We need to start a running list entitled "Questions for Pius X." The first question is, "Why did you get rid of the daily recitation of the Psalms that literally made Lauds become known as Lauds?" Followed by, "Why did you take a chainsaw to everything that wasn't the problem instead of taking a scalpel to the reform of the liturgical calendar?" and "If you were comfortable getting rid of a 1500-year-old Psalter, why didn't you get rid of those horrendous Urban VIII hymns?"
Well, he did have the pre-Urban VIII versions as an option when chanting the Office, in the 1912 Antiphonale Romanum, though it didn't continue to the reigns of the later Popes, as far as I know.
That has always been a confusing point for me. I was always under the impression that Pius X had granted some sort of indult for the use of the pre-Urban hymns because of that 1912 Antiphonale but I was told by a historian that there was no such indult or permission to use those hymns ever issued. Whether that's true I don't know but the whole thing is kind of murky to me.
There is a note in the referenced edition (p.1118 saying they may be used where it is the custom or by, non-mentioned, presumably specific, local, indult. Alas!
Thank you very much! Yes I had seen that before. I remember now. And the thought that struck me at that time was, outside of the monastics who didn't need an indult, what kind of local custom or indult would still have existed in 1912 to use the pre-Urban hymns since he had effectively imposed a blanket ban 275 years before? Who could possibly have been left using them?
And this has for me always been the rub about Divino Afflatu: if it had all really been about an attempt at 'reform' i.e. improvement of the Breviary then Pius X would have done away with the Urban edits. It would have been easy. By 1911 people had been complaining about them for centuries and he would have faced no opposition from anybody if he had just ditched them and gone back to the earlier version of the hymns. None whatsoever.
But he didn't do that. Instead he doubled, tripled, quadrupled, and quintupled down on what Urban VIII had done and greatly abused papal power by imposing a new Psalter on the clergy of Rome. He redid the entire psalter but left the bad version of the hymns in place. Huh?
Some Roman basilicas resisted using the Urban VIII hymns, despite the ban, if I remember correctly: St. Peter's for one. And they still used the old Latin Psalter, not the Vulgate, as well!
That's very true about Saint Peter's and the pre Vulgate Psalter. Pius V and his succesors mandated that they continue using the old Roman Psalter after the rest of Rome adopted the Vulgate after 1568. I wasn't aware of that about the hymns though. Thank you.
Suddenly you have appeared on my PC. I don't know who you are, but I thank you for such an interesting, useful and wonderful gift. May our Lord bless your work.
We need to start a running list entitled "Questions for Pius X." The first question is, "Why did you get rid of the daily recitation of the Psalms that literally made Lauds become known as Lauds?" Followed by, "Why did you take a chainsaw to everything that wasn't the problem instead of taking a scalpel to the reform of the liturgical calendar?" and "If you were comfortable getting rid of a 1500-year-old Psalter, why didn't you get rid of those horrendous Urban VIII hymns?"
Well, he did have the pre-Urban VIII versions as an option when chanting the Office, in the 1912 Antiphonale Romanum, though it didn't continue to the reigns of the later Popes, as far as I know.
That has always been a confusing point for me. I was always under the impression that Pius X had granted some sort of indult for the use of the pre-Urban hymns because of that 1912 Antiphonale but I was told by a historian that there was no such indult or permission to use those hymns ever issued. Whether that's true I don't know but the whole thing is kind of murky to me.
There is a note in the referenced edition (p.1118 saying they may be used where it is the custom or by, non-mentioned, presumably specific, local, indult. Alas!
https://media.churchmusicassociation.org/pdf/antiphonale-bw.pdf
Thank you very much! Yes I had seen that before. I remember now. And the thought that struck me at that time was, outside of the monastics who didn't need an indult, what kind of local custom or indult would still have existed in 1912 to use the pre-Urban hymns since he had effectively imposed a blanket ban 275 years before? Who could possibly have been left using them?
And this has for me always been the rub about Divino Afflatu: if it had all really been about an attempt at 'reform' i.e. improvement of the Breviary then Pius X would have done away with the Urban edits. It would have been easy. By 1911 people had been complaining about them for centuries and he would have faced no opposition from anybody if he had just ditched them and gone back to the earlier version of the hymns. None whatsoever.
But he didn't do that. Instead he doubled, tripled, quadrupled, and quintupled down on what Urban VIII had done and greatly abused papal power by imposing a new Psalter on the clergy of Rome. He redid the entire psalter but left the bad version of the hymns in place. Huh?
Some Roman basilicas resisted using the Urban VIII hymns, despite the ban, if I remember correctly: St. Peter's for one. And they still used the old Latin Psalter, not the Vulgate, as well!
That's very true about Saint Peter's and the pre Vulgate Psalter. Pius V and his succesors mandated that they continue using the old Roman Psalter after the rest of Rome adopted the Vulgate after 1568. I wasn't aware of that about the hymns though. Thank you.
Suddenly you have appeared on my PC. I don't know who you are, but I thank you for such an interesting, useful and wonderful gift. May our Lord bless your work.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read the article and for leaving such a kind comment.