Misunderstood obedience and the liturgy

[steve_green_2]

I didn’t state anything that does not accord with authentic and traditional Catholic teaching or historical reality.

No you didn’t. It was a very heartfelt and well written thought.

 

[AJV]

Agree to an extent, but I just don’t understand why it is that the changes of Paul VI (rightly) are held up to being out of sync with tradition and those who follow them as having misguided obedience, but the changes of St. Pius X to the breviary, the changes of Pius XII get a pass? Is it because the Popes who instituted them were doctrinal champions hence their good judgment there is presumably carried over into the field of the liturgy?

Alex, you recite Matins and Lauds according to the 1962 breviary do you not? Don’t you find it far removed from the breviary of St. Pius V? Even for that matter, from that of St. Pius X?

 

[bear06]

My post was about liturgical “reform”…not about you, amazingly enough, bear6.

Well, I consider myself to be obedient and am against weckovations and having the Novus Ordo or nothing so I am well within my rights to challenge your generalizations which you so often make.

 

[Damascus]

I dont even know why this thread is here when the term

OBEDIENT PUPPETS is in the OP’s post. I am offended and outraged by this.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I thoroughly agree with finding the use of phrases like “obedient puppets” offensive. I also find it somewhat interesting that I myself, who love the Latin Mass, have petitioned for its use in my diocese, and have borne witness to many abuses in individual vernacular Masses, am being characterized as part of the ‘fuzzy left’ because I actually acknowledge that the vernacular Mass, WHATEVER its individual real and/ or PERCEIVED deficits may be, is still a valid Mass. Do I prefer the Latin Mass? Yes, I do. Most certainly. Do changes need to be made to the vernacular–yes they do. Changes were made to the Latin Mass as well (need I remind posters of this? I should not have to) over time, and in times where literacy and mass communications were nothing like that of present times.

Do I adhere to the AUTHORITY of the Popes? Yes I do. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. The consecration is still valid whether the priest says, “this is my body. . .” or “Hoc est einim corpus meum. …”

I agree with the poster who very CORRECTLY noted that it is not obedience which is misunderstood here. Obedience is a good thing and humility still better. Having said that, I humbly acknowledge that I am just a fallible being; I submit myself to the TRUTH of God Almighty and to the authority of the church He gave us.

 

[Damascus]

I thoroughly agree with finding the use of phrases like “obedient puppets” offensive. I also find it somewhat interesting that I myself, who love the Latin Mass, have petitioned for its use in my diocese, and have borne witness to many abuses in individual vernacular Masses, am being characterized as part of the ‘fuzzy left’ because I actually acknowledge that the vernacular Mass, WHATEVER its individual real and/ or PERCEIVED deficits may be, is still a valid Mass. Do I prefer the Latin Mass? Yes, I do. Most certainly. Do changes need to be made to the vernacular–yes they do. Changes were made to the Latin Mass as well (need I remind posters of this? I should not have to) over time, and in times where literacy and mass communications were nothing like that of present times.

Do I adhere to the AUTHORITY of the Popes? Yes I do. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. The consecration is still valid whether the priest says, “this is my body. . .” or “Hoc est einim corpus meum. …”

I agree with the poster who very CORRECTLY noted that it is not obedience which is misunderstood here. Obedience is a good thing and humility still better. Having said that, I humbly acknowledge that I am just a fallible being; I submit myself to the TRUTH of God Almighty and to the authority of the church He gave us.

BTW- great sig line- appropriate here too.

 

[AlexV]

The changes of Pius X and Pius XII to the Breviary did not alter the existing texts in any appreciable way. You could still put the bull of Pius V in front of their breviaries and not make it a joke to do so.

 

[bear06]

The changes of Pius X and Pius XII to the Breviary did not alter the existing texts in any appreciable way. You could still put the bull of Pius V in front of their breviaries and not make it a joke to do so.

That would be a subjective opinion. That’s not what the Bull says. That said, it doesn’t matter because one Pope cannot bind another in matters of discipline.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM

 

[AJV]

Er, bear06… don’t have much time, but you’ve linked to ‘Quo Primum’ rather than ‘Quod a nobis’. Though the “in perpetuity” thing there is the same.

 

[bear06]

Er, bear06… don’t have much time, but you’ve linked to ‘Quo Primum’ rather than ‘Quod a nobis’. Though the “in perpetuity” thing there is the same.

Thanks, AJV. Same argument, different Bull? Did the Bull say that you should not alter the Breviary “in any appreciable way”? I’m guessing no.

 

[AlexV]

The Breviary of Pius X introduced NO new texts into the Roman Breviary, and didn’t cut ANY existing ones.

Note: an obvious exception to the above would be the Office of a new saint.

It was the same Breviary as Pius V. Rubrics adjusted here and there, Psalter adjustments, sure…but the ancient Benedictine principle of reciting the WHOLE PSALTER in ONE WEEK was preserved. Perfectly. In fact, after Pius X, it actually did get recited in 1 week, since the proliferation of saints’ offices between Pius V and Pius X had often made that an ideal that couldn’t be followed in practice.

1970 gave us an entirely new book (with a new title, even).

The bottom line here is the argument between those who think a pope can just rewrite the entire liturgy except for the words of institution and those who think he can’t. (More accurately: those who think a pope can appoint a committee to rewrite it, since Paul VI didn’t actually work on the liturgy, he appointed a committee to do it).

Quibbling about what popes did up to 1970 is irrelevant. What happened in 1970 was NOT business as usual. Arguing that other popes “changed the liturgy” sets up red herrings.

What existed up to 1970 was DEMONSTRABLY the same liturgy as what had preceded it back through history. What came in 1970 was a new creation. Not surprisingly, its authors stamped NOVUS ORDO on it in gold letters. Not surprisingly, they cut all the papal bulls that used to appear before the text of their new construction.

And, for the first time in recorded liturgical history, they decreed you HAD to follow THEIR Novus Ordo, or you were somehow “disobedient”, and everything before them was relegated to “old” and “mere discipline” and “out of date”. Sort of like Pol Pot and the Year Zero.

The main officer of the liturgical changes wrote in print that the liturgy before Vatican II was not “worship in spirit and truth”.

That’s close to heresy.

This isn’t “subjective”. It’s objective fact.

 

[AJV]

The Breviary of Pius X introduced NO new texts into the Roman Breviary, and didn’t cut ANY existing ones.

Note: an obvious exception to the above would be the Office of a new saint.

It was the same Breviary as Pius V. Rubrics adjusted here and there, Psalter adjustments, sure…but the ancient Benedictine principle of reciting the WHOLE PSALTER in ONE WEEK was preserved. Perfectly. In fact, after Pius X, it actually did get recited in 1 week, since the proliferation of saints’ offices between Pius V and Pius X had often made that an ideal that couldn’t be followed in practice.

Explain please, why St. Pius X could not just alter the rubrics to allow recitation of the ferial psalter like Benedict XIV was going to do. (Actually, please see the post below which was in response to your earlier post.) The psalter could have easily been recited in a week with minor rubrical changes.

And it is false to say that no new texts were introduced by St. Pius X outside the psalter(which itself is a substantial portion of the breviary). There were and they were most certainly not the offices of new saints. And texts were cut off also.

Also regarding the texts to be cut off would you like to know how many were propsed for eradication to both Benedict XIV and St. Pius X before each died?

1970 gave us an entirely new book (with a new title, even).

The bottom line here is the argument between those who think a pope can just rewrite the entire liturgy except for the words of institution and those who think he can’t. (More accurately: those who think a pope can appoint a committee to rewrite it, since Paul VI didn’t actually work on the liturgy, he appointed a committee to do it).

Quibbling about what popes did up to 1970 is irrelevant. What happened in 1970 was NOT business as usual. Arguing that other popes “changed the liturgy” sets up red herrings.

What existed up to 1970 was DEMONSTRABLY the same liturgy as what had preceded it back through history. What came in 1970 was a new creation. Not surprisingly, its authors stamped NOVUS ORDO on it in gold letters. Not surprisingly, they cut all the papal bulls that used to appear before the text of their new construction.

And, for the first time in recorded liturgical history, they decreed you HAD to follow THEIR Novus Ordo, or you were somehow “disobedient”, and everything before them was relegated to “old” and “mere discipline” and “out of date”. Sort of like Pol Pot and the Year Zero.

So what is your opinion on St. Pius X forbidding his clergy and anyone else to recite a psalter that went back 1500 years (adequately proven) under pain of the wrath of Almighty God and Ss. Peter and Paul. 1500 years of tradition not surviving anywhere in the world.

Didn’t St. Pius X also have a commision for his liturgical reforms?

And for all its failings, fabrication and inorganic nature, the ‘Novus Ordo’ has not touched one text that has been there for 1500 years. Not one. Optionalised yes, but never erased (And yes, I’m familiar with the story of the rewriting of the Roman Canon and Paul VI). The Collect, Readings (including the Gospel and the blessing), Orate Fratres, Oratio super oblata, Sursum Corda, Preface, Sanctus, Canon (the optional bit) Pater, Pax, Postcommunion and Ite Missa est are all in the NO. Every single thing except for part of the embolism that has been taken out of the Mass of Paul VI comes in the Ordinary later than the 10th century and most in the 12th-14th centuries. Most of them did not even make their appearance in the Roman liturgy until some 200-50 years before the Missal of St. Pius V. (And no, this doesn’t justify its inorganic nature) If anything, the NO was a combination of some thought-to-be ‘pure’ Roman liturgy with tackiness and idealism of ‘modern’ liturgical studies thrown in.

 

[estesbob]

I didn’t state anything that does not accord with authentic and traditional Catholic teaching or historical reality.

Then you should have no problem providing links to catholic teaching to back up your assertions. I am waitng with bated breath…

 

[AJV]

AlexV:

The changes of Pius X and Pius XII to the Breviary did not alter the existing texts in any appreciable way. You could still put the bull of Pius V in front of their breviaries and not make it a joke to do so.

The pre-eminent part of the breviary as you full well know is the psalter. In another thread you stated that you don’t go by ‘Quo Primum’ et al, which is as well or the “in perpetuity” might have applied. You stated, that you went by tradition. Now doesn’t the psalter have a 1500 year tradition? What merits its complete and utter transformation? The transformation wasn’t even organic in the least. It was a thorough reformatting of the psalter.

Yes, Quod a nobis is fixed to the front of the breviary. But after it comes the document ‘Divino Afflatu’ which expressly abolishes the psalter of ‘Quod a nobis’ and forbids its use, stating that it cannot fulfil any obligation of reciting the office and imposing its use on all who recite the breviary whether “by office or by custom” and imposing canonical sanctions on those who do not ( those who recite the Office according to a 1500 psalter to fulfil their obligation) and calling down the indignation of Almighty God and Ss. Peter and Paul on all who disobey. 1500 years of liturgical tradition vanished because the ancient Roman psalter is not said anywhere today in the world.

Benedict XIV also had a Commision for the reform of the breviary. It’s probably noteworthy to see what that Commission did. When they met to discuss the Psalter “various projects for a distribution…….were sent……all of them claiming to make the recitation of the psalter easier and better ordered. The consultors, however were unanimimous…………in affirming once more that the Roman distribution of the psalter was ancient and must not be abandoned. To give more weight to their opinion which rested on the testimony of Almarius and Gregory VII, they had recourse to the manuscript treasures of the Roman libraries……these reserches amply confirmed the opinion of the Congregation”
In a critical study by Msgr. Batifol of THIS revison of Benedict XIV he said

In the first place we notice the respect shown by the congregation for the ancient elements of the Roman breviary: I mean, the traditional distribution of the psalter among the various canonical hours……they declare the Roman distribution of the psalms to be a matter outside the sphere of discussion”.

On this point they deserve our highest praise- their method of work did not run counter to that of the Council of Trent and Pius V, but was in complete conformity. It was because the distribution of the psalter had been so firmly stamped with his authority by Pius V that they held to it so firmly”

contd…

 

[AJV]

Cardinal Tamburini influenced certain other cardinals to agree with him and lobby for a new psalter. Benedict XIV himself opposed and forbade it.

In addition, under St. Pius X, there is the disappearance of the variable commemorations and their reduction a single commemoration. Then the Laudate psalms. The Anthanasian Creed reduced to being said only on Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost (and Trinity Sunday) that too, if there is a commemoration of a double octave it is not said, so in effect the number of times it is said is less. Changes to antiphons for Septuagesima, Lent and Holy Week changing to responsories during Eastertide. Would that they had not wasted their time and actually changed the antiphons and responsories that needed changing in the Sanctorale rather than fiddling around with the ancient ones in the Temporale.

Pius XII further abridged this by eliminating the preces at all hours, except for the ferial preces at Lauds and Vespers, and these he restricted from the ferias of Advent, Lent and Passiontide to only the Wednesdays and Fridays in those seasons, assuming of course that the Office isn’t of a saint in which case it would be omitted.
Then he did away completely with the Suffrage of Saints and the Commemoration of the Cross. And of course, the Our Father and Hail Mary (and Apostle’s Creed for Compline, Matins and Prime) was also omitted before the hours (for Compline, after) as well as the Our Father and versicle of Prime. Sacrosancte too, but that was a relatively recent part anyway. The Athanasian Creed restricted to the feast of the Holy Trinity only.

Then we have the changes in the first nocturn for Doubles of the I and II Class whereby the lessons are read from the occurrent Scripture rather than the Common always when there are no Proper lessons. And the change whereby the ferial rather than festal psalms is used for Terce, Sext and None for Doubles of the II Class. Then elimination of First Vespers for everything below doubles of the I and II Class, which automatically got rid of the commemorations made at the previous day as well as proper magnificat antiphons.
Then there is the elimination of the octaves, and the elimination of semidoubles and consequent downranking of those feasts to simples, and of simples to commemorations which of course, meant the elimination of their historical lessons. And according to the new rubrics, a few saints were by default erased from the calendar since they were perpetually impeded, but could not be commemorated due the rubrics regarding commemorations.

Add all the things were we to delve into the tiny details like Proper conclusions for the hymns, the resumption of proper antiphons and conclusions, etc. for both St. Pius X and Pius XII (substantially for the latter). All of which, at least to me, gives quite a different breviary from St. Pius V.

Not to forget the changes of Bl. John XXIII, whose breviary is used by the FSSP, ICRSP, and others who offer the Indult Mass, the SSPX, and with which I’m sure you’re familiar. So why is it that people who recite the hours according to that breviary, or that of Pius XII are not termed as having a misguided sense of obedience for adhering to changes rather than a 1500 year old liturgical tradition?

 

[AJV]

And as regards the historical lessons, no they should not all be ommitted. But it should also be recognized that some of those lessons were spurious. It was a feature recognized by all those who attempted to reform the breviary from 1650 onward.

Benediuct XIV started the major revision of the historical lessons and here are his thoughts on the matter:

We have received your Eminences letter of May 20 in which you mention the project of a new Roman breviary. We have remarked with the most sensible pleasure the hopes which your Eminence suggests to us……….the following is the general plan which We have proposed to follow in the composition of this breviary. Criticism having become so exacting, and the facts which our good forefathers regarded as undoubted now being called into question, We see no other way of defending ourselves than by compiling a breviary in which everything should be drawn from Holy Scripture which, as your Eminence is aware, contains plenty of matter on the subject of the mysteries celebrated in the feasts of the Chruch, as well as about the Hoyl Apostles and the Blessed Virgin. Whatever the Scriptures themselves might not furnish would be supplied form the universally accepted writings of the earliest Fathers. As to the other saints which now have a place in the Breviary, a simple memorial of them would be deemed sufficient. All that can be said on the other side is this derogates form the cultus which these saint shave received; and true it is that cutting out of their legends will make some people cry out, who consider the things related in them so certain that they would be ready to go to the stake in support of ther truth. But such criticism as this appears to us of far less importance than that which is made a reproach to us that we have read things read in the name of the Church which are apocryphal or of doubtful veracity.”

The number of changes proposed by his commission with respect to the above as well as antiphons and responsories would take a dissertation to write. He died before they could be implemented. For examples of the historical lessons being talked about (most of which still remained and in some cases, remain for the 1962, in the breviary) see the historical lessons of the II Nocturn for all the following (and the ones I’m citing are just a fraction) the records of which are found among the last writings of Benedict XIV which he worked on in his library:
Ss. Thomas, Andrew, Bartholomew, Nicolas, Lucy, Agatha, Blaise, Cletus, Hippolytus and so many of the other martyrs. In addition the lessons of Pius V, Peter Celestine, Margaret, Sylvester, Damasus and so many other saints. Even the apocryphal homilies for the Holy Innocents and the Visitation. The project was taken up later under Pius X, but then they only got so far as revising the lessons for St. Stephen, Silverster the Octave of Christmas, St the Circumcision, the octave days of the comites Christi feasts, the Vigil of the Epiphany,etc.

 

[AlexV]

“And for all its failings, fabrication and inorganic nature, the ‘Novus Ordo’ has not touched one text that has been there for 1500 years. Not one. Optionalised yes, but never erased (And yes, I’m familiar with the story of the rewriting of the Roman Canon and Paul VI).”

Quite false. There are numerous texts of orations that were in the Gelasian-era Missals…notably feasts of saints/martyrs…that were completely dropped.

Not optionalized. Cut. Dropped. The liturgy of Saints John and Paul is extremely ancient. Completely cut. Not optionalized. Numerous other examples could be adduced.

As I have repeated ad nauseam et ad taedium, the Breviary of Pius X and Pius XII is obviously an edition of Pius V. The same can’t be said of Paul VI. You’re quibbling over truly minor rubrical changes…

 

[AJV]

My apologies. Please correct my statement to:

“And for all its failings, fabrication and inorganic nature, the ‘Novus Ordo’ has not touched one text OF THE ORDINARY that has been there for 1500 years. Not one. Optionalised yes, but never erased (And yes, I’m familiar with the story of the rewriting of the Roman Canon and Paul VI).”

No, the breviaries of the Pius X and Pius XII are not comparable to the radical change sof the NO. That does not explain how they do away (as I have repeated ad nauseam et ad taedium) with 1500 year old traditions. I see major differences on most days with regard to way the breviary of Pius XII is recited compared to the breviary of St. Pius V.

 

[AlexV]

Ah yes, and one of the great features of the Novus Ordo is its love for “options”…which often means the optional things aren’t used.

 

[AlexV]

We don’t have printed breviaries from 1500 years ago.

And, as for the Psalter, the basic tradition is the whole Psalter in 1 week. Every breviary has maintained that tradition. Until 1970, of course.