Christian Initiation

9. Service Book and Hymnal (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958), 11. On the origins and development of this prayer see Luther D. Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1947), 356363. A version of this prayer was the third option in the 1978 Lutheran Book of Worship and now, revised further, appears as the first option in the current Evangelical Lutheran Worship. 10. Enrico Mazza, The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite (New York: Pueblo, 1986), 53-4 [emphasis added]. 11. Of course, I was also disappointed in the new form of the Confiteor and the embolism after the Our

Father for the same reason. Just where did Mary, Michael the Archangel, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul, and (in the embolism only) Andrew go? 12. Mary Collins, O.S.B., Contemplative Participation: Sacrosanctum Concilium Twenty-Five Years

Later (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990), 31. 13. Rule of St Benedict, 19, and 22. 14. Prayer of Christians (Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1972). 15. Benedictine Daily Prayer: A Short Breviary, Second Edition (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2015). 16. For a firsthand account of the wider ecumenical significance of the relationship between Aquinas

Institute of Theology and Wartburg Seminary in Dubuque, IA, see the work of another of my teachers, Thomas F. O’Meara, OP, A Theologian’s Journey (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2002). 17. “The Paschal Mystery: Reflections from a Lutheran Viewpoint,” Worship 57, 2 (1983): 134-150. 18. Allan Bouley, From Freedom to Formula: The Evolution of the Eucharistic Prayer from Oral

Improvisation to Written Texts, Studies in Christian Antiquity 21 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981). 19. E.C. Whitaker and Maxwell E. Johnson (eds.), Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, Revised and

Expanded Edition (London: SPCK, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, Pueblo, 2003); Paul F.

Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, Fourth Edition (Collegeville: Liturgical Press Academic, 2019). 20. See Gabriel Radle, “Living Comparative Liturgy: Robert F. Taft, SJ (1932-2018),” Ecclesia Orans 36 (2019): 197-223. 21. Virgilio Elizondo, The Future is Mestizo: Life Where Cultures Meet, Revised Edition (Boulder:

University of Colorado Press, 2000). See also my The Virgin of Guadalupe: Theological Reflections of an Anglo-Lutheran Liturgist, Foreword by Virgil P. Elizondo, Celebrating Faith: Explorations in Latino Spirituality and Theology Series (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and my edited collection, American Magnificat: Protestants on Mary of Guadalupe (Collegeville:

Michael Glazier, 2010). 22. Karl Rahner, “Third Church?” in Idem, Theological Investigations, Volume XVII: Jesus, Man, and the Church (New York; Crossroad, 1981), 215-27.

President’s Report

Gennifer Brooks

And now for my report to the body gathered as the North American Academy of Liturgy at its annual meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, January 4, 2022.

In 2020, when President Bruce Morrill passed the gavel to me, I wasn’t particularly perturbed. Policies and Procedures were in place, there had been a long line of presidents before me, and each had left some type of footprint that helped to show the way. So, as a person with lots of prior administrative experience and a supportive committee, I was all set to go. No problem. Right?

I returned from recuperating from surgery in sunny Trinidad, and we had a good AC meeting in March, and even began to put the necessary plans in place for the 2021 meeting in Seattle. And then came COVID and things have never been the same. One year turned into two. Two newsletters to the membership turned into five or is it six? But through it all I had the privilege and pleasure of working with an Academy Committee who stood shoulder to shoulder with me as we tried to navigate through a situation that changed by the second.

Along the way there were those who expressed their support and promise of prayers, thank you. There were those who sometimes did otherwise, but those were few and not worthy of much mention. But as I promised in one of my communiques to the membership, I will try to give you a brief sense of the challenges we faced that resulted in our being here in this place at this time.

 At the beginning of the pandemic, no one expected it would last this long or be this devastating, but almost all the letters I received advised that we not have a meeting on Zoom. Some were fierce and demanding. Others were hopeful and tried to be helpful. The AC met and together we agreed that we would not meet— not personally and not on Zoom. Hindsight says perhaps we should have done differently, but one has to work with what is in hand at the time and I stand by our decision. Instead at the urging of our Delegate for Seminars, Kimberly Belcher, we approved an online event aimed at supporting young scholars and another online gathering for communal worship at the time that our meeting would have occurred. I would say both were well-received and attended by members.  One of the major factors that impacts our decision regarding the meeting is our contractual obligations. As an academy, our practice has been to sign a fiveyear contract with the hotels where we plan to hold our meetings. Because of