 |
| A 16th century patron of "no frills" liturgy |
Every now and then people, even widely respected people with knowledge of the liturgy, talk about "no frills" liturgy: Mass, Lauds, Vespers and so on.
What in terms of heaven on earth does "no frills" liturgy mean? Is this some kind of 'liturgy-lite' for those who have too much on their liturgical waistline? Is it liturgy for the intrinsically a-liturgical? Or is it liturgy for the lazy?
Does this term designate that the liturgical texts are recited rather than sung? How can this be right? There are propers in the Gradual and prefaces prefaces in the Missal even for Lent. Are they "frills" or are they the Church's standard? Is it a "frill" to sing a psalm in a ferial office, or is it the norm? Can anyone really maintain that to sing a hymn is ever a "frill"?
Sure, we do more with greater solemnity according to the feast, but we still sing and perform ceremonies even on the most sober Ember days. Anyone who has spent any time in the great liturgical monasteries, or has seen the Pope celebrate Ash Wednesday, knows that singing and ceremony are integral to the liturgy, not frills.
Sure, priests alone in a busy parish can't always, or sometimes can't even often, celebrate the liturgical rites as fully as others can, but that's got nothing to do with "frills". It's a reality check. It's a call for all of us to do more so that the liturgy is celebrated as fully as possible as often as possible, according to the liturgical year, not according to some idea that singing, ceremony, incense, vesture and so on are mere detachable "frills".
Does use of the phrase "no frills" mean that it is "the low Mass that matters"? Does it mean that the breviary is a text to be read rather than a rite to be celebrated? Surely the low Mass, or the recited Office is a sometimes, even often, necessary acommodation to less than ideal liturgical circumstances? The Pimpernel has no problem with that, so long as we don't loose sight of what is the liturgical norm.
Sorry folks, but there's no such thing as a liturgical "frill". St Thomas Aquinas wrote something in that very frilly sequence of his for Corpus Christi (that's often left out nowadays) about 'daring to do as much as we can' in praise of the Blessed Eucharist. Apply that to the liturgy and you've got the picture. If "as much as we can" do is recited Mass or office, great. But let's not praise it for having "no frills". That gives no honour to the sacred liturgy, and may even breed a cancerous a-liturgical complacency.
Many people like frills, but actually that's immaterial. Liturgically we need them. Oh, and God deserves them too.
I hope Patricius is reading this...
ReplyDeleteMaybe "no frills" refers to less lace, smaller pompoms, and less kissing...: the non-essentials.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your 'rant' completely.
ReplyDeleteSurely in any liturgical celebration the best resources available should be used. That may often mean 'said service' rather than Renaissance polyphony but the principle must be that one does the best possible for the praise of Almighty God - nothing to do with 'frills'.
or has seen the Pope celebrate Ash Wednesday, knows that singing and ceremony are integral to the liturgy, not frills.
ReplyDeleteIntegral, yes. Essential, no. St. Thomas Aquinas had something to say about matter and form too. Those are the essentials.
Next time, before you get all excited about the use of words, perhaps consult a dictionary. In Merriam-Webster's, for instance, under frill you will find 3.b. "something decorative or useful and desirable but not essential : luxury".
Singing, though useful and desireable (and indeed decorative) is not essential. It is therefore a frill.
Most parishes I've belonged to in the past few years have inordinate 'frills'. I would not consider singing the acclamations or following the rubrics to be 'frills', but I would consider singing happy birthday to members of the congregation a frill as I would replacing the responsorial psalm with a modern adulterated (singable) version.
ReplyDeleteWhen I want no-frills, I mean I want sacred liturgy...
You nailed it.
ReplyDeleteOffice read alone and Low Mass (or no chant NO Mass) as a standard? Regrettably, it _is_ a de facto standard, and it has been for quite some time. After all where did Low Mass (replete with silence so cherished by many) come from?
I, too, agree with your rant.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind, I'd like to add a further point, or perhaps a corollary: It's much better to do something, even on a very small scale, rather than to talk about it endlessly. My favorite example is the discussion of the traditional Divine Office on the New Liturgical Movement and other 'blogs. They talk and talk, but mostly can't seem to produce more than a handful of occasional celebrations. But I can't understand this. Granted I'm a schismatic, but I belong to a group that can produce weekly offerings of the Little Hours and Vespers, and Matins on at least a third of the Sundays throughout the year. Sure, a lot of it is recited (not spoken, mind you) so it's no real treat for the senses, but why should that be the deciding factor?
I think the term "frill" is probably used in a colloquial sense, not to say that singing or ceremony is superfluous. The full ritual and singing in a full Solemn Vespers could be said to be "pulling out all the stops" while a simple recto tono or read version could be said to be the "no frills" version, again, not implying that the full ritual is mere window-dressing just that the simpler form doesn't have all the nice (and proper) things that the Solemn form has.
ReplyDeleteAbolish low and private masses altogether. Then we can put an end to the 25 minutes or less quickie mass.
ReplyDeleteCalvin, by the way,preferred singing the psalms only--still a tradition in the Dutch and Swiss reformed churches today. I might add the primitive Roman liturgy was easily as stark and restrained as any mainline Protestant church today. It too consisted largely of sung psalms. Something which would have been very agreeable to Calvin and the continental reformers.
While Calvin, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli,may have objected to "frills", most Presbyterian churches today have not only more, but far better music than you'll find in the vast majority of Catholic churches. They're willing to spend a few bucks on a decent organist, choir director,and choir. A far cry different approach from most RC parishes.
Perhaps, that will begin to change with the Anglican Ordinariate. At last, some decent music in the Latin rite!!!
Paul, ideas and the formation which comes through them pretty clearly can and do influence action whether you see or are being shown the fruits or not. Your criticism is misguided to say the least.
ReplyDelete"Singing, though useful and desireable (and indeed decorative) is not essential. It is therefore a frill".
ReplyDeleteHow many times do we hear pastors use something along these lines as an excuse for liturgy without music of any kind? If the tiniest Orthodox churches with a congregation that could fill a good walk-in closet can have a chanted Orthros or Vespers,or both, with the smells and bells each day, there is no excuse for a Roman-rite church of average size, with average resources not doing something on the same order.
Sorry, but quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas aside, there just is no excuse for a measure of solemnity at Mass or the Liturgy of the Hours in 95% of Catholic parishes in the U.S.
Actually, within the context of the Roman liturgy, you either do it right or go to the next lower level of solemnity. The Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox pull off chanted canonical Hours and DL w/ smells and bells because they just ditch parts and ceremonies they cannot do. Thus, even though a small congregation of Easterners (properly orthodox or not) has sung liturgies w/ smells and bells, in practice that basically looks and sounds like a few people singing (hopefully well) and the priest and/or some guy in a sticharion swinging a thurible around. Personally, I'd rather just have a Low Mass and recto tono Office during the week anyway. Either go all out or don't, do not make a weekday ferial or lower class feast Mass some drawn out attempt at a sung liturgy.
ReplyDeleteSure, a good sized Catholic parish should be able to pull off decent liturgies but the real problem in most of them is that no one has any idea what liturgy is supposed to be. That is the main problem.
Low Mass, when said by a priest who clearly, audibly, and slowly pronounces the propers, is glorious. There I meet the Lord of Calvary in dread contemplative silence. Wall to wall polyphony, pounds of lace, and the fussiness of brocaded men in tassels running around a sanctuary are mere vanities. I'd rather kneel in the mud next to an army chaplain saying Mass on the hood of a Jeep than attend a Pontifical Mass. The Holy Sacrifice does not need the detritus of human vanity to augment its inestimable power.
ReplyDeleteSo many traditional Catholics have forgotten that the text of the Mass is the crucible of justice. If we do not understand the text of the Mass, we cannot reconcile with our brothers and sisters before offering the sacrifice (cf Mt. 5:24) So many traditionalists, especially those illiterate in Latin, worship a floor show instead of the Paschal Mystery immersed in our world. Education in Latin and philology trumps fussing over the cut of 16th century Bavarian tunicles.
Anonymous #1:
ReplyDeleteAbolish low and private masses altogether.
This is almost as ridiculous as the cult of the Low Mass and the private recitation of the Divine Office. Circumstances in life vary greatly, even for those with the best intentions. Should three people turn up for a Mass during a blizzard should they be sent home since a solemn offering of the liturgy is impossible?
Anonymous #2
Your criticism is misguided to say the least.
It is not misguided in the least. By their fruits, doesn't it say? If you have a cogent argument then feel free to make it, but I refuse to laud the self-indulgent ruminations of 'blogworld simply because you demand that I do so.
And, if we cannot have the courage to use our names, can we at least adopt some sort of recognizable identifier, preferably one that isn't insufferably arrogant, like the at least four individuals I know who refer to themselves as "Enrico Dante" on various message boards, and probably have never even seen a copy of the Ceremoniale.
I'd rather kneel in the mud next to an army chaplain saying Mass on the hood of a Jeep than attend a Pontifical Mass.
ReplyDeleteAnd I submit that this is evidence that, in America at least, Catholicism has been almost fatally poisoned by the dominant Puritanism of the early colonists. We tend to see every aspect of the Catholic religion, even the sacred liturgy, through the lens of a Jonathan Edwards sermon.
Should three people turn up for a Mass during a blizzard should they be sent home since a solemn offering of the liturgy is impossible?
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------
If the priest has been properly trained to chant instead of take the line of line resistance, which most appear to do, the parishioners showing up in a blinding snow storm won't have to be turned away or disappointed by an inadequate performance.
Of course, solemnity should be increased as the occasion merits, and there are countless ways to do it, e.g. a more sparing use of incense, increasing the number of candles, using flowers/banners, employing antependia, burning additional lamps,using particularly fine vestments etc. The recited liturgy should be reserved for dire emergencies. It should never be the standard or normal practice.
The Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox pull off chanted canonical Hours and DL w/ smells and bells because they just ditch parts and ceremonies they cannot do. Thus, even though a small congregation of Easterners (properly orthodox or not) has sung liturgies w/ smells and bells, in practice that basically looks and sounds like a few people singing (hopefully well) and the priest and/or some guy in a sticharion swinging a thurible around.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------
Oh sure, the offices for parishes, as opposed to the monastic communities, are free to shorten Orthros and Vespers, but they usually keep the essence of these services. It has always been customary for parishes to shorten the extremely lengthy offices as celebrated by the monks.
I've been to a number of Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, quite small too, which still maintain the full Vespers lasting well into the night. Unfortunately,there are signs they're becoming becoming fewer and fewer in number.
It is interesting to observe, howewer, there are some parishes, mostly Greek Orthodox, which have radically pruned Orthros. Some have gone so far as to attempt to introduce an "anticipated" Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening. I wonder where they got that idea? A bishop on the west coast warned this was contrary to the Byzantine Typicon.
It is a sign Orthodox churches are being infected with habits derived from Uniate and Roman Catholic parish practices. Just observe the barest essentials by taking the line of least resistance, or drop it altogether. Very hard to build a foundation for liturgical reform, or liturgical creativity with that attitude as your guide.
Sorry Paul, no go I'm afraid. You fail both to recognize the influence and importance of words (which I find incredible!) and at the same time you seem to presume to know or have some gnostic knowledge of whether there are or aren't any fruits simply because you're not seeing them in the way you expect or want.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not it is or isn't, it does seem more like an ideological axe to grind or sour grapes than any kind of legitimate criticism.
My message to bloggers and all other Catholic writers who write about and promote these and any other good Catholic things: keep it up! It does bear fruit and most certainly more than saying nothing at all.
RR
Calvin, J. Edwards and Presbyterian all in the same thread, a rather traditionall Catholic thread. Amazing! Just shows the complexity of the problem of Liturgy at every turn. The Rev.Michael P. Forbes, Anglican( I use no special Social Communication so I find Anonymous convenient)
ReplyDelete