1. Six to eight months for a publisher to get Liturgy of Hours books finished is absurd. First, the last time the Bishops did this on a grand scale was for the Roman Missal, and they required reviewing and approving layouts designed by the publishers. Second, they’re printed overseas — likely in China or Vietnam — which in the post-Covid world has meant longer delays.
2. ANOTHER revision to the NAB? Seriously?!?! They just did this a decade or so ago. Were the changes done then incorrect or incomplete? If so, will they ever be happy with a Scriptural translation that doesn’t need modifications every few years? And if they do that, does it necessitate changing all other dependent liturgical books each time they make changes?
3. Would it surprise anyone to know that USCCB has a vested interest in changing official liturgical texts every few years? After all, they receive a high royalty fee from the publishers every time books are sold. So it’s in their financial interest to force us to buy new and updated texts. (When the NABRE was published in 2010/11/12 — I don’t recall the exact year — publishers were legally prevented from selling older copies of the NAB after a certain date, which memory serves was about 9 months after the NABRE was released.)
3. The constant stream of changing liturgical texts is all part of the retranslation project started with the Roman Missal. Liturgy of the Hours and a new lectionary might be the last big one.
1. Six to eight months is probably overly optimistic, but I presume they'll have only one publisher for the four volume set, otherwise praying in common would be a nightmare if everyone has different page numbers. The Roman Missal has a lot of publishers that all had to be wrangled, so that probably complicated things.
2. I think they updated the NAB to update the lectionary, then Liturgiam Authenticam came out and had different expectations on e.g. Inclusive Language, which set off another round of revisions. The goal IIRC was to create a "liturgical bible" where the readings at the Liturgy can all be found in one book. Once the Lectionary gets published -- everyone will probably still hate the translation -- I think the translation will be set in stone for at least a while.
Though since all the liturgical books already re-published have scripture in them, I'm sure publishers will be more than happy to release a new edition. It's like University Text Books.
All this work on the LotH, and the most important problems aren't being addressed. The Psalter is incomplete. It is missing two entire Psalms and has many verses edited out because certain men have decided the word of God is too mean...or something. Also, just stop using the New American Bible. There are much better translations out there. IMO this is just pure stubbornness and pride
Another huge issue with the LotH is the fact that most people will never pray a large number of Psalms because they only appear in hours that aren't mandatory outside of monasteries
The Mass is always the hot topic, but the LotH is in just as much need of a reform of the reform
That is outside the scope of the translation. That is the problem of the Dicastery of Divine Worship.
No one is prevented from praying any or all of the Divine Office. It is easier than ever before with online and apps. People don't even have to flip pages and know how the Office is structed and works.
Priests and deacons are required to pray the Office and Monks and Nuns are deputed by the Church to offer this Sacrifice of Praise. But just because they are a small minority of the Church it doesn't make it any less important that this translation be finished!
I understand. Except for the Bible translation. That is within the purview of the USCCB. It's just sort of eyebrow raising how much effort goes into it when there are some glaring issues outside the scope.
Anyone can pray whatever version of the office, but religious are required to pray the LotH for the most part. I suppose they could pray more than one, but who would do that?
This is true and one of the reasons I pray the office. But that doesn't mean there aren't some objective issues. Not all complaints are based on subjective preference.
No reason one can't print off the imprecatory psalms on some nice laminated cards and sell them online. Or just copy/paste them into a reminder on your phone for every Wednesday morning at 7am.
But yes, the fact that generations of religious are praying an incomplete Psalter is scandalous.
(BTW, if you look at the wording for why the imprecatory psalms were dropped, it's identical to the rationale for dropping the teaching on limbo: "modern man blah blah blah..."
One side of my mouth: I've considered trying to figure out where in the four-week cycle the imprecatory psalms were removed from. There are some suspiciously random psalm repetitions: Psalm 90 I think? Monday week 4 and somewhere else? It's been a while since I've prayed the new Office so my memory is vague.
Other side of my mouth: I wonder if it's just legitimately harder to pray the imprecatory psalms with the new organization of "no more than three psalms in an Hour". You could bury them pretty easily in the old rite, particularly before the redistribution of the psalms in the early 1900s. Matins is very long, so an imprecatory psalm can be balanced out in a way which is impossible when every psalm has a spotlight shone on it.
The imprecatory psalms were removed from all over the place. The 1962 and earlier breviary was on a 1-week cycle. Using the Douay numbering, and looking for imprecatory verses, 53 and 118 are in Sunday Prime, 113 at Sunday vespers, 5 in Monday lauds, 30 at Monday sext, 134 in Tuesday Prime, 39 at Tuesday terce, 11 at Tuesday compline, 58 at Wednesday none, etc. (I don't have a copy with Matins)
I wouldn't say they were buried. Most of the hours only have 3 psalms even in the 1962.
Oh, I'm keenly aware that the whole arrangement is different. My headcanon is that there may have been a draft four-week psalm arrangement prepared that included a complete psalter, and that the verses and psalms which were removed may have been redacted at a later stage in the project. There are some things which seem to corroborate this idea, such as a few suspiciously short psalm divisions in one of the gutted psalms, and the repetition of another psalm. But I haven't had the energy to try and see if the puzzle pieces actually fit.
Regarding burying the imprecatory psalms, in the 1900s Office they are relegated to the little hours generally, but no, that's not really burial. I was referring to the pre-1900s arrangement where all the minor hours either repeated Douay-118 or the psalms immediately after that, and Compline was the same every day as well. Therefore the only Hours with varying psalms had many psalms, and almost no psalms were broken into divisions. So the imprecatory psalms would have been one (or two, maybe) of 12 Matins psalms, or one of five varying Lauds psalms, or maybe one of five varying Vespers psalms. But in the new Office that isn't an option: some of the imprecatory psalms would have to fill the whole Hour, as with Saturday None in the 1962 arrangement for example.
But verifying any of these suspicions would involve a lot of really detailed and annoying analysis, and it would have to start by combing through the new Office to identify the gaps, and that would make me mad. :) So I haven't done it.
I'll admit that having the entirety of 1962 Saturday None consist of a very imprecatory psalm and nothing else is a little stark. And I wonder if that's part of what led to their excision in the modern Office. This is not to imply that I think that was a good choice; I suspect that the Author of the Psalms likely felt more than a little snubbed by it.
I think I like this headcanon, but wouldn't you need to see the draft to determine whether cut-and-paste is the culprit? Hard to distinguish between that and the arrangers simply having no sense of propriety and fittingness.
I've never prayed None regularly, but I tend to like imprecatory psalms, as long as I'm paying enough attention to not be startled. There's a tendency to suppress strong negative emotions (or let them go willy-nilly) rather than properly ordering them, and I think praying the imprecatories is a remedy for that. Not sure I'd keep that reaction if I saw it every week though.
On further analysis, there's way more room than I thought to fit the imprecatory psalms. It turns out that something like 22 psalms are entirely doubled on different days in the cycle. This includes a few psalms which have good traditional reasons to be repeated regularly, specifically repeating Psalm 51 for Friday penance, Psalm 118/117 every Sunday, and Psalm 110/109 every Sunday; but aside from that it seems to be a mishmash of psalms. (NAB/Grail) 8, 24, 34, 44, 45, 50, 55, 57, 67, 76, 80, 90, 92, 100, 117, 132, 136, 145, and 150 are repeated somewhat less obviously (some more obviously than others). In addition, there are some fragments of Psalm 119 scattered throughout the non-Daytime Prayer Offices. I intended to finish this project by trying to find where the imprecatory psalms were excised from, but there are too many options. There would be more than enough room to reinsert the imprecatory psalms and the "privileged" psalms 105, 106, and 78, with that amount of repetition, in any number of ways.
I agree that the imprecatory psalms (and verses) are a good help against suppressing strong emotions, and regular prayer of those psalms is as helpful as regular prayer of the joyful psalms one might not always feel. Learning to pray them on a schedule rather than as needed is challenging when coming from the new breviary, but it's beneficial, even if they do get a spotlight sometimes. (And I really do appreciate the very pastorally laid out, efficient, one-week Office of the early 1900s. Realizing that they had to make a few compromises to do it, it's much MUCH more approachable for a busy layman than the earlier Office ever would have been.)
Happily continuing to pray the Office using the Breviarium Romanum (1961) from Baronius Press. It's not the best thing about discerning out of religious life (that would be meeting and marrying my wife), but it's a definite perk.
I have been yearning for the promised revision of the LotH since I believe it is supposed to be a more elegant and accurate translation from the Latin.
Still, I am disappointed that the VCII version omits whole psalms and verses.
I did just order and receive the Divine Office Hymnal which is the pre-released translation of the hymns found in the current Latin typical edition. They are set, both, to the melodies of the Liber Hymnarius, as well as familiar modern melodies.
Given the delays and other disappointments, I'm growing more inclined to move to a perfectly good, albeit pre-VCII, Divine Office. Maybe I'll spend some time on www.divinumofficium.com before springing for a hard copy such as what you recommend.
> Still, I am disappointed that the VCII version omits whole psalms and verses.
While we are discussing omissions: Every time the psalm from Sunday Week 1 comes up at *Mass* (let me look up the number, it's the "That Escalated Quickly" one... 149), I am entertained because the Lord takes delight in his people but does not trust them with sharp objects.
The omissions in the psalms at Mass are a whole separate category! But it's been a long time since we've had a strong tradition of praying while psalms during Mass (other than the Judica me recited at the foot of the altar) so this seems more forgivable than the outright redaction of the imprecatory psalms. And yes they're good for devotion by the way. You can't give a total offering of your will and desires if you only offer the sweet ones....
Yeah this LOTH revision is getting **extremely** disheartening! ::Sigh:: Been waiting and waiting, and now this. The ongoing delay in the NABRE New Testament (and bits of the Old Testament) revision is making me a bit sus that there's big disagreement on something.
The “dirty little secret” of the LotH is that translations don’t really matter since there’s like a dozen different approved English versions of various strains. The Liturgical Press publishes an approved Benedictine Breviary that contains some really odd translation choices. And Saint Michael Abbey publishes a Monastic Diurnal with approved Latin-English side-by-side that doesn’t match up with the broader church either.
Regarding +Strickland: the blame is on both +Strickland and Pope Francis, and both need to be called out. Obviously recent statements from +Strickland are scandalous and unacceptable (nay, heterodox even). And he is ultimately responsible for his words and actions. But are we at all surprised? I saw this coming back in 2019.
What happens is that a respected cleric (that wants to be faithful and support Rome!) begins voicing serious concerns: “I want the Church to be a strong and courageous witness to Jesus Christ. I’m worried about the lack of clarity and orthodoxy coming from Rome and elsewhere. And meanwhile, faithful devout Catholics are being dealt with heavy-handedly, uncharitably, and unfairly while crazy theological progressives get the soft gloves.” Then Rome responds by treating that cleric… heavy-handedly, uncharitably, and unfairly. This begins the feedback loop of confirmation bias. It always ends with removal and dismissal, and the faithful suffer. We’ve seen it happen with +Vigano, +Schneider, +Torres, Fr. Altman, and now +Strickland.
How can Pope Francis not realize that when he brings the hammer down on these clerics (while also letting “the modernists” get a free pass), he ends up confirming their grievances and suspicions which only drives them further down the rabbit hole.
We need to remember that even bishops (like Strickland) are the little ones who are under Pope Francis, and yet “woe to the one who causes one of these little ones to sin.”
Pope Francis is overly harsh with those who need to be dealt with gently, and overly gentle with those who need to be dealt with harshly.
EDIT: “dirty little secret” is NOT meant to be pejorative, it’s more tongue-in-cheek. The point is that while we wait for 2026, there are dozens of translations and arrangements currently approved for use. Honestly, if you pray any arrangement of any translation of psalms day-by-day, you are technically “praying the Hours” which is just fine. I personally use both the aforementioned benedictine breviaries.
Regarding the dirty little secret of the Divine Office - yep, the Ordinariate has its own (gorgeous) version as well. One time I tried praying Compline out of it with my little Bible study, mainly because it's the only breviary I own so I just made some copies. I made it clear ahead of time that while it's not the "standard" translation, it is a valid Catholic version of the Offices. Most people seemed to like it - for most of them it was their first time praying an Office at all. I did get one person who made an issue of it later, though. "We have a perfectly good Catholic version, why would you confuse people with something that isn't even the Catholic version." SMH
I've been praying with this myself for the last 9 months or so. I typically just pray morning and evening prayer, so it's been nice to have a lot more biblical reading and pray through the entire psalter.
I wonder what Cranmer thinks about his great act of schism/apostasy/heresy/whatever being swallowed up and redeemed by the Church he rejected and betrayed. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Positive reframe regarding waiting for a new translation of LotH with Matthew’s dirty little secret in mind: an opportunity to deep dive into experiential knowledge of the history of the Divine Office as we watch history of this ancient prayer unfold. Particularly, if you need to buy a new breviary now but hope to also purchase the new translation in 2026-ish.
I’m sure there are endless resources elsewhere, but here are a few helpful ones:
“The entire Gregorian chant repertory, including both Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo, as recorded by the communities of Benedictine nuns of the Abbey of Notre-Dame de Fidélité of Jouques and the Benedictine monks of Abbaye Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux in French Provence.”
Compline from Saint Michael Abbey’s Monastic Diurnal with approved Latin-English side-by-side:
Actually it seems that His Excellency was made an example of to all the bishops who might want to go in the same direction. This occurred to me this morning. Thank you Jesus and Mary for this bishop to have some strong intelligent bishops and his side.
I don't know what to think about the Strickland thing, really, other than that I should pray for him and for the Holy Father. It's above my pay grade. But I'm relieved (?) to hear that his brother bishops are concerned about the justice of this move. It's good to know that even those who disagree with him "politically"/theologically don't understand it and want some answers.
Not necessarily Apples to Apples, but the removal of Bishop Strickland compared to the removal (resignation) of Bishop Stika need to come to light. The "Power of the Cardinals" in Stika's back pocket obviously allowed him to resign instead of being removed from office. He should not have the title Emeritus. It seems that both of these inquires have not been made public, which once again leads to cover up and lack of confidence in THE CHURCH. The pew sitting Catholic deserves the truth and justice. Abuse, whether physical, sexual, financial, whatever has no place in the church , especially the leadership
It actually would be nice to have some updated books with the changes they have made so far, to the psaltery to the concluding prayers/collects, etc., because the changes are all to the good and I understand are approved for current use. It seems like an updated version of "Shorter Christian Prayer" would be worthwhile as that book has minimal scripture anyway. (this will never happen)
One question I have with the Bishops retirement/removal. Are any of the results of these investigations shared with the new Bishop?
I would think the financial management issues would come to light. But the spiritual leadership issues would be harder to identify, therefore knowing those issues would help the new Bishop to address those concerns. (This is more directed towards Knoxville rather than Tyler).
Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter is an old and failed management paradigm tried time and again for 2000+ years by those in an apostolic setting inexperienced with the tools of executive competency, beyond "I said so" or "I don't like you".
What is telling is the off the record commentary of Bishops. Cowardly. What, do they have to lose? Most are at/near retirement age. This failure to speak the truth, quote the law of the Church, stand firm on a just process is objective cowardice.
I 100% believe the Pillar's Reporting. I 100% believe Francis is the Pope and has complete authority to do whatever he wants without appeal. I am disappointed that the Episcopal Brothers & Fathers stand seemingly idly by muttering "that's a shame" where, at the same time, vocations to the priesthood AND the Episcopacy tank; reportedly 30% of those approached for a mitre decline. No one wants to be led by men like you or worse, become men like you, soft, passive accustomed to comfort, cowardly.
As a father and a brother in the natural order, this your Excellencies, and Eminences IS NOT how fathers or brothers actually act. It is CLEARLY how shepherds DO NOT act. It IS NOT how a successor to the Apostles acts. Muttering platitudes of concern behind a veil & using an agent as your mouthpiece.
Are you all moral, spiritual and ethical castrati? All 290 of you? Every one? Are you THAT attached to an office that you would leave your son and brother abandoned?
What, pray tell, will you do when the actual persecution arrives and you are compelled to stand or fold? I do not know what the future holds, but this may be only Act 1, scene 1.
There are bigger fish to fry in this Pillar Post, but please do pray for Fr. Dustin Dought. He's from my diocese, and he's a great guy. As a side note: In my house, we know him as Fr. Morgan Grimes (IYKYK).
The removal of Puerto Rican Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres still has not been explained - other than he would not push the Covid vaccine, which in retrospect it was probably good not to push it. This removal also appears arbitrary pay back for not doing what the Pope wanted - and not even a matter of faith and morals.
I was a member of the Tyler diocese for 10 years. There were administrative and financial concerns long before Strickland with his views on X.
I hope that they will put the reasons out to the diocese why he was removed so that things will settle down.
I agree with you!
Several thoughts from a Catholic bookseller:
1. Six to eight months for a publisher to get Liturgy of Hours books finished is absurd. First, the last time the Bishops did this on a grand scale was for the Roman Missal, and they required reviewing and approving layouts designed by the publishers. Second, they’re printed overseas — likely in China or Vietnam — which in the post-Covid world has meant longer delays.
2. ANOTHER revision to the NAB? Seriously?!?! They just did this a decade or so ago. Were the changes done then incorrect or incomplete? If so, will they ever be happy with a Scriptural translation that doesn’t need modifications every few years? And if they do that, does it necessitate changing all other dependent liturgical books each time they make changes?
3. Would it surprise anyone to know that USCCB has a vested interest in changing official liturgical texts every few years? After all, they receive a high royalty fee from the publishers every time books are sold. So it’s in their financial interest to force us to buy new and updated texts. (When the NABRE was published in 2010/11/12 — I don’t recall the exact year — publishers were legally prevented from selling older copies of the NAB after a certain date, which memory serves was about 9 months after the NABRE was released.)
I wish we would just use the RSV and be done with it!
Amen
3. The constant stream of changing liturgical texts is all part of the retranslation project started with the Roman Missal. Liturgy of the Hours and a new lectionary might be the last big one.
1. Six to eight months is probably overly optimistic, but I presume they'll have only one publisher for the four volume set, otherwise praying in common would be a nightmare if everyone has different page numbers. The Roman Missal has a lot of publishers that all had to be wrangled, so that probably complicated things.
2. I think they updated the NAB to update the lectionary, then Liturgiam Authenticam came out and had different expectations on e.g. Inclusive Language, which set off another round of revisions. The goal IIRC was to create a "liturgical bible" where the readings at the Liturgy can all be found in one book. Once the Lectionary gets published -- everyone will probably still hate the translation -- I think the translation will be set in stone for at least a while.
Though since all the liturgical books already re-published have scripture in them, I'm sure publishers will be more than happy to release a new edition. It's like University Text Books.
All this work on the LotH, and the most important problems aren't being addressed. The Psalter is incomplete. It is missing two entire Psalms and has many verses edited out because certain men have decided the word of God is too mean...or something. Also, just stop using the New American Bible. There are much better translations out there. IMO this is just pure stubbornness and pride
Another huge issue with the LotH is the fact that most people will never pray a large number of Psalms because they only appear in hours that aren't mandatory outside of monasteries
The Mass is always the hot topic, but the LotH is in just as much need of a reform of the reform
That is outside the scope of the translation. That is the problem of the Dicastery of Divine Worship.
No one is prevented from praying any or all of the Divine Office. It is easier than ever before with online and apps. People don't even have to flip pages and know how the Office is structed and works.
Priests and deacons are required to pray the Office and Monks and Nuns are deputed by the Church to offer this Sacrifice of Praise. But just because they are a small minority of the Church it doesn't make it any less important that this translation be finished!
I understand. Except for the Bible translation. That is within the purview of the USCCB. It's just sort of eyebrow raising how much effort goes into it when there are some glaring issues outside the scope.
Anyone can pray whatever version of the office, but religious are required to pray the LotH for the most part. I suppose they could pray more than one, but who would do that?
Giving up my legitimate preferences is pretty sweet though.
This is true and one of the reasons I pray the office. But that doesn't mean there aren't some objective issues. Not all complaints are based on subjective preference.
No reason one can't print off the imprecatory psalms on some nice laminated cards and sell them online. Or just copy/paste them into a reminder on your phone for every Wednesday morning at 7am.
But yes, the fact that generations of religious are praying an incomplete Psalter is scandalous.
(BTW, if you look at the wording for why the imprecatory psalms were dropped, it's identical to the rationale for dropping the teaching on limbo: "modern man blah blah blah..."
One side of my mouth: I've considered trying to figure out where in the four-week cycle the imprecatory psalms were removed from. There are some suspiciously random psalm repetitions: Psalm 90 I think? Monday week 4 and somewhere else? It's been a while since I've prayed the new Office so my memory is vague.
Other side of my mouth: I wonder if it's just legitimately harder to pray the imprecatory psalms with the new organization of "no more than three psalms in an Hour". You could bury them pretty easily in the old rite, particularly before the redistribution of the psalms in the early 1900s. Matins is very long, so an imprecatory psalm can be balanced out in a way which is impossible when every psalm has a spotlight shone on it.
The imprecatory psalms were removed from all over the place. The 1962 and earlier breviary was on a 1-week cycle. Using the Douay numbering, and looking for imprecatory verses, 53 and 118 are in Sunday Prime, 113 at Sunday vespers, 5 in Monday lauds, 30 at Monday sext, 134 in Tuesday Prime, 39 at Tuesday terce, 11 at Tuesday compline, 58 at Wednesday none, etc. (I don't have a copy with Matins)
I wouldn't say they were buried. Most of the hours only have 3 psalms even in the 1962.
Oh, I'm keenly aware that the whole arrangement is different. My headcanon is that there may have been a draft four-week psalm arrangement prepared that included a complete psalter, and that the verses and psalms which were removed may have been redacted at a later stage in the project. There are some things which seem to corroborate this idea, such as a few suspiciously short psalm divisions in one of the gutted psalms, and the repetition of another psalm. But I haven't had the energy to try and see if the puzzle pieces actually fit.
Regarding burying the imprecatory psalms, in the 1900s Office they are relegated to the little hours generally, but no, that's not really burial. I was referring to the pre-1900s arrangement where all the minor hours either repeated Douay-118 or the psalms immediately after that, and Compline was the same every day as well. Therefore the only Hours with varying psalms had many psalms, and almost no psalms were broken into divisions. So the imprecatory psalms would have been one (or two, maybe) of 12 Matins psalms, or one of five varying Lauds psalms, or maybe one of five varying Vespers psalms. But in the new Office that isn't an option: some of the imprecatory psalms would have to fill the whole Hour, as with Saturday None in the 1962 arrangement for example.
But verifying any of these suspicions would involve a lot of really detailed and annoying analysis, and it would have to start by combing through the new Office to identify the gaps, and that would make me mad. :) So I haven't done it.
I'll admit that having the entirety of 1962 Saturday None consist of a very imprecatory psalm and nothing else is a little stark. And I wonder if that's part of what led to their excision in the modern Office. This is not to imply that I think that was a good choice; I suspect that the Author of the Psalms likely felt more than a little snubbed by it.
I think I like this headcanon, but wouldn't you need to see the draft to determine whether cut-and-paste is the culprit? Hard to distinguish between that and the arrangers simply having no sense of propriety and fittingness.
I've never prayed None regularly, but I tend to like imprecatory psalms, as long as I'm paying enough attention to not be startled. There's a tendency to suppress strong negative emotions (or let them go willy-nilly) rather than properly ordering them, and I think praying the imprecatories is a remedy for that. Not sure I'd keep that reaction if I saw it every week though.
On further analysis, there's way more room than I thought to fit the imprecatory psalms. It turns out that something like 22 psalms are entirely doubled on different days in the cycle. This includes a few psalms which have good traditional reasons to be repeated regularly, specifically repeating Psalm 51 for Friday penance, Psalm 118/117 every Sunday, and Psalm 110/109 every Sunday; but aside from that it seems to be a mishmash of psalms. (NAB/Grail) 8, 24, 34, 44, 45, 50, 55, 57, 67, 76, 80, 90, 92, 100, 117, 132, 136, 145, and 150 are repeated somewhat less obviously (some more obviously than others). In addition, there are some fragments of Psalm 119 scattered throughout the non-Daytime Prayer Offices. I intended to finish this project by trying to find where the imprecatory psalms were excised from, but there are too many options. There would be more than enough room to reinsert the imprecatory psalms and the "privileged" psalms 105, 106, and 78, with that amount of repetition, in any number of ways.
I agree that the imprecatory psalms (and verses) are a good help against suppressing strong emotions, and regular prayer of those psalms is as helpful as regular prayer of the joyful psalms one might not always feel. Learning to pray them on a schedule rather than as needed is challenging when coming from the new breviary, but it's beneficial, even if they do get a spotlight sometimes. (And I really do appreciate the very pastorally laid out, efficient, one-week Office of the early 1900s. Realizing that they had to make a few compromises to do it, it's much MUCH more approachable for a busy layman than the earlier Office ever would have been.)
Happily continuing to pray the Office using the Breviarium Romanum (1961) from Baronius Press. It's not the best thing about discerning out of religious life (that would be meeting and marrying my wife), but it's a definite perk.
Thank you for mentioning this, Mike.
I have been yearning for the promised revision of the LotH since I believe it is supposed to be a more elegant and accurate translation from the Latin.
Still, I am disappointed that the VCII version omits whole psalms and verses.
I did just order and receive the Divine Office Hymnal which is the pre-released translation of the hymns found in the current Latin typical edition. They are set, both, to the melodies of the Liber Hymnarius, as well as familiar modern melodies.
Given the delays and other disappointments, I'm growing more inclined to move to a perfectly good, albeit pre-VCII, Divine Office. Maybe I'll spend some time on www.divinumofficium.com before springing for a hard copy such as what you recommend.
> Still, I am disappointed that the VCII version omits whole psalms and verses.
While we are discussing omissions: Every time the psalm from Sunday Week 1 comes up at *Mass* (let me look up the number, it's the "That Escalated Quickly" one... 149), I am entertained because the Lord takes delight in his people but does not trust them with sharp objects.
The omissions in the psalms at Mass are a whole separate category! But it's been a long time since we've had a strong tradition of praying while psalms during Mass (other than the Judica me recited at the foot of the altar) so this seems more forgivable than the outright redaction of the imprecatory psalms. And yes they're good for devotion by the way. You can't give a total offering of your will and desires if you only offer the sweet ones....
Yeah this LOTH revision is getting **extremely** disheartening! ::Sigh:: Been waiting and waiting, and now this. The ongoing delay in the NABRE New Testament (and bits of the Old Testament) revision is making me a bit sus that there's big disagreement on something.
The “dirty little secret” of the LotH is that translations don’t really matter since there’s like a dozen different approved English versions of various strains. The Liturgical Press publishes an approved Benedictine Breviary that contains some really odd translation choices. And Saint Michael Abbey publishes a Monastic Diurnal with approved Latin-English side-by-side that doesn’t match up with the broader church either.
Regarding +Strickland: the blame is on both +Strickland and Pope Francis, and both need to be called out. Obviously recent statements from +Strickland are scandalous and unacceptable (nay, heterodox even). And he is ultimately responsible for his words and actions. But are we at all surprised? I saw this coming back in 2019.
What happens is that a respected cleric (that wants to be faithful and support Rome!) begins voicing serious concerns: “I want the Church to be a strong and courageous witness to Jesus Christ. I’m worried about the lack of clarity and orthodoxy coming from Rome and elsewhere. And meanwhile, faithful devout Catholics are being dealt with heavy-handedly, uncharitably, and unfairly while crazy theological progressives get the soft gloves.” Then Rome responds by treating that cleric… heavy-handedly, uncharitably, and unfairly. This begins the feedback loop of confirmation bias. It always ends with removal and dismissal, and the faithful suffer. We’ve seen it happen with +Vigano, +Schneider, +Torres, Fr. Altman, and now +Strickland.
How can Pope Francis not realize that when he brings the hammer down on these clerics (while also letting “the modernists” get a free pass), he ends up confirming their grievances and suspicions which only drives them further down the rabbit hole.
We need to remember that even bishops (like Strickland) are the little ones who are under Pope Francis, and yet “woe to the one who causes one of these little ones to sin.”
Pope Francis is overly harsh with those who need to be dealt with gently, and overly gentle with those who need to be dealt with harshly.
EDIT: “dirty little secret” is NOT meant to be pejorative, it’s more tongue-in-cheek. The point is that while we wait for 2026, there are dozens of translations and arrangements currently approved for use. Honestly, if you pray any arrangement of any translation of psalms day-by-day, you are technically “praying the Hours” which is just fine. I personally use both the aforementioned benedictine breviaries.
Regarding the dirty little secret of the Divine Office - yep, the Ordinariate has its own (gorgeous) version as well. One time I tried praying Compline out of it with my little Bible study, mainly because it's the only breviary I own so I just made some copies. I made it clear ahead of time that while it's not the "standard" translation, it is a valid Catholic version of the Offices. Most people seemed to like it - for most of them it was their first time praying an Office at all. I did get one person who made an issue of it later, though. "We have a perfectly good Catholic version, why would you confuse people with something that isn't even the Catholic version." SMH
If anybody wants a lovely breviary that probably won't ever get revised: https://www.ctsbooks.org/product/daily-office/
I've been praying with this myself for the last 9 months or so. I typically just pray morning and evening prayer, so it's been nice to have a lot more biblical reading and pray through the entire psalter.
I wonder what Cranmer thinks about his great act of schism/apostasy/heresy/whatever being swallowed up and redeemed by the Church he rejected and betrayed. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Just last week, I spilled tea on my breviary and said "Well, at least there will be a new translation soon!" Guess not. Thanks for the recommendation!
Positive reframe regarding waiting for a new translation of LotH with Matthew’s dirty little secret in mind: an opportunity to deep dive into experiential knowledge of the history of the Divine Office as we watch history of this ancient prayer unfold. Particularly, if you need to buy a new breviary now but hope to also purchase the new translation in 2026-ish.
I’m sure there are endless resources elsewhere, but here are a few helpful ones:
https://www.divinumofficium.com/
https://neumz.com/
“The entire Gregorian chant repertory, including both Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo, as recorded by the communities of Benedictine nuns of the Abbey of Notre-Dame de Fidélité of Jouques and the Benedictine monks of Abbaye Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux in French Provence.”
Compline from Saint Michael Abbey’s Monastic Diurnal with approved Latin-English side-by-side:
https://casonasher.com/compline
Actually it seems that His Excellency was made an example of to all the bishops who might want to go in the same direction. This occurred to me this morning. Thank you Jesus and Mary for this bishop to have some strong intelligent bishops and his side.
I don't know what to think about the Strickland thing, really, other than that I should pray for him and for the Holy Father. It's above my pay grade. But I'm relieved (?) to hear that his brother bishops are concerned about the justice of this move. It's good to know that even those who disagree with him "politically"/theologically don't understand it and want some answers.
Not necessarily Apples to Apples, but the removal of Bishop Strickland compared to the removal (resignation) of Bishop Stika need to come to light. The "Power of the Cardinals" in Stika's back pocket obviously allowed him to resign instead of being removed from office. He should not have the title Emeritus. It seems that both of these inquires have not been made public, which once again leads to cover up and lack of confidence in THE CHURCH. The pew sitting Catholic deserves the truth and justice. Abuse, whether physical, sexual, financial, whatever has no place in the church , especially the leadership
To be fair, Strickland was offered the opportunity to resign. He just said he wouldn’t. The rest, spot on.
Close on some of the elections. A few surprises.
"Well, 2026 is the new 2024."
I suppose that really means 2028, at the soonest.
It actually would be nice to have some updated books with the changes they have made so far, to the psaltery to the concluding prayers/collects, etc., because the changes are all to the good and I understand are approved for current use. It seems like an updated version of "Shorter Christian Prayer" would be worthwhile as that book has minimal scripture anyway. (this will never happen)
One question I have with the Bishops retirement/removal. Are any of the results of these investigations shared with the new Bishop?
I would think the financial management issues would come to light. But the spiritual leadership issues would be harder to identify, therefore knowing those issues would help the new Bishop to address those concerns. (This is more directed towards Knoxville rather than Tyler).
Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter is an old and failed management paradigm tried time and again for 2000+ years by those in an apostolic setting inexperienced with the tools of executive competency, beyond "I said so" or "I don't like you".
What is telling is the off the record commentary of Bishops. Cowardly. What, do they have to lose? Most are at/near retirement age. This failure to speak the truth, quote the law of the Church, stand firm on a just process is objective cowardice.
I 100% believe the Pillar's Reporting. I 100% believe Francis is the Pope and has complete authority to do whatever he wants without appeal. I am disappointed that the Episcopal Brothers & Fathers stand seemingly idly by muttering "that's a shame" where, at the same time, vocations to the priesthood AND the Episcopacy tank; reportedly 30% of those approached for a mitre decline. No one wants to be led by men like you or worse, become men like you, soft, passive accustomed to comfort, cowardly.
As a father and a brother in the natural order, this your Excellencies, and Eminences IS NOT how fathers or brothers actually act. It is CLEARLY how shepherds DO NOT act. It IS NOT how a successor to the Apostles acts. Muttering platitudes of concern behind a veil & using an agent as your mouthpiece.
Are you all moral, spiritual and ethical castrati? All 290 of you? Every one? Are you THAT attached to an office that you would leave your son and brother abandoned?
What, pray tell, will you do when the actual persecution arrives and you are compelled to stand or fold? I do not know what the future holds, but this may be only Act 1, scene 1.
What you call cowardice, I consider prudence and courage.
“Everything I know about Joe Strickland’s case,” one bishop told me, “I read in The Pillar.” 👏👏👏👏
There are bigger fish to fry in this Pillar Post, but please do pray for Fr. Dustin Dought. He's from my diocese, and he's a great guy. As a side note: In my house, we know him as Fr. Morgan Grimes (IYKYK).
The removal of Puerto Rican Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres still has not been explained - other than he would not push the Covid vaccine, which in retrospect it was probably good not to push it. This removal also appears arbitrary pay back for not doing what the Pope wanted - and not even a matter of faith and morals.