Roman Breviary before 1961

  • Thread starter Thread starter PopePiusXIISupp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PopePiusXIISupp

Guest
Hello! Am I allowed to use an older form of the Breviary that is before 1961? The reason I am asking is I want one that is 1961 but are WAY to expensive but ones before 1961 are cheaper.
 
PopePiusXIISupp said:
Hello! Am I allowed to use an older form of the Breviary that is before 1961? The reason I am asking is I want one that is 1961 but are WAY to expensive but ones before 1961 are cheaper.
Click to expand...
Hello,

If you are a layman, it seems to me that you can use any breviary you want. If you are not, you use the one you are obliged to use.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

If you are a layman, it seems to me that you can use any breviary you want. If you are not, you use the one you are obliged to use.

Dan
Click to expand...
Keeping in mind that it would be prayed as a mere private devotion if not a liturgical book currently in force…rather than a participation in the liturgy of the Church. (Correct me if I’m wrong).
 
twf said:
Keeping in mind that it would be prayed as a mere private devotion if not a liturgical book currently in force…rather than a participation in the liturgy of the Church. (Correct me if I’m wrong).
Click to expand...
…Yes, I think that makes sense.

Dan
 
Yes…private devotion only, I believe

Nice to have a post regarding anything other than the LoTH where someone hasn’t degraded, mocked, or trivialized an old breviary edition with personal opinions.
 
40Days said:
Yes…private devotion only, I believe

Nice to have a post regarding anything other than the LoTH where someone hasn’t degraded, mocked, or trivialized an old breviary edition with personal opinions.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about those who mock the LOTH for being too vacuous or non-traditional!

I don’t think there’s any reason to mock or trivialize any breviary What I have done however is point out some factual errors, such as the 1961 breviary being “traditional”. It is not as it dates only back, in its substantial structure, to 1910. It is however, licit. Prior to 1970, most laity would not have prayed that breviary other than the times it would be celebrated in the parish, most often on Sundays and big feasts, and high liturgical moments such as the Pascal Triduum.

Also a little known fact is that there is a very traditional breviary that exists that is also licit in both pre- and post-Vatican II forms, and that is the Monastic Breviary according to the original schema of St. Benedict. In the monastic world, it is now known as Schema “A”. The post-Vatican II version would represent the most consistent continuity with tradition as it is the breviary that managed to be preserved and adapted to the times continually for 1500 years. No other breviary can make that claim, most certainly not the 1961.

However that doesn’t take away from the validity of the 1961 Breviary, nor does it take away from the validity and legitimacy of the modern Liturgy of the Hours! Liturgy belongs to the Church and she retains the right to legislate on liturgy. Currently she says that the licit breviaries are the 1961 for those attached to the pre-Vatican II liturgy. the 1970 LOTH for most of us, and the monastic breviaries for monastic communities. Even though the 1961 is not “traditional”, it is the one favoured by those who consider themselves “traditionalists”. The Monastic Breviaries are mostly used in the monastic world and by some of the laity (mostly oblates) who have a connection with that world; I myself use one when I have enough time.

Summary (for the purpose of this list I’ll consider “traditional” as meaning having a psalter schema in use for several centuries):
  • Pius V breviary: Trent to 1911 (150 psalms per week with many repetitions, traditional; pre-Trent would almost require a master’s or doctoral dissertation)
  • Pius X breviary: 1911-1970 (includes the 1961 Breviary, that incorporates rubrical changes, the new Holy Week, and new classification of feasts; non traditional, 150 psalms per week with fewer repetitions)
  • Monastic breviary: ~540 until 1970s (pre-Vatican II) (traditional)
  • Monastic breviary schema “A”: 1970s to this day (traditional)
  • Monastic breviary schema “B”: 1960s to this day (non-traditional, all 150 psalms per week)
  • Monastic breviary schema “C”: post-Vatican II, (non-traditional, psalter divided over 2 weeks)
  • Monastic breviary schema “D”: post-Vatican II (non-traditional, psalter divided over 2 weeks)
It is important to note the appropriateness of use of a Breviary. The monastic versions, all licit, theoretically at least should be used by those with a strong connection to monasticism either as oblates, or as laity regularly attending Offices in a monastery, plus the monastic community itself.

Most secular clergy found the praying of 150 psalms per week onerous, and 250 or so per week (as was the case before the Pius X reforms).

The first attempt at fixing this was the reform of Pius X. The second is the LOTH as we know it. In addition the LOTH made the vernacular licit, and was encouraged for the laity as well. Moreover it fixed a significant problem with older breviaries: the habit of many clerics of saying their entire daily obligation in one sitting to “get it over with”. The LOTH rubrics oblige that the verity of the hour be respected. While flexibility in timing is allowed, it doesn’t do to pray Lauds in the evening by anticipation as was done prior to VII, for example. But to pray it some time between sunrise and say 8:30 AM is acceptable.

Prior to VII, as I mentioned, the Roman Breviary was not encouraged for, and was rarely used by, the laity. They would be more inclined to pray one of the Little Offices (or the Rosary). This was also true of lay brothers in monasteries. They would not be choir monks and would have their own little offices. Vatican II obliged communities to eliminate the rank of lay brother, and all are now fully professed monks (but some are not priests) and they all pray the monastic office in choir though often the abbot will dispense them of some of the hours when working in at manual labour. For example at our abbey some of the monks involved in manual labour are not obliged to show up for Vigils at 5 am.

As laity we aren’t obliged to pray every hour and it’s OK to pray only some of the hours from the 1961 breviary. However the LOTH does allow me the flexibility to pray all hours, and that’s why it’s the breviary I use most of the time. It has built-in flexibility for busy laity and secular clergy. I always recommend the LOTH to “beginners” to avoid being overwhelmed. I too had my misgivings about the LOTH when I first started using it, but I’ve grown to love it and understand that it is, in fact truly “traditional” in its own way, by respecting the canonical hours, the use of many psalms in their traditional places (e.g. 62 at Lauds, 109 at Vespers), and options like using psalms 4, 90 and 133 for Compline daily. I’m of the opinion that “tradition” does not mean that ever jot and tittle is exactly as it was 1000 years ago; no breviary can claim that, not even the Monastic. But the praying the psalms at the canonical hours is very much a living tradition that in fact goes back to Judaism. In that sense, the 1970 breviary is very much in keeping with the Church’s Tradition.
 
You can use any text (of course within the boundaries of orthodoxy) you want if it’s a matter of private devotion. The NLM article I cited below seems to only present options of the LOTH, the UA breviary or monastic breviaries.

Although I’m not sure how inclined I am to say the office is a devotion per se. I know Latins generally draw the distinction of devotion at non-obligatory but there’s obviously a categorical difference between praying the rosary and praying the office (even if done in private, it’s still the text of a liturgy - NLM refers to it, seemingly even when said privately, as “part of the corpus of the Church’s liturgical prayer”). Perhaps I’m confused because we (Orientals) do not have a concept of praying liturgies in private but if I do recall Latins generally say the office is praying with the Church for the Church, as though there is something particular to the office more so than to a general devotion. The way one Syriac writer puts it is that it is the extension of the Eucharistic liturgy throughout the entire day and the days without mass.
OraLabora said:
Prior to 1970, most laity would not have prayed that breviary other than the times it would be celebrated in the parish, most often on Sundays and big feasts, and high liturgical moments such as the Pascal Triduum.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t seem to be a problem to me 🤷. The office, to my knowledge, is intended to be a liturgy (i.e. public) and it is now called the Liturgy of the Hours in the Latin Church. I must say, there’s just something absolutely great and nourishing to my own faith to chant an office together as the assembled Church to God (Syriacs, Byzantines, Latins, Armenians or otherwise) that I don’t think I would’ve experienced alone - and I think that’s precisely because the office is the vineyard of the many. Though if one does not have access to the public praying of the office (which should be the normative form of celebration) then, of course, there’s nothing inhibiting their own prayer from the breviary but that seems to be (at least normatively) a conditional substitute.
 
Addendum to above: the citation from Sancrosanctum Concilium that refers to the office as public prayer is par. 90.

Apologies for the double post.
 
OraLabora said:
I feel the same way about those who mock the LOTH for being too vacuous or non-traditional!

I don’t think there’s any reason to mock or trivialize any breviary What I have done however is point out some factual errors, such as the 1961 breviary being “traditional”. It is not as it dates only back, in its substantial structure, to 1910. It is however, licit. Prior to 1970, most laity would not have prayed that breviary other than the times it would be celebrated in the parish, most often on Sundays and big feasts, and high liturgical moments such as the Pascal Triduum.

Also a little known fact is that there is a very traditional breviary that exists that is also licit in both pre- and post-Vatican II forms, and that is the Monastic Breviary according to the original schema of St. Benedict. In the monastic world, it is now known as Schema “A”. The post-Vatican II version would represent the most consistent continuity with tradition as it is the breviary that managed to be preserved and adapted to the times continually for 1500 years. No other breviary can make that claim, most certainly not the 1961.

However that doesn’t take away from the validity of the 1961 Breviary, nor does it take away from the validity and legitimacy of the modern Liturgy of the Hours! Liturgy belongs to the Church and she retains the right to legislate on liturgy. Currently she says that the licit breviaries are the 1961 for those attached to the pre-Vatican II liturgy. the 1970 LOTH for most of us, and the monastic breviaries for monastic communities. Even though the 1961 is not “traditional”, it is the one favoured by those who consider themselves “traditionalists”. The Monastic Breviaries are mostly used in the monastic world and by some of the laity (mostly oblates) who have a connection with that world; I myself use one when I have enough time.

Summary (for the purpose of this list I’ll consider “traditional” as meaning having a psalter schema in use for several centuries):
  • Pius V breviary: Trent to 1911 (150 psalms per week with many repetitions, traditional; pre-Trent would almost require a master’s or doctoral dissertation)
  • Pius X breviary: 1911-1970 (includes the 1961 Breviary, that incorporates rubrical changes, the new Holy Week, and new classification of feasts; non traditional, 150 psalms per week with fewer repetitions)
  • Monastic breviary: ~540 until 1970s (pre-Vatican II) (traditional)
  • Monastic breviary schema “A”: 1970s to this day (traditional)
  • Monastic breviary schema “B”: 1960s to this day (non-traditional, all 150 psalms per week)
  • Monastic breviary schema “C”: post-Vatican II, (non-traditional, psalter divided over 2 weeks)
  • Monastic breviary schema “D”: post-Vatican II (non-traditional, psalter divided over 2 weeks)
It is important to note the appropriateness of use of a Breviary. The monastic versions, all licit, theoretically at least should be used by those with a strong connection to monasticism either as oblates, or as laity regularly attending Offices in a monastery, plus the monastic community itself.

Most secular clergy found the praying of 150 psalms per week onerous, and 250 or so per week (as was the case before the Pius X reforms).

The first attempt at fixing this was the reform of Pius X. The second is the LOTH as we know it. In addition the LOTH made the vernacular licit, and was encouraged for the laity as well. Moreover it fixed a significant problem with older breviaries: the habit of many clerics of saying their entire daily obligation in one sitting to “get it over with”. The LOTH rubrics oblige that the verity of the hour be respected. While flexibility in timing is allowed, it doesn’t do to pray Lauds in the evening by anticipation as was done prior to VII, for example. But to pray it some time between sunrise and say 8:30 AM is acceptable.

Prior to VII, as I mentioned, the Roman Breviary was not encouraged for, and was rarely used by, the laity. They would be more inclined to pray one of the Little Offices (or the Rosary). This was also true of lay brothers in monasteries. They would not be choir monks and would have their own little offices. Vatican II obliged communities to eliminate the rank of lay brother, and all are now fully professed monks (but some are not priests) and they all pray the monastic office in choir though often the abbot will dispense them of some of the hours when working in at manual labour. For example at our abbey some of the monks involved in manual labour are not obliged to show up for Vigils at 5 am.

As laity we aren’t obliged to pray every hour and it’s OK to pray only some of the hours from the 1961 breviary. However the LOTH does allow me the flexibility to pray all hours, and that’s why it’s the breviary I use most of the time. It has built-in flexibility for busy laity and secular clergy. I always recommend the LOTH to “beginners” to avoid being overwhelmed. I too had my misgivings about the LOTH when I first started using it, but I’ve grown to love it and understand that it is, in fact truly “traditional” in its own way, by respecting the canonical hours, the use of many psalms in their traditional places (e.g. 62 at Lauds, 109 at Vespers), and options like using psalms 4, 90 and 133 for Compline daily. I’m of the opinion that “tradition” does not mean that ever jot and tittle is exactly as it was 1000 years ago; no breviary can claim that, not even the Monastic. But the praying the psalms at the canonical hours is very much a living tradition that in fact goes back to Judaism. In that sense, the 1970 breviary is very much in keeping with the Church’s Tradition.
Click to expand...
I always enjoy reading your knowledge on the breviary OraLabora - you’re like a LOTH google! 🙂
 
OraLabora said:
I feel the same way about those who mock the LOTH for being too vacuous or non-traditional!

I don’t think there’s any reason to mock or trivialize any breviary What I have done however is point out some factual errors, such as the 1961 breviary being “traditional”. It is not as it dates only back, in its substantial structure, to 1910. It is however, licit. Prior to 1970, most laity would not have prayed that breviary other than the times it would be celebrated in the parish, most often on Sundays and big feasts, and high liturgical moments such as the Pascal Triduum.

Also a little known fact is that there is a very traditional breviary that exists that is also licit in both pre- and post-Vatican II forms, and that is the Monastic Breviary according to the original schema of St. Benedict. In the monastic world, it is now known as Schema “A”. The post-Vatican II version would represent the most consistent continuity with tradition as it is the breviary that managed to be preserved and adapted to the times continually for 1500 years. No other breviary can make that claim, most certainly not the 1961.

However that doesn’t take away from the validity of the 1961 Breviary, nor does it take away from the validity and legitimacy of the modern Liturgy of the Hours! Liturgy belongs to the Church and she retains the right to legislate on liturgy. Currently she says that the licit breviaries are the 1961 for those attached to the pre-Vatican II liturgy. the 1970 LOTH for most of us, and the monastic breviaries for monastic communities. Even though the 1961 is not “traditional”, it is the one favoured by those who consider themselves “traditionalists”. The Monastic Breviaries are mostly used in the monastic world and by some of the laity (mostly oblates) who have a connection with that world; I myself use one when I have enough time.

Summary (for the purpose of this list I’ll consider “traditional” as meaning having a psalter schema in use for several centuries):
  • Pius V breviary: Trent to 1911 (150 psalms per week with many repetitions, traditional; pre-Trent would almost require a master’s or doctoral dissertation)
  • Pius X breviary: 1911-1970 (includes the 1961 Breviary, that incorporates rubrical changes, the new Holy Week, and new classification of feasts; non traditional, 150 psalms per week with fewer repetitions)
  • Monastic breviary: ~540 until 1970s (pre-Vatican II) (traditional)
  • Monastic breviary schema “A”: 1970s to this day (traditional)
  • Monastic breviary schema “B”: 1960s to this day (non-traditional, all 150 psalms per week)
  • Monastic breviary schema “C”: post-Vatican II, (non-traditional, psalter divided over 2 weeks)
  • Monastic breviary schema “D”: post-Vatican II (non-traditional, psalter divided over 2 weeks)
It is important to note the appropriateness of use of a Breviary. The monastic versions, all licit, theoretically at least should be used by those with a strong connection to monasticism either as oblates, or as laity regularly attending Offices in a monastery, plus the monastic community itself.

Most secular clergy found the praying of 150 psalms per week onerous, and 250 or so per week (as was the case before the Pius X reforms).

The first attempt at fixing this was the reform of Pius X. The second is the LOTH as we know it. In addition the LOTH made the vernacular licit, and was encouraged for the laity as well. Moreover it fixed a significant problem with older breviaries: the habit of many clerics of saying their entire daily obligation in one sitting to “get it over with”. The LOTH rubrics oblige that the verity of the hour be respected. While flexibility in timing is allowed, it doesn’t do to pray Lauds in the evening by anticipation as was done prior to VII, for example. But to pray it some time between sunrise and say 8:30 AM is acceptable.

Prior to VII, as I mentioned, the Roman Breviary was not encouraged for, and was rarely used by, the laity. They would be more inclined to pray one of the Little Offices (or the Rosary). This was also true of lay brothers in monasteries. They would not be choir monks and would have their own little offices. Vatican II obliged communities to eliminate the rank of lay brother, and all are now fully professed monks (but some are not priests) and they all pray the monastic office in choir though often the abbot will dispense them of some of the hours when working in at manual labour. For example at our abbey some of the monks involved in manual labour are not obliged to show up for Vigils at 5 am.

As laity we aren’t obliged to pray every hour and it’s OK to pray only some of the hours from the 1961 breviary. However the LOTH does allow me the flexibility to pray all hours, and that’s why it’s the breviary I use most of the time. It has built-in flexibility for busy laity and secular clergy. I always recommend the LOTH to “beginners” to avoid being overwhelmed. I too had my misgivings about the LOTH when I first started using it, but I’ve grown to love it and understand that it is, in fact truly “traditional” in its own way, by respecting the canonical hours, the use of many psalms in their traditional places (e.g. 62 at Lauds, 109 at Vespers), and options like using psalms 4, 90 and 133 for Compline daily. I’m of the opinion that “tradition” does not mean that ever jot and tittle is exactly as it was 1000 years ago; no breviary can claim that, not even the Monastic. But the praying the psalms at the canonical hours is very much a living tradition that in fact goes back to Judaism. In that sense, the 1970 breviary is very much in keeping with the Church’s Tradition.
Click to expand...
How would you respond to those who discredit the current LOTH because they omit certain psalms and certain parts of psalms.

Great explanation by the way.
 
mperdiguerra said:
How would you respond to those who discredit the current LOTH because they omit certain psalms and certain parts of psalms.

Great explanation by the way.
Click to expand...
No breviary is perfect; my answer is that it was the specific wish of Pope Paul VI and that he insisted quite strongly on this.

See “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell. Great if somewhat dry read. I don’t necessarily agree with the author’s conclusions but it is a great factual account of how the Liturgy of the Hours came to be.

Note that the monastic schemas do not omit the psalms or cursing verses (but usually identify them in brackets so communities can omit them ad libitum).
 
OraLabora said:
No breviary is perfect; my answer is that it was the specific wish of Pope Paul VI and that he insisted quite strongly on this.

See “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell. Great if somewhat dry read. I don’t necessarily agree with the author’s conclusions but it is a great factual account of how the Liturgy of the Hours came to be.

Note that the monastic schemas do not omit the psalms or cursing verses (but usually identify them in brackets so communities can omit them ad libitum).
Click to expand...
I’m quite sure the same book only makes mention of the exclusion of imprecatory psalms being a decision of the Concilium. If I am mistaken, could you please point me to a page that says otherwise?
 
MorEphrem said:
I’m quite sure the same book only makes mention of the exclusion of imprecatory psalms being a decision of the Concilium. If I am mistaken, could you please point me to a page that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
The whole thing is discussed on pp. 69-71

P. 69:
A few days earlier, the Pope had responded to the request of the “secretariat” of the Consilium that he open his mind on the matter of retaining the whole Psalter in the Ordinary cycle of the Office. In an autograph note given to Father Bunging on January 3 he said:

In my view it is preferable that a selection be made of psalms better suited to Christian prayer and that the imprecatory and historical psalms be omitted (though these last may be suitably used in certain circumstances
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Also:
Cardinal Gut conveyed the Pope’s desire to Canon Martimort in a letter dated June 7 1968:

The Pope desires that there be omitted from the ordinary cycle of the psalter in their entirety the “imprecatory” psalms, namely psalms 57, 82 and 108, and those parts of (of psalms) which had be proposed as optional and therefore were to be included in parentheses. The psalms however which are called “historical” may be kept for certain special times
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Lastly p. 246:
Because of the papal recommendation and then insistence on the exclusion of the three imprecatory psalms and difficult verses in some others from the cursus of the psalmody, a fundamental and traditional principle of the Roman Office, namely the use of the integral Psalter, had been breached.
Click to expand...
I believe there are other notes elsewhere; I’m late for Vigils so I’ll let yo do the research, 😉

Frankly it is an issue that is quite well developed in the book, surprised you missed it.
 
MorEphrem said:
I recalled the decision of its optionality but not insistence per se.

Anyway, thank you for the citations.
Click to expand...
No problem. Perhaps you read it some time ago. So did I but in the last two years I’ve given a series of lectures and articles to our oblates and to the Gregorian Institute of Canada on the development and use of the Liturgy of the Hours, Les Heures Grégoriennes and the new Roman Antiphonary, so I have referred to it quite recently in the last couple of years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top