Doubt I: Whether attention is necessary in reciting the Office of precept

The FIRST opinion is affirmative. Thus almost all the more recent authors: Fernandez in Exam. Theol. part 3, chapter 15, § 6; Villalob. Tom. 1, tract. 24, dub. 15; Sotus book 10, question 5, article 5, conclusion 7; Caietan. 2. 2, question 83, article 13; Navar. on prayer, chapter 13, number 18; Vasquez prima secundae, Tom. 2, dispute 160, number 30; Medina in summa, book 1, chapter 4, § 11; Nattat. on restitution, book 2, chapter 2, number 140; Lopez Instruct. Tom. 2, chapter 103, § on the words Horae canonicae, number 19; Pesantius number 2, q. 62, art. 1, disp. 3; Zerola in the practice of bishops, part 1, on the words Horae canonicae, § Beia in resp. part 2, case 33; Comitol. in resol. moral. book 1, question 6; Malderus 2. 2, tract. 10, chapter 2, dispute 2; Moneta de distrib. part 2, question 2; Carolus Macigni de Hor. can. chapter 86, number 16; Molfesius in summa, tom. 1, tract. 4, chapter 2, number 8; Sylvius 2. 2, question 83, article 13, conclusion 4; Homobon de exam. Ecclesiae, part 1, tract 4, chapter 5, question 40; Viguer. Instit. Theol. chapter 5, § 5; Gavantus com. on the rubric of the missal, Tract. 3, sect. 1, chapter 6, title 4; Bellot in praxis on reserved cases, part 2, question 15; Contadus in resp. of cases of conscience, part 7, question 144; Rodriquez tract. 1, chapter 143; Vega in summa Tom. 2, chapter 128, case 20; Valentia Tom. 3, dispute 6, question 2, point 10; Azor part 1, book 10, chapter 16, question 6; Ledisma in summa, tom. 2, tract. 9, chapter 4; Squillante de oblig. cleric. part 1, dub. 20; Suarez de Relig. tract. 2, book 4, chapter 26, and on censures, dispute 4, sect. 2; Aragon 2. 2, question 83, article 13; Sayrus on censures, book 3, chapter 4; Salas on laws, dispute 9, sect. 9; Lorca in prima secundae, Tom. 1, on the Laws, dispute 16, member 2; Raphael de la torre, part 2, on the Canonical Hours, commonit. 9; Antonius Caramuel, on the Rule of St. Ben. 1575 and seq.; Lugo de Euch. dispute 22, sect. 2; Tambur. Tom. 2, dispute 10, question 2; Antonius Ragaucius on the canonical office in choir, question 19, and others with those cited, whom Diana adduces, pt. 2 on the Hours, and part 7, tom. 11, 30. This seems to be the opinion of D. Bonavent., part 2 of the Mirror for Novices, chapter 1, and in the opuscule on the six wings of the Seraph, chapter 8. Tanner. subscribes, 2. 2, dispute 5, question 1, number 154, with others there.

MANY, however, not undistinguished Theologians, teach that satisfaction is made without attention, provided meanwhile they do not do anything incompatible with the office. So Durandus, in 4, dist. 15, question 12; Sylvester, on the words Horae Can.; Medina, in the Codex on prayer, question 14; Angel., on the word Horae; D. Antonin., 3rd part, title 13, chapter 4, § 8; Rosella, on the word Horae; Palud., 4, dist. 25, question 5, article 2; Coninch., on the sacraments, in 3rd part, question 83, article 6, number 291; Ioan. Valderus, in the differences of both forums, on the words Horae can., difference 1. And Diana affirms it as probable, with Lessius, book 2, chapter 37, dub. 2; Henriquez, book 9, chapter 25, in the Gloss, letter P; Victorello, in summa, following Toledo book 2, chapter 13; Layman, book 4, tract. 1, chapter 5; Fulientis, book 4 de Inst., chapter 2, who says it is the view of many grave and pious men; Bassaeus, V. Horae, citing others.

I ASSERT the former opinion, which is that of D. Bonavent., in the places adduced, and on the perfection of life to the sisters, chapter 5, as Bonacina reports, on the Hours, dispute 1, question 3, point 2.

I proved this at length, in the Treatise on the Laws, dispute 5, question 3, where I adduced many authorities and arguments.

It is proved from cap. Dolentes, where it is prescribed. See what I said there.

It is proved from Suarez, book 3 on vocal prayer, chapter 4, by the argument of D. Bonaventure, whom he cites in the book cited: Where one thing is uttered by the mouth and another is meditated by the heart, there is no true prayer; but while one does not attend to what is uttered by the mouth, one meditates another thing in the heart, as is evident; therefore. He adds that such prayer is never heard by God, on account of the Gloss saying on Psalm 118: A divided heart obtains not what it asks; but he divides his heart who has one half in heaven and one half on earth.

Next, prayer is a kind of adoration; but this ought to be made in spirit and truth; but things said with the attention distracted elsewhere do not cohere with truth; whence there follows irreverence, substantially opposed to the end and effect of prayer, at least when it becomes known to him to whom the prayer is made; but God is the searcher of hearts, nor can he be ignorant of the undue manner in which, without attention, bare words are directed to him.

Finally, where the definition of prayer is not preserved, prayer without doubt cannot subsist there substantially; but while attention is absent, the definition of prayer does not stand, which is the ascent of the mind to God; but for the mind to ascend to God, the mere outward utterance of words cannot suffice. It is confirmed by a likeness: he who merely bends his knees, in no way attending to inward adoration, is not said to adore; therefore. The consequence is evident, because as vocal prayer is made to testify to the inward devotion of the mind, so genuflection is made to manifest the inward submission of the mind in acknowledging the Divine majesty. So Suarez, at the place cited, number 5.

From these things it follows that a beneficed cleric reciting the divine office distractedly does not make satisfaction and is bound to restitution. So Valencia, Aragon, Tannerus and others.