"To be full of love..." - LOTH misprints?

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

Praedicare

Guest
Friends,

In the (US-Canadian edition) Liturgy of the Hours at Vespers for every Monday, the final canticle is taken from Ephesians 1:3-10.

Looking at every volume in my 4-volume set from 1976, I see the following words in the second strophe:
*
“God chose us in him
before the world began,
to be holy
and blameless in his sight”*

However, looking at a 2013 printing of the same Hours, I see that these words are added to the end of the strophe: *“to be full of love.”
*
Is the former printing correct, or the latter? What about the official Latin edition?

I notice this in Psalm 102 (Tuesday Week IV, Office of Readings), also: verse 28 is missing in all my 1976 copies. There is no indication in the title/subtitle of the Psalm that any verses have been removed from Ps. 102, yet there it is

Exactly how many clergy and religious have been praying the full Divine Office as required by their promises made at ordination/vows?
 
Praedicare said:
Exactly how many clergy and religious have been praying the full Divine Office as required by their promises made at ordination/vows?
Click to expand...
All of them.

A printing error in the Breviary – whether intentional or unintentional – doesn’t impute to the person using the Breviary, nor does it cause them to be unable to fulfill their promise of prayer.
 
Gorgias said:
All of them.

A printing error in the Breviary – whether intentional or unintentional – doesn’t impute to the person using the Breviary, nor does it cause them to be unable to fulfill their promise of prayer.
Click to expand...
I should have worded that question better. Given the Latin typical edition of the LOTH (which is rightly considered to be the official Divine Office of the Latin Rite, and therefore the Prayer which all clergy & religious promise to observe), can we not say that deficient copies/printings/translations are impeding those with an obligation to pray? Obviously, you pray what is given to you by your diocese – and in that sense, they fulfill their vows/promises. My question, however, isn’t about sin or imputation of guilt. I don’t even care about that. The real question is: what is the Divine Office, if different times & places edit the texts without any permissions from Rome? Where is the “universality” of the official “Prayer of the Church”?

Anyway, what a shame that a single question at the end of a post can erase all that came before. It’s really irrelevant to the point of this thread. I’m sorry for including that.
 
I’m sure even the Latin Editio Typica has a misprint or two.

I don’t think we should approach this with a stricter legalism than the Church herself imposes. The obligation is fulfilled by using an approved translation, warts and all. Any human endeavour will have occasional errors, and the nature of translation itself is not all that precise.

If an error like a misprint means the obligation isn’t fulfilled then it would almost never be fulfilled even of the translation is perfect. Who hasn’t occasionally flubbed his words while reciting the Office? 🤷

I know I do frequently. I even got my dates confused thinking today was the 4th, and I only discovered after chanting Lauds that today wasn’t the memorial of St. John Vianney. I’ve seen monks use the wrong reading accidentally more than once; once the homilist even amusingly started his homily with “in the Gospel we were supposed to hear today, Jesus said…”. Mistakes happen and they don’t invalidate the liturgy nor do they mean that one’s duty wasn’t performed as long as the intent was there.
 
Actually, this is less about typos/misprints/mistakes than the question: how exactly do we know what the full Office is? Who has permission to add lines to the Office? When was “to be full of love” added to the English translation of the LOTH? Are American & Canadian priests praying a “more complete office” with a newer print of the breviary, and a “less complete office” with a 1976 breviary?

I guess it’s a little too abstract of a question to merit much interest…
 
The Latin is

“Sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem,
ut essemus sancti et immaculati
in conspectu euis in caritate” (my bold)

So “full of love” is a more correct translation.

The thing is, there are always corrections, fixed typos, etc. in subsequent editions. I have a couple of Lauds and Vespers chant books from the monastery, that were previously used by monks until the choirmaster put together new books with updated antiphons. In the old books you can see where monks penned in corrections. Some texts changed (Lauds hymns in particular), some mis-printed notes in the antiphons or responsories corrected, etc.

It’s not a big deal. One fulfill’s one’s obligation, assuming one is obligated, by using approved texts. In a community setting, the abbot either directly or through the choirmaster will direct any changes made to errors in existing books. In private recitation one is free to pen in the changes if you feel it’s necessary. It’s obviously not reasonable to expect that one buy a full set of books each time a new edition comes out, unless it’s a major change (like a new translation). There will be a major change to the English LOTH relatively “soon” to match changes in the Mass translations. Whether there will be a period of adaptation or not remains to be seen. In when the current LOTH came out, it was permissible for elderly clerics and religious to use the old Roman Breviary so they wouldn’t have to adapt in their old age.

On the other hand when Pius X’s reforms of 1910 were implemented, the old breviary was immediately declared no longer licit for use.

Personally, if you don’t mind my saying so, I think you’re overthinking this and IMHO, from my own experience that can lead to liturgy losing the notion of prayer, losing its flow and losing its spiritual enrichment.
 
This is one reason we have the process of *recognitio *whereby a conference of Bishops makes decisions and then submits them for approval by Rome. The 1976 LotH was approved for use by Rome. That doesn’t mean the translation was perfect. It means the books are approved for their use - in this case, for fulfilling the obligation of prayer.

I agree with OraLabora. Don’t overthink it. 🙂
 
The translation of the LOTH was also corrected in 2013.
 
Windmill said:
This is one reason we have the process of *recognitio *whereby a conference of Bishops makes decisions and then submits them for approval by Rome. The 1976 LotH was approved for use by Rome. That doesn’t mean the translation was perfect. It means the books are approved for their use - in this case, for fulfilling the obligation of prayer.

I agree with OraLabora. Don’t overthink it. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes. The LOTH books have typos, some of them annoying.

The Ephesians canticle is one of the worst offenders. But I’ve learned to make peace with it by simply reading what’s printed.

If it says “…who has bestowed on us in Christ…” (as in the Psalter) that’s what I read.
If it says "…“who bestowed on us…” (as often in the Commons), that’s what I read.
If it says “…in the heavens and on earth…” or “in the heavens and on the earth” I read whatever’s printed.

Of course the current Christian Prayer printing has some annoyances in that same Canticle in Monday, Psalter Week II and the Common of the BVM.

“God has give us in Christ”

I actually glued a correction over that one. That’s waaay to glaring for my taste and is clearly a typo amounting to a grammatical mistake. But that doesn’t beat the typo from about ten years ago in Christian Prayer where the Easter antiphons 2 and 3 for Evening Prayer on Tuesday and Wednesday Week II were identical. That was just irritating. They have corrected this in the more recent printing.

And even today, they still prescribe hymns from the BVM for the Memorial of St. Mary Magdalene.

Well, I guess we just have to expect that it’s difficult to QC a 2000 or so-page book.
 
porthos11 said:
What? When? How?
Click to expand...
USCCB Newsletter for March 2015
Although the Liturgy of the Hours, Second Edition is not likely to be implemented before 2020 at the earliest, the Committee on Divine Worship and body of Bishops as a whole are dedicated toward completing a translation for the benefit of the Church in the United States that is both textually faithful to the Latin and musically poetic in English.
Also: November 11, 2014
BALTIMORE—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved several liturgical items, including revisions to the liturgy of the hours … during their annual Fall General Assembly in Baltimore, November 11…
The bishops voted on the following five liturgical items presented by the Committee on Divine Worship:
  • A revised English translation of the ritual book, “Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar” was approved with 168 votes in favor, 6 against and 2 abstaining.
  • The first official English translation of the ritual book, “Exorcisms and Related Supplications” was approved in a 179-5-2 vote.
  • The bishops also voted 167-34-2 to approve modifications to the “Revised Grail Psalter” including improving the translation to facilitate easier proclamation and singing.
  • An English translation of the “Supplement to the Liturgy of the Hours” that includes prayers used for the feast days of saints who have been added to the General Calendar since 1984, was approved in a 210-2-0 vote.
These items, passed by two thirds of the Latin-rite bishops, will be sent to Rome for approval.
usccb.org/news/2014/14-186.cfm
 
Vico said:
USCCB Newsletter for March 2015
Although the Liturgy of the Hours, Second Edition is not likely to be implemented before 2020 at the earliest, the Committee on Divine Worship and body of Bishops as a whole are dedicated toward completing a translation for the benefit of the Church in the United States that is both textually faithful to the Latin and musically poetic in English.
Also: November 11, 2014
BALTIMORE—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved several liturgical items, including revisions to the liturgy of the hours … during their annual Fall General Assembly in Baltimore, November 11…
The bishops voted on the following five liturgical items presented by the Committee on Divine Worship:
  • A revised English translation of the ritual book, “Order of the Dedication of a Church and an Altar” was approved with 168 votes in favor, 6 against and 2 abstaining.
  • The first official English translation of the ritual book, “Exorcisms and Related Supplications” was approved in a 179-5-2 vote.
  • The bishops also voted 167-34-2 to approve modifications to the “Revised Grail Psalter” including improving the translation to facilitate easier proclamation and singing.
  • An English translation of the “Supplement to the Liturgy of the Hours” that includes prayers used for the feast days of saints who have been added to the General Calendar since 1984, was approved in a 210-2-0 vote.
These items, passed by two thirds of the Latin-rite bishops, will be sent to Rome for approval.
usccb.org/news/2014/14-186.cfm
Click to expand...
Well, yes we know that, but that hardly constitutes a “corrected translation” given that the work has barely begun. Even mentioned is just the supplement. No mention is made of the main books. This did make the news but only that the vote was held. No actual text has been even started yet.

Gosh. I’ll be 46 by the time the new books come out, and probably older.
 
porthos11 said:
Well, yes we know that, but that hardly constitutes a “corrected translation” given that the work has barely begun. Even mentioned is just the supplement. No mention is made of the main books. This did make the news but only that the vote was held. No actual text has been even started yet.

Gosh. I’ll be 46 by the time the new books come out, and probably older.
Click to expand...
The Modifications to the Revised Grail Psalms was originally approved by Rome in 2010, and they will be used with the future edition of the liturgy of the hours, and so will the orations of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal, and new additions to the Proper of Saints. The LOTH revision project began in November 2012 though.

Yes, it is a lengthy project.
 
There is an easy fix to this issue…just use the Latin version. Priests are actually required to recite the LOTH in Latin and may only recite it in the vernacular with the permission of the bishop.
 
Deo_Gratias42 said:
There is an easy fix to this issue…just use the Latin version. Priests are actually required to recite the LOTH in Latin and may only recite it in the vernacular with the permission of the bishop.
Click to expand...
I have never seen such a rule for the current LOTH, either in the rubrics or Canon Law. Can you provide a reference please?
 
OraLabora said:
I have never seen such a rule for the current LOTH, either in the rubrics or Canon Law. Can you provide a reference please?
Click to expand...
I saw this posted ZENIT, Father Edward McNamara:I would say that one may always use the Divine Office in Latin in either the ordinary or extraordinary forms. One may also use the translations lawfully approved for use by the national bishops’ conference for the ordinary form. A priest may also sometimes pray in a language different from that of his country of residence but always using an approved text.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur386.htm
 
Vico said:
I saw this posted ZENIT, Father Edward McNamara:I would say that one may always use the Divine Office in Latin in either the ordinary or extraordinary forms. One may also use the translations lawfully approved for use by the national bishops’ conference for the ordinary form. A priest may also sometimes pray in a language different from that of his country of residence but always using an approved text.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur386.htm
Click to expand...
That’s what I always thought. Latin is OK in the LOTH, but not required and permission is not required to use the vernacular as long as an approved translation is used. In my case I can use either Latin, French (my mother tongue) or English. There are approved French and English translations for my country (Canada).

As there are no approved translations for the pre-Vatican II breviary it must always be prayed in Latin.
 
I think most people get confused about the requirement to use Latin vs. permission to use the vernacular because of this quote from Sacrosanctum Concillium:
    1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.
Click to expand...
Most priests nowadays don’t know Latin, so it would be a grave obstacle. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a priest having to actually ask his Ordinary permission. It’s the de facto norm that they will use English.
 
Windmill said:
I think most people get confused about the requirement to use Latin vs. permission to use the vernacular because of this quote from Sacrosanctum Concillium:

Most priests nowadays don’t know Latin, so it would be a grave obstacle. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a priest having to actually ask his Ordinary permission. It’s the de facto norm that they will use English.
Click to expand...
I suspect you’re right. I think we must also remember that SC directed the reform of the liturgy, but is not in itself a directive for the execution of the liturgy. For that, the rubrics and the local bishops conference rule. I’m sure the permission to use the vernacular is implied now, rather than explicit. Even in many monasteries, it is all vernacular, all the time. In particular the Cistercians of both flavours appear to have gone almost entirely over to the vernacular. Some Benedictines too, but many of the monasteries I’ve been to have been mixed. At the abbey I’m attached to, Lauds and Vespers are in Latin, as are the hymns of the other hours and the Marian antiphon at Compline, but the rest is in the vernacular. At the Mass, the propers and ordinary are in Latin (Kyrie excepted of course), the rest in the vernacular.

As the abbot is the local ordinary, no permission is necessary for those choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top