Mention of the Liturgy of the Hours

[Catholic36]

After making some side-by-side comparisons of the pre- and post-Vatican II breviaries, I have some observations and conclusions.

1. I can see why people might prefer the Matins on major days to the new Office of Readings. The old system of 9 lessons, interspersed with psalms and responsories, does strike me as better than the new system.
2. The old system overdoses on lives/legends of the saints. But, at least there’s a memorable story, even if a pious legend. I think the new saints’ readings are either very good or rather cold and antiseptic. Today, for example, for St. Clement I there’s a passage from his letter to the Corinthians. It’s perfectly inspiring, but I’m left wondering who Clement himself was. The old lessons of his life at least highlight the man himself, even if legendary.
3. I didn’t know the Psalter was abridged in the new system. I knew some psalms were missing, but I didn’t notice how often verses are cut from other psalms. I don’t think the Council intended for the Psalter to be significantly edited.

In short, I don’t know. I think the new system is probably better overall (not on major days), but the old one does have a certain logic to it, as well as a certain…“warmth”, maybe? I don’t know.

 

[AJV]

I think you’re supposed to read it from that little much edited biography at the top.

The difference between the 1911 and the 1970 is mainly that 1911 is more of a monastic office. The 1970 attempts to come somewhere between a Cathedral office and a Monastic office and ends up falling rather ungainly in the middle.

The abridged psalter is somewhat of a disgrace. The imprecatory verses have been ommitted but when you look at it, they emphasize God’s justice in, as Parsch put it, a more primitive way.

But another thing where the LOTH has improved is the more continuous and longer readings for Scripture. The older office has the remains of an ancient schema where passages were dropped as the obligation increased. You can see this in this week itself and the next, where there are many incipits (beginnings) of books.

I think the word I would use for the old office structure is “regal”. Don’t ask me about the new.

 

[AlexV]

The problem with the Office is really twofold.

First, the Psalter.

The old system(s) had a simple and inviolate base line rule: you had to do the whole Psalter in a week. That goes back at least to Benedict. It’s not easy, and if you have many feasts that replace the “ferial” psalms, you have problems. But the principle existed, was more or less respected, and the Breviary could always claim it had ALL 150 psalms, unabridged.

The new system cuts 3 entirely, but…more disturbingly, I think…it edits very many others. Even the famous Messianic Psalm 109/110 Dixit Dominus loses the bit about smashing heads through the lands.

Second, making sense out of Matins.

The old Matins makes sense. The first nocturn is always biblical. The second is a meditation on the day’s feast. So for a saint, it’s always a biography. For other days, a patristic or other sermon on the feast at hand. For the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost, which have no specific character, it’s a commentary from a Father on whatever’s being read from Scripture in the first nocturn. Finally, the third nocturn is a patristic homily on the day’s gospel.

The new Matins mainly sought abridgement. So there are uniformly 2 readings, no matter how important the day. This makes the “Friday of the 19th Week” just as solemn as Christmas in terms of the amount of liturgical material offered. True, you have the optional so-called “extended vigils”…but these are canticles (from the old Monastic Breviary) followed by a Gospel. No homilies/commentaries. The idea was borrowed from the old Monastic Breviary, but they decided not to take the gospel homily, which would have made sense.

The saints’ readings favor readings from the saints’ writings, if there are any. Or, a patristic homily that tries to highlight some famous aspect of the saint’s life. So for Philip Neri, a reading on Christian joy. For Cecelia, a reading on singing to God (ironically, basing itself on a legend). Unfortunately, sometimes these readings really have quite little to do with the actual saint of the day.

 

[Catholic36]

Do you all actually use the old Office then?

 

[AJV]

The problem with the Office is really twofold.

First, the Psalter.

The old system(s) had a simple and inviolate base line rule: you had to do the whole Psalter in a week. That goes back at least to Benedict. It’s not easy, and if you have many feasts that replace the “ferial” psalms, you have problems. But the principle existed, was more or less respected, and the Breviary could always claim it had ALL 150 psalms, unabridged.

As I said, the rule of 150 psalms a week is primarily a monastic one. Cathedral offices operate somewhat differently. Take the Ambrosian psalter for instance: the Matins psalms are spread over 2 weeks for weekdays, and remnants of a cathedral office can be seen in the independence of Saturdays and Sundays. Many cathedral psalters from the earlier centuries also operate on a twice weekly system and a few even on a monthly system.

The saints’ readings favor readings from the saints’ writings, if there are any. Or, a patristic homily that tries to highlight some famous aspect of the saint’s life. So for Philip Neri, a reading on Christian joy. For Cecelia, a reading on singing to God (ironically, basing itself on a legend). Unfortunately, sometimes these readings really have quite little to do with the actual saint of the day.

Isn’t that a better concept than the II Nocturn biographies, some of which are spurious?
I’m a little confused by the last line: could you please elaborate?

Even the old breviary has lessons that at times do not really link to the day. Take for example, the first lesson for Wednesday in Passion Week.

 

[AlexV]

The readings for the Wednesday in Passion Week are from a gospel homily; they most certainly relate to the day.

Much has been made of the “spurious” saints’ legends. Yes, I know about all the popes who wanted to revise them. But the fact is they weren’t touched by any pope through John XXIII. Benedict XIV set up a Commission…nothing came of it. Pius X and Pius XII wanted to touch them, but didn’t. Are they edifying? Some would say so.

We need to be careful here. In the official 1969 Latin commentary on the new calendar, Catherine of Alexandria’s being cut was attributed to historical problems. She was added back in 2001, without comment. Guess those historical problems were settled.

In some cases, the critical historical “evidence” for saints’ lives is better than critical historical “evidence” for certain events in the life of Christ.

 

[AJV]

The readings for the Wednesday in Passion Week are from a gospel homily; they most certainly relate to the day.

Much has been made of the “spurious” saints’ legends. Yes, I know about all the popes who wanted to revise them. But the fact is they weren’t touched by any pope through John XXIII. Benedict XIV set up a Commission…nothing came of it. Pius X and Pius XII wanted to touch them, but didn’t. Are they edifying? Some would say so.

We need to be careful here. In the official 1969 Latin commentary on the new calendar, Catherine of Alexandria’s being cut was attributed to historical problems. She was added back in 2001, without comment. Guess those historical problems were settled.

In some cases, the critical historical “evidence” for saints’ lives is better than critical historical “evidence” for certain events in the life of Christ.

Not the first lesson, it doesn’t.

They weren’t touched by Popes because the popes DIED. St. Pius X promised the revision in Abhinc Duos Annos and even appointed a commision (look at the bottom of the Catholic Encyclopedia article which was written at that time). He also said in Divino Afflatu that his changes were Phase 1. I did provide Benedict XIV’s letter in another thread and juding by the number of changes found among his papers at his death, he was not very happy with some of the saint’s biographies. For some, like certain apostles, he replaced them with writings from the Fathers on an aspect of their lives. For others, he directed that the commons be used. He also eliminated apocryphal homilies attributed to the Fathers, changed responses (including that famous one “Gaude Maria Virgo” eliminating the phrase “cunctas hereses sola interemisti”).

We have received your Eminences letter of May 20 in which you mention the project of a new Roman breviary. We have remarked with the most sensible pleasure the hopes which your Eminence suggests to us……….the following is the general plan which We have proposed to follow in the composition of this breviary. Criticism having become so exacting, and the facts which our good forefathers regarded as undoubted now being called into question, We see no other way of defending ourselves than by compiling a breviary in which everything should be drawn from Holy Scripture which, as your Eminence is aware, contains plenty of matter on the subject of the mysteries celebrated in the feasts of the Chruch, as well as about the Hoyl Apostles and the Blessed Virgin. Whatever the Scriptures themselves might not furnish would be supplied form the universally accepted writings of the earliest Fathers. As to the other saints which now have a place in the Breviary, a simple memorial of them would be deemed sufficient. All that can be said on the other side is this derogates form the cultus which these saint shave received; and true it is that cutting out of their legends will make some people cry out, who consider the things related in them so certain that they would be ready to go to the stake in support of ther truth. But such criticism as this appears to us of far less importance than that which is made a reproach to us that we have read things read in the name of the Church which are apocryphal or of doubtful veracity.”

I also didn’t deny that the saints existed- it is a denial of what is related about them.

Not in the legends, no. And I do think that a difference may be made between Christ and the saints, especially since the Gospels are Divine Revelation whereas it can be proven that many of the disputed legends appeared many many centuries after Christ.

 

[AlexV]

Wednesday in Passion Week has a homily from Augustine. Everything is relevant. First lesson defines “Encaenia”, which appears in the day’s gospel and deserves explication.

I am well aware of what Benedict XIV wanted to do. He proposed cutting plenty of things, including things not even the post-Vatican II cutters cut. His views on the calendar are a historical curiosity; they were never implemented, and are thus rather irrelevant in the big picture.

 

[AlexV]

I think the season that has suffered the most from the new Breviary is Christmastide.

1. Christmas Day itself, I think, offers no comparison. The traditional Christmas Matins is a masterpiece of liturgical composition.
2. The three great octave feasts of Stephen, John, and the Innocents are richer in the old…partly because the new has the odd rubric of ignoring them at Vespers.
3. Also richer are January 1, Holy Name (recently restored, but a shadow of its former self), Epiphany, Holy Family.
4. If you consider the full Matins (pre-1961), you can add the Sunday within the Christmas Octave, the days within the octave of the Epiphany (every day had 9 lessons), and December 29-31.
5. The only feast with arguably more texts in the new than the old is the Baptism, which had more lessons in the old, but in the new has proper hymns, etc., so it more or less evens out.

Besides all this, the new liturgy seems to have an odd desire to end what is already the year’s briefest season. Especially in countries where the Epiphany is moved, sometimes Christmas loses as many as five days compared to the old.

I might note that there are also 9 lessons for January 2-January 4, if you have a supplement with the complete octave of the Holy Name.

 

[Andruschak]

In short, I don’t know. I think the new system is probably better overall (not on major days), but the old one does have a certain logic to it, as well as a certain…“warmth”, maybe? I don’t know.

Sigh…I don’t know about the older version, or where to get copies. I have ordered a 4 Volume LOTH (in large type, for my 62 year old eyes). Right now I do compline every night and Vespers Sunday evening. And if there is anything “inferior”, it slips by me without notice.

About the only thing that puzzles me about Compline is that you seem to have this apporpiate, quiet, calm ending. Then comes “Hail Holy Queen”. I’d prefer that the Marian antiphons were more in the middle of compline, leaving the quiet ending.

 

[AJV]

Wednesday in Passion Week has a homily from Augustine. Everything is relevant. First lesson defines “Encaenia”, which appears in the day’s gospel and deserves explication.

If you say so. It doesn’t really go with the theme explored in the II and III nocturn. Yuo can compare the reading with that in one of the monastic breviaries (the Carthusian?) which starts from a more reasonable point in the homily.

---

Another thing about the LOTH: it does not preserve the distinction between the major and minor hours. On one hand it says that Lauds and Vespers are the hinges of the Office and admirably added intercessions and a a responsory there, but on the other hand with regard to the fundamental part of the breviary- the psalter- there is practically no distinction in terms of the number of psalms/divisi said between the different hours of the day (count the canticle at Lauds and Vespers as a “psalm” though it really isn’t). It is very much like the Quigonez breviary in uniformity of the hours with respect to psalms (except that ++ Quiogon did not use divisi and prayed the psalter in a week).

Secondly it is innovative in the sense that it assigns Patristic texts to ferias, whereas the older breviary for most ferias depended on saints days or octaves, etc. for the Patristic text. For Lenten ferias, and the octaves of Easter and Pentecost, it provides a Scripture reading , whereas in the older breviary those are commonly taken from the commons if a saint’s day is observed (for Lent), Scripture of the I Nocturn being replaced with a Gospel homily on the day’s Gospel. But for Easter particularly, the Scripture readings on 3 days within the octave do not really expound or allude to the Resurrection directly.

 

[demerzel85]

Do you all actually use the old Office then?

I use the 1963 Monastic Diurnale, though until my Latin improves I am stuck to doing it in English. Though its only the Day Hours (Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline), I find it much deeper than the new LOTH.

 

[AlexV]

A major concern of the LOTH was uniformity. The old Office…even under the simplified 1961 rubrics…had many different divisions of days and celebrations of all sorts. Not so in the LOTH.

In fact, if you don’t consider the optional extended vigils/gospel readings for Sundays and other major days, you could construct a Matins that was longest on days when saints are commemorated during Lent and late Advent/Christmas octave: 3 readings, the 3rd commemorating the saint. This is a bit bizarre.

I think the LOTH would have worked dramatically better if there were 3 readings on major days, the 3rd being a patristic gospel homily.

According to Bugnini, there was consideration of making 3 readings mandatory for saints’ days, but that was thought too burdensome.

Incidentally, there is a 5th volume of further readings…but it was left in proof form and has never been published…35 years later.