Lex orandi, lex credendi: liturgy shapes the soul, but liturgy is at its worst when it is didactic. I don’t know what it’s like in Norway, but the worst excesses of Common Worship in the Church of England happen when committees redesign or “augment” liturgies to explain themselves to the ignorant our unchurched (my sights are set on the revised baptismal liturgies). The result is that everything what is explained is more or less explained away. Allegorical allusions to little-known parts of Scripture, which nowadays basically includes the entire Old Testament, are omitted. Compare this to the unexplained richness of the 1662 rite and you see straight away what is going on: though, to be fair, it probably started with Cranmer’s decision to strip away what he judged “needless” repetitions.
In any case, I entirely support your conviction that the liturgy is the divine work, the Opus Dei, albeit offered by the hands of the priestly people of God. It is the participation in His divine work that moulds is to His will. Even the sermon at the Mass is meant to exhort us to deeper participation in the Mystery, rather than act as a standalone Bible study or platform for the preacher’s political convictions. But all too often, the sermons have nothing to do with the Eucharist at all. Perhaps clergy suppose that their words will teach the people better than the act bestowed on them by the Word Incarnate and Great Teacher. Then again, given the way His action has been attenuated by the Procrustean bed of modern liturgical committees, maybe speaking in His place is their last resort.
Lex orandi, lex credendi: liturgy shapes the soul, but liturgy is at its worst when it is didactic. I don’t know what it’s like in Norway, but the worst excesses of Common Worship in the Church of England happen when committees redesign or “augment” liturgies to explain themselves to the ignorant our unchurched (my sights are set on the revised baptismal liturgies). The result is that everything what is explained is more or less explained away. Allegorical allusions to little-known parts of Scripture, which nowadays basically includes the entire Old Testament, are omitted. Compare this to the unexplained richness of the 1662 rite and you see straight away what is going on: though, to be fair, it probably started with Cranmer’s decision to strip away what he judged “needless” repetitions.
In any case, I entirely support your conviction that the liturgy is the divine work, the Opus Dei, albeit offered by the hands of the priestly people of God. It is the participation in His divine work that moulds is to His will. Even the sermon at the Mass is meant to exhort us to deeper participation in the Mystery, rather than act as a standalone Bible study or platform for the preacher’s political convictions. But all too often, the sermons have nothing to do with the Eucharist at all. Perhaps clergy suppose that their words will teach the people better than the act bestowed on them by the Word Incarnate and Great Teacher. Then again, given the way His action has been attenuated by the Procrustean bed of modern liturgical committees, maybe speaking in His place is their last resort.