Case X: Anticipating the Office

X. has been in the habit of anticipating his office every day at two o'clock P. M. He has no special faculty from his Bishop or from the Holy See to do this. He finds it extremely convenient, however, although there are many days when he could wait a few hours longer before anticipating for the next day.

Was his anticipation of the office at two o’clock on those days when he might have waited a few hours longer, valid, and if valid was it also lawful?

ANSWER:

According to the opinion of many approved theologians, and which opinion is therefore certainly probable, the office may be anticipated every day from two o’clock in the afternoon, in all cases validly and for a slight reason at least, licitly, without any special indult or faculty from the Holy See. We are aware that this is not the more generally received opinion of the theologians, either ancient or modern, but still it is supported by theologians of such great authority that it can be said to enjoy both internal and external probability.

St. Alphonsus, in the first edition of his Moral Theology, called this opinion most probable, probablissima, In the later editions, however, of his work, he retracted these words, and expressed his belief that the truer opinion was that it was not allowed, without a special permission from the Holy See, to anticipate the office at two P. M. But Sabetti, Bucceroni, Ballerini-Palmieri, Genicot, Noldin, etc., as well as the Salmanticenses, Sanchez, Viva, etc., all agree in saying that the opinion is solidly probable, that holds that a priest may anticipate his office every day at two o’clock in the afternoon without any special authorization from the Holy See. They reach this conclusion in this way. In the beginning, matins and lauds were recited during the night time. Gradually, however, the practice grew up of anticipating the next day’s office the evening before, after sunset. In the course of time this was improved on, by reciting matins and lauds when the evening began to fall, that is to say, when the sun was half way between the zenith and the horizon. Because, when the sun reached this point, the tempus vespertinum began. Finally the custom grew of anticipating the next day’s matins and lauds, from the beginning of the tempus vespertinum not of the natural day, but of the ecclesiastical day. Now, the tempus vespertinum of the ecclesiastical day began at two o’clock. That is to say, the evening of the ecclesiastical day began when vespers were recited in the choir. Vespers were recited in choir when the sun was half way between the zenith and the horizon in the afternoon. Now, however, vespers are recited in choir at two o’clock P. M., so that two o’clock P. M. is now the beginning of the ecclesiastical evening. As soon, therefore, as vespers have been said in the choir, i. e., about two P. M., the next day is, figuratively speaking, beginning, and the office of the next day may be begun. St. Thomas says: “As regards the ecclesiastical office, the day begins from Vespers; hence, if anyone after the said Vespers and Compline recites Matins, this now pertains to the following day” (Quodlib. v, a. 28).

In 1876 the Congregation of Rites was asked: “At what hour is it lawful to begin the private recitation of Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day?” To which the Congregation made reply: “The private recitation of Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day may begin when the sun holds the midpoint of its course between noon and sunset.” Again, a few years later, the same congregation was asked: “Whether the aforesaid response is to be understood so that one who had recited Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day before the sun held the midpoint of its course between noon and sunset would not satisfy his obligation?” To which was answered: “Let approved authors be consulted.” From these two answers of the Congregation of Rites we gather, first, that if the opinion which allows anticipation of matins and lauds from two o’clock P. M. were wrong, the congregation would have condemned it; and secondly, since the congregation refers us to approved authors, and since many of the most eminent among these allow a priest to anticipate matins and lauds from two o’clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, it follows that the Holy See gives countenance, constructively, to the practice of anticipating matins and lauds at two o'clock of the preceding day, without a special dispensation.

Therefore, we say, whoever anticipates his office at two o'clock the preceding afternoon, does so validly, that is, he is not bound under pain of mortal sin to repeat it later, either on that day or on the next; and if he have a “tenuis ratio” for so anticipating, he does so lawfully. Now, in the case before us, X. has a sufficient reason on some days for anticipating at two o’clock, but then on other days he has no special reason, and could just as well put it off until later. However, on such days as he has no special reason for beginning the next day’s office at two o’clock the very convenience that it affords him is a sufficient reason. It lends regularity to his recitation of the office, and strengthens a very excellent practice, and is of itself ample reason for anticipating every day at two o'clock P. M. It would be difficult to convince us that not every secular priest in this country has sufficient reason to anticipate his office at two o’clock P. M. every day, without any special dispensation or faculty to do so. But when one considers the weight of theological authority which justifies one in so doing, he were a very scrupulous and unreasonable man, indeed, who would give up so — laudable a practice for so poor a scruple.