Monasticum vs. Romanum
  • Hello,

    Could some explain or link me to somewhere that explains the usage of the Antiphonale Romanum vs. the Antiphonale Monasticum? Which books are used when? Which editions are acceptable for liturgical use other than the 2000s AM and 2009 ARii?

    (And are there official English translations of these texts?)

    Hoping someone can shed some light!

    Best,
    Graduale
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,291
    AR is used for the Roman Rite, AM for the Benedictine usage of the same. The 1934 and 1949 versions of each are used for the 1962 office and the traditional Benedictine office. The Liber Usualis and other books fill in the texts to get one to 1962, but the AR rubrics are official, unless modified by the 1960 changes or another source, e.g. community custom.

    I also believe that the AR (and AM too?) for the Novus Ordo are divided into volumes…

    No, not as I know, regarding English.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,779
    @graduale

    A layman can use what ever book they want, I know a few that use the AM or at least the Diurnal that has the ancient Monastic Office. At our parish we use the 1949 AR, using the Rubrics in force before 1955!

    Those bound to say the Office have to follow the rules in force for their state and order.

    Of course a layman could pray the Divine Office or the modern Liturgy of the Hours in English, according to any translation. N.B. Very few if any translations found in hand missals etc. were approved for Liturgical Use.
  • So as I understand it, the "average parish" doing the office in Latin would use the 1949/1960 Antiphonale Romanum, unless they use the 1983 Liber Hymnarius and the 2009 ARii (which are up-to-date?)? Monasteries use the 1934 or 2000's Antiphonale Monasticum, as well as those who want to use it as a resource for alternate chant melodies?

    Where can one buy the 1949/1960 Antiphonale Romanum?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,212
    The last one I saw for sale on eBay was priced at $800. That helped to motivate us at CMAA to get a copy scanned and offer the PDF on-line.
  • graduale:

    Are you clear on the difference between, whatever you call them, the Extraordinary Form versus the Ordinary Form?

    The Ordinary Form refers to using the current liturgical books, whereas the Extraordinary Form refers to doing things according to the books in effect in 1962. [Both of which are standard & basically universally legitimate.]

    Thus:

    Extraordinary Form:


    If you are a Benedictine: Antiphonale Monasticum (1934)

    Examples of Monasteries using this book: Norcia, Le Barroux

    If you are secular: Antiphonale Romanum (1949/1960)

    Examples of users: say, the FSSP seminary, the Institute of Christ the King, or others devoted to the Extraordinary Form liturgies. In reality, most people would probably be using excerpts from this AR as found in the Liber Usualis, which is an esteemed and very useful anthology, otherwise some other AR-derivative book

    Ordinary Form:

    If you are a Benedictine: Antiphonale Monasticum (2000's)

    Examples: [dunno, actually!]

    If you are secular: Antiphonale Romanum II (2009)

    Examples: I've seen it used by my diocesan cathedral

    [I am not, in fact, much at all familiar with the books for the Ordinary Form office; I'm just taking these titles from your post.]

    I might also add, don't refer to the Extraordinary Form merely as "Latin", because Latin is of course normative for the Ordinary Form as well.

    Then, for the office, people usually call the EF the "Divine Office", but the OF the "Liturgy of the Hours" (at least, this is the case with the secular versions).

    Hope this helps.
    Thanked by 2graduale tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,779
    Our Parish (NO) used the AM 1934, when we started singing Vespers, (the Chaplain to our EF community was a Benedictine) we then swopped over to the AR 1949. I don't think our parish has ever had the modern Liturgy of the Hours.

    N.B. I do realise that the Benedictine Office (and Mass Propers) should only be used in Parishes run by the order. But someone seem to have failed to tell the Benedictines!

    In my experience most NO parishes in England use the AR 1949 or derivative to sing the Office. Those that have morning prayer or other types of read Office use the LOTH.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,462
    Those that have morning prayer or other types of read Office use the LOTH.
    If by LOTH you mean the ICEL version published under that title in the USA, then : not in my experience. They use the Collins published version entitled The Divine Office, as authorised in England (and many other countries), with Grail psalms and other translation and detail differences.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,779
    @a_f_hawkins
    I just mean the made up modern office, usually described as the LOTH... Anyway have sung modern vespers and compline once and that was one time too many, as for the rest of that office... I have never heard it said or sung, and would avoid it.
  • @JonathanKK - that really clears things up! I guess I hadn't quite understood that EF/OF applies to the office as well. I was also a bit confused by the lingo...
    EF -> Divinum Officium
    OF USA -> Liturgy of the Hours
    OF UK -> Divine Office ...etc.

    By the way - I've come across a nice scan of the 1934 AM (different from what's on CCW).


    Graduale
    Thanked by 1JonathanKK
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,462
    For the Office, OF and EF are very very different. The NO Liturgia Horarum was promulgated in 1970/1, but for the music in ARii we have had to wait until 2009. We had translations of the text into English in 1974 (DO) and 1975 (LOTH=ICEL). There are musical versions in English, eg the Mundelein Psalter, and many other partial versions. Meanwhile a new editio typica of the Liturgia Horarum, with revised translation of the scriptures (including psalms) into Latin (the Nova Vulgata), came out in 1985, these changes were already incorporated into DO and LOTH. I do not know whether ARii uses this or the 1970/1. I found this illuminating.