The Reform of the Roman Breviary

[Timothysis]

While much talk is spent discussing the Tridentine missal promulgated by Pope Pius V, little attention is paid to the Breviary that Pope Pius V promulgated in 1568 by the Apostolic Constitution Quod a Vobix. Quod a Vobis says this about the Breviary, just as Quo Primum says the same about the Roman Missal:

*"Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." *

On November 1, 1911 Pope St. Pius X promulgated an entirely new reformed breviary with the Apostolic Constitution “Divino Afflatu,” apparently in direct conflict with the warning from Quod a Vobis as stated above. Also, some changes in the breviary required changes in the missal, that “was effected in the 1920 typical edition of the Missal promulgated by Pius X’s successor, Pope Benedict XV.”

My question is, are there any here who suggest that Pope St. Pius V was out of line in reforming the breviary (and apparently the missal, too) even after the explicit language in Quod a Vobis “prohibited” such a thing, just as Pope Paul VI reformed the missal even after the explicit language “prohibited” such a thing in Quo Primum? Why or why not?

 

[Cluny]

I have pointed this out many times, Timothysis, especially to legalists who think Quo primum was handed down from Sinai.

Could it be simply that the revision of the Breviary in 1910/11 simply didn’t affect the average man in the pew as much as the Pauline Missal did?

 

[maurin]

The Roman Missal was updated many times after Quo Primum, right up until John XXIII in 1962 which is the Missal used today in all Traditional Masses, including those celebrated by the SSPX. The difference between those revisions and the NO is that the NO is a complete break from Tradition, where the developments up until '62 were quite organic.

The same with the Breviary. Until the new Breviary, all additions were quite organic.

Of course, all this has been pointed out many times too–probably as many times as Cluny has pointed out above.

 

[Cluny]

I have pointed this out many times, Timothysis, especially to legalists who think Quo primum was handed down from Sinai.

Could it be simply that the revision of the Breviary in 1910/11 simply didn’t affect the average man in the pew as much as the Pauline Missal did?

It should be noted that despite Quo Primum, the Pian missal was tinkered with constantly throughout the centuries until 1962.

 

[Timothysis]

I have pointed this out many times, Timothysis, especially to legalists who think Quo primum was handed down from Sinai.

Great minds think alike, eh?!?!?

Could it be simply that the revision of the Breviary in 1910/11 simply didn’t affect the average man in the pew as much as the Pauline Missal did?

Very well could be, but I am interested in hearing from those who argue tooth and nail that Quo Primum allowed no changes (apparently so did Quod a Vobix) and is, therefore, a “fabrication,” much like they allow the Missal of Pope Paul VI to be a “new rite,” going against the papal authority as encoded in the Council of Trent.

 

[Timothysis]

The Roman Missal was updated many times after Quo Primum, right up until John XXIII in 1962 which is the Missal used today in all Traditional Masses, including those celebrated by the SSPX. The difference between those revisions and the NO is that the NO is a complete break from Tradition, where the developments up until '62 were quite organic.

The same with the Breviary. Until the new Breviary, all additions were quite organic.

So, you are saying that the Reformed Breviary of Pope St. Pius X is a break with Tradition?

 

[maurin]

So, you are saying that the Reformed Breviary of Pope St. Pius X is a break with Tradition?

I said nothing of the kind. I said the ‘new Breviary’ in reference to the one which is in common use today.

 

[Timothysis]

I said nothing of the kind. I said the ‘new Breviary’ in reference to the one which is in common use today.

You said:

"

The difference between those revisions and the NO is that the NO is a complete break from Tradition, where the developments up until '62 were quite organic.

The same with the Breviary. Until the new Breviary, all additions were quite organic.

This seems to mean that the changes in the “new Breviary” are NOT organic. So if the revision of “the NO is a complete break from Tradition,” does that also make Pope Pius X’s changes of the Breviary a “complete break from Tradition,” too? If not, why?

 

[Chatter163]

So, you are saying that the Reformed Breviary of Pope St. Pius X is a break with Tradition?

Huh??? How did you ever get that from his statement?

 

[Cluny]

So, you are saying that the Reformed Breviary of Pope St. Pius X is a break with Tradition?

I would say that.

Amongst other novelties was a radically redistributed Psalter. (I’m saying nothing about the TEXT of the Psalter itself. Unknown to many, that has always varied in the Roman Rite of the Office.)

To give one example, Lauds in the Pian Breviary (as well as earlier ones), had Psalms 148, 149, and 150 (the Laudate Psalms, hence the name of the office) always ending the Psalmody and said under one antiphon.

This was a feature held in common with the Benedictine Breviary and Byzantine and most of the other Eastern offices.

This was changed in 1911, when a different Psalm ended the Psalmody of Lauds.

Votive offices were suppressed.

The various Suffrages and Commemorations that ended Lauds and Vespers were reduced to 2: one for Paschaltide, and another for the rest of the year.

For a more detailed analysis of this reform, see this site:

kellerbook.com/SCHEMA~1.HTM

Let me observe in passing that the modern Latin Liturgia Horarium STILL has no music for many the Antiphons of the Psalter, unlike the various editions of the Nocturnale and Antiphonale that were issued at the time of the Breviaries of S Pius V and later S. Pius X.

 

[Timothysis]

Huh??? How did you ever get that from his statement?

If “the NO is a complete break from Tradition” because of its “non-organic” revision, then is the Breviary, with its “non-organic” revision, also a “break from Tradition, too?” Remember, the reformed Breviary was not just a case of simple “additions,” but a total, radically recast effort.

I get this from his statement, "The same with the Breviary. Until the new Breviary, all additions were quite organic."

 

[Verbum_Caro]

For a more detailed analysis of this reform, see this site:

kellerbook.com/SCHEMA~1.HTM

Wow, Cluny, that is an interesting site. Thanks for the link.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Tim, Cluny, maurin, et al.,

I’'m starting to get a tad lost on this thread. Could you restate each of your actual positions in simple terms?

As far as I can make out, one camp thinks that St. Pius X changes of the breviary (in 1911?) were an organic development. Another camp sees the St. Pius changes as a radical departure. Is that right? But who is in what camp?

Both camps hold that the changes were not prohibited by Quod a Vobis.

Is this a fair restatement?
Thanks,
VC

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, Cluny, maurin, et al.,

I’'m starting to get a tad lost on this thread. Could you restate each of your actual positions in simple terms?

As far as I can make out, one camp thinks that St. Pius X changes of the breviary (in 1911?) were an organic development. Another camp sees the St. Pius changes as a radical departure. Is that right? But who is in what camp?

Both camps hold that the changes were not prohibited by Quod a Vobis.

Is this a fair restatement?
Thanks,
VC

Verbum,

Some on CAF maintain that Pope Paul VI had no right to revise the Roman Missal because of the so-called prohibition found in Quo Primum. Hence, they show a disdain for the Pauline Mass.

Quod a Vobis contains the same so-called prohibition found in Quo Primum, yet Pope St. Pius X made radical changes to the Breviary.

My question is, if the Pauline Mass is a “break from Tradition” because of the reforms of the missal, is the Breviary of Pope St. Pius X also a “break from Tradition” because of its reforms. Some here maintain that the so-called prohibition against changes is “in perpetuity,” meaning it cannot be changed “forever.” If Pope Paul VI is guilty of violating this prohibition, then is Pope St. Pius X?

Remember that the prohibition reads, “*Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” *

Pope St. Pius X has been canonized; this creates certain peculiarities, doesn’t it?!?!?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks for the reply Tim.

I was negligent in my previous post, because I think I understand that part of your original post. (I was going to mention a third camp, unrepresented on this thread – so far? – who believes that Quo Primum forbade the changes to the Missal. . .)

I am curious about how the thread developed later on. Since it doesn’t (yet) seem like anyone here holds that Quo Primum or *Quod a Vobis *were absolute prohibitions on change, what are peoples positions on the changes to the Breviary both in 1911 and after Vatican II?

Organic, non-organic? Radical departure? Improvement? Impoverishment?

Thanks!
VC

 

[bpbasilphx]

It seems that there is a principle that one Pope is exactly the same as the next Pope in authority.

A Pope simply cannot bind his successors to do or not do something.

 

[JReducation]

There have always been multiple forms of the breviary. The Roman Breviary is the most common one. But there were other forms before Pius V and they were never abrogated and they continue in use today.

St. Francis composed a Divine Office for the Franciscan Order which was later bound together with the Roman Breviary today called the Roman-Franciscan Breviary. On days when there is a Franciscan memorial, feast, solemnity or one of the Franciscan lents, the office is different with different psalms and readings. It was written to correspond with the Roman-Franciscan Missal and lectionary. If you watch the mass on EWTN there are days when the readings do not correspond with those in use at the local parishes.

The Carmelites have their own. Of course so do the Benedictines and the Dominicans. Then there is the Little Office of the Virgin Mary approved for pubic use and Sing to the Lord a New Song, a breviary promulgated for use by the Franciscans in 1989.

The Ordinary is the same in all of them. The difference is in the order that the psalms are said, the antiphons, and the readings. The breviaries of the major orders have a second reaading in the Office of Readings that usually comes from the writings of the order (ie Benedictine, Augustinian, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, Discalced Carmelite and other monastic communities).

In the Franciscan tradition the office has never been chanted. The rule says that it must be recited. In other traditions it must be chanted in in other traditions each community is free to choose to chant or recite.

The idea is that we pray with the Church as one Church, but not necessarily the same liturgy of the hours or the same mass of the day, becaue holy days change from country to country and community to community. A solemnity in one situation may be a memorial in another and so forth. For example, in the USA and among Franciscans around the world, the Immaculate Conception is a solemnity. In many countries it is a feast and some other Marian holy day, which may be the patroness of the country is the solemnity or the patron saint is the solemnity. Also some solemnities take precedence over other feasts. For example, the founders of the religioius communities are solemnities within their community and in their parishes, and take precedence over a feast or memorial of the universal Church. They are moved it they conflict with a solemnity of the universal Church; but that does not happen very often.

That’s why you can’t have perfect uniformity in the breviary or the missal.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Timothysis]

…I was going to mention a third camp, unrepresented on this thread – so far? – who believes that Quo Primum forbade the changes to the Missal. . .)

Just wait!!!

Since it doesn’t (yet) seem like anyone here holds that Quo Primum or *Quod a Vobis *were absolute prohibitions on change, what are peoples positions on the changes to the Breviary both in 1911 and after Vatican II?

My thought, too.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

My thought, too.

Tim, but what is your thought? I think I’m still a bit lost.

What do you think of the changes that were made?

What does everyone think of the changes that were made?

VC

 

[Unitas]

So, you are saying that the Reformed Breviary of Pope St. Pius X is a break with Tradition?

No, he’s saying the changes to the Pian breviary were organic the same as the Johanine changes to the missal. The Pauline mass was a break with tradition as well as the “new Breviary” aka the “Liturgy of the Hours”. Maurin meant the LOTH, not the Brevarium Romanum of Pius X, nor the one of 1963.