Liturgia Horarum (Genuine Leather Edition)

[MaximusScriptorius]

If anyone has $900 to throw around, take a look at this:

Liturgia Horarum (Genuine Leather Edition) - http://www.theologicalforum.org/product.asp?ci=26&pi=421



This is clear proof that there is no serious move to reincorporate Latin in the life of the Western Christians. If anything, spending $900 on a prayer book is a scandal to the religion.

A scandal indeed. If there is to be a up rise in the number of laymen praying the hours, outlandishly priced liturgical books won't help the matter.
Leather or not, gilded or not- I doubt too many priests or lay will purchase this set.

Even though $300 is a lot of money for the 1962 BR, the cost is certainly justified for a set of books that will be used every day of one's life.

If I recall, the Vatican's publishing house offers a leather Latin LOTH, too. 'but not at 900 clams. Wow.

[MaximusScriptorius]

Yeah, wow. Do you pray the LOTH in Latin or the vernacular, Credo?

No, I pray the LOTH in Latin. I believe the edition I use was the second printing. It was done in the 1970s.

Oh well, who would want to say the Novus Ordo Breviary, anyway?

Having done academic work on the Divine Office (i.e.: written conference papers, clergy surveys) I feel confident saying that for every individual Latin Catholic who sings 1962 (or earlier) office, there are 10 - 20 believers who sing the LOTH.

That might be true...

But I know far more people who have transitioned from the LOTH to the BR (priest and lay) than the other way around.  In fact, I don't know anyone who has transitioned from the BR to the LOTH.
I have a feeling that if you do a clerical survey again in a few years, you might see the numbers start to lean the other way.

[Credo]

Would you say it's really essential to choose one or the other... that it doesn't makes sense to pray LOTH but 1962 Completorium or BR but Office of Readings?

Some folk choose different editions of the Office for different Hours of the day or even different times of the year. It must work for them. Personally speaking, I do not like this method. The streamlining of ones prayers are something to be considered. One should also consider editorial intent. The folk who produced the BR or LOTH or even Magnificat (which has solipsistic promise to, "meet every need of your spiritual life" - a rather tall order) assume that the people praying their work will be using it exclusively. As such, I would argue, it is desirable to stick to one edition of the Office in order to reap the maximum spiritual benefit. Due to my situation in life, I often jump around between the public celebrations of the LOTH and the BR, and of the 1962 and 2002 Masses. This practice has its definite drawbacks.

[MaterLaeta]

What about those of us who just whisper it?

The ordinary way to celebrate the Office is to sing it. This is not to say that the canonically mandated practice in the 1962 (and before) books of at least mouthing the words, or praying the Office in complete silence (as is allowed in the LOTH) has no subjective merit, but neither method (i.e.: mouthing words or silence) are the liturgical ideal.

Bakuryokuso, that's a huge question you ask. In short I dislike the 1910-1962 Office because its Psalm schema has an artificial feel to it. The Psalms of Prime and Compline just seem dumped into where they are. Additionally, while it was simplified from its earlier incarnations, the books were still far too complicated for laymen to start saying in large numbers. The selections at Mains were too halting and short. The only real plus I see it the BR is the use of the full and unedited Psalter, prayed in full weekly. The LOTH suffers from editorial stupidity (e.g.: Compline was thrown together at the last second. Somehow, almost unbelievably, the Consilium just forgot about writing Compline(!) until someone realized, “opps;” only half of the original selections for the Office of Readings were ever published throughout the Universal Church). The 50+ Psalm verses, and three full Psalms which are missing from the modern Office is a disgrace, as is the loss of the Latin language as the ordinary way to celebrate the ritual prayer. On the plus side, the LOTH was and is immensely helpful in dispelling the idea – still entrenched in traditional parishes, much to the frustration of traditional clergy – that the Office is “the priest’s thing.” The Divine Office is the prayer of everyone, and we should be on our knees thanking God that the horrible idea of the Prayer of the Church being only for the clergy is going the way of New Coke. Additionally the simplified “prayer load,” and the thematic  placement of the Psalms in the Psalter is a plus for the LOTH.

What are the differences in the 1962 version of the BR and the other versions offered on glgas' website?  Are any of those other versions available in print?

[Tim]

Mater, if you go to Laszlo's site there is a box where you can click: pre-Monastic, which is a reconstruction of S. Benedict's original as it would've been in about 575 AD, the there is the 1570 version which is exactly as it was after the Council of Trent, the the 1910 version, then the 1911 or Divino Afflatu version, then the version of 1955, then finally the 1962 version. What you will find is as time went by they reduced the amount of time in prayer.

To me the prayer of the Church is the same as Christ and the Apostles prayed in the Temple, that's the Psalms and the Canticles and the readings from the OT, and finally the addition of the Gospel and the little chapters.  The Homilies are not the purpose, though edifying.
tim
 

[Windmill]

I own all of these:  The Liturgy of the Hours (Christian Prayer and the 4 volume set), the Breviarium Romanum (Diurnale), the Lauds and Vespers version of the LOTH which has the official Latin and a good English translation but no sanctoral cycle, the Little Office of the BVM (pre- and post-concilliar), and the Monastic Diurnal. 

I love the compactness and beauty of the Monastic Diurnal, but it is too long for a married professional with kids like myself.  The hieratic English is a nice touch, too, but may be too formal for some.

I love the official look of the Diurnale, but I am not at an EF parish, and I get tired of spending all my days in the sanctoral commons.  It's artwork is beautiful.

I like the brevity of the LOBVM's, but the repetition disconnects me from the liturgical cycle.  The Baronius Press version is well made, and it also incorporates Gregorian Chant.

I like the LOTH because it is more realistic for a layman in the world who attends an OF parish.  However, the translation is dull and uninspiring.  The artwork is soooooo 70's. 

I have one volume of the LH, and this is what I am focusing on right now.  It melds with my liturgical calendar, but not my goofy liturgical environment.  I am beefing up on my Latin with the Collins Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin, and will see if this is the best way to go for me.   

[Allan]

II love the compactness and beauty of the Monastic Diurnal, but it is too long for a married professional with kids like myself.  The hieratic English is a nice touch, too, but may be too formal for some.

Doeas anyone have a link to this book?  I have heard about it but never seen one....  Thx.

[ies0716]

II love the compactness and beauty of the Monastic Diurnal, but it is too long for a married professional with kids like myself.  The hieratic English is a nice touch, too, but may be too formal for some.

Doeas anyone have a link to this book?  I have heard about it but never seen one....  Thx.

The Diurnal can be found here:

http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/press/dirunal.php

A relatively decent review of it with good pictures can be found here:

http://absnospin.blogspot.com/2008/01/monastic-diurnal-review.html

Don't confuse this one with the English-only Anglicanized version by Andrewes Press.

[Allan]

In terms of content, how does the MD compare to the 1962 SP approved Office?  Do the psalms differ, for example, for each hour?  In other words, are the hours prayed differently using the Monastic version, as compared to the 1962 Divine Office?

[ies0716]

In terms of content, how does the MD compare to the 1962 SP approved Office?  Do the psalms differ, for example, for each hour?  In other words, are the hours prayed differently using the Monastic version, as compared to the 1962 Divine Office?

Technically, the MD currently in print is a 1962 SP approved office, albeit one for Monastic use.  I believe that it contains the same version of the office approved for traditional monasteries such as the Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma (minus Matins, of course).

As for the differences between the Monastic and Roman offices, Keller Book has a good description here:

http://www.kellerbook.com/SCHEMA~1.HTM

In a nutshell, the Monastic psalter is very close to the pre-1911 Roman psalter, with many of the psalms remaining the same each day at Lauds, Compline, and the Little Hours.  St. Pius X dramatically rearranged the Roman psalter in 1911, so now there is considerable divergence between the two.  There are also minor differences in the calendar, with Benedictine saints' offices taking priority.  Some feasts that are a I or II Class in the 1962 Roman calendar might be only III or IV class in the Monastic calendar, and vice versa.