Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Q&A & Welcome- Pentecost Edition



Welcome, new followers Christian and Donna! I hope this blog fuels your enthusiasm for the official prayer of the whole people of God. Feel free to ask any questions you have about the Liturgy of the Hours.

There's an interesting discussion over at Catholic Answers Forums where people discuss which breviary--pre or post-Vatican II, they prefer, and why. For most part, there are very few snarky comments alleging the inferiority of one compared to another, something that is rare in discussions on the internet between those with traditionalist leanings and those who prefer ordinary, post-Vatican II forms of liturgy. One particular comment near the end of the list (as of 5/22), shows how, depending on which options in the General Insturction one uses, the modern Liturgy of the Hours can be done in a way that is quite in sync with longstanding. monastic tradition. I haven't put my own two cents in there yet, because I've forgotten my username and password for Catholic answers.

I hope you are all enjoying the Holy Ghostliness of this weeks' Office, especially Office of Readings and Evening Prayer.








3 comments:

  1. James I. McAuleyMay 24, 2012 at 9:07 PM

    Daria,

    AS someone who has prayed both forms of the office, a tit for tat is a waste of time. The important thing to do is to pray. The LOTH has its advantages -- it is designed to be flexible and adaptable. Some people complain about the psalm prayers (I love them), which, incidently, come from the draft 5th Volume of the LOTH, but they are nothing but traditional, often having old Roman and Mozarabic sources. The Roman Breviary has its advantages. It is actually, in my opinion, easier to learn. Excluding the issue of the mutilated office of Sunday matins, it is a superb source of prayer, with the benefit of the office of Prime. There are times where the Office of Readings in the LOTH is superb -- especially in Ordinary time, but when it comes to Lent, the Office of Matins is by far the better , for the patristic readings explain the daily mass readings far more effectively than they do in the new cycle. So, it is a mixed bag. That is why I go back and forth.

    I am making my own 5th Volume of the LOTH. I am having bound up together a book of Carmelite LOTH propers, Franciscan LOTH propers, and the Supplement. As for the Supplement, I was informed earlier this month that the ICEL will have a new Supplement for us out in 2014.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James I. McAuleyMay 24, 2012 at 9:22 PM

    One Other Comment -- if Folks want a Summorum Pontiifucm approved pre 1910 Breviary, you can get the Monastic Diurnal from St. Michael's Abbey in Farnborough, England. It has all of the old office of the Monastic Breviary minus the Office of Matins, the Psalms being the Vulgate,and the hymns being the old Roman hymns, not the revised hymns of Pope Urban VIII found in the Roman Breviary. At the end of Lauds every day you say the Laudate Psalms, 148, 149, and 150. Psalm 66 (67) is the first psalm of teh Office of Lauds. The Monastic Diurnal is a great thing to have as it contains several offices not found in the Roman Breviary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James, I love how you are just a font of technical and historical information on all the many versions of the Divine Office. I sometimes think you should be writing this blog. I fact, I was meaning to ask you whether you'd want to guest post now and then with pieces on the historical aspects. If that idea appeals, then email me to discuss it (thesockeys"at"gmail, etc., I can't write it correctly here for fear of it being picked up by spammers.

    As to the new 2014 supplement--what will this consist of? A second yearly cycle of OOR readings, or just recently canonized saint's stuff?

    ReplyDelete