Trad Catholics Pray Modern Liturgy of the Hours?

[LordHaveMercy]

I do find it ironic though, that folks that define themselves as “traditionalists” are so keen to take up the pre-conciliar breviary (which in itself is far from “traditional” as it only dates from 1910), when the reality is that traditionally, the laity never prayed the breviary until Vatican II encouraged us to take up the Liturgy of the Hours (which does in fact incorporate many elements of tradition, including the possibility of chanting it in Latin Gregorian chant).

More usually, prior to the Council, the laity prayed the Rosary, or if they prayed some sort of Office, it was one of the Little Offices.

The Liturgy of the Hours thus is a great gift to the laity, because it brings the beauty of nearly all the psalms to the laity in a language all can understand, something that was rare prior to the Council.

I understand what you’re saying about the laity and Vatican II, but it’s important to distinguish between following the traditional mass and its associated practices (“being a trad”) vs. pretending Vatican II never happened. There is no conflict between being drawn to the traditional Divine Office and responding to Vatican II’s encouragement for laity to pray the divine office. Besides, the Fathers at Vatican II would have been praying the breviary that is now the EF when they thought to encourage the divine office for the laity.

I agree that the Liturgy of the Hours is a great gift bringing the laity the beauty of nearly all the psalms, and I add that the EF Divine Office is also a great gift that brings the laity the beauty of all the psalms. I also further add that your example has convinced me that it’s time I start praying more psalms, and for that I thank you!

 

[OraLabora]

I understand what you’re saying about the laity and Vatican II, but it’s important to distinguish between following the traditional mass and its associated practices (“being a trad”) vs. pretending Vatican II never happened. There is no conflict between being drawn to the traditional Divine Office and responding to Vatican II’s encouragement for laity to pray the divine office. Besides, the Fathers at Vatican II would have been praying the breviary that is now the EF when they thought to encourage the divine office for the laity.

I agree that the Liturgy of the Hours is a great gift bringing the laity the beauty of nearly all the psalms, and I add that the EF Divine Office is also a great gift that brings the laity the beauty of all the psalms. I also further add that your example has convinced me that it’s time I start praying more psalms, and for that I thank you!

I agree there’s no conflict with being drawn to the pre-Vatican II Divine Office (I still hesitate to call a 105 year old office “traditional” when a licit 1500 y.o. one is still in use, even in post-Vatican II form, but I digress).

I was just commenting on the irony of “traditionalists” doing something that is anything but “traditional”.

Yes, the fathers at Vatican II would have been praying the pre-Vatican II breviary. But for the most part, the laity would not except for occasional attendance at Sunday Vespers. And I think they had a pretty good idea that one outcome was going to be a reformed Divine Office. The secular clergy had been clamouring for one for ages, even before Pius X’s first attempts at improving their lot in life by reducing the psalmody from about 250 to 150 per week.

Be that as it may, anybody praying more psalms, from whatever book, is a good thing IMHO.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

I agree there’s no conflict with being drawn to the pre-Vatican II Divine Office (I still hesitate to call a 105 year old office “traditional” when a licit 1500 y.o. one is still in use, even in post-Vatican II form, but I digress).

I was just commenting on the irony of “traditionalists” doing something that is anything but “traditional”.

Yes, the fathers at Vatican II would have been praying the pre-Vatican II breviary. But for the most part, the laity would not except for occasional attendance at Sunday Vespers. And I think they had a pretty good idea that one outcome was going to be a reformed Divine Office. The secular clergy had been clamouring for one for ages, even before Pius X’s first attempts at improving their lot in life by reducing the psalmody from about 250 to 150 per week.

Be that as it may, anybody praying more psalms, from whatever book, is a good thing IMHO.

A priest once told me that St. Augustine even complained that the divine office needed to be simplified, not sure on the source for that though, lol! And I totally agree, I will never say it’s bad to pray more psalms, I have my LoTH and my Roman Breviary sitting right next to each other at home.

While the reforms under St. Pius X were far reaching, they retained certain aspects of the Divine Office that were later abandoned when the LoTH was was implemented (praying all 150 psalms, 1 week psalter, etc.). What is interesting to me is that with all of the EF books essentially being tied to 1962, the breviary reflecting the 1910 reforms is not controversial, but the missal containing 1950s Holy Week reform is. To me that demonstrates an unconscious difficulty thriving spiritually within the framework of the big liturgical reform, since the 1950s Holy Week reforms were sort of a sneak peak of what was eventually implemented in the novus ordo (increased dialogue, prayers in unison, facing the people and with more vernacular). Though some people love those reforms. Anyway, probably a bit off topic.

 

[OraLabora]

A priest once told me that St. Augustine even complained that the divine office needed to be simplified, not sure on the source for that though, lol! And I totally agree, I will never say it’s bad to pray more psalms, I have my LoTH and my Roman Breviary sitting right next to each other at home.

While the reforms under St. Pius X were far reaching, they retained certain aspects of the Divine Office that were later abandoned when the LoTH was was implemented (praying all 150 psalms, 1 week psalter, etc.). What is interesting to me is that with all of the EF books essentially being tied to 1962, the breviary reflecting the 1910 reforms is not controversial, but the missal containing 1950s Holy Week reform is. To me that demonstrates an unconscious difficulty thriving spiritually within the framework of the big liturgical reform, since the 1950s Holy Week reforms were sort of a sneak peak of what was eventually implemented in the novus ordo (increased dialogue, prayers in unison, facing the people and with more vernacular). Though some people love those reforms. Anyway, probably a bit off topic.

Benedictines joke that it is clearly time for solemn profession when a novice finally figures out the Divine Office.

This isn’t the time or place but I can show many instances where the LOTH does in fact respect and maintain some very important traditions. The number of psalms is but a small aspect of “small-t” tradition. I did a presentation on this at our last Oblate Retreat. I can also show where the 1910 Office took some very radical departures from tradition… in the psalm positioning, and especially the psalm dividing, which practically overnight ruined the Roman Antiphonary. The 1910 breviary might not seem controversial to you now, but I can assure you it was every bit as controversial in 1910 as the LOTH was in 1970.

One way to look at 1970 is the logical conclusion of what was attempted in 1910. The 1970 breviary was foisted on the clergy and overnight the old breviary was rendered illicit. At least the 1970 had some 5 years or so of “testing” beforehand so those involved in that process weren’t too surprised by the outcome. Moreover, Paul VI graciously allowed the old breviary to continue alongside the new, mainly for the benefit of elderly clergy for whom the change was too difficult.

The real “stepping on the gas” of liturgical reform did not start at Vatican II but did in fact start in 1948 with the Pian Commission established by Pius XII, and one of the outcomes was as you note the Holy Week reforms in the '50s, but also the revision of degrees of feast and simplification of rubrics also in the 50s.

I guess my point is that what traditionalists often think is “traditional” isn’t quite as much as it seems. My own vision of what it means to be “traditionalist” does not strictly require the pre-1962 liturgical texts, but also include the application of tradition, in particular Gregorian chant. to the modern liturgies. If we expanded the definition to include traditional liturgical practices in the modern liturgy, then I too could self-identify as “traditionalist”.

 

[ProVobis]

Is this the same Divine Office that was mentioned by the op?

FWIW, it might be probably better translated as Divine Duties as that is what Cicero’s essay of a similar name De Officiis (except it pertained to Civic Duties) became. Big deal, I know.

 

[pianistclare]

I just pulled out my copy of Christian prayer and prayed the morning prayer. I have to realize for my own sake that I can’t keep dividing devotions and prayers into “traditional” or “post-V2” but need to focus more on what is beneficial to my spiritual life. Focus on what will help me most in my daily walk of faith.

YES! The light switches on! God bless you!

 

[tawny]

I just pulled out my copy of Christian prayer and prayed the morning prayer. I have to realize for my own sake that I can’t keep dividing devotions and prayers into “traditional” or “post-V2” but need to focus more on what is beneficial to my spiritual life. Focus on what will help me most in my daily walk of faith.

That’s what it’s all about!

 

[corsair]

I attend the EF only. However, my days are so filled with trying to keep up with chores that I find that even the Little Office of the BVM is quite a challenge. I use a 1904 version by St. Bonaventure Press. I recite most of it in Latin.