T
Timothysis
Guest
I often use this example when the question of the document Quo Primum arises which says that the Tridentine missal is to be used “in perpetuity,” with many arguing that the Tridentine missal cannot be changed or revised because of said “in perptuity” clause. When I respond that the document Quod a Vobix has the exact same clause for “in perpetuity” for the breviary that Quo Primum has for the Tridentine missal, and yet it was changed, no one says a word about no pope having the authority to “change” it. Could it be because of the fact that Pope St. Pius X, the bulwark of “Traditionalism,” is the one who changed it, and that this fact would undermind this modern day notion of strict “Traditionalism?” Off topic, I know…I just may start a new thread on this.To give an example that nobody will really care about (because probably most people don’t know): In the early 1900’s, Popes Pius X and XI promulgated a new revision of the Roman Breviary that had a totally novel redistribution of the Psalter and many simplifications.
The arrangement of the Psalms was totally unlike ANYTHING that had ever been done in Western liturgy for 1900 or so years.
Personally, I agree.Was it a bad idea and error in judgement? I personally think so.