In order not to get even more controversial, I leave the question of the "reform" of 1955 completely out of the picture.
The same with the "reform" of the Dominican breviary by Hesper. Bonniwell, OP, in his "History of the Dominican Liturgy" remarks quite frankly that the new Dominican breviary was "published under the misleading title: Breviarium juxta ritum Ordinis Praedicatorum. It should have read: Breviarium Romanum ad usum Ordinis Preadicatorum."
Certainly, since 1955 the Church was not very slow in modifying. Actually I would start even a little bit before with the Bea translation of the psalter, luckily the greatest part of the clergy rejected it, if not because of some theological, then at least for linguistic and aesthetic reasons.
The only ones apart are really the CMRI and they cannot really claim to have any liturgical or theological formation at all.
A friend of mine is currently doing some more research on the subject, but it is extremely difficult. One has do go to the old libraries and browse through many books page by page to find only a few answers. I know that Jungmann and others provided some excellent textbooks in recent times, but if we want to do a serious and scientific argumentation we have to go to the actual sources.
It is curious that you cite this book: it is the only Catholic work predating the present controversies which speaks of the influence of Divino afflatu in a negative light [of course it was contextualized very specifically by the liturgical heritage of the Sacred Order of Preachers].
The New Latin Translation of the Psalms and Canticles of the Roman Breviary promulgated by Pope Pius XII in the Motu Proprio In cotidianis precibus (24 March 1945; A. A. S., vol. xlv., pp. 65-67) seems to have had a large acceptance, if one judges by the fact that it is found in nearly all the typical editions of the Roman Breviary and Missal published after the later 1940's. The only exception I can remember is a typical edition of the Roman Breviary (I think it was published by Dessain, though I am not sure) that is dated 1961.
Also, few people note that the newer Masses found in the typical editions of the Missale Romanum incorporated the texts of the New Translation in the Introits, Graduals, Alleluiaic verses, Offertory verses, Communion verses, etc., notably the new formulary for the Feast of the Assumption, for the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin, the Feast of St.Joseph Opifex, and (this is interesting) the Feast of St. Pius X, along with some others.
I did find one reference that alluded to the general lack of sympathy most liturgists had for the New Translation in a book the title of which I cannot remember right now.
The latter clause posits quite a very serious accusation, which calls for evidentiary support if made publicly. Otherwise, it ought not to be pronounced [at least in such a categorical manner]. But ubi caritas...
The CMRI has adopted its liturgical practices because it would the be the legitimate consequence of their notion of the sedevacantist stance. This is why I regard them as the most consistent of the sedevacantists, as opposed to Fr. Cekada and Bps. Dolan and Sanborn. But that is my opinion. The first mentioned apologist went on to advocate the theory that a Priest need not say the "Leonine Prayers." This demonstrated to me a pattern of thought that is quite disturbing and that was bound [in my view] to lead to still more disturbing developments. They themselves entertain, or at least tacitly encourage, a certain disdain for the CMRI, and their adherent tend to regard them as inferior, even though it was Bishop Pivarunas who consecrated Bishop Dolan, despite their differences on the "1955" question.
I know you wish to avoid a polemical exchange regarding the latest reforms of Pope Pius XII, but I wish to emphasize the fact that this controversial issue involves three aspects, which ought not to be confused: 1) the historical aspect (whereupon you touched in your reply) that is necessary to understand the reforms of the Roman Rite; 2) the Canonical aspect (and this is where one's position on the crisis of the Church will determine one's conclusion); and 3) the moral aspect (which involves the work of rubricists, causists, moral theologians, etc.). There is also the liturgical study of the texts themselves, and this involves proficiency in language, the comparative studies of various liturgical books, etc. People seem to forget to distinguish these aspects, and make sweeping generalizations or unsubstantiated assumptions in order to support their stance. Actually this happens with other issues too...
At first I have to thank you for your answer and all the other postings from you which was basically the only reason why I decided to join this discussion.
The question for me remains why there was any need for a new translation, when the Gallican psalter had such a long and beautiful tradition in the Church, written by a Saint – and especially in the light of Christian revelation. Apart from poetical difficulties, difficulties to sing it (this was told to me by a Gregorianist, personally I am not competent to judge that) it also weakens e.g. the messianic message of the psalter.
I am sorry if I sounded uncharitable.
The deeper reasons behind that is in my opinion an exaggerated infallibilism and a kind of neo-Ultramontanism spoken of by Pere Le Floch, Emmanuel Barbier and a few others seeing the bad effects of this movement of the 19th century. I already referred to that in my last post. While I think that the SSPX takes a position close to Gallicanism, most sedevacantist take the other extreme.
Please don´t get me wrong, I don´t want to attack the CMRI, their position or the use of the Pius XII. liturgy. I just think it always boils down for every priest and every group to the question whom and what they like or not.
After years of fighting on this liturgical question I am pretty much giving up: Really, I think it is the last thing we have to worry about. And because of my own deficiencies I cannot really supply the answers and arguments you are looking for.
I hope not disappoint you too much and I certainly mean no offense against anybody.
Ah, no need to thank me, though I have to admit a sort of glee in seeing that people are reading what I post (however long-winded and arcane it may be). Thank you for engaging in this exchange with me. I'm relieved that I don't have to talk to myself in this thread (H1: "Isn't that right Hobble?" -- H2: "Sure as sure-gar!"").
I would just like to write at this point that many present day clerics and layfolk cannot understand what a novelty the reformed Roman Psalter of Pope St. Pius X really was to the Priests and Religious of that age. Priests and Religious were reciting or chanting Psalms that had rarely occurred in the old Office, reformed up until the end of Pope Leo XIII's reign (the exceptions were those Monastic Orders who adhered to the Psalter as arranged in the Holy Rule of St. Benedict, which is now the most ancient Psalter in the Latin Occident). There was a mass of literature that exploded out into the libraries of Priests and Religious in the first half of the 20th century following the reforms of St. Pius X that commented upon the Psalms and the Canticles, and this reflected a desire on the part of these readers to know about the Psalms and Canticles, more of which they were reciting or chanting thanks to St. Pius X.
Thanks for explaining what you meant. I understand now why you said that. While I agree with the factual information, I ultimately disagree with your conclusion. The CMRI Priests may not be speculative theologians according to the criterion of Bp. Sanborn, but they [or at least those Priests whom I have known personally] have shown a love and zeal for souls that is just breath-taking. And this is an understatement.
I personally prefer a Priest who needs to review Matters Liturgical before every High Mass but who will leave the rectory to drive unknown hours to distant destinations the minute someone from afar calls for his assistance, than one who knows by heart the entire Ritus servandus, the liturgical treastises of Rev. Fr. Calleweart, the entire Rituale and Pontificale, but who would not move one finger for a soul who is "expendable" in his distorted estimation. The Low Mass of the former is far more edifying for me than even a Solemn High Mass coram Sanctissimo of the latter. Faith and the sacred Liturgy that expresses it, in my opinion, are not museum pieces or archeological curiosities, rubricated theatre transfigured amidst Gregorian melodies, but grace that vivifies even through the most humble of instrumentalities.
Thanks for clarifying this. From the impression I have received from conversations with the CMRI Priests, they don't like the reforms in themselves so much as the idea that they are attempting to selflessly obey the directives of Congregation of Sacred Rites, whose authority is that of the Supreme Pontiff when it comes to such questions.
I think some of them would have liked it [that is, with a subjective emotional sympathy] if they could use the older typical editions of the liturgical books, but their scruples and sense of obedience would forbid such a thing.
All of the Priests with whom I have spoken do not seem to condemn their fellow clerics who use the older books. They recognize that it's all confusing right now, and one does as best they can.
The whole point of me joining this forum is to have fruitful discourse with those who don't agree with me, but yet share the same fundamental principles and who motivate me to question myself and seek to know and understand more and more regarding the faith and the controversial stances I have adopted. A certain lulling complacency is not an option for me. Unfortunately, I am not humble enough to have that supernally meritorious child-like faith and innocent simplicity that were the lot of such Saints as St. Paschal Baylon, the Little Flower, &c. I have a brain bigger than my heart [and it's not as big as it should be at this point], and that can be a very bad thing some of the times.
Well, talking to yourself makes it at least easier to find out that both sides were right in the end!
Still, I don´t know how clergy and layfolk could really profit from the departure of the Vulgate psalter. Isn´t the Vulgate considered to be the dogmatically authentic Bible? Not that I would discourage Biblical studies, but I always found it interesting how much praise St. Jerome´s Vulgate received, especially in the recent Encyclicals concerning Sacred Scripture. A reversal of this policy seems to me pretty much of a rupture.
I also don´t see what makes Cardinal Bea´s translation so much better or easier. Of course I do not have a representative study, but it seems to me that most people have pretty much the same trouble in understanding either versions. Maybe somebody with a classical formation is more at ease with Versio Piana, I would admit. In any case I would highly recommend an in-depth study of whatever Psalter (forgive me my thoughtless use of this term), even the vernacular does not just make is "easy".
Another thing I don´t understand (it seems I lack a lot of understanding!) is the devotion to the Masoretic text. While St. Jerome had access to pre-Masoretic versions, Cardinal Bea did not. Personally I really feel uneasy with all those post-dispersion Jєωιѕн texts - even though I cannot proof scientifically any alterations of the original manuscripts right now.
Again, I hope you don´t get me wrong. I am the last to blindly set my foot on some corrupted manuscript because "that´s how it was done". Personally I even use the Nova Vulgata without any scruples just as I use post-1958 Solesmes editions of the Liber Usualis. Not because I think it is "more Catholic" or that I think I owe obedience to some kind of authority, but just I because I believe it is better. So, I am pretty progressive in my own ways!
And that the attending people should take part in the ceremonies and know at least how to sing the ordinaries. I don´t think one can claim perfect obedience to the Pontiff when one does not strife do archive what they wanted to archive with the liturgical reforms.
For me the question of authority does not matter at all in this disciplinary realm. If you study a bit of liturgy you notice very soon how widely the practices and customs of the Church varied in the centuries. And also how wide the Church really is.
I pray a monastic breviary...
Spending some time in prayer, in particular to those Saints mentioned, might help more than the longest academical treatise on the Internet.
if they say the Leonine prayers or not (also also would not) or which psalter they are using
Faith and the sacred Liturgy that expresses it, in my opinion, are not museum pieces or archeological curiosities, rubricated theatre transfigured amidst Gregorian melodies, but grace that vivifies even through the most humble of instrumentalities.
I too am quite tired by polemics amongst traditionalists [regarding this question and most others]. After years of academic training in a secular university and minors colleges, I have learned to hold my convictions whilst lending a kind ear to the opinions of others, being cognizant that I have no authority or competence of mine own to invoke (especially in sacred matters). I'm only human [Deo gratias], and have not been given a station superior to my fellow neighbor [iterum Deo gratias]
The New Translation was offered t be used in the recitation of the Canonical Hours and the administration of the Sacraments (since the typical editions of the Rituale published in the 1950's had incorporated the new text, and I have seen at least one Pontifical that did so as well, though this particular one had both versions: it was a quite a treat seeing that!) ad libitum. It an innovation in liturgical praxis rather than a negation of the centrality of the Sacred Vulgate in general. The Liber did keep the Vulgate text of the Psalter.
Well, as I see it, the New Translation is rather an "official commentary" upon the Vulgate Psalter. In numerous instances, the new text coincides with citations of Hebrew MSS found in many Latin and vernacular commentaries upon the Psalter, but a systematic study would be needed to substantiate this.
St. Alphonsus wrote a celebrated commentary upon the Divine Office (as it was in his day) and he mentions that the Sacred Vulgate is eminently superior to the Masoretic texts (and I agree). However, he cites the Hebrew versions all throughout the commentary, which I found interesting. Here's a reprint of this commentary if anyone's interested: http://www.churchlatin.com/Books.aspx?BookID=38
Wow, you're pretty much a rebel! :wink:
Bet you say Prime before Lauds just to stir things up. :jester:
Ah, I have to confess that I know not how to chant. I am completely ignorant of music altogether. I try to follow the prayers and rubrics as they happen before me at the Altar, and I try to join the choir (silently) when they chant.
Uh, here is where I have to disagree, but you did not wish to get polemical so (unless someone else brings up the point), let's move on...
What edition of the Monastic Breviary do you use?
Fireman, could you correct what I think is a typo on this to express your point clearly?
I cannot help but compare the situation in the early/middle 20th century very much with that of the Renaissance. Instead of combating false notions and ideas, and also very often false science on the whole front, they tried to make compromises wherever they could. Now we know that the Church suffered more by excessive humanism and "classicalisation"of sacred texts than it was helped by it (indeed, I am a big fan of Fr. Savonarola!).
Will our opinion of the policies from Benedict XV. to Pius XII. maybe also change at some point?
That made me laugh hard, maybe because it is so true! In reference to the very first line of you posting I also have to admit that I find it hard not to rebel sometimes against myself.
I am very sorry to hear that. The Breviary is meant to be chanted, and a whole new spiritual dimension opens with it. Maybe it is because of me, but I could never get into the liturgical year without hearing the changing tones, antiphons and hymns. Saying the breviary privately, in all its beauty, still has something lacking (and as a matter of fact "private" already means a lack of something). Just as the Mass is supposed to be chanted and carried out with Sacred Ministers, the Divine office should be sung in choir.
What I want to say is that the liturgy has to be seen as a whole. There is not only some rubrics to be followed or a certain Missal to be used. You have music, art, architecture and laity, all playing a major role.
I guess if we want to carry on the discussion, we maybe have to speak about the points leading to polemics, since e.g. my standpoint is heavily influenced by my view that Canon Law is not in force. Since you think that it is, I find it perfectly legitimate to strongly adhere to the reforms of 1955 (it would be 1962 for me since I "recognize" John XXIII. as Roman Pontiff).
I only own a Bilingual Monastic Diurnal compiled by the monks of St. John´s Abbey, 1955 I think.
Ha, you reminded me of Marsilio Ficino, who wished he could have the Dialogues of Plato as Lessons in the Breviary. :clown:
But this is an interesting analogy. I had never thought of it before. It would be a thread unto itself.
Opinions change like the moon, but the possible decisions that a future Roman Pontiff would make, together with the Roman Congregations availing themselves of his authority, are interesting notions, but then again they are merely conditionally future contingencies that cannot be the subject of a prolonged serious discussion without getting fantastical.
Hey, I have said Prime before Lauds and Matins in past instances on Sunday mornings (that is, when I was able to say the entire Office), when the alarm clock couldn't awaken me early enough. I reserved the recitation of Matins and Lauds as thanksgiving after Mass and Holy Communion [it's really nice to do that, and it would ensure a good Holy Hour when so many people neglect Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament after Mass.
I know, I know. It is a shame for which I will perhaps burn in Purgatory if I do not make amends quickly, but I feel age and circuмstance conspire against me.
I understand and agree. However, I am forced to say that one ought not to idealize Priests and chapels anymore. In an age when even the lowest common denominator is exceedingly rare, one gets ecstatically gleeful when there is an opportunity to attend a Missa cantata, even without the proper splendor and pomp of a High Mass.
Uh, that would be another thread...
The one rite that intimidates me to an unnervingly high degree is in the [traditional] Norbertine Breviary. I mean, Triplex: what's that about!! It's way above me.
I was going to prepare a discourse regarding the absolute authority of the Apostolic See in matters liturgical, but then I wandered over to my library and found a very beautiful book on Sacred Liturgy, full of erudition and unction: Catholic Liturgy: Its Fundamental Principles, by the Very Rev. Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B. (of the St. Andrew Daily Missal and Vesperal fame), published at London by Sands & Co. in 1924, with a new and revised edition published in 1954.
In the book's fourth chapter, "Through the Church to God," Dom Lefebvre explains the relationship between Sacred Liturgy and the magisterium and authority of Holy Mother Church, something that has been unfortunately neglected by amateur clerical and lay liturgists (both sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists).
Thanks a lot for those scans, I really enjoyed reading them. I have absolutely no doubts about the authority of the Holy See in Liturgical matters, maybe to your surprise.
The problem arises for me precisely there, namely that this authority is not exercised at the present.
With the lack of ecclesiastical structures and administration, can I even be sure to be bound to the Roman Rite? We know that this depends as to where you are born...but into which diocese are we born into nowadays? Certainly this matter can also not be solved with as to into which ecclesiastical province the clerics of these days are incardinated into.
The only historical references would be before the times of a stronger (exercised) central authority of the Apostolic See prior to the Late Middle Ages and the Council of Trent, as well as a less unified Code of Church Law, where clerici vagantes were a common phenomena and Liturgical usages widely differed - with the tacit approval of the Sovereign Pontiff, of course.
So, what you (or some other people) are demanding is that Priests, violating the Canons of Trent and the Code of Canon Law just by their mere tonsure and ordination, while not being subject to any particular Diocese or Order, violating again several Canons by just starting to say Mass, are still bound to follow the 1955 typical edition of the Roman Missal, promulgated by an authority they otherwise seem to disregard and to which they cannot even turn to?
Again, I can just say that I completely recognize the authority of the Roman Pontiff in matters liturgical, but I cannot see this authority being exercised at the present - and if exercised, the exact manner is unclear to me because of the complete lack of Canonical structures.
This is a difficult question. I would venture to say that one is bound to the Roman Rite if one's ancestry is derived from Roman Catholics and who were born in what would have been the territories of Roman Rite prelates.
Obviously, the application of the principles of Canon Law is not as clear cut as some organizations and apologists make it seem. There are difficulties, and denying them is not going to solve them.
I am demanding nothing. I would say that for the sedevacantist (who does not recognize John XXIII as having been a Supreme Pontiff) the most consistent thing is to follow the most recent reforms of Pope Pius XII in order to conform to the spirit of obedience, but it is a question far more problematic that anyone may realize (especially me).
The question for me remains why there was any need for a new translation, when the Gallican psalter had such a long and beautiful tradition in the Church, written by a Saint – and especially in the light of Christian revelation
Still, I don´t know how clergy and layfolk could really profit from the departure of the Vulgate psalter. Isn´t the Vulgate considered to be the dogmatically authentic Bible? Not that I would discourage Biblical studies, but I always found it interesting how much praise St. Jerome´s Vulgate received, especially in the recent Encyclicals concerning Sacred Scripture. A reversal of this policy seems to me pretty much of a rupture.
Ha, you reminded me of Marsilio Ficino, who wished he could have the Dialogues of Plato as Lessons in the Breviary.
Well Pius XII addressed this point in his "In cotidianis precibus". He said that since the Vulgate was but a "translation of a translation" (LXX) there were some unintelligible passages. Before the translation some scholars have talked about the necessity of a new one, so it was no a novelty but something asked for (at least in certain circles)
(We all know who Bea was, but I think we should focus on arguments and not on persons)
Well as Pius XII said the recognition the Vulgate had was "juridical" in the sense that it was a faithful translation, which doesn`t mean it is the best one.
As far as I read San Jerome merely revised the psalm version of the Vulgate. He didn`t translate it. But I may be wrong.
Very interesting post and discussion Hobble and Pyrrhos! Thanks!
Before all I have to admit both that I`ve read very little about liturgy and that I`ve a sort of deep devotion towards Pius XII (yes Raoul... I can`t help it :smile:) so I`ll try to be as objective as I can :)
Pyrrhos saidQuoteThe question for me remains why there was any need for a new translation, when the Gallican psalter had such a long and beautiful tradition in the Church, written by a Saint – and especially in the light of Christian revelation
Well Pius XII addressed this point in his "In cotidianis precibus". He said that since the Vulgate was but a "translation of a translation" (LXX) there were some unintelligible passages. Before the translation some scholars have talked about the necessity of a new one, so it was no a novelty but something asked for (at least in certain circles)
I think it is incorrect to call this translation as "Bea`s" since it was performed by a commission "presided over" by Bea. In any case I think Bea made a good point in a conference after the publication, when he said the lay people had a better translation of the psalms than the one the priests had, since there already existed some translations from the Hebrew into French and other languages.
(We all know who Bea was, but I think we should focus on arguments and not on persons)
Pyrrhos saidQuoteStill, I don´t know how clergy and layfolk could really profit from the departure of the Vulgate psalter. Isn´t the Vulgate considered to be the dogmatically authentic Bible? Not that I would discourage Biblical studies, but I always found it interesting how much praise St. Jerome´s Vulgate received, especially in the recent Encyclicals concerning Sacred Scripture. A reversal of this policy seems to me pretty much of a rupture.
Well as Pius XII said the recognition the Vulgate had was "juridical" in the sense that it was a faithful translation, which doesn`t mean it is the best one.
As far as I read San Jerome merely revised the psalm version of the Vulgate. He didn`t translate it. But I may be wrong.
Talking about the 1955 rubrics, I believe a reform was needed... now if the one Pius XII made was perfect, good, etc I think that another point, although I like it :)
Hobble saidQuoteHa, you reminded me of Marsilio Ficino, who wished he could have the Dialogues of Plato as Lessons in the Breviary.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOL... he really said that??? I still have to read some of Ficino`s works but I`d need a 48 hs day!!!
In any case just my little opinion on this matter!
Blessed Corpus for all of you! :)
Cristian
And while I agree that this is not about certain persons, the "anti-Vulgate" faction was usually not on the most orthodox side
In particular also in regards to dogma, it was for example of extreme importance that the Vulgate put Genesis 3:15 "...et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius" for the Definition of the Immaculate Conception, while the Hebrew reads "...and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel."
For comparison, in Douay-Rheims 1899 its "and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
QuoteWell as Pius XII said the recognition the Vulgate had was "juridical" in the sense that it was a faithful translation, which doesn`t mean it is the best one.
As far as I read San Jerome merely revised the psalm version of the Vulgate. He didn`t translate it. But I may be wrong.
This is of course right if you refer to the Gallicana used in the Liturgy, not the juxta Hebraicuм. I find it doubtful whether Bea´s research team had a better version than Origen with his Hexapla.
I remember your preference for the Jesuits at Bellarmine forums
which you share with Pius XII. ;-)
As a matter of fact I have not too much of a clue of what I am speaking about, unlike you this didn't stop me from posting :smirk:
Have a blessed feast of the Body and Blood of Our Lord,
Pyrrhos
Heading to work so I don't have alot of time but, Saint Jerome Translated the entire Bible.
He spoke the same ancient greek that most of the New Testament was written in since birth. Was Fluent in Latin. He managed to convince a couple Rabbi's to teach him Hebrew and then translated most of the Old Testament, he hired someone to translate the book of David, then when he was finished with the rest he went back learned chalmedic(sp) so he could make sure that it was accurate.
As a matter of fact I have not too much of a clue of what I am speaking about, unlike you this didn't stop me from posting :smirk:
I agree there were some liberals against the Vulgate, but believe it or not the idea of doing a translation from the originals goes as far as Trent!
Will you believe me if I tell you the St Jerome himself recognized that the first Latin version called the Itala says "ipse" instead of ipsa?
Well... I should re-read some stuff before addressing this... I´m a little lost, lol.
In any case my point is that for some reason Dominicans had not good ecclesiologist theologians, I don´t know the reason.
So you were a member of Bellarmine?? Still trying to figure out who are you :read-paper:
Quote from: CristianI agree there were some liberals against the Vulgate, but believe it or not the idea of doing a translation from the originals goes as far as Trent!
Of course, but the originals are, as yet, lost. Pius XII. rightly said that the closer we are to the inspired originals, the better it is (obviously).
But actually that is precisely the point I am making, that the Church obviously had a lot of trust in St. Jerome´s translation, even so much as to influence the definition of dogma.
QuoteIn any case my point is that for some reason Dominicans had not good ecclesiologist theologians, I don´t know the reason.
Instead of writing all this you could have just admitted that you do indeed prefer the Jesuits :laugh1:
QuoteSo you were a member of Bellarmine?? Still trying to figure out who are you :read-paper:
Actually I was just lurking around. The whole atmosphere was a little bit to jesuitical there, hehe.
In any case, you are a quite famous person, especially after the incident with the equally famous thesis 29.
:cheers:
Sorry the ignorance but did Pius IX base his definition on that text? I thought it had more to do with the words of the St. Gabriel to Our Lady and other texts. In any case weather you read Ipsa or Ipsum the sense is the same, as you can read here http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm
Did you know that Suarez agrees in just 1 of the 24 Thomistic theses? If I were Pope one of the first measures would be to forbid Suarism :roll-laugh1:
If you say so :dancing:
Vivat Billotius!! :king: "Glory both of the Church and of France" (Card. Merry del Val)
What can you expect from a forum which has a Jesuit as Patron :wink:Quote
LOLQuoteVivat Billotius!! :king: "Glory both of the Church and of France" (Card. Merry del Val)
Oh, I absolutely agree - a certain Pope might not, though!
I don`t understand :(
I don`t understand :(
Quote from: CristianI don`t understand :(
I was just referring to Billot´s little problem with Pius XI.
But I also agree with the Jesuit in this matter...
Ohhhh L`Action Française... well I agree with Pius XI here! :) I don`t think though Pius XI would have questioned Billot as one of the best (probably the best one) theologians of XX cent. because of that issue.
PS: Du bist Deuchland? (my german is reeeeeeeeeeeeally bad, lol)
Quote from: CristianOhhhh L`Action Française... well I agree with Pius XI here! :) I don`t think though Pius XI would have questioned Billot as one of the best (probably the best one) theologians of XX cent. because of that issue.
Well, if that was the case then he should have rather listened to him there, hehe
QuotePS: Du bist Deuchland? (my german is reeeeeeeeeeeeally bad, lol)
Si! Mi castellano es malo tambien.
But sorry, we better not hijack Hobble´s thread too much!
Billot himself recognized there were several things wrong with Maurras, I think the discussion was merely upon the convenience of condemning him, weather it was prudent or not.
But sorry, we better not hijack Hobble´s thread too much!
Yes, Hobble... mil disculpas! :) I won`t post anymore here! :)
I`ve a sort of deep devotion towards Pius XII (yes Raoul... I can`t help it :smile:)
We all know who Bea was, but I think we should focus on arguments and not on persons.
Talking about the 1955 rubrics, I believe a reform was needed... now if the one Pius XII made was perfect, good, etc I think that another point, although I like it :)
March 23, 1955: the decree cuм hac nostra aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOL... he really said that??? I still have to read some of Ficino`s works but I`d need a 48 hs day!!!
Question: Has Fr. Ricossa ("Liturgical Revolution," http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=37&catname=6) been corrected for writing the following:QuoteMarch 23, 1955: the decree cuм hac nostra aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary.
Well, it took me just ten minutes to find it :smirk:
It was not printed in the liturgical books because the Decree itself forbade the Printing Presses to make any change in the typical editions of the Roman Breviary and Missal until further notice. Every Priest and Religious has their Ordines to help them conform with the "new" rubrics anyways, just like the generation before them used their old Breviaries and conformed to Divino afflatu until the new typical editions were promulgated, published and distributed throughout the Catholic world.
And it's "Apostolicae," but who's doing the math, right? Hopefully that was a typo.
Where art thou, Pistrina?
Thank God for Aristotle!
Quote from: CristianI`ve a sort of deep devotion towards Pius XII (yes Raoul... I can`t help it :smile:)
I do too!
QuoteTalking about the 1955 rubrics, I believe a reform was needed... now if the one Pius XII made was perfect, good, etc I think that another point, although I like it :)
Me too! We have so much in common! :farmer:
Question: Has Fr. Ricossa ("Liturgical Revolution," http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=37&catname=6) been corrected for writing the following:QuoteMarch 23, 1955: the decree cuм hac nostra aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary.
Well, it took me just ten minutes to find it :smirk:
In his New Mass, Paul VI suppresses from the Mass all the elements of the "Gallican liturgy (dating from before Charlemagne), following the wicked doctrine of "archaeologism" condemned by Pius Xll. Thus, the offertory disappeared (to the great joy of protestants), to be replaced by a Jєωιѕн grace before meals. Following the same principle, the New Rite of Holy Week had suppressed all the prayers in the ceremony of blessing the palms (except one), the Epistle, Offertory and Preface which came first, and the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday.
The whole of the Church's venerable Holy Week got the axe in 1955 with the publication of Maxima Redemptionis. The lie is repeated and extended: this is merely a change of times. The drastic overhauling of most of the ceremonies of the Church's most sacred week receives no justification. How could it?
It was not printed in the liturgical books because the Decree itself forbade the Printing Presses to make any change in the typical editions of the Roman Breviary and Missal until further notice. Every Priest and Religious has their Ordines to help them conform with the "new" rubrics anyways, just like the generation before them used their old Breviaries and conformed to Divino afflatu until the new typical editions were promulgated, published and distributed throughout the Catholic world.
Thank God for Aristotle!
PS: Maurras himself accepted in his deathbed that the condemnation of L´Action was well done.
Quote from: CristianPS: Maurras himself accepted in his deathbed that the condemnation of L´Action was well done.
I already agreed with you that something was wrong with him :laugh1:
Well I did notice this mistake of Fr. Ricossa while I was at MHT but you know... in certain circles you can´t criticize certain people... :)
Is he saying that Pius XII was archaeologist or am I misunderstanding him?
Well Pius XII wasn´t a lier! :really-mad2: In any case if Dollar can accuse a Pope of lying why are we surprised of his sermon "an apology"?
The big/small (?) difference is, that in Divino afflatu a new printing was not forbidden, it was regarded as the final version - at least for some time.
But since you mentioned the Ordines...well, we don´t really have proper Ordines anymore without Ordinaries. Does this mean that I can just follow the rubrics as stated in the breviary/missal? ;-)
Those who are so critical of the reforms of Pope Pius XII, do they avail themselves the mitigation of the ancient Eucharistic fast promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus [6 January 1953] and the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem [19 March 1957]? As Rev. Fr. Vaillancourt has observed, the mitigation of the Eucharistic Mass and the permission for evening Masses were concomitant with the Restored Order of Holy Week, and the Restored Order of the Paschal Vigil previously promulgated ad experimentum in 1951 and 1952 (if memory serves aright).
The majority of the European clergy also strongly disfavors the Eucharistic fasting laws as well as the permission of evening Masses.
Others again do the old Holy Saturday, but in the evening, as was permitted by Pius XII.
Quote from: Pyrrhos
The majority of the European clergy also strongly disfavors the Eucharistic fasting laws as well as the permission of evening Masses.
Really? Warum? (why?)
As I was told, one of them is Fr. Ricossa himself and he does that for "pastoral reasons" also... :)
QuoteAs I was told, one of them is Fr. Ricossa himself and he does that for "pastoral reasons" also... :)
Really? I remember seeing bright daylight in one of the pictures of his Holy Saturday in Turin. But maybe I am wrong.
Quote from: CristianQuote from: Pyrrhos
The majority of the European clergy also strongly disfavors the Eucharistic fasting laws as well as the permission of evening Masses.
Really? Warum? (why?)
Oh, just the old argumentation "it´s not how it was done".
But actually Pius XII himself says that it would still be better to follow the old law - which is actually quite ancient, I think. And I also believe that the evening Masses should not be seen as the normal time for the celebration of Mass, too.
In any case the Restoration of the Pascual Vigil to Saturday night is probably one of the best thing, IMO, in the 1955 new rubrics. You can´t feast Our Lord´s resurrection while He is still buried.
Deus, qui nobis sub Sacraménto mirábili passiónis tuae memóriam reliquísti: tríbue, quaésumus, ita nos Córporis et Sánguinis tui sacra mystéria venerári; ut redemptiónis tuae fructum in nobis júgiter sentiámus. Qui vivis, etc.
But actually Pius XII. himself says that it would still be better to follow the old law - which is actually quite ancient, I think.
But we earnestly exhort priests and faithful who are able to do so, to preserve the venerable and ancient form of the Eucharistic fast before Mass or Holy Communion.
Finally, all who enjoy these concessions are to endeavor seriously to compensate for the benefits received by becoming illustrious examples of the Christian life, especially by works of penance and charity (Omnes denique, qui his facultatibus perfruentur, collatum beneficium pro viribus rependere satagant fulgentioribus christianae vitae exemplis, praesertim poenitentiae et caritatis operibus).
Yes! Finally, someone who agrees with me about this!
I find it odd that people object to the reception of Holy Communion on Good Friday (or, Feria VI in Passione et Morte Domini), when it was formerly the ancient practice and the connection between the Passion and Death of Our Lord and the Holy Eucharist would make such a practice all the more edifying and spiritually enriching on the very day these Mysteries are commemorated.
32. His unceasing reading of the Bible and his painstaking study of each book - nay, of every phrase and word - gave him a knowledge of the text such as no other ecclesiastical writer of old possessed. It is due to this familiarity with the text and to his own acute judgment that the Vulgate version Jerome made is, in the judgment of all capable men, preferable to any other ancient version, since it appears to give us the sense of the original more accurately and with greater elegance than they. The said Vulgate, "approved by so many centuries of use in the Church" was pronounced by the Council of Trent "authentic," and the same Council insisted that it was to be used in teaching and in the liturgy. If God in His mercy grants us life, we sincerely hope to see an amended and faithfully restored edition. We have no doubt that when this arduous task - entrusted by our predecessor, Pius X, to the Benedictine Order - has been completed it will prove of great assistance in the study of the Bible.