Talk:Liturgy of the Hours

message: I have added  to the top of this article.  This one appears to have been created without knowledge of the existence of Canonical hours. It's difficult to know which one to prefer. While this one is definitely cleaner and better written overall, it manifests an extreme Roman Catholic POV, while the other one has made a serious attempt at comprensiveness. (Which partly explains its relatively disordered state.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there, in sketchy form badly in need of revision, in Canonical Hours.  However, I know little of the history.  I really ought to get Taft's book on the subject. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: About the merge....I don't think that either Canonical hours or Liturgy of the Hours is the best main article title here.  Clearly, there should only be one article, but I think a better main article name would be Divine Office.   Canonical hours is just too obscure, I think.  
The term Liturgy of the Hours is only used as a name in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and even then, only in the reformed version promulgated after the Second Vatican Council.  It is a relatively new title that dates, I think, from the early 1970s.
The Traditional Catholic groups (including relatively new groups such as the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest) that use the older form of the liturgy call it the Divine Office and not the Liturgy of the Hours.
The term Liturgy of the Hours isn't used by Eastern Catholic groups, nor by the groups in the Latin Rite who have their own liturgy, such as the Benedictines.
The Commonwealth English edition is called the Divine Office.
As far as I know of, no other Christian group uses the term Liturgy of the Hours.
In my humble opionion, I would use the term Divine Office  as the main entry.  Canonical Hours would redirect to there, and Liturgy of the Hours would either be a redirect to Divine Office or would be a short article of the reform of the Divine Office.
---Marcusscotus1 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the Orthodox have no collective term for these services other than "the Hours".  Obviously this is a less than suitable article title, so I tend to favor "Canonical Hours" as the most general. The term is not unknown in the West, and is, I am told, considered a synonym for "Divine Office" , and is at least comprehensible in the East. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wondering about how the Orthodox would translate it into English!   Canonical Hours isn't a term I hear much.  I typically hear something like "The Brothers say the Divine Office before starting classes," or "Father is saying the Divine Office now."  --Marcusscotus1 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the only time we group them together under a single name is on those occasions when the Typikon calls for the daytime Hours (i.e. Prime, Terce, Sixte and None) to be read one after the other in sequence. This happens on certain strict fast days before important holy days such as Christmas Eve and Good Friday, and then the service as a whole is called "Royal Hours". The Third and Sixth Hours are read before the Divine Liturgy, but these are simply called "the Hours". Otherwise we would refer to them individually, so in your example we'd have said "the Sixth Hour" (or whichever one he was reading).  TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTH is Post Vatican II Latin Rite Catholic Only 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
# Support The official rite of the Liturgy of the Hours is not just a liturgy of the hours, as Anointing of the Sick (the official rite, in its various historical forms) is not just any anointing of the sick, for instance with an ointment with medicinal properties, and as the Divine Liturgy is more than a divine liturgy.  Lima 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support The official rite of the Liturgy of the Hours is not just a liturgy of the hours, as Anointing of the Sick (the official rite, in its various historical forms) is not just any anointing of the sick, for instance with an ointment with medicinal properties, and as the Divine Liturgy is more than a divine liturgy.  Lima 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: # Oppose - The sources cited by the support voters A) only show spelling when the term is used to refer to the modern Roman Catholic service, and B) only one such internal RC spelling tradition, and C) they try to ignore that "liturgy of the hours" and its component words accurately describe the service in other Christian churches and D) mean something in general English. The arguments presented above by the support voters also E) try to ignore that this article is also talking about prior RC use when the service had other names and other forms (in which case the term shouldn't be capitalised even if capitalisation is chosen for the modern RC service). In any case, the support voters are F) trying to make Wikipedia ignore lower case spelling usual in other normal, general (i.e. secular) English reference works, which should definitely have precedence for WP over use in religious tracts and internal RC communication. Even within the RC Church and even by RC scholars (B), lower case use is common for the modern service, for example in the RC Church's own document on the topic, the  General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Catholic Historical Review, published by the Catholic University of America Press. The former site is "dedicated to providing accurate historical and current information about the liturgies of the Latin (Roman) rite of the Catholic Church" and is linked to by many official RC websites as a reliable source. Lower case use is also shown by Pope Paul VI at that website. In addition, (C and D) the sources cited by the support voters do not show and more specifically are biased in ignoring both general use of the expression "liturgy of the hours" in English and use in other religions. Typical for this bias is that most of these sources for RC use were added by someone that completely ignored the previous(!) oppose vote by a representative of the Anglican Church and completely ignored that this person had seconded my earlier suggestion to change the title to "Liturgy of the hours (Roman Catholic)" or "Liturgy of the Hours (Roman Catholic)". In summary, capitalisation is clearly not necessary within the RC Church, and use of "Liturgy of the Hours" as the article title would be biased towards other religions. In addition, the only citations from normal general English (i.e. secular) reference works provided so far, Britannica, Britannica and Columbia, seem to all have lower case use for this and its synonym, and these sources should alone suffice to dictate usage in WP. Basically, the problem boils down to the widespread use of "polite", "customary", and "reverential" capitalisations in WP articles especially on religion that is due to these being written almost exclusively by members of the relevant religion and due to the lack of objective, outside input and of professional copyediting. (Much of the content is as amateurishly presented and parochial as the spelling.) This kind of capitalisation use is still common especially in older religious texts but not used in normal, general (not only secular or "non-religious" but also non-denominational) works of reference and often not even used by religious scholars (e.g. Latin Rite, Vigil). (And the argument about "anointing of the sick" is typical in its erroneousness because this term is also not usually capitalised in modern non-denominational reference works as shown by these links: , , , , .) Other reputable sources (including RC libraries and liturgy scholars) showing that the current article title is correctly spelled: , , , . The Anglican priest in the discussion below says this about Anglican use: "Liturgy of the hours" is rarely used, but it is not unheard of, and accurately defines the phenomenon. The sources presented by the support votes show old-fashioned and denominational use (in a single outdated denominational encyclopedia and within a single religious group) and are not authoritative for spelling in a modern, secular encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. WP is not a religious tract and not a Catholic encyclopedia, and basic Wikipedia policies cannot be ignored on the basis of a small poll with a few participants, especially when the support votes are probably mostly by members of a single religious group.--Espoo 12:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: Having read all of the above, it is obvious that both capitalizatons are acceptable, depending on the style choice and the context. While Fishhead's proposal (Liturgy of the Hours (Catholic Church)) is appreciated, IMO it adds an unnecessary level of complication for sake "political correctness" (I have a fixed-wing aircraft in mind), and violates "Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general." clause of WP:NC(CN). This article is, rightly or wrongly, currently focused to the Catholic service and its current form. At the risk of being frivolous, I must say that I consider most of the discussion above as "Wikipedia hairsplitting of the month". Editors are kindly invited to amend the article with few sentences regarding the approaches to capitalization. 
<rant>Is it Murphy's law that I come to close RM discussions involving Espoo, or just a result of law of large numbers? I admit I wanted to walk away from this closing, but it would result in waste spending of another admin's time. In any case, I'm switching back into "busy in real life" mode so, please, direct any further continuation, if called for, here, rather than on my talk page.</rant> Duja► 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions

message: This link will take you to a page where the intire post V-II liturgy can be viewed or downloaded in Latin.  It also has a link there to Vatican Radio where Lauds, Vespers and Compline can be heard in Latin.  
http://www.almudi.org/Recursos/LiturgiadelasHoras/LiturgiaHorarum2/tabid/110/Default.aspx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.43.241 (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: I dispute the usefulness of the head photo. It would appear to be a self-done photo with an artificial red background.... I don't see how it helps, it would appear to be someone dressing up in a stereotypical Monk costume. I don't oppose a photo, but I think if we're going to have one it should be someone actually celebrating one of the liturgical Hours, not what appears to be someone in a costume against an ugly red background, so I'm going to Be Bold and remove it. --Pstanton (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness of the heading photo? 

message: Recent edits have replaced the links to Roman rite with Latin rite. I question whether this change is appropriate. For instance, I do not think it is true that this edition of the breviary is used in the Ambrosian rite, which is part of the Latin rite sui juris church. What is the rationale behind these changes? Rwflammang (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin versus Roman rites 

message: If this article is not going to be a redirect to the much better written canonical hours article, then it will have to be about something more specific. Looking at the body and the subjects actually discussed, I'd say it's about the hours as celebrated in the Roman rite. I think that the lede as it currently stands is much too general and vague to introduce the more specific body, with a point of view that wavers between a general (e.g., "Catholic church prescribes" them) to the particular. I think that the lede needs to be narrowed and make a distinction between the omni-rite concept of hours and the very particular Roman rite view of the hours as a "liturgy". 
My earlier, admittedly imperfect, attempts to clarify this were reverted by Esoglou. What gives? Rwflammang (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources cited show that the term "Liturgy of the Hours" is used of what was celebrated even as long ago as the beginning of the thirteenth century, and does not refer merely to the form that it took at the end of the twentieth century, as suggested in the edit that I reverted.  Should the two articles be merged, and under what title?  Or should the "Liturgy of the Hours" article concentrate exclusively on the aspect concerning the Latin Rite = Latin Church (including its medieval period) and the corresponding parts of the other article be reduced to a summary and a reference to the article containing fuller information? Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Restricting it to the Latin rite would be an improvement over considering it a phenomenon of the whole Catholic church, as the lede currently has it (although the hatnote does not). In the meantime, I'll take a look at the source you mention. Rwflammang (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this just another article on canonical hours or not? 

message: Is it me or is this article only about what is the Liturgy of the Hours and doesn't mention specifics on how to pray the hours?
Rebel shadow 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the only way to learn to pray the hours is the get the text, read it and use it.  Esoglou (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Did not Pope Pius V allow any rites more than 200 years old to continue to be celebrated?  That is how I read Quo Primum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.163.233 (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Quo primum was about the Roman Missal.  It was the bull Quod a nobis that made rules about the Roman Breviary, very similar, the article says, to those about the Roman Missal.  So yes, Quod a novis allowed older forms of the Liturgy of the Hours to continues, and "the Benedictine, the Cistercian, the Carthusian, the Norbertine, and Dominican" continued in use, alongside the Roman as revised by Pius V (see this).  Esoglou (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Quod a nobis'' 

message: The article mistakenly states that the entire Psalter is read in the modern LOTH. Three Psalms are omitted entirely (Psalm 58, 83, and 109) while some verses are omitted in 19 other Psalms, namely, 5, 21, 28, 31, 35, 40, 54, 55, 56, 59, 63, 69, 79, 110, 137, 139, 140, 141, and 143.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.0.112 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire Psalter is read. The Psalter being the source text used by the LOTH, not the Book of Psalms in the Bible. The omissions are discussed in the "Books used" section. Elizium23 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Psalter" is indeed sometimes used to mean the psalms contained in the Liturgy of the Hours, but it is also used to mean the Book of Psalms, and so the anonymous editor should be thanked for drawing attention to a statement that needed clarification.  I presume what is referred to is the phrase "the period over which the entire Psalter is recited has been expanded from one week to four".  The article does mention elsewhere the omission of imprecatory psalms and verses.  I have adjusted the article accordingly.  Esoglou (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship in the post-Vatican II LOTH Psalter 

message: The divine office describes the practice of praying a set of prayers at each of the canonical hours. Liturgy of the hours is a specific format for which the divine office is prayed within the Roman rite. The two should not be seen as synonomous. The Litugy of the hours should be grouped alongside other types of breviaries of the roman rite.
I have made this set of drafts to show how they should be seperated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Liturgy_of_the_Hours
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Divine_Office
The Divine Office Page should likely cover forms of the divine office as recited by each rite, not only the roman rite. Magjozs (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: On the basis of what sources do you say that "Liturgy of the Hours" is only a particular format and that in present-day usage it is never a generic term?  Do you think this is wrong? And Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1174?  Bealtainemí (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I cite specifically the Catholic encyclopedia. The Catholic encyclopedia state a complete difference between a breviary and the Divine Office. This is the 1914 version of the CE which existed before the introduction of the new forms of the Roman rite. The term Divine Office refers specifically to a practice of recitation contrasted to breviary which actually describes a book containing the prayers to be said during the Divine Office. Catholic answers has the 2007 version of the Catholic encyclopedia up and it defines the Divine Office as the "The recitation of certain prayers in the Breviary". As well its description of what a breviary is aligns as well. The Roman Breviary was the common form of the Divine office within the Roman Rite before the introduction of the Liturgy of the Hours (which is also by definition a breviary, even though it is not officially called on in it's title). Referring to Breviaries as being synonymous with the divine office would somewhat be like saying that a survival guide as being the same as surviving (This is a terrible analogy I know). The Liturgy of the Hours supplanted the Roman Breviary, it did not rename the practice of the "Divine Office".  The Divine office is a general term for an action of praying the canonical hours whereas breviaries are books which contain various types of rubrics for praying the divine office in different ways. As well, I would like to make note that the source you posted is asserting a colloquial understanding of these words as used by a retailer. Magjozs (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

text: , no, the Liturgy of the Hours is a legitimate name for the Divine Office. The book is actually called Christian Prayer. Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, . While the Liturgy of the Hours is certainly a Divine Office, treating it as the primary–and indeed sole major–name for the Divine Office seems a tad overblown. While you are correct that there is in fact an abridged form of the Catholic Church's official Roman Rite Liturgy of the Hours known as Christian Prayer (and indeed a further abridgment of that know as Shorter Christian Prayer), Christian Prayer is not the primary form of the Divine Office (albeit perhaps the most popular available printed in English). Many Catholics utilize the full Liturgy of the Hours, either in the vernacular or the original Latin. As the article itself makes clear, there are also a myriad of other Divine Offices within the Roman Rite of the Latin Church, most of which predate this iteration of the Liturgy of the Hours and indeed that term itself. Many, in their original form, bear little to no relation to the Liturgy of the Hours. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Divine Office of the Catholic Church (the Brevarium Romanum) was almost exclusively used in Latin. This form and its variations are still used today. Further, Divine Offices for Anglicans like those found in their versions of the Book of Common Prayerand Horologions for Byzantine and Syriac Rites all have no immediate relationship to the term "Liturgy of the Hours." There is sufficient evidence, in my opinion, to merit two articles: one dealing with the Liturgy of the Hours (including its Christian Prayer and other derivatives) and another dealing with the concept of the Divine Office itself more broadly, examining the history of the Divine Office (primarily in the West) from early books of hours to the broad selection of Divine Offices and breviary traditions today. If there is further disagreement to this end, I suggest a vote.~ Pbritti (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you are aware of Canonical hours? Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canonical Hours article isn't really about the actual liturgical procedure of the Divine Office. Canonical Hours is to "Church" what Divine Office is to "Mass (liturgy)" for example.Valepio (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of that, and I am simply concerned about the creation of an article with significant WP:OVERLAP. Perhaps you could work on something in draftspace for a while. Elizium23 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that WP:OVERLAP should be the primary reason for concern, as almost certainly there would be information shared between the articles. Your suggestion of a draftspace creation seems like the most deliverable solution, though that means this conversation will have to be tabled until I can produce something that is sufficient for publication. Once I have that created, I'll link it in this thread and additionally not what aspects of this article would be transitioned from this article to the Divine Office one. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Liturgy of the Hours and Divine Office 

message: It's all very well to describe the way the world IS, but WHY do they spend so much time of the day in Prayer? Why these hours? What results are they seeking? What results have they received. If no demonstrable results, WHY do they persist?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outback1964 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain WHY?

message: The first subheading in this section is entitled 'Judaism and the early church.' It begins by saying, 'The canonical hours stemmed from Jewish prayer. This "sacrifice of praise" began to be substituted for the sacrifices of animals.'
However, there is no actual discussion following this of Jewish prayer traditions in the late second Temple period or in the early rabbinic period. The second sentence, referencing 'sacrifices of animals,' makes it sound as if such prayer traditions did not exist, and that all early Christians had known prior to this point was Temple sacrifice. A full-fledged treatment of the Jewish liturgical background which may have informed early Christian prayer practices is needed. Paramonimos (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, are you volunteering? I approve! Elizium23 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving "Historical Development" Section