LOTH & different Bishops Conferences

[pullitr]

I have a question in regards to the Liturgy of the Hours:

As a layperson is it permissible to use the english translation from the UK Conference as opposed to the US Conference in private? I understand that public liturgies more then likely must conform to our (for me the US) conference translation. But truthfully the UK version isn’t all that different.

The issue at hand is that, I have a difficult time carrying around books wherever I go, and I don’t like the apps available for the US translation, but I really really really love the Universals app! I have prayed LOTH for many many years and I have to say I really love the Grail Psalms.

With my new Job and more mobile life I’ve been simply praying the Rosary, Angelus, & Divine Mercy Chaplet.

(I’m a busy busy busy guy and can’t carry around books / leave a “stash Breviary” as I’m all over the place for work at different times of the day)

All these translations and conferences give me a headache! Wouldn’t it be great if there were just one language? Like a dead language that would be universal throughout the entire Church?

 

[Generic_Name]

All these translations and conferences give me a headache! Wouldn’t it be great if there were just one language? Like a dead language that would be universal throughout the entire Church?

I see what you did there.

 

[tee_eff_em]

All these translations and conferences give me a headache! Wouldn’t it be great if there were just one language? Like a dead language that would be universal throughout the entire Church?

It is, if I’m not mistaken. Four-volume print is hard to find, but there are apps for that.

:tiphat:
tee

 

[OraLabora]

It is, if I’m not mistaken. Four-volume print is hard to find, but there are apps for that.

:tiphat:
tee

I happen to have the 4-volume Editio Typica Altera of 2000, and it ain’t for sale

I must say though the quality of the vinyl binding is atrocious and pages are already falling out. I used to use it almost exclusively for the Office of Readings which I prayed recto-tono in Latin. For the day hours I use the much higher quality Les Heures Grégoriennes, noted for Gregorian chant. I do wish though I’d sprung for the leather-bound version.

But since, I have produced my own Nocturnale Romanum in Gregorian chant for the Office of Readings which I pray as Vigils, using the references from Ordo Cantus Officii. I’m retired and let me tell you it still took me a full year of spare time to put together, scanning antiphons, formatting the pages, printing them booklet style, trimming them and putting in them in a good quality multi-ring binder I had. That was the first edition and I’m now working on a second edition to correct the several minor errors that come up in use. That said it has been a fun project, it’s also partly a hobby for me to research liturgy and chant.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

There are a few days left to register for free access to divineoffice.org before they have to (hopefully temporarily) close down to nonmembers. It’s the US translation and easy to use!

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I have a question in regards to the Liturgy of the Hours:

As a layperson is it permissible to use the english translation from the UK Conference as opposed to the US Conference in private? I understand that public liturgies more then likely must conform to our (for me the US) conference translation. But truthfully the UK version isn’t all that different.

To address this part, though, you can basically do as you please in private prayer. In public liturgies, the approved translations must be used.

 

[Marysann]

As Cor ad Cor said you can use any translation you want to pray the LOTH in private. I have been using the British edition since 1999. I purchased it in the Vatican bookstore. While living in Rome, I was able to use it when I went to Vespers on Sunday afternoon at St. Peters. I wore out my first copy, and had to get another one from AmazonUK. This edition does not have “psalm prayers” which I have been told are in some American editions, as these are not part of the official liturgy. Most of the scripture passages are from the Jerusalem Bible which is used in the UK lectionary as well. I am also a big fan of the wonderful hymns.

It would be great if there was a standard translation for the English speaking world. I wonder if it would follow the American or the British editions. The Vatican uses the Mass readings from the British lectionary for little missals they print for the big Masses. The UK edition of the LOTH is still the only one sold in the Vatican bookstore. The American bishops hold the copyright for the New American Bible translation, and probably won’t want anything else to be used in the US. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[GoGoDiego]

I have a question in regards to the Liturgy of the Hours:

As a layperson is it permissible to use the english translation from the UK Conference as opposed to the US Conference in private? I understand that public liturgies more then likely must conform to our (for me the US) conference translation. But truthfully the UK version isn’t all that different.

The UK Version is the non ICEL Translation though and different except for the Psalms.

That said, I do not know whether the Filipino LOTH (nope, the official name is not Liturhiya ng mga Oras, but Panalangin ng mga Kristyano sa Maghapon) is approved. So that I wont hesitate to pray this.

 

[Magdalen2013]

If you want a more up-to-date English Version:

e.paulinesafrica.org/index.php/book/bookDetails/851

They also have the four volume…

 

[otjm]

All these translations and conferences give me a headache! Wouldn’t it be great if there were just one language? Like a dead language that would be universal throughout the entire Church?

Perhaps, if people actually were conversant in that language. Given that there are probably not 1 in 100,000 that can speak Latin as a second language, or at least be able to translate on the fly, the result woud be people parroting words which they did not understand.

I get it that some people prefer to deo that, and I am not going to tell them they are wrong, if for no other reason than that this would result in nothing and no change.

And no, I do not consider, after studying Latin in both high school and college, that someone who memorizes a phrase and can tell me what it means can speak Latin. Speaking Latin as I define it means carrying on a conversation in it.

Certainly, you could say the LOTH in Latin, and I would suspect it would not be that hard to find a copy should you so desire.

I find that saying the LOTH in my native tongue to be particularly edifying as I am able to understand what I say; and am struck repeatedly by what I recite. Such would not occur should I use Latin, as I am not - and never have been - conversant in it. I was taught it as a translated language, word by word and sentence by sentence. Sadly, it was a different high school which taught Latin as other languages were taught - as a spoken language (a la Professor Waldo E. Sweet, who thought the classical way of teaching it - what, bizarre?).

He may have had a point…

 

[porthos11]

Perhaps, if people actually were conversant in that language. Given that there are probably not 1 in 100,000 that can speak Latin as a second language, or at least be able to translate on the fly, the result woud be people parroting words which they did not understand.

I get it that some people prefer to deo that, and I am not going to tell them they are wrong, if for no other reason than that this would result in nothing and no change.

And no, I do not consider, after studying Latin in both high school and college, that someone who memorizes a phrase and can tell me what it means can speak Latin. Speaking Latin as I define it means carrying on a conversation in it.

Certainly, you could say the LOTH in Latin, and I would suspect it would not be that hard to find a copy should you so desire.

I find that saying the LOTH in my native tongue to be particularly edifying as I am able to understand what I say; and am struck repeatedly by what I recite. Such would not occur should I use Latin, as I am not - and never have been - conversant in it. I was taught it as a translated language, word by word and sentence by sentence. Sadly, it was a different high school which taught Latin as other languages were taught - as a spoken language (a la Professor Waldo E. Sweet, who thought the classical way of teaching it - what, bizarre?).

He may have had a point…

to all that.

The revised Liturgy of the Hours and that it can be licitly recited in the vernacular is perhaps the biggest success of the reforms coming out of the Second Vatican Council. I’d say even more so than the revision of the Mass.

 

[babochka]

Wouldn’t it be great if there were just one language? Like a dead language that would be universal throughout the entire Church?

I’m pretty sure nothing prevents one from praying in just such a language.

 

[otjm]

to all that.

The revised Liturgy of the Hours and that it can be licitly recited in the vernacular is perhaps the biggest success of the reforms coming out of the Second Vatican Council. I’d say even more so than the revision of the Mass.

It certainly had less silliness attached to its implementation…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

to all that.

The revised Liturgy of the Hours and that it can be licitly recited in the vernacular is perhaps the biggest success of the reforms coming out of the Second Vatican Council. I’d say even more so than the revision of the Mass.

It was an interesting moment, frankly. Blessed Paul VI made the provision as a concession, not anticipating how enthusiastically the vernacular Office would be embraced.

Of course it was a wonderful gift for those of us who say the Office. I taught Latin…now that I am retired, I often say Mass in Latin – ALWAYS the novus ordo and never the vetus ordo, I hasten to add – and I will, at times, while praying the breviary say the Gospel canticles in Latin…however saying the Office in one of my vernaculars is much more satisfying to me than saying the Office in Latin, when I am praying it alone.

I have a special love for Latin; I have had it since I was young. But it is not my language. I don’t think in Latin. Only once in my life have I had a dream in Latin.

I think the happenstance of the phenomenon of the Mass in the vernacular going as the Office in the vernacular is completely lost on those who look back to Sacrosanctum Concilium with disappointment that more Latin was not retained. The Council Fathers were explicit in the instruction in subsection 3 of paragraph 36:

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See.

The point being lost is that the vast majority of the faithful…clergy, Religious and laity…embraced the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular and the ecclesiastical authorities in ALL the regions found that to be so – the extent of the use of the vernacular thus became “without reserve,” which the Holy See approved. The same was true regarding the Office.

The Liturgy of the Hours is available to be prayed in Latin…for anyone who wishes to do so. Thankfully, today praying it in Latin is not the only option…as it was in times past.

 

[pullitr]

Perhaps, if people actually were conversant in that language. Given that there are probably not 1 in 100,000 that can speak Latin as a second language, or at least be able to translate on the fly, the result woud be people parroting words which they did not understand.

I get it that some people prefer to deo that, and I am not going to tell them they are wrong, if for no other reason than that this would result in nothing and no change.

And no, I do not consider, after studying Latin in both high school and college, that someone who memorizes a phrase and can tell me what it means can speak Latin. Speaking Latin as I define it means carrying on a conversation in it.

Certainly, you could say the LOTH in Latin, and I would suspect it would not be that hard to find a copy should you so desire.

I find that saying the LOTH in my native tongue to be particularly edifying as I am able to understand what I say; and am struck repeatedly by what I recite. Such would not occur should I use Latin, as I am not - and never have been - conversant in it. I was taught it as a translated language, word by word and sentence by sentence. Sadly, it was a different high school which taught Latin as other languages were taught - as a spoken language (a la Professor Waldo E. Sweet, who thought the classical way of teaching it - what, bizarre?).

He may have had a point…

I certainly agree with you lol I was being a little smarty. :hey_bud:

Latin might help the revision process but it remains to be seen whether it actually helps the faithful pray, again depending upon their level of devotion to Latin. Certainly, the lectionaries including the readings for the Office of Readings and the psalmody, is a jewel that goes unmatched.

Having been translated into the vernacular means that there always will be endless revisions. And I am no expert but my simple observation is because it seems living languages evolve over time. I would say it is rather remarkable as some of the other posters had mentioned, that, it seems to me that this age has more unity in the liturgy than the many ages before it. I say that merely as a lay spectator of little consequence. Of course Unity can be kind of a loose word at times.

 

[OraLabora]

It certainly had less silliness attached to its implementation…

But much gnashing of teeth among some folks that it’s not traditional enough, or too light, or too this or too that. Oddly enough, the same folks that probably never would have prayed the pre-conciliar Office back in the day, since other than Sunday Vespers and some other high feasts, the laity weren’t encouraged to pray it. And when it was chanted publicly, the laity would have most likely participated mostly as audience, not as active participants.

And these are often the same folks that call the 1960 Office “traditional” when in reality it dates only to 1910 and was no less controversial then.

FWIW I do chant the Office in Latin because I love chant, keeps my voice in tune for our schola, and helps draw me from the world. But I use the silent interval between psalms to read the psalm in my vernacular, French. That’s when I’m home. Otherwise, I stick to French, my mother tongue.

 

[kdbueno]

I have little office of the blessed virgin Mary. Hmm. Is it somewhat relational or something?

 

[otjm]

But much gnashing of teeth among some folks that it’s not traditional enough, or too light, or too this or too that. Oddly enough, the same folks that probably never would have prayed the pre-conciliar Office back in the day, since other than Sunday Vespers and some other high feasts, the laity weren’t encouraged to pray it. And when it was chanted publicly, the laity would have most likely participated mostly as audience, not as active participants.

And these are often the same folks that call the 1960 Office “traditional” when in reality it dates only to 1910 and was no less controversial then.

FWIW I do chant the Office in Latin because I love chant, keeps my voice in tune for our schola, and helps draw me from the world. But I use the silent interval between psalms to read the psalm in my vernacular, French. That’s when I’m home. Otherwise, I stick to French, my mother tongue.

I simply ignore those who want to play a traditional card about the LOTH. This, like the OF, are the norm; if someone wants to discuss something else, I am not part of the conversation.

And when I (all too rarely) get by my local Benedictine abbey, I pick up one of the ring binders in the narthex and join them in chanting the vernacular recitation of the monastic office.

 

[OraLabora]

I simply ignore those who want to play a traditional card about the LOTH. This, like the OF, are the norm; if someone wants to discuss something else, I am not part of the conversation.

And when I (all too rarely) get by my local Benedictine abbey, I pick up one of the ring binders in the narthex and join them in chanting the vernacular recitation of the monastic office.

Our abbey does a mix, Lauds and Vespers in Latin, the rest in French plainchant (mostly recto-tono or in directum) with Latin hymns (and Latin antiphon to the BVM after Compline).

They also put out spiral bound booklets for Lauds, Vespers and Compline, and for the Lauds and Vespers the French is alongside the Latin.

 

[dochawk]

All these translations and conferences give me a headache! Wouldn’t it be great if there were just one language? Like a dead language that would be universal throughout the entire Church?

]

There was such a thing in the western church, at one time.

And then the Church in Rome switched to the vernacular in about the fourth century, replacing Greek with Latin . . .



(and in the East, the vernacular has always been the liturgical language (Church Slavonic is actually a created language whose purpose was to be mutually intelligible to the vernacular of the various slavic countries [and when C&M were called to Rome to explain, the Pope not only approved, but ordained one a bishop before sending them back {and as to why Rome was summoning missionaries sent by another Patriarch, I really couldn’t tell you . . .}]).

hawk