Medievalism & the Liturgy

 In our present day one sees the prevalence of medievalism in the liturgy. This can be seen in the Benedictine Order and other apostolates that belong to orders dedicated to the Latin Mass. The United States had a medieval revival in the mid-twentieth century as a part of the liturgical revolution before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council. One could argue that if the liturgical revolution never happened certain liturgists and rubricians would have invoked Mediator Dei of Pius XII to condemn this medieval revival as historicism and archaeologism. Given that the Benedictine Order was a huge contributor to the New Liturgical Movement (the liturgical revolution from 1945-1969) it becomes apparent to see why their traditional houses today keep this medieval revivalism, even the ones that have their lineage from Dom Gueranger. Also, during the novelty period of the reform, many saw how the religious orders celebrated Mass and decided to mimic their practices. For their Rites are medieval and can have conical chasubles, surplices big enough to hide people in, or inferior ministers wearing amice, alb, and girdle. But those Rites are not the Roman Rite. Western? Yes. Borrowed and shared parts from the Roman Rite? Yes. But purely Roman? No. Dom Gueranger would have been most disappointed at this tactic and lack of knowledge. Benedictines are known for being champions of the Roman Rite and employing exactly how Rome wishes it to be. This can be seen by their whole liturgical history, and most notably from:

• St. Benet Biscop, O.S.B.
• Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B.
• Dom Charles Augustine, O.S.B.
• Dom Aurelius Stehle, O.S.B.
• Bl. Cardinal Schuster, O.S.B.
• Archdale King

If the liturgical revolution never happened the liturgy would still be in the height of its Baroque form. Rome was baroque, including the Papal Court until 1969 A.D. To this day there are many aspects of the reformed Papal Court that are still Baroque. So, for us who preserve the Roman Rite as it should be, we need to realize that if we're picking up where we left off, then we're in the apex of Baroque liturgy for the Roman Rite, this entails cottas instead of gothic surplices for example. Any notion of reviving disciplines or dress before 1570 is going too far. 1570 has to be where it stops, otherwise there's a risk of us becoming the reformers we so desperately oppose. Mediator Dei's condemnation of historicism and archaeologism must have a litmus test and that litmus test is 1570. "The liturgy, like the faith itself, cannot remain static." (Archdale King). That doesn't mean to change in such a way that truth changes but a progression of the same truths that were revealed in the beginning. So let us take after the teachings of Dom Gueranger and St. Benet Biscop and follow Rome loyally and her liturgical praxis instead of making it up ourselves and based on our subjective preferences because the crisis and liturgical revolution has caused confusion. "Trads" taking advantage of the crisis to put forth their subjective whims and fancies is most absurd, and disturbing. And it's dangerous if it involves Liturgy, theology, and philosophy. They should be above such antics. On Romanitas, Benedictine liturgy, and Baroque Papal Court Ritual consider the following:

Giuseppe Baldeschi is a good example of adhering to a stricter uniformity of Roman practice. The object of Baldeschi’s work is the object of bringing ceremonial provisions and practices of churches, into more complete accordance with the rule of Rome – the center of doctrinal unity, and ritual uniformity, which is incidentally connected with it. Doctrinal unity should reflect ritual uniformity, within the Roman Rite. Also, it is a wonderful expression of Roman School Liturgy in the time of the Papal States. He wrote his manual in 1839.

Also, one of the leading trademarks of heretics is their complete rejection of St. Thomas Aquinas in theology and their denial of the use of philosophy. This can also be seen in liturgy. Aside from creating their own services out of thin air, they also strove to make their services different by being the least like the Romans. This entailed, "an older shape of the chasuble, light two candles instead of six and so on" (Fortescue). This shows the anti-Roman character of resorting to medievalism in liturgical taste done by the Protestant heretics themselves.

Mr. T operates a clerical dress forum on Facebook and a liturgical arts journal on the internet. Mr. T's "thesis":

"I was thinking recently how people who get so stylistically tied to one particular era (whatever the era, be it the middle ages, baroque, whatever) to the point of the principled exclusion of others is really so very limiting -- and boring."

"A proper Catholic approach, in my estimation, can look at photos like these and see the wonders and beauty in both of them. They see in both their fundamental unity but in their stylistic differences see that which enriches the liturgical life of the Church."

"Not being able to do this is like having the same meal every single day, or only like savoury but nothing sweet and so on."

Refutation of thesis:

1. The mysteries and beauties of the Mass are transcendent. It is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven. Man can spend his whole life trying to unfold the noble mysteries and beauty of the Mass. The beauty of the medieval and the baroque express invisible truths that transcend us. Beauty is connected with truth. Therefore, it cannot become tiresome or boring. It continually captivates man to penetrate the truths of his faith. So saying that one style or the other is boring by continuously being exposed to it is vehemently not true. Human nature has never reflected this while worshiping in these eras of worship. Can you imagine saying this to a monk, who has a vow of stability, and has never left his monastery? I don't think he would find the liturgy or the aesthetics around him as boring because he walks into the same medieval or baroque abbatial church every day of his life. And comparing all this to a meal - sweet, savoury food - by analogy is really rather tragic and appalling, as if the liturgy is some everyday thing like sustenance. But this is what reducing it to mere subjective whims and feelings will do in terms of how one thinks.

2. Medievalism is a form of archaeologism/historicism condemned by Mediator Dei.

3. Medievalism is a fabrication and novelty from the New Liturgical Movement predominantly in the U.S. and the Benedictines in Europe.

4. The Liturgy is not static. That doesn't mean it changes, but that it naturally progresses without changing the Faith. The Protestants used medieval elements in their services to make them the opposite of Roman usage. This entailed, "an older shape of the chasuble, light two candles instead of six and so on" (Fortescue). This shows the anti-Roman character of resorting to medievalism in liturgical taste done by the Protestant heretics themselves.

5. The Roman revival in the mid-1800's at France and later with St. Pius X restored Gregorian Chant. It was the baroque Romans who restored it, not medievalists. Gregorian Chant was developed in the Medieval Age but it's not medieval per se. It is the perennial music of the Church through all ages in conjunction with polyphony. And Gregorian Chant is based on influences of Old Roman and Gallican chant. Baroque Romans restored Gregorian Chant in the late 19th and early 20th century. So, the notion that Gregorian Chant proves that the notion "medievalism is okay because Gregorian chant is 'medieval' is refuted. This was an ill-attempted distinguo, against my example of Fortescue relating how Protestants used medieval vestiges and usages, by an anonymous defender of Mr. T.

6. The chasuble was already developing into a shortened fashion during the time before and after the 1570 codification of the Missal.

7. The Religious Orders with their own Rites (Cistercian, Carthusian, Dominican, Carmelite, Norbertine) can have medieval elements because their Rites are intrinsically medieval. I think a lot of confusion comes from individuals seeing these liturgies and then thinking the Roman Rite can have it too. The Roman Rite is ancient going back to St. Peter. The Roman Rite doesn't look how it did in the 1st - 5th centuries. In the history of the Church, she never went back to recreate something until the reformers did this in the Liturgical Revolution with their achaeologism and this includes medievalism. They wanted to bring back ancient things that rightfully didn't last the sands of time, archaeologism in its purest form, which was condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. Here we have a true dissociative disorder where the reformers commit historicism-archaeologism on one hand, and on the other they employ novelty which destroyed what was truly ancient. Medievalism is a part of this.

Ergo, Medievalism is not a subjective preference, whim, or taste. It is not a mere matter of opinion or aesthetics. Medieval liturgy still has its place in the Western Rites, faithful Catholics should go to the Rites of the Religious Orders to enjoy that form of worship. It will broaden their liturgical knowledge and cultivate the appreciation of other patrimonies. If one still insists on having a medieval Rite that is as Roman as possible with Gallican influences, then consider working for the restoration of the Rite of the Sarum. There's also the Ambrosian, and Mozarabic (Visigothic) Rites, of course those are territorial. And don't get me wrong, I like medieval cathedrals and medieval liturgy. There are some instances of Gothic revivalism in architecture that I like. But one must take extreme caution that one is not recreating something to the point that it becomes a novelty. It's not uncommon to see fiddlebacks in Gothic Cathedrals. A great example of this is the Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior (St. John Lateran) in Rome - the mother church of all Catholics, whose Dedication Feast we celebrated yesterday. Within its baroque face-lift you see the ancient byzantine world on the ground and then your eyes move to the rococo statuary, and then onto the renaissance world with the Sixtus V additions, and then your eyes draw you to the medieval baldachino above the High Altar and then up to the 4th century aspe with 13th century repairs. Then yours eyes fall below the aspe and baldachino back onto the high altar where you see the Solemn Mass being celebrated with its Roman Baroque Court Ritual. The Roman Rite (without its revolutionary dress) is at the apex of its baroque progression with its ritual of the Papal Court. If the liturgical revolution never happened the liturgy would still be in the height of its Baroque form. Rome was baroque, including the Papal Court until 1969 A.D. To this day there are many aspects of the reformed Papal Court that are still Baroque. So, for us who preserve the Roman Rite as it should be, we need to realize that if we're picking up where we left off, then we're in the apex of Baroque liturgy for the Roman Rite. And if one insists on celebrating the Roman Rite with medieval usages and vestiges, you are not sinning or committing error per se, but bear in mind you are participating in a novelty that came about in the mid-twentieth century.