Page 24

theologies we encounter in those differing adaptations. Do we, to cite but one of these ways, offer, present, and/or lift to God the bread and cup, or do we take the bread and cup as we give thanks that God has made us worthy either to “stand” or “be” in the Divine Presence? It all depends on which denominational worship books we consult. And yet, “offerimus tibi panem et calicem” and “astare” in the Verona Latin manuscript make it pretty clear that the Church offers the bread and cup (oops, I mean “chalice”) and “stands” in God’s presence. So, how common are some of our common texts? Or, to take another example, as Fritz West’s own methodological studies of the lectionary have revealed, we do not really share a common lectionary as much as we have at least two different, even competing, lectionary “paradigms” or “hermeneutics” for the same lectionary lists. And it is not always the case that all three readings are actually employed in the Sunday worship of those who employ this lectionary. He writes: While the lectionaries themselves build upon an ecumenical hermeneutic, the interpretative frameworks by which congregations appropriate them are not always consonant with that hermeneutic. To get a handle on this problem, we must differentiate the liturgical forms Churches use from the liturgical paradigms they harbor. Liturgical paradigms are the ritual propensities and understandings a Church brings to bear upon the worship it celebrates. The Catholic liturgical paradigm is marked by weekly Eucharist, a balance of word and sacrament, a sacramental perspective on worship, an appreciation for ritual and symbol, an organic understanding of Church, and a veneration of tradition. The Protestant liturgical paradigm is a preaching tradition characterized by the centrality of the sermon and, in most cases, the infrequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Other attributes include a preference for the verbal over the symbolic, an emphasis upon the local expressions of the Church . . . and a more occasional appreciation for Church tradition.44 This awareness of our multiple visions, hermeneutics, or paradigms of what worship or liturgy is has implications for both our overall identity as an academy and for our worship as an academy. I think that Paul Bradshaw was generally correct in his 2003 vice-presidential address in Albuquerque that NAAL was beginning then already to find its closest philosophical parallel not with other academies organized around theological or pastoral topics, but with the American Academy of Religion (AAR), i.e., that we were becoming the liturgical version of AAR. The history and the variety and diversity of our seminars since then easily support that conclusion. In fact, even to continue calling ourselves the North American Academy of Liturgy tends to hide the fact that what we do is to study diverse worship and ritual practices rather than something called “liturgy” commonly understood. Like “theology” in distinction to “religion” or the study of religion, so, perhaps, the word “liturgy” may come across to some as a rather exclusive term, and may reflect particular theological meanings both for the more “catholic-liturgical” churches and the Synagogue, in contradistinction to the more inclusive and encompassing 22 NAAL Proceedings

North American Academy of Liturgy Proceedings 2014  

The North American Academy of Liturgy (NAAL) (http://www.naal-liturgy.org/) is an ecumenical and interreligious association of liturgical sc...

North American Academy of Liturgy Proceedings 2014  

The North American Academy of Liturgy (NAAL) (http://www.naal-liturgy.org/) is an ecumenical and interreligious association of liturgical sc...