English rubrics for monastic breviary?

[Seumas]

Hi,

I am in the market for a breviary, and I would rather have the Monastic Breviary, however, I am not proficient enough in Latin to get by with all Latin rubrics.

For the Breviarium Romanum, there is “Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal, (according to the 1962 edition),” put out by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, by Caietanus Cardinal Cicognani, and translated by Leonard J. Doyle.

Is there anything similar for the Breviarium Monasticum of the early 60’s?

Thank you.

In Christ,
James

 

[The_Fool]

Uh, I found this:

The Monastic Diurnal andrewespress.com/md.html

THIS book is an English translation of the Day Hours from the Breviarium Monasticum published at Bruges in 1925 after extensive revision and restoration by its Benedictine editors.

and

We offer a high quality, exact reprint of the 1963 Oxford University Press edition, including all texts necessary for the daily recitation of the traditional Benedictine Hours of Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline

But it looks like it’s just the Day Hours, but hopefully it helps.

 

[Cluny]

Lancelot Andrewes press also published Matins in a separate volume.

 

[Monachus]

the Monastic Diurnal by St Michael’s Abbey Press www.theabbeyshop.com is the day hours in Latin English parallel. The rubrics are pretty clear, but if there is a problem you can email the monks and they’ll tell you what you should be doing.

 

[Seumas]

Thanks for the replies.

The Diurnal and the separate Matins volume from Andrewes Press are both in English only. I want to pray the office in Latin. But I would like to have at least the rubrics in English, since my Latin is not yet proficient enough to follow the Latin rubrics.

It would be preferable to have the whole office in Latin and English, but who knows when Baronius is ever going to publish theirs. I need a breviary very soon. Besides, I am worried about a couple things. The English they use is horrible, and I expect their price will end up being quite a bit more than what I can get an all Latin breviary for, and will likely be beyond my price limit.

Of course the Collegeville Latin/English edition is out of the question, because of the Pius XII psalter.

The Latin/English Diurnal by Abbey Press is an excellent volume and at a very good price. However, since I will likely soon be entering into life as a hermit (which is why I need a breviary soon), I need the full office. I looked for a Latin/English Matins volume to go with the Abbey Press Diurnal, but I don’t think one exists, unfortunately. Perhaps Abbey Press will publish one some day, but that doesn’t help me now.

I really don’t think an equivalent to “Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal” for the Monastic Office exists, either, but I thought I would ask just in case I am missing something.

So, that’s my situation. I may have to use the Roman Breviary. Not that I have anything against the Roman Breviary, it’s just that as a religious I would have preferred the Monastic.

Thanks again,
James

 

[Cluny]

It would be preferable to have the whole office in Latin and English, but who knows when Baronius is ever going to publish theirs. I need a breviary very soon. Besides, I am worried about a couple things. The English they use is horrible, and I expect their price will end up being quite a bit more than what I can get an all Latin breviary for, and will likely be beyond my price limit.

Of course the Collegeville Latin/English edition is out of the question, because of the Pius XII psalter.

Ummmm… what do you think Baronius is reprinting?

It’s that nasty ole Colleville Latin/English edition.

FWIW, the psalter of the Roman Breviary has NEVER been the Vulgate Psalter. Did you know that?

 

[Seumas]

Ummmm… what do you think Baronius is reprinting?

It’s that nasty ole Colleville Latin/English edition.

Indeed. However, Baronius is replacing the Pius XII Psalter with the Vulgate Psalter.

FWIW, the psalter of the Roman Breviary has NEVER been the Vulgate Psalter. Did you know that?

Sure it has. Before Pius XII’s nasty ol’ Psalter the Vulgate Psalter was standard for the Roman Breviary.

The 2 volume 1961 Breviarium Romanum printed by Dessain also used the Vulgate Psalter, I believe.

There was also a 1961 published by Mame using the Vulgate.

Also, the new edition of the Roman Breviary published by Nova et Vetera, uses the Vulgate Psalter, as did the 1995 and 2007 edition of the FSSP, which were reprints of the 1961 Dessain version.

But perhaps you mean that Jerome’s original Vulgate Psalter–which some people didn’t like and so it was soon after replaced by the Gallican Psalter he had edited earlier–has never been used in the Roman Breviary? As far as I know, that is correct. But that would apply to the Monastic Breviary and most other breviaries also, I believe, and not only the Roman.

In Christ,
James

P.S. My criticism of the Pius XII Psalter should in no way be construed as an attack on papa Pius XII himself. Everyone, after all, makes mistakes, even saints.

 

[Cluny]

Sure it has. Before Pius XII’s nasty ol’ Psalter the Vulgate Psalter was standard for the Roman Breviary. <<

Actually, the issue of the Psalter in Western office books is rather complex, and not as simple as “Pius XII vs. Vulgate Psalter”.

You can find a more detailed description at this site:

kellerbook.com/

 

[Mark_Forster]

I think you changed the subject there, Cluny. You said “the psalter of the Roman Breviary has NEVER been the Vulgate Psalter”, and now you’re talking about Western office books which is quite a different matter.

In fact the Vulgate has ALWAYS been the psalter of the Roman Breviary, and the source of the Scriptural lessons too. This was true even before imposition of the revised Roman Breviary by Pius V in 1568.

In 1602 (quoting date from memory) the new Clementine edition of the Vulgate took the place of the existing Vulgate text of the Roman Breviary. The Clementine Vulgate remained the text for the Breviary even as late as the First Edition of the Liturgy of the Hours (the Second Edition uses the Nova Vulgata).

Pope Pius XII’s psalter was never made compulsory. It was always seen as an alternative to the Vulgate, rather than a replacement.

However you are right in saying that other Western Offices frequently used other Latin versions, particularly of the Psalms. And oddly enough, St Peter’s Rome itself used an earlier Jerome revision of the Psalms.

 

[voltape]

I think you changed the subject there, Cluny. You said “the psalter of the Roman Breviary has NEVER been the Vulgate Psalter”, and now you’re talking about Western office books which is quite a different matter.

In fact the Vulgate has ALWAYS been the psalter of the Roman Breviary, and the source of the Scriptural lessons too. This was true even before imposition of the revised Roman Breviary by Pius V in 1568.

In 1602 (quoting date from memory) the new Clementine edition of the Vulgate took the place of the existing Vulgate text of the Roman Breviary. The Clementine Vulgate remained the text for the Breviary even as late as the First Edition of the Liturgy of the Hours (the Second Edition uses the Nova Vulgata).

Pope Pius XII’s psalter was never made compulsory. It was always seen as an alternative to the Vulgate, rather than a replacement.

However you are right in saying that other Western Offices frequently used other Latin versions, particularly of the Psalms. And oddly enough, St Peter’s Rome itself used an earlier Jerome revision of the Psalms.

Well, Pius XII’s psalter appeared in 1945 and was widely acclaimed in all the world. I have plenty of literature in such connection. I am 75 so I was 10 in 1945. When I was 25 I got my first breviary and of course it had the Pius XII psalter. Every priest or monk I met used Pius XII. Even the canons of the Cathedral of Lima, Peru. So after so many decades I just cannot get used to Gallican or to New Vulgate. Whenever I read the Gallican I find it unintelligible and in many passages - excuse me - plainly clumsy. “In Deo laudabo sermones meos” ( why “my words”!) - “rex virtutum dilexi dilexi…” (why 2 dilexis’?) and an awful number of mistranslations. And poor Latin. A priest told me once: God deserves the best. The best Latin is the Golden Classic Latin. Pius XII closely followed it. Let’s use it, not the Latin of the decadence of the Gallican!

 

[rosary_kat]

However, since I will likely soon be entering into life as a hermit (which is why I need a breviary soon)

This interests me far more than the OP. :getholy: