Just wondering if the new Latin / English Breviaries put out by Baronius Press fulfill the canonical objection of priests?
Particularly, can a priest say the English translation and fulfill his obligation? I am currently a seminarian and find that the English translation of this Breviary is much more literal than the 1970′s ICEL translation.
Can. 276 requires that clerics fulfill their Office “in accordance with their own approved liturgical books”. If the translation in the Baronius edition has ecclesiastical approbation, then it is acceptable. If the translation is not approved, then praying the Latin whilst glancing at the English would be acceptable.
However, as I look at the Decree in the front of Vol 1 of the Baronius edition in question, a Decree issued by Bp. Bruskewitz, I read:
In accordance with Canons 826 §3 and 827 § 3, permission is hereby granted for the English translation and the editorial material to be published for private use, not for liturgical use.
Recitation of the Office by those bound to it is a liturgical act. So, I am of a mind that a cleric does not fulfill his Office by saying just the English. He does so by using the Latin.
Also, on p. xxii of an introductory note in the Baronius edition I read:
It should be stressed that the English translation is primarily provided as a guide to help those with little or no Latin understand the text of the Office. While we hope that by providing a bilingual version of the Breviary we will make it more accessible to those who wish to use this form of the Hours, it is the Latin text which is the approved form of the Church’s prayer.
So, my answer is “No, using the English does not fulfill a clerics obligation.”
Lay people who are not religious or consecrated virgins bound to say the Office can do exactly as it pleases them.
By the way, as a seminarian I would not let ANYONE else know that you are using that book regularly. Take your cue from Matthew 6:6 and be like the man who prays in his room with the door closed.