Roman compline in the EF has the advantage over monastic compline that there is an antiphon for the psalmody and that there is the Nunc dimittis, which is the culmination of the office in the Roman usage, but has no place in monastic compline.

Before the reforms of Pius X, Roman compline was the same for all the days of the week, i.e., as Sunday compline, but with four psalms (Psalms 4, 30, 90, and 133 by the old numbering). In the new office, there are only two psalms; this may make sense for a busy priest saying the entire office each day, but for parish use, where compline will be the single office sung, the office would be a bit too brief to stand alone.

If I were singing compline in a parish as a single office, I would consider singing the same office (i.e., that of Sunday) on any day, with the four psalms. Such discretion was allowed to individual monastic houses by the Rule of St. Benedict; in the modern office, the structuring of the offices is quite open for those who do not have a canonical obligation to the office. This solution would realize thoroughly traditional principles and be quite suitable to parish usage.

My group sings compline at the Stanford Memorial Church one Sunday a quarter (other groups sing for the other Sundays); we add a significant amount of polyphonic music, and the service takes about 30 minutes, long enough for people to make a trip to the church to attend. Normal Sndays we sing compline after dinner in a private home, just in Gregorian chant according to the EF with three psalms, and it takes about 15 minutes.

Thank you Dr. Mahrt, that's excellent advice.
The reason I was considering the Monastic form is that if a priest were to join us I would want it to fulfill his office obligation. It just seemed simpler to have one set of psalms at this point.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/VISEnglishSummPont.pdf:
See article 9.

Michael, as Ioannes has referenced those in 'Major orders' may fulfill their obligation with the EF office as well as any publicly celebrated office if its an approved form of liturgy. I'm not sure where to get documentation on that second point, but if a parish priest attends vespers at a monastery he isn't obliged to repeat it in private according to the LOH, to fulfill his obligation.

mjballou, thanks for the tip but I just bought an old LP of Sunday vespers and Compline at Solesmes on ebay.

Concerning fulfilling the obligation to the office by the EF, summum pontificum allows any priest the use of the old breviary.

you can find some music/selections of 1963/65 Compline,i think, at.
http://gloria.tv/?media=22172
and
http://gloria.tv/?media=16740
-
plus the Prinknash one spoken of in earlier post,, wil be uploaded soon.
pax

BGP wrote:
Also any thoughts about using monastic compline in a parish setting, my understanding is that the monastic psalms are fixed (Sundays are used each day)?


This could be problematic (the monastic compline). It may be one thing to join in an office of a different rite, but to do so on your own is something all together. I think the Canons regulating Sacramental life could be extrapolated to give light on this subject. For instance, the Eastern Canons (CCEO 701) allow for concelebration from diverse rites, but cannot do so on their own (cf. CIC 276, 846). In simpler terms, for example, a Latin priest may join in a Byzantine Liturgy as a con-celebrant, but cannot be the main celebrant of a Byzantine Liturgy (assuming he doesn't possess bi-ritual faculties).

Also, as a layman to lead such publicly in a parish setting would seem to violate Canon 214.


Note: none of the above applies to an EF LOTH, which is explicitly allowed now via Summorum Pontificum.

BGP, yeah the EF is fine!

The current CIC doesn't really seem to deal with the LOTH, but I thought that one could gain the necessary insights from the canons that deal with the Eucharistic Liturgy (since the LOTH is Liturgy, too). As to whether the monastic form (or, say, the Mozarabic or Ambrosan rite) is a separate rite, I've seen convincing arguments on both sides. My take is that regardless of whether it is a distinct rite or merely a different usage of the same Roman rite, its usage is only appropriate in its proper setting. Thus, for instance, the Dominican Liturgy (Eucharistic and Office) is only proper in a Dominican house, but not in a general parish.

Of all the hours of the Office, why Compline?

If you were going to have a public celebration of the liturgy of the hours, surely it would be solemn vespers with exposition and benediction?

Mostly due to the traditional time that compline is celebrated. It is traditionally the hour of the office just before bed.

I agree that if possible, the public office should be Vespers and following it with Benediction is very effective.

The problem with Compline is that in a parish setting, it does not make too much sense to have just Compline since it takes only 15 or 20 minutes. On the other hand, Compline can be a nice way to conclude some other public event in the evening, a lecture, for example.