“Accidentally Load-Bearing” Liturgy
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 987
    LessWrong, an interesting discussion group dedicated to honing rational thought to which I am subscribed, recently sent through this expanded reflection on Chesterton’s Fence, an idea often invoked in discussions of liturgical reform.


    Accidentally Load-Bearing

    By user jefftk

    Sometimes people will talk about Chesterton's Fence, the idea that if you want to change something—removing an apparently useless fence—you should first determine why it was set up that way:

    The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.” — G. K. Chesterton, The Drift From Domesticity

    Figuring out something's designed purpose can be helpful in evaluating changes, but a risk is that it puts you in a frame of mind where what matters is the role the original builders intended.

    A few years ago I was rebuilding a bathroom in our house, and there was a vertical stud that was in the way. I could easily tell why it was there: it was part of a partition for a closet. And since I knew its designed purpose and no longer needed it for that anymore, the Chesterton's Fence framing would suggest that it was fine to remove it. Except that over time it had become accidentally load bearing: through other (ill conceived) changes to the structure this stud was now helping hold up the second floor of the house. In addition to considering why something was created, you also need to consider what additional purposes it may have since come to serve.

    This is a concept I've run into a lot when making changes to complex computer systems. It's useful to look back through the change history, read original design documents, and understand why a component was built the way it was. But you also need to look closely at how the component integrates into the system today, where it can easily have taken on additional roles.


    I feel like this, more than anything, is the facet of axed liturgical elements that is most often overlooked by reformers. Not why they were out there in the first place, but the purpose they serve now, the rhythm and flow of prayer, praeter rubrices, that has been built up around them.

    The Latin language is probably the outstanding example of this. Originally, it was basically the local vernacular. Over time, however, it came to hold up unity, orthodoxy, musical beauty, and cross-cultural, transnational values in the Western Church.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,706
    The Latin language is probably the outstanding example of this. Originally, it was basically the local vernacular. Over time, however, it came to hold up unity, orthodoxy, musical beauty, and cross-cultural, transnational values in the Western Church.

    Prof. Christine Mohrmann, would disagree with your statement... I will give a link to her lectures that elucidates how Christian Latin was created. N.B. The vernacular of time was basically Greek!
    Liturgical Latin: Its Origins and Character: Three Lectures
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    It isn't Latin per se that is the load bearing axiom of the Faith, it is the TLM which +Francis is trying hard to eradicate, and Latin is one of the beams in the structure.
    Thanked by 1mmeladirectress
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 987
    tomjaw,

    I have certainly heard that argument made and it is interesting -- though my point about what Latin had become stands regardless.

    francis,

    I suppose this could apply to the liturgy as a whole, but I had imagined its application to those arguments about particular elements of liturgy to be removed that go something like, "Oh that was only added in [year] and was clearly an accretion," that since we know who added something, and why it was added, it is safe to take away without impinging upon the flow or the structure of the rite.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    I suppose this could apply to the liturgy as a whole, but I had imagined its application to those arguments about particular elements of liturgy to be removed that go something like, "Oh that was only added in [year] and was clearly an accretion," that since we know who added something, and why it was added, it is safe to take away without impinging upon the flow or the structure of the rite.
    is not everything added along the way?
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins dad29