98. On the Divine Office

1. Benedictus, a beneficed cleric and organist of the Cathedral Church, when he plays the organ so that, in the chant of the divine office, he may respond to the versicles which the whole choir sings, does not himself alternately sing the versicles, nor pronounce them in a low voice, but only plays the organ, saying that the sound of the organ responds to the chant of the choir. And since he himself plays the organ, he thinks that he sufficiently and altogether satisfies the obligation of the divine office.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Benedictus does not satisfy the obligation of the divine office. For he in truth neither sings nor recites the divine office, but plays the organ, which is neither to sing nor to recite the divine office. St. Alphonsus, n. 143, reports that Soto, Navarrus, Aragon, and Rodriguez teach that he satisfies the obligation of the divine office “who responds alternately to the choir by playing the organ, without uttering the versicle of his own part.” Busembaum, n. 156, also seems to favor this opinion. But the Holy Doctor immediately adds: “But I do not acquiesce in this, since Bonacina rightly teaches that the office is then not recited integrally, because the organ does not utter words.” Whence it is drawn that in the proposed Case Benedictus in no way recites the office. But the choir does not recite it integrally.

This is confirmed from the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 1, c. 28, n. 7, where it is said: “If in some places it were customary for organs to be played even during the canonical hours, or some of them, as is the hour of terce... such a custom can be preserved; but it must be noted that whenever by the organ something is represented as being sung, or responded alternately to the versicles of hymns or canticles, by someone from the choir in an intelligible voice that must be pronounced which is to be responded by the organ. And it would be laudable that some cantor, together with the organ, should sing the same thing in a clear voice.” I. M. 222.

2. Salvianus, a priest and very learned, from involuntary distraction, in place of the hour of none, recited the hour of sext twice. After he noticed the error and considered the matter much, he omitted to recite none.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Salvianus is a learned man, and before he determined himself to omit none, he considered the matter much. Therefore let us see what reason there could have been by which he was moved to form for himself a judgment concerning the absence of obligation to recite none in the Case.

Now, that the aforesaid reason may be explained, it must be premised that in the divine office there are two things, quantity and quality, and thus “to omit,” says La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1203, “the whole of vespers on Holy Saturday is commonly judged mortal, not on account of quantity, but quality, because namely they are an entire hour and contain a great mystery; nevertheless in this instance Bonaespe, Marchant, Pellizarius, Tamburinus, and others apud Gobat probably think it is only venial, because they are a small prayer.” And St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 147, says: “Elbel and Croix, with Marchant, Pellizarius, Tamburinus, and others, by reason of the smallness of the matter, probably say that he would not sin gravely who omitted the whole vespers of Holy Saturday.” Fr. Gury, Comp., n. 52, notes the same discrepancy of opinions as regards vespers of Holy Saturday, according as in them quantity or quality is attended to. — Besides, as regards the question whether it is a mortal sin to exchange the office of the day for another briefer one, St. Ligorius, in the cited place, n. 162, q. 3, brings four opinions. The first absolutely denies that it is a mortal sin, and brings this reason: “because for fulfilling the precept of the office it suffices that it be fulfilled in substance, and this is done when the seven hours are said.” St. Alphonsus confesses that he formerly adhered to this opinion; “but now,” he says, “I judge more truly that it cannot be sustained, because when a notably shorter office is recited, then that office is not fulfilled either in its form or in equivalent substance.” Nevertheless, according to the same Holy Doctor, and according to what Fr. Gury teaches, Comp., n. 73, one satisfies the obligation if due compensation is made, for example, by reciting nine psalms, if the office of a Saint has been said in place of the office of a Sunday. Cf. La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1250. But the second opinion as regards the proposed question holds that he who changes an unequal or almost equal office does not sin gravely. The reason is, “because the Pontiff in assigning the specific form for the recitation of the breviary looked rather to quantity as the substantial form than to the quality of the office, which is an accidental form, or manner of reciting.”

Now theologians most commonly agree that the omission of one whole little hour, or of a quantity equivalent to one little hour, is necessary and sufficient matter of grave sin. He who by error said the hour of sext twice and then omits the hour of none, although he omits the hour as to quality, nevertheless does not omit it as to quantity, at least equivalently. But since the quality of one hour in relation to the whole office is accidental and slight matter, as is clear from what has been said regarding the omission of vespers of Holy Saturday, the grave sin would be only by reason of quantity. But this is equivalently compensated, as it is compensated in the case in which someone has said a notably shorter office. Therefore.

Thus perhaps Salvianus reasoned. Nevertheless it seems more true that he was gravely obliged to the recitation of the hour of none. For he did not satisfy the obligation of the divine office as to form and as to quantity together, in grave matter. For it cannot truly be said that he recited none, but that he recited sext twice, which is quite different. Wherefore, although office for office is valid, because the form and quantity of the divine office is preserved, and there is error only as to the quality of the office of one Saint, for example, for another Saint; nevertheless hour for hour is not valid. For by that very fact form and quantity are lacking, since the hour is omitted. Nor indeed can it be sufficiently supplied by another hour. For in the very fact that that hour itself is lacking, the quantity of that hour cannot be supplied. It is certainly another thing when there is question of vespers of Holy Saturday, for then, because of the smallness of the prayer, the omission of that whole hour constitutes a small omission. Likewise when a shorter office has been recited for another longer one; the integral form of the office has already been preserved, and the quantity can well be supplied by reciting the psalms of the other omitted office. But in the Case this cannot be verified, for one hour would be supplied by another hour of the same office; and since one hour is grave matter, excepting vespers of Holy Saturday, there would already be had a grave alteration as to the form and quantity together of the divine office. Otherwise why could not one nocturn be recited twice, three times, for the first, second, and third nocturn; twice prime or twice lauds for lauds and prime, and so forth?

3. Fabianus, a priest, since he was rather tired from a delayed celebration of Mass and from a sermon given to the people, began to recite the little morning hours. But when the hour of none had been begun, he was called to dinner; and lest others should have to wait for him, and he himself had already waited a long time, he at once completed none by a shorter way, namely by reciting those things which precede and follow, and by omitting the three intermediate parts of Psalm 118.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Theologians in this matter have established, some too great, others too small, matter for having a grave transgression in the recitation of the divine office, as may be seen apud Busembaum and St. Alphonsus, l. 4, nn. 146, 147, and La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1202. But the opinion has now become most common, as Fr. Gury affirms, Comp., n. 51, requiring the omission of one little hour or of a quantity equivalent to it. Now this opinion must be taken altogether strictly for the omission of one entire hour, and thus Fr. Gury, in the cited place, openly says: “if someone does not omit some hour altogether integrally, he can be excused from grave sin, because more probably it is light to omit less than an integral hour.” St. Alphonsus, in the cited place, cites several theologians for the same opinion, and says: “they probably say that it is light matter to omit less than an integral little hour”; but afterwards from his own opinion he says: “that universally is judged small matter which does not reach the quantity of one integral hour.” And La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1202, has these things to the matter of which we are treating: “if you omit less than a whole little hour, you do not sin mortally. If however you recite only a small part of one little hour, for example, these five words: Deus in adiutorium meum intende, you are judged to neglect the whole, and therefore you sin mortally, because so little is reputed as nothing.”

But d’Annibale, Summ., 3rd ed., p. 3, n. 147, says: “if someone has read some small thing of a little hour, say the hymn, chapter, responsories, and prayer, the rest being omitted, it will be just as if he had omitted the whole, La-Croix IV, 1202.” At first sight the distinguished D’Annibale seems to hold as small and almost as nothing all those things together: the hymn, chapter, responsories, and prayer. But since he cites La-Croix, and, as is clear from his words just reported, La-Croix holds as small and almost as nothing only those five words, it must be said that D’Annibale understood as small only the hymn, or chapter, or responsories, or prayer; although the sense is somewhat obscure on account of the particle “and” placed at the end.

Wherefore to the proposed question it seems it can be answered that Fabianus was immune at least from grave fault. For he recited a part of the little hour which was not altogether slight, such that it could be held almost as nothing. For this nearly equals one part of Psalm 118, which is recited in that hour, namely sixteen versicles, so that Fabianus recited almost a fourth part of the whole hour. I. M. 114.

4. Geminianus, by dispensation parish priest of two parishes, is always uncertain whether he ought to recite a double office or only one. Likewise he is often uncertain what office he ought to recite, since those two parishes have some proper offices, but different ones.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Geminianus, “because he owes praises to God as one man, it suffices that he say the office once according to the custom of one of the churches of which he is a cleric. But concerning the choice of office it seems reasonably that he ought to say the office of that church in which he has the greater rank; for example, if in one he is dean and in the other a simple canon, he ought to say the office of the church in which he is dean. But if in each church he were a simple canon, he ought to say the office of the more dignified church, although perhaps in the lesser church he has a richer prebend; because temporal things are of no moment compared with spiritual things. But if both churches are of equal dignity, he can choose whichever office he prefers, if he is absent from each church; but if he is present in one of them, he ought to conform himself to those with whom he lives.” St. Thomas, Quodl. 1, a. 13.

5. Nemesius, a priest, on a certain Saturday, after the first nocturn of Sunday matins had been said toward night, was called to a sick person, and on Sunday he said the remaining nocturns, without repeating the first.

It is asked: Did Nemesius sin gravely in the Case, and ought he to have repeated matins?

R. In the negative. The reason is that he satisfied the substance of the precept, since he completed the office at the due time. Therefore Nemesius is to be excused from mortal sin, although he interposed the whole night between one nocturn and the next. Indeed he is free even from venial fault, since he did this from a just cause, or from an office of charity, namely so that he might aid the sick person. G. 51; I. M. 143.

6. Felix, a beneficed cleric, assisting at choir, very often does not understand those things which are sung by the other part of the choir; but he hears only confused chant, by no means distinguishing and understanding the words. Hence he is very anxious whether he satisfies the obligation of the divine office.

R. Felix satisfies the obligation of the divine office. For the difficulty by which he is disturbed follows from the very manner of singing the divine hours. For unless someone holds the whole office by memory, or unless he reads while the other part of the choir sings, it very often happens that someone, although he attends and wishes to understand all things well, does not distinguish or understand the words. Moreover those who by obligation assist at choir certainly are not held to learn the office by memory, nor, while the other part of the choir sings, are they themselves held to read that part; but it suffices that they hear the chant and attend as much as they can. The same holds concerning the recitation of the office with a companion. “He satisfies his obligation who does not understand his companion, because there is no obligation of understanding, but of reciting his own part and hearing the other. Otherwise nuns and also many religious not understanding the Latin tongue would not satisfy.” G. 52; St. Alphonsus, 163; I. M. 111.

7. Sebastianus, a mountain parish priest, reciting the office privately, indeed makes all the commemorations in the suffrages which are found in the breviary before compline; but he omits all other commemorations, namely of the Titular of the Church, of the Patron of the Parish, of the Titular of the Cathedral Church, of the Patron of the Diocese, and of the Patron of the whole Kingdom. Callixtus, his vicar, contends that all these commemorations must be made, because they are found indicated in the diocesan Calendar, which must altogether be stood by. But Sebastianus constantly answers that they are not found in the Roman breviary approved by St. Pius V, which rather must be stood by.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Sebastianus does not act rightly, omitting the commemoration of the Titular of the Church. For this is clear from the rubric itself of the breviary, in which it is said: “the commemoration of the Patron or Titular of the Church is added.” Of the Patron, if the Church has a Patron, namely the Blessed Virgin Mary or some Saint who exercises his patronage. Of the Titular, if the Church is dedicated to some divine Mystery, which, properly speaking, does not exercise patronage; and therefore it is said “of the Patron or Titular of the Church,” and it is not said “of the Patron and of the Titular of the Church.” Of the Church, i.e., of the proper Church; not of the Cathedral Church; of the proper Church, namely, to whose service one is attached by any canonical title whatever, provided that the church is public, even if not consecrated. Besides the commemoration of the Title or Patron of the Church, and as regards Regulars, of their proper Founder, no commemoration of the Patron of the place or Diocese, Province, or Kingdom is to be made by force of the rubric, unless a contrary custom is in force. Thus from the General Decree of the S. R. C., 27 June 1899. Whence it is also clear that by force of the rubric no commemoration of the Titular of the Cathedral Church is to be made besides the commemoration of the Titular of one’s proper Church. Wherefore Sebastianus the parish priest is indeed held to make the commemoration of the Patron or Titular of his proper Church. But as regards the others, one must see not whether they are found indicated in the diocesan Calendar, but whether a legitimate custom is present. It must be affirmed in the Case, if in the diocesan Calendar they are not now indicated for the first time, but have constantly been prescribed previously.

Here it must be noted that “the Titular, or Patron of a Church, is said to be he under whose name or title the Church was founded, and from whom it is named. But the Patron of a place properly is he whom a certain city, diocese, province, kingdom, etc., has chosen for itself as a singular patron before God, the rules being observed in his election.” S. R. C., 9 May 1857, Briocen., n. 3048; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1932, 1934, 1937, 1938.

8. Bishop H., besides the cathedral, has other churches from which he receives some fruit for his support. Must he himself, when the suffrages of the Saints are to be done, add a commemoration of their Titulars; or does the commemoration only of the Titular of his own cathedral suffice?

R. He is held only to the commemoration of the Titular of the cathedral church. S. R. C., 16 Apr. 1886, Halif., ad 2.

9. Missionary H. A. has other churches committed to his care, besides the principal one. Must he make the commemoration of the Titulars of all of them?

R. He is held to the commemoration only of the Titular of the more dignified church, or of the church at which he must reside. S. R. C., 16 Apr. 1886, Halif., ad 2.

10. Anastasius, a beneficed cleric, very liable to wandering of mind and distraction, in the recitation of the breviary often, when he is at the end of the recitation of lauds, of the hour of none, or of compline, does not remember whether he has said the things which precede. Hence he is often very anxious whether he ought to repeat the recitation, and he begins also to be anxious whether he ought to restore the fruits of the benefice.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. There is a twofold opinion of theologians in this matter. The first opinion asserts that for fulfilling the obligation of the divine office there is required and sufficient, besides intention, internal, virtual attention, whether it is to God, or to the sense of the words, or even to the words alone with at least some confused attention to God. But internal virtual attention is that which remains from actual attention as long as it is not revoked expressly or tacitly by voluntary distraction, or by an action incompatible with due attention. Whence although you are involuntarily distracted, nevertheless you attend virtually if in general you intended to say the office in the customary way, or with the mind of praising God, or of satisfying your duty, and if consequently you recite with at least some confused apprehension and purpose of doing the customary work. The supporters of this opinion diligently note that, in order that someone be said not to satisfy the office, it is required not only that someone voluntarily distract himself, but also that he fully notice that he is distracted. For an intention previously conceived with full deliberation does not cease to exist, unless it is retracted with another full advertence. The other opinion asserts that for fulfilling the obligation of the divine office external attention is required and sufficient. But external attention is had when no action incompatible with interior attention is placed, such as writing, reading, etc. The first opinion is more common and more probable; but the second opinion, both on account of the authority of many and very grave doctors, and on account of a reason resting on foundations not slight, is sufficiently probable and is held as such by Busembaum, l. 4, n. 7, and by St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 177. “Whence,” says the Holy Doctor, “I would not dare to condemn to restitution a beneficed cleric who in good faith had recited the office with voluntary distraction, and likewise in good faith had received the fruits.” Cf. also concerning this question Sylvius, op. t. 5, Oratio 13, concerning attention to the canonical hours; D’Annibale, 3rd ed., p. 3, n. 149; I. M. n. 165. — But the reason of the first opinion is: because prayer pertains to worship, and exterior worship without interior worship is a lie. Besides, because prayer is the ascent of the mind to God. The reason of the second opinion is that prayer is petition; but only intention and words are necessary for petition. Otherwise, if internal attention were also necessary for the substance of prayer, there would be no prayer if someone were unwillingly distracted, which no one affirms; nor would the sacrament of extreme unction be confected, whose form is deprecatory. And these reasons are very grave. Hence Anastasius, concerning whom the Case is concerned, ought to be anxious about nothing. For first, since he finds himself at the end of some hour, he can presume that he said that whole hour. Moreover, since he himself is anxious concerning the recitation of the office, and is often anxious, it does not seem that he recites without any internal attention. And although he does not have this, it does not seem that he certainly lacks even external attention. Wherefore he ought neither to repeat the recitation, nor to restore the fruits of the benefice, which, since he has already received them in good faith, the condition of the possessor is the better. Giribaldi, 183–185.

11. Pancratius, a beneficed cleric, knowingly and willingly distracted in mind, recites the office several times. Moreover, always and legitimately dispensed from choir, he recites matins and lauds of the following day on the preceding evening around the second hour. He is now greatly disturbed whether he has committed grave sin, and he is disturbed still more because, notwithstanding such anxiety of conscience, he does not restore the fruits. Hence he approaches a confessor and manifests to him the distresses of his soul, so that he may have peace. But his distresses increase; for the confessor pronounces that he has sinned gravely always in the individual cases, and besides that he is held to restitution, because from St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 158, possession of any thing cannot be begun except with certitude of right.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Recitation of the divine office is a human act, and therefore is not had without intention; whence it is altogether necessary that someone recite it knowingly and willingly. But from the fact that someone is distracted in recitation, attention indeed vanishes, but intention is not impeded. Attention is also necessary for the recitation of the divine office, because it is prayer. But it suffices that it be external attention; for the precept of internal attention is certainly not established, since the doctors greatly dispute concerning it. Wherefore, if someone recites the divine office knowingly and willingly while distracted in mind, he sufficiently satisfies his obligation, if otherwise at least external attention is not lacking. Therefore Pancratius, reciting the divine office while distracted, is immune from grave sin, and so the confessor did not pronounce sentence well in this matter.

Many and approved doctors hold that matins and lauds can begin at the second hour, and many doctors also who adhere to the contrary opinion think it probable. Therefore Pancratius, even in this recitation, is probably not guilty of grave sin. Whence the confessor did not pronounce sentence well in this either.

But the confessor erred altogether in imposing restoration of fruits upon Pancratius. For Pancratius is disturbed only after the fact, and so he received the fruits in good faith, in which Case, from the very opinion of St. Alphonsus, he would not be held to restore the fruits. Indeed St. Alphonsus, in the cited place, treats the question concerning a beneficed cleric: whether, when he cannot recite the office alone, he is held to hire a companion from the fruits of the benefice. He brings two opinions, the affirmative and the negative. And then he immediately adds: “each opinion is probable; hence I say that if such a beneficed cleric omitted the office because he did not employ a companion, and received the fruits in good faith, he can retain them, because the condition of the possessor is the better. Otherwise, if he has not yet received them, but relying on the probability of this second opinion wishes to receive them, because possession of any thing cannot be begun except with certitude of right.” But even if Pancratius has not received the fruits, he can certainly receive them; for only he who omits to recite the hours does not make the fruits his own. But Pancratius certainly recited the hours. Moreover, the general principle established by the Holy Doctor has its exceptions. Certainly someone cannot begin possession of some thing with probability of right by despoiling another who is in legitimate possession of the thing. But if another does not possess the thing, or does not possess it legitimately, his possession can indeed be begun with probability of right. For if that possession can be continued with such probability of right, why also can it not be begun, since possession consists not in right but in fact, and is always the same after it has been entered upon and when it is entered upon? Moreover, good, doubtful, or bad faith does not change the truth of a thing. Wherefore even when possession has been begun with doubtful or bad faith, if afterwards the error is established, someone, having rightly formed conscience for himself, will be able to retain the thing. And thus, if two buy a thing, one of whom thinks it is the seller’s, the other that it is not the seller’s, if afterwards Titius appears affirming that it is his, but by no means proving this, the buyer’s bad faith certainly grants or adds no right to Titius, just as the good faith of the other buyer takes away no right from Titius. Whence, if in truth that thing was the seller’s, both buyers can altogether retain it, and, once the error is known, the other buyer must change only his own opinion and rightly form conscience for himself. Likewise he who contracted marriage with a doubtful impediment, after the matter has been explored in vain, can licitly render and seek the debt. Ligorius, l. 6, n. 906; I. M. 1032. He who received moderate gain from a loan with doubtful or bad faith, provided he is prepared to stand by the mandates of the Church, ought not to be disturbed. S. Penitentiary, 16 Jan. 1837. He who, thinking with bad or doubtful faith that he is irregular, accepted an ecclesiastical benefice, makes the fruits his own. Ligorius, l. 7, n. 347. He who takes a gem found on the seashore, doubting whether it belongs to no one, or has been abandoned, or has been lost, after useless investigation, no one appearing, makes it his own. And, if someone appears, but does not prove that it was lost by him, still the former justly and legitimately retains it. Namely, bad or doubtful faith in these cases takes away nothing of right. Whence, if in good faith someone justly and legitimately retains, in the same case, even with bad and doubtful faith, this afterwards removed, he justly and legitimately retains. Besides, although the reason brought forward were universally true, nevertheless it has no place in the proposed case: for the beneficed cleric receives the fruits of the benefice with certitude of right; for the benefice itself, which he possesses, gives a certain right to receiving the fruits. But one omitting the office does not make the fruits his own; but let it be shown that Pancratius omitted the office.

12. Eustachius, a priest, on the day of the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed, is invited by the Prefect of the Confraternity of the Most Holy Rosary to sing the office in the chapel of the cemetery of Campo Verano together with other ecclesiastics and members of the Confraternity. Eustachius sings with the others the Office of the Dead and receives a rich stipend. But he does not privately recite another office on that day, thinking that by that same office sung in the chapel of the cemetery, notwithstanding the rich stipend received for it, he can also satisfy the obligation which he has of reciting it as one initiated in sacred orders from the common law of the Church.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Eustachius does not seem to be disturbed. For from the common law of the Church, as one initiated in sacred orders, he was held on that day to recite the Office of the Dead. But he recited this office; nor was he held to recite it twice. But whether he sang it in choir together with others, or in the chapel of the cemetery, this certainly does not impede satisfaction of the law. Nor does the fact that he received a stipend impede it. For first, if he received the stipend for the inconvenience of the journey and the labor of singing, this certainly does not impede the satisfaction of the common obligation, since it is something altogether extrinsic to the recitation itself of the office. If likewise he received the stipend for the office itself and its application for the Dead of that Confraternity, neither does this impede the satisfaction of the common obligation of reciting the office for him who is initiated in sacred orders. For a priest celebrating Mass on Sunday for a stipend received so that he may celebrate on that day is not therefore afterwards required to hear another Mass. And a beneficed cleric who is at the same time constituted in sacred orders, although he is held to the divine office by a double title and receives the fruits of the benefice, is nevertheless held to recite only one office.

13. Aurelius, occupied with theological studies, so that he may prepare himself for receiving the theological doctorate, asks a dispensation from the Vicar General from the canonical hours for a week. The Vicar grants it without any difficulty, and Aurelius uses it without any scruple.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 156, speaking of those who are excused from the recitation of the canonical hours by a just impediment, also enumerates those “who by office must attend public theses; likewise those having a public lecture for acquiring a Chair or Doctorate, if the occupation were of the whole day and could not be deferred without harm to oneself or others; likewise students who must on some day defend an Act (Theological or Philosophical).... But if all these without great difficulty can anticipate or postpone the recitation, to this they are indeed held; whence... it will happen very rarely that they will be able to omit such an office without fault.” D’Annibale, 3rd ed., p. 3, n. 152, likewise affirms excuse from the recitation of the divine office from the fact that someone must “devote himself to study, not indeed ordinary, but from an extraordinary and grave cause, for example, for making an examination or for publicly reading.” Hence Aurelius, if in truth during those few days he must devote himself to study, and therefore cannot recite the breviary, if he does not have a just impediment so that he may be excused, certainly has a legitimate reason for asking and obtaining a dispensation. But whether the Vicar General legitimately granted the dispensation is a matter which depends on the faculties granted to him by the bishop. If he has a special mandate from the bishop, then certainly, as in the law of fasting, so also in the recitation of the breviary, he will be able to dispense. St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 1032; l. 4, n. 159. But since the Vicar General in the Case granted the dispensation without any difficulty, it must altogether be presumed that he did not lack that special mandate.

14. The superior of a religious institute permits his students to separate in choir the recitation of matins from lauds, so that matins is anticipated on the preceding day in the first evening hours, and lauds is recited very early in the morning. He himself thinks that this can well be done. For those students, since during the night they must rise by turn, cannot rise at midnight for reciting matins with lauds. — Is it rightly done?

R. In the negative. Nor did the S. R. C., 11 March 1871, n. 3241, wish to grant an indult concerning this matter.

15. The nuns of the Visitation believe that they are gravely obliged to the recitation of the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, since in their Institute that opinion has been constant, and consequently the custom of reciting that office; which opinion and custom had its origin from the beginning of the foundation of the Institute itself. — Is the opinion of the nuns true?

R. In the negative. The reason is that generally nuns of simple vows only are in no way held under grave obligation to the recitation of the divine office, as is clear from the Response of the S. C. EE. et RR., 19 Apr. 1844. Cf. E. M. 107. Nor indeed can they be held by force of the special Constitutions of the aforesaid Institute; for Constitutions of this sort do not of themselves oblige to sin, Const. 49. But custom has no force in the Case; for it was introduced from an error of a grave preexisting obligation. Wherefore it could not introduce a grave obligation. I. M. 190. — M. E. v. 12, p. 270.