Lauds
As part of my Lenten discipline this year, I have been praying Lauds, Vespers, and Compline from the Little Office of the B.V.M. each day. However, on certain days I have been praying Vespers from the Roman Breviary instead (you can read more about this project here), so I invested in the slim volume from Angelus Press, Divine Office (Officium Divinum). Here are included Lauds, Prime, Sext, Vespers, and Compline for Sundays, and Prime, Sext, and Compline for the other days of the week. The only thing that seems to be lacking (unless it is cleverly hidden in an appendix) is the set of antiphons for the Canticle at Vespers (in this case, the Magnificat). But that is a minor issue; one can get the entire Vesperale on-line and simply retrieve the relevant antiphon from there.
But this post isn't intended as a book review. While I was thumbing through the Divine Office, I noticed how abbreviated the hour of Lauds seemed from what I was used to in the Little Office (pre-1911). Sunday Lauds from the Roman Breviary includes the following Psalms: 92, 99 (these first two are replaced by Psalms 50 and 117 during Septuagesima and Lent), 62, the Canticle of the Three Children (Dan. iii), and Psalm 148. In the Little Office, the following Psalms are included: 92, 99, 62 & 66, the Canticle of the Three Children ("Benedicite"), and Psalms 148, 149, & 150. Both versions end with the Canticle of Zechariah ("Benedictus"). The Little Office uses esentially the same schema as the old Roman Breviary (before the reforms of St. Pius X). Not surprisingly, the 1911 version of the Little Office uses the same Psalms at Lauds as the reformed Pius X Breviary.
Now I don't say the full Office every day in all its glory, and yet those Hours I do say take me long enough that I sometimes wish they could be truncated. And perhaps the truncation of the Office made it more accessible to priests (it wasn't until the Pius X reforms that all priests were bound to say the Office) and laymen. However, I do wonder whether this particular reform was necessary; in the old Roman Breviary Psalms 62 & 66 are always said together at Lauds, and so are Psalms 148-150. In fact the very name "Lauds" comes from the fact that the three Laudate Psalms (148-150) are prayed at this Hour (Lauds had previously been known as "Matins" while Matins was known as "Vigils"). It's almost as if the whole reason for its name has been stripped away (perhaps that is why, in the new Liturgy of the Hours, the English translation refers to this Hour simply as "Morning Prayer").
An interesting feature of today's traditional movement is that the Mass promulgated by Paul VI can be criticized, but not the Breviary reforms of St. Pius X. Criticism of the New Mass will often include reference to St. Pius V's bull Quo primum tempore of 1570, but few will make reference to the great Pope's bull Quod a nobis of 1568. The Luminous Mysteries of Pope John Paul II can be criticized by referring to Consuerevunt Romani Pontifices (1569), but again, no criticism of St. Pius X's Breviary reforms is permitted. In fact, one review of Laszlo Dobszay's book The Bugnini-Liturgy takes the writer to task for criticizing the Breviary reform of St. Pius X, stating that the reform was imperative "to combat Modernism." It's difficult to see how a rearrangement of the Psalter and the truncation of some Hours serves to combat Modernism. Again, the operating principle seems to be that the post-Conciliar Popes can be criticized for their liturgical reforms, but that St. Pius X can't be (it does seem that Bl. John XXIII, Ven. Pius XII, and Urban VIII are fair game, however). Interestingly, St. Pius X did not take the opportunity to correct the Breviary hymns of Urban VIII, leaving them in their "classical" forms -- a situation that would not change until the modern Liturgy of the Hours reverted to the original hymns and eliminated the Urban VIII revisions. Unfortunately many if not most pray the Liturgy of the Hours in the vernacular instead of Latin and so don't avail themselves of these hymns. In fact the English version of the Liturgy of the Hours even includes hymns by Charles Wesley (brother of John Wesley and one of the leaders of the Methodist movement) and Martin Luther!
[My apologies for such an intellectual post! I will try to return to humbler fare later.]
But this post isn't intended as a book review. While I was thumbing through the Divine Office, I noticed how abbreviated the hour of Lauds seemed from what I was used to in the Little Office (pre-1911). Sunday Lauds from the Roman Breviary includes the following Psalms: 92, 99 (these first two are replaced by Psalms 50 and 117 during Septuagesima and Lent), 62, the Canticle of the Three Children (Dan. iii), and Psalm 148. In the Little Office, the following Psalms are included: 92, 99, 62 & 66, the Canticle of the Three Children ("Benedicite"), and Psalms 148, 149, & 150. Both versions end with the Canticle of Zechariah ("Benedictus"). The Little Office uses esentially the same schema as the old Roman Breviary (before the reforms of St. Pius X). Not surprisingly, the 1911 version of the Little Office uses the same Psalms at Lauds as the reformed Pius X Breviary.
Now I don't say the full Office every day in all its glory, and yet those Hours I do say take me long enough that I sometimes wish they could be truncated. And perhaps the truncation of the Office made it more accessible to priests (it wasn't until the Pius X reforms that all priests were bound to say the Office) and laymen. However, I do wonder whether this particular reform was necessary; in the old Roman Breviary Psalms 62 & 66 are always said together at Lauds, and so are Psalms 148-150. In fact the very name "Lauds" comes from the fact that the three Laudate Psalms (148-150) are prayed at this Hour (Lauds had previously been known as "Matins" while Matins was known as "Vigils"). It's almost as if the whole reason for its name has been stripped away (perhaps that is why, in the new Liturgy of the Hours, the English translation refers to this Hour simply as "Morning Prayer").
An interesting feature of today's traditional movement is that the Mass promulgated by Paul VI can be criticized, but not the Breviary reforms of St. Pius X. Criticism of the New Mass will often include reference to St. Pius V's bull Quo primum tempore of 1570, but few will make reference to the great Pope's bull Quod a nobis of 1568. The Luminous Mysteries of Pope John Paul II can be criticized by referring to Consuerevunt Romani Pontifices (1569), but again, no criticism of St. Pius X's Breviary reforms is permitted. In fact, one review of Laszlo Dobszay's book The Bugnini-Liturgy takes the writer to task for criticizing the Breviary reform of St. Pius X, stating that the reform was imperative "to combat Modernism." It's difficult to see how a rearrangement of the Psalter and the truncation of some Hours serves to combat Modernism. Again, the operating principle seems to be that the post-Conciliar Popes can be criticized for their liturgical reforms, but that St. Pius X can't be (it does seem that Bl. John XXIII, Ven. Pius XII, and Urban VIII are fair game, however). Interestingly, St. Pius X did not take the opportunity to correct the Breviary hymns of Urban VIII, leaving them in their "classical" forms -- a situation that would not change until the modern Liturgy of the Hours reverted to the original hymns and eliminated the Urban VIII revisions. Unfortunately many if not most pray the Liturgy of the Hours in the vernacular instead of Latin and so don't avail themselves of these hymns. In fact the English version of the Liturgy of the Hours even includes hymns by Charles Wesley (brother of John Wesley and one of the leaders of the Methodist movement) and Martin Luther!
[My apologies for such an intellectual post! I will try to return to humbler fare later.]
posted by dcs at 8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home