point — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Point III. On the Manner of Reciting the Hours
The Hours are to be recited 1º in the prescribed order; 2º with due pronunciation and devotion.
I. As to Order
- A twofold order must be observed in the recitation of the Breviary, namely the order of Offices and the order of Hours. 1º The order of Offices is described in the calendar of feasts and in the rubrics for their translation, where several occur at the same time. 2º The order of Hours is that which is set out in the Breviary, namely that Matins with Lauds be recited in the first place, then the little Hours be subjoined, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and finally Vespers with Compline follow.
- Questions. - 1º Does one satisfy the precept of reciting the Hours who from error or inadvertence recites another Office for the Office of the day?
Resp. Yes 1. The reason is that the Church is not presumed to will to oblige someone twice on one day to this burden, and because the substance of the recitation has been sufficiently preserved. Hence the common axiom which is held as a rule in these circumstances: Officium pro Officio valet, "Office counts for Office." Therefore, when the recitation has been completed, there is no obligation to recite another Office. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, n. 161, q. 3. - Lacroix, n. 1351. - The same must also be said about any part of the Office according to the axiom: "Error is corrected where it is detected."
1 Thus you would say rather that one erring is excused from paying the task twice, than that he has satisfied.
Nevertheless it is counsel, says Laymann with others, but not obligation, to subjoin the propers of the omitted Office. But when the Office would be notably shorter, for example, the Office of some Saint for the Office of Sunday, compensation must be made by reciting nine Psalms from the first Nocturn. - St. Ligorius, ibid. 2.
2 St. Alphonsus (Bk. 4, n. 161, q. 3) does not define the matter so absolutely, but merely has these words: "Tournely with Laymann, Bonacina, etc., reasonably notes that if the Office said was notably shorter, suppose the Office of a Saint in place of Sunday, compensation must be made by reciting nine Psalms from the first Nocturn." Therefore St. Alphonsus only reports the opinion of certain ones as reasonable. But neither is this opinion perfectly reported there. For Laymann, by merely opining, hints at it (Bk. 4, tr. 1, ch. 5, n. 5), saying: "You would seem to be obliged to make some compensation." Nor otherwise Suarez (On Religion, tr. 4, bk. 4, ch. 25, n. 15): "Although it seems necessary to make some compensation, if he can, within the same day." Add that Laymann (l.c.) affirmed this especially about culpable error.
- QUESTION 2º. If someone from error has recited only some part of an undue Office, and notices the error, can he proceed with the Office begun, or is he bound to recite the remaining parts from the Office of the day?
Resp. According to the common opinion of theologians, liberty is given. Therefore he can either proceed, or recite the remaining parts from the due Office, after the Psalm or prayer has been finished. Yet it is better to change the Office according to many, who establish this rule: "Error is corrected where it is detected." But this is from mere counsel, not from precept. - St. Ligorius, n. 161, q. 5. - Lacroix, n. 1255. - Tamburinus, etc.
- QUESTION 3º. When you have already said one Office for another, can you recite the omitted Office on the day on which the Office already recited by you occurs?
Resp. No. But the Office recited must be recited again. The reason is that the Church prescribes that an Office be transferred only when it is not recited because of a Sunday or a greater Office; besides there is an obligation of conforming oneself with the common rite of the Church 3. - Thus Lugo, Resp. Mor., bk. 5, dub. 8. St. Ligorius, n. 161, says this is more probable; but it must be held as morally certain from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 June 1674, apud Gardellini, n. 2634 (3rd ed.).
3 Nevertheless, that this obligation is not grave is sufficiently shown by those things which St. Alphonsus discusses (Bk. 4, n. 161, qq. 3 and 4).
- QUESTION 4º. Whether or how does he sin who knowingly recites another Office for the Office of the day?
Resp. 1º He commits no sin if he does this for a reasonable cause, for example, if he cannot easily have the proper Office, or if from charity he recites with a companion saying a different Office, provided that that Office has been approved by the Holy See, and is equal or nearly equal; indeed the reason of companionship alone appears sufficiently reasonable, says St. Ligorius, n. 161.
Resp. 2º If a reason is excluded, it will indeed be a sin, but only venial, if the Office is changed into one equal or nearly equal, because the obligation is satisfied as to substance, provided however that it happens rarely 4. - St. Ligorius, ibid. - Roncaglia, - Sporer, etc., against others, who say that it is always mortal.
4 St. Alphonsus (Bk. 4, n. 161, q. 3, at the end) calls the opinion which apposes that condition, "provided it happens rarely," more equitable; but he adds that the opinion which does not admit that condition or restriction is sufficiently probable.
Resp. 3º If a notably shorter Office is recited, it is a grave sin, because then the substance of the obligation is not satisfied. This is clear both from the nature of the thing and from proposition 34 condemned by Alexander VII, which reads thus: "One reciting the Paschal Office on Palm Sunday satisfies the precept."
- QUESTION 5º. What sort of sin is it to invert the order in the recitation of the Hours?
Resp. 1º In private recitation it never exceeds venial sin, because such an inversion of order does not contain grave deformity; for the order to be observed is not under precept except as a secondary precept and as a circumstance of lesser moment. But if you change the order for some just cause, for example, to recite with a companion who has already proceeded further in the recitation, you will be wholly free from all fault. Certain ones say that inversion of order is a mortal sin if it happens frequently; but more probably this must be denied with St. Ligorius, n. 169.
Resp. 2º In public recitation, it is disputed whether it is a grave sin or not to invert the order or to change the time of the Hours. Some affirm, if the inversion or change of time is notable and there is no excusing cause. The reason is that the Canons repeat several times that the Hours must be recited at the appointed times. - Azor, etc. - But others deny, because a circumstance of this sort does not pertain to the substance of the precept, but is merely accidental. Each opinion is probable; but the second is more probable, because there is no certainty about a grave precept. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 171.
- QUESTION 6º. What is a cause for inverting the order of the Hours?
Resp. Any reasonable cause excuses. But the following can be assigned, namely: 1º if you are invited by a friend to recite some Hour with him, and you have not yet recited the preceding Hour or Hours; 2º if in the morning you do not have the Breviary at hand, nor can conveniently wait, then from the Diurnal which you have you could recite the daytime Hours, afterward to recite Matins; 3º if you do not have the Lessons at hand, you can recite the Psalms of Matins and Lauds, indeed also the rest, with the Lessons deferred; 4º if you come to choir when an Hour has already been begun, you can proceed with the others, and afterward supply what has been omitted. Likewise, if you come to choir when one Hour has already been completed, you can sing the later one with the choir, and afterward supply the prior. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 170. - Lacroix, nn. 1509 and 1311, and others commonly.
- QUESTION 7º. Is it a sin to say Matins of the following day before the Office of the present day has been completed?
Resp. It is indeed a sin, says Lacroix, n. 1315, but only venial, if it is done without cause. But neither is it certain that it is venial, since the Office of one day seems to have no order with the Office of another day. According to the opinion, however, which holds that it is a venial sin, a sufficient cause for beginning Matins of the following day before you have completed the Office of the present day is if you are asked by another to recite the Matins of the following day with him; and generally every cause sufficient for an inversion of order among the Hours of the same day would also suffice in the present case. - Lacroix, n. 1315.
- QUESTION 8º. Does he sin who does not recite the commemorations according to the order assigned by the rubric?
Resp. Several deny, because that rubric seems merely directive, like those which regard the position of the body or signs of the cross. Indeed they say the same about the order to be observed among commemorations in Mass. But this at least as to the latter must be denied, because all the Rubrics to be observed in Mass are preceptive, as St. Ligorius says, Bk. 6, n. 399 5.
5 St. Alphonsus, after proposing the question whether the rubrics of the Missal are merely directive, or of counsel for instruction, or are preceptive, obliging to fault, responds that there are four opinions of the Doctors. Therefore one must not think that the opinion which St. Alphonsus prefers, and which the Author here proposes, is the only one which it is licit to follow.
And indeed, as to prayers, the same St. Alphonsus (Bk. 6, n. 412) writes these things: "Concina and Croix with Pasqualigo probably say that although it is more satisfactory to observe the rubric, nevertheless it is not forbidden from some cause or devotion to add one collect." And Gobat and Pescara add that this can be done even on a feast of the second class.
1º Vocal. The Office must be recited with the voice, and indeed distinctly; but it does not suffice that it be read by the mind alone, or only run through with the eyes; nor is it enough if it is recited in the throat or between the teeth, or by syncopating, or abbreviating with a stammering tongue. The reason is that properly vocal prayer is prescribed; but it is not judged properly vocal unless it is made with a distinct voice. - Thus all.
2º Integral. The Office must be recited integrally; but to its integrity pertain the Pater, Ave, and Credo at the beginning and end of the Hours, as is noted in the Rubrics. Nevertheless the prayers Aperi, Domine and Sacrosanctae do not pertain to the integrity of the Office; but they are recited only from counsel.
3º Continued. Any notable interruption within one Hour, if it happens without any cause, is not free from fault; but it does not exceed venial sin. - St. Ligorius, n. 166.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Must one reciting the Office hear himself in order to satisfy?
Resp. More probably, no. The reason is that hearing is not prescribed, but only recitation, that is, pronunciation of words, which is called vocal; therefore it suffices if the one who recites is conscious to himself that he is pronouncing the words. - Laymann, Sporer, the Salmanticenses, and St. Ligorius, n. 163, says this is sufficiently probable, against others.
- QUESTION 2º. What are just causes for interrupting the Office?
Resp. Any reasonable cause suffices for interrupting any Hour; but especially the following causes are numbered: 1º any utility, one's own or another's, which cannot be deferred without some inconvenience; 2º a reason of civility or charity, or the reason of executing the commands of Superiors; 3º if the confession of someone who would not gladly wait must be heard; 4º if you wish to do or note something so that you may remove distraction or solicitude, for example, lest you forget, etc., provided nevertheless that it does not happen frequently; for frequent interruption on account of this cause does not lack some irreverence; 5º some brief prayer also, or some pious affection of the heart, can licitly be inserted into the recitation. Nevertheless it would not be licit to linger in these things longer and frequently for the sake of meditating, because the character of recitation or vocal prayer would not be sufficiently preserved; likewise if a longer vocal prayer and one in no way pertaining to the Office were said; for a notable part would be added to the Hours, which would be venial as against the prescribed form. - St. Ligorius, n. 168. - Salmanticenses, tr. 16, ch. 3, n. 4. - Lacroix, n. 1307, and others commonly 6.
6 None of the authors alleged here introduces discussion about meditation not being inserted into the recitation of the Office; likewise none reprehends other prayers perhaps intermingled, unless these are added as parts of the Office.
- QUESTION 3º. Can Matins be separated from Lauds?
Resp. Yes, according to the common opinion. For thus St. Ligorius, n. 167: "It is common that Matins can be separated from Lauds without any cause, as the Salmanticenses, Bonacina, Concina, Suarez, Sanchez, Navarrus, Lacroix, Lessius say." Then, however, when Matins has been finished, the Pater noster must be said, as must be done after any Hour.
- QUESTION 4º. Can the Nocturns be separated without cause?
Resp. Yes. It is established from universal custom, against which no law can be opposed. Indeed formerly from the practice of the Church they were separated, since they were customarily recited at various hours of the night. Why therefore could they not now be separated? - Thus the Salmanticenses and others more commonly against others. Indeed not a few say that even without a special cause an interval of three hours can be placed between individual Nocturns. But if there is a just cause on account of which the Nocturns must be separated, that interval can also be prolonged according to the reason of that cause. - Thus Busembaum, Bonacina, the Salmanticenses, Viva, whose opinion St. Ligorius, n. 167, deservedly calls probable.
- QUESTION 5º. Whether or how does he sin who, after one or another Nocturn has been recited on the vigil, recites the remaining part of Matins with the whole night intervening?
Resp. 1º He must always be exempted from mortal sin, because he satisfies the substance of the precept. For from the general rule handed down by St. Ligorius, n. 168, and by others commonly, the substance of the precept is satisfied whenever the Office is recited integrally on the natural or ecclesiastical day, so that venial sin is never then exceeded, however great an interruption may intervene even without cause. Therefore the present case must not be excluded.
Resp. 2º He also will be excused from venial sin who does this for a reasonable cause, for example, if the Office is very long, as the Office of Sunday, and after the first Nocturn has been recited he is very fatigued or overwhelmed by sleep, etc. The reason follows from what has been said, since any interruption from a just cause is licit. Reuter, On the Canonical Hours, n. 262.
- QUESTION 6º. Whether or to what extent must some Hour be repeated because of a notable interruption placed within it?
Resp. 1º An entire Hour must never be repeated, even if the interruption was placed without just cause. The reason is clear from what was just said. Besides, individual Psalms, and individual Lessons or Prayers, have their complete signification, and they are sufficiently united by the intention of continuing.
Resp. 2º Indeed, speaking of itself, nothing must necessarily be repeated, even if the interruption occurs in the middle of a Psalm, provided it is not in the middle of a versicle or in the middle of a prayer, because individual versicles also have their own particular signification. - St. Ligorius, n. 168, and others commonly, against some.
QUESTION 7º. In the recitation of the Office, is it licit to mix in or append something from devotion?
Resp. No, because in the Offices nothing is to be added or changed unless it has been conceded by the Apostolic See. - Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 June 1690 7.
7 ** Understand: nothing is to be added as a part of the Office. See above, n. 83, q. 2.
- QUESTION 8º. To what is one reciting the Hours with a companion or with the choir bound by reason of pronunciation?
Resp. For satisfying the obligation, it is required: 1º that the recitation be made in alternate verses. But if more than two recite, after a double choir has been made, it must be recited alternately, because this manner is admitted by the custom of the Church; 2º that the verses be said successively and not simultaneously, and that one not resume before the other has completed his own; 3º that the things which are said by one be heard by the others, so that they may communicate, and one moral prayer be made. Nevertheless it is not necessary that those hearing pronounce in a lowered voice the part of the others. - Thus most commonly. - St. Ligorius, n. 162.
QUESTION 9º. Do you satisfy if you recite the Hours with a layman, or another not obliged, or with one distracted or not attentive?
Resp. Yes to all. The reason is that these things do not prevent you from reciting the Hours according to the custom of the Church. The defect of obligation or of attention on the part of the other does not change or vitiate your recitation. Therefore, if the companion is obliged and does not attend, he himself does not satisfy, since he does not communicate with you; but he does not prevent you from communicating with him, if he pronounces rightly and you hear rightly. - Lacroix, n. 1295.
- QUESTION 10º. Are you bound to repeat the things which you recited with imperfect or mutilated pronunciation?
Resp. 1º Yes, if the mutilation is very notable, so that the sense of the words is corrupted and destroyed; and this holds even if you did it involuntarily, because the defect affects the substance of the recitation; except unless impossibility stands in the way, for example, stammering.
Resp. 2º No, if you so mutilate syllables that the sense of the words is not corrupted, or if you mutilate in small quantity; for then the fault does not affect the substance of the obligation, and therefore does not exceed venial sin. Indeed you sin in no way if you do this involuntarily because of inadvertence, or stammering, or an inveterate custom which can only with difficulty be overcome; otherwise suitable effort must be applied to amend this custom.
QUESTION 11º. Must the prayer be said after Matins when Lauds are separated?
Resp. Probably, no, but it suffices to recite the Pater noster after Matins. The reason is that probably Matins and Lauds morally effect one Hour, and from another source a prayer is prescribed on the night of the Nativity of the Lord alone. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 167. - Salmanticenses. - Sanchez. - Viva, etc. - Voit, n. 1064, etc.
Nevertheless others also affirm, probably, because, they say, it is probable that Matins and Lauds are two distinct Hours. Thus Gavantus, Bonacina, Navarrus, and St. Ligorius, ibid., says it is probable 8.
8 These things contribute to the mere erudition of the reader, but nothing to practice. For a merely probable obligation is now not an obligation, but a mere opinion about an obligation, which does not have the force of obliging.
QUESTION 12º. Before Lauds separated from Matins, must the Pater and Ave be said, as before the other Hours?
Resp. Some affirm absolutely, because then Lauds are an Hour distinct from Matins. Thus Saettler, etc. Others more probably deny, because this is prescribed nowhere. Nor is the reason valid, that Lauds then are like a distinct Hour; for the Pater and Ave are not said at the beginning of Compline, although this is a distinct Hour. - Thus Voit, n. 1064. - Lacroix, n. 1305.
III. As to Attention and Devotion
- The Office must be recited attentively and devoutly, since it is prayer, and indeed public prayer, or prayer to be recited by a public minister deputed by the Church. Hence one voluntarily distracted in reciting the Hours sins at least venially. But whether at some time he sins gravely will soon be said in the questions.
Moreover, not only distractions which are intended are voluntary, but also those which are willed in their cause, namely those which arise from negligence, levity, excessive preoccupation with business to be done, from curiosity in looking around at external objects, from circumstances of an unsuitable place or time, unless some reason excuses this. - Bouvier, etc.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1º. How many kinds of attention are distinguished?
Resp. Twofold, namely internal and external. The former consists in the interior advertence of the mind to that which is being done; but the latter is that which excludes every external action physically incompatible with recitation, such as conversing, writing, etc.
Again, internal attention is threefold, namely: 1º spiritual, which is to God himself, as the term of prayer; 2º literal, or to the sense of the words and the signification of the things; 3º material, which is made to the words only, namely to pronouncing them rightly. - See vol. 1, n. 344.
QUESTION 2º. Is internal attention required under grave obligation?
Resp. There is a twofold opinion among theologians.
The 1st OPINION, the more common, affirms. The reason is, 1º because prayer without internal attention is not prayer. For prayer is an elevation of the mind to God; but with internal attention excluded, there is no elevation of the mind to God. Therefore... Besides, for discharging the Hours there is required at least some intention of worshiping God; but this intention cannot be had without some internal attention. Therefore... 2º Because one must not believe that the Church intended to prescribe only material attention in discharging the Divine Office. Indeed the Council of Trent seems expressly to have declared the necessity of internal attention by saying that the Office must be recited reverently, distinctly, and devoutly. 3º If no internal attention were required, there would be no reason why voluntary distraction would be prohibited by divine law. - Thus Sanchez, Azor, Roncaglia, and many others.
The 2nd OPINION denies, and says that external attention absolutely suffices for satisfying the substance of the recitation and for removing mortal sin. The reason is that if internal attention were required, one who involuntarily distracted recited the Hours would not satisfy his obligation; for when the essence of a thing has been destroyed, although inculpably, the thing itself remains destroyed. Nevertheless, not even the adversaries admit this. But thus St. Ligorius concludes, n. 177: "The first opinion seems more probable at least on account of extrinsic authority, and altogether is to be counseled as safer 9; but the second, both on account of the authority of the Doctors, which is not to be contemned, and on account of reasons resting on foundations not slight, appears sufficiently probable." I gladly adhere to this conclusion. - Recall what was said about Mass, vol. 1, n. 345.
9 Namely, attention even interior is to be recommended, but not the opinion which imposes a grave obligation of interior attention; for it is not lawful to impose an uncertain opinion as a certain obligation.
- QUESTION 3º. What internal attention is required according to the former opinion?
Resp. Any certainly suffices, because whether it is spiritual, or literal, or material, the mind is elevated to God, and true prayer is made, even if the attention were only to the words. Hence neither spiritual attention nor literal attention is required, which is impossible for many, namely for Nuns and for some Religious ignorant of the Latin language. Therefore it is enough if material attention is had; for attention to the words with the general intention of worshiping God suffices. Indeed attention to individual words is not required, but moral and general attention suffices, by which someone takes care to say all things with the intention of praying 10. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 176. - Lacroix, n. 1344.
10 If for internal attention any one of the three aforesaid kinds, and material attention also, suffices, De Lugo, according to whose opinion it is probable that external attention suffices, rightly notes (De Euch., disp. 22, n. 41) that Father Aegidius Coninck (In 3 P. S. Thom., q. 83, n. 301) not without reason said that in reality many of the adversaries agree, namely those requiring internal attention, and that there seems to be a disagreement only about the name. For they require internal attention, but only to the words, and such that it suffices lest someone expose himself to the danger of pronouncing the words badly and in a disturbed manner, or of omitting them. This attention can be had by one who even voluntarily at that time would think about some metaphysical question, or another similar thing.
Indeed De Lugo does not hand these things down as if, from this opinion, the voluntary distractions of those praying lacked fault. For soon, speaking about other adversaries who require some greater internal attention, he subjoins these things: "Therefore we confess that whenever vocal prayer is continued, some internal attention is given; but this is sometimes so slight that certain adversaries deservedly do not wish to call it attention; because when they demand attention from obligation, they understand it of a more formal and explicit obligation. Yet we say that this cannot be voluntarily omitted without venial fault because of the irreverence which intervenes, if you speak to God exteriorly, with the mind wholly distracted to other things; nevertheless there is no certainty about an obligation under mortal sin, since prayer still remains substantially." But that prayer then remains substantially, Lugo had shown by those reasons (ibid., nn. 29-39) which certainly, to use the words of St. Alphonsus (Bk. 5, n. 552), can with difficulty be solved.
QUESTION 4º. What are the remedies for repelling distractions?
Resp. Some are negative, and others positive. Negative remedies are reduced to the removal of all those things which are the cause of distraction, for example, to prevent the eyes from wandering about, to withdraw oneself from greater noise of men, not to hurry toward diverse business, etc. - But positive remedies are: 1º at the beginning of the recitation to form the intention of praising God; 2º to renew the intention at the end of the Psalms, when the Gloria Patri is said; 3º often to bring the presence of God back into the mind; 4º to set before oneself the Passion of our Lord, distributing the various circumstances of that Passion through the individual Hours, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 177.