Permission required for Traditional Office?
Dear Br. Ignatius,
Please pardon me for being so forth right, but as I understand it your advice regarding the Traditional Office on 18 October was wrong.
I have been told by various priests and a bishop on my side of the Atlantic (Great Britain) that the situation is this:
1) The are several different forms of the Office, all of which are approved by the Holy See, such as:
2) The obligation to pray a certain form of the Office is connected to the exact situation of the cleric or religious. Which means, for example, a secular Priest would be bound to recite the current Roman Office, A Monk or Nun would follow the use of their congregation, etc, etc.
3) Lay people are under no obligation to recite any part of the Office, nor are those who recite it oblidged to follow a certain form; but, the current Roman Office is recommended to the lay faithful.
4) While the current Roman Office is clearly commended by the Church for the reasons that you outlined, the lay faithful are never-the-less free to pray any form of the Office, and do not require Episcopal permission to use a form of the Office other than the current Roman Office.
This seems to accord with canon 1174, which states "Others also of Christ's faithful are earnestly invited, according to circumstances, to take part in the liturgy of the hours as an action of the Church". Canon Law does not state which form the Office should take, and merely encourages the faithful to engage in the Office. So one attending and participating in a Monastic Office will have accepted the invitation of the Church to participate in the Office, as much as one who uses the current Roman Office.
It seems to me that the advice the gentleman was given by his Bishop was correct.
May our Lady's prayers be ever with you in your valuable ministry.
Yours in Christ,
John.
QUESTION from John on October 24, 2003
i) The current Roman Office found in the Breviary.
ii) The Benetictine Office as drawn up as Benedict.
iii) Various individual monastic usages which have been approved.
iv) Various eastern forms of the Office as used by the eastern rites.
v) The Breviary of 1961, which is used by clerics in the Society of St. Peter, the Institue of Christ the King and other Traditional orders approved by the Holy See.
ANSWER by John-Paul Ignatius, OLSM on October 31, 2003
|
Dear John: Your first two points are correct. There are many different forms of the Divine Office approved by the Holy See and those who are obligated to pray the Office are required to use the form that is promulgated for their particular territory or congregation. Your points number three and four I do not believe are totally correct. While laity are not required to pray the Divine Office, to suggest that when they do they can pray the Office according to any form they please is not consistent with the principles of liturgical law. Liturgical Law, as I understand it, is never up to personal preferences. The Holy See determines the law and form for all liturgy since liturgy is regulated by the Church because it is an action of the Church. Whether or not a person is required to participate in that liturgy is beside the point. When such a person does participate in the liturgy, he must follow the rules of that liturgy as set by the Holy See, or in some cases also by the local ordinary. That is no different for the Liturgy of the Mass. One is not required to attend Daily Mass even though Daily Mass is highly recommended, but if you do, you must follow the same liturgical laws that everyone else must follow and not just attend any daily Mass you choose (such as an illicit SSPX daily Mass), or perform any 'ol action one wishes during the Mass (i.e. in some cultures liturgical dance is permitted. It is not permitted in the Latin Rite, thus just because Daily Mass is not required for the laity to attend is not an excuse to promote liturgical dance during daily Masses. While this point is somewhat different than the Divine Office, since the Mass is always dependent upon the priest who must follow liturgical law, and the Divine Office is not dependent upon a person cananically required to pray it, it is nevertheless to the point of the principles of liturgical law. If we are to suggest an exception to the principles of liturgical law, then that must be proven and documented, not just asserted. Your analysis of Canon 1174 is also incorrect, I believe. The canon establishes an invitation to participate in the Divine Office and nothing more. We are not to read into it anything more. The Canon is not trying to establish form, only an invitation. The form is detailed in the General Instruction to the Liturgy of the Hours which is ALSO law. In the GILH provisions are made and adaptations are given for lay use. Since the GILH specifically provides for modifications for the laity, those provisions need to be followed. And no where in the GILH does it say or imply that laity by virtue of being laity are free to choose the form they prefer for the Divine Office. On the contrary, it binds the laity to the rules, as modified for them, in the GILH. Liturgy is never an issue of personal preference and neither is the liturgy of the Mass. If one prefers the Tridentine Mass that is too bad because they are not allowed to attend such a Mass UNLESS there is an indult and approval of the local Bishop. As it happens there is an indult from the Holy See to attend a Tridentine Mass IF the local bishop approves. Without this indult a Catholic could not attend any Tridentine Masses no matter how much they wanted to unless they wish to commit the sin of rebellion. This is how liturgical law works, I believe, thus in the Divine Office we are required to use the form that is promulgated for the territory to which we reside, or congregation we belong to, unless we have permission otherwise from the Bishop. The analysis I have given is what makes sense and is what is consistent with how liturgical law works as best as I can gather not being a Canon Lawyer. The bottomline in my opinion is that this should not be an issue. I believe that a loyal Catholic does not go around looking to do things according to personal preferences to those things which are not subject to personal preferences. The current Divine Office is beautiful and holy. To attempt to find loopholes to excuse oneself in their preference to pray some other form of the Divine Office, implies, it seems to me anyway, that there is something wrong with the current Divine Office -- which there is not. If a specific indult or other permission is given to allow a choice, so be it. But there is no evidence from Canon Law or Liturgical Law that such a choice is allowed or even implied.
God Bless, |