What do you think?
Rate this book
The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West
The origins and development of the Divine Office are traced through both Eastern and Western branches of the Church, providing a wealth of historical and liturgical information. From the small beginnings of a few Christians in New Testament Jerusalem, the prayer of the Church spread, changing and evolving as it met and was assimilated by different cultures. This classic study is a major resource for the liturgical scholar.
421 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1986
10 people are currently reading
87 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 28, 2021
I enjoyed and learned quite a bit from Fr. Taft (God rest his soul); the man didn't pull punches about his belief in God, was unquestionably a leading scholar in this field, and showed affection for his beloved Byzantine Rite. His animus against the Tridentine Rite is frustrating, however, and distracting. I was expecting more of a comparative review of the rites, but it turned out this is more of a historical analysis, which isn't bad but not quite what I came here for, either. So given that, rather than a "Good and the Bad", I'll run through a "Good and the Confusing" review.
The Good:
I learned a good deal about the history of the Divine Office. Nobody is pretending that Christian liturgy sprung up fully formed at the Last Supper. The Eucharist was, of course, but the ritual surrounding the consecration was likely a product of the Apostles (given the similarities between such disparate rites, it seems very likely they practiced some common rite amongst themselves before separating). The Divine Office, the cursus of common prayers said in the name of the Church throughout the day, is the other half of the liturgy. Fr. Taft doesn't believe it began as a mere continuation of Jewish daily prayers, as there was no real "set" of such prayers in the first place. But we do see a very rapid rise in a morning and evening common prayer based on the eschatology of those events (the rising of the Sun and the departing of the Light). Reciting Psalm 62 in the morning and 140 in the evening is a stupendously ancient ritual. Hints of the minior hours (Terce, Sext, Nones) are also found pretty early, usually tied to various New Testament mentions of prayers at those hours, but not particularly ritualized at this early stage.
By the time of St. John Chrysostom, we see litanies, collects, blessings by the bishop; the brilliant symbolism of lighting candles is also ritualized. The purpose is clear: common prayer. This was not just the clergy, but rather an expectation of all of the Christians in a city to participate in, day and night, every day in some places, on the weekends in others.
Fr. Taft is at his best when describing his love and practice of the Byzantine Rite.
The Confusing:
Again, as much as I appreciate Fr. Taft's work and respect his unquestioned scholarship, his dislike of the Tridentine Rite is distracting, especially when he feels the need to praise any and all changes put in place by the Second Vatican Council. One wonders if such radical changes had been made to his beloved Byzantine Rite whether he would have been so appreciative. An example: he praises the Liturgy of the Hours (the novos ordo office) for being more "monastic" rather than "cathedral" in nature. Translation is needed here, obviously. For the monastics, the goal was to completely recite the psalter, all 150 psalms, usually in order. Psalm 1 is followed by Psalm 2, and then 3, etc. The "cathedral" office also tries to get in all 150 psalms, but changes the order to fit the occasion. The occasion is not just the hour of the day or the day of the week, but feast days, octaves, holy days of obligation, among others. For the reason, it is a rare week indeed that all 150 psalms are said (the psalms at Vespers on Thursday, for example, might be replaced by a saint's festal Vespers, doubling on some psalms said elsewhere in the week and omitting those of Thursday Vespers).
Fair enough point. But that cannot then be followed by praise of the Second Vatican Council opting to remove entire psalms and certain verses altogether, so that they are never prayed, ever! And that time with the saints is incredible. Fr. Taft's rather snide remark about Dom Guéranger did not sit well with me. My practice of saying the Office in the old Tridentine Rite, by my lonesome, has been a true Godsend for me, and no small part of that benefit is in coming into closer contact with the Saints whose festival I now celebrate. And Dom Guéranger's books have helped fill in my knowledge of just who these saints were that the Church is honoring. I would pay hundreds of dollars for Guéranger's books before I paid a penny for Fr. Taft's. Wait, I already did...anyway, this point about the Office bringing us closer to the saints is one I've noticed on my own, but also one pointed out by Fr. Taft himself. Is it important or not?
Another point made is that the Tridentine Rite has been too locked up, too stuffy in a sense. It is rarely said in common anymore, which defeats the purpose of the office. Yet this same man explicitly points out that those who pray at the same time every day are more likely to pray every day. And you are Byzantine Rite! Has that rite really been more flexible over the centuries than the Mass of St. Pius V?
His points are not without merit; it's the reflexive "Vatican II is great!" that drives me nuts. The Liturgy of the Hours certainly was reformed; do you know any Catholic under the age of 50 who has been to Vespers, ever? Ironically, the only Catholic churches I see opening up a public Vespers ceremony is in various Eastern Rites like the Byzantine and...Tridentine Rite parishes.
It may be that asking the clergy to recite the Office everyday in full prevents any part of it from being publicly performed at all, much less well. That's a reform I would be willing to see (though on provision that the clergy are not using as an opportunity to drop away from this prayer altogether). The same could be said of daily Mass; that has not been a requirement from time immemorial and could be changed. But here's the thing: this could only be justified by using that freed up time to pray those elements of the liturgy publically better. That would require both priests and laity who want to do that. No changes in the number of offices, no rearranging the order of the psalms is going to do that.
We may very well have been overburdened, but as the faithful, we are certainly under burdened now.
So, I guess I would describe this book as frustrating. I am glad to have picked up what I did out of it, however. And Father Taft and I have this in common: we both wish that offices like Matins/Lauds and Vespers were celebrated publicly again.
The Good:
I learned a good deal about the history of the Divine Office. Nobody is pretending that Christian liturgy sprung up fully formed at the Last Supper. The Eucharist was, of course, but the ritual surrounding the consecration was likely a product of the Apostles (given the similarities between such disparate rites, it seems very likely they practiced some common rite amongst themselves before separating). The Divine Office, the cursus of common prayers said in the name of the Church throughout the day, is the other half of the liturgy. Fr. Taft doesn't believe it began as a mere continuation of Jewish daily prayers, as there was no real "set" of such prayers in the first place. But we do see a very rapid rise in a morning and evening common prayer based on the eschatology of those events (the rising of the Sun and the departing of the Light). Reciting Psalm 62 in the morning and 140 in the evening is a stupendously ancient ritual. Hints of the minior hours (Terce, Sext, Nones) are also found pretty early, usually tied to various New Testament mentions of prayers at those hours, but not particularly ritualized at this early stage.
By the time of St. John Chrysostom, we see litanies, collects, blessings by the bishop; the brilliant symbolism of lighting candles is also ritualized. The purpose is clear: common prayer. This was not just the clergy, but rather an expectation of all of the Christians in a city to participate in, day and night, every day in some places, on the weekends in others.
Fr. Taft is at his best when describing his love and practice of the Byzantine Rite.
The Confusing:
Again, as much as I appreciate Fr. Taft's work and respect his unquestioned scholarship, his dislike of the Tridentine Rite is distracting, especially when he feels the need to praise any and all changes put in place by the Second Vatican Council. One wonders if such radical changes had been made to his beloved Byzantine Rite whether he would have been so appreciative. An example: he praises the Liturgy of the Hours (the novos ordo office) for being more "monastic" rather than "cathedral" in nature. Translation is needed here, obviously. For the monastics, the goal was to completely recite the psalter, all 150 psalms, usually in order. Psalm 1 is followed by Psalm 2, and then 3, etc. The "cathedral" office also tries to get in all 150 psalms, but changes the order to fit the occasion. The occasion is not just the hour of the day or the day of the week, but feast days, octaves, holy days of obligation, among others. For the reason, it is a rare week indeed that all 150 psalms are said (the psalms at Vespers on Thursday, for example, might be replaced by a saint's festal Vespers, doubling on some psalms said elsewhere in the week and omitting those of Thursday Vespers).
Fair enough point. But that cannot then be followed by praise of the Second Vatican Council opting to remove entire psalms and certain verses altogether, so that they are never prayed, ever! And that time with the saints is incredible. Fr. Taft's rather snide remark about Dom Guéranger did not sit well with me. My practice of saying the Office in the old Tridentine Rite, by my lonesome, has been a true Godsend for me, and no small part of that benefit is in coming into closer contact with the Saints whose festival I now celebrate. And Dom Guéranger's books have helped fill in my knowledge of just who these saints were that the Church is honoring. I would pay hundreds of dollars for Guéranger's books before I paid a penny for Fr. Taft's. Wait, I already did...anyway, this point about the Office bringing us closer to the saints is one I've noticed on my own, but also one pointed out by Fr. Taft himself. Is it important or not?
Another point made is that the Tridentine Rite has been too locked up, too stuffy in a sense. It is rarely said in common anymore, which defeats the purpose of the office. Yet this same man explicitly points out that those who pray at the same time every day are more likely to pray every day. And you are Byzantine Rite! Has that rite really been more flexible over the centuries than the Mass of St. Pius V?
His points are not without merit; it's the reflexive "Vatican II is great!" that drives me nuts. The Liturgy of the Hours certainly was reformed; do you know any Catholic under the age of 50 who has been to Vespers, ever? Ironically, the only Catholic churches I see opening up a public Vespers ceremony is in various Eastern Rites like the Byzantine and...Tridentine Rite parishes.
It may be that asking the clergy to recite the Office everyday in full prevents any part of it from being publicly performed at all, much less well. That's a reform I would be willing to see (though on provision that the clergy are not using as an opportunity to drop away from this prayer altogether). The same could be said of daily Mass; that has not been a requirement from time immemorial and could be changed. But here's the thing: this could only be justified by using that freed up time to pray those elements of the liturgy publically better. That would require both priests and laity who want to do that. No changes in the number of offices, no rearranging the order of the psalms is going to do that.
We may very well have been overburdened, but as the faithful, we are certainly under burdened now.
So, I guess I would describe this book as frustrating. I am glad to have picked up what I did out of it, however. And Father Taft and I have this in common: we both wish that offices like Matins/Lauds and Vespers were celebrated publicly again.
August 21, 2013
Students of Fr. Robert Taft, Emeritus Professor of Liturgy and Languages at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, will find this exhaustive review of the Liturgy of the Hours not uncharacteristic of his caliber of scholarship. Divided into four sections, the book studies the pre-Nicene origins of the Divine Office by examining Old and New Testament sources, as well as early patristic witnesses. It then goes on to study how the tradition of the Office developed in both East and West. Professor Taft then comes full circle by interpreting the Divine Office's significance for us today. Written in a no-nonsense but pleasant manner, the book pays particular attention to extreme - and sometimes tedious - detail, corroborated by multilingual sources (this is the author's typical style, making him clearly the foremost and certainly most prolific living liturgical scholar in the world today). I highly recommend this book from not only a colleague and mentor, but also a friend.
March 8, 2010
This is an impressive work of scholarship, carefully tracing the various strands of development of this daily prayer form from the documentary mists of the first three Christian centuries to the explosion of textual evidence starting in the fourth century. Taft presents a careful and nearly-exhaustive picture of the development of the Divine Office, particularly in the East. I found his prose quite readable, his footnotes thorough, clear, and helpful. For students of formal prayer in the Christian Church, this volume is a monument not to be missed.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews