The Roman Breviary by John, Marquess de Bute

[porthos11]

I would also comment about the his reference to “taste”. The universal prayer of the Church shouldn’t be about taste. As an abbot comments in a commented Rule of St. Benedict that I read almost daily, the liturgy “isn’t all about me”. We pray joyful psalms when we are sorrowful, and sorrowful ones when we are joyful, because we pray for everyone’s needs, and at any given time many of us have reason for joy and others for sorrow. The liturgy is supposed to take us out of ourselves.

There are many things that irritate me about the Office that I use (in particular praying psalm 50 on Saturday instead of Friday, and moving psalm 109 from Vespers to Vigils), but it is the Office that the community I am associated to uses, and therefore I use it too as an act of unity with them.

Exactly. There are many things that irritate me about the current 1975 translation of the Liturgy of the Hours as well, not the least of which are the Collects. But it is the official English prayer of the Church for Canada, and that’s what I’ll use to pray with the Church.

As for contemplating a 1908 Breviary because of whatever reason, one cannot fulfill one’s obligation using it for those so bound, as per Pope St. Pius X’s express statement in Divino Afflatu. It should follow from this that this is no longer the official prayer of the Church and can be used only as a personal devotion.

I’m with you on this: the liturgy is not about taste.

 

[Mister_Blu]

Fund raising sale in order that i may concentrate my efforts towards the stewardship given.

Book for sale:
The Roman Breviary; 1908 in four volumes. first english edition-(pre-Pius X)

Also…
Sermon on Moral Subjects; 1895
by Cardinal Wiseman

The Ball and the Cross; 1909
and “Orthodoxy”
by G.K. Chesterton

The Future Life; 1918
by Rev. Joseph Sasic

Assertio septem sacramentorum; or, Defence of the seven sacraments; 1908
Henry xiii, King of England- Louis O’Donovan, James Cardinal Gibbons, New York, Benziger brothers.

The Last Years of Saint Paul; 1915
by Abbe Constant Fouard

The Catholic Dictionary; 1945
by Attwater, Donald

The Manual of Catholic Action; 1933
by an Irish Priest

Moral Guidance; 1943
Edwin Healy

Little Journeys of the Great Reformers; 1907
by elbert hubbard

History of the Catholic Church; 1957
Ludwig Hartling

Priestly Prayers; 1961
selected and arranged by Hubart McEvoy

Rock of Truth; 1952
Rev. James McNally

Joshua
by H.A. Ironside

The Love of Jesus to Penitents; 1950
By Cardinal Manning

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; 1918
by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr

The are another dozen that i have not listed.

I prefer to sale these all at once for a discounted price.

I am currently in Utah.

All proceeds will go towards the completion and publication of the plethora of social dissertations, apologetics, and the allegorical fictions that are some of the charges given me to steward.

Make offers please.

 

[Dom_Desiderius]

As for contemplating a 1908 Breviary because of whatever reason, one cannot fulfill one’s obligation using it for those so bound, as per Pope St. Pius X’s express statement in Divino Afflatu. It should follow from this that this is no longer the official prayer of the Church and can be used only as a personal devotion.

To which I state, there is much evidence from both the Bible and from science that demonstrates God must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. God could not have created the universe if He were only a part of it. The Bible says the universe cannot contain Him .

According to particle physics and relativity, at least ten dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe. Three of these dimensions (plus time) formed the space-time manifold that we can directly observe. The other six of these dimensions exist within the universe as incredibly compact dimensions of space. God must be able to operate in all of those ten dimensions plus more in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews suggests God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us.

The God of the Bible is invisible and cannot be seen except if He reveals Himself to us in a three-dimensional form that we can see. A being which exists in dimensions beyond our three spatial dimensions would be invisible to creatures (us) that can only exist in the confines of our universe

The God of the Bible is described as omnipotent. If God were confined to three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, then He could be in only one place at one time. The God of the Bible is described as knowing all that we do . We can hide nothing from God. A three-dimensional God would not have the ability to see through walls (Can you?) and could not know what happens outside of his sight.

Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward forget the time travel movies - this is scientifically impossible). If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began , confirming that God exists either outside of time altogether or in at least two dimensions of time. In addition, the Bible states God can compress or expand our time line, based upon what He wants to do. For God to turn a day into 1000 years and 1000 years into a day requires that He exist external to our dimension of time.

A three dimensional God would be unable to hear all of our prayers, since He could not be everywhere at once. In addition, a three dimensional God could not perform any of the signs and miracles of the Bible, since He would be confined to the laws of physics of our three-dimensional universe, which make no allowance for miracles.

All this about our Creator and lover of mankind is said to make a point.

The point is this.

The Saints of the Church prayed various variations of the Divine Office in the respective regions, rites, irrespective of temporary schisms, persecutions throughout 2000 years

• thus we can not say that a Divine office from 1908 is wrong to use today.

Within a monastic community we have the right to use whichever office form is approved by the abbot, so long as it is not contrary to the faith and contains schema of psalms, antiphons, versicles, scripture/patristic lessons, hymns and makes room for the current saints of the kalendar.

I personally use a benedictine ordering of the sarum use. Much of this is the same as what Fr. Augustine Thompson has in the dominican office books online. There is nothing to prevent a lay person from using for instance the Sarum use, making room for any modern day solemnities since created to add on to it.

sarum-chant.ca/

There are numerous ways one can find to officially allow this, whether in latin or english. lay faithful can form a fraternity or society for this very purpose and ask a particular abbot , bishop, patriarch , pontiff or department to endorse it.

Dr. William Mahrt, CMAA president and a respected music scholar in California has continuously sung with a sizeable choir of singers the 1962 office in latin since the year 1962 itself. Always it was acknowledged by canon law that he had the right do this. If he can manage that, anyone else can manage similar prayers. stannchoir.org/ If you’re ever in palo alto, CA you may ask his advice about the office, you will find a kindred spirit.

I think there is much misunderstanding about this matter.

This not about strict legalism, it is about salvation of souls - abiding by Holy tradition as your guidance as much as possible.

Thank you for a delightful post.

The Marquess of Butes translation of the 1908 is superb.

 

[agnes_therese]

Finally, if you wanted to pray the Divine Office in the manner and form that the majority of the saints through the centuries prayed, would you utilize this Roman Breviary or would you choose another version?
If so, what version would you choose and why?

The majority of saints through the centuries prayed the version that was authorized by the Church in their time. For us, that would be the Liturgy of the Hours.

 

[Rich_C]

The majority of saints through the centuries prayed the version that was authorized by the Church in their time. For us, that would be the Liturgy of the Hours.

This is an old thread, but in case anyone reads this, keep in mind that there are two Offices currently authorized for use today. The one above, and the 1960 Divine Office of Bl. John XXIII, which fits in nicely with the traditional Latin Mass/Extraordinary Form as they follows the same liturgical calendar with the old feasts, fasts, and seasons.

 

[OraLabora]

This is an old thread, but in case anyone reads this, keep in mind that there are two Offices currently authorized for use today. The one above, and the 1960 Divine Office of Bl. John XXIII, which fits in nicely with the traditional Latin Mass/Extraordinary Form as they follows the same liturgical calendar with the old feasts, fasts, and seasons.

Actually there are many more than 2. There are also several Benedictine and Cistercian Offices currently (post-Vatican II) approved. There is also the pre-Vatican II version of the Benedictine Office still in approved use. Its psalmody is identical to the current post-Vatican II schema A (which has the option of retaining Prime or redistributing its psalms into the minor hours).

Plus many Benedictine monasteries have come up with their own schemas. They have the latitude to do so. Other orders have their own offices but most are identical to the current LOTH except for following a particular calendar.

For the laity of course the two main ones are the ones you cite but may laymen like myself are affiliated to an order either as Oblate or in a third order, and we can use the Office of our communities.

 

[Rich_C]

Actually there are many more than 2. There are also several Benedictine and Cistercian Offices currently (post-Vatican II) approved. There is also the pre-Vatican II version of the Benedictine Office still in approved use. Its psalmody is identical to the current post-Vatican II schema A (which has the option of retaining Prime or redistributing its psalms into the minor hours).

Plus many Benedictine monasteries have come up with their own schemas. They have the latitude to do so. Other orders have their own offices but most are identical to the current LOTH except for following a particular calendar.

For the laity of course the two main ones are the ones you cite but may laymen like myself are affiliated to an order either as Oblate or in a third order, and we can use the Office of our communities.

Sorry, I always forget about the religious communities. They’re totally off my radar most days. I hear the Benedictine breviary is superb but I’m just a layman through and through so I stick with the old Roman breviary.

 

[OraLabora]

Sorry, I always forget about the religious communities. They’re totally off my radar most days. I hear the Benedictine breviary is superb but I’m just a layman through and through so I stick with the old Roman breviary.

Well, in Church terms, 102 years old is not very old! That’s when the approved pre-Vatican II Roman Breviary was born, in 1910. It was in fact a radical alteration of tradition, which at the time was nearly as radical as the 1970 LOTH is.

But it does mesh nicely with the liturgical calendar of the EF Mass, so I understand why some folks prefer it, although it’s a lot more work for a layman especially if you pray Matins.

 

[Rich_C]

Well, in Church terms, 102 years old is not very old! That’s when the approved pre-Vatican II Roman Breviary was born, in 1910. It was in fact a radical alteration of tradition, which at the time was nearly as radical as the 1970 LOTH is.

But it does mesh nicely with the liturgical calendar of the EF Mass, so I understand why some folks prefer it, although it’s a lot more work for a layman especially if you pray Matins.

I’m always laughing when people call hymns from the 1880s old, so I know what you mean. I often use “old” and “new” rather generically to refer to the pre-VII and post-VII Mass and Divine Office, just to keep it simple.

Thankfully, my layman’s copy only has lauds, vespers, and compline because it is a lot more work, but I find it more rewarding than the LOTH. The first season of Septuagesima I experienced helped me make the decision to switch. This month I gave it up for the first time in years to focus on my rosary, however. I figured better to do the essentials well than do too much badly.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m always laughing when people call hymns from the 1880s old, so I know what you mean. I often use “old” and “new” rather generically to refer to the pre-VII and post-VII Mass and Divine Office, just to keep it simple.

Thankfully, my layman’s copy only has lauds, vespers, and compline because it is a lot more work, but I find it more rewarding than the LOTH. The first season of Septuagesima I experienced helped me make the decision to switch. This month I gave it up for the first time in years to focus on my rosary, however. I figured better to do the essentials well than do too much badly.

I’m bound by my oblate promise to at least a part of the Divine Office. The mini-breviary that our oblate master gives us contains Lauds, Vespers and Compline and a simplified sanctoral based on monastic Schema B (post-VII, all 150 psalms in a week if you do it all).

It’s generally what I use (but on an approved 2-week distribution) although in the summer (this summer no exception) I tend to revert to the 4-week LOTH. I don’t like missing offices because some of my favourite psalms invariably go missing if I do. The LOTH is just much easier to manage with my long commute, busy summer activities, work, etc. I guess next week I make the switch back to the monastic as summer will officially be over.