Central Conunission of Abbots, which met at Monte Cistello mn December, 1964, to prepare the agenda of the General Chapter of 1965. 1he State of the Question at the End of 1964 We ought not to expect from the minutes of the 1964 meeting of Abbots a particularly systematic treatment of our question. 1he problem of the Marian antiphons and prayers had been raised only in a rather general way; and the minutes reflect faithfully the spontaneity and, one feels, liveliness of the discussion. True, no clear emergent resulted from the exchange of views. At the same time, the Abbots then present touched on many aspects of the problem, and we can do no better than to make their observations the basis of our own reflections and further developments (53). But first, one important clarification. At Monte Cistello, was the tion discussed simply that of suppression or of the Marian tiphons and prayers? From the secretary's report, it would seem that such was indeed the presupposition of at least some of the participants. Others of those present seemed rather to envisage the retention of the "abridged Little Office", but with modifications. A priori, a whole range of solutions lies between two extreme positions, i.e.: TOTAL SUPPRESSION Substitution of a totally new formulary Substitution of a partially new formulary Extensive revision of the present fonnulary Minimal revision of the present formulary RETENTION of the present fonnulary Some of the Abbots apparently envisaged an either/or choice between the two extremes. Others ranged more freely within the interior between these two side limits. Because the area of discussion was not clearly defined, the utes of the meeting present a series of statements juxtaposed with only the imum of logical nexus, if any. Disjecta membra Possibility of a change . Dom X. initiated the discussion with a practical consideration of · prime importance. Since the suppression of the Little Office had had as its condition sine qua non the adoption of a "substitute" practice, the suppression of the "substitute" would revive automatically our obligation to the suppressed Little Office. 1here is no record of the subsequent discussion of this point; but the position
Central Conunission of Abbots, which met at Monte Cistello mn December, 1964, to prepare the agenda of the General Chapter of 1965. 1he State of the Question at the End of 1964 We ought not to expect from the minutes of the 1964 meeting of Abbots a particularly systematic treatment of our question. 1he problem of the Marian antiphons and prayers had been raised only in a rather general way; and the minutes reflect faithfully the spontaneity and, one feels, liveliness of the discussion. True, no clear emergent resulted from the exchange of views. At the same time, the Abbots then present touched on many aspects of the problem, and we can do no better than to make their observations the basis of our own reflections and further developments (53). But first, one important clarification. At Monte Cistello, was the tion discussed simply that of suppression or of the Marian tiphons and prayers? From the secretary's report, it would seem that such was indeed the presupposition of at least some of the participants. Others of those present seemed rather to envisage the retention of the "abridged Little Office", but with modifications. A priori, a whole range of solutions lies between two extreme positions, i.e.: TOTAL SUPPRESSION Substitution of a totally new formulary Substitution of a partially new formulary Extensive revision of the present fonnulary Minimal revision of the present formulary RETENTION of the present fonnulary Some of the Abbots apparently envisaged an either/or choice between the two extremes. Others ranged more freely within the interior between these two side limits. Because the area of discussion was not clearly defined, the utes of the meeting present a series of statements juxtaposed with only the imum of logical nexus, if any. Disjecta membra Possibility of a change . Dom X. initiated the discussion with a practical consideration of · prime importance. Since the suppression of the Little Office had had as its condition sine qua non the adoption of a "substitute" practice, the suppression of the "substitute" would revive automatically our obligation to the suppressed Little Office. 1here is no record of the subsequent discussion of this point; but the position
ReportLiturgicalCommission.docx