Focusing on the Traditional Benedictine Office in accordance with the 1963 Benedictine calendar and rubrics, including the Farnborough edition of the Monastic Diurnal.
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.
Adoration of the Magi - Roman catacombs c3rd Source: Giovanni Dall'Orto, Wiki commons
For most of the year, I don't have major problems with most of the calendar changes made in 1960 - if it was up to me (which it isn't!) there are some feasts I'd restore, but octaves aside, the changes to the calendar mostly were not too drastic (certainly not by comparison with those made in 1970, when whole seasons were excised).
But the period January 2 to January 13, is, I have to admit, something of a disaster zone liturgically.
Let's take a look at the key issues.
January 2 - 4
For centuries, January 2 - 4 were taken up by the Octave days of St Stephen, St John and the Holy Innocents.
In the Benedictine office, at least in its twentieth century versions, these days were, in my view, very well-designed so as to provide a reminder of the feast without disrupting the Benedictine psalm cursus and reading cycle.
The psalms of the day were used at all hours, with the antiphons of the feast at Prime to None. There were only two Nocturns at Matins, with two readings from Romans, and third Patristic reading for the Octave.
I've posted both versions of matins for these days over at Lectio Divina Notes blog for those interested in seeing the differences between the two versions, but on the face of it, I find it hard to see what the rationale for abolishing these very ancient octaves really was.
Most Holy Name of Jesus (January 2 or the first Sunday of January)
I'm rather less concerned about the abolition, in the Benedictine (but not the Roman) 1960 calendar, of the feast of the Holy Name on January 2.
Its move to that date in the twentieth century is something of an oddity in my view, since the Gospel is identical to that for January 1, and it cuts across the ancient octave days.
A better solution than outright abolition, though, would surely have been to move it to an alternative date, or just use it when there is a second Sunday after the Nativity.
Vigil of the Epiphany (January 5)
The Vigil of the Epiphany used to be one of the four especially privileged Vigils to mark the four major feasts of the year.
Its abolition, I suppose parallels the downgrading of Epiphany itself, but it was actually restored in 2002 (where the feast is not moved to the relevant Sunday!), so there is a strong case for arguing that it is legitimate to restore it also to the 1960 calendars.
You can find a useful discussion of its celebration here.
The feast of the Epiphany and the thirteen days of Christmas?
By far the most bizarre changes, of course, occur in the Novus Ordo calendar in places (such as here in Australia) where Epiphany is celebrated where this year we have not the on January 6, thus marking the end of the twelve days of Christmas, but this year, on January 7, giving us thirteen days of Christmas!
Actually though, it seems some places did have a tradition of thirteen days of Christmas, so maybe this year's outcome is not as odd as some year's!
Less explicable though, is that for reasons I don't understand, the feast of the Baptism of Our Lord is not on the octave day of Epiphany (January 13), but on January 8.
As I've written before, the number of days around these various feasts are not meant to be random, but have a deep symbolic meaning. Why try so hard to remove this?
Octave of the Epiphany
Last, but far from least, the abolition of the octave of the Epiphany is surely one of the most unwise of the 1960 reforms, since this is one of the most ancient of all octaves, already celebrated at least in the East in the fourth century.
Fortunately, at least in the day hours, all of the texts of the Octave are preserved as the 'Ordinary of Epiphanytide'.
Still, if you want to go a step further and revert to the 1953 rubrics, all you have to do is add back the psalms and antiphons of the feast at the day hours. At Matins, there are antiphons for each Nocturn for each day, which are used in conjunction with the psalms of the days of the week, as well as Patristic readings.
An alternative solution for the 1960 reformers, if the concern was to preserve the psalm and reading cycles, might have been to use the psalms of the day in conjunction with the antiphons and other texts of the feast, and make the Patristic reading the third of the day....
There is increasing interest, these days, in the use of older breviaries, at least amongst liturgical nerds and in some parts of traddy world.
Accordingly, this Advent I decided to use a 1953 (Latin only) monastic breviary as my main office book, adapting it to the 1963 calendar and rubrics, but reading the texts that differ outside the Office, so I could get a better feel for features of the older rubrics and calendar.
So herewith some reflections on the differences between the books and their respective merits, in the hope that it might spark some debate!
I plan to divide up my comments into a couple of posts, covering:
the physical books;
the calendar differences for the sanctoral and temporal cycles;
differences the structure and content of the hours themselves (things like preces, hymn doxologies, etc).
The books
So first something about the physical books.
None of the monastic breviaries are currently in print, and they are all fairly scarce and expensive to buy secondhand (although the 1930 breviary is available online).
Four volumes vs two
The 1963 breviary (and the 1930) comes in two volumes, but the 1953 edition follows the Roman by being spread over four volumes, thus increasing the cost.
The need for four volumes is presumably because of the slightly smaller size - 1953 book is two centimeters in length shorter - but I don't personally find that any more convenient than the slightly bigger book.
The type size and fonts seem to be the same.
Psalter placement
Secondly, the 1963 breviary places the psalter at the middle of the book. Personally I prefer that - it helps to prolong the book's life a bit, but also makes it easier to see where the temporale vs sanctorale are. By contrast, the 1953 follows the older structure of putting the psalter at the beginning.
Repeated texts
Perhaps the most annoying feature of the 1953 book is that, like the Diurnale, it doesn't bother repeating key fixed part of the hours such as the Prime hymn and the Benedictus and Magnificat each day - with four volumes to spread it over, it seems to me that more concession to convenience could have been made.
I guess part of the rationale is that monks will tend to know these parts by heart - and yes I do know them too, but I like having them in front of me all the same!
More importantly perhaps, breviaries were presumably mostly only used when a monk was out of the monastery, for the Matins readings (with a psalter or the Antiphonale for the psalms), and as a reference document for rubrics and planning purposes. But it is still annoying.
Sanctoral calendar
When it comes to the sanctoral calendar, the changes are in my view, a bit of a mixed bag. The changes were that:
the feast of St Peter Chrysologus on December 2 (a fifth century bishop of Ravenna) was reduced to a commemoration in 1963 (previously the equivalent of Class III);
the feasts of St Ambrose and St Lucy are reduced from being a Class II equivalent, with three Nocturns, to Class III;
the Octave of the Immaculate Conception was abolished;
the second and third class equivalent feasts (St Lucy and St Thomas in December) no longer have a first Vespers;
the commemorations of St Melchiadus (Pope 311-313, December 10) and St Thomas (Beckett, December 20) were abolished; and
commemorations were generally previously made at both Vespers and Lauds; under the 1960 rubrics they occur at Lauds only.
The Octave of the Immaculate Conception
The biggest change is clearly the abolition of the Octave of the Immaculate Conception, and in my view that was a positive step.
The effect of the Octave (introduced to the Roman office in the eighteenth century) was to displace the ancient texts of Advent, including the antiphons set for the day hours each week, and replace them with the same repeated texts each day in the day hours; and to replace the reading of Isaiah, a tradition dating back to St Benedict's time, with readings from the Papal Bull of Pius IX.
In a year when the feast of the Immaculate Conception falls on a Sunday, the antiphons wouldn't be said at all.
I really can't see a strong case for the suppression of the seasonal texts, particularly as the season already has a strong Marian flavour in its readings and the responsories.
It has been pointed out to me though, that the monks of Norcia have come up with a sensible compromise approach to this problem for those keen on octaves, namely commemorating the Octave at Lauds and Vespers but privileging the Advent days.
Class III vs Class II?
Similarly, I don't mind the reduction of St Ambrose and St Lucy to Class III feasts - Class II feasts in the Benedictine Office are not very different when it comes to the day hours, but festal Matins is very very long indeed compared to both the Class III structure (3 vs 12 readings and responsories, plus extra three canticles, Te Deum and Gospel) and the Roman Office version.
It is not obvious though, why St Peter Chrysologus was demoted, or the two commemorations abolished - they all represent quite important saints on the face of it.
First Vespers
One of the most important rubrical changes between the 1953 Office and the 1963 was the abolition of First Vespers for most feasts.
It was a mistake I think, as it means that Class III feasts regularly don't have any Vespers at all, such as when they fall on a Saturday.
Most monasteries have restored them for class II feasts, but I think there is scope to go further.
If the concern is the displacement of the ferial psalm cursus in favour of the festal, a concern I agree with in principle, the simple solution would surely be to specify the use of the ferial psalms in conjunction with the antiphons of the feast at either First and/or Second Vespers.
If you've just received a Monastic Diurnal, and want to learn to pray the Office St Benedict as laid out in his Rule written around 530 AD, and used ever since by monks and nuns of his Order, welcome to the club!
First, though, take a deep breathe - learning to say the Office takes a bit of effort, so you need to get familiar with the book first, and learn a little bit about the structure of each of the individual 'hours' that make up the Office before trying to start to use it.
1. Learn the Office notes - get oriented first
The Learn the Office page on this blog has a lot of material on it for you to choose from, but here are some suggested starting points.
If you are completely new to the traditional (ie 1960 and earlier) forms of the Office, start with this post on Benedictine Office basics.
To help find your way around the book itself, try this post.
If you already know something about the Office, or are anxious to try to get started as quickly as possible, make sure you take a look at these key posts:
Diurnal traps and shortcuts - the diurnal assumes you know a few things; this is a guide to some of the key ones;
Once you have oriented yourself, then you can start looking at the notes on each of the individual hours.
You don't need to say all of the hours, and my strong advice is, start with Compline, as it changes the least, and the texts are pretty much all written out in full in the Diurnal. It also makes a nice prayer for the evening, before bed.
There are also several good videos on youtube of monastic Compline so you can follow along.
The next hour to add in is Prime, a good prayer to say before starting work. It will also help you get used to having a few moving parts (the antiphon and psalms of the day), before you move onto the more complex hours.
When it comes to Lauds and Vespers in particular, I'd suggest focusing on understanding how the hours work on normal days (non-feasts) first, then worry about feasts and seasons once you are confident.
As the Office is meant to be sung, another good way to get started is listen to the podcasts of Le Barroux (or others).
3. Aids to learning
Before you get too far along, I would strongly recommend buying the Ordo I put together in either PDF (ebook) or paperback.
It contains a summary of the page numbers in the Diurnal for the main parts of each of the day hours, as well as detailed instructions on the moving parts for feasts and seasons.
A short version of the Ordo can also be found on the Saints Will Arise blog, but be warned, it is only a summary version, intended for more expert users.
Secondly, you can use the Divinum Officium monastic option as a cross-check on what you are doing - it doesn't always entirely line up with the 1960 rubrics and calendar, but it can be useful when just starting out.
Thirdly, I would recommend reading through the chapters of St Benedict's Rule (8-19), and trying to match them up to the sections in the Diurnal - it will give you a feel for both the continuity with the Rule and the organic development of it that has occurred over the centuries.
The Nativity depicted in an English liturgical manuscript, c. 1310–1320 National Library of Wales
Happy Christmas!
Over Advent I've been posting on the responsories.
Chant 'dialects'
For Christmas day though, I thought it might be nice to provide a Mass proper that serves as a reminder that the versions of the chants that we are used to represent (mostly nineteenth and twentieth century) reconstructions of the style of chant of the high middle ages, namely what we call Gregorian chant.
Musicologists though, tend to prefer the term Franco-Roman chant for the style that came to dominate in the middle ages, to reflect the fact that this particular 'dialect' of chant is most probably the result of the interaction of at least two different chant traditions, that of Rome, and Gallic.
So today, one of Ensemble Organum's beautiful reconstructions of 'Old Roman' chant, which may be closer to the style of chant sung in Rome in St Benedict's time.
The chant is the Introit for the midnight Mass of Christmas:
St Benedict
Though Benedictines in Rome from the sixth century onwards almost certainly used this style of chant, whether St Benedict's monks at Subiaco and Monte Cassino did in his time is an open question.
Indeed, one of the dimensions of the Rule rarely emphasised these days is its various non-Roman character - St Benedict's Rule doesn't follow the Roman custom of fasting on Saturdays for example; sets a summer reading pattern for Matins that is certainly at odds with the Roman as we know it; and includes hymns and other elements in his Office that are not in the Roman.
Monte Cassino at least at some later points certainly used Beneventan chant (a term actually embraces all surviving Italian chant outside of Rome or Milan), at least until it was forbidden to do so by a tenth century Frankish pope! Other styles St Benedict may well have encountered include Ambrosian and Gallican, and perhaps even Syrian and other Eastern rites (given that both Norcia and Rome had populations of Eastern refugee monks in the fifth and sixth centuries).
And of course, Benedictines down the ages have often adopted the chant traditions of their locale, such as the Mozarabic, Ambrosian and many others.
As I was preparing for today's Office I decided I couldn't resist posting on one more responsory, with a nice recording of it by the monks of Solesmes, which you can use for First Vespers of the Nativity (to replace the short responsory).
The text
The mostly non-Scriptural text (the first phrase is from Zachariah 8:15) is identical to two antiphons - the respond text is the same as the first antiphon of Lauds for the Vigil, while the verse is used at the day hours on Friday in the period December 17-23.
R. Judaea et Jerusalem; nolite timere: * Cras egrediemini, et Dominus erit
vobiscum.
R.
Judaea and Jerusalem, fear not: * Tomorrow you shall go forth, and the Lord
will be with you.
V. Constantes estote, videbitis auxilium Domini super vos.
V. Be
steadfast and you shall see the salvation of the lord upon you.
R. Cras egridiemini, et Dominus erit vobiscum.
R.
Tomorrow you shall go forth, and the Lord will be with you.
Although there are a large number of surviving manuscripts of the responsory version of these texts, most of which place it at Matins for the Vigil of the Nativity, it doesn't actually feature in the modern Office at all in the Benedictine or Roman uses (but does seem to have survived in the Dominican Rite).
It is included, though, in the set of responsories for use at I Vespers of major feasts which can be used on an optional basis, in the 1934 Antiphonale Monasticum:
Today, for the last in this series on the Advent responsories, one of two responsories for the day that draw on the image of the 'Jesse tree' (one of the many versions of which is depicted above), inspired by Isaiah 11:1, named for the father of King David, and depicts the genealogy of Christ.
Isaiah 11 and the rod of Jesse
The text for the other responsory on this theme set for today, Radix Jesse is only loosely based on Scripture, and largely takes its cue from St Paul's allusion to Isaiah in Romans 15:12.
The text for this responsory, though, is taken straight from Scripture, from Isaiah 11:1-5 (the verses used in the responsory are bolded):
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root.
Et egredietur virga de radice Jesse, et flos de radice ejus ascendet.
2 And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness.
Et requiescet super eum spiritus Domini : spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae et pietatis;
3 And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears.
et replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini. Non secundum visionem oculorum judicabit, neque secundum auditum aurium arguet;
4 But he shall judge the poor with justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.
sed judicabit in justitia pauperes, et arguet in aequitate pro mansuetis terrae; et percutiet terram virga oris sui, et spiritu labiorum suorum interficiet impium.
5 And justice shall be the girdle of his loins: and faith the girdle of his reins.
Et erit justitia cingulum lumborum ejus, et fides cinctorium renumejus.
R. Egrediétur / virga de radíce Iesse, et flos de radíce eius ascendet: * Et erit iustítia cíngulum lumbórum eius, † et fides cinctórium renum eius.
V. Et requiéscet super eum spíritus Dómini: † spíritus sapiéntiæ, et intelléctus: spíritus consílii, et fortitúdinis.
R. Et erit iustítia cíngulum lumbórum eius, † et fides cinctórium renum eius.
R. There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots. * And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
V. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding.
R. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
LR 395/NR 145
Source: Nocturnale Romanum Project (D Crochu)
Origins of the responsories
I noted at the beginning of this (somewhat meandering) series that there are basically two modern theories around the origin of the responsories as we know them, namely a Roman origin in the fifth century, or an external origin, so that they were imported into the Roman Office perhaps through St Benedict's influence.
The Roman origin theory hangs largely on the use of the same term, responsorium, to describe both the singing of the psalms with a refrain, in earlier Roman use, and the great responsories of Matins.
But the use of the same term in itself is a pretty thin basis on which to construct a theory since many Office terms seem to have had completely different meanings in different places in late antiquity. An antiphon, for instance can mean variously a psalm sung antiphonally (Roman); a block of psalms (Jerusalem Office); or a refrain used in the modern sense (St Benedict); while the term missa means the ending of an hour with the Our Father in St Benedict, but a block of psalms, readings and prayers in Caesarius of Arles' Rules.
More importantly perhaps, if psalm based responsories were the prototype, one would surely expect there to be psalm based responsories in the sets used in association with the various books of the Bible as the repertoire expanded, rather than using texts taken from those books. In the Mass after all, most of the propers are clearly psalm based, and there are, after all, many psalm verses that directly relate to the various Scriptural books.
In fact though, psalm based responsories represent a very small part of the overall repertoire, and are mostly confined to use for particular seasons or feasts rather than in the 'histories' that likely formed the early core of the repertoire.
There is more to it than that, of course, and I hope to come back to this with a look at the de psalmiis responsories now used after Epiphany in the new year.
In the meantime though, I thought a good way to wind up this series on the Advent responsories, would be to take a quick look at some of the early claims around the origin of the responsories.
Gennadius and Isidore
I've already discussed Gennadius' witness to a mid-fifth century search for suitable psalm based texts for responsories for both the Mass and Office.
Another key reference point is Isidore of Seville's De Ecclesiis Officiis, which claims an Italian (but not specifically Roman) origin for them. The difficulty with this theory though, is just how widespread the several distinctive 'dialects' of responsories seem to be - indeed the early Coptic office also apparently used from form of responsory.
Accordingly, an eighth century text's claims on their origins, the Ratio de cursus, which claims Gallic origins for them, is of particular interest.
The Ratio de Cursus
Written by an Irish monk, the Ratio de Cursus is largely a defense of the validity of the Irish and Gallican forms of the divine office in the face of Carolingian efforts to impose the Roman and Benedictine forms universally.
Its main argument is that although Rome's Office may derive from St Peter's authority, the distinctive liturgies of other places too, had their roots in the teaching of the other apostles who evangelised them, as well as their successor bishops who developed and safeguarded those forms of the Office.
While some of its claims for the Gallican and Irish liturgy in particular are surely overstated, it is an intriguing document for several reasons.
First, it provides a useful witness to the existence of and awareness of several different of local Office traditions in use at that time in both the Easter and West, such as those of Alexandria, Antioch and Milan.
Secondly and more controversially, he argues that these different traditions reflect the patterns taught by different apostles, transmitted and developed through their successor bishops (for which he provides lists for several places).
The idea of the Office as either a divine or apostolic tradition, safeguarded and developed by the bishops, is not one you will find teased out in most standard books on the history of the Office, which are mostly more concerned with either the search for Jewish origins for it; or alternatively argue that the Office did not exist at all before the fourth century.
But in fact there are a number of earlier references to the Office as an ecclesial or apostolic tradition, and the topic deserves more exploration.
Thirdly, it is clear that the author has actually had very little contact with either the Roman or Benedictine Offices, and knew little or nothing about their history.
Ratio de cursus on the origin of the responsories
The key section of the document for our purposes, though, is this statement:
John the Evangelist chanted the first liturgy in Gaul, then later blessed Polycarp, disciple of saint John, then Iraneus, who was third bishop of Lyons of Gaul, sang this liturgy among the Gauls. From there, they composed reciprocal antiphons and responsories or chants [sonus] and Alleluias as a flow in modulations of the writings of the New and Old Testament,not from their own writings, but from the sacred scriptures. And the order of he Church, namely the liturgy of the Gauls, travelled the whole world and was diffused through the entire globe, which Jerome the priest ordained...(Trans Constant Mews, in Lynette Olson (ed), St Samson of dol and the earliest History of Brittany, Cornwall and Wales).
Whether we accept the claim that the responsories were Gallic in origin or not, it is clear that by the eighth century at least, the responsories were certainly not viewed as a Roman creation by those outside its sphere of influence.
Meanwhile, I hope you have found this series of interest (and any comments on it, on or offline will be welcome). I plan to go back and fill in footnotes for these posts, and may try and pull together a distillation of it over at Psallam Domino in due course).
