Liturgy and (Post)Modernity: A Narrative Response to Guardiniís Challenge (1)

(David A. Stosur is Academic Dean and Associate Professor of Liturgical Studies at Saint Francis Seminary, Milwaukee, WI. This paper is forthcoming as an article Worship.)

The question of "modernity" in relation to Roman Catholic liturgical theology and practice is both complex and wide in scope. With no pretense to comprehensiveness, I hope in this article to advance discussion on the topic by accomplishing two things.

First, I will highlight a letter written by one of the foremost figures in the liturgical movement, shortly after the Second Vatican Council promulgated its Constitution on the Liturgy. I will interpret the message in Romano Guardiniís letter as acknowledging both modern and postmodern liturgical concerns, indicating distinctions between the two along the way.

Second, inspired by Guardini, I will offer an initial sketch of an approach to liturgical theology and practice that emerges from the insights of Paul Ricoeurís narrative theory. I will propose that thinking along narrative lines offers Roman Catholics and others a possible route through many of our present liturgical impasses.

Guardiniís Letter

Romano Guardini was one of the great pioneers of liturgical renewal.(2) His classic work, The Spirit of the Liturgy, had as much influence on the growth in popularity of the Liturgical Movement as any single writing after World War I.(3) In both his work toward liturgical renewal and in his academic posts, he kept an eye to the future of his beloved church in its relationship with the society and culture whence its members came. He believed that the eternal mysteries of the faith, borne by the tradition of the churchís liturgy and teaching, must be held in tension with the interpretation of these mysteries in the ever-shifting cultural situation of the post-Holocaust world­a world which, in the midst of unprecedented scientific and technological innovation and an increasing sense of divine abandonment, was in desperate need of the Gospelís wisdom and hope.

In April of 1964, at the age of 79, just four months after the promulgation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, Guardini wrote a letter to the participants in the Third German Liturgical Congress at Mainz, failing health preventing his attendance in-person.(4) Granting that so much of what the Liturgical Movement had been seeking to attain had now been ratified by the Council, he reminded the Congress that the major work of implementing the reforms was yet to be accomplished, and argued that there were essential questions still to be raised: "A mass of ritual and textual problems will, of course, present themselves... But the central problem seems to me to be something else; the problem of ... the liturgical act" [322].

Though Guardiniís letter raised several questions, for our purposes here two main issues are at stake. The first occupied the bulk of his letter, and could be termed the "modern" issue, namely, what were the challenges that must be overcome if the reforms of the liturgy outlined by the Second Vatican Council were to have the desired deep effects on the People of God? A review of some of Guardiniís thoughts in this regard is in order before turning to the second issue, that of his "postmodern" challenge (though Guardini himself did not use this term, which was not yet in theological currency).

The Modern Challenge. Guardini pointed out how the person of the nineteenth century already had been incapable of performing the true liturgical act, and had been "unaware of its existence." Such a person viewed religious conduct as "an individual inward matter which in the ëliturgyí took on the character of an official, public ceremonial," so that the liturgical act "was simply a private and inward act, surrounded by ceremonial and not infrequently accompanied by a feeling that the ceremonial was really a disturbing factor" [322]. He noted that, in contrast, the Second Vatican Councilís deliberations made it manifestly clear "that the religious act underlying the liturgy was something singular and important" [322]. His letter stated that "the usual discussion generally brings out only the sociological, ethnological aspect: participation by the congregation and use of the vernacular" [323]. The concern, however, should be for the liturgical act "as a whole," and should penetrate more deeply:

Guardini saw many worshippers as greatly disadvantaged by the effects of modernityís radical individualism:

Guardini was both a champion of liturgical renewal and a prophet of its continuing challenges. It seems we have entered well into the period of liturgical crisis he predicted­two of its more recent symptoms being Milwaukeeís cathedral renovation controversy,(5) and the publication of Liturgiam authenticam, the document by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which views translation of liturgical texts as a simple mechanistic substitution of vernacular word for Latin word.(6) We still struggle to appropriate the modern developments envisioned by liturgical reformers like Guardini and given shape in the reforms of Vatican II. The cultural factors most pronounced in the modern west that have influenced this struggle­individualism, consumerism, pragmatism, and a mentality that worships technology and entertainment, to name a few­have been well examined by theologians and liturgical commentators, and deserve our continuing attention.(7)

The Postmodern Challenge. Guardini raised a more complex challenge, however, just before closing his letter. His way of putting things was disturbing to many who had committed themselves to reform, leading some of those gathered at Mainz to wonder if his enthusiasm for liturgical renewal had waned.(8) Guardini stated what one might call his postmodern question boldly:

Guardini was certainly sincere in at least two respects. The first was in his forthright acknowledgment of a large number of people who were already in this position of seeing liturgy as irrelevant and therefore impossible, even among those who may, out of habit or fear, nostalgia or a misplaced sense of duty, continue to attend liturgy. He was sincere, secondly, in his characteristic pastoral concern for such people, as well as for those, truly committed to liturgical renewal, who did not take these others into account as seriously or as respectfully as they should have. On both counts, todayís pastors, theologians, liturgists, catechists, bishops and curial officials would do well to emulate Guardiniís insights and mindfulness.

Liturgy and "Postmodernity"

I have labeled the more provocative but less developed concern in Guardiniís letter a "postmodern" one, and the difficulties with this term should be acknowledged. In his 1997 book, Postmodernity: Christianity in a Fragmented Age, Paul Lakeland writes:

This brief overview of postmodernity provided by Lakeland and Haughton can be succinctly brought to bear on liturgy by considering Jesusí teaching: "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath."(18) Understanding this statement as a commentary about the proper positioning of liturgy in the Judeo-Christian tradition, we could say, "The liturgy was made for humanity, not humanity for the liturgy." A modern version would alter the traditional: "The liturgy was made for humanity by humanity (as evidenced by the historical-critical method), and humanity has the freedom to accept it or to reject it as authoritarian, and if accepting it (as with Vatican II), the rationality to critique and reform it." A postmodern version (there would need to be several) might read: "The liturgy was made ostensibly for humanity but really by humans, probably to deceive or control other humans, most of whom for centuries were expected or forced to take it. Now individuals can take it or leave it, submit to it completely or remain indifferent to it, critique it or remake it in any or all of its aspects. In any event, the liturgy means different things to different persons, and its power to signify is an illusion if our notion of signification assumes any stability in the reality signified."

With this broad depiction of a postmodern view of liturgy in mind, Guardiniís question could be rephrased: Is not the liturgical act and, with it, all that goes under the name of "liturgy" so bound up with the historical background­antique or medieval or baroque, pre-modern or modern­that it would be more honest to give it up altogether? Would it not be better to admit that the individual in this advanced technological and scientific age, with its rapidly emerging global, capitalist, socio-economic structure, is no longer capable of the liturgical act presupposed by the Roman Rite? And instead of talking of renewal ought we not to consider how best to celebrate "the sacred mysteries" (this time in quotation marks, presuming as the term does a "grand narrative") so that the postmodern individual can grasp their meaning through her or his own approach to truth?

Reform and Renewal: Formation, Transformation and Signification

There has been in recent years extensive and growing argumentation over what constitutes the proper stance to the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. There are those who renounce it and seek a return to the "golden age" of the Tridentine Mass. Others who lived through and have appropriated the liturgical renewal seek to hand it on to those too young to have experienced directly this particular awakening of the Spirit. Still others feel things have "gone too far" and seek to "reform the reform."(19) By and large, all of these stances operate under the assumption that the "modern" questions still rule the day, and Guardiniís "postmodern" challenge remains essentially unanswered.

It is, of course, one thing to notice that many people have become estranged from the liturgyís attitudes and rhythms, or seem incapable of participating in its action, regardless of whether one shows concern for these people or chooses to write them off. It is another to consider whether, in fact, such a group constitutes a significant minority, if not even the majority, of practicing Christians, and to ponder, if such is the case, what is to be done about it. Have we not reached a point where we must recognize that the "modern" liturgical issues with which Vatican II was dealing are not the only ones affecting most liturgical participants in the western world today? Granted that the full, conscious and active participation of all the faithful, which is called for by the very nature of the liturgy, and is their right and duty by reason of their baptism (cf. SC 14), is hereafter a perennial concern, do we not need in the present day to hear this same call in a different, "postmodern" key?

Most commentators who intensely probe this question emphasize the liturgy itself as, in many respects, "the answer." Their strategy is to show the many ways in which liturgical participation provides an essential formative Christian experience. The liturgy is viewed from this perspective as a primary theology that helps the individual and the community to deepen their baptismal commitment of conversion to Christ, thereby overcoming the detrimental effects of societyís influence on them. The approach is captured in the recovery of the "significando causant" principle, which recognizes not only that the sacramental rituals signify and effect Godís grace, but also that they have the effect precisely because of the way they signify Godís gracious activity. In 1967 Haughton described this ritual re-orientation toward conversion, or "formation for transformation," as well as anyone to date:

For all its strengths, however, the formative approach does not offer a complete solution. Following Guardini, it does not suffice simply to label certain cultural trends as opposed to the values and attitudes presumed by the Roman Rite, and then to propose that devout participation in the liturgy will eventually stem the cultural tide. Leaving it at that places severe limits on the types of people who can truly be transformed by the Spirit through the liturgyís formative influence. Apart from those for whom this may be "preaching to the choir," there are those who, however sincere in their piety, are actually protected from the most penetrating effects of the liturgical act by a veneer of individualistic devotionalism. Others among those gathered display the kind of lethargy Guardini recognized­today we might call them "pew potatoes," dulled by the combined effects of rote ritualism and a spectator-mentality tuned primarily to televised amusement. We are all, in fact, so influenced already by cultural and sociological forces that we unconsciously distance ourselves from many of the liturgyís most profound participative demands and possible transforming effects. Besides our own proclivity to avoid the pain of conversion, many of these forces come not only from the so-called "secular" culture, but also from the culture of the contemporary church, whose official embrace of the principles of liturgical renewal has cooled in recent years.

If, in fact, those who genuinely give themselves over to the liturgy in the way Guardini hopes for constitute the minority in attendance at a typical Sunday eucharist, then we are up against an even greater roadblock to full, conscious and active participation than we may be willing to admit. The barrier to be overcome is the implicit tension between those who attempt earnestly to engage the liturgy and those who for whatever reason do not. Whereas scholastic theology spoke of "not placing an obstacle" (non ponens obicem) as the minimum qualification for an individualís being properly disposed to receive sacramental grace, this tension within the assembly becomes an analogously communal "obstacle" to transformation. In other words, if a few in the congregation are seeking genuinely to participate in the liturgy, and many others are not, then the signifying power of the rite is betrayed: instead of the sign helping to effect the saving reality offered by the living God, the sign working in opposition to the reality becomes a tacit operating principle.

The approach to liturgy typical of that between the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council thought of liturgical signification and sacramental grace as more or less extrinsically related. The modern conciliar approach has correctly viewed the signifier and the signified­the liturgical-sacramental sign and the reality of divine presence and action­as intrinsically related. A contemporary view must discover how this can be meaningful in a postmodern world that is suspicious of any type of signification, and is disinclined, even where it is willing to engage signs, to expect that any real signified lies beneath the surface signifier. How, in other words, can the contemporary church expect to draw persons with such a broad spectrum of attitudes into an authentic engagement with the liturgy so as to invite them beneath its surface? A kind of liturgical apologetics is needed,(22) and perhaps part of what exemplifies this precisely as a "postmodern" concern is the suggestion that such an apologetics needs to be directed not primarily to those unassociated with the church. It must rather be intended predominantly for the churchís own members, who can no longer be presumed to work from the pre-modern assumptions of the classical world from which the liturgy was born, nor even solely from the modern assumptions on which the twentieth-century reforms were based.(23)

A Narrative Response

Without pretending that the complex question posed by Guardini can be simply addressed, and without necessarily granting the validity of every postmodern presupposition, I want to propose that a narrative approach may prove a fruitful point of entry in responding to Guardiniís challenge and to the crisis of contemporary liturgical signification. When I speak of a narrative approach to liturgy, I certainly recognize that this includes several possible routes of investigation: the lectionary cycleís use of scripture stories throughout the liturgical year; the various narratives found within the Gospel readings, Eucharistic Prayers, or collects; or the use of storytelling in liturgical preaching and in mystagogical catechesis. Among all the possibilities, I want to stress an often-neglected one, namely, the narrative aspect of the rites themselves. Thus, how the various "parts of the Mass" are arranged so as to evoke a narrative that unfolds as the entire ritual is celebrated, and how the scrutinies relate in their narrative trajectories to baptism, are more the type of thing under consideration than the other, not unrelated, examples just mentioned.

Narrative theory, as a remedy to the kind of "imaginative shut-down" diagnosed by Haughton, offers numerous inroads to the question of contemporary liturgy. Particularly worthy of attention is the narrative approach to literary texts and to human action laid out by Paul Ricoeur in his more recent writings.(24) In his typically dialectic manner, Ricoeur holds in tension two aspects of human understanding: on the more general (Kantian/modern) side, the claim that human understanding itself is and always has been fundamentally narrative in its very make-up; and on the more particular (postmodern) side, the acknowledgment given to each human personís individual identity, filtered in part through familial, communal and cultural identities, and understood in its uniqueness precisely because of our narrative competence. I attempt here only to indicate a few of the more salient features of Ricoeurís narrative strategy, and to suggest how these might be applied to our concern for meaningful liturgy in a postmodern world.

The first thing to note is that Ricoeurís dialectic of universal narrative understanding and particular human identity relates directly to a key modern and postmodern concern influencing oneís competence for the liturgical act. Guardini himself pointed this out: "The [liturgical] act is done by every individual, not as an isolated individual, but as a member of a body which is the ëweí of the prayers. Its structure is Ö that of a corpus, an objective whole. In the liturgical act the celebrating individual becomes part of this body and he incorporates the circumstantes in his self-expression" [324]. A pre-modern approach never questioned the "objectivity" of the communal act, as evidenced in the scholastic ex opere operato principle. The modern approach has tended to view the communal agent as a mere collectivity of "subjectivities," with a lot of individuals doing the same individual thing simultaneously. One type of modern-to-postmodern critique questions the desirability of such collective agency as erasing individuality in favor of a kind of liturgical totalitarianism (what Star Trek fans might call "the liturgy of the Borg").

A narrative approach values the dynamics of intersubjectivity and understands that each individualís story incorporates uniquely personal and various communal histories, including the history and tradition of the actual celebrating assembly. While it is impossible for any two persons to understand their relationship to the community and to the communityís liturgical act in precisely the same way, neither should this be the goal. Members of the assembly are not, literally, of one mind, but are "single-mindedly," together, sharers in the tradition that claims for its primary narrative the story of the paschal mystery, of Christís life, death and resurrection. In this they strive together to have the narrative competence that Paul called "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16b), promised wherever two or three are gathered in his name (Mt 18:20). For the sake of genuine liturgical participation and effective evangelization, we must disabuse ourselves and others of the notion that such participation is somehow an annihilation of individual personality. It is rather, as signified in baptismís calling us each by name, the deepest confirmation and affirmation that oneís true identity­oneís real life­can be found only in living for and with others, "refiguring" our stories in the power of the Spirit along the lines of narrative transformation "configured" in the story of Christís paschal mystery.

To exemplify this principle: a cathedralís altar-table should be located in the midst of the assembly, so that the faces of the circumstantes­the others gathered around­can be seen. Placed at a focal point outside of the assembly, only the presiderís and perhaps some other liturgical ministersí faces can be viewed. "Reading" the whole liturgical symbolic action, to continue Guardiniís image, means being able visually to engage the whole body celebrating, not just the presiding priest. Ricoeur emphasizes the "mediating role of others" between our capacities for judging and doing good and the realizations of these capacities,(25) and the irreducible role of the "body among bodies" in anchoring personal identity socially and in relation to the physical world.(26) Our hospitable responsiveness to the faces of others gathered, faces that embody their stories, help mutually to secure our own identity and the identity of the entire body.

Another significant feature of Ricoeurís narrative thought is the emphasis on temporality. Ricoeur picks up with narrative where his earlier work on metaphor left off, noting that narrative produces new meaning in a way similar to metaphor. He describes the "semantic innovation" effected by metaphor and narrative.(27) In metaphor, new meaning-effects are created by the joining or even collision of literally distinct elements of meaning. In a plot, seemingly incongruent events are similarly fused, and this conjunction creates analogously new effects of meaning, this time displaying a temporal organization of events. Another dialectic thus comes to the fore: that between our qualitative human experience of time as past, present and future, and the quantitative scientific or cosmological time of physical nature, measured pragmatically in units.

This dimension of temporality inherent in narrative emplotment has significant ramifications for liturgical understanding. For example, many liturgical scholars have taken their cue from ritual anthropologists such as Victor Turner and Mary Douglas, who in turn were influenced strongly by structuralists such as Claude Lévi-Strauss.(28) Attention on the structures of the liturgy has borne much fruit both for liturgical historians like Robert Taft and for theologians like Aidan Kavanagh.(29) Nonetheless, a potential pitfall to this approach (which Taft and Kavanagh largely avoid) is that the conceptualization of liturgy as structure can conceal the inherent dynamism of liturgical action, and the event nature of the liturgical activity gets downplayed. By contrast, the temporality inherent in the "semantic innovation" of narrative offers a kind of flexibility and even reflexivity that is essential to the critical dynamics of conversion. Ricoeurís notion of emplotment, borrowing from Aristotleís definition of myth as "the imitation of action" (mimesis praxeos), can be brought to bear on liturgical reflection so that the structures are seen in temporal relationship, closer to the genuine action over time that liturgical celebration as event truly is. Such an approach, for example, illumines the fact that our English noun "eucharist" originates from a Greek verb (eucharistein, "to give thanks"). It helps to explain why eucharistic adoration, which focuses attention on a static post-consecratorial moment between the events of breaking and sharing, must be subordinate to the story of the action of taking, blessing, breaking and sharing that unfolds with our participation in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.(30)

To take another seemingly innocent example from common practice: the hosts used in the celebration of Mass, it is often noted, bear such little resemblance to ordinary bread that the symbolism here is greatly idealized and threatened. Ricoeurís approach helps to explain why the use of individualized hosts is problematic. The practice ignores the "plot" presumed in the breaking of the bread. In the fraction rite, one loaf is broken­it undergoes the physical transformation of fragmentation­after first having been "eucharistized" or prayed over in thanksgiving, to be transformed yet again in communion, being shared and eaten by each of the bodyís members. The message communicated when pre-individualized hosts are presented, prayed over, and distributed without sufficient emphasis on the fraction of a single loaf runs counter to a "one bread-one Body" configuration liturgically narrated through a series of transformations. The liturgy loses much of its effective potential to transform us when the symbolic action no longer includes all of the appropriate transformations. From the narrative perspective, the use of hosts capitulates to a modern and postmodern pragmatic and consumerist view of time and liturgy, and reinforces individualism. A significant opportunity for the poetic and critical interplay of fragmentation and wholeness, which is likely to resonate very strongly with the inhabitants of our postmodern culture, is simply lost thanks to this practice.

A brief list of further points in Ricoeurís narrative strategy that might provide insight for liturgical theology and practice includes:

Endnotes

1. This article originated as the Ninth Annual Henni Lecture, delivered at Saint Francis Seminary, on August 26, 2001.

2. On Guardiniís life and writings, see Robert A. Krieg, Romano Guardini: A Precursor of Vatican II (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997).

3. Vom Geist der Liturgie, (Freiburg: Herder, 1918); The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. Ada Lane (London: Sheed & Ward, 1930); reprinted with Introduction by Joanne M. Pierce (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998).

4, This letter was published in English as "A Letter from Romano Guardini" in Herder Correspondence (August 1964): 237-239, and was reprinted in Assembly 12, no. 4 (April 1986): 322-324. Citations in the body of the text are to the latter.

5. See, among other newspaper articles, Tom Heinen, "Vatican Orders Cathedral Changes: Weakland Disputes Extent of Renovation Foesí Victory," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Tuesday, 3 July, 2001, and Gustave Niebuhr, "Milwaukee Cathedral Plan Draws Ecclesiastical Ire," New York Times, Saturday, 14 July 2001, National Desk section.

6. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, "Instruction: Liturgiam Authenticam," 28 March 2001, Origins 31, no. 2 (24 May 2001): 17, 19-32. See nos. 20-21.

7. See, for example, Regis A. Duffy, An American Emmaus: Faith and Sacrament in the American Culture (New York: Crossroad, 1995); Richard R. Gaillardetz, Transforming Our Days: Spirituality, Community, and Liturgy in a Technological Culture (New York: Crossroad, 2000); and Rembert G. Weakland, "Active Participation: How Our Culture Affects Our Liturgy," Church 17, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 5-10.

8. Krieg, 87, citing at n.76 Hanna Barbara Gerl, Romano Guardini1885-1968 (Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1985), 210.

9.Das Ende der Neuzeit (Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1950), trans. Joseph Theman and Herbert Burke as The End of the Modern World (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956); Die Macht (Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1951), trans. Elinor C. Briefs as Power and Responsibility (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1961). Both translations are reprinted in one volume as The End of the Modern World (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1998).

10. Lakeland, x.

11. Ibid., xii.

12. Ibid., xii.

13. Rosemary Luling Haughton, Images for Change: The Transformation of Society (New York/Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1997), 3-4.

14. Ibid., 4. The address on which this article was based was delivered before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The deep questions that face the United States and the world community following these events and the ensuing responses would surely need to be added to Haughtonís list.

15. Ibid., 7-8, emphasis added.

16. Ibid., 36.

17. Ibid., 37-38.

18. Mk 2:27 (NRSV).

19. For one outline of the various approaches to liturgical reform, see M. Francis Mannion, "The Catholicity of the Liturgy: Shaping a New Agenda," in Beyond the Prosaic: Renewing the Liturgical Movement, ed. Stratford Caldecott (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 11-48. See also Kevin W. Irwin, "Critiquing Recent Liturgical Critics," Worship 74, no. 1 (January 2000): 2-19.

20. Rosemary Haughton, The Transformation of Man (Springfield, IL: Templegate, 1967, 1980), 248-249.

21. Cf. Don Saliersí remarks in his analysis of a 1987 study conducted on parishes that had consciously attempted to embrace the liturgical principles of Vatican II: "The overwhelming impression is that these communities have focused on the ëexpressiveí dimensions of participation rather than the inner relations between the formative and expressive power of primary symbol."; "Symbol in Liturgy, Liturgy as Symbol: The Domestication of Liturgical Experience," in The Awakening Church: 25 Years of Liturgical Renewal, ed. Lawrence J. Madden (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 69-82, at 71.

22. Cf. the concluding section, "A Postmodern Apologetics," in Paul Lakeland, Postmodernity: Christian Identity in a Fragmented Age (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 87ff.

23. The "New Evangelization" called for by John Paul II is one such form of postmodern apologetics, but one that, in the estimation of some, reflects a certain "countermodernist" trend. See Claude Geffre and Jean-Pierre Jossua, eds., The Debate on Modernity, Concilium 1992/6 (London: SCM Press, 1992), especially the essays by Giovanni Turbanti, "The Attitude of the Church to the Modern World at and after Vatican II," 87-96, and Jean-Louis Schlegel, "The Strategies of Reconquest in the New Europe and the Impossibility of Getting Past Secularization," 97-106.

24. Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 3 vols., vols. 1-2 trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer, vol. 3 trans. Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1984-1988); idem, Oneself as Another, trans. Kathleen Blamey (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992); idem, Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination, trans. David Pellauer, ed. Mark I. Wallace (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995).

25. Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, 181.

26. Ibid., 319-329, at 326.

27. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. 1, ix.

28. Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (New York: Basic Books, 1963); Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966); Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine, 1969).

29. Robert Taft, "The Structural Analysis of Liturgical Units: An Essay in Methodology," in Beyond East & West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding (Washington, D.C.: Pastoral Press, 1984), 151-164; Aidan Kavanagh, The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation (New York: Pueblo, 1978), esp. ch. 2.

30. Cf. Nathan Mitchellís perceptive analysis of this dynamic in Cult and Controversy: The Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass (New York: Pueblo, 1982), 343-351.

31. A helpful overview of Ricoeurís threefold mimesis is offered by William Schweiker, Mimetic Reflections: A Study in Hermeneutics, Theology, and Ethics (New York: Fordham University Press, 1990), 100-118.

32. A partial list of theologians already utilizing narrative strategies in liturgical study would include Louis-Marie Chauvet, David Power, Joyce Ann Zimmerman, Kathleen Hughes, Bruce Morrill, the late Mark Searle, and the late Edward Kilmartin.

33. Paul Ricoeur, "Life: A Story in Search of a Narrator," in A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination, ed. Mario J. Valdés (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 425-437, quotation at 437.