Do we have to listen to the Pope?
#29
(01-08-2020, 12:55 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: When St Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Breviary, he affixed an Apostolic Constitution, similar to Quo primum, called Quod a nobis, to it (which unfortunately, I can't find online). It used the same sort of language, threatening dire punishment to anyone who would alter what he was promulgating. I have never heard of any Traditionalist arguing that St Pius X was a destroyer of the Liturgy because he 'violated' Quod a nobis as they do about Paul VI 'violating' Quo primum.

I'm not saying St Pius X didn't have the authority to do what he did. I think the Quo primum argument against the new Mass is a bad one; Paul VI had the same authority as Pius V, but that's been discussed here before.

There had been talk about Breviary reform since at least the 1700s, and something probably needed to be done, since the Sunday psalms were said on all Double and Semidouble feasts, leaving most of the Psalms to be said only a few times a year. The better solution would probably have been to prune the calendar, especially by 1911, and leave many of the feasts of various Italian confessors for the dioceses in which they had lived, leaving those who actually had universal devotion. But the Breviary in 1911 was basically the same as that of 1602, except for new feasts, a few new lessons on a couple days, some rubrical changes eliminating the transfer of Doubles and Semidoubles, and, of course the hymns of Pope Urban VIII. But the Psalter is the heart of the Breviary, and Pius X's new scheme, especially including divided psalms, was completely untraditional to the Roman rite, and even eliminated things that went back to the Apostles, such as praying Psalms 148-149-150 together. The reform definitely established the principle that the Pope is the master of the liturgy, rather than its guardian, and the reformers of Vatican II used that to their full advantage.

And don't forget that Pius X's breviary only lasted about 40 years. Pius XII reformed it further, and then we got the gutted 1960 version which turned Sunday into essentially what before would have been a Simple feast of three Lessons. Maybe if the reforms had stopped in 1911, the new Breviary wouldn't be so bad. Except it didn't stop there.

I don't think St Pius X intended to destroy the liturgy, and there's much more room for reform in the Breviary than in the Missal. (For that, my preference would be the 1920 edition, the last typical edition before the later tinkering in the 1950s, with the later saints added and maybe the Common of Popes. There are plenty of suggestions out there on reforming the traditional Mass, but I don't see any need to touch the Missal. But it's not up to me.) But it got the whole liturgical reform moving, and if the traditional Roman Psalter could be replaced wholesale, what couldn't? They wouldn't replace the Canon, would they?

If the liturgy is something for each new generation to leave its mark on, and just one more work of man, then why not the new Mass? Priests are too busy to pray 18 Psalms on Sunday; revise it. People are too busy to sit through Mass; shorten it and give them more to do. If the Office was too much of a burden on the average parish priest, leave the obligation on the monks and nuns, and require Lauds, Vespers, and Compline for secular clergy. The Little Office of the BVM, the Office of the Dead, and the Penitential Psalms used to be obligatory, but that was changed. No reason why the obligation to recite all the Hours couldn't be, with the option of doing so if you were able to. For that matter, it's not even a requirement that a priest has to say Mass every day, so why should he have to recite the entire Office? Of course, we're looking at this with 100 years of hindsight, seeing what's been lost and what's been imposed, and judging it from that perspective. But if the liturgy is something to be passed down, having been pretty much perfected centuries ago, then it's better to keep it intact, even if it's used less often, and pass it down as a whole.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by Zedta - 01-06-2020, 07:39 PM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by jack89 - 01-07-2020, 10:20 PM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by Paul - 01-07-2020, 10:43 PM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by jack89 - 01-07-2020, 11:39 PM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by Paul - 01-08-2020, 12:33 AM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by Paul - 01-08-2020, 02:11 AM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by Paul - 01-08-2020, 03:25 AM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by Paul - 01-09-2020, 12:39 AM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by Paul - 01-10-2020, 02:07 PM
RE: Do we have to listen to the Pope? - by jack89 - 01-13-2020, 01:10 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)