Suggestion: Christian Prayer: the Liturgy of the Hours

I would love to see this in Logos.

[Y] [Y]

Dan, I wholeheartedly agree. I would, too.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306375#Comment_306375

[Y]

Dan Francis

It would be great to have… One thing you might find helpful is a little program called universalis IF bought on your iOS device, it gives you a registration code usable for the desktop versions. It has things basically the way you would like to have them layer out…. It is missing the alternate ratings of the fathers and appendixes of poetry, but is pretty complete. Seearch for it and download the same version to your computer and see how it works for you. I haven't touched my 4 volume set in years.

-dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306462#Comment_306462

I would prefer the 4 volume Liturgy of the Hours, I pray it daily. It's much richer with the Early Church Father and Church documents found in the Office of the Readings. The daily prayers seldom are focused on the saints of celebration for the day in Christian Prayer. It's just an abbreviated version.

If we are going to do anything, why not go the whole mile? [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306474#Comment_306474

Preferably with the 2 years of readings rather than just 1 (cost issue cut to 1)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306518#Comment_306518

Preferably with the 2 years of readings rather than just 1 (cost issue cut to 1)

What do you mean MJ? The 4 volume Liturgy of the Hours has the same readings every year.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306584#Comment_306584

The 4 volume Liturgy of the Hours has the same readings every year.

I know - that was the cost cutting. Honest, I didn't make that up.[:)] I believe that it was an appendix in the back of Christian Prayer that gave the 2 year cycle. A copy is attached but I know I have typos ... one of which I fixed after printing to PDF.4682.Office of Readings.pdf

For those not familiar with the Mass readings, the Gospels are not included in the Office of Readings because they appear every year in the readings for daily Mass and the synoptics once every three years on Sundays. Yeah, I know we're slow taking 2 years to read the Bible - but our Bible is longer and it's read out loud (in this context, at least).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306668#Comment_306668

Thanks MJ, didn't know that. But given the world, especially all the clergy (Deacons, Priests and Bishops) who are bound to pray the 4-volume Liturgy of the Hours use the printed one, in the interest of unity I would be just as happy to join in with the version as printed! (4 volume). Actually I do pray that every day which is why I would love to see it in Logos.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306668#Comment_306668

For those not familiar with the Mass readings, the Gospels are not included in the Office of Readings because they appear every year in the readings for daily Mass and the synoptics once every three years on Sundays. Yeah, I know we're slow taking 2 years to read the Bible - but our Bible is longer and it's read out loud (in this context, at least).

Did you take the Evelyn Woods course? In the Episcopal Church we take 3 yrs to read the bible. No speed reading here. [:P]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306729#Comment_306729

who are bound to pray the 4-volume Liturgy of the Hours use the printed one, in the interest of unity

Cycle of Scripture Readings in the Office
of Readings

143. The cycle of readings from sacred Scripture in the
office of readings takes into account both those special seasons during
which by an ancient tradition particular books are to be read and the
cycle of readings at Mass. The liturgy of the hours is thus coordinated
with the Mass in such a way that the scriptural readings in the office
complement the readings at Mass and so provide a complete view of the
history of salvation.

144. Without prejudice to the exception noted in no. 73,
there are no readings from the Gospel in the liturgy of the hours, since
in the Mass each year the Gospel is read in its entirety.

145. There are two cycles of biblical readings. The first
is a one-year cycle and is incorporated into The Liturgy of the Hours; the
second, given in the supplement for optional use, is a two-year cycle,
like the cycle of readings at weekday Masses in Ordinary Time.

146. The two-year cycle of readings for the liturgy of the
hours is so arranged that each year there are readings from nearly all the
books of sacred Scripture as well as longer and more difficult texts that
are not suitable for inclusion in the Mass. The New Testament as a whole
is read each year, partly in the Mass, partly in the liturgy of the hours;
but for the Old Testament books a selection has been made of those parts
that are of greater importance for the understanding of the history of
salvation and for deepening devotion.

The complementarity between the readings in the liturgy of
the hours and in the Mass in no way assigns the same texts to the same
days or spreads the same books over the same seasons. This would leave the
liturgy of the hours with the less important passages and upset the
sequence of texts. Rather this complementarity necessarily demands that
the same book be used in the Mass and in the liturgy of the hours in
alternate years or that, if it is read in the same year, there be some
interval in between.

147. During Advent, following an ancient tradition,
passages are read from Isaiah in a semicontinuous sequence, alternating in
a two-year cycle. In addition, the Book of Ruth and certain prophecies
from Micah are read. Since there are special readings from 17 to 24
December (both dates included), readings for the Third Week of Advent
which fall on these dates are omitted.

148. From 29 December until 5 January the readings for
Year I are taken from the Letter to the Colossians (which considers the
incarnation of the Lord within the context of the whole history of
salvation) and the readings for Year II are taken from the Song of Songs
(which foreshadows the union of God and humanity in Christ): "God the
Father prepared a wedding feast for God his Son when he united him with
human nature in the womb of the Virgin, when he who is God before all ages
willed that his Son should become man at the end of the ages. [7]

149. From 7 January until the Saturday after the Epiphany
the readings are eschatological texts from Isaiah 60-66 and Baruch.
Readings remaining unused are omitted for that year.

150. During Lent the readings for the first year are
passages from Deuteronomy and the Letter to the Hebrews. Those for the
second year review the history of salvation from Exodus, Leviticus, and
Numbers. The Letter to the Hebrews interprets the Old Covenant in the
light of the paschal mystery of Christ. A passage from the same letter, on
Christ's sacrifice (Heb 9:11-28), is read on Good Friday; another, on the
Lord's rest (Heb 4:1-16), is read on Holy Saturday. On the other days of
Holy Week the readings in Year I are the third and fourth Songs of the
Servant of the Lord and extracts from Lamentations; in Year II the prophet
Jeremiah is read, as a type of Christ in his passion.

151. During the Easter season, apart from the First and
Second Sundays of Easter and the solemnities of the Ascension and
Pentecost, there are the traditional readings from the First Letter of
Peter, the Book of Revelation, and the Letters of John (for Year 1), and
from the Acts of the Apostles (for Year II).

152. From the Monday after the feast of the Baptism of the
Lord until Lent and from the Monday after Pentecost until Advent there is
a continuous series of thirty-four weeks in Ordinary Time.

This series is interrupted from Ash Wednesday until
Pentecost. On the Monday after Pentecost Sunday the cycle of readings in
Ordinary Time is resumed, beginning with the week after the one
interrupted because of Lent; the reading assigned to the Sunday is
omitted.

In years with only thirty-three weeks in Ordinary Time,
the week immediately following Pentecost is dropped, in order to retain
the readings of the last weeks which are eschatological readings.

The books of the Old Testament are arranged so as to
follow the history of salvation: God reveals himself in the history of his
people as he leads and enlightens them in progressive stages. This is why
prophetic books are read along with the historical books, but with due
consideration of the period in which the prophets lived and taught. Hence,
the cycle of readings from the Old Testament contains, in Year I, the
historical books and prophetic utterances from the Book of Joshua as far
as, and including, the time of the exile. In Year II, after the readings
from Genesis (read before Lent), the history of salvation is resumed after
the exile up to the time of the Maccabees. Year II includes the later
prophets, the wisdom literature, and the narratives in Esther, Tobit, and
Judith.

The letters of the apostles not read at special times are
distributed through the year in a way that takes into account the readings
at Mass and the chronological order in which these letters were written.

153. The one-year cycle is shortened in such a way that
each year special passages from sacred Scripture are read, but in
correlation with the two-year cycle of readings at Mass, to which it is
intended to be complementary.

154. Proper readings are assigned for solemnities and
feasts; otherwise the readings are taken from the respective Common of
Saints.

155. As far as possible, each passage read keeps to a
certain unity. In order therefore to strike a balance in length (otherwise
difficult to achieve in view of the different literary genres of the
books), some verses are occasionally omitted, though omissions are always
noted. But it is permissible and commendable to read the complete passage
from an approved text.

==========

My personal preference is for the more commonly available one year cycle to be used communally in the parish, for the two year cycle to be used privately, and for various communities to make their own choice.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306783#Comment_306783

I understand MJ. But the Breviary is what clergy pray. If we are going to be in unity, having a breviary that reflects two years would facilitate people reading it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306828#Comment_306828

Well all I can say is, as you see in #146, the second year's reading is optional and in a supplement (that I have never seen actually). But more importantly, check "The Order of Prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours and Celebration of the Eucharist", the 2012 version is out or check the 2011 version. You will see the readings are identical, they do not even designate a Year 1/2 for the LOH readings . The book is the "ORDO", the definition of everything required for the Mass and LOH/Liturgy readings. You'll find one in every sacristy I suspect.

Maybe some religious order uses their own ORDO and prays both years, like I said I have never seen it at any public prayer I have attended in the Archdiocese; everyone reads from the same Breviary which does not even include the supplement. It would be hard to pray something different than everyone else at a public setting [:)].

Here's a copy of the 4 volume breviary I am referring to.

Here's a good explanation of the ORDO, they are by diocese/region and are approved by the Committee on Divine Worship, National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

(EDIT: I was responding to your post But my quote is from GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS Congregation for Divine Worship... which is now gone!!)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/306911#Comment_306911

Yes, the second year is optional and is printed in at least one edition of Christian Prayer. Yes, Ordos generally don't include the option. Yes, most religious orders have their own Ordo which one must "merge" with the diocese-specific ordo. Yes, I have the 4 volume Liturgy of the Hours series. Yes, I have provided texts and rubrics for a combined Service of Light/Vespers/Office of Readings parish service for many months. Yes, my parish has daily Morning and Evening Prayer with Compline once a month. To me the elements determining an individual's "best practices' depends upon:

denomination or rite
practice of their parish
practice of any lay order to which they might belong
advice of spiritual adviser
personal inclination

I'm merely suggesting that since cost is not a consideration for the additional Scripture link, it is preferable that Logos offer the option. It's no more of a deal than Logos not having to repeat the Ordinaries because they can offer the 4 volumes as a single resource.

As for Logos to be able to tell use what our individual parishes will do ... I think even with our diocesan and religious order ordos we might get it wrong: An example:

St Mary Magdalen and different readings

Posted by universalis on 22 July 2009

Two people have asked why their missals show Song of Songs 3:1-4
and 2 Corinthians 5:14-17 as First Readings for today, while Universalis
shows Exodus 16:1-5,9-15.

The answer is that the fact that the missals and Lectionary print
those readings doesn’t mean that they should actually ever be used.

Here is the what the Introduction to the Lectionary says:

83. Where they exist, proper readings are given for the celebrations
of the saints, that is, biblical passages about the saint or the…
saint’s life… Even in the case of a memorial these readings must take
place of the weekday readings for the same day…

In some cases there are accommodated readings… Use of such readings
does not seem binding, except for compelling pastoral reasons…

… Above all [the priest] will make sure not to omit too often or
needlessly the readings assigned for each day in the weekday Lectionary…

The way that this works for St Mary Magdalen is as follows:

First Reading – Song of Songs 3:1-4 and 2 Corinthians 5:14-17 are “accommodated readings” and so should not be used except for ‘compelling pastoral reasons’. Exodus 16:1-5,9-15 is the “reading assigned for each day” and should not be omitted ‘too often or needlessly’.

Psalm – Psalm 62 is an “accommodated reading” and so should not be used except for ‘compelling pastoral reasons’. Psalm 77 is the “reading assigned for each day” and should not be omitted ‘too often or needlessly’.

Gospel – John 20:1-2. 11-18 is a “proper reading” and must be used.

A good cross-reference in this case is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ web site. Its page of Mass readings for today displays exactly the same texts as Universalis, for exactly the same reasons.

The rules are different for feasts and solemnities as opposed to
memorials. In a local calendar that promoted St Mary Magdalen to a
higher rank, Universalis would show the other readings.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307024#Comment_307024

To me the elements determining an individual's "best practices' depends upon:

denomination or rite

practice of their parish

practice of any lay order to which they might belong

advice of spiritual adviser

personal inclination

I have prayed public LOH in US dioceses and it follows the Diocese Ordo and Breviary, without exception. I only suggested deferring the optional readings as there is most certainly a constraint, it will take longer. Get the breviary version out that most used, is all.

Your experience and involvement in designing your own prayers based on your own priorities is interesting.

Archbishop Dolan quotes Canon Law in the book "The Priests of the Third Millennium", saying "The Church, fulfilling the priestly function of Christ, celebrates the liturgy of the hours...the Church praises him without interruption and intercedes for the salvation of the whole world." (#1173). It is Liturgy, not just prayers. That is why in part the Ordo exists (also to counter the same problem with the Mass, yet people use their own readings all the time because they ...can I guess). If you watch the Pope pray, he has the Breviary out. No optional readings; do the red, say the black.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307045#Comment_307045

I actually prefer the term "Divine Office" because office evokes the sense of work (and obligation) - the LOH is the work of the Church. However, I'm still mad that the monasteries stole the Hours from laity - and made them too confusing and time consuming for many people. As the LOH historically grew out of Jewish home prayer practices, I think this is a real shame. If I recall the Didache refers to the Our Father being prayed three times a day i.e. Morning prayer, Mass and Evening Prayer. (if its not the Didache, its another early Christian writing).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307047#Comment_307047

I actually prefer the term "Divine Office" because office evokes the sense of work (and obligation) - the LOH is the work of the Church.

It is more than a preference, you are actually correct if you are referring to the 4-volume Breviary. I say LOH out of habit and it's not correct. LOH means any formal prayers said at specific times around the clock, of which Divine Office, the official prayer written by the Church (and reflected in the 4-volume Breviary) is one such set of prayers that can be used. There are also others, like the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and some written by various saints. Christian Prayer and Shorter Christian Prayer are simplified versions of prayers that many times match the Divine Office, especially Morning and Evening Prayer, but often times not. At ordination Priests and Deacons are bound by vow to pray the Divine Office (Deacons just morning and evening prayer at a minimum, priests all 7 offices of the Divine Office).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307055#Comment_307055

I must say, I am totally good with the 4-volume breviary, too. I just don't own the hard copy. actually, I also use the app from divingoffice dot org, which I have heard kind of combined Christian Prayer and the 4 volume, . . . correct?

Are there some items in Christian Prayer which are not in the 4-volume?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307178#Comment_307178

I must say, I am totally good with the 4-volume breviary, too. I just don't own the hard copy. actually, I also use the app from divingoffice dot org, which I have heard kind of combined Christian Prayer and the 4 volume, . . . correct?

Are there some items in Christian Prayer which are not in the 4-volume?

Not really, Christian Prayer is a simpler abridged version in some cases. The true 4 volume breviary is only found at www.ebreviary.com, some of which is paid only. But it is 100% correct. Universalis and divineoffice.org are not accurate with the published breviary as I recall.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307264#Comment_307264

Universalis and divineoffice.org are not accurate with the published breviary as I recall.

I've not used divineoffice.org but find Universalis ro be very accurate - it is from Universalis that my quote on the difficulty of accuracy was taken. But then again, unless one is planning a communal prayer liturgy, I don't push precision - being presented in a way that makes it easy to pray is more important to me than accuracy that turns people away. There is enough flexibility and variability in the form that "errors" are sure to be the actual practice somewhere.[;)]

Are there some items in Christian Prayer which are not in the 4-volume?

The only thing that I am aware of being in Christian Prayer but not the 4 volume set is the table of the two years of readings. Christian Prayer does not include the Office of Readings - just some samples. It is designed for laity who wish to pray the morning and evening prayers ... with a nod to the other hours.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307292#Comment_307292

i don't recall the "intercessions" portion of M & E prayers in Christian Prayer to be found in divineoffice.org. I guess I had thought that portion was peculiar to the CP version.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307292#Comment_307292

but find Universalis or be very accurate

If I am referring to the same site, www.universalis.com, IMHO this is a major translation difference with what appears to be a book of prayer but in fact it is a canon of liturgy, just like the Roman Missal. That's a lot different than subtle inaccuracies or "errors".

For example, today, in Morning prayer:

First, they don't use the correct opening, it's "O God come to my assistance". They use "O God Come come to my aid". The Latin this is translated from is Deus in adjutorium meum intende. I guess they justify it under the norm of a dynamic equivalent translation, but it's not how it's said or sung in any of the dioceses around here (I would bet no where "officially"). Plus, if you ever heard "O God come to my assistance" sung in chant, you realize that part of the beauty of the Church's translation is tradition, inspiration, and beauty.

The translation is not the approved translation (note the Breviary has translation prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. The ICEL prepares the Missal used at Mass). Changing the translation here, because it is liturgy, prepared by the Church through the ICEL, is not different than someone changing the prayers at Mass. If we think this is ok, why not my own translation of the Creed? Words of Institution? Eucharistic prayers?

As another example , the three antiphons in the breviary are:

When will I come to the end of my pilgrimage and enter the presence of God?
Show us, Lord, the light of your mercy.
Blessed are you, Lord, in the vault of heaven.

In Universalis they are:

When can I enter and see the face of God?
Lord, show us the radiance of your mercy.
The vaults of heaven ring with your praise, O Lord.

I particularly like the dynamic equivalence of the third one - it clearly does not have the same meaning as the third antiphon of the breviary. The first is just as bad. At this point I would humbly suggest that "accuracy" certainly has not diminished the beauty of the breviary translation, especially since it is Holy Mother Church herself that gave it to us.

I actually have a theory - and it's just that - Universalis could not get rights or would not pay for them, so they had to make their own translation. But the bottom line, if you are looking for breviary, the Universalis is NOT it - inaccurate because it is a vastly different translation. Accurate versions exist online (ebreviary.com) Hence my original critical comment about it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307314#Comment_307314

If I am referring to the same site, www.universalis.com, IMHO this is a major translation difference with what appears to be a book of prayer but in fact it is a canon of liturgy, just like the Roman Missal. That's a lot different than subtle inaccuracies or "errors".

I believe that the universalis site uses the same non-ICEL translation common to the British Isles and Australia ... roughly. I don't recall the exact boundaries of the non-ICEL translation. There are also two ICEL translations, one used primarily in Africa and the one used in the US & Canada. I've never completely mapped the three approved English translations to the globe. Because universalis is based in the UK I would expect it to follow UK practice - so to me it is doing what I expect.

As long as I am in the education mode, you should also find separate LOH's for the Mozarabic rite (Toledo Spain), the Ambrosian rite (Milan Italy), Benedictines and Dominicans as well as some lesser known ones (including one for the Ursulines I think - rescue me fgh). Also the 27 or so Eastern Rites have their own LOH's. A good resource for the history is:
The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West
by Robert F. Taft which should be available in Logos (or Vyrso). This volume begins at the Jewish roots and the pre-Constantine practices making it a very good introduction for individuals who don't think of LOH as part of their tradition. BTW the term "Breviary" means abbreviated and comes from Gregory's abbreviation of the form. Both my circa 1900 Dominican Breviary (in Latin) and my Roman Breviary (circa 1950 - also Latin) are single volume books.

Dominic, You might be interested in the recent history
From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours: The Structural Reform of the Roman Office, 1964-1971
by Stanislaus Campbell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307178#Comment_307178

I also use the app from divingoffice dot org

I was disappointed to not find the underwater church I expected. However, switching from diving to divine I found a very nice site. I especially like the podcast which allows a more communal feeling to the prayer. Of course, I have to complain that the choir was Episcopalian when everyone everyone knows it should be Lutheran.[;)]. I'd recommend the site.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307397#Comment_307397

I also use the app from divingoffice dot org

I was disappointed to not find the underwater church I expected. However, switching from diving to divine

lol, lol. I was even spending several minutes thinking "what does she mean?", when, it FINALLY hit me!

Hey, not sure what you mean that the choir was Episcopalian? You mean on a Hymn that they used? That changes with each song, though, doesn't it? I do especially like the podcast. Very much so. But they don't include the intercessions section that I have in CP, which, strangely enough is a part of what attracted me to the prayers. I just loved how they set the prayer in the context of the time of day, and some of the other intercessions that they had, that helped me a bit out of a prayer rut.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307314#Comment_307314

If I am referring to the same site, www.universalis.com, IMHO this is a major translation difference with what appears to be a book of prayer but in fact it is a canon of liturgy, just like the Roman Missal. That's a lot different than subtle inaccuracies or "errors".

I am lost on a lot of the discussion between you and MJ because I don't have a working comfort with all the terms you are using (though I essentially "get" most of them), from "office" to "Missal" to everything--including, especially, earlier posts.) But this overall post sounds like you are saying you especially like to have a translation that is approved, because a) it is approved and b) everyone goes along with a wording they know, verses being out of sync and c) that a different wording can/does change the nuance of a phrase.

Sounds like discussions about "what Bible translation is best for church" that many of us have, even if we are not Catholic.

Now, are the Bible portions in the breviary (Psalmody, for example) are not from a "Bible Translation" (like NAB) but a different translation, just for the liturgy? Incidentally, I visit the blog thesacredpage, and a while back they had a review of the NABRe, which was cool.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307314#Comment_307314

If I am referring to the same site, www.universalis.com, IMHO this is a major translation difference with what appears to be a book of prayer but in fact it is a canon of liturgy, just like the Roman Missal. That's a lot different than subtle inaccuracies or "errors".

Sounds like discussions about "what Bible translation is best for church" that many of us have, even if we are not Catholic.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307345#Comment_307345

If I am referring to the same site, www.universalis.com, IMHO this is a major translation difference with what appears to be a book of prayer but in fact it is a canon of liturgy, just like the Roman Missal. That's a lot different than subtle inaccuracies or "errors".

I believe that the universalis site uses the same non-ICEL translation common to the British Isles and Australia ... roughly. I don't recall the exact boundaries of the non-ICEL translation. There are also two ICEL translations, one used primarily in Africa and the one used in the US & Canada. I've never completely mapped the three approved English translations to the globe. Because universalis is based in the UK I would expect it to follow UK practice - so to me it is doing what I expect.

As long as I am in the education mode, you should also find separate LOH's for the Mozarabic rite (Toledo Spain), the Ambrosian rite (Milan Italy), Benedictines and Dominicans as well as some lesser known ones (including one for the Ursulines I think - rescue me fgh). Also the 27 or so Eastern Rites have their own LOH's. A good resource for the history is: The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West by Robert F. Taft which should be available in Logos (or Vyrso). This volume begins at the Jewish roots and the pre-Constantine practices making it a very good introduction for individuals who don't think of LOH as part of their tradition. BTW the term "Breviary" means abbreviated and comes from Gregory's abbreviation of the form. Both my circa 1900 Dominican Breviary (in Latin) and my Roman Breviary (circa 1950 - also Latin) are single volume books.

Dominic, You might be interested in the recent history From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours: The Structural Reform of the Roman Office, 1964-1971 by Stanislaus Campbell

Thanks MJ, that confirms my point. My perspective is for the faithful in the US, outside of that is a different picture. Maybe I have inadvertently confused the issue if some are reading this outside the US. I apologize for that.

Now that we have defined our domain, there is only 1 approved ICEL version of the Divine Office in the US. The other is only approved in Africa. The third English version, as you correctly state, is not approved by the ICEL. Any of the other versions you cite are probably wonderful but they are not approved for the faithful in the US unless there is an affiliation with those groups recognized by its bishops or patriarchs.

I think my fundamental point here is one you may have missed - as this is Liturgy, like the Canon of the Missal, I am voicing an opinion that we as Catholic faithful should avoid non ICEL-approved versions for the same reason we would avoid non-ICEL approved versions of the Roman Missal, i.e. the prayers at our Mass. Of course people can pray what they want, especially privately, but in public prayer one might ask why the faithful deems itself a higher authority than the bishops that authorize the ICEL and its decisions on canon in the first place. Certainly my opinion is therefore, that the faithful in the US should not be using the Universalis site if, as you state, their translation is non-ICEL approved. IMHO the fact that the bishops of the US have not approved it is enough for me.

That is my only point. I respect that you and many other of the faithful may believe differently.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307488#Comment_307488

But this overall post sounds like you are saying you especially like to have a translation that is approved, because a) it is approved and b) everyone goes along with a wording they know, verses being out of sync and c) that a different wording can/does change the nuance of a phrase.

That's a good summary! As Catholics we are called to obedience of our bishops, as successors to the apostles. The US bishops authorized the ICEL to develop a translation.

Now, are the Bible portions in the breviary (Psalmody, for example) are not from a "Bible Translation" (like NAB) but a different translation, just for the liturgy?

It's actually quite close to the NAB but it has been 'tweaked', hence it's somewhat a translation of its own.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307553#Comment_307553

Now, are the Bible portions in the breviary (Psalmody, for example) are not from a "Bible Translation" (like NAB) but a different translation, just for the liturgy?

It's actually quite close to the NAB but it has been 'tweaked', hence it's somewhat a translation of its own.

thanks, that clears it up some more for me.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307483#Comment_307483

Hey, not sure what you mean that the choir was Episcopalian?

The particular service that I listened to had an Episcopalian choir - now I'll grant that the Church of England has some good music but in honor of my Finnish Lutheran Grandmother, I have to admit that the GREAT music is Lutheran. Her husband was a Church of Christ minister - so that's where she attended church but she spent Sunday afternoons singing Finnish hymns in the Lutheran church.

Now, are the Bible portions in the breviary (Psalmody, for example) are
not from a "Bible Translation" (like NAB) but a different translation,
just for the liturgy?

Often the Psalms are the Grail translation because the Grail translation is translated with an ear for chanting. The translation used for other Scripture varies based on where you live - usually matching the translation used in Mass which can be NAB, NRSV, JB or CEV (I'm missing at least one). At one time, our cathedral used a contraband lectionary - smuggled across the Canadian border. I even attended a training session put on the the United States Conference of Bishops that recommended we ignore the official US ritual book and use a contraband Canadian version for celebrations in the absence of a priest.

The problem facing the liturgical churches is that while practice is very similar, there has always been cultural accommodation - Antioch, Jerusalem, Damascus, Alexandria and Rome didn't all do exactly the same thing - they all followed the same outline but with variations that fit the local culture. Elements were borrowed or lost when political conditions caused waves of refugees. One of the worst effects of the Protestant Reformation on the Catholic Church was to the uniformity imposed on the liturgies of the Church. Vatican II recognized the need for cultural adaptation especially for Africa and Asia. So far, actual implementation has been a problem. However, now with the ease of travel, the multi-national employers and the internet, the problem is becoming very complex. The cultural groups one needs to accommodate are physically in one place. In the Seattle area the diocese succeeds in serving: general American, North American Spanish speaking, Mandarin and Cantonese speaking (1 service with 2 sermons) parishes, a Byzantine rite parish, a Maronite rite congregation, a Ruthenian rite congregation. The non-Latin rites report up a chain of command proper to the rite as well as to the local Latin-rite Bishop. Add in para-liturgical and devotional practices one has true unity in diversity.

I am lost on a lot of the discussion between
you and MJ because I don't have a working comfort with all the terms you
are using

Not to worry - most Catholics would be confused too. But as Catholics we are used to being part of one big family used to arguing over the most obscure points just because it's family tradition.[:O] What I would want you to take away from the discussion is that the prayer of the Church is historically meant to be prayed by everyone (I started another thread with references to Protestant versions of the prayer of the hours); that if a site or program appeals to you, use it ... it represents someone's practice somewhere, that when and if Logos provides a Liturgy of the Hours attached to dates it will be completely accurate for no one but close enough for everyone.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307548#Comment_307548

I think my fundamental point here is one you may have missed - as this is Liturgy, like the Canon of the Missal, I am voicing an opinion that we as Catholic faithful

Your fundamental point was not missed - I simply disagree. One beauty of American Catholicism is the blend of rites, languages and cultures so that a single diocese may contain within its boundaries a microcosm of the Universal church at prayer. It is one thing to know with your mind the diversity of the Universal church around the world; it is another to have the honor of actually experiencing it in one location.

Certainly my opinion is therefore, that the faithful in the US should not be using the Universalis site if, as you state, their translation is non-ICEL approved.

You realize, of course, that the person involved (Dan) is not Catholic? To me, the important element is that he finds value in psalm-based fixed hour prayer whether he chooses Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Orthodox versions.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307603#Comment_307603

Your fundamental point was not missed - I simply disagree. One beauty of American Catholicism is the blend of rites, languages and cultures so that a single diocese may contain within its boundaries a microcosm of the Universal church at prayer. It is one thing to know with your mind the diversity of the Universal church around the world; it is another to have the honor of actually experiencing it in one location.

Are there any places where you can point me to Church documents outlining the faithful's right to use unapproved liturgy? Certainly if someone is a member or participating in the liturgies of one of the non-Latin Rites and living in the US, that is perfectly acceptable. I am just wondering on what basis you believe that using non-ICEL approved liturgy is the right of the faithful or clergy to do, and does that right spread to other areas of Catholic doctrine or dogma that the faithful are free to reject if they choose. Or is there a Church document you can point me to that outlines what it means when a Bishop's Conference "approves for use", what that actually means? Maybe it doesn't mean what I assume it to mean.

This is a new area for me, I am grateful for the chance to learn. Thanks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307604#Comment_307604

I am not recommending unapproved liturgies for the faithful - I am saying that bishops have the right to permit/encourage ritual books from other jurisdictions being available to the faithful. In liturgy, one of the rules permitting/prohibiting certain practices is appeal to the practice of the cathedral.And I am saying that non-Catholics (the vast majority of Logos users) are not bound by Catholic discipline.

From the Code of Canon Law: Can. 928 The eucharistic celebration is to be
carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the
liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.

I'm too lazy to find a broader statement. But the intent is to allow a diocese to serve non-English speakers ... for us it was the Chinese who first needed their own parish where the services are in Chinese. It would be somewhat ludicrous for the USCCB to seek to develop and gain approval for all the languages in which services might be provided in the United States. You are correct that it is extra-ordinary (as opposed to ordinary) for an English language public service in the U.S. to use anything other than the USCCB approved texts. However, I can envision pastoral situations where for specific services another approved English translation would be used. However, there is one major exception under the jurisdiction of the now-Cardinal Wuerl (once co-bishop here): "However, from its erection, an Ordinariate will have the option of using the Roman Missal or the Book of Divine Worship already used by the Pastoral Provision or Anglican Use parishes."

Whether or not a text is ICEL is irrelevant in Canon law. The issue is one of approval by the national conference of bishops and the Vatican Congregation appropriate to the rite.

I also think that in matters of Church discipline we Catholics should develop a good sense of humor for absurdity: where I live, the NRSV can't be used because of the feminist bias ... but if I drive 2 hours north, the NRSV is the primary text.[:D] Because I belong to a Dominican parish, I can carry a cross with the corpus facing behind me ... but the cathedral must carry the cross with the corpus facing forward. [:D] Luckily, for me, the Anglicans have a similar obsession with rules so I have no trouble mapping out exactly what they do. But those silly Lutherans leave much undefined and let the PASTOR interpret it however he wants; I get lost! [:'(]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307646#Comment_307646

Whether or not a text is ICEL is irrelevant in Canon law. The issue is one of approval by the national conference of bishops and the Vatican Congregation appropriate to the rite.

I am confused, this seems contradictory. The ICEL was established by the Episcopal Conferences of the English speaking countries as their arm for liturgical translations. They ARE the bishops when it comes to translations. The ICEL consists of bishops at least in large part. Those same translations are then sent to the Congregation of Divine Worship for approval, in the case of US dioceses.

So these two sentences I quoted from your reply, MJ, seem to say completely contradictory things?

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307658#Comment_307658

It's more North American than English speaking countries, since the British translation is used more widely around the globe. {The Divine Office is the official text for the UK, Ireland, Australia,
New Zealand, as well as various countries across Africa and Asia.} There was strong debate years ago where many in the US felt that ICEL was a very poor translation and the British was preferred. I will admit I like what i see of the British version better than the American one. I will say Collegville's one volume was a masterpiece that should never have been suppressed. I am glad I have my copy of it...

-dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/307658#Comment_307658

They ARE the bishops when it comes to translations.

No, they are a bunch of hired hands working for the bishops.

from the ICEL site:

"Approval
of ICEL Texts

A conference of bishops must approve a text for liturgical use before
it may be published or distributed within the diocese of its
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and this approval must be confirmed by the
Apostolic See."

The authority is with the conference of bishops and the Apostolic See - the ICEL has no authority. Consider how long it has taken for the USCCB to get a text for the new Missal (next Sunday is D-day) approved both by themselves and the Vatican. Most ICEL texts are tweaked by a conference of bishops to reflect the language use in their jurisdiction.

I don't know why the conference of bishops for Wales/Britain (and Australia) chose to approve and present to the Vatican a non-ICEL translation. But that is what they say they did so I believe them. I don't keep track of translation arguments in the UK - the US provides enough amusement.

Addition from EWTN in response to what to use for Spanish services until the USCCB releases a Spanish Missal (anticipated sometime after the new Mexican Missal): "In the meantime, it makes sense to use the current Mexican missal for
Mass in Spanish although the use of missals currently approved by other
bishops' conferences is not excluded. At the same time, the celebrant
must defer to the liturgical calendar approved for the United States
and to all other questions of particular law such as the prescribed
moments for kneeling. "