Divine office

[henrikhank]

Ave Maria!
How does the Novus Ordo Divine Office differ fom the Tridentine Version?

 

[HerrZJA]

I’m not sure, but the chief difference is that it’s all in the vernacular, as I can tell.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in both versions, for example, there is, in the morning office, A psalm, then a canticle, then a psalm, each with a prayer afterward, and then the readings, the responsory, the intercessions, the lord’s prayer, and the conclusion, correct?

 

[OraLabora]

There is no “Tridentine” version. The licit pre-Vatican II today versions include the 1910 version of Pius X, and the 1500 y.o. Benedictine version. The Carthusians also have their own I believe. The 1962 Brevarium Romanum includes minor changes to the 1910 version, mainly the calendar and the way certain antiphons are chanted.

The main difference between the current version and the pre-Vatican II is that currently the psalter is on a 4-week cycle instead of one week, the office of prime has been abolished, and Matins has become the Office of Readings which can be recited at any time. In the past many clergy said anticipated Matins the previous evening. Also the minor hours can be combined into one mid-day office.

That applies to the Roman (secular) office. The various monastic Offices share prayers and structure with the Roman office, but psalmody is on a 1 or two week cycle, including the 1500 y.o. Benedictine schema.

 

[henrikhank]

divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl

 

[OraLabora]

That is the 1962 pre-Vatican II Divine Office but it cannot be called Tridentine as it is not the same as the Office at the time of Trent. It follows the reforms of Pius X of 1910.

 

[agnes_therese]

That is the 1962 pre-Vatican II Divine Office but it cannot be called Tridentine as it is not the same as the Office at the time of Trent. It follows the reforms of Pius X of 1910.

And just to be clear, the current version is not the “Novus Ordo Divine Office” – it’s the Liturgy of the Hours.

 

[OraLabora]

And just to be clear, the current version is not the “Novus Ordo Divine Office” – it’s the Liturgy of the Hours.

 

[Windmill]

Having prayed both, I can tell you they are very different. First, a person required to pray the Office must pray the 1962 Office in Latin. The New Office can be prayed in Latin or the vernacular. Most priests opt to use the vernacular.

As far as structure, it would be hard to communicate the differences, but they are substantial. The 1962 Office is a lot more work. Matins can have up to 9 Psalms and 3 readings. Then you have Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline…all of which are supposed to be prayed (the New Office allows you to pray only one of the Day Hours, and the Office of Prime is suppressed). This is to meet the goal of praying all 150 Psalms in a week…theoretically (depending on which saint’s feasts fall in the week, you may miss some Psalms). So, you are looking at more time to pray the 1962 Office. The Intercessions are absent in the 1962 Office, and 3/4 of the Collects (final prayer at Lauds and Vespers) in the 1962 Office were truncated or completely eliminated in the New Office. Too bad, since they were very beautiful.

In the New Office, 3 of the 150 Psalms and some portions of other Psalms were removed because of their negative tone. These “imprecatory Psalms” were deemed to be too brash for the average Christian’s prayer life. I’m not sure why they did this because these Psalms have been a part of Jewish and Christian prayer life for millenia.

In the 1962 Office, you had Latin hymns from the timeless treasury of the Church. In the Latin Liturgy of the Hours, many of these are retained, revived from previous uses, or slightly modified. In the Vernacular Liturgy of the Hours, you have many Protestant hymns.

Finally, the ordering of feasts is more complicated in the 1962 Office. Classes of feasts varied in many degrees, and you had Rogations Days with certain penances attached to them.

I hope that helps a little. The best way to see the difference is to actually pray the 1962 Office. The link above is the one I use.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes there are many differences. The current monastic office though is even longer than the 1962 office: 12 psalms at matins and 255 psalms per week.

Neither are particularly well-suited to lay participation by a busy working person. Nor to an over-extended diocesan priest. Hence the Liturgy of the Hours.

It’s far from perfect, but its perfectly licit.

I myself use a modern monastic office, 150 psalms per week without leaving out imprecatory psalms. Most of the Latin hymns have been preserved and many reverted back to ancient forms.

If you analyze the current LOTH you’ll also see that the basic outline (except hymn placement) is the same and many traditions have been preserved or allowed optionally:

Gradual psalms at minor hours
Ps 4, 90 and 133 at compline every night
Office of readings used as vigils
Traditional lauds and vespers psalms
Etc.

 

[mrose1]

I’m not sure, but the chief difference is that it’s all in the vernacular, as I can tell.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in both versions, for example, there is, in the morning office, A psalm, then a canticle, then a psalm, each with a prayer afterward, and then the readings, the responsory, the intercessions, the lord’s prayer, and the conclusion, correct?

Actually, though there are officially approved translations for the Liturgy of the Hours, the law of the Church is that they are to be recited in Latin; the Ordinary (i.e. local Bishop) has the right to dispense of this obligation to Latin and permit clerics to recite the office in the vernacular. Obviously in this case, the exception has become the norm.

Here is the reference, from Sacrosanctum Concilium, Ch IV, 2, 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.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually, though there are officially approved translations for the Liturgy of the Hours, the law of the Church is that they are to be recited in Latin; the Ordinary (i.e. local Bishop) has the right to dispense of this obligation to Latin and permit clerics to recite the office in the vernacular. Obviously in this case, the exception has become the norm.

Here is the reference, from Sacrosanctum Concilium, Ch IV, 2, 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.”

This is for the diocesan clergy.

Religious clergy will follow their own laws in this matter.