The Epiphanytide responsories revisited: the de psalmiis responsories in the post-Trent books (Pt 2)

Source: Gregobase/Dominique Crochu

In my post on the feast of the Conversion of St Paul a few days ago I flagged that I planned to provide a series of posts on the history of the Matins responsories, focusing the Epiphanytide set in particular, so herewith the next in that series.  

In the last post, I noted that there were possible connections to the Epistles of St Paul, read at Matins after Epiphany.   I will come back to this point in due course, but I also want to provide a bit of a taster for some possible connections to the season of Epiphanytide as a whole.

It is worth first, though, making some observations around the set of responsories as they appear in the post-Trent books and their earlier history, by way of a cautionary note on the value of the current make up of the set as claimed witness to the structure of the Roman Office.  

The evolution of the set

Although it is sometimes implied or claimed outright that this set was transmitted unchanged from late antiquity, there is no direct evidence for this, and the most detailed study of the set from a liturgical perspective, by Dom Le Roux, actually posits several stages in the evolution of the set.   

That is understandable since the earliest actual witness to their use in the period after Epiphany dates, as far as I am aware, from the ninth century (in the introduction to the otherwise lost antiphoner of Amalarius).  

And even then Amalarius actually only names the first of them, in a comment that the set starts with Psalm 6, Domine ne in ira tua.

Indeed, while Dom Le Roux pointed to the eighth century as a key date for the evolution of the set,  it also continued to evolve throughout the middle ages and after, as the number of responsories used on Sundays in the Roman Office has gradually decreased, and local variants excluded from the set.  

In particular, the number of variable responsories in the Roman Office on Sundays has progressively decreased.  In the tenth century one responsory was dropped in favour of the insertion of the Te Deum (hymns were not previously part of the Roman Office); another was displaced in the twelfth century, when Pope Innocent III prescribed that the responsory Duo Seraphim be used as the last responsory throughout the year.  And in  a complete wreckovation of the Roman Office, in 1960, the number was decreased to a mere two (the Benedictine Office, by contrast, even in its 1960 version, has twelve responsories, though it too, has adopted the practice of using Duo Seraphim as the last responsory on most Sundays of the year).

The manuscript evidence suggests, moreover, that different places made different selections as to which responsories to drop, and/or included one or more 'non-core' (but still possibly ancient) responsories, most of which presumably dropped out of use post-Trent.  

The net result is that although the responsories in the post-Trent books are mostly (with a few notable exceptions) selected from the most common responsories that appear in the manuscripts, few if any manuscripts reproduce the current standard set for Sundays without variations.

Moreover, both the Benedictine and Roman post-Trent sets omit some of the most common responsories that appear in both monastic and secular cursus manuscripts alike at the same frequency of those that have been included, most notably Audiam Domine vocem laudis (Psalm 25), and, in the case of the Roman, Afflicti pro peccatis nostris (a non-Scripturally based responsory).

Roman or non-Roman origins?

Secondly, while the liturgists generally assumed that responsories in general - and this set in particular - originated in Rome, musicologists seems generally rather less convinced of this, not least because the earliest reference to responsories actually appears in a source from Gaul, not Rome.

And in the case of the de psalmiis responsories, several have survived in versions based on psalters other than the Romanum.  

I drew attention, in my previous post, to Peccata mea Domine, which uses the Vetus version.  

Another example is Diligam te Domine (said in the second Nocturn on Sundays), based on Psalm 17, and which is preserved in considerable numbers in both Romanum and Gallican text versions.

Le Roux's study also noted that a number of the so-called 'core set' do not actually appear in the earliest Italian antiphoners, presenting another problem for the claims about their witness to the early Roman Office.

Responds and their verses

The main reason these responsories have captured the liturgist's attention is that they are generally said in the numerical order of the psalms in the 'respond' part of the text.  But while the verses of the responsory most commonly associated with them (and used in the post-Trent books) are mostly taken from the same psalm as the responds, that is not always the case.

Consider, for example, the first of the set, Domine ne in ira tua - the verse is actually from Psalm 54:6:

R. Dómine, / ne in ira tua árguas me, neque in furóre tuo corrípias me: * Miserére mei, Dómine, quóniam infírmus sum. V. Timor et tremor venérunt super me, et contexérunt me ténebræ. R. Miserére mei, Dómine, quóniam infírmus sum.

R. O Lord, rebuke me not in your indignation, nor chastise me in your wrath. * Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak. V. Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and darkness has overwhelmed me. R. Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak.

     

In keeping with the penitential flavour of the set, these 'non-matching' verses include verses from two of the penitential psalms not otherwise covered in the set, namely Ps 129 and 142.

Non-psalm based responsories

It is worth noting, too that Afflicti pro peccatis (the second responsory in the Third Nocturn on Sundays in the Monastic Office), one of the three responsries mentioned in Mr diPippo's recent NLM post, is unusual in that its text is not Scriptural at all:

R. Afflícti / pro peccátis nostris, quotídie cum lácrimis, expectémus finem nostrum; † dolor cordis nostri ascéndat ad te, Dómine, * Ut éruas nos a malis, quae innovántur in nobis. V. Dómine, Deus Israel, exáudi preces nostras, † áuribus pércipe dolórem cordis nostri. R. Ut éruas nos a malis, quae innovántur in nobis.

R. You have afflicted us for our sins, every day we expect our end with tears; let the sorrows of our heart come before you O Lord. * That you may deliver us from the evils that have come upon us V. O Lord God of Israel, hear our prayers, hearken unto the sorrows of our heart. R. That you may deliver us from the ills that are come upon us.

But it is not the only not the only non-psalm based responsory used in this set.  

Consider, for example, Ne perdideris (sung on Wednesday in both the Roman and Benedictine Offices), and whose respond text comes from the apocryphal text the 'Song of Manasses', with a verse from Psalm 142:

R. Ne perdíderis / me cum iniquitátibus meis: * Neque in finem irátus resérves mala mea. V. Non intres in iudícium cum servo tuo, Dómine. R. Neque in finem irátus resérves mala mea.

R. Do not destroy me with my sins. * Do not be angry with me forever, or store up evil for me.  V. Enter not into judgment with your servant, O Lord. R. Do not be angry with me forever, or store up evil for me.

Supplication for healing and the time after Epiphany

Both these texts reinforce the strongly penitential and supplicatory focus of this responsory set that, I think, fits well with the themes of the time after Epiphany, reflected for example in this week's Gospel (the Third after Epiphany) and the story of the healing of the leper and the Centurion's servant, as well as in the collect for the week:

Omnípotens sempitérne Deus, infirmitatem nostram propítius réspice: atque, ad protegéndum nos, déxteram tuæ maiestátis exténde (Almighty and everlasting God, look with favor upon our weakness, and stretch forth the right hand of Your majesty to help and defend us).

This link is perhaps made even clearer in one of the responsories that didn't make it into the post Trent books, but which is included in both the important Old Roman and St Gall manuscripts for Thursday, and has a text based on Esther 13:17:

Domine deus propitius esto populo tuo et converte tribulationem nostram in gaudium, or O Lord God hear the supplications of your people and turn our mourning into joy.

You can find a transcription of the chant with the full text on the fabulous Gregofacsimil website, or on Gregobase.

And you can find the next part of this series here.

The conversion of St Paul and the de psalmiis responsories (Pt 1)

Source: Gregobase/Dominique Crocu

Today is the feast of the conversion of St Paul, and it is part of a strong Pauline focus in the Office in January, as the Pauline Epistles are read at Matins each day in this period.

In honour of this, I want to provide a brief note today, by way of the first of a series of posts on the 'de psalmiis' Matins responsories, partly in response to two recent blog posts on this topic.

The Matins responsories

The Matins responsories are a huge, rich repertoire of chants (by the end of the middle ages there were more than 1500 of them, and there are also quite a few polyphonic settings of them), traditionally sung after each of the readings in the Night Office (and occasionally at Vespers).  The responsories provide both a space to meditate on the readings (or feast or season); and act as something of an aid to interpreting and assimilating them. 

In the centuries since Trent, though, a few special times of the year aside, they have generally been said rather than sung, and their texts and chants have been of more interest to liturgists than to those interested in the ways text and music interact to provide theological and spiritual content.

That is slowly changing though, and projects are currently underway, both to build on the pioneering work of Peter Sandhofe's 2002 Nocturnale Romanum, through the Nocturnale Romanum Project, and the work of the Monastery of Brignoles to develop an equivalent set of books for the monastic Office.

The history and spirituality of the responsories

Despite this, however, the primary focus on them, not least in the latest two posts on the subject, continues to be as indirect evidence for assorted historical claims regarding the development of the Office.

The first post, on the  Esprit de la Liturgie website, is by Matthias von Pikkendorff, entitled Les répons psalmiques du temps après l’Épiphanie. It includes some useful notes on the chant of the first of the set, Domine ne in ira tua, but its prime focus is on the responsories as evidence for the claimed shape of the early Roman Office.

The second post, by Gregory diPippo on the New Liturgical Movement Blog has a similar thrust, focusing on three of the set included in the monastic, but not the post-Trent Roman Office.  

The de psalmiis responsories and the early Roman Office

In essence, both build on and/or repeat past claims that it is 'self-evident' that the psalm based responsories used in the weeks after the Epiphany represent a proto-responsory set in place by the late fifth century, but gradually displaced by the 'historia' sets based on other books of the Bible, and preserved in their current order out of respect to their antiquity.  

I will come back, in this series, to the reasons for rejecting this hypothesis but it is worth noting upfront I think, that there is virtually no evidence to even suggest that there actually was such a thing as Roman secular Matins (or that there was a single monastic office universally used) in Rome prior to St Benedict's time.  Matins, after all, was predominantly a monastic domain, and seems only to have been imposed on the Roman clergy, at least as a daily obligation, in the mid-sixth century, after St Benedict's time. 

The 'monastic responsories'?

Mr diPippo's post effectively supplements that of Mr von Pikkendorff  by attempting to explain the reasons for the inclusion of a responsory in the Sunday set that clearly fits the monastic rather than the Roman ordering of Matins, as well as one that is not Scripturally based at all.  In particular it proposes that three responsories were added to the Benedictine Office to make up the necessary number of responsories (since the Roman Office used only nine responsories on Sundays whereas the Benedictine has twelve) when the Benedictines adopted the Roman Office's reading and responsory cycle.

There are, however, several problems with this theory. 

First, the three responsories in question appear just as often (indeed slightly more frequently) in medieval manuscripts based around the secular 'cathedral' cursus as they do in monastic ones.  

Secondly, these are only three of many variant sets of responsories used in the Office prior to the post-Trent breviaries.  Indeed the 'Old Roman' manuscripts contain several not used in the modern Office, while the key monastic Hartker manuscript contains no less than 14 for Sunday, and six to choose from for Monday.

Thirdly, musicological analysis of one of the chants cited by Mr diPippo, Peccata mea has found that it shares the musical features of the other 'core' responsories of the set.

An alternative theory

In the light of all this, I want to put forward an alternative, in my view more plausible explanation for this set of responsories, namely that while the responsories themselves may be relatively ancient, perhaps dating from the fifth century, the selection and ordering of them found in the surviving antiphoners from the ninth century onwards is not, but rather reflects a reform of the Matins reading cycle that occurred in the eighth century.

Originally, it should be noted, there was a much stronger Pauline focus in the monastic office (and almost certainly in the early Roman one as well)  Although the pre 1962 Roman Office (and 1960 Benedictine Office) uses homilies based on the Gospel of the day in the Third Nocturn of Matins on Sundays, St Benedict actually prescribed readings from the New Testament for this Nocturn.

And two of the earliest of the 'ordines Romani' (Ordos XIV and XVI), dating from the seventh century but almost certainly reflecting earlier practice, are consistent with this, saying that the Pauline Epistles were read throughout the year.  

Moreover the second of these Ordines explicitly says that the de psalmiis responsories were also used throughout the year.  

Could it be that they were actually used specifically in conjunction with the Pauline epistles?  There are good reasons for thinking so.

One of those reasons is that one of the versions of the oldest record of the Matins reading cycle we are familiar with, dating from the eighth century, actually specifies that St Augustine's Enarrations on the psalms were to be read in conjunction with the Epistles.

Now it might be thought that St Augustine's commentaries on the psalms were an obvious choice if the reason for the use of the psalm-based responsories was to reflect their dual character in the early Office as both readings and prayers.  But there is, I think another reason for this choice as well, in the heavy Pauline content of this set of commentaries.

St Augustine's Enarrations and the Pauline epistles  

Although St Augustine's Enerrations are based around particular psalm numbers, they were evidently given on occasions when the Epistles were also read, as St Augustine frequently makes reference to this.  

And independently of this, his explanations are rich in references to 'the Apostle'.  

When he explains the meaning of the psalms, quotations from the Epistles often far outnumber St Augustine's citations from other New or Old Testament books.

He also frequently uses incidents from St Paul's life to explain the meanings of the psalms.

And it turns out that these references to the life and works of St Paul are disproportionately concentrated in the commentaries on the particular psalms used in this responsory set.

The Peccata mea responsory and the conversion of St Paul

And as it happens, one of the responsories highlighted by Mr diPippo is something of a case in point. 

Here is the text of the responsory as it appears in the current Benedictine Office for reference purposes:

R. Peccáta / mea Dómine sicut sagíttae infíxa sunt in me, † sed ántequam vúlnera génerent in me * Sana me Dómine medicaménto poeniténtiae, Deus. V. Quóniam iniquitátem meam cognósco, † et delíctum meum contra me est semper, qui tibi soli peccávi. R. Sana me Dómine medicaménto poeniténtiae, Deus.

R. My sins, O Lord, are fixed in me, like arrows, but before they caused wounds in me, * Heal me, O God, with the medicine of repentance. V. For I know my iniquity, * and my sin is always before me. R. Heal me, O God, with the medicine of repentance.

The first point to note is that the the 'respond' section is mostly adapted from various verses of Psalm 37, the third penitential psalm (the whole set of Epiphanytide responsories has a strong penitential flavour, something I plan to come back to).  This kind of adaptation process is very common in responsories, including in this set.

The 'verse' (from Psalm 50) is actually not from the Gallican or Romanum, but the Vetus psalter, which might normally be taken as indicating either antiquity, rather than it being a late composition, or perhaps a non-Roman or Gallic origin (there are several distinct 'dialects' of responsories that have been identified, including Beneventan, Ambrosian, Old Hipanic and Gallican). 

In this case, though, I'd suggest that it has probably been taken straight from St Augustine's commentaries on the psalm, since the particular verses of Psalm 37 used in the respond very much echo the emphasis of St Augustine's commentary on both that psalm, as well as that on Psalm 50.

Both, moreover, contain explicit references to St Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.  On Psalm 37, for example, he says:

Why should He not say, from the face of my sins, who said to Saul, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me, who, however, being in Heaven, now suffered from no persecutors? 

And on Psalm 50 he makes a major play on the identity between the names of David's persecutor (King Saul), and St Paul's name before his conversion, working up to a quote from the reading used for today's feast, Acts 9.  His commentary also links neatly to the second half of the respond text, with its references to the healing medicine of repentance:

...You shall be sprinkled with hyssop, the humility of Christ shall cleanse you. Despise not the herb, attend to the efficacy of the medicine. Something further I will say, which we are wont to hear from physicians, or to experience in sick persons. Hyssop, they say, is proper for purging the lungs. In the lung is wont to be noted pride: for there is inflation, there breathing. It was said of Saul the persecutor as of Saul the proud, that he was going to bind Christians, breathing slaughter: (Acts 9:1) he was breathing out slaughter, breathing out blood, his lung not yet cleansed. Hear also in this place one humbled, because with hyssop purged: You shall wash me, that is, shall cleanse me: and above snow I shall be whitened. Although, he says, your sins shall have been like scarlet, like snow I will whiten. Out of such men Christ does present to Himself a vesture without spot and wrinkle.  Further, His vesture on the mount, which shone forth like whitened snow, signified the Church cleansed from every spot of sin.

You can find three polyphonic settings of this responsory in Mr diPippo's post over at NLM, and you can find the next part in this series here.

Advent in the Office

This is my annual reminder that Advent is the most complicated season for the Office, so you need to keep your wits about you!

Advent falls into two parts - the days up to and including December 16, and the final week of the season.

For the first part of the season, remember to keep a ribbon on the relevant parts for each hour of the day of 'the Ordinary of Advent' (front of the Diurnal), since these displace the normal texts set out in the psalter section of the book.

Key things to remember:

• Sundays in Advent (from 1 Vespers on Saturday) have proper antiphons at all hours;
• the Sunday antiphons are then used throughout the week at Prime to None;
• there are special Benedictus and Magnificat antiphons for each day of the Advent week;
• the default collect is of the Sunday as usual; and
• on feast days (such as for St Ambrose), a commemoration of Advent, consisting of the canticle antiphon (of the Advent day), versicle (of the season) and collect of the Advent week (in that order), is normally made at both Lauds and Vespers.

The Immaculate Conception

Another key point to note is that this year the feast of the Immaculate Conception falls on a Sunday, and, due to a special rubric just for this feast, displaces the Second Sunday of Advent (which is marked only by a commemoration at Lauds and Vespers). 

The Ordo

And just a reminder that if you are struggling, consider buying a copy of the Ordo - the summary version is on the blog, but the full version provides much more detailed instructions.

Ordo for 2025

This to let you know that the Ordo for the 2024-25 liturgical year (ie starting from the First Sunday of Advent, which this year is 1 December) is now available from Lulu.

As usual, the Ordo is available in paperback and ebook (PDF) formats.

About the Ordo

The Ordo basically provides detailed notes and page references to enable you to say the Benedictine Office with confidence using the (St Michael's) Monastic Diurnal (MD), Antiphonale Monasticum (AM) and (Le Barroux) Nocturnale Monasticum (NM). 

It follows the 1960 rubrics and calendar (as published in the monastic breviary of 1963), but includes notes on earlier feasts and rubrics, particularly where these are employed by one or more of the monasteries still using the traditional Office and calendar.

The book includes quick reference guides giving the default pages in the Diurnal for each of the day hours; rubrical notes on the seasons; and notes for each day of the liturgical year.  It includes cross-references to the Roman Extraordinary Form calendar, as well as to feasts particular to selected countries and regions.

For the week of  12 October 2025, for example, the daily notes look like this: 

Sunday 12 October – Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost/Second Sunday of October, Class II [Previously: Third Sunday of October]

 Matins: All as in the psalter with responsories and Nocturn I & II readings of the Second Sunday of October, NM 548 ff; Nocturn III readings, Gospel and collect of the Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost, NM 615-6.

 Lauds to Vespers: All as for Sunday in the psalter with canticle antiphons and collect, MD 477*/AM 609-10.

 Monday 13 October – Class IV [**In some places/EF: St Edward, Class III]

 All as in the psalter for throughout the year with collect, MD 477*/AM 610.

 Tuesday 14 October – Class IV; St Callistus, Memorial [EF: Class III]

 All as in the psalter with collect, MD 477*/AM 610; for the commemoration at Lauds, MD [314]/AM 1085.

 Wednesday 15 October – St Teresa, Class III

 Matins: Two nocturns with invitatory antiphon of a Virgin, LH 45; one reading of the feast; responsory, chapter, versicle and collect of the feast, NM 1144-5.

 Lauds: Chapter, responsory, hymn, versicle, Benedictus antiphon and collect for the feast, MD [315]/AM 1086 ff.

 Prime: Antiphon 1 of Lauds of the Common of a Virgin, MD (90)/AM, 678.

 Terce to None: Antiphon, chapter and versicle of the Common of a Virgin, MD (94)/AM 681 ff; collect of the feast, MD [316]/AM 1086.

 Vespers: Chapter, responsory, versicle and Magnificat antiphon of the Common of a Virgin, MD (96)/AM 682-3; hymn and collect of the feast, MD [315]/AM 1086 ff.

Thursday 16 October – Class IV [**In some places, St Gall. EF: St Hedwig, Class III. Canada: St Marguerite d’Youville, Class III]

 All as in the psalter with collect, MD 477*/AM 610. 

Friday 17 October – Class IV [EF: St Margaret Mary Alacoque, Class III; Le Barroux: Class II; Gower: Memorial]

 All as in the psalter with collect, MD 477*/AM 610.

 In some monasteries: 1 Vespers of St Luke: All as in the Common of Apostles, MD (2) ff with collect of the feast, MD [317-8].

 Saturday 18 October – St Luke, Evangelist, Class II

 Matins: Three nocturns, all of the Common of Apostles, LR 134 ff, except for the readings (Nocturn I, Common of an Evangelist; Nocturns II & III, of the feast), Gospel and collect, NM 1149-50.

 Lauds: Festal psalms with antiphons, chapter, responsory, hymn, versicle and Benedictus antiphon of the Common of Apostles, MD (9)/AM 622 ff; collect of the feast, MD [317-8]/AM 1087.

 Prime: Antiphon 1 of Lauds of the Common, MD (9)/AM 622.

 Terce to None: Antiphon, chapter and versicle of the Common, MD (11)/AM 625 ff; collect of the feast, MD [317-8]/AM 1087.

 2 Vespers: Festal psalms with antiphons, chapter, responsory, hymn, versicle and Magnificat antiphon of the Common of Apostles, MD (13)/AM 626 ff; collect of the feast, MD [317-8]/AM 1087; commemoration of the Fourth Sunday of October/Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Magnificat antiphon and versicle, MD 458-9*/AM 589; collect, MD 478*/AM 611.

Pocket summary edition

Some years ago someone asked if I could produce a pocket version of the Ordo, that would fit neatly with the size of the Diurnal.  Accordingly, this year I've produced a summary version of the Ordo as a trial to assess demand!

Note that it does not provide any rubrical notes, cross-references to other calendars or other support material: it essentially assumes that the reader is very familiar with the Benedictine Office, and can work things out from the basic references to pages in the Diurnal.

Here is what the same week in 2025 looks like in the pocket version:   

Eighteenth week after Pentecost/Second week of October. 

Ordinary of time throughout the year (in the psalter section), default collect, MD 477*.

Sunday 12 October – Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost/2nd Sunday of October, Class II, MD 477*. 

Monday 13 October – Class IV. 

Tuesday 14 October – Class IV; com of St Callistus at Lauds, MD [314]. 

Wednesday 15 October – St Teresa, Class III, MD [315] ff. 

Thursday 16 October – Class IV. 

Friday 17 October – Class IV. 

Saturday 18 October – St Luke, Class II, MD [317-8].  At 2 Vespers, com of the 4^th Sunday of October/19^th after Pentecost antiphon, MD 458-9* & 478*.

Blog calendar

As usual, I've posted a brief version of the ordo on the pages of the blog, accessible from the top bar.  Each month's entry is essentially identical to the summary (pocket) version of the Ordo, with the addition of rubrical notes for the liturgical seasons taken from the full version of the Ordo. 

Errors and omissions....

Please do let me know if you find any errors, so I can correct them, at the very least for future editions, or if you have suggestions on formatting and content.

And if you are a catholic religious or priest, please contact me by email if you would like a copy of the PDF version. 

New to the Benedictine Office?

I have had a few queries lately from people seeking help to learn the Benedictine Office, so I thought it might be timely to provide a few pointers for those who have just acquired the Monastic Diurnal, and are new to the Office.

Getting started

The first key message is - don't rush things.

There is a learning curve to saying the Office, and since this is the liturgy of the Church, getting it right matters.

So take the time needed to become familiar with the book and the way it works, and then the structure.

If you are new to the Office, or new to the Benedictine Office, start with this post about the Benedictine Office. 

Then you need to be able to find your way around the Monastic Diurnal.

Once you can find your way around the book, have a look at this post on what changes and what doesn't in the Office, so you can get a feel for when you will need the various sections of the book.

Take it slowly - start with Compline!

Secondly, don't try and say all of the 'hours' that make up the day Office immediately - start slowly and build up.

The best starting point is actually Compline, said in the evening, before bed.

The key advantage of Compline is that it is more or less the same every night, so easy to learn, and there are only a few choices of texts to make.

Even more importantly, for most hours of the Office, the Diurnal doesn't write out everything you have to say or sing in full, it just provides a few prompts.  

But for Compline, almost everything you need to say is written out in full (the main exception is that each psalm has a doxology, Glory be, or Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto.  Sicut erat in principium et nunc et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen) added to it (you can find the doxology under Prime, for Psalm 1, at the beginning of the psalter section of the Diurnal).

Learning Compline also gives you a chance to learn the formulas used for laypeople saying the Office (such as saying Domine exaudi orationem meam/Et clamor meus ad te veniat, rather than 'Dominus vobiscum/Et cum spiritu tuo, Monastic Diurnal page 264).

Learn the components that make up the hours

Next, while you are learning Compline, take the time to learn about the various components that make up the hours - the opening prayers, antiphons, psalms, chapters and so forth - since knowing what these are will help you when you move on to the other hours.

As you go along, you might also find this list of Diurnal traps and shortcuts of use.

And in fact, the second hour you should add to your routine is Prime, said in the morning before work (even if you drop it in favour of Lauds later on), because it has the next fewest moving parts.

Use an Ordo

Fourthly, especially if you a beginner, don't try and puzzle out what feasts or season it is, and what parts of the Office change as a result of this for yourself - use an Ordo.

There are a few different Ordos for the monastic Office that are available publicly, and I provide a brief summary version on this blog, but especially if you are new to the Office, the one I publish each year via Lulu is the most comprehensive.

Use the summary tables for the hours

The posts for each hour on my Learn the Benedictine Office blog give you page numbers for the standard parts of each of the hours, as well as detailed instructions on how to say them.  Before you start trying to say each new hour, read them through, then use the summary tables to check you have the right pages until you are confident.

And if still aren't sure you've got it right, use the Divine Officium website (choose the monastic 1963 option) as a cross-check.

Listen to the Office being sung

Finally, it is worth keeping in mind as well that the Benedictine Office is meant to be sung - in choir if possible - but even singing it on one note alone is better than just saying it.  At a minimum, remember that you at least need to move your lips to say the words, you need to do more than just use your eyes.

If you can, visit a monastery and listen to them singing the Office.

If that isn't possible, a few monasteries have live streams for some or all of their hours, and there are a number of videos on youtube or elsewhere (the chant of Le Barroux has a great archive) that are worth listening to, and attempting to follow along with (though individual monasteries have their own calendars, so it won't always line up with what you are expecting!).

More anon.

Coming soon - Ordo 2024-25

Apologies for the long gap between updates - I've been extremely unwell for the last few years courtesy of Government mismanagement of the (still ongoing) Covid pandemic, and so my capacity to engage in things has been very low.

I do, however, finally seem to be recovering somewhat, albeit with ups and downs, and so will try and post a little more frequently in the future, if only to try and get out some of the things that have been running around my brain, and/or sitting in rough draft form on my computer for some considerable time.

The Ordo for the next liturgical year

First though, I want to assure readers that the Ordo for next year should be available towards the end of the month.

This year I've actually done two versions of the Ordo, essentially the standard version I've produced for the last few years, and a pocket book sized summary version - but more on this anon!

And in the meantime, just in case there any new starters to the Benedictine Office who are struggling to work out what texts to use each day, I've reduced the price of the Ordo for this year (which covers to the start of Advent) to make it more accessible.

The Office in Passiontide

Just a reminder that from Sunday, we are now in the season of Passiontide.

That means that the 'Ordinary' (antiphons, chapters, versicles, responsories, hymns and so forth) are of the season of Passiontide, not Lent, while the canticle antiphons and collects are of the day of Passiontide.

One of the most distinctive  aspects of the season is the omission of the doxologies in the responsories, and for the invitatory at Matins.Where the Passiontide day is displaced by a feast (such as St Joseph on March 19, and St Benedict, on March 21), a commemoration of the Passiontide day is made at Lauds and Vespers, by saying the  canticle antiphon of the Passiontide day and hour, versicle (of the season) and collect of the day and hour immediately after the collect of the feast.

The hymn below is sung at Matins and Vespers each day.

 

The Office during Passiontide

Passiontide (the period up to and including Wednesday in Holy Week) has its own ‘Ordinary’ which can be found in the 'of time' section of an office book.  At Matins, the Ordinary can be found at NM 278-9: The invitatory antiphon each day is for the season (Hodie si vocem Domini audieritis), and is said without the doxology; The hymn is for the season and is the same each day (Pange lingua); The readings during the week are usually patristic sermons, relating to the Gospel of the Mass set for that day; The responsories omit the doxology, instead simply repeating the response; and The chapter verse for Nocturn II is for the season (Jer 11:18-19).  The Ordinary for the day hours can be found at MD 240* ff.  At Prime to None: The antiphons, chapters and versicles are of the season of Passiontide, and can be found in the psalter section; and The collect for Terce to None is the same as for Lauds of that day.  At Lauds and Vespers: Chapters, hymns, responsories and versicles of the season replace those in the psalter section; The responsories (but not the psalms) omit the Gloria Patri, instead repeating the opening verse; The canticle antiphons are proper for each day. They generally reflect the (EF) Gospel for the day; and There is a specific collect for both Lauds and Vespers each day.

On the observance of Lent

 Today is Ash Wednesday, and traditionally in monasteries, Chapter 49 of the Benedictine Rule, dealing with the observance of Lent is read, so here it is:

The life of a monk ought always to be a Lenten observance. However, since such virtue is that of few, we advise that during these days of Lent he guard his life with all purity and at the same time wash away during these holy days all the shortcomings of other times. This will then be worthily done, if we restrain ourselves from all vices. Let us devote ourselves to tearful prayers, to reading and compunction of heart, and to abstinence.

During these days, therefore, let us add something to the usual amount of our service, special prayers, abstinence from food and drink, that each one offer to God "with the joy of the Holy Ghost" (1 Thes 1:6), of his own accord, something above his prescribed measure; namely, let him withdraw from his body somewhat of food, drink, sleep, speech, merriment, and with the gladness of spiritual desire await holy Easter.

Let each one, however, make known to his Abbot what he offereth and let it be done with his approval and blessing; because what is done without permission of the spiritual father will be imputed to presumption and vain glory, and not to merit. Therefore, let all be done with the approval of the Abbot.

A few other chapters of the Rule also touch on Lent, covering fasting and additional sacred reading.

St Benedict's contemporary Caesarius of Arles gave a sermon (196) directed at the laity that echoes many of the same themes, so is well worth a read:

Caesarius of Arles' Sermon 196, directed at the laity, provides a useful perspective on the practice of Lent in this period:

My dear brothers and sisters, the season of Lent draws near through God’s mercy. And so I ask you, beloved, that with God’s help we may celebrate these days, which are healthful for the body and medicinal for the soul, in such a holy and spiritual way that our observance of this holy Lent may bring us not to judgement but to perfection. If we act negligently, if we become involved in too many activities, if we do not wish to be chaste, if we do not participate in fasting, vigils, and prayer, if we do not read or listen to others reading the holy Scriptures, then what should have been our medicine is turned into our wounds; what should have been our remedy becomes our judgement.

And so I ask you, my brothers and sisters, to rise up at an early hour for the vigils; gather especially for Terce, Sext, and None. May none remove themselves from this holy work unless sickness, public need, or what is clearly a great necessity occupy them. Nor is it enough that you hear the holy readings only in church; read them at home or have them read by others and gladly listen to them. Recall, my brothers and sisters, what our Lord said, “What will it profit them if they gain the whole world but give up their life?” Especially remember and constantly fear what is written: “The world’s burdens have made them miserable.” And so when at home act in such a way that you do not neglect your soul. Should you be incapable of more, at least try to labour as much for your soul as you do for your body.

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, it is by fasting, reading, and prayer that we during these days of Lent should store up food for our souls as if for the whole year. For although you frequently and faithfully hear with God’s help the holy lessons throughout the whole year, during these days we should rest from the waters and waves of this world and have recourse to the port of Lent. Silently and quietly we should receive the holy readings into the receptacle of our hearts. 

1963 vs 1953: To go forward or back?

Apologies for being slow in getting to this final part of my series on the 1953 vs 1963 breviaries, but here it is.  In the last several posts I've pointed out some of the differences between the 1953 and 1963 breviaries, and their relative merits.

So should we go forward, as most of the traditional monasteries are doing, and make judicious amendments to the rubrics and calendar (as would presumably have occurred in the natural course of events, had Vatican II's license to 'experiment' not intervened), or should we, as some are vigorously advocating, revert back to the 1953, or some earlier version of the breviary?

A monastic Office

The first point to make is that when it comes to the Benedictine Office, this is, in the end, a decision for monasteries to make, not laypeople.

While the monastic office is used by many Catholic laypeople, it is, strictly speaking, the form of liturgy approved for the use of member monasteries of the Benedictine Confederation.

Its use by priest oblates was approved in 1948, and, following the publication of successive editions of the Monastic Diurnal from the 1950s onwards, many monasteries now encourage or permit its use by their oblates.

But the 'default' form of the Office for laypeople is the Roman Office, not the Benedictine, so I think a strong case can be made for saying that lay users of the monastic office, whether oblates or not, should accept it as it is set out in the official books, or as modified by the particular monastery to which they are affiliated.

That said, the widespread promotion of the monastic office in recent years by monasteries, in the form of the Monastic Diurnal, podcasts of the Office and more, has introduced many to the Benedictine Office, and so it is inevitable that those who say it will have opinions.

And perhaps it is not altogether inconsistent with the spirit of the Rule for us, as visitors or junior members of the monastic family to offer them, without any particular expectation for how they will be necessarily be accepted.

Monastic considerations vs the secular

A second key point to note is that, in my view at least, the underlying logic of the Roman and Benedictine Offices are fundamentally different.

While it is true that from Trent onwards, the Benedictine Office has largely (been forced to) follow the Roman, this is an aberration, not the norm.

While the two forms of the Office has long interacted and influenced each other, for most of monastic history the two forms have not followed the same rubrics or calendar.

In particular, the Rule has always served as an important reference point for the Benedictine Office, and that has generally been interpreted to mean prioritising the ferial psalm cursus set out in the Rule over the (probably Roman in origin) festal psalms; and the Scriptural cycle over the lives of saints (other than those particular to a monastery or congregation, or location) and other feasts.  

Of course, the extent to which fidelity to the Rule should take precedence over developments in the liturgy and Romanising encroachments has been hotly debated at regular intervals, but the general principle remains.

The deregulation of the liturgy

The third issue concerns the status of the 1963 breviary, and this is something on which I have changed my position.

My previous view was that as the 1963 breviary (based on the1960 calendar and rubrics) is nominally still the normative book for member monasteries of the Benedictine Confederation, we should follow its prescriptions fairly strictly, out of obedience.

In essence, the permission to develop one's own form of the Office granted to monasteries after Vatican II, as made clear by the monastic Thesaurus, was contingent on adoption of the new sanctoral calendar (hence the odd combination, in the traditional Solesmes monasteries, of the 1977 sanctoral calendar and the 1960 temporal).

The use of the liturgy, after all, is regulated by the Church for good reasons, and for Benedictines in particular, obedience is an important virtue!

However, in the last few years quite a few things have changed, and I now think its reasonable to take the view that monasteries using the 1963 breviary as their starting point have the same freedom to make changes to the rubrics that monasteries using the Novus Ordo calendar do.  

My reasoning is as follows.  

First, in the normal course of events, the Benedictine Confederation would surely have made further revisions to fix some of the obvious problems with the 1960 calendar and rubrics.  But because control of the monastic liturgy had effectively been deregulated, leaving control over it to individual monasteries in the expectation that the 1960 books would cease to be used, that never happened.

When the Thesaurus governing the Office for monasteries was published in 1977, after all, the assumption was that monasteries would adopt the new calendar, since the 1960 calendar had been de facto suppressed.  

However, a series of permissions, most particularly the decree Summorum Pontificum (2007) effectively restored the status of the 1960 calendar.  

Accordingly, I think a good case can be made (particularly in the light of later decisions) that monasteries using the 1960 calendar have the same right to design or amend their own Office rubrics (such as restoring 1 Vespers for Class II feasts) as monasteries following the novus ordo calendar in combination with the monastic feasts set out in the Thesaurus (and since supplemented).

Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, Cum Sanctissima (2020) effectively unlocked the freeze on the calendar, providing a mechanism for incorporating both newer feasts into the calendar, as well as reviving older ones, at least as Class III feasts, thus granting a lot more flexibility to those starting from the 1960 calendar.

Thirdly, a series of official Ordos for the Extraordinary Form have indicated that there is some room to go further when it comes to reviving older feasts, since one mentioned at least the possibility of marking  the Octave of Corpus Christi where appropriate to local conditions.  And if one can revive one octave, why not others?

All of these decisions provide, I think, a basis for modifying the 1960 calendar and rubrics in ways that can address many of the concerns raised by the 'restore the 54 movement', given the canonical principle that permissions should be interpreted broadly, and the normal principles that allow for some liturgical development.

The case for going forward from 1960

But the key question remains, does the 1960 Office provide a reasonable basis for going forward, or are its changes so radical as to warrant being jettisoned altogether?

I have to say that I don't like the approach of saying we dislike those involved in the reform process, and are suspicious of their motives, and so should therefore reject everything that changed.  

Instead, we should assess the changes made on their merits, in the light of experience in using them.

And my own view remains that there are many good things in the 1960 reforms that are worth retaining, and nothing so bad that it cannot be rectified by judicial modifications of the calendar and rubrics.

In particular:

• I really much prefer singing the antiphons in full both before and after the psalms, rather than just the incipit (opening words) as was done previously for most hours except on major feasts;
• I like the fact that the original structure of Prime as set out in the Rule was restored, with Chapter separated out;
• I support the pruning that occurred of prayers before the hours, preces, suffrages and so forth noting that there is nothing stopping one from using these outside the hours; and
• I think the attempt to reduce the number of grades of feasts was a move in the right direction, even if the current rules around the four main categories of feasts and days need further changes.

But I'm willing to hear to hear the counter-arguments!

The sanctoral calendar

When it comes to the calendar, I also support the reduction of many feasts to two Nocturns over three, as it is far more consistent with the intent of the Rule. 

First, the number of three nocturn feasts added to the calendar was surely driven by the Roman Office's incentive to avoid the ferial Office in favour of the shorter festal one; for Benedictines though, the incentive is reversed, with the three Nocturn Office being much much longer than the ferial office.

My view, for what it is worth, is that the extra time needed to say the festal Office would be better used to sing more of Matins in chant (rather than recto tono as most monasteries currently do) and ideally to revive the practice of chanting the responsories. 

Secondly, three nocturn feasts, at least under the current rubrics, generally means abandoning the ferial psalm cursus in favour of the Commons or specific festal psalms - but the ferial psalm cursus is the element of the Office that is most distinctively Benedictine, spelt out in the Rule.  

For similar reasons, while the culling of octaves went a long way too far, I don't support their wholesale revival - while marking some feasts on their octave day, or through some texts or commemoration might be appropriate in some cases, pushing out the ancient Matins Scriptural cycle in favour of saints lives, papal or patristic commentaries on particular feasts for large chunks of the year seems to me to distort the original focus of the hour.

What changes would one make to 1963 if it was up to you?

Most of the traditional monasteries have already made a number of changes to the 1963 breviary, for practical or other reasons, including:

• saying 1 Vespers of Class II feasts and the Office of Our Lady on Saturday;
• ignoring the cuts and changes to division points in the psalms and canticles; and 
• restoring selected feasts.

My own view, for what it is worth, is there are a couple of small further rubrical steps worth considering.

I think the remaining distinction between Class I and II feasts, namely the transfer/commemoration rules, make no sense and should be abolished so that the rules for Class I feasts also apply to Class II feasts - it is ridiculous to reduce important feasts to a commemoration if they clash on a Sunday, or sometimes to omit them altogether. It may be that monasteries would still want to make some differentiations between these feasts in terms of the ceremonial they use, but that is easily managed.

And if it really is necessary to have two classes of more solemn feasts, maybe the way to do it would be to retain the ferial psalter (in conjunction with the antiphons of the Common or feast) for the first two Nocturns?

Secondly, where a Class III feast would otherwise have no Vespers at all (because it occurs on a Saturday or before a Class I or II feast, where 1 Vespers of the Sunday or feast has precedence) it should have 1 Vespers and/or be commemorated.

Thirdly, the differentiation between Class III feasts with their own antiphons (where the festal psalms are said at Lauds and Vespers) and Class III feasts without their own antiphons (where the ferial psalms and antiphons are used at Lauds and Vespers, but antiphons of the Commons at Prime to None) seems to me an oddity.  Why not use antiphons of the feast (either specific to the feast or from the Common) at all the day hours, but in conjunction with the ferial psalms?

There are other small things that can be done - the seasonal hymn doxologies should be restored, and the alternative chapter for Prime for example.  But these are easily done without needing a wholesale reversion to an earlier from of the Office.

Forward march!

In conclusion, I hope you have enjoyed this series, and found something of interest in it - and I'm happy to hear other perspectives on the points I've made.

1953 vs 1963 Pt 3: The hours

Continuing my series on the differences between the 1953 and 1963 breviaries, I want to focus today mainly on the psalter section of the breviary.

The main changes were to separate out Prime and the chapter office; make some (unnecessary in my view) simplifications; remove some verses of Psalm 13 and the Saturday ferial canticle; make some changes to the division points in the psalms; and remove some post-Tridentine accretions to the Office.

Prime and the Chapter Office

The first change, I think, concerns the separation of the texts for Prime and Chapter, and is relatively harmless in my view. 

In the Roman Office, chapter has long been, and remains, formally part of Prime. 

In the monastic use, though, its position has always been somewhat different, since it was generally said not in the church, but in the chapter room of the monastery (hence the name) and not counted as one of the formal parts of the Office (since St Benedict does not mention it in the Rule).

Although the post Tridentine breviaries generally did provide a version of chapter integrated into Prime, many monasteries used their own version of it (some of which have been published in the Rituales of the various congregations).  

Accordingly, as far as I can see the 1963 breviary's approach of placing Prime and the chapter office in different places in the book and explicitly noting that monasteries are free to use their own version just codifies existing practice (though it is unfortunate that the monastic Diurnal didn't include the chapter office in full).

Silly simplifications

There are, I have to say, some changes made presumably in the name of 'simplification' that I think are just silly, and can and should easily be restored, namely the abolition of hymn doxologies for the seasons and feasts, and abolition of the ferial Prime short chapter (Love truth and peace, says the Lord) in favour of using the Sunday version (Regi saeculorum) all the time.

Changes to the psalter

One of the least desirable changes between 1953 and 1953, though, in my view, concerns the psalter.

On the face of it changing the division points for Psalms 9 and 106, ostensibly to make them align with the Hebrew Masoretic Text version of these psalms, sounds relatively innocuous.  But I think there is more to it than that, and I've written previously on why I don't like these changes:Psalm 9 pt 1; Psalm 9 (pt 2); and Psalm 106.

Similarly a number of verses - admittedly almost certainly not an authentic part of the psalm, but included in the Vulgate translations and so treated as such in the West for centuries - were removed from Psalm 13.

But by far the biggest and most fundamental change was to cut out around half of the Saturday ferial canticle, almost certainly because it offends modern sensibilities with its condemnations of sodomy and other immoral behaviours.  

Prayer pruning

The final group of changes, and one I'm in favour of, essentially shorten the Office by removing assorted prayers that have been added to it at various points in time.

As I've noted before, the fact that the Benedictine Rule spells out the components of each hour and the order in which they are said has long served as an anchor point for this particular form of the Office. St Benedict, moreover, clearly favoured keeping the hours (relatively) short.

It is human nature, though, to keep adding things to the hours - thus the periodic need to prune.

Preparation for the hours

In terms of unnecessary accretions, my personal view is that the previous requirement to say the Creed (before Matins) and/or Our Father and Hail Mary before (or as an extra part of ) each hour is at the top of the list, particularly given the Our Father is included in each hour of the Benedictine office (though not the Roman) anyway.

We do of course need to put ourselves in the right frame of mind before starting an hour (such as the prayer Aperi Domine, that appears in many breviaries), but there is surely no need to regulate this.

Deus in adjutorium at Matins

Similarly, starting the Night Office with Deus in adjutorium is a Romanism imported into the Benedictine Office that in my view makes no sense, and so was rightly removed.

St Benedict, after all, is clear that the first words the monk says each day, ending the great silence of the night, should be O Lord open my lips, that I may announce your praise.

Suffrage of All Saints/Commemoration of the Cross at Lauds and Vespers

One of the things that has regularly been added to the Office at various points is explicit intercessions for assorted causes, or requests for assistance to particular saints (including St Benedict in the pre 1911 monastic breviaries).

The suffrages formerly said at Lauds and Vespers are one example of this, with suffrages added in the Tridentine reforms of 1563 gradually increasing in number, but then replaced by two suffrages, of All Saints and the Cross (depending on the season), in the 1911 Pius X reforms.

These (in their twentieth century versions) consisted of an antiphon, versicle and collect, so look like a commemoration, and like commemorations, they were said after the collect of the day, generally on days that were not feasts.  

The two new suffrage (of All Saints) apparently did not get positive reviews at the time of its introduction though its not obvious at first glance why - both of the 1911 suffrages are nice prayers of medieval origin that were often included in books of hours. 

But I don't personally have a problem with trimming them out of the office proper.

Marion antiphon after Lauds and Vespers

Lauds and Vespers also added the Marian antiphons to the end of the hours.  The 1960 revisions retained it for Compline only.

The preces at Prime and Compline

On ferial days, Prime and Compline previously had a set of additional prayers inserted into it, namely the Creed  (that makes three times!), an extra Confiteor (confession and absolution formulas) at Prime, and a versicle.

Given that the Confiteor is said in the daily conventual Mass (as well as any private masses), I can see why this was thought to be an unnecessary duplication.

Working forward or reverting back?

In this quick comparison between of the 1953 and 1963 monastic breviaries, the issue I've touched only lightly on concerns the rubrics, particularly when clashes of feasts occur.

It is, I think, an important topic, so I will cover it briefly in my next and last post on this series, where I will look again at the question of whether it is better to start from the 1963 breviary, and make some amendments to its rubrics and calendar (as most of the traditional monasteries are doing), or revert back altogether to some earlier date.

1953 vs 1963 breviary comparions Pt 2 - the temporal cycle

As I mentioned in a previous post, through Advent I used a 1953 breviary, adapting it to the 1960 rubrics - a task made easier I should note by the inclusion in the volume I bought, of a 1960 supplement, coupled with a few pencil deletions done by a previous owner of the books!

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.