Liturgical methods for understanding sacraments in Hughes

All liturgical methods have something to offer. What works best in one situation may not work as well in another, which is why multiple methods are meaningful. Hughes outlines several different approaches to liturgy, including the historical method, the comparative method, the philological methods, juridical method, dogmatic method, and the liturgical-theological methods. I am roughly familiar with all of these methods but would like to spend a little more time getting to know the philological method. The philological method does not receive as much attention as it should in churches, mainly because it seems scholastic in tone. However, many members of the congregation would benefit and respond from hearing the types of lexical analyses that the philological method offers. Congregation members may also tire of the same methods used to explain the sacraments, whereas the philological method offers the opportunity for enhanced understanding of the meaning and spiritual function of specific sacraments or other elements of Christian liturgy.

Philological methods are linguistic. They focus on liturgical language, and as such have “inspired poets and mystics,” (Hughes, p. 4). An examination of religious scholars and mystics, as well as Christian poets, helps to illuminate the nuances of language used to describe spiritual experiences. Because spiritual experiences are often directly felt and are ultimately ineffable, there is a great challenge in cloaking those experiences in language. Therefore, recognizing the limitations of language while appreciating what language does have to offer in the study of liturgy can become a tremendously challenging but rewarding endeavor. As Hughes points out, using the philological method also encourages the investigation of source texts written by early and medieval Christian mystics. Revisiting some of the texts from familiar authors, and perhaps some less familiar, helps to elucidate some of the underlying principles of liturgical practice.

Also, the philological method is by its very nature multidisciplinary and cross-cultural. Many mystical writings penned in languages other than English can lend special insight into the evolution of various liturgical practices as they have been passed down and changed over the years, or how those practices differ from place to place due to localized customs. The ways some sacraments are practiced in Portugal will vary from those practiced in Germany, England, or Kenya. The philological method introduces the worshipper to the beauty of multiple Christian writings in many different languages, which does not require an advanced degree in linguistics or anthropology but just a curious and inquiring mind. As Hughes points out, the philological method is “not confined to language specialists,” (p. 5). Anyone with an open mind and a predilection for language can grasp the philological method. The philological method also shares much in common with other methods, particularly the liturgical-theological method, with its attention on rituals and celebrations as they are manifest in different cultures.