Talk:Reform of the Roman Breviary by Pope Pius X

Lack of neutrality

There's obviously a lack of neutrality in the ending paragraphs, as well as a lack of sources. This will be edited in one week if I don't hear back from anyone. GrimmC (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would indicate in what way the ending paragraphs show a lack of neutrality. Do you consider them wrongly hostile to Pope Pius X and his reform? The principal source (for which the link was unfortunately dead, but for which I have now provided a live Internet link) is from a source decidedly sympathetic to Pope Pius X, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X. What other statements in the article do you think need to be sourced? Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote as such is obviously neutral and correct; it is, however, out of context, as it is obviously an argument, though with it standing alone we do not know what it argues for. If the speaker were Archbishop Bugnini, the tenor would obviously be "St. Pius X. changed the liturgy and so we can do so too". As the speaker is not Archbishop Bugnini but an SSPX source, the argument is possibly "we do not deny that there may be changes to the liturgy, even drastic ones if need be, but St. Pius X. did most of what was necessary, and that should be kept quite distinct from later reforms undertaken in quite other intentions". It may also mean: "It would be nonsense to pretend 1954 was the summit of liturgical tradition and deny the right of the Pope to introduce the 1962 changes" (which SSPX do not, but some of their "even more traditionalist" dissidents do), because after all, 1954 no less than 1962 is post-1911 and that is when the really substantial change was". Context would be interesting. --131.159.76.179 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)