Monastic or Roman Diurnal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Magnum_V8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven’t got either, but I’d go for the Diurnale Romanum.
 
The bought the Roman Diurnal. I am very happy with it. It is all Latin but well, its still complete (without Matins though). I know people prefer that it have English but I feel this is the best traditional Office book available and also its under $100. Its is perfect for priests and other clerics/religious.

I don’t think the Monastic Diurnal is good for us layfolk since we are not monks. It could benefit some third order folks though.
 
In Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio of last year, he wrote:

§ 3. Fas est clericis in sacris constitutis uti etiam Breviario Romano a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgato.

Is this to be interpreted that it is** not **permitted for the laity?
 
**In Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio of last year, he wrote:

§ 3. Fas est clericis in sacris constitutis uti etiam Breviario Romano a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgato.

Is this to be interpreted that it is not permitted for the laity?**

Since the laity are NOT obligated to recite the Divine Office, I would imagine that out of devotion any office could be used.
 
Thanks for your opinions. I ordered the Diurnale Romanum; really looking forward to it.

For those of you that own it, how’s the quality of the book and print?
 
The Church and the Holy Father want the laity to embrace the Liturgy of the Hours. What the document is referring to is that it is the obligation of clerics and religious in solemn vows (even if they are not ordained) to pray the Liturgy of the Hours.

As to whether one uses the monastic or the Roman edition depends. The Monastic Edition is the Benedictine form. If one likes the Benedictine form or is part of the Benedictine family, this is a good breviary. Otherwise, the Roman form is more appropriate.

If you are Carmelite or Franciscan, you should wait, because they use another form. Their Latin edition will come eventually. There are English editions of the Carmelite and Franciscan Liturgy of the Hours. There are also inserts that one can buy with the Franciscan or Carmelite holy days if one has the Roman version.

The differences are just in the holy days that are proper to each order and to the chant.

Franciscans never chant the office, it’s against the Rule of St. Francis. I don’t know about the Carmelites.

Just sharing some information for those who are interested. There are sites on line with Carmelite and Franciscan liturgical books.

JR 🙂
 
It is good quality. It has all propers and feasts. It also has a supplement at the end which has litanies, sacraments and blessings from the Roman Ritual. There is also a section with prayers before and after Mass.
 
bpbasilphx said:
**In Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio of last year, he wrote:

§ 3. Fas est clericis in sacris constitutis uti etiam Breviario Romano a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgato.

Is this to be interpreted that it is not permitted for the laity?**

Since the laity are NOT obligated to recite the Divine Office, I would imagine that out of devotion any office could be used.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that makes sense.

Okay. Consider the other logical inference. Was its use by the clergy suppressed or otherwise not permitted before the Motu Proprio? Why did the Holy Father have to stipulate this? Was there any doubt that the clergy could use the 1962 Breviary?
 
I prefer the new liturgy of the hours.

Seriously.

Regardless of all the known simplifications of the Mass and other rituals, the textual stuff was improved TREMEDOUSLY.

I mean we won’t see the same combo of readings for SIX YEARS, while the old one was he same for every week of the year.

The DO was improved in its texts, even with the supression of Prima. Matins was converted into the O. of Readings, which is excellent. Plus the organization of it is ALOT better.

Kudos to the compilers!
 
I think the real problem with the new Liturgy of the Hours is that it suffers from Novus Ordo syndrome. It is liturgy by committee. It treats our traditions as something that can be manufactured. Changes in any of our liturgies should be organic and in continuity with tradition. Nowhere in the history of our Church do we see an “office of readings” but we do see “matins”. This is why the Eastern Orthodox will not return to Rome. If it was merely the role of Papal primacy and the filioque, reunion could easily be accomplished. What is a barrier to reunion is how little we respect our traditions. We treat them as matters of law that can be arbitrarily changed rather than as something sacred to be protected. The Pope and the magisterium are supposed to be the faithful guardians of Tradition, not the creators and arbiters of it, but unfortunately since the second Vatican council, it feels like they have played the latter role rather than the former.

As a Catholic of the Latin rite, I desire only what was handed down to me by those who came before me. That is, the traditional Latin Mass, and the ancient office of the Western Church.
 
Yeah whatever.

Call it Matins or O of Rs, it still beats the old matins.

I’ve seen the old brevaries in Latin, and I say hands down the new one is easier to use and more richer in texts, regardless of the vernacular. I can read and understand Latin, even out loud with out the terrible american accent americans have. But I still find that for readings, you either have a perfect understanding of what your reading or you lose a lot.

Liking the old stuff because it is older is not a thoughtful approach at all. It is more capricious than anything.

Progress is good. Progressevism is bad.
Tradition is good. Radtradism is bad
 
Magnum_V8 said:
What would be your choice?

Does anyone have either of these?: pcpbooks.com/new_books_pages/diurnale.htm

dev.farnboroughabbey.org/press/dirunal.php
Click to expand...
Magnum V8,

I have the Monastic Diurnal. It is fantastic. But, I don’t typically use it. I did pray every Office from it on Good Friday last year and I enjoyed it tremendously. But, it does feel a little …off, I guess. It is designed for monastics after all.

Typically I go back and forth between the LOTH (specifically Christian Prayer), and the Anglican Breviary - but with some of the Ordinary in Latin (basically whatever I have memorized) and the psalms in English.

Am I correct in assuming that the Roman Diurnal is only in Latin? The Monastic Diurnal is in Latin and English.

James
 
James0235 said:
Magnum V8,

Am I correct in assuming that the Roman Diurnal is only in Latin? The Monastic Diurnal is in Latin and English.

James
Click to expand...
Yes, James. It is entirely in Latin. I had seriously considered getting the Monastic Diurnal, though…it looks like a beautiful book, not only in substance but also in the way its made. However, I’ve got to give due props to Preserving Christian Publications. Their Roman Diurnal is beautiful and comfortable to hold.
 
Pro_Domina said:
I prefer the new liturgy of the hours.

…

I mean we won’t see the same combo of readings for SIX YEARS, while the old one was he same for every week of the year.
Click to expand...
Pro Domina, do you use the American translation of the LOTH? From what I’ve seen, the British is superior.

Also, what do you mean by every six years? The new office readings follow a one-year cycle (as opposed to the three-year cycle for Mass readings).
 
PKinsale said:
Pro Domina, do you use the American translation of the LOTH? From what I’ve seen, the British is superior.

Also, what do you mean by every six years? The new office readings follow a one-year cycle (as opposed to the three-year cycle for Mass readings).
Click to expand...
I now pray it in Italian. And before Spanish.
I never liked praying in English.

But any how the US one is known to be the prettiest one (each book is a different color) yet it has a bad translation.

But pray it any how.

And as for the 6 years thing I was refering to the Mass.
Years A, B, C and I and II. Gives 6 years.

As for the office, some have year I and II as well as A, B and C for the Canticle Antiphon.

In the end the important thing is that you actually pray it.

If you can get a better one. If you can’t pray the US one.
 
Pro_Domina said:
I now pray it in Italian. And before Spanish.
I never liked praying in English.

But any how the US one is known to be the prettiest one (each book is a different color) yet it has a bad translation.

But pray it any how.

And as for the 6 years thing I was refering to the Mass.
Years A, B, C and I and II. Gives 6 years.

As for the office, some have year I and II as well as A, B and C for the Canticle Antiphon.

In the end the important thing is that you actually pray it.

If you can get a better one. If you can’t pray the US one.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I pray the new LOTH in the shoddy American. My wife bought me a set (leather, all black) a few years ago.
 
Anybody has access to a tutorial on how to use the roman diurnal?

Thank you,

Pedro
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top