With what appears to be an increasing awareness that it is unjust and contrary to right reason to “prohibit” a liturgical rite of the Mass that is over one thousand years old, we really need to start critically examining what in my opinion was the greatest liturgical disaster of the twentieth century: Pius X’s attempted “abolition” of the classical Roman Psalter that predates Gregory the Great, in which the very history of the development of the canonical hours themselves is written.
It's not even close - the "greatest liturgical disaster of the twentieth century" was not perpetrated by Saint Pius X; it was the fabricated liturgy approved by "Saint" Paul VI. The proof is in the apostasy.
Paul VI didn’t attempt to juridically abolish the normative Mass of the Latin Church in 1969, even though there was a de facto suppression of it. Pius X, by contrast, actually claimed the authority to entirely abolish and forbid the normative Psalter of the Roman Office that predates Gregory the Great. With Divino afflatu and his codification of canon law, he inaugurated a reign of unprecedented legal positivism and sent the message that everything in the Church is fluid and changeable by the pope as long as it isn’t doctrine.
I think what Pius X did was intrinsically a worse precedent to set, and was more extreme in the effect it had on the transmission of an ancient tradition.
I think what Paul VI did was intrinsically graver because it affected the Holy Mass and all the sacraments AND the breviary, which he destroyed; but he could not have done this without the precedent established by Pius X, Pius XII, and John XXIII.
I think that’s a fair assessment and a good distinction to make. Paul VI’s actions did have more consequences throughout the Church because more people attend Mass than say the Office. However, I do think it’s important to dig a little deeper on this issue, not just with regard to Pius X’s break with tradition, but with the various false mentalities toward the liturgy that have been developing for centuries. In particular, there’s this idea that the Office is somehow “less important” than the Mass, and people will often justify what Pius X did because it was “only” the Office.
However, the Mass removed from the Office is like a jewel without a setting—and the reality is that because the Office went before the Mass, we need to liberate the true Roman Office before we can expect to liberate the Roman Mass. That is something that is very doable if the laity were to become informed of their rights and disabused of this false notion that the Office is somehow “not theirs.” Priests may hesitate to “go pre-1911” due to fears about fulfilling their obligation, but I’d encourage them to simply do it anyway because it is their (and our) right to use the normative Psalter of our Church sui iuris, and no one has the right to prohibit it.
With what appears to be an increasing awareness that it is unjust and contrary to right reason to “prohibit” a liturgical rite of the Mass that is over one thousand years old, we really need to start critically examining what in my opinion was the greatest liturgical disaster of the twentieth century: Pius X’s attempted “abolition” of the classical Roman Psalter that predates Gregory the Great, in which the very history of the development of the canonical hours themselves is written.
It's not even close - the "greatest liturgical disaster of the twentieth century" was not perpetrated by Saint Pius X; it was the fabricated liturgy approved by "Saint" Paul VI. The proof is in the apostasy.
Paul VI didn’t attempt to juridically abolish the normative Mass of the Latin Church in 1969, even though there was a de facto suppression of it. Pius X, by contrast, actually claimed the authority to entirely abolish and forbid the normative Psalter of the Roman Office that predates Gregory the Great. With Divino afflatu and his codification of canon law, he inaugurated a reign of unprecedented legal positivism and sent the message that everything in the Church is fluid and changeable by the pope as long as it isn’t doctrine.
I agree with both of you, in a way.
I think what Pius X did was intrinsically a worse precedent to set, and was more extreme in the effect it had on the transmission of an ancient tradition.
I think what Paul VI did was intrinsically graver because it affected the Holy Mass and all the sacraments AND the breviary, which he destroyed; but he could not have done this without the precedent established by Pius X, Pius XII, and John XXIII.
I think that’s a fair assessment and a good distinction to make. Paul VI’s actions did have more consequences throughout the Church because more people attend Mass than say the Office. However, I do think it’s important to dig a little deeper on this issue, not just with regard to Pius X’s break with tradition, but with the various false mentalities toward the liturgy that have been developing for centuries. In particular, there’s this idea that the Office is somehow “less important” than the Mass, and people will often justify what Pius X did because it was “only” the Office.
However, the Mass removed from the Office is like a jewel without a setting—and the reality is that because the Office went before the Mass, we need to liberate the true Roman Office before we can expect to liberate the Roman Mass. That is something that is very doable if the laity were to become informed of their rights and disabused of this false notion that the Office is somehow “not theirs.” Priests may hesitate to “go pre-1911” due to fears about fulfilling their obligation, but I’d encourage them to simply do it anyway because it is their (and our) right to use the normative Psalter of our Church sui iuris, and no one has the right to prohibit it.