Liturgy on a "Catholic law blog" -- Blame Hobbes

A few days ago, I responded here to some correspondents and commenters who wondered why in the world considerations about liturgy and ecclesiology belong on a "Catholic law blog."  Well, one might justly ask in the same breath why Hobbes included virtually the entirety of parts Parts III and IV of Leviathan.  I think it's fair to say (following Edwin Curley) that Hobbes wanted to pull down all or most of the churches.  The author of Leviathan wasn't content with such wholesale devastation, however; he goes in for more detailed destruction as well, as in this passage in in Leviathan xliv, 11: "But (seeing for the frequency of pretending the change of nature in their consecrations, it cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary) it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is not (contrary to the testimony of man's sight and of all the rest of his senses).  As, for example, when the priest -- instead of consecrating bread and wine to God's peculiar service in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is but a separation of it from the common use, to signify (that is, to put men in mind of) their redemption by the passion of Christ, whose body was broken and blood shed upon the cross for our transgressions -- pretends that by saying of the words of our Saviour, This is my body, and this is my blood, the nature of bread is no more there, but his very body (notwithstanding there appeareth not to the sight or other sense of the receiveer anything that appeareth not before the consecration)."  This denial of transubstantiation comes smackdab in the middle of the greatest state-building effort of all time!

It's important that the Eucharistic liturgy and its site be in the varied and appropriate ways beautiful, which is why in my judgment so many (though my no means all) of the recent developments in terms of church architecture, music, art, iconography, and the like have been so unfortunate and damaging.  But from this it does not follow that the final judgment on a liturgy should be made with the five senses Hobbes brought to bear.  Demands for what the eyes and ears can register lead in the direction Hobbes brilliantly indicated.  No one -- expect a Hobbesian -- should be opposed to the faithful's *participating* in the liturgy, but it's another question entirely what form(s) true participation can or must take.

The most important political philosopher of modernity saw with perfect clarity why the Catholic Mass had to be reduced to just so many physical manifestations.  I think it's a fortiori that liturgy -- especially defense of the Catholic theology of liturgy -- has a place on MOJ.  You can blame it on Hobbes.