FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: SAINT PIUS X: REFORMER OF THE LITURGY
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
SAINT PIUS X: REFORMER OF THE LITURGY
Fr. Pascal Thuillier


An historian of the liturgical movement wrote:

St. Pius X
With St. Pius X, the liturgical movement entered an entirely new era. For until then, it had been the prerogative of individual forces in the Church. Voices had been raised here and there, manifesting their agreement on a kind of reaction against the invasion of the profane and preaching a return to sources as the true means of re-Christianization....But these appeals scarcely ruffled the accustomed practice, and could not unseat the indifference of a significant part of the clergy, who little desired a change of habits of piety and methods of ministry. From the day when, having become Pope, Pius X became the official propagator of the liturgical restoration, things changed. His manifold interventions on religious music, the psaltery, and frequent communion, were "so many energetic turns of the helm which decisively steered the Church towards a liturgical life imbued by traditional piety, sacramental grace, and inspired beauty."

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2229
So, we could say that Pope Pius X initiated the reform of the liturgy.
(01-20-2015, 12:36 AM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]So, we could say that Pope Pius X initiated the reform of the liturgy.

No good deed goes unpunished?  Grin
Me, I believe that St. Pius X's reform is benign. The BUGninian reform is more sinister, not in the conspiracy theory type of sinister, but a sinister in the sense of imposing his own ideas that only some self-serving people actually wanted.

N.
(01-20-2015, 08:45 AM)Neopelagianus Wrote: [ -> ]Me, I believe that St. Pius X's reform is benign. The BUGninian reform is more sinister, not in the conspiracy theory type of sinister, but a sinister in the sense of imposing his own ideas that only some self-serving people actually wanted.

N.

In content, I agree - even in the case of the Psalter reform, no content was removed, merely rearranged. However, it established the unfortunate precedent of the liturgy being changed by papal fiat, which his successors continued to do for the next several decades. Does the pope really have the right to abolish the "real" traditional breviary, as St. Pius X did? If he could abolish the traditional breviary, why can't Paul VI abolish the traditional missal? I agree the changes are drastically different in scope, but if the principle of papal power over the liturgy is a valid one, how does one delineate the limits?
(01-20-2015, 10:56 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-20-2015, 08:45 AM)Neopelagianus Wrote: [ -> ]Me, I believe that St. Pius X's reform is benign. The BUGninian reform is more sinister, not in the conspiracy theory type of sinister, but a sinister in the sense of imposing his own ideas that only some self-serving people actually wanted.

N.

In content, I agree - even in the case of the Psalter reform, no content was removed, merely rearranged. However, it established the unfortunate precedent of the liturgy being changed by papal fiat, which his successors continued to do for the next several decades. Does the pope really have the right to abolish the "real" traditional breviary, as St. Pius X did? If he could abolish the traditional breviary, why can't Paul VI abolish the traditional missal? I agree the changes are drastically different in scope, but if the principle of papal power over the liturgy is a valid one, how does one delineate the limits?

I'm by no means a specialist in the Liturgy, but haven't St. Gregory the Great changed (or rearranged, at least) some major things in the Mass? Also, the DL cannot claim immutability from what the Apostles did.

I guess it boils down to wisdom: only saints should be allowed to make contributions to the Liturgy, and this not in committees, but in the spirit of prayer.

(01-20-2015, 10:56 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-20-2015, 08:45 AM)Neopelagianus Wrote: [ -> ]Me, I believe that St. Pius X's reform is benign. The BUGninian reform is more sinister, not in the conspiracy theory type of sinister, but a sinister in the sense of imposing his own ideas that only some self-serving people actually wanted.

N.

In content, I agree - even in the case of the Psalter reform, no content was removed, merely rearranged. However, it established the unfortunate precedent of the liturgy being changed by papal fiat, which his successors continued to do for the next several decades. Does the pope really have the right to abolish the "real" traditional breviary, as St. Pius X did? If he could abolish the traditional breviary, why can't Paul VI abolish the traditional missal? I agree the changes are drastically different in scope, but if the principle of papal power over the liturgy is a valid one, how does one delineate the limits?


Good points aquinas. What Pius X did to the psalter schema was a huge rupture with the tradition, I mean come on, how can lauds really  be Lauds without the Laudate psalms? That being said I'm sure his intentions were noble enough.

The point about papal power and its limits is a good one. The thing is, after Pius X and Paul VI how do we go back? Can we go back? Do the actions of these popes not show that the Pope himself is not a guardian of tradition but above and beyond it with all out unlimited authority? Or were these reforms actually abuses of papal power? Honestly, how do we go back from here?
(01-20-2015, 11:06 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-20-2015, 10:56 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-20-2015, 08:45 AM)Neopelagianus Wrote: [ -> ]Me, I believe that St. Pius X's reform is benign. The BUGninian reform is more sinister, not in the conspiracy theory type of sinister, but a sinister in the sense of imposing his own ideas that only some self-serving people actually wanted.

N.

In content, I agree - even in the case of the Psalter reform, no content was removed, merely rearranged. However, it established the unfortunate precedent of the liturgy being changed by papal fiat, which his successors continued to do for the next several decades. Does the pope really have the right to abolish the "real" traditional breviary, as St. Pius X did? If he could abolish the traditional breviary, why can't Paul VI abolish the traditional missal? I agree the changes are drastically different in scope, but if the principle of papal power over the liturgy is a valid one, how does one delineate the limits?

I'm by no means a specialist in the Liturgy, but haven't St. Gregory the Great changed (or rearranged, at least) some major things in the Mass? Also, the DL cannot claim immutability from what the Apostles did.

I guess it boils down to wisdom: only saints should be allowed to make contributions to the Liturgy, and this not in committees, but in the spirit of prayer.

Sure, St. Gregory arranged many aspects of the Mass, but it should be pointed out that (1) the liturgies of all rites were not yet "settled" (the pre-Pius X psalter arrangement goes back substantially to time immemorial) and, more importantly, (2) he arranged the liturgy for the City of Rome, not the entire Latin Church. This form of the liturgy spread across Europe with Roman missionaries, but strict identity between what goes on liturgically in one diocese and what goes on in Rome is a post-Trent phenomenon. It was only in the face of widespread Protestant error that St. Pius V insisted on more uniformity. He also, incidentally, made a comparatively minor rearrangement of the Psalter.

The DL (as all liturgical celebrations) has also gone through changes, no doubt, but change itself isn't the problem - it's centuries of liturgical tradition being swept away because of a papal "Because I say so." The "givenness" of the liturgy, that quality that it is something received rather than made, took several major hits during the course of the 20th century, and I think it began with St. Pius X. His changes are rarely considered a problem because of his unimpeachable orthodoxy, but also because we already have conceded that the Pope can change immemorial liturgical practice in virtue of his supreme jurisdiction. I do not think it coincidence that this happened so shortly after the definitions of papal supremacy and infallibility at Vatican I; if the whole history of the Church is considered to be one year long, the space between Vatican I and the Pian reforms is about a week.