Pray Tell is running a series on the liturgical history of Collegeville. The sub-series “From the Archives” reprints some of the Liturgy Committee meeting minutes from 1963 to 1969. This sub-series is a behind-the-scenes look at liturgy in Collegeville during and immediately after the Second Vatican Council.
The next record from the Liturgy Committee:
Joint Meeting of the Liturgy Committee and Opus Dei Committee
Jan. 17, 1964
The two committees assembled in the faculty lounge at 6:30. Present were Father John who presided, Fathers Daniel, Godfrey, Emeric, Bertram, Vitus, Michael, Benedict, Aelred, Ronald, Camillus, Hilary, Luke, Urban, Wenceslaus, Leon, Lancelot, Fraters Philip, Adam, Sylvester (C), Michael (C), Thomas (B), and Brothers Gerard and Matthew.
Father John opened by saying that the two basic problems which confront the community are 1) to establish a legal right to use English in the public choral recitation of the Office, and 2) to provide a suitable English text of the Office.
Father Hilary asked why an indult would not be granted if we sought one. By way of answer Father Godfrey replied that there can be no certainty, but that it is known that St. Leo’s Abbey did ask and was refused. He said he did not know whom they asked and pointed out that the request was made before the Constitution was formulated. Father Godfrey also said that from his knowledge of the personnel in the Congregation of Rites, he feels that their thinking would at this time not be amenable to the use of the vernacular in the public recitation of the Office for priests. Father John briefly elaborated on St. Leo’s request by saying that the reply came, non expedire. The fact that the reply was sent to the local ordinary would seem to indicate, he said, that the request was made without their first consulting the bishop.
Father Bertram said that perhaps we should wait until the diocesan priests begin to recite the Office in English, and meanwhile concern ourselves with preparing a good text. Father John re-stated that the general plan now is to wait, but no matter when we begin, there would be need for a legal justification. Father Michael said that according to the Constitution bishops cannot grant their priests in globo permission to use the vernacular, but they can grant individuals that privilege. As for the common recitation of Office, he felt that since individuals in the monastery could also obtain the permission, the choral recitation in English would simply be an outward expression of permissions, which were obtained singly.
Concerning the provision of a suitable English text for the recitation of Office, Father John said that we could use the Confraternity translation of the psalms which undoubtedly will be the approved text, for the lessons we could use the translations of the Roman Breviary whenever they are also found in ours, and for the passages that are proper to only the monastic breviary we will have to seek some other translations and obtain an imprimatur for them. As for standardization, a problem that was raised in the last meeting, he didn’t think that it was necessary. He said that in fact, the trend seems to be in the other direction, viz. of having various approved translation.
Father Bertram asked if it wouldn’t be much more reasonable and at the same time insure our chances of obtaining permission to say the Office in English, if we as a Congregation sought the indult. Father John answered the query by saying that this was definitely true, but in that case the request would have to be made by the Abbot President, who from all indications, is anything but interested.
Father Aelred saw no difficulty in the matter of an approved text, for he said that if we use the Confraternity translation of the psalms and the passages of the Roman Breviary whenever we can, we will have a substantially approved text. He said that the main problem for us was to establish our legal right to use the English in choral recitation. In order to better clarify this difficulty, Father Ronald asked Father Godfrey precisely what was the mind of the people who drafted the Constitution when they made such clear distinctions between priests and clerical groups, and others who recite the Office in common. Father Godfrey replied that the legislators ordinarily think of the recitation of the monastic Office as taking place in some remote corner removed from the laity, and therefore they simply did not envision a situation like ours here at St. John’s.
Father Benedict again said that the law clearly makes a distinction between priests and other religious who recite the Office in common. Where then, does the moral right come in? He answered his own question by saying that the moral right comes in by virtue of the very nature of worship which should be the intelligible action of the community. But does that mean that we as a community can demand the vernacular now? Undoubtedly it will come about, in six months or maybe a year. If we have been praying the Office in Latin for 15 or 25 years, as some of us indeed have been, can’t we wait a few months longer? He proceeded to suggest that by way of a gradual transition we introduce the vernacular by having the readings or the lessons read in English, the choir sedentes auscultantes, in a manner similar to the readings at Mass.
Father Ronald pointed out that if we wait, time will favor our use of the English in the Public Office. Once the diocesan clergy is saying their Office in English, there will exist a climate in which a moral justification will no longer be so rigorously demanded. Father Aelred stressed the fact that we should not set a date, but we should make a quiet preparation of a text and format. He suggested that perhaps we should precisely outline our legal justification, whatever we think it is, and submit it to some outstanding canonists with the understanding that they could be cited for their approval. He expressed his strong desire for the vernacular at the soonest possible moment, but said that should we as a community be reprimanded and told to return to the Latin, we would be the laughing stock of the Church, and would undoubtedly delay the legitimate use of the vernacular for many years.
Father John maintained that there was no need to seek an indult, for the Constitution clearly gives the ordinary power to grant individuals the privilege of the vernacular. Since the Abbot is included in the term “ordinary,” he can give the individual monk this privilege. The community is made up of individuals and therefore the vernacular could be used in choir. Father Michael again returned to the role which time plays in forming a climate in which these things are accepted. However, he pointed out that the Abbot Primate could hardly be looked to as a leader in this regard, owing to his vested interest in the new published Benedictine Breviary.
Father Godfrey said that he had recently re-read some of his notes which he took while in Rome, and reported that Abbot Laurentius Klein of Treier had obtained permission to have the Office of Christmas in the vernacular because of the presence of a number of lay people at the monastery who wanted to participate.
Father Wenceslaus was also of the opinion that it would be to our advantage to wait for a reasonable amount of time. At this point Father Aelred said that there is a possibility that some might be disenchanted with the vernacular. He thought that it would take longer to recite the Office or for a reader to read a lesson as a lesson should be read. However, he thought that with the elimination of one or the other of the Little Hours, the overall time required to say the Office would not be much greater. Father John said that the sisters who have recently adopted the vernacular recitation in choir find that it actually takes slightly less time. Father Benedict interjected that it is his hope that with the new changes there will be some further consideration given to the division of labor in the monastery, so that everyone would not be required to be present at every canonical hour.
Toward the end of the allotted time for the meeting, Father John said that he saw no need to delay for even as long as six months. During the past week he had called St. Anthony Guild Press and found out that the Confraternity Psalter in question was still in print. He said that another book which would contain the versicles, antiphons, etc. would have to be compiled and produced in either multilith or printed form. Father Hilary urged printing the psalter for choir use also, but there were some difficulties foreseen in this suggestion. The financial cost would be reduced, Father Hilary said, if we consider that most likely other Abbeys would be interested and would adopt our arrangement.
Another meeting was scheduled for Monday, 20 January, and thereupon this meeting adjourned.
Please leave a reply.