Liturgy of the Hours - Sunday Antiphons

[peregrinus_sg]

Only if they are used in community AFAIK. I plan to use them myself.

Hmm… my understanding is that if we wish to pray the Divine Office as the liturgical prayer of the Church, then we are bound to use a version that is officially approved by the Church.

The liturgical prayer of the Church is never private prayer; we are always praying in the community of Christ’s mystical Body.

But as a private devotion, then a laity is free to do whatever he wants with elements of the Office.

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

I didn’t even think of that! You’ve just saved me $150! I was looking at getting a new set of the LotH, but if I’d moved on that right now, then my version would be obsolete in a couple of years and I’d have to re-buy.

I’m going to wait for the new missal. It looks like the NCCB estimates it being sent off to Rome for recognitio in 2010. That’s not too far away. I wonder how long it will take Catholic Book Publishing Company to update their books.

I’ll just stick with what I have for now. I’m so glad I asked.

Windmill
Not to be pessimistic…
But I would suggest you go and invest in the LotH.

The Roman Missal, which concerns itself with the Mass, is due in 2010. That’s a full year away.

The last I checked (around last year), it seemed the Liturgy of the Hours was to follow that (which will take a few years).

So, you’ll probably get a good use out of the LotH set for some years.

 

[The_Prodigal]

Hmm… my understanding is that if we wish to pray the Divine Office as the liturgical prayer of the Church, then we are bound to use a version that is officially approved by the Church.

I’m willing to concede the point. In what document or teaching are the faithful instructed that they are bound to use an approved version in every case including when reciting the LOTH alone?

Don’t:

The liturgical prayer of the Church is never private prayer; we are always praying in the community of Christ’s mystical Body.

and

But as a private devotion, then a laity is free to do whatever he wants with elements of the Office.

contradict each other? Which is correct?

Or are you suggesting that, for example, using an unapproved translation simply makes recitation a “private devotion” and that “private devotion” is entirely mutually exclusive of “liturgical prayer”? What in church teaching is the basis for that distinction?

 

[The_Prodigal]

Hmm… my understanding is that if we wish to pray the Divine Office as the liturgical prayer of the Church, then we are bound to use a version that is officially approved by the Church.

The liturgical prayer of the Church is never private prayer; we are always praying in the community of Christ’s mystical Body.

It is an odd thing for me to consider that, in attempting to bring my recitation of the office closer to the standard (the most current typical edition) simply by adding the new antiphons in my own translation, I would thereby be changing from “liturgical prayer” to “private prayer.”

 

[Evan]

It seems a solution to the problem of ‘out of date translation’ and ‘desire to use the last promulgated antiphons’ is to learn Latin, and say your prayers in Latin w/o translation.

One of the posters recommended the antiphon in Latin and the psalm in English. Would that not solve both problems? Or would it be necessary to use either English(in translation) or Latin for the entire office?

 

[tee_eff_em]

One of the posters recommended the antiphon in Latin and the psalm in English. Would that not solve both problems? Or would it be necessary to use either English(in translation) or Latin for the entire office?

I cannot say for sure, but I cannot see anything wrong with mixing languages. By analogy: I frequently attend Masses which mix English with Latin or English with Spanish.

And, though I did not (I think?) suggest it, this is often my (private) practice. I own a single volume of *Liturgia Horarum *which I use from Lent through the Easter Season. During other times of the year, I will often use the Psalter/Ordinary from *Lauds and Vespers *and the English Propers from Christian Prayer.

:twocents:
tee

 

[The_Prodigal]

It seems a solution to the problem of ‘out of date translation’ and ‘desire to use the last promulgated antiphons’ is to learn Latin, and say your prayers in Latin w/o translation.

I do know Latin but I don’t have the Latin edition and don’t plan to puchase it. I consider it very expensive.

One of the posters recommended the antiphon in Latin and the psalm in English.

That was my suggestion.

Would that not solve both problems? Or would it be necessary to use either English(in translation) or Latin for the entire office?

I cannot say for sure, but I cannot see anything wrong with mixing languages. By analogy: I frequently attend Masses which mix English with Latin or English with Spanish.

Yes and there were several languages used at the Mass celebrated last week by the pope in Jerusalem, at least Latin, English, French, Arabic, German, Hebrew, Spanish, and Italian if memory serves.

The problem may be - and you are of course aware of this in that you pray the Office - that structurally, the canticle and its antiphon form an integral unit. Usually when languages are mixed at Mass, the entire Rite or prayer is intoned throughout in a single language, each unit in its own language.

 

[The_Prodigal]

Hmm… my understanding is that if we wish to pray the Divine Office as the liturgical prayer of the Church, then we are bound to use a version that is officially approved by the Church.

The liturgical prayer of the Church is never private prayer; we are always praying in the community of Christ’s mystical Body.

But as a private devotion, then a laity is free to do whatever he wants with elements of the Office.

By this logic, if when reciting the Pslams one concluded with the more common version of the doxology (“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be”) then one would no longer be participating in liturgical prayer.

The deacon at our church also quite frequently ad libs the introduction to the Lord’s prayer. Does our evening prayer thereby become merely private devotion, then?

 

[Evan]

The deacon at our church also quite frequently ad libs the introduction to the Lord’s prayer. Does our evening prayer thereby become merely private devotion, then?

According to the GILH (the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours)

1. Henceforth, therefore, the Lord’s Prayer will be said with solemnity on three occasions during the day: at Mass, at morning prayer, and at evening prayer.
2. The Lord’s Prayer is said by all after a brief introduction, if this seems opportune.

which leaves the form of the introduction to the Deacon.

 

[Evan]

Here is the specific Chapter section on the Antiphons. It seems there is a bit of variety allowed. This would imply to me that variation of langauge within a psalm could be allowed.

Chapter III-II. Antiphons and Other Aids to Praying the Psalms
110. In the Latin tradition of psalmody three elements have greatly contributed to an understanding of the psalms and their use as Christian prayer: the captions, the psalm-prayers, and in particular the antiphons.
111. In the psalter of The Liturgy of the Hours a caption is given for each psalm to explain its meaning and its import for the personal life of the believer. These captions are intended only as an aid to prayer. A quotation from the New Testament or the Fathers of the Church is added to foster prayer in the light of Christ’s new revelation; it is an invitation to pray the psalms in their Christological meaning.
112. Psalm-prayers for each psalm are given in the supplement to The Liturgy of the Hours as an aid to understanding them in a predominantly Christian way. An ancient tradition provides a model for their use: after the psalm a period of silence is observed, then the prayer gives a resume and resolution of the thoughts and aspirations of those praying the psalms.
113. Even when the liturgy of the hours is recited, not sung, each psalm retains its own antiphon, which is also to be said in private recitation. The antiphons help to bring out the literary genre of the psalm; they highlight some theme that may otherwise not attract the attention it deserves; they suggest an individual tone in a psalm, varying with different contexts: indeed, as long as farfetched accommodated senses are avoided, antiphons are of great value in helping toward an understanding of the typological meaning or the meaning appropriate to the feast; they can also add pleasure and variety to the recitation of the psalms.
114. The antiphons in the psalter have been designed to lend themselves to vernacular translation and to repetition after each strophe, in accordance with no. 125. When the office of Ordinary Time is recited, not sung, the quotations printed with the psalms may be used in place of these antiphons (see no. 111).
115. When a psalm may be divided because of its length into several sections within one and the same hour, an antiphon is given for each section. This is to provide variety, especially when the hour is sung, and also to help toward a better understanding of the riches of the psalm. Still, it is permissible to say or sing the complete psalm without interruption, using only the first antiphon.
116. Proper antiphons are given for each of the psalms of morning prayer and evening prayer during the Easter triduum, on the days within the octaves of Easter and Christmas, on the Sundays of the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter, on the weekdays of Holy Week and the Easter season, and from the 17th to the 24th of December.
117. On solemnities proper antiphons are given for the office of readings, morning prayer, the daytime hours, and evening prayer; if not, the antiphons are taken from the common. On feasts the same applies to the office of readings and to morning prayer and evening prayer.
118. Any memorials of the saints that have proper antiphons retain them (see no. 235).
119. The antiphons for the Canticles of Zechariah and of Mary are taken, during Ordinary Time, from the Proper of Seasons, if they are given there; if not, they are taken from the current week and day of the psalter. On solemnities and feasts they are taken from the proper if they are given there; if not, they are taken from the common. On memorials without proper antiphons the antiphon may be taken at will either from the common or from the current week.
120. During the Easter season Alleluia is added to all antiphons, unless it would clash with the meaning of a particular antiphon.

 

[The_Prodigal]

“Quote:
195. Henceforth, therefore, the Lord’s Prayer will be said with solemnity on three occasions during the day: at Mass, at morning prayer, and at evening prayer.
196. The Lord’s Prayer is said by all after a brief introduction, if this seems opportune.”

which leaves the form of the introduction to the Deacon.

I don’t see how paragraph 196 leaves the form at the deacon’s discretion. The word “opportune” suggests to meonly that the introduction may or may not be said.

My edition of Christian Prayer, p. 697, lists a set of “invitations.”

Now that I think of it, though, he may be choosing from among that set from memory. Since there are a dozen alternatives, it just may have seemed to me that he was speaking extemporaneously.

 

[Evan]

I don’t see how paragraph 196 leaves the form at the deacon’s discretion. The word “opportune” suggests to meonly that the introduction may or may not be said.

My edition of Christian Prayer, p. 697, lists a set of “invitations.”

Now that I think of it, though, he may be choosing from among that set from memory. Since there are a dozen alternatives, it just may have seemed to me that he was speaking extemporaneously.

I agree, he may be limited to the list given in CP. But there may be a more extensive list given in the sacramentory (since these are also used at mass). If so, I think he can draw from that list also. There may be options on particular feasts. In any case, the list in CP seems to give sufficient flexibility that addtional form need to be improvised.

 

[The_Prodigal]

The more I ponder this subject, the more I wonder whether we are (or maybe I am) being overly fussy in insisting on an either/or distinction between “private devotion” and “liturgical prayer.” I don’t think we find that distinction in the teaching of the Church.

There’s no doubt in my mind that liturgy should and does have a place of privilege. Certainly the norms ought to be followed in communal prayer.

I just get the feeling that the term “private devotion” is used by some either to derogate private use or to give too much license to deviate from the norms.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I think when unapproved versions intrude into liturgical celebrations, most will consider it a liturgical abuse. Thus, priests who reject the approved collects of Mass and ad-lib their own versions is carrying out a liturgical abuse.

Those who are bound to the recitation of the Office according to the Roman form, but who choose to use unauthorised translations in fulfilling their obligations commit a liturgical abuse.

Admittedly, since most laity are not bound to say the Office, what is it when he uses unauthorised translations? My personal opinion is that it would be better to consider it an exercise in private devotion than a liturgical abuse. The former is piety, the latter is disobedience.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I’m willing to concede the point. In what document or teaching are the faithful instructed that they are bound to use an approved version in every case including when reciting the LOTH alone?

Can. 834 §1 The Church carries out its office of sanctifying in a special way in the sacred liturgy, which is an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy, by the use of signs perceptible to the senses, our sanctification is symbolised and, in a manner appropriate to each sign, is brought about. Through the liturgy a complete public worship is offered to God by the head and members of the mystical body of Christ.

§2 This worship takes place when it is offered in the name of the Church, by persons lawfully deputed and through actions approved by ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 837 §1 Liturgical actions are not private but are celebrations of the Church itself as the ‘sacrament of unity’, that is, the holy people united and ordered under the Bishops.

Can. 838 §1 The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

§2 It is the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed.

§3 It pertains to Episcopal Conferences to prepare vernacular translations of liturgical books, with appropriate adaptations as allowed by the books themselves and, with the prior review of the Holy See, to publish these translations.

My reading of these texts suggest that liturgical actions must follow whatever is approved by the ecclesiastical authority, i.e. the Apostolic See and, to the extent granted under the law, the Episcopal Conferences. Since clergy and laity take part in the one celebration of the liturgy, laity who intend to join in the Church’s liturgical prayer in the Divine Office are bound to follow approved liturgical books, whether in Latin, or in a vernacular translation.

The liturgical prayer of the Church is by its very nature public prayer, even in individual recitation.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Windmill
Not to be pessimistic…
But I would suggest you go and invest in the LotH.

The Roman Missal, which concerns itself with the Mass, is due in 2010. That’s a full year away.

The last I checked (around last year), it seemed the Liturgy of the Hours was to follow that (which will take a few years).

So, you’ll probably get a good use out of the LotH set for some years.

I read from somewhere that Rome is apparently considering producing a new typical edition of the Liturgy of the Hours; hence, ICEL decided not to proceed with translating the Liturgy of the Hours for now. Does anyone know if what I’ve read is correct?

 

[drforjc]

Rumblings to that effect, but not sure if I heard them here or elsewhere and I recall few details.
I wonder how long such and undertaking would take?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Rumblings to that effect, but not sure if I heard them here or elsewhere and I recall few details.
I wonder how long such and undertaking would take?

I would hope: not tooooo long, considering how much the hours have in common with the Missal. Plus the psalter and scripture can be (and were previously) taken from existing translations (though I suppose that they could be given a going-over a la the Lectionary).

tee