EF Mass Preferers now demand "right" of all sacraments under "old form"

[OraLabora]

No point in continuing this…you have a clear agenda, which is entirely wrapped up in your preference for the Monastic Breviary…which is entirely your privilege.

You’re quite wrong. No agenda. I’m not that fond of the traditional Monastic Breviary. It’s too long, and too repetitious. But I recognize its role in tradition, and it’s unbroken use since the 6th Century surely gives it some weight as being “traditional” much more so than a 108 y.o. breviary. The Pius V Breviary gives more than a passing nod to the Monastic, as the psalmody is similar (though not identical) as is its length, around 250 psalms per week.

I don’t pray the traditional monastic Breviary, but the one the abbey I’m associated with as oblate prays, a post-Conciliar breviary (Monastic schema B FWIW), that does respect the 150 psalms in a week in the Rule. I’m not particularly fond of it either, as it does violence to several traditions, in particular the placement of the traditional Sunday psalms for Lauds and Vespers. But, it’s what my abbey uses, and I like to be joined in prayer with the monks. When I’m pressed for time, I use the LOTH, which even the monks use (licitly) when they travel or are engaged in external apostolates. In many ways the LOTH is more traditional than the 150 psalm psalter of my breviary, in particular with regards to the traditional placement of Sunday psalms for Lauds and Vespers, the fact that the major part of the Office of Readings is from the Monastic Breviary but spread out over a longer period, and that the psalm cursus for weeks 3 and 4 is largely from the Monastic Breviary. Like the Office of Pius X, the LOTH maintains some traditions, and breaks others (the most famous of Pius X was breaking up the three traditional “Laudate” psalms)

(cont’d)

 

[OraLabora]

This prescription is followed by the Roman Office until Liturgia Horarum of 1970, which innovated with a 4 week system and decided to cut 3 psalms and many verses of others.

The Roman Breviary has every Psalm, and a 1-week cycle.

You left out:

For those monastics show themselves too lazy
in the service to which they are vowed,
who chant less than the Psalter with the customary canticles
in the course of a week,
whereas we read that our holy Fathers
strenuously fulfilled that task in a single day.
May we, lukewarm that we are, perform it at least in a whole week!

So already Saint Benedict broke with a tradition in imposing a one-week rule on monks. Could it be then, that the tradition is not to say the psalter in a week, but to say the psalter over a given period of time? Saint Benedict “humanized” the Office for monks, so that they could live in community and carry out the necessary work of running a monastery, and also to accommodate their “lukewarmness”.

Could it be then that the tradition is to fit the Office to circumstances? Both Pius X and Paul VI seemed to think so. Pius X was the first to realize that the needs of secular clergy were different than those of religious living in community and saying the Office in choir, and he greatly simplified the psalter, by cutting out about 100 psalms from the Office (all repetitions of course).

Paul VI took that further and was probably quite aware that more and more priests were working alone in parishes and spread ever more thinly in their duties. Moreover I think he had a genuine desire to involve the laity more in the Office. For that, the LOTH was a gift from heaven.

Nowhere do I make the claim that it is “traditional” BTW, but I do make the claim that it respects many traditions such as noted above: the placement of the Sunday psalms for the major hours, the ability to repeat psalms 4, 90 and 133 every day at Compline to facilitate reciting from memory in the dark, a noble and ancient tradition (I have experienced it at a monastery in France, it was a deeply moving experience); the ability to use the Gradual Psalms at the minor hours and on solemnities, the traditional placement of the Gospel Canticles, and I can go on. In other ways though, it does break with tradition such as omitting psalms, and using a longer time frame.

However, the fact is that the older Roman Breviary rarely did all 150 psalms in a week, as the complex order of feasts meant that one spent nearly as much time in the festival psalter as the ferial psalter. So the “tradition” in that case, as the sanctoral became heavier, became far more theoretical than real.

So Saint Benedict was the first to “humanize” the Office to fit the circumstances, and in essence, Pius X and Paul VI followed in those footsteps to “humanize” the Office for secular clergy, and eventually, the laity as well.

 

[KMG]

The Vespers of the 1960 Breviary would be recognizable to someone from centuries before. Not so the Vespers from the Liturgia Horarum.

The “major part of the Office of Readings” is NOT from the Monastic Breviary. It was assembled by the Consilium in the late 1960s, and later adopted as one lectionary option in the new Monastic Breviary.

 

[Augustinian]

Also, for anyone who wants to use Benedict’s Rule on the Psalter to judge if an Office is “traditional”…there’s this quote from Benedict:

Most Catholics don’t know a lot about the breviary and divine office. Well informed Catholics will know that its a book that priests must pray from, but most won’t know the difference between different versions over the years. I don’t think this is that personally important for many Catholics, traditional or not so traditional.

 

[OraLabora]

The Vespers of the 1960 Breviary would be recognizable to someone from centuries before. Not so the Vespers from the Liturgia Horarum.

The “major part of the Office of Readings” is NOT from the Monastic Breviary. It was assembled by the Consilium in the late 1960s, and later adopted as one lectionary option in the new Monastic Breviary.

I was speaking of the psalmody of the Office of Readings, most of the psalms are the same as in the Monastic and are even arranged in a sort of semi-lectio continua like the Monastic.

I use, BTW, the two-year monastic lectionary. If you look in the LOTH, you’ll also see that it is a licit option for the LOTH and in fact the LOTH has tables in the index with all the references for the 2-year cycle.

As for Vespers, the psalms of Weeks III and IV are all the same as in the Monastic Breviary albeit on different days. The NT canticle of course is an “innovation” (one that I detest, they are too syncopated to chant well, and I chant the Office, in Latin for Lauds and Vespers; they should have put in a 3d psalm instead and made the cycle 2 weeks instead of 4, but they didn’t ask for my opinion, LOL!).

On the other weeks, not so much I agree with you there, and Vespers is too light on those days; on some days the mid-day Office has more psalmody! But on Sundays, Vespers would be recognizable to monastics on Weeks III and IV (ps. 109, 110, 111), and to users of the pre-Conciliar Roman Breviaries on Weeks I and II (ps 109, 113a, 113b)

 

[Fuerza]

Apparently for 1,000 years according to the accompanying message.

 

[commenter]

The main advantage to the Latin Mass is that the people that are in attendance at Latin Mass had to make a special decision to be there. The great mass of ordinary Catholics-who vary in the amount of piety and commitment- never darken the door of a TLM site.

A self selected group, committed to the rituals of the Latin Mass, is naturally going to be more reverent that the hoi polloi, the masses at the vernacular Masses.

If the Latin Mass was the only Mass available, it wouldn’t always be so reverent.

Sometimes “self selected groups” are a good thing. The OF Mass attenders are a “self selected group” today, when in the US only 25% of Catholics go to weekly Mass. “Sunday Mass Catholics” no longer are very representative of “the masses”. That does not mean Sunday Mass Catholics are unimportant to maintain.

Convents are a self selected group, the diaconate is a self selected group…

 

[Mi_Rose]

In a way the diaconate is a self selected group. Technically they are selected by the Bishop with advice from their formation team. In our diocese this means reports from their instructors and the interviews they go through every year conducted by members of a scrutiny committee.

 

[Augustinian]

Sometimes “self selected groups” are a good thing.

No doubt about that, I hope I didn’t give the impression that they weren’t. Just opining that if people think that reverting to all Latin is a cure for Catholic irreverence, I personally don’t think so.

 

[Augustinian]

In a way the diaconate is a self selected group. Technically they are selected by the Bishop with advice from their formation team.

Candidates for deacon are self selected. If someone doesn’t stand up and volunteer for the position, the bishop will never select them.

Although that’s a lot different than the Baptist Church. My ex neighbor who moved out last month, he borrowed a black necktie from me, he was made a deacon after joining and attending for just a few months. I think they have a whole corps of deacons.

 

[Mi_Rose]

Deacons are no more self selected than priests,in the Catholic Church that is. A man is called to the diaconate. He does not just volunteer. The Church does not teach that men volunteer for Holy Orders.

 

[commenter]

I attend the EF every week, so I guess that makes me an “EFMP”. I can tell you from personal experience that there are some OFers (not all but more than just a few) who seem to despise the TLM who make trying to share a Parish a rather miserable experience for all involved. Our community was recently told to leave the Parish we were sharing because of complaints from the rank and file OFers. They didn’t seem to recognize the TLM as another valid and acceptable form of the Roman Rite. Are there some TLM people who treat the OF the same way? Sure, but it’s a two way street. Why is all the onus on the TLM folks?

I hope your community finds a good new home. I occasionally attend the EF in my diocese, and I am leaning to attend it more. Our local EF group shares space with a OF parish, and I am sure is one of many, many groups with a standing request for FSSP or ICKSP to come in.

Our local group tends to create some of its own problems with the diocese. I wrote, but then deleted, some of the things they posted in anger on their website about trends in the Church in general. I share their frustration with the liberals who seem to control communications in the diocese and the Church worldwide, but that is the wrong way to go about improving things.

There are scoundrels around, and they will use this “extra baggage” as reason for limiting, or eliminating the EF - “See, this is what those extremists are like!”

I am finding there is a treasure here, but the human imperfections accompanying the EF are put under a magnifying glass. So be prudent.

 

[FrDavid96]

Deacons are no more self selected than priests,in the Catholic Church that is. A man is called to the diaconate. He does not just volunteer. The Church does not teach that men volunteer for Holy Orders.

Let’s not get too much into this.

Certainly priests and deacons “volunteer” for Holy Orders. Granted, there is a lot more involved before being finally ordained.

The point though is to make a contrast between people who voluntarily join a given group and those who simply find themselves in that situation by geography or necessity or some other non-voluntary means.

 

[edwest211]

Vatican II is the current scapegoat for the changes that occurred after Vatican II. That is fake. That is a lie. None of the changes were even suggested by Vatican II, and I’m not referring to the Liturgical reform. The anarchists and the Hippies began coming onto our neighborhoods after the end of the Council. Reject the Church. "Don’t trust anyone over 30! (goodbye mom and dad), cohabitate, have lots of sex and use illegal drugs. Marriage is no longer necessary. Former Christian? Let’s give you stacks of books about Eastern mysticism.

And the dissidents inside the Church began their assault.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

 

[FrDavid96]

Vatican II is the current scapegoat for the changes that occurred after Vatican II. That is fake. That is a lie. None of the changes were even suggested by Vatican II, and I’m not referring to the Liturgical reform. The anarchists and the Hippies began coming onto our neighborhoods after the end of the Council. Reject the Church. "Don’t trust anyone over 30! (goodbye mom and dad), cohabitate, have lots of sex and use illegal drugs. Marriage is no longer necessary. Former Christian? Let’s give you stacks of books about Eastern mysticism.

And the dissidents inside the Church began their assault.

Actually, all of that started before (not after) the Council. Much of it was already in motion before the Council even began.

 

[edwest211]

I have a booklet that was published during the period that explained the questions that were to be discussed/considered by the Council. Not much of anything was in motion before the Council began unless you count the Beats or Beatniks. Pope John XXIII announced the Council in 1959. The groups that led to major social damage were formed right after the Council ended. It was a well-planned, coordinated attack.

 

[whyeyeman]

Beauty is objective.

 

[commenter]

I have a booklet that was published during the period that explained the questions that were to be discussed/considered by the Council. Not much of anything was in motion before the Council began unless you count the Beats or Beatniks. Pope John XXIII announced the Council in 1959. The groups that led to major social damage were formed right after the Council ended. It was a well-planned, coordinated attack.

The people who wrote your booklet may not have been aware of movements that were going on already, or if they were aware, they did not know those movements or trends would affect the Council.
Even if the Council took on agendas that St. Pope John never anticipated that would not mean he would have been opposed to bringing them up, or make them invalid.

There was a great deal of research on the liturgy in the decades prior to the Council. This does not prove the Council doc on the Liturgy is “good” or “bad”, just a fact. It certainly does not justify all of the implementation afterwards.

Re: your term “major social damage”, the “groups” were already in place, they just got corrupted. The Catholic Theological Society of America existed. Fr. Charles Curran’s 1968 attack on Humanae Vitae was so well coordinated I am sure it was quietly being undermined even before 1960.

The LCWR, under a different name, was founded in 1956. There must have been sub groups, below the radar screen, hinting and caucusing before the Council.

Most of the damage originated or was spread by Catholic universities and seminaries. It was not quite “safe” to teach really outrageous things explicitly in 1959, but there were people who knew how far they could go, and they pushed the envelope a little farther each year. You can be sure they were meeting and networking.

After the Council, they used the transition period when people were implementing the REAL Council to push their agendas.

 

[Maximilian75]

Thats how they ban people - a thousand years of suspension.

 

[edwest211]

Of course, there were always dissenters in the Church. But my point is: things did not go at full power until after the Council. The Council being used to create confusion. Shortly before stepping down as Pope, Pope Benedict made a point of mentioning this twice. I’m referring to the period where the troops were formed and then attacked. This was between 1965 and 1968, followed by an increasing level of attacks till today.

Pope Paul VI got significant flak after Humanae Vitae was published in 1968. With the desired effect to cause confusion.