Case V: Anticipating Matins and Lauds at Two O’clock

Among the faculties of the diocese, granted to all the clergy, is one permitting them to anticipate matins and lauds of the morrow’s office, at two o’clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, legitima concurrente causa. By virtue of this faculty, Fr. X. has formed the habit of anticipating matins and lauds every day at two o’clock, whether he has a sufficient reason or not. Generally speaking, he has a sufficient reason; however, there are days when he does not seem to have any other reason than the mere habit. Now, is the habit alone, independent of any other reason, a legitimate excuse for anticipating the recitation of matins and lauds at two o'clock in the afternoon of the preceding day? And if it is not, and if there is no other legitimate reason for anticipating the office at two o’clock, would the recitation of matins and lauds at that hour be, nevertheless, valid, even though illicit, or does the law of the Church require in such a case that the matins and lauds be repeated?

Answer.—The universal custom prevailing in the Church to-day, and which has the sanction of law, permits the recitation of matins and lauds of the next day’s office, on the afternoon of the preceding day, quando sol medium cursum tenet inter meridiem et occasum; that is to say, when the sun is half way between the meridian and the western horizon. As this time varies according to the different seasons of the year, a calendar is found in the breviary, indicating the precise hour at which the matins and lauds may be anticipated for every month of the year. Thus while in the month of December matins and lauds for the following day may be anticipated at two o'clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, in the month of June they may not be anticipated before four o’clock, because the course of the sun between the meridian and the horizon for Italy and Western Europe, where the custom originated, is four hours shorter in the month of December than in the month of June.

But many and grave theologians maintain that nowadays matins and lauds may be anticipated at two o’clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, every day in the year, apart from any special privilege or faculty, and that the anticipated recitation of matins and lauds at that hour is always and under all circumstances valid, i. e., need not be repeated, even though recited without a legitimate reason, and if there be a legitimate reason, the recitation will also be licit. This opinion is conceded by all to be at least probable, both by reason of the arguments advanced in its support, as well as by the weight of the authorities who support it. Among those who maintain it we find such names as Salmanticenses, Sanchez, Viva, Ballerini-Palmieri, D’Annibale, Sabetti, Bucceroni, Genicot, Noldin, etc., etc. Moreover, as often as the Holy See has been petitioned to give an authoritative answer to this question, it has steadfastly refused to settle the difficulty and invariably refers the petitioner ad probatos auctores. Now as many of these approved authors, to whom we are referred by the Holy See, maintain that it is lawful to anticipate matins and lauds at two o’clock in the afternoon, every day in the year, it follows that it is lawful to do so as long as the Holy See does not expressly condemn it, because the Holy See is perfectly cognizant that many and grave theologians hold that it is lawful to anticipate the office at two o’clock, every day in the year, without any special permission. It may be remarked in passing, that permission is sometimes given by the Holy See to anticipate matins and lauds at one o’clock in the afternoon, and the priests of St. John of God have the special privilege of anticipating the office even at noon of the preceding day.

If we examine more closely the reasons which induce these theologians to maintain that the office may be anticipated every day in the year at two o'clock in the afternoon, we find them to be somewhat as follows: At first, we know, matins and lauds were recited during the night preceding the day on which the rest of the office was to be said. The first nocturn was said at nine o’clock at night, the second at midnight, and the third at three o’clock in the morning, followed by lauds toward the dawn. The night was divided into vigils, as the day was divided into hours, and each vigil and each hour had its own prayer. (Cf. Cath. Encycl. art. Breviary.) By degrees, however, the custom grew up of reciting the matins and lauds of the next day’s office after sunset on the preceding day, i. e., at the end of the evening or eventide, or at nightfall. Gradually, however, even this time was anticipated and the custom grew of reciting matins and lauds of the next day’s office, not at the end of the evening, but at its beginning; that is, when, the sun was half way between the meridian and the western horizon.

Finally, the last stage in the development of this custom of anticipating matins and lauds was reached when, instead of reckoning the evening according to the divisions of the natural day, the clergy began to compute the evening according to the ecclesiastical day, and as the evening of the ecclesiastical day began at the hour when it was customary to recite vespers in choir, it became customary to anticipate matins and lauds of the next day’s office as soon as vespers were recited in choir. As the hour for reciting vespers in choir was advanced, the hour also of anticipating matins and lauds was advanced. And, as at the present time it is the custom throughout the Latin Church to recite vespers in choir at two o'clock in the afternoon, so also it is the custom to recite matins and lauds at about the same hour. Because, according to the method or system of computing time in this matter, as adopted by the Church, as soon as vespers are over in choir the day is ended and the time following vespers belongs to the next day, and matins and lauds of the next day’s office may be recited. St. Thomas says:

“As regards the ecclesiastical office, the day begins at Vespers; hence, if anyone says Matins after the said Vespers and Compline, this now belongs to the following day” ((Quodlib v, art. 28).

Of course there are many theologians who deny that a priest satisfies the obligation of the office, if he anticipates matins and lauds every day in the year at two o'clock, without a special permission from the Holy See. In fact, St. Alphonsus calls their opinion the more common opinion of theologians, and the one, in his estimation, nearer the truth. Nevertheless, with the array of theologians we have already cited in favor of the opposite opinion, and in view of the arguments they advance in its support, it can not be denied that this opinion is solidly probable, both internally and externally, and may be followed in practise by any priest, tuta conscientia.

This position seems also to be supported by the answers of the Congregation of Rites. That Sacred Congregation, when asked:

“Quanam hora liceat incipere privatam recitationem matutini cum laudibus vespcre diet praecedentis?” returned the following answer, March 16, 1876:

“Privatam recitationem matutini cum laudibus vespere diei praecedentis incipi posse, quando sol medium cursum tenet inter meridiem et occasum.””

Asked again: “Ufrum in privata recitatione matutini pro insequente die incipi possit hora secunda pomeridiana, aut standum sit tabellae directorii dioecesani omni tempore?” the Sacred Congregation, on May 12, 1905, returned the following reply: “Consulantur probati auctores.”

From these two replies of the Congregation of Rites we gather: first, that if the opinion which permits the anticipation of matins and lauds at two o’clock on the preceding day were devoid of all probability, the Holy See would long since have condemned it; and secondly, since the Congregation of Rites refers us to approved authors to determine whether it be lawful to anticipate the office at two o’clock of the preceding day, and since many of these approved authors maintain that it is permitted to anticipate, without any special permission, at two o’clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, the matins and lauds of the following day’s office, we logically conclude that the Holy See approves the practise.

As regards Fr. X.’s practise of anticipating matins and lauds every day at two o'clock, we do not see how it can be condemned. Sometimes, he says, he has a sufficient reason and sometimes he has no reason but the habit. In that case the habit is a legitimate reason. It must be kept in mind that, in the private recitation of the office, the observance of the canonical time or hour binds only sub levi. Therefore, a levis ratio will excuse from all sin. But the convenience that arises from the habit of anticipating the office at two o’clock is a levis ratio, and, therefore, justifies the anticipation at that hour. Under no circumstances would Fr. X. be bound sub gravi to repeat matins and lauds, said at two o’clock without any reason whatsoever.