Author Topic: Breviarium Romanum (Read 8466 times)

gilbertgea · « **on:** October 11, 2007, 11:41:45 AM »

Does anyone know if there is a good Breviarium Romanum published by a reputable traditional Catholic publisher? Angelus Press offers an abbreviated Divine Office, but I've not been able to find anything else more complete.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2007, 11:53:56 AM »

Hello, Gilbert! Well, I know that Baronius Press was supposed to come out with a complete 1961 Breviary this year, but I found out it will not be until hopefully next year when it will be completed. The nice thing about it is that it is to have the traditional Vulgate Psalter, not the Pius XII Psalter introducted in 1945. Baronius Press has already come out with the 1961 Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary though with Gregorian chant notation even. The publisher is associated with the indult I think though, but aside from maybe Ebay for all I know, it will be the only other place I know of to be able to find a 1961 Breviary to buy.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2007, 12:07:20 PM »

Thanks Keph. I have a copy of the Little Office of the BVM that I purchased from Angelus Press. St. Bonaventure Publications has one, too.

I'll have a look at the Baronius Press site. Anything mainstream is going to make me suspicious, though...

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2007, 12:19:08 PM »

I think the Little Office from Angelus Press and St. Bonaventure Publications are of an older edition than 1961, but I don't know what are the differences. As far as the 1961 Breviary from Baronius Press goes, I think there should not be a big worry over it, but of course, that does not mean no funny business happens in indult circles.

cathman7 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2007, 02:23:14 PM »

gilbertgea · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2007, 05:26:24 PM »

Hello obscurus,

Thanks for the leads! I actually am interested in the Diurnal. I have an old Monastic Diurnal, but it is missing a few pages and that bothers me. I looked around for something similar and thought I found one at Pro Multis, but it turned out to be a 2004 edition... even though the website advertises that it was put together between 1948-1963.

As for the difference between two- and three-volume Breviaries, I'm not sure I know what I would prefer. The PCP version says that it is Latin-only. I dont think I would want that one for that reason.

cathman7 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 11, 2007, 05:43:45 PM »

Quote from: gilbertgea

Hello obscurus,

Thanks for the leads! I actually am interested in the Diurnal. I have an old Monastic Diurnal, but it is missing a few pages and that bothers me. I looked around for something similar and thought I found one at Pro Multis, but it turned out to be a 2004 edition... even though the website advertises that it was put together between 1948-1963.

As for the difference between two- and three-volume Breviaries, I'm not sure I know what I would prefer. The PCP version says that it is Latin-only. I dont think I would want that one for that reason.

Hello. You mentioned the Monastic Diurnale and had reservations because of the date of its printing but it is actually an excellent edition. I own it and have used it sporadically. It was re-typed from the last edition which was the 1963 version. It is in Latin and English and also uses the Vulgate Psalter. It differs from the Roman Diurnale in a few instances (someone more knowledgeable can give the details) but again I would still highly recommend it.

Just to make sure is this the Monastic diurnale you are referring to?

A republication of the 1963 edition of the Benedictine hours of Prime, Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline, in Latin and English in parallel columns for all the feasts and seasons in the traditional Benedictine calendar, with an updated table of movable feasts and a Benedictus/Magnificat card. The Latin text is the traditional Vulgate psalter. Ideal for novices, monks and nuns when travelling, Benedictine oblates, guests at monasteries, and all who wish to draw upon the riches of the ancient and traditional Benedictine office. Printed in black and red throughout and bound in real Moroccan leather with a flexible cover, gilt edges and six marker ribbons, this is a truly beautiful book.
Saint Michael's Abbey Press 1480pp.

As I mentioned before, I would really wait for the Baronius Press edition since it will be in Latin and English and it will have new type rather than being a facsimile which is what the PCP version seems to be although it is a good investment too but....

gilbertgea · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2007, 06:21:42 PM »

obscurus,

Yes, that looks like the one. After I bought one, I flipped through the table of contents and I noticed, among other things, that the Liturgical Calendar included the Feast of St. Joseph the Workman. It wasnt in the one I already owned and it looked kind of communistic, being on 1 May (IIRC). So, I returned it and got a few other titles I knew to be reliable.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2007, 06:44:42 PM »

St. Joseph the Workman is a recent feast, though it's not quite Novus Ordo.

We celebrated it at the SSPX seminary in Winona.

However, we didn't sing the "full chant propers" because the melody sounded...weird. I guess they can't come up with a good melody in 1950 like they could centuries ago.

Here is what Wikipedia says about it:

Quote

Another feast day is May 1, Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, introduced by Pope Pius XII in 1955, replacing the older feast day on Wednesday in the second week after Easter and its octave.

The fact that it was on the Communists' May Day wasn't lost on the seminarians -- a few of us teasingly called it "St. Joseph the Red". Let's just say it wasn't our favorite feast day.

Matthew

gilbertgea · « **Reply #9 on:** October 19, 2007, 06:21:12 AM »

"The fact that it was on the Communists' May Day wasn't lost on the seminarians -- a few of us teasingly called it "St. Joseph the Red". Let's just say it wasn't our favorite feast day."

Matt,

With your experience as a former seminarian, can you please elabourate? What is the history of this Feast Day? Why was it added? Why was it made to coincide with a Communist "holiday"? And, most importantly, do you think it is permissible for Catholics to acknowledge it?

If I recall correctly, this feast is in the 1962 Missal that Angelus Press publishes and sells...

PinoyMonk · « **Reply #10 on:** October 19, 2007, 06:33:52 AM »

gilbertgea,

I'm not Matthew, but let me attempt to give a 1-2 liner on this matter. I've always been told (but have never looked up any formal docuмentation) that this feast was instituted to Catholicise an anti-Catholic day, much in the same way that the various pagan holidays were replaced by something to direct our attention towards God. So, instead of Catholics getting involved in communist marches (etc.), they could go (hopefully with their families!) to Mass on this feast day in order to recognise and honour one of the many saints!

How's that sound?

Pinoy Monk

gilbertgea · « **Reply #11 on:** October 19, 2007, 06:40:43 AM »

"How's that sound?"

PM,

Thanks. That does sound believable. Meaning no disrespect, but I hope those are the facts. It would put my mind at ease.

I dont recall at the moment: do you know if was there a Feast that St. Joseph the Workman replaced?

PinoyMonk · « **Reply #12 on:** October 19, 2007, 07:05:34 AM »

Quote from: gilbertgea

"How's that sound?"

PM,

Thanks. That does sound believable. Meaning no disrespect, but I hope those are the facts. It would put my mind at ease.

I dont recall at the moment: do you know if was there a Feast that St. Joseph the Workman replaced?

I don't know what was on that day prior to this feast, but I'm sure that somebody could tell you.

As for my words being the facts, I can't promise them to be. I'm merely repeating what I had been told when I asked the quest myself. We may never know for sure what the intentions of the hierarchs were when making this decision.

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** October 19, 2007, 10:11:04 AM »

I don't know definitively what the Pope was thinking, but it seemed obvious to us that:

* Communism was perceived as a great threat in 1950.
* Communism's high holy day was May 1.
* Communism professes to be "for the good of the worker"
* St. Joseph is the "model of workmen" (to quote the St. Joseph litany)
* Catholics should turn to the saints for answers, and pray to them in their needs.
* If workers indeed have special needs in the 20th century, why not go to St. Joseph instead of the godless materialists for help and solace?

It's true that many Catholics were tempted by labor unions, socialism, communism, etc. because let's face it -- Capitalism as it exists today (and in 1950) is hardly a just, fair, Catholic institution.

Putting those things together, it's not surprising that they added another feast day for St. Joseph.

As for "why it wasn't our favorite feast" -- mostly because we didn't even sing the full Gregorian chant propers, because let's just say they can't compose good melodies like they used to. I marvel at the beauty of Chant, but I don't think just anyone can come up with melodies like that.

But we recognized the feast out of obedience, since we use the 1962 Missal. We're not the Church, and there is no just reason to reject things "just because we don't like them". There has to be a higher cause than obedience, if something is to be rejected -- such as Faith, Hope, or Charity. None of those is in jeopardy by celebrating the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker on May 1.

It's the same reasoning why we use the 1962 missal, and not the 1954, 1945, or 1920. Who are we to pick and choose? Archbishop Lefebvre basically "picked" the latest Missal that didn't begin to damage the Faith. We should always go with the Church, unless we have a serious reason not to. It's easy to forget today in this Crisis, but it's not a small matter to go off on one's own.

Matthew

gilbertgea · « **Reply #14 on:** October 19, 2007, 11:51:21 AM »

Good answer. Thanks!