A new blog, just started yesterday, is Breviarium Romanum. the author is Sacerdos who already writes the blogs Meeting Christ in the Liturgy and The Liguori Society.Breviarium Romanum is
"Dedicated to a profound spiritual life for all priests especially through the praying of the Breviarum Romanum."There is a poll in the sidebar asking whether you pray the Breviarium Romanum so you could drop by and take part. (H/T Fr Z)
I remember at one of the CIEL conferences making a little intervention from the point of view of a parish priest, mentioning that I prayed the Roman Breviary. The great scholar Laszlo Dobszay picked me up on this and pointed out that the 1962 breviary was not really the Roman Breviary at all since the structure of the psalmody had been so radically altered by Pope St Pius X. There are some pertinent observations on this subject in Alcuin Reid's excellent book "The Organic Development of the Liturgy."
He was right and if I could actually get hold of a copy of an earlier breviary, I would be very much inclined to use it. However, it must be said that the use of the 1962 breviary does have the merit of giving a structure to the day, and of giving the whole psalter for the week. Sadly, by 1962, many further changes had been made, particularly the reduction of matins for most feasts to only three lessons, truncating the important second nocturn into a single reading. Many breviaries of this time also had the new "Bea" psalter.
Recently, a member of the schola who come to sing at our monthly Missa Cantata at Blackfen showed off a breviary that he had obtained from St Philip's Books which was pre-1955, with the vulgate psalter, and the propers for the Diocese of Southwark. As we were sitting outside the Robin Hood and Little John consuming a pint or twain of Traddie's Old Dappled Headbanger Ale, I thought I could get away with snatching it and making off in the direction of Bexleyheath to catch the B13 bus home. A skilfully executed rugby tackle saved me from having to admit to a completed act of theft at my next confession.
12 comments:
A skilfully executed rugby tackle saved me from having to admit to a completed act of theft at my next confession.
I hope you confessed to covetousness though!!
;-)
Father, is Laszlo Dobszay the same Laszlo who made an online 1940-something Breviarium?
But how is it really true to say that the 1911 Breviary (and the other 20th Century reforms) mean that the 1962 Breviary is “not really the Roman Breviary”? Here is an
article by Abbot Cabrol from the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia which gives a potted history of the Breviary and some of the background to the 1911 changes. It is worth noting that Benedict XIV, Pius VI, Pius IX and Leo XIII all contemplated some kind of “restoration” of the Roman Breviary and that they did so in reaction to the changes introduced in the various Jansenist and Gallican Breviaries, and the enlightenment ideas which lay behind these.
The reductio ad absurdum of the “Everything Went Wrong In 1911” theory is that any changes to the 1568 Breviary represent a deformation of its original purity and that no liturgical changes at all can ever be considered legitimate. And that is fundamentally at odds with what the liturgy actually is, a living expression of the prayer of the Body of Christ. That doesn’t mean that anything goes of course. I would argue, for example, that the 1970 reform represents a far more radical departure from the Roman tradition than that of 1911. But it does mean that we have to take seriously Newman’s view that “to live is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often”, and that organic, evolutionary changes which respect the criteria Newman set out for assessing authentic developments in doctrine (and liturgy) are to be welcomed and not shunned. This is not to say that the changes of 1955 and 1961 entirely meet these criteria, but I think that, however debatable they may be from a scholarly point of view, they are certainly preferable to the post-Vatican II Breviary, which does indeed represent a radical departure from tradition.
I would be interested to hear your views and those of your readers
I am sure I will now get a series of bashings from readers, but, for what it is worth in the RC blogsphere, there is an excellent translation of the pre-62 Breviary into traditional 'Cranmerian' English much used by Anglo-Catholics before Vat 2, it is called 'The Anglican Breviary', but there is very little that is Anglican other than the mode of translation, just do a Google on 'Angl;ican Breviary'. I have now put on my tin helmemt and body armour before the charitable comments from non-Anglo-Catholics descend on me! Blessings.
Not really acomment, Fatjer, but Ise there is a 1912 Breviary on ebay at the moment:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BREVIARUM-ROMANUM-HIEMALIS-LATIN_W0QQitemZ190236557896QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item190236557896&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177
I think you had better change the picture Fr. as it shows a four-volume Breviary set. The 1962 version had so much excised from the rite, particularly second and third nocturn mattins lessons that it was published in just two volumes.
Is it permissible for a priest to use, if he wish to recite the traditional Breviary, other than the 1962 version? If so, it would encourage me to get one other than the 1962 version.
I've tried to get one myself, but it's hard to find one with a Vulgate Psalter at a reasonable price. On Ebay they're going for about 400 to 600 dollars. At the moment I use a Monastic Diurnal from the 1963 Breviarium Monasticum, but I would love to be acquainted with the Roman Breviary.
Tribus candelis - yes I have a (plastic covered) 2 volume 1962 set.
Hiemalis - many thanks but it is only one volume. I have 3 assorted volumes from pre-1940 given to me by the late Michael Davies but it is the summer volume that I am missing!
Auricularius - there will always be minor reforms, especially relating to the proper of saints. the problem with the 1911 reform was that it was a radical (and not organic) change to the order of the psalms. Newman's criteria apply to doctrine, of course, but they could also be adapted to discern good from bad "reforms" of the breviary. I think that in the future (not the immediate future) it may be that the basic form and structure of the Roman Breviary will be restored.
Paul - no, I would have to say that there is no existing general permission to use a pre-1962 breviary. But the monastic breviary is more in keeping with the ancient form of the office. That is why some scholars spent effort on producing the a new edition of it (probably the one that you use.)
But I think that there is in prospect a considerable debate and legislative accommodation because of the obviously problematic nature of the reforms of the 1950s.
Mmm... question is, how you differentiate "radical" from "organic". Here is a fascinating website which, amongst other things, contains a table comparing the 1911 Psalter with that of Pius V (as well as Quignonez Breviary and the Gallican Breviary of 1736), and a comparison of the length of the pre 1911 and post 1911 offices.
Does this mean that the 1911 office is "no longer the Roman Breviary?" I don't think the matter is entirely clear. On the face of it, the 1911 Psalter does represent, as the author points out "a major rupture in the psalter schema as it had been known by the Roman Rite for centuries". So in that sense, one can say that it does indeed represent a radical change. But if we apply Newman's criteria of "Preservation of Type" and "Continuity of Principle" (and on the grounds of lex orandi est lex credendi, I think that it is legitimate to do so), the matter is not quite so unequivocal, and I would argue is in perfect agreement with the principle set on in Chapter 18 of the Rule of St Benedict. The 1911 reform still leaves us with the traditional hours of Mattins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline and restores the tradition of integral weekly recitation of the Psalter. On this basis, it can be seen as a more conservative, and thoroughly traditional reform.
Of course I accept that views will differ here, but if we take this argument to its logical extremes, I fear we shall find ourselves in league with the Society of St Pius I, compared with whom Archbishop Lefebvre is a guitar strumming, Kum-By-Ya modernist who refreshes himself with Novus Ordo Eurofizz.
I believe Fr. Tim if far more on the right track than 'Auricularius'. The Neo-Gallican Psalters, such as that of Paris in 18thC, redistributed the psalms in a manner not disimilar to 1911.
The whole problem with the Breviary could have been solved by 'devaluing' the massively increased number of 'doubles' (so as to avoid the long Sunday mattins: c.f. Battifol) to semi-double or simple rank. A simple line of rubrics could have meant all semidoubles used the ferial psalter and the issue would have been resolved.
Libreria Editrice Vaticana are projecting a reprint of the 1961 Breviarium Romanum, in the same series as the recent 1962 Missal. Their idea is to reproduce the one-volume Totum version: I have one of these, but it has the Bea psalms. It is devoutly to be hoped that the new edition will use the Vulgate.
I would side more with Auricularius that the 1961 Breviary is a legitimate development, albeit I wish they had not truncated the Sunday patristic third reading at Matins quite so drastically.
The pre-1911 breviary, though unquestionably more ancient, is really a very substantial commitment, especially on a Sunday when one might have (as I do) three or four Masses, baptisms and Benediction also. I find the 1961 quite enough to cope with, and infinitely more satisfying than the 1970, though I add on the Aperi Domine and the other prayers before and after, and sometimes add ex devotione (and privatim) the Laudate psalms to Lauds.
I didn't think Summorum Pontificum expresses any preference as to which version of the Traditional Breviary one uses, so, in dubiis, libertas, I suppose.
I wish that someone would produce a nice four volume set. The 1961 breviary that I have in two volumes is too bulky - I guess a one volume breviary would be about the same size - but only if printed on sensibly thin paper.
With the commitment to the breviary, the old moral manuals recognised that part of the office could be legitimately omitted if a priest was binating - of course trination was less frequent then, let alone having to do the baptisms and devotions as well.
I was interested in your point about Summorum Pontificum - but on checking it, I find that it does say "the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962."
It is amusing about the Bea psalter. I had a commenter here a while back who said that he liked it. He is the only person I know to have expressed this view :-)
Hope you recover OK from the West-East jet lag.
Post a Comment