As usual, a whole slew of things to read and digest. Thank you for steering us to important reads. They are always helpful and I find myself nodding in agreement. Have a great weekend!
This idea that liturgical development slows down as it matures over the ages under the guidance of the Holy Ghost is, I believe, the most neglected principle in the modern era. The identity of the Roman Rite was indeed *canonized* by Pius V, and not merely "codified," and this fact is precisely what makes the Novus Ordo Missae *not* the Roman Rite. By the same principle, I'd put forth the argument that the Psalter promulgated by Pius X in 1911 is also not the Roman Psalter. I don't deny that one can very well create a new Psalter, just as St. Benedict did back in the day (though I'd be a lot more hesitant to say the same of creating a new Rite of the Mass), but the Divino Afflatu Psalter is not the Roman Psalter which was already canonized in 1568. While it's true that the breviary on the eve of Divino Afflatu had many problems, Pius X did not take the traditional approach of "pruning" by eliminating all the inorganically instituted (or raised) duplex and semiduplex feasts that had accumulated since Trent and restoring the simplex as the default rank of feast. He took an axe to a situation that required a scalpel and directed the axe to everything that wasn't the root of the problem (the overcrowded calendar). It should go against every Catholic bone in one's body to believe that, for example, the daily recitation of Psalms 148-150 (which predates the Church of the New Covenant, was probably practiced by Our Lord Himself on earth, and existed for all of Church history until 1911) could be wiped away by the stroke of a papal pen.
Lol @"House on Fire." Regarding the brutalist Bridgittine monastery, the word "penitentiary" comes to the fore. Perhaps that is what they had in mind?
As usual, a whole slew of things to read and digest. Thank you for steering us to important reads. They are always helpful and I find myself nodding in agreement. Have a great weekend!
Many thanks, Shannon - you too!
This idea that liturgical development slows down as it matures over the ages under the guidance of the Holy Ghost is, I believe, the most neglected principle in the modern era. The identity of the Roman Rite was indeed *canonized* by Pius V, and not merely "codified," and this fact is precisely what makes the Novus Ordo Missae *not* the Roman Rite. By the same principle, I'd put forth the argument that the Psalter promulgated by Pius X in 1911 is also not the Roman Psalter. I don't deny that one can very well create a new Psalter, just as St. Benedict did back in the day (though I'd be a lot more hesitant to say the same of creating a new Rite of the Mass), but the Divino Afflatu Psalter is not the Roman Psalter which was already canonized in 1568. While it's true that the breviary on the eve of Divino Afflatu had many problems, Pius X did not take the traditional approach of "pruning" by eliminating all the inorganically instituted (or raised) duplex and semiduplex feasts that had accumulated since Trent and restoring the simplex as the default rank of feast. He took an axe to a situation that required a scalpel and directed the axe to everything that wasn't the root of the problem (the overcrowded calendar). It should go against every Catholic bone in one's body to believe that, for example, the daily recitation of Psalms 148-150 (which predates the Church of the New Covenant, was probably practiced by Our Lord Himself on earth, and existed for all of Church history until 1911) could be wiped away by the stroke of a papal pen.