§ 5. On the Canonical Hours and Certain Other Prayers

360. Preliminary note. In now treating the canonical Hours, we omit those things which pertain to the history, liturgy, and ascetic practice of this prayer. Among moderns, Batiffol¹⁸¹ and Suitbert Bäumer¹⁸² have written on the history of the Breviary. De Herdt,¹⁸³ Schüch,¹⁸⁴ and many others treat the liturgy of the Breviary. Bacuez,¹⁸⁵ however, treated its ascetic practice.

The canonical Hours have been called by many and diverse names,¹⁸⁶ e.g., canon, synaxis, collect, action, divine psalmody, course, divine office, ecclesiastical office, hourly prayers, canonical prayers, work of God, duty of service, Mass, evening Mass, breviary. This last name (so frequently used in our days) signified in ancient times a compendium or epitome either of the prayers to be said by clerics or of the Rubrics to be observed in the Office. For since the Divine Office, which was performed in choir, had been written in volumes of the greatest bulk, gradually smaller manual books containing an abbreviated Office were composed, which were called breviarium, breviarius, portiforium, portifex, etc.

It is useful now first to recount in a single view the propositions concerning the canonical Hours condemned by Alexander VII and Innocent XI, so that they may be commended more easily to memory and may not afterward have to be repeated in diverse places.

1. The following five propositions were condemned by Alexander VII (in 1665 and 1666):¹⁸⁷ "One who recites the Paschal Office on Palm Sunday satisfies the precept" (prop. 34). "By one Office someone can satisfy the twofold precept for the present and the following day" (prop. 35). "Restitution imposed by Pius V upon beneficiaries who do not recite is not owed in conscience before a declaratory sentence of a judge, because it is a penalty" (prop. 20). "Restitution of revenues on account of the omission of the Hours can be supplied by any alms which the beneficiary previously gave from the revenues of his benefice" (prop. 33). "One who has a collative chaplaincy or any other ecclesiastical benefice, if he devotes himself to literary studies, satisfies his obligation if he has the Office recited by another" (prop. 21).

2. Proposition 54 was proscribed by Innocent XI (in the year 1679): "He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining Hours, is bound to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself."¹⁸⁸

¹⁸¹ Histoire du Bréviaire (3rd ed., 1911).

¹⁸² Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1895).

¹⁸³ Liturgia.

¹⁸⁴ Pastoraltheologie.

¹⁸⁵ Le Bréviaire (German trans., 1891: Das Brevier vom Standpunkt der Frömmigkeit betrachtet).

¹⁸⁶ Cf. Bäumer, l.c., § 1.

¹⁸⁷ Denz. nn. 1134f., 1120, 1133, 1121.

¹⁸⁸ Denz. n. 1204.

361. The parts of the Divine Office. According to the present discipline of the Roman rite, the following parts pertain to the Divine Office which is to be performed by ecclesiastical precept:

1. The seven canonical Hours, namely Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline. Some authors think that this division was introduced on account of the verse of Ps. 118, "Seven times a day I have given praise to thee," or on account of seven moments in the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.¹⁸⁹ The Pretiosa is not indeed a distinct Hour, but nevertheless pertains to the Divine Office. Since in ancient times there existed the custom of saying Matins and Lauds at midnight or at another time of night, these two Hours are called the nocturnal Office; but the other Hours are called the daytime Hours. In a broader sense the whole Office to be recited daily is called the daytime Office, because it is to be performed on every day.

2. The Office of the Dead on the day of the commemoration of all the faithful departed, on which day the Office of the current day is omitted.¹⁹⁰

3. On the feast of St. Mark and during the three days of the Rogations, the Litany of the Saints is to be recited, even outside choir;¹⁹¹ it cannot be anticipated on the preceding day.

Today there is no longer any obligation of reciting a) the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, b) the Office of the Dead (outside the day mentioned above), c) the Penitential Psalms, d) the Gradual Psalms.¹⁹² The prayers Aperi at the beginning and Sacrosanctae at the end do not pertain to the integrity of the Office; but they are added very piously and usefully.

Note. With regard to those who legitimately use a special rite, the particular statutes concerning the parts pertaining to the Divine Office are to be consulted.

¹⁸⁹ These are the seven things on account of which we sing psalms at the Hours: Matins binds Christ, who cleanses crimes; Prime fills him with spittle; Terce gives the cause of death; Sext fastens him to the cross; None divides his side in two; Vespers takes him down; Compline lays him in the tomb.

¹⁹⁰ Pius X, Const. Divino afflatu, 1 Nov. 1911, tit. XIII (Act. Ap. Sed. III, 649).

¹⁹¹ Pius X, Const. Divino afflatu, 1 Nov. 1911, tit. VIII, n. 3. If the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the Litanies are not transferred.

¹⁹² Ibid., n. 2.

362. Obligation. By common law the following are gravely obliged to recite the Divine Office daily:

1. all clerics constituted in major orders;¹⁹³

2. all beneficiaries, even those not constituted in major orders;

3. all religious of either sex assigned to choir, but only after solemn profession.

All authors teach that the obligation of reciting the Divine Office is grave of its kind. Therefore he who omits the entire Office or a notable part of it without an excusing cause sins gravely. One little Hour, or an equivalent part, is considered a notable part. Hence, e.g., if someone without sufficient reason omits Terce or Compline, or from several Hours omits so many parts which, taken together, are equivalent to Terce or Compline, he sins mortally. The reason for such severity seems to be this, that especially in this matter the saying holds: "He who is negligent in a small thing shall gradually fall." For a cleric who from levity sometimes omits even a little Hour of the Divine Office will easily neglect greater things also and will gradually fall into other grave sins. Theologians dispute whether it is also a mortal sin to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday, which are then very brief. Nothing certain can be said in this dispute. Therefore, after the omission has been made, the existence of mortal sin is not to be asserted, all the more because the far more common opinion holds that this omission is only a light sin.¹⁹⁴

He who culpably omits the entire Office of one day commits only one grave sin, because he violates only one precept and that by one act of the will. But if several acts of the will not joined to one another are present, there are also several sins, as is evident from what was said above in I, n. 377 concerning the numerical distinction of sins.¹⁹⁵

Something more must now be said concerning the individual categories of persons who are obliged to the Office.

¹⁹³ Clerics of the Eastern Churches must in this matter observe the statutes of their own Church; cf. Papp-Szilagyi, Enchir. iur. eccl. orient. cath. sect. 2, § 56.

¹⁹⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 147.

¹⁹⁵ St. Antoninus (S. theol. Part III, tit. 13, c. 4, § 5) says: "If someone omits all the Hours of one day, ... he does not thereby commit seven mortal sins, but one, and one so much graver the more he omits of it, because the whole Office of one day falls under one precept."

363. The obligation of clerics in major orders.

This obligation, already existing for centuries from customary law, is expressed in these words in the Code of Canon Law, c. 135: "Clerics constituted in major orders, except those concerning whom in cann. 213 and 214, are bound by the obligation of reciting the canonical Hours in full every day according to their own approved liturgical books." All clerics constituted in sacred orders, although excommunicated, suspended, or degraded, are bound to the Divine Office. For if clerics who have been punished on account of crimes were freed from the burden of the Office, they would then derive some advantage from iniquity, which certainly would be incongruous. But when a cleric in major orders has legitimately been reduced to the lay state, the obligation of reciting the Divine Office ceases.¹⁹⁶

For clerics, the grave obligation of reciting the Office begins at the hour at which the order of subdiaconate is received. Therefore he who is ordained in the morning before the ninth hour is bound neither to Matins and Lauds nor to Prime, but ought to begin with Terce; he who is ordained after the ninth hour of the morning ought to begin with Sext. Nevertheless, in either case it is better if the cleric begins with Prime. But he who before ordination recited the Hours to which he was not yet bound must more probably recite them again after ordination, because no one can satisfy a precept at a time when it does not yet exist; just as I cannot today recite the Office to which I am obliged only on the following day. The contrary, however, is maintained by some authors, e.g., Lugo,¹⁹⁷ Noldin,¹⁹⁸ etc., and this opinion is deservedly called probable by St. Alphonsus.¹⁹⁹

¹⁹⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 213.

¹⁹⁷ De euchar. disp. 16, sect. 2, n. 39.

¹⁹⁸ De praeceptis n. 756.

¹⁹⁹ Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 140.

364. The obligation of beneficiary clerics.

1. A grave obligation of reciting the Divine Office falls upon all beneficiaries, even those not constituted in major orders, from the day possession of the benefice is taken. For St. Pius V²⁰⁰ declared concerning every beneficiary: "Likewise, let him who ... has not said the Office, unless a legitimate impediment has excused him, understand that he has committed a grave sin." In our regions there are very few beneficiaries not yet initiated into sacred orders. Other beneficiaries are especially pastors, canons, bishops, certain chaplains, etc.

2. A beneficiary who, "detained by no legitimate impediment, has not satisfied the obligation of reciting the canonical Hours does not make his own the revenues in proportion to the omission, and let him hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan seminary, or expend them upon the poor."²⁰¹ This return of revenues obliges by the fact itself, i.e., before the sentence of a judge, as is evident from proposition 20 condemned by Alexander VII and cited above. Beneficial revenues are not indeed the price for the Divine Office recited, for this would be simony, but nevertheless they are granted under the condition that the beneficiary recite the Office. For just as no one receives the subdiaconate unless he promises to observe chastity, so no one receives a benefice unless he promises the daily recitation of the Office. But a beneficiary who, with a legitimate excusing cause, e.g., infirmity, excessive labor, etc., does not say the Office can lawfully receive the beneficial revenues. If the omitted part of the Office does not constitute grave matter, i.e., a part equivalent to a little Hour, there is no grave obligation of restitution. Thus the more common and more probable opinion.²⁰²

²⁰⁰ Const. Ex proximo, 1571.

²⁰¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 1475, § 2. In the ancient law, revenues of the first semester did not have to be restored, but in the new law this indult no longer seems to exist.

²⁰² St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 668.

365. 3. The quantity of restitution on account of neglect of the Office is to be measured according to the statutes enacted by St. Pius V. "We establish that he who has omitted all the canonical Hours on one or more days shall lose all the revenues of his benefice or benefices which would correspond to that day or those days if they were divided daily; but he who has omitted Matins alone shall lose half; he who has omitted all the other Hours shall lose the other half; he who has omitted individual ones of these shall lose a sixth part of the revenues of the same day." But the difficulty is whether equal restitution is to be made by a simple beneficiary (e.g., by a canon) and by a beneficiary with cure (e.g., by a pastor). Several theologians and canonists maintain the affirmative part, e.g., Peter Navarrus,²⁰³ Castropalaus,²⁰⁴ Suarez,²⁰⁵ Azor,²⁰⁶ Schmalzgrueber;²⁰⁷ and this opinion receives great weight from the very Constitution of St. Pius V, who speaks indiscriminately concerning all benefices and makes no distinction between simple benefices and benefices with cure. But the other, far more common, indeed today almost universal, opinion rightly teaches that a beneficiary with cure is bound only to partial restitution of the revenues of the benefice if he indeed neglected the Office but fulfilled the other works of his benefice. How great this partial restitution is cannot easily be determined. D'Annibale²⁰⁸ rightly says concerning this matter: "How great [the part to be restored is], whether half, as the stricter authors hold, or a fifth, as the more benign hold, is not agreed; therefore it is better to leave this between these to the judgment of a good man, who will have to measure the matter variously according to the offices." And in truth, if these offices incumbent in addition to the canonical Hours are grave, it is just that the beneficiary have some recompense, although he neglected the canonical Hours. He can retain for himself at least half and even two-thirds of the beneficial revenues for such recompense. Hence, e.g., if a certain pastor has culpably neglected the whole Office on one day and has annually 3,000 francs in strictly beneficial revenues, i.e., about 8 francs each day, he certainly sufficiently satisfies his obligation of restoring if he expends about 4 francs, or even 2 francs, upon the poor or for the benefit of the church.²⁰⁹ But if he omitted not the entire Office but only part of it, the restitution is to be proportionally diminished.

There are several authors, e.g., Suarez,²¹⁰ Bonacina,²¹¹ St. Alphonsus,²¹² Noldin,²¹³ Göpfert,²¹⁴ who teach that a poor beneficiary obliged to restitution can apply to himself the alms to be given; indeed, Ballerini²¹⁵ thinks that a beneficiary with cure for whom the beneficial revenues are necessary for fitting support is bound to nothing from the omission of the Divine Office alone, provided that he otherwise fulfilled the obligations of the benefice. Whether these opinions correspond to the mind of the Church, which so gravely obliges beneficiaries to the recitation of the Office, I do not dare to say. It is greatly to be desired that the Church herself authoritatively establish what obligation exists in these and similar cases. It must be recalled that alms made before the omission cannot be reckoned toward the restitution to be made, as is evident from proposition 33 condemned by Alexander VII. But alms made after the culpable omission can be reckoned toward the restitution to be made.

²⁰³ De restit. l. 2, c. 2, n. 283.

²⁰⁴ Opus mor. tr. 7, disp. 2, punct. 7, n. 8.

²⁰⁵ De relig. l. 4, c. 30, n. 6.

²⁰⁶ Instit. mor. Part I, l. 10, c. 14, q. 5.

²⁰⁷ Ius can. l. 1, n. 98.

²⁰⁸ Summula Theol. mor. III, n. 64.

²⁰⁹ Noldin (De praeceptis n. 758) asserts: "A bishop or pastor who fulfills his pastoral offices will scarcely have to restore a tenth part of his revenues on account of the neglected recitation of the Breviary." This opinion indeed seems excessively benign, since the Church treats beneficiaries who neglect the recitation of the Office so severely.

²¹⁰ L.c., n. 21.

²¹¹ De Offic. div. disp. 1, q. 5, punct. 4, n. 8.

²¹² Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 672.

²¹³ De praeceptis n. 758 d.

²¹⁴ Moraltheol. I, 331.

²¹⁵ Opus Theol. mor. IV, n. 106.

366. On the obligation of canons to recite the Office in choir. A few things are to be said here, since this matter pertains rather to canon law and is often determined more precisely by particular statutes or by legitimate customs. All chapters of canons (whether in cathedral or collegiate churches) are bound under grave sin to say the whole Divine Office chorally, unless a special permission of the Holy See is present.²¹⁶ A bishop can in no way dispense from this grave obligation by his own authority. Canons who through their own fault and without legitimate permission are absent from the choral Office sin gravely or lightly according to the quantity of the matter, although they recite the Divine Office privately. They are also bound to restore the beneficial revenues received.²¹⁷ According to the more probable opinion, a continuous culpable absence of five days is grave matter.²¹⁸ Concerning what causes excuse from choral attendance, see the canonists.²¹⁹ Canons are bound not only to be materially present in choir, but also devoutly to sing psalms and chant; otherwise they lose not only beneficial revenues but also the so-called "daily distributions."²²⁰

²¹⁶ Council of Trent, sess. 24, de reform. c. 12; Code of Canon Law, c. 413f.

²¹⁷ Cf. S.C.C., 10 July 1920, where almost the whole doctrine concerning the obligation of canons is clearly set forth.

²¹⁸ Cf. Billuart, De orat. diss. 2, a. 8, § 4.

²¹⁹ Cf. our Man. iur. can. q. 143.

²²⁰ Council of Trent, l.c., and Benedict XIV, Const. Cum semper oblatas, 19 Aug. 1744.

367. The obligation of solemnly professed religious.

A grave obligation of reciting the Office falls upon religious of either sex, and it arises not from simple vows but from solemn profession alone. The choral obligation, however, must be distinguished from the obligation of reciting the Divine Office privately. In some religious orders, the simply professed are indeed obliged to the choral Office in the same manner as the solemnly professed,²²¹ but, unless they are constituted in sacred orders, they are never obliged to private recitation.²²² The choral obligation of religious is already presupposed in the Council of Vienne,²²³ where it is said: "In cathedral, regular, and collegiate churches let psalms be sung devoutly at the due hours, ... if they wish to avoid the indignation of God and of the Apostolic See." But the obligation of privately reciting the Divine Office for solemnly professed religious of either sex arose from immemorial custom having the force of law; now, however, it is established in express words in the Code of Canon Law, c. 610, § 3.

Lay brothers or lay sisters after solemn profession are not obliged to recite the Divine Office,²²⁴ since these men and women are deputed not to choir but to other offices. Whether they are bound under sin to other prayers prescribed for them by their Rule depends upon certain and legitimate particular statutes. But if a doubt is present concerning the quality of this obligation, the more benign side is to be followed. For the most part, lay brothers and lay sisters are not obliged under sin to perform the prayers imposed by the Rule. The obligation of many religious sisters or even nuns to recite the Marian Office daily is not grave; indeed, of itself its omission does not even induce light fault.²²⁵ Nevertheless, the Constitutions of the individual Congregations are to be attended to.

The canonists treat the manner of reciting the Office in choir, the place of the choir, and the persons necessary for the choral Office. Cf. our Man. iur. can. q. 235ff.

²²¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Religious, 6 Aug. 1868.

²²² Sacred Congregation of Religious, 28 July 1902.

²²³ Lib. 3, tit. 14, c. 1 in Clem.

²²⁴ Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 610, § 3.

²²⁵ Cf. Normae n. 156.

368. The form of the Divine Office is here called the objective arrangement of prayers determined for each day. For the Church has determined not only in general the obligation of reciting the Office, but also its rite through the so-called Rubrics. The following is to be held as a general principle: The rites and Rubrics truly prescribed by the Church oblige in conscience; nevertheless, parvity of matter is possible in their transgression, and indeed, when a sufficient cause is present, their transgression becomes lawful.

A grave violation of the form of the Divine Office is present in the following cases, unless a legitimate excusing cause exists:

1. if someone changes the rite by using a breviary other than the one prescribed;

2. if someone recites the Office in a language other than Latin;

3. if someone recites an Office notably different in quality and quantity.

With regard to 1. St. Pius V²²⁶ prescribed that all who are obliged to the Divine Office are gravely bound to recite it according to the form and rite of the Roman Breviary, except those churches and religious orders which two hundred years previously (i.e., before the year 1368) were already using another legitimately approved breviary. But even to these privileged ones it was then conceded that, with the consent of the bishop and the entire chapter, or of the prelate and the community, they could use the Roman Breviary in choir. By force of this Pian privilege, even in our times several churches, e.g., Milan, Trier, etc., and several religious orders, e.g., the Benedictines, Carthusians, Dominicans, etc., employ their own breviary. The choral recitation of the Office must without any doubt be celebrated under grave obligation according either to the Roman rite or to another legitimately prescribed rite; nor is any change now lawful without special permission of the Holy See.

But if there is question of a change of rite in private recitation: a) it is indeed certain that a religious cleric using his own breviary, if he is elevated to the episcopal dignity, ought to leave his own rite and in all things follow the Roman rite or the rite of his diocese. The same holds for his chaplain who recites the Office with him. Thus the Sacred Congregation has established several times.²²⁷

b) Authors taught rather commonly that all who assist at the choral recitation of the Office can always conform themselves to that choral Office, even if of themselves they are bound to follow another rite. Hence, e.g., a secular priest assisting and singing psalms at the choral Office of Benedictines or Dominicans satisfies his obligation and is not bound to recite the Office according to the Roman rite. The reason is that holy Mother Church greatly favors the choral recitation of the Office, because in choir the Office is customarily celebrated with greater solemnity and devotion than in private. But apart from a special privilege (such as the Jesuits during the Exercises and the Benedictines possess)²²⁸ or apart from a sufficient cause, such as is possessed, e.g., by a priest seeking the religious state who sings psalms in the choir of those religious, this doctrine is no longer sufficiently safe today. For to the question, "Does a cleric constituted in sacred orders satisfy his obligation if, spontaneously or upon invitation, he joins clergy who chant or recite an Office different from the Office of that cleric?" the Sacred Congregation of Rites responded on 27 Jan. 1899: "Generally, no."²²⁹

c) Authors do not agree whether, at least in a case of necessity, a religious having his own breviary can satisfy by reciting the Office of the Roman Breviary and, conversely, whether a cleric obliged to the Roman rite satisfies his obligation by employing the breviary of some privileged order; nor has a general law been enacted concerning this matter. St. Alphonsus²³⁰ writes: "If you lacked the Roman Breviary and had another, for example a Benedictine one or something similar, you are bound to recite from it. The reason is that there is a twofold precept of the Office: one universal precept concerning the performance of the Hours; the other concerning the observance of the form of each day; whence, if you cannot observe one, you are bound to the other. But the Salmanticenses contradict this, saying that one is not bound, because, as they say, the precept of the Office is indivisible; that is, the precept of reciting it and of reciting it under one form. And they infer this from the words of the Bull of Pius V, where it is said: 'that satisfaction cannot be made except in this form alone.' Notwithstanding this, the first opinion, as more pious and reasonable, seems to me to be followed." Outside a case of necessity, one reciting the Office cannot lawfully use the breviary of another rite.²³¹

With regard to 2. If someone recites the Divine Office in a language other than Latin, e.g., the psalms in the Hebrew language or the Litanies or Vespers in the vernacular language with the people, he does not satisfy his obligation. Thus at least if the one reciting belongs to the Latin rite.

²²⁶ Const. Quod a nobis, 1568.

²²⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 161, q. 3, n. 2.

²²⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 July 1908 (Anal. eccl. XVI [1908], 391).

²²⁹ Decr. auth. n. 4011, ad 3.

²³⁰ L.c., n. 158.

²³¹ Noldin (De praeceptis n. 760) says: "Priests and religious who must use their own, non-Roman breviary in choir can recite the private Office according to the Roman Breviary." So far as I know, neither any decree of the Roman Curia nor the doctrine of canonists permits this so universally; and therefore such a religious would sin if, without a grave cause, he recited the Office according to the Roman rite while abandoning his own rite.

369. With regard to 3. The quality of the Office to be recited daily is customarily determined in the Calendar or Directory. The general rule is: Everyone is bound to use his own calendar. Concerning the application of this rule, the following things are to be noted:

1. Beneficiaries, such as pastors, canons, residential bishops, etc., are always bound to the Office of their own church. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites several times, on 12 Nov. 1831 and 23 Nov. 1906.²³² The same holds for clerics assigned to some church.²³³ But only those who exercise the care of souls in it by a stable office (and not merely a transitory one), e.g., pastors and assistant pastors, are considered assigned to some church. Teachers and students of a seminary are considered assigned to the church of the seminary;²³⁴ therefore they are bound to recite the Offices proper to the church of the seminary. The Offices proper to some church are: the Office of the titular of the church, of the dedication of the church, of an outstanding relic, etc.

2. Clerics who are not beneficiaries and are not specially assigned to some church are bound to follow the calendar of their diocese. But if they remain outside the diocese for a short time, they can, but are not bound to, follow the calendar of that diocese where they are here and now. But if they have acquired a quasi-domicile in a place outside the diocese, they are bound to follow the calendar of that place.²³⁵ Thus the more probable opinion. The reason is that clerics having a quasi-domicile somewhere are subject to the bishop of that place.

Hence, e.g., a cleric in major orders who, for the sake of study, resides at some university for the greater part of the year better recites the Office according to the calendar of the diocese in which the university is situated; and indeed immediately from the day on which he arrives at the university, because he also immediately acquires a quasi-domicile on that day, since he has the intention of remaining in that place for the greater part of the year. If such a cleric is a priest, still another reason presses. For in saying Mass he is bound to conform himself to the calendar of the church in which he celebrates (a few cases excepted). But the mind of the Church is that the Mass correspond to the Divine Office recited.

3. Regulars are bound to use their own calendar, i.e., that of the convent or monastery in which they dwell. But regulars who are traveling must still follow the calendar of their own convent, unless a) they arrive at another convent of the same order, whose calendar they ought to observe; b) they remain for a longer time, e.g., for a month, outside every convent of their order, e.g., for the sake of preaching or health. For then "they ought to conform themselves to the calendar of the province extended without any diversity to all for each year."²³⁶

Note. Since the calendar is customarily prepared by men learned in the Rubrics and Liturgy, the Office can and ought always to be recited as determined in the calendar, unless an error of the calendar is manifest.²³⁷

²³² Decr. auth. n. 2682, ad 46, and n. 4194, ad 8. If a bishop governs two dioceses or if a pastor governs two parishes, he recites the Office of that place where he habitually resides. Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 May 1898, Decr. auth. n. 3993, ad 1.

²³³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 Dec. 1844 (Decr. auth. n. 2873).

²³⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 Sept. 1850 and 23 Nov. 1906 (l.c., nn. 2980 and 4194, ad 8); cf. also Noldin, l.c., n. 762.

²³⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May 1672 and 12 Nov. 1831 (l.c., nn. 1445 and 2682, ad 46).

²³⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 Aug. 1839. The Sacred Congregation of Rites on 27 June 1896 established that religious absent from their convent for several days ought in the private recitation of the Office to follow the calendar of the monastery from which they departed.

²³⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 June 1899 (Decr. auth. n. 4031).

370. With regard to exchanges of one Office for another, it must first be distinguished whether such exchanges are voluntary or involuntary.

1. If someone voluntarily, without a grave reason, exchanges the Office to be recited for another notably different in quality and quantity, he sins gravely. Thus the common opinion, which is confirmed from proposition 34 condemned by Alexander VII, in which it was asserted that on Palm Sunday it was lawful to recite the Paschal Office. He sins lightly or not at all who for a reasonable cause changes the Office for another of almost the same quality and quantity, e.g., because the Office to be recited is not contained in the breviary possessed. But the intention of reciting the Hours with a companion is not a sufficient cause for changing the Office,²³⁸ as was already said above.

2. If someone has involuntarily erred in the Office, the following three rules are to be attended to:

a) Office stands for Office.

b) An error is corrected where it is discovered.

c) An error is not corrected by an error.

By reason of the first rule, no one is bound to recite the Office appointed for that day if, after performing the wrong Office, he discovers his error. But if the Office recited erroneously was much shorter than the Office actually prescribed, then some compensation is to be made. Thus, e.g., if someone had recited the Office of a saint in place of the Sunday Office, which according to the old Roman Breviary consisted of twelve psalms in the first Nocturn, he had to supply nine psalms. Thus the common opinion.²³⁹

By reason of the second rule, he who, after part of the Office has already been performed, notices that he said the wrong Office should perform the remainder from the true Office. There are, however, authors such as Lessius, the Salmanticenses,²⁴⁰ Noldin,²⁴¹ etc., who teach that in this case it is lawful to complete the Office begun, lest unlike parts be joined into one Office. The first opinion is better and more common; whence St. Alphonsus²⁴² says: "I think with Croix and Tamburini that it is better to recite from the proper Office, lest you continue the error." But when someone through error, e.g., has recited Sext twice, he cannot therefore omit None or another similar part of the Office. For Office indeed stands for Office, but Hour does not stand for Hour. For when one Hour is omitted, the form of the Office has already been notably changed, and the whole Office of such a day has not in fact been recited. This is a sin.²⁴³

By reason of the third rule, he who through error recited an Office not yet occurring must recite that Office again on the day on which it is actually prescribed. There are, however, authors, e.g., St. Alphonsus,²⁴⁴ Noldin,²⁴⁵ Lehmkuhl,²⁴⁶ etc., who teach that in this case the omitted Office is to be recited. The reason is that, just as the Office of a saint is rightly transferred on account of an impediment of the day to another unimpeded day, so the Office seems reasonably able to be transferred on account of a moral impediment, such as error or ignorance is considered to be, lest the saint be deprived of his honor in that year. Nevertheless, the first opinion is truer and more common; for the deprivation of honor which the saint suffers from the fact that one cleric does not recite his Office is so small that it ought to yield to the order established in the calendar.²⁴⁷

²³⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 Jan. 1899. Hence the opposite opinion of St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 161, q. 3, n. 4) and of other authors seems to have to be abandoned because of the contrary decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

²³⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., q. 3.

²⁴⁰ In St. Alphonsus, l.c., q. 5.

²⁴¹ De praeceptis n. 764.

²⁴² L.c.

²⁴³ Cf. also Noldin, l.c.

²⁴⁴ L.c., q. 5.

²⁴⁵ L.c.

²⁴⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 790.

²⁴⁷ Cf. Cavalieri, Commentaria II, c. 41, nn. 21-28; cf. also Decr. auth. n. 1474.