Canonical Hours

  • Thread starter Thread starter fbg36
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fbg36

Guest
Just wondering … Anybody out there who prays all of parts of the Roman Breviary every day? It would be interesting to share thoughts, ideas discoveries, etc., about specific psalms and readings. For example, today (10/24/09) is the feast of the Archangel Raphael, and at Lauds there is a wonderful blend of content in the two themes of (1) Raphael as patron of healing, and (2) the canticle of Zachary foreshadowing the career of his newborn son, John the Baptist. And then the passionate praise in Psalm 148 and in the Canticle of the three young men in the Book of Daniel.

Would could also discuss the Hours in general terms – the character of each of the Hours as a day progresses, and changing content according to the season.

In other words, let’s share thoughts about the inner qualities and nature of Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None and Compline. What a beautiful and structured way to pray! A bit difficult at first, but worth the trouble. I don’t pray all of the hours every day but manage to do Lauds (or Prime if I miss Lauds) and sometimes Sext, and more often either Vespers or Compline – or both.

Any thoughts?

~ Frank

.
 
Just wondering … Anybody out there who prays all of parts of the Roman Breviary every day? It would be interesting to share thoughts, ideas discoveries, etc., about specific psalms and readings. For example, today (10/24/09) is the feast of the Archangel Raphael, and at Lauds there is a wonderful blend of content in the two themes of (1) Raphael as patron of healing, and (2) the canticle of Zachary foreshadowing the career of his newborn son, John the Baptist. And then the passionate praise in Psalm 148 and in the Canticle of the three young men in the Book of Daniel.

Would could also discuss the Hours in general terms – the character of each of the Hours as a day progresses, and changing content according to the season.

In other words, let’s share thoughts about the inner qualities and nature of Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None and Compline. What a beautiful and structured way to pray! A bit difficult at first, but worth the trouble. I don’t pray all of the hours every day but manage to do Lauds (or Prime if I miss Lauds) and sometimes Sext, and more often either Vespers or Compline – or both.

Any thoughts?

~ Frank

.
Wait a minute. I’m confused. What version of the Roman Breviary are you using? In our version today is St. Anthony Mary Claret.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Wait a minute. I’m confused. What version of the Roman Breviary are you using? In our version today is St. Anthony Mary Claret.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
The 1961/2, I assume, given the feast day (St. Raphael), the title (the Roman Breviary) and the terms (Matins, etc.)
 
The 1961/2, I assume, given the feast day (St. Raphael), the title (the Roman Breviary) and the terms (Matins, etc.)
The problem with that edition is that it does not follow the new liturgical calendar. I understand that there is a revision of it coming soon. My guess is that the feast days will be moved around to coincide with the missal and the liturgical calendar. The format will remain the same, just a change in dates and saints.

We use the Roman-Franciscan Breviary. It combines the Church’s liturgical calendar and the liturgical calendar of the Franciscan Order, but the hours remain the same round the clock (if you have the four volume set). What we heard from our generalate is that this one is going to be revised too. They have to add the new saints and blesseds. It still does not have St. Pio, Bl. Mother Teresa, Bl John XXIII and now the new saints that Pope Benedict has canonized since he became pope. There are several Franciscans among them. We end up having to use the commons for those saints that are not in the breviary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The problem with that edition is that it does not follow the new liturgical calendar. I understand that there is a revision of it coming soon. My guess is that the feast days will be moved around to coincide with the missal and the liturgical calendar. The format will remain the same, just a change in dates and saints.
This is not a problem at all, as the 1962 edition of the missal uses the traditional kalendar, which is well-known to those of us who use it. Your insight about the upcoming revision is in error, born (once again) out of your unfamiliarity with the traditional rite. The EF kalendar is most assuredly NOT being changed to that of the OF.
 
This is not a problem at all, as the 1962 edition of the missal uses the traditional kalendar, which is well-known to those of us who use it. Your insight about the upcoming revision is in error, born (once again) out of your unfamiliarity with the traditional rite. The EF kalendar is most assuredly NOT being changed to that of the OF.
Actually once the English in the translation is corrected, the next thing that has to be reconciled are the two calendars so that the EF and the OF are celebating the same holy days. The idea is not to have two rites, but two forms of the same Latin Rite. There are always going to be some differences in calendars, because of Bishops’ Conferences, religious orders and national holy days.

For example, take a Dominican celebrating the EF, he is bound to celebrate the holy days of the Dominican calendar, even if he’s celebrating the EF. These kinds of details have to be reconciled to avoid too much confusion. A Franciscan celebrating the EF is bound by law to celebrate the feast of St. Pio, even if he’s celebrating the EF.

Where you see these conflicts in calendars is more among the religious orders than among secular priests such as tthe FSSP. They don’t have their own calendar. They follow the Roman calendar. Religious follow the Roman calendar only when it does not conflict with the order. Then they follow the calendar of their order.

There are several orders that have their own calendar: Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Carhtusians, and Basilians. Now that everyone can celebrate the EF or the OF, you have to work with the calendars.

The major religious superiors of men have already asked Rome for permission to fix this, because it poses a great inconvenience to the community life. But apparently, it will not happen unitl after 2011. If this isn’t ironed out, then monks and friars will not be able to celebrate the EF on certain days when they have to observe the calendar of their order. The problem applies more to monks and friars, and so some extent to national conferences of bishops. But the most inconvenienced by this two calendar system are monks and friars, becasue they have many holy days.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Actually once the English in the translation is corrected, the next thing that has to be reconciled are the two calendars so that the EF and the OF are celebating the same holy days. The idea is not to have two rites, but two forms of the same Latin Rite. There are always going to be some differences in calendars, because of Bishops’ Conferences, religious orders and national holy days.

For example, take a Dominican celebrating the EF, he is bound to celebrate the holy days of the Dominican calendar, even if he’s celebrating the EF. These kinds of details have to be reconciled to avoid too much confusion. A Franciscan celebrating the EF is bound by law to celebrate the feast of St. Pio, even if he’s celebrating the EF.

Where you see these conflicts in calendars is more among the religious orders than among secular priests such as tthe FSSP. They don’t have their own calendar. They follow the Roman calendar. Religious follow the Roman calendar only when it does not conflict with the order. Then they follow the calendar of their order.

There are several orders that have their own calendar: Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Carhtusians, and Basilians. Now that everyone can celebrate the EF or the OF, you have to work with the calendars.
I’m am not sure why this causes problems since Summorum Pontificum allows celebration of the Mass “following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962” and all the orders and congregations had Proper calendars approved at that date, which IMO fall under this definition, since they are spoken of in the rubrics. I can certainly see why it is desirable, both for the life and charisma of the community, that a certain unity be maintained in it’s calendar, but I’m not sure whehter one can say that canonically, a priest is barred from celebrating the EF because he is obligated to follow the newer Proper calendar of his Order or congregation, when the older one has been implicitly legitimized.

Furthermore, while I do see that some adjustment would be desirable, I feel it would be very limited, since it would seem to destroy the Pope’s idea of bringing about a certain unity by giving concern to many fo those who currently attend the EF.

The reason being that to align the two calendars would be very complicated. If one re-admits the majority of the old saints into the new, that would cause some loss of the principles (some very good ones, IMHO) that formed the new.

But if one tries to rearrange the saints on the old calendar, that also causes problems because (a) some saints will have to be sacrificed (b) the rubrics will be complicated then, by new occurence/concurrence questions (c) some changing of texts will follow. Take for example, the feast today of St. Raphael. Should it be suppressed? Combined with St. Michael as in the post '70 calendar? If combined, which texts do we use for the Mass and Office? Etc. Not only would this occupy a lot of time, but I doubt it would please many who attend the EF Mass.
 
I’m am not sure why this causes problems since Summorum Pontificum allows celebration of the Mass “following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962” and all the orders and congregations had Proper calendars approved at that date, .
You raise a valid question that most lay people are not privy to. In fact, you’re first person whom I have met on CAF who has raised this question in a genuine manner. Here is the problem. It is not canonical. It has to do with the rule of the religious orders. Notice that I’m talkng about religious orders. Priestly societies, religious congregations, apostolic societies are not religious orders. They do not have a canonically binding rule. They have statutes that they can change and adapt by simply voting on them.

Religioius orders cannot change the rules written by their founders. Those rules are set in stone. They have been promulgated by the pope at the time. According to canon law, all religious who belong to an order, must follow the rule of their order. In the rules of every religious order their is a specific chapter on the liturgical life of the order. In that chapter the founders dictate that the brotherhood (even if they have priests) must maintain a unified liturgical life. When the liturgical calendars were revised, the orders adapted themselves to that calendar. Everything was fine, because there was one liturgical calendar.

Now, with SP, we have the current liturgical calendar and the old liturgical calendar. This is whee the split comes in. The rule of the order takes precedence over SP. This is why in SP the Holy Father specifically mentions that religious priests must follow the ordinary norms with the cosent of their major superiors. The ordinary norm is a canonical term that means, the holy rule. The holy rule says that the brothers in a community will have a unity in their liturgical life.

In order to maintain this unity and at the same time provide the EF and the OF for the faithful, they have to operate out of one calendar, that would be whichever calendar their order uses. Currently, all the religious orders in the Church use the OF calendar, because there is no religious order that is exclusively an EF order. The EF communities are not religious orders.

The religious orders are all OF. These are the Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carthusians, Trinitarians, Brigitines, Jesuits and Premonstaterians. They are the only existing religious orders in the Church. They follow one of the following founders: Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Albert, Bruno or Basil.

Under obedience to their rule, they have to preserve their liturgical unity with their religious family. That’s why they need to have both the EF and the OF on the same calendar, if they are to provide liturgical services in both forms. Therefore, the major superiors of religious men have asked for a revision of the calendar. After taking it to a vote, none of the religious orders voted to go with the EF. All voted to go with the OF and accepted to celebrate the EF upon request, as long as their superiors and their fellow religious approve. We have to go through this process. Church law does not allow us to do anything without the consent of our superiors and our fellow religious. It does not allow us to bypass the holy rule. Nor do we want to bypass the holy rule. What’s the use of being a religious, if you are not going to follow the rule, except when it is convenient for the laity. You may as well remain a lay person. To preserve community life, we need to have one calendar for the entire community so that on any given day, when you celebrate either the EF or the OF, pray either the new breviary or the old breviary, you are praying with your brothers.

I can provide one example from my own religious family. Our Franciscan calendar is not the same as it was in 1962. If we begin to follow the old Franciscan calendar and the new one at the same time, then we are not praying together. It has to be either or. To make matters easier, it is better if we just merge everything into a third or new calendar. This was not a problem that was forseen when the calendar was changed. No one ever expected to go back to the old calendar. Therefore, we could adopt the new calendar and still be faithful to the holy rule by preserving a unified liturgical life.

Since the TLM is the extraordinary form, the Church cannot mandate any religious order to embrace it exclusively and abandon the new calendar and the ordinary form. The word extraordinary was used on purpose. It was meant to relieve religious of the obligation to celebrate it exclusively. The Holy Father does not want to see religious orders split from the inside. He understands that liturgy is the center of the life of a religious community. Canon law and the holy rules all demand that religious pray together the hours of the office. This means that every Dominican house around the world is praying the exact same hours, with the exact same calendar. The same goes for every other religious order. We are globally connected through the liturgy of the hours and the holy mass.

We can change the form, because that does not change the holy day or the essence. We can’t change the calendar. That throws off the harmony of the religious order. That’s why we are called “orders”. Our lives revolve around everything being exactly the same around the world. Every Franciscans is praying the same thing. Every Benedictine is too and so forth. Each is praying according to the orders of his founder. Hence the word, religious order.

Does that help? It’s complicated for those of us who live in large international communities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
For example, take a Dominican celebrating the EF, he is bound to celebrate the holy days of the Dominican calendar, even if he’s celebrating the EF.
A Dominican would not be offering the EF (Missale Romanum) per-se, but rather the Dominican Rite (Missale O.P). Yes, he would be using the Dominican calendar, but according to the traditional Dominican Rite.
 
Our Franciscan calendar is not the same as it was in 1962. If we begin to follow the old Franciscan calendar and the new one at the same time, then we are not praying together. It has to be either or.

Makes sense to me, but I wonder how a layman like myself should proceed, especially since I’m fairly new to this. Recently I came upon a website ( breviary.net/ ) that has each Hour completely pre-arranged, in an ongoing way, according to feast days, etc. On the home page is written: “Restored by the Sacred Council of Trent, published by order of the Supreme Pontiff Saint Pius V, and carefully revised by other Popes, reformed by order of Pope Saint Pius X.” This seemed a bit suspicious. Was it SSPX? But I used the site for a couple of weeks, till I found ( lzkiss.net/cgi-bin/horas/brevi.pl# ), and have stayed with that one. If I’m on the right track, today is the feast of Christ the King, with commemoration of the 21st Sunday after Pentecost.

~ Frank

.
 
Religioius orders cannot change the rules written by their founders. Those rules are set in stone. They have been promulgated by the pope at the time. According to canon law, all religious who belong to an order, must follow the rule of their order. In the rules of every religious order their is a specific chapter on the liturgical life of the order. In that chapter the founders dictate that the brotherhood (even if they have priests) must maintain a unified liturgical life. When the liturgical calendars were revised, the orders adapted themselves to that calendar. Everything was fine, because there was one liturgical calendar.
This is true to a point but not for all religious orders.

Again, we Carmelites are a bit different.

If you look at our Rule, it is very short. The only part that you could call being about liturgical life states that we must pray the Liturgy of the Hours and are to have a common Mass when able to.

We are governed by our Constitutions which can change, The Prior General (head of the worldwide Order) and the Prior Provincials (head of the provinces of the Order) are able to dispense from parts of it as spelled out in the Constitutions. Every three years a province meets in Chapter to elect new leadership and may modify the local parts of the Constitutions, every 6 years there is a General Chapter which meets to elect new worldwide leadership and may vote on changes to the whole Constitutions.
 
This is true to a point but not for all religious orders.

Again, we Carmelites are a bit different.

If you look at our Rule, it is very short. The only part that you could call being about liturgical life states that we must pray the Liturgy of the Hours and are to have a common Mass when able to.

We are governed by our Constitutions which can change, The Prior General (head of the worldwide Order) and the Prior Provincials (head of the provinces of the Order) are able to dispense from parts of it as spelled out in the Constitutions. Every three years a province meets in Chapter to elect new leadership and may modify the local parts of the Constitutions, every 6 years there is a General Chapter which meets to elect new worldwide leadership and may vote on changes to the whole Constitutions.
You’re saying something similar to what I’m saying. The Chapter adapts to the liturgical calendar. But the Chapter does not change the rule itself. In the Carmelite case, the rule says that you must pray the Liturgy of the Hours, I presume it means as a community. In that case, when the calendar changes, the constitutions allow for the community to adapt to the calendar. But they do not dispense from the LOTH.

In the case of the Benedictine and Franciscan families, where the rule is a little more detailed, the rules are very specific that every brother must pray the LOTH in union with the religious family. This is all fine until you introduce two calendar, as is the current problem with the EF and OF. In the Benedictine and Franciscan families, the rule does not allow for one house to follow one calendar and another to follow the other. The Chapter must choose one calendar for the entire order, it has that power. But it does not have the power to split the order into those who follow the EF and those who follow the OF.

This creates a situation that has to be addressed. Since religious orders, by and large, all follow the OF calendar, with their own, then the EF introduces another complication. What happens is that friars and monks are asking, “Am I praying with the Order if I’m celebrating the feast of Christ the King when everyone else is celebrating ordinary time?” This gets thorny for religious superiors who cannot dispense an entire house from the “common” observance of the liturgical calendar.

Does this make sense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top