Doubt V: Whether one who recites the divine Office in choir in a voice so low that he is not heard satisfies

S. BONAVENTURA, part 2 of the Speculum disciplinae ad Novitios, cap. 1, seems altogether to require that those who sing in Choir be heard. That he does not satisfy is taught by Beia resp. part 1. cap. 55; Sotus de Iustitia, lib. 10, quaest. 5, art. 4; Navar. de oratione c. p. 13. num. 17; Graff. lib. 2. decis. cap. 51. num. 12, and cap. 52. num. 22, and cap. 53. num. 45; Convar. resol. lib. 2. cap. 13; Columna de redditibus Ecclesiae, part. 3. cap. 34; Pinell. in lib. 1. Cod. de bon. mater. part. 3. num. 16; Rodriquez sum. Tom. 1. cap. 43; Zech. summa part. 2. cap. 83; Summa Coronae part. 1. cap. 2; and others cited by Moneta de distrib. quot. part 2. quaest. 2. num. 31, and by Garzia Tract. de benefic. Tom. 1. part. 3. cap. 2. n. 513. And lest this opinion be harsh, Comitolus lib. 1. quaest. 62 holds it, supposing that the most eminent Sacred Congregation of Cardinals so declared.

IT IS PROVED also from the Councils of Basel sess. 21. §. 3, and of Aachen cap. 131, where it is said: The Canons shall stand in Choir most religiously when the psalm is sung.

FINALLY the Council of Trent sess. 24. cap. 12 says: All are compelled to perform the Divine offices in person, and not through substitutes, and, assembled in Choir for the singing of psalms, to praise the name of God reverently, distinctly, and devoutly with hymns and songs.

NOTWITHSTANDING these, very many say they do satisfy. So Lessius lib. 2. cap. 34. dub. 31. num. 185; Raphael de la Torre 2. 2. tract. 1. quaest. 83. de Horis Can. controv. 10. disp. 7; Petrus Navar. lib. 2. restit. cap. 2. num. 217; Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 83. art. 12. dub. ult.; Garzia de benef. Tom. 1. part. 3. cap. 7. num. 517; Cenedo quaest. 2; Rivius tom. 2. resp. 362; Ioan de Cruz in direct. praecepto 3. art. 3. dub. 7; Petrus Ledesma tom. 2. tract. 9. cap. 3. concl. 31. See also Gavantus in coment. ad reg. missalis, tom. 2. tract. 1. cap. 5. tit. 5; Diana resol. 6; Tannet. disp. 5. quaest. 1. num. 159, citing Valentia and Aragonius. So also Bassaeus, but he adds that such men do not satisfy the Choir.

TO the authority of the Cardinals it is answered that it is not certain it exists. So Comitol.

TO the Councils of Basel and Aachen, Cenedo num. 16 and Diana say that it is not a precept but a counsel. For the Fathers use the word debent [must], which seems to mark a counsel; and if it is a precept, they say it has already been abrogated by custom.

TO the Council of Trent they answer that Praelates are indeed commanded to induce the Canons to sing in Choir, but not the Canons to sing. So Lessius num. 186.

THESE things, however, are slight, for the decree of the Sacred Congregation is reported by Comitolus himself. And those two first Councils use the word debent, and I would like to know in what Dictionary that word signifies counsel and not debt [duty]. As to custom, none is found.

AGAINST Lessius's answer I argue: Whenever an ecumenical Council commands that Superiors compel others to the observance of something, it is rightly a sign that the matter is of precept; otherwise why is it commanded that they compel to the execution of that work? But the Council of Trent commands that the Canons be compelled to sing aloud in Choir: Therefore. It is confirmed; for the end of the law is the soul of the law; but the end of the institution of the Choir and of chant is that it be sung aloud, and on that account the fruits are given: Therefore. Diana saw this argument. Therefore he answers that this precept has been abrogated by custom while it endured.

But against this: the custom was before the Council, as he himself declares in his decrees [i.e. the Council derogated from it], and so it is not a prescriptive custom but mere non-observance.