I live near a western rite parish within the antiochian western rite vicariate.
They use the Liturgy of St Gregory as their sole eucharistic liturgy, but use the "Book of Common Prayer" anglican style of Divine Office on Saturdays.
This combination is similar to the practice inherited from many "Anglo-Catholic" Protestant Episcopal Churches in the past and even recently. (see "Mt Calvary Church" in Baltimore, MD which has the same combination, it intends to soon join the papal ordinariate and preserve them as much as possible).
The mass itself and prayers are very good, theres no significant problems, only trivial minor ones, I'm fairly satisfied with it, though I do think it could use a "Great litany" type prayer inbetween those Kyrie Eleisons, if not troped Kyries.
However the divine office, is where I am less satisfied.
The main issue I have is that I am not comfortable with anglican practice of "Evensong", especially where they are inventions of thomas cranmer and diverge from those of the "Traditional Latin Papal Catholic" traditions from before the reformation and council of trent (as well as those after).
Essentially I am looking for a divine office closer to what I know from my 1962 breviary books.
Closer to what is on breviary.net
With this in mind I ordered the "Monastic Diurnal Noted" and its accompaning breviary for all the hours including Matins from Lancelote Andrewes Press. These are all in the Benedictine Monastic tradition to my surprise. Oddly enough they are the official divine office books to be used by clerics within the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate (or so I am told.)
I have been very pleased with them in general, however they still use a translation of the Psalms which was not historically preferred by the Latin/Papal Catholic Church.
The reason why the standard anglican communion's psalms, which are called the Miles Coverdale translation, were not approved by the Latin catholic church was because they were inaccurate translations of the Vulgate latin psalms in their "gallican edition" which was largely unchanged since the time of St Cyprian of Carthage (vetus latina bible).
Miles Coversdale was a more amateur translator, his Anglican Psalter was a paraphrase of the vulgate, not a literal translation. And yet this remains the dominant Psalter in use by the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.
I have over the past year encountered innumerable errors with its translations which cause me to be very uncomfortable singing them in the divine office.
The official english language bible for the Catholic Church made as a response to the Protestant Bibles is called the Douay-Rheims translation. Until the 20th century this was the most important English language bible that English and Irish Latin Catholics used. This was the bible that Catholics received the death penalty for reading if they were caught with it during the reign of Queen Elizabeth the I. It is the anti-protestant orthodox bible by the Latin Catholic perception.
It exists in two different forms which are:
#1 The 1582/1610 edition (in 1582 the new testament was made, and decades later in 1610 the old testament was released)
#2 The 1752 "Challoner" edition, made by Bishop Richard Challoner (1749-1752).
The differences between these two editions themselves are somewhat significant and interesting, however, having compared about 30 of their Psalms back to back I find that they have more in common than differences.
The 1582/1910 Douay Rheims Bible is the most literally accurate Latin vulgate bible I know of.
The 1752 Douay Rheims Bible sacrifices a certain amount of accurate translation to take on a less awkward quality and match the flow you have with the King James and Miles Coverdale.
That being said, the 1752 Douay is far more accurate than the Coverdale, and somewhat more than the King James (though the King James is more accurate than the Coverdale in my experience.)
In either edition, or even mixing them both together (which I do) the Douay Rheims wins every time.
I do not find that the 1752 Douay is more more difficult, nor any less musical or less beautiful to sing than the Miles Coverdale and can see no reason to not promote it's useage within the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.
This brings me to my question to everyone else...
What is the possibilty of finding receptivity toward using the Douay Rheims 1752 edition Psalms instead of the Miles Coverdale Psalms at Saturday "Evensong/Vespers" within the typical parish?
Especially a parish which is not made up of former anglicans and has no personal baggage or invested interest in the coverdale psalms?
Would I be the lone Traditional Catholic fruitcake ? or would lay people/pastors welcoming of something which is in fact more inherently Orthodox?
long ago a parish priest within the AWRV once told me there is no official psalms that are required or an absolute standard to use.
My feeling is that the continued usage of the Coverdale Psalms may be one aspect which proves that there is a subtle "protestant" spirit lingering about within the AWRV.
I can hardly call them a heterodox bible. I could use them if I had to for some time, but I can hardly see them as the future of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy either.
THis being said...
I also think the idea of a Psalter which retains the literal accuracy and beautiful musical quality of the douay rheims but merges it with translations based as much on the septuagint would also be excellent.
The idea that Father Patrick has for a universal English language Orthodox Psalter is most inspiring.http://fatherpatrick.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/psalm-50/
The translation of Psalm 50 listed there conforms to accurate translations of both latin vulgate and greek septuagint. Finding in most places more word for word agreement with Douay Rheims and much less agreement with either the Coverdale or King James.
What do you all think about this?
Additionally I desire to use either the official Benedictine Divine Office or the Sarum Divine Office for parish usage, especially on feast days, but the translation of the psalms seems to be the most important issue here.
I understand why in 1958, 60 years ago when the western rite was created in the USA that the Metropolitan would allow more anglican customs to predominate at a time when it was in it's infancy.
However the justification for continuing them is I think not as strong at the present time.
At the very least we ought to have more promotion of the Douay-Rheims as an alternative.
I certainly enjoy the music and their plainchant adaptions, but at heart I have no connection to anglican heritage. I am pure cradle catholic in background, anti-protestant to the bone.