I've previously posted on the differences to the sanctoral cycle; so today I thought I'd continue on, and take a look at the differences to Advent itself.
Advent and Christmas
When it comes to Advent, the readings and texts in the Benedictine Office (in contrast to the Roman) have not, as far as I can see, changed over the course of the twentieth century.
There are only two differences that I could see.
The first is to extend the use of the special antiphons for the day hours between December 17 and 23 to Vespers in 1960, a change I quite like - it seems odd to me (no matter how traditional it might be) to use a set of special antiphons at Lauds to None then revert to the throughout the year set at Vespers on Class II days.
The second is that under the previous rubrics, the set of special antiphons not used on December 21 because of the feast of St Thomas were used on Saturday.
In the 1960 office a specific set of antiphons for Saturday are included, so one day's worth of antiphons are not used each year. The Saturday antiphons are not new inventions however, but rather apparently a relic of Solesmes' own in-house practice, the change brought the Benedictine office into line with practice in the Roman Office following the 1911 reforms.
I assume the main argument for these changes was simplicity, and there is something to be said for that - juggling the multiple moving parts during these days is hard enough as it is.
The temporal cycle
In Advent, then, there are a few minor differences of no great consequence (indeed arguably even improvements).
And indeed, for most of the year, there are no differences at all in the temporal cycle between the two editions of the monastic breviary.
Epiphanytide
Even during the former octaves of the temporale cycle, for example, one of the worst of the wreckovations in my view, the key texts (such as for the Gospels for the relevant Sunday within the Octave) have been retained, with many of the Office texts have been transformed into the 'Ordinary' of the season.
In the former Octave of the Epiphany, for example, the canticle antiphons of the octave are retained, except where another feast or a Saturday of Our Lady intervenes.
What a shame, though, that they didn't just make these days Class III, and thus allow us to enjoy a full de facto octave every year. That said, I suspect the provisions of Cum sanctissima arguably would now authorise this approach.
Holy Week
Apart from January, the other contender for worst wreckovation, as a commenter on another post has noted, is Holy Week.
And when it comes to the Mass and other ceremonies outside the Office, that's certainly true (though mitigated for many these days by the permissions to use the earlier version of Holy Week)..
When it comes to the Office there are, it has to be said, the admittedly peculiar instructions to omit certain Offices if one attends some of the main ceremonies.
But there is surely nothing stopping one from saying these hours if one wishes - outside a monastery these are rarely said publicly in any case, and in a monastery they are mostly all said regardless of the rubrics as far as I can gather!
When it comes to the texts of the Office itself, though, there has been much less tinkering - it is perfectly possible to use the 1928 Triduum book for the office for example (I've done it) - the main difference being a few additional repetitions of Psalm 50 and the times at which certain hours are (supposed to be) said.
The structure of the Office
The case for 'restoring the 54', then, as far as I can see - though it may well be that I've missed something - does not rest on the temporal cycle (octaves aside), at least in the case of the Benedictine office, but rather on the sanctoral and perhaps other features of the breviaries.
I plan to look at the extra prayers and other changes to the hours themselves in the next post in this series.
