The linked paper’s analysis is fair. But the Liturgy of the Hours is all I and many others have, both in terms of time and language. Are we, as they say, screwed?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Esrb99
Guest
Of course not-As I mentioned earlier, I use the 1961 Breviary, with latin on one side and english on the other. One can find this for free online at divinumofficium.comThe linked paper’s analysis is fair. But the Liturgy of the Hours is all I and many others have, both in terms of time and language. Are we, as they say, screwed?
: )
The best thing is that we have all these options for us!!! Deo Gratias!!!
W
Windmill
Guest
No one is “screwed”. It’s not like we’re talking about salvation or anything. Lets keep this in perspective. I would remind people that god is praised either way. We’re talking about forms of prayer. If you know your catechism, practice your faith, and die in a state of grace, it won’t matter which form of the Mass or Office you prayed.
No. As I said, time is my enemy, not just language. Further, the LOTH Office of Readings beats out the 1961 Matins hands down for me.Of course not-As I mentioned earlier, I use the 1961 Breviary, with latin on one side and english on the other. One can find this for free online at divinumofficium.com
: )
The best thing is that we have all these options for us!!! Deo Gratias!!!
O
OraLabora
Guest
The current LOTH does it for me. It has huge advantages over the Roman Breviary:
-Time: the Roman Breviary takes too much time
-Tradition: the Roman Breviary is no more traditional that the LOTH, in its structure and in fact many of the departures from tradition that the LOTH is accused of actually started with the Roman Breviary’s introduction in 1910
-Tradition: many monastic elements were kept in the current LOTH (for example the cursus of psalms for Vespers in week IV; in fact for weeks III and IV you could substitute the traditional Monastic Breviary for Vespers and not lose any psalms from the 4 week cycle provided you do all the minor hours from the complementary psalter)
-Lectio continua of the psalms: a tradition of St. Benedict that is maintained at least in part
-Compline: the ability to say traditional Monastic compline each night instead of the psalms suggested for weekdays (it’s in the General Instructions)
-The complementary psalter allowing one to continue the minor hours using the traditional cursus, the gradual psalms;
-The availability of chant books for Gregorian chant
-That it is one of the options I have as an oblate; the other being my abbey’s monastic breviary, but which is too long most of the time for me;
-The long bible and patristic readings at the Office of Readings and the ability to licitly substitute my abbey’s approved 2-year lectionary with even more readings and more monastic patristic readings;
-The ability to maintain a tighter prayer union with my community, as their Office follows the same prayers;
-I only have access to an OF Mass (but a very beautiful one in Gregorian chant), so the readings, antiphons, collects and liturgical year correspond with the Mass, which to me is important because the Mass and the LOTH are all part of the same liturgical action, with the Mass placed at the summit.
Moreover, my chant books for the LOTH include the imprecatory verses (in brackets) so I don’t have to omit them at least at the day hours (and when I use the monastic version my abbey uses the missing psalms are also included).
I find that the LOTH allows me to pray in an un-rushed manner; for me the LOTH is not about “spiritual combat”, it is a gesture of surrender and meditation through the psalms which is the heart of the LOTH (the collects, while important, are not the heart; the psalms are), and an act of public worship that supports my inner conversion. Quality, not quantity. In the morning I rise at 5:30 and I have a 1.5 hour commute to work. The LOTH allows me to pray the OOR and Lauds in an unhurried manner; in fact I can chant Lauds in Latin, slowly, and have time to re-read and digest each psalm in French after chanting it in Latin, still allowing me plenty of time for breakfast, shower, and the long drive to work. Even using our monastic breviary (150 psalms per week) I found I was too rushed in the morning, and that both increased my stress levels and made my prayer unsettled, having the opposite of the calming effect it now has. Having to do the Roman Breviary in Latin, then in French afterwards would simply be too long (and for that matter I have an aversion to the Roman Breviary; I’d use the pre-Vatican II Monastic Breviary instead but it’s even longer).
Each person approaches prayer differently I suppose, but the LOTH, as public prayer of the Church and one deeply tied to monastic tradition in structure (in spite of what many says) does it for me. Is it perfect? Of course not. I don’t like leaving out imprecatory psalms either, I don’t like that some psalms (77, 104, and 105) are restricted to Advent or Lent, and I think it would have been better to replace the NT canticle at Vespers with another psalm, and re-arranging Vespers and mid-day prayer so that the monastic cursus could be used on a two-week cycle at Vespers. I find in any case, that for choir use, the NT canticle doesn’t chant well, it is too syncopated even in Latin.
The LOTH is a great gift to us, the laity, by the Church.
-Time: the Roman Breviary takes too much time
-Tradition: the Roman Breviary is no more traditional that the LOTH, in its structure and in fact many of the departures from tradition that the LOTH is accused of actually started with the Roman Breviary’s introduction in 1910
-Tradition: many monastic elements were kept in the current LOTH (for example the cursus of psalms for Vespers in week IV; in fact for weeks III and IV you could substitute the traditional Monastic Breviary for Vespers and not lose any psalms from the 4 week cycle provided you do all the minor hours from the complementary psalter)
-Lectio continua of the psalms: a tradition of St. Benedict that is maintained at least in part
-Compline: the ability to say traditional Monastic compline each night instead of the psalms suggested for weekdays (it’s in the General Instructions)
-The complementary psalter allowing one to continue the minor hours using the traditional cursus, the gradual psalms;
-The availability of chant books for Gregorian chant
-That it is one of the options I have as an oblate; the other being my abbey’s monastic breviary, but which is too long most of the time for me;
-The long bible and patristic readings at the Office of Readings and the ability to licitly substitute my abbey’s approved 2-year lectionary with even more readings and more monastic patristic readings;
-The ability to maintain a tighter prayer union with my community, as their Office follows the same prayers;
-I only have access to an OF Mass (but a very beautiful one in Gregorian chant), so the readings, antiphons, collects and liturgical year correspond with the Mass, which to me is important because the Mass and the LOTH are all part of the same liturgical action, with the Mass placed at the summit.
Moreover, my chant books for the LOTH include the imprecatory verses (in brackets) so I don’t have to omit them at least at the day hours (and when I use the monastic version my abbey uses the missing psalms are also included).
I find that the LOTH allows me to pray in an un-rushed manner; for me the LOTH is not about “spiritual combat”, it is a gesture of surrender and meditation through the psalms which is the heart of the LOTH (the collects, while important, are not the heart; the psalms are), and an act of public worship that supports my inner conversion. Quality, not quantity. In the morning I rise at 5:30 and I have a 1.5 hour commute to work. The LOTH allows me to pray the OOR and Lauds in an unhurried manner; in fact I can chant Lauds in Latin, slowly, and have time to re-read and digest each psalm in French after chanting it in Latin, still allowing me plenty of time for breakfast, shower, and the long drive to work. Even using our monastic breviary (150 psalms per week) I found I was too rushed in the morning, and that both increased my stress levels and made my prayer unsettled, having the opposite of the calming effect it now has. Having to do the Roman Breviary in Latin, then in French afterwards would simply be too long (and for that matter I have an aversion to the Roman Breviary; I’d use the pre-Vatican II Monastic Breviary instead but it’s even longer).
Each person approaches prayer differently I suppose, but the LOTH, as public prayer of the Church and one deeply tied to monastic tradition in structure (in spite of what many says) does it for me. Is it perfect? Of course not. I don’t like leaving out imprecatory psalms either, I don’t like that some psalms (77, 104, and 105) are restricted to Advent or Lent, and I think it would have been better to replace the NT canticle at Vespers with another psalm, and re-arranging Vespers and mid-day prayer so that the monastic cursus could be used on a two-week cycle at Vespers. I find in any case, that for choir use, the NT canticle doesn’t chant well, it is too syncopated even in Latin.
The LOTH is a great gift to us, the laity, by the Church.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Agreed. Some of the collects are positive; some like the above reinforce our frailty and sinfulness. I think the LOTH strikes a good balance. Some collects speak to me, some less so, but that’s human diversity.That’s not true. The Collects of the modern Liturgy of the Hours and Roman Missal are just as rich and powerful as those of the 1962 books. The problem is that the current English translation of the Collects of the Liturgy of the Hours is still the weak 1973 edition, but these have since been corrected in the Roman Missal. In fact, while they may have shifted around between the editions, many of the Collects are still common to both Uses of the Roman Rite and many of the modern Collects are actually derived from ancient sources such as the Gelasian Sacramentary.
Further, approval has now been given for the retranslation of the Liturgy of the Hours so I expect that in a few years, this problem would be gone too and the translations of both the Liturgy of the Hours and Roman Missal will be in sync.
So no, poor translation notwithstanding, the Collects are not at fault in the modern Roman Rite either. You only need study the current translation in the Roman Missal to see it.
Today’s Collect: there is no sign of social justice or feeling content with oneself:
Pardon
the offenses of your peoples,
we pray, O Lord,
and in your goodness
set us free from the bonds of the sins
we have committed in our weakness.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
Thanks Ora. I needed to be reminded that even though the Collects may have been modified for the Ordinary Form, they have been promulgated with the authority of the Church and the Hours remain the prayer of the Church so there is no need for me to get rattled. If I don’t believe the Church knows what she’s doing, I’ll never be at peace and I’m certain that that is contrary to the mind of the Church when she uses her God-given authority to promulgate her liturgies.The LOTH is a great gift to us, the laity, by the Church.
The LOTH is a great gift indeed by the Church to the laity.
A
A_Sinner_1
Guest
Having prayed the LOTH for several years and, for the last few years, the Traditional Roman Breviary (generally with some modifications to reduce the length of Matins), I agree with Windmill’s comments. I was originally attracted to the Breviary by the Prima (dropped from the LOTH) with its martyology. Later on I did try for a while praying the LOTH with a separate martyology, but found the LOTH to be watered-down, cleaned up, feel-good “prayer lite” compared to the Breviary.
A
A_Sinner_1
Guest
To clarify my previous post, yes, I found the LOTH of great spiritual benefit and would encourage anyone to pray it. But I would also encourage anyone praying the LOTH and interested in deepening their prayer life to consider praying the Breviary instead.
O
OraLabora
Guest
For obvious reasons I would choose the Monastic Breviary over the Roman, but that said, the monastic has a much longer tradition than the Roman. When I do have a bit more time on my hands and wish to deepen my prayer, I use my abbey’s breviary which is a post Vatican II variant (same liturgical year and same collects as the LOTH, Benedictine calendar which has some differences). It has all 150 psalms in a week with no omissions (imprecatory psalms and verses are included).To clarify my previous post, yes, I found the LOTH of great spiritual benefit and would encourage anyone to pray it. But I would also encourage anyone praying the LOTH and interested in deepening their prayer life to consider praying the Breviary instead.
By using my abbey’s breviary I foster a greater sense of community between myself as oblate and the monks. However at the moment with 3 hours of commuting 3 days per week, I find I’m too rushed and my prayer too unsettled when using it (I did use it when I had a job where I worked from home 4 days per week). When I retire I’ll go back to it.
With the LOTH I can really meditate the psalms, which when one gets down to it, are really the heart of the Divine Office and really are the part of the prayer that puts us in communion with people in the same predicament as expressed by the theme of the psalm. The LOTH isn’t all about me, it’s about being attached to the body of Christ; we share in the joys and pains of all parts of the body regardless of our own feelings; the psalms capture the whole range of human sentiments. It gives the prayer its public character; the psalms, with the collects also tie the LOTH to the summit of the Liturgy, the Mass. Having only an OF Mass available, I would find using the Roman Breviary incongruous with the Liturgy, in fact an unnatural rupture in the liturgy.
T
twf
Guest
I’m trying to understand this perspective. It seems to me that this argument comes down to just the collects? What am I missing? The collects are important, no doubt, but they form only one small fraction of the liturgy…the backbone of any edition of the hours are the 150 Psalms which don’t change. As OraLabora has pointed out, the structure of the Liturgy of the Hours is actually a return to a more traditional arrangement, in many regards, than the Roman Breviary which, in its current form, only dates to about 1910. In addition, the far wider range of Biblical texts surely adds a certain layer of richness. What can be more powerful than Sacred Scripture?To clarify my previous post, yes, I found the LOTH of great spiritual benefit and would encourage anyone to pray it. But I would also encourage anyone praying the LOTH and interested in deepening their prayer life to consider praying the Breviary instead.
E
Esrb99
Guest
There were other changes besides the collects, even before the intro of the LOTH. For example, the Pian psalter was a fresh translation of the Hebrew into a more classical style of Latin. In my opinion, and that of many others, while a sober revision of the Vulgate might have been advantageous, the production of an entirely new psalter was completely unnecessary.I’m trying to understand this perspective. It seems to me that this argument comes down to just the collects? What am I missing? The collects are important, no doubt, but they form only one small fraction of the liturgy…the backbone of any edition of the hours are the 150 Psalms which don’t change. As OraLabora has pointed out, the structure of the Liturgy of the Hours is actually a return to a more traditional arrangement, in many regards, than the Roman Breviary which, in its current form, only dates to about 1910. In addition, the far wider range of Biblical texts surely adds a certain layer of richness. What can be more powerful than Sacred Scripture?
Fortunately, the use of this psalter in Breviaries was optional, though out of reverence for Pius XII, most breviaries of the period did use it.
The “New Psalter” includes new translations of some of the various Canticles, along with the psalms.
It seems that the Gallican (traditional) psalter has some grammatical irregularities. In particular it employs some odd verb tenses in certain places, which makes the reading less of an exact translation, and makes the action of the psalmist more personal through those different tenses and changes in person. The Gallican was a translation mainly from the Septuagint along with other material which is presently extant.
The Pian psalter is much more strictly accurate based on the oldest Hebrew texts that were available at the time. This is a much more grammatically exact and studious translation. The problem is that** the vocabulary and structure are not meant for singing**. It is immensely difficult to sing. For private recitation, it might be reasonable.
After the pontificate of Pius XII, most Breviaries went back to the Gallican psalter. If I am not mistaken, John XXIII either ordered or asked that the older psalter be used again.
Baronius Press’ Breviary uses the older Pius X Gallican Psalter, as that one was never abrogated. Many Ecclesia Dei communities use the old psalter as well, relegating the newer Pian on to niche obscurity.
O
OraLabora
Guest
One of the biggest changes was the fairly extensive reordering of the psalter in 1910, that broke with several long-standing traditions. For anyone truly interested in a very traditional breviary that is 1500 years old, the pre-conciliar Monastic Breviary is the logical choice. Well, at least the Diurnal. Matins is a formidable task with 12 psalms, and long readings with up to 4 lessons interspersed with up to 4 responsories, per nocturne. And on Sundays and feasts, in addition to two nocturnes of 6 psalms each there are 3 OT canticles, the Gospel, the Te Decet Laus, another long patristic lesson, the Te Deum, and the Kyrie and collect. However on summer weekdays, St. Benedict allowed for shorter readings and fewer responsories. Matins could stretch to a couple of hours on some days!
The 1910 breviary was an attempt to make it more realistic for diocesan clergy, the 1970 even more so.
I chant the 1970 in Latin and the neo-Vulgate chants just fine. The NT canticles at Vespers though are tougher, they simply aren’t terribly poetic and don’t chant well. More prose than poetry. For the current monastic schema B (150 psalms per week, no omissions), they are ad libitum and our abbey omits them, thankfully.
The 1910 breviary was an attempt to make it more realistic for diocesan clergy, the 1970 even more so.
I chant the 1970 in Latin and the neo-Vulgate chants just fine. The NT canticles at Vespers though are tougher, they simply aren’t terribly poetic and don’t chant well. More prose than poetry. For the current monastic schema B (150 psalms per week, no omissions), they are ad libitum and our abbey omits them, thankfully.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.