George,
I'll post where ever I like thank you - if you don't like it, then you can go pray about it somewhere! Not that I need to answer to you but I would have thought that the first line of the post identified who I was directing the post to and in what context- not clear enough for you? This is not your chapel sunshine and I'll certainly take an interest in this thread in future and whenever I feel like it. Don't forget to pray for my soul!

Oliver,
Again, I have to agree and thank you for the info about early catechumens. Yes, it is important to keep in mind the original Christian liturgical practice. However, I think that one also has to keep in mind, that -- at least in Europe -- people's aesthetic tastes and psychological dispositions have evolved over the centuries; including a "propensity" to tradition inherited from recent generations of worshipers, that could not have existed in the first centuries A.D. For instance, besides "classical" (pre-20th century), music, there is decent modern music and decadent music, though it is not easy, if at all possible, to give objective criteria for which is which. Perhaps something similar can be said about the aesthetic, pastoral and psychological values of new liturgies.

Oliver,
I prefer not to leave interpretation to a third party. That is my conscious decision. The role of the minister/priest ,historically, was to explain to the unlearned an interpretation of holy teachings as proscribed, depending on the religious persuasion. The challenge today lies, I believe, not so much with the third party but more so on reliance upon the third party interpreting scripture as was meant. If a person decides to accept another's interpretation without question, even with the benefit of self-education, that is their own business.
Christianity owes a lot to "pagan" rituals, I agree. The Assyrians gave us the epic of Gilgamesh, the Easter celebration is drawn from the Babylonian worship of Ishtar, typically early to mid-march, as a time of renewal. Worship on sundays was instigated because the Christians couldn't get a crowd on saturdays but the temples for Baal and crew were filled on sundays. If you can't beat'em...
I'm not sure if any benefit can be drawn from telling someone their form of worship is not correct. It remains a personal decision in the end. The gift of choice allows us all to worship as we feel fit.

tRAKKA,

Thank you. I liked your reply. It was balanced and recognised many historical realities some devout might choice not to recognise.

Often, I tell my undergrad. business studies students that a textbook is just a handy approximation of the real world reality. It is sensibly contrived but for the real world falls short. In a larger picture a discipline will have community of practice with a peer-group [topic educated reference group] whom defend a position(s)[Lakatos]. Other disciplines, rough researchers and better PhD students will attack it. That is how progress is how we progress.

In religious practice, to me, congregations seem too passive and the Churches don't really acknowledge cultural anthropology, history and comparative theocrasia to there flock. They too defend their positions, but to quash, rather meld positions. It is like watching TV [inactive] rather than reading a paper [active]. The priest/minister is given far to significant a role and is virtually unchallengable. Historically, the Jews lost battles to Hadrian because the former would not fight on the Sabboth, the General/Empire knew this. Even Jesus said that the Sabboth has been made by Man [?].

Polanyi as I mentioned saw performance artistic and religious as an act of "indwelling" in that performance. It really is learning.

My critique of Sells on many topics is his is an "inside" world and religion [any religion] is not subjected to objective forsenic scunity by denominationists in the same way as in the 1950s/60s,Solid State cosmologists had recognise that that 2.7K degrees background radiation supported the Big Bang

To ensure that I don't invoke the sanction of the hammer of god, I'll stay well within thread. I think the authors statement is correct because in the past, adherents to the 'holy play' had a liturgical sensory environment that both created a psychological atmosphere and directed the participants sensory input to the medium of the third party; who acted as the guide through the psychological forest of our fears and expectations to the shimmering grail in a far off clearing. The great playwrights of the Greek tragedy's developed the liturgical techniques that would be used by christianity in later ages.

The problem now is that essential to both the Greek and later Christian liturgical rights is the 'holy guide'. The fact that christianity has only relatively recently moved from Latin to indigenous language has essentially changed the liturgical environment from mystery to dogma and diminished the role of the 'holy guide'.

Christians in the past, participating in these rights at least knew that they were undertaking a spiritual jorney; now they have no idea and are vulnerable to manipulation.

Netab,
Thank you, that is a very interesting insight into the psychological function of Christian liturgy; the fact that you are apparently an "outsider" is here quite irrelevant.