You know I have a tendency towards liturgical conservatism, perhaps even favouring a modest revival of the customs and forms which have fallen out of favour over the last forty years and more in the Western Church. I drop in on traditionalist Catholic blogs, either of the Roman or Anglican variety, such as the New Liturgical Movement, the effusions of Father Zuhlsdorf, or Father Hunwicke's syllable-by-syllable dissection of every change the Western liturgy has ever undergone. I sympathise with Pope Benedict's attempts to restore the Roman Church's centre of gravity liturgically speaking. I accept completely all that 'hermeneutic of continuity' stuff, and the concept of the unfolding liturgical tradition of the centuries as the Holy Spirit's gift to the Church, not some form of artistic self-expression to be juggled with until it fits in with whatever happens to be the enthusiasm of the moment. That's fine. It really is.
But. Some people. It will not bother me a bit if I never, ever, again come across anyone advocating the following:
1. Returning to the pre-1955 (or pre-1951, depends what you mean) Holy Week liturgy. Oh yes, what a splendid example of the Western tradition that was. Because it was so disagreeable to keep fasting until the first Mass of Easter on the night of Holy Saturday, the Mass crept earlier and earlier until it was being celebrated at 10 o'clock in the morning. That meant all the Offices had to be rearranged to fit in and you ended up saying Mattins on the evening of the preceding day and Vespers in the morning. Brilliant. Not to mention that the whole Paschal symbolism of light was completely vitiated by celebrating the rite in the middle of the day!
2. The Cappa Magna, the ridiculously huge ceremonial train some bishops and cardinals are entitled to use on certain occasions. Just what we need to revive respect for the Church in a sceptical society, along with the sedia gestatoria and the ostrich feathers being waved either side of the Pope. Tell the truth: the Cappa Magna was designed in the Middle Ages for horse-riding bishops in order to cover up the horse's arse. And one could argue it's still performing the same function.
3. The Folded Chasuble. Deacons and subdeacons have their own proper garments, the dalmatic and the tunicle, graceful, elegant, and grand. But no, for penitential seasons we simply must revive the ugliest and most pointless form of liturgical vesture the Church ever devised. Otherwise everything is lost.
4. I actually read somebody commenting on the New Liturgical Movement that the Western Church should go back to the Julian calendar. No, the suggestion hasn't met with much approval, but somehow it seems iconic.
What next? Reclaiming modern society for Christianity by returning to Ptolemaic cosmology? So much more beautiful and Christian than all this heliocentric Copernican nonsense, after all.
Normal service resumed soon. Grrr.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cappas, okay no biggie, but you should know that things like folded chasubles have a deep history in our Roman tradition and tie into the symbolism of the vestments. Can I issue a friendly challenge and suggest that I think there's a big difference between that and a cappa which maybe you're just not fully appreciating and which goes beyond mere aesthetics?
ReplyDeleteAs for holy week, I think many simply say they were some reforms which were fine (e.g. putting the vigil back as... a vigil!) and others which maybe lost certain good aspects. Seems fair enough to suggest and no more out of line than saying the same thing about the post-conciliar liturgy.
Yes, there's obviously a difference between the detestable Cappa and the folded chassie. In fact, Gothic folded chasubles don't look too bad, but I've seen Roman chasubles folded up at the back as well as the front, and they simply look ludicrous, horrible little bib-like things - especially when there's no practical need to fold a Roman chasuble at all, as it doesn't get in the way of the hands like a Gothic one does. Plus the consideration that, if you use them, you have to go through the rigmarole of changing dress during the course of a service, which just calls attention to itself. If wearing the folded chasuble rather than a tunicle is a sign of penitence, why do we wear tunicles at a requiem? Might it not be simpler and more dignified simply to dispense with deacon and subdeacon wearing their customary gear in penitential seasons - as happened in most of the churches following the Sarum Rite throughout the medieval period? Perhaps if Roman liturgists can come up with a form of folded chassie with a bit more grace to it I'd be half-convinced!
ReplyDeleteRe: Holy Week, it would indeed help if loose-tongued commentators specified what they meant. But when Gregory diPippo posted his articles on the 1950s reforms on the New Liturgical Movement, both they and many of the accompanying comments had more than a hint of preferring the antereform state of affairs, morning 'vigil' and all ('the vigil ... is not the complete fulfillment of the Paschal mystery, but only the beginning of its fulfillment'). What I'm getting at is the suspicion that arguing for this, cappae magnae, folded chasubles and all, arises from the thought 'we like this because it's old, before Bugnini and all those nasty liberals came and ruined everything'. It's enough to make me feel like a moderniser!