Doubt II: Whether one who recites another Office in place of the current one satisfies

Two opinions are found on this matter. The negative is followed by Vasquez, opuscul. on benefices, chapter 4, § 1, dub. 2, number 60; Reginaldus, Tom. 2, book 18, chapter 16, number 172; Suarez, de Relig. Tom. 2, book 4, question 23, number 12; Fernandez in exam. Theol. part 3, chapter 13, § 3; Fabius, on the sacrament of order, dist. 24, question 1, dispute 1, n. 146; Homobon., de exam. Ecclesiae, part 1, tract 4, chapter 5, question 41; Gavantus, Tract. 2, on the rubric, sect. 1, chapter 5, title 2; Onuphr., opuscul. on the change of office; Navar., on prayer, chapter 10, number 211; Graff., decis. part 1, book 2, chapter 51; Philiarc., tract. 1, part 1, book 1, conclusion 6; Rodriquez, Tom. 1, question 42, article 6; Bellarm., Tom. 3, book 1, controversy 9, chapter 18; Tolet., book 2, chapter 23; Ledesma, part 2, tract 9, chapter 4, conclusion 12; Ragavuius, on the canonical office in choir, question 13; Squillante, on the obligation of clerics, part 1, dub. 26; Tabiena, on the word hora, question 10; Molphesius, Tom. 1, tract 5, chapter 2, number 50; Naldus, on the word Divinum officium; Bonac., question 3, point 1; Filliucius, Tom. 2, tract 23, chapter 8, number 186; summa Corona, 1, chapter 1, number 10. On whether it is mortal, Tannerus wavers, dispute 5, question 1, number 150, with Sylvester, on the word hora, question 12. Cajetan, there, chapter 2, says it is at least venial. Bassaeus judges it probable, V. Hora, number 4.

Reginaldus, Suarez, and others limit that opinion: when the change of office would not be made out of contempt, and would be equivalent in quantity, or nearly so; and it would not be done with the intention of doing so often. But they will that some compensation be required, if a lengthy office, e.g. that of Sunday, is exchanged for the office of some Saint, according to the doctrine of Raphael della Torre, 1. 2, tract. 1, on the Canonical Hours, controversy 9, number 6.

Diana, however, rejects these limitations, pt. 2, tract. 12, resol. 3, with Vega, pt. 2, chapter 128, case 17, because he is bound to say such an office each day under such a form: therefore it profits little if it be violated but once, and only equality in quantity be observed.

The SECOND opinion, therefore, teaches that a change of office, even deliberate, is not deadly, as if in place of the office of a Feria the office of some Saint were said. Cajetan, V. Hora, chapter 2; Layman, book 4, tract. 1, chapter 5; Zetola in Praxis of Bishops, part 1, v. Hora can.; Lessius, on justice, chapter 37, dub. 12, number 77; Valencia, Tom. 3, dispute 6, question 3, point 10; Vega, in sum., at the place cited; Binsfeld., in the Enchiridion of Theology, part 4, chapter 9, conclusion 7; Sylvester, at the place cited; Sotus, book 10, question 5; Medina, book 1, chapter 14, § 11; Medina, on prayer, question 10, difficulty 10; Armilla, V. Horae Can.; Azor, part 1, book 10, c. 10, question 2; Rodriquez, summa Tom. 1, chapter 195; Diana, at the place cited. And Filliucius, Tom. 2, tract 29, chapter 7, number 227, and Bassaeus, at the place cited, judge it probable.

The REASON is, because the substance of the precept is to recite the Divine office, so that the seven Canonical hours be paid.

Yet the FIRST opinion rests on the precept of Pius V, who prescribes such a form of reciting the Office, of which more was said at large, tom. 4, dispute 17, question 10, according to the Decree of Alex. VII.