Loading ...
I hope that I won’t try the patience of our readers if I continue to write about the Breviary. Once the old Mass is restored to its proper place within the liturgical life of the Church, some attention, I suppose, will also shift towards considering the state of the other liturgical books from that time, especially the Breviary. I have written before about the fact that many supporters of the old liturgical books are yet convinced that the Breviary, as it stood in 1962, is badly in need of reform. And here, “reform” would really be something true to the word, that is, a return to an older arrangement as, for example, in the psalms to be said at Lauds and Compline.
But one other glaring defect in the 1962 Breviary is the lesson on the Gospel at Matins on Sundays. While I have remarked this defect before and even given an example of it, yet this Sunday I noticed a most hideous example of it. The lesson on the Gospel for the 20th Sunday after Pentecost is taken from a homily of St. Gregory the Great. I copy the texts from breviary.net:
Léctio sancti Evangélii, quam modo, fratres, audistis, expositióne non índiget: sed ne hanc táciti præterísse vídeámur, exhortándo potius quam exponéndo in ea áliquid loquámur. Hoc autem nobis solúmmodo de expositióne vídeo esse requiréndum, cur is, qui ad salútem fílio peténdam venerat, audívit: Nisi signa et prodígia vidéritis, non créditis. Qui enim salútem fílio quærebat, proculdúbio credébat; neque enim ab eo quæreret salútem, quem non créderet Salvatórem. Quare ergo dícitur: Nisi signa et prodígia vidéritis, non créditis: qui ante crédidit, quam signa vidéret?
My brethren, the passage from the Holy Gospel, which ye have just now heard, standeth in need of no explanation. But lest I should seem to pass over the same in idle silence, I will say somewhat thereon, rather by way of exhortation than of explanation. Indeed, there seemeth to me only this point which calleth for explanation: Wherefore was it that when the nobleman went unto the Lord, and besought him that he would come down and heal his son, Jesus said unto him: Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe? The very fact that he had come to beseech Christ to heal his son, putteth it beyond all doubt that this nobleman believed; if he had not believed him to be a saviour, he would not have asked him to save his son. Wherefore then said Jesus unto him : Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe: since he was one who had not seen, and yet had believed?
While attending the so-called Novus Ordo Missae at Bang Bae Catholic Church in the Seocho-gu neighborhood of Seoul, I was reading this passage to myself and thinking that it’s inclusion as is in the 1962 Breviary, without further explanation, support, etc., is almost so bad as to be a kind of giant typo or a mistake. When the 1962 Breviary was compiled, someone simply took the first lesson out of three from the old old Breviary and put it down as the sole lesson in the 1962 Breviary.
But did he look at what it says?! Gregory explains that but one point in the Gospel is in need of explanation and the passage concludes by sharpening the interest of this question. But it remains just that, a question, and nothing more. If anything at all has been said or communicated to the one reading his Breviary, it is that there is a question there where he might not have thought of one.
Great. But how will the priest find the answer to this question so that he can explain today’s Gospel to his flock? Does he have a copy of Gregory’s homilies on his shelf? That would be wonderful but not likely. If the editor had taken a phrase or two from the first lesson and combined it with the second lesson, he would at least have produced an informative passage. Here’s how he might have revised it:
Qui enim salútem fílio quærebat, proculdúbio credébat; neque enim ab eo quæreret salútem, quem non créderet Salvatórem. Quare ergo dícitur: Nisi signa et prodígia vidéritis, non créditis: qui ante crédidit, quam signa vidéret?
Sed mementóte quid pétiit; et aperte cognoscétis, quia in fide dubitávit. Popóscit namque, ut descénderet et sanaret fílium ejus. Corporalem ergo præséntiam Dómini quærebat, qui per spíritum nusquam déerat. Minus ítaque in illum crédidit, quem non putávit posse salútem dare, nisi præsens esset et córpore. Si enim perfecte credidísset, proculdúbio sciret, quia non esset locus ubi non esset Deus.
[What I've added - the second lesson - reads:] But bethink you what was his prayer, and then shall ye understand clearly wherein his faith was shaky. He besought him that he would come down and heal his son. He asked for the bodily presence of him who is spiritually always present everywhere. Then he did not believe in Christ sufficiently, for he thought that Christ could not heal unless he were bodily present. Had his faith been perfect, he would doubtless have known that God is everywhere.
Put the last two sentences of the first lesson with the whole of the second, and you’ve said something informative, albeit brief. Indeed, this was was an ideal of the successive revisions of the Breviary up until the present: the priest was supposed to have less time to mumble psalms and read lessons, so he needed a shorter Breviary. Still, even respecting this “ideal”, there was a way to do it that would at least be reasonable in regard to the lessons provided on Sundays. Somehow, on some Sundays, the 1962 Breviary cannot even attain this goal.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Is this true of the Dominican Breviary of 1962? I ordered it from Loome and hope to use it for my latin version once my latin is up to snuff. Maybe this is one area where the Novus ordo breviary got it right…
I thought I would pass along something I learned while I was studying in Rome some years ago. One of my acquaintances asked the then-Prefect of the Ecclesia Dei Commission (Cardinal Meyer) whether it was licit to say the “old Breviary” (and I’m not sure if he specificied any edition other than pre-Paul VI). The good Cardinal answered in effect: Why not? You say more of the psalter with it than with the new Breviary. Taking his opinion to heart, I say the old Breviary (the one before the “reforms” of the 1950’s), and I can add to Cardinal Meyer’s recommendation the fact that one reads a commentary on the Gospel of that day’s Mass. With the new Breviary, not only is there no correspondence whatsoever with the Epistle of the Mass (except by chance sometimes)–as with the little chapters of the old Breviary–there is rarely any kind of commentary on the Gospel of the Mass. The new Breviary may have longer readings, but the editors seem to have lacked the genius of the old compilers in knowing how much to include without overwhelming one. One example: look at the commentaries on Joshua by Origen included at length in the new Breviary. Yours in Christ,
a simple priest.
A simple priest: I was under the impression - in fact, I had asked the very question of an FSSP priest - whether a Latin Rite priest may say any Breviary at all - and the answer was ‘no’, that a priest is required to say the Breviary prescribed. Of course, in addition to saying the new Breviary, the priest might say the Breviary as it was in 1740, say, but this is a private devotion.
In short, I thought that only the priests who belong to institutes whose canonical constitution entitles them to the exclusive use of the old books can say the old Breviary as their daily Office.
By the same token, it wouldn’t be right for an FSSP or ICKSP priest to say a Breviary from 1510, unless this was in addition to the 1962 Breviary.
Dear Josephus,
Without any desire to lead anyone astray, I may state my understanding of the canonical situation regarding the Breviary to be as follows: 1) There is no question that the ordinary canonical disposition regarding which form of the Breviary is to be recited is the Paul VI Breviary for the Latin rite, or the 1962 Breviary for those enjoying the “indult”; 2) however, considering that, as is now becoming more and more voiced out loud, the ancient rite of Mass was never abolished or otherwise suspended, a fortiori this is true of the Breviary (which always enjoyed a certain latitude greater than that afforded the rite of Mass); 3) therefore, canonically there was never any real difficulty about a priest saying the pre-Paul VI Breviary; 4) but there is a certainly a question regarding whether it had to be the 1962 version or the version of St Pius X, inasmuch as the rubrics of the 1962 Missal (let alone the Breviary) to this day are not strictly enforced. Note, though, that St Pius X left no doubt, canonically or otherwise, that his reform of the Breviary was binding on the Latin rite (with the usual exceptions, religious Orders, etc.). I might add that the pertinent Congregations, when questioned about rubrical matters (as I directly experienced once in regards to the new rite), pretty much answered along the lines of “nil est respondendum.” The story about Cardinal Meyer seems to me to indicate that there never was much official interest in the “niceties” of 1962 versus pre-1962 rubrics. I realize that my interpretation leaves a lot of room for doubt, but Rome has not been very interested, it seems, in formal, canonical decisions on liturgical matters for at least the last thirty-five years. Yours, A Simple Priest.
A simple priest, thank you, I think I see now where you’re coming from.
Your comments on the 1962 breviary gave me pause for thought as I had planned to get a copy when Baronius Press reprints it. (I have a copy of the pre-St. Pius X breviary but my Latin is not up to using it (it does not have English on the facing page, which the forthcoming 1962 reprint does)). Would it be worth considering the Anglican breviary, which I gather is basically a translation of the 1955 breviary?
On the question of which breviary to use - am I right in saying the following; any breviary that has been officially promulgated and publicly used in the Church for long periods of time thereby becomes a form of the public prayer of the Church, and as a result anyone who says it is participating in the public prayer of the Church? This would seem to follow from the point made by Cardinal Newman and reiterated by Joseph Ratzinger, to the effect that the Church has never supressed a widely followed liturgical practice. What has been done (e.g. by St. Pius X) is a declaration that priests do not satisfy their obligation to say the office by saying other breviaries than a particular one. Such declarations of course are not relevant to laity, who have no such obligation in the first place. A simple priest’s inference from the fact that the right to say the Tridentine mass never having been removed to the conclusion that ‘therefore, canonically there was never any real difficulty about a priest saying the pre-Paul VI Breviary’ does not seem to follow. Paul VI’s statement in Laudis Canticum, the apostolic constitution that promulgated the new breviary, states ‘Beginning on the effective date for use of these versions in vernacular celebrations, only the revised form of the liturgy of the hours is to be followed, even by those who continue to use Latin. For those however who, because of advanced age or for special reasons, experience serious difficulties in observing the new rite it is lawful to continue to use the former Roman Breviary, in whole or in part, with the consent of their Ordinary, and exclusively in individual recitation.’ Nothing like this is said however in Missale Romanum, the apostolic constitution that promulgated the Novus Ordo.
John: while I have pointed to defects in the 1962 Breviary, I still think that most traditionalists will welcome the Baronius reprint with facing page English translation. The Baronius edition will give families especially, who are attached to the old Mass, a chance to pray Vespers on Sundays and other hours throughout the week.
The real beauty of the old Breviary, 1962 included, is the way that it ties together the Mass of the day with the hours of the day, especially on First and Second Class feasts. So especially on these feast days, the Breviary w/English translation will be a great way for many people to mark the day with greater devotion and prayer.
The type of defects I have noted will not be remarked by many, I imagine, since most lay people won’t prayer Matins. Lauds or Prime is a more natural choice for “morning prayer” and Vespers or Compline for evening prayer or before bed.
When it comes out, I’ll almost certainly buy the Baronius edition for family use.
John, you mention that you have a copy of the pre-St. Pius X breviary. A complete set? In how many volumes? If you, John, or anyone else reading this site would be interested in selling a complete pre-St. Pius, I would be interested in buying.
It’s in four volumes from 1891, but I’m afraid I want to hang on to it. I got it off ebay.
Just a quick note to Mr John Lamont: I appreciate your misgivings about my remarks. The main point I wanted to make, though, is that the regulation of the sacred liturgy is done through canonical legislation. It’s true that Pope Paul VI directed priests, et al., of the Latin rite to begin using the new Breviary, but this is not a canonical formula and was never established as a canonical formula, such as, say, the following form: “X is hereby obrogated, abolished, etc.” To give you an example of the importance of these canonical forms, in the old days when a new rubric or ceremony was instituted, it was customary to add, “All contrary customs notwithstanding.” However, this did not affect, e.g., any immemorial custom (one standing for at least a hundred years) because canonically such customs had to be obrogated by name. Such forms have not been in use in the Church for quite a while, and consequently there has been a lot of confusion about liturgical matters. The one exception that comes to mind is the document “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” wherein it is explicitly stated several times that such and such is “reprobated,” a technical, canonical term meaning that a certain custom cannot obtain the force of custom. A Simple Priest.
Does the lack of a traditional canonical formula really trump a clear directive? Even the canonical formulae can be dispensed with by a Sovereign Pontiff. When he says, “Don’t do this,” do we need to hear “Simon says,” when it’s the Successor of Simon (Peter) saying it? I am curious about this, as lots of traditionalists use these sorts of arguments. I understand the desire for the most authoritative-sounding language, but sometimes this sounds like legalism.
Again, thanks for the interesting remarks, Simple Priest.
(A Simple Priest:) I would just say this: canonical formulae cannot be dispensed with willy-nilly because they are the established forms of promulgating a law; if a law is not promulgated, it is not binding. Paul VI in the document you mention does indeed use certain canonical forms (e.g., he mentions “derogation”) and refers to the decrees of his predecessors. If this were substantially the same Breviary as those that came before, all would be fairly clear. However, like the Mass, the Pauline Breviary is substantially different (as should be clear from the suppression of Prime, the reduction of the Little Hours to only one that is obligatory, the rearrangement of the Psalter, the omission of some of the Psalms, etc.). Hence, the question is legitimately raised whether the canonical formula is truly sufficient in regards to the use of the old Breviary. Recall that Cardinal Meyer saw no difficulty with the recitation of the pre-Pauline Breviary. (I use this merely as a confirmation, not an absolute proof.) Now, the abuse of this legitimate canonical inquiry by stubborn or what-have-you Traditionalists, does not render the inquiry meaningless; it is not a mere quibbling about equivalent terms (which legalism certainly is). A popular, but good, treatment of the whole question of law and its promulgation using specific words is one of the themes of that fine film “A Man for All Seasons” (specifically as regards Henry VIII’s oath and the Act of Supremacy). A further example of the importance of this kind of questioning is given by Count Nero Capponi’s assertion many years past (at least twenty) that the new Missal was not sufficiently promulgated, even though it uses the same canonical wording as for the Breviary, particularly in light of the fact that an immemorial rite cannot be obrogated or abolished, certainly not by a general formula such as was used in Paul VI’s two “motu proprio’s.” Now, however, lo and behold, Archbishop Ranjith has affirmed in so many words Count Capponi’s thesis, when he said that the old rite has never been banished from the life of the Church. Finally, in all things, most especially things touching on the Church’s worship and ceremonies, prudence must be used; and one of the quasi-integral parts of prudence–St Thomas tells us–is memory, viz. of the principles and doctrines that apply to the matter at hand.
Thank you, a simple priest, that is very interesting! I don’t see how one can object to legalism when it comes to questions of law - surely that is its appropriate place? In fact the current discussion shows the merits of legalism - it is needed to protect the rights of the subjects of a law, rather than leaving them powerless before the whims of their superiors. Was Count Capponi’s objection that the NO mass was not promulgated in the form needed to make it licit, or merely that it was not promulgated in a form that would make it supplant the previous mass and make celebration of that mass illicit? The latter seems to be true (as Cardinal
Ratzinger, and supposedly a whole commission of cardinals, said), but not the former. On the breviary question - in the absence of a Latin-English missal I have bought a Latin-English monastic diurnal from Farnborough; will this get me much the same thing as the breviary minus Matins?
I believe that it will, John L.
However, the Benedictines have a different office than that observed by secular clergy. I find the arrangement of the psalms throughout the week in the 1962 Breviary of the secular clergy rather more meaningful than the Benedictine arrangement which, while ancient, tends towards a straight run through of the Psalter rather than a placement of the psalms according to appropriate times of day and week.
Josephus, you’re very welcome; I hope I’ve been helpful. Mr Lamont, that’s correct, i.e., that Count Capponi argued that the promulgation of the N.O. did not sufficiently deal with the status of the immemorial rite. (I tried to find a link to his article at the Una Voce website, because I seem to remember reading his essay in an Una Voce publication originally, but no luck.) While thinking over all this, I remembered another example of the necessity of canonical forms that you all might find interesting (and it has a liturgical element as well): when Paul VI abolished several of the privileges and distinctions of prelates and even cardinals, Cardinal Siri of Genoa still continued to use everything (down to the watered-silk choir cassock and large tassle on the sash) because the decree of abolishment did not revoke the privileges of S.E. il Cardinale Siri by name. And, I might add, he was never “corrected” by Rome. God bless, Fr “Simple Priest.”
And God bless Cardinal Siri! that is, may he rest in peace.
Certainly the problem of the homily in the 1960(2)editio is a real one. Rather as in the case of the missal the reformers stated the limit of the reforms of 1955 and 1960 was essentially a simplification enabling the existing books to be used until the thorough textual revision was complete.
Hence for the three-lesson Sunday mattins only the first lesson from the previous third nocturn was used.
Something not too disimilar, though more logical, had happened after the 1911-13 reform with the creation of ‘contracted’ historical lessons for feast days. The three historical lessons were precised into one which would have been read when that respective feast was reduced to a commemoration being read as ninth lesson in the office being celebrated. As far as I am aware these contracted lessons became the only lesson for the former doubles and semi-doubles reduced down to third class feasts.
Yes, I think it is just as you say. And in that case, the compact saints’ lives, though often none too informative, were genuine compilations of the larger three-part readings. Whereas in the case of the lessons on the homily, what was left is often not able to stand on its own.
The homily problem perhaps has its origins earlier too. In the pre-Pius X days many homilies of a commemorated Sunday would be read as the ninth lesson. The rubrics direct that the homily be read. In his translation of the Breviary the Marquess of Bute says this means the three lessons are read as one. However the practice existed, and became embedded by the Pius X reform of just reading the first of the three lessons for the commemoration. The fact that SRC approved this shortening (I cannot recall the decree number) was the end of reading all three.
For years I used the ‘Pius X’ breviary and found it very edifying. One day I came across a pristine set of breviaries from 1910 in a shop for £20. Whilst it was a learning curve once I got into the rite I realised it is far superior. An excellent Ordo for the Pius X breviary is produced by St. Lawrence Press, I wish they would produce another Ordo for the pre-Pius office.