When I received my new copy of the revised Worship in the mail, I admit I was taken aback. A slim, bound volume literally glowed in my mailbox. Pulling it out, I was shocked further to find the gaze of Christ staring directly and serenely back at me. Transfixed, I turned over the volume and read the spine: Worship. Before I had walked back up my driveway, I had began pulling open the pages, turning one after the other, until I’d canvassed it from front to back. This is the new version of Worship, replete with new cover, new order, new features, and even (*gasp*) new font! This is Worship at 90 years—and Worship is alive and meaningful.
My reaction to the new Worship may seem somewhat dramatic—to put it nicely! Journals change every day. But, I am a nostalgic historian, and I have personally thumbed through every page of Worship (formerly called Orate Fratres) from its first issue in November of 1926 through the volume of 1959 (the liturgical movement era). I’ve even handled bound volumes which belonged to long-time editor, Fr. Godfrey Diekmann (at the kindness of a former colleague of mine in Washington, DC). Holding a copy which was marked up by Fr. Godfrey himself made me feel as if I were holding some wondrous relic—and I am absolutely sure that Fr. Godfrey (and quite a few others) would laugh at me for feeling that way. Fr. Godfrey knows that Orate Fratres/Worship is not a relic. It’s alive, attentive to the present, and thus, ever-changing.
From the very first number of its first volume in 1926, Orate Fratres identified its function as developing “a better understanding of the spiritual import of the liturgy” for the faithful. Orate Fratres would not be “aiming at a cold scholastic interest in the liturgy of the Church, but an interest that [was] thoroughly intimate, that seize[d] upon the entire person….” This little journal sought to teach the faithful—lay and religious and cleric alike—to understand the liturgy and to allow such an understanding to shape “the actual life of the Catholic.” Orate Fratres was designed to be alive and meaningful.
As the liturgical movement unfolded and interests among readers shifted, so, too, did the content of the journal. For example, in the early 1930s, more content on homilies was included; in the 1950s, more content on family life and liturgical practice was included; in the 1970s, groundbreaking liturgical-historical work filled the pages as liturgical studies grew as an academic and ecumenical field. The 90th volume of Worship, among numerous features, includes a handsome number of valuable reviews for teachers, scholars, and practitioners of liturgy and music.
However, I would argue that one significant difference lies between the function of Oratre Fratres in 1926, and the function of Worship in 2016. Journalism and communication has changed significantly over the course of the twentieth century. When Orate Fratres was launched in the first half of the twentieth century, it could serve effectively as a timely “switchboard” (note the archaic term!) for persons interested in the liturgy. Contact information, news, events, and ideas were shared and spread through this regularly appearing bulletin (Orate Fratres first appeared monthly). Articles were always brief, approximately 1500 words. Letters to the Editor and “Liturgical Briefs” (announcements, news articles, or humorous anecdotes) allowed more dialogical content to appear within the journal itself, with questions and answers and timely concerns brought to light for the whole readership to consider. During the decades of the liturgical movement (1926-1959), numerous witnesses attest to how Orate Fratres publicized and spread the liturgical movement in the English-speaking world. To this end, Orate Fratres’ ability to connect members of the liturgical movement to each other was indispensable.
In the present day, using a paper journal which appears not even monthly, but quarterly as a means of immediate communication is, in short, ineffective and unnecessary. I would argue that Worship no longer functions as a dialogical forum but as an ecumenical resource to which both pastoral and academic liturgists may turn. Importantly, I would not necessarily argue that the lack of “dialogue” within Worship is a problem; again, the immediacy with which contemporary conversation takes place makes a print journal’s taking this task up impractical. However, I would argue that an important inter-relational element of the liturgical movement, and of the foundation of Orate Fratres/Worship, has moved to the internet: namely, to the blog, PrayTell, also founded by the monks of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota.
Aside from a lack of ecumenical scope, which is now central to liturgical studies as a field, the Orate Fratres of 1926 can most readily be compared to PrayTell. Both share a practical focus, aim to provide information both of wit and wisdom, and, most importantly, provide a forum in which we can connect, discuss, argue, and agree upon all issues related to liturgical studies. In 1926, people from all over the world collaborated in writing articles and items for Orate Fratres; people from all over the world wrote letters to the Editor with questions, news, and words of both praise and censure regarding the content of the journal and the opinions expressed within it. In the past, Dom Virgil Michel (1890-1938) served as Editor of this multi-faceted forum. In the present, our Editor, Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, does the same.
So, I conclude by reminding myself that Worship is not a relic—it is alive, and our redesigned 90th volume of Worship reminds us so tangibly of this! May Worship, PrayTell, and all the many resources which continue to teach and love Christian worship be, as Dom Virgil once wrote, efforts which are “blessed with much success.”
Please leave a reply.