The Place of Custom and Tradition

[mcb]

Here's a thought-provoking article about the relatively late role of the 'law' as the means of regulating how the liturgy is celebrated. It ties in with some of the arguments in the thread about the new translations, but it probably deserves a topic to itself.

The article is from a conservative blog about things liturgical, and comes to a conclusion in favour of restoring some use of the Tridentine Missal (the 'classical rite', it's called in those circles). But as a discussion of the proper way for liturgy to evolve it has interesting things to say to the rest of us too.

Two quotes to whet the appetite:

from the beginning until the sixteenth century, broadly speaking the sanction in the liturgy was not 'law' but 'custom'.

The whole development of the classic liturgies is by continual liturgical experiment. Every church had its 'customary' way of doing the liturgy, which was 'customary' only because it adequately expressed that church's mind and belief as to what the eucharistic action is and means. Whenever an idea which seemed to enrich that conception was encountered, whether in the teaching or in the devotional experience of that church itself, in the rites of other churches or in the works of theologians, it could be and was incorporated into the customary rite. If, after the only trial of which such things are capable, a period of actual use at the altar, it was found that it did more fully express the eucharistic action, it was absorbed into the local eucharistic experience as something which had become that church's own, and permanently incorporated into the local eucharistic tradition. If it did not serve, then ultimately it fell out of use again.

A message for our times?

M.

[Reginald]

The article makes the point, that in order to be liberated from liturgical law there has to be respect for the received tradition or custom. I would quite happily see liturgical law relaxed if there were not the assumption in some quarters that we have progressively corrupted the liturgy of the early Church and that the aim should be to reject the organic development of the liturgy in favour of ‘restoring’ some ancient ideal.

To pick the most inflammatory example I can…that’s how we, mistakenly (according to people like Bouyer and Jungmann), ended up with priests feeling obliged to celebrate Mass facing the people, rather than it being just a legitimate option. I know of several who don’t for fear of the reaction of the congregation or their bishop – in spite of the fact that they feel that there are good reasons for priest and congregation facing the same direction during the liturgy of the Eucharist (though not necessarily those parts of the Mass led from the chair or ambo).

[mcb]

that’s how we, mistakenly (according to people like Bouyer and Jungmann), ended up with priests feeling obliged to celebrate Mass facing the people, rather than it being just a legitimate option.

OK, but what happened to liturgical law then?

299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.

If that's the law in force, is it legitimate to do otherwise?

M.

[dmu3tem]

The article is most interesting; both in what is says and what it leaves unstated.

Try these ideas out for starters:

(1) The emergence of scholarly liturgical study as an academic discipline in the late C19th (parce the work of Daniel Rock and Prosper Gueranger) meant that specialist experts - rather than Popes, prelates, councils, parliaments and other liturgical 'law making' bodies - have come to exert a decisive influence, if only because such bodies had other things to do and often lacked that kind of specialist expertise.

(2) If this is so, consider the inherently anarchic nature of much academic research in Arts subjects, including liturgy. No sooner is an orthodoxy established than a new generation of scholars come up with 'new research' to modify, attack or overthrow it. The situation described by Reginald is a classic case in point. C19th Ultramontanes insisted on a continuity of liturgical tradition going back to the earliest days of Christian Rome. They found, to their horror, that researches by people like Edmund Bishop into that early Christian liturgical past showed just how different that past was from what Ultramontanes had assumed it to be. Worse, much of the supposedly Roman liturgy was not 'Roman' at all, but derived from North European Carolingian practice. The modern conservative answer to this, propagated by Alcuin Reid, has been to argue that liturgy has developed organically. This is an ingenious concept; but it begs certain fundamental questions. What are the organic patterns that liturgy is supposed to adhere to? Assuming these organic patterns can be identified, by what authority can we determine these to be legitimate? When does change become so radical that it ceases to be organic and is really revolutionary?

(3) The most recent development concerns the copyrighting of liturgical texts. Its atrophying implications for the composition of new music have recently been well publicised (cf the copyright threads on this website - especially with regard to the Grail translation of the Psalms). Their freezing effects on liturgy are likely to prove even more 'stultifying' or 'beneficial', depending on your point of view. In other words it has the potential to reverse the anarchic effects of scholarly liturgical study outlined above. The result could therefore be a return to patterns somewhat reminiscent of the pre-Vatican II scene - a rigid standardised liturgy of the Mass and Office paralleled by a plethora of unofficial para-liturgies (though these may not take the devotional forms prevalent in the C19th). Alternatively you may get a 'stop-go' situation. Comparatively long periods of standardised liturgical 'stability' (or 'stagnation'?) punctuated by sharp bouts of revolutionary change. Does our experience of the liturgical 'upset' of the late 1960s and early 1970s, followed by a period of relative stability, and now the prospect of new change conform to this pattern?

Ownership of copyright then may do much to shape the future development of liturgy. Consider the different scenarios that follow if either scholars (especially translators), or liturgical law making bodies, or publishers own the copyrights. Thus, with the third scenario you might note that Publishers who hold liturgical copyrights have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, as they are assured a monopoly over a captive market. Liturgical law making bodies who threaten to produce new liturgies may then be faced with non-cooperation by publishers, forcing the liturgical law makers either to stump up the money and print the new editions themselves or find new publishers. This sort of thing has happened in the past, as the history of the Pustet, Vatican Typical and Solesmes Plainchant publications in the periods 1870-1901 and 1904-14 respectively shows.


Thomas Muir

[Canonico]

I would wish to make three comments on this excellent thread:
1. We belong to the Roman Rite which has emerged both by tradition and now also by 'law' as the way of celebrating the liturgy for those who are in communion with the Pope and their diocesan Bishop and who have not been recognised by Rome as a separate 'Rite'.
2.The 'custom' and practice, therefore is not that of the Parish of St. Ethelbert or St. Cuthbert, nor even of the Diocese of West Bradford or East Molesley, but of the Church of Rome. Further, it is not the Priest, but the Bishop (in communion with the see of Rome) who is the leader and arbiter of liturgical use within a Diocese. The Diocese is the local Church, not the parish, cluster or deanery! This preserves the unity of faith and practice, especially in liturgical celebration. No individual priest (or even Bishop) has the right to create the liturgy in his own image and likeness, nor to his own particular tastes.
3. Documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum seek to remind us that 'abuses' (i.e. the breaking of the host at the words of consecration) do not take on the mantle of 'custom' merely by being used for a long time. We do not need to constantly re-invent the 'wheel' of the liturgy, although, how that wheel is painted, or indeed, how many spokes it contains, might be a matter for legitimate divergence.

[Reginald]

OK, but what happened to liturgical law then?

299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.

If that's the law in force, is it legitimate to do otherwise?

On the 25th September 2000 the CDW clarified several things about para 299 among which were: that the Latin 'expedit' constitutes a suggestion, and not a norm; that the thing that is desirable is that the altar should be freestanding in order that Mass can be celebrated facing the people, not that the Mass should be celebrated facing the people.

That the English translations (at least ours and the Americans'), done after this date, should ignore this clarification would be an interesting topic to discuss with trads more paranoid than me - it might involve a grassy knoll! - and so I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier comment about not wanting my translations spun before they get to me...

PS re dmu3tem's comments on the organic growth of the liturgy - the phrase is to be found in Sacrosanctum Concilium in the context of any liturgical reform growing organically from the the liturgy current at that time. If the organic growth of the liturgy is a "modern conservative answer" does that mean that the Council Fathers were "modern conservatives"?

PPS And one last thing. If you're out there mcb, what were you doing on that particular blog in the first place. Pigeon-holing one another would be much easier if we kept to our respective territories - I'm going to make a point of avoiding http://www.guitarwieldingtrendypriest.com from now on!

[Gabriel]

That the English translations (at least ours and the Americans'), done after this date, should ignore this clarification...

But surely both the US and E&W translations have received recognitio and were the subject to the close scrutiny of the Congregation?

[Reginald]

Quite - back to the grassy knoll?

[dmu3tem]

Many thanks, Reginald, for the correction. I had forgotten that Sacrosanctum Consilium had referred to the organic growth in the liturgy. However, I am also fairly certain that Alcuin Reid discusses liturgical change from the earliest Christian times to the present day in terms of organic growth, and I have heard people describe him to me as a 'conservative', whatever that means. Perhaps they were mistaken. Whether the concept of organic liturgical growth is 'conservative' or not; it surely still leaves open the questions I raised in connection with it.

People might also be interested to read the most interesting paper in the latest issue of Music and Liturgy about the state of current research into early liturgies. If valid this alters the whole nature of liturgical debates built around links to and developments with the earliest christian forms of worship.

Thomas Muir

[Reginald]

Yes. Alcuin Reid would be described by many as a 'conservative' (I'd probably describe him as such too), and 'The Organic Development of the Liturgy' is the title of what is probably his most well known work.

I asked the question about whether the Council Fathers would be described as 'conservatives' simply because those that we label as conservatives within the Modern rite often think of themselves as being close in spirit to the Council Fathers (retaining Latin, allowing for use of vernacular - particularly in the Liturgy of the Word, use of chant etc) and view the liturgical reforms as being somewhat hijacked by 'progressives' (liturgical anarchists if you feel that way inclined). I just wondered if that was what you were alluding to...

[nazard]

Some useful definitions here:

conservative/reactionary/stick-in-the-mud - someone who wants less change than me.

moderate/reasonable/catholic - someone who wants the same as me.

radical/progressive/vandal - someone who wants more change than me.

Now that the terms are workably defined, let us continue the discussion.

[sidvicius]

(Intermission for sweets and ice cream: For the benefit of those who tried reginald's dud link he is referring to this rather splendid site which I believe mcb discovered about two years ago. While I suspect Dan Schutte might go a funny colour at the rendition of "I, the Lord of Sea and Sky", the site is worth taking a deeper look at. He explores some interesting ideas, and yes, he's a punk, just like me.

But he really could lose the beard - that is sooo 1992... )

And now, back to the debate...

[mcb]

And one last thing. If you're out there mcb, what were you...

Something to do with Sun Tzu. Last verse of chapter 3.

M.

[presbyter]

People might also be interested to read the most interesting paper in the latest issue of Music and Liturgy about the state of current research into early liturgies. If valid this alters the whole nature of liturgical debates built around links to and developments with the earliest christian forms of worship.

Thomas Muir

It does indeed Thomas ... and we wait for part two in the next M & L. If you cannot wait, read Bradshaw's "Eucharistic Origins" - SPCK, 2004 - of which this lecture is a précis.

(But if you've never read any liturgical (or even Church) history before and maybe even think that the first successors of Peter sat in their Roman episcopal chair and tightly controlled the whole organisation from year dot, don't start with this book. You'll be too shocked.

The Mass of the Early Christians (Paperback)
by Mike Aquilina - Our Sunday Visitor Inc.,U.S. (April 2001) is a useful introduction to some patristic texts.

The Early Church: Story of Emergent Christianity from the Apostolic Age to the Dividing of the Ways Between the Greek East and the Latin West v. 1 (Penguin History of the Church) by Henry Chadwick - a classic and very readable work on the early Church.

Bradshaw uses a very important principle in his book (and it can be applied to any documents) - read what a text actually says and not what you think you would like it to say.

Dom Christopher Lazowski's essay relies heavily on Gregory Dix. Bradshaw is showing us that matters are not as straightforward as Dix concluded, through using the principle above.