You who are reborn into a new life and so are called babes; you most of all who in this way see what these things mean for you, listen. Listen too, you the faithful, who are used to seeing: it is good to commemorate lest oblivion obliterate. What you see on theLord’s table, as far as the appearance of the things themselves is concerned, you are used to seeing on your own tables: it isthe same sight but not the same virtue. And you too are the very same men that you were: for you have not produced new looks for us. And yet you are new: you are old in bodily appearance but new in the grace of holiness, as this thing, too, is new. It is still, indeed, the bread and wine which you now see: the holy power has come and the bread will be the Body of Christ and the wine will be theBlood of Christ. The name of Christ does this, the grace of Christ does this, that it may seem that same thing that it seemed and yet may not have the same efficacy that it had. For before, if it were eaten, the stomach was filled up, now when it is eaten the mind is built up. Now just as we spoke to you on Saturday when you were baptised, or rather before you were baptised, about the sacrament of the font in which you were to be plunged and told you, which I believe you will not have forgotten, that this was, or rather is, the power of baptism.

A recent correspondence in a Catholic weekly newspaper on the subject of the vernacular in the public worship of the Church showed that there is some feeling on this topic among a certain section of the faithful. The correspondence was noteworthy for it broughtout clearly two things which should prove useful in the future: the unsuitability of newspaper columns for the discussion of such a question, and the strange ideas that exist among many as to the proper function of the public worship of the Church in the spirituallife of the faithful—the strange ideas, be it said, were not confined to the laity.

For some years now, throughout the West, we have been in the throes of what has come to be known as the Liturgical Movement; here in England we have, in manyways, felt its effects in lesser degree perhaps than in some other countries. On account of the war, which has brought about a grea shifting of population, in many parts of the country one has been able to obtain a rough but certainly interesting estimate of the advance of the liturgical movement. In the majority of cases indeed that evidence has pointed to a lamentable lack of penetration of those ideas for which the movement stands, and the present time of upheaval seems hardly propitious for their further intensive propagation. On the other hand the actual state of ferment of ideas provides certainly a suitable moment for sowing useful seeds. If in the past there have been mistakes, and serious mistakes, in presentation, on account of which many people have a wrong idea, and themajority perhaps no idea at all, of what the liturgical movement is, surely now is the time to seek the reason for so sorry a condition of affairs.

There has been a ‘marked change in liturgical writing in the last few years. It can hardly be called a change for the better, for that would imply disrespect for the great liturgical work of the beginning of the century. A great deal of the work immediately connected with the liturgical movement has not in- ‘ deed merited deep respect in so far as it has indulged in a facile andover-naturalistic philosophising which ill becomes the humble worshipper. But the great historians of the liturgy, men like Neale, Brightman, Bishop or Fortescue, performed the scholarly task of research without which our modern writers would have nothing to say. The previous work still continues in such important studies as Mr. Dugmore’s researches into the Jewish ancestry of the Divine Office). In this book the author has done for the Divine Office what Oesterley, in his study of Jewish origins, did for theEucharistic worship. He has moreover opened a new way of approach in the more neglected study of the non-eucharistic parts of Christian worship. He shows not only that the Pro-Anaphora or Mass of the Catechumens was often celebrated in the early church apart from the Eucharist and so formed a service like that of the synagogue of prayers, lessons and psalms distinct from the central liturgical act, but also that the three daily prayers of Jewish worship begot three or at least two Christian assemblies a day of like nature. This means that the Divine Office is not simply an expansion of the first part of the Mass, which all agree is itself of Jewish origin, but that the day was sanctified by more than one assembly for prayer even before the Mass was celebrated daily, and that this early form of Divine Office was directly inherited from the synagogue. This work on the early shape and ancestry of our official prayer is in the best tradition of liturgical study.

How all the Divine perfections, particularly that of goodness, show forth with greater splendour in our Lord's Passion than in all His other works.

We see, then, that the Passion of Christ our Saviour serves for the glory of God (which we put first), as it makes perfect satisfaction for offences committed against the Divine Majesty and gives Him honour that surpasses the offence rendered Him by sin.

But it did not glorify Him only in this way, for in the sacred Passion the divine grandeur and perfections shine forth more than in all His other actions together.

To begin with His goodness, which in our understanding is the greatest and thaton which God sets the highest store: where is it more resplendent than in the sacred Passion? To make this clear we must first explain the disposition and nature of goodness. “It is’’, says Saint Dionysius, “generous both of itself and all it owns’’. (De Div. Norn. Cap. IV). We see this in the sun, which is a most noble creature. It illumines the whole world, so that nothing is hidden from its light and strength. And the better a thing is, and the more advanced in goodness, the more will it communicate itself. Consequently, God being supremely good, will be supremely communicative of Himself and His perfections to all His creatures: to some more, to others less according to their condition and capacity, as the same Saint declares. And since man has the capacity of goodness and beatitude, God ardently desires (as is natural to Him) to make men good and blessed, like Himself—and this with no self-interest, but from the disposition and nature of His goodness. This is what He sought to show us specially in the work of our Redemption.