Point I. On the Obligation of Reciting

50. Principles. - I. There are obliged to recite the canonical Hours daily: 1º all clerics constituted in sacred Orders, even those suspended and excommunicated. This is clear from various places of Canon Law, from the Lateran Council, year 1215, and from the Bull of St. Pius V, Quod a Nobis. - 2º All beneficed persons who have a right in the thing and full dominion of the benefice. This is drawn from the Lateran Council under Leo X, and also from the Bull of Pius V, Ex proximo. - 3º All religious of each sex professed in an Order approved by the Church and destined for choir. This is plain from custom, and also from the Decree of Gregory X, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 140 and following.

II. All these sin gravely if they omit the whole Office or a notable part of it without legitimate cause. The reason is plain: for they violate a law of the Church in a grave matter. - St. Ligorius, n. 146, and others most commonly.

III. The obligation of reciting the Hours is affixed to the day, so that it can in no way be satisfied on another day; therefore the obligation according to the mind of the Church ceases with the day assigned to it, and accordingly it is usually called the burden of the day.

51. Questions. - QUESTION 1. What is grave matter in the omission of the Office?

Resp. Theologians most commonly agree that the omission of one little Hour, or of Compline, or of a part of the Nocturns at least equivalent to the quantity of one little Hour, is the matter of mortal sin ¹; but the omission of a smaller part does not exceed venial sin. - St. Ligorius, n. 147, etc.

¹ Certain ones use this argument, that one omitting even one of the little Hours is bound to restitution of fruits by apostolic definition. But this argument does not seem sufficiently firm. For someone can be bound to restitution lightly and because of a light fault.

Some have written that it is mortal sin even to omit a third part of a little Hour, because such a part with respect to that Hour is already notable matter; but more probably this must be denied. The reason is that although that part is notable with respect to a little Hour, it is nevertheless light in itself and with respect to the whole Office. Hence concerning smallness of matter one must regard the quantity of the whole Office, but not of each Hour. Therefore if someone does not omit altogether a whole Hour, he can be excused from grave sin, because more probably it is light to omit less than an entire Hour. - St. Ligorius, n. 147; Elbel, n. 367; Lacroix, n. 1200, etc.

52. • QUESTION 2º. Is it grave to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday?

Resp. No, at least more probably, because the matter is very slight both in itself and with respect to the whole Office. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others commonly.

Nevertheless some have judged this matter grave, not indeed in itself materially, nor with respect to the whole Office, but by reason of the special signification which the individual Hours seem to have ².

² The opinion is anomalous and of no use.

QUESTION 3º. Does he who omits the entire Office commit one grave sin or multiple grave sins?

Resp. He seems to commit only one grave sin. - Thus commonly the theologians with St. Ligorius, n. 148, after St. Antoninus, part 3, tit. 13, ch. 4, where he says: “He who omits all the Hours of one day does not on that account commit seven mortal sins, but one, and so much the graver as he omits more of the Office; because the whole Office of the day falls under one precept.” - St. Ligorius, ibid.

53. • QUESTION 4º. If someone doubts whether he omitted something in the Office, is he bound to recite it?

Resp. No, if the doubt is positive, that is, if he probably judges that he has satisfied. Thus St. Ligorius, n. 150 ³, who says that this is the most common opinion, with Sanchez, Lacroix, Azor, Navarrus, Tamburini, etc.

³ In this place you have St. Alphonsus proving and calling most common that doctrine which establishes that probable satisfaction of the law suffices; nevertheless certain ones wished to ascribe the opposite of this to the Holy Doctor. See vol. 1, n. 80, with note.

** But the Vindicators (p. 987, n. 80) bring these things from the questions reformed by St. Alphonsus: “If someone probably judges that he has fulfilled the canonical Hours, is he bound to satisfy if it is still probable or doubtful that he has not fulfilled? Several Authors deny; but the opposite must be held.”

Resp. The Holy Doctor, as we said above, confessed that the opinion which denies the obligation of reciting in this case is most common. Therefore, with reverence due to the Holy Doctor preserved, the faculty must be denied to no one that according to theological canons he may prefer the most common opinion and follow it with a safe conscience.

Hence, they say, you are rightly excused from repeating the Office if you do not remember that you said something, and you have a just conjecture for believing that you said it; suppose, if you remember that you began a Psalm, or some Lesson, or an Hour, and afterward, distracted, you arrived at 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. Likewise if you have arrived at some Hour, for example Sext, and doubt whether you recited the preceding one, you can hold the same decision, because you are not accustomed to recite the later Hour unless you have sent the former ahead, and therefore you can prudently believe that you have omitted nothing. - St. Ligorius, n. 150; Lacroix, etc.

54. • QUESTION 5º. Are Religious who, for a just cause, do not attend choir bound under grave obligation to recite the Office privately?

Resp. Yes. The reason is that the principal obligation for a Religious does not fall on choir, but on the recitation of the Office by reason of the Religion, which has undertaken that burden from its institute. This obligation is clear from the universal sense and custom of Religious, who, when they cannot be present at choir, believe themselves obliged under grave obligation to recite the Office privately. But a universal custom which has been constantly observed with great inconvenience by Religious and Nuns furnishes a sufficient argument concerning a grave obligation undertaken. Hence the opinion of some, who say that the obligation of the Office does not urge a Religious outside choir, is not probable. - St. Ligorius, n. 142, and others commonly.

55. • QUESTION 6º. Does a Religious sin gravely who recites the Office privately while he could easily be present at choir?

Resp. No. For the obligation of choir, although it is grave for the Community, is nevertheless held light for individual private persons, provided that choir is not altogether removed. But for choir four who are free, or able to sustain choir, suffice. But if there are fewer Religious, they are in no way obliged to recite the Office in choir; nevertheless they are not exempt from private recitation, as was just said. - St. Ligorius, n. 143, and others commonly.

QUESTION 7º. Are those obliged to the Office bound to supply those things which they omit in choir because of the functions of choir, for example, by ringing the bells or the organ, or by searching out Psalms, and other similar things?

Resp. No. The reason is that the omission in choir, provided it is not excessive, is supplied by the companions. Thus one satisfies who coughs while others are reciting, etc., and probably also if a whole Psalm is said meanwhile. A fortiori he who did not hear some things of the alternate part is not bound to repeat ⁴. - St. Ligorius, n. 443, and others commonly.

⁴ These things ought to have force also in the private recitation of several together.

56. • QUESTION 8º. Which Breviary must be used?

Resp. By common law only the Breviary reformed by St. Pius V must be used; this is clear from the Bull of the same St. Pius V, Quod a Nobis, given on 7 July 1568. In this Bull the Pontiff removes and abolishes all other Breviaries which from institution or legitimate custom do not surpass two hundred years. Nevertheless he permits that even those more ancient than two hundred years can be changed into the Roman Breviary if the Bishop and the whole Chapter consent. But he commands this Breviary to be observed in the whole world ⁵, with the sole exception just reported. Indeed, in another Constitution which begins Ex proximo, he declares that all obliged to the Hours will not satisfy their duty if they use another Breviary, and therefore that beneficed persons do not make the fruits their own.

⁵ Understand here the whole world as the Church using the Latin rite. Nevertheless the law about not introducing changes pertains to any rites already approved.

57. • QUESTION 9º. What is to be thought about those who recite another Breviary preserved from the custom of the place?

Resp. 1º There is no difficulty for places where the Breviary had already prevailed for two hundred years before the Bull of St. Pius V, if nevertheless Breviaries still exist which have remained unchanged. This is clear from the Decree cited above.

Resp. 2º As to Breviaries reprobated by the Supreme Pontiff, whether they existed before the Bull or were introduced afterward, they are materially opposed to law, as is evidently clear from the aforesaid Constitution, unless they have been confirmed by the approval, either express or at least implicit, of the Supreme Pontiff. This is confirmed from the following response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites directed to a Canon of Le Mans.

1º Whether in the years 1748 and 1749 the innovation of the Breviary and Missal of Le Mans, altogether alien from the Roman rite, was licit, after the old Breviary and Missal corrected to the Roman form had first been removed, done or approved by the authority of the Bishop alone and the Chapter of the Church of Le Mans, and without the Apostolic See having been consulted?

2º Insofar as negative, whether at least this Liturgy of this sort, by force of prescription or century-old custom, has been made legitimate, so that today any Priest of Le Mans can observe it with a safe conscience? 3º Insofar as again negative, whether any Priest of Le Mans, even a Canon and Pastor, is at once bound in conscience both to pay the canonical Hours and to celebrate Mass according to the Roman rite, namely when he recites and celebrates privately?

To the 1st: Negative.

To the 2nd: Negative.

To the 3rd: Let him consult jointly both Constitutions of St. Pius V, namely that which begins Quod a Nobis, 7 Ides of July 1568, and the other which begins Ex proximo, 12 Kalends of October 1571 ⁶.

⁶ ** The Constitution Quod a nobis (§ 7) establishes that he who recites another breviary than the one prescribed does not satisfy, as if he had not recited in any way. But the Constitution Ex proximo declares that the same person is bound to restitution, and does not make the fruits his own.

Moreover from a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 15 March 1608, apud D. Bouix, On Liturgical Law, Churches which formerly could use the benefit of the exception made by St. Pius V, so that they might retain their proper breviary, can no longer return to the old liturgy, if once they have cast this aside in favor of the Roman Breviary. Likewise Churches have lost that privilege of exception if they have introduced into their liturgy any additions or changes whatsoever, as is clear from several declarations of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and very recently from the Response of the Holy See to the Archbishop of Besançon on 28 Aug. 1856.

58. • But although all the Bishops of France desire to return to the Roman rite, so that they may comply with the Holy See, nevertheless they cannot at once remove all difficulties from the midst; whence Cardinal Gousset (n. 698) concludes that private Priests meanwhile can recite the Breviary of the diocese.

59. • QUESTION 10º. Does a Priest need the permission of the Bishop to recite the Roman Breviary in places where another is tolerated?

Resp. No. This is clear from the response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, to which this question was recently proposed. For the most eminent Cardinals, having weighed the question, responded negatively by unanimous consent.

60. • QUESTION 11º. Are clerics obliged to the Breviary bound to use the Proper of the diocese?

Resp. Yes, provided that that Proper has been recognized and approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The reason is that although this concession of proper Offices has the character of a privilege, nevertheless all private persons are bound to use a privilege conceded to the whole community. - Except if private persons, by virtue of an apostolic indult, can not use the Proper of the diocese.

QUESTION 12º. Is there still an obligation of reciting the GRADUAL Psalms, the little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Office of the Dead?

Resp. 1º No, with regard to clerics who recite the Office privately.

Resp. 2º No also for those reciting the Office in choir, unless where there is a custom of reciting the aforesaid Offices from the time of St. Pius V. - Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites has declared several times.

61. • QUESTION 13º. Are those obliged to the Office bound under grave obligation to recite the Office of the Dead on the day of Commemoration of All the Dead, and also the Litanies on the feast of St. Mark and the three days of Rogations?

Resp. to the 1st: Yes, according to all. But this Office consists only of Vespers, Matins, and Lauds. - St. Ligorius, n. 161.

Resp. to the 2nd: Yes, according to the common opinion. The reason is that in the Rubric after Feria II of the Fifth Sunday after Easter it is said thus: “Those who are not present at the procession of the Litanies should say them privately after Matins with their prayers and orations.” But the word “should say” imports a grave precept when the matter is grave, such as the matter of the Litanies surely is. Moreover, everywhere the custom is in force of reciting the Litanies on these days. But custom is the best interpreter of laws. Nevertheless some deny the grave obligation, saying that the precept is not established, especially as grave. - St. Ligorius, n. 161, says: “The first opinion is much more pleasing to me; yet I do not dare to say that the second is improbable.”