Chapter VIII — On the attention, intention, voice, time, and place to be kept in reciting the Canonical Hours

I. Question I. What attention is required for the recitation of the divine office? Answer. A twofold attention: exterior and interior. Exterior attention is prescribed in the chapter Dolentes. Of interior attention the Theologians dispute on both sides. Diana, Machado, Tamburini, Coninck, Cardinal de Lugo, Gobat, and many others, whom Fr. La-Croix cites, deny it. The affirming opinion is defended by Cajetan, Navarrus, Vasquez, Valentia, Suárez, Genet, Van Roy, Henri de Saint-Ignace, Natalis Alexander, Antoine, and very many others.

II. The Salmanticenses report both opinions, and contend that the Theologians of each opinion hold the same view. They distinguish a threefold attention: 1. that by which one attends to the words; 2. that by which one meditates the sense of the words; 3. that which regards God, and is the most perfect of all, because it joins the mind to God. All confess that one of these three suffices. In place of a principle these Theologians establish that a voluntary distraction is not opposed to attention to the words, which attention suffices for due recitation. For only the will, by which one deliberately determines that he expressly does not wish to attend to the words, retracts the prior attention. They contend that the human mind can attend at once to disparate things, and therefore that voluntary distractions do not interrupt the prior attention. Only in this case, they say, is the prior attention to the words interrupted and retracted: when someone says within himself, "I do not wish to attend," or through exterior acts of chatting, writing, reading, etc., in very deed interrupts virtual attention.

III. This doctrine, by which it is asserted that virtual attention — which they themselves admit — is not interrupted by voluntary distractions, is false to me. For he who with deliberate mind distracts his attention elsewhere interrupts whatever attention, both formal and virtual. Most vain is the invention which the adversaries establish in place of a principle — namely, that the human mind can at the same time deliberately meditate contrary and disparate things at once. And since they oppose experience to us, I call the case back to this test. Apply your mind, seriously and with deliberate intent, to some question or business while you recite the psalms, and you will straightway experience that your tongue stammers, that the mind suffers a strain, that the eyes wander, and that you yourself appear, to the bystanders, as it were carried off elsewhere. When we suffer involuntary distractions, our intellect, by a most hidden inclination and a certain natural weight, is carried away into those objects toward which it more inclines; and since no contrary act then fights against it, the tongue for that reason pronounces the words without impediment. But let it meditate a disparate question or business, and continually, even outwardly, in the countenance, the internal struggle appears. It is evident, then, and established by experience itself, that a man cannot at the same moment, with deliberate mind, meditate contrary things.

IV. From these things it is inferred that the opinion of the Salmanticenses is false and lax; nevertheless the most recent Compiler of these same Salmanticenses has transcribed it, and inserted it into his recent Marrow.

V. To the question proposed, then, I answer that there is a precept of reciting the Canonical Hours with internal attention. This precept includes two things: a purpose of attending, and that this purpose not be revoked either by a contrary act, or by a voluntary distraction, or by an external action which by its own nature carries the mind elsewhere. This opinion the graver Theologians commonly defend. Several of these contend that this interior intention has been commanded by the Church. Whether or not the Church can command interior acts, I now pass over; this seems more likely to me — that in this matter she has not commanded, at least directly, this interior attention: this obligation of reciting the divine office attentively and devoutly proceeds from elsewhere than from a human positive precept. I say, then, that this intention has been prescribed by natural and divine law. And this is drawn from the holy Scriptures. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 14, says: He that speaketh in a tongue, let him pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit; I will pray also with the understanding: I will sing with the spirit; I will sing also with the understanding. Christ the Lord, Matthew 15, rebukes the Pharisees: Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoreth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. Again, John chapter 4: The true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father also seeketh such to adore him. The testimonies of the Fathers, that I not be long, I pass over.

VI. The weights of the reasons are obvious. Prayer is an act of the virtue of Religion; but any act of virtue must be performed with due circumstances. Now the chief circumstance that must accompany prayer is attention. The virtue of Religion, whose act is prayer, regards God as the end to which it offers its worship. This worship, or adoration, shown to God, must be made in spirit and in truth: otherwise, if it were done with the body alone, it would be hypocrisy and a mask of adoration. What of the fact that prayer itself is defined as an elevation of the mind to God, and a petition of the things we need? These cannot be rendered without an elevation of the mind. There is added that, according to all, an intention of praying, at least virtual, is necessary. This virtual intention cannot consist without at least virtual attention. For it then ceases to consist even virtually, when a man, knowing and adverting that he is thinking of other things and not attending to what he pronounces, neglects to recall his mind to himself. For in this state he in very deed wills not to pray, but, after the manner of a blackbird, a parrot, or a magpie, to produce the sound of words, not to honor God in a human manner.

VII. That virtual attention to the words of the prayers suffices has been said. This virtual attention, which is the fruit of the first purpose by which we resolve to apply our mind to what we are about to pray, perseveres so long as it is not retracted by a deliberate choice. Now this retraction can occur in two ways. First, if, while discharging the burden of the Hours, you occupy yourself with some other business which by its nature is opposed to attentive prayer — as if you should paint, write, read, or do something similar. For if for a brief time you dress, wash, or look at some objects, you do not violate the precept of praying attentively, provided you do these things in passing. Secondly, the prior intention of attending is retracted when someone praying perceives that he is distracted toward other things, and does not restrain his mind, but voluntarily persists in the distraction. Nor is it required that he say "I do not wish to attend," as the Salmanticenses contend; but it suffices that, in very deed perceiving and willing, he persist distracted.

VIII. The Adversaries are wont to heap up many arguments to prove that prayer consists without attention, and that voluntary distractions do not stand in the way of fulfilling the precept of praying. But I have refuted all these things at length, Tome 2 on the Decalogue, book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 9, § 1. For the sake of brevity I now pass them over. For they are so lax that a reader illumined by natural light alone would detest them. Hear what Fr. Gobat writes, treatise 5, number 821: "It is far more probable that the essence of vocal prayer consists with perpetual voluntary distractions, or wanderings of the mind. So Cardinal de Lugo, from principle. Tamburini, book 4 on the Decalogue, chapter 2, § 1. Cotton, and all who, granting that the recitation of the Breviary is commanded by the Church by way of prayer, excuse from mortal sin [those who recite it with distractions], teach: It is more probable that one is bound to no restitution who has recited all the Hours, or one, with voluntary and perpetual distractions, provided he does so entire, and with the intention of praying." Very many other things I pass over. It suffices, one after another, to indicate the fruits of Probabilism, inventing perpetual distractions, at number 843, that readers may become more cautious in reading these books. For who is not moved when he reads such paradoxes? Imbued with these lax opinions, which are published not only as probable but even as more probable, so many wretched Priests do not celebrate the Breviary and the Mass, but babble and mutter through them.

IX. Question II. Does habitual attention suffice for fulfilling the precept? Answer. All who defend the necessity of interior attention deny it. When you read in St. Thomas that habitual attention suffices, know that by "habitual attention" he means virtual attention, as is clear from very many testimonies.

X. Question III. Does it suffice, for fulfilling the precept, to meditate on the mysteries of Christ's passion, or on the acts of the Saints or of the Blessed Virgin? Answer. The more common and more probable opinion affirms it. For of the three attentions — to the words, to the sense, to God — this third is the most perfect of all, as has been said elsewhere. Now when someone meditates on the mysteries of Christ's passion, or the acts of the Saints, which express a relation to God, he has his mind elevated to God.

XI. Question IV. Do Christians sin who recite prayers with a distracted mind? Answer. When the precept of prayer presses, as it presses on feast days, then attention is necessary by precept. Wherefore the doctrine of certain men, which establishes that the Faithful hearing Mass on a feast day are not bound to apply attention, must be rejected as enormously lax. This doctrine being admitted, Christians, like animals, subject to God only the body, but not the soul. Unless, at the time when the precept of assisting at the unbloody Sacrifice presses, Christians elevate their mind to God, when will they render this? And unless they meditate on God and on the mysteries of Christ, what difference is there between them and brute beasts? In the other prayers which the Faithful recite from devotion, distractions do not exceed venial fault. Prayer can be omitted without fault; but it cannot be recited with a distracted mind without some fault. You are not bound to address the supreme Pontiff; but, supposing that you wish to address him, you must observe those things that befit the pontifical Majesty. Prayer without attention is a mere simulacrum of prayer. Yet this fault is light, especially since distraction is rarely altogether deliberate. For those who pray from devotion omit prayer when they desire to attend to other things.

XII. Question V. What exterior actions impede interior attention in one reciting the Canonical Hours? Answer. Exterior devotion is directly commanded by the chapter Dolentes, as has been said. Wherefore all affirm that one must abstain from exterior actions while the divine office is recited. The difficulty is to designate those actions which impede interior attention. All affirm that to write, to paint, to read or hear something else, fight against interior attention. Those who recite part of the office while dressing or washing satisfy the precept of attention. For the more common opinion, and the more probable, teaches that actions of this kind do not fight against internal attention. For such works are so easy and familiar that they require no attention beyond habitual practice. Understand this, however, of familiar and customary dress. For if the discourse were of exquisite and elegant adornment, the precept would in no way be fulfilled. I say nothing now of vain adornment, and of the artificial arrangement of pomps, because it is certain that all these things fight against the elevation of the mind to God necessary in the recitation of prayer. We speak, then, of Christians and Religious who, rising from bed, sign themselves with the sign of the cross, and recite prayers while dressing. The very Rubrics of the Roman Missal prescribe certain prayers to be recited by Priests while they wash their hands and put on the sacred vestments.

XIII. Question VI. Is it licit to recite prayers amid the labors of the hands? Answer. All things are clean to the clean, and holy things to the holy. If Christians, from a fervor of devotion, offer their manual and bodily labors to God, and pray to God, and sing sacred hymns, who will disapprove of this pious custom? But if Clerics and Religious, dedicated by a peculiar rite, who have leisure time in which to be free for God, should mix the divine praises with their fatigues, necessity being absent, they would doubtless sin, and would do injury to their own state, which is set apart from earthly cares. The circumstances and the principles from which these prayers flow, then, must be regarded.

XIV. Question VII. Does one who at the same time hears Mass by precept satisfy the precept of reciting the Canonical Hours? Answer. The more common opinion affirms it. For hearing Mass has nothing peculiar which fights against the recitation of the divine office. Rather, both precepts conspire to the same end, and regard the same purpose, namely the worship of God. For if Mass is heard from devotion, can one not recite the divine office imposed by precept? The hearing of Mass, then, does not fight against the recitation of the Office. It is nevertheless wiser to fulfill the distinct precepts at different times.

XV. Question VIII. What must be said of one who in choir is troubled by sleep? Answer. It is certain that he does not satisfy the precept who sleeps through a notable part of the office. He who in choir is troubled by sleep, yet recites all the verses and strives to shake off sleep, though he should omit some verse through inadvertence, is not to be obliged to repeat the office. For such a repetition would be too heavy a burden, and would give occasion for abstaining from choir. He who outside choir is troubled by sleep should defer the recitation to a more opportune time. Those who are subject to sleep, and defer the recitation of the divine office to near midnight with a foreknowledge, founded on past experience, that they will succumb to sleep, sin deadly, as the Theologians commonly teach.

XVI. Question IX. Is an intention necessary for reciting the Canonical Hours? Answer. All affirm it. There is a twofold intention: one formal and express, when someone elicits this act: "I wish to fulfill the precept of reciting the Canonical Hours"; the other implicit and virtual, which is contained in the very deliberate will of executing the work commanded. All affirm that a virtual and implicit intention suffices. This, however, is had by this very fact, that you take up the Breviary to recite the said Hours. Wherefore the opinion of those must be rejected who say that one who begins to recite the divine office with the express intention of not satisfying the precept is not bound to repeat the office. For he who recites the office with the express will of not satisfying does not in very deed satisfy — just as, if you owe a hundred gold pieces to Paul, and you give him another hundred with the express will of not paying the debt, would you thereby pay the debt? The same must be said in our case.

XVII. Question X. Does it suffice to recite the Canonical Hours with the mind alone, without exterior voice? And do Regulars enjoy the privilege of reciting the divine office mentally, while they pay it privately outside choir? Answer. All teach that the divine office must be recited vocally, and this has been commanded in several Councils, and in the chapter Dolentes. Yet some cited by Leander defend that, the common law being regarded, it is probable that the Canonical Hours can be recited with the mind alone. This opinion Leander does not reject; nay, he laments that Fr. Suárez declares it improbable — an opinion, however, which is not only improbable, but even utterly false and most ridiculous.

XVIII. As to Regulars, Leander himself answers that it is more probable that they enjoy the privilege of reciting the Breviary mentally; and for this opinion he cites Tamburini, Hurtado, Juan de la Cruz.

XIX. The Salmanticenses, treatise 16, chapter 3, point 8, number 51, reckon this opinion more probable, not merely probable, and report a privilege of Leo X, confirmed, they say, by St. Pius V; and they conclude that Regulars can, in very deed, by force of this privilege, pay the office mentally.

XX. This opinion is false to me, resting on a fictitious privilege. I have said that this privilege is fictitious in the sense alleged by the authors cited. For, as Pejerinus himself, who reports this privilege, testifies, the Pontiff grants only that scrupulous brothers may recite mentally certain things which are recited secretly in choir, the condition being added, if they experience greater devotion. See Tome 2 on the Decalogue, book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 9, § 5, where several other privileges reported by the Salmanticenses are refuted.

XXI. Question XI. Does he sin deadly who omits a single one of the little Hours? Answer. Several deny it, whose opinion is false to me, and the Theologians commonly teach the contrary. Some dispute whether they would sin mortally who omitted either half, or a third, of an Hour — for instance of Sext or None; and each affirms or denies according to his pleasure. These petty questions are superfluous. For who, unless he be out of his mind, will recite half a Canonical Hour — for instance of Prime or None — and omit the other half or third? Caramuel defends that he does not sin mortally who omits one Nocturn at Matins with Lauds. The Theologians commonly disapprove this opinion as manifestly false. For the omission of a single Nocturn is indeed grave. Leander, Sanchez, Diana teach that he does not sin mortally who at the Matins of a feria, or of the simple office of some Saint, should voluntarily omit three lessons with three responsories, because this is a small matter. Francisco Pellizzari defends that he does not sin gravely who omits the Vespers of Holy Saturday. All these opinions the graver Theologians reject as false.

XXII. Question XII. Do those who recite a shorter office in place of a longer sin mortally? Answer. Caramuel, Antonio of the Holy Spirit, Leander, Vasquez, Azor, the Salmanticenses, and others defend that those do not sin mortally who, without cause and from mere desire of dispatching themselves more quickly, change the divine office at their pleasure, and choose a shorter in place of a longer — for instance, of a Saint, when it should be of the feria or of the Sunday.

XXIII. The opinion just recounted is false, and, unless everything deceives me, is contained in this thesis condemned by Alexander VII: One reciting the office of Palm Sunday satisfies the paschal precept...

satisfies the paschal precept. Not only does the precept of reciting the divine office press, but there is also present the precept of reciting it according to the form prescribed by the Church. The junior writers cited reply that St. Pius V did not impose a precept, but only prescribed an exhortation; or that the precept is in a light matter. Is a matter to be called lighter which moderates the rite of reciting the divine praises? It is a precept, and indeed in a grave matter.

XXIV. Would you condemn of grave fault one who in good faith recited the office, thinking that it truly was the office of that day, if he were unwilling to repeat it? I would not dare to assert that this man, unwilling to repeat the office of the same day, is guilty of mortal sin. I myself, however, would repeat it. Those who through error omit a double office, and above, ought to recite it on the first free day, if they recite privately outside choir; not so those who recite in choir. In practice, let each see what befits order, what is farthest from confusion. He who today recites the divine office which through error should be recited tomorrow must recite it tomorrow, because a private error ought not to pervert the order prescribed by the Church. He who omits the whole office commits one sin, not several.

XXV. Question XIII. What continuation and order must be kept in reciting the Canonical Hours? Answer. The Salmanticenses defend that one never sins gravely who recites the divine office within the natural day, even though a very great interruption occur — even though the interruption happen in the middle of one psalm, or one lesson. You begin in the morning to recite one psalm; in the middle of the psalm, or the lesson, you take up some business; at noon, or at Vespers, you resume the other half of the psalm or the lesson: if you do this without cause, you sin venially, but never mortally, say the cited Fathers, and for this opinion they cite Leander, Bonacina, Lessius, Diana, Laymann, and others. This opinion is not approved by me, because it takes away the continuity of prayer, and savors of the greatest deformity. Wherefore the graver Theologians condemn so enormous an interruption as a grave fault. But in practice these things scarcely occur. For who would join a psalm which he recited in the morning with a psalm to be recited at sunset, or the half of one lesson recited in the morning with the other half to be recited in the evening? A light interruption without cause is venial; with cause, no fault at all.

XXVI. The order to be kept is that first Matins and Lauds, then Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline be recited. That this order does not fall under precept the common opinion teaches; so that he who should recite Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline before Matins would not sin mortally, but only venially, a just cause being absent. For if a just cause be present, no fault at all is committed. Yet he who should from custom disturb this order could scarcely be excused of contempt for the order prescribed by the Church. Wherefore I do not approve the opinion of the Salmanticenses, who say that the disturbance of this order never reaches to mortal fault. Mortal fault never occurs, because in practice this habitual disturbance scarcely, or not even scarcely, occurs. For who is so stupid as to wish, without cause, from mere custom, to pervert this order? In choir this disturbance would be too deformed, and would occasion scandal; and if it happened frequently, I would not excuse it from grave fault.

XXVII. Question XIV. At what time must the Canonical Hours be recited? Answer. The whole office must be recited each day. The day begins, by custom, after the hour of Vespers of the preceding day, for reciting Matins with Lauds of the following day. But the time for reciting Prime and the other Hours takes its beginning from the point of midnight of the preceding day, and ends at the point of midnight of the following day. Some defend that it is licit to recite, after the evening hour, not only Matins with Lauds but all the other Hours of the following day as well. But this opinion seems false, because by laudable custom only Matins with Lauds is licitly recited at the aforesaid hour. The other Hours, however, must be recited on the following day. He who anticipates or postpones the Canonical Hours excessively, without cause, sins venially; yet it is a lesser evil to anticipate than to postpone. A just cause of anticipating is public reading, a sermon, study, the danger of an impending occupation, manual labor, and other things of that kind; and then no fault is committed, not even a venial one.

XXVIII. Leander, with other junior writers, teaches that he fulfills the precept who begins to recite a little before midnight of the following day, and then continues to pay the whole office of the preceding day; but this opinion is manifestly false to me. For the office is the task of the day. But he who begins to recite a little before midnight of the following day recites the greatest part of the office when the day has already elapsed. Therefore he does not fulfill the daily precept. Caramuel teaches this opinion: With a single office one can satisfy a twofold precept, for the present day and the next — which thesis Alexander VII condemned.

XXIX. Question XV. Does one who celebrates Mass before reciting Matins sin mortally? Answer. Gabriel Biel, St. Antoninus, Ledesma, Tabiena, Navarrus, and Zanardo defend the affirming opinion. Fr. Antoine agrees with these. The denying opinion is more probable to me, and true. For the precept of the Mass and the precept of the office are two disparate precepts. He does not sin mortally who perverts the order of the Hours; and yet there is a greater order among the Canonical Hours themselves than there is between the divine office and the Mass. Finally, the Mass not having been celebrated, the Breviary is recited without fault. Therefore between the Mass and the Breviary there is no such connection that he sins mortally who perverts this order.

XXX. The custom which the adversaries oppose does not oblige under grave sin. Doubtless the Rubrics prescribe that Matins be recited before Mass. But it is not therefore inferred that the violation of this order is deadly. All the Rubrics taken together, which prescribe the form of the rite, oblige indeed under grave sin; but by no means do individual ones, taken separately. Are the other Rubrics, whether of the Breviary or of the Missal, so many precepts obliging under mortal sin? By no means. The disturbance, then, of this or that Rubric taken separately is a venial, not a mortal, fault. There would be a greater deformity if a choral Mass were celebrated before Matins. Yet if scandal be absent, I do not recognize a mortal crime here either. Care must nevertheless be taken against the custom of transgressing any laws whatever, even those which regard order and pious rites: because a continued violation carries with it contempt. Human precepts are not to be multiplied; nay, so far as can rightly be done, they should be restrained, especially by Superiors. But neither should the indolence and negligence of the lukewarm be fostered.

XXXI. For private recitation any opportune place will do, the Psalmist saying: In every place of his dominion, bless the Lord, O my soul. Yet a place removed from noise and clamor should be chosen, that the occasion of distractions be avoided. The place destined for public recitation is the Church, or the Choir, or the Sacristy joined to the Church.