Author Topic: Centenary of Divino afflatu (Read 5921 times)

Hobbledehoy · « **on:** May 25, 2011, 11:38:50 PM »

This 1 November shall be the centenary of promulgation of the celebrated Bull of Pope St. Pius X Divino afflatu (1 November 1911; A. A. S., vol. iii., pp. 633 sqq.).

To prepare for such a momentous event, I wish to read from others (N.O.-ers, SSPXers, sedevacantists, miscellaneous, none of the above, all of the above, etc.) some reflections upon the trajectory of the reforms of the Roman Breviary and Missal in the 20th century.

Since this discussion may entail controversial subjects the discussion of which are not permitted in the other sub-fora by the rules, I feel constrained to post this topic here and not in the "The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers" sub-forum.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2011, 10:57:12 AM »

This was certainly a great Bull with unmeasurable importance. The revival of liturgy, chant and art in the 19th century after several hundred years of growing decline and corruption was badly necessary. While the so called "right wing" liturgical movements with its known promoters like Dom Gueranger and Pope St. Pius X. tried to bring back the true notions of sacred worships in all its forms, conservatives tried to hold to the abuses that crept in - creating the fertile ground for the liturgical "left".
If you see the baroquisation of beautiful Romanesque and Gothic churches, musical concerts during the Mass and a laity that just knows that they have to "be there" at the most solemn and important acts of Christian worship....you can see why many people saw that something was wrong. Obviously, modernism and liturgical experiments and questionable modern art were the wrong answers. But it seemed to be the only answer available for many, just as the workers in the 19th century did not get the necessary support from the Church as a social institution, pious layfolk and priest were getting ready to do something for the progress of Holy Mother the Church (through Divino afflatu and the like) but...nothing came. Apart from some tries of Pius XI., the modern Pontiffs lost the chance to incite faith and devotion amongst the faithful. The great deeds of Solemn in liturgy as well as chant, and of Beuron in sacred art, both praised by the last Pope-Saint, lost its force without the vital support of Church authorities.
What was left was a few conservatives, usually old and dull, and on the other sides the educated and forceful youth. Unfortunately, not through too much fault on their own, they joined the ranks prepared by the eternal foe.

In order not to get even more controversial, I leave the question of the "reform" of 1955 completely out of the picture.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2011, 11:25:29 PM »

Thank you for your beautiful reflections.

The centrality and providential role of Divino afflatu is conceded by all traditional Catholics, and questioned only by a strange sort of hyper-critical amateur "liturgists."

It would only be the greatest of post-Tridentine Popes that would accomplish what even the most scholarly Pope Benedict XIV was unable to accomplish: the reform of the Roman Breviary and Missal in such a way as to restore the ancient dignity of the Dominical and ferial Offices, and to maintain the Sanctoral Offices in their proper station.

Quote from: Pyrrhos

In order not to get even more controversial, I leave the question of the "reform" of 1955 completely out of the picture.

But this precisely why I posted on this sub-forum

Here's a "dumb" question for you (and everyone else) to answer:

What's so bad about the reforms of Pope Pius XII?

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2011, 02:17:11 AM »

I agree with you very much, Hobbledehoy. A complete reform was and is indeed still badly necessary, for example to restore the ancient Hymns to their original form - the monastic breviaries are lucky to have them.
On the other side we can see elements of a false "romanization", certainly done out of good will and mostly in the spirit of obedience to the Holy See and Ultramontanism. I would like to speak more about the connection of Ultramontanism and Liberalism as opposed to Reactionary Gallicanism, a subject nearly completely ignored, but this is not quite the right topic for that. If anybody ever has the chance to read the Histoire du catholicisme libéral et du catholicisme social en France by the French Jesuit Emmanuel Barbier one should do it, it will completely change your view on the crisis of the Church*.
Back to topic: France and Germany dropped their proper liturgies to the greatest extent due to the influence of Dom Gueranger and his followers. While I deeply admire the learned Benedictine abbot, I still see some problems with the sometimes too hasty actions done by others. Of course there was a lot of corruption in the Gallican liturgies, but they also contained a lot of great treasures which were then lost again for a long time. Luckily there are some educated and able men within the Novus Ordo structure to do some serious research and liturgical work (as seen on the "New Liturgical Movement", for example).
Many typical Roman elements, preserved in the liturgies on the other side of the Alps, were simply done away with. 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."

It seems to me that the spirit of novelty became more important than to find the true forms and principles of the liturgy of the Roman Church. And I am not surprised to find Modernists frequently quoting Pius XII.´ Mediator Dei:

"What is more, it [the Church] has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage." - Emphasis and comment added.

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.
Right now I do not even want to argue any more about the changes of 1955 in themselves. If one studies liturgy just a little bit one can see how greatly the liturgical usages differed in different times and regions. Personally I think the new Holy Week violates a lot of liturgical principles and customs, but Liturgists usually leave these things to the rubricists who have much lesser influence on the rites anyway. And I am neither a liturgist nor a rubricist.

It will always remain tiresome to argue about the actual changes inside the reformed Holy Week. The supporters of the old one will always find something "modernistic" in their eyes and the other ones will defend it by historical comparison. A bit the same with the Novus Ordo contra Latin Mass.
So I go only by the exteriors. Look at the people who fabricated it, the reaction on side of the clergy, the long time influence and finally also the argument from authority, that is "what are the learned traditionalist (and there are very few of them now!) doing"? I know that I can answer the latter question: The absolute minority outside of the SSPX uses the liturgy from John XXIII. because of a strict sense of legalism, the majority the liturgy of Pius X. The only ones apart are really the CMRI and they cannot really claim to have any liturgical or theological formation at all.

So much from me - in earlier times I would have argued much differently. I think at the current state of research on the topic we cannot speak more than was already spoken, an excellent comparison between the two rites of Holy Week can be found here:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

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.

*The five volume set can be downloaded here: http://www.liberius.net/theme.php?id_theme=12

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2011, 08:46:02 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

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."

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].

Quote

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 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.

It was promulgated to be used ad libitum, so there is nothing inherently wrong in rejecting it.

I have used it in past instance in the recitation the Office. It didn't bite... :wink:

Quote

The only ones apart are really the CMRI and they cannot really claim to have any liturgical or theological formation at all.

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.

Quote

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.

As am I, and it is very difficult to obtain the necessary material for adequate research. The internet is becoming a better source of information, but when it comes to such issues, the sources are most of the times biased. And it is true, if one is to adequately discourse and argue regarding this issue, the pertinent sources are to be offered in the course of the exchange. The problem is that this very rarely happens. The critics of the 1955 reforms who personally annoy me the most are the so-called "Fathers" at Traditio. They just spout categorical pronouncements without any substantial evidentiary support. Most of the time they don't cite their sources at all. Most proponents of the reforms of Pope Pius XII rarely make any public apology [in the technical sense of the word] for their praxis, and this includes the CMRI. They don't discuss it because it is obvious to them that they ought to follow what the Apostolic See has promulgated, according to their understanding. The only apologist I know that defends the reforms is Fr. Kevin who is allied to the Missionary Sisters of the Holy Ghost, which republishes old material from the Popes (though they too rarely cite their sources) and other traditional sources.

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...

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2011, 05:28:14 AM »

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.

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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].

True, I also smell a kind of false conservatism there. But I think it is important to see that the liturgical revisions where just in the very beginning at this time and that this liturgical-disciplinary decisions are not necessarily the “best” possible, only falling under the negative infallibility.

Quote

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.

While the facts stated are certainly correct, I do know that the European clergy practically completely rejected the New Translation. The clergy was seemingly more unhappy with this New Version than with the Novus Ordo Missae a few years later. The difficulty was that the St. Jerome psalter breviaries were no longer printed, which was, as far as I know, at least a suggestion from Rome. As we know John XXIII. did pretty much away with the Bea translation and Paul VI. made a new one which received far more praise from the clergy and Latinists.
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 don´t even want to speak about Cardinal Bea´s orthodoxy or his alleged Judaic background, since these things don´t really add any objective facts to the discussion.

Quote

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.

I am very well aware of that, which shows again that the New Translation was actually not so much ad libitum. But the translation also does not really affect liturgists too much, I would think.
By the way, I have read the complete New Translation a lot of times, so I do not only speak in a purely polemical manner without knowing much on the subject. I see it very often on both sides of the discussion that the respective people only know “their own” thing and only read some articles etc on the other side.

Quote

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...

I am sorry if I sounded uncharitable. Still I think the fact stands that there was no philosopher, theologian, liturgist, canon lawyer etc at Mount St. Michael or Mater Dei Seminary ever. This was maybe done systematically under Schuckhardt, and afterwards it never changed. I know the CMRI quite well and can say that basically all their clerics are pretty much self trained. I don´t think that such training is adequate at all, especially since the academical level at school already dropped down to close to zero, leaving not much of a foundation to build a serious formation on.
Whatever one thinks of Sanborn and the like (and I am certainly not favouring them at all), they certainly have a much better educational background.

Quote

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 disagree here, but I also have a completely different theological stance than the CMRI. If we already speak in terms of “soft” sedevacantist, I would count myself as a “soft liturgist” (apart from the fact that I am far from being a liturgist). I do not really care which liturgy anybody uses, if they say the Leonine prayers or not (also also would not) or which psalter they are using. From my experience everybody just does what they like.
When I asked several CMRI clergymen why they don´t recognize John XXIII. as the Pope, they could not give me an answer (I won´t count membership in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as an answer). Isn´t that quite an important question for a Catholic? I was also told that a disciplinary decision of a Pope is necessarily the best, which is clearly a wrong statement. Well, in the end it just mattered that they like Pius XII. and his liturgy and that most of their priests did not do a deep study on the subject. 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.
Personally, I do not like Pius XII and his liturgy and I find the rubrical changes outside of Holy Week very illogical and difficult to use in practise. John XXIII. really finished the job and made an extremely easy to use missal and breviary.

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. And since I consider Canon Law as not being in force I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Dolan´s position in regard to his consecrator is rather sad and unedifying. They certainly have no right at all to look down upon the CMRI. On the other side, I also heard some CMRI priests frequently making polemical comments on the so called old liturgy.

Quote

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...

I completely understand what you mean. And despite my claims of not wanting to start a polemical discussion or just stay in the realm of subjectivism it maybe sounds as if I am doing exactly that. But I guess you understand what my point is. 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.

According to my position I only really care whether liturgy is done well, that is according to the rubrical principles of the Roman Rite. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case within independent traditional groups, meaning outside of the SSPX or Novus Ordo structures. I don´t think one even has the right to argue about which Pope to follow when one obviously does not care about the most important actions one can perform here on earth.
If you have a well trained Schola, diligent altar boys and masters of ceremony, a sanctuary in accordance with the norms laid down by the sacred congregations…well, then we can maybe start to speak again!

I hope not disappoint you too much and I certainly mean no offense against anybody.

In Christ,
Pyrrhos

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2011, 08:43:00 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

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.

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!"").

Quote

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 can write a couple of observations and impressions that years of reading commentaries on the reformed Roman Breviary (that is, from 1911 to 1955) have given me, but I would need to cite those sources in order to more efficiently address your point [in a very non-polemical way].

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.

The New Translation was a response to such a desire, and the Motu Proprio which promulgated it makes that clear. However, I do agree [and contemporaneous commentators did too] that the New Translation was not so much ad libitum as the Motu Proprio said. The new formularies employed the texts thereof, and the rubrics for the Restored Order of Holy Week implied that the New Translation ought to be used. However, the Restored Order of Holy Week as adapted to the Monastic Rite did retain the sacred Vulgate Psalter.

By the way, I don't like the use of the term "New Psalter" when applied to the New Latin Translation promulgated by Pope Pius XII because it was the term specifically used by rubricists when discussing the New Psalter of Pope St. Pius X. For example, there is a book entitled, The New Psalter with Interverse Translation, compiled by Rev. Father E. P. Graham and published in 1935. The reference is to the recently (and indeed very new) Psalter of 1911. [It is an awesome book, by the way, and I highly recommend it for anyone who yearns to learn the Psalms or to learn Latin: http://www.churchlatin.com/Books.aspx?BookID=84]

Quote

I am sorry if I sounded uncharitable.

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.

Quote

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.

I am not versed at all in French, so I cannot read the book you mentioned in your previous reply, not these authors' books. However, this is another issue, though ultimately pertinent to liturgical questions.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

Oh, I am not looking for arguments or answers. I am sorry if I sound polemical or argumentative [in the negative sense of the word]. I just wanted to clarify something for future reference in case we do engage in future exchanges regarding these questions.

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].

Quote

I hope not disappoint you too much and I certainly mean no offense against anybody.

Nah, you haven't disappointed me.

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.

Thanks for your replies: I am enjoying this exchange.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2011, 05:50:11 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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!"").

Well, talking to yourself makes it at least easier to find out that both sides were right in the end!

Quote

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.

You are probably right. I also did not think too much about the changing of the breviary under St. Pius X. (even though I have a Leonine breviary somewhere around here...).
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.
And the final argument will of course always remain, the tradition and usage of the Church (yup, I do know that the Vulgate was not used for quite a while!) and the personal sanctity of St. Jerome. I do believe that he wrote under a kind of Divine inspiration.

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!

Quote

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.

Oh, no doubt, I perfectly agree with you. And not that Bp. Sanborn´s priest know anything about liturgy or the rubrics. I guess I don´t have to warm up stories of forgotten consecrations, the inability to perform funerals and much more.
On the other hand, maybe owing through my European background, I cannot imagine a priest who does not perfectly know a simple Missa Cantata which I am used to have at least once a week. I really think, and you know that much better than me, that we have to remind priests and laity that the Solemn Mass is the ordinary form of the Mass. 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.

Quote

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.

I do think that they have a valid point in obedience. What I question is whether the theological background for it is valid. Maybe a systematical apology is lacking?
And I also want to refer to what I mentioned just above. The Sacred Congregations did not only prescribe a certain liturgical book to be followed. When one aspires to perfectly follow the will of the Sovereign Pontiff, one has to do much more (e.g. Church design, participation of the laity, organization of religious societies and much more).
Some of the 1955 supporters have this attitude that all others are "pick-and-choose" Catholics. I think we all, may it be the liturgy of Pius X.,XII. or John XXIII., pick and choose.

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.
So I pray a monastic breviary, attend the old Holy Week, sing the restored Salve Regina of Solesmes and read the Nova Vulgata. Some people might consider that to be a strange combination. And not too many years ago I maybe would have condemned it myself.
All I try to do now is to find and follow true principles. I am sure I am still wrong in many aspects and that I will change my mind again and again. But as long as there is some good will (I hope) God won´t condemn me for my mistakes of the past, present and future.

Quote

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.

I think I know exactly what you mean. Spending some time in prayer, in particular to those Saints mentioned, might help more than the longest academical treatise on the Internet.

Thanks again for your replies.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #8 on:** June 01, 2011, 10:03:58 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Well, talking to yourself makes it at least easier to find out that both sides were right in the end!

You'd be surprised: sometimes both sides are wrong, and often both sides fight each with impetuous fury...

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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

Quote

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!

Wow, you're pretty much a rebel! :wink:

Bet you say Prime before Lauds just to stir things up.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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...

Quote

I pray a monastic breviary...

What edition of the Monastic Breviary do you use?

Quote

Spending some time in prayer, in particular to those Saints mentioned, might help more than the longest academical treatise on the Internet.

Yes indeed!

Lighthouse · « **Reply #9 on:** June 02, 2011, 12:20:11 AM »

Bravo! Thread of the year.

Quote

if they say the Leonine prayers or not (also also would not) or which psalter they are using

Fireman, could you correct what I think is a typo on this to express your point clearly?

Gem of sentence:

Quote

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.

Even a better paragraph:

Quote

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]

Both of you write well and to the point. Keep up the good work.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #10 on:** June 02, 2011, 02:59:10 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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.

As a matter of fact I saw several Libers with the New Translation Psalter in the very back.
And I guess one could argue that the liturgy did not only use the Gallican Psalter even before the Piane Version. But I find this variety in the liturgical usage of the same rite...quite unusual, as you notice yourself. That´s why I sometimes call it the "extraordinary" and "ordinary" Breviary/Psalter

Quote

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

Thank you for the link. While I understand the notion of a "official commentary" I don´t find it particularly useful to alienate clergy (and laity?) from the Sacred Vulgate. Since the middle of the last century already saw an increasing academical decline and more and more extensive use of the vernacular, I would have tried to archive exactly the opposite. And since modern exegetes and rationalists attacked the authority of St. Jerome´s translation more and more, something else than a simple New Translation should have been done, at least in my humble opinion. Namely a critical revision of the Sacred Vulgate.
This was of course actually done with the Nova Vulgata, the latest edition being that of 2006.

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?
Even the Novus Ordo Church realizes more and more that modernist art from the 20´s and Divine service without beauty is not so useful at all. In the same way I strongly advocate a critical study of pre-Vatican II times and not blindly accepting everything as good just because it is "old" and that our grandparents grew up with it.
[Of course I do not accuse you of doing precisely that]

Quote

Wow, you're pretty much a rebel! :wink:

Bet you say Prime before Lauds just to stir things up.

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.

Quote

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.

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.
An ordinary Sunday, at least in may part of the world, would not be thinkable without a sung Mass, Benediction and Vespers. And the whole congregation or at least a big part would take part in the singing - just as Pius XI. and XII. wanted to see it.

But that is actually not all that I meant. Okay, now I obey to the rubrical changes of 1955 - but I cannot stop there. How many (traditionalist or modern) Churches and chapels do you know that carry out the prescriptions of the Sacred Congregations faithfully? Is the tabernacle wholly covered by a veil, is there an antipendium, baldachin and tapestry in the colour of the day? Not even to mention the violation of liturgical principles by adding more and more gradines, statues and flowers, making the structure behind the altar more impressive then the actual mensa on which the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated. I could argue all day about liturgical abuses like those mentioned!

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.

Quote

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...

Again, I refer to what I just said above. Personally I first of all care about the right principles. They are usually violated by both, followers of the liturgy of Pius X. or Pius XII. And I think that is much much worse than adhering to a liturgical practice that was approved at some point by the Church.

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).

Quote

What edition of the Monastic Breviary do you use?

Ups, that was more of a rhetorical element to underline my rebellious side than a real statement. I am actually pretty boring, using usually a 1940 Roman Breviary, I only own a Bilingual Monastic Diurnal compiled by the monks of St. John´s Abbey, 1955 I think.

Quote

Fireman, could you correct what I think is a typo on this to express your point clearly?

I am sorry for that mistake. I meant that I agree with Fr. Cekada and also probably would not say the Leonine prayers if I were be a priest. Again, it is all about a principle, at this time the principle of the cessation of a law through the fulfillment of its purpose.

Thank you Lighthouse for your nice words. I am also enjoying this relaxed discussion very much.

Wishing you a joyful Feast of the Ascension!

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #11 on:** June 02, 2011, 09:52:58 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

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!).

Ha, you reminded me of Marsilio Ficino, who wished he could have the Dialogues of Plato as Lessons in the Breviary.

But this is an interesting analogy. I had never thought of it before. It would be a thread unto itself.

Quote

Will our opinion of the policies from Benedict XV. to Pius XII. maybe also change at some point?

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.

Quote

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.

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].

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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 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.

Quote

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).

Uh, that would be another thread...

Quote

I only own a Bilingual Monastic Diurnal compiled by the monks of St. John´s Abbey, 1955 I think.

I use that sometimes. I have the rare fourth edition published in 1960. It is the same exact edition as the 1955 and 1952 editions, except that it has the Office of St. Pius X and the Restored Order of Holy Week adapted to the Monastic Rite. The old Assumption Office is in the text itself and the new one promulgated by Pope Pius XII is in an appendix, as in the 1955 edition. The new Office was optional for the Monks, unless the Superiors said otherwise.

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.

Thanks Lighthouse! I'm just glad that there are others who are actually reading this thread.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2011, 03:34:52 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Ha, you reminded me of Marsilio Ficino, who wished he could have the Dialogues of Plato as Lessons in the Breviary.

But this is an interesting analogy. I had never thought of it before. It would be a thread unto itself.

Who knows me a little bit also knows that I have more than just little respect for the classical studies (actually, I am strongly in favor of them). But still I am happy that people don´t ask whether I am more of a Ciceronian than a Christian - even though they might just conclude that because of my bad Latin.

Quote

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.

You are obviously right. What I ask is if I would have been wrong in arguing in 1910 that a reform of the breviary is badly necessary and that the current one is not so good at all. And then again, if I should shut my mouth now about the 1955 reforms or complain here, too.
On the other side, the Roman Congregations were frequently ignored anyway, in particular in liturgical questions. The reason might also lay in the fact that this strong central authority in these things is of a rather recent origin.
It really seems to me that after the 1st Vatican Council hardly anybody would dare to confront the Pope on controversial issues, as even the Saints of the past did - the brave Cardinal Billot being maybe one of the very few exceptions.

Quote

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.

That is a very nice practice. I also use the texts of Matins and Lauds frequently for meditation (even though some might think I am rather meditating on Platon´s Politeia )

Quote

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 would not say that, but it could lead very well to a higher grade of mystical union. For sure, everybody has different kinds of devotions...but I think this one is particularly made for all Christians.
The problem here is also that there is hardly any good chanting in the "far-right" traditionalism, another result of a general lack of education. Maybe that is one of the reasons why you (and others?) don´t fancy it too much? In case you don´t have it already, I should send you a few records of Solesmes choir.

Quote

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.

I also agree in part. Quite often something more could be done but isn´t. And don´t even get me started on a complete disregard for rubrics and liturgy in most sedevacantist chapels. And on the other side I know priests with extremely scarce means who have a little chapel and few attending people, but a perfectly celebrated Missa cantata in a liturgical sanctuary and trained schola.
The will plays a major role there. And also where exactly priorities are.

Quote

Uh, that would be another thread...

Indeed! To give you the idea of what "I" think: I merely follow the thought of Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, though not his modern interpreters in Verrua Savoia or Brooksville.

Quote

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 always wondered about that. Maybe saying the antiphon 1,5 times? :scratchchin:
Being a Premonstratensian it would give me a huge feeling of superiority ("Is this feast a double in your order?" "No, it is a triple" "Haha, no, seriously" "Yes, I am serious!")

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2011, 11:21:10 PM »

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).

Attached are the scans of the entire chapter.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2011, 11:31:31 PM »

The fifth chapter, "The Diocesan and Parochial Spirit," of the above-cited book Catholic Liturgy: Its Fundamental Principles, by the Very Rev. Gaspar Lefebvre, continues what was discussed in the fourth chapter. It is extremely important for us to read this chapter carefully if we are to have a correct notion of what Sacred Liturgy should be, and what it could be if only we transcend beyond "movements" and "theses" and get to work at true reform (firstly and chiefly in our own interior lives, and then to edify our fellow neighbors) that will bring about the restoration of Holy Mother Church and the civilizations of the Christian world.

Attached are the scans of the entire chapter.

Lurkers: if you wish to read this material, you're just gonna have to register :farmer: