From a reader:
A priest friend of mind does not like the Grail Psalter translation. He tends to think the bishops saw the word, ‘Grail’ and thought ‘that would be good!’ but no. He doesn’t like the ‘Glory be to the Father’ becoming, ‘Glory to the Father’ without the ‘be’.
Is there an alternative prospect for my friend? What breviaries are American priests allowed to choose from?
I don’t think there is much of a choice, if you want to use English for the office.
Also, I don’t think that just because a priest is an American, he is restricted only to the "American" edition.
The present "American" edition is… well.. not great. Some men chose to use the "English" edition, which I understand is noticeably better. I can’t say anything about that, since I have never used it. I have an "American" edition, but only use it when I am with other priests who want to say the hours together.
If one is opting to use the older office, I assume that the English in the bi-lingual 3 vol. edition of the Roman Breviary put out decades ago would suffice, though those volumes are like hen’s teeth now and very dear.
I am assuming that, because of Liturgiam authenticam, one day the whole thing will have to be redone.
Loading ...
The English of the “English” edition is certainly more artful; when I was a student in Ireland I picked up and began to use the one-volume edition comparable to the Christian Prayer we have here in the States. Going beyond English, the Latin of the 2000 typical edition LOH is not difficult, especially for someone already familiar with the cycle of texts.
I really hope a new American English LOH is in the works; the translations need help and the calendars need updating. When I was in formation we were forced to use the spurious translation of the People’s Companion to the Breviary for Morning and Evening Prayer. Those who inflict such things on the powerless need to be robbed of their excuses.
Father,
Back in 2003 I had the opportunity to speak with Msgr. James Moroney, who was at that time the Executive Secretary of the USCCB Liturgy Committee.
Msgr. told me that yes, indeed, the LotH was the next project to be tackled by ICEL after the 2002 Missal.
As you know, the Grail Psalter has been revised for liturgical use. It will be used in the N.O. Mass, as well as the LotH. From the tiny excerpt I have seen, in my opinion it’s head and shoulders better than the earlier version. As for the versicles and prayers, my guess is that they’ll be translated in a more traditional fashion.
In the meantime, I’d urge the “priest friend” to find a copy of the 1964 all English version of the Roman Breviary published by Benziger. It’s the 1961 breviary, and was edited by Father Bebe Bado, OSB, with propers by Dr. Christine Mohrmann. It was the first all vernacular translation of the Office approved for liturgical use by the American bishops. It uses the Confraternity Bible for Scripture passages.
I’ve used it for years. I got mine from Loome, but you can still find copies not only there, but on e-Bay and ABE Books. I bought mine in ’03 for $70.00. You now often find them outrageously priced, but I have a good friend who recently acquired a copy in very good condition for $70 on e-Bay. You just have to be persistent.
One can also pray the Benedictine office in stately English from the MONASTIC DIURNAL (http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/press/dirunal.php) using the Barroux ordo (offered in English with helpful notes at http://saintsshallarise.blogspot.com/).
Or, one can await the Baronius Press edition of the old Breviarum Romanum in Latin and English (http://www.baroniuspress.com/index.php?wid=12). The FFSP and SSPX each produce an Ordo for its use every year.
I wonder whether a priest would be permitted to use a vernacular translation of the Roman Breviary.
I suppose one could have a preferred psalter translation at hand (such as one of the two translations in the Anglican Use’s Book of Divine Worship) and pop over to that when it’s time for a psalm, and use the more traditional form of Glory be to the Father.
Conferences of bishops determine which vernacular translation may used in their respective region or country (c. 838, 3). Consequently, if one is living in the United States, only those vernacular editions duly approved by the USCCB may be used to fulfil one’s obligation to pray the office.
An example may help. When the CCCB adopted the NRSV translation of Holy Scripture for the lectionary, some in the US wanted to make use of it because of its “inclusive language.” Since this is not approved for use in the US, the Canadian lectionary cannot be licitly used there.
A layman without obligation can use any translation he prefers. So I wonder whether there is any provision by which a priest or religious could petition to be released from his obligation to pray the LOH, so he could then pray it faithfully and religiously using a different translation than the one prescribed by his bishops conference.
Or, perhaps more seriously, what might be the reaction if he submitted for his bishop’s approval a specific plan for using another translation to meet his obligation.
Or do such questions ignore the current realities of clerical practice. I recall hearing a bishop say that when he calls in a priest who has gotten into “trouble”, the first question he asks is “When did you stop saying the Office?”
In re: use of the vernacular in the older office, keep in mind that S.C. allowed for a priest to use a vernacular translation with the approval of his bishop, provided the translation was approved. Not sure where this leaves the 1964 Benziger (which I use), but I know priests from that time were given very liberal use of many translations. That had to be one of them.
Sacred then and sacred now?
The alternative, of course, is trying to learn the Latin. Even though I’m a very busy layman (two jobs and a family), I pray all seven (eight?) liturgical hours from the older breviary. When I have time, I slog through the Latin, with that English aid to help me out. Immersion is working.
What are the rules regarding priests using vernacular translations of the ’61 breviary who belong to religious congregations rather than dioceses? I’ve got a friend who is a non-diocesan priest who is interested in using an official translation of the ’61 breviary. Would he have to get permission from the superior of his society, or is the approval of the texts by bishops conferences sufficient?
Well, I got one of my questions worked on. I’m happy.
Even if the answers are tending towards what I would not prefer so far.
I may have to call/write the USSCB at this rate to find out what can be used.
My other query was whether the Weller translation English/Latin Roman Ritual on could use the English for the sacraments, I’m also suspecting that in regards to the Latin/English of the Roman Ritual, the English portion probably can’t be used for the sacraments themselves because it’s not official like the Latin text, though the blessings would be fine.
It’s a shame, it’s a lovely 3 volumes, now available from PCP amongst others.
ICEL’s moving on to the LOTH next? So we should have those new books in hand by 2034 or maybe just a little later.
The alternative, of course, is trying to learn the Latin.
I don’t think one needs to know Latin in order to pray in Latin. One only needs to know how to pronounce it, and I imagine that this would not be much of an issue with the Office unless one is praying it in public.
Father Z. is right. The number of English translations of the Tridentine Office are not very thick on the ground. The ones that I have seen are those from the Marquis of Bute (1908), the one mentioned
in the aforesaid post from Liturgical Press, and
the Benziger breviaries (1952 & 1961).
I personally didn’t care much for the LOH either and
the transition from that to Latin was made easier because
I had studied it before. I’m not saying that Latin
is for everyone, but it is the language of Holy
Mother Church and it is used by many to pray
the Divine Office.
There is a wonderful all-English language American edition of the Breviary from the mid-1960s, with episcopal permission for use by priest. I have given my copy to a friend who is trying his vocation, so I cannot quote it, but the office hymn translations are excellent, based upon good poetic early 20th century sources,and the psalms were very easy to pray. Traditional without being archaic. Some one must be able to be more precise!
CDN_Canonist:
C. 838 §3 only says that it pertains to the bishop’s conference to prepare vernacular translations (in other words, the Holy See is not going to do this). It does not say that only those prepared by a certain conference may be used in their region, etc. Are you not over-reading this a little?
To cover my bases, I asked my Vicar for Clergy for permission to use the UK English edition of the LOH and also to use the Spanish edition. He freely granted it. Maybe he was outside his competence? I think that most bishops (and their vicars) are just so happy that priests are praying the LOH, whatever the translation might be!
dcs: I don’t think one needs to know Latin in order to pray in Latin. One only needs to know how to pronounce it
If one has no idea what the words of a prayer mean, does pronouncing them aloud constitute “praying”?
The Latin form of the lesser doxology (Gloria Patri, etc.) does not have “be” in it either. It is actually more correctly translated (for once!) in the ICEL translation found in the LOH.
Padre Anónimo,
No, I’m not “over-reading this a little.” On 27 November 1977, the NCCB approved a single official vernacular version for use in the USA. This edition was confirmed by the Holy See. That translation, as it appears is several authorized editions, or the orginal Latin Liturgia Horarum, must be used to fulfil the canonical obligation of c. 276, par. 2, 3, whether in common or by individuals. See Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter, 13 (1977), p. 89. Similar provisions exist in other countries.
If bishops conferences do not possess the authority to determine the use of single translation in their region, there would be no reason why the Canadian lectionary could not be used licitly in the USA and vice versa. Surely, you are not suggesting this!
First off, clerics are not obliged to “pray” the Divine Office, but rather to recite the Hours (the Latin text of c. 1174 uses the word “persolvendae”). While it may seem cold, and certainly the Church exhorts her clergy to pray, there are good reasons for this terminology.
As Mr. Edwards hints at, prayer has both a subjective and objective sense. Prayer is the lifting of one’s mind and heart to God, communication with the Divine. Ideally, our entire life should be one of prayer (Lk 18:1). But clerics are obliged to the Divine Office not merely as an exercise of personal piety, but as an Office, an “officium” – a duty they take upon themselves for the sake of the whole Church. The obligation is not one of prayer, per se, but one of intercession and supplication. The Church offers daily to God this continual song of praise, and enjoins upon her clergy the specific task of upholding this obligation. They have this obligation even when it is not, subjectively, prayer for them – when they are worried or stressed out, or sinful, or tired, or simply not in a prayerful state of mind – they still have taken upon themselves the obligation to offer this liturgy – this work on behalf of the people – to God.
Also, regarding those who do not know Latin well enough to subjectively get anything out of the prayer, I’m reminded of a possibly apocryphal story of St. Therese who, when asked how she could pray the Office in Latin without knowing Latin, responded, “When I pray in Latin, I’m not talking to myself, and surely, HE understands it.”
Tim: A very good reminder. THANKS for that.
The Office is vocal prayer. This is one reason why clerics would move their lips while reading their officium. Although, as many older priests would say in my earlier years, there is indeed always a measure of subvocalization going on.
It is better if it can also be prayer, but the obligation must be fulfilled.
CDN_canonist,
I would argue that the Canadian indult to use the NRSV is not the same, here. The NRSV was rejected by Rome for use worldwide; Canada applied for an indult since they had already spent money in printing the Lectionaries.
A rejected translation can’t be compared to a translation that has never been rejected.
MemberoftheChurchMilitant,
Your presentation of the facts is selective. The NRSV translation was approved by the CCCB for use in Canada because it had already received the recognitio of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1992. This is the normal procedure to observe. It was only afterwards that the CDF expressed concern about the translation, specifically in relation to its use in the CCC.
In any event, I was refering to the newly approved Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities. This is not a “rejected translation.” It received the required recognitio from the Holy See, and was introduced for use on Pentecost Sunday, 2009. Despite the approval of the CCCB and the recognitio of the Holy See, it cannot be used in the USA or any other country. Why? Because conferences of bishops determine which vernacular translations may be used in their territory, including translations of the Roman Missal, Liturgy of the Hours, and various sacramental rites.
The Latin form of the lesser doxology (Gloria Patri, etc.) does not have “be” in it either. It is actually more correctly translated (for once!) in the ICEL translation found in the LOH.
ICEL’s translation is as follows, yes?
This leaves off an entire phrase of the Doxology: “et in saecula saeculorum” (which to my mind is much more troubling than the lack of a “be”!). So I think it is difficult to say that this version is more correctly translated than the traditional English version.
One of the best volumes a layman can get is the monastic diurnal reprint which has the Benedictine Breviary, Lauds to Compline, Latin-English. A copy can be found here
I like the monastic office much better than the roman breviary, since it is much more traditional, the 1962 roman breviary psalter was completely re-worked under St. Pius X to the point of losing its connection with tradition, then the Pius XII psalms are not very attractive. The big problem with the latter though is that they are not infallible in faith and morals, while the traditional vulgate psalter is.
Perhaps I am mistaken but, does not Summorum Pontificum grant to priests the right to use ANY edition, other than the current American, Great Britain, etc., approved since 1962?
CDN_Canonist,
It is you, my friend, stating inaccuracies. I have even spoken with the CCCB Liturgy director about this, btw. Canada was given temporary permission, an indult, to use the NRSV which was to be corrected by the CCCB, asap. Rome had initially given permission for the English NRSV, but then rescinded it, meaning it was rejected as appropriate for liturgical use.
“After the letter from Archbishop Geraldo Agnelo, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, was received by the presidents of English-speaking bishops’ conferences last year, the Canadian bishops asked for and received permission from the Holy See for interim use of liturgical books incorporating the NRSV texts they had already printed without proper authorization.
The permission to continue to use these unauthorized books was granted to the Canadian Church only, with the understanding that the Canadian bishops would correct the books as soon as possible.” (Adoremus Bulletin 1996)
I don’t know if it matters, but the Bede Babo edition I mentioned above reads;
“At a plenary meeting of the American Bishops in Washington, DC, on April 2, 1964, their Excellencies, among other actions taken, approved the “Roman Breviary in English,” published by Benziger Brothers, Inc., for the recitation of the Divine Office in the vernacular. The decrees of the American Bishops were confirmed by the postconciliar Commission for the Execution of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, dated at Vatican City, May 1, 1964.”
As it’s the version of the RB mentioned in Summorum Pontificum; the ’61, and no subsequent vernacular version was ever approved for liturgical use, none supersedes it. I would think this version would be completely allowable for a priest to use to fulfill his obligation.
Tim Ferguson: the Latin text of c. 1174 uses the word “persolvendae”
Thanks from me also. I’d never noticed this before, and it’s very interesting. (Hmm … I wonder whether the fact that you always have something useful to contribute is consistent with your obligation as a canon lawyer.)
persolvo: perform, discharge a duty, recite, ….
Nothing about “praying” in Stelten’s “Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin”. And, indeed, The Canon Law Society of America’s English translation of c. 1174 includes “Clerics are obliged to perform the liturgy of the hours”.
I must admit that I prefer to pray rather than “perform” the LOH, and since my Latin is not strong, keep a stock of both dictionaries and translations at hand to help me pray in Latin with as much authentic meaning as I can.
CDN_Canonist,
If you are referring to the New revised lectionary you should make it clear to avoid confusion. I don’t know if there has been an official name change, but calling the NRSV is deceptive since there were some significan changes in the translation.
Shin:
Unlike the 1950s-era Weller Rituale, the 1961 New Sanctuary Manual, which is excerpted from the Collectio Rituum, lists English alongside the Latin only where it is permissible to use the vernacular. If there is no English, you must use Latin. While it is not as complete as the Weller edition, we use it as our primary reference because it offers clarity on this matter. It is available at:
http://www.booksforcatholics.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=B&Product_Code=1929291302&Category_Code=The_Mass
MemberoftheChurchMilitant,
I didn’t state anything inaccurate. I simply pointed out what was ommitted in your first post, namely, that the CCCB initially received the recognitio of the CDW and, subsequently, printed the lectionaries. The reason I pointed this out is because so many interpret the CCCB’s approval of the NRSV-adapted translation for the lectionary as an act of disobedience. It was not; it is an example of dicasteries not working closely together. Yes, I am aware that a so-called “indult” was received for its continued use until a new translation was prepared and approved. I never called this into question.
The new lectionary introduced on Pentecost, 2009 has received the recognitio of the Holy See. The translation is still based on the NRSV translation, but certain adaptations have been added for clarity and to address the concerns of the Holy See. Both the 1992 and the 2009 editions are called “Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities.”
But this is not my point. My point is that it is conferences of bishops that determine which translations (with the recognitio of the Holy See) may be used in their territories. If it is not approved for use, it cannot be used in the liturgy. This is true for all liturgical books.
Whether the Doxology end with “and will be for ever” (maybe, but why not straight literal) or “the world without end” (and that ones is really messed up, IMO), neither is a correct translation of “et in saecula saeculorum”. In all vernacular languages I checked, it’s always literally translated.
BTW, who came up with this world without end? Anglicans?
All Byzantine Christians use “and (un)to the ages of ages”. Sounds literal and just right, doesn’t it?
(I know – I am not a native English speaker…)
Whether the Doxology end with “and will be for ever” (maybe, but why not straight literal) or “the world without end” (and that ones is really messed up, IMO), neither is a correct translation of “et in saecula saeculorum”. In all vernacular languages I checked, it’s always literally translated.
“as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever” is a translation of “sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper.” The ICEL English leaves the entire phrase “et in saecula saeculorum” untranslated. It is true that the Byzantines translate this phrase literally into English, but that in and of itself isn’t a reason to abandon the traditional English version of the prayer.
BTW, who came up with this world without end? Anglicans?
I believe it was Cranmer.
Q:BTW, who came up with this world without end? Anglicans?
A:– I believe it was Cranmer.
And so we Catholics are forever indebted to him…
But why, why, why?…
I recall that “world without end” was the phrase Henry VIII came up with – while he was still “Defender of the Faith”. I’m not willing to stake anything on this vague recollection, though
So far we have Cranmer and Henry VIII himself as possible perpetrators. That’s not a good company.
I find it disturbing that this wording has been adopted (probably quite long ago). How then can we get rid of it from our Catholic pages? We are about to return to “And with your spirit” after all.
So pray it Latin, and drop the English. Come on, you can pray *this one* even if you never studied a word of Latin. You know what it means anyway!
Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto,
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper,
et in saecula saeculorum.
Amen.
The glory [belonged] to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,
As it belonged in the begining, so now, and always,
and into ages of ages.
Amen.
Just happened by and this may be helpful. There is a web site for the Divine Office http://divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl
It has the Tridentinum, Divino Afflatu, Reduced 1955, and the Rubrics 1960. You can set it up in Latin, English, or Hungarian. I’m just a lay man that uses it, and I don’t know the rules for priests, but I just though it might help.
So pray it Latin, and drop the English.
You bet! That’s what I was doing ever since I moved to US from Poland. I do Latin responses in a low voice. This way I skip “and also with you”. Works well.
A number of sources are hinting that not only the English translation, but the actual editio typica of the LOTH may well be revised in the (relatively) near future.
Can anyone say authoritatively whether the c. 1174 –“Clerics are obliged to perform the liturgy of the hours”– applies equally to deacons, priests, and bishops? Must they say daily the entire LOH, including the office of readings, morning, day, evening, and night prayer?
I agree, praying it in Latin saves the trouble of translating. I always pray the Gloria in Latin
The obligation to the Litugy of the Hours binds all Latin clerics, meaning all deacons, priests and bishops. Canon 276, paragraph 2, point 3 further refines this by stating that priests and bishops (sacerdotes) and those deacons who are aspiring to the priesthood (commonly called transitional deacons) are obliged to the whole of the Liturgy of the Hours.
The praenotanda of the Liturgy of the Hours, promulgated in 1971, and still in force, introduces some distinctions between the specific Hours – Only for a serious reason may the clerics omit Lauds or Vespers, the omission of the Office of Readings (Matins or Nocturn) and Compline requires a less serious reason, and only one of the three “little hours” – Terce, Sext, Nones – needs to be recited to consider the daily obligation fulfilled.
Those ordained to the diaconate on a stable basis, according to canon 276, 2.3, “are to carry out the same to the extent defined by the conference of bishops.” In the United States, the Conference of Bishops obliges permanent deacons only to Lauds and Vespers.
In the 50’s and 60’s, there were a number of very interesting questions that were put to the Congregation of Rites regarding what sort of reasons could justify the omission of one or several hours. The Ordinary (either the diocesan bishop, the vicar general or episcopal vicar, or the clerics religious superior if he is not diocesan) can commute portions of the Office for specific situations (I know of one geographically large diocese which used to have as a diocesan law that the cleric was dispensed from one of the Hours if he had to drive further than 100 miles for the sake of parochial or diocesan obligations).
Forgive my effusiveness on this particular topic, I’ve been collecting information for some time and will (as soon as the dust settles a bit) be writing an article or paper of some sort on the obligation to the Divine Office.
Mr. Ferguson: Forgive my effusiveness on this particular topic
To the contrary, this complete answer was very interesting, and we can look forward to hearing about your article on the subject.
In the meantime, I wonder whether you’ve run across any information on the extent to which these obligations are generally satisfied by U.S. clerics.
From the fictional pastor St. Hilary’s in Fox River, Illinois:
Lying Three 1979
Sigh… that should have been “pastor of St. Hilary’s”
Several years ago, on EWTN’s Q amd A section in response to a question concering the use of the British form of the Liturgy of the Hours for priests in the USA it was a big NO! In fact, in very clear language it was stated that priests can not satisfy their canonical obilgation unless they use either the Latin or the American form of the Liturgy of the Hours. I thought the answer was not correct and a bit over the top.
Thank you, AlexB. I will look into that book! My pockets are rapidly emptying but it is worthwhile!
I’m glad for all the edifying responses.
I managed to get a response out of the USCCB. I took a chance and tried, I did not know if I would get an answer. I got a swift and surprise reply from a Director there in charge of public relations.
She said that both for public and for priest obligation, “The translation of the official editio typica is that which was approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops for use in the Dioceses of the United States of America on October 21, 1974, and confirmed by a decree of the Congregation of Divine Worship, on December 8, 1974 (Prot. N. 25374).”
And this is the only one that may be used, not the Canadian, not other countries.
I regard this as an authoritative response, because it is from someone who speaks for the USCCB, and the USSCB it appears has been delegated the authority on this matter.
Anyone think there’s a loophole or this settles it? I think it settles it. :)
As an American this ‘letter of the law’ Catholicism rather than ‘spirit of the law Catholicism’ still sometimes takes time for me to get used to. Whether it’s civil law to the letter or Church law to the letter, but if that’s the way, that’s the way.
What keeps the bad Canadian out, keeps the better English out. C’est la vie eh?
This is from the Jan 28 blog from “Fr. Hunwicke’s Liturgical Notes”
“…
Mgr Harbert said tonight that ICEL had in fact done some work on a new English version of the Liturgy of the Hours, but had then put the brakes on when a very senior person in Rome intimated that perhaps the Latin base text, the Editio typica altera Liturgiae horarum, might find itself returned to the melting pot. Just as ICEL had waited until it had the definitive Editio typica tertia Missali Romani to hand before doing its English draft of the Missal, so it did not want to do a lot of work on a new Breviary when the Latin base-text might be about to metamorphose.
For what its worth.