Regarding clerics who have doubts on this ban, Bp. Athanasius Schneider is one of them, as at least once called the Roman Cursus the 'Breviary of the Ages'. But as it those in power are not interested in the Divine Office at all, let alone reverse Divino Afflatu's legacy.
It is interesting to note that the 'Wrath of Peter and Paul' as found in Quo Primum, is directed NOT at clerics who pray some other Missal, but to anyone who modifies the decree *itself*, with additional penalties for printers who edit the Tridentine Missal, in stark contrast to Divino Afflatu, which directs the Apostles' Wrath at anyone who doesn't use the new Breviary past 1913. Quite the disconnect in the use of the keys of Peter.
But by 1911, the Carmelites, Praemonstrantensians, and Dominicans did not feel themselves excepted by the 200-year rule and quickly organized commissions to put DA into effect (as testified by Bonniwell in his "History of the Dominican Liturgy", pp367), even if the decree itself had sloppy language. Contrast that to Urban VIII's hymn reform, in which every place justified rejection by reason of Quod a Nobis (not Quo Primum, to correct this common mistake by trads).
Another consequence of whole Neo-Gallican affair is the unfortunate message it broadcasts, as the Parisian Breviary was rightfully condemned, not because the French bishops (of their own accord) modified their rite, but because it modified the ancient psalter distribution, to which the message from Rome wasn't, "don't mess with tradition", but, "only Rome can mess with tradition", to which was the message popes have heeded since.
Regarding transcription and AI, my 1256 Dominican Breviary is around ~30% complete, but should I devote a whole two months to it, it should be more or less ready for print. I would like to extend a hand to anyone looking to do other transcription projects, e.g. the Roman Breviary proper. If someone put all the texts into a giant text file, and grabbing the transcribed rubrics and texts from DivinumOfficium, I could help by formatting it into a PDF.
For medieval handwritten MSS, my brief testing has shown that Gemini and Claude AI's can handle medieval handwriting and produce accurate transcriptions, at least with the sample I had prepared (the Dominican Breviary). ChatGPT has simply hallucinated nonsense in my experience, and I can't really say for any other AI models.
True enough. If possible though we might be able to use the ignorance of those currently in power and their general disinterestedness in the subject of the Divine Office to our advantage. I have discovered that Gemini can do a pretty decent job, but you have to tell it in very specific language exactly what it is looking at. At least in my case that has borne fruit. At least so far. The biggest stumbling block I have encountered is how the Scriptural readings for Matins are organized for the per annum and Easter cycle. There doesn’t seem to be any organized pattern for assigning certain readings to certain days. Have you encountered this in the Domincan breviary?
The 180 degree turn in the use of Papal power from Divino Afflatu on was really breathtaking. It got transformed from an instrument that preserved into one that destroyed absolutely everything it had been tasked with conserving. It really is stunning. Thank you for your offer. I wish you the best with the Dominican.
Funny about the readings, from my experience skimming Pre-Tridentine Curial Breviaries, the Sundays per annum seemed not to have fixed readings, so I theorize it was up to the officiant to pick how long the readings are, as well as the ferial days, because there seem to be extra Vespers antiphons, not fixed to the Sundays. I suppose the current arrangement is due to the Tridentine reform fixing the readings, now that clerics were now expected to use the book outside of choir.
The thing about this early Domincan Breviary is that the readings are almost nonexistent, that is, they are short, and only provided for Sundays, and the weekdays, the rubrics explicitly state to either continue the where the Sunday lessons left off (if they can find a Bible), or just repeat the Sunday. And most saints, outside of the highest rank are just from the Common. And the length can be freely shortened.
Thank you. What I have noticed about this Franciscan is that it on the Sunday it will have readings for the first and second nocturns. Then after that it has a very long passage from Scripture labelled infra hebdomadam which I suppose, but cannot confirm, to have been used at ones convenience.
It's a shame that most of the religious orders (outside of the ones using the St. Benedict Psalter) caved in. Among others, the Dominicans and Carmelites were pretty painful, because they kept their original pre-Tridentine Psalter up to Pius X; all they needed to do was reduce the number of Doubles and Semi-double feasts, and have Sunday Long Prime again for all Sundays. Instead, they fell to the hype about a newer, better Psalter, and took the Divino Afflatu Psalter as their own in their reform happening (probably a few years later)
That was the sad mood of the times. Everybody wanted to abandon the past. They all thought they knew better. And we can see now what it led to. Very sad. Very, very sad.
Although from your arguments here and in other articles it seems to me that the Roman Psalter may be prayed by the laity, it still seems doubtful to me that clergy may satisfy their obligations to pray the office with it.
"Simul vero poenas in jure statutas iis denuntiamus, qui suo officio persolvendi quotidie Horas canonicas defuerint; qui quidem sciant se tam gravi non satisfacturos officio, nisi Nostrum hunc Psalterii ordinem adhibeant."
This seems to pretty clearly indicate that only the Divino Afflatu psalter (or the LOTH) could possibly fulfill the canonical obligation. Are there any good arguments to be made to the contrary?
Well, Benedictine priests were still using the Monastic Ordo after 1 January 1913, were they not? And I have seen no record that any sanction was ever applied to them - or even threatened. So this statement cannot be taken to be an absolute prohibition on any other Ordo. And when you combine it with the fact in the sentences leading up to this he specifically refer to both the Breviary of Pius V, as revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Leo XIII and those who were praying it, then it is pretty clear that it was the prohibition of the that breviary that he was aiming at. Thank you though.
Yes, I don't think the prohibition applied to all indiscriminately.
But Canon law says:
"obligatione tenentur sacerdotes necnon diaconi ad presbyteratum aspirantes cotidie liturgiam horarum persolvendi secundum proprios et probatos liturgicos libros; diaconi autem permanentes eandem persolvant pro parte ab Episcoporum conferentia definita;" Canon 276, 2, 3. https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=276&v=latin
Specifically where it says "accordance with their own approved liturgical books." This seems to mean that priests must pray either the 62 office or LOTH if they want to fulfill their obligation, unless they belong to a community like the Benedictines which has its own approved office.
That I presume is the '83 code since it references bishops' conferences and permanent deacons. That is what it is, and if a cleric feels himself bound be that then he probably can't even pray the '62 breviary anymore, since Traditionis Custodes declared that the liturgical books of Paul VI as revised by John Paul II are the "unique expression of the Roman Rite." So I suppose that if one sees that canon as binding then they are bound to pray the LOTH, a form of prayer that is entirely alien to the actual historical Roman Rite, and put themselves entirely at odds with Catholic law and tradition going back to the Roman Empire.
I am pretty certain from what I've read that diocesan priests can still pray the 62 office under TC. Favorabilia sunt amplianda, odiosa restrigenda. However, I am not a canon lawyer.
Even using the new Code of Canon Law, a higher-ranking prelate like Cardinal Mayer said that the older Breviaries aren't prohibited. And I know of several priests doing this, too, even if not exactly using Trent, but Pius X breviaries.
I also know of others who go full-on legalism, even if they hate the changes (Katrina Edwards being one of them), because the Pope to them is all the law. So the new 2018 law allows some pre-1955isms to be used. Basically, they tell us to be grateful for what they give you as crumbs and try to stay within the bounds of current liturgical law for public recitation/chanting.
Thank you for this Paul. Do you have any knowledge of articles or statements from Bishops, Cardinals, etc. that go into this question in more depth? I am aware that some priests and probably even a bishop or two use the pre-55 or pre-Divino Afflatu offices, but I would like to understand their reasoning in depth. I want to respect the law of the Church while also preserving the tradition as much as possible.
I would have to think it would. It was to make certain that that sort of thing was preserved that Pius V recognized the rights of any Breviary that was more than 200 years old.
I would love to help with the transcription but I don't have much time. I have been transcribing a 15th century Middle English text which has been interesting and I have tried getting AI to transcribe a Latin office, with mixed results. It does struggle a bit. In my experience, AI transcription is a 50/50 affair, it will get as much wrong as it gets right but it can save a bit of time.
And if we apply the 'favorabilia' standard to Divino Afflatu then breviaries which fell under Quod a Nobis' 200 year exception were not only never explicitly banned anywhere but also have the weight of age old tradition from unknown origin supporting their cause.
Thank you. I saw you talking about your Middle English project on your substack. Yes your right. AI seems like it can be helpful but you have to watch it. Fortunately the vast majority of the Breviary text also exists in modern printed text so it helps the deciphering process.
Regarding clerics who have doubts on this ban, Bp. Athanasius Schneider is one of them, as at least once called the Roman Cursus the 'Breviary of the Ages'. But as it those in power are not interested in the Divine Office at all, let alone reverse Divino Afflatu's legacy.
It is interesting to note that the 'Wrath of Peter and Paul' as found in Quo Primum, is directed NOT at clerics who pray some other Missal, but to anyone who modifies the decree *itself*, with additional penalties for printers who edit the Tridentine Missal, in stark contrast to Divino Afflatu, which directs the Apostles' Wrath at anyone who doesn't use the new Breviary past 1913. Quite the disconnect in the use of the keys of Peter.
But by 1911, the Carmelites, Praemonstrantensians, and Dominicans did not feel themselves excepted by the 200-year rule and quickly organized commissions to put DA into effect (as testified by Bonniwell in his "History of the Dominican Liturgy", pp367), even if the decree itself had sloppy language. Contrast that to Urban VIII's hymn reform, in which every place justified rejection by reason of Quod a Nobis (not Quo Primum, to correct this common mistake by trads).
Another consequence of whole Neo-Gallican affair is the unfortunate message it broadcasts, as the Parisian Breviary was rightfully condemned, not because the French bishops (of their own accord) modified their rite, but because it modified the ancient psalter distribution, to which the message from Rome wasn't, "don't mess with tradition", but, "only Rome can mess with tradition", to which was the message popes have heeded since.
Regarding transcription and AI, my 1256 Dominican Breviary is around ~30% complete, but should I devote a whole two months to it, it should be more or less ready for print. I would like to extend a hand to anyone looking to do other transcription projects, e.g. the Roman Breviary proper. If someone put all the texts into a giant text file, and grabbing the transcribed rubrics and texts from DivinumOfficium, I could help by formatting it into a PDF.
For medieval handwritten MSS, my brief testing has shown that Gemini and Claude AI's can handle medieval handwriting and produce accurate transcriptions, at least with the sample I had prepared (the Dominican Breviary). ChatGPT has simply hallucinated nonsense in my experience, and I can't really say for any other AI models.
True enough. If possible though we might be able to use the ignorance of those currently in power and their general disinterestedness in the subject of the Divine Office to our advantage. I have discovered that Gemini can do a pretty decent job, but you have to tell it in very specific language exactly what it is looking at. At least in my case that has borne fruit. At least so far. The biggest stumbling block I have encountered is how the Scriptural readings for Matins are organized for the per annum and Easter cycle. There doesn’t seem to be any organized pattern for assigning certain readings to certain days. Have you encountered this in the Domincan breviary?
The 180 degree turn in the use of Papal power from Divino Afflatu on was really breathtaking. It got transformed from an instrument that preserved into one that destroyed absolutely everything it had been tasked with conserving. It really is stunning. Thank you for your offer. I wish you the best with the Dominican.
Funny about the readings, from my experience skimming Pre-Tridentine Curial Breviaries, the Sundays per annum seemed not to have fixed readings, so I theorize it was up to the officiant to pick how long the readings are, as well as the ferial days, because there seem to be extra Vespers antiphons, not fixed to the Sundays. I suppose the current arrangement is due to the Tridentine reform fixing the readings, now that clerics were now expected to use the book outside of choir.
The thing about this early Domincan Breviary is that the readings are almost nonexistent, that is, they are short, and only provided for Sundays, and the weekdays, the rubrics explicitly state to either continue the where the Sunday lessons left off (if they can find a Bible), or just repeat the Sunday. And most saints, outside of the highest rank are just from the Common. And the length can be freely shortened.
I have noticed that about the extra Vespers antiphons too. I’m glad you mentioned it because I thought I was going crazy for a second.
Thank you. What I have noticed about this Franciscan is that it on the Sunday it will have readings for the first and second nocturns. Then after that it has a very long passage from Scripture labelled infra hebdomadam which I suppose, but cannot confirm, to have been used at ones convenience.
It's a shame that most of the religious orders (outside of the ones using the St. Benedict Psalter) caved in. Among others, the Dominicans and Carmelites were pretty painful, because they kept their original pre-Tridentine Psalter up to Pius X; all they needed to do was reduce the number of Doubles and Semi-double feasts, and have Sunday Long Prime again for all Sundays. Instead, they fell to the hype about a newer, better Psalter, and took the Divino Afflatu Psalter as their own in their reform happening (probably a few years later)
That was the sad mood of the times. Everybody wanted to abandon the past. They all thought they knew better. And we can see now what it led to. Very sad. Very, very sad.
Although from your arguments here and in other articles it seems to me that the Roman Psalter may be prayed by the laity, it still seems doubtful to me that clergy may satisfy their obligations to pray the office with it.
"Simul vero poenas in jure statutas iis denuntiamus, qui suo officio persolvendi quotidie Horas canonicas defuerint; qui quidem sciant se tam gravi non satisfacturos officio, nisi Nostrum hunc Psalterii ordinem adhibeant."
This seems to pretty clearly indicate that only the Divino Afflatu psalter (or the LOTH) could possibly fulfill the canonical obligation. Are there any good arguments to be made to the contrary?
Well, Benedictine priests were still using the Monastic Ordo after 1 January 1913, were they not? And I have seen no record that any sanction was ever applied to them - or even threatened. So this statement cannot be taken to be an absolute prohibition on any other Ordo. And when you combine it with the fact in the sentences leading up to this he specifically refer to both the Breviary of Pius V, as revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Leo XIII and those who were praying it, then it is pretty clear that it was the prohibition of the that breviary that he was aiming at. Thank you though.
Thank you for your response!
Yes, I don't think the prohibition applied to all indiscriminately.
But Canon law says:
"obligatione tenentur sacerdotes necnon diaconi ad presbyteratum aspirantes cotidie liturgiam horarum persolvendi secundum proprios et probatos liturgicos libros; diaconi autem permanentes eandem persolvant pro parte ab Episcoporum conferentia definita;" Canon 276, 2, 3. https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=276&v=latin
Specifically where it says "accordance with their own approved liturgical books." This seems to mean that priests must pray either the 62 office or LOTH if they want to fulfill their obligation, unless they belong to a community like the Benedictines which has its own approved office.
That I presume is the '83 code since it references bishops' conferences and permanent deacons. That is what it is, and if a cleric feels himself bound be that then he probably can't even pray the '62 breviary anymore, since Traditionis Custodes declared that the liturgical books of Paul VI as revised by John Paul II are the "unique expression of the Roman Rite." So I suppose that if one sees that canon as binding then they are bound to pray the LOTH, a form of prayer that is entirely alien to the actual historical Roman Rite, and put themselves entirely at odds with Catholic law and tradition going back to the Roman Empire.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I am pretty certain from what I've read that diocesan priests can still pray the 62 office under TC. Favorabilia sunt amplianda, odiosa restrigenda. However, I am not a canon lawyer.
Even using the new Code of Canon Law, a higher-ranking prelate like Cardinal Mayer said that the older Breviaries aren't prohibited. And I know of several priests doing this, too, even if not exactly using Trent, but Pius X breviaries.
I also know of others who go full-on legalism, even if they hate the changes (Katrina Edwards being one of them), because the Pope to them is all the law. So the new 2018 law allows some pre-1955isms to be used. Basically, they tell us to be grateful for what they give you as crumbs and try to stay within the bounds of current liturgical law for public recitation/chanting.
Thank you for this Paul. Do you have any knowledge of articles or statements from Bishops, Cardinals, etc. that go into this question in more depth? I am aware that some priests and probably even a bishop or two use the pre-55 or pre-Divino Afflatu offices, but I would like to understand their reasoning in depth. I want to respect the law of the Church while also preserving the tradition as much as possible.
A Benedictine oblate friend of mine penned this book, with help from a traditional priest:
https://osjustipress.com/products/lumen-christi-defending-pre-1955-roman-rite
He himself uses a pre-Pius X Monastic Breviary, with permission from his Benedictine abbot.
Okay, thank you, I'll take a look.
What about the Sarum breviary? Does that qualify?
I would have to think it would. It was to make certain that that sort of thing was preserved that Pius V recognized the rights of any Breviary that was more than 200 years old.
I would love to help with the transcription but I don't have much time. I have been transcribing a 15th century Middle English text which has been interesting and I have tried getting AI to transcribe a Latin office, with mixed results. It does struggle a bit. In my experience, AI transcription is a 50/50 affair, it will get as much wrong as it gets right but it can save a bit of time.
And if we apply the 'favorabilia' standard to Divino Afflatu then breviaries which fell under Quod a Nobis' 200 year exception were not only never explicitly banned anywhere but also have the weight of age old tradition from unknown origin supporting their cause.
Thank you. I saw you talking about your Middle English project on your substack. Yes your right. AI seems like it can be helpful but you have to watch it. Fortunately the vast majority of the Breviary text also exists in modern printed text so it helps the deciphering process.
I believe in fact the Sarum is fully finished, although it's mainly for chanting, not ideal for recitation. https://sarum-chant.ca/resources/links/william-renwick-2-0/