Then answer me this-- do the monks use it? I believe they use the LOTH.
Just because the monks publish something does not ensure it is a good thing.
No they most certainly do not. In fact monks need
special permission to use the LOTH and not the Benedictine schema used at their abbey, except when traveling outside their abbey. Each abbey has their own Divine Office schema. There are 4 published ones, starting with the original schema of St. Benedict which recites 255 psalms a week with repetitions. This is much heavier than the LOTH, and these schemas are fully approved, licit, and adapted to post-Vatican II (liturgical years, same collects as the LOTH, etc.)
I have the first edition BDP. I don’t use it because of the language (not because it’s inclusive, but because I don’t pray in English; I prefer French and Latin for liturgy, as French is my native language as I know the formulae to chant the psalms in both those languages but
not in English).
I also don’t understand why the author(s) didn’t simply tie it with the Liturgy of the Hours for the collects. It would have made the prayer “liturgical” because it is possible to pray another Office than the LOTH and be “liturgical”. Benedictine Offices are usually much fuller than the Roman LOTH, and an abridged version of a monastic Office could easily be approved by the abbot. We have such an abridged breviary for oblates of our abbey, but it uses official collects.
A point about the “inclusive psalms”. St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville uses the same translation. It is important to note that in the Benedictine world, the abbot has the right to legislate liturgical matters in his abbey. In addition the order is of Pontifical Right, and as such, the abbot is
not bound by the liturgical norms set by the local college of bishops. Therefore the use or not of these psalms would generally be approved by the head of the congregation, which at least 14 years ago, was also the abbot of St. John’s. One may not
like that choice, but it remains an internal matter for the community to regulate, and I think it would be safe to assume that St. John’s has the necessary authority and/or approvals for the schema used, perhaps by indult from Rome. There are many Benedictine communities using an inclusive-language psalter. One must always remember, that a Benedictine community regulates liturgical matters for the benefit of its own community and not the laity, though the laity are generally invited to participate in both their Divine Office and conventual Mass.
I do also know that BDP uses the St. John Abbey lectionary for instance, for the readings for Vigils and that is a licit option since it is in use for that abbey. The second reading is also biblical and not patristic , as is the practice at St. John’s. Both readings at this time are from the book of Revelations and Acts. In the 2-year general lectionary Revelations is read in Year 1 and Acts in Year 2. So it for St. John’s it’s a bit of a 2 for 1, though the sequence is not quite identical to the general 2-year.
I like the changes announced to the new edition. It sounds like the traditional Benedictine schema but split over two weeks instead of one. Even some abbeys do that. The liturgical minimum for Benedictines is a 2-week schema, with those involved in external apostolates (teaching, staffing parishes, etc.) able to use the Roman LOTH with permission; and monks traveling can use the Roman LOTH as well.
I can understand why an oblate would prefer a different Office from the LOTH. There are some things about the LOTH that I dislike as well (although there are also things I very much like about it and that
are drawn from Benedictine tradition), and when I can find the time I pray the schema of our own abbey but spread over two weeks, which is a licit and approved option detailed in the General Instructions of the
Monastic Liturgy of the Hours for Schema B.
So all that to say that one must be careful in saying that something not identical to the LOTH is “non-liturgical”. With the same collects, proper Gospel canticles, commons, etc., this breviary could be liturgical, and it’s a bit of a pity the editor didn’t go that extra mile. Our own Schema B breviary at our abbey does follow the LOTH for its collects except for those saints and feasts that are proper to the Benedictine calendar. One thing that I also learned from my exposure to the Benedictine world, and my travel to various monasteries in Canada and Europe, is that there is a considerable variety in each place’s Divine Office, with different schemas used besides the 4 published ones, and also much variety within the same schema. For instance the schema used by my abbey is also used by a small abbey in Paris (only 4 permanent monks, but with lots of visiting monks at any given time), but on a two week schema with Vigils and Compline combined into one office in the evening. I’ve learned one need a very open mind when it comes to Benedictine Liturgy and not be bound by fixed ideas about what one
thinks it should be.
Footnote: the Cistercians of both observances operate on similar principles, and the Carthusians also don’t use the LOTH, their Carthusian schema is based on the original schema of St. Benedict.
