Which Office Do You Pray?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luigi_Daniele
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lauds [with community] from *Christian Prayer *

Prime thru Compline [privately] from Monastic Duirnal

Matins [as time permits] from Baronius LOBVM
 
I voted for other, as I use Shorter Christian Prayer.

maybe I should have checked Christian Prayer…

I don’t pray the office every day, nor do I get all 3 sections prayed on the days I do. I am a work in progress, that I know. :o :signofcross:
 
I pray the Christian Prayer with my community. We pray together the Lauds, Vespers and the night prayer, but individual and optional for daytime prayer and office of readings. I also have a short office which I pray alone sometimes.
 
ByzCath said:
I know this is probably not the news you want to hear but…

At the end of last year we received a Supplement to the Carmelite Proper of the LotH. The contains the new calendar (which we get every year anyways with the Carmeltie Ordo) but it contains the propers for the new saints. It Supplements the 1993 Carmelite Proper (an edition I have not seen). I believe the one we use in our houses dates from the 1980’s. I would need to run to the chapel to check if you are that interested to know.

I did a search to see if I could find the supplement or the proper on google and it took me to the Carmelite Media website that states what you said. It also lists the address as my priory. So I know, and live with, the friar who is the editor.

He is currently away but when he gets back I will talk with him about this and let you know what I can find out.
Click to expand...
Well I finally was able to follow up on this.

The new proper was ready to be published a couple of years ago, the text was sent to be approved by the Vatican and they were told to wait as the new translation would be ready around Christmas time.

Now when ever they ask they are told “soon”. It has gotten so that they are no longer asking.

Which is why the supplement was produced.
 
Thanks for the followup. That kind of confirms my thoughts. I hope when they finally release it they print enough copies over and above what is needed for the friars, nuns, and other religious. I would sure like one when they come out and I’m sure many other Lay Carmelites would as well.
 
I pray straight from the source: the 4-volume Liturgia Horarum, editio typica altera, all in Latin.
 
I use the four volume and have done so for the last 10 years. I always recommend people start with Christian prayer and then move on to the four volumes if they wish to
.
 
I’m a Secular Order Discalced Carmelite, so its part of my rule of life to say Morning and Evening Prayer.

I started off using the single volume, by the Catholic Book Publishing Company, “Christian Prayer, The Liturgy of the Hours,” but after about 10 years, finally purchased the four volume set.

For most working people who only have time for morning and evening prayer, the single volume is all you’ll ever need. In fact, those two hours are identical to the four volume set.

However, if you decide to get into the Office of the Readings, the four volume set is more complete.

I found this site not to long ago, and it links to Amazon.com where you can buy the four volume set for $124, new.

The site also has the readings for each day, and where to place the ribbons in your breviary. It also has a free audio available.

divineoffice.org/

I recommend buying the version put out by the Catholic Book Publishing Company, because its the most commonly used version here in the USA. Its what all the 3rd order groups and diocesan priest I know of us. So, if you ever happen to pray the office within a parish or 3rd order setting, you’ll more likely have the version they use.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
For most working people who only have time for morning and evening prayer, the single volume is all you’ll ever need. In fact, those two hours are identical to the four volume set.

Jim
Click to expand...
Yup. 🙂

I would use the 1 volume Christian Prayer (what I used for quite a long while, after using the 4 volume first) if it “worked”. My monastery borrows a Psalm for the OOR, and usually 1 from Day Prayer, so I am “forced” to use the 4 volume (again).
 
Windmill said:
I have tried just about every Office out there (Liturgy of the Hours in English and in Latin, Christian Prayer, Little Office of the BVM pre- and post-concilliar, The pre-concilliar Roman Breviary in Latin and in English, and the Monastic Diurnal in Latin/English).

I can’t bring myself to pray the LotH anymore as the prayers are too focused on social justice and are just too fluffy - and besides, the LotH has no pedigree in Catholic Tradition - it was assembled by a committee in the late 1960’s. They’ve eliminated 3 Psalms and parts of other Psalms. The English is a poor translation of the Latin, and is very mundane. The illustrations are sooooo 70’s.

The all-Latin versions (Liturgia Horarum and Breviarium Romanum) are difficult for me as I am not completely fluent in Latin (but I can get around). However, the illustrations in the old Breviary are typically very inspirational…and the prayers are very meaty.

The Little Offices of the BVM are nice (especially the Baronius Press one), but they are extremely repetitive. Other than that, they have been a staple of lay participation in the Office for centuries.

So, I’ve settled on the Monastic Diurnal since it is both Latin and English, has a rich tradition spanning many centuries, has Collects that spiritually kick your tail into gear, and has hieratic English that is oh-so-nice…and it is very attractively bound and extremely portable. It follows the traditional calendar and, therefore, gives one the sense that they are praying the same feasts that centuries of saints did before. Even though it does not have Matins (or, OOR in the new Office), and therefore, does not have an integral Psalter (all 150 Psalms), it does not pull any punches in the translations and, IMHO, gives me a better sense of spiritual warfare and necessity of Divine Grace.

JMHO.
Click to expand...
I take issue with someone saying the Divine Office was revised by a committee. How do you think Pius X had it done? The translation is not bad at all. And the prayers at the end of the Psalms are actually a practice monks do at the end of their psalms, like a collect. The psalms were split over a 4 week period because doing all of the psalms in one week is almost impossible for most people in modern life. I think the revised LOH is awesome and love it.

[edited]

If you want the mind of the church on the overall liturgical reform read JPII:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2VICES.HTM
 
yosupman said:
I take issue with someone saying the Divine Office was revised by a committee. How do you think Pius X had it done? The translation is not bad at all. And the prayers at the end of the Psalms are actually a practice monks do at the end of their psalms, like a collect. The psalms were split over a 4 week period because doing all of the psalms in one week is almost impossible for most people in modern life. I think the revised LOH is awesome and love it.
Click to expand...
Which monks? (please)
 
“Daily Prayer” (the whole Office, except Office of Readings, in one volume) published in England and Wales by Collins and authorised by Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (ISBN 9780007212217).
 
yosupman said:
I take issue with someone saying the Divine Office was revised by a committee. How do you think Pius X had it done? The translation is not bad at all. And the prayers at the end of the Psalms are actually a practice monks do at the end of their psalms, like a collect. The psalms were split over a 4 week period because doing all of the psalms in one week is almost impossible for most people in modern life. I think the revised LOH is awesome and love it.

[edited]

If you want the mind of the church on the overall liturgical reform read JPII:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2VICES.HTM
Click to expand...
The Pian reforms did not destroy the Roman structure of Office. It shortened the number of Psalms used per day (but still retained the use of all 150 Psalms in a week) and introductory/conclusion prayers. What did it keep? The number of offices in a day, the same calendar, the same Collects, the same general structure, the same feasts, the same seasons, the same hymns, the same language (Latin), the same use of all 150 Psalms, and the same chants that had been used for centuries.

The modern Liturgy of the Hours retained none of these things (except about 15% of the Collects and the Latin language…but how often do you see Latin used nowadays?).

So, yes, the Pian reforms did change the Office, but it retained a semblance of the previous Roman Office. The reforms enacted after Vatican II by the Consillium have created an entirely new office. No one, Traditionalist or Liberal, denies that. So, I don’t think it’s right to equate the reforms enacted by Pius X with the ones that resulted in our current Office.

Beyond that, the translation into English by the ICEL is horrendous. This is same group that gave us the bad translations of the Missal (which had over 400 translations errors, some of which had very bad theological implications and needed to be fixed…and they are being fixed, Deo Gratias, in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam). Just like the MIssal, the Liturgy of the Hours is the next item on the list to be fixed so that it better conforms to the edicio typica in Latin. So, if even the Bishops recognize that the translation is in need of repair, then I think we can safely say that it is inferior.
 
Windmill said:
The Pian reforms did not destroy the Roman structure of Office. It shortened the number of Psalms used per day (but still retained the use of all 150 Psalms in a week) and introductory/conclusion prayers. What did it keep? The number of offices in a day, the same calendar, the same Collects, the same general structure, the same feasts, the same seasons, the same hymns, the same language (Latin), the same use of all 150 Psalms, and the same chants that had been used for centuries.

The modern Liturgy of the Hours retained none of these things (except about 15% of the Collects and the Latin language…but how often do you see Latin used nowadays?).

So, yes, the Pian reforms did change the Office, but it retained a semblance of the previous Roman Office. The reforms enacted after Vatican II by the Consillium have created an entirely new office. No one, Traditionalist or Liberal, denies that. So, I don’t think it’s right to equate the reforms enacted by Pius X with the ones that resulted in our current Office.

Beyond that, the translation into English by the ICEL is horrendous. This is same group that gave us the bad translations of the Missal (which had over 400 translations errors, some of which had very bad theological implications and needed to be fixed…and they are being fixed, Deo Gratias, in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam). Just like the MIssal, the Liturgy of the Hours is the next item on the list to be fixed so that it better conforms to the edicio typica in Latin. So, if even the Bishops recognize that the translation is in need of repair, then I think we can safely say that it is inferior.
Click to expand...
If there was a paper guide (or a printable complete* guide on the net) to the MD I would switch to it tomorrow.

*The Guide would have to be complete, though. At least as complete as the St Joseph’s Guide to the LotH. Anyone?
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
If there was a paper guide (or a printable complete* guide on the net) to the MD I would switch to it tomorrow.

*The Guide would have to be complete, though. At least as complete as the St Joseph’s Guide to the LotH. Anyone?
Click to expand...
The monastic durinal is simple to figure out. I bought the Farnborough Abbey one, and it has a chart with it. Its really not hard at all. Its just like the LOH in the sense, as you get up the ladder from a 4th class feast to a 1st class, then you take more from the commons, or Sunday. Its not that bad.

I still prefer the Liturgy of the Hours (4 volume set). I’ve tried the Dirunal, and the anglican tranlsation of the monastic matins. I must say it is absolutely beautiful! Personally, I go to an Ordinary form church, and don’t want to be a liturgical monster, saying the traditional office, but going to the ordinary form mass.

Also, I like the pace of the Liturgy of the Hours, not as many psalms in a day. The monks say a lot of psalms, but have time to assimalate them and meditate on them at several points during the day. The whole point of the breviary is to become what you pray. Most lay people don’t have time to assimalate 12 psalms alone from matins during the day.
 
yosupman said:
The monastic durinal is simple to figure out. I bought the Farnborough Abbey one, and it has a chart with it. Its really not hard at all. Its just like the LOH in the sense, as you get up the ladder from a 4th class feast to a 1st class, then you take more from the commons, or Sunday. Its not that bad.

I still prefer the Liturgy of the Hours (4 volume set). I’ve tried the Dirunal, and the anglican tranlsation of the monastic matins. I must say it is absolutely beautiful! Personally, I go to an Ordinary form church, and don’t want to be a liturgical monster, saying the traditional office, but going to the ordinary form mass.

Also, I like the pace of the Liturgy of the Hours, not as many psalms in a day. The monks say a lot of psalms, but have time to assimalate them and meditate on them at several points during the day. The whole point of the breviary is to become what you pray. Most lay people don’t have time to assimalate 12 psalms alone from matins during the day.
Click to expand...
The Monastic Form is still compatible with the OF Mass; the Monastic form has been adapted to the modern Liturgy of the Hours. Apart from the number and order of psalms, and in some cases, the position of the hymn, the Monastic Office is identical to the current LOTH (excepting a few minor differences particular to specific communities).

But you do raise a valid point on the length of the psalmody. I am experimenting with the Monastic Office at the moment and I chant my offices in Gregorian chant. I work from home so that helps a bit, but I still find myself missing offices.

Monastic Vigils has a whopping 12 psalms as you pointed out, plus 3 canticles for Sundays and Feasts or greater. It took me over an hour this morning. In order to carry out the Monastic Office, I have to get up at 4 am to pray Matins, then 7:30 am for Lauds, 9:30 for Tierce, 12:00 for Sext, 15:30 for None 17:00 for Vespers and 21:00 for Compline. Matins is an hour, Lauds and Vespers each a half hour, the T, S and N are 30 minutes total, and Compline about 20 min. On a regular day, that’s nearly 3 hours of praying, add an extra half hour for feasts and solemnities. If you don’t chant it you can maybe shave off a half hour total.

Most laypeople and dare I say most diocesan clergy, can’t really spare that much time. The vocation of monks is much different, the Divine Office (ora) is also very much their labora.

I think the 4-volume, 4-week psalm cycle LOTH is just fine. Lay folks not bound to the Office shouldn’t complain too hard about it. Even the 1962 Breviary, after Piux X’s revisions of 1911, is still heavy. The Monastic Office is even heavier. When I do the Roman Office (from Easter to November), it’s 20 min for the Office of Readings, 20 min. for lauds, 10 min for Sext, 20 min. for Vespers and 15 min for Compline. Or roughly, it takes half the time compared to the Monastic.

Resources now exist to chant the current LOTH in Latin, in Gregorian chant. The basic structure of the office hasn’t changed that much other than regularizing the position of the hymn. It’s OK. The Church says it’s OK. For most people, it’s OK. It’s not perfect, but then nothing we have created ever is.
 
Just for fun, I timed Vigils this morning. My bell for Vigils went off at 4 am, and I started at 4h05. Today is an ordinary day, 12 psalms in all, two readings (from the same one-year cycle used for LOTH).

Total time, 1 hour and 3 minutes, chanted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top