Sunday, June 7, 2015

Binary Barrier: Sacra Liturgia Conference


John R has published his account of the speakers at the Sacra Liturgia conference in New York City. Conferences and other forms of controlled mob interaction allow leaders to influence their potential cliques, for the cliques to share their ideas, for prejudices to be confirmed, or for new ideas about piety and theology to be inculcated. This year's conference is interesting both for what it discussed and what it failed to discuss.

A constantly reiterated goal of this blog is to broaden conversation about the Catholic Church's liturgy beyond the duality of the "OF" and "EF" Roman books—the liturgy of Paul VI and the rite of Econe John XXIII. The 1962 liturgy is not an accurate reflection of the Roman tradition nor is the Roman tradition the only legitimate liturgy in the Latin Church, much less in the Church universal. The speakers at the Sacra Liturgia conference seem blissfully aware of this pair of simple facts. John recounts that all the speakers on the docket engaged in the same predictable and tired lecture formulae that we have heard since mid-2007: commence with turgid quotations from Sacrosanctum Concilium, explain how the glorious document was ignored, commend the reverence of the "EF", speak at length about how the "OF" can learn from the "EF," and gratuitously add that the "OF" does have a number of significant improvements that could benefit the "EF."

Every supposedly traditional liturgist has some item on the list wherein they believe that the "OF" praxis could improve the "EF", yet they never have a consensus as to what. Dom Anderson OSB favors the variety of prefaces in the Pauline rite. Other writers applaud the Pauline lectionary for "opening" Scripture to the people. The local tongue allows for greater participation. It is almost as though to baptize one's views on the "EF" one must agree that the "OF" has something to offer the Church not contained in the other rites practiced now or in history by the faithful.

Only Alcuin Reid broke beyond this binary set of numbers, and he did so because he wanted to prevent a third figure from entering his set of 1s and 0s. At the local level, priests and some laity are increasingly interested in the genuine old rite, particularly in the un-Pianized Holy Week. This past year saw a proliferation in Holy Week celebrations according to older usages, celebrations wisely un-publicized by the faithful. The diocesan bishop is unlikely to care, but the district superior of the FSSP is. 

Reid spoke of the improvements wrought by Pius XII which ought not be undone. The veritas horarum meant that the "Easter Vigil" was "restored" to the right time, and hence it properly should conclude with Lauds as the liturgy welcomes the morning of the Resurrection rather than the nightfall of Vespers (one wonders if he has read any medieval accounts of Holy Week or attended the Vesperal Liturgy of St. Basil the Great). Communion ought to be given on Good Friday, even if it was not done anywhere else East or West. The celebrant need not read texts already read by other ministers—as though it detracts from the celebration in some way. Reid emphasized  that the "Liturgy is not frozen in amber and one cannot glorify a certain year or cut-off point for pristine Liturgy." Reid is right, but does not mean this in the same way that I would mean this. Reid is warning people not to nurture too strong an interest in the liturgy as it existed before Pacelli. He wants to preserve the binary barrier.

This is at the heart of the conference's short-comings and the defect in modern scholarship on the Roman rite. With rare exception, clerical and mainstream commentators are inextricably linked to the rite of Paul VI and of Econe John XXIII. They love one and hate the other. They love one and like the other. They are "pro-Benedict" and "anti-Francis." No one asks what the Roman liturgy actually is or why it matters. They will adumbrate their points with favorable quotations from Byzantine liturgists to reiterate the necessity of tradition without actually understanding what their liturgical heritage is.

The Roman liturgy is the liturgy used at St. Peter's basilica and by the Popes of the mid-first millennium. It consisted of the major hours of the Office to praise God throughout the day, not to "get graces," but because He is God and He deserves it. It also consisted of the Mass, served by the Pope and his ministers and centered on the ancient and venerable anaphora, the Roman Canon. Devotion and maximalism on the part of the Roman laity and monastics throughout Europe augmented the hours, added to the ritual of the Mass, and made of the tone of the Roman rite more reflective and subtle than those of its oriental counterparts. Reverence for the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles and expediency popularized its celebration throughout Europe. Ss. Gregory VII and Pius V tinkered with the ritual and with psalter a bit. It permeated the lives of the monastic and ordained faithful, many of them saints, for fourteen centuries. They did not write about it, nor did they hold conferences to debate how much of it was worth keeping. They prayed it and they lived it. Throughout those centuries, the local furnished the office with hymns, added prayers to the Mass, and created extravagant variations on the ritual. None of them dared to remove the essentials, though. 

I often muse that had I entered Canterbury Cathedral during the age of Innocent III and bad king John, I could approach a monk about to celebrate his daily Mass. He would probably concede that many of the ecclesiastical issues of the day were open to debate: whether the pope was right to excommunicate John, whether the local embellishment of readings was legitimate, whether the resident cardinal or the Archbishop of Canterbury had primacy in England. He would scoff, though, at the idea he or anyone could alter the hours or the Canon of the Mass. Similarly, he would scoff at the idea every gesture at the hours or Mass was subject to regulation, either by Rome or by freestanding conferences. 

Perhaps a future conference will delve into the depths of the Roman liturgy and explore what fruits it could offer to us today in our daily lives, how it can permeate the parish like it did the lives of the saints. Has anyone mentioned the simplicity of pre-1911 Compline? The same psalms and antiphons more or less every day with minimal variation? This would be an easy accommodation to the local church. Coped cantors in the sanctuary? An easy way to assimilate men into the choir who do not want to join the female clique in the loft. Octaves? A protracted celebration of the great feasts which aids us in understanding the magnificent things Christ has done for us. The old Holy Week times? Very helpful for families. 

Above all, the Roman rite is not to be found in a set of particular books, but in a set of features (the kalendar system, the psalter, the Canon, and the rites for the great feasts). A deeper understanding of its origins and the near-constant veneration of it might give future speakers reason to pause before consigning portions of it to the dustbin because it does not belong to their binary number set.

29 comments:

  1. This is why many of the members of the Liturgical Movement like Bouyer were fascinating. They had a genuine interest in fixing the decrepit state of the liturgy, but were brought in after the Pian establishment had already begun the accelerated decomposition of the Roman Rite. As a result, the only good the movement could accomplish (and did accomplish) was limiting the damage of the liturgical terrorists to the best of their ability.
    It was a regrettable missed opportunity and a waste of too much good talent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Rad Trad. Bless you. This is just another example of why you are so needed in these trying times. You are opening the eyes and minds of many when it comes to Liturgy.

    O, and as I am constrained to assist at the Lil' Licit Liturgy, I was able to see the visiting priest drop one half of the Sacred Host to the floor after the Fraction.

    I assume this happened because, standing behind the crummy table, he was just as casual as any other priest celebrating the Lil' Licit Liturgy; Gotta eyeball the pew peeps and show 'em the Host

    Lord have mercy on your gravely confused Church, Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm waiting for the day when you'll be invited to one of the conferences as a speaker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect I'm an expense account and three papal elections away from that!

      Delete
  4. What can you say about this article?:http://www.chantcafe.com/2014/09/mutual-enrichment-and-coexistence-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would add Fr. Cipolla to the list of those willing to break the binary, and perhaps Fr. Kocik. The latter did make a passing, yet very quick, reference to the 1911 Breviary changes as being a precursor to the 1950's and 1960's wholesale liturgy by committee.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is there anything in the OF that's better than the EF, in your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If, by EF, you mean the 1962 Missal, then there are two things:

      1. No "First Class Feast of Joseph the Worker" in the OF
      2. Holy Week. Neither are really good, but the post-Pian one is just weird,

      Delete
    2. Well i was more concerned with the ordinary of the Mass, so in that sense by the EF one can mean the rite all the way to 1474...so are there any improvements in rubrics and the ordinary of the Mass - in anyone's opinion?

      So, Lord of Bollocks, you deem OF Holy Week better than EF (1962) Holy Week, although, to you, both are weird?

      Delete
    3. It's a matter of subjective opinion.

      Delete
    4. I'll second L.O.B. on his two items. I can't really come up with anything else, honestly.

      As for Holy Week, best to go back to the traditional pre-Pian one and have done with it.

      Delete
  7. This review, and the one by John R., do not strike me as an accurate report of what was said at the Conference. I agree there was a certain amount of delicacy in not just coming straight out and saying that the OF is broken and can't be fixed, but MANY of the talks were clearly working in that direction. It's facile to say that most of the speakers were "trapped" in a binary opposition. Most of the speakers at the conference deeply love the liturgical tradition and are seeking realistic ways to return to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, Dr. K. Much of the content was very good (yours certainly), but I still found the overall focus limited, and this is certainly due to the delicacy you mention. The particular talk by the Benedictine on Wed afternoon, however, struck me as notably off the mark compared to most of what else was said. My report was in no way meant to be comprehensive of the whole event, but to identify certain shortcomings.

      Delete
    2. The particular talk by the Benedictine on Wed afternoon...

      I think that's Fr. Kurt Belsole OSB from St. Vincent in Latrobe you're thinking of.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it was Fr. Belsole. I have been very wary of what comes out Latrobe, and he is the fourth and latest case in my personal experience to confirm those misgivings.

      Delete
  8. Rad Trad,

    I very much appreciate your erudite explorations of our rich liturgical heritage. But what do you recommend for ordinary lay people with limited time and training; those of us in "regular" parishes who just want a bit of reverence, dignity, and mindfulness of tradition? Thank you and may you abound with faith, hope, and charity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you could somehow convince your priest to celebrate ad orientum (if he doesn't already) that would be a good start. Maybe convince men with similar views to take up parish positions to gradually and peacefully wrest them out of control of whatever "establishment" is in power? Convince young men to take active church roles so the church-ladies don't? Consider becoming a Deacon and encouraging other men in the parish to do the same to eliminate the "need" for extraordinary ministers? Encourage said deacons to look into liturgy and the actual liturgical role of the deacon?

      This is just "spit-balling" on my part based on "OF" churches in my area. Things may be different where you live.

      Delete
  9. JohnR's report and this 'blog post do not surprise me in the least. The reported comment about folded chasubles illustrates the problem rather well. A speaker at the conference dismissed their use - implying the abolition of them in 1955-62 was a good thing - and then we are told most of the speakers 'love the liturgical tradition'. I would suggest that happily tossing aside a Roman practice that probably existed for some nineteen centuries does not support that assertion. Rather it is indeed very much a binary barrier and that if something is not in 1962 - as there is a piece of paper formally allowing that editon of the missal - it is of no value unless, of course, it does not appear in the edtion of the missal of less than a decade later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reid opined that it would have been preferable not to legislate anything about folded chasubles (fine); that way, in his estimation, because they were presumably lacking anyway in most places (outside cathedrals), they would simply have died out on their own. Whether or not that is true is debatable, but I still can't understand why he was so flippant about the planetae plicatae.

      Delete
    2. I think planetae plicatae are a go-to for both liberals and "practical" so-called conservatives because the latter can say, "Hey we are all for good reform and we can get rid of truly needless things such as those silly trimmed priests' vestments worn by the Deacons" and thus appear "reasonable" to all.

      Also, what good reason is there about why folded chasubles are so difficult to obtain? Take a proper chasuble and pin it, for heaven's sake!

      Delete
    3. John R,
      By what limited research I have done on the subject I believe most substantial churches here did use folded chasubles. I found one at a provincial church in Oxfordshire (which only ever had one resident priest) and no one knew what it was.

      Matthew,
      Yes, it is a familiar type of argument: 'let's be reasonable and Rome will like us' whilst the reality is those is power couldn't care less what the ministers wear and the vast majority of persons now in the curia wouldn't know anything about planetae plicatis. OTOH it is encouraging to learn that Luzar have had several commissions for sets of folded chasubles and that their use is now not unheard of although people, quite wisely, are aware of the dangers from the '62 police'. There was a very nice lady back in the 1990s (I hope she is still with us) who did just as you suggest and pinned up some violet chasubles when the late, great, and much missed, LMS MC Arthur Crumly re-introduced the traditional praxis at Maiden Lane (the '62 police bleated about that in the end too).

      Delete
  10. Perhaps I missed something, but... which was exactly the aim of this conference, apart from the usual confrontation between OF and EF?

    ReplyDelete
  11. TRT: They did not write about it, nor did they hold conferences to debate how much of it was worth keeping.

    This is certainly true, but such is the position we (including this blog) find ourselves in. I think of Martin Mosebach's lament: "Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy."

    Of course that really predated Paul VI, unfortunately. But his "reforms" ratcheted that obligation up to unheard of levels. And if it must be talked about, I am relieved that we have events like Sacra Liturgia (which on balance I think is a positive thing) in which to discharge that obligation. The other side has had the floor to itself for too long.

    ReplyDelete
  12. They did not write about it

    What about Cardinal Tomasi and his fellow Theatines? You probably did not intend to say that no saint ever wrote about the liturgy.

    ReplyDelete

  13. Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have to continue to suffer because of the liturgy becoming ideological
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/franciscan-friars-of-immaculate-have-to.html

    ReplyDelete

  14. Liturgy has been made subservient to political necessity.This heretical theology and doctrine ,this development, is necessary today to offer Holy Mass
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/lturgy-has-been-made-subservient-to.html

    If you speak to Cardinal Robert Sarah he will say that he rejects Feeneyism. So he interprets Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/if-you-speak-to-cardinal-robert-sarah.html

    ReplyDelete

  15. Liturgy has been made subservient to political necessity.This heretical theology and doctrine ,this development, is necessary today to offer Holy Mass
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/lturgy-has-been-made-subservient-to.html

    If you speak to Cardinal Robert Sarah he will say that he rejects Feeneyism. So he interprets Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/if-you-speak-to-cardinal-robert-sarah.html

    ReplyDelete

  16. Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have to continue to suffer because of the liturgy becoming ideological
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/franciscan-friars-of-immaculate-have-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh s***. It's the old Feeneyite troll.

    ReplyDelete