Where does the idea of "Noble Simplicity" come from

[Ragadash]

Where does this idea come from? The idea that our liturgy should be imbued with an aesthetic of noble simplicity? Does it come from Vatican 2? If so, where is it written (is it written anywhere)? Is it actually found in the documents or did it arise from the spirit of the council?

 

[Glennon_P]

From Sacrosanctum Concikium, the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI, December 1963:

Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed:

34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

Link

 

[twf]

I think this is something that is meant to distinguish the Roman Rite from the Eastern Rites…where noble complexity and length reign supreme .

 

[Genesis315]

This paragraph is one that, when examined thoroughly, becomes very difficult to interpret in a coherent way–or at least one where a practical application could possibly achieve all of its directives at once.

The first part of the essay linked below (originally delivered as a lecture at a parish) is a good read on the difficulties associated with it. The relevant part starts with the subtitle “A weak link in Sacrosanctum Concilium’s chain”

https://sthughofcluny.org/2019/02/p...s-why-we-repeat-ourselves-in-the-liturgy.html

To me it kind of embodies the competing ideas and goals that made up the liturgical reform.

 

[JohnLilburne]

A 2010 Zenit article by Uwe Michael Lang, CO has this about the concept of “noble simplicity” from Sacronsanctum Concilium, n. 34:

“This concept seems to originate in archeologist and historian of German art Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768), according to whom Greek classical sculpture was characterized by “noble simplicity and quiet grandeur.””

The full article is at
The Noble Simplicity of Liturgical Vestments - ZENIT - English

 

[OraLabora]

I think this is something that is meant to distinguish the Roman Rite from the Eastern Rites…where noble complexity and length reign supreme .

In part, the Latin rite was always simpler than Eastern rites. But that does not mean simple.

A side by side comparison of the rubrics of the pre-Vatican II Mass and the current Ordinary Form will illustrate it clearly enough. In the TLM, everything was prescribed to the most granular detail: how deeply to bow at various points, how many times and in what pattern to swing the censer, how to precisely hold together thumb and forefinger, etc. Plus in the 1935 cérémonial I have, an entire chapter devoted to common errors. Some are unbelievably arcane.

As our abbot said it made it hard for the celebrant to actually pray the Mass as he’d be so concentrated on avoiding mistakes. We have an expression in French: « s’enfarger dans les fleurs du tapis » which means being tripped by the flower designs in the carpet. It is an apt image for the circumstances.

 

[Annie]

As our abbot said it made it hard for the celebrant to actually pray the Mass as he’d be so concentrated on avoiding mistakes.

I wonder if this may not have occurred as we relied more on books and less on memory? I guess it’s too late to really investigate…

 

[OraLabora]

I wonder if this may not have occurred as we relied more on books and less on memory? I guess it’s too late to really investigate…

Most of these rubrics had to be committed to memory, and in a monastery, memorization was a big thing. For instance, Compline was chanted in the dark entirely from memory in our abbey, until about 1980 when they switched to a schema that had different psalms every night.

 

[Annie]

Ah, so a combination of things, possibly, the other being a change to a more variable set of rubrics?

 

[OraLabora]

Ah, so a combination of things, possibly, the other being a change to a more variable set of rubrics?

Not so much variety as much simpler.

 

[twf]

I think the Eastern Churches take a more organic approach to it…and there will be local variation. That’s how it was in the West too…until, I suppose, a very particular set of rules was universally codified, probably post-Trent?
My cousin is discerning a monastic vocation in the Romanian Orthodox tradition (he’s not Romanian - just happens to be the jurisdiction of the monastery he’s interested in)…he says they borrow some stuff from the Russian practices and some stuff from the Greek practices.

 

[27lw]

twf:

I think this is something that is meant to distinguish the Roman Rite from the Eastern Rites…where noble complexity and length reign supreme .

In part, the Latin rite was always simpler than Eastern rites. But that does not mean simple.

A side by side comparison of the rubrics of the pre-Vatican II Mass and the current Ordinary Form will illustrate it clearly enough. In the TLM, everything was prescribed to the most granular detail: how deeply to bow at various points, how many times and in what pattern to swing the censer, how to precisely hold together thumb and forefinger, etc. Plus in the 1935 cérémonial I have, an entire chapter devoted to common errors. Some are unbelievably arcane.

As our abbot said it made it hard for the celebrant to actually pray the Mass as he’d be so concentrated on avoiding mistakes. We have an expression in French: « s’enfarger dans les fleurs du tapis » which means being tripped by the flower designs in the carpet. It is an apt image for the circumstances.

Yes, I guess that’s why the TLM only lasted a handful of centuries…

 

[27lw]

From Sacrosanctum Concikium, the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI, December 1963:

Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed:

34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

Link

Do others notice that this language seems quite pejorative?
“Useless repetitions”?
Like the phrase “conscious participation”? Uh, as opposed to the unconscious participation that you are accusing everyone of with the TLM?
“Accretions”. . . .

 

[OddBird]

« s’enfarger dans les fleurs du tapis »

I didn’t know that one, I love it!
I hadn’t heard the verb “s’enfarger” before. In Switzerland we have “s’encoubler”, which means the same and which I don’t think exists in “French French”.

Ahem. Sorry, I’ll stop derailing the thread now

 

[OraLabora]

I think it’s a French-Canadian colloquialism

 

[Dovekin]

Do others notice that this language seems quite pejorative?

As pejorative as anathema?

This is what bishops do, point us toward what is good and away from what is false. What did you expect from the Council? A pervasive relativism that sees everything as as good as every other thing.

 

[27lw]

I wouldn’t expect them to use pejorative language about their own liturgy that served the Church for centuries.
Maybe I’m funny that way .

 

[Lobster_Johnson]

I think this is something that is meant to distinguish the Roman Rite from the Eastern Rites…where noble complexity and length reign supreme .

There’s nothing the Latin Church does in ten minutes that Byzantines can’t do in an hour!

At both my wedding and my son’s baptism, everyone commented on how long the service was.

 

[OraLabora]

Do others notice that this language seems quite pejorative?

The Council pointed out what the perceived issues were.

As is their perogative.

 

[27lw]

Here’s an essay on the idea of Noble Simplicity in liturgy:

Noble Simplicity ~ Liturgical Arts Journal