I. On the Positive Obligations of Clerics

What about the holiness of life of clerics? - The life of clerics ought to be strong in internal holiness and external edification, not only negatively as regards immunity from sin, but also positively as regards the exercise of virtues. This is established: 1. From Sacred Scripture, from the Councils, from the Fathers, from Trent s. 22, c. 1 de R., s. 23, c. 4 de R., from the Letters of Pius X, Haerent animo, to the Catholic Clergy, August 4, 1908. 2. From the very excellence of the state and the office which they profess. But whether the clerical state strictly taken, insofar namely as it is distinguished from the state of Religious and of Bishops, is or is not a state of perfection, is disputed among doctors. Nevertheless it does not seem able to be denied that it is at least in some way a state of perfection. Suarez de Relig. t. 3, l. 1, c. 17, n. 2-4; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 184, a. 8; Suppl. q. 36, a. 4; L. l. 6, n. 803; E. M.

Note: In order that they might promote this interior holiness of life and exterior edification in clerics, the Supreme Pontiffs very greatly commended spiritual exercises. Cf. 220; A. S. S. v. 37, p. 422 ff.

The Council of Trent, moreover, exhorts deacons and subdeacons to receive Communion at least on Sundays and feasts, s. 23, c. 13 de R., and priests at least to celebrate Mass on the aforesaid days, ib. c. 14.

Are clerics bound to preserving celibacy? - In the Latin Church all clerics, from the episcopate to the subdiaconate inclusive, are held under a most grave precept to preserve perpetual chastity, so that they neither can licitly use a marriage contracted before sacred ordination, nor licitly nor validly afterward contract it. This is established from several chapters of Canon Law, especially C. 1, Dist. 28; C. unic. de Voto in 6; Trent s. 24, c. 9.

In the Latin Church. For some exception is given by tolerance of the Church among the Orientals. In the Oriental Church priests can never enter marriage after priestly ordination, nor deacons after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be promoted to further orders, and nevertheless live with their wives. Bishops are excepted, all of whom must constantly preserve perfect chastity. Hence among the Greeks the subdiaconate is not numbered among sacred orders; and upon unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate the precept of chastity is imposed. In some provinces, in which the ancient discipline of the Western Church has been restored, the same obligation is imposed in the ordination of the subdiaconate. Cf. 1015. L. l. 6, n. 806; S. Th. Suppl. q. 53, a. 3; C. Ut Clericorum 13 de Vit. et honest. cler., C. A crapula 14 e. t.; C. 1, 2 Qui cler. vel vov.; C. 1, 4 de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. for the Italo-Greeks Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n.

26; Instruction for the Copts Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745, § 30 ff.; E. M.

Ruthenian clerics in the Canadian region cannot be admitted into the Seminary unless they have promised before the Bishop that they will preserve celibacy perpetually; and only celibates will be able to be promoted to sacred orders in the Canadian region. For exercising the sacred ministry among the faithful of the Ruthenian rite, none can be admitted except celibate priests, or at least widowers and without children. S. C. de P. F., August 8, 1913, art. 10, 11; A. A. S. v. 5, p. 395. Celibacy is prescribed in the very same way for the Ruthenian clergy in the United States of North America by Pius X, C. Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, c. 2, art. 10, 12; Supplem. 369.

During the first five centuries in the Western Church the obligation of preserving continence attached to the order of subdiaconate is not found. The first to command subdeacons to preserve it was St. Leo the Great, around the year 440, as is clear from his Epistle 84 to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica. But since St. Leo's precept was no longer being sufficiently observed, D. Gregory the Great renewed it, around the year 581, further declaring that the subdiaconate is a sacred order and aggregated to the major orders. And then it is expressly and determinately established in the Decretals of Innocent III, C. Miramur 7 de Serv. non ordinandis. De Iustis de Dispens. Matrim. l. 3, c. 15, Appendix n. 11.

Is the obligation of celibacy of divine law? - Reply: Negatively; for if this law were of divine law, it would not vary concerning it between the Latin and Greek Church, since divine law does not vary according to diversity of places. It is therefore from the ordinance of the Church. Therefore the Church can dispense from that obligation.

Whether that obligation is immediately from a precept of the Church, or immediately from a vow to be emitted by precept of the Church? Trent s. 24, c. 9 refers to both, but does not define. There are those who teach that those ordained in sacred orders are held to chastity not from a vow, but from the sole ordinance of the Church, both because no mention of a vow is made, and because a precept of the Church is sufficient for this. But others commonly, with S. Th. 2. 2. q. 88, a. 11, derive this obligation immediately from a vow of chastity, which is emitted in the very fact of ordination according to the mind of the Church, and this is expressly had in the Law. C. Cum olim de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749, § 41. And Boniface VIII declared this vow to be solemn. C. un. de vot. et vot. redempt. in 6. Wherefore a cleric initiated into sacred orders, sinning against chastity, sins also against religion by acts both external and internal. Therefore the obligation of celibacy extends to preserving all chastity. Cf. L. l. 6, n. 807, 808; Albit. de Inconst. in Fide c. 36, n. 132 ff.

What if someone were promoted to sacred orders either invincibly ignorant of the obligation of chastity attached to them, or expressly unwilling to vow that obligation itself, or if he were compelled to this by grave fear, or if he were ordained in the very age of infancy? - Reply to the first: Some probably say that he is held to chastity, namely by force of the universal law itself of the Church. Others "probably judge that if the ignorance had been altogether invincible, the ordained man would not be held to chastity, neither from a vow nor from a precept of the Church, because the Church would not intend to oblige such a one; but otherwise if the ignorance had been culpable, or if someone intended to receive the order with the same obligation with which others receive it." Ignorance of this kind is not presumed in the external forum, since it concerns a law so clear and most commonly handed down.

Reply to the second: "In such a case he would be held to chastity not from a vow, but from the precept of the Church, which from a motive of religion would bind him to chastity, the vow being absent."

Reply to the third: One must distinguish: If he did not have the intention of receiving sacred ordination, he is not held, as having been invalidly ordained. If he had the mind of receiving sacred orders, and the fear was just, more probably he is held, because since he is unwilling unreasonably, such fear neither exempts from law nor invalidates the vow. If again he had the mind of receiving sacred orders, but the fear was unjust, more probably he is not held, because of the opposite reason. Wherefore he can validly contract marriage, "but he cannot minister in the order while the marriage stands, nor enjoy clerical privileges." But the nullity of the ordination must be established in the external forum by canonical process. Cf. 106.

Reply to the fourth: "It is certain that he who is ordained before the use of reason, although the ordination is valid, nevertheless is not held to chastity; whence he can validly and licitly enter marriage." Benedict XIV, Bull Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745, commands that in the sixteenth year of age an option be given to them; and, if they wish to preserve chastity, they are admitted to the exercise of the order; otherwise, if they do not wish. And he adds that after ratification they invalidly contract marriage and are held to the divine office. If after the use of reason, but before puberty, some probably say that he is held, others not improbably deny it. The reason is that such a vow, from which this obligation more probably comes, "constitutes a man in an irrevocable state, in which the Pontiff never or rarely dispenses; whence such a vow requires a mature and perfect use of reason." L. l. 6, n. 80, 781, 809-811; S. Th. Suppl. q. 39, a. 2; Sanchez in Dec. l. 5, c. 6, n. 5-8.

What about tonsure and habit? - Clerics are obliged to wear the tonsure and clerical clothing. This is established from various places of Canon Law, especially Conc. Tr. s. 14, c. 6 de R., s. 22, c. 1 de R., s. 23, c. 6 de R.; L. l. 6, n. 825; S. Th. 4, d. 24, q. 3, a. 1, q. 1; Suppl. q. 40, a. 1.

Do clerics sin gravely who outside their own house do not wear the habit or crown? - Reply to the first: Those clerics are either simply clerics, or beneficed, or constituted in sacred orders. If the first, they more commonly teach that, speaking in itself, they do not sin, not even venially, since by common law this grave obligation has been imposed only on clerics in sacred orders and on beneficed clerics. But they lack the privilege of the forum. Cf. Trent s. 23, c. 6 de R. Speaking in itself, for particular laws and customs of places must be attended to. If the second, it is certain that they sin mortally, unless there is a just excusing cause or smallness of matter; for grave penalties are imposed on them in Canon Law. But what span of time is required for mortal sin cannot be determined in general, but only from the circumstances. They commonly admit that it is venial to put aside the habit only once or again. La-Croix l. 1, n. 672 extends a brief time to five or six days. Nevertheless they also commonly admit that clerics sin gravely if even for a brief time they lay aside or conceal the clerical habit for an evil end. Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 11, c. 8; Trent s. 14, c. 6 de R.

Reply to the second: Clerics who are not constituted in sacred orders and are not beneficed never sin gravely. Thus most commonly. But again, do they lack the privilege of the forum? Cf. Trent s. 23, c. 6 de R. Even clerics, beneficed or initiated into sacred orders, at least do not sin gravely unless they omit wearing the crown, without a grave excusing cause and for a notable time, such as in this matter is not a time of one or another month. But whether it is grave not to wear the crown for an entire year is not clear. Theologians more commonly affirm it; but it is not clearly proved, because here doctors easily mix the crown with tonsure. L. l. 6, n. 825-827; La-Croix l. 1, n. 672; l. 4, n. 1372; E. M.

What properly are tonsure, crown, and clerical habit? - Tonsure, to be worn by clerics, insofar as it is distinguished from crown, is the prohibition made to clerics of nourishing a beard, which today by custom must be altogether shaved, unless some necessity is present; and of letting the hair grow long, which is grave unless the hair is moderate, C. 4, 5, 7 de Vit. et honest. cler., or the custom of the region bears otherwise and scandal is absent. Nor indeed can they use artificial hair without the command of the bishop, S. C. C., December 9, 1690, unless custom obtains otherwise. The crown today is the tonsure on the top of the head in the manner of a crown. The crown must be broader or narrower according to order and dignity. La-Croix l. 4, n. 1373; Benedict XIV, Notification 96; de Syn. l. 11, c. 9; L. l. 6, n. 826; Clem. 2, C. 4, 5, 15 de Vit. et honest. cler.; Trent ll. cc.

Clerical habit is a cassock, and other things congruent to the order in the judgment of the Bishop, Trent s. 14 de R., c. 6; s. 22 de R., c. 1; s. 24 de R., c. 12 in fine; therefore they vary according to various places. A cassock is said to be a garment which flows down to the ankles, or at least to the knees, which by a certain epikeia and the custom of certain places has been received in towns and villages; and in the cities themselves also it is permitted outside sacred functions and the celebration of Mass. C. Clerici 15 de Vit. et honest. cler.; Sixtus V, C. Cum sacrosanctum, January 9, 1589; Benedict XIV, Notification 71, n. 9; S. Th. Suppl. q. 40, a. 1; E. M.

Note: Since many things, especially as regards the exterior attire of clerics, are by no means determined in particular by common law, but are various according to various regions, one must stand by the Statutes of each diocese, which a confessor of clerics must altogether not be ignorant of. In many dioceses it is altogether prohibited to admit to the celebration of Mass priests not wearing clerical habit, cassock, and tonsure. The penalties, however, laid down against those not wearing habit and tonsure do not seem to affect those who do not wear tonsure only.

Clerics are prohibited from wearing a ring, unless it belongs to them from the office of dignity, as are Bishops, Abbots, etc. C. 15 de Vit. et hon. cler.

Who are obliged to the recitation of the canonical hours? - The canonical hours are public prayers, which its ministers pour forth in the name of the Church in the form prescribed by the same Church. Hence the fruit of these prayers is from the work of the minister working and from the work of the Church working; and it redounds to the minister himself, to those for whom they are specially applied, to the founders of benefices, and to all the faithful, for whom the Church prays.

In the Western Church the following are obliged to recite the canonical hours daily: 1. All clerics constituted in sacred orders, even those suspended and excommunicated. This is established from various places of Canon Law, from the Lateran Council of 1215, from the Bull of S. Pius V Quod a nobis, from the Constitution of Pius X Divino afflatu, Kalends of November 1911. 2. All beneficed persons who have right in the thing and full dominion of the benefice. It is drawn from the Lateran Council under Leo X, and also from the Bull of S. Pius V Ex proximo. 3. All religious of both sexes professed in an Order approved by the Church and destined for choir. This is clear from custom, and also from the Decree of Gregory X, etc. Cf. the Works of S. Peter Damian, Migne vol. 145, col. 222 ff.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 5, 6.

In the Western Church; for, as Benedict XIV says, C. Eo quamvis tempore, §§ 44, 45, "deacons, subdeacons, and priests of the Eastern Church are compelled by no express law... to the recitation of the divine office." Nevertheless, "even among the Orientals the laudable custom of reciting the divine office has prevailed." And indeed this has the force of law; whence "the discipline of the Eastern Church subjects generally all those constituted in sacred order to the obligation and precept of reciting the divine office, according to the custom of the nation." L. 140 ff.; S. Th. 4, dist. 15, q. 4, a. 1, q. 3; E. M.

You will resolve: Those who are constituted in minor orders are not held to the hours, or to another determined prayer. A cleric begins to be obligated from the hour of receiving the subdiaconate, and indeed to the hours corresponding to the hour at which he is ordained. Wherefore one ordained at midday must begin from Sext, and cannot begin from Vespers. But whether a subdeacon who recited that part before ordination has satisfied his obligation, some deny, while others probably affirm. The reason is that that debt can well be paid in anticipation which certainly is to be contracted morally. L. 140. As regards beneficed persons, the obligation begins from the day of entering into possession of the benefice, and therefore they must begin from Matins. They are not held before accepted possession, nor if without their fault they receive no fruits and are not going to receive them, because they do not have the benefice according to every effect. This is certain. But it is probable that one who does not reside by legitimate permission or dispensation, and therefore does not receive fruits, is not held to the hours, because this obligation is on account of the sustenance given. On the contrary, he is held who, although he does not receive all his fruits, nevertheless receives so great a part as suffices for sustenance. Nor is he excused, if he is not constituted in sacred orders, because he has proposed to himself not to receive the fruits of the benefice; because benefices have been instituted not for the advantages of private persons, but for divine worship. Cf. Trent s. 21, c. 6 de R.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 6, 2; Viva on Alexander VII, prop. 21, § ult.; L. 144 and l. 3, n. 664 ff. As regards religious, the obligation begins from the hour of profession made, from the hour of the day, not of choir.

Novices, lay brothers, religious of the Society of Jesus, military religious, hospitallers, and the rest not destined for choir are not held to the hours. L. 141.

Is one who received sacred order through fear unjustly inflicted held to recite the office? - More probably they deny it. The reason is that although fear does not remove the voluntary, nevertheless the Church is not reasonably judged to wish to oblige to the burden of the office except those who receive the order altogether spontaneously. And therefore such persons ordained through grave fear are not even held to chastity. In the external forum, however, they are held to both until the fear has been established before the S. C. of the Sacraments. L. 144; A. S. S. v. 1, p. 330; v. 2, p. 443; v. 6, p. 85. Cf. here 99.

Are religious men and nuns, if for a just cause they do not come to choir, held to recite the office privately? - Reply: Negatively, if they have only simple vows. If for a just cause; for unless they are legitimately impeded, they too are held to be present at choir. S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, March 24, 1882; May 2, 1883; May 3, 1902; July 28, 1902. Affirmatively, if they have solemn vows. The reason is that the principal obligation for a religious man and a nun does not fall upon choir, but upon recitation of the office by reason of Religion, which undertook that burden from its institute. This obligation is established besides from the universal custom of nuns and religious, who, when they cannot be present at choir, believe themselves bound under grave obligation to recite the office privately. But a universal custom which was constantly observed with great inconvenience provides a sufficient argument concerning a grave obligation undertaken. S. Penitentiary to the Bishop of Perigueux, November 26, 1852.

From a privilege conceded by Innocent IV, regulars and nuns can for a reasonable cause satisfy by reciting the prayers of laymen and laywomen; for example, if a nun is scrupulous, extraordinarily weary, or occupied in useful ministries; if a religious is weakened from a journey or from preaching. Likewise prelates, even inferiors, can for a cause, for example studies, dispense with their subjects, as in other observances, so that they do not recite. L. 62, 142; Pellizzar. de Monialib. c. 6, n. 12 ff.; De Alexandris, Confess. monial. c. 8, q. 5; E. M.

Does a religious man or nun sin gravely who recites the office privately while he or she could easily be present at choir? - Reply: Negatively. For the obligation of choir, although it is grave for the community, is nevertheless held to be light for individual private persons, provided the choir is not entirely removed. But for choir four fit persons suffice, that is, those valid and free to sustain choir. But if the religious are fewer, they are in no way obliged to recite the office in choir; yet they are not exempted from private recitation, as was just said. Four fit persons, "for if they are sick, or legitimately occupied, they are not obliged to choir even if they are four. But Viva, etc., probably think that it suffices for satisfying choir that novices alone be present, because in favorable matters they are reckoned as religious." L. 143. A moderate cause, however, will be able to excuse from the light obligation of coming to choir. Clem. Gravi de Celebr. missar.

Note: That prelates sin gravely who from negligence permit a notable part to be omitted from being recited in choir. That those are not held to supply in choir what is omitted who, while others sing, prepare or transfer books, search out the psalms, strike the organ or bells, or perform other things necessary for choir, because while someone is occupied in matters pertaining to the solemnity of the office, the whole choir supplies for him, and all constitute one moral body. But he who responds alternately to choir by playing the organ, without pronouncing the versicle of his own part, does not seem to satisfy, because the organ does not pronounce words, and the office is not recited integrally. L. 143, 156; La-Croix 1300.

What specifically must be noted as regards recitation in choir or with a companion? - He who recites the office in choir or with a companion must recite integrally those things which are said secretly; hymns, psalms, and versicles by alternate, not by third, turns. But it suffices to hear, while another reads them, the antiphons, brief responsories, chapters, and lessons. As regards those things which the companion recites or reads, so that someone can satisfy, it is necessary that he pronounce all things duly and correctly, and that the person himself hear these things, although the companion may not be obliged to recite the divine office, indeed although he may be distracted; because these things do not impede someone from reciting according to the custom of the Church and communicating with a companion. Although, if the companion is obliged and does not attend, he does not satisfy, since he does not communicate with another. But because all those reciting constitute as it were one body, and because those things which they recite or read in turn are communicated, if someone is not at fault for not perceiving by ear those things which the other part of the choir or the companion recites, it is probable, provided he attends as much as he can, that he satisfies.

Hence one who is somewhat deaf and hears in confusion also satisfies, for example because there is noise, because the companion recites in a low voice, or because of the ineptitude of the reader. "For this precept of the office, from the benignity of the Church, must be interpreted benignly. On the other hand, it will be very liable to anxieties that companions in the office must always be solicitous as to what quantity the omission of hearing has reached, so that they are held or not held to repeat." L. 163.

Somewhat deaf; and also the deaf? If he recites with a companion, whom he is not compelled to use, doctors commonly deny it. If in choir, still more deny; but many also affirm, and not undeservedly, for the obligations and rights of choir must be measured by an equitable reason. Kenrick tr. 8, n. 16; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 151; La-Croix 1295; L. 162, 163; Laymann de Orat. et Hor. Canon. c. 5, n. 7; S. Jerome, Epist. 108, n. 19, Migne vol. 22, col. 896.

Outside choir, if only one or two recite the office, and in the choir of nuns, the Confiteor is recited only once and by all at the same time, with those words omitted, tibi pater, or vobis fratres; te pater or vos fratres; and then it is said: Misereatur nostri, peccatis nostris, perducat nos.

The reading of the Martyrology, which is read daily in choir at Prime before the verse Pretiosa, except the triduum before Easter, is part of the divine office; and it is established from the Rubrics of the same Martyrology that the memorial of the Saints must be read on the day preceding their feast. Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 17.

Note: "It is the common opinion that he satisfies well who hears from a companion the lessons, responsories, chapters, prayers, and antiphons. And probably he still satisfies who alone says the psalms and hears the lessons; or who says part of the psalms alone and part with a companion, because he sufficiently communicates in that part which he hears, and which by received usage is already satisfied by hearing." L. 162. "But it is certain that in choir it is not necessary to hear all, but it suffices to hear one, and it suffices to hear in confusion at least part of the other choir, although you cannot hear distinctly." L. 163. He satisfies choir who recites the psalms quietly, hearing the other part, since one part constitutes one body with the other and they communicate mutually; nor is it necessary that those reciting in one choir hear all those reciting in the other. As regards canons, cf. 220; L. 163; La-Croix 1298.

Are religious, living outside the cloister by permission, fugitive religious, those cast out by sentence, and those condemned to the galleys, held to the office? - Reply to the first: S. Alphonsus affirms it with others, adding: "as also those detained in prison." But Busembaum with others denies it concerning a religious "who has obtained a dispensation to live perpetually outside the monastery, because although he remains a religious he is nevertheless not regular." L. 141, 142.

Reply to the second: Bonacina denies it and Tamburini thinks it probable, but Lessius and Concina better teach that they are held. The reason is that just as they do not lose the religious state, so they are not exempted from its burdens. L. 142. And the same must be said of the excommunicated, even those to be avoided.

Reply to the third: "Not improbably they deny it with Busembaum, etc., with Scotus and Laymann, who call this opinion safe. The reason is that in them the essence of the religious state has now been extinguished, since they are no longer held to the vows, as Sanchez supposes as certain, nor is it in their power to return to religion." L. 142. But Sanchez de Matr. l. 8, d. 8, n. 11 speaks of one professed and dispensed for marriage. As regards one cast out, he brings forward another reason, "because since he is now justly outside the monastery and the monastic life, he is exempted from its burdens."

Reply to the fourth: The S. C. C., on August 13, 1707, and afterward when interrogated, was unwilling to decide the matter, and Clement XI also abstained from a decision. Doctors, however, rather excuse. "Cabassutius more commonly denies it, who nevertheless says that clerics constituted in sacred orders are held; but concerning both, Sporer, Lessius, etc. deny it. The reason is that such recitation would seem to yield to the disgrace of the religious order," and of the clerical state, namely if they live together with other condemned men and not in separate cells. And Kenrick tr. 8, n. 6 says, "from equity, the obligation seems remitted." L. 142; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 153; E. M.

How great is the obligation of the divine office? - The obligation of the divine office is grave in itself. Wherefore he sins gravely who, having this burden, omits the hours or a notable part of them. The reason is that he violates a precept in a grave matter, pertaining to the virtue of religion. C. Presbyter 1 de Celebr. miss.; L. 146; l. 3, n. 663; E. M.

Note: "That universally is judged small matter which does not reach the quantity of one complete hour." Thus most commonly. "He who omits the whole office is more truly to be said to commit only one sin, because the whole office of one day falls under one precept." L. 143, 147, 148.

Is it grave to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday? - Reply: Negatively. The reason is that the matter is light, both in itself and with respect to the whole office.

Are nuns who recite only the office of the Blessed Virgin bound to it under grave obligation? - Reply: In Orders in which only the office of the Blessed Virgin Mary is recited, this recitation does not oblige under grave obligation, although solemn vows are emitted in those Orders, for example, in the Order of the nuns called of the Visitation, as was decided several times. Moreover in communities in which, besides the office of the day to be recited, there also had to be recited the office of the Blessed Virgin, or of the Dead, or the seven penitential psalms, the obligation has altogether ceased from the Rubrics of C. Divino afflatu, title VII, n. 2. And if they were held from a peculiar constitution or from a legacy, they must seek commutation from the Holy See. Cf. 129; Gury-Ballerini 146; Bizzarri ed. 1885, p. 72; E. M.

Are beneficed persons who omit the divine office held to restitution? - So great is the obligation of the divine office that it induces for him the burden of restitution of the fruits, in proportion to the omission of the office, who by title of benefice is held to the hours, if, six months having elapsed after obtaining possession, he culpably has not recited the office. After: wherefore he does not make his own fruits, not of the prior and posterior time, but only of the posterior time. This is clear from the Lateran Council under Leo X. S. Pius V then issued a Bull by which he confirmed this decree. And he declared that one who on one day omitted the whole office is held to restore all the fruits corresponding to that day; for example, he who receives annually 365 florins is held for one day to restore one florin; but he who omitted Matins only, half the fruits of one day; he who omitted the remaining hours, also half; but he who omitted one of them, the sixth part. And that restitution is to be made either to the fabric of the church in which the benefice is, or to the poor. Bull of Leo X de Reform. Curiae, chapter Reform. Curiae et aliorum, § Statuimus; S. Pius V, C. Ex proximo, September 22, 1571; L. 151 and l. 3, n. 663, 666, 672, 673; E. M.

Note: Those are not obliged to restitution who from natural forgetfulness, just impediment, good faith, invincible ignorance, or otherwise without fault have omitted the hours. The reason is that in conscience a penalty is not owed where there is no fault. L. 151; l. 3, n. 665. "That a beneficed person can sometimes be excused from restitution for neglected hours by title of money spent, understand after the omission of the hours; for if before the omission, he is not excused, since proposition 33 was condemned by Alexander VII...; although not with this intention, for the poor or other pious uses.... And it is probable according to the opinion which Sanchez holds," etc. L. 153; l. 3, n. 700; La-Croix 1215. Under the name of the poor the beneficed person himself also is contained, provided he truly needs, and did not omit the office fraudulently, namely so that he might assign the fruits to himself as poor. Likewise whatever is spent on repairing or increasing the properties of the benefice is understood to be expended on pious causes. Suarez de Relig. t. 2, l. 4, n. 18, 19; L. l. 3, n. 672; E. M.

How many sins does one commit who is held to recitation of the office by title of benefice, by omitting it? - If one omitting it is unwilling to restore the fruits, he sins both against religion and against justice. The first reason is that the Church obliges to reciting the hours from a motive of religion. The second reason is that from the Lateran Council, he who does not say the office does not make the fruits his own. If one omitting it has the mind of restoring the fruits of the benefice, he indeed does not sin against justice, but he sins against religion. The first reason is that the Church confers the benefice under an obligation of justice, so that he does not make the fruits his own if he does not recite, but by no means under an obligation also of justice that he recite. Wherefore the obligation of the office does not arise immediately from the accepted benefice, but from the precept of the Church, imposed by reason of the benefice, from a motive of religion. The second reason is that, as is established from what has just been said, there are two grave precepts: first, by which beneficed persons are obliged to the office, for this was the end of the Church in the institution of benefices; second, by which one omitting the office is to restore the fruits. L. 145; l. 3, n. 663.

Can a beneficiary omitting the office on one day supply it on another day? - He is not excused from mortal sin, as all teach, and as is established from the cited Bull of S. Pius V. As regards restitution of the fruits, the first opinion, which Bonacina calls probable, affirms it. The reason is that in such a case this man has now repaid an equal thing, just as if a chaplain omits Mass on one day, he can well supply it on another. The second, most common opinion denies it. The reason is that S. Pius V, C. Ex proximo, sanctioned that one does not make the fruits his own who "has interrupted" the canonical hours "on one or several days." Here it must be noted that the Pontiff did not say "has omitted," but "has interrupted," by which word he sufficiently signified that one who interrupts the office on one day does not gain the fruits, even if he supplies on another day; because although he can be said not to have omitted the hours, nevertheless he cannot be said not to have interrupted them. L. l. 3, n. 667; S. Th. Quodl. 3, a. 29.

Is one who omits a part smaller than a complete hour held to restitution? - "If the omitted parts do not constitute grave matter, it is common that no restitution is owed, not even under venial sin, even if the fruits corresponding to that part would reach a great quantity." L. l. 3, n. 668.

Must a beneficiary omitting the office restore all the fruits of the benefice? - Reply: Sanchez, Soto, etc., probably say from benign interpretation that they are not held to restore all the fruits, but only those which correspond to the burden of the omitted office. The reason is both because the Bull of S. Pius was thus received and thus explained by usage, as being more conformable to natural equity; and because it seems harsh that Bishops, pastors, and chaplains, who bear other burdens, should be obliged in the same way as simple beneficiaries, because all these receive fruits not only for the office, but also for other burdens. L. l. 3, n. 673.

Is he held to recite the office again who doubts whether he has said it? - If the doubt is positive, that is, if some reason or probable conjecture is present that he recited it, although a reason also is not lacking for the opposite, he is not held; for he probably satisfied, and, with the probability of satisfaction of the law standing, the law in the case becomes of doubtful obligation. La-Croix 1235, 1237; and S. Alphonsus 150, who handed down this opinion as most common, citing several theologians for it; but afterward he withdrew from this opinion. If the doubt is negative, that is, if no reason or probable conjecture is present, then he is held to the recitation of the breviary. For then the law cannot prudently be called of doubtful obligation, since there is no probable motive suggesting its satisfaction. La-Croix l. c.; L. l. c.

At the end of the cited number this Holy Doctor has the following observation, useful for practice: "If you doubt whether you have said the whole hour or not, the Salmanticenses judge that, if you often labor under such doubt, you are not held to repeat, because then such doubt is easily presumed to arise from scruples; otherwise if rarely." Hence, they say, one is well excused from repeating the office if you do not remember having said something, and you have a just conjecture for believing that you said it; for example, if you remember that you began a psalm, or some lesson, or an hour, and afterward, distracted, reached the end of the psalm, lesson, or hour, without remembering whether you recited the whole; for presumption favors you, because you are accustomed to recite integrally those things whose recitation you began. But if you have reached some hour, for example Sext, and you doubt whether you recited the preceding one, you can hold the same decision, because you are not accustomed to recite a later hour unless you first sent the prior one before it; therefore you can prudently believe that you omitted nothing. La-Croix 1236; L. 150.

In what rite must the office be recited? - The canonical hours, from the preceding law, had to be recited according to the prescription of the Roman breviary issued by order of S. Pius V and afterward corrected by order of other Pontiffs, so that all obliged to the hours would not satisfy their duty if they used another breviary, and therefore a beneficed person would not make the fruits his own. Cf. Suarez de Relig. t. 2, l. 4, de Hor. Can. c. 11, n. 3, 4. Religious are excepted who have the peculiar breviary of the order; the Milanese Church, which uses the Ambrosian rite, and the Chapels of Toledo, which use the Mozarabic rite; likewise Churches which for 200 years before the institution of the breviary by S. Pius V had a peculiar one. Those, however, could change their breviary into the Roman one, if the Bishop and the whole chapter consented. But once they used that faculty, they remained bound to the Roman breviary. Likewise they lost their privilege if they made any additions or changes in their liturgy. The Bishop can in these excepted churches prohibit the use of the Roman breviary; but if no such precept is present, whether someone privately can recite the Roman breviary is disputed. The same must be said of the missal. This is established from the Bull of the same S. Pius V Quod a nobis, July 7, 1568, and from C. Ex proximo; S. R. C., January 10, 1852, Cenomanen., n. 1993; Bouix de Iure Liturg. p. 4; L. 160; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 7; E. M.

From the preceding law. For a new form of reciting the divine office was introduced by the Constitution of Pius X Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911, which is altogether preceptive. For in the aforesaid Constitution it is said: "In all churches of the secular and regular clergy, in monasteries, orders, congregations, and institutes of religious, by all and each who from office or from custom pay the canonical Hours according to the Roman Breviary issued by S. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Leo XIII, we command that the new order of the Psalter, such as we have approved with its Rules and Rubrics and have decreed to be published by the Vatican presses, be religiously observed. At the same time we announce the penalties established in law to those who have failed in their duty of paying the canonical Hours daily; and they indeed should know that they will not satisfy so grave a duty unless they use this order of Our Psalter."

Note: Those who are not bound by reciting the office of the Blessed Virgin are not prohibited from using any formula of this kind of office, provided it is Latin, unless there is a legitimate custom of reciting it in the vernacular idiom. S. Pius V, C. Superni, March 11, 1571; S. R. C., January 15, 1897. Both breviaries and missals, and other liturgical books, cannot be printed without the attestation of the Ordinary, by which it is declared that they agree with those which have been printed at Rome. Liturgical books with Gregorian chant, also as regards the several Propers of churches, must be approved by the S. R. C. according to the Decree of November 27, 1908, A. A. S. v. 1, p. 159, 293. Clement VIII, Decree Cum in Ecclesia; Urban VIII, Decree Divinam psalmodiam; S. R. C., April 26, 1834, n. 2716; February 16, 1834, n. 2855; August 4, 1877, n. 3427. Cf. here n. 1306; E. M.

Do those satisfy who recite another breviary preserved from a custom of the place, introduced after the time determined by S. Pius V? - Reply: Negatively. S. R. C., January 10, 1852.

Does a priest need the permission of the Bishop to recite the Roman breviary in the aforesaid place where another is recited? - Reply: Negatively. This is established from the cited response of the S. R. C. "Privately," says Busembaum apud S. Alphonsus 160, "it is probable that it is lawful for all, even regulars, from custom to use the Roman, as Lessius, Rodriguez, Sa, Bonacina teach." Cf. n. seq.; for excepting custom, if there is any, the same reason in this case seems to be present. L. 161. Cf. also A. S. S. v. 1, p. 240.

Are clerics obliged to the breviary held to use the proper office of the diocese? - Reply: Affirmatively, provided that that proper office has been recognized and approved by the S. R. C. The reason is that although the concession of proper offices has the nature of a privilege, nevertheless all private persons are bound to use a privilege conceded to the whole community. The case is excepted, as is clear, in which private persons, by force of an Apostolic Indult, could not use the proper office of the diocese. Cf. n. 167.

Is there still an obligation of reciting the gradual psalms, the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the office of the Dead, which are noted in the rubrics of the breviary? - Reply: "The obligation ceases of reciting in choir, on the days prescribed hitherto by the Rubrics, the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the office of the Dead, and also the gradual and penitential psalms. But chapters which are held to these additional offices from a peculiar constitution or legacy will obtain their commutation from the Holy See." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 2.

Note: "Since through the new disposition of the Psalter the causes of the General Indult of July 5, 1883, for votive offices have ceased, these very offices, and other similar ones conceded from particular Indults, are altogether removed and declared removed." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 1.

In the Ambrosian Liturgy, according to the custom which has prevailed up to this time, all clerics ordained in sacred orders through the whole of Lent, except Sundays and Major Week, are held to recite the entire Office of the Dead; and on not a few ferial days through the year, part of the same Office. But from the Indult granted on February 23, 1897, by Leo XIII through the S. C. R., "all clerics constituted in sacred orders who follow the Ambrosian rite, outside choral officiation, on each day of Lent, except Festive days and Major Week, are to recite only Vespers of the Dead, and on the second day of November the entire Office for the Dead."

Must those obliged to the office recite under grave obligation the office of the Dead on the day of the Commemoration of all the Dead, and also the Litanies on the feast of S. Mark and during the triduum of the Rogations? - Reply to the first: "On the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed, the office and Mass of the current day being omitted, only the office with Mass for the Dead is done, as is prescribed in the Appendix of the new Psalter. If on November 2 a Sunday or some double of the first class occurs, the Commemoration of the Dead is celebrated on the next following day, similarly not impeded; on which, if perhaps a double of the second class occurs, this is transferred according to the rule handed down title III, n. 3." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title XIII.

Reply to the second: "On the feast of S. Mark and in the triduum of the Rogations, the burden remains entire of reciting the Litanies of the Saints, even outside choir." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 3.

In what order are the canonical hours to be recited? - A twofold order is to be observed in the recitation of the breviary, namely the order of offices and the order of hours. The order of offices is described in the calendar of feasts and in the rubrics for their translation, where several concur at the same time. The order of hours is that which is set forth in the breviary, namely that Matins with Lauds is recited in the first place, then the little hours are added, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and finally Vespers with Compline follow. As regards the Saints concerning whom the canonical hours are to be recited, the office must be recited according to the calendar of one's own diocese, that is, of that in which someone has domicile or quasi-domicile, or a residential benefice. S. R. C., May 14, 1672, n. 1445. Pastors and their coadjutors are held to recite the offices of their own church, but not other priests who celebrate Mass in it or hear confessions. Masters and students of a seminary, living in it, are held to recite the offices proper to the church of the seminary, although they celebrate elsewhere. S. R. C. n. 2872, 2980.

On a journey: "When someone, for the sake of a journey, or study, or for other reasons, is outside his homeland or diocese, beneficed persons are always held to the office of their own Church; but simple priests can conform themselves to the office of the place where they stay." S. R. C., November 12, 1831, ad 46, n. 2682. But a regular "on a journey should follow the calendar of the divine office of the monastery from which he departed; when he arrives and remains in another monastery, even for a time, he should follow its calendar." S. R. C., August 31, 1839, n. 2801; "because everywhere he is held to be present at choir," S. R. C., September 25, 1852, n. 3001. One reciting privately is held to observe the calendar of the monastery from which he departed, S. R. C., June 27, 1896, ad 13, n. 3919. During Lent, regular preachers of the divine word, staying outside the monastery, must conform themselves to the Calendar of the Province, extended without any diversity for all in each year. S. R. C., August 31, 1839, n. 2801.

What if someone recites another office for the office of the day? - He who deliberately recites one office for another, if it is both of a plainly diverse rite and notably shorter, does not satisfy, as on Palm Sunday the office of Easter or Pentecost. If indeed it is not shorter, but only of a plainly diverse rite, it is probable that he satisfies, as for example if on the Nativity of the Lord he recites the office of the Passion; but he certainly does not lack light fault. But if it is of the same rite, but notably shorter, he does not satisfy. If under both heads it is nearly equal, he satisfies, although likewise he does not lack light fault; and this not only if he has done it three or four times in the year, but also if more often, which is the opinion of many and sufficiently probable, because the substantial form of the office seems to be quantity; but quality is only an accidental form. Indeed he does not even sin lightly if he has done this from some just cause, for example from devotion, or so that he may recite with a companion, or without reflection; and then, if after a small part of the office has been recited he notices that he has erred, it will be in his power either to pursue the one begun or the proper office. But it is better to recite the proper office, lest he persevere in error.

Hence, if someone, deliberately or without reflection, has recited an office notably shorter, he must supply what was more in the proper one. Likewise, whether someone did this deliberately or without reflection, on the day on which the recited office then occurs, this same office must more probably be recited again, not the one which he omitted, lest he err twice. Alexander VII, condemned proposition 34; S. R. C., June 17, 1673, n. 1474; January 27, 1899, n. 1011; L. 161; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 8; La-Croix 1237, 1250, 1255; E. M.

What kind of sin is it to invert the order in recitation of the hours? - In private recitation, it never exceeds venial sin, because such inversion of order does not contain grave deformity; for the order to be observed is only under a secondary precept and as a circumstance of lesser moment. But if from some just cause you change the order, you will be altogether free from every fault. Some say that inversion of order is a mortal sin if it is done frequently; but this must more probably be denied with S. Ligorius 169. "The same must be said if the order is inverted in the same hour." L. 170, 161 in fine. But he who so disturbs the parts of the office that scarcely the species of the office remains does not satisfy. Suarez d. 11, c. 7.

In public recitation it is disputed whether it is a grave sin or not to invert the order or to change the time of the hours. Some affirm it, if the inversion or change of time is notable and there is no excusing cause. The reason is that the canons repeat several times that the hours are to be recited at the stated times. Clem. Gravi 1 de Celebr. missar. But others deny it, because a circumstance of this kind does not pertain to the substance of the precept, but is merely accidental. Each opinion is probable; but the second is more probable, because a grave precept is not established. L. 171.

What is a cause for inverting the order of the hours? - Any reasonable cause excuses. But the following can be assigned, namely: If you are invited by a friend to recite some hour with him, and you have not yet recited the preceding hour or hours. If in the morning you do not have the breviary at hand, nor can conveniently wait, then you could from the diurnal, which you have, recite the daytime hours, intending afterward to recite Matins. If you do not have the lessons at hand, you can recite the psalms of Matins and Lauds, indeed also the rest, with the lessons deferred. If you come to choir when the hour has already begun, you can go on with the others, and afterward supply what was omitted. Likewise, if you come to choir when one hour has already been completed, you can sing the later one with the choir, and afterward supply the former. La-Croix 1309, 1311; L. 170.

Is it a sin to say Matins of the following day before the office of the present day has been completed? - It is indeed a sin, says La-Croix 1315, but only venial, if it is done without cause. But neither is it established to be venial, since the office of one day seems to have no order with the office of another day. According to the opinion, however, which holds that it is a venial sin, a sufficient cause of beginning Matins of the following day before you have completed the office of the present day is present if you are asked by another to recite Matins of the following day with him; and generally every cause sufficient for an inversion of order among the hours of the same day would suffice also in the present case.

Does he sin who does not recite commemorations according to the order assigned by the rubric? What about suffrages? - Several deny it, because that rubric seems merely directive, like those which regard the posture of the body or signs of the cross. Indeed they say the same concerning the order to be observed among commemorations in Mass. But at least this last must be denied, because, according to the more probable and more common opinion, all rubrics to be observed in Mass are preceptive, as S. Ligorius says, l. 6, n. 399. E. M.

When several commemorations to be made from the same common occur, unless otherwise noted in the Breviary, at Vespers, after the antiphon and versicle have been said from first and second Vespers, the other commemoration is made through the antiphon from Lauds and the versicle from the second Nocturn; the last through the first antiphon and versicle of the third Nocturn. At Lauds, after the antiphon and versicle from Lauds have been said, the first commemoration is made through the antiphon and versicle from first Vespers; the second through the antiphon from second Vespers and the versicle of the second Nocturn; the third through the first antiphon and versicle of the third Nocturn. S. R. C. in one of the City, ad 5, June 27, 1899, n. 4042.

In the Ordinary of the new Psalter at Lauds, at their end, it is said: "Afterward commemorations are made if they occur. Then, outside Paschal time, in the Office both of the season and of Saints, except however the time of Advent and Passiontide, and excluding days on which a double feast occurs, even simplified, or a day within an Octave or the Octave day, even commemorated, the suffrage of all Saints is made. In the appointed Prayer at the letter N., the name of the Titular Saint of one's own Church is expressed. But during Paschal time, from Monday after Low Sunday until the Vigil of the Ascension inclusive, in the Office both of the Season and of Saints, in place of the preceding Suffrage, a Commemoration of the Cross is made." And similarly at Vespers, as is repeated in the same Ordinary, at their end, after them the Suffrage of all Saints and the Commemoration of the Cross are made.

What kind of pronunciation ought there to be? - Pronunciation ought to be vocal, integral, continued. Vocal. The office must be recited by voice, and indeed by a distinct voice; but it is not sufficient that it be read only in the mind, or merely run through by the eyes; nor is it enough if it is recited in the throat or between the teeth. The reason is that properly vocal prayer is prescribed; moreover it is not judged properly vocal unless it is done by a distinct voice. Integral. The office must be recited integrally, not by syncopating or by abbreviating with a stammering tongue. To integrity, moreover, pertain the Pater, Ave, and Credo, at the beginning and at the end of the hours, as is noted in the Rubrics. Nevertheless the prayers Aperi Domine and Sacrosanctae do not pertain to the integrity of the office, but are only laudably recited by counsel. Continued. Any notable interruption within one hour, if done without any cause, is not free from fault; but it does not exceed venial sin. L. 166.

Must one reciting the office hear himself in order to satisfy? - Reply: More probably negatively. The reason is that hearing is not prescribed, but only recitation, that is, the pronunciation of words which is called vocal. Therefore it suffices if he who recites is conscious to himself that he pronounces the words; and S. Ligorius 163 says that this is sufficiently probable.

What are the just causes of interrupting the office? - Any reasonable cause suffices for interrupting any hour whatever. The matter is in itself light. Wherefore the following suffice: any utility of oneself or another which cannot be deferred without some inconvenience; the reason of executing commands of superiors; the reason of courtesy or charity, for example, if the confession of someone who would not gladly wait is to be heard; if you wish to do or note something so that you may remove distraction or solicitude, for example lest you forget, etc., provided however that this is not done frequently, because frequent interruption for this cause is not without some irreverence. L. 168.

Can Matins be separated from Lauds? How are Lauds to be concluded? How are the individual Hours to be concluded? - Reply to the first: Affirmatively, according to common custom and opinion, although they constitute one hour. For thus S. Ligorius 167: "It is common that Matins can be separated from Lauds without any cause."

In the Ordinary of the divine office at Matins, at the end, it is said: "In private recitation Matins can be separated from Lauds; in which case, after the hymn Te Deum, or after the last Responsory, there is said: Dominus vobiscum, etc., or, by those who are not priests nor deacons, Domine exaudi orationem meam, etc.; Oremus, and the Prayer is said as at Lauds. After the Prayer there is added: Dominus vobiscum, etc.; Benedicamus Domino, etc.; Fidelium animae, etc. Then the whole Pater noster is said secretly. But in public recitation Matins in Choir cannot be separated from Lauds except on the night of the Nativity."

Reply to the second: In the aforesaid Ordinary at the end of Lauds it is said: "After the last Prayer there is added: Dominus vobiscum, etc.; Benedicamus Domino, etc.; Fidelium animae, etc. Then the whole Pater noster is said secretly. Finally in public recitation of the office, if there is to be departure from choir, and likewise in private recitation if the office is then ended, otherwise at the end of the last Hour, after the Pater noster secretly recited, there is added: Dominus det nobis suam pacem, etc. And immediately one of the final antiphons of the Blessed Virgin Mary which are assigned after Compline is said, with its Verse and Prayer. Afterward it is concluded: Divinum auxilium, etc."

Reply to the third: In the same Ordinary, at the end of Prime, it is said: "Then only the Pater noster is said secretly, unless another Hour follows." And the same is repeated at the end of Terce, Sext, and None. At the end of Vespers it is said: "If Compline immediately follows Vespers, after the Verse Fidelium animae has been said, at once the Verse Iube Domne is begun, as at Compline; but otherwise, if the Office is then ended, only the Pater noster is said secretly." After Compline, after the Blessing Benedicat et custodiat nos has been recited, the Verse Fidelium animae is not said, but one of the final antiphons of the Blessed Virgin Mary is immediately added. Afterward Divinum auxilium, etc., is added, and secretly Pater, Ave, Credo are said.

Can the nocturns be separated without cause? - Reply: Affirmatively. This is established from universal custom, to which no law can be opposed. Indeed formerly, as several assert, from the practice of the Church they were separated, since they were accustomed to be recited at various hours of the night, or vigils. Indeed not a few say that even without a special cause an interval of three hours can be interposed between the individual nocturns. But if there is a just cause on account of which the nocturns must be separated, that interval can also be prolonged according to the measure of that cause. L. 167; Kenrick tr. 8, n. 10; Bona, Treatise de Div. Psalm.

Whether or in what way does he sin who, having recited one or another nocturn on the vigil, recites the remaining part of Matins after the whole night has intervened? - He must always be exempted from mortal sin, because he satisfies the substance of the precept. For from the general rule, the substance of the precept is satisfied whenever the office is recited integrally in the natural or ecclesiastical day, so that then venial sin is never exceeded, however great an interruption intervenes even without cause. Therefore the present case must not be excluded. He also will be excused from venial sin who does this for a reasonable cause, for example if, after the first nocturn has been recited, he is very weary, or overcome by sleep, etc., since any interruption for a just cause is lawful. L. 168.

Whether or to what extent must some hour be repeated because of a notable interruption interposed? - An entire hour is never to be repeated, even if the interruption was interposed without a just cause. The reason is that individual psalms, and individual lessons or prayers, have their own complete signification, and are sufficiently united by the intention of continuing. Indeed, speaking in itself, nothing is necessarily to be repeated, even if the interruption is made in the middle of a psalm, provided it is not in the middle of a versicle or in the middle of a prayer, because even individual versicles have their own particular signification. L. 168.

Is it lawful in recitation of the office to mix in or add something from devotion? - Reply: Negatively. The reason is that since the form of the divine office has been determined and prescribed by the Church, nothing is to be added, subtracted, or changed, unless it has been conceded by the Apostolic See. E. M.

Are you held to repeat those things which you recited with imperfect or mutilated pronunciation? - Reply: Affirmatively, if the mutilation is very notable, so that the sense of the words is corrupted and destroyed; and this holds even if you did it involuntarily, because the defect affects the substance of recitation. Except unless impossibility stands in the way, for example stammering. This also holds if not you, but the companion with whom you recited, by chopping off syllables, notably changed the sense of the words. Negatively, if you so mutilate syllables that the sense of the words is not corrupted, or if you mutilate in a small quantity; for then the fault does not affect the substance of the obligation, and therefore it does not exceed venial sin. Indeed you in no way sin if you do this involuntarily on account of inadvertence, or stammering, or an inveterate custom which can be overcome only with difficulty; for the rest, suitable study must be applied to correcting this custom.

Before Lauds separated from Matins, must the Pater and Ave be said, as before the other hours? - In the Ordinary of the divine Office of the new Psalter at Lauds it is said: "If Lauds outside choir are separated from Matins, before them Pater noster and Ave Maria are said secretly; otherwise they are begun absolutely, as follows, V. Deus in adiutorium, etc." S. R. C., May 18, 1883, ad II, n. 3574; La-Croix 1305.

At what time are the canonical hours to be recited? - The obligation of reciting the hours is affixed to the day, so that in no way can it be satisfied on another day; therefore the obligation according to the mind of the Church ceases with the day assigned to it, and hence it is customarily called the burden of the day. The time prefixed for fulfilling the entire recitation of the office begins from midnight and ends at the following midnight, so that whoever recites the whole office within this time must always be exempted from grave sin, at whatever hour he satisfies such duty. The reason is that by reciting the whole office in the natural day, he satisfies as regards substance. But it is free to each one to follow true time, or mean time, or legal time, S. Penitentiary, November 23, 1882; S. C. C., July 23, 1893. And this holds also for other laws of this kind, for example fasting. Matins and Lauds, by privilege introduced by custom, can be recited on the preceding day toward evening. Matins and Lauds must be recited by priests before celebration of Mass. This is established from the rubric of the missal, title 1 de Praeparat. sac., where it is read: "The priest about to celebrate Mass, at least Matins with Lauds having been completed," etc.

All the little hours can be recited in the morning time; and indeed the first two are to be recited before noon; but the later two can be said throughout both the morning and evening time. Vespers and Compline are recited from noon until midnight. In Lent from the first Sunday, Vespers can be recited before the meal on account of the ancient discipline, according to which the fast was not broken before the recitation of Vespers. On Sunday, however, Vespers cannot be anticipated, because the fast is not observed on that day.

In choir, Matins of the following day regularly cannot be recited the evening before after Vespers and Compline by canons and other beneficed persons, unless from a just cause and from the Bishop's dispensation for a time. For this to be done habitually, an apostolic indult is needed. Benedict XIV, Instruction 107, § IV, n. 22. Sext and None regularly cannot be recited before conventual Mass in choir, S. R. C., March 4, 1901, ad 2, Senogallien., n. 4067.

Formerly the hours were recited thus: Matins after midnight, Lauds at dawn, Prime after sunrise, Terce at the ninth morning hour, Sext at midday, None at the third afternoon hour, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the twilight of night. S. Th. Quodl. 3, a. 29; E. M.

Can the little hours be recited even before dawn without any cause? - Reply: More probably affirmatively. The reason is that from the fact that the ancient custom of reciting those hours at a determined time has been removed, no other law or new custom has imposed an obligation of paying them only in the time following dawn. Indeed grave theologians expressly assert that these hours can be recited throughout the whole morning time, or from midnight to midday. L. H. A. Appendix 3, n. 74.

Does the obligation of reciting Matins and Lauds before Mass press under grave obligation? - Reply: Negatively, at least more probably. The reason is that there is no connection between the office and Mass, and therefore the recitation of Matins does not seem a necessary disposition for celebrating, since a priest can also dispose himself piously for the sacred action by praying otherwise. Nor does a grave obligation appear from the rubric reported above, nor is it generally apprehended under grave obligation. L. l. 6, n. 347; l. 4, n. 171; Benedict XIV, C. Etsi pastoralis, June 18, 1742; de Sacr. Missae l. 3, c. 13. Nevertheless it would be grave, from the common opinion, to sing the conventual and solemn Mass before Matins has been said in choir, unless a grave and public cause intervenes, scandal being removed. The reason is that such is the custom received in all Churches. Wherefore, by acting otherwise, public worship of God, the common good, and the fitting governance of the Church would be gravely harmed, besides scandal of the people. L. l. 6, n. 348.

What cause can excuse from the light obligation in the preceding case? - Reply: S. Alphonsus says, more commonly and more probably, that venial fault is present in the omission of that recitation, because the aforesaid omission is numbered among the defects in the Missal, de Defect. in minist., etc., par. 1. But any moderate reasonable cause will excuse from it, for example, if the time of celebrating has arrived and the celebration cannot be deferred without some inconvenience; if greater convenience of study, or greater usefulness to be obtained from studies, demands this; if some unexpected business has come up. L. ib.

At what hour is it lawful to begin the recitation of Matins in the evening of the preceding day, according to the privilege reported above? - It is lawful to begin when the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and sunset. For then the ecclesiastical day certainly begins, which according to all begins from Vespers, and at that hour first Vespers are accustomed to be sung. S. R. C., March 16, 1876, n. 3391; L. 174; E. M.

Must the recitation of Matins be repeated if it was had before the aforesaid time? - Reply: Negatively. The reason is that the ecclesiastical day, from S. Alphonsus himself and from S. Thomas, begins after Vespers, which from the present use of life are customarily said around the second hour after midday, and at the same hour indulgences can be acquired which begin from first Vespers. Wherefore then Matins and Lauds can be recited. And therefore the response of July 13, 1883, "Approved authors are to be consulted," was expunged from the new Collectanea of the S. C. R. as useless. And when the doubt was again proposed: "Whether in private recitation Matins for the following day can be begun at the second hour after midday, or whether one must stand by the table of the Diocesan Directory," the S. R. C. on May 12, 1905, again responded: "Approved authors are to be consulted." Certainly at present an Indult is conceded no longer for the second hour, but for the first hour after midday, or even immediately after midday. There is added the fact that in the sixth volume of the Authentic Decrees of the S. R. C. the preceding response was changed thus: "Affirmatively to the first part, Negatively to the second." N. 4158. S. Th. Quodl. 5, a. 28; La-Croix 1314; Giribaldi 192-194; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 150, 178; Gury-Ballerini 64; A. S. S. v. 12, p. 14; v. 36, p. 415, 419; E. M.

Can Matins of the office of the Dead and the litanies for the feast of S. Mark and the days of Rogation be recited on the preceding evening? - Reply to the first: Affirmatively. This is established from universal custom. Moreover previously in the Office of November 2, within the octave of All Saints, after Lauds it was said in the Rubric: "After Benedicamus Domino has been said, Matins of the Dead begins absolutely." Therefore, it was concluded, since Matins of the octave of the Feast of All Saints is accustomed, or certainly can, be anticipated, consequently Matins of the Dead also can be anticipated. S. R. C., July 9, 1895, General Decree n. 3864; L. 174. But now, since after the Constitution Divino afflatu, Rubr. title XIII, only the Office for the Dead is done, the custom remains unchanged, and as another Matins can be anticipated, so also that of the Dead, since nothing by the new Rubrics and Decrees has hitherto been changed.

Reply to the second: Negatively. The reason is that the litanies in themselves do not seem to be joined with Matins and Lauds, but are something altogether distinct. Moreover, if the feast of S. Mark is transferred, the litanies must not be transferred; therefore they do not strictly adhere to Matins, indeed they have no connection with it. Finally, they are recited in place of assistance at the procession, which assistance is altogether affixed to the day. L. 174; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 147.

Is one foreseeing an impediment for recitation of the office on the very day of obligation held to recite Matins and Lauds on the evening of the vigil? - Reply: Negatively. The reason is that although Matins and Lauds by force of privilege can be recited the preceding day, nevertheless they must not. The general rule is that no one is held to use any privilege. Therefore the strict obligation does not press before the following midnight. Wherefore, an impediment standing from midnight to midnight, the obligation is removed. Nevertheless it is very fitting that the recitation be anticipated. Wherefore, on the contrary, one foreseeing at evening time an impediment in the morning is held to recite Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. For the substance of the obligation is from midnight to midnight, as custom itself, the best interpreter of laws, interprets this law. Kenrick tr. 8, n. 10, 19.

At what hour can recitation of Vespers begin in the morning during Lent? - The general rule is that Vespers can be recited privately at the same hour at which they are accustomed to be recited in choir. But in choir they must be recited after conventual Mass and None. The hour of conventual Mass depends on the custom of places. Therefore they can be recited from around approximately the eleventh hour. According to Ferraris, v. Indulgentia, a. 3, n. 38, they can be recited at half past the tenth hour. For the rest, there is no obligation to recite Vespers before noon during Lent, but it is a mere privilege, which no one is held to use. Compline does not enjoy the aforesaid privilege; whence at every time it must be recited after noon. S. R. C., March 31, 1887, Cataren., n. 3672.

Note: "So that someone can licitly anticipate or postpone the due time of the hours, any useful or honest cause suffices, namely a sermon to be prepared or heard, danger of a supervening occupation or labor, greater devotion or quiet, a time more apt for studying, and the like." L. 173. Cf. here 134.

Is there in choir a grave obligation of reciting the office in due order and at the appointed hours? - Reply: More probably negatively. The reason is that a circumstance of this kind, of time or order, does not pertain to the substance of the precept, but is a certain accidental ceremony. Nor indeed is there evidence of a grave precept imposed concerning this matter. L. 171.

What must be observed as regards place and posture in recitation of the office? - As regards place: The office of choir must be recited in the very place destined for this, that is, in choir or in church. But if the office is recited privately, it can be said in every decent place, whether in an oratory, or at home, or in the country, or even walking on the road, or making a journey, provided the place is congruent with the required attention and does not impede devotion.

As regards posture: Privately the office can be recited in every decent posture, whether kneeling, standing, sitting, or walking. Thus universal practice and all theologians. L. 179.

Note: Those who are held to choir can for a just cause recite in the sacristy, L. 143, or in another place outside the church. L. l. 3, n. 675.

Is it lawful to recite the office lying down in bed? - Reply: Negatively, a reasonable cause being excluded; for such a posture has some savor of irreverence. The same also must be said concerning any other posture of this kind. Nevertheless this irreverence does not exceed venial sin, from which any moderate cause excuses, for example illness, weariness, or if someone at night cannot sleep, he could recite the office without being held to get up. L. 179.

Is it lawful to recite the office in a carriage or on horseback? - Reply: Affirmatively. The reason is that this is prohibited by no law; nor from another source does it obstruct attention or the reverence due to prayer, even if others were traveling and conversing at the same time. This has obtained as the general custom even of the pious.

Is it a fault not to observe the rubric by which certain prayers are to be recited on bended knees? - Reply: Negatively, if there is question of recitation outside choir; since by custom and common interpretation this rubric regards only choir. The same must be said concerning other signs used in choir. These are indeed laudably done in private recitation, but they are omitted without fault. If there is question of recitation in choir, it is disputed. For some hold the rubric in this matter as preceptive, others as directive. Nevertheless such an omission can never exceed venial fault. L. 179.

Is it a sin to recite the breviary in an indecent place? - More probably it seems to have to be denied in itself, unless the place would harm due attention, for example because of a crowd of people, noise, etc.; otherwise it would be indecent to pray in an indecent place, which is false, since, because God is everywhere, he can also be prayed to and adored everywhere, 1 Tim. 2:8; L. 179; La-Croix 1320.

Whether and what kind of intention and attention is required in recitation of the office? - Intention is a willing to do something; attention, the application of the mind to that which is being done. One intention is express, another implicit. Express is that by which someone, taking the breviary at the beginning, says: I wish to pray. Implicit is that by which he indeed does not say this actually, but virtually intends it, while he wishes to recite the canonical hours according to the precept of the Church. Moreover, one intention is actual, which is; another virtual, which was and perseveres in some effect; another habitual, which likewise was, but remains in no effect. Likewise one attention is external, which namely excludes every external action physically incompatible with that which is being done; another internal, which consists in the interior advertence of the mind to that which is being done. Again internal attention is threefold, namely: 1. spiritual, which is toward God himself as the term of prayer; 2. literal, or toward the sense of the words and the signification of the things; 3. material, which is made toward the words only, or toward duly pronouncing them. L. 176; S. Th. 4, dist. 15, q. 4, a. 2, sol. 5.

Intention is necessary, because recitation of the office is a human act, which cannot exist without intention. "Concerning intention, it is certain that an actual explicit intention is not required, but an implicit virtual one suffices, namely, if according to custom you take the breviary so that you may fulfill the office, as you are accustomed, as Sanchez, etc., commonly teach. Indeed Croix rightly adds that there is no need to renew the intention at the individual hours, even if some interruption intervenes, even without cause; because that resumption is made from the first intention. Indeed I think that there is always present in exercise the actual intention of fulfilling the office." L. 176.

Concerning attention: In order to satisfy substantially the precept of the office, no other internal attention is required besides attention to duly pronouncing all things; and sufficiently probably the intention of reciting suffices, with external attention. The reason is that internal attention is not of the essence of prayer; for prayer is nothing other than a petition of fitting things from God. But even with wandering of mind someone can manifest his desires to another. Wherefore external attention, joined with the intention of reciting, or of asking fitting things from God, effects that the recitation of the hours becomes, as regards substance, true prayer. And thus teach very many grave doctors: Lugo de Euch. d. 22, n. 25 ff.; L. 176, 177; S. Th. 4, dist. 15, q. 4, a. 2, sol. 4 ad 2. For the rest, for casting away scruples it is very helpful to note that which doctors commonly teach, even those who require internal attention, namely "that for someone to be said not to satisfy the office, it is required not only that he voluntarily distract himself, but also that he fully advert that he is being distracted; for otherwise, although he spontaneously diverts himself, nevertheless he does not spontaneously divert himself from recitation." L. 177. Moreover external attention, at least practically, is confused with the third internal attention, with which many of those who require internal attention are content.

Does he sin mortally who recites the hours while existing in mortal sin? - Reply: Negatively. The reason is that recitation of the office is not an act of sacred order; and although that man obtains nothing for himself, nevertheless, since he prays in the name of the Church, he can well obtain for others. But that he prays in the name of the Church while existing in mortal sin does not seem to be an irreverence to be condemned as mortal. And if he prays from devotion, he does not seem to have to be condemned of any sin, and the prayer will also be able to be useful to him. L. 178. Cf. v. 1, n. 455.

What are the causes excusing from recitation of the hours? - They are: impossibility; charity; dispensation.

Impossibility, whether physical or moral, which consists in a grave difficulty of reciting the office. Hence there is excused: 1. He who does not have a breviary, because, for example, he forgot it when undertaking a journey, or lost it on the journey, with inability to obtain another. If however through his own fault he forgot or lost or threw it away, he sinned gravely or lightly according as the cause of the omission exists as gravely or lightly culpable, and the omission of the hours is to be imputed to him according to the gravity of the fault admitted. "If you had the common office and not the proper office of that day, you are held from the common to recite the hours." L. 158. But he who would not have the Roman breviary, but for example the Benedictine, more probably is not held to recite, because from S. Pius V and from Pius X he could satisfy only by that form. But others hold that that other breviary is to be recited, because there are two precepts, one principal concerning reciting the hours, the other accessory concerning the form. Wherefore he who cannot observe the latter is still held to observe the former. L. ib.

2. He who labors under a grave illness, for example fever, pain of stomach or head or eyes; or who justly fears that from recitation a grave inconvenience would follow, etc. Hence he is sufficiently excused who prudently believes or fears that because of the recitation of the office there would come to him from it a notable heaviness of the head, or indigestion of the stomach, or weariness of strength, or another grave inconvenience. But he who cannot recite because of blindness of the eyes is not held to learn the hours by memory, because this would be an extraordinary means. 3. One convalescing from a grave illness can be excused for some days according to the judgment of a prudent man, until his strength is restored. "And this is probably admitted even if the sick man through a great part of the day were reading some book for soothing the mind. The reason is that although he could read a book of recreation, it does not follow that he can and is held to recite the office, for which another and indeed greater attention is required, which brings greater difficulty." L. 154. The same must be said even if the sick man perhaps were to offer the Holy Sacrifice or hold conversations with others, because by these the illness is relieved, whereas by the recitation of the hours it would become heavier. 4. He is also excused who in a time of persecution fears lest by recitation of the breviary he be betrayed.

Charity toward the neighbor, that is, a grave occupation which cannot be omitted without scandal or notable detriment of the neighbor. Such an occupation excuses from recitation of the office, because the natural precept of charity prevails over ecclesiastical law. Hence you are excused, either totally or partially: 1. If at night, when about to recite the office, for example Vespers, you are called at once to a dying person, and neither time nor convenience is available to you for paying the obligation of the office. 2. If through the whole day you are occupied in hearing Confessions which, because of peculiar circumstances, cannot be deferred, for example in sacred missions. 3. If you could not omit a sermon without scandal or detriment to reputation, and yet time for preparing it would not be available if the office had to be recited. 4. If you are occupied through the whole day in calming quarrels, or assisting the sick, for example in a time of contagious disease, etc.

Legitimate dispensation, or one conceded by a legitimate superior. For the obligation of reciting the divine office, since it is of ecclesiastical Law, can be removed by ecclesiastical superiors. The Pope can validly concede this dispensation in every case, even without cause; licitly, however, from a reasonable cause, for example on account of excessive occupation, for quieting scruples, etc. A Bishop can dispense from this law, but not validly without sufficient cause, and only with someone in particular for a brief time, namely: 1. when recourse to the Pope is difficult; 2. when dispensation is sought on account of a cause which recurs frequently, for example on account of illness; 3. when there is doubt concerning moral inability, or concerning the gravity of the detriment to be feared. A regular prelate also dispenses with his subjects in nearly the same way as a Bishop. L. 154, 156-159.

What must be done in doubt whether illness suffices for excusing or not? - The sick man can commit himself to the judgment of a physician, C. Fraternitatis 6 de Frig. et mal. He can acquiesce in the judgment of the superior, who in doubt is also able to dispense. He can remit himself to the probable judgment of a prudent man. Indeed, probably he can also stand by his own judgment, if he himself can form such a judgment. L. 154.

To what is a sick man held if he is certain that he cannot pay the entire office, but doubts whether he is able to recite a part? - Probably he is held to nothing. For he is reasonably excused from the whole office, lest he be tortured by scruples, not knowing how far he can and is held to recite; and this anxiety would bring him great harm. L. 154 in fine.

Is one impeded in any way from reciting the whole breviary held to the part which he can recite? - Reply: Affirmatively. The reason is evident. For the obligation of the breviary falls upon its individual parts, since the thing prescribed is divisible. This is also established from proposition 54 condemned by Innocent XI. Therefore he who lacks a breviary and knows nothing else by memory except Lauds or Compline is held under grave obligation to recite those. L. 158; E. M.

Are you held to reciting the psalms if you have only these at hand, or know them by memory, the lessons with responsories being left aside? - Reply: More probably affirmatively. The reason is that since you can recite a notable part of the office, there is no cause why you should be excused from it. But several say that you are held to nothing, because then the form prescribed by S. Pius V, and now by Pius X, is lacking. Nor does the cited proposition 54 condemned by Innocent XI stand in the way, because in that there is question of one who can complete whole hours. The following rule is handed down by S. Ligorius and others: If you can recite as much as is a little hour, you are held under grave obligation to recite it; but if less, you are not obliged to recite anything, not even under venial sin, because such a modest part, taken separately, is not judged appreciable for the end intended by the law. L. 153; La-Croix 1220.

Are you held to use a companion if you are not able to recite the hours alone? - Reply: Affirmatively, if you easily find him. The reason is: 1. because then there is not inability properly so called; 2. because the precepts of the Church require ordinary diligence for their fulfillment, and no means is more ordinary than using a companion in recitation. For reciting the office in choir is very consonant both with the first institution of the Hours and with the still-prevailing practice of the Church. L. 158.

Are you held to use a companion, with a stipend paid, if you do not conveniently find another? - Reply: Negatively. The reason is that the means is altogether extraordinary and is also full of inconveniences; whence the Church is not judged to oblige to it. Indeed, if a companion who will recite with you gratuitously does not promptly present himself, you are not held to seek someone with anxiety and solicitude, because this too would become an extraordinary means. And this also, at least probably from S. Alphonsus himself 158, holds for a beneficiary.