In a new book, mythographer Martin Shaw says humans need stories that reflect back to us the challenges we know we must face.,In a new book, mythographer Martin Shaw says humans need stories that reflect back to us the challenges we know we must face.
about 1 month ago
A new article titled "'Liturgies of the Wild' makes the case for myth" was published on January 31, 2026, at 9:00 AM UTC.1
It spotlights a work titled Liturgies of the Wild.1
The piece advocates for the value of myth in liturgical or spiritual contexts.1
"Liturgies of the Wild" appears to blend natural, untamed themes with traditional ritual forms.1
This positions myth as essential rather than ornamental.1
Released amid ongoing discussions in religious and cultural spheres under Pope Leo XIV's papacy.1
The timing suggests relevance to contemporary liturgical renewal debates.1
Assess Catholic theology’s view of myth in liturgical practice
Catholic theology approaches the concept of myth in liturgical practice with careful distinction, subordinating any anthropological or cultural interpretations to the supernatural reality of Christ's salvific mysteries enacted in worship. Far from equating liturgy with myth—as in pagan storytelling or fabricated narratives—the Church sees liturgical rites as historical, sacramental participations in divine truth, where symbolic elements may evoke pre-Christian "mythical phenomena" only to elevate them toward theological fulfillment. This assessment draws from liturgical handbooks and formation documents, which caution against reducing rites to relativistic cultural constructs while acknowledging myth's role as a human constant mediated by ritual.
In Catholic teaching, liturgy is not myth but the "mystery of faith," a term repeatedly invoked to describe the Eucharist and sacraments as realities surpassing human understanding yet rooted in historical revelation. Documents emphasize that rites embody doctrinal treasures and spiritual values, drawn from scriptural and patristic sources rather than invented myths. For instance, theological liturgy studies rites inductively, clarifying their spiritual and pastoral content through prior historical research, but always in light of systematic theology. Here, myth appears not as the essence of liturgy but as a cultural precursor: "Immanence and transcendence, the mythical phenomenon (myth) and the ritual phenomenon (rite) are the cultural constants." The rite institutionalizes these, with myths providing narrative thematization—a "story (of a special kind) of a rite"—yet in Christianity, this is transcended by the Incarnation's historical irruption.
This framework avoids conflating liturgy with homo mythicus, the myth-making human tendency. Instead, rites like the Eucharist are "the resultant institutionalization" of salvation history, adapting cultural models while preserving transcendence. Overemphasis on diversity in forms risks relativism, portraying liturgy as "determined much more by anthropological and sociological factors" than theology—a pitfall post-Vatican II liturgical history sometimes fell into. Seminarians are thus formed to teach liturgy's history "in a theological way, as tradition," linking outward forms to enduring spiritual meaning.
Catholic sources permit anthropological lenses on myth-rite dynamics but strictly limit them "within the limits established by the supernatural nature of the liturgy." Contemporary disciplines like anthropology aid study of rites' parts—e.g., Eucharistic Prayer or Liturgy of the Hours—but must not "lessen the full supernatural force of Catholic worship." In the Handbook for Liturgical Studies, myth mediates reality symbolically through rite, offering "understanding (not a learning)" grounded in an "originating myth." Yet this is descriptive, not prescriptive: liturgy's goal is not mythic reenactment but entering Christ's eternal praise as the Mystical Body.
Warnings abound against mythologizing liturgy. Pope John Paul II stressed fidelity to liturgical norms, forbidding additions or changes that could dilute revelation. A crisis perspective links anthropocentric shifts—like versus populum—to a subtle turn from God, risking diversion "to myths" (2 Tim 4:3-4), where lex orandi alters lex credendi. Liturgy must hand on faith tradition, not personal innovations. Even Thomistic metaphysics explicates Eucharistic presence without resolving it into philosophical puzzles, preserving it as inexhaustible mystery.
Ultimately, Catholic theology elevates liturgical practice above myth by rooting it in Christ's person and work. The Divine Office, for example, celebrates "what we have become... in Christ," associating the Church with his priestly prayer—not mythic narrative but salvific reality. Preaching connects homily to this liturgy-catechesis nexus, fostering encounter with faith's mysteries. Formation imbues priests with rites' spirit, enabling them to "open it up for those they are leading in worship, so that it gives life."
Where sources touch myth directly, as in cultural constants of rite, they frame it as preparatory: models "adapt the connections between theme-myth and institution-rite according to cultural variants," but Christian cult systematizes this toward divine worship. No document endorses myth as liturgy's core; instead, they prioritize theological, historical, and spiritual dimensions.
In summary, Catholic theology views myth in liturgical practice as a subordinate anthropological reality—useful for understanding symbolic mediation but firmly transcended by the supernatural rites of salvation. This preserves liturgy's integrity against relativism, ensuring worship remains a living tradition of faith's mysteries. Priests and faithful are called to celebrate it faithfully, drawing from its doctrinal depth rather than cultural myths.