Liturgy of the hours

  • Thread starter Thread starter iwishmikey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

iwishmikey

Guest
With the changes in Mass, are there also changes in the Liturgy of the Hours (LOTH)?

Do I have to get a new 4 volume set of the LOTH:confused:
 
There will be changes eventually, yes, but probably not for a while (like ten years or so).
 
No. The Liturgy of the Hours will not be changing anytime soon.
 
Yes. The Liturgy of the Hours will “have” to change. Keep in mind that the “closing” prayer from the Hours is the same as the collect from that day’s Mass. If for no other reason, the books will have to be re-printed to reflect this change.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Yes. The Liturgy of the Hours will “have” to change. Keep in mind that the “closing” prayer from the Hours is the same as the collect from that day’s Mass. If for no other reason, the books will have to be re-printed to reflect this change.
Click to expand...
But will it not change more than that, to conform completely to Liturgiam authenticam?

And to that same effect, won’t the Caeremoniale, Pontificale and Rituale, eventually?
 
YoungTradCath said:
But will it not change more than that, to conform completely to Liturgiam authenticam?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Could you be more specific?
And to that same effect, won’t the Caeremoniale, Pontificale and Rituale, eventually?
Click to expand...
Yes. On a purely practical note, all these will have to be re-done. They all at least make some references to the Mass and to specific parts of the Mass. They might not need major revisions, but they do require some editing, and so they will have to be printed anew.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Could you be more specific?
Click to expand...
You pointed out in your previous post that since the Collect of the day’s mass is recited in the LOTH, that the LOTH will have to be reprinted to reflect the change in Collect translation. But since the LOTH was translated, as the other liturgical books, originally using the dynamic equivalence theory, doesn’t Liturgiam authenticam require a re-translation to follow the formal equivalence theory? Or does that document only apply to the missal and not to the other liturgical books?

I am confused because I don’t understand the applicability of Liturgiam authenticam. It would seem rather goofy if the missal would be the only liturgical book that is re-translated in a more formal manner, as the document commands, and leaving the others (Rituale, Caeremoniale, Pontificale, LOTH, the Graduales, Evangelarium, etc.) in their looser translations. For example, there could be glaring differences in, say, a confirmation mass. The mass itself proceeds with formal, elevated language of the new translation, and when the Rite of Confirmation comes around, the “old style” (current, loose) language is assumed.

I’m just asking, basically I guess, if Liturgiam authenticam applies only to the missal or to the other books, because if it only applies to the missal, then that seems a bit short-sighted on the part of the document.
 
YoungTradCath said:
You pointed out in your previous post that since the Collect of the day’s mass is recited in the LOTH, that the LOTH will have to be reprinted to reflect the change in Collect translation. But since the LOTH was translated, as the other liturgical books, originally using the dynamic equivalence theory, doesn’t Liturgiam authenticam require a re-translation to follow the formal equivalence theory? Or does that document only apply to the missal and not to the other liturgical books?

I am confused because I don’t understand the applicability of Liturgiam authenticam. It would seem rather goofy if the missal would be the only liturgical book that is re-translated in a more formal manner, as the document commands, and leaving the others (Rituale, Caeremoniale, Pontificale, LOTH, the Graduales, Evangelarium, etc.) in their looser translations. For example, there could be glaring differences in, say, a confirmation mass. The mass itself proceeds with formal, elevated language of the new translation, and when the Rite of Confirmation comes around, the “old style” (current, loose) language is assumed.

I’m just asking, basically I guess, if Liturgiam authenticam applies only to the missal or to the other books, because if it only applies to the missal, then that seems a bit short-sighted on the part of the document.
Click to expand...
The document itself answers the question in #8 …The norms contained in this Instruction are to be considered applicable to the translation of texts intended for liturgical use in the Roman Rite and, mutatis mutandis, in the other duly recognized Rites of the Latin Church.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

So, yes. Liturgiam Authentical applies to all liturgical texts, not just the Mass.

Whether or not the other texts of the Liturgy of the Hours “need” to be re-translated is something I’m simply not competent to answer.

I can say (objectively) that if text B quotes text A, then when text A changes, naturally text B will need to be revised to reflect that fact. So, the other liturgical books which quote the Mass, will need to be revised to reflect the fact that the Mass texts have changed. So, at least some minor editing is a given here.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The document itself answers the question in #8 …The norms contained in this Instruction are to be considered applicable to the translation of texts intended for liturgical use in the Roman Rite and, mutatis mutandis, in the other duly recognized Rites of the Latin Church.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

So, yes. Liturgiam Authentical applies to all liturgical texts, not just the Mass.

Whether or not the other texts of the Liturgy of the Hours “need” to be re-translated is something I’m simply not competent to answer.

I can say (objectively) that if text B quotes text A, then when text A changes, naturally text B will need to be revised to reflect that fact. So, the other liturgical books which quote the Mass, will need to be revised to reflect the fact that the Mass texts have changed. So, at least some minor editing is a given here.
Click to expand...
After scanning the document, I found:
  1. The norms of this Instruction, as regards all rights, refer to the editiones typicae that have been or will be published, whether of a whole book or of a part: namely, the editions of the Missale Romanum, the Ordo Missae, the Lectionary of the Missale Romanum, the Evangeliary of the Missale Romanum, the Missale parvum extracted from the Missale Romanum and Lectionarium, the Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, the Liturgia Horarum, the Rituale Romanum, the Pontificale Romanum, the Martyrologium Romanum, the Collectio Missarum de Beata Maria Virgine and its Lectionary, the Graduale Romanum, the Antiphonale Romanum, as well as the other books of Gregorian chant and the editions of the books of the Roman Rite promulgated by decree as editiones typicae, such as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum and the Calendarium Romanum.
So basically everything has to be re-translated.
 
YoungTradCath said:
After scanning the document, I found:
  1. The norms of this Instruction, as regards all rights, refer to the editiones typicae that have been or will be published, whether of a whole book or of a part: namely, the editions of the Missale Romanum, the Ordo Missae, the Lectionary of the Missale Romanum, the Evangeliary of the Missale Romanum, the Missale parvum extracted from the Missale Romanum and Lectionarium, the Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, the Liturgia Horarum, the Rituale Romanum, the Pontificale Romanum, the Martyrologium Romanum, the Collectio Missarum de Beata Maria Virgine and its Lectionary, the Graduale Romanum, the Antiphonale Romanum, as well as the other books of Gregorian chant and the editions of the books of the Roman Rite promulgated by decree as editiones typicae, such as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum and the Calendarium Romanum.
So basically everything has to be re-translated.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that depend on whether Liturgiam Authenticam had a retroactive effect? Usually, Church law is not retroactive. Therefore, if it’s not retroactive that should mean translations carried out after Liturgiam Authenticam came in to effect would need to be done according to the norms found in Liturgiam Authenticam. Translations that pre-date Liturgiam Authenticam would not need to be re-translated just on the basis of the existence of Liturgiam Authenticam.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Wouldn’t that depend on whether Liturgiam Authenticam had a retroactive effect? Usually, Church law is not retroactive. Therefore, if it’s not retroactive that should mean translations carried out after Liturgiam Authenticam came in to effect would need to be done according to the norms found in Liturgiam Authenticam. Translations that pre-date Liturgiam Authenticam would not need to be re-translated just on the basis of the existence of Liturgiam Authenticam.
Click to expand...
Matthew,
I believe that, in this case, it is retroactive. After all, that’s the whole point, to correct mis-translations that we’ve been using now. The translation of the Mass itself is a good example.

Here’s another quote:
  1. Within five years from the date of publication of this Instruction, the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops and the Supreme Moderators of religious families and institutes equivalent in law are bound to present to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments an integral plan regarding the liturgical books translated into the vernacular in their respective territories or institutes.
  2. In addition, the norms established by this Instruction attain full force for the emendation of previous translations, and any further delay in making such emendations is to be avoided. It is to be hoped that this new effort will provide stability in the life of the Church, so as to lay a firm foundation for supporting the liturgical life of God’s people and bringing about a solid renewal of catechesis.
Also, there are 2 different issues here:
  1. Do texts need to be re-translated because of Lit. Auth.? Are there more bad translations out there which need to be corrected?
  2. Will other texts, like the Liturgy of the Hours, need to be re-done because they reflect the texts used in the Mass?
As I see things, #2 is a given. Yes, most of the liturgical books (in English) will need to be re-done. All of them have quotes from the Mass, to some degree. This might not be a high priority sort of thing. Just because a liturgical text says “And also with you” does not mean that one cannot easily substitute “And with your spirit” without getting a new book. At some point, these books will all have to be at least edited, if not completely retranslated. So, from a purely practical perspective, all of them are going to have to be printed over again.

As far as #1 goes, that’s something that the Holy See is going to have to evaluate–and no doubt, they are looking at the texts.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Matthew,
I believe that, in this case, it is retroactive. After all, that’s the whole point, to correct mis-translations that we’ve been using now. The translation of the Mass itself is a good example.

Here’s another quote:
  1. Within five years from the date of publication of this Instruction, the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops and the Supreme Moderators of religious families and institutes equivalent in law are bound to present to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments an integral plan regarding the liturgical books translated into the vernacular in their respective territories or institutes.
  2. In addition, the norms established by this Instruction attain full force for the emendation of previous translations, and any further delay in making such emendations is to be avoided. It is to be hoped that this new effort will provide stability in the life of the Church, so as to lay a firm foundation for supporting the liturgical life of God’s people and bringing about a solid renewal of catechesis.
Also, there are 2 different issues here:
  1. Do texts need to be re-translated because of Lit. Auth.? Are there more bad translations out there which need to be corrected?
  2. Will other texts, like the Liturgy of the Hours, need to be re-done because they reflect the texts used in the Mass?
As I see things, #2 is a given. Yes, most of the liturgical books (in English) will need to be re-done. All of them have quotes from the Mass, to some degree. This might not be a high priority sort of thing. Just because a liturgical text says “And also with you” does not mean that one cannot easily substitute “And with your spirit” without getting a new book. At some point, these books will all have to be at least edited, if not completely retranslated. So, from a purely practical perspective, all of them are going to have to be printed over again.

As far as #1 goes, that’s something that the Holy See is going to have to evaluate–and no doubt, they are looking at the texts.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know either way. I was guessing. I believe it’s a general principle of many legal systems, including the Church’s, not to make law retroactive. Now, it seems that this one is.

Another reason why I assumed it wasn’t retroactive is because while many see this as a re-translation of the 1970 Missal. it isn’t. The First revised Missal after Vatican II was brought out in the 70’s and translated into English. The second edition was brought out in a date that now escapes me but I believe it was translated in to English but rejected by the Holy See. The translation many of us in the Anglophone world started using this past weekend was a translation of the third edition. So another reason for me to assume Liturgiam Authenticam was not retroactive: we were translating Roman Missal 3 ed. anew.
 
There is no need to purchase a new LOTH set, especially if you are praying the LOTH as part of your private devotions rather than as part of a community.
I recently purchased an LOTH set. Your question was one that I had before making the purchase. There are currently no plans to change the LOTH.
The Mass changes do not affect the readings of the Mass, only the ordinary.
Even a new missal is not necessary at this point in time. Liturgical Press has a 4 page insert with the newly translated prayers.
 
iwishmikey said:
With the changes in Mass, are there also changes in the Liturgy of the Hours (LOTH)?

Do I have to get a new 4 volume set of the LOTH:confused:
Click to expand...
Not yet. I have heard that they’re going to revise these at some time in the future, but it hasn’t happened yet. If you have a set, you might want to hang onto them for your use now.

If you are looking to replace or buy a set, I wouldn’t pay $200 for a new set, on the off-chance that changes are coming. If I needed 1 or more volumes, I’d sure try to pick up used ones.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
I didn’t know either way. I was guessing. I believe it’s a general principle of many legal systems, including the Church’s, not to make law retroactive. Now, it seems that this one is.

Another reason why I assumed it wasn’t retroactive is because while many see this as a re-translation of the 1970 Missal. it isn’t. The First revised Missal after Vatican II was brought out in the 70’s and translated into English. The second edition was brought out in a date that now escapes me but I believe it was translated in to English but rejected by the Holy See. The translation many of us in the Anglophone world started using this past weekend was a translation of the third edition. So another reason for me to assume Liturgiam Authenticam was not retroactive: we were translating Roman Missal 3 ed. anew.
Click to expand...
No. What’s happened is that the mass & the LOH are being treated as separate items right now.

What happened with the liturgy is a very long story. there have been many mass versions since Vatican II because there was a lot of experimentation. BUT there have only been 3 Roman Missals since Vatican II.

The Sacramentary we were using up until this last Sunday was the English translation of the 2nd Roman Missal, using the old rules of translation (Comme le Prevoit), which were in force when that translation was made. The translation we just finished using was a concept-to-concept paraphrase; it wasn’t really much of a translation.

The translation of mass that we have just begun is the English translation of the 3rd Roman MIssal, using the new rules of translation (Liturgiam Authenticam). All translations made after the publish date of Liturgicam Authenticam have to be done according to the methods of Liturgiam Authenticam. This translation was done after Liturgiam Authenticam. It is a true word-for-word translation from the Latin, as much as possible.

Likewise, the LOH that we have now was translated according to the old rules (Comme le Prevoit) because at the time of translation Liturgiam Authenticam had not been written yet. It’s a concept-to-concept paraphrase and it’s okay to use because the work on it has not yet been done. It is still the official version.

At some point in the future, the LOH will be translated again to make a new copy. When the CDW decides to do that, they will use Liturgiam Authenticam because all the translations are being made according to those rules now. When that happens the LOH books will change. But that hasn’t happened yet.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Wouldn’t that depend on whether Liturgiam Authenticam had a retroactive effect? Usually, Church law is not retroactive. Therefore, if it’s not retroactive that should mean translations carried out after Liturgiam Authenticam came in to effect would need to be done according to the norms found in Liturgiam Authenticam. Translations that pre-date Liturgiam Authenticam would not need to be re-translated just on the basis of the existence of Liturgiam Authenticam.
Click to expand...
I see what you’re saying, but the new LOH books would replace the old LOH books. The official version would become the latest version.

Now if you are a layperson and you are simply using the books for private prayer, you could probably keep using them, although those little paperback guides might no longer work right for you…
On the other hand, if you are clergy, or in a congregation or a third order and you are bound to say the LOH, then you might have to get the official version, which would be the latest version.
 
I’ve begun compiling Benedictine Office booklets for solemnities based on the revised grail psalms and the anglican translation of the 2005-2008 edition of the Antiphonale Monasticum (the anglicans did a very literal translation of its music).

The usuage of the latest translations of psalms with the traditional chant and text all in english is really a profound improvement over the Standard Liturgy of the Hours books which almost encourages a do-it-yourself “make up half the music and prayers as you go-along” approach very much of the mass individualist counter culture era.

I have suggested to those in the Church Music Association the idea that the “Liturgy of the Hours” have their own updated versions be made by members like ourselves which incorporate all the latest translations. Much like making an improved “Mundelein Psalter”.

However since only the psalms have been retranslated and the canticles remain untouched it is less likely that this project could come to fruition to be published in any official way until the time when the canticles and scripture readings/chapters are also “corrected”.

But they could remain existing online as .pdf’s for those who want to print them out and use them for the time being in a much improved traditional and singable form, entirely in english.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top