Divine Office or Liturgy of the Hours

[paul11b]

So I started saying the Liturgy of the Hours about a year ago out of the prayerbook called Shorter Christian Prayer. Then about eight months ago I started to learn more and more about my faith and the way things were done before the second Vatican counsel. Then about two months ago I found out that there was a different form of the Divine Office before Vatican II as well. I started to say the Divine office from the book published by angelus press, I kind of think of it as a pre-Vatican II version of Shorther Christian Prayer. Anyways for about the past week I’ve gone back to saying the modern version of the Divine Office because I found it hard to recite the older version of the Divine Office. I like all of the traditional things about the Church, I love TLM, I read pre-Vatican II catechisms, and I would say that I’m pretty traditional in my beliefs, but I like the newer Liturgy of the Hours because it is easier for me to understand. Which version of the Divine Office do you guys say, and does it matter which one I say? I also feel like there are more people out there praying the new Liturgy of the Hours so that I have more people praying with me when I offer up my own intentions during the Hours.

 

[Dorothy]

I use Shorter Christian Prayer (modern version), and the four-volume when I have time to say more of the hours.

It doesn’t matter which version you use…after all the point is being able to concentrate and focus on the Lord while you pray, so whichever version helps you better to do that you should use.

 

[OraLabora]

I use a modern monastic version that has the psalmody on a 1-week cycle (with two-week options), instead of 4 weeks. I am a Benedictine oblate and it happens to be the same psalter that my abbey uses.

Using a translated pre-Vatican II breviary is not liturgical as there is no official translation.

On the other hand all of the post-Vatican II versions, including the original (1500 y.o.) Benedictine schemas, have official vernacular translations and thus praying them in your own language is liturgical.

Sometimes though in particularly busy times in my life I will revert to the 4-week modern LOTH.

There are still many traditions that were kept in the modern LOTH regardless of what people say. It isn’t perfect, and there are some innovations that seem to work less well (like the NT canticle at Vespers), but it’s not as awful as some make it out to be and now there are sufficient books available to chant it, such as the Mundelein psalter in English, Les Heures Gregoriennes in Latin/French with Gregorian notation, and the Sunday and festive Vespers volume of the new Antiphonale Romanum.

Nobody needs to feel guilty praying the 4-week modern LOTH. The only reason I pray a 1-week monastic schema is to be in closer communion with my monastic community.

 

[genesius28]

I have both Christian Prayer (not the Shorter version) and the 4-volume set of the LotH. I like the Liturgy of the Hours because it’s easier to fit all the hours into my daily schedule, with the psalms spread out over four weeks. I also particularly like the Office of Readings. There are really only two things I don’t like about it:

I don’t care for the modern language, I like archaic English when I’m reading from scripture, as it helps shift my mindset out of the mundane – but that’s just a preference.

The second, and more important thing I don’t care for is that three psalms were completely removed from the psalter in the LotH, and several verses were removed from many other psalms. I understand why they were removed – they’re rather negative scriptures, calling for the destruction of our enemies, etc. – but to me, it just doesn’t seem like the complete Divine Office without all 150 psalms. Yes, some of the psalms may be uncomfortable to read; but I think the beauty of the psalter is that it takes us through the full range of human emotion, and allows us to confront even our darkest feelings in a safe and prayerful manner. Removing the negative psalms just doesn’t express the complete human experience, so I think that it’s a shame to avoid them.

Anyhow, lately I’ve been using a 2-volume pre-Vatican II breviary that was published by the Benedictine monks En Calcat in 1952, at the request of Rome, called the Office of Our Lady. The order had a particular Marian focus in their spirituality, but wanted something that had more variety than the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so they created this Office that includes the complete psalter on a 2-week cycle, as well as different readings from scripture and the Church Fathers for every day of the year. And the nice thing about it is that it’s a bilingual Latin/English edition. I still don’t care much for the English translation, and the length of each office makes it harder for me to pray throughout the day, but over all I really enjoy it.

 

[OraLabora]

The second, and more important thing I don’t care for is that three psalms were completely removed from the psalter in the LotH, and several verses were removed from many other psalms. I understand why they were removed – they’re rather negative scriptures, calling for the destruction of our enemies, etc. – but to me, it just doesn’t seem like the complete Divine Office without all 150 psalms. Yes, some of the psalms may be uncomfortable to read; but I think the beauty of the psalter is that it takes us through the full range of human emotion, and allows us to confront even our darkest feelings in a safe and prayerful manner. Removing the negative psalms just doesn’t express the complete human experience, so I think that it’s a shame to avoid them.

This bothers me too, but unfortunately it was the specific wish of the Holy Father, Paul VI that these psalms and verses be omitted.

Fortunately the Benedictine Office I use does not omit them, but it indicates them as optional in their proper location in the psalter; the same thing with the imprecatory verses, they’re either bracketed out or available as footnotes below the psalm.

If you use Les Heures Gregoriennes to chant the Office, the imprecatory verses are included but are bracketed so you can omit them if you desire. Unfortunately there’s no place in the psalm schema for the omitted psalms though.

 

[genesius28]

This bothers me too, but unfortunately it was the specific wish of the Holy Father, Paul VI that these psalms and verses be omitted.

Fortunately the Benedictine Office I use does not omit them, but it indicates them as optional in their proper location in the psalter; the same thing with the imprecatory verses, they’re either bracketed out or available as footnotes below the psalm.

If you use Les Heures Gregoriennes to chant the Office, the imprecatory verses are included but are bracketed so you can omit them if you desire. Unfortunately there’s no place in the psalm schema for the omitted psalms though.

Which Benedictine Office do you use? I’ve seen a few different ones online, but it’s hard to tell what the difference is between them without actually being able to look at them.

 

[OraLabora]

Which Benedictine Office do you use? I’ve seen a few different ones online, but it’s hard to tell what the difference is between them without actually being able to look at them.

Benedictine Schema “B”, the Notker Fueglister schema, all 150 psalms in a week (caveat: some psalms are doubles of the verses of other psalms, and these are omitted as the verses are prayed in other psalms; I think there are about 3).

 

[uni_embrace]

I am so glad for this thread. I have only just heard of Liturgy of the Hours and there is a table guide at the back of my Catholic Bible but find it hard to make sense of it. Can anyone explain the Breviary Cycle to me and how many variations there are on the LoH? Thanks for the suggested books and I will look into them but if anyone could explain the basics to me then that would be great.

 

[agnes_therese]

Which version of the Divine Office do you guys say, and does it matter which one I say? I also feel like there are more people out there praying the new Liturgy of the Hours so that I have more people praying with me when I offer up my own intentions during the Hours.

Unless you are required to pray a particular version – for example, because you belonged to a religious order – it doesn’t matter which one you pray. Pray whichever one brings you closer to God. You don’t even have to invest in the books, you can find both online.

 

[TrueLight]

I pray the Traditional Office.

I also have the Breviarium Meum app so I am able to have it on my iPhone.

 

[OraLabora]

I pray the Traditional Office.

I also have the Breviarium Meum app so I am able to have it on my iPhone.

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but this office isn’t really “traditional” in any sense that I understand the word. In a Church with traditions dating back 2000 years, an office that is barely over 100 years old can hardly be called “traditional”.

The Office in that link dates back to only the 1910 (extensive) reforms of Pius X. In fact when the current LOTH came into being, the Office you’re praying as “traditional” was only 60 years old. That’s less than a single lifetime and would make it one of the shortest-lived liturgies in the Church before it fell out of ordinary use.

Now the Benedictine Office comes close to being traditional, its basic layout goes back 1500 years. Moreover it is a fully licit rite, post-Vatican II, with only minor tinkering since Vatican II; same psalm schema, same antiphons, more or less, for a millennium and a half. Different calendar (more saints since then!), different collects and liturgical year, but the basics are all there, unbroken for 1500 years.

But then none of this really matters, what matters is which one feeds you spiritually and brings you closer to God. However I think one aspect one should not overlook in praying an Office, is the matter of communion with the larger Body of Christ, of which we are all members, which makes the praying of the Office one continuous non-stop prayer around the world. Praying an Office that is current, IMHO, brings one closer to achieving that unifying goal. And the best thing is one can do so with the Benedictine Office while still sticking to an ancient tradition, because important chunks of the Office will be concurrent with the LOTH, whereas the 1910 Office is completely out of synch with any current Office.

 

[TrueLight]

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but this office isn’t really “traditional” in any sense that I understand the word. In a Church with traditions dating back 2000 years, an office that is barely over 100 years old can hardly be called “traditional”.

The Office in that link dates back to only the 1910 (extensive) reforms of Pius X. In fact when the current LOTH came into being, the Office you’re praying as “traditional” was only 60 years old. That’s less than a single lifetime and would make it one of the shortest-lived liturgies in the Church before it fell out of ordinary use.

That link also has a Trident 1570 office as well.

I’m sure the Benedictine Office is wonderful, but when I see you posting about cycle A and cycle, B… well, it’s not exactly intuitive.

Give me one source with everything nicely laid out and I’d be praying that too.

 

[mommyof4]

My husband and I are learning to use the Mundelein Psalter.
%between%

 

[Te_Deum]

Have you considered the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

 

[CatholicFireman]

The Monastic Diurnal. I need to back to the Little Office of the BVM.

 

[OraLabora]

That link also has a Trident 1570 office as well.

I’m sure the Benedictine Office is wonderful, but when I see you posting about cycle A and cycle, B… well, it’s not exactly intuitive.

Give me one source with everything nicely laid out and I’d be praying that too.

If you use the 1570 office it would no longer be the Liturgy of the Hours. You would not be participating in the public liturgy of the Church but instead it would be a private devotion. Which is not in itself wrong, it’s just not liturgy.

As for finding a book with everything easily laid out…do you believe in miracles?

It’s worse pre-Vatican II due to the greater number of classes of feast. The 4-volume LOTH is the easiest IMHO. The problem with monastic offices is that they are usually chanted so you need psalters, hymnals, antiphonaries, etc. I do have a really well laid-out monastic breviary for our abbey’s office, only 2 volumes, but alas in French and no longer in print. The monks use it often for private recitation, it doesn’t have music.

 

[TrueLight]

If you use the 1570 office it would no longer be the Liturgy of the Hours. You would not be participating in the public liturgy of the Church but instead it would be a private devotion. Which is not in itself wrong, it’s just not liturgy.

Would it still be considered a Roman Breviary?

Edited: I think I see what you’re saying. Are you saying there have been many revisions since that time?

The 1960 version revised by Pope John XXIII is approved for Recitation as Liturgy of the Hours by traditional priests, right?

 

[OraLabora]

Would it still be considered a Roman Breviary?

Edited: I think I see what you’re saying. Are you saying there have been many revisions since that time?

The 1960 version revised by Pope John XXIII is approved for Recitation as Liturgy of the Hours by traditional priests, right?

The 1570 Office was the Divine Office of its time. “Breviary” is a book that contains the essential elements of the office organized in a manner suitable for recitation. So it is still a “Roman Breviary” but it no longer represents an Office in liturgical use.

The 1962 breviary can be used by clerics according to the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. It is based on the 1910 revisions of Pius X. Those revisions included a major revision of the psalter, including dividing longer psalms into sections. A good summary is here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_Roman_Breviary_by_Pope_Pius_X

 

[Windmill]

I started with the LOTH, then made my way through the whole spectrum of Offices. The Little Office (pre- and post-concilliar), the 1962 MOnastic Diurnal, the 1962 Roman Diurnal, the modern Liturgia Horarum (editio typica altera)…each had their strengths and weaknesses.

I’ve come full circle and settled on the LOTH. It corresponds with my OF Mass parish I go to, it’s nice to not have to be running to my Latin dictionary every so often, I can really meditate on the words instead of focusing on mentally translating from Latin, and I’m not always trapped in the Commons like I found I was happening in the 1962 Office (you oftentimes lose a sense of being in Lent, Advent, Easter, or Christmas because you are constantly celebrating saints’ feast days). Finally, it is shorter, so it’s more likely to get done in my busy day (full-time dental practice, 4 kids and a wife with all the activities that entails, etc…).

 

[OraLabora]

you oftentimes lose a sense of being in Lent, Advent, Easter, or Christmas because you are constantly celebrating saints’ feast days

That was one reason the reform of the calendar was needed. Too few normal weekdays and one not only loses the sense of time in the liturgical year, but feasts also begin to lose their meaning when there are so many of them. Something is special only when contrasted against something that is plain.

The 4-week LOTH is perfectly acceptable, I use it as well when my personal life overwhelms my ability to use the monastic Office that I do use. The monastic office I use though, is modern and uses the modern liturgical year and calendar (it uses the Benedictine calendar which is slightly different from the general Roman calendar).