THE RULE OF PRAYER IS THE RULE OF BELIEF: THE RENEWAL OF LITURGICAL THEOLOGY (original) (raw)

The Prayer of St Benedict: A Dynamic Meta-paradigm for a Theology of Faith

Downside Review, 2010

Digneris mihi donare, Pater pie et sancte, intellectum, qui te intelligat, sensum qui te sentiat, animum qui te sapiat, diligentiam quae te quaerat, sapientiam quae te inveniat, animum qui te cognoscat, viscera quae te ament, cor quod te cogitet, actum qui te augeat, auditum qui te audiat, oculos qui te videant, linguam quae te praedicet, conversationem quae tibi placeat, patientiam quae te sustineat, perseverantiam quae te exspectet, finem perfectum, praesentiam tuam sanctam, resurrectionem bonam, retributionem, vitam aeternam. Amen. The Book of Cerne, believed to be compiled under the patronage of AEthelwold, 2

When Praying Does Not Shape Believing: Ambrose and Chrysostom as Test Cases for the Tension between Liturgy and Theology

Studia Patristica, 2021

One of the liturgist’s most misused and misquoted axioms is Prosper of Aquitaine’s lex orandi, lex credendi, has been used to claim that liturgy is a ‘source’ for theology, thereby elevating it to the status of a methodological principle. One can find many examples of scholars claiming that the axiom has clear historical purchase, namely, that liturgy has a historical and genealogical priority over doctrine. The distinction between primary and secondary theology is itself unproblematic. Rather, the problem emerges when one claims both that authorized liturgical texts necessarily precede dogmatic theological reflection and thus are its source. Such claims are interesting, and one may argue that ancient and contemporary liturgical texts should serve as a foundation for future theological reflection. But as a historical claim, it must be tried against specific examples. This paper examines two key examples: first Ambrose, and then Chrysostom. Both are fourth century contemporaries who share a number of things in common: (a) They left a great deal of writing on baptism and the Eucharist; (b) We know the texts of the anaphoras they used; (c) Their theology of consecration is nearly identical, despite living in quite different locales; and (d) Finally, in both, there is a strong tension between what they write about what effects consecration and the theology of consecration expressed in the eucharistic prayer that each used.