October 7: Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary

From the Wikipedia:

"Originally observed as the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, its date was chosen to commemorate the European victory at the third naval Battle of Lepanto in 1571. This battle marked the high point of Turkish (Muslim) advance on European soil with the Balkans and the regions west and north of the Black Sea returning to Western (Christian) hands in the succeeding centuries. This victory, after two earlier defeats at the same location, was attributed to Our Lady of the Rosary as special processions were made on that same day in Rome for the sake of this crucial victory.

Pope Pius V ordered that a commemoration of the rosary should be made upon that day, and at the request of the Dominican Order Gregory XIII in 1573 allowed this feast to be kept in all churches which possessed an altar dedicated to the rosary. In 1671, the observance of this festival was extended by Clement X to the whole of Spain, and somewhat later Clement XI after the important victory over the Turks gained by Prince Eugene on 6 August, 1716, at Peterwardein in Hungary, commanded the feast of the rosary to be celebrated by the universal Church. A set of "proper" readings were approved by Benedict XIII."

The liturgical genius of St Benedict/2 - The seven days of creation

In the introductory post to this series I suggested that to understand the deeper levels of meaning of St Benedict's Office we need to immerse ourselves in the Patristic mindset.  

One aspect of this is an appreciation of the symbolism of numbers, which provides a key, I think, to the two anchors of the Benedictine Office, namely the creation of the universe, and its recreation through the Resurrection.  Today, a look at the first of these, creation in the Office.

  

Reading the liturgical code in the Benedictine Rule

One of the challenges for modern readers of the liturgical provisions of the Benedictine Rule is to appreciate some of the nuances of its presentation.  St Benedict provides little explicit theology for his Office; he does, though, provide some strong hints.

It is surely no accident, for example, that the section of the Rule on the liturgy follows immediately after the discussion on the cultivation of obedience and humility as a means of coming to 'that perfect love of God that casts out all fear' whereby we can observe the precepts of God not out of fear but out of 'love of Christ and through good habit and delight in virtue'. (RB 7).   

Obedience to the rubrics St Benedict sets out, I would suggest, just like obedience to the other parts of the Rule and to the superior, is one of the means by which the saint proposes that we learn the habit of turning away from our own will. 

We could also note that the final degree of humility is an injunction to manifest our humility to others by keeping our eyes downcast while pondering the guilt of our sins, whether at the Work of God in the oratory, or elsewhere (RB 7).  The work of God, as many of the psalms make clear, is, amongst other things, a sacrifice of praise offered for those sins.

Another key dimension of the Office at least hinted at by the saint is its teaching function.  St Benedict insists that his monks say all of the psalms each week.  He also twice suggests devoting time to their study and meditation on them (RB 7, 48).  One of the reasons for this, I suspect, is the Patristic view that the book of Psalms encapsulates all of the Old and New Testaments, and teaches us their content as we pray them.  St Basil is one of the authors St Benedict specifically commends to his monks, his psalm commentaries may well have been a particular influence on the design of the Benedictine Office given that his half dozen or so commentaries on individual psalms include those that open the Benedictine Office at Matins on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday [1].  St Basil opens his sermons on the psalms by noting that:

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful, composed by the Spirit for this reason, namely, that we men, each and all of us, as if in a general hospital for souls, may select the remedy for his own condition. For, it says, 'care will make the greatest sin to cease.'  Now, the prophets teach one thing, historians another, the law something else, and the form of advice found in the proverbs something different still. But, the Book of Psalms has taken over what is profitable from all. It foretells coming events; it recalls history; it frames laws for life; it suggests what must be done; and, in general, it is the common treasury of good doctrine, carefully finding what is suitable for each one." [2]

St Basil goes on to suggest that we absorb these lessons without even being aware of it:

"When, indeed, the Holy Spirit saw that the human race was guided only with difficulty toward virtue, and that, because of our inclination toward pleasure, we were neglectful of an upright life, what did He do? The delight of melody He mingled with the doctrines so that by the pleasantness and softness of the sound heard we might receive without perceiving it the benefit of the words, just as wise physicians who, when giving the fastidious rather bitter drugs to drink, frequently smear the cup with honey..." [3]

The insight that we don't have to be conscious that we are learning something, that our understanding can grow without the meaning being explicitly laid out before us each time is important to keep in mind I think.

The importance of numerology

There is more though, to this implicit learning process, I want to suggest, than just the words of the text.  Number symbolism is one of those patristic devices that often seems particularly alien and stretched to us [4].  St Benedict's contemporary Cassiodorus, for example, manages to provide extended explanations for the numbering of the psalms up to 25 until he (more or less) runs out of steam, but on the whole they are not explanations that seem particularly intuitively obvious to modern minds [5].  Yet Patristic thought, following Scripture (think of those detailed measurements of the Temple for example), put a great deal of emphasis on numbers, seeing the appropriate use of them as reflecting and resonating with the divine design. David Clayton, for example, has argued that:

"The reason for incorporating a Christian cosmology in these works is deeper than a superficial desire to conform to an ancient symbolism that only a few will recognize. The assumption is that human beings are hardwired to pick up information presented in accordance with the pattern of the divine mind. Nature appears beautiful because we recognize in it the thumbprint of the Creator. When the work of man is structured in the same way, we see the mark of inspiration from the Creator and we are drawn to it." [6]

A few months back I drew attention to a suggestion from Fr Cassian Folsom OSB on the significance of the numbers, including the link the adoption of the 'seven times a day shall I praise you' verse of Psalm 118 (seven signally completeness) and the number of the day hours, which  Fr Cassian suggests signals that this form of the Office fulfils the injunction to pray without ceasing [7].  

The sacred number seven

There is though, another reference to the number seven in St Benedict's specifications on the Office, in the form of the instruction that no matter what psalm schema is used, all of the psalms should be said over the course of the week (RB 18). 

It is worth recalling, first of all, just why St Benedict calls seven the 'sacred number' (RB 16), namely the allusion to the seven days of creation. By insisting on a seven day psalm cursus then, on having his monks say all of the poems that encapsulate the entire Old and New Testaments each week, St Benedict is inviting us to recall those seven days of creation. 

He makes the link between the days of creation and the psalmody explicit too,  in his selection of the texts. 

Consider firstly the repeated psalms of the Office, which ensure that at least three times each day in the Office we acknowledge and respond to God as our creator.  At Matins, in Psalm 94, we are invited to sing, praise and worship God because he is our creator.  At Lauds in Psalm 148 we are invited to join the praise of all creation, to join the heavenly liturgy, the music of the cosmos.  And in the last line of the last psalm said each day, Psalm 133, God's blessing as our creator is called down on us.  The Trinitarian allusion implicit here is, I suspect, deliberate: St Benedict builds in a number of other such allusions, for example in the addition of the Gloria Patri as the doxology for each psalm and the threefold saying of the Domine labia mea aperies at the start of each day. 

The variable psalms though, also make a contribution to this great theme of God as creator [8].  There are of course many references to creation in the psalms, and some of these have no obvious connection to the day of the week on which they are said [9].  Several, though, at least as they were interpreted by the Fathers, do.  Let me just highlight a small selection of them.  Psalm 32:7 at Monday (feria secunda) Matins, for example, can be read as a reference to the division of the cosmic waters on the second day of creation.  Psalm 135, said at Vespers on Wednesday (feria quarta), takes the story of creation up to the creation of the sun and moon, day 4.  Psalm 73, which opens Thursday Matins, adds the creation of sea creatures (verses 13-14), day 5.  And Psalms 88, 93 and 99 said on Friday (day 6) all contain references to the creation of man. 

I'll come back to these references later in this series, firstly because to actually see some of them requires an understanding of Patristic approaches to Scriptural interpretation, on which I'll say more in due course.  More importantly though, just to jump ahead a little, St Benedict, I think, adopts the common patristic approach of connecting the events of the days of creation with events in the life of Christ.  St Ambrose, for example, like many others, saw a connection between the creation of man on the sixth day (Friday) and the crucifixion of Christ on that day [10].  Psalm 88, said at Matins on Friday, at least as the Fathers interpreted it, neatly makes that link in these two key verses, the first of which alludes to God's creation of man, the second which they interpreted as a prophesy of the Passion:

46  Memoráre quæ mea substántia: * numquid enim vane constituísti omnes fílios hóminum?	48 Remember what my substance is: for have you made all the children of men in vain?
47  Quis est homo, qui vivet, et non vidébit mortem: * éruet ánimam suam de manu ínferi?	49 Who is the man that shall live, and not see death: that shall deliver his soul from the hand of hell?

Before we go on to explore these references and connections further though, I want to close this post by returning to our consideration of the purpose of the Office.  

I noted above its role in training us in virtue, and in teaching us doctrine and morality.  Its most important function though, is as a participation in the heavenly liturgy, and it is worth pondering for a moment, the reasons why St Benedict describes it as our 'service' (RB 59).  In particular, the link between the notion of the service owed to God by virtue of his creation of us is nicely captured, I think, by this quote from Pope Benedict XVI:

"In the life of monks, however, prayer takes on a particular importance: it is the heart of their calling. Their vocation is to be men of prayer. In the patristic period the monastic life was likened to the life of the angels. It was considered the essential mark of the angels that they are worshippers. Their very life is worship. This should hold true also for monks. Monks pray first and foremost not for any specific intention, but simply because God is worthy of being praised. “Confitemini Domino, quoniam bonus! – Praise the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy is eternal!”: so we are urged by a number of Psalms (e.g. Ps 106:1). Such prayer for its own sake, intended as pure divine service, is rightly called officium. It is “service” par excellence, the “sacred service” of monks. It is offered to the triune God who, above all else, is worthy “to receive glory, honour and power” (Rev 4:11), because he wondrously created the world and even more wondrously renewed it." [11]

By praising God seven times in the day with psalms that summarise the story of God's work of creation, and saying them over the course of sacred number of seven days, then, the monk is repeatedly reminded both implicitly and explicitly of the seven days of creation.   More, he is invited to join in the divine, the cosmic, liturgy sung by all of creation, and so become co-creators with God through this 'work of God'.  

The story of God's saving work though, does not end with the creation of the world, but rather continues through history, and most especially in that 'eighth day' of creation, the Resurrection.  No wonder then, that the Benedictine Office actually consists of seven day hours - and the night office to make eight.  But more on this anon!

Notes

[1]  St Basil's sermons on creation and the psalms appear to have been well-known in the West, with St Ambrose using the former as the basis for his own commentary on the Hexaemeron.  The sermons cover Psalms 1, 7,14, 28, 29, 32, 33, 44, 45, 48, 59, 61 and 114. I'll come back to their significance for St Benedict's arrangement of the Office in due course.

[2] Sister Agnes Clare Way, C.D.P. (trans), St Basil, The Great Exegetic Homilies, A New Translation, Catholic University of America Press: 1963, Sermon 10 on Psalm 1, pp151.

[3] ibid, pp 152.

[4] On this topic more generally, see David Clayton, "Number", http://www.scribd.com/doc/21558177/Number-by-David-Clayton

[5] P G Walsh (trans), Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms, Ancient Christian Writers, 3 vols, Paulist Press: NY, 1990.  Cassiodorus' notes on the numerical significance of the psalms are mainly in his 'conclusion' notes on each psalm.  On Psalm 25 he comments that "...we could not elicit the nature of any created object mentioned in Scripture connected with the numbers 26, 27, or 28."  But goes on to invite his readers to find something, emulating his previous examples, or at least to see significance in the possible divisions of the number...

[6] David Clayton, The Cosmic Liturgy and the Mind of the Creator, September 29, 2009

http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/blog/2009/09/29/the-cosmic-liturgy-and-the-mind-of-the-creator/

[7] Praying without ceasing: St Benedict's numerical theology, http://saintsshallarise.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/praying-without-ceasing-st-benedicts.html; Fr Cassian Folsom, Pray without ceasing: http://osbnorcia.org/2014/03/21/conferences (see esp conference 3)

[8] It should be noted that most of the vespers hymns contain allusions to the day of creation as well, though these are relatively recent additions to the Office: see Albert Kleber O.S.B., “The Hymns at Weekly Vespers and the "Week" of Creation,” American Benedictine Review, 6:2 (1955) 171-187.

[9] Psalms including specific references to the days of creation that don't neatly allude to the day of the week on which they are said include Psalm 8, 103, and 138.

[10] John J Savage (trans) St Ambrose Hexameron, Paradise A New Translation, Catholic University of America Press: NY, 1961, pp 227.

[11] Pope Benedict XVI, Visit To Heiligenkreuz Abbey, Address,Sunday, 9 September 2007, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007

Collect for the 22nd Sunday after Pentecost

Fr Zulsdorf's usual interesting and helpful analysis of this week's collect is available over at his blog.  Fr Z argues that the collect probably dates from the time of St Leo the Great (pope from 440-461).

Some extracts:

"...There is a marvelous clausula at the end, a standard rhythmic ending much favored in classical oratory to delight the ear of listeners and add power to periodic sentences: efficáciter cónsequámúr. Say it aloud, with attention to force and length of the syllables. I also like the nice synchesis (ABAB) structure, fideliter petimus, efficaciter consequamur (adverb verb adverb verb). There is a good example of hyperbaton, the separation of linked elements, in piis Ecclesiae tuae precibus, where piis and precibus, datives, go together. Also interesting is how two imperatives bracket the central section: adesto … praesta.


All these little elements show how finely sculpted this prayer is, how different it is from the way people would have spoken in every day discourse in the streets and homes of ancient Rome and elsewhere. There may have been a shift in the ancient Roman Church from Greek to Latin for liturgical prayer, but that Latin was not the vernacular, the commonly spoken language of the day. It was highly stylized and many of the words were actually images from Scripture or terms from Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophy.


As we have explained many times, pietas, when applied to man, is "dutifulness" and when used of God is "mercy" though retaining overtones of His fidelity to His own promises. The crammed Lewis & Short Dictionary has a lengthy entry for auctor, to be brief let's call it "creator" or "cause" or "author". Auctor appears fairly often in our Roman prayers, paired up with terms such as saeculi as in "creator of the cosmos", and omnium ("of all things"), lucis ("of light"), pacis ("of peace"), salutis ("of salvation"), vitae ("of life"). Today it is with pietatis...


We find it first of all in the Vulgate of Psalm 45: "Our God is our refuge and strength: (Deus noster refugium et virtus) a helper in troubles, which have found us exceedingly." This type of invocation of God is common in the Psalms, and therefore our earliest prayers for Mass. Very ancient Roman Collects often follow the Hebrew manner of first invoking God by some characteristic and then petitioning Him in light of that title....


LITERAL TRANSLATION:


O God, our refuge and strength:
be present to the devout prayers of Your Church,
O author of godliness, and grant:
that, we may efficaciously attain what we faithfully seek..."

Do go read the whole piece.

Liturgical status of the Traditional Benedictine Office*** updated

Checking where people are coming from to find this blog, I stumbled across a thread on Catholic Answers which raised an issue I've seen a few times recently under various guises, namely whether we can be 'doing liturgy' when we say the traditional Benedictine Office. 

The Office can be said either as a devotion or as liturgy.  As a devotion, there is no issue about approved versions, rubrics etc - essentially it is a matter of do as you like (within reason of course)!

As I think there is a bit of misinformation out there, however, let me reiterate a few points here.  Firstly, lay people can, in principle, say the Office liturgically, regardless of whether a cleric or religious is present when they do so.

Secondly, contrary to some claims, the traditional Benedictine Office, with its traditional calendar, using rubrics and calendar approved in 1962 (and very similar to, but not identical with, the 1962 Extraordinary Form calendar and rubrics), continues to be officially approved, and is used by quite a few monasteries.   The Farnborough edition of the Diurnal follows that approved form.

It is true that in 1979 the Benedictine Confederation approved a series of revised options for the Office.  However, from 1984 onwards a number of monasteries received explicit permission through the Ecclesia Dei Commission of the Holy See to retain the traditional Office, Mass and calendar (in line with the permissions for the use of the traditional mass more broadly).   

In 2007, with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the permission to use the traditional forms of the Mass and Office for the Roman Rite was generalized to all clergy wish to use it.  The Ecclesia Dei Commission has indicated that this also extends to the rites and uses of religious orders. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that the traditional Benedictine Office as set out in the 1962 Monastic Breviary is approved for liturgical purposes.

There are though a few issues that do need to be considered in relation to the Diurnal. 

First, while the Latin clearly has ecclesiastical approval, it is not clear whether or not the particular English translation included has approval for liturgical purposes.  An edition of the Diurnal from 1963 using the same text did obtain an Imprimateur, but I haven't seen the detail of its terms, and the English may have intended to be used for study purposes only.  Moreover, the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae specifies in relation to the Roman Breviary that it must be said in Latin.

Secondly, the Farnborough edition of the Diurnal lacks an official attestation that it is published in accordance with an approved edition (CL 826). 

Whether either of these issues is sufficient to render the saying of the Office from the text in English devotional rather than liturgical is perhaps still debatable.  But in the light of  Universae Ecclesiae, the safest approach is to say the Office in Latin, and use the English as an aid to understanding.

Why pray in Latin?

One of the perennial debates around the Office is what language you should use to pray in. 

A debate on this topic appears to have been cut off elsewhere I can only assume in the interests of protecting perceived fiefdoms by virtue of leaving some misinformation in place.  That's unfortunate, but I don't want to get into all of that here.  Instead, some brief comments on the more important underlying issue around the use of Latin from my perspective.

1.  Prayer in any language is better than none!

First, note that the most important thing is to pray - what language you use is a secondary issue.  Prayer, as we all know, can take a wide variety of forms.  We often use set forms (the Mass, the Divine Office, particular prayers) to help us.  Sometimes the content might be what we are focusing on.  Sometimes it is more the general intent behind the prayer.

In the case of the Divine Office, it is not necessary to be deeply conscious of the meaning of each word or phrase each time you say it (whether in your native language or some other).  Far more important is the intent of praising and worshipping God.

2.  When it comes to liturgical prayer, the important thing is to follow the approved rubrics

There are two broad types of prayer - liturgical (such as the Mass) and devotional (the rosary, meditation, etc).  The Office can be said either as a devotion or as liturgy.  If it is said devotionally, you have  a fair amount of freedom as to how you say it.  However, the Church strictly regulates the liturgy in order to protect its integrity.  That includes the Divine Office (aka Liturgy of the Hours, etc).

In the Catholic Church, Latin is the official, normative language of the liturgy.  Translations of the Latin have to be approved for liturgical use (not just study use) by the proper authorities.

3.  Praying in Latin has advantages when it comes to liturgy

Since Vatican II, the use of the vernacular has been permissible for both the Mass and the Office.  Sacrosanctum Concilium clearly intended the use of the vernacular to be rather limited, particularly when it came to the Office, and Popes from Paul VI onwards have stressed the desirability of preserving the tradition; instead, use of English has become the norm. 

But use of the Latin is worth considering for a number of reasons.  A number of religions use 'sacred languages' (Jews use Hebrew; Muslims, Arabic for example) in order to help create the sense of 'sacred space and time' - to help us focus on the sense of God's otherness to us.  The use of 'hieratic' language reminds us that we are worshipping, not just chatting amongst friends.  That's important in a world that is reluctant to kneel before its God.  And in the Western Church, the Latin of the Vulgate achieved that position by virtue of being a neutral language that transcended individual cultures.

In the Western tradition, use of Latin as a universal language of the Church was regarded as a counter to the chaos of Babel, a practical means of continuing the gift of understanding engendered at that first Pentecost.

By using the Latin text, you are using the same words St Benedict would have sung in his monastery, and the same texts that generations of monks, nuns and oblates have used down the centuries until our own.  You are entering into a tradition.

And by learning at least a smattering of Latin, you will find it easier to understand the great spiritual works of the West (including the Benedictine Rule) which assume the use of the Latin Vulgate as their starting point.

4.  You don't have to be a great Latinist

The best way to learn a language is actually by immersion in it!  Start using it, and with a bit of effort and few aids, you will gradually pick up a lot by osmosis. 

The translation contained in the Monastic Diurnal is a very useful starting point for getting the sense of the text, even as you say the Latin.  And there are some excellent resources around to help you gain a greater understanding of it, such as the very good Simplicissimus course specifically geared at helping people learn enough Latin to follow the Mass and Office.

You might also want to consider the suggestions outlined at my post on this subject in my how to learn the Office series.

5.  Translation is one thing, understanding is another

It is also important to keep in mind that just understanding the literal meaning of a text is not enough.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church (paras 115-119) stresses that Scriptural texts (including the psalms, chapter verses, many of the antiphons etc in the Office) has both a literal and a spiritual sense, and that the spiritual includes the allegorical, moral and anagogical meanings of the text.  There is real value in looking at commentaries and treating the Office as a source of 'lectio' to penetrate its deeper meanings. 

6.  Do pray the Office!

Finally, by way of a summary, on an email list I was once a member of, a monk said that when they were novices they were taught about a hierarchy of 'attentions' for the Office, which I've adapted a little here.  When thinking about the Office we should pay:


(1) Attention to the WORDS -- getting the rubrics right, so that we say the correct texts at the correct time; using the appropriate body postures; and saying or singing the words correctly;

(2) Attention to the SENSE -- focusing on the "what " we were saying, the translation of the words;

(3) Attention on GOD -- not worrying about words or sense but simply praying before the Divine Majesty.

Are we praying liturgically? ***updated

A topic that regularly comes up is, are we - and religious - praying liturgically when we say the Divine Office?

A degree of confusion arises on this, I suspect, because of some uncritical reading of pre-Vaticna II liturgical textbooks that don't take into account either Pius XII's Mediator Dei or the subsequent developments on this front reflected in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Yes, we are praying liturgically!

In my view it is absolutely clear cut that nuns, lay brothers and sisters pray the Office liturgically and always have.  It is also clear, in my view, that laypeople can indeed perform liturgy, whether leading approved services in the absence of a priest, when baptising or when saying the Office.

After all, when we 'assist at mass' (ie attend) we are indeed participating liturgically within our proper sphere of action.

By virtue of our baptism, all Christians can pray liturgically in principle.  As the Catechism of Trent says:

...all the faithful are said to be priests, once they have been washed in the saving waters of baptism. (On Holy Orders)

However, the degree and way we in which we participate in any particular form of the liturgy differs depending on our 'rank, office, and actual participation' (Sacrosanctum Concilium 26).

In the Mass, for example, while the people genuinely participate in the sacrifice by joining their intentions to those of the ministerial priest, they offer it differently to the priest at the altar standing in persona Christi, without whom the true sacrifice of the Mass is not possible.

In some cases, such as the Mass, ordination as a priest is a requirement to lead the liturgy.  In other cases though, the Church can make decisions about who can lead and play active liturgical roles, and these decisions can change over time for pastoral reasons.

In the case of the Divine Office, between the Council of Trent and Vatican II, the laity were not able to participate in the Divine Office unless they attended it when said by a religious or cleric.  The delegation to say the Office was restricted in order to protect the integrity of the liturgy from the danger of heresy.

This changed, however, with Vatican II, and the current Code of Canon Law explicitly extends the previous provisions delegating clerics and religious to say the Office to the laity, but on the basis that it is optional for them, not an obligation.

The Catechism

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“1174 The mystery of Christ, his Incarnation and Passover, which we celebrate in the Eucharist especially at the Sunday assembly, permeates and transfigures the time of each day, through the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, “the divine office.” This celebration, faithful to the apostolic exhortations to “pray constantly,” is “so devised that the whole course of the day and night is made holy by the praise of God.” In this “public prayer of the Church,” the faithful (clergy, religious, and lay people) exercise the royal priesthood of the baptized. Celebrated in “the form approved” by the Church, the Liturgy of the Hours “is truly the voice of the Bride herself addressed to her Bridegroom. It is the very prayer which Christ himself together with his Body addresses to the Father.

1175 The Liturgy of the Hours is intended to become the prayer of the whole People of God. In it Christ himself “continues his priestly work through his Church.” His members participate according to their own place in the Church and the circumstances of their lives: priests devoted to the pastoral ministry, because they are called to remain diligent in prayer and the service of the word; religious, by the charism of their consecrated lives; all the faithful as much as possible: “Pastors of souls should see to it that the principal hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and on the more solemn feasts. The laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually.”

It is worth though, looking briefly at what lies behind the Catechism's statements.

What is liturgy

Anyone wishing to understand what is and isn't liturgy, and just why the Church regulates it, should go immediately and read Pius XII's Mediator Dei.

Most of the time of course it is crystal clear what is liturgy and what isn't - because it takes place in a Church, led by a priest, following set forms approved by the Church.

But there are cases where the distinction is not always clear, and the Office in particular has been a somewhat blurred line from the time that private recitation of the Office was permitted for priests in the middle ages.  A wide variety of Offices have sprung up with varying degrees of formal approval.  And the situation is further complicated by the fact that just who the Church has formally delegated to say the Office has changed over history.

Let me make a few key points to help clarify the situation.

Church law on liturgy
The Code of Canon Law (cl 834.1) defines liturgy as "the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ" which brings a complete worship "offered to God by the head and members of the mystical body of Christ." Canon 835 sets out the hierarchy of the sanctifying office of the Church, carried out in a special way through the liturgy, starting with bishops, then covering priests, deacons, and "the other members of Christs faithful...each in his or her own way actively sharing in liturgical celebrations..."

The inclusion of the "members of the mystical body" makes it clear that we are talking here about the priesthood of all the faithful, not just the ordained priesthood.  This is confirmed by Canon 835&6, which explains that Christian worship is exercised by the common priesthood of the faithful.

The sub-paragraph 2 of cl 834 makes it even clearer: "This worship takes place when it is offered in the name of the Church, by persons lawfully deputed and through actions approved by ecclesiastical authority."

That laypeople can be so deputed (subject of course to other theological constraints such as on sacraments requiring ordained clergy to confect them) is confirmed by Cl 230.3 ("Where the needs of the Church require and ministers are not available, lay people can...preside over liturgical prayers...").

So what makes liturgy liturgy is not who says it, but whether or not the Church has deputed them to say it, and whether or not they follow the forms approved by the Church.

So who is deputed by the Church to say the Office?

With the Council of Trent a distinction arose between saying the Office liturgically and devotionally (that hadn't previously been articulated and) that stayed in place until Vatican II.  Between Trent and Vatican II it is reasonably clear that the Church delegated the saying of the Office liturgically to religious (including communities of women alone) and priests.  The laity participated when they attended an official celebration of the Office, but were only saying the Office 'devotionally' if they said it privately, whether alone or in a group.

Vatican II changed that.  In the documents of the Council itself (see for example SC 83-100), and more particularly in a series of subsequent liturgical laws, it effectively abolished the idea of liturgical/devotional distinction based on who was saying the Office by delegating all of Christ's faithful to say it.

The ideal situation of course is to attend the Office at a monastery or Church under the leadership of clerics or religious.

But where this is not possible or practical, as the General Instruction on the Liturgy of the Hours points out, "Lay groups gathering for prayer, apostolic work, or any other reason are encouraged to fulfill the Church’s duty, by celebrating part of the liturgy of the hours." 

Canon 1174 says much the same thing more plainly.  First it reaffirms the primary delegation, which is based on who is obliged to say the Office (viz religious and priests), not clerical status.

But in the next sub-paragraph it invites all of Christ's faithful to take part in the liturgy of the hours.  The various standard commentaries on the Code all confirm that this means that the faithful are now duly delegated to say the Office even when praying alone.  Beal, Corrigen and Green, A New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2000, for example says:

The liturgy of the hours is the prayer of the whole Church, and all the faithful are deputed to celebrate this liturgy. (pg 1406)

Similarly, Caparros and Thorn's Code of Canon Law Annotated (2004) says:

Paragraph 2 [of Canon 1174] is addressed to the rest of the faithful and invites them to take part in the liturgy of the hours, since it is an action of the Church as a whole and of each faithful according to their participation in the priesthood of Christ (cf SC 95-100).

In short there is no requirement that a priest or deacon be present in order to make something 'liturgy'.

And the laity are indeed duly deputed to say the Office as part of the official prayer of the Church.

Approved actions

There is however a second necessary component to something being liturgy, viz whether the forms used are approved by the Church.

There are many people who opt for a devotional Office either in order to say an older version of the Office or in order to adopt their own personal preferences as to which parts of it they like.  The former practice, though in my view undesirable, I think can be justified on the basis that what was once approved is unlikely to be dangerous.  I have severe doubts about the latter approach though, in view of Pope Pius XII's warnings on this subject:

"The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about -- during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors -- that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48]"

The Benedictine Office according to the 1962 rubrics clearly has been approved for liturgical use, at least in Latin, as confirmed by the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.

By contrast, a number of modern Offices, such as the Benedictine Daily Prayer, are explicitly devotional, not liturgical.

Does it really matter whether or not it is liturgical prayer?

Mediator Dei says yes: "Unquestionably, liturgical prayer, being the public supplication of the illustrious Spouse of Jesus Christ, is superior in excellence to private prayers."

Pope Pius XII goes on to say however that "But this superior worth does not at all imply contrast or incompatibility between these two kinds of prayer. For both merge harmoniously in the single spirit which animates them, "Christ is all and in all."[38] Both tend to the same objective: until Christ be formed in us.[39]"

You may also be interested in reading my related post on the liturgical status of the 1962 Office.

Last updated 3.11.17