Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 88

Vatican website translation:

88. Because the purpose of the office is to sanctify the day, the traditional sequence of the hours is to be restored so that once again they may be genuinely related to the time of the day when they are prayed, as far as this may be possible. Moreover, it will be necessary to take into account the modern conditions in which daily life has to be lived, especially by those who are called to labor in apostolic works.

Latin text:

88. Cum sanctificatio diei sit finis Officii, cursus Horarum traditus ita instauretur ut Horis veritas temporis, quantum fieri potest, reddatur, simulque ratio habeatur vitae hodiernae condicionum in quibus versantur praesertim ii qui operibus apostolicis incumbunt.

Slavishly literal translation:

88. Since the end/purpose of the Office would be the sanctification of the day, so the cursus of the Hours that has been handed down is to be restored in such as way so that truth of time for the Hours, insofar as it is able to be done, is re-achieved, and likewise the reason [for reforming the cursus of the Hours] should be maintained for the conditions of contemporary life in which those who are burdened with apostolic works especially carry on.

 

The Council Fathers here establish two principles that will guide the further reform of the Office.

First, since the Liturgy of the Hours exists as a liturgy of time, the various hours should be prayed at the times for which they are intended. Practices such as priests in active ministry praying all of the Breviary prayers for a particular day (Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline) in order from 11:00 PM till midnight, followed by the same set appointed for the new day from midnight to 1:00 AM are to end. Similarly religious communities were not to continue practices such as praying Vespers between the noon meal and one’s assigned afternoon labor or “anticipating” Matins and Lauds for the next day in early evening BEFORE praying Compline of the given day.

Second, presuming that the “truth of the Hours” is re-established, the further reform of the Office must take into account the wide variety of circumstances in which the Hours might be prayed. While an enclosed Trappist monastery might be able to celebrate Matins as a genuine Vigil sometime after midnight and before dawn with the “hinge” Hours of Lauds and Vespers coordinated with dawn and dusk, far too many active diocesan priests find interrupting their pastoral care to read sections of their Breviary at the appropriate times burdensome if not impossible. Some bishops agitated for a reform of the Divine Office in which monasteries and religious houses might continue to sanctify the day with liturgical prayer at various hours while active diocesan clergy would substitute devotional prayer (like recitation of the rosary) or a certain length of time spent in spiritual reading for the pensum of the Office, even though this would radically change the foundation of the Office as a liturgy of time.

Pray Tell readers might want to discuss how these two principles coalesce or conflict in the present circumstances of daily life. Enclosed and “open” monastic communities; contemplative and active religious communities; deacons, priests and bishops bound to the recitation of the Office; and laity praying their daily prayer might share how the balance between the sanctification of time and the demanding circumstances of contemporary life shape your experience of the Office.

Michael Joncas

Ordained in 1980 as a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN, Fr. (Jan) Michael Joncas holds degrees in English from the (then) College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, and in liturgical studies from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN and the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico of the Ateneo S. Anselmo in Rome. He has served as a parochial vicar, a campus minister, and a parochial administrator (pastor). He is the author of six books and more than two hundred fifty articles and reviews in journals such as Worship, Ecclesia Orans, and Questions Liturgiques. He has composed and arranged more than 300 pieces of liturgical music. He has recently retired as a faculty member in the Theology and Catholic Studies departments and as Artist in Residence and Research Fellow in Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

11 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 88”

  1. Peter Kwasniewski

    Thank you for raising this profoundly important question. The Divine Office should be structured in such a way that it can sustain contemplative monastic life, and then adapted for use by men and women in more active religious orders or by parochial clergy, and finally, adapted still more (if need be) for use by the laity. Sort of a telescoping principle, where the structure remains but the content can be lengthened or shortened.

    What happened instead was a total restructuring of the Office based on the “lowest common denominator” that made it thoroughly unsuitable for Christians consecrated to a life of prayer. Many of my acquaintances in the Benedictine world have told me that departing from their very full and rich monastic office was a disaster for their communities and that the ones who have been wise enough to embrace the traditional Office again are flourishing.

    I have had some experience of this, too, as an Oblate with the monastery of Norcia. Although I cannot pray all of the Office, I pray as much of it as I can, without sweating the rest; and using the same cursus of psalms week after week has been enormously enriching for my spiritual life. The words have become familiar companions that feed me more and more over time.

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady

      @Peter Kwasniewski – comment #1:
      Are there any ACTUAL figures to verify the claims that a) lots of people left Benedictine life because the Office was shortened, and b) lots of people entered Benedictine life because the Office was lengthened?

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        @Chris Grady – comment #2:
        I don’t know of any figures. But I find the claim rather absurd. We’re dealing with very complex and multi-faceted phenomena here, obviously, and identifying any kind of causality is most difficult… and at times a bit irresponsible too.

        As an aside, it’s an interesting question, what the so-called traditional full Benedictine office is. In Benedict’s time there was no feast of All Saints, no feast of the Immaculate Conception, and so forth. Anyone following the current (or 1962) Roman calendar has a problem that the office St. Benedict had in mind is necessarily altered, and quite radically over the course of the week and the year, by all the subsequent calendar changes. And of course Benedict had no Salve Regina or other Marian antiphons, but monks were singing them from c. the 12th century up until V2 – is that part of the traditional Benedictine Office? (We’ve restored them at St. John’s, btw, partially at my urging, and they’re in Latin.)

        And when Benedict says that “prayer in community should be short,” it is beyond dispute that he means the silent prayer after each psalm. He most likely meant that it should be but a minute or two, not some ten minutes lying prostrate as some monks had done. These pauses fell away in the centuries right after Benedict. They’ve been restored since V2 in the ‘progressive’ communities, especially in the US, but in my experience not so much in Europe. I wonder whether the ‘flourishing’ traditionalist communities have restored Benedict’s practice of much silent reflection throughout the Office? I hope so, but I rather doubt it.

        Finally, St. Benedict assumed that the Office was in the language the participants spoke in daily life. Is that too a principle necessary for faithfulness to the mind of Benedict? It’s worth asking.

        awr

    2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Peter Kwasniewski – comment #1:
      Let me recommend (yet again…) Stanislaus Campbell, From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours: The Structural Reform of the Roman Office 1964-1971.

      Campbell’s research shows that the commission initially considered something like what you’re suggesting, a 3-layer Roman Office with versions for religious houses who use Roman Office and need something more contemplative, for active clergy, and for laity. The proposal was rejected because it was not considered compatible with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council. The commission felt bound to the letter and the spirit of the Council, and couldn’t do something just because it ‘seemed better’ to them, if it wasn’t what the Council fathers called for.

      But some of the members noted, citing articles 37-40 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, that local adaptation and differences (regional and other) would mean that the revised Roman Office could talk on various forms at the level of implementation and celebration, if not in the official Latin text.

      awr

      Reply
  2. Todd Flowerday

    It seems to me that there was too much rigidity in the Office, and it remains burdened by this. Cloistered communities, especially ones with the benefit of Scripture scholars and liturgists possibly could be entrusted with a local reform. The various Benedictine monasteries I visit all have different approaches, selections, and such. Not a bad thing at all. One-week cycles or four weeks: who cares? Let the communities decide.

    What is lacking in conciliar reform are “front porch” experiences of the Liturgy of the Hours: family-friendly liturgies that provide weekly selections of psalms, but not the entire Psalter, plus a pruning away of material that is not essential. Another positive development has been the publication of many resources for the cathedral office. Too bad too many hard-core Catholics see this as beneath them.

    Reply
  3. Chris Grady

    There’s a metropolitan archbishop in the Anglophone world who will remain nameless (unless you know my email address and ask nicely!) who recently told a gathering of clergy at a conference breakfast “I like to rise early, shower, shave, dress and get all my Office said for the day – and then, your day’s your own.”

    Reply
  4. Rev. Richard Middleton

    I too have felt the Liturgy of the Hours is on the thin side and have made the following accommodations:

    Office of Readings: Two nocturns employing the psalms of Weeks I and II, and II and IV and on Sundays, feasts and solemnities a third nocturn from the Extended Vigil although I use the gospel for the day rather than those given in the LH. I also use the 2-year lectionary and other print and online resources for the second reading and for a sermon following the gospel for extended vigils.

    Morning and Evening Prayer: On feasts and solemnities days, I use the Monastic Diurnal.

    Daytime Prayer: I occasionally use the gradual psalms for the additional hours depending on the time of day.

    Night Prayer: I use the 3 traditional psalms, 4, 91 and 134 every evening.

    I realize this may not be kosher in all respects, but the Office is too important to me not to enrich it when and where possible.

    Reply
  5. Michelle Francl-Donnay

    I have been praying the office for 30 years, as a married lay woman, as a young widow, as a wife and mother of infants and mother of teens. I have prayed with a local monastic community, and on my own.

    It has made sacred the days — almost 11, 000 of them. On balancing praying at the appropriate time, and pastoral/apostolic/family needs, since I am not obliged to the office (only seriously bound to it) I can let pressing needs derail a particular hour, and pick up the next hour without guilt.

    From my own practice, I would say that an ongoing, decades long, commitment to the LOH is possible, even in an over busy life. I almost never missed praying Compline (354 nights out of 365), for all these years. Even when my children were infants, I would nurse them and pray Compline (at least until the youngest decided to grab the book and tore the page). The other two hinges have varied as my life has varied. Living as a single woman, the day opened and closed with the hours like clockwork. With preschoolers and teens, no so much, though most days I managed either Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer. Some days were more contemplative than others, and did not involve propping my breviary next to the stove so I could keep an eye on dinner.

    For the laity, I would argue, the office would have more traction if we didn’t present it as an all or nothing practice. When I teach other people the LOH, I suggest beginning with Compline. It is short, simple and comes at a time of day when many people can take the time to pray it. And it may be that, for some people, this is the only part of the LOH they pray. And I think this would be fine.

    I would argue against having a different office for the laity. My awareness that I am joining in the same round of psalms, prayers and readings as so many other individuals around the world, underscores for me the unity of the Body of Christ. I pick up the work and lay it down, knowing that we are all filling in the gaps for each other in some universal song of praise.

    Reply
  6. Alan Stout

    I really appreciate the comments in the article and especially the replies of Anthony Ruff, OSB. In addition Michelle, I am grateful for your devotion to the office and the proof of its sanctification of the day, not exclusively for priests or religious.

    A note on reform: Currently I notice that among some of the more pious lay groups, the liturgy of the hours is replaced by the rosary (not without historical precedent, certainly) and is also crowded out by other pieties: visits to adoration chapels, angelus, examinations of conscience, other types of prayers and offerings. While each of these devotions are good in and of themselves, the resulting exclusion of the liturgy of the hours in daily life appears to be a loss.
    The tradition and identity of the Christian faithful sanctifying their day with the psalms is profound. To regain this as central to lay / secular clerical Christian ritual identity would be an excellent base from which to continue to promote renewal. Add to this an incredible diversity in how psalms may be “celebrated” (the style of Anglican chant always gets to me) and we have a very interesting, diverse, powerful prayer life. In sum, it’s not a matter of time, it’s a matter of priorities.

    Reply
    1. Michelle Francl-Donnay

      @Alan Stout – comment #9:

      Alan, thank you….I couldn’t agree more about reclaiming the centrality of the Psalter for the faithful. I don’t think we can reject it as unworkable for the laity, my experience is that implementation is rarely tried.

      Reply
  7. Fr Richard Duncan CO

    The problem here is that the principle of “veritas horarum” can only be followed strictly by monastic communities for whom the Opus Dei is the main focus of their vocation. For the rest of us, we have to fit it into the rhythm of our day as best we can. In any case, there is something quite liberating about saying Compline before breakfast. Try it and see!

    My own practice is to say Prime and the Little Hours in the morning (usually before breakfast), Vespers around midday (depending on whether I am saying Mass or hearing confessions at that time), Mattins and Lauds in the afternoon and Compline before retiring at night. This happens to have been (more or less) the practice of St Philip Neri, my Patron, and if I had to choose between his path to heaven and that of those who insist on a strict interpretation of SC n 88, I know which I would plump for.

    Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Michael Joncas

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading