Author Topic: Permission.  (Read 1990 times)

Credo

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,513
Permission.
« on: January 15, 2006, 08:35:PM »

       What is up concerning the need to obtain permission to say the BR, 1962 or before? I read somewhere to do so without permission is to cese to "pray with the Church." As such, it could only be considered personal prayer. Do I need to get permission from the bishop to pray the BR?

I promise not to put anything here which might help us question our mind-forged manacles, inspire us, or help us in any way at all.

N.B.: I will not be posting on this site again until the Christmas octave. Have a good Advent.

Paul

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,601
Permission.
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2006, 09:03:PM »
I've heard this, too, but it's not something I worry about. As a layman, I'm not required to say the Office, so I do not fail to meet an obligation if my recitation doesn't count. Whether it's private devotion or public liturgy, I let God worry about that. Either way, I think, He appreciates our prayers.

piusx1914

  • Member
  • Posts: 456
  • Gender: Male
Permission.
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2006, 02:07:PM »

Credo,

 

I'm with Paul, don't worry about it.

 

I have pasted below a reply I got from an FSSP concerning using the pre 1962 breviary. 

 

> Is it permissible for a member of the laity to

> follow the 1955 Pius X

> rubrics while saying the office since we are not

> constrained by canon

> law to the 1960 rubrical revisions?

 

I don't see why not; When clergy pray the Office, it

is considered to be on the same level as any public

part of the Church's Liturgy, but when laymen do so,

it is considered a "private devotion", so you are free

do do it in whatever way appeals to you.

I think that the value of praying in union with the

Liturgy outweighs any differences (or mistakes) you

might make. I figure that the only prayer that can

hurt you is the prayer you don't say!


piusx1914

  • Member
  • Posts: 456
  • Gender: Male
Permission.
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2006, 02:16:PM »

Credo,

 

I'm a Benedictine Oblate and part of the responsiblity of being an Oblate is to say as much of the Office as ones state in life will permit. 

 

My monastery of affiliation lists the recently published 1963 Monastic Diurnal as one of the legitimate forms of the Office.

 

If you are using the '62 Office, it is covered under the Ecclesia Dei Indult.  The '62 Office is being used by hundreds of priests and laity who are in perfectly good standing with the Church.  The Pope has said that the use of the preconcilliar rite is a "rightfull aspiration" of the faithfull. 

 

  


creimann

  • Guest
Permission.
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2006, 08:35:PM »

Have a look at "Priest, Where Is Thy Mass...." At least one of the priests interviewed makes plain that he began praying the Breviary as a key part of his transition to the Faith of our fathers. To be afraid of a devotion or practice because the bishops are trying to alter the Faith is false obedience. Several priests are flatly scornful of the "Liturgy of the Hours".

 

My problem with the Breviary is two-fold. The Latin is pretty hard. I can handle the Mass and the psalms, and various other prayers, and much of the Bible. But the readings in the Breviary are difficult, for me. The other 'problem' is that it takes a lot of time to pray.



creimann

  • Guest
Permission.
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2006, 08:39:PM »

Quote from: Paul
Either way, I think, He appreciates our prayers.

 

Well that's just it. A sacrifice isn't true if not accepted by the one to whom it is offered. The breviary suffered progressive harm too, I think. The main offense of course is the "Liturgy of the Hours". I cannot help but think that the earlier breviaries are much more pleasing to God. They are much richer, more fully cognizant of the faith, and devoid of modernist nincompoopery!


creimann

  • Guest
Permission.
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2006, 01:13:AM »

Fr. Christopher Danel, in Priest, Where Is Thy Mass (pp. 26-7) makes some interesting points that touch upon "permission". He states that

Quote
I was praying the traditional Breviary, and I made no bones about that.... I'd leave it sitting right there on the sacristy table with the pastor coming through back and forth. They really don't care too much about whether or how you say the office.

He also comments on the "Liturgy of the Hours", saying

Quote
It's so awkward saying the new Liturgy of the Hours because of certain "prayers of the faithful" that are added, the invocations, the hymns... They have all sorts of Protestant hymns in the new Office. Actually, since the hymns are so absurd, there are a lot of priests who just skip the hymn. They go straight from the beginning into the psalms, the way the Roman Breviary goes... Of course, there are those intercessions at Lauds and Vespers which sometimes are just atrocious, worthy of Communist propaganda.

So you see, in each quote there is evident a great absence of strictness in enforcing one pattern over another. This is a blessing. The priests themselves implicitly recognize the inferiority of the LotH, and overlook those who wish to use the earlier Breviary, as indeed some do. In addition to that their faith has been weakened to the point that they don't even pray the Office at all, in many cases, apparently. This fact adds to the apparent reality that the Novus Ordo generally depresses faith substantially. Which was probably the purpose its instigators had in mind.... So how could one need "permission" to pray the Breviarium Romanum?

 

All you need is Latin! And time.


Paul

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,601
Permission.
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2006, 10:44:AM »
Quote from: creimann

So how could one need "permission" to pray the Breviarium Romanum?


The question wasn't permission for the Breviary vs. the LotH, but permission for a pre-1961 version of the Breviary, and whether it then counts as liturgy (praying with the Church) or only as private devotion. I pray the version from breviary.net, which is before the 1955 changes, and which occasionally (such as today, the Chair of St. Peter at Rome) differs from the 1962 Mass (the Feria, or St. Prisca).

creimann

  • Guest
Permission.
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2006, 01:44:PM »

Liturgy vs. private devotion: I'm not an expert, but I think you'll never get a straight sure answer on this one. What I suspect is that any office is liturgy. The Novus Ordo spokespeople would probably say that only the LotH counts as being 'with the Church' but since it is certainly less pleasing to God, and objectively inferior to the Breviary, and less edifying for you, how could it be a replacement? Surely it's a false obedience to take that seriously. Since praying the long-standing rite of mass and the breviary puts you in touch with the faith as practiced for centuries, I think there is no chance that it would just be a private devotion. In my opinion these are times when there is much self-delusion in the Church hierarchy, and one simply has to do what is objectively more sensible. The emperor is naked.


Credo

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,513
Permission.
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2006, 08:54:PM »

       I now can say I pray the LOTH regularly (in that I am becoming more proficient with the ribbons). I am beginning to love the rhythm of the office. However, a problem I am finding is that the Psalms are just plain hard to "flow," along with. The Magnifcant in the LOTH is awkward and hard to memorize, and not as poetic as other translations. I also do not like the excerpts from VII (today it was on religious liberty). Does the LOTH use the New American Bible translations? Can we switch the translations for another version (such as with Mary's canticle)?

I promise not to put anything here which might help us question our mind-forged manacles, inspire us, or help us in any way at all.

N.B.: I will not be posting on this site again until the Christmas octave. Have a good Advent.