fathers and preachers of the church, the rules and practices of ecclesiastic life, the doctrines of theologians and human reason generally.21 In Tradition (pp. 97f and 100) he condenses these to five: Scripture, magisterium, liturgy, patristics and spontaneous religious utterances.22 Among the aforementioned seven he distinguishes between constitutive (Scripture and oral apostolic tradition) and explanatory tradition found in the other five. These explanatory traditions that expound the constitutive source and elaborate on it are what Congar calls ‘monuments of tradition’.23 In Tradition (pp. 97f and 100) he adds Holy Scripture, for in contrast to the time-honoured practice of juxtaposing or contra-distinguishing tradition and Scripture, Congar opts for a very broad

15. Témoignage, testimony. 16. ET 184. 17. ET 181. 18. TradE 127. Trad 96: “Cette interprétation s’est déployée et exprimée dans une suite

et dans un ensemble de témoignages fixés, soit dans des écrits, soit dans d’autres monuments: institutions, liturgie, art, coutumes, etc. On appelle souvent l’ensemble de ces expressions ‘la Tradition’… [c’est] les monuments de la Tradition.”

19. TradE 129. Trad 97: “Que sont ces monuments ou ces témoins de la Tradition qui nous permettent de l’atteindre?”

20. Trad 97; TradE 129. 21. ET 182; but see also 183 where he adds “les expressions spontanées du

christianisme” (spontaneous expressions of Christianity). 22. The latter are dealt with in ET 206, not in Tradition. 23. ET 182f.

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 199 concept of tradition, of which Scripture, being the fruit of the transmitted proclamation and interpretation of the faith, may form part. In this sense it may be regarded as the first monument of tradition. At the same time it is its premise and origin, hence it occupies a separate position. Accordingly Congar does not deal with it among the monuments of tradition.24

Against this background the concept ‘monument of tradition’ may be defined as follows: a complex of texts, practices and/or objects that testify to the traditional reality of faith via various communicative channels and evoke it.

The term ‘monument of tradition’ is not commonly used. In French it is a technical theological term, which the English versions of Congar’s work rendered literally.25 In the title of chapter IV of La Tradition en la vie de l’Église Congar himself chose an explanatory alternative: ‘Les monuments ou témoins de la tradition’ (monuments or testimonies of tradition). In this article we use the literal rendering, realising that if offers little insight into the different meanings discerned by theologians. For these we refer to Congar’s definitions cited above.

2. Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition in Congar’s Work That brings us to liturgy as a monument of tradition. In his two works26 Congar fully subscribes to the view of the Benedictine liturgist Dom P. Guéranger, who wrote in his Institutions liturgiques that in liturgy the Spirit that inspires Scripture speaks anew: liturgy is tradition at it most potent and sublime.27 Hence Dom Guéranger identifies the concepts of liturgy and tradition and even considers liturgy to be tradition par excellence. He relates it to the Holy Spirit, which is seen as the real subject of Christian tradition. Congar quotes another authoritative source, Bossuet: “Liturgy is the principal instrument of the church’s tradition.”28 A third interesting quotation is from Lambert Beauduin, who describes church tradition as its practical life, its modus operandi, its framework, discipline,

24. TradE 130. 25. See TradE 129ff. No German or Dutch translation of ET is available. 26. TradE 134, ET 191. 27. Dom P. Guéranger, Institutions liturgiques (Paris/Brussels, 1878-1885) 3: “C’est

dans la Liturgie que l’ esprit qui inspira les Écritures sacrées parle encore; la Liturgie est la tradition même à son plus haut degré de puissance et de solemnité.”

28. Our translation. J.-B. Bossuet, Instruction sur les états d’oraison, livr. VI (Paris: Lefèvre, 1836) t. VIII, 59; quoted in ET 187, 191: “Le principal instrument de la tradition de l’Église est renfermé dans ses prières, et, soit qu’on regarde l’action de la liturgie et le sacrifice, ou qu’on repasse sur les hymnes, sur les collectes, sur les secrètes, sur les postcommunions…”

200 Johan te Velde sacraments, prayer, its centuries-old lived faith.29 So what is the special power of liturgy as a monument of tradition? What attributes make it a monument of tradition? What are its ‘inner characteristics…’?30 On what grounds is it assigned pride of place among the monuments of tradition?

Congar deals with these questions on three occasions. The first is in La Traditions en les traditions, II (Essai théologique) (pp. 117-123), where the fourth chapter, ‘Tradition et vie ecclésiale’, describes the distinctive character of liturgy as a means of communicating tradition. The second is the sixth chapter, ‘Les monuments de la tradition’ (pp. 183-191), where he elaborates on the concept of monument of tradition. Thirdly, our data derive from chapter IV of La Tradition et la vie de l’Église, ‘Les monuments ou témoins de la tradition’ (pp. 97-115), where he focuses on what liturgy transmits, especially in relation to Holy Scripture. When one reads the opening passage on liturgy as a monument of tradition one immediately realises that the topic is very close to Congar’s heart.31 In contrast to the use of liturgical texts as sources of juridical or dogmatic truths, he sees it as the voice of the adoring, praying church more than just expressing its faith but singing it and practising it in total self-giving, living worship.32 Hence liturgy as a source of faith acquires a far deeper, richer content in Congar’s conception: it is not just a Fundgrube of theoretical religious truths but a celebration of religious reality. In his view the distinctive style and mode of liturgy, no less than its contents, make it an eminently suitable instrument of tradition.33 Below we give eight features of the style, mode and contents of liturgy as a monument of tradition that we traced in Congar’s works.

1. Congar’s first point is that liturgy contains the Christian tradition: “Thus, if tradition in its dogmatic foundation is an interpretation of Scripture continuing that of Christ and the apostles, the liturgy is truly the holy ark containing sacred tradition at its most intense.”34 He uses the

29. Lambert Beauduin, “La liturgie: Définition. Hiérarchie. Tradition,” Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales (1948) 123-148, pp. 136-137, quoted in ET, 122: “La tradition dans l’Église (…) sera sa vie pratique, sa façon d’agir, ses cadres, sa discipline, ses sacrements, sa prière, sa foi vécue à travers les siècles, …”

30. TradE 134. Trad 100: “…caractériser par le dedans…” 31. ET 183: “Nous voudrions que ces quelques pages soient un chant et un hommage

de reconnaissance filiale.” 32. ET 184: “…voix de l’Église aimante en priante, faisant mieux que d’exprimer sa

foi: la chantant, la pratiquant dans une célébration vivante, où elle se donne toute entière.” 33. ET 184: “Cette nature de la liturgie lui assure une qualité et un rang hors de pair

comme instrument de la tradition, tant en raison de son style ou de ses modalités propres, qu’en raison de son contenu.”

34. TradE 142. Trad 106: “De sorte que si la Tradition est, en son fond dogmatique, une lecture des Écritures dans la continuité de la lecture qu’en ont faite le Christ et les apôtres, la liturgie est vraiment l’arche sainte et le foyer le plus intense de la sainte Tradition.”

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 201 image of the holy ark, which to Israel, both in the wilderness and later in the land of Canaan, symbolised God’s presence. The argument is as follows. Tradition is the Christian interpretation of Scripture. Its texts are the components of liturgy, where it is put in the interpretive framework of Christ, the apostles and the church fathers. Seen thus, Scripture constructs liturgy and comes to life in it, not as a theoretical concept but for purposes of contemporary worship. Thus the texts of Scripture play a role in living liturgy, not as references to an ancient tradition but as a means of concretising the mystery of Christ here and now, by presenting it in ritual, combined with symbolic actions, and as it were performing it. The term ‘la sainte Tradition’ in the quotation refers to the traditional inheritance, the depositum fidei, which in essence concurs with the mystery of Christ. Liturgy contains, offers and in its own way expresses the totality of mysteries, of which the mind and dogma formulate only certain aspects.35 “Because it celebrates and contains the entire mystery, it conveys the essence of what has to be transmitted.”36 The verb ‘contenir’ (contains), used in close proximity in the two quotations, is not explicated, although the theologian mentions the adage ‘Lex orandi, lex credendi’, commenting that the church invested its entire faith in prayer. Hence it is clearly a multidimensional, lived content rather than theoretical notions. In the same vein Congar adds that in liturgy the traditional inheritance features at it most intense,37 thus assigning liturgy priority among the monuments of tradition.

2. The relation of liturgy with Holy Scripture merits special attention. It has two aspects. On the one hand Congar points out that liturgy conveys the essence of elements of faith that do not explicitly feature in Scripture.38 In a sense, then, one could say that liturgy augments Scripture. Scripture contains the essentials, but the full revelation comprehends far more. In liturgy the church encounters salvation itself, hence it can adduce further insights and interpretations.39 On the other hand liturgy offers a unique, irreplaceable form of scriptural exegesis. The theologian goes so far as to say that it ‘brings home’ the meaning of Scripture. In other words, liturgy

35. ET 117: “… la liturgie contient, livre et exprime à sa manière la totalité de mystères

dont l’intelligence et le dogme lui-même n’ont formulé que certains aspects.” 36. ET 117: “Et comme elle célèbre et contient ce mystère tout entier, elle transmet tout

l’essentiel de ce qui doit être transmis.” 37. TradE 142. 38. Trad 103: “Les Écritures n’ont pas tout exprimé de ce que le Christ a remis à l’Église

pour qu’on en vive, encore que, d’après une opinion commune chez les Pères et au moyen âge, elles contiennent toutes les vérités nécessaires au salut.” TradE 139: “The Scriptures do not express everything entrusted by Christ to the Church for us to live by, even though, according to an opinion common to the Fathers and to the Middle Ages, they contain all the truths necessary for salvation.”

39. TradE 139.

202 Johan te Velde is the natural place to proclaim the words of Scripture, because that is where they acquire their real, most profound meaning. His grounds for this claim are that in liturgy, as in Scripture, everything centres on Christ and is directed to God. Through its arrangement of scriptural texts in feasts, seasons and special services liturgy is able to reveal the christological meaning of Scripture more clearly. Naturally Congar is not saying that liturgy is an alternative form of exegesis. His point is that the ultimate meaning of Scripture – God’s revelation in Christ, which is the aim of exegesis – is expressed most vividly in liturgy.

3. Thirdly, Congar emphasises that liturgy as a monument of tradition is a contemporary event that plays a cardinal role in the life of the church community: “For the church liturgy is not a dead monument, a kind of pantheon that one visits like a museum, but a house one occupies all the time, the environment that encases its life.”40 The term ‘monument’ could easily be misinterpreted as something belonging to the past. The hallmark of liturgy is that it constantly renews itself, that it is relevant in every age by virtue of the fact of its celebration when the community gathers as a family. For the living tradition − the present − liturgical practices and texts function as a home, somewhere to live and share life.

4. Fourthly, Congar dwells on the distinctive way in which liturgy as a monument of tradition presents its contents as a lived and celebrated reality rather than as theoretical instruction: “It is an active memorial, a presence and a realization, in short, a celebration of the Christian mystery itself. (…) …it is celebrated, realized, rendered present and communicated, not simply as a doctrine and truth, but as a reality. (…) it brings home this truth in a living way, exactly as a family inculcates the sense of duty in a child without giving him theoretical lessons on the subject.”41 What Christ left for his disciples was not primarily a written text or doctrine, but the reality of Christianity.42 Tradition in the sense of handing down the mysteries of faith came before and was more than the transmission of texts and words. After all, in the beginning the eucharist was celebrated for some decades as an inherited practice without any text at all.43 The uniqueness

40. ET 184: “Pour l’Église, la liturgie n’est pas un monument mort, une sorte de

Panthéon qu’on visiterait comme un musée, mais un foyer toujours habité, l’enveloppe et le milieu même de sa vie.”

41. TradE 136. Trad 101: “Elle est mémorial actif, présence et mise en œuvre, bref, elle est célébration du mystère chrétien lui-même. (…) …elle la célèbre, elle l’actualise, la rend présente, la communique: non comme énoncé et vérité seulement, mais comme réalité. (…) Elle l’inculque de façon vivante, exactement comme une famille inculque le sens du devoir à un enfant, sans lui faire de leçons théoriques à ce sujet.”

42. ET 113. 43. ET 114: “On a ainsi pratiqué l’eucharistie une bonne trentaine d’années sans qu’il

existât un seul texte qui en parlât. Elle était par excellence un objet de ‘tradition’. Le rite et l’action avaient précédé l’écrit, sinon la doctrine…”

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 203 of liturgical celebrations is that they antedate theological theorising. From the outset faith was celebrated in song and prayer even before its doctrines were formulated, partly on the basis of liturgy.

5. Fifthly, liturgy always presents the integral reality of salvation, albeit approached from different angles and viewed in diverse perspectives. As Congar puts it, “liturgy presents the totality that gives every element of church life its meaning, as a centre gives meaning to everything that revolves around it.”44 Hence according to our author faith is to be found in liturgy not fragmentarily but in its totality. Those who share all aspects of liturgical celebration will find the entire depositum fidei. Pertinent examples are the eucharist and the serial occasions in the church’s calendar. But in every component – every feast or sacrament or office, even the simple sign of the cross – faith is presented as if in a nutshell.45 “An action (…) creates a synthesis. The celebration of the Eucharist communicates the whole reality; the merest sign of the cross is an entire profession of faith in the Redemption.”46 In the same context we have Congar’s comment on the totality of liturgy: “This aspect of totality that characterizes both the liturgy and tradition (…) is also found in the admirable comprehensiveness of the liturgy, which unifies and harmonizes elements often separated and even placed in opposition to one another. It unifies the most personal values with the most communal, the most tangible realities with the most spiritual, discipline or ritualism with inner feeling or inspiration, the hierarchic structure with popular expression, the priesthood of the ministry with the consecrated state of the whole body of the faithful, and so on.”47

6. In the sixth place he highlights the linguistic richness of liturgical texts. They have a character of their own, distinct from doctrinal or theological language. If one looks for lucid, accurate concepts in liturgy, one is often disappointed. Liturgy is a direct expression, an inexhaustible matrix of faith that is not directly applicable in theological discourse, but in its own, often symbolic way articulates the mystery and as such can

44. ET 120: “… il existe une sorte de présence du tout à chaque partie, qui donne à

chaque partie sons sens, comme un centre le donne à tout ce qui gravite autour de lui.” 45. ET 117: “Elle célèbre et contient ce mystère tout entier…” 46. TradE 137. Trad 102: “…l’ action est synthétique. La célébration de l’eucharistie

en livre toute la réalité; le moindre signe de croix fait professer toute la foi en la Rédemption.”

47. TradE 137f. (Cf. ET 190f.) Trad 102f: “Cet aspect de totalité, qui caractérise à la fois (…) la liturgie et la Tradition, se retrouve aussi dans le fait que, merveilleusement synthétique, la liturgie unit et harmonise des éléments qu’on dissocie souvent ou même qu’on oppose les uns aux autres. Elle unit la valeur la plus personnelle et la plus communautaire, les réalités les plus sensible et les plus spirituelles, la discipline ou le ritualisme et l’ intériorité ou l’inspiration, le fait hiérarchique et le fait populaire, le sacerdoce des ministres et la qualité de consécration de tout le peuple fidèle; etc.”

204 Johan te Velde serve as a source for theological reflection. Liturgical language, which is also the language of Scripture, has a wealth of images and great depth, not so much propositional or doctrinal as symbolically evocative.48 The nature of the language reflects what it conveys; religious reality is so versatile and multidimensional that it requires liturgical, metaphoric language. The language of liturgical symbols, the postures, actions and objects are an extension of spoken and sung language.

7. Seventh: liturgy preserves, it has a highly conservational quality. As Congar puts it, “whereas everything changes and we ourselves pass through phases which do not always display sustained growth, ritual remains.”49 “Everything was preserved for us, we inherit an intact legacy which we in our turn can readily pass on. As a communication instrument that conquers time, which afflicts everything, ritual remains a powerful means of communion in the one reality of people separated even by many centuries of drastic change.”50 Liturgy preserves not only the explicit and the familiar, but also the ineffable, unfathomable ‘mystery of faith’. It does so not in some insulated, sterile space that permits no change, but in the continuity of worship.

8. Eighth: liturgy teaches, not didactically but as a holy community gathered round the sacraments, borne by the Spirit, directed to sanctifying life. Congar says: “it lets people enter into these truths, not by way of argument and reasoning but through the intimacy of living practice.”51 He adds that we need to gradually nourish ourselves with the things themselves rather than their exposition.52 Hence liturgy has a distinctive style of instruction, based on active participation rather than observation from a distance.53

48. ET 120. 49. ET 184f.: “Alors que tout changeait, et que nous-mêmes passions par des phases

dont la succession ne représente pas toujours une croissance continue, le rite demeurait.” 50. ET 185: “Tout nous avait été gardé, nous pouvions entrer dans un héritage intact,

qu’il nous serait aisé de transmettre á notre tour. Instrument de communication et de victoire sur le temps qui dégrade tout, le rite apparaît comme un puissant moyen de communion, à la même réalité, d’hommes qui sépare même une durée de plusieurs siècles agités par les tendances les plus diverses.”

51. ET 184: “Elle fait entrer dans les vérités, non par discours et arguments, mais par l’intimité de la pratique vivante.”

52. ET 184: “Or, ‘nous avons besoin de nous nourrir lentement des choses plus que de leurs explications’.”

53. Trad 106: “Elle communique le sens du Christ comme centre rayonnant de toute l’histoire du salut, sans jamais le séparer de l’Église et des saints, qui sont sa sphère de rayonnement.” TradE 142: “It communicates the spirit of Christ as the radiant center of the whole history of salvation without ever separating him from the Church and the saints, which are his field of influence;” Trad 103: “Rien n’ est plus éducatif de l’homme total que la liturgie. (…) Il n’y a pas de meilleure voie pour acquérir le ‘sens de l’Église’ dans l’acception la plus large et la plus intérieure de cette expression…” TradE 138 “Nothing is

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 205

By way of summary and conclusion: liturgy in the living, practical sense of the word is what Congar calls the privileged place where tradition is preserved and communicated. It is the first things that happened in the church and by far the most important. Indeed, it is the active celebration of the Christian mystery.54

3. Analysis of the Information To assess Congar’s arguments we need to analyse the foregoing eight attributes and trace their interrelationships. That entails answering the following three questions: (1) What interrelationships can we trace between these attributes? (2) On what substantive premises does Congar base his arguments? (3) What insights do we derive from our study of Congar’s concept of liturgy as the monument of tradition? 3.1. Interrelationship between the Attributes The attributes of liturgy as the monument of tradition which Congar identifies can be classified as follows. The first two pertain to the ‘contents’ of the monument. What does it attest or commemorate? The next four could be defined as ‘essential features’, characteristics that pertain mainly to the nature of the faith contained in liturgy. The last two are derivative, secondary attributes that indicate two activities.

Congar compares liturgy with a ‘vessel’, an entity that contains something. He cites the example of the holy ark, which according to Deuteronomic tradition (Deut 10:1-5) contains the stone tablets with the ten commandments, the most sacred objects in which God had revealed himself to his people on Mount Sinai. By the same token the liturgy ‘contains’ the most sacred elements of Christianity, namely the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. The manner in which it ‘contains’ them is dealt with in the ensuing attributes. Scripture clearly plays a special role: the documents in which the mystery of Christ emerges in its broadest sense. Scripture, too, ‘contains’ the same sacred nucleus: human documents in which God’s revelation to humankind has crystallised. Liturgy includes a lot of Scripture in its ceremonies, but the readings are usually followed by rituals that actualise them. The contents of the words

more educative for man in his totality than the liturgy. (…) There is no better way of acquiring ‘the mind of the Church’ in the widest and most interior interpretation of this expression.”

54. ET 117: “…la liturgie est le lieu privilégié où se garde et se communique la Tradition: car elle est la première des choses qui se font dans l’Église, et de beaucoup la principale. Elle est, en effet, la célébration active et opérante du mystère chrétien.”

206 Johan te Velde are realised in actions. Liturgy contains sacred reality in a combination of words and actions.

The four essential features can be summed up as actuality, lived reality, completeness and symbolism. The content of liturgy – the reality of faith – is present in a very specific manner. In the first place it is contemporary, not an antiquity to be observed but an enacted event here and now, the ‘present’ to which liturgy frequently testifies. Next it is a lived reality, a ritual event in which people participate physically and spiritually, which reflects existential experiences and changes and renews their lives. Thirdly, it is complete. It is not a series of fragments or excerpts from Christians’ beliefs but presents the total reality articulated in Scripture and summarised in the creed. Finally, it does so symbolically. Liturgy, like the words of Holy Scripture, deals with meanings that are presented in symbolic language and symbolic actions. Via visible signs and symbols Christianity makes contact with invisible reality; in this respect, too, liturgy realises the essence of faith. The four essential features show that Congar assumes a close relationship between God’s revelation in the death and resurrection of Christ and the liturgy celebrated today. One could almost call it an identity, if it were not that liturgy in fact serves to overcome non-identity in the sense of temporal distance. Liturgical ritual bridges the divide between then and now, inter alia by means of the four attributes.

The two additional attributes may be termed conservation and communication. We call them additional because they pertain more to the function and operation of liturgy than to its essence. However, for our topic – liturgy as a monument of tradition – they are important because they highlight two qualities that we consider essential for every form of tradition. After all, tradition is expected to preserve a legacy and hand it down intact to future generations. If the legacy is lost, tradition has failed. Congar admires the attribute of liturgy that it remains true to itself throughout tumultuous times and introduces new generations to the legacy of the gospel. But a tradition which conserves without communicating is not good enough either. The reason why the transmitted treasure has to be preserved is to be able to make it available to interested parties in the future, hence to communicate it time and again. The communication, Congar stresses, does not assume the form of theoretical instruction but is nonverbal learning-through-participation. While liturgy includes many verbal elements, its language is mostly non-discursive. Just as children learn a lot by watching other members of the family and quietly participating in their actions, so believers learn through participation in liturgy what salvation is and what it can mean for them.

We have now identified eight attributes inasmuch as they constitute the core of liturgy as a monument of tradition. It should be evident that they

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 207 cannot be separated and that all of them simultaneously, as facets of the same event, determine the functioning of liturgy as a whole in the stress field between the past and the present. In order to locate these attributes we now take a closer look at Congar’s use of the two key concepts: tradition and liturgy.

3.2. Background to the Concepts of Tradition and Liturgy Congar’s Concept of Tradition In the preface to the new edition of La Tradition et la vie de l’Église Congar defines Christian tradition as the presence of a principle, being God’s revelation and self-communication throughout his history.55 He compares it to a river with a single source which diversifies in different directions, or a tree that spreads its branches and yields fruit but always has to strike deeper roots. To Congar tradition is essentially a theological concept: salvation history occurs in and via tradition: “By the sending of Christ and His Spirit, God has truly entered into history.”56 In his article on Congar’s view of history and tradition in La Tradition en les traditions W. De Pril writes: “Congar talks about continuing presence of the past in the present, or ‘the active presence of revelation in a living subject’. Tradition has a real meaning for the present as actualization of the work of the Son by the Spirit in the course of history. Tradition is the manifestation, in the time of human history, of the ‘mystery’ of salvation.”57 In La Tradition et la vie de l’Église Congar makes the same point: “Tradition is an offering by which the Father’s gift is communicated to a great number of people throughout the world and down the successive generations, so that a multitude of people, physically separated from it by space and time, are incorporated in the same unique, identical reality, which is the Father’s gift, and above all the saving truth, the divine Revelation made in Jesus Christ.”58

We now examine some other, related aspects of Congar’s notion of tradition with reference to three paired concepts.

55. Trad 6: “La Tradition chrétienne est la présence d’un principe à tout son histoire. Le principe, ici, est la révélation et la communication que Dieu a fait de lui-même…”

56. Ward De Pril, “History and Tradition in Yves Congar’s La Tradition et les traditions,” The Shaping of Tradition: Context and Normativity, ed. Colby Dickinson, Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 70 (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA, 2013) 65.

57. De Pril, “History and Tradition,” 67. 58. TradE 12. Trad 17: “La tradition est une livraison par laquelle le don du Père se

communique à un grand nombre à travers l’ espace en dans la suite des générations, de telle manière qu’une multitude d’hommes matériellement séparés par la distance et par les années, vivent d’une même, unique et identique Réalité, qui est le don du Père et, en premier lieu, la vérité salutaire, la Révélation divine accomplie en Jésus-Christ.”

208 Johan te Velde

In several places we observe that Congar’s involvement with the concept of tradition is to a large extent motivated by his interest in the ecumenical movement. In the discussions at the Council of Trent at the time of the Reformation and especially afterwards the contrast between Scripture and tradition featured prominently. Scripture referred to God’s word, tradition to its human interpretation and the human institutions that arose in the church. In post-Tridentine Catholic theology the idea was developed, in the polemical atmosphere of that time, that tradition was a second source of revelation alongside Holy Scripture, in which the church’s magisterium played a decisive role. Protestant theology, on the other hand, emphasised the uniqueness of scriptural authority. Scripture was the sole source of any religious doctrine; no institution can interpret it authoritatively and there is no supplementary source of religious information. Congar overcomes this sterile dilemma by stressing the continuity, following the apostolic and church fathers, between the teachings of the apostles and the church’s tradition. It was a matter of a single religious treasure contained in Scripture and handed down and expounded by the church.59 According to Congar, tradition is the transmission of the religious treasure of Scripture by other means, such as liturgical actions,60 or of religious information not included in Scripture but transmitted, for instance, orally.61 Scripture and tradition are two closely interrelated, inseparable angles on the same religious reality.

A second important distinction, which is in fact the title of Congar’s two works, is that of the Tradition and the traditions. The latter concerns the practices and rules, the discipline as well as the folklore of Christian life. These traditions have no absolute meaning but provide the setting for church life. Tradition with a capital T is what underlies the traditions and makes them meaningful, namely the reality of God’s gift to the world in Jesus Christ, the essence of the Christian message.62 Thus the source of Christian and salvation history is ancient yet ever new and relevant.63 In this sense the concept of Tradition is almost the same as revelation, which is both a one-off event and an on-going process.

The third pair of concepts is text and reality. Congar points out that along with and prior to the scripturally recorded heritage, the New Testament, there had been a transmission from the outset of religious contents in non-scriptural ways. He calls it tradition in a strict sense64 that

59. Ibid., 66-69. (which book ?) 60. Ibid., 19-31. 61. Ibid., 31-40. 62. Ibid., 16. 63. Fr. Émile de Taizé, Fidèle à l’avenir, à l’ écoute du Cardinal Congar, Taizé 2011,

55. 64. Trad 19.

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 209 does not occur primarily in doctrine but in the reality of faith such as liturgical acts like the eucharist:65 the gospel lived in the hearts of believers and its proclamation in the community even before it was put into writing. Handing it down to new generations also means that these later generations understand, accept and appropriate it. “For tradition to exist – tradition understood as the environment in which we receive the Christian faith and are formed by it – it must be borne by those who, having received it, live by it and pass it on to others, so that they may live by it in their turn. Tradition, like education, is a living communication whose content is inseparable from the act by which one living person hands it on to another.”66 Hence transmitting the reality of faith is not just a matter of words and texts. The reality of tradition encompasses far more than that: a community, ritual acts, sacraments, music, personal spirituality, mutual concern and involvement, and a diaconal and missionary relation with culture. The Christian message of salvation is not confined to words but is expressed in a Christian reality that is handed down and in which people recognise the gift of Christ.67

These three paired concepts that characterise Congar’s concept of tradition demonstrate its coherence. Scripture and tradition, Tradition and traditions, text and reality are often contrasted or contradistinguished, whereas in Congar’s view they are closely interrelated, with the latter always in service of the former.

Congar’s View of Liturgy In the late 1950s and early 1960s when Congar was working on his study of tradition the liturgical movement was at its zenith. The community of the baptised and its active liturgical participation, along with a more salvation-historical definition of liturgy, featured prominently after many centuries in which the clergy had virtually monopolised a juridical version of liturgy. Traces of this development are clearly discernible in Congar’s views on liturgy and tradition. Although he does not engage in liturgical studies as such – his focus is more ecclesiological – he was well versed in the findings of scientific scholars in the liturgical movement. As noted earlier, he quotes ‘le père de notre mouvement liturgique moderne’, Dom Lambert Beauduin, as well as liturgists from that movement like

65. Ibid., 23. 66. TradE. Pp. ? Trad 25: “La tradition, comme milieu dans lequel nous recevons le

christianisme et sommes formés selon lui, n’existe que portée par ceux qui, l’ayant reçue, en vivent et la transmettent à d’autres pour qu’ils en vivent à leur tour. C’est, comme l’éducation, une communication de vivant à vivant; c’est la communication dont le contenu est inséparable de l’ acte par lequel un vivant en rend bénéficiaire un autre vivant.”

67. Ibid., 18.

210 Johan te Velde Jungmann, Vonier, Dalmais, Capelle and Vaggagini.68 The theme of liturgy as the actualisation of the Paschal mystery, derived from the work of Odo Casel,69 occupies a key position. Actually liturgy as such was not his object of study but formed part of his interest in the church and tradition. In the early 1960s liturgics was largely historical, although interest in its pastoral and theological aspects was burgeoning. That makes it understandable that a number of issues do not feature in Congar’s view of liturgy. He puts the accent on the objective side of worship. The role of the subject receives little attention. How the community and the individual experience and influence the ceremony, the pastoral and spiritual approaches that increasingly gained importance, were largely overlooked by Congar. What he does reveal is his awareness of liturgy as a totality of ritual actions not confined merely to transmitted texts. His brief discussion of spontaneous expressions of Christianity70 also offers scope for home liturgy and folk religiosity. He refers to gestures and practices in which a Christian spirit is expressed in actions that form part of everyday human life.71 It is difficult to gauge the influence on Congar of the liturgical movement from the works that we have studied; it could warrant further research.

Among the various liturgical phenomena Congar appears to be particularly interested in the eucharist72 and the feasts in the church’s calendar.73 But his view of baptism as an element of tradition is also interesting.74 In the early ritual of the transmission of the creed as a component of the catechumenate, the traditio et redditio symboli, he, like the church fathers, sees a fundamental form of tradition, the transmission of faith via liturgy. In Congar’s discussion of the unwritten traditions of the apostles mentioned by some church fathers he refers to various prayers, blessings, feasts and practices, such as the sign of the cross, prayer facing the east, infant baptism and the triple immersion in baptism, all of which belong to the domain of liturgy.75 In his view liturgy appears to have the lion’s share of church life; this is where a major part of religious reality is transmitted.

A classical theme in liturgical theology is the relation between the church’s prayer and worship on the one hand and doctrine on the other. In

68. ET 117-122, notes 21-23 and 33-34. 69. Ibid., 120f. 70. Ibid., 206. 71. Ibid., 206: “…les gestes et les coutumes dans lesquels s’exprime l’esprit chrétien

dans les actes qui font la trame ordinaire de la vie des hommes...” 72. Trad 101; TradE 135. 73. Ibid., 100f.; ibid., 134, 135f and 140. 74. ET 21-27 and TradE 29f. 75. EH 64-73; TradE 37.

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 211 light of the adage lex orandi, lex credendi Congar also emphasises liturgy as a source, a locus theologicus for doctrine and reflection on it.76 He does not dwell on the debate on the measure and nature of the certainty that is peculiar to religious utterances based on liturgy.77 His aim is to identify the inner characteristics of the principal testimonies to tradition, including liturgy.

Congar’s view of liturgy may be defined as sacramental and ecclesiastic. To him liturgy is the concrete life of the church as celebrated in words and ritual, in which salvation in Christ is revealed and effected. Just as sacramental doctrine concerns symbolic actions, ‘active signs’ referring to and imparting divine reality, so the entire liturgy is “‘… an active memorial, a presence and a realization, in short, a celebration of the Christian mystery itself…”78 We conclude that according to Congar liturgy is pre-eminently the venue of church life and the symbolic presence of the reality of faith in it.

3.3. Results of the Discussion of Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition Congar developed his conception of liturgy as a monument of tradition more than half a century ago. Since then liturgy and liturgical thinking have changed radically. Among the decisive factors in liturgical studies in recent years are the influence of local cultures on liturgy, the experience of individuals and the community, and new insight into the approach to ritual. Liturgy as the testimony to and expression of Christian tradition does not seem particularly relevant, since the emphasis has shifted to its contemporary character and creativity. Yet Congar’s ideas reveal some surprising aspects that may be pertinent to present-day theological reflection on liturgy. We discern the following four, based on varying combinations of the aforementioned eight attributes. Liturgy as Reality Liturgy comprises human actions and is part of human culture; it uses material, sensorily perceptible objects; it is neither a theory nor an ideology but an event that occurs in a community. It includes human encounters, utterances, experiences, emotions and insights. The entire person participates in liturgy, physically and spiritually; in the same way the

76. ET 117-123; TradE 133. 77. Often called theological criteriology, TradE 133. For a more detailed discussion,

see for example one of the works he cites: Cyprian Vagaggini, Theologie der liturgie (Einsiedeln/Zürich/Köln: Benzinger, 1959) chapter 16: “Liturgie und Glaube,” 297-313.

78. TradE 135. Trad 101: “Elle est mémorial actif, présence et mise en œuvre, bref, elle est célébration du mystère chrétien lui-même.”

212 Johan te Velde person is addressed and touched. To adherents of the Christian worldview Christian worship is unquestionably an authentic activity that establishes genuine contact with transcendent reality. People who do not consider themselves religious miss the inner meaning and orientation of liturgical events, although many may still experience it as meaningful and beautiful. Liturgy is a reality like an icon, another artwork, a portrayal or a historical monument: it can be studied, criticised or admired, one can learn from it or ignore it, it speaks at different levels and evokes a lot of things. In a society increasingly dominated by digital information and communication and by virtual events and contacts it is important still to experience at the basic, primary level of a worshipping community. Liturgy as a Totality The phenomenon known as liturgy today was only reduced to a common denominator in recent history. Sacraments, proclamation, services of worship, prayer, ceremonies were often treated as discrete elements. Not until the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on holy Liturgy (no. 7) were the cult to God in praise, prayer and the eucharist and the sanctification of humans in proclamation, sacraments and blessing seen as essentially interrelated elements. By describing Christian worship as a monument of tradition Congar acknowledged and underscored this unity. He refers to the extraordinary cohesive interrelationship of liturgy that overcomes all sorts of antitheses in a broader sense as well.79 In a properly performed liturgy such antitheses as body and soul, word and deed, cosmos and history, inspiration and discipline, private and public, personal and communal, nature and culture, past and present, symbol and reality are unified. Congar’s model of the family with its everyday conflicts and contradictions that are always resolved peaceably80 is too idealistic for our day and age and does not take into account the major tensions that have arisen in liturgics since the 1970s. In this era the church grappled to find a form of liturgy that was one and Catholic, represented that unity and was recognisable to everyone. In this debate Congar’s notion that liturgy is inherently an integral, cohesive event that resolves contradictions could be a directive element. Liturgy as Given Christian rituals comprise human, culturally determined elements like gestures, actions, music, forms of artistic expression and texts that are

79. ET 190: “…la liturgie est supérieurement synthétique.” 80. Ibid., 191.

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 213 innovated or replaced in the course of history. These elements form a tissue, a human product that can be studied from a ritual angle and anthropologically. At the same time this human creation is determined by the tradition in which it originated, grew and developed to such an extent that nobody can say: I or we created this event. It came to the present generation, was encountered and received just as earlier generations have received, experienced and handed it down. Even the first generation of Christians did not create liturgy. Fundamentally liturgy, as word, sacrament, feast and prayer, was given by Christ to his followers. The tradition of liturgy started with the Lord’s gift to the apostles and other disciples. He gave them his abiding presence in liturgical-ritual guise. Congar’s conception of liturgy as a monument of tradition indicates that in essence liturgy cannot be created but is given. One could call it a proposition, offer or proposal that offers food for thought and experience and invites a response. In this sense the image of a monument, a memorial is significant: a war memorial likewise presents itself as a memorable story and invites an interested response such as a personal commemoration or communal ritual. Because there is always a party that takes on the proposal and receives the gift a tradition arises and the monument is affirmed. The substance of a monument does not depend on the recipient, but to survive it has to rely on persons and communities that pay heed to it. Hence liturgy is a memorial that comes from elsewhere via earlier generations. As a human product, to which many generations have contributed and which still requires human input and expertise, it is also a gift from God. Liturgy as Revelation Christianity has always recognised people and events as ‘intermediaries’ of divine revelation. God spoke to and via the prophets, showed his face in Christ, conveyed his intentions in the words of Scripture and still speaks in the church and the saints. Liturgy is not a source of revelation alongside these sources, but unifies them and combines them in the ‘present’ of a ceremony. Thus the liturgy of tradition, dependent as it is on Scripture and the church, is still a separate ‘channel’ of God’s self-revelation to his people. In 3.1 we said that Congar sees liturgy as a vessel comparable with the ark in the temple in Jerusalem, in which the holiest objects of Christianity, the mystery of Christ, were kept. God reveals himself in liturgy, speaking in its symbolic language and visible, tangible signs. It is certainly not the only medium of God’s revelation. The church has other monuments or traditions as well. God can also be encountered in creation, in our fellow beings, and in art and culture. But according to Congar and the theologians he cites liturgy does occupy a primary, directive place among the witnesses to the church’s tradition because it is expressive of

214 Johan te Velde Scripture and the faith. Hence our author stresses the instructive effect of liturgy: it enables us to get to know God’s revelation in Christ. In the constitution Dei Verbum (no. 8), which Congar helped to compile, the Second Vatican Council also mentions the connection between liturgy and the transmission of revelation: “Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.” Thus liturgy makes God’s revelation, handed down by tradition, accessible in the present. Concluding Evaluation The study of liturgy as a monument of tradition by the theologian Congar, building on the ideas of nineteenth century theologians, offers present-day readers a fruitful metaphor. In section 3.3 we identified four results: the concept of a monument of tradition focuses attention on liturgy as an independent reality, a coherent whole, a given phenomenon, and a channel for the revelation of the reality of faith. In these respects it is comparable with the icons used in orthodox liturgy: the painted object is perceived as a manifestation of heavenly reality. Thus liturgy emerges as a form of tradition, in which the Christian religious treasure is received, conserved and handed down. In the extension of Congar’s conception of tradition as mystery, as part of God’s plan to redeem the world,81 liturgy is linked directly with God’s self-revelation in Christ. Through the ages liturgy as a monument of tradition has offered unique, direct access to the Paschal mystery through its feasts and sacraments.82

Does that mean that liturgy is a static, immutable phenomenon like an ancient fresco,83 that merely needs restoration to be understandable and admired? Although Congar emphasises the objective aspect of liturgy, to my mind he would acknowledge the significance of liturgical reform and renewal. This monument evolves over time, according to our author, it is a living, young monument in that, like the church and its tradition, it is

81. Ward De Pril – Andrew Meszaros, “Dei Verbum: Naar een theologische benadering

van Traditie,” Vaticanum II: geschiedenis of inspiratie. Theologische opstellen over het Tweede Vaticaans Concilie, ed. Mathijs Lamberigts – Leo Kenis (Antwerp: Halewijn, 2013) 78.

82. ET 185. 83. Joseph Ratzinger, Der Geist der Liturgie, eine Einführung. Vorwort, in id.,

Theologie der Liturgie, Gesammelte Schriften, 11 (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 2008) 30f.

Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition 215 guided by the Holy Spirit which ensures both continuity and the relevance of tradition.84

This relevance is embodied mainly in the fact that as a monument liturgy is a memorial: it is an opportunity and invitation to commemorate continually. The memorial forges a link with the commemorating subject, who dwells on its appeal in a commemorative ritual. The commemoration is definitely an action here and now: individuals and the community convene in a liturgical setting to connect their experiences and longings mentally via the liturgy with the Paschal mystery, the origin of liturgical tradition. In his concept of liturgy Congar pays scant attention to historical, cultural and subjective factors, but his actualising interpretation of tradition and liturgy as a memorial provides openings for an approach that offers ample scope for the role of present-day people and their world.

The crux of Congar’s story, however, is the priority he assigns the proffered, given character of liturgy. Before humans articulate their own questions and experiences they are invited to open themselves to the words and signs of liturgy that bring salvation. In Christian ritual human words are a response to what God actualises here and now via liturgical tradition. The force of his analysis of the concept ‘monument of tradition’ lies in his argument to substantiate the significance of liturgy as a magnificent source of tradition in its full sense of reliability and plenitude.85

St Willibrord Abbey Johan TE VELDE OSB Abdijlaan 1 7004 JL Doetinchem The Netherlands br.johantevelde@willibrords-abbey.nl independent.academia.edu/ JohanteVelde

84. ET, 102 and 104. 85. Ibid., 184: “…c’est une magnifique ressource pour la tradition en son grand sens

de fidélité et de plénitude.”