Paulinus has been doing a series of posts on the impoverished English of the Divine Office (I gather that the US version, the Liturgy of the Hours, is even worse), focusing so far on the inadequacies and banalities of the hymns, the interecessions, and the New Testament canticles used in place of a third psalm at Vespers (the collects would be another candidate for consideration in this series, though at least the translations in the Divine Office are slightly better than those in the Missal).
One reader commented that the obvious solution was to use the 1962 Breviary, which one is perfectly entitled to do, and this is clearly an attractive option.
My own problem with this is the calendrical question. I regularly attend Mass at my parish church, where the Mass is invariably in the Novus Ordo. If I were using the 1962 Breviary, I would in practice (not always, but certainly very frequently) be observing one feast when praying the Office and a completely different feast at Mass, the thought of which makes me uncomfortable.
I also feel uncomfortable with the idea that, if I were using the 1962 Breviary, when the Pope was celebrating (for example) the feast of St Benedict on July 11th, I’d be celebrating the commemoration of St Pius I, and would celebrate St Benedict on March 21st.
Maybe I’m wrong about this (and I'm open to counter-arguments), but I tend to feel that an important part of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome is to inhabit the same “liturgical time”, which, in practice, means observing the same calendar (local variations notwithstanding).
I remember reading a very thoughtful post on the Valle Adurni blog which discussed the merits of using the 1962 Breviary with the modern calendar, highlighting in particular the problem of the lack of appropriate texts for post-Vatican2 feasts.
I’d be interested to hear from readers who use the 1962 Breviary as to how they feel about observing one calendar for the Office and another at Mass, or about using the 1962 Office with the modern calendar.
I’ve looked into buying a Latin version of the modern Divine Office, but this would cost in the region of US $350. I wonder whether it’s possible get hold of a less expensive second hand set…?
11 comments:
I have explored the 1962 breviary a little bit, and I don't have an answer. The differences in the calendar are a little jarring, and not just for saints' days. There are moments when the whole seasonal sense is different, as in the "pre-Lent" Sundays in the EF, the Pentecost octave, etc.
For someone like me who operates both in the general Roman Calendar and a particular calendar simultaneously (Franciscan) it can be even more confusing, as some of our proper feasts have been moved, and others have disappeared.
I hope that somewhere along the way the calendars can be united somehow, at least with reference to saints' days.
I would really recommend the editio typica of the LOH. I have been very grateful for it. But I know it's very expensive. And if you get the "economical edition"--the other is really prohibitive--you will fume when you see how much you have paid for such a fragile looking binding.
Fr Charles - thanks for your comment. I love reading both your blogs.
... but I tend to feel that an important part of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome is to inhabit the same “liturgical time”, which, in practice, means observing the same calendar (local variations notwithstanding).
Does that mean that the other 19 rites of the Catholic church are somehow not in communion or in imperfect communion with the Pope?
I know you don't mean this but can you see where the above assertion can lead to. To have a distinct liturgical tradition does not impigne on one's communion with Rome at all.
I personally think that that while the 1962 calendar is slightly better than the calendar in use today in the majority of Roman rite churches, that even then there are some unforntunate changes. In 1950s, there was the arbitary abolition of some of the most ancient feasts and Octaves for no apparent reason - it is not surprising to read that one of the persons behind this was none other than Bugnini, who was simply paving the way for the full blown Novus Ordo.
Hestor - thanks; your point about the various eastern rites is a good one. What you say about the changes which took place in the 1950s is interesting, too.
I had the great fortune to be sent a copy of "The Little Breviary (at some point it cost someone 84/-), a 1957 Breviary in English for laymen. I suppose it is the analogue of "Morning and Evening Prayer" but only in the sense that a sculpture is the analogue of a picture.
Very slowly, and in some sense against my will, it is beginning to become the grounding force in my life.
In comparison, which calendar seems to be unimportant: observe whichever calendar you want to diligently, but praise God.
If I didn't already have my LH'm, I might be tempted by that psalter described on NLM - laid out according to the hours, but just the psalms ...
I used to say a monastic office, and rather miss having the gradual psalms every day.
Ttony, Berenike - thanks.
I switch back and forth between the EF and OF breviaries, depending on what calendar I prefer on a given day. I virtually never attend EF Mass, because the closest is two towns over and only on Saturdays, and on one Sunday out of four. But after explaining my situation, it doesn't bother really bother me to say the Office for one thing and hear Mass for another. I realize it would be better to have them synced, but as that isn't really an option, I just do it this way. My default is to use the OF, so I only use the EF on feast days for which I want the EF. It was a bit odd to go to ferial Mass during the week after Pentecost, while saying the Office of the Octave. But I really wanted to participate in the Octave. If I wanted to have the calendars of the Office and Mass correlate, I would have been forced to ignore the Octave. Sorry if this is really rambling. In short, it doesn't bother me to use different calendars for Mass and Office. If you want to hear more, maybe I'll blog about it so I can ramble to my heart's content.
And I've heard that the Latin edition of the LH is rather cheaper in Rome than in the US, so maybe that's true of the UK as well. If you or someone you know is going to Rome, consider looking at prices there.
As for the hybridization option, I won't do it. I'm not sure it's licit, and even if it was, I would fear this practice would lead overall to the OF influencing the EF, rather than vice versa. Better to wait for the CDW to decide how to reconcile the calendars. In the meantime, for new saints I just use the OF.
Mark,
I assembled a four-volume set of Liturgia Horarum editio typica (from the 70's, not the newer editio typica altera) by buying individual second-hand volumes in online auctions.
As I also have (and use) the editio typica altera, the older set is sitting in a drawer waiting for someone in need of it. I can part with it for US $150 plus postage (from Poland, where I live).
If you want the set, please drop me a line at ppojawa-at-gmail-dot-com.
Carl - thanks for your comments.
Pawel - thanks; I've sent you an email.
Post a Comment