Doubt VII: Whether one who recites the Office privately ought to hear himself

One recites the office privately who says it outside the Choir and outside chant, whether alone or with another; if he recites it with a companion, no one doubts that he must pronounce with such clarity of voice that he can be heard by him: But if he is alone, Reginaldus asserts in praxi tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 12. disp. 5. quaest. 174., and Suarez de Religione, tract. 2. lib. 4. cap. 7., that he is bound to pronounce in such a way that he is heard by himself.

Suarez proves this by reason, because this prayer is vocal; therefore it ought to be audible, at least by the one praying: the consequence is proved; because, setting aside impediments, which are accidental, there is no voice so faint that it does not sound in the ears of the speaker; otherwise the voice is not to be considered a voice.

He says this is evident from the Council of Basel sess. 21., which says that the voice ought to be formed in such a way that the words are not formed in the throat or between the teeth; and between that pronunciation which is made between the teeth and that which is audible, a middle cannot morally be given.

Further, the Canonical office must be performed in such a way that each one is morally certain that he has satisfied his debt; but how will he be certain that he has prayed vocally who has heard himself in no other way than mentally? For unless the mind attended to such pronunciation, it is established that a man knows he has spoken just as if he had not spoken.

For the opposite opinion stands Azorius parte 1. lib. 10. cap. 11. quaesito 4. His reason is that that pronunciation of the office satisfies the precept of the Church which is contradistinguished from mental pronunciation; and such is that which is made with the lips alone moved, even if it is heard by no one; because, as Navar. says de orat. cap. 20. num. 14., it suffices that the cleric so utter the words that he perceives that he has uttered them.

Yet this reason is not proved valid to me, because he perceives mentally only that he has uttered the words, either mentally or vocally; if the first, it is just as if he had said them mentally; if the second, therefore he heard his voice; and so we are back with the first opinion.

In the other way also the reason of this second opinion can be attacked; because such is not the tenor of the Ecclesiastical precept, that we pray not only mentally and in heart, but that some other contradistinguished mode should suffice; as is clear from the Council of Basel cited above; otherwise it would suffice to mumble between the teeth or in the throat, which is there reproved.

Be that as it may, Filliucius admits this opinion only for the Scrupulous tom. 2. tract. 23. cap. 3. num. 117., and Diana resolut. 11. But Bassaeus num. 15., Caramuel in Reg. S. Bened. l. 380., Tamburin. tom. 2. disp. 10. quaest. 9. absolutely will that the second opinion stand, saying that the precept is given of saying the office, not of hearing it.