LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

INCE LITURGY became respectable there have been
numerous attempts to write a theology of it. Obviously
one can, and does nowadays, write a theology of almost
anything—from history to revolution, from leisure to clothes,
from sin to sport. But when liturgy is recognized to mean the
substance no less than the shape of the Church’s worship it
becomes imperative to examine it on a theological level. In
its program for liturgical studies Vatican II puts the theological
aspect of the subject in the first place.1
The literary form of theological studies on the liturgy can
be the theological monograph or some chapters in a book that
also deals with liturgy on other levels—historical, pastoral,
spiritual, ceremonial, aesthetic. These forms have, of necessity,
to take a great deal for granted about theology. They apply
theological categories, principles, and presuppositions to the
subject in hand without having the time or space to analyze or
evaluate them. Their theological assumptions are often un­
spoken or barely confessed. If theology were being done within
a single tradition, where there is general agreement on principles
and presuppositions, there might be no cause for concern here.
But in an era of theological pluralism and inter-Church debate
one cannot presume such agreement. If the writer on liturgy
does not declare his standpoint and explain his theological
horizon he will find it difficult to engage in theological debate
about liturgy, as about anything else, with those who stand
outside his tradition. And he will say nothing much of interest
to those who stand outside the ground of faith and who would
require the liturgical life of the church to be submitted to some
kind of rational verification.

S

1 Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 16, 23.
557

558

LIAM G. WALSH

It might be claimed that contemporary theology of the
liturgy avoids the pitfalls of pluralism by going back to cate­
gories that are predominantly biblical and patristic. Apart from
the fact that these are the indispensible source categories of
revelation, they predate the dogmatic disputes of the churches
and the theological particularism of the schools and are gener­
ally accepted by all Christians. However, the course of con­
temporary theology surely shows that what is built from a
common fund of biblical and traditional material is inevitably
influenced by the dogmatic and philosophical stance of different
writers. A theologian of the liturgy who is honest about his
hermeneutical presuppositions will not be deceived by a con­
vergence of terminology. In any case, the critical and rational
function of theology and its task of building a bridge between
faith and the capital of human thought require it to verify the
ontological ground of revealed ideas. The fact that the Bible
records the belief of a group of people in God and gives details
of their worship is no guarantee that there is any such thing as
God in reality; their belief that the mystery of salvation is em­
bodied in certain events, persons or rituals is of itself no guaran­
tee that the divine can be contacted by the human through
created intermediaries. A theology of the liturgy that limits
itself to a biblical and traditional explanation of the Church’s
worship offers a specious prospect for communication between
religious men and can leave the liturgy defenceless and threat­
ened with absurdity in the face of rational humanistic criticism.
An alternative theological approach to the liturgy is to situ­
ate the subject within a comprehensive theology, a theology
which is dealing in the broadest possible way with God and his
relationship to the created order. Such a theology will have
to analyze and justify its own basic assumptions about God and
man. If it is Christian theology it will have to examine the
historical working out of the relationship between God and man
and explain how it culminates in Christ. Then, with its the­
ological, anthropological, and christological presuppositions
confessed and defended it will come to examine the place of the
Church and its liturgy in the actual bringing about of that rela­

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

559

l ionship. The fact that few contemporary theologians are pre­
pared to attempt such a comprehensive task is less a sign of the
impossibility or undesirability of the project than of the priority
that has to be given at present to assembling and assimilating
the vast store of source material that has been presented to
the systematic theologian by biblical, patristic, and historical
studies of all kinds. Meantime, however, it should be interest­
ing and methodologically instructive to look at how the task
was accomplished at an earlier age of theology.
St. Thomas did not write a theology of the liturgy. His think­
ing about liturgical matters is to be found mainly in his com­
prehensive theological works—in the two Summas and in his
commentary on the Sentences. It is found there, not in the
form of a block of material that could be called a theology
of the liturgy, or even a theological tract on the liturgy. When
he comes to deal with the core of the Church’s liturgy, in his
discussion of the sacraments towards the end of the Tertia Pars,
he is not opening up a new tract but simply coming in his
own good time to discuss the actual working out of the relation­
ship between God and his creation that has been the subject
of his singleminded study from the first questions of the Prima
Pars. Throughout the Summa he is writing theology pure and
simple, not the theology of this or that. He does not present
a theology of the liturgy but incorporates liturgy in his the­
ology.2 He examines the actual practice of the Church, as he
knew it, in the light of the general principles he has established
about God and man, the possible relationship between them,
and the historical phases of that relationship that have a bear­
ing on present reality (creation, original justice and sin, the
Old Law, the community of salvation, Christ, the Church).
These principles and historical precedents are his presupposi­
tions. They have been critically examined and explained
throughout the Summa. Now they are being used to provide
a theological interpretation of liturgical data. One may dis­
agree with his principles. But at least one knows what they
Hence the title of this article.

5G0

LIAM G. WALSH

are. And one has been invited to debate them to the ultimate
limits of dogmatic and philosophical enquiry.
The working out of these theological presuppositions by St.
Thomas is not entirely independent of the data that they are
ultimately employed to interpret. The given norm of the­
ological endeavor is the life of the believing community. The
theologian must know the expression which the faith of the
community finds in its Scriptures, Creeds, and liturgy. He
must be aware, too, of the direction which the contemporary
community is taking in its attempts to realize its belief and its
hope in a constantly evolving human situation. This datum,
which is the expression of Revelation, is sovereign in theology.
The theologian who does not begin his work by listening to it
risks wandering off on irrelevant, a prioristic speculation. And,
if he ever does get back to employing the speculative principles
he works out to the life of his contemporary Church, he may
find himself at variance with its beliefs and practices and the
directions these are taking in the world of his day. If, for ex­
ample, a theologian found himself committed to a religious
anthropology which held that ritual symbolical activity is un­
worthy of man in his dealings with God, he would find himself
embarrassed by the sacramental practice and beliefs of the
Church.
There is good reason for claiming that St. Thomas gives due
theological weight to liturgical data.3* In his treatment of the
sacraments the usus or consuetudo Ecclesiae, the ritus ab Ec­
clesia servatus is a solid unquestioned auctoritas.11 If objections
3 Cf. C. Borobia, “ La liturgia come lugar teologico en la teologia sacramentaria
de santo Tomàs,” in Miscelanéa P. Cuervo (Salamanca, 1970) ,229-254; Y. Congar,
O. P., “ Faits, problèmes et reflections à propos du pouvoir d’ordre et des rapports
entre le presbytérat et l’épiscopat,” in La Maison Dieu 14 (1948), 107-128; H.
Hering, “ De loco theologico liturgiae apud S. Thomam,” in Pastor Bonus 5
(1941), 456-464; F. Marin-Sola, O. P., L’Évolution homogène du dogme catholique
(Fribourg, 1924). Tome I, p. 291 sq.
* To take the Summa Theologiae alone cf. ΠΙ, q. 60, a. 8; q. 66, a. 10; q. 72,
a. 4 sed contra.; q. 72, a. 12 sed contra; q. 73, a. 1 sed contra.; q. 73, a. 2 ad 1;
q. 75, a. 2; q. 76, a. 8 sed contra.; q. 78, a. 6 sed contra.; q. 79, a. 3, obj. 1;
q. 79, a. 5 sed contra.; q. 80, a. 12 sed contra.; q. 82, a. 2; q. 83, a. 2; q. 83, a. 3 sed
contra.; q. 83, a. 4; q. 83, a. 5 sed contra.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

561

suggest a conflict between principle and practice, it is the
principle that has to be adjusted. In his more abstract the­
ological investigations he is also ready to appeal to liturgical
practice and texts for confirmation of his options.® And there
is an even more basic indication that St. Thomas builds his
theological edifice from its very foundations towards an
eventual understanding of Christian liturgy. In the general
prologue to the Summa he explains “ propositum nostrae in­
tentionis in hoc opere est ea quae ad christianam religionem
pertinent . . . tradere.” When he further specifies that “ prin­
cipalis intentio huius sacrae doctrinae est Dei cognitionem
tradere, et non solum secundum quod in se est, sed etiam
secundum quod est principium rerum et finis earum, et specialiter
rationalis creaturae ” ® he is maintaining his concern for religio.
In abstract terms he understands religio to mean “ ordo ad
Deum ” of those things which take their origin from him.7 In
concrete terms religio is man’s ordo ad Deum worked out his­
torically until it is fulfilled in Christ and mediated to mankind
in the “ cultus Dei secundum ritum christianae religionis.”8
This religio is the subject matter of his theology. His method,
beginning as he does with God and proceeding to examine the
exitus of all things from him and their reditus to him, provides
a profoundly theological perspective for understanding liturgy.
Movement from God to man and back to God is the funda­
mental pattern of liturgy. A liturgist, then, is entitled to claim
that, even in the most abstract speculations of St. Thomas, pre­
suppositions are being established and ideas forged which will
be readymade for an eventual theological explanation of the
Church’s worship.9
0 I, q. 28, a. 7; q. 25, a. 8 obj. 1; q. 28, a. 2; q. 52, a. 1 sed contra.; I-Π, q. 103,
a. 3 ad 4; q. 113, a. 9 sed contra.; ΙΙ-Π q. 82, a. 3 ad 2; q, 82, a. 4; q. 83, a. 17;
HI, q. 27, a. 1 sed contra.; q. 27, a. 2 ad 3; q. 31, a. 5 obj. 1.
’ I, q. 2, prologus.
’ Π-Π, q. 81, a. 1.
8m, q. 63, a. 2.
’ For an historical survey of the relationship between liturgy and theology, with
a list of contemporary works on the subject, cf. P. Fernandez, “Liturgia y

562

LIAM G. WALSH

In fact, most of the theologies of the liturgy that already
exist within the Catholic tradition are happy to claim support
from St. Thomas. They use his ideas and principles in varying
degrees. However, it may be worth asking whether any of them
represents St. Thomas deepest theological thinking about
liturgy. These theologies can be characterized by the key idea
which they select as the starting-point for understanding
liturgy. One will usually find this at the heart of the “ defini­
tion ” they offer of the liturgy. While few of these writers would
claim to be giving a definition that measures up to all the
technical requirements of logical definition they usually do
attempt a concise, orderly statement of what they consider to
be the essential features of liturgy.10 The key idea in some
of these definitions is worship, cultus; in others it is sign, sig­
num; still others define liturgy in terms of the priesthood of
Christ. While each of these ideas is prominent in St. Thomas’s
thinking about liturgy, one is entitled to ask which, if any of
them, represents his most basic insight on the subject. They
can be examined in turn. If none of them proves entirely satis­
factory, another idea will need to be put forward and its claim
to bring the full weight of St. Thomas’s theology to bear on
the liturgy justified. Such an idea will put one in touch with
the ultimate presuppositions of his theological thinking about
the liturgy. And it will mark the point at which dialogue might
be undertaken with those outside the thomistic tradition,
whether within the Catholic Church or outside it, and a basis
offered for an intellectual justification of Catholic liturgy to
non-believers.

Liturgical Material
Before various definitions of the liturgy are examined in the
Teologia. La historia de un problema metodolôgico ” in Cienda Tomista 99 (1972),
135-179. This article deals at some length with the position of St. Thomas.
10 Cf. Introduction to the Liturgy (English transi, of Part One of L’Eglise en
prière, 3rd edit., edited by A. G. Martimort), Shannon, 1968, 1-12; H. Schmidt,
S. J., Introductio in Liturgiam Occidentalem (Herder, 1960), 47-87; J. II. Miller,
C. S. C., “ The Nature and Definition of the Liturgy,” in Theological Studies 18
(1957), 325-356.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

563

way that has been proposed a preliminary word has to be
said about what is being defined. For purposes of comparison
one must be sure that the ideas being put forward are all meant
to define the same thing, since any debate about definition sup­
poses agreement on the material or objects to be covered by
the definition. And if one is appealing to ideas taken from an
author of the past, such as St. Thomas, one has to establish
that he was dealing with the same range of material. Otherwise
his ideas cannot be compared with those of the present.
From the time the word liturgy came to be used in its modern
sense there has in fact been some uncertainty about what
precisely should be covered by it. Nowadays, however, there
seems to be general agreement to let the teaching authorities
of the Church be the arbiters of what is liturgical and what
is not. The official liturgical books of the Church separate
liturgies from pia exercitia or private devotions. Of course, the
frontier between the two areas shifts from time to time, and
some ceremonies may find themselves now at one side now
at the other. The sensus fidelium has a legitimate right to
(dialogue with the Magisterium on these matters. The the­
ologian, for his part, will try to work out criteria to help the
Magisterium decide what is liturgical and what is not. But
at the beginning of his work he must adopt a provisional clas­
sification of liturgical material based on the practice of his
contemporary Church. At the present day he will take as his
guideline the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican
II, with the various instructions and liturgical books that have
been issued to implement it. This is the material that con­
temporary definitions of the liturgy will want to make intel­
ligible.
The liturgical material which St. Thomas considered was
presented to him by the legislation and practice of the medi­
aeval Latin Church. It was not the most enlightened period
of liturgical history. The tradition had become somewhat nar­
row and static. There was not a great deal of historical in­
formation available, and the criterion of development was

564

LIAM G. WALSH

canonical precedent rathei· than living tradition. Allegorical
interpretation tended to obscure the real meaning of liturgical
forms. A clerical and monastic bias left little room for active
ceremonial participation in the the liturgy by the laity. St.
Thomas was certainly influenced and limited by prevailing at­
titudes and practices. But one can hardly claim that he devi­
ates substantially from the essential liturgical tradition of the
Church. All the main elements that we now recognize as
liturgical—the seven sacraments, the prayer of the hours, the
main feasts of the calendar, and the architectural, artistic, and
musical setting of these activities—are certainly identified by
him as special subjects of theological analysis. He attempts to
cope with such historical material as was available to him;11
he recognizes the legitimacy of the Greek rite;12 his com­
mentaries on the ritual of sacraments are quite realistic, with
only occasional concessions to allegory;13 his discussions on the
subjectum (i. e., recipient) of sacraments and on the sacra­
mental character show a fundamentally sound appreciation
of the need for active participation,14 and therefore for what
he calls the solemnitas15 built around the essential core of
liturgical signs. A contemporary liturgist, then, can identify
quite well with St. Thomas’s choice of liturgical material. He
can feel confident that ideas used by St. Thomas to understand
the ritus christianae religionis are relevant to his own field of
investigation.
11 There are frequent references to earlier liturgical legislation in his sacramental
theology. Among the admittedly rare attempts he makes to explain the historical
evolution of a liturgical practice cf. Ill, q. 80, a. 10 ad 5; a. 12.
12 Baptism—III, q. 60, a. 8; cf. q. 66, a. 5 ad 1; Eucharist—ΓΠ, q. 74, a. 4; cf.
Cont. Errores Graecorum- Π, 28; for a general remark supporting the principle of
liturgical pluralism cf. Summa Theol., Π-Π, q. 93, a. 1 ad 3.
13 Cf. for example his analysis of the eucharistie liturgy in Summa Theol., HI,
q. 83, a. 4. On the reaction against allegory spearheaded by St. Albert the Great
cf. J. Jungmann, S. J., Missarum Sollemnia, vol. 1, english transi, p. 113. Jungmaim,
however, claims that the Summa still makes too many concessions to allegorism,
p. 114.
14 Cf. C. O’Neill, 0. P., “ The role of the recipient and sacramental signification ”
in The Thomist 21 (1958), 257-31, 508-540.
15 f umma Theol., ΙΠ, q. 64, a. 2 ad 1; q. 66, a. 10; q. 72, a. 4.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

565

Liturgy as worship
Once it was established that liturgy was something more
than the Church’s external pomp and circumstance, to be de­
fined descriptively, liturgists began to search for its deeper the­
ological meaning. In constructing their theological definitions
of the liturgy they turned first to the notion of cultus (cult,
worship) .ie Here was a ready-madé idea, with profound the­
ological resonances, which seemed to give its essential the­
ological intelligibility to liturgical activity. A thorough analysis
of cult was available in St. Thomas’s treatment of the virtue
of religion. His ideas were gratefully employed in working out
the implications of defining liturgy in terms of worship.17 His
thinking on the relationship between internal and external
worship was considered particularly valuable. There could be
little danger of reducing liturgy to external ceremonial when
one conceived cult as a personal moral act of the virtue of re­
ligion. To say liturgy was cult was to say it was primarily an
interior relationship with God; all its external features were
meant to serve that relationship.
There is little doubt that the notion of cult is essential to a
theological understanding of liturgy. But whether it is the best
starting point for such an understanding may be questioned.
Some theologians are slightly suspicious of it insofar as it is a
“ rational ” notion, derived from a philosophico-ethical analysis
of the relationship between man and God.18 This objection has
some weight if the idea of worship is being put forward as an
a priori concept from which one claims to deduce the reality
of Christian liturgy. But when it is simply being used, and
used analogically, to provide an understanding of the given
” There is a comprehensive list of these definitions in Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 48-60.
17 J. M. Hanssens, “ De Natura Liturgiae ad mentem S. Thomae,” in Periodica
de re morali, canonica, liturgica 24 (1935), 127*-165*; J. Menessier, O. P., “L’idée
du sacré et le cult d’après S. Thomas,” in Rev. des Sc. Phil, et Theol. 19 (1930),
63-82 and “Les réalités sacrées dans le cuit chrétien,” ibid. 20(1931), 276-286,
453-471; J. Lécuyer, “ Réflexions sur la théologie du cuit selon saint Thomas,” in
Revue Thomiste 55 (1955), 839-862.
18 Cf. Introduction to the Liturgy (Martimort), pp. 183-186.

566

LIAM G. WALSH

reality of Christian liturgy, which is what St. Thomas is doing,
one can have little ground for complaint—unless one is pre­
pared to discredit the whole idea of a philosophical theology.
A more serious difficulty about the use of cult as the generic
element in the definition of liturgy is that it gives first place
to what may be called the upward movement of the liturgy
(from man to God) and does not make explicit its downward
movement (from God to man). Certainly any Christian idea
of worship carries an implicit awareness of the movement from
God to man, because it comes out of a background of belief
that in the order of grace nothing can come from man that
has not first been put there by God. But it is one thing to
say grace is a prerequisite for liturgy, quite another to say
that grace is actually given in and through the liturgy. A
definition which does not make the sanctifying power of the
liturgy explicit would seem to be inadequate. It is worth re­
membering that when the notion of cult was first employed to
define the liturgy there was still some uncertainty about
whether and in what sense the sacraments belonged to liturgy.18
The Mass easily earned its place because as a sacrifice it was
obviously an act of worship. But as long as sacraments were
conceived almost exclusively as means of sanctification their
relevance to the liturgy was not immediately obvious. When
the liturgical movement began to make it clear that all seven
sacraments were liturgies, and together formed the very core
of liturgy, the cult movement of the sacraments had to be
recognized. But at the same time the sanctifying power associ­
ated with the sacraments had to be predicated of the liturgy
as such. Now it has been found difficult to fit the idea of sanc­
tification into a definition of liturgy which is committed to the
idea of cult as its starting point. If one were looking to St.
Thomas for guidance on how to do it one might note that when
he comes to discuss what is now recognized as the heart of the
liturgy, the sacraments, it is not to the notion of cult he first
turns. Nor does he begin with the notion of sanctification: he
*’ Ibid. p. 186.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

567

refuses to define sacrament as a cause of grace. He opts instead
for a more general idea, which will allow him later to co­
ordinate cult and sanctification—the idea of sign.20 And it is,
in fact, with this very idea that some more recent theologians
have begun their definitions of the liturgy.
Liturgy as Sign

The notion of sign has been current in Latin sacramental
I heology at least since St. Augustine. After its prominence in
St. Thomas it had a somewhat uncertain career. Because the
Council of Trent was preoccupied with the causality of the
sacraments, it tended to play down their sign value. It has
never been easy to coordinate signification and causality in
I (linking about sacraments: the temptation, to which many of
the Reformers seem to have succumbed, is to reduce their
causality to that exercised by merely human signs. Post­
Tridentine Catholic theology, taking no chances on the ex opere
operato causality of the sacraments, did not make much use of
the concept sign at the heart of its sacramental theology. Even­
tually the theories of Cardinal Billot on sacramental causality
thrust the question of sign back into the center of the debate
about sacraments. And modem personalist theologians have
made sign once again a key feature of their explanation of
sacraments.
The liturgical movement was obviously a force in the restora­
tion of sign to sacramental thinking. Its pastoral instinct about
the celebration of sacraments was confirmed by this kind of
sacramental theory. But liturgists were more aware than most
theologians that the sanctifying effect of sacraments took place
in a context of worship. They were also more aware than most
that the sanctification occurred not just in and through the es­
sential matter and form of the sign but through the entire
liturgical ritual. Hence it was natural that they would extend
the notion of sign from sacramental theology to the theology
of liturgy, and that they would come to define liturgy as a com” Summa Theol., ΠΙ, q. 60, a. 1

568

LIAM G. WALSH

plex of signs that express and realize both sanctification and
worship.21
Although it must be admitted that cult definitions of the
liturgy are still more common than sign definitions, an indica­
tion of how theological thought on the matter is developing can
be gained from a comparison of two major Church statements
about the liturgy. The encyclical Mediator Dei defined the
liturgy solely in terms of cult.22 There is no mention of sign,
nor does the idea get much prominence anywhere in the en­
cyclical. Sanctification is not included in the definition, al­
though it is dealt with elsewhere in the text. The corresponding
passage of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium shows a definite
development.23 The double movement of the liturgy is ex­
plicitly recognized, and the notion of sign is introduced. The
Council says explicitly that sanctification is done through signs;
it does not say explicitly that worship is expressed by these
same signs. However, in other passages where it is dealing with
the worship movement of the liturgy the Council draws con­
clusions from the fact that the liturgy is a system of signs.24
It seems to be quite in accordance with current Church teaching,
therefore, to define liturgy as a complex of signs that simultane­
ously expresses and effects the sanctification of men by God
and the worship of God by men.
21C. Vagaggini, O. S. B. Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, vol. 1 (trans­
lated from 2nd Italian edition of II senso theologico della Liturgie) Collegeville,
1959, defines liturgy as “ the complexus of the efficacious signs of the Church’s
sanctification and of her worship ” (p. 17).
22 “ Sacra igitur Liturgia cultum publicum constituit, quem Redemptor noster,
Ecclesiae Caput, caelesti Patri habet; quemque christifidelium societas Conditori
suo et per ipsum aeterno Patri tribuit; utque omnia breviter perstringamus, integrum
constituit publicum cultum mystici lesu Christi Corporis, Capitis nempe mem­
brorumque eius” Mediator Dei, 20.
23 “ Merito igitur Liturgia habetur vduti lesu Christi sacerdotalis muneris ex­
ercitatio, in qua per signa sensibilia significatur et modo singulis proprio efficitur
sanctificatio hominis, et a mystico lesu Christi Corpore, Capite nempe eiusque
membris integer cultus publicus exercetur.” Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7. Cf.
Introduction to the Liturgy (Martimort), pp. 4-6.
24 Nn. 21, 24, S3, 47, 59, 60, 122. The description of the Church itself as a sign,
introduced in Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2 and developed in Lumen Gentium adds
considerably to the theological worth of the concept.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

569

Such a definition can also claim to be faithful to St. Thomas,
even more so than a definition in terms of cult alone. St.
I homas is far more aware of the double movement of the
liturgy than is often supposed. He has a principle that in the
use of the sacraments (i. e., in their liturgical celebration) two
things have to be taken into account: divine worship and the
Mimctification of men—the first being from man to God, the
eccond from God to man.2’ The fact that he defines sacrament
II s sign of sanctification has, perhaps, given the impression that
sign is only applicable to the downward movement of the
liturgy. But in his treatment of the virtue of religion he has
already applied the concept to cult: exterior actions are signs
of interior worship.26 Sign-making activity is therefore both
sanctification and worship. It is in his analysis of the sacra­
mental character that St. Thomas most fully exploits the double
movement of sign. The characters equip the Christian to make
cultic signs, and it is precisely in those signs that he is sancti­
fied.27 A definition of liturgy, then, in terms of sign is very much
in line with the theology of St. Thomas, and can be articulated
theologically by means of his principles.
One may ask, however, whether sign is the first and most
fundamental concept that St. Thomas would predicate of the
liturgy. It is a concept that has the advantage of presenting
liturgy as a distinctively human activity; it draws attention to
the anthropological values of the liturgy; it justifies the pursuit
of subjective satisfaction and self-expression. But liturgists,
particularly when they are theologizing about their subject,
have to reconcile the subjective, anthropological values of the
liturgy with its objective, given structure. Liturgy is an objec­
tive divine reality and not merely the creation of man’s religious
subjectivity. There is a real danger that anything described
88 “ Dicendum quod in usu sacramentorum duo possunt considerari, scilicet
cultus divinus, et sanctificatio hominis: quorum primum pertinet ad hominem
per comparationem ad Deum, secundum autem e converso pertinet ad Deum per
comparationem ad hominem.” Summa Theol., III, q. 60, a. 5.
88 Ibid., Π-Π, q. 81, a. 7 and ad 2; q. 83, a. 12; q. 84, a. 2; q. 85, a. 1.
81 Cf. C. O’Neill, art. cit. in note 14.

570

LIAM G. WALSH

as sign will be looked at merely from man’s point of view, that
its legitimacy and efficacy will be judged solely by its power
to express his beliefs, feelings, and needs, that its conduct will
be organized on a criterion of human satisfaction. The post­
Tridentine theologians were not just tilting at windmills.
The simplest way to guard against this forgetfulness of the
objective, given reality of the liturgy is to specify that the signs
being talked about are instituted by God. That tempers the
freedom allowed to man’s subjectivity. But, apart from the
fact that divine institution can be claimed for only a very
limited area of the Church’s actual liturgy, the notion of in­
stitution by itself may give the impression that the objective
standing of the liturgy is based on little more than a juridical
determination. A more comprehensive way of examing the
question—and one in which the debate about institution finds
a more profound context—is to consider the liturgy as mystery.
The mystery theology initiated by Dom Odo Casel has drawn
compelling attention to the objective reality that is realized in
the rituals of Christian worship. The influence which the ideas
introduced by Casel have had on the theology of the liturgy
has gone a long way towards ensuring that the objective dimen­
sion of the liturgy will not be neglected. However, the notion
of mystery is not of itself very helpful in the work of theological
definition. Its biblical and patristic richness has to be trans­
lated into something more technically manageable, if it is be
be used in general theology.28 Out of the attempts to do this
one thing at least has emerged, particularly in debates about
the liturgy: the mystery can be explained in christological
terms. To say the liturgy is a mystery is to say it is an act and
presence of Christ. The specific act of Christ that has caught
the attention of theologians of the liturgy in this context is his
priestly act. The objective reality (mystery) of the liturgy is
expressed by defining it as an act of Christ’s priesthood.38
38 Th. Filthaut, La Théologie des mystères, exposé de la controverse (Tournai:
Desclée, 1954) ; J. Gaillard O. S. B., “ La théologie des mystères,” in Revue Thomiste
57 (1957), 510-551.

LITURGY IN ΤΠΕ THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

571

I iturgy as priestly work of Christ
Definitions of liturgy in terms of the priesthood of Christ
linve, in fact, been offered by many authors side by side with
or as part of their cult and sign definitions.29 The concept has
found favor in official teaching. Mediator Dei uses it, although
not as its principal definition of the liturgy.30 Vatican II makes
il the starting-point of its definition and deduces its judgment
h bout the objective value and efficacy of the liturgy from it.81 In
both these documents the link between the priestly work of
( 'lirist and the liturgical activity of the Church is made by
means of the head-member relationship within the mystical
body. It is this relationship that allows one to see acts of the
Church as acts of Christ and conversely find the priestly act
of Christ visibly realized in liturgical signs.
St. Thomas would certainly approve of this way of explain­
ing the objective reality of the liturgy. By defining the sacra­
mental character as a sharing in the priesthood of Christ he
provided a technical theological explanation of how human
liturgical acts can be in reality acts of Christ the priest.82 His
series of questions in the Summa devoted to the position of
Christ between his Father and the rest of mankind allows one
to understand how the personal liturgy of Christ is the ground
and prototype of the Christian liturgy.38 Christ’s subjection to
the Father, his prayer, his priesthood, his being adored by us
and accepted as our Mediator provide a christological articula­
tion of the objective mystery which is entered into by the
Church when it addresses itself to the Father in submission,
prayer, adoration, sacrifice, and thereby achieves its own pre­
destined adoption through Christ. The basis of the Church’s
union with Christ through bodily, institutional contact is de­
veloped in the analysis of the Mystical Body, and Christ’s head” References in Introduction to the Liturgy (Martimort), p. 4.
” Mediator Dei, n. 22.
11 Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 7.
82 Summa Theol., Ill, q. 63, a. 3.
Ibid., qq. 20-26.

572

LIAM G. WALSH

ship over it.34 A definition of the liturgy, then, in terms of the
priesthood and headship of Christ can be given detailed tech­
nical precision from the resources provided by the christology
of St. Thomas.
But there are features of the christology of St. Thomas which
suggest that a definition of liturgy in terms of the grace, head­
ship, and priesthood of Christ cannot be the last word about
it. The created qualities and prerogatives of Christ’s humanity
can only be understood in relation to the Incarnation. His
grace is measured by his divine sonship. The human power and
authority which stems from his grace is ministerial and instru­
mental. The action by which he causes salvation is theandric.
To explain the full objective mystery of the liturgy it is not
enough to appeal to the human activity of Christ. One has to
raise further questions about how this human activity is a
manifestation and realization of divine activity. This, in turn,
involves appealing to presuppositions about the nature of God
and the nature of man.35 A christology supposes a theology
(including a theological anthropology). And for that very rea­
son a christological definition of the liturgy supposes a theo­
logical one. Liturgy is the mystery of God before it is the mys­
tery of Christ.
Certainly when liturgists are exploring the idea of mystery
they admit that its ultimate explanation lies in God. But more
often than not they seem to take God somewhat for granted.
Even when they develop the trinitarian pattern of the liturgy
they seldom go beyond an economic trinitarianism. It is argu­
able that St. Thomas would want to do more than this, that
he would want to employ a strictly theological category to
define the liturgy before specifying the christological property
of it. In fact, some of his most basic statements about liturgy
34 Ibid., q. 8.
35 Thus St. Thomas establishes the convenientia of the Incarnation by showing
how it accords with the nature of God as benevolent self-giving (ibid., q. 1, a. 1)
and the status of man as an embodied, sinful creature set in history (aa. 2-6). His
views of God and man are the presuppositions which underlie all his christology.
They have been critically established in the two earlier parts of the Summa.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

573

come in the pre-christological level of his theology, both in the
('outra Gentiles and in the Summa. It is there that he gives
his primary account of the objective divine dimension of the
liturgy.
Liturgy as the Work of God

Liturgists recall that in the Bible the word mystery originally
meant the plan of God’s wisdom for the salvation of mankind.
11 is this plan that is objectively embodied and revealed in the
liturgy. St. Thomas discusses the objective institutions of
liturgy in this very setting of the plan of God—technically
under the heading of Providence. He situates the subject in­
terestingly in the Contra Gentiles. In the course of a discussion
on how Providence looks after rational creatures in a special
way he introduces the concept of divine law.36 Having explained
how divine law provides for love and faith he goes on to ex­
plain why it also provides man with institutions of worship:
Since it is connatural to man to acquire knowledge through the
senses, and since it is most difficult to arise above sensible things,
divine providence has appointed sensible things as a reminder to
man of things divine, so that thus man’s intention might the more
readily be recalled to divine things, not excluding the man whose
mind is not equal to the contemplation of divine things in them­
selves. For this reason sensible sacrifices were instituted.. .. Again,
sensible things are employed for man’s sanctification, in the shape
of washings, anointings, meat and drink, and the uttering of sensible
words, as signifying to man that he receives intelligible gifts from
an external source, and from God whose name is expressed by
sensible words. Moreover, man performs certain sensible actions,
not to arouse God but to arouse himself to things divine: such as
prostrations, genuflexions, raising the voice and singing. . . .37

It is also under the heading of law that he deals with the
institutions of worship in the Summa. More than in the Contra
Gentiles he deals with the actual historical liturgies that have
been provided by God in the Old and New Laws. But a more
significant advance in the Summa is the way in which he co·· HI Contra Gentiles, c. 114.
" Ibid., c. 119.

tïlï

LIAM G. WALSH

ordinates the providence of Law with the providence of grace
in his explanation of liturgy. This whole section of his theology
is, in fact, an examination of the twofold way in which God is
at work in man’s search for self-fulfilment by law and by
grace.38* And while St. Thomas distinguishes the two levels of
divine activity, he is very sensitive to their interaction and to
the way the balance between them changes from the Old to
the New Testament. This contrast between the Testaments,
in terms of law and grace, is important for understanding his
views on the liturgy. What he has to say about the worship
of the New Law is expressed by way of comparison with the
institutions of the Old Law. Consequently it is important to
study his discussion of the Praecepta Caeremonialia, not alone
for the valuable general insights it has into the dynamics of
liturgy but because it provides the point of reference and the
terminology for his study of Christian worship. Those who
would relegate the long, forbidding questions on Old Testament
ceremonial to the limbo of historical curiosities run the risk of
misunderstanding St. Thomas’s thinking about liturgy.88
By treating liturgy under the heading of law St. Thomas
gives basic recognition to its communal, public character.40
The institutions set up by law are social: they create the com­
munity and provide the objective setting and support in which
the individual can practice virtue. Because the liturgical in­
stitutions of the Old Law are found in the Bible they are at­
tributed to positive divine law.41 They embody a revelation
38 Summa Theol., I-H, q. 90 prol.
30 He deals with the liturgy of the Old Law in I-II, qq. 101-103 and with the
liturgy of the New Law, ibid., q. 108, aa. 1-2. On the historical background and
methodology of his treatment cf. M.-D. Chenu, “ La théologie de la loi ancienne
selon saint Thomas,” in Revue· Thomiste 61 (1961), 485-497; Beryl Smalley,
“ William of Auvergne, John of La Rochelle and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Old
Law,” in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1S74-1974. Commemorative Studies. Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies (Toronto, 1974). Vol. 2, 11-72.
‘“For a more general discussion on this point cf. C.-M. Travers, O. P. Valeur
Sociale de la Liturgie (Lex Orandi 5) (Paris, 1946).
41 Summa Theol., I-II, q. 98, a. 2. It is because they are in the Bible that St.
Thomas devotes so much space to the ceremonial precepts. He is a theologian who
takes the Bible seriously, cf. Chenu, art. cit.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

575

made to a particular people, who have a special role in the hisImy of salvation, of how the general moral precept to worship
( <<>d should be concretely carried out.42 Such an elaborate code
was needed to protect them from idolatry and to encourage
them to direct all their life to God.43 But there is a second, even
more fundamental reason why God should have legislated in
such detail: the ceremonies of the Old Testament had to pre­
figure Christ.44 St. Thomas considers that this reference to
Christ has to be found in all liturgy, even in those extra-biblical
liturgies which he believes can be legitimately created by
prophetically inspired men.40 It provides him with a funda­
mental explanation of why the ceremonies of the Old Law had
to be replaced. They were signs of a Christ who was to come:
they looked forward to him. Once he had come they were no
longer truthful, no longer expressed the objective reality of
salvation; they had to be replaced by commemorative signs,
which looked back in faith and charity to the Christ who had
come.40
The law-making activity of God, then, which gives external
shape to liturgy, must be coordinated with his grace-giving ac­
tivity. In Christ grace is objectively realized and available to
humanity.47 Hence, according to St. Thomas, the New Law
is primarily a “ lex indita,” an inner enabling impulse of the
Holy Spirit producing justification and virtue.48 But the new
dispensation does not dispense entirely with external law. Be­
cause grace became available in the humanity of Christ it is
fittingly communicated and expressed by men in bodily ac­
tions.40 These external actions, to the extent that they are
"Summa Theol., I-Π, q. 101, a. 1.
48 Ibid., a. 3.
44 Ibid., aa. 2-3; q. 102, a. 2.
45 Ibid., q. 103, a. 1. On the basis of this remark of St. Thomas one could find
a meaning and value in the liturgies of non-Christian religions, even in the present
day.
44 Ibid., q. 101, a. 2; q. 103, a. 3. On the need for truthfulness in liturgical signs
cf. ΙΙ-Π, q. 93, a. 1.
" I-II, q. 103, a. 2.
48 Ibid., q. 106, a. 1.
48 Ibid., q. 108, a. 1.

576

LIAM G. WALSH

necessary for the gaining and right use of grace, become the
object of legislation in the New Testament. For the gaining
of grace divine law brings the sacraments into existence.50 Al­
though the shape of these sacraments was prefigured in the
ceremonies of the Old Law,51 their objective reality is quite
different. They contain the justifying grace of God. The
liturgies of the Old Law could carry the faith and charity of
God’s People forward to Christ and so play a part in their
justification; but they could not objectively embody the grace
of Christ, because Christ did not yet actually exist.52 Because
they contain Christ, the sacraments of the New Law are the
work of God both as legislator and giver of grace.
But what is true of the sacraments need not be true of the
totality of Christian liturgy. St. Thomas, in fact, says that,
apart from the institution of the sacraments, there is no divine
legislation about worship in the New Testament. Other cere­
monies do not give grace and are not given by God.53 He sees
the detailed ceremonial of the Old Law fulfilled, not in Chris­
tian liturgy (in spite of many similarities) but in the life of
Christ or in acts of Christian virtue.54 In taking this line St.
Thomas would seem to be supporting the separation of sacra­
ments from liturgy, of sanctification from worship. It is here,
however, that one must be sensitive to the categories in which
St. Thomas presents his thought and remember that he is
analysing the New Law, not in isolation but in contrast with
the Old. When he says, in effect, that there are no ceremonial
precepts in the New Law he is not saying that there is no place
for ceremonial. The New Law legislates for the human actions
by which we are introduced to grace and by which we use
grace aright. If the sacraments are necessary for the giving
of grace, then their use is necessary for those who would have
grace. The New Law requires participation in the sacraments.
00 Ibid., a. 2.
31 Ibid., q. 102, a. 5 ad 8.
f Ibid., q. 103, a. 2.
83 Ibid., q. 108, a. 2 and ad 2.
84 Ibid., q. 102, aa. 2-5, especially in replies to the objections.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

577

Il also requires that this participation should take the form
<>)’ worship. The moral precept of worship has not been abro­
gat'd in the New Law, and obedience to it is an essential reqiiirement for the reception of grace. And while this worship is
essentially an interior attitude, it has to take external cere­
monial form. St. Thomas denies none of this. What he does
deny is that there are any specific ceremonies, other than the
basic ritual of the sacraments, that are necessarily required for
worship under the law of grace. The response of worship must
l>e made with all the liberty, personal initiative and pursuit of
reasonableness that marks the law of the Holy Spirit.’5 The
individual conscience has its rights here. But because grace is
given and used concretely in the Christian community, there
will be a place for human legislation. St. Thomas takes it for
granted in his sacramental theology that, while the Church has
no right to interfere with the essentials of sacraments, it has
I lie right to legislate for their liturgical use and the ritual in
which they are solemnized. Here he mentions the special
authority of the “ Sancti Patres ” in the determination of ChrisI ian worship,’® and also the rights of prelates; ” and when he
is dealing with the subjective moral values of worship he shows
how seriously the obligations arising from this human liturgical
legislation must be taken.’8 Yet he counsels moderation in
liturgical law “ so as not to burden the way of life of the faith­
ful.”’9 And by presenting it as the work of human legislators
he frees it from the burdensome absoluteness that went with
the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law.80
Those who are interested in the renewal and reshaping of the
Church’s liturgy will be encouraged by this teaching of St.
Thomas on the human provenance, and therefore on the rela*’ Ibid., q. 108, a. 1 and ad 2. On the reasonableness of the New Law in contrast
to the Old cf. q. 102, a, 1 ad 1.
“ Ibid., q. 107, a. 4.
" Ibid., q. 108, aa. 2-8.
“ Π-Π, qq. 93, 94, 99.
I-Π, q. 107, a. 4: “ ne conversatio fidelium onerosa reddatur.”
” Note, for example, the difference he sees between the obligation of observing
Sunday and observing the Sabbath in Π-ΙΙ, q. 122, a. 4 ad 4.

578

LIAM G. WALSH

tivity, of most liturgical law. But from the theological stand­
point it would seem that he is making the liturgy much less
the work of God. Again, however, one has to keep the context
of St. Thomas’s statements in mind. The reason there is so
little divine liturgical law in the New Testament is that grace
is now available in Christ. The more grace abounds the less
need there is of law. New Testament man can be trusted to
worship God without much guidance from divine law. He can
be trusted as an individual because he is transformed by the
grace of the Holy Spirit, perfected by the virtue of religion and
inspired by the gift of piety.61 But more importantly, he can
be trusted insofar as he belongs to the community of the
Church. When one remembers that the ecclesiology of St.
Thomas is primarily an ecclesiology of grace 62 and that acts
of the Church are acts of grace, one can appreciate why he sees
so little need for its life to be arranged in detail by divine law.
The worship that New Testament man produces, provided it
is done within the order of the Church, is the work of grace.
And the work of grace is more effectively divine than the work
of law. New Testament liturgy, for all its freedom and man­
made forms, is the work of God far more profoundly than was
the liturgy of the Old Law.
As an illustration of how the theological categories of law and
grace are used by St. Thomas to give a profound explana­
tion of the mystery of the liturgy it is worth looking again
at his sacramental theology. At the heart of his analysis
analysis of sacraments he has a question entitled De Causis
Sacramentorum?3 He is isolating the actual causes that bring
a sacrament, as defined formally in previous questions, into
real existence. In other words, he is looking at an actual liturgy
elII-H, q. 121 It is to the gift of piety that St. Thomas attributes the trinitarian
quality of the Christian’s worship.
02 Cf. Yves Congar, O. P., “ Ecclesia et Populus (Fidelis) dans l’Ecclésiologie de
S. Thomas,” in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274-1974. Commemorative Studies (Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, 1974) vol. 1, pp. 159-174.
” Summa Theol., HI, q. 64.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

579

of the Church and asking what agents are at work to make
this to be a sacrament of the New Law. Before asking about
the minister, the Church, the Apostles, Christ, he asks about
the action of God. He studies this on two levels, of interior
net ion and of institution.®4 This corresponds to the double patt ern of grace and law that he has found in God’s salvific action
in the Prima Secundae. To situate the question of the instituI ion of sacraments in this context is to make it a genuinely the­
ological rather than a merely apologetical issue. It is to ask,
not have individual sacraments been divinely instituted but
why and to what extent a sacrament has to be so. And the
answer, that a sacrament has to be from God because he is
I he one whose virtus is present in the sacrament, joins the
sacramental expression firmly to the virtus that is at work.
God acts within and without, in a balanced presence of law
and grace. The power of the sacraments to cause grace is like­
wise better understood when seen within the general pattern
of grace-giving and its relationship to liturgical law in the New
Testament. The causality of the sacraments is not a surrep­
titious, unannounced intervention by God but a visible offer
made in a way that gives man the opportunity for a congenial,
personal response. The external shape corresponds to the in­
ternal movement: and both are from God. The importance of
liturgical celebration is also clarified. The distinction that St.
Thomas makes between what is “ de necessitate sacramenti ”
and what is “ ad quandam solemnitatem ”05 may seem to be
restricting the work of God to the essential matter and form.
But when one remembers that what he is excluding from the
New Law of grace is not the exercise of worship or the need
for some external forms of it but simply the divinely imposed
necessity of this or that particular form, one can be satisfied
that liturgical self-expression of the Christian community is
an integral part of the economy of grace. As St. Thomas makes
’* Ibid., aa. 1-2.
Ibid., q. 64, a. 2 ad 1.

580

LIAM G. WALSH

clear in his formal analysis of grace, everything that prepares
man for grace and enables him to cooperate with it and act ex­
ternally in accordance with it is itself produced by God’s
grace.06 Hence the full liturgical celebration of sacraments is
the work of God, not as the product of divine law but as the
product of divine grace. While the presence of grace in a sac­
rament depends indubitably on the making of a divinely in­
stituted sign, the taking hold of grace requires the creative
liturgical response of the Christian community. The Church’s
freedom to create an appropriate liturgical setting for the sac­
raments is the grace-assured freedom of the children of God.
Theological definition of Liturgy
The conclusion suggested by our examination of St. Thomas’s
treatment of liturgical material is that he would prefer a de­
finition of the liturgy to begin with a strictly theological idea
rather than a anthropological one such as worship or sign, or
a christological one such as priesthood. God has to be brought
into the definition of liturgy somehow. The definitions we have
already examined do so by way of specific difference—qualify­
ing, for example, the generic notion of sign by the notion of
divine institution. But it does seem more sensible in a the­
ological definition to make the divine to be the generic element
rather than the specific difference. To define liturgy as “ the
work of God ” or “ the action of God ” takes one immediately
to the ontological reality of the mystery one is defining. One
could then go on to qualify this action of God as one which,
for example, appears in a system of signs which sanctify mem­
bers of the Church for the worship of the Father through Christ
in the Spirit. The qualifying details of such a definition would
need to be worked out and balanced more carefully. The only
point at issue here is that these details should be qualifications
rather than starting points, and that the first thing a theologian
should say about liturgy is that it is the action of God.
To describe liturgy as an action of God . . . can, of course,
”Ι-Π, q. 109, a. 6; q. Ill, aa. 2-3.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

581

!>«· a form of intellectual and pastoral escapism. In mundane
matters or in a purely secularist ideology to call something an
net of God can mean that we simply do not understand it or
can do nothing about it. But in a theologian like St. Thomas
“ act of God ” is an expression of neither agnosticism nor ir­
responsibility. It is not agnosticism, myth or metaphor because
his explanation of how liturgy is the work of God as lawgiver
and giver of grace is rooted in a careful metaphysical analysis
of the action of God on his creatures, and particularly on man.
1 [is study of divine government in Prima Pars sets out to juslify and explain how God is present and active in all things,
and how his action on intelligent creatures occurs both on the
level of interior transformation of mind and will as well as on
the level of external presentation of images and motivation.®’
Indeed his complex analysis of what would today be called
interpersonal relationships (involving different combinations of
God, angels, men, and things), and the place of signs in this,
offers a facinating groundwork for understanding the per­
sonalist dimension that so interests contemporary liturgists.
These patterns of divine government are in turn an application
of St. Thomas’s more fundamental analysis of God, his provi­
dence, the work of creation and the kind of relationship that
exists between God and his creatures. The fact that God is,
that he gives himself out of sheer goodness to others, that he
directs these others to participate in his goodness by predesti­
nating providence are the ultimate presuppositions for his the­
ological interpretation of the liturgy. Some of them are more
immediately relevant to the liturgy than others. For example,
the discussion on the names of God ®8 has a bearing on the
evaluation of prayer language in the liturgy. The credibility
of the trinitarian pattern of liturgy is supported by the estab­
lishment of basic trinitarian dogma, and the correlation of the
visible mission of the Word with the invisible mission of the
Holy Spirit shows how the pattern of visible shape and in" Cf. I, q. 105, aa. 8-4.
'"Ibid., q. 13.

582

LIAM G. WALSH

visible grace found in the New Testament liturgy (law and
grace in St. Thomas’s terms) is grounded on the trinitarian
economy of salvation.09 The explanation of the purpose of crea­
tion as the communication of God’s goodness provides the
basic key for understanding how in promoting the glory of
God liturgy is not benefitting God but perfecting his creatures.70
Nor does defining liturgy as the action of God undermine the
pastoral responsibility of men for the actual carrying out of
liturgy. The basic anthropology of St. Thomas presents man
as a creature who is master of his own destiny. Made as he is
in the image of God he has a capacity for the gift of personal
relationship with God, freely accepted and pursued in ac­
cordance with the psychological and moral structure of his own
nature and his essential dependence on community.71 Man’s
self-perfecting action is no less his own, no less free, no less
typically human for being exercised under the sovereign pre­
motion of God. It is no less personal for being worked out with­
in patterns set by human law. Man’s existential situation as
sinner does not alter the essential pattern of his relationship
with God but rather accentuates its humaness. The place of
the body in liturgy, the remedial redemptive necessity of Chris­
tian liturgy, the need for conscious, deliberate correspondence
with the grace it offers, the worshipful use of its forms whether
they are given by divine law or created by human ingenuity—
all this is justified and made intelligible by the general an­
thropological options of St. Thomas such as they appear, for
example in the Prima Pars and Prima Secundae.
This is not the place to debate the value of these fundamental
theological and anthropological positions of St. Thomas in any
detail or to fully explore their relevance to liturgy. They are
listed simply to show that from the very begiiming of his the­
ology St. Thomas is saying things which take account of and
provide a method for understanding the liturgical material
” Ibid., q. 48.
” Ibid., q. 44, a. 4; cf. Π-Π, q. 81, a. 7.
711, q. 93; cf. I-Π prologue.

LITURGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

583

which he will encounter in his progressive exploration of all the
principles, values, and historical happenings that make up the
existential relationship between God and his creation. And
since it is in the Christian liturgy that this relationship is being
worked out in the final phase of salvation history, one can claim
that he offers a method of thinking theologically about—if not
a self-contained theology of—the liturgy.
Liam G. Walsh, Ο. P.
St. Mary’s, Tallaght
Co. Dublin, Ireland