St. Pius V prohibited all the missals that were less than 200 years old when he promulgated Quo Primum. 

Were all af them bad? Probably not. The Holy Father was just being careful to get rid of anything that could be infected with heresies.

I believe that we can apply the same principles regarding the novelties in the liturgy in the 20th century. It is the safer path.

St. Pius X was obviously not a Modernist. If I had to draw a line, I would probably prohibit any liturgical norms that came up after his reign, since he was the last really good Pope that we had.

According to Carol Byrne's book Born of Revolution, A Misconceived Liturgical Movement, the original Motu Proprio (in Latin) by Pius X NEVER indicated the people should sing.  The word "active" as in active participation never appears in the original Latin but does appear in the Italian translation dated the same day.
To understand what His Holiness wrote we need someone familiar with Latin to read the original.  What we have access to in various languages was compromised on day one.
I'm only on chapter three but carol obviously did extensive research.

Yes. So says Dr Carol Byrne. That is my point. But let us forget about the word 'active' and just read what is said here by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the one entrusted by Pope St Pius X to put his Motu Proprio into effect. He is here laying down the rules to the clergy of Rome which "BY ORDER OF THE HOLY FATHER", "ALL PERSONS", "ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE EAR". Does it not mean something? I don't think we need to be Latinists to make sense of this. Sean says it is not traditional. But Cardinal Respighi, in the name of the Holy Father St Pius X, in the Pope's backyard says "THE VERY BEST ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITIONS DEMAND THAT THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY OF THE FAITHFUL SHOULD JOIN IN THE SINGING". It makes a mockery of the Church to refuse this. St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, Archbishop Lefebvre, the great prelate raised up by God to preserve Tradition in this crisis. What is left of the Magisterium if we set ourselves up to judge these great men of God and the Church? "My research", that is what is left...

PV-

What “tradition” does the Vicar general cite??

Obviously, it wasn’t the custom at the time, or he wouldn’t have to convince the faithful how “traditional” it was.

Is he going back to the era of the primitive Church to cite such a custom (archaeologism), as the Holy Week reformers did?

Hey Sean. Yes, I'll grant you that - he doesn't cite any sources. But his letter is no historical study, but rather a practical laying down of rules "in the name of the Holy Father".
Was Pius X guilty of archaeologism and subsequently condemned by Pius XII??? The plot thickens.... !!!
What might have been more obvious in Rome 100 years ago, before the Vatican II revolution, may be more obscure and difficult for us to know now... we should never imagine we have all the sources and are competent to make a superior judgement.
And here is the point with Dr Byrne. She is at pains to demonstrate that St Pius X was opposed to congregational singing. Yet surely she was unaware of this source - the Pope's Roman Vicar, Cardinal Respighi's letter.
Would not these saintly men and Popes who have been given by God to guide us in this liturgical discipline over the course of the last 100 years know better whether this was to the edification of the Church and souls than some modern day liturgical scholar?

Of course, the dilemma raised here is to explain the arbitrarity implicit in judging that those you name were "given by God to guide us in this liturgical discipline over the last 100 years," but their successors (John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, BXVI, Francis) were not.

But here's where the inquiry should concentrate:

1) Did Pope St. Pius X really include the word "attiva" in TLS, or was this slipped in later by someone else (and if so, why)?

2) Was congregational singing an organic development of liturgical practice, consistent over the centuries until it was somehow eclipsed, only to be recovered by Pope St. Pius X?

If both those questions could be affirmed, I would immediately abandon all my reservations on the subject (and posibly even if only the first could be affirmed).

PS: I am aware that while still a Cardinal, St. Pius X endorsed the faithful singing the Kyrie, Gloria, and Credo, and this is evidence against Byrne's conclusion that he opposed congregational singing.  But Pius IX also had ideas as cardinal which he did not endorse as poep (i.e., referring to his liberalism, and the hopes the Masons had of his pontificate).

Here’s the reference:

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f074_Dialogue_2.htm

In the last article we pointed out discrepancies between the Italian and Latin versions of Pope Pius X’s motu proprio, Tra le Sollecitudini (TLS), mentioning that the word “active” had been added to the Italian text to describe the participation of the laity.



Here we shall deal more closely with the Italian version of TLS published in the Acta Sanctae Sedis in relation to the authentic Latin text and show how, on the crucial issue of the participation of the faithful in the liturgy, they diverge in meaning. Clearly, they cannot both represent the mind of the Pope.

Let us examine § 3 of the Latin version, which indicates Pope Pius X’s intentions. It says in a few succinct words that Gregorian Chant, transmitted by tradition, is to be fully restored to the sacred rites: Cantus gregorianus, quem transmisit traditio, in sacris solemnibus omnino est instaurandus.

It then goes on to explain why Gregorian Chant should be given back to the people, so that in particular the Christian faithful may once again, in the custom of their forebears, participate more ardently in the liturgy: Praesertim apud populum cantus gregorianus est instaurandus, quo vehementius Christicolae, more maiorum, sacrae liturgiae sint rursus participes.

Now, we shall examine the pitfalls of having a docuмent in the vernacular (both Italian and English) and the misconceptions that can arise because of faulty translations.

“By the people”

TLS says that Gregorian Chant should be restored nell'uso del popolo (for the use of the people) in the liturgy. It does not specify which people or for what purpose – singing or listening – they are to use the Chant. Even worse, the English version states that the use of Gregorian Chant by the people is what the Pope intended. The underlying suggestion made by these vague and generalized paraphrases is that “the people” means the whole congregation and that the Pope wanted them all to join in the Chant.

But that is an assumption that is not supported by the Latin text, which states that Gregorian Chant is to be restored apud populum, i.e., among or in the presence of the faithful; in other words, in the churches. The Pope had already expressed this idea in his Introduction: ubi Christicolae congregantur (there where the Christian faithful gather).

Apud is a preposition that indicates proximity or geographical location and cannot be translated by a phrase indicating instrumentality, as in something done “by the people.” In saying that Gregorian Chant should be restored to the people, the Pope gave no indication in this passage or elsewhere in the docuмent that he wanted it to be sung by all the faithful.

“Active participation”

The problem revolves around the interpretation of “participation” of the laity in the liturgy as understood by Pope Pius X. Whereas the noun participatio is used on its own in the Latin version, the Italian translation of TLS exceeds the bounds of equivalence by adding the word “active”: “partecipazione attiva” to it. This happens several times, even though there is no equivalent of “active” in the Latin text.



As accuracy is of primary concern in order to ensure that translations convey the full meaning of the original, it cannot be assumed that the drafter of the Latin version felt no need to include the equivalent of “active” on the grounds that this was implied in “participation.”

(Incidentally, the Italians were the first to translate pro multis in the Words of Consecration by “for all” on the assumption that “for many” implied “for all,” but this was an erroneous assumption that led to a misunderstanding of the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.)

No part of the Latin version of the motu proprio indicates that the Pope envisaged an “active” role for the congregation. Paragraphs 12-14 show that the only authorized lay performers are choir members, women excluded. As the raison d’être of Gregorian Chant was the text, not the people, the intention of the Pope was to clothe the text with beauty (verba liturgiae exornare - to embellish the words of the liturgy), not to make the people vociferate.

Those who insist that TLS was a manifesto for congregational singing make the mistake of giving precedence to so-called “active” participation over the lex orandi (the way prayers and liturgical texts transmit the Faith in the immutable Latin language.)

“A more active part”

The Latin version uses the word vehementius to indicate the manner in which the faithful should participate in the liturgy. This is loosely and incorrectly translated in the Italian and English versions to say that all should play a “more active part” (parte più attiva) in the liturgy, and the impression is given that this is accomplished by everyone singing Gregorian Chant. But the Latin text does not support this conclusion.

Vehementius is related to the Latin adverb vehementer, which has been used throughout classical antiquity, and also in ecclesiastical texts, to indicate intensity of emotions, strength of feelings and other interior dispositions of the human mind. It can be translated by “greatly” or “exceedingly.” (1)

Pope Pius X used it thus: vehementer optemus (we ardently desire) in the Introduction to the motu proprio to show his fervent desire to restore Gregorian Chant. He also used it in his encyclical Vehementer Nos of 1906 to convey the depth of his grief over the injustices to the Church occasioned by the recent French law on State secularism.

Vehementius, the comparative form of vehementer, can be translated by “more ardently / more fervently / to a greater degree.” There are no grounds for believing that the Pope was making a comparison between singers and non-singers or suggesting that the latter were somehow deficient in relation to the former. Rather, he was comparing the suitability of Gregorian Chant and profane styles of music (2) in their ability to enhance prayerful participation in the liturgy.



In § 2, the Pope referred to the special power of suitable sacred music on the minds of the faithful who listen to it (in animis audientium illam), moving them to devotion and making them better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace coming from the celebration of the Mass. The key concept here is that an intellectual grasp of the nature of the Mass is greatly facilitated by listening to the sublime strains of Gregorian Chant sung by a well trained choir – not by the entire congregation.

Listening is, therefore, approved by the Pope as a way of participating fruitfully in the liturgy. This is reinforced in § 9, which states that the Chant must be sung by the choir for the benefit of the faithful who listen, and in such a way that it must be intelligible to them, i.e., clearly enunciated so as not to obscure the text. (3)

But, in order to produce the desired effect of appealing to the higher faculties of the soul, especially the intellect, the execution of the Chant must be undertaken by trained choirs: the voices must be pure, restrained, lacking any element of worldliness or self-expression. This was one of the reasons why the Pope did not include a role for the congregation in singing any part of the liturgy.

Sacred music in the Mass has always been regarded as “participatory” for the faithful insofar as it functions to edify, educate and lift them to devotion. So, pursuing one’s private devotions to the background of liturgical chant performed by the choir cannot be interpreted as non-participation. Yet the liturgical reformers argued that a true understanding of the Mass by the faithful required the elimination of such silent prayers in favor of direct vocal participation. Pope Pius X had given no such directive.

“In ancient times”

Liturgists have hastily jumped to the conclusion that the Pope wanted the Church to return to the practice of the early Christians who had included some congregational singing in the liturgy. Where did they get that impression? Certainly not from the Latin version of the motu proprio, which mentions nothing about “ancient times.”



The impression arose from the vernacular texts regarding the meaning of the Latin phrase more maiorum (according to the customs of the ancestors) as used by Pope Pius X in § 3 with reference to Gregorian Chant. The Italian version uses the ambiguous expression “anticamente,” which could mean either in antiquity (4) or simply formerly. The English version, ignoring the second meaning, states that Gregorian Chant used to be the custom in some unspecified “ancient times.” But neither comes near to an accurate translation of more maiorum.

We need to know the relevance of this particular phrase and why it was chosen as being most appropriate. The mos maiorum (custom of the ancestors) was the unwritten code of traditional values observed by the ancient Romans and incorporated into their laws. It represented their time-honored cultural and social practices and provided guidelines for private, political and military life in Roman times. (5)

Just as adherence to tradition gave the Romans a sense of what was fitting and proper, the same could be said for the suitability of Gregorian Chant, which had a long and venerable tradition in the Church. The mos maiorum was the medium of transmission of Gregorian Chant, as the Pope explained: it had been handed down by tradition (quem transmisit traditio).

Now, we can see clearly why Gregorian Chant should be restored to the people: so that, through its special power to move the soul, they can once again participate in the liturgy more maiorum – according to the custom of previous generations of Catholics, before the fashion for theatrical and profane music had invaded the churches.

There is, thus, no reference to or recommendation of congregational singing, which, if it took place at some times and in some places, was never an established and universal custom of the Roman rite. So, it could not have been designated as part of the mos maiorum.

We can be sure that the translation “in ancient times” is false for two reasons. First, because more maiorum refers to an ongoing, unbroken tradition, and, second, because customs that have been discarded for centuries cannot be reincorporated into the liturgy without destroying its intrinsically traditional nature. Indeed, any attempt to do so was later condemned as “antiquarianism” by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.

Continued

1) Did Pope St. Pius X really include the word "attiva" in TLS, or was this slipped in later by someone else (and if so, why)?

2) Was congregational singing an organic development of liturgical practice, consistent over the centuries until it was somehow eclipsed, only to be recovered by Pope St. Pius X?

If both those questions could be affirmed, I would immediately abandon all my reservations on the subject (and possibly even if only the first could be affirmed).

Is the debate over this word really relevant now that it is clear that we are instructed by Pope St Pius X's Cardinal Vicar of Rome:

"In order to facilitate so important a work, it has seemed good to us to give a few practical rules to which BY ORDER OF THE HOLY FATHER, all persons are required to give ear.
1. The best ecclesiastical traditions demand that the whole assembly of the faithful should join in the singing..."

This, by order of the canonised antimodernist Pope who dedicated his pontificate to restoring all things in Christ. Where is the debate? Where are the reservations? Is this not necessarily the default position of all Traditional Catholics unless you hold certain facts that it is detrimental to the faith? 

Popes Pius XI and XII continued in this vein, and Archbishop Lefebvre, but we will judge them all to have been hostage to the liturgical vandals? Surely that is not a Catholic attitude? I am not about to tell St Pius X and Archbishop Lefebvre that I will not accept their liturgical practice until I have done my own study making sure it is not some kind of modernist novelty, are you? 

PS: Supposing it was all as you say, and St. Pius X actually did want congregational singing, you do realize that he did not compel it, right (i.e., the Chuch has always respected the sensibilities of the faithful, and never compelled them to respond in any particular way)?