Point II. On the Time and Place and Position of Body Due for Reciting the Hours

62. • 1º The time prescribed 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 is always to be exempted from grave sin, at whatever hour he satisfies such a duty. The reason is that he satisfies as to substance by reciting the whole Office on the natural day. Indeed Matins and Lauds, from a privilege conceded by the Church, can be recited on the preceding evening.

2º Matins and Lauds must be recited by Priests before the celebration of Mass. This is clear from the Rubric of the Missal, tit. 1, De Praeparat. sac., where it is read: “The Priest about to celebrate Mass, at least Matins with Lauds having been completed,” etc. Likewise from the Constitution of Innocent IV, year 1254 ¹.

¹ ** On this argument see the things which will be said below, q. 2 and 3.

3º All the little Hours can be recited in the morning time; and the first two must indeed be recited before midday; but the two latter can be said during the whole time both morning and evening. Vespers and Compline are recited from midday until midnight. In Lent, however, from the first Sunday, Vespers can be recited before the meal because of the ancient discipline, according to which the fast was not broken before the recitation of Vespers. Nevertheless on Sunday Vespers cannot be anticipated, because the fast is not observed on that day.

Formerly the Hours were recited thus: Matins after midnight, Lauds at dawn, Prime after sunrise, Terce at the ninth hour of the morning, Sext at midday, None at the third hour after midday, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the twilight of night. Hence a cleric ordained subdeacon is bound only to recite the Hours corresponding to the time of ordination. Therefore if the ordination happens before the ninth hour of the morning, he will be bound to recite Terce, but not the preceding Hours.

63. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Can the little Hours be recited even before dawn without any cause?

Resp. More probably, yes. The reason is that from the time when the ancient custom of reciting those Hours at a determined time was removed, no other law or new custom imposed the obligation of paying them only in the time following dawn. Indeed grave theologians expressly assert that these Hours can be recited during the whole morning time, or from midnight to midday. Thus expressly St. Ligorius, Hom. apost., tom. 5, app. 5, n. 74; Saettler, On the Hours, art. 2, q. 3, etc.

QUESTION 2º. Does the obligation of reciting Matins and Lauds before Mass urge under grave obligation?

Resp. No, 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 disposition for celebrating, since a Priest can also otherwise by praying dispose himself piously for the Sacrifice; nor does a grave obligation appear from the Rubric reported above, nor is it generally apprehended under grave obligation. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, On the Eucharist, n. 347 ², and Benedict XIV in the work On the Sacrifice of the Mass, bk. 3, ch. 13, against Antoine and a few others, who contend that, a cause excusing being excluded, it is grave.

² St. Alphonsus (Bk. 6, n. 347) responds to the controversy, “What kind of sin is it to celebrate Mass before recitation of Matins?”: “There are three opinions. The first says that it is mortal. But the second opinion recognizes no fault in this. But the third opinion, more common and more probable, teaches, against the first, that this is by no means mortal; but against the second, that it is not excused from venial fault.”

64. • QUESTION 3º. What cause can excuse from that obligation?

Resp. Any reasonable cause will excuse ³, for example, if someone asking a Priest to celebrate Mass for him desires that it be celebrated at once; likewise if the people, or some grave person, is waiting; if the Superior commands; if the time of celebrating has arrived and the celebration cannot be deferred without some inconvenience; if greater convenience of study, or greater utility to be perceived from studies, demands this; if some unexpected business has come up; if some penitent must be heard before, and similar things. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

³ St. Alphonsus (Bk. 6, n. 347) says: “Any moderate reasonable cause.”

65. • QUESTION 4º. At what hour is it licit to begin the recitation of Matins in the evening of the preceding day, according to the privilege reported above?

Resp. From the common opinion of the theologians, it is licit to begin at the hour of Vespers, which is held to be when the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and sunset ⁴; for then, according to all, the ecclesiastical day begins, since first Vespers are customarily chanted. This is confirmed by universal custom. Hence in various places tables are customarily drawn up determining this hour at the various times of the year. - St. Ligorius, n. 174.

⁴ This resolution must be taken affirmatively, but not exclusively, as is clear from the following resolution; namely, it is asserted, from the common opinion of theologians, that the recitation of Matins is licit at that hour; but it is not defined that anticipation is not licit.

QUESTION 5º. Must the recitation of Matins be repeated if it was had before the aforesaid time?

Resp. More probably, yes. The reason is that the Breviary is the burden of the day; therefore it must be recited on the day assigned to it. But if the aforesaid anticipation is made, the Office is then recited outside the day, no otherwise than if the little Hours of the following day were recited before midnight. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 175. - Nevertheless Sanchez, Diana, the Salmanticenses, Trullench, Quintanadvenas, Leander, etc., hold the opposite opinion, and Tamburinus judges it probable. Moreover this opinion does not seem to lack its probability ⁵. Therefore if someone has recited Matins indeed after the second hour from midday, but before the time fixed by the Rubric, as sometimes is accustomed to happen from error, he could be excused from repeating the Breviary.

⁵ The Salmanticenses have thus concerning this question (Tract. 16, ch. 3, n. 15): "We judge it most probable that Matins with Lauds can be recited immediately at the second hour of the day (namely after midday), at which Vespers are customarily recited." For this opinion they soon allege Sanchez, Molfesius, Quintanadvenas, Leander, Antonius a Spiritu Sancto, Martinus Ledesma, Trullench, Martinus a S. Joseph, Caramuel, and Diana. But they add: "From these, several say that this anticipation, even made without cause, is not even a venial sin; others indeed assert that it is venial, but that any cause excuses from it." St. Alphonsus (Bk. 4, n. 174) adds to these Tamburinus, who (In Dec., tr. 2, ch. 5, § 5, n. 2) calls this opinion probable equally with the others. Diana indeed (tom. 3, tr. 6, resol. 62) adds Faber, and (resol. 64, n. 2) Escobar a Corro, Garcia, and Machado; and he further notes that Sanchez (Consil., bk. 7, ch. 2, dub. 37) confirmed his opinion from the doctrine of St. Thomas, Viguerius, Turrecremata, and Navarrus.

** Even this little note, although merely historical, since it only reports certain authors alleged by others for the aforesaid opinion, nevertheless could not escape the censures of the Vindicators.

Therefore they object (p. 927, note 3), 1º that St. Thomas, Navarrus, and Viguerius are wrongly alleged by Sanchez, since St. Thomas (Quodl. 5, art. 28) merely affirms that Matins can licitly be said de sero, in the evening. But wrongly, they say, does Sanchez, whom Ballerini follows, explain that phrase de sero, as if it already designated the second hour after midday. Navarrus moreover and Viguerius speak in the same way as the Angelic Doctor. - Resp. 1º Ballerini there affirms nothing, nor denies anything, but merely reports. 2º Sanchez does not rely on the phrase de sero, but on other words of the Holy Doctor. For thus he writes (Consil., bk. 7, ch. 2, dub. 37, n. 4): "This conclusion is gathered from the cited doctrine of St. Thomas, Viguerius, Turrecremata, who say that if someone after Vespers and Compline says Matins of the following day, this now pertains to the following day." And in fact St. Thomas (l.c., ad 1) has these words: "As to the ecclesiastical office and the celebrations of solemnities, the day begins from Vespers; whence if someone after the said Vespers and Compline says Matins, this now pertains to the following day." But the same thing may be read apud Viguerius, Navarrus, and Turrecremata in the places cited by Sanchez.

The Vindicators object 2º: among the other authors brought forward by Father Ballerini for his opinion, several are more lenient than is fair. And after five have been counted up they add: "Of the remaining patrons of Father Ballerini, there are few who should be numbered among the weightier Doctors." - Resp. 1º Father Ballerini did not bring forward authors for his own opinion; but he indicated certain authors reported by others, so that in some way it might appear why he did not deny probability to Father Gury's second opinion. - Resp. 2º What the Vindicators add, namely that from nineteen authors reported in the note five are mentioned who are considered too, or sufficiently, benign, this argument, otherwise rather liable to ill-will, in the present case lacks all force. I said that this argument is liable to ill-will; for, to omit now the question whether those five are rightly disparaged as too benign, would the Vindicators prove that someone would throw back the very same thing whenever St. Alphonsus alleges one of those five, as often happens, for his own benign opinion? But besides, in the present case this exception is destitute of any force. For suppose an exception of laxity or excessive benignity of this sort is objected, rightly or wrongly, when some opinion rests on the authority of one writer alone. But where several others agree in the same opinion, on whom no one has dared to bring the mark of excessive benignity, does fairness permit that their suffrage be attributed to laxity or excessive benignity? And here indeed perhaps someone could invite the Vindicators to inspect whether there is any place for this exception of theirs concerning the authors brought forward by St. Alphonsus. The Vindicators say that eight authors are brought forward by the Holy Doctor for the less benign opinion. But what if someone perhaps with stronger right objected (of which a little later) that in reality Concina alone existed who defended the thesis of the Holy Doctor, and that this author, by the judgment of St. Alphonsus himself, is most rigid?

But as to what the Vindicators add, that the patrons of the aforesaid opinion are few who are to be numbered among grave Doctors, Resp. judgment concerning these men must more aptly be left to others, both for other reasons and also so that the danger may be avoided that someone should boast the same authors as grave, and indeed most grave, when they fight for him, but not grave when they fight against him. In the Preface which St. Alphonsus prefixed to the edition of the year 1748, these words are read: "Some things I judged must be explained, others added, from the various authorities of approved Doctors, namely Sanchez, ... Viva, Croix, Roncaglia, and others; especially the Salmanticenses, who, in the common estimation, treat this moral science diffusely and excellently; whom I myself had more frequently familiar than the others, so that nearly all things which the same men recall for examination with a broader pen in so many books, you will find here briefly arranged." Therefore at least those five, whom St. Alphonsus calls approved Doctors, are not brought forward vainly for that opinion.

Indeed even St. Alphonsus can be alleged for the same opinion; for in that same edition (Bk. 4, ch. 2, art. 4, dub. 2, note D) he wrote: "It is most probable that Matins can be recited at the second hour after midday ..., as Sanchez, Viva with Fill., Bon., Trull., and Tambur., the Salmanticenses with Led., Dian., Molf., Leand., etc., hold." What wonder therefore that an opinion could seem probable to Gury which could seem most probable to St. Alphonsus? You will say that afterward the contrary opinion was more pleasing to the Holy Doctor. But, setting aside now the question whether the later opinions of the Holy Doctor are always more probable than his earlier ones, one may ask: do the Vindicators think that the Holy Doctor gratuitously called the earlier opinion most probable? Therefore by the very fact the Holy Doctor confessed that some grave and solid reason stands for that opinion.

Moreover, so that force may be attributed to the allegations, it seems that in this question a threefold class of authors must be distinguished. For there are, 1º those who merely propose their own opinion, with no mention made of the other opinions, affirming, for example, that Matins can be recited at the fourth hour. But these indeed could be brought forward efficaciously against those who would deny that very thing, but not in the same way against opinions about which they pronounce no judgment; just as he who merely affirms that in a little supper those fasting can eat herbs would wrongly be alleged against those conceding some little fish, or even a portion of a larger fish, tuna for example, since he in no way touches the question about fish. Hence, when for example Filliuccius writes (tr. 23, ch. 8, n. 274): "It is licit to anticipate Matins half an hour before sunset, from the common opinion," would he rightly be alleged as if refuting, for example, the rule of St. Alphonsus or others who establish that it can be recited before that hour? Indeed Filliuccius himself (n. 276) adds: "If elsewhere there were another custom, it will be advisable to observe it." But with Concina removed, of this sort are nearly all the authors whom both St. Alphonsus and the Vindicators oppose to the controverted opinion.

There are, 2º others who report several opinions, and among these also the controverted one, which they either embrace, or call probable, or at least do not reprobate. Of these latter you have Mazzotta, who (tr. 2, disp. 1, ch. 2, q. 5), after reviewing various opinions, leaves the choice to readers; you have Illsung (tr. 5, disp. 1, q. 1, art. 4, n. 35), Reiffenstuel (tr. 6, dist. 1, ch. 2, n. 71), Gobat (tr. 5, n. 679), Croix (bk. 4, n. 1314), and Sporer (tr., append., De Hor. Canon., ch. 2, n. 140), who, although they do not prefer this opinion to the others, nevertheless permit it without a mark of censure, and certainly do not reprobate it. But among the former, namely those who either profess it absolutely, or at least judge it probable, besides those several whom each one sees alleged above in the note, Viva must be added, who (Curs. Theol., part 2, q. 3, art. 5, n. 11) writes: "Matins and Lauds ... from custom already received, can probably be recited without venial sin and without any cause from the declining of the preceding day, namely two or three hours after midday of the preceding day." And Azor (part 4, tr. 10, ch. 9, q. 5): "Therefore that doctrine and sentence of St. Thomas seems to me simpler and plainer, that the Nocturnal Office ... can be discharged privately by clerics as soon as the Vesperal and Compline prayers have been recited ..., namely after three, or two, hours after midday have elapsed." And Felix Potestas (Exam. Conf., tom. 1, part 2, n. 459): "In private recitation Matins and Lauds, from the already prescribed custom, can licitly be recited two hours after midday of the preceding day." And Giribaldi (tr. 5, ch. 3, n. 194), after recounting after others also those who will that it can be recited at the second hour after midday, adds (n. 195): "But probably each of the said authors judges that at the time assigned by them ... it is licit to discharge Matins." And Babenstuber (tr. 5, disp. 2, art. 3, n. 111): "Certain ones apud Tamburini think that it is licit to recite three hours before sunset; others three hours after midday; others between the third and fourth afternoon hour; others at the second hour after midday. I judge with the same Tamburini that all these opinions are probable, and that each one can embrace whichever he prefers." And Trullench (bk. 1, ch. 7, dub. 18, n. 9), after he brought forward Sanchez asserting that on any day of the year one reciting Matins of the next day at the second hour after midday, even if he has not yet recited Vespers and Compline, satisfies the precept, and ... with a cause existing in no way sins, adds: "I gladly admit it on account of the reason given." And Roncaglia (tr. 5, q. 2, ch. 5, q. 4): "Setting aside so many diverse opinions ..., to me that opinion is very probable which affirms that it can be recited at the hour at which first Vespers are said. The reason is that then tomorrow's feast day begins.... Besides, there is no inconvenience if, when tomorrow's feast day has now begun, the Matins of that day are anticipated." But the allegations which he subjoins, of Sanchez and Antonius a Spiritu Sancto, sufficiently explain the sense of these words. But to those alleged both now and in the preceding note, Neusser and Josephus Angles apud Gobat (l.c.) and Sporer (l.c.) must be added for the same opinion, and also Narbona, Verricelli, and Bassaeus apud Giribaldi (l.c.), and Leander (disp. 4, q. 93), and Concina (In Dec., bk. 2, disp. 2, ch. 9, § 8, q. 4), after Leander, brings forward also Acacius. And certainly it was to be desired that the Vindicators, who, most intent in seeking out the opinions of authors on this matter, could not fail to see these things with their own eyes, would not have passed over these same things in silence. Indeed both the examples and warnings of the Holy Doctor Alphonsus demand that our chief cares be borne not to defending some cause of our own, but to preserving the rights of truth.

There are, 3º finally, those who, following another opinion, undertake to attack the aforesaid one, which grants that Matins can be recited at the second hour after midday. But no one who preceded St. Alphonsus in attacking this opinion has up to now been found except Daniel Concina. For neither the seven others whom St. Alphonsus adds, nor the many others whom the Vindicators most diligently collected, touch this special question.

With these things inspected, let the fair reader now judge whether Gury should be blamed because he said that that opinion did not seem to lack probability, which otherwise so many Doctors either plainly admitted, or at least judged probable, and which no one in reality attacked except Concina and, after him, St. Alphonsus, who nevertheless earlier had defended it as most probable. But as to what can regard the reason brought forward by St. Alphonsus, for now it is enough to observe that it is not some abstruse reason which would not easily occur to the eyes of all. And if indeed so many and such great doctors have shown by the very fact that they were in no way moved by it, then let pardon finally be given also to others, that they may judge that it is not a reason of such a kind as settles the controversy.

The Vindicators object 3º finally (l.c.): "The Church conceded to certain Religious Orders the privilege of reciting Matins with a reasonable cause at the second hour after midday.... But this privilege would be useless if, by force of the common law, this were licit to any cleric."

Resp. I retort the argument. For, as Suarez (On Religion, tr. 4, bk. 4, ch. 17, n. 12) and Filliuccius (tr. 23, ch. 8, n. 274) have it, by Pontifical privileges the faculty of saying Matins one hour before sunset is granted. Therefore will the privilege be useless, if by force of the common law it is licit for each person to recite not only one hour before sunset, but much earlier, as St. Alphonsus concedes? Well does Suarez say (l.c.): "This argument is weak, because many things are granted in privileges, not because they are necessary, but because they are requested either because of fear or scruple, or for removing doubt arising from various opinions, or because what is requested is not licit according to the rigor of law and depends on custom, which can be uncertain and various." And Diana had already solved the same difficulty as to the second hour thus (tom. 3, tr. 6, res. 54, n. 3): "You will say: Pontiffs grant privileges that Matins can be recited two hours after midday. Therefore. I respond: those who seek this privilege are a sign that they hold the contrary opinion, and many things are sought from the Pontiff for greater caution and because of scruple; but from these things it does not follow that the cited opinion of the Doctors is not probable, nor that it cannot be followed."

66. • QUESTION 6º. Can the Matins of the Office of the Dead and the Litanies for the feast of St. Mark and the days of Rogations be recited on the preceding evening?

Resp. to the 1st: More probably, yes. It is established from universal custom, and also from the Rubrics which have thus: "Once the Benedicamus Domino has been said, Matins of the Dead begins absolutely." Therefore, since the Matins of the Octave of the feast of All Saints is customarily, or at least can be, anticipated, consequently the Matins of the Dead also can be anticipated. Some with Lacroix deny this, relying on a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. But that Decree, according to St. Ligorius, n. 174, seems to regard only recitation in choir.

Resp. to the 2nd: No. The reason is that the Litanies are affixed to the day, nor do they seem of themselves to be joined with Matins and Lauds. Besides, they supply attendance at the procession, which is wholly affixed to the day. Moreover, if the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the Litanies must not be transferred; therefore they do not inhere in Matins, nor do they have any connection with it. - St. Ligorius, n. 174, q. 3. - Lacroix.

67. • QUESTION 7º. Is one foreseeing an impediment to reciting the Office on the very day of obligation bound to recite Matins and Lauds on the evening of the vigil?

Resp. No. The reason is that, although Matins and Lauds can be recited on the preceding day, nevertheless they need not be ⁶. Therefore the strict obligation does not press before the following midnight. Therefore, with an impediment standing from midnight to midnight, the obligation is removed.

⁶ Namely, it is granted only by force of privilege that Matins can be recited on the preceding day. But the general rule is that no one is bound to use any privilege.

68. • QUESTION 8º. At what hour can the recitation of Vespers be begun in the morning during the time of Lent?

Resp. The Salmanticenses say, tr. 16, ch. 3, n. 15, that in Lent Vespers can be recited from the eleventh hour, or one hour before midday ⁷. But the general rule is that Vespers can be recited privately at the same hour at which they are customarily recited in choir. But in choir they must be recited after the conventual Mass and None. The hour of the Mass, however, depends on the custom of places.

⁷ As to the hour of reciting any part whatsoever of the Office, this must not be passed over, which St. Alphonsus has (Bk. 4, n. 173): "In order that someone may licitly anticipate or postpone the due time of the Hours, any useful or honorable cause suffices ..., greater devotion, or rest, a time more apt for studying, and the like."

Moreover, there is no obligation to recite Vespers before midday, but it is a mere privilege, which no one is bound to use. Compline, however, does not enjoy the aforesaid privilege; hence even during Lent it must be recited after midday.

69. • 1º As to place. The Office of choir must be recited in the very place destined for this, or in choir or in the Church. But the Office, if it is recited privately, can be said in every place, whether in an oratory, or at home, or in the country, or even while walking along the road, or making a journey, provided that the place is suitable for the attention required and does not impede devotion. - St. Ligorius, n. 179.

2º As to position. Privately the Office can be recited in every decent position, whether with knees bent, or standing, or sitting, or walking. Thus the universal practice, with which all theologians agree.

70. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Is it licit to recite the Office while lying down in bed?

Resp. No, a reasonable cause being excluded; for such a position savors of some irreverence. The same must also be said of any other such position. Yet this irreverence never exceeds venial sin. - Thus Concina and Viva apud St. Ligorius, n. 179. But any moderate cause will excuse from all fault, for example, sickness or any infirmity, headache, fatigue, or if someone cannot sleep at night, he could recite the Office without being bound to rise.

QUESTION 2º. Is it licit to recite the Office in a carriage or on horseback?

Resp. Yes. The reason is that this is prohibited by no law; nor from elsewhere does it stand in the way of attention, nor of the reverence due to prayer, even if others were journeying and conversing at the same time. For this has been obtained by the general custom even of pious persons. - Thus commonly.

71. • QUESTION 3º. Is it a fault not to observe the rubric according to which certain prayers must be recited with knees bent?

Resp. 1º No, if there is question of recitation outside choir; for from custom and common interpretation this rubric regards only choir. The same must be said of the sign of the cross and of other signs used in choir. These things indeed are laudably done in private recitation, but they are omitted without fault. - St. Ligorius ⁸, n. 179, and others commonly.

⁸ St. Alphonsus indeed discusses position; but concerning the sign of the cross he has nothing.

Resp. 2º If there is question of recitation in choir, it is disputed. It seems one must affirm, because a rubric prescribing something imposes a precept ⁹. Yet such an omission can never exceed venial fault. - St. Ligorius, ibid., etc.

⁹ That a rubric prescribing something, by that very fact, imposes a precept accepted in the strict sense, is an opinion to which certain ones adhere, but certain others by no means, because they distinguish some rubrics as preceptive, others as merely directive.

QUESTION 4º. Is it a sin to recite the Breviary in an indecent place?

Resp. More probably, it seems it must be denied of itself, unless the place were to stand in the way of due attention, for example, because of a crowd of people, noise, etc.; for otherwise it would be indecent to pray in an indecent place, which is false, since, as God is everywhere, so also everywhere he can be prayed to and adored, as is clear from the Apostle, 1 Tim. 2:8: "I will that men pray in every place." - St. Ligorius, n. 179. - Lacroix, n. 1320, and others, against not a few who said that venial sin is present because this does not lack some irreverence.