Practically every alteration, deformation, and mutation that touched the Roman liturgy in the last century came to the faithful clergy and laity with marketing buzzwords from the Holy See like "renewal", as if the liturgy had died, or "restoration", as if the novel practices now prescribed had existed in this form at some prior point. Papa Sarto spoke of the older Roman Office in very harsh terms while calling his psalter "restitueretur." Pius XII repeated his Venetian predecessor's language after he restored Holy Week by tossing the rites, Offices, and unique ceremonies out the window for new ones. And then, of course, came the paterfamilias of "renewal", the liturgy of Paul VI, which failed to maintain even the form of similarity with the past like Sarto's psalter, which preserved some aspects of the Office for major feasts and the 150 psalm weekly schedule. Everything became new, nothing was different, and all was fixed.
The Roman Breviary went through no less than four sets of revisions in the 20th century, each leaving less the genius of the original Office than the former. What many critics of the liturgical reforms, myself included, often fail to realize is that these changes, like those to the Mass, happened gradually and under the influence of others who belonged to the places and communities where these concepts originated. The psalter of Divino Afflatu looks much more like the "Jansenist" Offices of 18th and 19th century France than it does that of Saint Pius V. In the same vein, the rubrics and schedule of Offices in John XXIII's breviary strangely resemble those of the Monastic Psalter in force three decades earlier. What were those features?
First, and most characteristic of John XXIII's Breviary, the Monastic Office underwent a reduction of supposedly quintessentially Roman feasts, both in number and in kind. Just as the 1960/2 Breviarium Romanum observes one feast of Saint Peter's Chair, so does the Monastic Diurnal of the '30s, although it previously followed the Roman praxis in observing both Rome and Antioch. Some uniquely Benedictine feasts even saw mergers in the case of saints whose historicity was deemed dubious in the early 20th century. A few alterations to the Monastic sanctoral did make clean up certain aspects of the kalendar, like transferring the octaves of Saints Benedict and Scholastica outside of Lent, where they would no longer impede the penitential season.
Second, the days of the kalendar underwent substantial revision of rank and kind. Double feasts previously enjoyed three nocturnes of four lessons each at Mattins throughout the year, except the summer when they had three. The revised kalendar provides three lessons per nocturne throughout the year and only one per nocturne during the summer. Semi-Double feasts were generally made into something equivalent to Third Class feasts in the 1960/2 Roman rite and feasts that were previously Simples found themselves more akin to John XXIII's "Commemoration" rank. The reforms did retain the traditional Semi-Double Offices for days within octaves.
One wonders why these Benedictines required a reduction in their Offices? Perhaps they needed time to buy suits and sit on liturgical reform commissions?
Oops, that was a mistake. Before 1911, Doubles in the Monastic Office always had 12 lessons, no matter what. What did happen in the summer was that on ferial days, only a short lesson (similar to that seen in the Little Hours) was said with a short responsory. What Divino Afflatu did for Minor Doubles in the Summer was basically reduce it further from 3 lessons to 1 lesson, worse than a Simple per pre-1911 rubrics; they still kept the token Long Responsory, making it barely better than a normal ferial day. Still, St. Ephrem, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Boniface OSB, and St. Norbert, among others, all just get one lesson!
ReplyDeleteAs for St. Scholastia, her Octave from Feb. 11 could still be held, but only for nuns and only if not in Lent, per Divino Afflatu rubrics.
Oops, that should read Feb. 10!
DeleteI should add that the pre-1911 Monastic Breviary followed St. Benedict's injunction in his Rule that all saints' days and other festivals be celebrated the same as Sundays (excepting of course Simples). With the Divino Afflatu change, the MB deviated quite a bit from this part of St. Benedict's Rule.
Practically every alteration, deformation, and mutation that touched the Roman liturgy in the last century came to the faithful clergy and laity with marketing buzzwords from the Holy See like "renewal", as if the liturgy had died, or "restoration", as if the novel practices now prescribed had existed in this form at some prior point.
ReplyDeleteBecause ABS is of limited intellect and because he has only a superficial understanding of the dutiful destruction of sacred tradition, he summarises all of these "reforms" thusly - No. You can not worship and pray as did your Fathers and Grandfathers because we have a new and better way.
Chesterton avers that the youngest students ought not be subjected to the latest educational innovations and theories, but, rather be taught the oldest things. If only that advice had been adopted by our betters.
When it comes to our Church, though, egoism rules and the powerful prelate, polemicist, or propagandistic of any particular epoch will boast he has found this, that. or the other thing that will set right what was then currently wrong.
It is all so irksome, tiresome, and depressing.
ABS wishes these bastids would stick to ruining their own lives and souls and leave him the hell alone....
Thank you for this information. I was not aware the monastic Office, too, underwent changes after 1911.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the first "renewal" of the Roman Divine Office carried out St. Benedict himself. He rearranged the weekly Psalter, introduced divisions in Psalms other than no. 118. Introduced 'Ambrosian' hymns, and, as it seems, did some retouching of the structure of Minor Hours. If an abbot could do this for his monastery, could not the Supreme Pontif could do for the universal Church?
What St. Benedict did and St. Pius X did are apples and oranges. St. Benedict redistributed the Psalms for his monks, and added more to the Office. What St. Pius X did was merely decrease the load, to try to attain the praying of 150 Psalms a week, because of the older Roman liturgy's "squalidness"; and at the same time forbid the older Psalter to be said. What the Supreme Pontiff can't do is forbid venerable Traditions, like the older St. Pius V Psalter, and go against moral law. As St. Thomas said, custom is itself Law, especially ones of more than 1000 years.
DeleteI might as well add, with this kind of argument, the Traditionalist movement loses its force, and we might as well accept the Novus Ordo, instead of fighting for Tradition, since Paul VI wanted the Novus Ordo to be the only rite, although he knew he couldn't forbid the older rite. After all, it's only "renewal"!
DeleteThe 1915 changes to the Monastic Breviary although preserving in the main the Psalter were radical and far-reaching. In the context of twentieth century liturgical reform this is an important step and one which is often overlooked in the chronological sequence.
ReplyDeleteAs well as the changes to the Calendar mentioned in the post there was the completely unnecessary removal of the Laudate psalms from Tenebrae and the Office of the Dead so they would conform to the Roman usage. The use of the ferial, rather than festal, psalmody has been noted and although the arrangement was still the traditional order extended in it use it does create an absurdity with the Miserere being used at Lauds in the ferial Office of Paschaltide.
With various Benedictines being appointed to the various Commissions for General Liturgical Reform from 1948 onwards the 1915 reform of MR must have influenced in many ways the reform of BR from 1955.
It is not correct to speak about the "removal of the Laudate psalms". For the Holy Triduum and Office of the Dead the monks always used the Roman Office (9 psalms for Matins, 5 for Vespers) without adaptations. Therefore, when the Roman Office changed they just used the changed form.
DeleteI do not think 'removal' is incorrect - they certainly did not remain. The sad thing is that the monks seem to have simply gone along with the changes. Some of the Religious, e.g. the Cistercians adhered to their traditional praxis and kept the ancient feature of Lauds.
ReplyDelete