Sort of A Self-Introduction and a Breviary/Diurnal Question

[iohanne]

Hey! Ever since loosing my Latin-English edition of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I haven’t been able to do the daily round of Lauds and Vespers. The past year has seen me dive head over heels into the fascinating world of eastern Christianity - from Eastern Orthodoxy to Oriental Orthodoxy to the Assyrian Church - and as a result I’ve found my liturgical tastes have become much, much more traditional due to a more profound exposure to early Christian history, Patristic texts, comparative liturgical development, traditional iconography, etc.

The end result is that I’m not only sick and tired of waiting for Baronius Press’ new edition of the Breviarium Romanum, I’m also beginning to think it’s not even really going to be that satisfying an investment in terms of my traditionalism. I’ve read that two popes have re-written many Latin hymns that we’ve used since the very earliest days of the Roman church: one pope revised several of the hymns in the mediaeval ages and I think another similar revision occurred in the 17th century. It makes no sense to me that hymns purported to have been written by the very hand of St. Ambrose himself could be changed like that! I’m a little dismayed at the historical tendency of the Roman church to constant revision and shortening - all in the name of the stereotypical Roman sobriety and terseness - everything from the choppy Roman canon to our ancient hymns… Then again, perhaps I’m making my own aestheticism and traditionalism into a form of idolatry; if it were up to me, I’d abandon Gregorian chant all together and revive Old Roman chant. I really take to heart what the Council of Nicaea declared: “Let the ancient customs prevail!”

So anyways, the point of this post is that I’ve recently discovered the Monastic Diurnal of Farmborough Abbey and I’m seriously considering this for several reasons - one of which being that I’m discerning a vocation to a traditional Benedictine order and the second being that it supposedly preserves the original psalter distribution as laid out by St. Benedict in his Rule and the hymns in their original, unadulterated Latin. I’m really interested in this because this essentially represents, to me, a pre-schism, Divine Office.

I’m just a little curious to hear about your experiences with it… … it’s much, much thinner than the three-volume set that Baronius Press is working on and I’m concerned about having to be flipping around too much. How is it structured? How do you find it? Do you think I should wait for the Baronius Press or should I nab myself a Monastic Diurnal? Or do you guys suggest something else?

P.S. English translations don’t matter because my Latin is pretty much in tip-top shape.

 

[CaptCrunch73]

I’ve used the Monastic Diurnal from Farmborough Abbey. I like it but it’s a larger time commitment than I have available. Additionally, it follows the 1962 Liturgical Calendar, since I attend a parish that uses the post 1962 liturgical calendar it is not practical for me.

An excellent site for the diurnal you’ve mentioned is Saints Will Arise.

Oh yeah, one of the discussions about this diurnal on Catholic Answers is whether or not you’re praying as part of the church. If you’re praying this in Latin I believe you ARE there is a discussion of this on the Saints WIll Arise site.

 

[OraLabora]

The end result is that I’m not only sick and tired of waiting for Baronius Press’ new edition of the Breviarium Romanum, I’m also beginning to think it’s not even really going to be that satisfying an investment in terms of my traditionalism. I’ve read that two popes have re-written many Latin hymns that we’ve used since the very earliest days of the Roman church: one pope revised several of the hymns in the mediaeval ages and I think another similar revision occurred in the 17th century. It makes no sense to me that hymns purported to have been written by the very hand of St. Ambrose himself could be changed like that! I’m a little dismayed at the historical tendency of the Roman church to constant revision and shortening - all in the name of the stereotypical Roman sobriety and terseness - everything from the choppy Roman canon to our ancient hymns… Then again, perhaps I’m making my own aestheticism and traditionalism into a form of idolatry; if it were up to me, I’d abandon Gregorian chant all together and revive Old Roman chant. I really take to heart what the Council of Nicaea declared: “Let the ancient customs prevail!”

So anyways, the point of this post is that I’ve recently discovered the Monastic Diurnal of Farmborough Abbey and I’m seriously considering this for several reasons - one of which being that I’m discerning a vocation to a traditional Benedictine order and the second being that it supposedly preserves the original psalter distribution as laid out by St. Benedict in his Rule and the hymns in their original, unadulterated Latin. I’m really interested in this because this essentially represents, to me, a pre-schism, Divine Office.

I’m just a little curious to hear about your experiences with it… … it’s much, much thinner than the three-volume set that Baronius Press is working on and I’m concerned about having to be flipping around too much. How is it structured? How do you find it? Do you think I should wait for the Baronius Press or should I nab myself a Monastic Diurnal? Or do you guys suggest something else?

P.S. English translations don’t matter because my Latin is pretty much in tip-top shape.

You’re right in that the Brevarium Romanum isn’t very traditional. It only goes back to 1910 when Pius X engineered a very radical (for the times) revision of the psalter of Pius V. Many traditions were lost, such as the Laudate psalms every day at Lauds, and the psalms were split into more or less equal sections which ended up basically like taking a chainsaw to them and to the antiphonary, causing the loss of many traditional antiphons and introducing new ones of questionable origins. Matins was also shortened from 12 to 9 psalms. In many ways this set the precedent for the modern LOTH, and I always get a chuckle when a “traditionalist” talks about going back to the “traditional” Breviarum Romanum of 1962. It most certainly is a product of the modern era, if you consider anything past the Industrial Revolution as the “modern era”.

You’re also quite right that the Monastic Breviary is much more traditional. It dates back to the time of St. Benedict 1500 years ago. The interesting thing with this breviary though, is that you don’t really have to use a pre-Vatican II one to be “traditional”. With the Monastic breviary you can be at the time modern and traditional because this breviary always kept up with the Roman Church over time (for instance St. Benedict states that the OT canticle at Lauds should always be what the Roman Church prescribes). True to form this breviary was updated after Vatican II to follow the new liturgical year, with the same collects and intercessions, following the LOTH OT canticles, but retaining the same psalm order and the option to retain Prime; a revised antiphonary was released between 2005 and 2008 however it is controversial for many of its musical choices and manner of writing the music. It’s still licit to use the 1934 Monastic Antiphonary (which is still available from Solesmes), along with a small booklet called “Documenta” which adapts it to the modern Liturgical year and in particular to match the new 3-year Mass lectionary for the Gospel (which adds the Gospel of Mark).

However from a practical point of view, my hat goes off to anyone who can find the time to have a professional and family life and pray the entire weekly cycle which entails reciting or chanting over 250 psalms (obviously with many repetitions). I used a more modern Monastic Breviary which is 150 psalms but draws antiphons from the same sources (I chant Lauds and Vespers in Gregorian chant).

Of course you can use the pre-Vatican II Monastic Breviary, officially as you know it needs to be in Latin to be liturgical. I would recommend the Monastic Antiphonary from Solesmes for that purpose, you will have all the music plus the psalms for all of the day offices of Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline. And you can pray only a part of the Office, say Lauds, Vespers and Compline since you are not bound (yet!) to the full Office.

In the 1983 Liber Hymnarius BTW, many of the adulterated hymns were restored to their traditional form. I’m not sure if the Diurnal has the traditional wording or the versions modified over time.

BTW where are you looking at your vocation? Clear Creek? Solesmes also does a very traditional “modern” liturgy (that is it follows the reformed post-Vatican II liturgy with the OF Mass, and the traditional Monastic Office adapted as I noted above, and everything in Latin and Gregorian chant). It is possible to be a Benedictine, be “traditional” and yet follow a modern post-Vatican II liturgy.

 

[Ohiomom]

The Farmborough Abbey Diurnal is very good and portable though from reports the most recent version (it just came back into print) is larger than the previous version.

I did find it confusing at first because the page numbering is not very intuitive, and you do have to do a fair amount of flipping pages especially during Advent/Christmas and Lent/Easter. The Saints Shall Arise web site and the accompanying Yahoo group have been invaluable. I was used to praying the LOTH so once I understood the page arrangement (with the help of the website) it was much more intuitive.

It does take a fair amount of time- but if time is not as much of an issue that will not be a barrier. The English translation is lovely though not perfect. I am only able to attend the EF on Sundays and most Holy Days but I still prefer to pray from this version because now that I know, the deficiencies of the LOTH are hard for me to ignore. Re: the Latin vs English debate, I agree it is best to know what you are praying so I do pray most of the psalms and the hymns in English. I have studied Latin, but on my own as an adult. Also, I am in the camp of those who think that, unless you are bound to pray the office (priest, religious) or have promised to try to pray the office (oblate, secular or third order member) you are free to use the version and language. If you want to make certain you are engaging in a liturgical action, though, you will want to be consistent with the version you are praying (ie the Diurnal in Latin per the 1962 rubrics).

There is also a volume of Matins that is Anglican and in English, but from the discussions is faithful to the Benedictine schema and could be of use if you want to also pray Matins. At the very least it may give you help in making the change to all Latin Matins.
andrewespress.com/matins.html

 

[iohanne]

I’ve used the Monastic Diurnal from Farmborough Abbey…If you’re praying this in Latin I believe you ARE there is a discussion of this on the Saints WIll Arise site.

Thanks for your response! I really appreciate it!

You’re right in that the Brevarium Romanum isn’t very traditional. It only goes back to 1910 when Pius X engineered a very radical (for the times) revision of the psalter of Pius V.

Yes, I’ve heard about this but I thought that the new Breviarium Romanum being released by Baronius Press would be equipped with a restoration of the Gallical psalter? I could be wrong.

However from a practical point of view, my hat goes off to anyone who can find the time to have a professional and family life and pray the entire weekly cycle which entails reciting or chanting over 250 psalms (obviously with many repetitions). I used a more modern Monastic Breviary which is 150 psalms but draws antiphons from the same sources (I chant Lauds and Vespers in Gregorian chant).

I really only would be praying Lauds and Vespers at first until I got used to the structure and even found myself memorising a few of the psalms. I’d probably also add in the Scripture readings from one of the other offices that have Scripture readings and the patristic readings from Matins. My life really is pretty busy because I’m in my early 20s so it’s hard to fit in time for the daily rounds of prayer.

Of course you can use the pre-Vatican II Monastic Breviary, officially as you know it needs to be in Latin to be liturgical. I would recommend the Monastic Antiphonary from Solesmes for that purpose, you will have all the music plus the psalms for all of the day offices of Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline. And you can pray only a part of the Office, say Lauds, Vespers and Compline since you are not bound (yet!) to the full Office.

Thanks for the reccomendation! So I’m assuming the monastic antiphonary is something I’d have to get separate from the monastic diurnal? What, other than antiphons, does it contain? Why wouldn’t this have just been put into the monastic diurnal, already? Is it so that, like you said in your post, the monastic diurnal could be both traditional and modern and one could use the new antiphons if one prefers?

In the 1983 Liber Hymnarius BTW, many of the adulterated hymns were restored to their traditional form. I’m not sure if the Diurnal has the traditional wording or the versions modified over time.

Thanks for the heads up!

BTW where are you looking at your vocation? Clear Creek? Solesmes also does a very traditional “modern” liturgy (that is it follows the reformed post-Vatican II liturgy with the OF Mass, and the traditional Monastic Office adapted as I noted above, and everything in Latin and Gregorian chant). It is possible to be a Benedictine, be “traditional” and yet follow a modern post-Vatican II liturgy.

I’m considering Clear Creek, yes. =)

The Farmborough Abbey Diurnal is very good and portable… At the very least it may give you help in making the change to all Latin Matins.
andrewespress.com/matins.html

Thanks for your response!