Breviary Advice?

[OraLabora]

Vocal and meditative prayer are not necessarily exclusive of each other.

Excellent point and in my experience, monastics don’t compartmentalize their prayer lives like that. It’s all part of the continuum of the contemplative life.

There have been many times during the Divine Office I’ve experienced a deep sense of union with God and detachment from the world. There have been other times when I was just going through the motions.

One thing about the LOTH is that it invites one to structure which in turn leads one to perseverance in prayer. This is important. Sometimes we grind through the Office with multiple distractions and no real sense of presence. Other times we have deep spiritual experiences. Perseverance in prayer allows us to survive the former to reach the latter.

And this brings us back to the point about which Office to use: if the Office one selects is too heavy and not in keeping with our station in life, we will end up having mostly the former and rarely the latter, and the cloister of our heart will remain a mysterious and unexplored place, which is a deep shame because that’s where we meet God.

From the General Instructions:

Harmony of Mind and Voice

1. Mind and voice must be in harmony in a celebration that is worthy, attentive, and devout, if this prayer is to be made their own by those taking part and to be a source of devotion, a means of gaining God’s manifold grace, a deepening of personal prayer, and an incentive to the work of the apostolate. [89] All should be intent on cooperating with God’s grace, so as not to receive it in vain. **Seeking Christ, penetrating ever more deeply into his mystery through prayer **[90] they should offer praise and petition to God with the same mind and heart as the divine Redeemer when he prayed.

 

[EphelDuath]

I’m not too surprised that you are not in agreement with Pope Paul VI’s LOTH.

That’s actually not what I said. Just like between the OF and EF of the Holy Mass, both the LOTH and the old BR have advantages and disadvantages against each other, and both are perfectly valid forms of the Office as decreed by the Holy See. With that in mind, neither are absolutely impeccable, and so constructive criticism of both should not be a problem anywhere.

Nevertheless, you are speaking wrongfully about the bolded part of paragraph 1 above. This is not at all what the Council called for. Please read the document.

CHAPTER IV, DIVINE OFFICE
100. Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too,** are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually.**

Why are you bolding this? Doesn’t seem relevant to anything here; except that it’s another dream of the Council that sadly never came true.

1. 1. The competent superior has the power to grant the use of the vernacular in the celebration of the divine office, even in choir, to nuns and to members of institutes dedicated to acquiring perfection, both men who are not clerics and women. The version, however, must be one that is approved.

Let’s look at the whole paragraph:

101. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.

And another:

99. Since the divine office is the voice of the Church, that is of the whole mystical body publicly praising God, those clerics who are not obliged to office in choir, especially priests who live together or who assemble for any purpose, are urged to pray at least some part of the divine office in common. All who pray the divine office, whether in choir or in common, should fulfill the task entrusted to them as perfectly as possible: this refers not only to the internal devotion of their minds but also to their external manner of celebration. It is, moreover, fitting that the office, both in choir and in common, be sung when possible.

So the Council envisioned that the Hours be sung publicly and in Latin. Who does that, aside from monasteries and religious houses that already did before Vatican II?

 

[yaycatholic]

1. Petition publishers to print the Latin version of the LotH (because as far as I know, only Midwest Theological Forum and Paxbooks print it in Latin; and in both of those places it’ll run you $400+ for the whole set)

I agree with this! Almost all the Liturgia Horarum I could find are sold at a very high price! The Liturgia Horarum here in the UK are sold at £60 per volume online (the LEV one, the BR is cheaper!), and £100-something in store!

 

[Sirach2]

Why are you bolding this? Doesn’t seem relevant to anything here; except that it’s another dream of the Council that sadly never came true.

Let’s look at the whole paragraph:

101. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.

Let’s look at the second sentence. I have entered the Carmelite Secular Order and one of our main obligations is to pray the morning and evening prayers of the Divine Office. Our Order is canonically erected and therefore, it is improper to speak about our duty of this prayer as though it is incorrect due to using the vernacular, or not praying in common. I cited the paragraph that permits praying individually, but you ignored it. This is simply your own interpretation, using partial wording taken out of context.

1. Since the divine office is the voice of the Church, that is of the whole mystical body publicly praising God, those clerics who are not obliged to office in choir, especially priests who live together or who assemble for any purpose, are urged to pray at least some part of the divine office in common. All who pray the divine office, whether in choir or in common, should fulfill the task entrusted to them as perfectly as possible: this refers not only to the internal devotion of their minds but also to their external manner of celebration. It is, moreover, fitting that the office, both in choir and in common, be sung when possible

.*
Your post is inaccurate and offensive to all of us in secular orders or laity who pray in their homes out of love for this devotion. Those who approved and erected our Order are more knowledgable about licity than you, and it would behove you to avoid being so argumentative about things you know little about, especially since you are not the sole interpreter of the document — the Church is, and those to whom She lawfully entrusts governing, not armchair theologians who love to point fingers.

 

[EphelDuath]

Let’s look at the second sentence. I have entered the Carmelite Secular Order and one of our main obligations is to pray the morning and evening prayers of the Divine Office. Our Order is canonically erected and therefore, it is improper to speak about our duty of this prayer as though it is incorrect due to using the vernacular, or not praying in common. I cited the paragraph that permits praying individually, but you ignored it. This is simply your own interpretation, using partial wording taken out of context.

I’m not talking about religious orders, who obviously have their own charisms and governing rules. If you had read my posts with OraLabora you would have known this. I’m talking about the majority of the Church, which are secular priests and unenrolled laity.

Now, once again, I’m going to ask that you actually address the arguments that I’m making, rather than assuming every word out of my mouth is a direct attack upon all ye faithful: the general rule in SC is that the Hours are to be in Latin and sung whenever possible. There are exceptionary clauses, but those obviously are referring to “if not the ideal, then the almost-ideal” scenarios. So, do you think that the Church at large has fulfilled the Council’s dream?

Your post is inaccurate and offensive to all of us in secular orders or laity who pray in their homes out of love for this devotion. Those who approved and erected our Order are more knowledgable about licity than you, and it would behove you to avoid being so argumentative about things you know little about, especially since you are not the sole interpreter of the document — the Church is, and those to whom She lawfully entrusts governing, not armchair theologians who love to point fingers.

You don’t read my posts, and when you do, you think everything I say is hostile judgment. I give up. Perhaps you should consult with your religious superior to see if the tone in which you’re posting on CAF is in line with the sensus of the Carmelites.

 

[Sirach2]

I’m not talking about religious orders, who obviously have their own charisms and governing rules. If you had read my posts with OraLabora you would have known this. I’m talking about the majority of the Church, which are secular priests and unenrolled laity.

Apparently, you disagree with anyone who does not interpret the SC as you do. Please read OraLabora’s post again where he said:

It’s important, as Br. JR says, to not impose a demand on the clergy that the Church herself doesn’t impose, and singing the LOTH in choir is not something demanded of diocesan clergy, it is NOT part of their LOTH obligation. However public celebration is encouraged (but again not an obligation). And that most certainly does happen, even in our very liberal parish.

 

[EphelDuath]

Apparently, you disagree with anyone who does not interpret the SC as you do.

Isn’t that, well, tautological?

Please read OraLabora’s post again where he said:

It’s important, as Br. JR says, to not impose a demand on the clergy that the Church herself doesn’t impose, and singing the LOTH in choir is not something demanded of diocesan clergy, it is NOT part of their LOTH obligation. However public celebration is encouraged (but again not an obligation). And that most certainly does happen, even in our very liberal parish.

Yes, that was a comment on the current state of the rubrics regarding the LOTH. I had no objection to his statement there.

 

[Sirach2]

EphelDuath:

Now, once again, I’m going to ask that you actually address the arguments that I’m making, rather than assuming every word out of my mouth is a direct attack upon all ye faithful: the general rule in SC is that the Hours are to be in Latin and sung whenever possible.

And once again, I’m suggesting you are taking the SC out of context because that is what you want to use to finger-point. I already quoted another section of SC that allows for vernacular recitation and private prayer, rather than in common. I suggest you stop this silly cat fight, trying to impose what the Church does not impose.

 

[EphelDuath]

And once again, I’m suggesting you are taking the SC out of context because that is what you want to use to finger-point. I already quoted another section of SC that allows for vernacular recitation and private prayer, rather than in common. I suggest you stop this silly cat fight, trying to impose what the Church does not impose.

How am I imposing anything? All I have pointed out is that SC has given us both an ideal scenario, and what is allowed if the ideal cannot be fulfilled. All I am saying that we should make a spirited effort to attain the ideal.

 

[OraLabora]

That’s actually not what I said. Just like between the OF and EF of the Holy Mass, both the LOTH and the old BR have advantages and disadvantages against each other, and both are perfectly valid forms of the Office as decreed by the Holy See. With that in mind, neither are absolutely impeccable, and so constructive criticism of both should not be a problem anywhere.

Don’t leave out the Monastic Breviaries If we’re considering a breviary that is “mission-specific”, just as you don’t use a 737 to fly across oceans or a 747 on commuter flights (except in Japan!), the Monastic breviary fulfills the needs of a monastery, and the LOTH fulfills the needs of secular clergy, laity, secular orders, etc. The BR IMHO, is sort of uncomfortably in the middle: it has no real long tradition behind it (new antiphons, new psalm order, broken traditions), but it is nearly as heavy as a monastic Breviary, so not really appropriate for secular use. The LOTH fulfills that mission much better while not completely throwing tradition overboard. Cloistered orders, would do better to use a monastic breviary which at least has 1500 years continuity behind it. Chapters of cathedrals (such as they still exist… not so much in these parts!) could use either the LOTH or monastic. In my area, there’s not really such a thing as cathedral chapters anymore. Not enough priests.

Why are you bolding this? Doesn’t seem relevant to anything here; except that it’s another dream of the Council that sadly never came true.

On the contrary, a casual search of these forums would show that interest in the LOTH is increasing. Moreover there is growth in secular participation in religious orders; for instance at our abbey, even though the monks are getting older and dying off, and it’s a rare Sunday to see 30 of them at Mass, the oblate community has grown to well over 100 oblates, and continues to grow. We all make a promise to pray at least part of the LOTH.

Let’s look at the whole paragraph:

*101. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. **But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. ***The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.

My bold. Alas, for the majority today, Latin is an obstacle.

99. Since the divine office is the voice of the Church, that is of the whole mystical body publicly praising God, those clerics who are not obliged to office in choir, especially priests who live together or who assemble for any purpose, are urged to pray at least some part of the divine office in common. All who pray the divine office, whether in choir or in common, should fulfill the task entrusted to them as perfectly as possible: this refers not only to the internal devotion of their minds but also to their external manner of celebration. It is, moreover, fitting that the office, both in choir and in common, be sung when possible.

So the Council envisioned that the Hours be sung publicly and in Latin. Who does that, aside from monasteries and religious houses that already did before Vatican II?

Most priests in my area live alone. Yet we do have public prayer of the LOTH every week, Lauds to be precise, when no Mass is available.

The issue isn’t the Office… it’s the reduction in vocations. No more cathedral chapters; no longer 2 or 3 priests, a transitional deacon or two, and a seminarian or two living in a rectory, therefore no more “priests living together praying the Office in common”. Loss of classical educations that included Latin means Latin is more of an obstacle.

Thank God for Oblates and Third Orders! When we get together we do pray the LOTH. Myself and a couple of other oblates are also members of the Gregorian Institute of Canada, helping to keep the chant tradition alive even in the modern LOTH.

Don’t bury the corpse until you’re sure it’s dead!

 

[agnes_therese]

How am I imposing anything? All I have pointed out is that SC has given us both an ideal scenario, and what is allowed if the ideal cannot be fulfilled. All I am saying that we should make a spirited effort to attain the ideal.

But you’re saying that there’s only one ideal:
"But Vatican II called for the Hours to be prayed in Latin, in public, in choir. "

That’s what you seem to be trying to impose, because you’re ignoring this part of SC:
" And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests,** or **among themselves, or even individually."

I haven’t seen anyone say that we shouldn’t pray the office in choir, should that be possible. But you do seem – whether you mean it so or not – to be denigrating a legitimate practice that has made it possible to have a wonderful increase in the number of people who pray the office.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Due to declining charity and positions contrary to church teachings…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)