Pray Tell is running a series on the liturgical history of Collegeville. The sub-series “From the Archives” reprints some of the Liturgy Committee meeting minutes from 1963 to 1969. This sub-series is a behind-the-scenes look at liturgy in Collegeville during and immediately after the Second Vatican Council.
The next record from the Liturgy Committee:
Joint Meeting of the Liturgy and Opus Dei Committees Together With Other Members of the Community
Jan. 13, 1964
Present were Father Abbot, Fathers John, Daniel, Godfrey, Emeric, Bertram, Vitus, Michael, Benedict, Aelred, Ronald, Camillus, Hilary, Luke, Urban, Wenceslaus, Leon, Fr. Adam and Bros. Gerard and Matthew.
Father John opened the meeting with a summary of the previous meeting of the liturgy committee on Jan. 10. The meeting then continued with a discussion of a vernacular breviary for the community. At the present time it seems that we will have to use two books. One would be a Confraternity edition containing the Psalms and Canticles—such an edition was published by the St. Anthony Guild in 1950; the other would consist of the Antiphons, Versicles, etc., which we would have multilithed. Lessons would be read out of a separate book. Although using two books may be a little impractical at first, it should work out all right. Normally Matins will be easy, since the Psalms follow in regular sequence.
Father Emeric asked Father Abbot if the Opus Dei committee had been disbanded, since he thought that the vernacular breviary was one of the chief matters in the practical order that the committee would have like to discuss after their discussions of the theology of the Divine Office. Father Abbot replied that the Opus Dei committee had been formed to carry out very important discussions on the community’s attitude towards the Divine Office, and that it had not been disbanded.
Some difficulties of vernacular recitation were pointed out next. Father Aelred anticipated the formation of a “Latin-society” once vernacular recitation is begun. The absurdity of reciting hymns will become evident then, as well as the fact that the translations are usually poor. Father Hilary said that modern translations of ancient texts tend to be more flowing today, something to be considered before we adopt a final text. All this points out the need for a lot of experimentation in community recitation.
At this point Father Ronald said that we Benedictines should think of a monastic breviary, and not of the eventual adoption of the Roman breviary. Monastic spirituality and the spirituality of the secular priests are essentially different. The adoption of the Roman breviary would mean that we will become like secular priests. In reply to Father Ronald, Father John called attention to St. Benedict’s mind on the matter, as reflected in such statements as “sicut psallat ecclesia Romana.” Father Aelred said that our adoption of the Roman breviary would not mean that we would drop Matins if the seculars did. Further, we could supplement the Roman breviary with monastic offices. Father Michael thought that Father Ronald was speaking about long-range objectives, while our present problem was one of short-term objectives. Other abbies, as Father John mentioned, are expecting us to take the lead.
Father Benedict said that he found the two proposals given in a past issue of Confrere and in the minutes of Jan. 10 not very credible. In Confrere the law is interpreted against its tenor and wording. Father Godfrey’s argument about a moral right to pray the Office in the vernacular is not epikeia. It’s using the wording of the text against the mind of the author. On the basis of an appeal to moral right, priests could pray the Office in the vernacular even now, or the Canon out loud. The approbation we would need for the vernacular breviary would be that of 36:3 and 36:4 of the Constitution on the Liturgy, where it is stated that approbation must be given by the Ordinary of the diocese, since he must guarantee standardization.
Father Aelred also did not think that our interpretation of 101:2 and 3 was accurate. It seems to be [a] manipulation of the text of the Constitution. Other members of the community were also aware of this, but didn’t seem to care enough about Canon Law to protest. Now, it seems that we could find justification for vernacular recitation someplace else. We are a clerical order who often have to recite [the] Office privately. In view of the inconvenience of switching back and forth between private vernacular recitation and public Latin recitation of the Office we would have grounds to stick to one text for recitation, a vernacular text.
Father John said that this avenue of approach to vernacular recitation had been his first one, but it had been laughed down.
Father Godfrey stated that the publication of his view in Confrere was somewhat premature, because it was only supposed to be the beginning of a discussion. Now, in defense of his view, the following can be said. We are a community based on the common celebration of the Eucharist and common prayer. If the Brothers can’t learn Latin, then why can’t we pray in the vernacular? Also, there is the notion of the recitation of the Office as the public prayer of the Church, which was the reason why the community moved out of its choir-chapel. Vernacular recitation would enable our prayer to be more public. Further the Constitution on the Liturgy is aimed at the internal reform of the Church. One means to this reform is the recitation of the Divine Office in the vernacular. Whether the legal handle would hold up, he didn’t know. It does seem to be something of a subterfuge.
To Father Bertram’s question of whether the Constitution was preceptive or directive, Father John replied that it was preceptive.
Please leave a reply.