Any SSPX "converts" to Rome out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ks_catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
Yes I do and like most secular priests, he admits that they do not cover this aspect of liturgy in their formation program, because it’s really appropriate to religious life. They learn what other secular seminarians learn, the form and rubrics of the LOTH, not the history. That’s an area of study very proper to monks and friars. who are in formation.

That is not accurate.

Prime was suppressed by Francis of Assisi for the Franciscans. The Congregation for Divine Worship, under the advice of the Franciscans, suppressed it for the entire Church.

The other hours remain exactly what they were.

Matins is called Office of Readings, but it’s the same rite.

Lauds is called Morning Prayer

Terce is called Mid-morning Prayer

Sext is called Midday Prayer

None is called Mid-afternoon Prayer

Vespers is called Evening Prayer

Compline is called Night Prayer

If you’re using the four-volume set of the Roman LOTH, all of these hours are in there. None of them are gone.

The obligation was never reduced to say one of them.

Secular clergy (priests, deacons and bishops) must pray, Morning, Evening, Readings and Night Prayer

Religious in solemn vows must pray all of the hours.

Religious in simple vows pray whatever their general chapter decides, because they’re not bound to pray the Office. They never were. It has always been up to their chapter to decide.

I don’t know who told you all of this, but you can tell them that they are mistaken. You will find all of the hours Here

The psalms being spread over four weeks is not new. Are you not reading what I have said to you? Only the Benedictine breviary had them in one week. The Cistercians had them over two weeks, the mendicants and Jesuits had them spread over four weeks and the secular clergy followed whatever was prescribed for them according to region and edition of the breviary that they were using.

You’re making it sound as if the four week cycle is a new creation. It has been around since 1223. As I explained, many secular priests used the Benedictine form, which they did not pray at all or prayed very poorly. They needed help. The form used by the mendicants works for them, if you take out the elements that must be prayed in community.

People are objecting because they don’t know the history and people like you are pushing a historical version that is not accurate and are failing to listen to the explanation. That only confuses many innocent people. You’re a little too young to be so smug. So cool it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
The general instruction of the Roman breviary says the following ’
77. Outside choir, without prejudice to particular law, it is permitted to choose from the three hours the one most appropriate to the time of day, so that the tradition of prayer in the course of the day’s work may be maintained.
  1. Daytime prayer is so arranged as to take into account both those who recite only one hour and those who are obliged, or desire, to say all three hours.’
That is where my info regarding the hours can be substantiated.

The suppression of prime as regards the franciscans is not as you say a new thing, however the Franciscans are one of several religious orders thus its suppression as regards the secular clergy and any other orders it is suppressed for is new.

As for that matter is carte Blanche permission for it to be said in the vernacular being granted.

Again it being spread over 4 weeks may not be new for some orders but it certainly is for secular clergy and I suspect the majority would have kept the older arrangement of saying it in a week. That is certainly true of the breviary from Trent onwards at least and may be true of it earlier.

I do not see how disagreeing with you Br is either misleading others or smug, it is merely expressing a reasonable opinion as I am allowed to do.

Regardless per Thomas’ request I will return to the topic, if someone wants to discuss this I’m depth I am sure they can start a thread.
 
jmj1984 said:
Br Jr

Does any of this change the fact that the ‘Liturgy of Hours’ was a massive change from the breviary used for an exceedingly long time by the secular clergy? The point that is being made I believe is that the LOTH is a massive change from that breviary and religious orders don’t even begin to come into the equation. Whilst of course no one can now say that there was one form of the Breviary for religious, the question is whether there was one for secular clergy and whether this form has remained largely the same over time or not?

It would also be interesting to know whether these myriad forms were similar to the LOTH or not, and whether they had prime or not? That is whether the majority had prime or not?
Click to expand...
The breviary prayed by secular clergy prior to the 1970 LOTH was not around for a “exceedingly long time”. The breviary of the secular clergy underwent a massive reform in 1910 by Pius X that effectively ruptured its similarities to the monastic breviary.

Among the 1910 changes:
  1. Matins reduced from 12 psalms to 9
  2. the three “Laudate psalms” (148,149 and 150) which gave Lauds its name were split up, no longer prayed together and not prayed every day (“Lauds” was once the extension of Matins and basically was these three psalms)
  3. the load was considerably lightened; the original Benedictine schema resulted in reciting 250+ psalms weekly, obviously with many repetitions; the 1910 reforms reduced this to 150.
  4. psalms were split and divided into sections of roughly equal length to give Offices of similar length.
In 1910 these changes created nearly as much controversy as the 1979 changes! In particular the splitting of psalms really upset the selection of antiphons since for newly created sections there wasn’t a traditional antiphon to match them. It set a precedent for the problem to repeat itself in 1970.

There are no truly radical elements to the 1970 LOTH; in some instances there was a return to more ancient traditions such as the texts of the Latin hymns. The most radical different elements are:
  1. the position of the hymn: in the past it was after the responsory for Lauds and Vespers and after the opening verse for other hours; this has been standardized to be after the opening verse but the Monastic breviaries allow it to be at its traditional position for Lauds and Vespers;
  2. psalmody over 4 weeks instead of 1;
  3. only one combined midday hour; but the rubrics allow the three traditional minor hours;
  4. Vigils replaced by Office of Readings but again rubrics allow OOR to be used at Vigils with optional traditional “3d Nocturn” canticles;
  5. addition of NT canticle as third psalm of Vespers;
  6. allowing intercessory prayers at Lauds and Vespers
  7. different psalms at Compline but the rubrics allow ps. 4, 90 and 133 every night as an option.
  8. elimination of Prime (the monastic breviary still offers it as an option)
Still the LOTH structure is completely recognizable and except for the loss of Prime, the LOTH’s many options allow more than a passing recognition of ancient traditions. For instance you can use psalm 66 as invitatory, and since on Fridays the first psalm of Lauds is ps. 50 you pay homage to the ancient tradition of beginning Lauds with Ps 66 and 50 every day.
 
jmj1984 said:
The general instruction of the Roman breviary says the following ’
77. Outside choir, without prejudice to particular law, it is permitted to choose from the three hours the one most appropriate to the time of day, so that the tradition of prayer in the course of the day’s work may be maintained.
  1. Daytime prayer is so arranged as to take into account both those who recite only one hour and those who are obliged, or desire, to say all three hours.’
That is where my info regarding the hours can be substantiated.

The suppression of prime as regards the franciscans is not as you say a new thing, however the Franciscans are one of several religious orders thus its suppression as regards the secular clergy and any other orders it is suppressed for is new.

As for that matter is carte Blanche permission for it to be said in the vernacular being granted.

Again it being spread over 4 weeks may not be new for some orders but it certainly is for secular clergy and I suspect the majority would have kept the older arrangement of saying it in a week. That is certainly true of the breviary from Trent onwards at least and may be true of it earlier.

I do not see how disagreeing with you Br is either misleading others or smug, it is merely expressing a reasonable opinion as I am allowed to do.

Regardless per Thomas’ request I will return to the topic, if someone wants to discuss this I’m depth I am sure they can start a thread.
Click to expand...
The breviary of “Trent” was suppressed in 1910 for secular clergy with the reforms of Pius X as noted above.
 
OraLabora said:
The breviary prayed by secular clergy prior to the 1970 LOTH was not around for a “exceedingly long time”. The breviary of the secular clergy underwent a massive reform in 1910 by Pius X that effectively ruptured its similarities to the monastic breviary.

Among the 1910 changes:
  1. Matins reduced from 12 psalms to 9
  2. the three “Laudate psalms” (148,149 and 150) which gave Lauds its name were split up, no longer prayed together and not prayed every day (“Lauds” was once the extension of Matins and basically was these three psalms)
  3. the load was considerably lightened; the original Benedictine schema resulted in reciting 250+ psalms weekly, obviously with many repetitions; the 1910 reforms reduced this to 150.
  4. psalms were split and divided into sections of roughly equal length to give Offices of similar length.
In 1910 these changes created nearly as much controversy as the 1979 changes! In particular the splitting of psalms really upset the selection of antiphons since for newly created sections there wasn’t a traditional antiphon to match them. It set a precedent for the problem to repeat itself in 1970.

There are no truly radical elements to the 1970 LOTH; in some instances there was a return to more ancient traditions such as the texts of the Latin hymns. The most radical different elements are:
  1. the position of the hymn: in the past it was after the responsory for Lauds and Vespers and after the opening verse for other hours; this has been standardized to be after the opening verse but the Monastic breviaries allow it to be at its traditional position for Lauds and Vespers;
  2. psalmody over 4 weeks instead of 1;
  3. only one combined midday hour; but the rubrics allow the three traditional minor hours;
  4. Vigils replaced by Office of Readings but again rubrics allow OOR to be used at Vigils with optional traditional “3d Nocturn” canticles;
  5. addition of NT canticle as third psalm of Vespers;
  6. allowing intercessory prayers at Lauds and Vespers
  7. different psalms at Compline but the rubrics allow ps. 4, 90 and 133 every night as an option.
  8. elimination of Prime (the monastic breviary still offers it as an option)
Still the LOTH structure is completely recognizable and except for the loss of Prime, the LOTH’s many options allow more than a passing recognition of ancient traditions. For instance you can use psalm 66 as invitatory, and since on Fridays the first psalm of Lauds is ps. 50 you pay homage to the ancient tradition of beginning Lauds with Ps 66 and 50 every day.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much for the detailed information, I did know something about the changes introduced by pope st pius x but not the specifics, I shall go and have a read of the encyclical introducing them now.

As I said earlier neither I nor anyone I know objects to changes per se, for example the changing by pope st pius X of the liturgical calendar so that the proper masses of Sunday’s were celebrated rather than that of saints were most certainly needed. It is rather the nature of the changes that are controversial and that remains the case.

As I said earlier I am not going to say anything else on the subject per Thomas’s request above to return to the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top