Coffee & Canticles

Daria Sockey

Daria Sockey

New Breviary Project approved by Bishops

by Daria Sockey on November 13, 2012 · 19 comments

[I couldn't believe my ears.]

Then Bishop Trautman made a complaint about the brevity  of response time allowed during recent regional meetings about the breviary project, and for that reason lent his support to Bishop Brom’s idea of putting a new breviary discussion on hold.

Bishop McDonnell (I think) argued that going back to critique the new missal was counterproductive when so many were working hard to support it, to “communicate the awesome and transcendent nature of the liturgy”. Criticism would only encourage disunity, he said, and if priests would just review the collects and prefaces before mass, they would know how to read them with understanding.

Due to these after- the- fact objections, Cardinal Dolan allowed the vote to be repeated. Thankfully, the plans for a revised breviary still passed, although this time the majority vote was only 189. Still the two thirds required, but obviously affected by the last minute attempt by some to stall it.

My own comments: I’m basically happy  with the outcome. Much as I’d like an expanded Office of Readings, what I want even more is to have the basic problems with out current breviary corrected as soon as possible, and the work needed to expand the Office of Readings would eliminate any possibility of soon. To recap, here is what the approved project will do:

-replace the current psalms with the Revised Grail Psalter, which, trust me, is  a huge improvement.

-replace the concluding prayers of the Office of Readings and Morning Prayer during the holy seasons with the opening collect prayers from the missal, and hopefully retranslate all the other hours’ concluding prayers to be similarly faithful to the Latin edition, i.e. more beautiful in language and complete in theology.

-demote modern hymns from their place of prominence in the breviary, instead restoring to us a treasure that has been denied us for years: the lovely, poetic, and theologically superior Latin hymns in English translation.

-eliminate the psalm prayers. I know some people  will miss these. I believe that with a little instruction on interpreting the psalms, anyone can quickly learn to see the christological meanings in them on their own, and can then reflect in silence on  these meanings, rather than rely on the psalm prayers.

-re-translate the antiphons to better match the psalms.

-possibly restore the traditional Glory Be. (…and ever shall be,world without end,amen.)

All in all, these are outcomes greatly to be wished for, don’t you agree?

Pages: 1 2

Daria Sockey
Daria Sockey is a freelance writer from western Pennsylvania. Her articles have appeared in many Catholic publications. She authored several of the original Ignatius Press Faith and Life catechisms in the 1980s, and more recently wrote five study guides for saints' lives DVDs distributed by Ignatius Press. She now writes regularly for the newly revamped Catholic Digest. Her newest book, The Everyday Catholic's Guide to the Liturgy of the Hours, will be published by Servant Books this spring. Feel Free to email her at thesockeys@gmail.com

Tagged as: Best of Blogs

  • Brian Sullivan

    Sounds like a good path forward. Can’t say I’m surprised that there was an attempt to bring up the new missal translation. I wonder if publishing a supplementary volume of readings in parallel with the new Breviary would allow for a timely publication of both?

  • Daria

    Brian, the supplement idea was brought up–I forget by whom–and Bishop Taylor (the one advocating the extra readings) kind of dismissed that. He said that when things are put in a supplement no one ever uses them, and used as an example some optional Eucharistic prayers that are never used because they are only in a supplement.

  • JMC

    Personally, I wish they’d print the music to the hymns. Except for *shudder* “Morning Has Broken,” I have yet to find a hymn in the breviary that I actually know, and I can’t find any of them in my fair-sized collection of hymnals. I end up using the Metrical Index to find something, anything, that fits the words.

  • stefanie

    Thanks for this summary, Daria. I (a lay person) pray the Latin/English Roman 3-volume Breviary published by the Liturgical Press in 1963. (bought it on Amazon two years ago) It doesn’t have a hymnal per se. There are Latin/English hymns at Matins and Vespers — but words only. LOVE what Cardinal George said about the songs from the 1970′s Breviary. So true.

    P.S. also enjoyed the comment regarding the Sunday Collect. I always start my each week’s lesson (I teach RCIA for all ages — 7 years +) with the Sunday Collect. You can’t simply rattle these things off — like Scripture to be read aloud to the assembly– you have to get familiar with it in order to proclaim it. Perhaps the dissenting bishops don’t want to do the practicing. Or perhaps they don’t understand why the Collect Prayer exists.

  • http://therecusanthousemate.blogspot.com/ Chatto

    Interesting to see the differences between the US and UK LotH. As well as those improvements already noted, I think the short responsory needs to be in the Latin format. Do you guys in the US have an ‘*’ halfway through the first line of the short responsory, so that the second response is only the second half of the ‘R’ line? There’s no reason why we shouldn’t do it the proper way – if anything, it just looks like they forgot to print the ‘*’. Does any of that make sense? :p

  • David William

    Why can’t the Church just go back to Latin and be done with it?? englishizong everything only dumbed down the Liturgy. Shucks, even the Anglicans did better 400 years ago, and if you compare the old, non-hippieized version of the Church of England’s prayerbook with the Roman Catholic version in English, the RC comes off looking illiterate. Back to Latin for America (and think — how much better educated Altar Servers would be… :)

  • Vince Contreras

    For what it’s worth, I would be one of those who would miss the Psalm prayers. They aren’t that long or a burden to pray, many of them are beautiful and inspiring, and, yes, they do help to bring out the Christological meaning of the Psalm without going to outside sources.

  • John H.

    I understand that the Glory Be as said in the Breviary is not “traditional” in the English language. But the irony is, it is a more faithful translation from the Latin. It does seem brief, and maybe less poetic, but if we are going to bring things closer to the Latin texts then that is one prayer that probably shouldn’t change. “…in saecula saeculorum” does not mean “world without end.” In fact, the phrase “world without end” can actually lead to theological confusion. The reality is, the world as we know it will end. The prayer refers to God not the world. “…and will be forever” is also not a literal translation, but it is a very good idiomatic translation. After all, we wouldn’t normally say “ages of ages” in the English langage. We would perhaps say “forever and ever” instead.

  • Lankester

    Bad idea. Many cannot afford breviaries or pay large sums to replace them.

  • Daria

    It will all be free or very cheap online, so fear not.

  • Daria

    You have a point and I would be in the “forever and ever” camp EXCEPT for the point that Cardinal O’Malley made: the only prayers catholics now have that don’t have multiple “versions” are the sign of the cross and the Our Father. (even the Hail Mary has it you vs. thou version.) Everyone does “world without end” during the rosary and probably other devotions that include the Glory Be. I think O’Malley’s plea for one more unified Catholic prayer should be taken seriously.

  • Daria

    Because most of us don’t know Latin, or know enough of it to pray it with understanding. Personally I love when Mass (ordinary form) is said partly of fully in Latin. But most of the mass prayers don’t change, so after a while you know them in the sense of knowing what you are saying as you pray them. But the psalms of the office change daily.Constantly Looking back and forth from Latin to English translations while praying would really prevent most people from saying the office, well, prayerfully.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    I can’t say how happy I am to see the psalm-prayers go. To me, they are a distraction. Paul VI already added the gist of the psalm in its beginning in red letters, but the psalm-prayer narrows down the interpretation of the psalm to one and stifles its other varied meanings. Since they are optional, I just skip them when praying in private, as do most of lay and ordained people I know.

    I am sad though about the foot-dragging to revise the Office of Readings. What’s wrong with more Fathers and Doctors and Saints?

  • http://www.dariasockey.blogspot.com Daria Sockey

    Nothing’s wrong with them. Problem is, new readings would have to be translated from the original Latin/Greek/and other languages.Huge job for ICeL that could take years. I’d rather get an improved breviary while I’m still alive, and hope for maybe a supplementary volume of reading a few years later.

  • Ana M Garcia

    Where can i find a format on how to use LOH Morning Prayer on Weekend Retreat to include all the participants?

  • Jane

    I have the US 4 volume Divine Office and the 3 volume UK/British Isles Divine Office (as I am discerning a vocation to the US and UK) and the UK version is MUCH better. The US ones does have awful hymns, the majority of them and the UK version has the psalms, etc. translated much better. Hopefully this new US Divine Office WILL be better.

  • David L Alexander

    “Why can’t the Church just go back to Latin and be done with it??”

    Because we never left it.

    Latin is already the official language of the Church, particularly of the Roman Rite. Those bound by obligation to read the Office already have a Latin edition available for their own use. There is a problem with many of the office hymns being dated, and that will have to be dealt with sooner than the majority of bishops expect, perhaps before the revision is finished.

    Bishop Brom doesn’t seem to understand, as has been the case with him in previous years, that this part of the discussion is over. Whatever is to be done in the future will be faithful to the Latin editio typica, and he and the crybabies among his presbyterate will simply have to accept it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1287695071 Richard de Lorimier

    No way. With all due respect, Your Excellency Bishop Brom, we cannot keep the current Closing Prayers in the breviary over the new Collects of the Mass. If indeed the new Collects are more faithful translations of the Latin, then some of the old Collects of the Mass and thus the present Closing Prayers for the breviary have nothing to do with having translated the Latin, but are merely the “translator’s” own creation. Case in point: the old Collect and present Closing Prayer in the breviary for the feast of All Saints:

    Old Collect and Present Closing Prayer in the Breviary:

    Father, all-powerful and ever-living God,
    today we rejoice in the holy men and women
    of every time and place.
    May their prayers bring us your forgiveness and love.
    We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ…

    The New Collect of the Mass:

    Almighty ever-living God,
    by whose gift we venerate in one celebration
    the merits of all the Saints,
    bestow on us, we pray,
    through the prayers of so many intercessors,
    an abundance of the reconciliation with you
    for which we earnestly long.
    Through our Lord Jesus Christ…

    I would much rather be praying the universal prayer of the Church in a faithful translation of the Latin than the prayer stemming primarily from the authorship of the “translator”. Even if some think that some of the new translations sound more stilted and clunky, they are by no means so stilted that they cannot be coherently prayed aloud and explained when necessary. The cost in such cases are still far outweighed by the benefits of praying the universal prayers of the Church.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1174329625 Roderick Alvernaz

    Bravo, Richard, Bravo!