sign in sign up
<<
Home , Liturgical Movement

“We Come Then To This Wonderful ” An analysis of the Liturgical Movement of the early 20th Century

“We come then to this wonderful Sacrament, to be fed at your table, and to grow in the likeness of the Risen Christ” (The 469). These words conclude the for the

Holy Eucharist II, in the Sacramentary for the of Paul VI; the Liturgy that was the end result of the Liturgical changes that came after the . With these words the beautifully reminds us of the purpose of our Eucharistic gatherings. The Liturgical

Movement of the early 20th Century paved the way for the Church to recommit itself to that core meaning of the Eucharistic Meal, which seemed to reach a culmination in the aforementioned reforms. While it succeeded in improving on the situation the Church faced, in many ways the problem remains unchanged.

To properly understand the full depth of the work of the Liturgical Movement it is important to recognize its history. In the first centuries of the Church, the fledgling Christian community gathered in the homes of fellow believers for their weekly experience.

Under fierce persecution they gathered on Saturday evenings for a “Synagogue Service” in someone’s home, and they returned again the following morning for the Eucharistic celebration.

In the evening, they gathered again for the Agape Meal. Through all of these gatherings,

Apostolic Era believers took their lives into their hands, knowing that if they were caught engaging in such worship it would mean certain death. Not only did that not scare them away, it inspired them all the more, as they desired to be nourished with the bread of life should they be called home to their Savior. In short, the first Christians literally risked their lives – and many died – for the Eucharist (Kocik, Singing His Song).

1

With the Edict of Milan in 313, Constantine lifted the ban on Christianity, and in 325 he himself called the Council of Nicaea to put an end to the Christological debates that plagued the infant Church. In 380, Christianity became the official State Religion. With the turn of the century the Church faced a plethora of new problems: unprecedented growth, and the relatively fast change from being small communities of home churches, to large crowds filling basilicas.

The majority of a whole generation of believers were uncatechized, and disconnected in these larger venues. This became the Christianity that was passed from one generation to the next.

When presented with the notion that the Eucharist should be received with a properly disposed spirit, the congregation responded by not going to , and soon this practice became the norm: Church’s filled with congregations who were not entirely engaged, who did not come up to share in the Eucharist (Kocik, Singing His Song).

The Protestant Reformers of the 16th Century offered alternatives, such as two separate liturgies, one heavy in catechism and scripture to educate the halfhearted, and the other directed for those who were focused on living the moral life (Luther, “The German Mass”). In the case of

Calvin, he viewed and tradition as one big distraction from the purpose, and in his system of belief the Sacramental life was eliminated almost entirely (“History of the

Christian Church”). Far gone from both was the notion of sacrifice.

With the arrival of the the Church addressed the conversation that had begun throughout the church about such changes to the Liturgy. They reinforced the commitment to tradition, to Latin, and most importantly to the centrality of the sacrificial nature of the

Eucharist and the Priesthood – a notion the reformers had clearly pushed aside. Everything about the Catholic Liturgy pointed to the dignity of that sacrifice, and was intended to instruct the

2 faithful about this central belief. For the faithful however, faith loses ground to reason, and soon the focus is on knowing about Jesus instead of knowing Jesus.

By the arrival of the Age of the Enlightenment the separation of faith and reason was clear, as was society’s preference for the latter. The axiom of Descartes “I think therefore I am” sums that up poignantly. Man had come to believe that he was entirely self-reliant, and as science continued its developments, mankind briskly walked further and further down that road.

The late 19th Century monk Odo Casel rightly observed that man repeated the sin of Adam and

Eve: the pair in Genesis had come to believe that they had outgrown the need for God and his care, and that they could eat the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, thereby no longer requiring God’s guidance. This inner passion for gathering all the answers leaves no room for mystery, or reliance on God, creating quite an uphill battle for the Church and her Liturgy

(Casel 1-8).

The Liturgy by now had turned into an event that people attend. There was a concern among those driving the birth of the Liturgical Movement that the Liturgy had become “a mysterious heirloom, having no vital meaning for everyday life” (Kocik, Singing His Song).

Odo Casel was one of a growing number of voices advocating for ways to make the Liturgy more relevant and engaging so that it could reclaim its rightful place as the source and summit of nourishment and unity among God’s people.

In the abbey at Solesmes, Dom Prosper Gueranger composed a 10,000 page work, “The

Liturgical Year” which contained both historical information and meditations for each day of the year. It was there at Solesmes that experienced its revival, which was further endorsed by the Holy Father himself, when in 1903 Pius X issued his which reinstated Gregorian Chant in the Liturgy, encouraged the faithful to receive the Eucharist, and

3 upheld Latin as the language of the Church (Kocik, Singing His Song). At a Liturgy conference in 1912, Lambert Beauduin joined the ranks of the now empowered Liturgical Movement and advocated for printed bilingual so that the people of God could follow along with the action of the Mass. It didn’t take long for the United States to voice the very same suggestion

(Kocik, Singing His Song). In 1922 Pius XI followed the lead of his predecessor and along with the Congregation of the Sacred Rites, issued an allowance for “Dialogue Masses” where the faithful would take part by saying some of the responses in the Liturgy that was previously reserved for the Servers (Kocik, Singing His Song).

These concessions were the result of the faithful taking their spiritual well-being into their own hands. With the focus of the Church turning to dogma and morals to respond to the concerns of her critics, the faithful had to do something themselves to foster the personal relationship with God that they desired (Koenker 14-15). “When intellectual life has been nourished in this way, spiritual life is nourished by any number of popular devotions, e.g., to

Christ in the tabernacle, to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Mary, novenas, rosary devotions, etc”

(Koenker 16). The shift to personal devotion as the core of religious life was the result of the

Liturgy becoming “meaningless to the people” (Koenker 16).

The proof was obvious to any observer. One attending Mass would find the faithful stooped in private prayer or the Rosary, rather than being raptured by the mystery unfolding in the Sanctuary. Pius XI said the faithful behaved “like strangers or mute spectators” (Koenker

17).

Among those who felt the palpable nature of this separation was Father Virgil Michel, a founding father of the movement in the United States. He saw the separation made manifest in

Church architecture. He noted that the faithful of years gone by were sufficiently nourished in

4 participating in the Liturgy from a distance, taking the mystery in through an engaging experience of the senses (Koenker 17). This reality didn’t work for the people of the early 20th

Century. “It seems to me that in our own day we are less easily satisfied with such a state of affairs. Individualistic piety still seeks out the obscure corner of some pillar; but the piety that is inspired by the idea of the Communion of Saints desires union, and consequently seeks to see and to understand” (Koenker 17).

Dom Virgil Michel

Father Michel was born in St. Paul, Minnesota. Upon his birth in 1890 he was named

George Michel, and later attended a High School run by the Benedictine Fathers of St. John’s

Abbey. In 1910 he became Virgil Michel, when he joined the order, taking a religious name, and entered the Seminary. Ordained in 1916, he went on to study English and Philosophy at the

Catholic University of America, when the now well-known institution was a mere 30 years old.

In 1918 he received his Doctorate Degree from CUA. From Washington he returned to St. John’s to teach for five years before going off to Rome, and then Louvain (Hynes 173).

He was a passionate Philosopher, dedicating all his study and writing to the subject from his time in Washington until he was sent to Rome. He found his Thomist contemporaries and their texts to be lacking, and he wasn’t shy about making it known (Hynes 173-174). “He did not blindly denounce them; rather, he chose what was good and used it to substantiate his position”

(Hynes 174).

While in he encountered the Liturgical Movement. What began in Germany with

Beauduin in 1912 gave voice to a movement that had previously been scattered. Now however, it

5 had a voice that others could gravitate toward. Fr. Michel was enlivened by the passion of its members. His philosophical mind immediately analyzed and agreed with the perspective of the reformers, and he knew at once he had to bring these notions to the Church in the United States

(Busch 103).

He reached out to Seminary Professor Fr. William Busch, of St. Paul Seminary, who himself had already been exposed to the movement and was promoting it in his own classroom.

In 1925 he presented at a Liturgical Conference in Pittsburg, where he encountered an eighty year old priest. After sharing his understanding of the movement, the elder cleric told him,

“What you have expressed is something that has been the dream of my life” (Busch 103).

Michel found in Busch a kindred soul, and Fr. Busch was both confident and honest about the state of the movement in America. He responded to Michel’s initial letter by saying, “I know of no organized form of it [the Liturgical Movement], but the elements are forming and the spirit is stirring” (Hall 473).

Through networking, long distance correspondence, and personal visits, Father Michel built a significant backing, and in 1926 Orates Fratres – the Liturgical Apostolate- was born

(Busch 102-103). He also brought to life a series entitled, the Popular Liturgical Library, the first two books of which were translations of materials he had brought back from Europe (Busch

103-104). He worked tirelessly for this cause that he held so near to his heart, and he didn’t mince words. On the very first page of the first issue of Orates Fratres he wrote of the need for

“an awakening among Catholics of the country” (Hall 473).

Fr. Michel recognized the possibility that perhaps the American Church was not ready for such a Movement, but he felt that it was coming either way, and so why not embrace it! He was delighted to receive feedback throughout that first year from clergy across the country who

6 previously thought they were alone in their feelings. When he and the abbey were credited with inaugurating this movement, Michel would not accept the credit (Hall 473-474). He argued that the movement was “bigger than any individual, than any abbey, than any one order, than any large group of men, than the entire body of its promoters throughout the world” (Hall 474).

Much of the work of Orates Fratres in those early years was translations of work being published in Europe. He brought to that work the American spirit, and through his publications attempted to foster unity in the movement even across the Atlantic that divided them (Hall 474-

478). “Instead of dragging his find across the border as an exotic museum piece, he made it as

American as only an American mind can make it” (Hall 478). Inculturation issues was part of what led to the Liturgical problems in the Church, how providential that Fr. Michel use inculturation to bring unity and passion back to it.

th At the time, the United States was celebrating 200 Birthday and there was a groundswell of patriotism and the American Spirit. His fellow countrymen spoke frequently of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which spoke directly to the Liturgical Movement’s theology. Their entire platform stood on the premise that “worship be vital, expressive of life and nourishing life” (Hall 478). He found in the Liturgy the call to embrace the freedom and liberty of the sons of God, and the celebration of the truth that “man is made for and called to joy” (Hall

478).

Despite this National spirit, Fr. Michel faced challenges. “There were some difficulties to overcome,” Fr. Busch writes, recalling those early years, “a certain amount of misunderstanding, and chiefly the inertia due to lack of interest, yet never enough difficulty to cause any misgiving as to the ultimate result” (Busch 104). He dedicated himself to the project all the more, which was to the detriment of his health. From 1930-1933 he was moved to the missions, where being

7 away from the Apostolate he would be able to regain his strength. Upon his return, he wasted no time in getting right back to work (Busch 105).

Liturgy Should Change Our Lives

The critique that the Liturgy had become irrelevant and “a spectator sport” (to evoke a contemporary idiom) was clearly something that motivated Fr. Michel’s passion for the

Liturgical Movement, because he (and his confreres) believed the Liturgy should be entirely the opposite. “He was totally convinced that if one grasped the living nature of the Mystical Body and lived the life of the Mystical body (which is the liturgy), there would result a refreshing and fundamentally new outlook on the whole of life” (Marx 518).

While in Europe the Liturgical Movement focused on dogma and historical arguments, in the United States, Michel took the movement to the next step, talking about the tangible ways the

Liturgy is more than relevant, and should impact the rest of society.

He began with a passionate explanation of the Mystical , a traditional belief of the Church since the beginning. He spoke out against the notion that this belief was just a sentiment or a figure of speech, and spoke strongly to the truth that this reality had Liturgical ramifications. “All men are actually or in potency members of the Mystical body of Christ,” explains Benedictine Father Paul Marx, who wrote 16 years after Michel’s passing. “Those of us who are actually members are already spiritually one, and in the Mystical Body we have the model of all society” (Marx 517). Fr. Michel argued that this model should be implemented in the rest of our interactions with society. An individualistic sense of piety, he felt, would only further advance the individualistic selfishness of the times. In his article, Our Social

8

Environment, he said: “One cannot steep oneself in the true meaning of the Mass as corporate worship to be participated in by all and enact the dedication of oneself to God with Christ in the sacrificial prayer of the Mass, and yet remain a cold-blooded individualist in one’s life outside the precincts of the altar” (Marx 517).

To claim to be “social minded” is purely scientific or academic, he argued, if one disregards the faith connection. “It is impossible,” he rightly claimed, “to remain individualistic in prayer and sincerely social in daily life, or to remain individualistic in daily life and become sincerely social in prayer” (Marx 517). This was not to dismiss the role of private devotions, but rather to simply highlight the importance of active corporate worship, and how that unity should likewise bring unity to other parts of life (Marx 517-518).

Rightly celebrated and lived, the Liturgy provides for every aspect of our total humanity: body and soul, will and voice. The Mystical Body is a living body, as are all its members. So that body should be alive in all the ways its members are. “Thus the liturgical movement, he thought, could regenerate all of Christian society and, eventually, all of human society” (Marx 518). If the

Liturgy (which is the life of the Church) were rightly lived every day in the world, it would make of our whole lives a sacrament of God. For Michel, this was the point of the Liturgical

Movement: to lead the faithful back to the nourishment the Mystical Body needs in order to truly live (and change) the world (Marx 517-519). For these reasons he was delighted that Pope Pius

XI in his encyclical Quas Primas said, “The annual celebrations of the sacred mysteries are far more efficacious for instructing the people in matters of faith and thereby leading them to the inner joys of life than any, even the most weighty, pronouncements of the teaching Church”

(Marx 519).

9

In light of these passions, Fr. Michel was a strong supporter of the Mass in the . How were the faithful to know what was going on, and truly engage, if they were

“merely detached and silent spectators” (Sabak 242) as the Pontiff had said in Divini Cultus. Pius

XI had been the most supportive Pope for the vernacular for the times in which Fr. Michel lived.

He permitted that the be translated into the vernacular in the missions, and approved the use of the vernacular in the other , “as well as in anointing and blessings for the

Diocese of Bavaria in 1929 and those of Austria in 1935” (Sabak 242). While Michel anticipated the celebration of the Mass of Catechumens (essentially what we would now call the Liturgy of the Word) in the vernacular, he said that he did not imagine it happening for another 35-50 years.

He made that estimation in 1937 (Marx 520).

Pope Pius X had opened quite a conversation with his Motu Proprio in 1903, and in many ways there was no turning back. In Europe the same conversation was happening, but they would not begin digging into theological solutions to the questions (on both sides) for a few years after Michel, but they too would agree that language plays a pivotal role in bringing about the active Catholic life in society at large (Sabak 244-245). In the United States, Michel stood by his belief. If the Mystical Body was to receive the fullest extent of the nourishment at its disposal, in order to then go out and live this reality in the world, each member had to be able to understand what they were experiencing at Mass (Marx 520-521). Very truly, for Michel

“permanent social reform begins in the sanctuary” (Marx 521).

With such a passion and love for the Liturgy- and given his passionate belief that the

Liturgy should change our lives- it seems somehow fitting and providential that Fr. Virgil Michel went home to his eternal reward on the very last day of the , the day before the

First Sunday of , in 1938 (Busch 102).

10

The Second Vatican Council

The Liturgical Movement would reach its ultimate success in the Second Vatican

Council, when on December 4, 1963, the Fathers would release . In this

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy the Fathers established boundaries within which liturgical reform could take place. It declared that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 4). With the goal of reinvigorating the Church, the Council

Fathers hoped that through increasing the active participation of the faithful, the Liturgy would once again secure its role as the source and summit of instruction, nourishment, and relationship.

In the communion that is shared, the Church would then be strengthened to go out into the world and sanctify it.

Father Michel no doubt smiled from his place in glory. While Popes and prominent theologians had given voice to the movement in the past, nothing could compare to this declaration that carried the weight of the Magisterium in an Ecumenical Council. However, while he may have smiled on December 4, 1963, would he still do so in 2017?

Let us consider where we are today. I do not believe that either Sacrosanctum Concilium, or the Council as a whole, can be evaluated in terms of being a failure or a success. If the Holy

Spirit guides and protects our Church, how can it have been a failure? Those who flippantly call the Council “Vatican Too Much” disregard the notion that the Spirit is always at work through the winds of change. We can, however, assess the Catholic liturgical life today, in light of the

Council.

11

There are those that would be quick to point out that the reforms that unfolded after the

Council took on a life of their own in some ways, growing much “further and faster than anyone would have believed possible” (Kocik, Singing His Song). For example, Sacrosanctum

Concilium did not advocate for the abolition of Latin entirely – in fact it repeated Latin’s place as the language of the Church (SC 36) - none the less, as we know the norm became that the entirety of Mass be celebrated in the vernacular. I return to the notion of Fr. Michel’s smile from heaven. I dare say he would be pleased at the concept, but disappointed that it did not produce his hoped for result.

Our world is more individualistic now than ever before, and if Casel thought that science had left nothing to mystery in the early 1900’s, what would he say about a world where we are exploring outer space, cloning sheep, giving women pills that stop pregnancy before it can happen, and changing a person’s gender through surgery? The sense of entitlement, achievement, and sinful pride that motivated Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden rages today as never before.

The individualism of our culture is perfectly expressed in a particular item that most of us carry in our pocket everyday: an iPhone. They are aptly named. Everything about the device is designed to make life faster, easier, less stressful, and as efficient as possible. In the early 20th

Century the move from farm to factory further separated that natural relationship between God, man, and creation: the move from the factory to “the cloud” solidified it. We now have to put laws into place in order for people to take their eyes off the phone, and keep them on the road.

Every store you walk into, there is a young person for whom it is a chore to look up and engage with you. If you don’t have an iPhone (or some variation) – you likely have an iPod, iPad, or an iWatch. There is no such thing as an iCar yet, but luckily all these devices can communicate the computer in any newer vehicle.

12

Fr, Michel would be further disappointed to see the clear line that has been drawn between social justice and the sanctuary. In the same America where protests have become the norm, Sunday brunch, soccer, the NFL, or any number of other things have replaced Sunday worship. Fr. Michel’s vision for a world that is nourished in the Eucharist in order to go out and effect change that would announce the Kingdom of God is far from reality.

A surface look would say that although there have been reforms to the Liturgy, in truth the Liturgical Movement has failed.

Where Did We Go Wrong?

Is it because the Altars were turned around, the vernacular became the norm, and guitars replaced the Pipe Organ that things have gone so far in the opposite direction? Perhaps it is more the question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Or maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe

Casel hit the proverbial nail on the head, and “the sin of our first parents becomes not merely an infectious poison in successive generations; it is repeated over and over again in each” (Casel 3).

In a world built on the individual and entitlement, what room is there for a spirituality built on sacrifice?

The total shift to the vernacular provides greater opportunity for the faithful to be more rightly engaged as Fr. Michel had wanted, but that is only useful when it lands on hearts that are disposed to receive it. At the beginning of the 20th Century the faithful were stooped in private devotion, and not engaging with the Liturgy, and “the people testify to their lack of comprehension at Mass by their attendance at the shortest on Sunday, and in many

13 cases they attend this only because of the grave obligation of the law” (Koenker 16). Now, in

2017, the personal piety is gone, but how much has changed in terms of comprehension?

The problem would seem to lie much more in the execution of things, then the changes themselves. A priest who treats the Eucharistic Prayer as a conversation with the people by his eye contact communicates a very different message then one who instead looks to the heavens where his prayer is directed (Kocik, Singing His Song). The problem is not that he faces the people, but rather what he is doing when he is facing them.

Since the Council there have been a number of adjustments that powerfully speak to the notion of sacrifice, communion, and nourishment. The structure of the Eucharistic Prayer follows perfectly the pattern of Jesus’ actions at the . He “took bread/the cup” (the

Preparation of the Gifts), “gave thanks” (the Eucharistic Prayer), “broke the bread and gave it to his disciples” (the Fractioning & Communion Rite). The celebrant blatantly invites the people of

God to offer their sacrifice to the Father along with the bread and wine: “Pray my brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.” Notice, “my sacrifice and yours”. The third publication from Fr. Michel’s Popular Liturgical Library, bore the very same name in 1927. For 62 pages he expounds on this very truth in light of the entire

Liturgy of the Eucharist. Without a doubt, the changes that came about from the Second Vatican

Council had every potential for the renewal of a Eucharistic centered spirituality.

The challenge is that the celebrant lives in that same individualistic world as the faithful.

Despite all his training, he too wants to be liked, and he hears the tempting whisper in his ear to also “eat the fruit”, and allow accretions to set in to the liturgy. This is the motivation behind when the turns into a social hour. Desiring for the people to feel “more included” a celebrant will often invite the faithful to share their own intentions during the “Prayer of the

14

Faithful”, which was called “the Common Prayer” (SC 53). Does this make them feel more included, or does it promote that individualism even further? Sometimes the words of

Redmptionis Sacramentum are forgotten: “Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right” (RS 7).

Where Do We Go From Here?

So what is the answer? Is it time for a new Liturgical Movement? Perhaps it is time for the Liturgical Movement to simply continue to voice, and work towards the same mission: greater active participation, and for the Eucharist to become the primary source of nourishment, and unity for the people of God.

May we learn a lesson from our ancestors of the first few centuries, for whom all of their spirituality was centered around Christ in his Eucharistic presence through creative Pastoral work in Parishes. It’s certainly time for more events outside of Mass like “Catholic 101” for continuing adult education, or perhaps a “Teaching Mass” with the Confirmation Class designed to provide formation around these important principles for our youth.

Religious Education Directors and Pastors can make use of Preparation to instill the basic nature of these principles at an early age. In a world of materialism and individualism, perhaps the elaborate dresses and white tuxedos communicate the wrong message to our children. Particularly in those Parishes where the child then walks up alone to receive the

Eucharist in a moment that looks to the observer like a staged photo op. Instead, what if Parishes established policies that the girl’s dresses should be simple, and for the boys a shirt and tie is

15 sufficient, and then the young people go up to receive the Eucharist like the rest of the congregation?

What if we changed our language and stopped speaking about “receiving communion” and instead spoke about “participating in communion by receiving the Eucharist.” Doesn’t our language play a part in the lack of “Eucharistic Culture” in our communities? The every fact that individuals who by their own admission are not in communion with the Church bemoan “not being allowed to receive it” demonstrates this reality.

Mary, Mother of the Eucharist

Perhaps the best advice can be found, as it always is, with Our Blessed Mother. It is no coincidence that Pope John Paul II dedicated the final Chapter of his Ecclesia de Eucharistica to her, inviting us to step into “the school of Mary”, and allow her to be “our teacher in contemplating Christ’s face” (Ecclesia de Eucharistica 53).

Mary is the perfect model of what it means to cultivate and live a “Eucharistic Culture.”

John Paul called her fiat a “decisive” moment, as with “full intellect and will”, she empties herself to the will of the Father, with her complete gift of self (Redemptoris Mater 13). Our fiat is spoken each time we receive the Eucharist (EE 55). That moment needs to be equally as decisive in our own lives, and in the lives of every believer who shares in Holy Communion.

She demonstrates the perfect integration of devotion and communion. What greater communion is there then how their two hearts beat in such unison – even at Calvary (EE 56), and yet what greater example of adoration is there then her loving embrace of the Christ Child in

Bethlehem, and her fierce devotion to protecting him in their flight into Egypt. In her Magnificat

16

“she praises God ‘through’ Jesus, but she also praises him ‘in’ Jesus and ‘with’ Jesus. This itself is the true ‘Eucharistic attitude’” (EE 58), and a living testimony to the the Priest speaks on our behalf as he holds up the sacrifice as an offering to the Father.

Conclusion

If we are able to set ourselves to follow her example – all of us, clergy and laity alike – then we will find that the Eucharist will achieve the goal laid out by the advocates of the

Liturgical Movement, the same goal the Church herself lays out in the Preface I previously mentioned: “In this great sacrament You feed Your people, and strengthen them in holiness, so that the family of mankind may come to walk in the light of one faith, in one communion of love” (The Sacramentary 469). The work of the Liturgical Movement will likely not be complete until we all share in the perfect Liturgy of Heaven!

17

Works Cited

Busch, William. “An Apostle of Liturgical Life.” , vol. 13, no. 3, 1939, pp. 102- 1106. www.ezproxy.sjcme.edu.

Casel, Odo, The Mystery of Christian Worship, New York: Herder and Herder, 1999. Print

Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. Redemptionis Sacramentum. The Vatican. The Holy See, 2004. Web.

Hall, Jeremy. “The American Liturgical Movement: The Early Years.” Worship, vol. 50, no. 6, 1976, pp. 472-487. www.ezproxy.sjcme.edu.

Hynes, Emerson. “The Social Thought of Virgil Michel, O.S.B.” The American Catholic Sociological Review, vol. 1, no. 4, 1940, pp. 172–180. www.jstor.org/stable/3706763.

Kocik, Thomas M., “Singing His Song: The Liturgical Movement”, Saint Joseph College, www.sjcme.brightspace.com. Accessed 20 January 2017.

Koenker, Ernest B. “Objectives and Achievements of the Liturgical Movement in the Roman since World War II.” Church History, vol. 20, no. 2, 1951, pp. 14–27. www.jstor.org/stable/3162132.

John Paul II. Ecclesia de Eucharistica. The Vatican. The Holy See, 2003. Web.

John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater. The Vatican. The Holy See, 1987. Web.

Marx, Paul. “Dom Virgil Michel.” Worship, no. 10, 1954, pp. 516-521. www.ezproxy.sjcme.edu.

Sabak, James G. “The Goal of Liturgical Language: An Analysis of the English Vernacular Debates of the 1940s and 1950s.” Worship, no. 3, 2015, pp. 238-257. www.ezproxy.sjcme.edu.

Second Vatican Council. Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. 4 Dec. 1963. Ed. Austin Flannery. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1966. Print.

“The German Mass and Order of Divine Service,” B.J. Kidd, ed., Hanover, 1995. Web. http://history.hanover.edu/texts/luthserv.html

“The History of the Christian Church,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1 Jan. 2017. Web. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc8.iv.xi.iii.html

18