I never claimed Guéranger wanted to restore chant. You did. I provided evidence from a scholarly source to support my claim. You did not.
I did not imply Quo primum “instituted a new Mass based on ancient and primitive usage.” Your inference is incorrect. I was pointing out that the criterion for their reform of the missal was looking back at older (not just ancient) sources.
I presented two pieces of evidence for congregational singing. I will provide more later, but all the evidence in the world won’t convince you anyway because you will reject it as antiquarianism.
I have shown that your understanding of antiquarianism as the restoration of obsolete rites is without nuance at best.
Final response:
1) I never attributed to you the fact of Gueranger’s desire to recover true Gregorian chant. That is my argument, not yours. Your argument is that Gueranger desired much more (ie., That he allegedly supported the illegitimate principle of archaeologism, despite your illogical refusal to define importing ancient usages of obsolete rites as archaeologism).
I only mention your imagining my attributing of my own argument to you as evidence that you are not able to concentrate well enough to be arguing this subject matter;
2) Your (erroneous) comments on Quo Primum were that there was no antiquarianism in going back to pick ancient usages from obsolete rites, lest I accuse Pius V of antiquarianism.
That was more or less your argument.
The implication was that Pius V created a new rite based on obsolete usages.
If that was not your implication, then your comments on Quo Primum were completely irrelevant (once again).
3) To cite an 11th century bishop (of what rite?) and an 8th century pope as authorities on the rubrics and usages of the Roman Rite is certainly devoid of value (except from an historical perspective), since Quo Primum made those usages obsolete, (Pius XII having explained this principle quite clearly);
Consequently, to cite obsolete usages, and desire to incorporate them into the current rite against which they are at variance (eg., congregational singing), is archaeologism.
Here is an article by Dr. Byrne showing Pius XII caving in to the uncatholic liturgical movement and himself incorporating archaeologism which he had condemned just a decade earlier, allowing for congregational singing:
https://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f151_Dialogue_68.htmIn an article by a (defunct) indult society -which is actually quite good- they appear to have disregarded Pius XII’s innovation, and highlight that according to even in their 1962 transitional missal, all the singing of the responses is to be done by the choir (which also conveniently answers Smedley’s question about how congregational singing is at variance with current laws and rubrics, at least as of the time of Pius XII’s 1958 innovation).
https://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f151_Dialogue_68.htmBut as you are determined to argue your point, rather than accept instruction, you will have to carry on without me; I don’t have the time to waste which you apparently do.
Pax tecuм,
-X
Topic: SSPX Chapel Palm Sunday (Read 15255 times)