I have been speaking in loose and general terms of the “truths of sanctity.” Although sanctity's apparent source is in Ultimate Sacred Postulates (which, being expressions concerning gods and the like are typically devoid of material significata) it is not confined to them. We noted in the course of discussing the hierarchical dimension of liturgical orders in chapter 8 that sanctity seems to flow from sacred postulates to other expressions which do include references to the here, the now and the material.

In literate societies, theological discourse may sometimes serve as a channel through which sanctity courses from Ultimate Sacred Postulates to other expressions but for reasons developed throughout this work the liturgical conveyance of sanctity is more compelling even among the literate. It is one thing for an exegete to derive a rule of conduct from an interpretation of a sacred text. It is another for the people to accept such derivations as binding upon them. Agreement, acquiescence or even belief may follow new theological argument, but acceptance is not its ineluctable entailment as it is in formal ritual performance.

The reach of liturgical sanctification is also more comprehensive. For instance, in light of the argument developed in chapter 4, it is difficult to see how commissives and testimony could be sanctified without being enunciated ritually inasmuch as it is not always or even often clear that an utterance is meant to be taken as a commissive or testament (and not merely a vague prediction or expression of intent or opinion) unless ritually marked as such.