Pre-Vatican II: why did some liturgical revisions seem strange and erratic?

[EphelDuath]

NOTE: This thread is NOT going to be about the changes to the Mass and Breviary that happened at/after the Second Vatican Council. It is explicitly about some of the changes between Trent and right before VII.

I was reading this series of articles on New Liturgical Movement about changes to the Roman Breviary between 1529 and 1961, and I couldn’t help but notice that so many of the changes seemed very erratic and pointless. I don’t know if that’s just the author’s bias, but take this for example:

By far the most significant change introduced by the 1960 reform is the reduction of all Sundays, and all feasts of the Third class, (the former Major Doubles, Doubles and Semidoubles) to three readings at Matins.

…

On more than one occasion, a question which was posed in the seventh reading of Matins, and answered in the eighth and ninth, is now left unanswered. On the Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost, the Gospel is that of the prince of Capharnaum, who asks Christ to come to his home and heal his son. (John 4, 46-53) In the homily of Matins, Saint Gregory the Great poses the question:

Why did he that had come to ask for healing for his son hear, “Unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe?” For he that asked for healing for his son, beyond all doubt believed; nor would he have asked him to save his son, if he did not believe him to be the Savior. Why then is it said “Unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe” (to him) who believed before he saw any signs?

The answer which Pope Gregory gives to this question is no longer read. On other occasions, what remains amounts to little more than a Father of the Church clearing his throat. On the fourth Sunday after Epiphany, Saint Jerome tells us:

He performed the fifth sign when, going on board the ship at Capernaum, he commanded the winds and the sea; the sixth when in the region of the Gerasenes he gave the demons power over the swine; the seventh when, entering his own city, when he cured the second paralytic in his bed. For the first paralytic was the Centurion’s servant.

There’s other examples of this. Pope Urban VIII edited the hymns of the Breviary to be more in line with classical (Ciceronian) Latin, which was widely described as a mutilation of the hymns and an awful change:

Since the days of Dom Guéranger, liturgical scholarship has been as unsparing in its criticism of the Urban VIII revision as the religious orders were unwelcoming of it. Msgr. Batiffol calls the new hymns “deformed”, likening them to the broken ancient statues discovered in Rome, which “the Barberini … and many others restored …, attaching to them new limbs which are a greater disfigurement to them than all the mutilations inflicted on them by the rude hand of time.” (p. 221) Fr. Adrian Fortescue is equally, characteristically severe. In the preface to a 1916 collection of Latin hymns and English translations by Alan G. McDougall, he writes (p. 27-28) “Whatever good the Renaissance may have done in other ways, there can be no question that it was…disastrous to Christian hymns. There came the time when no one could conceive anything but the classical meters and classical language. So they wrote frigid imitations of classical lyrics… There is nothing to be done with this stuff but to glance at it, shudder, and pass on. … (T)hose absurd Renaissance people did not realize that, because an original is beautiful, it does not follow that a bad imitation will be.” But not even Fr. Fortescue’s barbs can match the oft-quoted witticism of Pope Urban’s contemporaries, many of whom were less than impressed by the new hymns: “Accessit latinitas, recessit pietas. – Latinity came in, piety went out.”

Another example is on Pope St. Pius X’s revision to the schema for the Psalter:

It is now broadly agreed that the re-arrangement of Lauds is not altogether successful. Anton Baumstark once remarked, a propos of the breaking up of the Laudate psalms (148-149-150), that the reformers had removed from the Breviary the one custom which we can say with certainty was observed by Our Lord Himself when He prayed in the synagogue.

There is also this about the updated Psalter promulgated by Pope Pius XII which was translated from the Hebrew, instead of St. Jerome’s Gallican Psalter:

The goal of this translation is clarity, and it is certainly very easy to understand for those who know Latin reasonably well. It is also difficult to think of a more artless and insipid piece of writing in the history of the Roman Rite. The translation may gain much in a certain kind of accuracy, but it loses far more in poetry and rhythm. The classic case is found in Psalm 92, 3: “Elevaverunt flumina, Domine, elevaverunt flumina vocem suam; elevaverunt flumina fluctus suos. – The rivers have lifted up, o Lord, the rivers have lifted up their voice, the rivers have lifted up their waves.” The Bea Psalter reads “Extollunt flumina, Domine, extollunt flumina vocem suam; extollunt flumina fragorem suum. – The rivers raise up, o Lord, the rivers raise up their voice, the rivers raise up their noise (or ‘crash’). ” Regardless of whether the Hebrew is better represented by the new version, the Vulgate simply sounds much better, in this and nearly every other case.

Can anybody tell me about this? Reading these articles has really made me want to just forget about learning the 1961 Breviary and try to find some ancient copy from 1568 to pray instead

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes, I’ve heard of all of these things. Some of them I think turned out poorly and I wish they were reversed, others I am indifferent about. Changes to the Tridentine forms of liturgy between Trent and VII are not particularly high on my concern list, liturgically, although they are very interesting to examine.

 

[Joe_5859]

Can anybody tell me about this? Reading these articles has really made me want to just forget about learning the 1961 Breviary and try to find some ancient copy from 1568 to pray instead

If you find a copy of the 1568 one, let me know. That would be a good find.

I don’t have any insight to add, but I am interested to hear from others.

 

[Magnanimous]

NOTE: This thread is NOT going to be about the changes to the Mass and Breviary that happened at/after the Second Vatican Council. It is explicitly about some of the changes between Trent and right before VII.

I was reading this series of articles on New Liturgical Movement about changes to the Roman Breviary between 1529 and 1961, and I couldn’t help but notice that so many of the changes seemed very erratic and pointless. I don’t know if that’s just the author’s bias, but take this for example:

There’s other examples of this. Pope Urban VIII edited the hymns of the Breviary to be more in line with classical (Ciceronian) Latin, which was widely described as a mutilation of the hymns and an awful change:

Another example is on Pope St. Pius X’s revision to the schema for the Psalter:



There is also this about the updated Psalter promulgated by Pope Pius XII which was translated from the Hebrew, instead of St. Jerome’s Gallican Psalter:

Can anybody tell me about this? Reading these articles has really made me want to just forget about learning the 1961 Breviary and try to find some ancient copy from 1568 to pray instead

It would be a lot of work, but, I’m not 100% percent sure, whenever changes in the liturgical texts would take place the Pope or another competent authority would issue a decree, in that decree their would be some sort of explanation as to why the change is occuring. I don’t think anyone has ever compiled an anthology of sorts for these but you could probably find some of them on line.

 

[QuestingKnight]

Can anybody tell me about this? Reading these articles has really made me want to just forget about learning the 1961 Breviary and try to find some ancient copy from 1568 to pray instead

It’s simple. The revolution doesn’t come out of nowhere. The tree has long roots that go way back.

 

[OraLabora]

Can anybody tell me about this? Reading these articles has really made me want to just forget about learning the 1961 Breviary and try to find some ancient copy from 1568 to pray instead

You wouldn’t be praying the liturgy of the Church. To be liturgical your prayer has to be from a current approved breviary. That means LOTH, 1961, some monastic breviaries, and the breviaries of some of the other orders like the Franciscans; and in reality as laity, unless you’re somehow connected to a monastery (as oblate) or the Franciscans in some capacity, you should really be praying the LOTH. Though the 1961 can be licitly used (especially for those regularly attending an EF Mass), it was never really designed with the laity in mind.

Personally I have little love for the 1961 which really is the 1910 of Pius X updated. That breviary was a remarkable break from tradition, for its time in many ways as radical as the 1970 LOTH except in the quantity of psalms in a week. At least the LOTH is more manageable for busy laity and clergy.

On the other hand even the post-Vatican II revision of the Monastic breviary as described by St. Benedict can at least claim 1500 years of continuous use with really only fairly minor adjustments (the biggest being the abolishing of Prime and its psalms distributed elsewhere, although the Monastic breviary of today does allow Prime to be said ad libitum).

Even the monastic breviary (a different schema than the traditional Benedictine one) that my abbey uses (a 1-week cycle) is not very “traditional” other than having all psalms in 1 week, having a traditional structure to the offices, and using traditional Latin antiphons and Gregorian melodies and psalm modes. But out of a sense of unity with the monks, I pray that breviary when I have the time (otherwise it’s the 4-week LOTH for me).

Keep in mind one very, in fact extremely, important concept with the Divine Office: it’s not all about me, or my preferences. We pray joyful psalms when were sad and sad ones when we’re joyful because we are praying with the Church, for the Church, and everywhere at one time we are to be in solidarity with those who are sad, joyful, in distress, content, ill, dying, being born, etc. etc.

And there are ways, incidentally, to make the 1970 LOTH more “traditional” using some of the licit choices it allows, and by making use of new resources to chant it in Gregorian chant, for instance. If anyone wants details on that, I’d be happy to share.

 

[TimothyH]

You wouldn’t be praying the liturgy of the Church. To be liturgical your prayer has to be from a current approved breviary. That means LOTH, 1961, some monastic breviaries, and the breviaries of some of the other orders like the Franciscans; and in reality as laity, unless you’re somehow connected to a monastery (as oblate) or the Franciscans in some capacity, you should really be praying the LOTH. Though the 1961 can be licitly used (especially for those regularly attending an EF Mass), it was never really designed with the laity in mind.

Personally I have little love for the 1961 which really is the 1910 of Pius X updated. That breviary was a remarkable break from tradition, for its time in many ways as radical as the 1970 LOTH except in the quantity of psalms in a week. At least the LOTH is more manageable for busy laity and clergy.

On the other hand even the post-Vatican II revision of the Monastic breviary as described by St. Benedict can at least claim 1500 years of continuous use with really only fairly minor adjustments (the biggest being the abolishing of Prime and its psalms distributed elsewhere, although the Monastic breviary of today does allow Prime to be said ad libitum).

Even the monastic breviary (a different schema than the traditional Benedictine one) that my abbey uses (a 1-week cycle) is not very “traditional” other than having all psalms in 1 week, having a traditional structure to the offices, and using traditional Latin antiphons and Gregorian melodies and psalm modes. But out of a sense of unity with the monks, I pray that breviary when I have the time (otherwise it’s the 4-week LOTH for me).

Keep in mind one very, in fact extremely, important concept with the Divine Office: it’s not all about me, or my preferences. We pray joyful psalms when were sad and sad ones when we’re joyful because we are praying with the Church, for the Church, and everywhere at one time we are to be in solidarity with those who are sad, joyful, in distress, content, ill, dying, being born, etc. etc.

And there are ways, incidentally, to make the 1970 LOTH more “traditional” using some of the licit choices it allows, and by making use of new resources to chant it in Gregorian chant, for instance. If anyone wants details on that, I’d be happy to share.

Fascinating. Thanks for this post.

-Tim-

 

[Rich_C]

Keep in mind one very, in fact extremely, important concept with the Divine Office: it’s not all about me, or my preferences. We pray joyful psalms when were sad and sad ones when we’re joyful because we are praying with the Church, for the Church, and everywhere at one time we are to be in solidarity with those who are sad, joyful, in distress, content, ill, dying, being born, etc. etc.

Well put.

I once asked a holy priest if one should pray the breviary with special intentions in mind, and he said: no, that’s true for Holy Mass, but for the Office, we just offer the Church’s intention, whatever it is.

 

[Genesis315]

Reading these articles has really made me want to just forget about learning the 1961 Breviary and try to find some ancient copy from 1568 to pray instead

But do you know what changes happened up until 1568? You’ll probably find critics of those too which may disturb you. Then which edition will you choose? See where this all ends? You’ll end up either writing your own “perfect” liturgy or not praying at all. IMO, you should just pray one of the forms currently authorized by the Church and not worry about. There is no “perfect” liturgy here below.

The absolute ideal liturgy of the greatest perfection is the heavenly liturgy. However, in the practical order here below, the various liturgical rites are each good as they enable us to enter into that divine heavenly liturgy. From a relative point of view some rites may be considered relatively better than others insofar as they are better suited or adapted to particular circumstances, but all fall short to one degree or another of the heavenly ideal (this does not mean they are bad–they are still good–they are just not the highest degree of perfection).

So this side of Heaven, you will always find liturgical rites where reasonable criticisms have been levied and to which reforms have been made.

 

[bcuster]

It’s simple. The revolution doesn’t come out of nowhere. The tree has long roots that go way back.

Since when does change = revolution? Times change. People change. Languages change. The way we celebrate Liturgy changes. The Gospel needs to be preached authentically to all people in all times. Our past Popes have responded to the needs of the people of their times. They are Popes. They have the authority (and responsibility) to do this. While there is a place for honoring the past, we are called to be obedient to Holy Mother Church, today.

 

[EphelDuath]

It’s simple. The revolution doesn’t come out of nowhere. The tree has long roots that go way back.

That makes absolutely no sense. A handful of these liturgical changes were bizarre, but for the most part, they were conservative in nature. For example, while Pope St. Pius X’s changes were sweeping and enormous, and a handful of his choices questionable, for the most part it was to abolish a lot of the unnecessary “junk” which had been added in the centuries after Trent so as to restore the Breviary’s ancient integrity, and the very sacred tradition of St. Benedict where the Psalter is prayed in its entirety in a week (up until that point, there were so many feast days that practically every single day required use of the Common psalms rather than the ferial, and so the same set of psalms was prayed and it was very rare to pray all of the Psalter in the course of the week).

Personally I have little love for the 1961 which really is the 1910 of Pius X updated. That breviary was a remarkable break from tradition, for its time in many ways as radical as the 1970 LOTH except in the quantity of psalms in a week. At least the LOTH is more manageable for busy laity and clergy.

You are obviously far more educated in this matter than I am, but nevertheless, I feel like I have to disagree with this statement. In theory the pre-Pian Breviary was almost unchanged since the time of St. Benedict, but practically speaking this was not the case due to the overcrowded calendar. So Pius’ changes left the Breviary in a state that was, in its most essential aspects, more in line with St. Benedict’s vision than as it was immediately prior to his papacy.

This is simply not the case with the Pauline LotH. The office of Tenebrae is almost completely dismantled (which was even in the 5th century considered so ancient and venerable that changing its text was unthinkable, not unlike the Roman Canon). The Psalter is over the course of four-weeks (a complete innovation; the Ambrosian rite for some time had a two-week Psalter, but for the most part in the Roman rite, a one-week Psalter was the norm since at least the time of St. Benedict). Not only that, but one never, ever prays the entire Psalter in the current LotH, because the curse psalms appear nowhere in the schema due to Pope Paul VI finding them to be offensive prima facie. Furthermore, the Biblical notion of seventimes daily prayer is for the most part extinguished, since there is no obligation to pray all three daytime hours.

I say this not to be aggressively critical of the official prayer of the Church. I just don’t think Pius X’s changes are even remotely comparable to Paul VI’s.

 

[QuestingKnight]

My friends tell me the 1920 typical edition is the one they’d like restored. Then, have a group of holy men take their time and produce something which would be last 1000 years.

We didn’t all suddenly go mad in 1960. The tendency to tinker has always been there. It’s a feature of Roman Catholicism.

It would be nice to have a missal which is as seamless as possible and doesn’t suffer from harsh editing or incongruity.

Personally, I want more, not less.

This, from a previous poster, boggles the mind:

It is now broadly agreed that the re-arrangement of Lauds is not altogether successful. Anton Baumstark once remarked, a propos of the breaking up of the Laudate psalms (148-149-150), that the reformers had removed from the Breviary the one custom which we can say with certainty was observed by Our Lord Himself when He prayed in the synagogue.

 

[EphelDuath]

You are aware that this change was made in the 1911 edition, so why did you praise the 1920 edition immediately prior to lamenting the break-up of the Laudate psalms?

 

[QuestingKnight]

It’s simple. I’m not a liturgy nerd. I read disturbing things about “The Mass Of All Time (V2.34.7)”. I’d like not to.

It would be nice to have a missal which is as seamless as possible and doesn’t suffer from harsh editing or incongruity.

 

[agnes_therese]

The tendency to tinker has always been there. It’s a feature of Roman Catholicism.

Seems to me it’s a feature of being human, yes?

 

[QuestingKnight]

Seems to me it’s a feature of being human, yes?

Welp, I’ve read on here that the Orthodox edited one word in their liturgy in 1000 years. If that’s so, then the answer is no.

 

[vames]

Welp, I’ve read on here that the Orthodox edited one word in their liturgy in 1000 years. If that’s so, then the answer is no.

There’s no such thing as an unchanged tradition in any human civilization.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers
orthodoxwiki.org/Typikon

 

[OraLabora]

You are obviously far more educated in this matter than I am, but nevertheless, I feel like I have to disagree with this statement. In theory the pre-Pian Breviary was almost unchanged since the time of St. Benedict, but practically speaking this was not the case due to the overcrowded calendar. So Pius’ changes left the Breviary in a state that was, in its most essential aspects, more in line with St. Benedict’s vision than as it was immediately prior to his papacy.

The Pius X breviary only superficially resembles the Monastic, and that mainly because all 150 psalms are prayed in a week. The structure of the psalm schema is substantially different. St. Benedict devotes 12 chapters describing in great detail how the monks are to say the Divine Office. He lays out the basic psalter schema that has been used by Benedictines for 1500 years. This schema obliges the monks to recite 250 psalms per week (obviously with many repetitions). He says this at the end of Chapter 18:

We strongly recommend, however,
that if this distribution of the Psalms is displeasing to anyone,
she should arrange them otherwise,
in whatever way she considers better,
but taking care in any case
that the Psalter with its full number of 150 Psalms
be chanted every week
and begun again every Sunday at the Night Office.

While superficially the breviary of Pius X respects this, structurally there’s very little resemblance between the two breviaries except for Vespers on some days and the use of some psalms at the same hours. Many monastic traditions were broken by Pius X: breaking up the Laudate psalms at Lauds, varying the psalms of Compline each day (in monasteries it was always 4, 90 and 133 without antiphon, recited from memory in the dark), moving the Gradual Psalms from the minor hours as a sort of pilgrimage through the day, to Vespers, splitting up the psalms to a much greater extent, the structure of Matins and the loss of extensive lessons at Matins both scriptural and patristic. Pius X really did gut the monastic traditions in his breviary.

On the other hand at least the LOTH has a passing nod to that tradition in many intriguing ways when using some of the licit options:

The use of psalms 4, 90 and 133 is permitted every day for the benefit of those who want to return to the practice of reciting Compline from memory; use of the Office of Readings as a Night Prayer with long biblical and patristic readings and a the use of Vigil canticles for Sundays and feasts; the selection of psalms entirely from the monastic cursus for Vespers of the 4th week of the cycle, and the ability to use, ad libitum (mandatory for communities bound to choir), the Gradual Psalms at the minor hours. True the quantity is rather lighter, but that’s just fine for diocesan and lay use. We don’t all live in a monastery.

The issue of the cursing psalms is a red herring. Pre-Vatican II, the breviary was almost the exclusive preserve of the clergy or religious. The placement of the cursing psalms was at hours that were rarely attended by the general public (Matins and the mid-day hours) in the Pius X breviary, and at Vigils (Matins) thus at night, in monasteries. Their removal, from the standpoint of the laity (i.e. us), means that we no longer get what we really never got to begin with.

Yes there’s lots of “innovation” in the Pauline breviary, but much of the precedents were set by Pius X. I don’t particularly like, for example, the NT canticles at Vespers. They are syncopated and are difficult to chant even in Latin; especially in Gregorian modes. They just don’t sound poetic like the psalms or the OT canticles of Lauds.

But in many ways it makes at least a passing attempt to recall its monastic roots, something I find the Pius X breviary took great liberties with.

 

[EphelDuath]

I’m afraid I don’t follow your post! Your quote from the Rule shows that St. Benedict believes that the actual Psalter schema isn’t what’s important, so long as all 150 Psalms are prayed in a week. The Pian Breviary disrupted the arrangement in order that all 150 Psalms would be prayed weekly, whereas the LotH not only has suppressed some of the Psalms and some verses, but it’s also arrayed in a four-week schema. So which edition am I to believe is more in line with St. Benedict’s vision?

The issue of the cursing psalms is a red herring. Pre-Vatican II, the breviary was almost the exclusive preserve of the clergy or religious. The placement of the cursing psalms was at hours that were rarely attended by the general public (Matins and the mid-day hours) in the Pius X breviary, and at Vigils (Matins) thus at night, in monasteries. Their removal, from the standpoint of the laity (i.e. us), means that we no longer get what we really never got to begin with.

How is this a red herring? From the perspective of the layperson, they’re missing out on a lot more Psalms than the curse-themed ones. But if they were to pray the Breviary in its whole, they would go through the entire Psalter. Now with the LotH, nobody, unless putting in the extra effort to know exactly which chapters/verses are missing and praying them supplementally, prays the whole Psalter.

Might you also address the point about Tenebrae?

 

[JM3]

And there are ways, incidentally, to make the 1970 LOTH more “traditional” using some of the licit choices it allows, and by making use of new resources to chant it in Gregorian chant, for instance. If anyone wants details on that, I’d be happy to share.

Please. do.