According to Betsy Livingstone ... I mean, according to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ... Cardinal Francisco Quinones, by order of the Pope, compiled a new Breviary, which Paul III published in 1535. It was highly revolutionary. Its use spread like wildfire. It met the needs of current fashion. More than 100 editions appeared between 1536 and 1566. It profoundly influenced the form of the Divine Office used in the Church of England in and after 1549.
It was eventually proscribed in 1558 by Paul IV, Papa Carafa.
You will find many differences between the history of the Quinones Breviary, and events within the Latin Church in the decades after Vatican II. But the parallels are, perhaps, quite as interesting.
As a result of the invention and spread of a new technology, it had sadly become possible to spread extremely untraditional forms of liturgical texts. Fashion had become more prescriptive than Tradition.
But, at the same time, it was not unthinkable for a Pope to suppress and forbid forms encouraged by his own predecessors.
It was not unthinkable for hierarchs and the hierarchy to admit to fallibility,
At the front of my 1946 Breviary, in the customary Summa Bullarum, is the usual sort of stuff about what various popes did ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini; the statement that S Pius V tollit et abolet the Quinones Breviary; some jolly words about Two Hundred Years; and the reassuring si Episcopus et universum Capitulum consentiant.
Was it really the wish of Vatican II that 'modern' popes should become so much more pompous and prescriptive than pontiffs of the Renaissance era were content to be?
Was it ... Hell ...
17 comments:
The parallels between 1570 and 1969 include St Pius V promulgating a Missal which completely ignores a conciliar demand :-
mandat sancta Synodus pastoribus et singulis curam animarum gerentibus ut frequenter inter Missarum celebrationem vel per se vel per alios ex his quae in Missa leguntur aliquid exponant atque inter cetera sanctissimi huius sacrificii mysterium aliquod declarent diebus praesertim dominicis et festis. (Trent Sess XXII ch viii)
GREGORY IX 1227-1241
The Necessity of Preserving Theological Terminology and Tradition *
[From the letter “Ab Aegyptiis” to the theologians of Paris, July 7, 1228]
https://tinyurl.com/djespjdm
or, subsists in, whatever
It's a tricky matter for if a Pope can change his mind, then what could be wrong with the New Order of Mass, and the other half of the New Liturgy, the Liturgy Of The Hours? Surely then anything can be changed by Papal fiat. However, if someone looks at one obvious change of the Papal mind, the Roman Breviary as codified in 1568 under Paul IV, only to be abolished with Divino Afflatu of St Pius X, there was a good faith effort to ensure those under obligation to say the Office could regular cover the ordinary of the Roman Psalter, something which became impossible in a calendar overloaded with high ranking Feasts. Now invoking the fairly radical Pian reform of the Breviary might be an argument for tradition with holes in it, but if the results the Pian Breviary are contrasted with the Pauline one, we see the de-facto disappearance of the public singing of the Office, the collapse in vocations by which I also mean the sheer number of priests and religious who quit after 1970, not forgetting the quitting of the laity from attending the New Mass, a practical case could be made that the New Order of Mass and LOTH are both unsuccessful and untraditional. The Pian Psalter could be seen as untraditional, but it worked well enough. Oftentimes what doesn't work, isn't right and what works is right. Some things don't enjoy the blessing of the Holy Spirit.
Quinones breviary was an anomaly of short duration, a parenthesis in the unbroken liturgical tradition, quite like the Bea Psalter, both of which, quite unlike the "Liturgia Horrorum", were never made obligatory, both of which were happily and rightly abrogated as untraditional. The Missale Romanum promulgated by Pius V was not a new missal, but merely a new edition of the older Missal of the Curia Romana, in a long line of organic liturgical devoplpment; item ditto regarding the Breviarium Romanum of Pope Paul IV, which was very conservative. Pius X 's reform of the Breviarium was an unhappy break with Tradition, even though it "worked", for it was a precedent which allowed the more radical reforms of Pius XII and Paulus VI to happen. As blessed Pope Benedict XVI has so rightly stated, the Pope is not Lord over the Liturgy, but only its servant and keeper. I wish that Pius X had left the Breviarium's psalter as it was, perhaps with only slight modifications, and instead had simply made the recitation by the secular clergy of the whole Office not obligatory. In ancient times it was the obligation if the parish church, not of the individual. The Officium Divinum is most authentically sung in church by more than just the lone priest present. Laudes and Vesperae and Completorium, or any two hours , would be enogh for a secular priest to recite in private, if he cannot take part in public celebration. But the Psalter should not have been so drastically changed, it seems to me. Neither should the Mass, Sacraments, Blessings ever be changed by drastic deletions and alterations, esp. Not by papal fiat or committee decision, but only by organic development under the leading of the Holy Ghost.
Hold on - to be intellectually honest and objectively in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Roman Catholics MUST as per Pastor Aeternus believe that a reigning Pope has "immediate, supreme and universal jurisdiction", correct? Is there an equivalent faith requirement by which a Catholic can place limits on that jurisdiction? If there is none, what recourse do Catholics have to object to anything a reigning Pope does with the liturgy that does not violate that faith requirement as put forth in Pastor Aeternus?
Stephen: Per St. Newman: "The Pope, though he come of Revelation, has no jurisdiction over nature."
I would add, no absolute jurisdiction over the Faith, over hundreds of years of liturgical Tradition (which is, really, well, just Tradition, but not all of it).
Michael Ortiz, I certainly appreciate the sentiment, but that's all it is. What faith requirements exist on par with Pastor Aeternus that would limit the reach, breadth and depth of its teaching and demand of obedience on the part of faithful Catholics? I have yet to find one, and you may wish, like St. Newman, that one exists, or temper it according to your sentiment, but it is still just an opinion, and not a part of the deposit of faith as per Pastor Aeternus to which the honest Catholic must adhere, to be in forthright communion, correct? Or am I missing something? Where is this wriggle room on a dogmatic level?
Since we're talking about jurisdiction, Stephen, I think that means we're almost by definition not talking about Infallibility. Hence, we have the duty now--a painful one, more for some, less for others--of rolling back decades of hyper-papalism that has obscured the differences between the two. Did St. Paul reject the Faith when he corrected St. Peter? I certainly wouldn't want to be in the corner with those who say yes.
The Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome is no less a dogmatic requirement of faith than that postulated regarding infallibility, as per Pastor Aeternus. An intellectually honest Catholic MUST believe in the immediate, supreme and universal jurisdiction of the Pope. So what we're talking about is, what limits exist, if any, to this jurisdiction which are also dogmatic requirements of faith? For if none exist, what recourse does a faithful Catholic have to object to an exercise of that jurisdictional power by the Pope? I can't find any, but then again I'm not an expert, and so I ask.
Yes, but: jurisdiction implies judgment on contingent matters, which are NOT articles of Faith. The Pope isn't picking bishops infallibly! But I must believe he has the authority to do so. And the bishops are not field managers for the CEO Pope in Rome; they are successors of the Apostles. Would that they would act so!
I'm no expert on this, either. But as a matter of logic, it seems inconsistent with the Almighty God to give the gift of Infallibility (with its object to preserve Doctrine and Tradition) and also the gift of Authority to destroy Doctrine or Tradition to the same man. Therefore, the jurisdiction must serve (ideally) Doctrine as well as does the gift to clarify infallibly what that Doctrine is which the Apostles received from Our Lord. Perhaps in this lies the purpose of the "College of Bishops" which carries on throughout the centuries--we've one Pope, but not one successor to the Apostles. In other words, the Pope has brothers to help tend his flock.
I recommend John O'Malley's "What Happened at Vatican I" for historical context. O'Malley died recently. May he intercede for his Jesuits brothers!
Universal Jurisdiction refers to papal juridical power over Bishops and particular Churches, Not over Holy Tradition, of which the Sacred Liturgy is a subset, locus theologicus, and the outward sign. The Pope can no more change or abolish at whim the handed-down liturgical rites than he can the Canon of Scripture or Dogmas of the Faith. These he promises to foster, authentically expound, and hand down intact.
Michael, I see your point by using the examples of selecting bishops as a contingent matter; but what do you say when a Pope might be considered to be undermining or contradicting an article of faith or morals? If I remember correctly, St. Robert Bellarmine (another Jesuit!), among others, put forth that, should a Pope do so, he would cease being Pope. But who is to adjudicate that? And for how long is he not Pope?
Stephen,
Yours are questions for the Princes of the Church. I don't think a layman could fruitfully opine on this topic for very long.
As Flannery O'Connor put it, we suffer for the Church, and sometimes, because of the Church, in her human elements.
Michael, I must heartily disagree. I don't see how punting on this issue helps anything. This is the issue for our time and place. The princes of the Church are the cause and actors of the current confusion, and either the claims of Pastor Aeternus are indeed part of the deposit of faith (and seems to mean that there are no dogmatic limits to Papal authority and teaching regarding faith and morals), or are not (which means the clergy and laity would come to some understanding about how any such limits would be realized and enforceable).
Albertus, so many think that Rite of Pope Paul VI is indeed something that the Pope changed; but you may see the continuity in the NO that others don't. For again, what if a Pope does not "foster, authentically expound, and hand down intact"? Who is to adjudicate that? Paul VI told Arch. Lefebrve that he, the Pope, is the only one with the authority to adjudicate in this regard. So does that not mean you HAVE to accept whatever the Pope authorizes liturgically?
Stephen, if "there are no dogmatic limits to Papal authority and teaching regarding faith and morals" there are no faith and morals.
Stephen, I think this article might be illuminating vis-a-vis the interpretation of the pope's jurisdiction -- https://files.catbox.moe/sf1gtx.pdf
J.S Ahmad, yes, thank you for the link. That which was most feared by dedicated Churchmen of that era about the downside risk of Pastor Aeternus has sadly come to pass in our day. I can only imagine the heartache of men like Doellinger (https://www.amazon.com/Pope-Council-Classic-Reprint/dp/0260823287), which was shared by Newman (who came to support PA only very reluctantly and with little enthusiasm) in the 19th century and by Arch. Lefebrve in the 20th.
Post a Comment