Roman Breviary 1962

[JReducation]

Quite right, he could even use the Anglician Berivary and still be in communion with the Church. I believe the issue that was brought up was that he would not be praying with the Church as the Church uses a certain approved text.

But as the next post shows…

That would be only for the secular clergy. Those in religious orders/communities would have to follow their rule/constitutions/superiors in this matter.

Also those in secular third orders may have to pray a certain office (use certain books) out of obligation.

Those who are free though can really pray any form and from any book they wish but if they wish to pray as the Church does then they should chose those books approved for their region. I believe, as you state, that the 1962 Office is approved for all regions (as it is in Latin so there are not different editions for each region as the vernacular office has).

You are correct. Only those religiuos houses that have permission to use it can do so. In some communities, the superior does not have the authority to approve the use of either the breviary of the EF. It has to be approved by a chapter. That’s why the Holy Father explicityly mentions the major superiors and constitutions in his letter. He did not want people to be disappointed and assume that everyone could now go back to 1963 only to find out that this order or that congregation cannot do so. Then people would be upset thinking that they are being cheated, when in fact, it’s a matter of the rules, constitutions and superiors of the religious communities “outranking” Summorum Pontificum. I use “outranking” in quotes, because it’s not the precise term, but I can’t find another at the moment and my window will time out. But you guys know what I mean.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mark1970]

Quite right, he could even use the Anglician Berivary and still be in communion with the Church. I believe the issue that was brought up was that he would not be praying with the Church as the Church uses a certain approved text.

But as the next post shows…

That would be only for the secular clergy. Those in religious orders/communities would have to follow their rule/constitutions/superiors in this matter.

Also those in secular third orders may have to pray a certain office (use certain books) out of obligation.

Those who are free though can really pray any form and from any book they wish but if they wish to pray as the Church does then they should chose those books approved for their region. I believe, as you state, that the 1962 Office is approved for all regions (as it is in Latin so there are not different editions for each region as the vernacular office has).

My point is that it’s hardly disobedient to the mind of the Church if the Holy Father himself allows secular, diocesan priests to use the 1962 breviary as an alternative to the modern Liturgy of the Hours. The opposite, in fact - the Pope is encouraging the practice.

 

[OraLabora]

My point is that it’s hardly disobedient to the mind of the Church if the Holy Father himself allows secular, diocesan priests to use the 1962 breviary as an alternative to the modern Liturgy of the Hours. The opposite, in fact - the Pope is encouraging the practice.

Can diocesan priest systematically use the 1962 breviary, or do they need permission from the Ordinary to do so?

Of course in private devotion anything goes, but that’s not the case for true liturgical prayer.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

My point is that it’s hardly disobedient to the mind of the Church if the Holy Father himself allows secular, diocesan priests to use the 1962 breviary as an alternative to the modern Liturgy of the Hours. The opposite, in fact - the Pope is encouraging the practice.

And that is exactly what I said.

 

[JReducation]

Can diocesan priest systematically use the 1962 breviary, or do they need permission from the Ordinary to do so?

Of course in private devotion anything goes, but that’s not the case for true liturgical prayer.

Once the permission has been granted, it remains in effect and every diocesan cleric can make use of it, not just priests. The key thing to remember here is that Summorum Pontificum applies to clerics who are either diocesan or belong to a secular association such as the FSSP, SSPX, Maryknoll, Missunhurst, Opus Dei and other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

T

To diggerdomer: many people feel that the older versions are more beautiful and more reverent. It has nothing to do with not wanting to pray in communion with the Church.

If personal preferences determine one’s actions vs. what is provided by the Church, then unfortunately it very well could be the case.

 

[diggerdomer]

In Summorum Pontificum, published by Pope Benedict in 2007 under his own authority, the Pope explicitly allows those in Holy Orders to use the 1962 Roman Breviary as an alternative to the modern Liturgy of the Hours. Also, as someone else has said, the traditional orders of priests approved by the Pole only use the 1962 Breviary, with Papal permission. So using the '62 Breviary is actually current practice approved by the Pope, and is in full communion with the Church. So rben20 isn’t doing anything worng.

Yes, of course, assuming rben20 is one of the very few members of the specific exceptional cases you note.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, of course, assuming rben20 is one of the very few members of the specific exceptional cases you note.

One thing that may be helpful here is to remember who is obliged to pray the Liturgy of the Hours: all clerics, all religious in solemn vows, and those religious in simple vows mandated by their constitutions.

The rules governing which breviary should be used or may be used only apply to those who must pray the Liturgy of the Hours. Those who are not morally obligated to pray the Liturgy of the Hours can take their pick from any approved edition.

For example, I’m in solemn vows. I must pray the LOTH under pain of mortal sin. My friend who is a Passionist is not in solemn vows, because they are not a religious order. They are a congregation. They do not make solemn vows. Therefore, my hypothetical friend has to pray the LOTH, because his congregation says so. My other hypothetical friend is a Sister of St. Joseph. She’s not in solemn vows either. The Sisters of St. Joseph are not a religious order. They are a religious congregation. They make simple vows. Her congregation may have a custom of gathering for prayer at the same time as everyone else, but they use other forms of prayer, not the LOTH. In the cases of my friends, they can use whatever version of the breviary is authorized by their religious community. My religiuos order says that I can only use the Roman-Franciscan Breviary. Therefore, the breviary of 1962 is not helpful to me. I cannot substitute the Roman-Franciscan Breviary with the breviary of 1962, even if I do feel that it’s more reverent, because I don’t get to decide what is or is not reverent. The General Chapter decided it for me and the General Chapter has only one boss, the pope. The pope has not overruled the General Chapter.

In other words, the personal situation of the individual who wishes to pray the LOTH plays a very significant role in what breviary he or she may use. The secular lay man has freedoms that clerics and religious may not have.

A diocesan deacon, priest or bishop, is not in any kind of vows. Therefore, he is his own General Chapter and constitution. He is free to accept the Holy Father’s generous offer and use the 1962 breviary, if he so chooses.

When we read Summorum Pontificum, we must keep in mind the target audience. When speaking about the breviary, the target audience was those deacons, priests and bishops who are not consecrated men, but are bound to the LOTH, because it’s one of the pastoral duties of the ordained. The Holy Father does not have to give the secular layman permission to use the 1962 breviary. There is nothing heretical in it. The secular layman was never told that he could not use it.

All that being said, it is wonderful that there are secular laymen who want to pray the LOTH. We must remember that praying with the universal Church does not mean that one has to be saying the same psalms. It means that one must be celebrating the same liturgical action. This is the case regardless of what edition of the breviary you use. It remains the same liturgical action.

When I use the Roman-Franciscan Breviary, someone else uses Christian Prayer, another uses the 1962 Breviary and a final person uses the Monastic Diurnal, we are all celebrating the same liturgical action. Therefore, we are praying in communion with each other and the universal Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

One thing that may be helpful here is to remember who is obliged to pray the Liturgy of the Hours: all clerics, all religious in solemn vows, and those religious in simple vows mandated by their constitutions.

The rules governing which breviary should be used or may be used only apply to those who must pray the Liturgy of the Hours. Those who are not morally obligated to pray the Liturgy of the Hours can take their pick from any approved edition.

For example, I’m in solemn vows. I must pray the LOTH under pain of mortal sin. My friend who is a Passionist is not in solemn vows, because they are not a religious order. They are a congregation. They do not make solemn vows. Therefore, my hypothetical friend has to pray the LOTH, because his congregation says so. My other hypothetical friend is a Sister of St. Joseph. She’s not in solemn vows either. The Sisters of St. Joseph are not a religious order. They are a religious congregation. They make simple vows. Her congregation may have a custom of gathering for prayer at the same time as everyone else, but they use other forms of prayer, not the LOTH. In the cases of my friends, they can use whatever version of the breviary is authorized by their religious community. My religiuos order says that I can only use the Roman-Franciscan Breviary. Therefore, the breviary of 1962 is not helpful to me. I cannot substitute the Roman-Franciscan Breviary with the breviary of 1962, even if I do feel that it’s more reverent, because I don’t get to decide what is or is not reverent. The General Chapter decided it for me and the General Chapter has only one boss, the pope. The pope has not overruled the General Chapter.

In other words, the personal situation of the individual who wishes to pray the LOTH plays a very significant role in what breviary he or she may use. The secular lay man has freedoms that clerics and religious may not have.

A diocesan deacon, priest or bishop, is not in any kind of vows. Therefore, he is his own General Chapter and constitution. He is free to accept the Holy Father’s generous offer and use the 1962 breviary, if he so chooses.

When we read Summorum Pontificum, we must keep in mind the target audience. When speaking about the breviary, the target audience was those deacons, priests and bishops who are not consecrated men, but are bound to the LOTH, because it’s one of the pastoral duties of the ordained. The Holy Father does not have to give the secular layman permission to use the 1962 breviary. There is nothing heretical in it. The secular layman was never told that he could not use it.

All that being said, it is wonderful that there are secular laymen who want to pray the LOTH. We must remember that praying with the universal Church does not mean that one has to be saying the same psalms. It means that one must be celebrating the same liturgical action. This is the case regardless of what edition of the breviary you use. It remains the same liturgical action.

When I use the Roman-Franciscan Breviary, someone else uses Christian Prayer, another uses the 1962 Breviary and a final person uses the Monastic Diurnal, we are all celebrating the same liturgical action. Therefore, we are praying in communion with each other and the universal Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Excellent post, thanks so much.

 

[Mark1970]

Can diocesan priest systematically use the 1962 breviary, or do they need permission from the Ordinary to do so?

Of course in private devotion anything goes, but that’s not the case for true liturgical prayer.

As far as I’m aware, no permission is needed from the bishop. Reading Summorum Pontificum, it looks as though a priest doesn’t need permission from the Bishop to use the 1962 Missal, Breviary or Ritual

 

[Mark1970]

Yes, of course, assuming rben20 is one of the very few members of the specific exceptional cases you note.

As far as I’m aware, it’s not wrong if for example rben20 is e.g. a layman. As e.g. those in holy orders - and other groups - are offering the Liturgy of the Hours as part of the official public prayer of the Church, what version they use matters. The versions they can use have been covered by previous posts. A layman isn’t under the same obligation, but as I mentioned previously, if the Pope has given permission for secular clergy to use thr 1962 Breviary, I can’t see that it’s against the mind of the Church to use it as well.

 

[OraLabora]

As far as I’m aware, it’s not wrong if for example rben20 is e.g. a layman. As e.g. those in holy orders - and other groups - are offering the Liturgy of the Hours as part of the official public prayer of the Church, what version they use matters. The versions they can use have been covered by previous posts. A layman isn’t under the same obligation, but as I mentioned previously, if the Pope has given permission for secular clergy to use thr 1962 Breviary, I can’t see that it’s against the mind of the Church to use it as well.

Of course in private recitation that may be fine. But in public recitation, the LOTH needs to be used unless one belongs to one of the groups excepted.

And if one is used to mixing private and public recitation in a group that’s not excepted, then it’s probably a good idea to stick to the current LOTH, otherwise the cycle is broken, you’ll miss out on some saints, etc.

I notice many priests, when on retreat at the abbey I am affiliated with, still read from their LOTH even though they attend all the monastic offices, in order that they not lose their place in the LOTH’s psalm cycle (the monastic cycle is 1 week; now however the other elements in the Monastic office such as the readings and collects, match the LOTH)

 

[rben20]

As far as I’m aware, it’s not wrong if for example rben20 is e.g. a layman. As e.g. those in holy orders - and other groups - are offering the Liturgy of the Hours as part of the official public prayer of the Church, what version they use matters. The versions they can use have been covered by previous posts. A layman isn’t under the same obligation, but as I mentioned previously, if the Pope has given permission for secular clergy to use thr 1962 Breviary, I can’t see that it’s against the mind of the Church to use it as well.

Mark, I am a layman but I am currently discerning whether I am called to the priesthood or not

 

[Mark1970]

Of course in private recitation that may be fine. But in public recitation, the LOTH needs to be used unless one belongs to one of the groups excepted.

And if one is used to mixing private and public recitation in a group that’s not excepted, then it’s probably a good idea to stick to the current LOTH, otherwise the cycle is broken, you’ll miss out on some saints, etc.

I notice many priests, when on retreat at the abbey I am affiliated with, still read from their LOTH even though they attend all the monastic offices, in order that they not lose their place in the LOTH’s psalm cycle (the monastic cycle is 1 week; now however the other elements in the Monastic office such as the readings and collects, match the LOTH)

I thought *Summorum Pontificum *allowed religious communities to collectively decide they wanted to use the 1962 Breviary - or does that just apply to the Missal? Also, in principle, if you’ve got two priests both using the 1962 Breviary privately, couldn’t they then decide to recite in public as well? (technically, there is the arguement that when a priest recites the LOTH, even when he does so alone, he’s reciting the Office publicly as an official representative of the church - put that’s another thread in it’s own right.) My reading of *Summorum Pontificum *is that it’s permissive of 1962 usages rather than restrictive - allowing rather than establishing restrictions. So my understanding is that, providing the legislation in Summorum Pontificum is followed, any secular priest, and any religious order/community of priests can opt to use 1962 usages, as long as the community agrees and they follow the legislation of either *Summorum Pontificum *or their community - or both.

 

[OraLabora]

Mark, I am a layman but I am currently discerning whether I am called to the priesthood or not

Now here is something worth praying for! God bless and I pray the discernment goes well and that indeed God is calling you as we need fine young men in the priesthood.

 

[Mark1970]

Now here is something worth praying for! God bless and I pray the discernment goes well and that indeed God is calling you as we need fine young men in the priesthood.

Now that’s something that we can all agree upon! It’s a pity we can’t agree about other things so easily.

 

[JReducation]

As far as I’m aware, no permission is needed from the bishop. Reading Summorum Pontificum, it looks as though a priest doesn’t need permission from the Bishop to use the 1962 Missal, Breviary or Ritual

Be careful how you respond. Summorum Pontificum is only speaking to those clerics who are not consecrated religious. Those who are both: priest and religious, must get permission from their major superior, who can only grant it, if the constitutions of his community allow him to do so.

When reading and speaking about clerics, one must always be careful if the statemet applies to all clerics or only to secular clerics. If we misapply a document such as SP, we can innocently set people up for disappointment. The average person in the pew does not know that not all priests are consecrated men. People often use terms interchangeably, when in fact they are not interchangeable, such as : priest, cleric, consecrated, and religious.

SP is one of those ducuments that makes it very clear that it’s only speaking to secular clerics. For clerics who are ALSO religious, the privileges of SP only apply with the permission of the major superior and the constitutions.

The answer to the question is that all secular clerics may avail themselves of the Holy Father’s generous offer without further permission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I thought *Summorum Pontificum *allowed religious communities to collectively decide they wanted to use the 1962 Breviary - or does that just apply to the Missal? Also, in principle, if you’ve got two priests both using the 1962 Breviary privately, couldn’t they then decide to recite in public as well? (technically, there is the arguement that when a priest recites the LOTH, even when he does so alone, he’s reciting the Office publicly as an official representative of the church - put that’s another thread in it’s own right.) My reading of *Summorum Pontificum *is that it’s permissive of 1962 usages rather than restrictive - allowing rather than establishing restrictions. So my understanding is that, providing the legislation in Summorum Pontificum is followed, any secular priest, and any religious order/community of priests can opt to use 1962 usages, as long as the community agrees and they follow the legislation of either *Summorum Pontificum *or their community - or both.

Just one clarification on the religious community. A religious community may elect to use both the breviary and the missal of 1962, provided that it is allowed by the constiutions. If it is not allowed by the constitutions, the community cannot vote it in. The Superior General has to request permission of the pope to hold a Constitutional Chapter, which is a special chapter to revise the constitutions. This is not the same as an electoral chapter, which is held every so many years. We are not allowed to modify our constitutions unless the Holy Father gives permission to do so. Even then, he gives permission to hold the meeting. He is not authorizing the changes. That comes later. The capitulars write the changes, which are then submitted to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life for its approval. The Holy Father does not approve them. He grants permission to hold the chapter. The chapter can be held and the changes can be rejected by the Sacred Congregation, despite SP.

SP is very clear that it is not trying to trump the structure and governance of religious life. Therefore, the Sacred Congregation for Instittutes of Consecrated Life is free to maintain its authority and to reject a constitutional change that would make the use of the 1962 breviary mandatory. I’m sure that they look at many criteria for approving or disaproving any change in a constitution.

Another issue is that religious communities bound to the recitation of the Divine Office do not grant permissions for individuals to use different forms or editions of the breviary. The entire community uses the same form. This was a major issue in the large international orders when the breviary was translated. The decision was that the breviary had to be adopted by language groups, not by individual religious.

For example, in the USA, most religious belong to the English speaking conference. We must use the breviary that the community approves for the English speaking conference. In my community, the Latin breviary is only allowed if the entire house wants to use it. This is not that easy, because peopl move every couple of years. You then have to hold a house chapter when your residents change. It gets too confusing and is not worth the expensse of buying new books that often. However, a house in the USA may use the Spanish breviary, if the house is a Spanish-speaking house. That exception was made when we began to import missionaries from Latin America. However, there is a condition. Those houses must adopt the breviary in English when all the brothers can speak English.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OraLabora]

Just one clarification on the religious community. A religious community may elect to use both the breviary and the missal of 1962, provided that it is allowed by the constiutions. If it is not allowed by the constitutions, the community cannot vote it in. The Superior General has to request permission of the pope to hold a Constitutional Chapter, which is a special chapter to revise the constitutions. This is not the same as an electoral chapter, which is held every so many years. We are not allowed to modify our constitutions unless the Holy Father gives permission to do so. Even then, he gives permission to hold the meeting. He is not authorizing the changes. That comes later. The capitulars write the changes, which are then submitted to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life for its approval. The Holy Father does not approve them. He grants permission to hold the chapter. The chapter can be held and the changes can be rejected by the Sacred Congregation, despite SP.

SP is very clear that it is not trying to trump the structure and governance of religious life. Therefore, the Sacred Congregation for Instittutes of Consecrated Life is free to maintain its authority and to reject a constitutional change that would make the use of the 1962 breviary mandatory. I’m sure that they look at many criteria for approving or disaproving any change in a constitution.

Another issue is that religious communities bound to the recitation of the Divine Office do not grant permissions for individuals to use different forms or editions of the breviary. The entire community uses the same form. This was a major issue in the large international orders when the breviary was translated. The decision was that the breviary had to be adopted by language groups, not by individual religious.

For example, in the USA, most religious belong to the English speaking conference. We must use the breviary that the community approves for the English speaking conference. In my community, the Latin breviary is only allowed if the entire house wants to use it. This is not that easy, because peopl move every couple of years. You then have to hold a house chapter when your residents change. It gets too confusing and is not worth the expensse of buying new books that often. However, a house in the USA may use the Spanish breviary, if the house is a Spanish-speaking house. That exception was made when we began to import missionaries from Latin America. However, there is a condition. Those houses must adopt the breviary in English when all the brothers can speak English.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Benedictines have a little more wiggle room as there are 4 approved Benedictine schemas for the Divine Office, in addition to the current LOTH that may be used for Benedictines outside the monastery or within that have an external apostolate. I doubt any Benedictine house would use the 1962 Breviary as it has no tradition among Benedictines, they would be more likely to go back to the pre-Vatican II version of the Monastic Office (the pre-VII version of the current Schema A). Moreover the current Schema A sticks to the schema laid out by Saint Benedict in his famous Rule, greatly reducing the need to go back in time to the pre-Vatican II era unless one also uses the 1962 Missal in which case the current Schema A will be out of sync with the Mass which would have a different calendar and liturgical year.

Also Benedictines are a confederation, and each house is free to decide which of the approved Offices (and language) to use. Our abbey chose Schema B which sticks to the spirit of the Rule by saying all 150 psalms in a week. For language the monks chose Latin for Lauds and Vespers, and French for the other offices.

 

[JReducation]

Benedictines have a little more wiggle room as there are 4 approved Benedictine schemas for the Divine Office, in addition to the current LOTH that may be used for Benedictines outside the monastery or within that have an external apostolate. I doubt any Benedictine house would use the 1962 Breviary as it has no tradition among Benedictines, they would be more likely to go back to the pre-Vatican II version of the Monastic Office (the pre-VII version of the current Schema A). Moreover the current Schema A sticks to the schema laid out by Saint Benedict in his famous Rule, greatly reducing the need to go back in time to the pre-Vatican II era unless one also uses the 1962 Missal in which case the current Schema A will be out of sync with the Mass which would have a different calendar and liturgical year.

Also Benedictines are a confederation, and each house is free to decide which of the approved Offices (and language) to use. Our abbey chose Schema B which sticks to the spirit of the Rule by saying all 150 psalms in a week. For language the monks chose Latin for Lauds and Vespers, and French for the other offices.

Exactly!

They are using what the rule allows them to use. The same holds true for other religious communities that are bound to pray the Liturgy of the Hours. Each uses whatever the rule allows them to use.

Communities that do not have a rule, will have statutes that they write. They use whatever the statutes say they can use.

The Benedictines have a great advantage over other orders, because of the autonomy of their houses.

Orders like the Augustinians and the Franciscans, have what we call “Obediences”. These are branches of the order that follow the same rule, with different constitutions, each with its own superior general. The constitutions fill in the gaps left by the rule. For example, the Rule of St. Francis says that we must pray the Divine Office. He does not go into detail. We get an idea of how he wanted us to pray it, not from the rule, but from the Seraphic Office, which is an office that he wrote. The Seraphic Office is much simpler and shorter than the Benedictine Schemas. It does not cover the 150 psalms in one week. It covers them in one month. The reason for that is that Francis’ focus was on the Trinity, not on the psalter. He did everything in threes. Each major hour has three: two psalms and one new Testament canticle. All Franciscans, regardless of which obedience we belong to, follow the same Francisan breviary. This is written into the constitutions to fill in the gap that is left in the rule.

Augustinians, who are also many obediencs, do something similar. The constitutions take what the Rule of St. Augustin says about the Liturgy of the Hours and it tells the canons how to fulfill it.

That’s why SP did not try to impose the 1962 books on religious. To do so would have been tragic. Each religious community brings to the table a vision of liturgy that is inspired by the founder. The Church wants to protect both the liturgy and the different religious charisms, because both are necessary for her spiritual life.

What she is telling us in SP is to celebrate the Liturgy reverently, according to the charism that we have been given. Obviously, for lay people and secular clergy that charism is much more personal, while for religious that charismis communal. But all of those people praying the Liturgy of the Hours are presenting God with a bouquet of assorted flower that is truly beautiful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF