Praying the 1962 Divine Office
Date: April 30, 2023
Author: Fr. Edward McNamara, LC
Question: From the day of my diaconate ordination I will be obliged to pray the breviary. My problem is that I have been using the 1962 Divinum Officium for many years now, which was fine with Summorum Pontificum, and I have come to love it for many reasons. Now I am unsure whether I will be able to fulfill my obligation under the law in force (Traditionis Custodes). I have been given contrary answers from several priests. The one point is that the breviary constitutes an official and not personal prayer. On the other hand, it seems uncertain whether Traditionis Custodes does affect the breviary, and whether the validity of the 1962 breviary could be abrogated at all. I am very confused because of the different answers. I would take up the Liturgia Horarum only if necessary, as I appreciate the Divinum Officium so much for its spiritual depth. I would like to mention that I am aware that the obligation to pray the breviary is a strict one that binds under pain of mortal sin, so please note that your answer may have an impact on the way I will proceed in the time after ordination. -- T.G., Germany
Answer: Your question is quite difficult, and the confusion you refer to is widespread. I have followed the diverse canonical arguments and have been unable to find any definitive answer from the canonical point of view.
The use of the previous Roman breviary remains valid and licit for all those who already have explicit or habitual permission to use it, such as members of congregations dedicated to conserving the former liturgy. Consequently, by doing so, they also participate fully in the Church’s public prayer and fulfill their obligation as clerics.
The confusion regards the continued use of the Roman breviary by those who hitherto used the widespread faculties offered by Summorum Pontificum.
Some canonists examine the extent of the authority and actions of Traditionis Custodes and the subsequent clarifications and official replies of the Roman dicastery. They point out that none of the aforementioned documents specifically mention the use of the Roman breviary. They also point out that restrictive laws must be narrowly interpreted. They, therefore, argue that Summorum Pontificum remains in force, at least in those areas not specifically covered by Traditionis Custodes.
Others argue that canonically, the actions and norms emanated by the Dicastery of Divine Worship cannot derogate the broad right that canon law gives bishops to dispense from general laws. Hence, bishops can continue to grant this kind of permission.
While I am not totally convinced by all these canonical arguments, and admitting that I am not a trained canonist, I do think that the fact that there is no specific mention of the question of the Liturgy of the Hours in the abovementioned documents would leave sufficient leeway for the matter to be resolved by your bishop, who may grant this permission.
On the other hand, other authors point out that the overall intent of Pope Francis’ document and the later clarifications of the Dicastery for Divine Worship cover the whole scope of the Roman liturgy and therefore include the use of the former Divine Office.
For example, although Traditionis Custodes did not mention the Roman Ritual or the Pontifical, the Dicastery for Divine Worship clearly sees that it is covered by the overarching principle enunciated in TC article1.
Thus it responds: “To the proposed question:
“Is it possible, according to the provisions of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, to celebrate the sacraments with the Rituale Romanum and the Pontificale Romanum which predate the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council?
“The answer is: Negative.
“The diocesan Bishop is authorized to grant permission to use only the Rituale Romanum (last editio typica 1952) and not the Pontificale Romanum which predate the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council. He may grant this permission only to those canonically erected personal parishes which, according to the provisions of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962.
“Explanatory note.
“The Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes intends to re-establish in the whole Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer expressing its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and in line with the tradition of the Church. The diocesan Bishop, as the moderator, promoter and guardian of all liturgical life, must work to ensure that his diocese returns to a unitary form of celebration (cf. Pope Francis, Letter to the Bishops of the whole world that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data Traditionis custodes).
“This Congregation, exercising the authority of the Holy See in matters within its competence (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 7), affirms that, in order to make progress in the direction indicated by the Motu Proprio, it should not grant permission to use the Rituale Romanum and the Pontificale Romanum which predate the liturgical reform, these are liturgical books which, like all previous norms, instructions, concessions and customs, have been abrogated (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 8).
“After discernment the diocesan Bishop is authorized to grant permission to use only the Rituale Romanum (last editio typica 1952) and not the Pontificale Romanum which predate the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council. This permission is to be granted only to canonically erected personal parishes which, according to the provisions of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, celebrate with the Missale Romanum of 1962. It should be remembered that the formula for the Sacrament of Confirmation was changed for the entire Latin Church by Saint Paul VI with the Apostolic Constitution Divinæ consortium naturæ (15 August 1971).
“This provision is intended to underline the need to clearly affirm the direction indicated by the Motu Proprio which sees in the liturgical books promulgated by the Saints Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 1).
“In implementing these provisions, care should be taken to accompany all those rooted in the previous form of celebration towards a full understanding of the value of the celebration in the ritual form given to us by the reform of the Second Vatican Council. This should take place through an appropriate formation that makes it possible to discover how the reformed liturgy is the witness to an unchanged faith, the expression of a renewed ecclesiology, and the primary source of spirituality for Christian life.”
We would say that a logical development of these principles would also embrace the Liturgy of the Hours.
It is also important to remember that the cleric’s obligation to pray the Liturgy of the Hours is not grounded primarily on his personal spiritual needs but on his pastoral mission as a mediator called to intercede before God for the needs of Christ’s Church and the souls entrusted to his care.
In reciting the Liturgy of the Hours, the deacon or priest, in a way, becomes the Church, as she joins with Christ’s prayer as supreme mediator. In other words, for the priest, reciting the breviary is not primarily an act of piety but an act of ministry.
Since this possibility is indeed open to all baptized Catholics, it is also incumbent upon the shepherd to inculcate and foment in the faithful the public recitation of the Divine Office in appropriate liturgical celebrations.
For these reasons, we recommend going beyond the question of strict obligation and personal spiritual inclination and be open to using the current Liturgy of the Hours for the pastoral benefit of the faithful under your care and in communion with them.
This said, there is nothing against also using the former breviary, in whole or in part, for one’s own spiritual benefit.
Finally, you state that you are aware “that the obligation to pray the breviary is a strict one that binds under pain of mortal sin.” It is true that the obligation is a strict one, but canonically the expression “binding under pain of mortal sin” is no longer in force. It does not mean that a priest who willfully neglects his obligation does not commit a grave sin, but the sin is due to his attitude and neglect -- not in virtue of a canonical prescription.
In 2000 the Holy See addressed this issue with a formal response on the extent of the obligation to recite the Liturgy of the Hours. The overall principles apply to all versions of the Breviary. The document can be found in https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/obligation-of-the-liturgy-of-the-hours-4604.
* * *
Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word "Liturgy" in the subject field. The text should include your initials, city, state, province, or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the many questions that arrive.