Any SSPX "converts" to Rome out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ks_catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joanofarc2008 said:
Wow - the LOTH have been prayed for over a 1000 years - well before the Protestants.
Click to expand...
The LOTH is a new thing since Vatican II, I used to think that the LOTH was prayed since the time of St. Benedict as well but it’s the psalms themselves that have been prayed for 1,000 years. Prior to Vatican II you went through all 150 psalms a week in the Divine Office, now you pray all the psalms in 4 weeks so the daily prayers are shorter, plus there are a couple of psalms that have been taken out of the LOTH completely.
 
DuxBellorum said:
I will leave SSPX behind if the attempt at unification fails.
Click to expand...
Why not leave now, and just attend an EF mass regularly?
Why stay with a disobedient sect? Why not leave now, as they are not currently “unified” and then go back to the group, after they are reconciled fully with the One True Church?
 
Melchior said:
There are a few people who don’t recognize Divine Mercy Sunday, the Divine Mercy Chaplet, or St. Faustina. They also question the beautification of Blessed John Paul II. And there’s also a few people who simply don’t recognize canonizations after a certain year.

Yes, I know known of them above makes sense.

At the end of the day, this will be done on God’s time, not ours.
Click to expand...
And this would be the very definition of Sedevacantism.
 
People need to get their information on the LOTH correct. Let’s begin.
  1. LOTH and Divine Office are the same thing. Both terms have been used in the Church for over 1000 years. If you come from the Benedictine tradition, you say Divine Office. If you come from the Mendicant tradition, you either say the Breviary or the LOTH. ICEL borrowed the term LOTH from the Mendicants.
  2. There is not such thing and never was one form of the Divine Office. Each religious order had its own form. Some religious orders recited the 150 psalms in one week, some in one month. The collects were the same as those of the mass. The number of hours was different between orders and congregations. Congregations always prayed Lauds, Vespers, Compline and Matins. That’s it. Orders prayed all of the hours, except for Franciscans who have never prayed Prime. Francis of Assisi suppressed Prime. After Vatican II, the Franciscans had a key role in the rescript of the LOTH and Prime was suppressed for the entire Church. Suppressed does not make it illegal. It means that you do not have to pray it. You will not find too many breviaries that have it.
  3. In the Benedictine tradition there are 23 breviaries. You get to pick which is the traditional breviary. The point is that the idea of a traditional breviary only exists in the minds of those who do not know the LOTH well. There are many breviaries out there.
  4. The monastic diurnal is the skeleton used to build a breviary, but it is not the book used by monks. They use a breviary. In the past, the abbot wrote the breviary for his abbey. Today, Benedictine houses are grouped into congregations. The abbots collaborate on the breviary. You will find that they do not match from one congregation to the next. Some pray the 150 psalms in one week. Some pray them in one month. Some chant them in Latin and others chant them in their native language. However, the congregation has no authority over the individual abbots. An abbot is free to rewrite the breviary for his abbey. Once again, there is no hard and fast traditional breviary.
  5. In Exempt religious orders for men, the superiors general appoint a commission to write their breviary. This has been so since the Middle Ages. The breviaries of these orders is nothing like that of the monks or the one used by the secular clergy, which is the one that most of you know. If you were to pick up a Franciscan breviary, you would be totally lost. To begin with, it does not follow the Roman Liturgical Calender. It follows the calendar created by the commission and approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is still a traditional breviary.
  6. The breviary used by the SSPX, FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei institutes was created specifically for the secular clergy. It’s known as the Roman Breviary. There are two versions of it. There is the older version that was in use until 1970 and there are two newer versioins: Christian Prayer (1 volume) and Roman Liturgy of the Hours (4 volume). Christian Prayer is the one most used by congregations, because they are not morally bound to pray the Divine Office at all.
  7. The Ecclesia Dei institutes prefer the older breviary (Roman Breviary), which the laity mistakenly refers to as the “traditional breviary”. It is not traditional, because it was NEVER universally used. It was only used by secular clergy and religious congregations. The orders always had their own. As I said above, the Benedictine Order had more than 20 versions.
  8. The Divine Office is only binding on clergy and religious men and women who make solemn vows. Religious men and women who make simple vows are not bound to the Divine Office. The decision to use it and which one to use is up to the General Chapter. Ninety percent of religious in the Latin Church are in simple vows. Only 10% of religious in the Latin Church belong to religious orders. Only religious orders have the privilege of making solemn vows. Therefore, only they have to pray the Divine Office and they get to choose how they organize it. There HAS NEVER BEEN a common breviary for the orders.
  9. The ICEL translation of the breviary is far from Protestant. The closest thing that the Protestants have is the Book of Common Prayers and it’s very different in its organization. It is very beautiful, as well. However, unlike the LOTH and Christian Prayer, the Protestant books do not have the Common of Saints, Office for the Dead, and the Common of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Those are very Catholic elements.
  10. The newer version of the Roman Liturgy of the Hours is modeled on the Siddur, which is the Jewish version of the Breviary, the same that the our ancestors used, Jesus used and the first generation Christians used. As Christianity became more Gentile,the Siddur was gradually modified by the different Christian Churches. As Judaism subdivided into different traditions, the number of hours of the Siddur varied from one tradition to the other, just as they do in the Catholic Church. Less conservative Jews pray only three hours a day, just as Catholics often pray only three of the hours.
Welcome to the Catholic world, where the standard is not as standardized as we like to think.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
People need to get their information on the LOTH correct. Let’s begin.
  1. LOTH and Divine Office are the same thing. Both terms have been used in the Church for over 1000 years. If you come from the Benedictine tradition, you say Divine Office. If you come from the Mendicant tradition, you either say the Breviary or the LOTH. ICEL borrowed the term LOTH from the Mendicants.
  2. There is not such thing and never was one form of the Divine Office. Each religious order had its own form. Some religious orders recited the 150 psalms in one week, some in one month. The collects were the same as those of the mass. The number of hours was different between orders and congregations. Congregations always prayed Lauds, Vespers, Compline and Matins. That’s it. Orders prayed all of the hours, except for Franciscans who have never prayed Prime. Francis of Assisi suppressed Prime. After Vatican II, the Franciscans had a key role in the rescript of the LOTH and Prime was suppressed for the entire Church. Suppressed does not make it illegal. It means that you do not have to pray it. You will not find too many breviaries that have it.
  3. In the Benedictine tradition there are 23 breviaries. You get to pick which is the traditional breviary. The point is that the idea of a traditional breviary only exists in the minds of those who do not know the LOTH well. There are many breviaries out there.
  4. The monastic diurnal is the skeleton used to build a breviary, but it is not the book used by monks. They use a breviary. In the past, the abbot wrote the breviary for his abbey. Today, Benedictine houses are grouped into congregations. The abbots collaborate on the breviary. You will find that they do not match from one congregation to the next. Some pray the 150 psalms in one week. Some pray them in one month. Some chant them in Latin and others chant them in their native language. However, the congregation has no authority over the individual abbots. An abbot is free to rewrite the breviary for his abbey. Once again, there is no hard and fast traditional breviary.
  5. In Exempt religious orders for men, the superiors general appoint a commission to write their breviary. This has been so since the Middle Ages. The breviaries of these orders is nothing like that of the monks or the one used by the secular clergy, which is the one that most of you know. If you were to pick up a Franciscan breviary, you would be totally lost. To begin with, it does not follow the Roman Liturgical Calender. It follows the calendar created by the commission and approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is still a traditional breviary.
  6. The breviary used by the SSPX, FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei institutes was created specifically for the secular clergy. It’s known as the Roman Breviary. There are two versions of it. There is the older version that was in use until 1970 and there are two newer versioins: Christian Prayer (1 volume) and Roman Liturgy of the Hours (4 volume). Christian Prayer is the one most used by congregations, because they are not morally bound to pray the Divine Office at all.
  7. The Ecclesia Dei institutes prefer the older breviary (Roman Breviary), which the laity mistakenly refers to as the “traditional breviary”. It is not traditional, because it was NEVER universally used. It was only used by secular clergy and religious congregations. The orders always had their own. As I said above, the Benedictine Order had more than 20 versions.
  8. The Divine Office is only binding on clergy and religious men and women who make solemn vows. Religious men and women who make simple vows are not bound to the Divine Office. The decision to use it and which one to use is up to the General Chapter. Ninety percent of religious in the Latin Church are in simple vows. Only 10% of religious in the Latin Church belong to religious orders. Only religious orders have the privilege of making solemn vows. Therefore, only they have to pray the Divine Office and they get to choose how they organize it. There HAS NEVER BEEN a common breviary for the orders.
  9. The ICEL translation of the breviary is far from Protestant. The closest thing that the Protestants have is the Book of Common Prayers and it’s very different in its organization. It is very beautiful, as well. However, unlike the LOTH and Christian Prayer, the Protestant books do not have the Common of Saints, Office for the Dead, and the Common of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Those are very Catholic elements.
  10. The newer version of the Roman Liturgy of the Hours is modeled on the Siddur, which is the Jewish version of the Breviary, the same that the our ancestors used, Jesus used and the first generation Christians used. As Christianity became more Gentile,the Siddur was gradually modified by the different Christian Churches. As Judaism subdivided into different traditions, the number of hours of the Siddur varied from one tradition to the other, just as they do in the Catholic Church. Less conservative Jews pray only three hours a day, just as Catholics often pray only three of the hours.
Welcome to the Catholic world, where the standard is not as standardized as we like to think.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Oh Snap! And once again Brother JR sets 'em straight! 😃
 
joanofarc2008 said:
And this would be the very definition of Sedevacantism.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. As someone who abandoned the SSPX wrote (“Confessions of a nobody”) it’s rather a privatization of the magisterium. The more I think, the more I agree with him.

In a sense, sedevacantism is more rational than the SSPX position. If you’re a sede, you just think “ok, there’s no Pope, the hierarchy has lost its jurisdiction, so I cannot obey these impostors”. In the SSPX, you say “okay, there is a Pope, but he is a (material) heretical - «perfectly liberal», and so are the bishops, and because they are SO confused, we cannot obbey them until they recognize we are right”.

This logic ends up in protestantism.
 
JReducation said:
As Judaism subdivided into different traditions, the number of hours of the Siddur varied from one tradition to the other, just as they do in the Catholic Church. Less conservative Jews pray only three hours a day, just as Catholics often pray only three of the hours.
Click to expand...
It sounds as though the Siddur is at least as non traditional as the liturgy of the hours.

I wonder if they found a “traditional” Siddur to model the “non traditional” Roman Breviary on.
 
JReducation said:
  1. There is not such thing and never was one form of the Divine Office. Each religious order had its own form. Some religious orders recited the 150 psalms in one week, some in one month. The collects were the same as those of the mass. The number of hours was different between orders and congregations. Congregations always prayed Lauds, Vespers, Compline and Matins. That’s it. Orders prayed all of the hours, except for Franciscans who have never prayed Prime. Francis of Assisi suppressed Prime. After Vatican II, the Franciscans had a key role in the rescript of the LOTH and Prime was suppressed for the entire Church. Suppressed does not make it illegal. It means that you do not have to pray it. You will not find too many breviaries that have it.
  2. In the Benedictine tradition there are 23 breviaries. You get to pick which is the traditional breviary. The point is that the idea of a traditional breviary only exists in the minds of those who do not know the LOTH well. There are many breviaries out there.
  3. The monastic diurnal is the skeleton used to build a breviary, but it is not the book used by monks. They use a breviary. In the past, the abbot wrote the breviary for his abbey. Today, Benedictine houses are grouped into congregations. The abbots collaborate on the breviary. You will find that they do not match from one congregation to the next. Some pray the 150 psalms in one week. Some pray them in one month. Some chant them in Latin and others chant them in their native language. However, the congregation has no authority over the individual abbots. An abbot is free to rewrite the breviary for his abbey. Once again, there is no hard and fast traditional breviary.
Click to expand...
I was going to point out a small portion of this but Brother has brought more to the table than I could ever hope to do.

To illustrate Brother’s point, to this day the Brothers at the Cistercian monastery near me recite the Psalter in two weeks. The schedule is at trappist.net/Psalm%20Schedule if anyone is interested. I asked one of the Brother’s about it and was told “Ours has been cobbled together but ultimately it is up to the Abbot.” I know in some places they prayed the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary instead.

I’f I’m not mistaken, there wasn’t even a consistent liturgy for the Mass from place to place prior to Trent.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
I’f I’m not mistaken, there wasn’t even a consistent liturgy for the Mass from place to place prior to Trent.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
True and yet not true.

Whilst yes its true that certain parts of the mass varied from place to place to a greater or lesser degree, many parts of the mass have been fixed for a long long long time, the Roman Canon for example has been in much the same form for at least 1,500 years and some people say it’s origin is from St Peter. Many of the prayers of the mass date to the early middle ages and even the ‘younger’ parts of the mass are several hundred years old.
 
jmj1984 said:
True and yet not true.

Whilst yes its true that certain parts of the mass varied from place to place to a greater or lesser degree, many parts of the mass have been fixed for a long long long time, the Roman Canon for example has been in much the same form for at least 1,500 years and some people say it’s origin is from St Peter. Many of the prayers of the mass date to the early middle ages and even the ‘younger’ parts of the mass are several hundred years old.
Click to expand...
My comment wasn’t very clear. Yes, it would be more correct to say that there were regional variations. Even “Minor variations” would have been a better choice of words.

-Tim-
 
JReducation said:
People need to get their information on the LOTH correct. Let’s begin.
  1. LOTH and Divine Office are the same thing. Both terms have been used in the Church for over 1000 years. If you come from the Benedictine tradition, you say Divine Office. If you come from the Mendicant tradition, you either say the Breviary or the LOTH. ICEL borrowed the term LOTH from the Mendicants.
  2. There is not such thing and never was one form of the Divine Office. Each religious order had its own form. Some religious orders recited the 150 psalms in one week, some in one month. The collects were the same as those of the mass. The number of hours was different between orders and congregations. Congregations always prayed Lauds, Vespers, Compline and Matins. That’s it. Orders prayed all of the hours, except for Franciscans who have never prayed Prime. Francis of Assisi suppressed Prime. After Vatican II, the Franciscans had a key role in the rescript of the LOTH and Prime was suppressed for the entire Church. Suppressed does not make it illegal. It means that you do not have to pray it. You will not find too many breviaries that have it.
  3. In the Benedictine tradition there are 23 breviaries. You get to pick which is the traditional breviary. The point is that the idea of a traditional breviary only exists in the minds of those who do not know the LOTH well. There are many breviaries out there.
  4. The monastic diurnal is the skeleton used to build a breviary, but it is not the book used by monks. They use a breviary. In the past, the abbot wrote the breviary for his abbey. Today, Benedictine houses are grouped into congregations. The abbots collaborate on the breviary. You will find that they do not match from one congregation to the next. Some pray the 150 psalms in one week. Some pray them in one month. Some chant them in Latin and others chant them in their native language. However, the congregation has no authority over the individual abbots. An abbot is free to rewrite the breviary for his abbey. Once again, there is no hard and fast traditional breviary.
  5. In Exempt religious orders for men, the superiors general appoint a commission to write their breviary. This has been so since the Middle Ages. The breviaries of these orders is nothing like that of the monks or the one used by the secular clergy, which is the one that most of you know. If you were to pick up a Franciscan breviary, you would be totally lost. To begin with, it does not follow the Roman Liturgical Calender. It follows the calendar created by the commission and approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is still a traditional breviary.
  6. The breviary used by the SSPX, FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei institutes was created specifically for the secular clergy. It’s known as the Roman Breviary. There are two versions of it. There is the older version that was in use until 1970 and there are two newer versioins: Christian Prayer (1 volume) and Roman Liturgy of the Hours (4 volume). Christian Prayer is the one most used by congregations, because they are not morally bound to pray the Divine Office at all.
  7. The Divine Office is only binding on clergy and religious men and women who make solemn vows. Religious men and women who make simple vows are not bound to the Divine Office. The decision to use it and which one to use is up to the General Chapter. Ninety percent of religious in the Latin Church are in simple vows. Only 10% of religious in the Latin Church belong to religious orders. Only religious orders have the privilege of making solemn vows. Therefore, only they have to pray the Divine Office and they get to choose how they organize it. There HAS NEVER BEEN a common breviary for the orders.
  8. The ICEL translation of the breviary is far from Protestant. The closest thing that the Protestants have is the Book of Common Prayers and it’s very different in its organization. It is very beautiful, as well. However, unlike the LOTH and Christian Prayer, the Protestant books do not have the Common of Saints, Office for the Dead, and the Common of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Those are very Catholic elements.
  9. The newer version of the Roman Liturgy of the Hours is modeled on the Siddur, which is the Jewish version of the Breviary, the same that the our ancestors used, Jesus used and the first generation Christians used. As Christianity became more Gentile,the Siddur was gradually modified by the different Christian Churches. As Judaism subdivided into different traditions, the number of hours of the Siddur varied from one tradition to the other, just as they do in the Catholic Church. Less conservative Jews pray only three hours a day, just as Catholics often pray only three of the hours.
Welcome to the Catholic world, where the standard is not as standardized as we like to think.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s not as radical a change as you might think, for a number of reasons.

The secular clergy did not start praying the breviary until the Middle Ages. The breviary really goes back to Judaism and it formatted by Christian monks. The secular clergy don’t really have a claim on the breviary, nor do they claim that they do. Everyone acknowledges that the breviary is really the “brainchild of religious orders” that preserved the ancient Jewish tradition. You can’t really brush them aside. It would be like taking the trunk away while trying to retain the branches and calling it a tree.

In other words, the secular clergy have always depended on religious to set the pace in matters of liturgy. In that regard, the SSPX has broken with the religious tradition, by not taking it into account. When you take into account the influence of religious on the liturgy, especially the LOTH, you come away with a much richer understanding of its history and unity in diversity.

Another point is the secular clergy never had a static breviary. The Roman Breviary has been revised many times since its creation. The rules have been changed with different different editions and different revisions of Canon Law and the liturgical calendar. Then there are the regionalisms. There has never been one edition of the Roman Breviary for the Latin Church. There have always been various editions used by secular clergy in different countries.

The Traditionalsit rejection of the term Liturgy of the Hours comes from very poor catechesis in both the Trad and mainstream. It was always called the Liturgy of the Hours. When monasticism assumed the duty of preserving it, Benedict coined the term, Divine Office, meaning the divine work. The divine work was to pray the LOTH. Like all things, time passed and the term Divine Office or simply the Office took over, because it was less of a mouthful.

What the Franciscans helped to introduce after Vatican II was the use of the proper term, Liturgy of the Hours and the a form of the LOTH that was not monastic. This was not a new concept. They had already introduced this into the Church in 1223. After them, many religious orders and religious congregations adopted the simpler celebration of the office, which was unlike that used by the Benedictine tradition. Secular priests were a minority. They followed suit.

Following the religious communities turned out to be problematic for secular priests for a number of reasons. The different forms used by the religious were meant to be celebrated in community. Secular priests do not live in community. Community prayer is not an obligation for secular Catholics, even if they’re priests. They needed a format that they could use with others and alone. The revised LOTH provided this format.

Many priests found that the monastic format took so much time either they did not pray the office at all or they sat down and read through all of the hours in one sitting to get it out of the way. The idea of the revised Roman LOTH was to give secular priests what the friars already had since the Middle Ages, which was a more manageable breviary. It does not require chant. I can be prayed alone or with others and each hour does not take as long. This way, those who are more active have no excuse for not praying it, because it’s doable. The mendicants were using this format for centuries and now it was being made available to all secular priests, rather than to some here and there.
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.
Click to expand...
That’s not really accurate. If you take the religious out of the equation, where are you going to ground the tradition of the breviary, since it was the religious who gave it to the Church? This is the argument that the SSPX often poses. The object to what they perceive as a break in continuity. If that’s the case, then they must be the first to acknowledge the place of primacy and leadership of religious when it comes to the breviary. It was religious who preserved it and it has been religious who have modified it over the centuries to fit different settings, including that of the secular clergy. The SSPX should be the first to admit that everything that we know about the office we received from monks and friars.
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?
Click to expand...
As I said above, there was never a static form for anyone, not even for secular clergy. It changed from time to time and from region to region. Not to mention the fact that in some dioceses the secular seminaries used one of the Benedictine form. That’s how many of them became familiar with chant. They had no way of knowing how to chant the office. This was a very Benedictine tradition.
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 form used by the mendicants was very similar to the revised LOTH. As I’ve said, the Franciscans had a lot to do with the LOTH that we have today. They used their form to influence the revision. Remember what I said above. St. Francis suppressed Prime. A superior general can only do that for his community. I have no way of knowing what other superiors also suppressed it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
This is the quote I was looking for…

We particularly admonish that if this distribution of the psalms is displeasing to anyone, he should make any other disposition he may think better. (Chapter 18, Rule of St. Benedict)

It was in St. Benedict’s rule (Duh me!), written sometime in the sixth century when he founded his first monastery. St. Benedict goes on for 10 chapters about what antiphons to say, what psalms to recite when, and so forth. Then he simply says that if his arrangement is not acceptable that another should be made up, the only rule being that all 150 psalms should be recited every week. So the exact format of the Divine Office was never to be static in the first place.

–

In response to some earlier posts, I really don’t think threads like this are useless or pointless. I never even heard of the term SSPX before I came to CAF and was unaware of the controversy, and quite frankly the emotion which surrounds the issue. On the contrary, this is a most interesting thread for me.

-Tim-
 
JReducation said:
Actually, it’s not as radical a change as you might think, for a number of reasons.

In other words, the secular clergy have always depended on religious to set the pace in matters of liturgy.

Another point is the secular clergy never had a static breviary. The Roman Breviary has been revised many times since its creation. The rules have been changed with different different editions and different revisions of Canon Law and the liturgical calendar. Then there are the regionalisms. There has never been one edition of the Roman Breviary for the Latin Church. There have always been various editions used by secular clergy in different countries.
Click to expand...
Can one not say that since Trent the secular clergy have depended more on the Holy Father than religious as regards the breviary? After all since Trent it is The Holy See who fix’s The Divine Office.

To say that secular clergy have no claim over the Divine Office seems odd, how can they have no claim over something they are bound to pray and which numerous popes have exhorted them to pray?

As for there being no static version what then are the versions on this website for? divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl
Perhaps there are minor variations but I cannot imagine there are wholesale changes as regards the Divine Office, notwithstanding dispensations or derogation’s for universal law, except from The Holy See.
JReducation said:
The Traditionalsit rejection of the term Liturgy of the Hours comes from very poor catechesis in both the Trad and mainstream. It was always called the Liturgy of the Hours. When monasticism assumed the duty of preserving it, Benedict coined the term, Divine Office, meaning the divine work. The divine work was to pray the LOTH. Like all things, time passed and the term Divine Office or simply the Office took over, because it was less of a mouthful.

Following the religious communities turned out to be problematic for secular priests for a number of reasons. The different forms used by the religious were meant to be celebrated in community. Secular priests do not live in community. Community prayer is not an obligation for secular Catholics, even if they’re priests. They needed a format that they could use with others and alone. The revised LOTH provided this format.
Click to expand...
It is odd to find Ven. Pope Pius XII in his exhortation to the clergy of the world stating '**The Obligation of the Divine Office

Perfect sanctity also demands a continual communication with God; and because this intimate contact which the priestly soul should enjoy with God, ought never be interrupted in the succession of days and hours, the Church obliges the priest to recite the Divine Office. In this manner, she has been faithfully obedient to the injunction of the Lord, “That they must always pray and not lose heart”.

Just as the Church herself never ceases praying, so she ardently desires that her children should do the same, repeating the words of the Apostle, “Through Him (Jesus), therefore, let us offer up a sacrifice of praise always to God, that is, fruit of lips praising His name”.To priests, she has committed the special duty of consecrating to God, praying also in the name of the people, every period of the day and every circumstance of life."**’
JReducation said:
Many priests found that the monastic format took so much time either they did not pray the office at all or they sat down and read through all of the hours in one sitting to get it out of the way. The idea of the revised Roman LOTH was to give secular priests what the friars already had since the Middle Ages, which was a more manageable breviary.
Click to expand...
May I ask if you have links on the subject? I am surprised that so many priests would fail in their duty and therefore sin gravely, further I am even more surprised that no pope until the 1960’s saw this problem. Perhaps the priests failing to pray the office had more to do with other problems which Ven. Pope Pius XII identified in his teachings on the priesthood than on the Divine office itself. I think particularly of what he said regarding the obligation of praying the divine office and also what he calls 'the heresy of Action’ about which he says '**The Heresy Of Action

For these reasons, while giving due praise to those who in the years which have followed the long and terrible war, urged by the love of God and of doing good to their neighbor under the guidance and following the example of their Bishops, have consecrated their entire strength to the relief of so much misery, We cannot abstain from expressing our pre-occupation and our anxiety for those who on account of the special circumstances of the moment have become so engulfed in the vortex of external activity that they neglect the chief duty of the priest, his own sanctification. We have already stated publicly in writing that those who presume that the world can be saved by what has been rightly called “the heresy of action” must be made to exercise better judgment. The heresy of action is that activity which is not based upon the help of grace and does not make constant use of the means necessary to the pursuit of sanctity given us by Christ.**’

Perhaps it does not, but still I do admire and trust Ven. Pope Pius XII’s teaching on this matter.
 
JReducation said:
That’s not really accurate. If you take the religious out of the equation, where are you going to ground the tradition of the breviary, since it was the religious who gave it to the Church? This is the argument that the SSPX often poses. The object to what they perceive as a break in continuity. If that’s the case, then they must be the first to acknowledge the place of primacy and leadership of religious when it comes to the breviary. It was religious who preserved it and it has been religious who have modified it over the centuries to fit different settings, including that of the secular clergy. The SSPX should be the first to admit that everything that we know about the office we received from monks and friars.
Click to expand...
You once said you knew an SSPX priest, I can only say ask him about it. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum has the expertise or authority to speak for them. I certainly am not knowledgeable enough to do so.
JReducation said:
The form used by the mendicants was very similar to the revised LOTH. As I’ve said, the Franciscans had a lot to do with the LOTH that we have today. They used their form to influence the revision. Remember what I said above. St. Francis suppressed Prime. A superior general can only do that for his community. I have no way of knowing what other superiors also suppressed it.
Click to expand...
Its worth pointing out that those who object to the LOTH, which does consist of many more people than just the SSPX, object to the changes made which are different from all previous liturgical changes. I am thinking most especially of the suppressing of Prime, the replacement of Matins with an office of readings, Terce, sext and none being clumped together as ‘morning’ prayer and the obligation to say all of them being reduced to an obligation to say one of them. And of course most famously the psalms being spread out over 4 weeks instead of one.

No one I believe is saying that change is wrong or is objecting to rearrangements, that would be incredibly foolish considering that Pope St Pius X made the most radical overhaul to both the Divine Office and the Liturgical Calendar prior to the changes of Pope Paul VI. On the contrary what people are objecting to are the nature of the changes.
 
TimothyH said:
–

In response to some earlier posts, I really don’t think threads like this are useless or pointless. I never even heard of the term SSPX before I came to CAF and was unaware of the controversy, and quite frankly the emotion which surrounds the issue. On the contrary, this is a most interesting thread for me.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
I believe the point are making is that threads have the habit of degenerating into SSPX bashing rodeos. Aside from that due to forum rules one cannot play devils advocate and thereby present the opposing point of view.

Of course CAF is informative on these matters, I also heard about the SSPX through CAF discussions.
 
jmj1984 said:
You once said you knew an SSPX priest, I can only say ask him about it. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum has the expertise or authority to speak for them. I certainly am not knowledgeable enough to do so.
Click to expand...
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.
Its worth pointing out that those who object to the LOTH, which does consist of many more people than just the SSPX, object to the changes made which are different from all previous liturgical changes. I am thinking most especially of the suppressing of Prime, the replacement of Matins with an office of readings, Terce, sext and none being clumped together as ‘morning’ prayer and the obligation to say all of them being reduced to an obligation to say one of them. And of course most famously the psalms being spread out over 4 weeks instead of one.
Click to expand...
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.
No one I believe is saying that change is wrong or is objecting to rearrangements, that would be incredibly foolish considering that Pope St Pius X made the most radical overhaul to both the Divine Office and the Liturgical Calendar prior to the changes of Pope Paul VI. On the contrary what people are objecting to are the nature of the changes.
Click to expand...
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 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top