Which could be, how do you say, the bones, the skeletons of our discussion. We did not yet speak about a memorandum of him suggestions for the little hours. Perhaps we have already spoken about it a little bit. One wants to avoid, so far as possible, big changes in the present distribution of psalms. Summer 1974, two weeks visual cycle. At the same time, one hears that several of the community regettes not using in the public office psalms are signed on our inserts to terse. And I think that is very right. Presently, given our orarium, which includes daily Eucharist, I do not see any good time or a great need for terse, and therefore would recommend dropping it. In other notes, I have suggested the possibility of terse before Mass, but this would really make

[01:09]

for too frequent and too crowded offices. A situation not, I think, conducive to prayerfulness. We have already discussed that. Therefore, better to drop the task. But, you must say psalms, do you think? I find it awful that you for so many weeks don't say certain psalms. Because for my opinion, the Psalterium is a spiritual unity. It is in its totality the voice of Christ and we must bring this voice of Christ. Somebody today of the theologians of the exegesis says there are bad charms, not so important, not every psalm is the masterpiece. It may be true, but it does not matter. I think we must pray the entire Psalter. It is possible perhaps not to say a psalm which is really a double.

[02:12]

Duplication? Duplication. Repeated? Repeated, yes. One or two are repeated. That is possible, but every sound, also the crossing sounds, and also the not so important sounds must be said. Therefore, especially because you are omitting splendid sounds, 118, the first four, or the first, not the first four, the sounds assigned to the stars. And therefore it would be necessary to arrange this sound and things so that without changing the entire cycle you are able to see this entire psalter. Therefore he brings possibility. If only, If thirds, sixths and nones are all celebrated, as now on our printed insert, it's evident, but you don't do it. Therefore, if only sixths and nones are celebrated, use the two-week cycle as follows.

[03:16]

Then he brings, for example, so, first week, nothing else than a division of 118 in sixths and nones. And he makes it so on Sunday in the 6th, 181st part. known second part. Therefore, what are we saying? Aleph, Pith, Piml, one section. And he makes the note, there is no reason why a little hour comprising opening, hymn, psalm, reading, Lord, have mercy, and our Father should be unsubstantial simply because it has but one or two psalms. And I think that is right. Therefore, if you have on Sunday, it would be a little bit for Sunday Nevertheless, it's possible. You are beginning with the hymn, and then only the first section. Chapter, reading, the Lords of Mercy and Our Father.

[04:21]

And then so on. Monday, three and four, and five and six. Tuesday, seven. and the known 8, Wednesday 9 and 10 and 11 and 12, and Thursday 13, 14, and Friday 15, 16, and 17, 18, and Saturday 19, 20, and 21, 22. Therefore, in certain days only one section, in other days two sections, very short. I would not have any difficulty, it would be quite possible. And then, the second week, in the sixth, very long, not very long, but so long as formally in the old texts, old six, 119, 20, 21, and so on, all the gradual sums until 128, 129 and 132 taken from the Vespas, the last of the known. What do you think about this division? Well, I don't want to get off that completely, but it just seems to me that talking about terse and whether we should have it or not is one question.

[05:41]

The other question is, should we just take the Psalms and put them somewhere else? But the underlying question, I'm not sure how much we've touched on it, is the question of whether or not we should have the daily Eucharist. See, if we did not have the Eucharist, well, then I don't think there would be a problem with the terse. Therefore, you are thinking the underlying problem is daily Eucharist? Yes. What do you mean? Okay, well, the way I understand it, from some, anyway, they would prefer... Who? Some. Some, yeah. Some would tell me, my father Gregory told me himself last evening, that Father Dancus was of the mind that we shouldn't celebrate the Eucharist every day. Very well. Also, Albert de Burgoye says it. But no, I would ask, do you really believe a monastery could do that? I personally don't. I feel that the mass is very important.

[06:43]

Also I. I don't think you can make a choice between mass and tears. And also, I think you could not go against the tendency of the Universal Church since at least a thousand years to say everyday Mass, what does not mean receive Holy Communion for everyone. During the Middle Ages, monks did not receive every day the Holy Communion, but it was not very ideal. I would say it would not be an obligation for everyone to come to the Mass, but the monastery as community, you must think to the faithful, to the guests, could you renounce to the celebration of the Eucharist where the entire Church is doing it and insisting, recommending it? in the last centuries, perhaps you are right, sometimes too much. But you can say it is not possible for the individual to come every day.

[07:44]

For example, outside, for this ideal, sometimes after Pius X, we were insisting to good Christian people, married people, come every day to Mass. It's too much. And I, I remember very well, ten years ago perhaps, in the union of militant Christians, adult Christians in Maria Laage, I was speaking so. I would not say that it is an ideal to say to people, come every day to Mass because it's better that the wife is making a good breakfast for husband and children instead to put a cold coffee. and let them eat alone and go to the mess. The first duty is to make the breakfast with the family, to stay together, and so on. And then a very pious, but an excellent, how do you call this in English, schulrat, higher counselor of education, very learned man, very pious man, with a great family, said, no father, you are not right.

[08:49]

In my family, we can arrange things so that we, so far as possible, also he did not exaggerate, are going every day to Mass and we are enjoying it. Can we, when the situation is so excellent, Catholic, pious, active lay people, is insisting in every day Mass, and the Popes, and the Bishops, and the Council, and so on, I insist, can you really, as community, renounce to daily Mass? I know. But I don't think, personally, myself, where I am at the moment, myself, I'm opting for a daily mass. You are? I am. Happy. But I don't think it's fair to compare it to the active layman, the lay person. Because? They have nothing. We're coming together for vigils. Yeah, yeah. So our day is really, you know, I mean, it could be seen as a day of real worship and prayer, but I'm more interested in, I don't think that the people who are someone like Father Danis is, who would say that perhaps it would be better

[10:14]

if we did not celebrate the Eucharist every day? The Eucharist is... Well, I mean, what would be his good reason for saying that? I know... The reason is, in a certain way, it's too much. It's too strong, too great. The danger of, how do you say, mechanism, formalism and so on. But nevertheless, he never made a practical conclusion in discussing. There is a problem. But there would be another solution, as they are doing it in Herstelle. One of the successors of Rudolf Kassel, a younger father, but a good father, Nevertheless, he did it so. He suggested it and the community was accepting it. One day in the week, there is now high mass in the old Latin, in Troituit, which is great solemnity, but the community is sleeping in the morning, the sisters.

[11:20]

The sisters are in a different situation, they are much more you know, taken together as a herd of sheep. They need some relaxing sometimes. These closer sisters have a very difficult life. Therefore, one day they can sleep until, let me say, seven o'clock, and then they have lots, No, no. And then, who? There is in the choir, but in a very simple way, not on the high altar, but in the special altar, between the stars of the sisters, a missa recitata, nothing else. And nobody is obliged to come, but you can come. And sisters and guests are staying together around the altar, outside of their normal places. And they are saying a simple hymn, perhaps with a German canticle in the beginning and the end. And then after that, for all the community, at 8 o'clock, Lourdes.

[12:23]

Therefore, a certain relaxation day. And it seems to be a good thing. All the people who need Eucharist every day, and the guests, have here a wonderful, very intimate celebration. And you could do the same. Renounce in one day to your high mass in the choir, and if you did it sometimes already, go downstairs in the crypt without any obligation, You don't sing. No canto is necessary. You say the mass only with a small group of five or ten people or twenty guests up there to say mass. To relax. I sometimes think it's more of a scandal to the guests if they come to a mass and there's only five monks there than if there was no mass at all. No. I don't think so. This little nervosity is more our nervosity. But the lay people say they have to do the work outside.

[13:29]

This little scandal we must bear it. For myself as a monk living in a monastery, you know, I don't know is I would have the mass every day. But considering the whole monastery, and especially the needs of the guests that come here and so on, I think there should be a mass every day. But I have to tell you that I have found myself over the years in practice not always coming. I think here would be the solution. The thing is, if there is the mass, and it is for some in the community and the guests, then it should really have a little... It shouldn't be something that's just kind of put down. It should have some solemnity. Yeah.

[14:30]

Some formality. Yeah, some formality. Ah, some formality, yes. But you could... Yes, but I think so. If you wish to discuss this problem, this simple mass in the crypt, in this small altar where you say reels, set together around the altar. Let me see. Five monks and five guests, then, around the altar. with a certain formality, would be a marvellous thing, like our old Crypta Mass in Marie Allard, where we were enthusiasts. And for our brothers, who until ten years ago, until the Council, had every morning Crypta Mass. And now, after we have no more private Masses, only Council celebration, also the brothers come every day to the High Mass, and they are suffering. The cryptomess, this intimacy in this modern chapel, you have seen it, was satisfying.

[15:32]

But the mess in the upper church is too cold. It's too official, too formal. I don't agree with this judgment, but I'm thinking so. And also here, I could say, To avoid the difficulty, only five monks, this is awful, and they are not able to sing the mass. Do it with these five monks in a certain form which you can establish, but not in the choir, but in the upper church, in down church, in the crypt. Nevertheless, it would be possible. I, for my person, I don't know if that is the idea. You know, you said, this is all maybe a question of vocabulary, you know, and you said solemnity and so on. And then you mentioned the word with enthusiasm. For me, dad, that would be, if it's done, it needs to be, and so the monks that are there. Oh, yeah, yes, yes, yes, yes.

[16:36]

You really want that? Oh, yeah, yes, yes. To come freely, and to could say, here a certain spontaneity would be possible, but... Certainly, certainly. You could not say your Eucharistic prayer as you like to. You must take the prescribed form. But nevertheless, there are some possibilities, and the intimacy would create a certain enthusiasm where you stay around the altar really... Huh? Tell them it's Eucharist. And it would be a certain need, a certain preparation for the next day where you in the greater solemnity, in a greater solemnity, in the greater community, with a greater solemnity, in a greater difficulty, nevertheless are succeeding to do it well. It would be worthy to discuss this problem. Also, I must say again, I don't know if I would wish for my monastery in Maria Lark to have a day where we would not come solemnly to the High Altar to say Mass every day here on the Eucharistic sacrifice.

[17:38]

That is an ideal. But I know already Saint Augustine says there are two ideals every day. And in other churches, every week. Both these traditions are good. But our Latin tradition in the last century has been every day. And I don't know if we... Just historically, Father, how did that come about? the idea of the daily Eucharist. Some people would say to you, and I don't know, I have no idea, that one of the reasons that we started celebrating Mass every day was more a matter of stipends. No, no, no, no, no. You are right. The stipend today is also a very important question. But the origin is not there. What is the origin? The origin is, let me say, First of all, the celebration of the Feast of Saints.

[18:43]

John Chrysostom says explicitly, when we come together to hear St. Paul on Sundays and on the Feast of the Martyrs, he did not know about DMS, it's quite evident, but these saints, the martyrs, were multiplicated. Our eucharistic devotion in a very strong way is related to the veneration to the saints. And the calendar is always growing, always growing, always growing. And then you have, in a sense, at least two, three, four days in a week. And the second possibility, second element is the celebration of Mass in distinguished times of the ecclesiastical year, is Lent. And in Lent, until Gregory II, I think, until the 8th century, you did not have every day the Mass, but all the days without Thursday. And only then also Thursday was added. And you can see still in the old Roman missile also the levels.

[19:50]

First of all in Lent you had Wednesday, Friday, Saturday night. Then Monday. And finally Tuesday, and only centuries later, Thursday too. Therefore, after the 8th century, you had every day in Lent a holy sacrifice. So also in the Easter week, perhaps also during Easter time sometimes. Then the solemnities and the feasts, the commemoration of the saints. And then the Jews of the monasteries who must have MS for the Sikhs, for the students, for guests, and so on. Then not money, but the private intention of the faithful. Oh, my mother, my cow, say MS. Then you did it. And only in our difficult times today, we are also very much related to stipends.

[20:56]

And our father, Albert Basel, when we were discussing these questions in the 50s before the Council, he said sometimes, if we would renounce to the stipends of 40 fathers, we could no more receive no bonuses. We could not live without a stipend. And also for you, if you would not have stipends, But the question is, okay, who sells to the altar must also live on the altar. Therefore, today you are right, the question is also connected with the steppes, but it's not the real reason. Even our calendar is overcrowded. It's becoming more simple now. Okay, Johann, I wish to say, here was the origin. And with time, therefore, with all these motifs, land, saints, private intentions. More or less, you had every day the mass. And now, from this situation, in the last centuries, we have made, how do you say, the theology to say mass also, not only every Sunday, but every day is a certain rhythmic way to repeat the Eucharist, sacrifice of the Eucharist.

[22:18]

Therefore, let us do so, always, theoretically. Every day, once a month, but not twice. Until the last years, the Church was always against venation. It was, until the Council, formally forbidden to say twice a month during the week. Only on Sunday it was allowed. And then, again, the necessities of the pastoral life. the intention of faithfuls, marias, requiem masses. Again, first it's the pastors to, without any permission, to say twice, three times the mass, also during weekdays, and no disallowed. for pastoral reasons, because the priests are so few. But it always is a bad thing to say mass twice a day. It's not good, also for spiritual life. But we are, in this evolution, during the centuries, accustomed to see, to say, and to see, not only every Sunday, not only on the feast day, but for certain reasons, every day, to pray.

[23:24]

No, again, there is a certain reaction. And you are right, and many are insisting, see the problem. Also, I must say, yes, some people don't know it. Is our day really so overcrowded, so difficult if we, for example, now instead of turns, say mass? But nevertheless, you are not obliged to do it. And until the last time, when we were preparing this Eucharistic instruction of 1967, insisting it would be convenient to say Mass every day, it would be convenient to invite the priest to concelebrate, but you are not obliged, we have said, to do it. There is no obligation. You cannot oblige people. There is no commandment to say Mass every day. I am against the suppression of the daily mass only if, as in Sancta Anselmo, people like to speak against daily mass because they are too lazy, they don't wish to go to vigils, to sleep, because they wish to see television at night.

[24:39]

It's awful. materialistic reasons. But if these reasons are not there, if you are ready to come to visions, and if you have a good health and so on, then I could understand that somebody says it's too much for me. But then, in this case, I would say you are not obliged, you can be free, it would be reasonable to do so, but the community as such, at least in a smaller form, must say every day the mess. I like that. And my experience has been, you know, over the years as I worked on the farm, and in the summertime, especially when I worked in the fields all day, in the morning, then when I went vigils and lauds, and then to have to come, you know, to the Mass, you know. It's nearly impossible. At the same time, I felt that, you know, it's the Mass was, and there was something with the community and the guests, and with enthusiasm, then I would feel that I wouldn't have to go every day.

[25:46]

But because maybe part of the community feels the burden of the everyday mass, it doesn't mean that the whole community either has to go to mass or doesn't, but to have the flexibility. And then, for instance, like if there's a feast, you know, for every apostrophe and so on. You could establish a certain rule for that. Nevertheless, on the other side, you could not give too much flexibility because you cannot say a good mass in the church here if you have only four monks. Therefore, normally, I would say the community must agree we come all to the mass. with certain reasons, for farm work and so on, as you did it already, it's allowed, it's not illegitimate not to come. And perhaps also a certain day where you are formally renouncing to the mass in the chapel and go downstairs in a smaller way, but you did it already so, during winter, I think sometimes you have said mass so.

[27:00]

But then perhaps insisting also in this liberty, But again, it may be allowed to say, a day without any Eucharistic celebration seems to me to become a scandal for the faithful. And also I don't think that the major superiors therefore, the upper primates, would agree with that. I'm not sure, because the primates surely face that problem. Perhaps, I think we have now discussed the problem. We cannot give the decision here. Before you take the last decision, it would be necessary to see well the things. Nevertheless, you have seen there are different possibilities to help the people who say a little bit is too much to have a daily Eucharist. Also, on another side, I would say again, I believe it is possible to do it so that the daily Mass is not too much. The danger nevertheless is it becomes formalistic.

[28:05]

We are repeating it because we must do it, we must pay, we must receive the stipend and so on. We can say the same thing about the whole divine office. In the last days sometimes this word was already said. It is too much. Not here, perhaps in the entire order. Too much seven times a day. No, no. Start dropping. Then you can say, for example, there was made a marvelous prayer book in Germany for lay people 15, 20 years ago, Instrumentarium of the Daily Prayer, where they said for the modern man, it is impossible to pray in morning and evening. Therefore, you are beginning in the morning, in a rush hour, quickly, shower bath, breakfast, with car, to your office, work the entire day, and at four o'clock, five o'clock, you come back tired, you are refreshing, taking your meal, you are sitting down, you have one, two hours liberty before you go to your evening work, to theater, to concerts, to meetings, and in these two hours, where you are relaxing, after having relaxed, after having eaten,

[29:21]

you sit down for your daily prayer. Psalm, hymn, psalm, reading, prayer, and then marvelous disposition. It may be good for some lay people, but not for monks. Impossible, impossible. Morning, and also for lay people, morning and evening prayer. From the first time, from the old Jewish times, Hore Cardinalis, no, it's not the solution. And therefore for monks, not only morning and evening prayer, but vigils too, and minor hours. In the first century, perhaps, they did not have minor hours. But already in the second century, we have them. And I think this is a good thing. Not 20 hours of prayer, as perhaps the medieval monks did it, but at least seven or six hours, five hours. So therefore, you could say it is too much. It's not too much. And no, if you drop thirds, where the hours are so short, I think it would be possible to have six hours and the mass.

[30:29]

Nevertheless, it's both sides. OK. But let me speak a little bit about the disposition of sums. Do you believe, really, it would be good to take one week with 118, and the next week with the graduate sons and also in the second week you are You have 119 on Sunday, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday you have 119 and on Tuesday and Thursday and Saturday you have 125. Therefore you are repeating on three days the sounds. And therefore in one week the gradual sounds. repeated in certain days. And in the first week only 118 disposed so that in certain days you have only one section. I think it should be mixed.

[31:30]

Mixed, yes. And I would say, for example... I would say again, according to the tradition of Saint Benedict, take for 118 three sections. And then you are free for certain days, also in the first week, to take the gradual sounds. because they are so short. And also he is right, you can say a little hour with one psalm only, with one section, but why not two or three, a certain wave. Then I must say too, these minor hours could be said sometimes in a certain informality, in genesis. they also have difficulties with this minor hour. Therefore, I have not seen never the thirds. I never know. Later on I heard they are saying it here when they are in the morning coming together for the chapter.

[32:31]

Very informally, the thirds. And the same after dinner. Yes, the known, I think. Now, on Sunday, Yes, on Sunday, we had dinner, in this informal way, but with reading. And then they were dividing little booklets, some capsules, a gift for the monks. I took it, and then, in the refectory, immediately after dinner, after the short prayer, they said, you know, staying, and they were free to rustle a little bit until Vespers. I would not say that you must do so, but I have seen that the possibility, if you have difficulties with the minor hours, you can make, say them here, perhaps, after chapter, it's also a possibility.

[33:37]

We have already spoken about that. But for you it's not necessary. What do they do with the minor hours? And they omit tails. They have no... And they have only one daily minor horse. Six during a week and none on Sundays. But we are dividing psalms so that we are seeing... In two weeks and vigils in four and vespers in three. But you can repeat many psalms. And we hope it could be a lot so. So that would be a little horse. And he has still another possibility, but I think for you it is excluded. If sixth only, midday prayer is celebrated, then he has devised in the first week 118, in three sections. In the second week, the gradual psalms, and in certain days only two sections. But I think it's not necessary.

[34:38]

And then he make an addendum. At Christ in the desert, we sung the Beatitudes after the last sound. Really? In the minor hours? Followed immediately by the Our Father. Why? They had only one little hour. Just midday prayer. Yes. Midday prayer was followed by five minutes of silent prayer in community. And Beatitudes before the silent prayer. How did you find it? Why did they say the Beatitudinous? Why did it? Yeah. I don't know. In Genesee I heard it too. But they had a very strange custom. They had a strange laws. Two psalms reading. A laudato sound. Or instead of the laudato sound the Beatitudinous. Beatitudes. Or another canticle of the New Testament. Here I would say

[35:41]

If it is too much to pray, I would not add to our traditional psalterium new canticles. I would reserve the canticles to the third nocturne of the greater solemnities in the vigils. Because if you have two psalms, and to be attitudinous is already too long. As you say, sometimes we cannot pray so much. That was it. The fifth day prayer was never too long. It wasn't. There was no reading. No reading? No chapter. Ah. New Testament. Yeah. Always the same. No. No, no. But they were singing in Beatitudes. Yes. Well, the cantor would sing the first part and then the community would answer the second. Here I would say, although here it would be better to follow the old rule after psalms.

[36:43]

Melody. A real reading. It could be short and not so long as in, where was it? Here? No, in Genesis. They had very long readings for the minor hours. Entire chapter of the letter to Ephesians. It's not right. Or at least half a chapter. Very long, so long. But not too soon. So, Father, just to... Yes, about... Three questions, just concerning structure. What is the structure of vigils? It's invitatory? I would say the structure is, how do you say, invitatory? Invitatory. Invitatory? Or, but it's not important. Invitatory. And then, according to the entire tradition, and according to the scheme seen in Rome, hymn. And then psalms, reading, and prayer.

[37:49]

Psalms, we said, when we were prepared in the new office, in the Roman office, we said, somebody said, the vigils are no more vigils, only hora lecciones, hour for readings, therefore, no psalms, only reading. Then we protested, no, every hour must have psalms, at least one or two, and the readings, and monks, Not only one, two, but more, evidently, more than six, as you have it, at least six or two additional, doesn't, the number does not matter, but at least a good part of psalms, and then readings. Here you are free. You are not obliged, according to the actual situation, to take a definite number of psalms. You are not obliged to take a definite kind of readings. But you must have, after him, psalms, readings, or reading, and the prayer, and I would say, you know, the disposition of the Holy Scripture, and you must find a way to do it, and perhaps according to this wonderful model of the Roman office, this patristic reading.

[39:02]

In Rome, we are, in St. Anselmo, we are changing. We read the Holy Scripture in the visual, No, we are reading the Father in the morning office and Holy Scripture at night in the Vespers. Gio, I don't know, you don't read. Have you patristic readings in the Vespers? No. Holy Scripture? Yes, Holy Scripture. But you could dispose things so that Holy Scripture is taken in the Vespers and some of it in the Vigils? Did you say we could only read the Gospel and Vigils? Every day? I would not do so. No, I don't mean every day, but when we do read the gospel, it's only at vigils and not at confession. According to the tradition, yes, it's not right to read the gospel in the minor halls or in festivals. You can do that, you can read always the gospel, but in our office at home, in the Benedictine office, the gospel was always reserved to the vigils, only for the Benedictines.

[40:16]

The Romans never had the gospel, only in the mass. has the old Roman office, has never left our father. Only in the mass, in the minor hours, in silence. But in silence, Pater Noster at the St. Lucas Institution. Oh, that was private edition. Terrible. Only in silence. You cannot count that. You are right, Pater Abbey came before the vigils. Pater Abbey before every hour. That's not what I mean. The Gospel, the reading of the Gospel. Yes. In the Roman reading. It was never. No, no. Where? In the Nocturnes, the readings before Augustine. You would have a little... No, no, [...] no. In the Old Tribune, only the Old Testament and St. Paul, never the Gospel. Father, before the Sermon of Augustine... No, only the short initial, but never the Gospel itself.

[41:16]

It was a commentary to the Gospel which was not read. Do you remember that? You had it here? No, no, no. Two lines? No, no, no, no. I think it was an imitation of the Benedictine office where you had this homily only on Sundays. and therefore, no, every Sunday, where you had these homilies, and here you, was taken only the initial, remember, in the gospel said, to be said in the mass, and so all the Romans did it. No, I don't think, I never heard about that, that there was, no, no, no, it's impossible. They did not have it. They had the, They had that in the beginning, you know, they would say something about God.

[42:19]

How about the structure of lords and vespers? Here, our benediction structure would be perhaps an invitatorium psalm. And then psalms, a morning psalm, a canticle, a laudato psalm. That would be the classic structure. What is it? Morning psalm. canticle of the Old Testament, Lord Atipsan. Not only the last three, but from 145 or 146 until the end. And then a reading, eventually hymn and canticle of Zacharias, Our Father and Prayer. And today, there is a certain liberty, you could take, instead to say the canticle of Zacharias, how do you call it, Zacharias or Zacharias?

[43:21]

Zacharias. Zacharias. You could take another canticle, but I am against that. The German form used in many outside, many monasteries outside Germany of Münster-Schwarztadt and Nordkopf-Füglestadt is every day another canticle. For example, Philippians 2. Then for Vespers... Vespers? No, we must say the tendency in the modern Roman office, the new Roman office, and also the tendency to impose it to us is to begin with the hymn. Hymn, psalms, reading, and so on. But not after reading. But for the moment you are free. And for the Vespers, again psalms, A reading? Hymn? Magnificat? Our Father? And a prayer? And the Romans now have Psalms and the Canticle of the New Testament?

[44:22]

A reading? Does the psalm have to include an evening prayer? Or would that be more common? No, no, no, no, no. No, I think so. But some, for example, no, no, no. Because there is nothing about evening. You can say, you can take the psalm 100 times, but this is number 100, and I don't remember. I say that... 137, I don't know. But nevertheless, there are certain psalms which are said in the festivals. 190, not because it is evening, but because he is speaking about the parousia. 190, and then also all the psalms between gradual psalms and 145 or 148. Psalms, yeah. And then the structure of the little hours?

[45:29]

Of the? The little hours. Little hours, hymn, psalm, reading, prayer. No hour, Father? As you are doing it, it is surely one possibility. Instead, the Oratio Pater Nostrum. But I don't know. In the new Roman office, we did not do it. We have only a prayer and not the Pater Nostrum. Because for the old Roman office, the old Romans had only once a day solemnly the Our Father in the Mass. And not in the hours, only in silence. We had it always in first person, and now the Romans took our...

[46:18]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ