Is there a difference in the Liturgy of the Hours for the Pre and Post Conciliar Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xixxvmcm85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xixxvmcm85

Guest
Hi everybody.

I’m a relatively new Catholic (converted this past Easter) and have decided to learn how to pray the hours. I bought a breviary and have been slowly familiarizing myself with it, but I noticed that the calendar follows the minor changes made in the late 60’s. This wouldn’t be such a problem if I went to a Ordinary Form parish. I attend an Extraordinary Form ONLY parish, so, for example, the Feast of Christ the King is this upcoming Saturday, while the breviary lists it as the last Sunday in Ordinary Time.

The difference in calendars is no big deal but it did prompt a question: Are there any substantive differences between the Liturgy of the Hours pre-Vatican II and the Liturgy of the Hours post-Vatican II? Are the actual prayers, hymns, antiphons, etc different?

If so, where can I find a traditional breviary? I’ve been searching online with no luck so far.

Thanks.
 
There is only ONE Catholic Church…
xixxvmcm85 said:
Hi everybody.

I’m a relatively new Catholic (converted this past Easter) and have decided to learn how to pray the hours. I bought a breviary and have been slowly familiarizing myself with it, but I noticed that the calendar follows the minor changes made in the late 60’s. This wouldn’t be such a problem if I went to a Ordinary Form parish. I attend an Extraordinary Form ONLY parish, so, for example, the Feast of Christ the King is this upcoming Saturday, while the breviary lists it as the last Sunday in Ordinary Time.

The difference in calendars is no big deal but it did prompt a question: Are there any substantive differences between the Liturgy of the Hours pre-Vatican II and the Liturgy of the Hours post-Vatican II? Are the actual prayers, hymns, antiphons, etc different?

If so, where can I find a traditional breviary? I’ve been searching online with no luck so far.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
The difference in calendars is no big deal but it did prompt a question: Are there any substantive differences between the Liturgy of the Hours pre-Vatican II and the Liturgy of the Hours post-Vatican II? Are the actual prayers, hymns, antiphons, etc different?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a substantial difference. If you have any questions, I will answer them.

Also…

A few months ago, I started a Roman Breviary Group.

There are over 240 members and a daily ordo.

You can view group messages here: groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRomanBreviaryGroup/messages?o=1

God bless,

Breviarylover
 
YES, there are significant differences between the pre and post conciliar breviary, not only in the calendar but also in the form of the hours and the arrangement of psalms. Basically it’s like a two different rites, even though it’s technically just a different “form” of the Roman Rite. Currently, the Latin/English Breviaries are out of print, but Baronius Press is planning on releasing a new one in the upcoming months. Otherwise, you can find strictly Latin texts in hardback.
 
The chief differences are the modern Liturgy of the Hours is simpler to follow in structure and it has far more extensive readings and more diverse readings over the Traditional Breviary. Please note the Breviary is not the Liturgy of the Hours, it is the Breviary or partial reading of the actual Traditional Liturgy of the Hours. Vatican II encouraged the whole Church to a renewed observance of the Divine Office. The Post-Conciliar Liturgy of the Hours is a return to a fuller Divine Office.

It is my hope that this thread doesn’t degrade into criticism of the Liturgy of the Hours. It was, in a lot of ways a wonderful return to a more full observance of a Divine Office by the whole Church. Far more individuals pray the Divine Office today than ever did in the past when most Laity simply prayed the Angelus Prayer and the Rosary.
 
I was obligated, though not under pain of sin, to say the revised Office faithfully, for about five years before being persuaded that it was okay to assist at a Mass of the Society of St. Pius X. My misgivings about the revised Office were perhaps more of a motive to move toward the old liturgy than the revised Holy Mass itself.

In my opinion, the difference is significant. I’ll give just one example. The Psalter in the new Office deletes the verses that are usually called imprecatory, where the psalmist prays for God to destroy his enemies. The saddest part is that I get the impression from these passages, that those who pray the Psalms aren’t ordinarily fighting with people, but with spiritual enemies. It seemed like someone was in their ignorance, unnecessarily embarrased of around twenty-five or thirty verses of Psalms which promised us a reassurance that Satan would be squashed. The prayers which adorn the Office do not give me the impression that the authors seem to clearly recognize the spiritual conflict that exists between the children of God, and the world, the flesh, and the devil. This is my best guess for why they took it upon themselves to exclude verses of the Pslams which explicitly allude to this spiritual warfare.

Rory
 
Silverburg said:
There is only ONE Catholic Church…
Click to expand...
Ok. True (sort of - you could say that there are 22 Catholic Churches in communion with one another).

But, is there some reason you think xixxvmcm85 was suggesting otherwise?

James
 
Windmill said:
LOL!!! Haven’t they been saying that for 2 years now?
Click to expand...
It could be worse. The new Mass translation has been “a year of 2 away” for something like 8 years now. But, at least now it is only a year or 2 away…really…serious this time. 😃

And Baronius does seem to be making some progress.

James
 
RoryMcKenzie56 said:
I was obligated, though not under pain of sin, to say the revised Office faithfully, for about five years before being persuaded that it was okay to assist at a Mass of the Society of St. Pius X. My misgivings about the revised Office were perhaps more of a motive to move toward the old liturgy than the revised Holy Mass itself.

In my opinion, the difference is significant. I’ll give just one example. The Psalter in the new Office deletes the verses that are usually called imprecatory, where the psalmist prays for God to destroy his enemies. The saddest part is that I get the impression from these passages, that those who pray the Psalms aren’t ordinarily fighting with people, but with spiritual enemies. It seemed like someone was in their ignorance, unnecessarily embarrased of around twenty-five or thirty verses of Psalms which promised us a reassurance that Satan would be squashed. The prayers which adorn the Office do not give me the impression that the authors seem to clearly recognize the spiritual conflict that exists between the children of God, and the world, the flesh, and the devil. This is my best guess for why they took it upon themselves to exclude verses of the Pslams which explicitly allude to this spiritual warfare.

Rory
Click to expand...
You seem to be straining at gnats. Of all the things in the Church that have been subjected to silliness, the LOTH is one that has not.
 
The biggest difference with the Office is found in Vespers.

The old format had the invocation Deus in adjutorium, followed by an office hymn, then 5 antiphons and psalms which would remain constant for each Sunday and which would differ during the week depending on the feast/feria. You would then have a reading, sung short responsory, Antiphon and Magnificat, and final blessing/dismissal. The psalms for Sunday would normally only change for the major feasts which would be classed as a “double of the first class” such as Pentecost and Easter et al. In those cases there would be a “first vespers” sung the day before the feast, then a second vespers on the day of the fest itself. They would transplant any Office that would normally have been said on that day.

The new office is slightly different.

It opens the same way, but has 3 psalms. The first psalm for Sunday is usually Dixit Dominus, the second psalm changes on a 4 week cycle, the third psalm is called the Canticle of the Lamb and was not used in the old form of office (I think it was transplanted from a minor office) and is taken from the Apocolypse. The rest of Vespers then follows the same format of the older form of reading, responsory, antiphon and magnificat.

The newer form makes more use of seasonal antiphons than the old, and the weekly psalter moves on a 4 week cycle with major feasts taking the place of ferias at the appropriate times. There are still feasts that have first vespers and second, but there are fewer of them.

The problem a lot of places will have with singing the newer office in Latin is that there aren’t standard chant compositions for a lot of the antiphons and for the Canticle in the way there are for the older form in the Liber Usualis. A new vesperal from Solemnes has been promised for some time, but hasn’t been published as yet. Because of this, some parishes/basilicas continue to use the old form of Vespers which is perfectly permissable without indult or the need for SP to be invoked (the Brompton Oratory in London has continued to sing the older office for this very musical reason).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top