Divine Office

ALL who are in sacred orders, all beneficed clergy, and all religious orders which have solemn vows and keep choir, are bound every day to recite the divine office, otherwise called the canonical Hours, or the breviary. This obligation is now enforced by positive ecclesiastical law in Canons 135, 1475 (sec. 1), 610, 413.

The obligation of saying the office begins for secular clerics with the reception of the subdiaconate, or the lawful and full possession of their benefice. The obligation as it affects religious is primarily incumbent on the superior, whose duty it is to provide for the saying or singing of the divine office under pain of grave sin. Each religious is bound to assist in choir unless lawfully excused, and if one who is solemnly professed is absent he must recite the office in private.

Religious under simple vows should be present in choir, but if they failed to be present they are not obliged to say the office in private, unless, of course, they be in sacred orders.

The obligation of saying the divine office for all who are bound by it is grave, so that a mortal sin is committed by wilfully and without lawful excuse omitting it or any considerable portion of it. According to theologians, one of the little Hours or any portion of the same length is to be reckoned considerable, so that its culpable omission will be a grave sin. Anything less than this will be only venial. A beneficed cleric not only sins by neglecting his office, but he loses his right to a proportional amount of the fruits of his benefice, and if he has already received that amount he must restore it to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan seminary, or give it to the poor (Can. 1475, sec. 2).

When two or more say the office together, the psalms may be said in alternate verses, one side listening while the other is reciting its verse. The rest listen while the lessons are said or sung by those appointed to the task.

Although the canonical Hours as said at different periods and in different churches have always been much the same in substance, yet in many details there has been considerable variety. Pope Pius V desired to introduce greater uniformity in the method of saying the divine office, and for this purpose he issued the Roman Breviary, and made its use obligatory on all who were bound to the office under pain of not satisfying their obligation. He abolished the use of other breviaries with the exception of such as dated back more than two hundred years. The divine office, therefore, must be recited according to the form of the Roman Breviary, and in Latin, the liturgical language of the Church.

Offices proper to particular countries, dioceses, and religious orders, are allowed to be inserted in the breviary and said only by the authority of the Apostolic See, and when a proper office has been thus granted it becomes obligatory on the grantees unless it was expressly conceded as permissive.

Pius V took away the obligation, which existed according to the rubrics of the breviary, of reciting the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, the penitential and gradual psalms, and the Office of the Dead; but though he took away the obligation, still he exhorted those bound to the divine office to recite them, and granted indulgences to such as followed his exhortation. The recitation of the Litany of the Saints on the feast of St Mark, and on the Rogation Days, forms part of the office.

The office to be said on any particular day is indicated in the calendar drawn up and approved by the proper authority. It is a matter of obligation under pain of venial sin to adhere to the calendar, even if it seem to be wrong, unless it is manifestly against the rubrics or decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. A reasonable cause, however, even though it be not a very grave one, will suffice to excuse the substitution of one office for another. If a wrong office has been said by mistake or inadvertence, there is no obligation to say the correct one; but if this is notably longer, some portion should be said to make up the difference.

The calendar to be followed is that of the church, diocese, or religious order to which one belongs. If absent from one’s place of domicile for a time, the general rule is that one’s own calendar should be followed; but in the case of regulars who recite the office in choir, a regular living for a time in another monastery should conform to the calendar of the place where he resides.

In each day’s office the order of the Hours should be observed at any rate under pain of venial sin. But here also any reasonable cause of some weight will excuse the saying of the Hours out of their proper order. If the time has arrived for anticipating Matins and Lauds for the next day, these may be said without any special reason even though the office of the day has not yet been finished, for each day’s office is independent of any other.

The divine office is a vocal prayer imposed on the clergy by the Church. It is not sufficient to run over it with the eyes or mentally; the words must be uttered and formed without. mutilation by the lips, though it is not necessary to produce an audible sound. The different Hours must be said without interruption as one continuous prayer under pain of venial sin, from which any reasonable cause will excuse. The recitation may be interrupted between the several Hours, between Matins and Lauds, and for the space of a few hours even between the Nocturns of Matins. Provided that the whole office be said within the natural or ecclesiastical day, whatever interruptions may have taken place, the obligation will be substantially fulfilled, and when an interruption has been made within an Hour, or even in the middle of a psalm or lesson, there is no obligation to repeat what has already been said.

As was said above, the divine office is the task of the day, and provided that the whole of it is said within the day, reckoning from midnight to midnight, the cleric will have fulfilled his duty substantially so as to be excused at least from mortal sin. The rubrics, however, which in this matter bind under venial sin, assign certain times of the day for the saying of the Office. Matins and Lauds should be said before Mass, Prime and Terce should be said before midday, Sext and None are said in the interval between midday and Vespers, Vespers and Compline are said when the sun is midway between the zenith and sunset. All the little Hours may be said before midday, and during Lent, beginning with the first Sunday, Vespers are also said before midday.

Matins and Lauds of the following day may be anticipated on the previous evening. The normal time for anticipating begins with the hour of Vespers, but a special privilege is often granted by which Matins and Lauds of the following day may be begun at 2 p.m. throughout the year. Indeed, there does not seem to be any necessity for a special grant, for a custom has been introduced, by the very common practice of good priests, of anticipating throughout the year after two o’clock. A cleric may safely follow this custom.

Permission to anticipate is a privilege which no one is bound to use; the obligation of the day’s office only begins at twelve o’clock.

The breviary contains rubrics directing that certain prayers be said on bended knee; these rubrics, however, do not bind when office is said privately out of choir. In private the office may be said in any place or in any position that is compatible with the due reverence to God which should be shown in prayer.

The obligation of saying the breviary is imposed by ecclesiastical precept, and the question arises what internal dispositions are necessary while reciting the office in order to satisfy the positive precept of the Church. Does one who is voluntarily distracted while saying the office satisfy his obligation, or must he repeat what he said with voluntary distractions ? It is not a question of what is required that prayer may be pleasing to God—voluntary distractions while praying are certainly venial sins—but the question is, what sort of attention is required by the law of the Church under pain of not fulfilling the obligation imposed by the law ?

Attention, which is an act of the mind adverting to what is being done, must be distinguished from intention, which is the will to do something. At least, a virtual intention to say the office is required that the act may be voluntary, such as the law prescribes. Theologians distinguish between internal and external attention. The former consists in directing the mind to God, or in thinking of the sense of the words uttered, or in being careful to pronounce them correctly, and it is certain that any of these forms of internal attention is sufficient to satisfy the precept. External attention means the abstaining while engaged in prayer from any external occupation which is incompatible with internal attention. Thus one who curiously examines a painting while praying, or intently listens to what someone is saying, has not external attention.

It is a disputed point among theologians whether this external attention is sufficient in order to satisfy the precept of saying the office, or whether there must be in addition internal attention. In other words, they dispute whether one who is voluntarily distracted but apparently devout while saying the breviary satisfies the law, or whether he must repeat what he has said with wilful distractions.

Although, of course, all should strive after internal attention, and sin is committed if voluntary distractions are admitted while praying, yet it is probable that external attention is sufficient to satisfy the positive law of the Church. For the Church does indeed prescribe prayer, but there is prayer in a real sense when one says the breviary with the intention of fulfilling his obligation, and with decorum and a devout demeanour, even though he is thinking of something else the while. If voluntary distractions destroy the essence of prayer, involuntary distractions will do so likewise, and yet it is impossible to avoid involuntary distractions altogether. This milder opinion is especially of use in order to calm scrupulous and anxious souls.¹ 9. As the obligation of saying the divine office arises from positive law, it does not bind when it would entail serious inconvenience. On this ground one who is sick, or who cannot say his office without causing a serious headache, is excused. Moreover, other occupations, undertaken for the good of our neighbour and such as cannot be neglected without his loss, will be a sufficient excuse for omitting the office, when both duties cannot be fulfilled. And so missionaries, who are all day long occupied in hearing confessions and preaching, are excused from the office which would interfere with their work, Even when there is not a sufficient cause to excuse of itself from the law, a dispensation may be lawfully obtained from the competent authority, if there be good cause for it. The Pope can grant a dispensation to any cleric, a bishop can dispense in particular cases with those of his diocese, and a regular prelate has similar powers for his own subjects. Wider powers are also granted as a special privilege by the Holy See. The faculty of saying fifteen decades of the rosary instead of the office is frequently granted to missioners who are lawfully prevented from saying the office. The meaning of which is that there must be some difficulty in getting in the office, but it need not be so great as would of itself excuse altogether from the obligation. Inasmuch as the office is composed of several portions which are usually said separately, there will be an obligation to say any such portion if it can be done without serious inconvenience, even though it be impossible to say the whole,

¹ Lugo, De Eucharist. 22, n. 25.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 10 passages

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. I, Article III. On the Duty of Reciting the Canonical Hours Specifically

n. 1189.

The canonical hours are the complex, chiefly of psalms, readings, and chants, by which ecclesiastical persons, in the name of the Church, daily offer liturgical worship to God. They are distinguished as seven, namely Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline, in conformity with these words of Ps. CXVIII, 164: "Seven times in the day have I spoken praise to Thee." They are called "canonical hours" because from their primitive institution they were, as it were, annexed to determinate hours, namely Matins to midnight, Lauds to the beginning of dawn, Prime to the sixth hour, Terce to the ninth, Sext to midday, None to mid-afternoon, Vespers to the time which precedes sunset, and Compline to the time which follows sunset.

The canonical hours are also called the divine office: office, because it is imposed; divine, because it is destined for the worship of God. It is divided into the nocturnal office, to which Matins with Lauds pertains, and the diurnal office, which the other hours constitute. Finally the canonical hours are called the breviary; according to some, because they contain Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Holy Fathers compendiously; according to others, because they are a certain abbreviation of the longer office which formerly was in use. According to others, under the name of breviary there first came a little book containing the rules for ordering the divine office through the course of the year, into which afterwards the diverse parts of the divine office itself were inserted, such as psalms, readings, etc. And thus it happened that finally the office itself was called the breviary.¹

Moreover can. 135 prescribes the canonical hours in these words: "Clerics constituted in major orders ... are held by the obligation of reciting the canonical hours completely each day according to their proper and approved liturgical books." We shall speak first about the object, then about the subject, then about the obligation of the precept, and finally about the causes excusing from the obligation. Moreover we shall chiefly keep solitary recitation before our eyes; nevertheless at the end, for the sake of completeness, we shall speak in one scholion about recitation with a companion, and in another about choral recitation.

¹ Baümer, loc. cit., Appendix I.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. I, Art. III, § I, Point I. On the Matter to Be Recited

n. 1190.

Each day the canonical hours must be recited according to proper and approved liturgical books. Besides, the Litanies are to be recited on the feast of St. Mark and on the three days of Rogations. It is said:

I. The canonical hours must be recited according to proper and approved liturgical books. Namely:

Of itself there is an obligation of reciting the canonical hours according to the form and rite of the Roman Breviary, issued by St. Pius V, revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Leo XIII, and reformed by Pius X in the Constitution Divino afflatu, 1 November 1911. But those who do not use this order of the Psalter "should know that they are not going to satisfy so grave an office."²

I said of itself, for Churches and Religions which in the year 1568 used another breviary, approved by a custom of at least two hundred years, could retain it.³ Nevertheless, with due observances preserved, it is lawful to assume the Roman Breviary;⁴ but once assumed it can no longer be abandoned.⁵ I said with due observances preserved, namely:

a) If a Church or Religion retained a legitimate breviary of another form, the public office of choir must be made from that particular breviary, unless the Bishop with the consent of the whole chapter, or the Prelate with the consent of the community, has assumed the Roman Breviary.⁶

b) Individual clerics who are not bound to choir can of their own accord, after renouncing the particular breviary, assume the Roman; but offices "proper to the diocese or order," although conceded by indult, must be recited by individuals when they have been accepted by the diocese or order.⁷

c) If a particular breviary legitimately prescribed is changed or altered, the breviary so changed becomes illegitimate, and, the prior privilege having been taken away, the Roman Breviary must be assumed.⁸

Besides these things, the proper calendar of the diocese or Religion obliges, if it has been approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites; likewise particular offices permitted to a particular Church or Religion and once received by use oblige.⁹ Therefore:

a) A Bishop, both secular and regular, is bound to recite the office of the Church over which he presides. One who governs several dioceses can recite the office either of the diocese in which he habitually dwells, or of that in which he is actually staying.¹⁰

b) Priests must recite the office of the Church to which they are assigned.¹¹

c) Those staying outside their own domicile are bound thus:

a) Bishops and "beneficiaries are always bound to the office of their own Church; but simple priests can conform themselves to the Office of the place where they are staying."¹²

b) Religious bound by canon law to choir are bound, if they recite in choir, to stand by the calendar of the monastery in which they are guests. Reciting privately, they ought to follow the calendar of their own house if they are staying for a few days in another house; if for a longer time, they can at will follow the calendar of their own or of the other house.¹³ On a journey, they should follow the calendar of their own house.¹⁴ If nevertheless they are staying outside monasteries for a longer time, for example during Lent, they ought to conform themselves to the calendar of the Province, extended without any diversity for all in each year.¹⁵ Finally, religious not bound by canonical title to choir, if for a few days they are staying outside their own house, whether in another house or elsewhere, should recite the office of their own house; if they are staying outside their own house for a longer time, let them at will follow the calendar of their own house or of the other house, when in another house, but the calendar of their own house or of the province, if they are staying elsewhere, for example on a journey or in a hospital.

Corollary I. The obligation of following a determined calendar carries with it the obligation of obtaining for oneself new approved offices, and likewise readings notably changed.

Corollary II. If in useful time you lack the proper office of some Saint, you ought to recite the common office of Saints of the same class; and if you also lack that, another office from the breviary of the same rite, not of a different rite, must be recited.

II. Besides, the Litanies are to be recited on the feast of St. Mark and on the three days of Rogations. "Those," so the rubric says,¹⁶ "who are not present at the Procession of the Litanies should say them privately after Matins with their prayers and collects." Moreover, that there is an obligation, the Sacred Congregation of Rites has declared several times;¹⁷ that a grave obligation is present is deduced from the fact that there is question of grave matter (St. Alphonsus IV, 161, question 1).¹⁸

¹ As regards the history of the canonical hours and the legislation concerning it, compare S. Baümer, O.S.B., Geschichte des Breviers; Batiffol, Histoire du Bréviaire Romain; Baudot, Le Bréviaire Romain.

² Constitution of Pius V Quod a nobis, 9 July 1568.

³ Constitution cited.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 May 1608, n. 249.

⁵ Constitution Quod a nobis.

⁶ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 September 1738, n. 2338; 24 November 1883, n. 3597, ad 1.

⁷ Response of the Holy See to the Archbishop of Besançon, 28 August 1856.

⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 September 1738, n. 2338; 24 November 1883, n. 3597, ad 1.

⁹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 September 1738, n. 2338; 24 November 1883, n. 3597, ad 1.

¹⁰ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 June 1605, n. 181; 17 January 1880, n. 3508; 28 May 1898, n. 3993, ad 1.

¹¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 February 1898, n. 3979, ad 7.

¹² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, n. 2682, ad 46.

¹³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 June 1896, n. 3919, ad 13.

¹⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1839, n. 2801, ad 1.

¹⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1839, n. 2801, ad 2.

¹⁶ Breviary, after the second Sunday after Easter.

¹⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 March 1836, n. 2740, ad 8; 4 August 1877, n. 3428.

¹⁸ The precept of adding the Office of the Dead on the day of the Commemoration of All Saints to the office of the octave of All Saints was removed by the Bull of Pius X Divino afflatu, letter 8, n. 2. The Office of the Dead is already proper to the said day.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. I, Art. III, § I, Point II. On the Time and Manner of Reciting

n. 1191.

Besides at the due time, the canonical hours must be recited in order, continuously, vocally, and devoutly. It is said:

I. At the due time; wherefore note:

The useful time, both for the valid fulfillment of the precept and for satisfying the grave obligation, is: for the whole office, from midnight to midnight; for Matins with Lauds, moreover, by indult or quasi-indult, from 2 p.m. on the preceding day.¹ Moreover priests of various societies enjoy, by quasi-privilege, the faculty of reciting Matins and Lauds from 1 p.m.; the Sacred Congregation of Rites easily grants this permission. Legates of the Roman Pontiff can grant the faculty of anticipating from noon; this permission is also contained in the faculties of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Indeed the members of the Missionary Union for the Clergy enjoy the faculty of reciting the office from noon; and because all missionaries, whether dwelling in missions of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, or compelled to leave them because of health, old age, or obedience, enjoy all the privileges and graces granted to the Pious Union, the faculty of the Sacred Congregation now has practically little value.²
Under venial sin it is required that Matins and Lauds be recited on the preceding day or in the morning time, and Prime and Terce in the forenoon. Sext and None can be said at pleasure before or after midday. Vespers and Compline must be recited after midday; nevertheless in the time of Lent, except for the first triduum and Sundays, Vespers can also be recited before midday, and are laudably so recited. Moreover from observing the time "any useful or honorable cause excuses, namely a sermon to be prepared or heard, the danger of a supervening occupation or labor, greater devotion or rest, a more suitable time for studying, and similar things" (St. Alphonsus IV, 173). It is said any cause, even the least, on account of the latitude which has more and more been admitted in interpreting custom. The holy Doctor adds, however, "that mere greater convenience, without another honorable motive, is not sufficient for excusing" (loc. cit.).

It is disputed whether Matins with Lauds must be recited before Mass. Now some have taught that this is prescribed under grave obligation; yet that opinion is now commonly rejected. Others deny every obligation; but with St. Alphonsus (V, 347) a light obligation seems to have to be admitted, because neglect of this rubric is enumerated in one series with other defects certainly sinful.³ So also Benedict XIV:⁴ "But any moderate reasonable cause will excuse from this kind of venial fault; for instance, if the one giving the alms asks that Mass be celebrated at once, if the people or some grave person is waiting, if a superior commands it, if the time for celebrating is passing, or the convenience of study, journey, and similar things is pressing" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). If, however, there is question of a conventual and solemn Mass, the obligation of reciting Matins with Lauds before Mass is grave, unless a grave and public cause intervenes. "The reason is that such is the custom received in all churches where public prayers are said; so that, by acting otherwise, the public worship of God, the common good, and the fitting governance of the Church would be gravely harmed" (St. Alphonsus VI, 348).

The Litanies for the feast of St. Mark and the days of Rogation cannot be recited on the preceding evening.⁵
In the private recitation of the canonical hours it is lawful to follow: 1st, usual time; 2nd, local time, both true and mean; 3rd, legal time, both regional and any other extraordinary time (can. 33, § 1; n. 167).

Corollary I. One who has not recited the hours or litanies within the useful time is still bound to recite them until midnight; after midnight he is no longer bound, because the useful time has passed by (St. Alphonsus IV, 155).

Corollary II. One who, once the day of obligation has begun, foresees that later he will not have the possibility of discharging the office is bound to recite the hours now; but "one who cannot recite Matins on the following day is not bound to anticipate it on the preceding day. For then there is an obligation of anticipating the Office when the obligation of the precept has already begun; but that Matins can be said on the preceding day is not from precept, but from a privilege introduced by custom, which no one is bound to use" (St. Alphonsus IV, 155).

II. In order. First the order of the Offices must be observed, so that the Office assigned to each day is completed in the useful time. Then the order of the Hours and the order among the different parts of the Hour must be observed. These, however, oblige only under venial sin, because they touch rather the accidents than the substance of the precept. Hence a reasonable cause excuses, as if you are invited to pray by a friend who has already completed the greater part of the office; if now you lack a breviary and, for example, retain in memory the psalms of a Nocturn; if you come late to choir, when the office has already begun (St. Alphonsus IV, 170).

III. Continuously, or in such a way that within the hours themselves there is no notable interruption; this, however, is only venial, so that a reasonable cause excuses. Moreover note:

a) Matins can be separated from Lauds; but if they are separated, Matins should be concluded with the Prayer of the office, which is followed by the verse Dominus vobiscum, the verse Benedicamus Domino, and the verse Fidelium animae, etc., and the Pater.

Afterwards Lauds are begun by the verse Deus in adiutorium, etc., with Pater and Ave having been first said. Thus the Ordinary of the divine office in the breviary. Likewise one Nocturn can be separated from another, at least by the space of three hours (St. Alphonsus IV, 167).

b) "Just causes for interrupting the Office are ... any utility, one's own or another's, which would inconveniently be deferred. Likewise, civility or devotion, as to say Mass, to execute the commands of superiors; if you hear the confession of someone who would not willingly wait; if you wish to do or note something, so that you may remove distraction or anxiety lest you forget: provided, as Gobat well notes, that this is not done frequently. - Also some brief prayer or affections can lawfully be inserted while praying" (St. Alphonsus IV, 168).

c) Even if an interruption has culpably occurred, nevertheless there is no obligation of repeating the things recited, "because the individual psalms and the individual verses have a complete meaning; and they are sufficiently united either by the intention of continuing or by the very recitation joined to them" (St. Alphonsus IV, 168). Nevertheless, if the interruption is longer and not much has been recited, it is fitting to resume the hour, or at least the psalm.

IV. Vocally; this pertains to the substance of the precept. It is sufficient, however, to have formed the words with one's proper organs, that is, the tongue and lips; when this has been done, some sound is necessarily produced; but it does not matter whether or not the one reciting hears himself (St. Alphonsus IV, 162, 163).⁶

Moreover note that complete pronunciation is required, so that words are neither omitted, nor mutilated, nor cut off by halves. If these things are done in such a way that the meaning of the words is lost, and this in a great quantity, it is a grave sin, and it induces the obligation of repeating; otherwise it is venial, and does not bring with it the obligation of repeating. Someone can also be excused because of stammering or a custom which he is trying to lay aside (St. Alphonsus IV, 164, 165).

V. Devoutly;⁷ that is, there are certainly required: 1st, the intention of worshiping God; 2nd, external attention. It is doubtful whether internal attention is required, so that in practice this is not required for fulfilling the precept.

a) The intention of worshiping God is demanded, because otherwise there would be an act entirely profane; and it cannot be admitted that only such an act is prescribed by the Church. But the said intention, at least in an exercised act, is always present, since it is enough that in the usual way you take up the breviary in order to fulfill the daily obligation (St. Alphonsus IV, 176).

b) External attention is that by which someone avoids external acts which cannot be combined with internal attention, such as writing, painting, attentively listening to others speaking, attentively looking through pictures; but not walking, looking at hills, meadows, fields, slowly putting on or taking off clothes, gathering a few flowers or herbs. Some things are very distracting with respect to one person but not with respect to another, such as dressing oneself quickly, washing oneself, or preparing a pen (St. Alphonsus IV, 176). Moreover, that external attention is required is drawn both from chapter Dolentes, question De celebratione missarum (III, 41), and from the common consent of authors, and from the fact that it is with difficulty admitted that the Church does not require a manner of reciting the office which, at least for the external forum, also indicates internal worship.

c) In practice, by force of ecclesiastical law, internal attention is not required. Theoretically some affirm and others deny this, according as they affirm or deny that internal attention pertains to the essence of prayer; concerning this controversy see n. 583. While the doubt stands, the more benign opinion is safe in practice (St. Alphonsus IV, 177). Moreover, with due pronunciation and attention being posited, some internal attention, at least very slight, will scarcely, or scarcely at all, be lacking. Those who require internal attention say that virtual attention suffices. But since there is not question of intention, but of attention, that virtual attention is understood with difficulty, unless there is question of a most slight attention.

Note. "The more suitable remedies for repelling distractions of mind are: 1st, at the beginning to form the intention of praising God; 2nd, to renew the intention at the Gloria Patri or at the beginning of each psalm; 3rd, to represent to oneself some mystery of the Passion; 4th, carefully to guard the senses; and other things of this kind" (St. Alphonsus IV, 177).

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 March 1905, n. 4158, ad I.

² Cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis XVIII, p. 235.

³ Roman Missal, De Defectibus, X, 1.

⁴ De Sacrificio Missae, book 3, chapter 13, n. 4.

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 March 1775, n. 2503, ad 4.

⁶ There are those who think that regulars have the privilege of reciting entirely mentally; either the whole Office, as others say, or only those things which in the ordinary are ordered to be said secretly in silence, as others think. Concerning this privilege compare St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book I, Appendix II, n. 107; IV, 643, with the notes of Gaude compared; Analecta ecclesiastica, 1910, p. 417 sq.; 1911, p. 419; Ami du Clergé, 1924, p. 129.

⁷ Fourth Lateran Council, chapter 7.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. I, Art. III, § II. On the Subject of the Precept

n. 1192.

The following are bound to the recitation of the breviary:

I. Clerics constituted in major orders, except, however, those who have legitimately been reduced or returned to the lay state (can. 135, 213, 214). Since the obligation begins with a major order, a subdeacon on the day of ordination is bound to that hour which corresponds to the moment of ordination; hence one who, for example, is ordained between the hour of Sext and None is bound to begin from None (St. Alphonsus IV, 140). Moreover, although the obligation does not yet subsist before the order has been received, nevertheless the cleric seems able to render the fulfillment already then; for since it is the burden of the day, by the will of the Church legitimately interpreted he is presumed already before ordination to have been deputed to discharge the said burden on the day (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

II. Beneficiaries from the day possession of the benefice has been taken, provided they receive the fruits (can. 1475, § 1). If a beneficiary, detained by no legitimate impediment, has not satisfied the obligation of reciting the canonical hours, he does not make the fruits his own in proportion to the omission, and he should hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan Seminary, or distribute them among the poor (can. 1475, § 2). It is said:

He does not make the fruits his own. Therefore he does not acquire ownership of the fruits, and so before the sentence of a judge (cf. can. 2232) and, as it seems, by justice, he is bound to restitution, although d'Annibale¹ thinks that restitution is imposed after the manner of a conventional penalty.
In proportion to the omission, that is, according to the Constitution of Pius V Ex proximo:² One who has omitted the whole office on one day is bound to restore all the fruits corresponding to that day, or the 365th part of the annual revenue; one who has omitted either Matins with Lauds or the remaining hours, half the fruits of one day; one who has omitted one of the said remaining hours, a twelfth part. Moreover one who receives the fruits of a benefice on account of other burdens also is bound only to that extent to restore the fruits insofar as they correspond to the burden of the canonical hours. "Wherefore they say that a bishop or pastor is bound to restore a third or fourth part of the fruits, retaining the others for the other burdens which they satisfy; canons, half; those having a chaplaincy, half or a third part" (St. Alphonsus III, 673). Finally, from the Constitution of Leo X Supernae dispositionis, the fruits received in the first six months are remitted.
He should hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan Seminary, or distribute them among the poor. "By the name of the poor, however, are understood the poor of any place whatsoever; and the deceased themselves are also understood. - And also the cleric himself can apply the said fruits to himself, if he is truly poor" (St. Alphonsus III, 672). Besides, if someone ignorant or forgetful of the debt has distributed alms, he can quite probably reckon these for restitution (St. Alphonsus III, 700, question 2). But proposition 33 was condemned by Alexander VII:³ "Restitution of fruits on account of omission of the hours can be supplied by any alms whatsoever which the beneficiary had previously made from the fruits of his benefice."

III. The solemnly professed in religions, whether of men or women, which have the obligation of choir. Therefore the solemnly professed in religions of this kind, if they have been absent from choir, must recite the canonical hours privately (can. 610, § 3). But professed religious of temporary vows are not bound to private recitation of the office, unless they have been constituted in sacred orders or perhaps are obliged by their own constitutions (can. 578, 2nd; 610).⁴

Corollary. If someone is bound to the divine office under different titles, "because he owes praises to God as one man, it is enough that he say the office once" (St. Thomas, Quodlibet 1, article 13).

¹ Summula Theologiae Moralis III, 65.

² 20 September 1571.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1133.

⁴ Cf. Sacred Penitentiary, 24 November 1852.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. I, Art. III, § III. On the Obligation of the Precept

n. 1193.

I. The obligation of the divine office is grave of its own kind; hence an omission is grave or light according as there is question of grave or light matter. Now:

The omission of one hour, even a little hour, seems to be grave; both because there is question of worship to be offered in the name of the Church, and therefore of a matter of greater moment, so that in this case a smaller quantity than in other cases seems to suffice for gravity; and because the deformity of the act seems notable if, in the prayer which the Church wished to be distributed into parts, one whole part among seven is omitted. Likewise he sins gravely who would recite only too little of a little hour, because morally speaking he omits it. Nevertheless the contrary must be said concerning one who would omit the Vespers of Holy Saturday, because the quantity seems too small (St. Alphonsus IV, 147). Moreover, separated parts coalesce.
Where a whole hour is not omitted, a greater quantity from different hours seems to be required, because the deformity does not appear so great.
Those who mutilate the office, by syncopating, truncating words, or swallowing syllables, also sin according to the quantity of the matter; but in these things, unless the excess is enormous, there is not a grave sin.

Corollary I. One who omits the whole office commits only one sin, because the whole office of one day falls under one precept, or the precept regards one office, which consists of seven hours. "But if, however, someone were to omit several hours from morally interrupted intentions, then he would commit several sins" (St. Alphonsus IV, 148; n. 254).

Corollary II. One who takes up the purpose of omitting the office for several days perpetrates as many sins as there are days on which he omits the breviary. Likewise one who by one act, for example by throwing the breviary into the sea, renders himself unable to recite, commits as many sins as there are omissions which he foresees, unless he repents of the first sin (St. Alphonsus IV, 149; n. 255).

II. The obligation of the determined office is sufficiently drawn from these things:

He sins gravely who recites an office either notably different from his own office,¹ or notably less than his own office;² likewise one who rather often, for example five times or more in a year, recites an office different from the office of the day. The reason is that "although any variation taken separately is venial by reason of smallness of matter, nevertheless all within the year coalesce, and gravely disturb the order of the breviary precept for the Offices of the whole year, which taken together make one complex whole" (St. Alphonsus IV, 161, question 3). Outside the enumerated cases it is quite probable that one sins only lightly, and if a just cause is present, not at all. A just cause is, for example, that you recite with a companion; if the possibility of reciting the office is lacking and by reciting later you will be too much wearied or impeded from another useful labor (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). But "the office of the breviary is not to be abandoned for an office of devotion."³
"One who through inadvertence says one office for another is bound to repeat nothing.... The reason is that the Church is not presumed to wish someone to be obliged twice in one day to so great a burden...; but if the office said was notably shorter... compensation must be made" from the omitted office (St. Alphonsus IV, 161, question 3). But the omitted office should rather be entirely omitted than recited on another day, lest you err twice.⁴ (St. Alphonsus IV, 161, question 5.) "If you notice that you have erred after you have advanced much in the undue Office, for example if you have said Matins, then you can either continue, or recite the remainder from the due Office; ... but I think ... it is better to recite from the proper one, lest you continue the error.... But if you have forgotten some part of an Hour, it is enough to recite that part without repeating anything else" (St. Alphonsus IV, 161).

III. In doubt whether the office or part of it has been recited, the scrupulous, either on account of the very harms arising from an obligation of repeating, are excused from repetition; indeed they must be forbidden to repeat anything (St. Alphonsus IV, 175). With regard to others it must be said thus: one who, all things considered, strictly doubts, whether the doubt is positive or negative, is bound to repeat (n. 229). But by the aid of the principle of presumption, anyone in doubt commonly and rightly thinks that he has recited that about which he doubts. Hence "you are well excused if you do not remember having said something, and have a just conjecture for believing that you said it, for instance ... if you remember that you began a psalm, reading, or Hour, and afterwards, not distracted deliberately or not interrupted, you find yourself at the end of the Hour, reading or reciting from memory those things in which ordinarily you are not accustomed to err. And this has place ... even if you have a probable reason for omission, because the presumption that you are accustomed to complete what you began brings it about that you are bound to repeat nothing, unless you are morally certain that you did not say it" (St. Alphonsus, Elenchus II, reformed questions, question 1; IV, 150, with Gaude's note on this number compared).

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 January 1899, n. 4011.

² Proposition 34 was condemned by Alexander VII: "One reciting the Easter Office on Palm Sunday satisfies the precept."

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 February 1666, n. 1334.

⁴ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 June 1673, n. 1474.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. I, Art. III, § IV. On the Causes Excusing from the Obligation

n. 1194.

The excusing causes are:

I. Physical inability; to this belong lack of a breviary and blindness. Nevertheless a blind man and one who lacks a breviary is bound to recite the part which he holds in memory, provided it is both notable in itself, or reaches the quantity of a little hour, and can be recited sufficiently according to the prescribed form. Hence proposition 54 was condemned by Innocent XI:¹ "One 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." Therefore he is bound to the possible part who holds in memory some morally entire hour, for example with only the little chapter and prayer unknown; or who from a longer hour can recite from memory, in the order of the breviary, a notable continuous part, or even a somewhat continuous part, such as several psalms of the Nocturns; but not one who knows only parts that are not sufficiently connected (St. Alphonsus IV, 158).

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1204.

n. 1197.

IV. Dispensation.¹ 1. The Pope can dispense, even with a beneficiary, since the burden of the office annexed to the benefice must be derived from ecclesiastical law alone.

Bishops can dispense when recourse to the Holy See is difficult and at the same time there is danger of grave harm in delay (can. 81); likewise, for a just cause, with some particular person for a brief time, namely from immemorial use or privilege (St. Alphonsus IV, 159).
Exempt major superiors, with respect to their subjects, can do the same thing as Bishops (can. 81 compared with can. 198). But regular Prelates can dispense their subjects who are not constituted in sacred orders, for a just cause, from the office as from other things (St. Alphonsus IV, 142).

Note. Clerics constituted in major orders who have legitimately been reduced or returned to the lay state are freed from the burden of the divine office; likewise solemnly professed religious not constituted in major orders who, having obtained an indult of secularization, have left the religion (can. 640).

¹ We add dispensation, although in a particular case it rather relaxes the law than excuses from the obligation.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. I, Art. III, § IV, Scholion I. On Choral Recitation

n. 1198.

I. Existence of the precept. The canonical precept of reciting the office in choir is in force as follows:

Any Chapter is bound by the obligation of duly discharging the divine offices in choir daily, with the laws of foundation preserved (can. 413, § 1). Moreover:

a) The divine office comprehends the psalmody of the canonical hours and the celebration with chant of the conventual Mass, besides other Masses to be celebrated either according to the rubrics of the Missal or from pious foundations (can. 413, § 2).

b) All and each who hold a choral benefice are bound to discharge the divine offices in choir itself on individual days, unless service by turns has been granted by the Apostolic See or by the laws of foundation (can. 414). A canon who without just cause was notably absent from choir, that is, for three or four days beyond the time conceded by law, would sin gravely. By law, however, individuals can be absent only three months in the year, whether continuous or interrupted, provided the statutes of their own church or legitimate custom do not require longer service (can. 418, § 1). Bishops are not bound to assist at choir, "because they ought to be free for greater affairs, which are incompatible with assistance at choir" (St. Alphonsus III, 675, doubt 1).

In religions, whether of men or women, which have the obligation of choir, in individual houses where there are at least four religious bound to choir and actually not legitimately impeded, and even fewer if the constitutions so provide, the divine office must be discharged in common daily according to the norm of the constitutions (can. 610, § 1). The obligation of choir of which the canon speaks is understood as a canonical obligation, which is had only in religions in which solemn vows are in fact emitted, though not in all. Moreover, that obligation being posited:

a) The burden rests upon the community, so that no one individually is bound to assist at choir, provided choral recitation takes place (St. Alphonsus IV, 143); he sins who is the culpable cause why the choir is taken away.

b) The obligation of choir then only actually presses where in the house there are at least four, or fewer if the constitutions so provide, religious who are both bound to choir and actually not impeded. Hence novices and lay brothers are not counted, because they are not bound to choir; nor are those legitimately impeded by illness or occupations, for example care of the sick or hearing confessions (St. Alphonsus IV, 143).

c) Although novices are not counted if there is question of constituting the obligation of choir, nevertheless the constituted obligation is quite probably satisfied even if only novices assist at choir, because in favorable matters they are reputed religious.

Note. As it is useful to note again, in religions, whether of men or women, in which there is the obligation of choir, the solemnly professed who have been absent from choir must, except for lay brothers, recite the canonical hours privately (can. 610, § 3); but in the same religions those professed by temporary vows are not bound by the law of privately reciting the divine office, unless they are constituted in sacred orders or the constitutions expressly prescribe something else (can. 578, 2nd).

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. I, Art. III, § IV, Scholion II. On Recitation with a Companion

n. 1203.

It is enough to note these things:

I. It is lawful, in imitation of choral recitation, to recite the office with a companion, especially because this is conformed to the primitive institution of the Church and to the public rite of praying; and it is lawful even if the companion is not bound to the canonical hours and does not attend to the things recited by the other side (St. Alphonsus IV, 162).

II. In recitation with a companion each one should pronounce his own part. Moreover, as regards the psalms, individuals should recite alternate verses. The readings, responsories, little chapters, and prayers should either be distributed or recited by one alone; indeed quite probably he satisfies "who alone says the psalms and hears the readings; or who says part of the psalms alone and part with a companion" (St. Alphonsus IV, 162). The things which one part recites by beginning too quickly, before the other has completed its own part, are considered omitted; but unless there is too much confusion, an obligation of repeating is not easily had. This also holds if the companion merely cuts off syllables.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. III, Sect. II, Chapter II. On Certain Other Duties

n. 1264.

VI. Obligation of choir and Mass. 1. In religions, whether of men or of women, which have the obligation of choir,¹ in individual houses where there are at least four religious bound to choir and actually not legitimately impeded, and even fewer if the constitutions so provide, the divine office must be performed in common daily according to the norm of the constitutions (can. 610, § 1).

Likewise Mass corresponding to the office of the day must be celebrated daily according to the rubrics in religions of men and also, as far as can be done, in religions of women (can. 610, § 2).²
In the same religions, whether of men or of women, the solemnly professed who have been absent from choir, except lay brothers, must recite the canonical hours privately (can. 610, § 3).

¹ A canonical obligation is understood, which is not had unless solemn vows are in fact emitted.

² A conventual Mass must also be celebrated in houses of religious women having simple vows, who by constitutions approved by the Holy See have the obligation of choir (Pontifical Commission, 20 May 1923).

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 2 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 1. The Duties of Memb…, The Divine Office

n. 2600.

The Obligation of the Divine Office

The Obligation of the Divine Office.—(a) Matter.—A cleric is gravely obliged to recite the Office according to his own rite and in the language of his rite, and not to make any notable change in the Office prescribed by the Ordo, either as to quantity (e.g., by omission of a Little Hour or of parts equally long) or as to quality (e.g., by substitution of a minor office for that of one of the great solemnities.) The omission of the Vespers of Holy Saturday, of Pretiosa, or of the Rogation Litanies seems to be only a venial sin, because in the first two cases the prayer is short, while in the third case the precept seems to be sub levi. There is also lightness of matter in the omission of an inconsiderable part of the day’s Office, or in the substitution without good reason of an equal part for a prescribed part.

(b) Manner.—Since the Office is a prayer, of a public and daily kind, it must be said: mentally, that is, there must be at least virtual intention (which is present from the fact that one takes up the Breviary to fulfill the obligation) and at least external attention (see 2166 sqq.); vocally, that is, the words must be consciously formed by the lips, mouth, or tongue, but it is not necessary that they be audible, unless two or more are saying the Office together; within the limits of the day, that is, Matins and Lauds may be anticipated from 2 p.m. of the previous day, but the whole Office must be finished before midnight of the current day. These are substantial requisites and bind sub gravi, but there may be only venial sin when they are deviated from inconsiderably. Next, since the Office has a continuity of thought, an order of precedence among its hours and their subdivisions, and a special dignity, it must be said uninterruptedly (i.e., without break between the parts of an hour), in order (i.e., according to the succession of Matins, Lauds, Prime, etc.), with external respect as to place and posture (i.e., he who is bound to choral Office should say it in choir and with the rubrical postures, while he who is bound only to private Office should say it in church or some other becoming place, and should observe the rubrical or at least a respectful posture). These are accidental requisites and bind sub levi. For a good reason one may interrupt the Office even for a notable part of the day (e.g., one may discontinue in the midst of a Psalm to pay a duty of politeness or to attend to business), and for convenience one may invert the order of hours or of parts of hours, or may say the evening hours in the morning.

n. 2601.

Excuses from the Obligation of the Divine Office

Excuses from the Obligation of the Divine Office.—(a) For Substitution.—A sufficient reason makes it permissible to substitute another office not notably different in quantity or quality, as when one lacks a new office, or has greater devotion for another office. When substitution has been made unintentionally, the following rules may be observed, though the last two are not admitted by all: office counts for office, (e.g., he who through mistake has said the office of another day may let that office stand for today’s office, but should add enough to make up for any notable shortness in the office said); hour does not count for hour (e.g., he who through mistake said Tierce twice cannot count the second Tierce for Sext); an error should be corrected when noticed (e.g., he who notices at Sext that he is not saying the right office should change from Sext); an error is not corrected by another error (e.g., he who said today’s office yesterday should not say yesterday’s office today).

(b) For Omission.—The causes that excuse, in whole or in part, from recitation of the Office are physical inability (e.g., loss of the breviary, blindness of one who does not know the hours by heart, sickness or convalescence which makes the recitation a grave hardship), moral impossibility (e.g., when an urgent duty of charity or justice so takes up one’s time that one cannot get in all the Office), just dispensation or commutation given by the Pope or, for temporary release, by the Ordinary.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 9 passages

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Particular States

On the Order of Offices

“A bishop must recite the Office and celebrate divine offices according to the rite of his diocese.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 June 1605, For a Regular, to the first.

“Beneficiaries are always bound to the Office of their own church; but simple priests can conform themselves to the Office of the place where they are staying.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsi, to the forty-sixth.

“Can secular priests who are considered attached to some church because they celebrate Mass there, hear confessions, or exercise any other sacred ministry, recite the Office of the Patron or Titular of that same church, who is not the Patron of the city or place, so that there may be uniformity between those priests and the pastor and assistant pastors of the church, who celebrate the feast of the Titular with the rite of a double of the first class with an octave, even though there is no obligation of choir?—Response. Negative, according to other decrees; for they must not be considered attached, but must actually be attached to the strict service of the church, as are the pastor and assistant pastor.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 December 1844, Mechelen, to doubt 1.

“Masters and students dwelling in a seminary are bound to the Office of the church attached to the seminary, although elsewhere they celebrate Mass, assist at sacred functions, and hear confessions.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 September 1850, Adria, to the first.

“While traveling, a regular bound to choir shall follow the calendar of the Divine Office of the monastery from which he departed; when he arrives at and remains in another monastery, even temporarily, let him follow its calendar. During Lent, preachers of the divine word staying outside the monastery must conform themselves to the calendar of the province, extended without any difference to all for each year.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1839, Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, to the first and second; 25 September 1852, Order of Friars Minor; 27 June 1897, to the thirteenth, Order of Friars Minor.

“The decree by which the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 31 August 1839 prescribed that certain regulars must conform themselves to the Office of the community in which they reside, even though merely as persons passing through, is to be understood only of those regulars who recite the Divine Office in choir, and not indiscriminately of all, although they are not bound to choir.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 September 1877, in a case of the Society of Jesus, to the third.

“Must religious of either sex who do not have their own calendar use the diocesan calendar?—Response. Affirmative, with the addition of Offices particularly granted to regulars dwelling in that diocese.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 July 1848, Doubts, to the first.

“Chaplains and confessors of nuns cannot recite their Office.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 March 1795, Coimbra, to the third.¹

“Whether in the Ambrosian Liturgy, as is done in the Roman, the feasts of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Annunciation of the Mother of God herself can henceforth be celebrated on 19 and 25 March even when they occur on Fridays of Lent, the Offices and Masses already revised being employed and the rubrics observed?—Response. Affirmative in all respects.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 February 1897.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 121 passages

Vol. III, On the Particular Obligati…, I. On the Positive Obligations of Clerics

n. 95.

What about the holiness of life of clerics? - The life of clerics ought to be strong in internal holiness and external edification, not only negatively as regards immunity from sin, but also positively as regards the exercise of virtues. This is established: 1. From Sacred Scripture, from the Councils, from the Fathers, from Trent s. 22, c. 1 de R., s. 23, c. 4 de R., from the Letters of Pius X, Haerent animo, to the Catholic Clergy, August 4, 1908. 2. From the very excellence of the state and the office which they profess. But whether the clerical state strictly taken, insofar namely as it is distinguished from the state of Religious and of Bishops, is or is not a state of perfection, is disputed among doctors. Nevertheless it does not seem able to be denied that it is at least in some way a state of perfection. Suarez de Relig. t. 3, l. 1, c. 17, n. 2-4; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 184, a. 8; Suppl. q. 36, a. 4; L. l. 6, n. 803; E. M.

n. 96.

Note: In order that they might promote this interior holiness of life and exterior edification in clerics, the Supreme Pontiffs very greatly commended spiritual exercises. Cf. 220; A. S. S. v. 37, p. 422 ff.

The Council of Trent, moreover, exhorts deacons and subdeacons to receive Communion at least on Sundays and feasts, s. 23, c. 13 de R., and priests at least to celebrate Mass on the aforesaid days, ib. c. 14.

n. 97.

Are clerics bound to preserving celibacy? - In the Latin Church all clerics, from the episcopate to the subdiaconate inclusive, are held under a most grave precept to preserve perpetual chastity, so that they neither can licitly use a marriage contracted before sacred ordination, nor licitly nor validly afterward contract it. This is established from several chapters of Canon Law, especially C. 1, Dist. 28; C. unic. de Voto in 6; Trent s. 24, c. 9.

In the Latin Church. For some exception is given by tolerance of the Church among the Orientals. In the Oriental Church priests can never enter marriage after priestly ordination, nor deacons after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be promoted to further orders, and nevertheless live with their wives. Bishops are excepted, all of whom must constantly preserve perfect chastity. Hence among the Greeks the subdiaconate is not numbered among sacred orders; and upon unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate the precept of chastity is imposed. In some provinces, in which the ancient discipline of the Western Church has been restored, the same obligation is imposed in the ordination of the subdiaconate. Cf. 1015. L. l. 6, n. 806; S. Th. Suppl. q. 53, a. 3; C. Ut Clericorum 13 de Vit. et honest. cler., C. A crapula 14 e. t.; C. 1, 2 Qui cler. vel vov.; C. 1, 4 de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. for the Italo-Greeks Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n.

26; Instruction for the Copts Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745, § 30 ff.; E. M.

Ruthenian clerics in the Canadian region cannot be admitted into the Seminary unless they have promised before the Bishop that they will preserve celibacy perpetually; and only celibates will be able to be promoted to sacred orders in the Canadian region. For exercising the sacred ministry among the faithful of the Ruthenian rite, none can be admitted except celibate priests, or at least widowers and without children. S. C. de P. F., August 8, 1913, art. 10, 11; A. A. S. v. 5, p. 395. Celibacy is prescribed in the very same way for the Ruthenian clergy in the United States of North America by Pius X, C. Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, c. 2, art. 10, 12; Supplem. 369.

During the first five centuries in the Western Church the obligation of preserving continence attached to the order of subdiaconate is not found. The first to command subdeacons to preserve it was St. Leo the Great, around the year 440, as is clear from his Epistle 84 to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica. But since St. Leo's precept was no longer being sufficiently observed, D. Gregory the Great renewed it, around the year 581, further declaring that the subdiaconate is a sacred order and aggregated to the major orders. And then it is expressly and determinately established in the Decretals of Innocent III, C. Miramur 7 de Serv. non ordinandis. De Iustis de Dispens. Matrim. l. 3, c. 15, Appendix n. 11.

n. 98.

Is the obligation of celibacy of divine law? - Reply: Negatively; for if this law were of divine law, it would not vary concerning it between the Latin and Greek Church, since divine law does not vary according to diversity of places. It is therefore from the ordinance of the Church. Therefore the Church can dispense from that obligation.

Whether that obligation is immediately from a precept of the Church, or immediately from a vow to be emitted by precept of the Church? Trent s. 24, c. 9 refers to both, but does not define. There are those who teach that those ordained in sacred orders are held to chastity not from a vow, but from the sole ordinance of the Church, both because no mention of a vow is made, and because a precept of the Church is sufficient for this. But others commonly, with S. Th. 2. 2. q. 88, a. 11, derive this obligation immediately from a vow of chastity, which is emitted in the very fact of ordination according to the mind of the Church, and this is expressly had in the Law. C. Cum olim de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749, § 41. And Boniface VIII declared this vow to be solemn. C. un. de vot. et vot. redempt. in 6. Wherefore a cleric initiated into sacred orders, sinning against chastity, sins also against religion by acts both external and internal. Therefore the obligation of celibacy extends to preserving all chastity. Cf. L. l. 6, n. 807, 808; Albit. de Inconst. in Fide c. 36, n. 132 ff.

n. 99.

What if someone were promoted to sacred orders either invincibly ignorant of the obligation of chastity attached to them, or expressly unwilling to vow that obligation itself, or if he were compelled to this by grave fear, or if he were ordained in the very age of infancy? - Reply to the first: Some probably say that he is held to chastity, namely by force of the universal law itself of the Church. Others "probably judge that if the ignorance had been altogether invincible, the ordained man would not be held to chastity, neither from a vow nor from a precept of the Church, because the Church would not intend to oblige such a one; but otherwise if the ignorance had been culpable, or if someone intended to receive the order with the same obligation with which others receive it." Ignorance of this kind is not presumed in the external forum, since it concerns a law so clear and most commonly handed down.

Reply to the second: "In such a case he would be held to chastity not from a vow, but from the precept of the Church, which from a motive of religion would bind him to chastity, the vow being absent."

Reply to the third: One must distinguish: If he did not have the intention of receiving sacred ordination, he is not held, as having been invalidly ordained. If he had the mind of receiving sacred orders, and the fear was just, more probably he is held, because since he is unwilling unreasonably, such fear neither exempts from law nor invalidates the vow. If again he had the mind of receiving sacred orders, but the fear was unjust, more probably he is not held, because of the opposite reason. Wherefore he can validly contract marriage, "but he cannot minister in the order while the marriage stands, nor enjoy clerical privileges." But the nullity of the ordination must be established in the external forum by canonical process. Cf. 106.

Reply to the fourth: "It is certain that he who is ordained before the use of reason, although the ordination is valid, nevertheless is not held to chastity; whence he can validly and licitly enter marriage." Benedict XIV, Bull Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745, commands that in the sixteenth year of age an option be given to them; and, if they wish to preserve chastity, they are admitted to the exercise of the order; otherwise, if they do not wish. And he adds that after ratification they invalidly contract marriage and are held to the divine office. If after the use of reason, but before puberty, some probably say that he is held, others not improbably deny it. The reason is that such a vow, from which this obligation more probably comes, "constitutes a man in an irrevocable state, in which the Pontiff never or rarely dispenses; whence such a vow requires a mature and perfect use of reason." L. l. 6, n. 80, 781, 809-811; S. Th. Suppl. q. 39, a. 2; Sanchez in Dec. l. 5, c. 6, n. 5-8.

n. 100.

What about tonsure and habit? - Clerics are obliged to wear the tonsure and clerical clothing. This is established from various places of Canon Law, especially Conc. Tr. s. 14, c. 6 de R., s. 22, c. 1 de R., s. 23, c. 6 de R.; L. l. 6, n. 825; S. Th. 4, d. 24, q. 3, a. 1, q. 1; Suppl. q. 40, a. 1.

n. 101.

Do clerics sin gravely who outside their own house do not wear the habit or crown? - Reply to the first: Those clerics are either simply clerics, or beneficed, or constituted in sacred orders. If the first, they more commonly teach that, speaking in itself, they do not sin, not even venially, since by common law this grave obligation has been imposed only on clerics in sacred orders and on beneficed clerics. But they lack the privilege of the forum. Cf. Trent s. 23, c. 6 de R. Speaking in itself, for particular laws and customs of places must be attended to. If the second, it is certain that they sin mortally, unless there is a just excusing cause or smallness of matter; for grave penalties are imposed on them in Canon Law. But what span of time is required for mortal sin cannot be determined in general, but only from the circumstances. They commonly admit that it is venial to put aside the habit only once or again. La-Croix l. 1, n. 672 extends a brief time to five or six days. Nevertheless they also commonly admit that clerics sin gravely if even for a brief time they lay aside or conceal the clerical habit for an evil end. Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 11, c. 8; Trent s. 14, c. 6 de R.

Reply to the second: Clerics who are not constituted in sacred orders and are not beneficed never sin gravely. Thus most commonly. But again, do they lack the privilege of the forum? Cf. Trent s. 23, c. 6 de R. Even clerics, beneficed or initiated into sacred orders, at least do not sin gravely unless they omit wearing the crown, without a grave excusing cause and for a notable time, such as in this matter is not a time of one or another month. But whether it is grave not to wear the crown for an entire year is not clear. Theologians more commonly affirm it; but it is not clearly proved, because here doctors easily mix the crown with tonsure. L. l. 6, n. 825-827; La-Croix l. 1, n. 672; l. 4, n. 1372; E. M.

n. 102.

What properly are tonsure, crown, and clerical habit? - Tonsure, to be worn by clerics, insofar as it is distinguished from crown, is the prohibition made to clerics of nourishing a beard, which today by custom must be altogether shaved, unless some necessity is present; and of letting the hair grow long, which is grave unless the hair is moderate, C. 4, 5, 7 de Vit. et honest. cler., or the custom of the region bears otherwise and scandal is absent. Nor indeed can they use artificial hair without the command of the bishop, S. C. C., December 9, 1690, unless custom obtains otherwise. The crown today is the tonsure on the top of the head in the manner of a crown. The crown must be broader or narrower according to order and dignity. La-Croix l. 4, n. 1373; Benedict XIV, Notification 96; de Syn. l. 11, c. 9; L. l. 6, n. 826; Clem. 2, C. 4, 5, 15 de Vit. et honest. cler.; Trent ll. cc.

Clerical habit is a cassock, and other things congruent to the order in the judgment of the Bishop, Trent s. 14 de R., c. 6; s. 22 de R., c. 1; s. 24 de R., c. 12 in fine; therefore they vary according to various places. A cassock is said to be a garment which flows down to the ankles, or at least to the knees, which by a certain epikeia and the custom of certain places has been received in towns and villages; and in the cities themselves also it is permitted outside sacred functions and the celebration of Mass. C. Clerici 15 de Vit. et honest. cler.; Sixtus V, C. Cum sacrosanctum, January 9, 1589; Benedict XIV, Notification 71, n. 9; S. Th. Suppl. q. 40, a. 1; E. M.

n. 103.

Note: Since many things, especially as regards the exterior attire of clerics, are by no means determined in particular by common law, but are various according to various regions, one must stand by the Statutes of each diocese, which a confessor of clerics must altogether not be ignorant of. In many dioceses it is altogether prohibited to admit to the celebration of Mass priests not wearing clerical habit, cassock, and tonsure. The penalties, however, laid down against those not wearing habit and tonsure do not seem to affect those who do not wear tonsure only.

Clerics are prohibited from wearing a ring, unless it belongs to them from the office of dignity, as are Bishops, Abbots, etc. C. 15 de Vit. et hon. cler.

n. 104.

Who are obliged to the recitation of the canonical hours? - The canonical hours are public prayers, which its ministers pour forth in the name of the Church in the form prescribed by the same Church. Hence the fruit of these prayers is from the work of the minister working and from the work of the Church working; and it redounds to the minister himself, to those for whom they are specially applied, to the founders of benefices, and to all the faithful, for whom the Church prays.

In the Western Church the following are obliged to recite the canonical hours daily: 1. All clerics constituted in sacred orders, even those suspended and excommunicated. This is established from various places of Canon Law, from the Lateran Council of 1215, from the Bull of S. Pius V Quod a nobis, from the Constitution of Pius X Divino afflatu, Kalends of November 1911. 2. All beneficed persons who have right in the thing and full dominion of the benefice. It is drawn from the Lateran Council under Leo X, and also from the Bull of S. Pius V Ex proximo. 3. All religious of both sexes professed in an Order approved by the Church and destined for choir. This is clear from custom, and also from the Decree of Gregory X, etc. Cf. the Works of S. Peter Damian, Migne vol. 145, col. 222 ff.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 5, 6.

In the Western Church; for, as Benedict XIV says, C. Eo quamvis tempore, §§ 44, 45, "deacons, subdeacons, and priests of the Eastern Church are compelled by no express law... to the recitation of the divine office." Nevertheless, "even among the Orientals the laudable custom of reciting the divine office has prevailed." And indeed this has the force of law; whence "the discipline of the Eastern Church subjects generally all those constituted in sacred order to the obligation and precept of reciting the divine office, according to the custom of the nation." L. 140 ff.; S. Th. 4, dist. 15, q. 4, a. 1, q. 3; E. M.

n. 105.

You will resolve: Those who are constituted in minor orders are not held to the hours, or to another determined prayer. A cleric begins to be obligated from the hour of receiving the subdiaconate, and indeed to the hours corresponding to the hour at which he is ordained. Wherefore one ordained at midday must begin from Sext, and cannot begin from Vespers. But whether a subdeacon who recited that part before ordination has satisfied his obligation, some deny, while others probably affirm. The reason is that that debt can well be paid in anticipation which certainly is to be contracted morally. L. 140. As regards beneficed persons, the obligation begins from the day of entering into possession of the benefice, and therefore they must begin from Matins. They are not held before accepted possession, nor if without their fault they receive no fruits and are not going to receive them, because they do not have the benefice according to every effect. This is certain. But it is probable that one who does not reside by legitimate permission or dispensation, and therefore does not receive fruits, is not held to the hours, because this obligation is on account of the sustenance given. On the contrary, he is held who, although he does not receive all his fruits, nevertheless receives so great a part as suffices for sustenance. Nor is he excused, if he is not constituted in sacred orders, because he has proposed to himself not to receive the fruits of the benefice; because benefices have been instituted not for the advantages of private persons, but for divine worship. Cf. Trent s. 21, c. 6 de R.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 6, 2; Viva on Alexander VII, prop. 21, § ult.; L. 144 and l. 3, n. 664 ff. As regards religious, the obligation begins from the hour of profession made, from the hour of the day, not of choir.

Novices, lay brothers, religious of the Society of Jesus, military religious, hospitallers, and the rest not destined for choir are not held to the hours. L. 141.

n. 106.

Is one who received sacred order through fear unjustly inflicted held to recite the office? - More probably they deny it. The reason is that although fear does not remove the voluntary, nevertheless the Church is not reasonably judged to wish to oblige to the burden of the office except those who receive the order altogether spontaneously. And therefore such persons ordained through grave fear are not even held to chastity. In the external forum, however, they are held to both until the fear has been established before the S. C. of the Sacraments. L. 144; A. S. S. v. 1, p. 330; v. 2, p. 443; v. 6, p. 85. Cf. here 99.

n. 107.

Are religious men and nuns, if for a just cause they do not come to choir, held to recite the office privately? - Reply: Negatively, if they have only simple vows. If for a just cause; for unless they are legitimately impeded, they too are held to be present at choir. S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, March 24, 1882; May 2, 1883; May 3, 1902; July 28, 1902. Affirmatively, if they have solemn vows. The reason is that the principal obligation for a religious man and a nun does not fall upon choir, but upon recitation of the office by reason of Religion, which undertook that burden from its institute. This obligation is established besides from the universal custom of nuns and religious, who, when they cannot be present at choir, believe themselves bound under grave obligation to recite the office privately. But a universal custom which was constantly observed with great inconvenience provides a sufficient argument concerning a grave obligation undertaken. S. Penitentiary to the Bishop of Perigueux, November 26, 1852.

From a privilege conceded by Innocent IV, regulars and nuns can for a reasonable cause satisfy by reciting the prayers of laymen and laywomen; for example, if a nun is scrupulous, extraordinarily weary, or occupied in useful ministries; if a religious is weakened from a journey or from preaching. Likewise prelates, even inferiors, can for a cause, for example studies, dispense with their subjects, as in other observances, so that they do not recite. L. 62, 142; Pellizzar. de Monialib. c. 6, n. 12 ff.; De Alexandris, Confess. monial. c. 8, q. 5; E. M.

n. 108.

Does a religious man or nun sin gravely who recites the office privately while he or she could easily be present at choir? - Reply: Negatively. For the obligation of choir, although it is grave for the community, is nevertheless held to be light for individual private persons, provided the choir is not entirely removed. But for choir four fit persons suffice, that is, those valid and free to sustain choir. But if the religious are fewer, they are in no way obliged to recite the office in choir; yet they are not exempted from private recitation, as was just said. Four fit persons, "for if they are sick, or legitimately occupied, they are not obliged to choir even if they are four. But Viva, etc., probably think that it suffices for satisfying choir that novices alone be present, because in favorable matters they are reckoned as religious." L. 143. A moderate cause, however, will be able to excuse from the light obligation of coming to choir. Clem. Gravi de Celebr. missar.

n. 109.

Note: That prelates sin gravely who from negligence permit a notable part to be omitted from being recited in choir. That those are not held to supply in choir what is omitted who, while others sing, prepare or transfer books, search out the psalms, strike the organ or bells, or perform other things necessary for choir, because while someone is occupied in matters pertaining to the solemnity of the office, the whole choir supplies for him, and all constitute one moral body. But he who responds alternately to choir by playing the organ, without pronouncing the versicle of his own part, does not seem to satisfy, because the organ does not pronounce words, and the office is not recited integrally. L. 143, 156; La-Croix 1300.

n. 110.

What specifically must be noted as regards recitation in choir or with a companion? - He who recites the office in choir or with a companion must recite integrally those things which are said secretly; hymns, psalms, and versicles by alternate, not by third, turns. But it suffices to hear, while another reads them, the antiphons, brief responsories, chapters, and lessons. As regards those things which the companion recites or reads, so that someone can satisfy, it is necessary that he pronounce all things duly and correctly, and that the person himself hear these things, although the companion may not be obliged to recite the divine office, indeed although he may be distracted; because these things do not impede someone from reciting according to the custom of the Church and communicating with a companion. Although, if the companion is obliged and does not attend, he does not satisfy, since he does not communicate with another. But because all those reciting constitute as it were one body, and because those things which they recite or read in turn are communicated, if someone is not at fault for not perceiving by ear those things which the other part of the choir or the companion recites, it is probable, provided he attends as much as he can, that he satisfies.

Hence one who is somewhat deaf and hears in confusion also satisfies, for example because there is noise, because the companion recites in a low voice, or because of the ineptitude of the reader. "For this precept of the office, from the benignity of the Church, must be interpreted benignly. On the other hand, it will be very liable to anxieties that companions in the office must always be solicitous as to what quantity the omission of hearing has reached, so that they are held or not held to repeat." L. 163.

Somewhat deaf; and also the deaf? If he recites with a companion, whom he is not compelled to use, doctors commonly deny it. If in choir, still more deny; but many also affirm, and not undeservedly, for the obligations and rights of choir must be measured by an equitable reason. Kenrick tr. 8, n. 16; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 151; La-Croix 1295; L. 162, 163; Laymann de Orat. et Hor. Canon. c. 5, n. 7; S. Jerome, Epist. 108, n. 19, Migne vol. 22, col. 896.

Outside choir, if only one or two recite the office, and in the choir of nuns, the Confiteor is recited only once and by all at the same time, with those words omitted, tibi pater, or vobis fratres; te pater or vos fratres; and then it is said: Misereatur nostri, peccatis nostris, perducat nos.

The reading of the Martyrology, which is read daily in choir at Prime before the verse Pretiosa, except the triduum before Easter, is part of the divine office; and it is established from the Rubrics of the same Martyrology that the memorial of the Saints must be read on the day preceding their feast. Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 17.

n. 111.

Note: "It is the common opinion that he satisfies well who hears from a companion the lessons, responsories, chapters, prayers, and antiphons. And probably he still satisfies who alone says the psalms and hears the lessons; or who says part of the psalms alone and part with a companion, because he sufficiently communicates in that part which he hears, and which by received usage is already satisfied by hearing." L. 162. "But it is certain that in choir it is not necessary to hear all, but it suffices to hear one, and it suffices to hear in confusion at least part of the other choir, although you cannot hear distinctly." L. 163. He satisfies choir who recites the psalms quietly, hearing the other part, since one part constitutes one body with the other and they communicate mutually; nor is it necessary that those reciting in one choir hear all those reciting in the other. As regards canons, cf. 220; L. 163; La-Croix 1298.

n. 112.

Are religious, living outside the cloister by permission, fugitive religious, those cast out by sentence, and those condemned to the galleys, held to the office? - Reply to the first: S. Alphonsus affirms it with others, adding: "as also those detained in prison." But Busembaum with others denies it concerning a religious "who has obtained a dispensation to live perpetually outside the monastery, because although he remains a religious he is nevertheless not regular." L. 141, 142.

Reply to the second: Bonacina denies it and Tamburini thinks it probable, but Lessius and Concina better teach that they are held. The reason is that just as they do not lose the religious state, so they are not exempted from its burdens. L. 142. And the same must be said of the excommunicated, even those to be avoided.

Reply to the third: "Not improbably they deny it with Busembaum, etc., with Scotus and Laymann, who call this opinion safe. The reason is that in them the essence of the religious state has now been extinguished, since they are no longer held to the vows, as Sanchez supposes as certain, nor is it in their power to return to religion." L. 142. But Sanchez de Matr. l. 8, d. 8, n. 11 speaks of one professed and dispensed for marriage. As regards one cast out, he brings forward another reason, "because since he is now justly outside the monastery and the monastic life, he is exempted from its burdens."

Reply to the fourth: The S. C. C., on August 13, 1707, and afterward when interrogated, was unwilling to decide the matter, and Clement XI also abstained from a decision. Doctors, however, rather excuse. "Cabassutius more commonly denies it, who nevertheless says that clerics constituted in sacred orders are held; but concerning both, Sporer, Lessius, etc. deny it. The reason is that such recitation would seem to yield to the disgrace of the religious order," and of the clerical state, namely if they live together with other condemned men and not in separate cells. And Kenrick tr. 8, n. 6 says, "from equity, the obligation seems remitted." L. 142; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 153; E. M.

n. 113.

How great is the obligation of the divine office? - The obligation of the divine office is grave in itself. Wherefore he sins gravely who, having this burden, omits the hours or a notable part of them. The reason is that he violates a precept in a grave matter, pertaining to the virtue of religion. C. Presbyter 1 de Celebr. miss.; L. 146; l. 3, n. 663; E. M.

n. 114.

Note: "That universally is judged small matter which does not reach the quantity of one complete hour." Thus most commonly. "He who omits the whole office is more truly to be said to commit only one sin, because the whole office of one day falls under one precept." L. 143, 147, 148.

n. 115.

Is it grave to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday? - Reply: Negatively. The reason is that the matter is light, both in itself and with respect to the whole office.

n. 116.

Are nuns who recite only the office of the Blessed Virgin bound to it under grave obligation? - Reply: In Orders in which only the office of the Blessed Virgin Mary is recited, this recitation does not oblige under grave obligation, although solemn vows are emitted in those Orders, for example, in the Order of the nuns called of the Visitation, as was decided several times. Moreover in communities in which, besides the office of the day to be recited, there also had to be recited the office of the Blessed Virgin, or of the Dead, or the seven penitential psalms, the obligation has altogether ceased from the Rubrics of C. Divino afflatu, title VII, n. 2. And if they were held from a peculiar constitution or from a legacy, they must seek commutation from the Holy See. Cf. 129; Gury-Ballerini 146; Bizzarri ed. 1885, p. 72; E. M.

n. 117.

Are beneficed persons who omit the divine office held to restitution? - So great is the obligation of the divine office that it induces for him the burden of restitution of the fruits, in proportion to the omission of the office, who by title of benefice is held to the hours, if, six months having elapsed after obtaining possession, he culpably has not recited the office. After: wherefore he does not make his own fruits, not of the prior and posterior time, but only of the posterior time. This is clear from the Lateran Council under Leo X. S. Pius V then issued a Bull by which he confirmed this decree. And he declared that one who on one day omitted the whole office is held to restore all the fruits corresponding to that day; for example, he who receives annually 365 florins is held for one day to restore one florin; but he who omitted Matins only, half the fruits of one day; he who omitted the remaining hours, also half; but he who omitted one of them, the sixth part. And that restitution is to be made either to the fabric of the church in which the benefice is, or to the poor. Bull of Leo X de Reform. Curiae, chapter Reform. Curiae et aliorum, § Statuimus; S. Pius V, C. Ex proximo, September 22, 1571; L. 151 and l. 3, n. 663, 666, 672, 673; E. M.

n. 118.

Note: Those are not obliged to restitution who from natural forgetfulness, just impediment, good faith, invincible ignorance, or otherwise without fault have omitted the hours. The reason is that in conscience a penalty is not owed where there is no fault. L. 151; l. 3, n. 665. "That a beneficed person can sometimes be excused from restitution for neglected hours by title of money spent, understand after the omission of the hours; for if before the omission, he is not excused, since proposition 33 was condemned by Alexander VII...; although not with this intention, for the poor or other pious uses.... And it is probable according to the opinion which Sanchez holds," etc. L. 153; l. 3, n. 700; La-Croix 1215. Under the name of the poor the beneficed person himself also is contained, provided he truly needs, and did not omit the office fraudulently, namely so that he might assign the fruits to himself as poor. Likewise whatever is spent on repairing or increasing the properties of the benefice is understood to be expended on pious causes. Suarez de Relig. t. 2, l. 4, n. 18, 19; L. l. 3, n. 672; E. M.

n. 119.

How many sins does one commit who is held to recitation of the office by title of benefice, by omitting it? - If one omitting it is unwilling to restore the fruits, he sins both against religion and against justice. The first reason is that the Church obliges to reciting the hours from a motive of religion. The second reason is that from the Lateran Council, he who does not say the office does not make the fruits his own. If one omitting it has the mind of restoring the fruits of the benefice, he indeed does not sin against justice, but he sins against religion. The first reason is that the Church confers the benefice under an obligation of justice, so that he does not make the fruits his own if he does not recite, but by no means under an obligation also of justice that he recite. Wherefore the obligation of the office does not arise immediately from the accepted benefice, but from the precept of the Church, imposed by reason of the benefice, from a motive of religion. The second reason is that, as is established from what has just been said, there are two grave precepts: first, by which beneficed persons are obliged to the office, for this was the end of the Church in the institution of benefices; second, by which one omitting the office is to restore the fruits. L. 145; l. 3, n. 663.

n. 120.

Can a beneficiary omitting the office on one day supply it on another day? - He is not excused from mortal sin, as all teach, and as is established from the cited Bull of S. Pius V. As regards restitution of the fruits, the first opinion, which Bonacina calls probable, affirms it. The reason is that in such a case this man has now repaid an equal thing, just as if a chaplain omits Mass on one day, he can well supply it on another. The second, most common opinion denies it. The reason is that S. Pius V, C. Ex proximo, sanctioned that one does not make the fruits his own who "has interrupted" the canonical hours "on one or several days." Here it must be noted that the Pontiff did not say "has omitted," but "has interrupted," by which word he sufficiently signified that one who interrupts the office on one day does not gain the fruits, even if he supplies on another day; because although he can be said not to have omitted the hours, nevertheless he cannot be said not to have interrupted them. L. l. 3, n. 667; S. Th. Quodl. 3, a. 29.

n. 121.

Is one who omits a part smaller than a complete hour held to restitution? - "If the omitted parts do not constitute grave matter, it is common that no restitution is owed, not even under venial sin, even if the fruits corresponding to that part would reach a great quantity." L. l. 3, n. 668.

n. 122.

Must a beneficiary omitting the office restore all the fruits of the benefice? - Reply: Sanchez, Soto, etc., probably say from benign interpretation that they are not held to restore all the fruits, but only those which correspond to the burden of the omitted office. The reason is both because the Bull of S. Pius was thus received and thus explained by usage, as being more conformable to natural equity; and because it seems harsh that Bishops, pastors, and chaplains, who bear other burdens, should be obliged in the same way as simple beneficiaries, because all these receive fruits not only for the office, but also for other burdens. L. l. 3, n. 673.

n. 123.

Is he held to recite the office again who doubts whether he has said it? - If the doubt is positive, that is, if some reason or probable conjecture is present that he recited it, although a reason also is not lacking for the opposite, he is not held; for he probably satisfied, and, with the probability of satisfaction of the law standing, the law in the case becomes of doubtful obligation. La-Croix 1235, 1237; and S. Alphonsus 150, who handed down this opinion as most common, citing several theologians for it; but afterward he withdrew from this opinion. If the doubt is negative, that is, if no reason or probable conjecture is present, then he is held to the recitation of the breviary. For then the law cannot prudently be called of doubtful obligation, since there is no probable motive suggesting its satisfaction. La-Croix l. c.; L. l. c.

At the end of the cited number this Holy Doctor has the following observation, useful for practice: "If you doubt whether you have said the whole hour or not, the Salmanticenses judge that, if you often labor under such doubt, you are not held to repeat, because then such doubt is easily presumed to arise from scruples; otherwise if rarely." Hence, they say, one is well excused from repeating the office if you do not remember having said something, and you have a just conjecture for believing that you said it; for example, if you remember that you began a psalm, or some lesson, or an hour, and afterward, distracted, reached 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. But if you have reached some hour, for example Sext, and you doubt whether you recited the preceding one, you can hold the same decision, because you are not accustomed to recite a later hour unless you first sent the prior one before it; therefore you can prudently believe that you omitted nothing. La-Croix 1236; L. 150.

n. 124.

In what rite must the office be recited? - The canonical hours, from the preceding law, had to be recited according to the prescription of the Roman breviary issued by order of S. Pius V and afterward corrected by order of other Pontiffs, so that all obliged to the hours would not satisfy their duty if they used another breviary, and therefore a beneficed person would not make the fruits his own. Cf. Suarez de Relig. t. 2, l. 4, de Hor. Can. c. 11, n. 3, 4. Religious are excepted who have the peculiar breviary of the order; the Milanese Church, which uses the Ambrosian rite, and the Chapels of Toledo, which use the Mozarabic rite; likewise Churches which for 200 years before the institution of the breviary by S. Pius V had a peculiar one. Those, however, could change their breviary into the Roman one, if the Bishop and the whole chapter consented. But once they used that faculty, they remained bound to the Roman breviary. Likewise they lost their privilege if they made any additions or changes in their liturgy. The Bishop can in these excepted churches prohibit the use of the Roman breviary; but if no such precept is present, whether someone privately can recite the Roman breviary is disputed. The same must be said of the missal. This is established from the Bull of the same S. Pius V Quod a nobis, July 7, 1568, and from C. Ex proximo; S. R. C., January 10, 1852, Cenomanen., n. 1993; Bouix de Iure Liturg. p. 4; L. 160; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 7; E. M.

From the preceding law. For a new form of reciting the divine office was introduced by the Constitution of Pius X Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911, which is altogether preceptive. For in the aforesaid Constitution it is said: "In all churches of the secular and regular clergy, in monasteries, orders, congregations, and institutes of religious, by all and each who from office or from custom pay the canonical Hours according to the Roman Breviary issued by S. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Leo XIII, we command that the new order of the Psalter, such as we have approved with its Rules and Rubrics and have decreed to be published by the Vatican presses, be religiously observed. At the same time we announce the penalties established in law to those who have failed in their duty of paying the canonical Hours daily; and they indeed should know that they will not satisfy so grave a duty unless they use this order of Our Psalter."

n. 125.

Note: Those who are not bound by reciting the office of the Blessed Virgin are not prohibited from using any formula of this kind of office, provided it is Latin, unless there is a legitimate custom of reciting it in the vernacular idiom. S. Pius V, C. Superni, March 11, 1571; S. R. C., January 15, 1897. Both breviaries and missals, and other liturgical books, cannot be printed without the attestation of the Ordinary, by which it is declared that they agree with those which have been printed at Rome. Liturgical books with Gregorian chant, also as regards the several Propers of churches, must be approved by the S. R. C. according to the Decree of November 27, 1908, A. A. S. v. 1, p. 159, 293. Clement VIII, Decree Cum in Ecclesia; Urban VIII, Decree Divinam psalmodiam; S. R. C., April 26, 1834, n. 2716; February 16, 1834, n. 2855; August 4, 1877, n. 3427. Cf. here n. 1306; E. M.

n. 126.

Do those satisfy who recite another breviary preserved from a custom of the place, introduced after the time determined by S. Pius V? - Reply: Negatively. S. R. C., January 10, 1852.

n. 127.

Does a priest need the permission of the Bishop to recite the Roman breviary in the aforesaid place where another is recited? - Reply: Negatively. This is established from the cited response of the S. R. C. "Privately," says Busembaum apud S. Alphonsus 160, "it is probable that it is lawful for all, even regulars, from custom to use the Roman, as Lessius, Rodriguez, Sa, Bonacina teach." Cf. n. seq.; for excepting custom, if there is any, the same reason in this case seems to be present. L. 161. Cf. also A. S. S. v. 1, p. 240.

n. 128.

Are clerics obliged to the breviary held to use the proper office of the diocese? - Reply: Affirmatively, provided that that proper office has been recognized and approved by the S. R. C. The reason is that although the concession of proper offices has the nature of a privilege, nevertheless all private persons are bound to use a privilege conceded to the whole community. The case is excepted, as is clear, in which private persons, by force of an Apostolic Indult, could not use the proper office of the diocese. Cf. n. 167.

n. 129.

Is there still an obligation of reciting the gradual psalms, the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the office of the Dead, which are noted in the rubrics of the breviary? - Reply: "The obligation ceases of reciting in choir, on the days prescribed hitherto by the Rubrics, the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the office of the Dead, and also the gradual and penitential psalms. But chapters which are held to these additional offices from a peculiar constitution or legacy will obtain their commutation from the Holy See." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 2.

n. 130.

Note: "Since through the new disposition of the Psalter the causes of the General Indult of July 5, 1883, for votive offices have ceased, these very offices, and other similar ones conceded from particular Indults, are altogether removed and declared removed." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 1.

In the Ambrosian Liturgy, according to the custom which has prevailed up to this time, all clerics ordained in sacred orders through the whole of Lent, except Sundays and Major Week, are held to recite the entire Office of the Dead; and on not a few ferial days through the year, part of the same Office. But from the Indult granted on February 23, 1897, by Leo XIII through the S. C. R., "all clerics constituted in sacred orders who follow the Ambrosian rite, outside choral officiation, on each day of Lent, except Festive days and Major Week, are to recite only Vespers of the Dead, and on the second day of November the entire Office for the Dead."

n. 131.

Must those obliged to the office recite under grave obligation the office of the Dead on the day of the Commemoration of all the Dead, and also the Litanies on the feast of S. Mark and during the triduum of the Rogations? - Reply to the first: "On the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed, the office and Mass of the current day being omitted, only the office with Mass for the Dead is done, as is prescribed in the Appendix of the new Psalter. If on November 2 a Sunday or some double of the first class occurs, the Commemoration of the Dead is celebrated on the next following day, similarly not impeded; on which, if perhaps a double of the second class occurs, this is transferred according to the rule handed down title III, n. 3." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title XIII.

Reply to the second: "On the feast of S. Mark and in the triduum of the Rogations, the burden remains entire of reciting the Litanies of the Saints, even outside choir." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 3.

In what order are the canonical hours to be recited? - A twofold order is to be observed in the recitation of the breviary, namely the order of offices and the order of hours. The order of offices is described in the calendar of feasts and in the rubrics for their translation, where several concur at the same time. The order of hours is that which is set forth in the breviary, namely that Matins with Lauds is recited in the first place, then the little hours are added, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and finally Vespers with Compline follow. As regards the Saints concerning whom the canonical hours are to be recited, the office must be recited according to the calendar of one's own diocese, that is, of that in which someone has domicile or quasi-domicile, or a residential benefice. S. R. C., May 14, 1672, n. 1445. Pastors and their coadjutors are held to recite the offices of their own church, but not other priests who celebrate Mass in it or hear confessions. Masters and students of a seminary, living in it, are held to recite the offices proper to the church of the seminary, although they celebrate elsewhere. S. R. C. n. 2872, 2980.

On a journey: "When someone, for the sake of a journey, or study, or for other reasons, is outside his homeland or diocese, beneficed persons are always held to the office of their own Church; but simple priests can conform themselves to the office of the place where they stay." S. R. C., November 12, 1831, ad 46, n. 2682. But a regular "on a journey should follow the calendar of the divine office of the monastery from which he departed; when he arrives and remains in another monastery, even for a time, he should follow its calendar." S. R. C., August 31, 1839, n. 2801; "because everywhere he is held to be present at choir," S. R. C., September 25, 1852, n. 3001. One reciting privately is held to observe the calendar of the monastery from which he departed, S. R. C., June 27, 1896, ad 13, n. 3919. During Lent, regular preachers of the divine word, staying outside the monastery, must conform themselves to the Calendar of the Province, extended without any diversity for all in each year. S. R. C., August 31, 1839, n. 2801.

n. 133.

What if someone recites another office for the office of the day? - He who deliberately recites one office for another, if it is both of a plainly diverse rite and notably shorter, does not satisfy, as on Palm Sunday the office of Easter or Pentecost. If indeed it is not shorter, but only of a plainly diverse rite, it is probable that he satisfies, as for example if on the Nativity of the Lord he recites the office of the Passion; but he certainly does not lack light fault. But if it is of the same rite, but notably shorter, he does not satisfy. If under both heads it is nearly equal, he satisfies, although likewise he does not lack light fault; and this not only if he has done it three or four times in the year, but also if more often, which is the opinion of many and sufficiently probable, because the substantial form of the office seems to be quantity; but quality is only an accidental form. Indeed he does not even sin lightly if he has done this from some just cause, for example from devotion, or so that he may recite with a companion, or without reflection; and then, if after a small part of the office has been recited he notices that he has erred, it will be in his power either to pursue the one begun or the proper office. But it is better to recite the proper office, lest he persevere in error.

Hence, if someone, deliberately or without reflection, has recited an office notably shorter, he must supply what was more in the proper one. Likewise, whether someone did this deliberately or without reflection, on the day on which the recited office then occurs, this same office must more probably be recited again, not the one which he omitted, lest he err twice. Alexander VII, condemned proposition 34; S. R. C., June 17, 1673, n. 1474; January 27, 1899, n. 1011; L. 161; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 8; La-Croix 1237, 1250, 1255; E. M.

n. 134.

What kind of sin is it to invert the order in recitation of the hours? - In private recitation, it never exceeds venial sin, because such inversion of order does not contain grave deformity; for the order to be observed is only under a secondary precept and as a circumstance of lesser moment. But if from some just cause you change the order, you will be altogether free from every fault. Some say that inversion of order is a mortal sin if it is done frequently; but this must more probably be denied with S. Ligorius 169. "The same must be said if the order is inverted in the same hour." L. 170, 161 in fine. But he who so disturbs the parts of the office that scarcely the species of the office remains does not satisfy. Suarez d. 11, c. 7.

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 it, 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 are to be recited at the stated times. Clem. Gravi 1 de Celebr. missar. But others deny it, because a circumstance of this kind does not pertain to the substance of the precept, but is merely accidental. Each opinion is probable; but the second is more probable, because a grave precept is not established. L. 171.

…and 81 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 49 passages

98. On the Divine Office

Benedictus, a beneficed cleric and organist of the Cathedral Church, when he plays the organ so that, in the chant of the divine office, he may respond to the versicles which the whole choir sings, does not himself alternately sing the versicles, nor pronounce them in a low voice, but only plays the organ, saying that the sound of the organ responds to the chant of the choir. And since he himself plays the organ, he thinks that he sufficiently and altogether satisfies the obligation of the divine office.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Benedictus does not satisfy the obligation of the divine office. For he in truth neither sings nor recites the divine office, but plays the organ, which is neither to sing nor to recite the divine office. St. Alphonsus, n. 143, reports that Soto, Navarrus, Aragon, and Rodriguez teach that he satisfies the obligation of the divine office “who responds alternately to the choir by playing the organ, without uttering the versicle of his own part.” Busembaum, n. 156, also seems to favor this opinion. But the Holy Doctor immediately adds: “But I do not acquiesce in this, since Bonacina rightly teaches that the office is then not recited integrally, because the organ does not utter words.” Whence it is drawn that in the proposed Case Benedictus in no way recites the office. But the choir does not recite it integrally.

This is confirmed from the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 1, c. 28, n. 7, where it is said: “If in some places it were customary for organs to be played even during the canonical hours, or some of them, as is the hour of terce... such a custom can be preserved; but it must be noted that whenever by the organ something is represented as being sung, or responded alternately to the versicles of hymns or canticles, by someone from the choir in an intelligible voice that must be pronounced which is to be responded by the organ. And it would be laudable that some cantor, together with the organ, should sing the same thing in a clear voice.” I. M. 222.

Salvianus, a priest and very learned, from involuntary distraction, in place of the hour of none, recited the hour of sext twice. After he noticed the error and considered the matter much, he omitted to recite none.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Salvianus is a learned man, and before he determined himself to omit none, he considered the matter much. Therefore let us see what reason there could have been by which he was moved to form for himself a judgment concerning the absence of obligation to recite none in the Case.

Now, that the aforesaid reason may be explained, it must be premised that in the divine office there are two things, quantity and quality, and thus “to omit,” says La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1203, “the whole of vespers on Holy Saturday is commonly judged mortal, not on account of quantity, but quality, because namely they are an entire hour and contain a great mystery; nevertheless in this instance Bonaespe, Marchant, Pellizarius, Tamburinus, and others apud Gobat probably think it is only venial, because they are a small prayer.” And St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 147, says: “Elbel and Croix, with Marchant, Pellizarius, Tamburinus, and others, by reason of the smallness of the matter, probably say that he would not sin gravely who omitted the whole vespers of Holy Saturday.” Fr. Gury, Comp., n. 52, notes the same discrepancy of opinions as regards vespers of Holy Saturday, according as in them quantity or quality is attended to. — Besides, as regards the question whether it is a mortal sin to exchange the office of the day for another briefer one, St. Ligorius, in the cited place, n. 162, q. 3, brings four opinions. The first absolutely denies that it is a mortal sin, and brings this reason: “because for fulfilling the precept of the office it suffices that it be fulfilled in substance, and this is done when the seven hours are said.” St. Alphonsus confesses that he formerly adhered to this opinion; “but now,” he says, “I judge more truly that it cannot be sustained, because when a notably shorter office is recited, then that office is not fulfilled either in its form or in equivalent substance.” Nevertheless, according to the same Holy Doctor, and according to what Fr. Gury teaches, Comp., n. 73, one satisfies the obligation if due compensation is made, for example, by reciting nine psalms, if the office of a Saint has been said in place of the office of a Sunday. Cf. La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1250. But the second opinion as regards the proposed question holds that he who changes an unequal or almost equal office does not sin gravely. The reason is, “because the Pontiff in assigning the specific form for the recitation of the breviary looked rather to quantity as the substantial form than to the quality of the office, which is an accidental form, or manner of reciting.”

Now theologians most commonly agree that the omission of one whole little hour, or of a quantity equivalent to one little hour, is necessary and sufficient matter of grave sin. He who by error said the hour of sext twice and then omits the hour of none, although he omits the hour as to quality, nevertheless does not omit it as to quantity, at least equivalently. But since the quality of one hour in relation to the whole office is accidental and slight matter, as is clear from what has been said regarding the omission of vespers of Holy Saturday, the grave sin would be only by reason of quantity. But this is equivalently compensated, as it is compensated in the case in which someone has said a notably shorter office. Therefore.

Thus perhaps Salvianus reasoned. Nevertheless it seems more true that he was gravely obliged to the recitation of the hour of none. For he did not satisfy the obligation of the divine office as to form and as to quantity together, in grave matter. For it cannot truly be said that he recited none, but that he recited sext twice, which is quite different. Wherefore, although office for office is valid, because the form and quantity of the divine office is preserved, and there is error only as to the quality of the office of one Saint, for example, for another Saint; nevertheless hour for hour is not valid. For by that very fact form and quantity are lacking, since the hour is omitted. Nor indeed can it be sufficiently supplied by another hour. For in the very fact that that hour itself is lacking, the quantity of that hour cannot be supplied. It is certainly another thing when there is question of vespers of Holy Saturday, for then, because of the smallness of the prayer, the omission of that whole hour constitutes a small omission. Likewise when a shorter office has been recited for another longer one; the integral form of the office has already been preserved, and the quantity can well be supplied by reciting the psalms of the other omitted office. But in the Case this cannot be verified, for one hour would be supplied by another hour of the same office; and since one hour is grave matter, excepting vespers of Holy Saturday, there would already be had a grave alteration as to the form and quantity together of the divine office. Otherwise why could not one nocturn be recited twice, three times, for the first, second, and third nocturn; twice prime or twice lauds for lauds and prime, and so forth?

Fabianus, a priest, since he was rather tired from a delayed celebration of Mass and from a sermon given to the people, began to recite the little morning hours. But when the hour of none had been begun, he was called to dinner; and lest others should have to wait for him, and he himself had already waited a long time, he at once completed none by a shorter way, namely by reciting those things which precede and follow, and by omitting the three intermediate parts of Psalm 118.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Theologians in this matter have established, some too great, others too small, matter for having a grave transgression in the recitation of the divine office, as may be seen apud Busembaum and St. Alphonsus, l. 4, nn. 146, 147, and La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1202. But the opinion has now become most common, as Fr. Gury affirms, Comp., n. 51, requiring the omission of one little hour or of a quantity equivalent to it. Now this opinion must be taken altogether strictly for the omission of one entire hour, and thus Fr. Gury, in the cited place, openly says: “if someone does not omit some hour altogether integrally, he can be excused from grave sin, because more probably it is light to omit less than an integral hour.” St. Alphonsus, in the cited place, cites several theologians for the same opinion, and says: “they probably say that it is light matter to omit less than an integral little hour”; but afterwards from his own opinion he says: “that universally is judged small matter which does not reach the quantity of one integral hour.” And La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1202, has these things to the matter of which we are treating: “if you omit less than a whole little hour, you do not sin mortally. If however you recite only a small part of one little hour, for example, these five words: Deus in adiutorium meum intende, you are judged to neglect the whole, and therefore you sin mortally, because so little is reputed as nothing.”

But d’Annibale, Summ., 3rd ed., p. 3, n. 147, says: “if someone has read some small thing of a little hour, say the hymn, chapter, responsories, and prayer, the rest being omitted, it will be just as if he had omitted the whole, La-Croix IV, 1202.” At first sight the distinguished D’Annibale seems to hold as small and almost as nothing all those things together: the hymn, chapter, responsories, and prayer. But since he cites La-Croix, and, as is clear from his words just reported, La-Croix holds as small and almost as nothing only those five words, it must be said that D’Annibale understood as small only the hymn, or chapter, or responsories, or prayer; although the sense is somewhat obscure on account of the particle “and” placed at the end.

Wherefore to the proposed question it seems it can be answered that Fabianus was immune at least from grave fault. For he recited a part of the little hour which was not altogether slight, such that it could be held almost as nothing. For this nearly equals one part of Psalm 118, which is recited in that hour, namely sixteen versicles, so that Fabianus recited almost a fourth part of the whole hour. I. M. 114.

Geminianus, by dispensation parish priest of two parishes, is always uncertain whether he ought to recite a double office or only one. Likewise he is often uncertain what office he ought to recite, since those two parishes have some proper offices, but different ones.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Geminianus, “because he owes praises to God as one man, it suffices that he say the office once according to the custom of one of the churches of which he is a cleric. But concerning the choice of office it seems reasonably that he ought to say the office of that church in which he has the greater rank; for example, if in one he is dean and in the other a simple canon, he ought to say the office of the church in which he is dean. But if in each church he were a simple canon, he ought to say the office of the more dignified church, although perhaps in the lesser church he has a richer prebend; because temporal things are of no moment compared with spiritual things. But if both churches are of equal dignity, he can choose whichever office he prefers, if he is absent from each church; but if he is present in one of them, he ought to conform himself to those with whom he lives.” St. Thomas, Quodl. 1, a. 13.

Nemesius, a priest, on a certain Saturday, after the first nocturn of Sunday matins had been said toward night, was called to a sick person, and on Sunday he said the remaining nocturns, without repeating the first.

It is asked: Did Nemesius sin gravely in the Case, and ought he to have repeated matins?

R. In the negative. The reason is that he satisfied the substance of the precept, since he completed the office at the due time. Therefore Nemesius is to be excused from mortal sin, although he interposed the whole night between one nocturn and the next. Indeed he is free even from venial fault, since he did this from a just cause, or from an office of charity, namely so that he might aid the sick person. G. 51; I. M. 143.

Felix, a beneficed cleric, assisting at choir, very often does not understand those things which are sung by the other part of the choir; but he hears only confused chant, by no means distinguishing and understanding the words. Hence he is very anxious whether he satisfies the obligation of the divine office.

R. Felix satisfies the obligation of the divine office. For the difficulty by which he is disturbed follows from the very manner of singing the divine hours. For unless someone holds the whole office by memory, or unless he reads while the other part of the choir sings, it very often happens that someone, although he attends and wishes to understand all things well, does not distinguish or understand the words. Moreover those who by obligation assist at choir certainly are not held to learn the office by memory, nor, while the other part of the choir sings, are they themselves held to read that part; but it suffices that they hear the chant and attend as much as they can. The same holds concerning the recitation of the office with a companion. “He satisfies his obligation who does not understand his companion, because there is no obligation of understanding, but of reciting his own part and hearing the other. Otherwise nuns and also many religious not understanding the Latin tongue would not satisfy.” G. 52; St. Alphonsus, 163; I. M. 111.

Sebastianus, a mountain parish priest, reciting the office privately, indeed makes all the commemorations in the suffrages which are found in the breviary before compline; but he omits all other commemorations, namely of the Titular of the Church, of the Patron of the Parish, of the Titular of the Cathedral Church, of the Patron of the Diocese, and of the Patron of the whole Kingdom. Callixtus, his vicar, contends that all these commemorations must be made, because they are found indicated in the diocesan Calendar, which must altogether be stood by. But Sebastianus constantly answers that they are not found in the Roman breviary approved by St. Pius V, which rather must be stood by.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Sebastianus does not act rightly, omitting the commemoration of the Titular of the Church. For this is clear from the rubric itself of the breviary, in which it is said: “the commemoration of the Patron or Titular of the Church is added.” Of the Patron, if the Church has a Patron, namely the Blessed Virgin Mary or some Saint who exercises his patronage. Of the Titular, if the Church is dedicated to some divine Mystery, which, properly speaking, does not exercise patronage; and therefore it is said “of the Patron or Titular of the Church,” and it is not said “of the Patron and of the Titular of the Church.” Of the Church, i.e., of the proper Church; not of the Cathedral Church; of the proper Church, namely, to whose service one is attached by any canonical title whatever, provided that the church is public, even if not consecrated. Besides the commemoration of the Title or Patron of the Church, and as regards Regulars, of their proper Founder, no commemoration of the Patron of the place or Diocese, Province, or Kingdom is to be made by force of the rubric, unless a contrary custom is in force. Thus from the General Decree of the S. R. C., 27 June 1899. Whence it is also clear that by force of the rubric no commemoration of the Titular of the Cathedral Church is to be made besides the commemoration of the Titular of one’s proper Church. Wherefore Sebastianus the parish priest is indeed held to make the commemoration of the Patron or Titular of his proper Church. But as regards the others, one must see not whether they are found indicated in the diocesan Calendar, but whether a legitimate custom is present. It must be affirmed in the Case, if in the diocesan Calendar they are not now indicated for the first time, but have constantly been prescribed previously.

Here it must be noted that “the Titular, or Patron of a Church, is said to be he under whose name or title the Church was founded, and from whom it is named. But the Patron of a place properly is he whom a certain city, diocese, province, kingdom, etc., has chosen for itself as a singular patron before God, the rules being observed in his election.” S. R. C., 9 May 1857, Briocen., n. 3048; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1932, 1934, 1937, 1938.

Bishop H., besides the cathedral, has other churches from which he receives some fruit for his support. Must he himself, when the suffrages of the Saints are to be done, add a commemoration of their Titulars; or does the commemoration only of the Titular of his own cathedral suffice?

R. He is held only to the commemoration of the Titular of the cathedral church. S. R. C., 16 Apr. 1886, Halif., ad 2.

n. 9.

Missionary H. A. has other churches committed to his care, besides the principal one. Must he make the commemoration of the Titulars of all of them?

n. 9.

R. He is held to the commemoration only of the Titular of the more dignified church, or of the church at which he must reside. S. R. C., 16 Apr. 1886, Halif., ad 2.

Anastasius, a beneficed cleric, very liable to wandering of mind and distraction, in the recitation of the breviary often, when he is at the end of the recitation of lauds, of the hour of none, or of compline, does not remember whether he has said the things which precede. Hence he is often very anxious whether he ought to repeat the recitation, and he begins also to be anxious whether he ought to restore the fruits of the benefice.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. There is a twofold opinion of theologians in this matter. The first opinion asserts that for fulfilling the obligation of the divine office there is required and sufficient, besides intention, internal, virtual attention, whether it is to God, or to the sense of the words, or even to the words alone with at least some confused attention to God. But internal virtual attention is that which remains from actual attention as long as it is not revoked expressly or tacitly by voluntary distraction, or by an action incompatible with due attention. Whence although you are involuntarily distracted, nevertheless you attend virtually if in general you intended to say the office in the customary way, or with the mind of praising God, or of satisfying your duty, and if consequently you recite with at least some confused apprehension and purpose of doing the customary work. The supporters of this opinion diligently note that, in order that someone be said not to satisfy the office, it is required not only that someone voluntarily distract himself, but also that he fully notice that he is distracted. For an intention previously conceived with full deliberation does not cease to exist, unless it is retracted with another full advertence. The other opinion asserts that for fulfilling the obligation of the divine office external attention is required and sufficient. But external attention is had when no action incompatible with interior attention is placed, such as writing, reading, etc. The first opinion is more common and more probable; but the second opinion, both on account of the authority of many and very grave doctors, and on account of a reason resting on foundations not slight, is sufficiently probable and is held as such by Busembaum, l. 4, n. 7, and by St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 177. “Whence,” says the Holy Doctor, “I would not dare to condemn to restitution a beneficed cleric who in good faith had recited the office with voluntary distraction, and likewise in good faith had received the fruits.” Cf. also concerning this question Sylvius, op. t. 5, Oratio 13, concerning attention to the canonical hours; D’Annibale, 3rd ed., p. 3, n. 149; I. M. n. 165. — But the reason of the first opinion is: because prayer pertains to worship, and exterior worship without interior worship is a lie. Besides, because prayer is the ascent of the mind to God. The reason of the second opinion is that prayer is petition; but only intention and words are necessary for petition. Otherwise, if internal attention were also necessary for the substance of prayer, there would be no prayer if someone were unwillingly distracted, which no one affirms; nor would the sacrament of extreme unction be confected, whose form is deprecatory. And these reasons are very grave. Hence Anastasius, concerning whom the Case is concerned, ought to be anxious about nothing. For first, since he finds himself at the end of some hour, he can presume that he said that whole hour. Moreover, since he himself is anxious concerning the recitation of the office, and is often anxious, it does not seem that he recites without any internal attention. And although he does not have this, it does not seem that he certainly lacks even external attention. Wherefore he ought neither to repeat the recitation, nor to restore the fruits of the benefice, which, since he has already received them in good faith, the condition of the possessor is the better. Giribaldi, 183–185.

Pancratius, a beneficed cleric, knowingly and willingly distracted in mind, recites the office several times. Moreover, always and legitimately dispensed from choir, he recites matins and lauds of the following day on the preceding evening around the second hour. He is now greatly disturbed whether he has committed grave sin, and he is disturbed still more because, notwithstanding such anxiety of conscience, he does not restore the fruits. Hence he approaches a confessor and manifests to him the distresses of his soul, so that he may have peace. But his distresses increase; for the confessor pronounces that he has sinned gravely always in the individual cases, and besides that he is held to restitution, because from St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 158, possession of any thing cannot be begun except with certitude of right.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Recitation of the divine office is a human act, and therefore is not had without intention; whence it is altogether necessary that someone recite it knowingly and willingly. But from the fact that someone is distracted in recitation, attention indeed vanishes, but intention is not impeded. Attention is also necessary for the recitation of the divine office, because it is prayer. But it suffices that it be external attention; for the precept of internal attention is certainly not established, since the doctors greatly dispute concerning it. Wherefore, if someone recites the divine office knowingly and willingly while distracted in mind, he sufficiently satisfies his obligation, if otherwise at least external attention is not lacking. Therefore Pancratius, reciting the divine office while distracted, is immune from grave sin, and so the confessor did not pronounce sentence well in this matter.

Many and approved doctors hold that matins and lauds can begin at the second hour, and many doctors also who adhere to the contrary opinion think it probable. Therefore Pancratius, even in this recitation, is probably not guilty of grave sin. Whence the confessor did not pronounce sentence well in this either.

But the confessor erred altogether in imposing restoration of fruits upon Pancratius. For Pancratius is disturbed only after the fact, and so he received the fruits in good faith, in which Case, from the very opinion of St. Alphonsus, he would not be held to restore the fruits. Indeed St. Alphonsus, in the cited place, treats the question concerning a beneficed cleric: whether, when he cannot recite the office alone, he is held to hire a companion from the fruits of the benefice. He brings two opinions, the affirmative and the negative. And then he immediately adds: “each opinion is probable; hence I say that if such a beneficed cleric omitted the office because he did not employ a companion, and received the fruits in good faith, he can retain them, because the condition of the possessor is the better. Otherwise, if he has not yet received them, but relying on the probability of this second opinion wishes to receive them, because possession of any thing cannot be begun except with certitude of right.” But even if Pancratius has not received the fruits, he can certainly receive them; for only he who omits to recite the hours does not make the fruits his own. But Pancratius certainly recited the hours. Moreover, the general principle established by the Holy Doctor has its exceptions. Certainly someone cannot begin possession of some thing with probability of right by despoiling another who is in legitimate possession of the thing. But if another does not possess the thing, or does not possess it legitimately, his possession can indeed be begun with probability of right. For if that possession can be continued with such probability of right, why also can it not be begun, since possession consists not in right but in fact, and is always the same after it has been entered upon and when it is entered upon? Moreover, good, doubtful, or bad faith does not change the truth of a thing. Wherefore even when possession has been begun with doubtful or bad faith, if afterwards the error is established, someone, having rightly formed conscience for himself, will be able to retain the thing. And thus, if two buy a thing, one of whom thinks it is the seller’s, the other that it is not the seller’s, if afterwards Titius appears affirming that it is his, but by no means proving this, the buyer’s bad faith certainly grants or adds no right to Titius, just as the good faith of the other buyer takes away no right from Titius. Whence, if in truth that thing was the seller’s, both buyers can altogether retain it, and, once the error is known, the other buyer must change only his own opinion and rightly form conscience for himself. Likewise he who contracted marriage with a doubtful impediment, after the matter has been explored in vain, can licitly render and seek the debt. Ligorius, l. 6, n. 906; I. M. 1032. He who received moderate gain from a loan with doubtful or bad faith, provided he is prepared to stand by the mandates of the Church, ought not to be disturbed. S. Penitentiary, 16 Jan. 1837. He who, thinking with bad or doubtful faith that he is irregular, accepted an ecclesiastical benefice, makes the fruits his own. Ligorius, l. 7, n. 347. He who takes a gem found on the seashore, doubting whether it belongs to no one, or has been abandoned, or has been lost, after useless investigation, no one appearing, makes it his own. And, if someone appears, but does not prove that it was lost by him, still the former justly and legitimately retains it. Namely, bad or doubtful faith in these cases takes away nothing of right. Whence, if in good faith someone justly and legitimately retains, in the same case, even with bad and doubtful faith, this afterwards removed, he justly and legitimately retains. Besides, although the reason brought forward were universally true, nevertheless it has no place in the proposed case: for the beneficed cleric receives the fruits of the benefice with certitude of right; for the benefice itself, which he possesses, gives a certain right to receiving the fruits. But one omitting the office does not make the fruits his own; but let it be shown that Pancratius omitted the office.

n. 12.

Eustachius, a priest, on the day of the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed, is invited by the Prefect of the Confraternity of the Most Holy Rosary to sing the office in the chapel of the cemetery of Campo Verano together with other ecclesiastics and members of the Confraternity. Eustachius sings with the others the Office of the Dead and receives a rich stipend. But he does not privately recite another office on that day, thinking that by that same office sung in the chapel of the cemetery, notwithstanding the rich stipend received for it, he can also satisfy the obligation which he has of reciting it as one initiated in sacred orders from the common law of the Church.

…and 9 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 5 passages

Vol. II, Treatise on Particular Sta…, Part Second. On the State …, Ch. I, Art. I, § IV. On the Recitation of the Canonical Hours or Divine Office

- The canonical Hours are said to be a collection of prayers and readings to be recited at certain hours on individual days by persons deputed to this. Hence the Hours are also called 1º Divine Office, because it is recited in honor of God; 2º ecclesiastical Office, because it is paid in the name of the Church; 3º canonical Office, because it must be recited according to the rules of the Canons; 4º Breviary, because that Office is a compendium of the old and new Testament, and also of the sentences of the Fathers and the lives of the Saints.

The origin of the Divine Office as to substance seems to be derived from the very times of the Apostles, as is gathered from various places in the Acts of the Apostles, from the testimonies of the Fathers, and from various documents.

In the course of times the form and quantity of the Breviary was varied. The Council of Trent, sess. 25, at the end, commanded that a new reform of the Roman Breviary be made. St. Pius V corrected it, increased it by some additions, and by the Bull Quod a Nobis, 7 July 1568, prohibited all other Breviaries which from institution or legitimate custom did not surpass 200 years. Nevertheless in France the custom unhappily grew strong that most Bishops would have and change their own proper Breviaries ¹. For a long time the Church was silent because of the calamities of the times, so that she was believed to tolerate this custom. But in these most recent times, according to the various circumstances of things, she has kindly opened her mind, and thence the pious Mother rejoicing sees almost all Bishops eagerly returning to liturgical unity.

¹ ** This custom is owed in no small part to the artifices of the old Jansenists, who, having undertaken to disturb the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy for the subversion of the Church, attributed to individual Bishops for their own Diocese the plenitude of power by which the Roman Pontiff prevails over the universal Church.

The whole Divine Office is divided into seven Hours, namely Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline.

Vol. III, First Book: On Persons in …, Tr. I, Ch. III, Art. II, § 2. Obligations Common to Clerics of Major Orders · Vol. III, Bk. III, Tr. II, Appendices, To n. 33. - Appendix I. Historical-Liturgical Appendix on the Canonical Hours

One must treat 1º of the obligation of the Breviary; 2º of the time established for recitation of the Hours; 3º of the manner of reciting them; 4º of causes excusing from recitation.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 1 passage (filed under the subtopics)

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion, On Particular States

n. ¶34.

N. 62. - On the Time of Recitation of the Divine Office

Cf. On the Sixth Precept of the Church, N. 489.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 29 passages

Vol. III, Contracts, and the Obligat…, On the Obligations of Stat…, Chapter II: On the Duties of Clerics

n. 1071.

§ II. On The Recitation Of The Divine Office.

The recitation of the divine office is one of the most efficacious means for preserving continence; and therefore it was enjoined upon sacred ministers already for a long time. It is called the divine office, because it was instituted by the Church for praising God; it also received the name canonical hours, because through the sacred canons it was prescribed for certain hours. Today seven different canonical hours are numbered: Matins with Lauds, or the nocturnal office; Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline, which constitute the diurnal office.

¹ E. Amort, Vetus disciplina canonicorum regularium et saecularium, Venice, 1748; Thomassin, op. cit., P. II, l. I, c. 15-59; Suarez, De oratione, devotione et horis canonicis, lib. IV, c. 1-30; Card. Bona, De divina psalmodia, Paris, 1603; St. Alphons., lib. V, n. 140-179; Roskovany, op. cit., t. IV, sq.; P. Batiffol, Hist. du Breviaire romain, 2nd ed., Paris, 1895; F. Probst, Brevier und Breviergebet; Baumer, Geschichte des Breviers, or its French version: Histoire du Breviaire, French translation brought up to date with the latest works on the question by Dom Biron, Paris, Letouzey, 1905; Ballerini-Palm., Tr. IX, n. 329-429; Lehmk., t. II, n. 620-640; Noldin, n. 742-767. - The manuscripts which P. Valat, professor of Canon Law in the Seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris, kindly handed over to me for use have likewise been of much profit.

Here the matter concerns the divine office insofar as it regards clerics; concerning the obligations of regulars and nuns it is said elsewhere; and we shall explain two things: 1. the obligation of reciting the divine office; 2. the manner of fulfilling that duty.

I. On The Obligation Of Reciting The Divine Office.

We shall declare the existence and extension of this obligation, and also the causes excusing from the same.

1. Existence Of This Obligation.

n. 1072.

Principle: Every cleric constituted in sacred orders or beneficed is held to recite the divine office daily. This obligation indeed did not flourish from the beginning, but was gradually introduced, and was more precisely determined by the practice of the Church, as will be clear from the following: -

n. 1073.

(A) The historical evolution of this obligation is outlined. (a) The part of the divine office which first was in use is Matins, which was sung at first light. First indeed on the Vigil of Easter, but afterward on the vigils of Sundays, of certain feasts and stations (which had place on the fourth and sixth ferias), the clergy and people were accustomed to sing psalms, hymns, and prayers in certain designated basilicas; and in some places vigils of this sort became daily, because of the greater devotion of the faithful.

(b) In the fourth century, daily vigils are celebrated in each presbyteral title of the City, and indeed by only the clerics ascribed to this title. This practice indeed in following centuries was extended to other churches; thus Pope Hormisdas (514-523) "composed the clergy and instructed them in psalms";¹ and Justinian the Emperor, in the year 529, recalled to clerics the obligation of singing vigils daily in the church to which they had been incardinated; in the seventh century, we read that one of the bishops of the Roman province, at the command of the Roman Pontiff, prescribed to his clerics that "on daily days vigils be celebrated in the Church."²

¹ Cf. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, t. I, p. 269.

² You will find the ancient canons concerning the divine office in the Decree of Gratian, distinct. 91 and 92.

(c) Meanwhile, however, the diurnal hours were added to the Matutinal office, and afterward Vespers and Compline: and from this time the custom prevailed more and more that clerics alone were bound to the divine psalmody. In the first times indeed, no distinction is made between major and minor clerics as to the recitation of the office: those in minor orders sang the divine office equally with the sacred ministers in the churches to which they had been ascribed.³ But, already from the thirteenth century, that distinction appears; for the Council of Cologne (an. 1280) imposes the obligation of reciting the office on all clerics in general, but especially on beneficiaries and major clerics. From this time, Councils commemorate only sacred ministers and beneficed clerics; thus the Council of Basel (1431-1442).

³ Van Espen, Jus canonicum, t. II, De Horis Canonicis, c. I, § 1.

(d) At first the office was sung publicly in churches by clerics; that this persevered still in the ninth century is certain from the decree of Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, by which he prescribed to his clerics (an. 852) that at the appointed hours they assemble for discharging the office, not only in cathedral and collegiate churches, but also in parochial churches. - Gradually, however, from a certain kindness, the Church tempered her laws; thus the Council of Vienne (an. 1311-1312) imposed assistance in choir only for cathedral, regular, and collegiate churches; therefore the other clerics could recite the office privately.

n. 1074.

(e) As Lehmkuhl, n. 624, deservedly observes, the Pontiffs and Councils rather suppose that this obligation of reciting the office is present than properly impose it. Yet it is useful to relate certain texts, as being more explicit; first as to presbyters: "Let the priest, the matutinal office having been completed in the morning, discharge the task of his service, namely Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers."⁴ Afterward, various abuses flourishing in reciting the office having been enumerated, it is added: "Therefore these and similar things we utterly prohibit under penalty of suspension, strictly commanding in virtue of obedience that they celebrate the nocturnal and likewise the diurnal divine office, as much as God shall give them, studiously and also devoutly."⁵ - The Council of Basel admonishes concerning the right recitation of the office not only priests, but "any beneficed persons whatever, or those constituted in sacred orders, since they are held to the canonical hours."⁶

⁴ Decretal. Greg. IX, lib. III, tit. 41, cap. 1.

⁵ Ibid., cap. 9, Dolentes.

⁶ In Roskovany, t. V, p. 117.

n. 1075.

(B) From the practice and custom of the Church this obligation is more precisely determined. This is, among other things, an eminent and apodictically concluding argument. For from those things which have been said above, it is not always plainly clear whether there is question of beneficed clerics only, or also of non-beneficed clerics without distinction; nor whether there is question only of the divine office to be fulfilled in church, or also of the office imposed privately upon each one. But custom, the best interpreter of laws, for a long time now clearly and absolutely imposes upon each cleric constituted in sacred orders the personal obligation of reciting the divine office, even privately, and outside assemblies of the church.

n. 1076.

The witnesses and proof of this custom are the following facts: (a) The doctrine of all Moralists and Canonists, from whom not even one today will be found teaching that the daily recitation of the Breviary is not obligatory for Major Clerics. (b) The manner of acting of Bishops who, although by customary law they can dispense in such a law, in fact dispense very rarely and only in a transitory manner. (c) The sense of all, whether Presbyters, or Deacons, or Subdeacons, who, even when they are less given to piety and perfection, think that they are so bound to this obligation that they judge notable omissions to be grave faults.

The Code, c. 135, thus sanctioned this custom: "Clerics constituted in major orders... are held by the obligation of daily reciting the canonical hours integrally according to their own and approved liturgical books."

It is to be noted that a Cleric even interdicted, suspended, or excommunicated is not exempted from the obligation of the Breviary, from the axiom of law: "No one ought to bring back advantage from his own fault and iniquity." Yet concerning a degraded cleric, namely one cast down by the Church into the secular state, the matter is disputed.¹

¹ Cf. Ferraris, Bibl. Juris, word Officium div., art. 1, n. 21-22.

2. On The Gravity Of This Obligation.

n. 1077.

Principle. The obligation of reciting the divine office is of itself grave, because its end is something of the greatest moment, namely worship to be rendered to God in the name of the Church; yet it admits smallness of matter, because the omission of some brief prayer is not judged morally to inflict grave injury upon God. Hence: -

n. 1078.

(A) One who deliberately, without sufficient cause, omits the whole office of one day, or a notable part of it, sins gravely. But an integral hour, even a brief one, such as Terce or Compline,¹ is judged a notable part, because, from the common judgment of prudent persons, the omission of one hour is something grave in relation to the whole office. - Therefore one sins lightly who omits an hour not integrally, but only in part, for example, the lessons of one nocturn. If something is omitted from several hours, greater matter is required for mortal sin, because one continuous omission is judged graver than several separate omissions. - One who omits the whole office of one day more probably commits only one sin, yet graver than if he neglected only one hour; the reason is that the office of one day is enjoined by the Church by one precept.

¹ Yet the omission of Vespers on Holy Saturday is not judged grave, because this matter is light both in itself and by reason of the whole office (Noldin, n. 746).

n. 1079.

(B) Beneficed clerics, for example, canons or parish priests, who, after six months have elapsed from the benefice obtained, have culpably omitted the divine office, ought to restore to pious works the fruits of the benefice in proportion to the omitted hours. Thus from the law brought by Lateran V, more accurately declared by Pius V, and related in the Code, c. 1475.

(a) Restitution ought to be made even before the sentence of a judge, as is clear from the condemnation of this proposition 20 by Alexander VII: "Restitution imposed by Pius V upon beneficed persons not reciting is not owed in conscience before the declaratory sentence of a judge, because it is a penalty."

(b) A simple beneficed cleric, who has no other obligation except the recitation of the office, ought to restore all the fruits in proportion to the omitted hours; but a beneficed cleric with care of souls, upon whom other obligations are incumbent, such as celebration of Mass or the pastoral office, ought to restore only that part of the fruits which, all other offices attended to, corresponds to the obligation of the divine office. Thus a parish priest who has neglected to recite the breviary for one month is not held to restore a twelfth part of the fruits of the year, since the right to those fruits arises not only from the divine office, but from other functions. What part ought he to restore? This depends on the moral estimation of prudent persons; some with Noldin (n. 747) probably say about a tenth part, because recitation of the breviary seems to be, as it were, a tenth part of the offices of a parish priest.

n. 1080.

(C) The obligation of reciting the divine office begins on the day and hour on which the subdiaconate is received. Thus one who is ordained in the morning, before the ninth hour, ought to begin from Terce; one who is ordained at the tenth hour will begin from Sext. One who before ordination recites hours to which he is held only after the order has been received probably satisfies his obligation, on account of the moral union which exists between these two moments.

3. On Causes Excusing From This Obligation.

There are three: physical or moral impossibility; the greatest utility of the neighbor; dispensation from a legitimate superior.

n. 1081.

(A) Physical or moral impossibility excuses from recitation of the office as long and insofar as it perseveres. For no one is held to the impossible, and a positive law does not oblige with such great inconvenience.

Thus one who has lost the breviary, or while traveling has not taken it with him through forgetfulness, is excused from reciting it as long as, without grave inconvenience, he cannot have another; yet if he has retained notable parts by memory, he is held to say them. Say the same concerning one who has become blind. But the sick and convalescent person who cannot read without great fatigue is for a time dispensed from it. In doubt, he can stand by the judgment of a superior, or of a physician or prudent friend, or by his own judgment.

One who can recite one part, but not other parts, is by no means dispensed from that one, because any notable part obliges of itself, and indeed under grave obligation; hence the following proposition 54 was deservedly reproved by Innocent XI: "One who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining hours, is held to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself."¹

¹ Denzinger, n. 1071.

One who cannot recite the office alone, but can with a companion, is nevertheless not held to employ a companion, unless he easily finds him without inconvenience. - One who cannot recite the hours is not strictly held to pour forth other prayers, because the object of the precept is the office ordered by the Church, but not any prayer whatever; but this is altogether to be counseled, since the mind of the Church is that sacred ministers pray for the people.

To moral impossibility approaches the greatest difficulty which the scrupulous sometimes suffer in discharging the divine office; wherefore they can be dispensed for a time by the confessor, until they are able to recite it without grave anxiety.

n. 1082.

(B) The greatest utility of the neighbor excuses from reciting the office, when there is question of an occupation which cannot be combined with recitation, nor otherwise be deferred to another time without grave inconvenience. The reason is that the divine law of charity is to be preferred to ecclesiastical law. - Wherefore they are excused: -

(a) One who, about to recite Vespers and Compline, is suddenly called to a gravely sick person, and afterward does not return at a time suitable for recitation of the office.

(b) One who throughout the afternoon time hears confessions which cannot conveniently be deferred to another day.

(c) One who throughout the whole day is occupied without interruption in assisting the sick at a time of contagious disease, or the gravely wounded.

(d) One who, about to have a sermon which he cannot omit, needs the whole time for preparing it. - In these or similar cases, no one is held to deprive himself of necessary refreshment of the body or sleep so that he can recite the office.

But a prudent and pious priest will try to foresee these difficulties, and will generally find time for saying the breviary without neglecting the functions of a pastor.

n. 1083.

(C) Dispensation from a legitimate superior. For since there is question of a merely ecclesiastical law, the Supreme Pontiff can validly dispense from it in every case; licitly, however, when the cause is reasonable, even if of itself it would not suffice. - But a Bishop cannot of himself dispense from it, since it is a universal law; but from general custom, which is held as legitimate, he is able to grant a dispensation in some particular case for a time, a just cause being present.

II. On The Manner Of Reciting The Divine Office.

Three things especially are to be inquired: 1. what office is to be recited; 2. what external conditions are required; 3. what internal dispositions of soul.

1. On The Office To Be Recited.

n. 1084.

(A) The divine office ought to be recited as prescribed by the Church; for since it has been instituted and ordered by the authority of the Church, clerics ought in conscience to obey the ecclesiastical rules flourishing concerning this matter. But these things especially are to be noted: -

(a) In the Latin Church, the Roman breviary is to be used, except, however, in places and religious orders in which other breviaries approved by the Church from their first institution or introduced by custom had been in use for two hundred years before the promulgation of the Pian Constitution Quod a nobis (July 9, 1568). Thus the Milanese, Treves, Liege churches, etc., and also Benedictines and Dominicans legitimately retain their breviaries.¹

¹ In France there were indeed many very ancient breviaries, which could have been retained. But, since after the aforesaid Constitution they had been changed without the authority of the Holy See, they lost their privileges, and in their place the Roman Breviary with the diocesan Proper was substituted.

(b) Today there no longer flourishes an obligation of reciting the Little Office of Blessed Mary, the Office of the Dead (except on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed), the Penitential Psalms and Gradual Psalms on the days on which they are assigned in the Breviary, unless where custom has remained, which nevertheless does not oblige outside choir. - But the Greater Litanies on the feast day of St. Mark and during the three days of Rogations ought to be recited, even outside choir.

n. 1085.

(B) Daily there ought to be recited the office assigned to each day in the calendar or directory, unless a legitimate reason excuses.

(a) One who lacks the office assigned to this day ought to recite another; for example, one who does not have the office of some saint ought to read the office from the common; say the same concerning parts of the office which are not at hand: for example, one who lacks proper lessons should read the common ones.

(b) Non-beneficed clerics, staying in another diocese, can recite the office of this place, but are not held to this unless they intend truly to acquire domicile there. - But beneficed clerics are held to the office of their own church, even when they stay elsewhere.¹

¹ S. C. Rit., Nov. 12, 1831, ad 46, n. 2682 new ed.

(c) The office ought to be recited as indicated in the diocesan calendar, unless it is morally certain that it errs.² - Likewise the proper offices of the diocese or Order ought to be read according to the order defined in the calendar; for although the concession of these privileges is a privilege granted to the community, individual members cannot reject it, but ought to conform themselves to the office of the community.

² S. C. Rit., June 1899, n. 4031 new ed.

n. 1086.

(a) One who has involuntarily erred in the office is not held to recite another, because the Church does not wish to oblige one to read the breviary twice on the same day; then the axiom is legitimately applied: office for office. Nevertheless, if the office recited is notably shorter (for example, the office of a feria for the office of a Saint), according to some, it is necessary, and according to all, it is fitting, to supply something, for example, in the aforesaid case, by reciting the omitted lessons. - If the error is detected while the office has not yet been completed, according to some, the office begun can be completed; but more probably, according to St. Alphonsus (n. 161) and others, the remaining things ought to be read from the prescribed office, according to that saying: an error is corrected where it is detected.

One who has recited the same hour twice, for example, Terce, cannot omit another, for example, Sext, because the form of the office and the distinction of the hours has not been preserved.

One who by error has said one office for another will more suitably, on the day on which the office already recited occurs, recite it again, so that he may conform himself to the common rite of the Church;¹ yet probably he can read the omitted office, lest this be passed over in that year.²

¹ S. C. R., June 17, 1673, n. 1474 (formerly n. 2634).

² St. Alphons., n. 161; Ball. P., n. 383; Lehmk., n. 626; Noldin, n. 753.

n. 1087.

(b) But one who deliberately changes the office sins gravely if he recites another plainly diverse and much shorter, because he gravely disturbs the liturgical order; wherefore the following proposition 34 was deservedly condemned by Alexander VII: "On Palm Sunday one reciting the Easter office satisfies the precept."³ - The same must be said of one who frequently changes the office without reason.

³ Viva, Theses damnatae, on this proposition observes that there is a twofold reason why one acting thus sins gravely: because the office of Easter is wholly diverse from the office of Palms, which recalls the memory of the passion; and otherwise it is notably shorter; Denzinger, n. 1005.

One sins lightly who, without reasonable cause, changes the office into another almost equal; he does not sin in any way if this is done from any reasonable cause whatever. Now the following or similar reasons are held as sufficient: the reason of a journey, if someone uses the breviary of a companion; the reason of special devotion, if someone three or four times in a year recites some particular office; the reason of charity, for example, so that someone becoming blind may be helped in reciting the office; - but, from a recent decision, a cleric constituted in sacred orders "generally" does not satisfy his obligation "who, spontaneously or invited, joins himself to clergy singing or reciting an office diverse from the office of that cleric himself."⁴

⁴ S. C. Rit., Jan. 27, 1899, n. 4011 new ed.

2. On The External Conditions Required For The Recitation Of The Office.

Four things especially are to be considered: the order to be observed, the time at which the various hours are to be recited, the pronunciation of the words, the place and posture in which they ought to be recited.

n. 1088.

(A) The order to be observed among the hours. This indeed excludes two things: inversion of the prescribed order, and interruption in the same hour.

(a) In the recitation of the hours the prescribed order is to be observed, namely: Matins and Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. This precept does not oblige under grave obligation in private recitation, nor even in choir, according to the common opinion, because the inversion of this order is not judged a morally grave deformity. - Indeed, when a just cause is present, there is no sin, even venial. Now a reasonable cause is present: if someone, not having a breviary at hand, recites the hours before Matins, or reads the psalms, deferring the lessons to another time; or if someone comes late to choir when some hour has already been finished and laudably proceeds with companions to sing the office, later about to recite the omitted hour; or if someone privately is invited by another to say the hours, when he has not yet recited Matins.

n. 1089.

(b) When one hour has been begun, it ought regularly to be read whole to the end, nor can it licitly be interrupted without just cause; for reverence toward God and the Church requires this, since she has aptly disposed hymns, psalms, prayers, etc. to the intended end, namely the praise of God. Nevertheless, according to the common opinion, no interruption, however great, is mortal sin, provided the whole office is recited within the space of one day; for the individual parts of the office do not have a necessary connection with the others, but only an accidental one from the ordination of the Church. But it is a venial sin, unless a legitimate cause is present. - Now, among reasonable causes, these and similar ones are numbered: the utility of the neighbor, for example, a confession to be heard of someone who would not easily or willingly wait; obedience, in order to execute more quickly the command of a superior; charity and civility, in order to greet or kindly address someone; private utility, for example, to increase devotion, to note something useful on paper.

Whatever the interval may be, there is no obligation of repeating the part recited before the interruption; it suffices that only those things be resumed which are necessary for understanding the sense of the proposition.

Lauds can be divided from Matins, without cause, for a long time; for in antiquity Matins was said in the middle of the night, and Lauds as dawn was beginning. In which case, Matins is to be concluded as follows: namely, the prayer of the day is recited, and afterward these are said: Dominus vobiscum, Benedicamus, Fidelium, and Pater noster.¹ Yet it is necessary that, in resuming Lauds, Pater and Ave be said.

¹ S. C. Rit., Feb. 1, 1886, n. 3653 new ed.

In Matins itself, any nocturn can be separated from the others, without cause, for the space of three hours, because in antiquity they were accustomed to be thus separated; and even by a longer interval, if a just cause is present.

n. 1090.

(B) On the time at which the various hours are to be recited. The time once assigned for reciting the individual hours was this: Matins after midnight, Lauds at dawn, Prime after sunrise, Terce at the ninth hour, Sext at midday, None at the third afternoon hour, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the dusk of night.

(a) But today, for fulfilling the substance of the precept, it is enough to recite the entire office within the space of one natural day,² that is, from midnight of one day until midnight of the following day; wherefore those are immune from mortal sin who read the office integrally within that time. But once this time has elapsed, no one can any longer satisfy his obligation.

² In the recitation of the office each one at will can follow true time, or mean time, or legal time, or regional time (can. 33).

(b) Under venial obligation it is prescribed that Matins, Lauds, Prime, and Terce be recited before midday, unless a legitimate cause is present, as greater devotion, a time more suitable for studies, etc. - From the rubric of the Missal, Matins with Lauds ought to be recited before Mass; some formerly said that this is prescribed under grave precept, others under light; but probably this rubric does not oblige those who are not assigned to choir, since there is no necessary connection between Mass and Matins.

(c) Vespers and Compline are regularly recited from midday to midnight, nor can they be anticipated without cause. But during the time of Lent (except the first three days and Sundays), Vespers are to be said in choir before midday, in memory of the ancient discipline, according to which the fast was not broken before the recitation of Vespers; privately, however, they can be read at will before or after midday.

n. 1091.

(d) Matins with Lauds privately¹ can be anticipated from legitimate custom, that is, recited on the preceding day from that hour at which the sun holds the middle of its course between noon and sunset, according to the table inserted at the beginning of the Breviary. - Moreover Indults are easily granted so that recitation can begin at the second or first afternoon hour. - But whether it is licit for all, without a special privilege, to begin Matins at the second hour is disputed. Many deny, because from the concession of a special privilege it is deservedly inferred that no general license has been given. Yet not a few probably affirm; for, 1) this follows logically from the evolution of ecclesiastical discipline in this matter; in antiquity Matins was usually read during nighttime; afterward the custom prevailed that it was recited on the preceding evening after sunset, and soon at the middle time between noon and sunset; but in our times, gradually the custom prevailed that it can be said as soon as Vespers are usually recited in choir, i.e., at the second hour; 2) otherwise a custom of this sort is legitimate: for since, on account of the labors of pastoral office, a priest can daily be impeded from reciting Matins around the end of the day, it is indeed greatly expedient that it be licit to anticipate at the second hour, when he is not entangled in too many occupations: for such a manner of acting, which brings detriment to no one, is most profitable to piety. - Nor should it be said that the contrary follows from the practice of granting this privilege to certain clerics; for, where there is a diversity of opinions, the Holy See is accustomed to grant Indults to those petitioning, for the sake of greater security, without wishing to settle the controversy. In reality the Sacred Congregation of Rites, having been asked concerning this matter, responded: Let approved authors be consulted.² Wherefore, until the Holy See shall have established otherwise, we think a priest can use this probable opinion, especially when a reasonable cause is present, for example, the opportunity of anticipating Matins, which perhaps will not occur sooner, or the utility of better distributing the evening time.

¹ In choir, it cannot habitually be anticipated except with an indult of the Holy See; a bishop can permit that this be done for a time, from a just cause.

² S. C. Rit., July 13, 1883.

n. 1092.

(C) On the pronunciation of words. The pronunciation of the words which constitute the divine office ought to be vocal and integral: -

(a) Vocal, because it is prayer not purely mental, but public. Therefore it is not sufficient that it be run through by the mind alone or with the eyes, or recited only with the throat, but with lips and tongue, so that the sound is audible. Yet it is not required that in fact it be heard by others, or by the one reciting himself, but it suffices that the cleric is conscious that he is pronouncing articulated words.

(b) Integral, so that individual words are brought forth without mutilation or truncation. If the mutilation is so notable that the sense is greatly varied, as to a notable part of the office, the sin will be grave; this nevertheless occurs very rarely. More often, from inveterate custom, or a certain haste, a few words are truncated; then light fault or none is present, according as this is done voluntarily or not. Religion indeed counsels that these defects be avoided; but in this matter scruples are carefully to be avoided, nor, in a case of doubt, is the office to be repeated, but attention is to be given so that afterward it may be recited with greater diligence.

n. 1093.

Corollary. It is licit to recite the office not only in choir, but also with a companion, although this companion is not held to the office. But then the recitation ought to be alternate, as is done in choir; therefore, if there are three companions, it is not licit so to recite that one says the first verse, another the second, and another the third; but the companions ought to be divided into, as it were, two choirs. - Moreover it is required that they mutually hear each other; yet if someone, intent on other things, or because of noise, or because the companion pronounces imperfectly, does not perceive a few things, he satisfies his obligation, nor is he held to repeat anything; the same must be said of one who, while others recite in choir, ought to prepare something useful for the office. - Recitation ought to be done in such a way that one verse is not begun before the other has been completed: otherwise it is not integral, and concerning this mutilation the same must be said as above.

n. 1094.

(D) On place and posture. (a) Public recitation of the office ought to be done in choir; but as to private recitation, nothing is prescribed by the Church; therefore any place can be chosen, provided it is decent and apt for recollection of the soul. When it can conveniently be done, it is pious to read it in a sacred place; at least let it not be recited, without reason, in a place where, on account of the throng and tumult of the people, the mind can scarcely be attentive.

(b) Outside choir, likewise no posture is prescribed: therefore it can be recited sitting, standing, or walking, but not in bed, unless a reasonable cause is present. - Inclinations, signs of the cross, etc. which are prescribed by the Rubrics, likewise do not oblige except in choir, but are laudably performed outside choir.

III. On The Internal Dispositions Required For Recitation Of The Breviary.

There are two: intention and attention.

n. 1095.

1. The intention required is the intention of praying, or of honoring God; therefore the intention of reading for the sake of instruction, or from another motive, does not suffice; for the Church prescribes the office as an act of divine worship. - But this intention is had as often as a cleric takes the breviary in order to recite the office; nor is it necessary that he explicitly elicit the intention of praying; hence no anxiety should be had concerning this matter.

But it contributes much to piety to unite oneself to the intention of Christ, the highest priest, according to that saying: "Lord, in union with that divine intention by which you yourself rendered praises to God on earth, I render these hours to you."

n. 1096.

1. On attention. This can be twofold: external or internal. The former excludes actions which by their nature impede internal application, for example, to write, to read attentively, or to give attentive ears to one reading or conversing. - The latter is the application of the mind to those things which are said: if you attend to the words, so that they may be rightly pronounced, the attention is verbal; if to the sense of the words, but by the intellect only, without making the expressed affections your own, intellectual attention is present; if you attend to the sense, and at the same time conceive in the heart the affections expressed, it is affective attention; if in a general way you attend to the divine mysteries, by meditating upon these, the attention is called mystical: and this is judged more perfect than the others; which is true if a certain affective attention to the principal parts of the office is not excluded.

n. 1097.

(A) According to all, at least external attention is certainly required, and therefore those actions are to be avoided which are incompatible with internal attention. Yet external attention is not impeded by those actions which distract the mind only lightly. - Likewise, one who is deliberately and voluntarily distracted in reciting the hours sins venially, because in any prayer whatever a distraction of this sort inflicts some injury upon God.

n. 1098.

(B) But the question is whether one reciting the divine office with voluntary wandering of the mind, although with external attention, substantially satisfies his obligation. (a) Some deny, because the Church wished to impose the office as prayer; but certainly one does not pray who is voluntarily distracted. Wherefore Trent, confirming the sacred canons, commands that clerics, singing the office in choir, praise the name of God reverently, distinctly, and devoutly;¹ but the word devoutly signifies nothing other than internal attention.

¹ Trident., sess. 24, c. 12 de Reformat.

(b) Nevertheless many others affirm; for the office is indeed prayer, but public, made in the name of the Church; now one who does not provide internal attention indeed does not pray privately, but, provided he is externally attentive, he acts as a minister of the Church and prays publicly, just as a messenger reading the letters of a Prince fulfills his office, although internally he is not attentive. - Otherwise the words of Trent brought above are taken from cap. Dolentes,² and from the context it is clear that the Supreme Pontiff here reproves the practice of chatting with seculars in choir, and therefore requires only external attention. - Therefore in practice he who provided external attention cannot be held as guilty of mortal fault, nor compelled to repeat the office, but he is to be exceedingly exhorted to expel voluntary distractions with at least ordinary diligence, so that he may receive more abundant fruits from it for himself and others.

² Decretal., lib. III, tit. 41, c. 9.

n. 1099.

(C) Moreover any internal attention whatever, even of the least degree, suffices for satisfying the precept, according to all. Yet that more abundant fruits may be received, it is indeed to be desired that, before the recitation of the office, clerics gather their internal faculties, unite themselves to Christ, who prays for us and the Church with inenarrable groanings; - and several times during the time of recitation renew their attention: the divine office discharged thus is not a burden, but strength and solace.³

³ Bacuez splendidly discusses the means of reciting the office piously and devoutly, Le Saint Office au point de vue de la piete, Paris, 5th ed., 1904; rendered into English: The Divine Office, London.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 22 passages

Vol. III, First Book: On Persons in …, Tr. I, Ch. III, Art. II, § 2. Obligations Common to Clerics of Major Orders

Two things must be recalled: perfect chastity and the divine office (cc. 132 and 135).

n. 30.

I. On the Obligation of Chastity

— As pertaining to the sanctity with which the Church wishes ministers of divine things to shine, she imposes on clerics of major orders the observance of perfect chastity, so that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege (c. 132, §1). Consequently she keeps the same from marriage, ibid., or from its use, if, being married, they have received major orders with apostolic dispensation. Cf. c. 132, §3.

The Church wishes, besides, that this chastity be confirmed by a true vow. Cf. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, II, 196.

Whether the immediate title of the obligation is the vow or ecclesiastical law: this controversy is not solved by the Code. But the vow cannot be denied, as Ballerini lucidly shows (Op. theol., t. 4, tr. 9, n. 235-240). And these things are morally certain:

a) by positive law of the Church, a vow is imposed in the Latin Church on those about to receive the subdiaconate. For this vow is supposed in c. Cum olim, 6, De Clericis coniugatis (l. 3, t. 3), by the words: "We, attending to the fact that the Eastern Church has not admitted the vow of chastity"; it is supposed in c. un. Quod votum, De voto, in VI (l. 3, t. 15), by which the vow is said to be solemnized by the reception of sacred order; and it is formally taught in the Constitution Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749, §41, of Benedict XIV. Besides, without a vow it cannot be explained how a cleric in sacred orders becomes guilty of sacrilege by merely internal lust: which nevertheless is commonly handed down;

b) those also who have been unwilling to vow chastity must observe chastity by force of ecclesiastical law, from religion, so that contrary sins are sacrileges. Yet because then they are bound by the title of ecclesiastical law alone, they would be immune from the guilt of sacrilege in an internal fault. But these clerics are held by a grave and perpetual obligation of changing this will and of emitting the vow;

c) the nullity of marriage attempted by a cleric in sacred orders proceeds immediately from ecclesiastical law, which wished that sacred order be a diriment impediment and therefore solemnized the annexed vow.

N.B. - In order that a cleric be bound by the vow itself, it suffices that he willed to receive sacred order with the burdens which are annexed by the Church to ordination, although perhaps he was ignorant of the necessity of the vow. Therefore it is in no way essential to the vow that, after hearing the invitation of the ordaining bishop, the one to be ordained physically approached with the customary step.

"A married man who without apostolic dispensation has received major orders, even in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of those orders." Therefore for a married man who desires to receive sacred order there is need of a dispensation of the Holy See.

n. 31.

— Upon a cleric who, coerced by grave fear, has received sacred order, the Church does not impose the obligation of chastity or of reciting the divine office. Wherefore c. 214 orders that this cleric be reduced to the lay state by the judge, without any obligation either of chastity or of the divine office.

Except if, the fear having been removed, he has ratified his ordination. Ratification can be express or tacit, by the exercise of the order done in these circumstances, so that it seems reasonably to contain a will of subjecting himself to clerical obligations. Wherefore to one acting before a judge both these things will have to be proved: coercion and defect of ratification (c. 214).

But one whose ordination is to be attributed to some exterior force, if grave reasons accede, is not necessarily destitute of all hope of obtaining a dispensation from the obligations, even if the proof of grave fear or of defect of ratification is only incomplete.

n. 32.

— With the obligation of preserving chastity there is connected the grave question concerning the sanctity required so that someone can with a safe conscience be admitted to sacred orders or ascend to them.

In order we shall speak of the office of the Prelate of the external forum, who admits the candidate; of the obligation of the candidate who petitions sacred ordination; finally of the office and prudent manner of acting of the confessor who sacramentally hears a candidate as penitent.

I. On the Office of the Prelate. The Apostle himself, 1 Tim. 5, 22, already commended this: "Impose hands quickly on no one, nor communicate in others' sins." C. Nullus, 2, D. 24; Trent, sess. XXIII, Ref. c. 5 ff., order bishops diligently to investigate and prove the morals of clerics. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 36, art. 4, ad 3, demands in the one ordaining certainty concerning the quality of those to be promoted; the same, 2, 2, q. 189, art. 1, ad 3, writes these things: "Sacred orders pre-require sanctity... whence the weight of orders must be imposed on walls already dried by sanctity from the moisture of vices." Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Obi primum, December 3, 1740, hands down similar things, and also inculcates these words of Lateran IV (1215), c. 27: "It is holier in ordination, especially of priests, to have few good ministers than many bad ones." The words are cited in c. Cum sit, 14, De aetate et qualitate praeficiendorum (I, 14).

Wherefore they not only can repel candidates whom they know secretly to be unworthy, but must be strong in taking away clerical dress from those whom it is established will not be sufficiently useful to the diocese, and in deferring orders for those who have not yet sufficiently amended even an occult vice, unless, with attention to the quantity and quality of the delict and the hope of amendment, the necessity or utility of their Church, for which they themselves must provide, should demand greater indulgence. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 67 and 803.

II. On Candidates. The candidate himself who is not conscious that he can, without excessive difficulty, avoid every scandal and, to say the least, habitually observe perfect chastity, sins gravely if, before he has been made stronger, he has petitioned sacred ordination.

The reason is that interior and exterior sanctity must be said to pertain, partly of itself, partly from the positive will of the Church, to the obligation of the state of those who are in sacred orders. Now the perpetual natural law forbids that you undertake a state unless you know yourself morally fit for fulfilling its obligations. But these things hold the more strongly because there is question of a more sublime state, and because the perfect probity of the ministers of the Church is of such great importance for faith and morals either to be preserved, restored, or spread.

That sanctity or outstanding probity is to be placed among the obligations of the state is brought about by not a few texts. Already the Apostle himself, 1 Tim. 3, wishes deacons to be "modest (semnous), not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not pursuing base gain, having the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved, and so let them minister, having no crime." C. A multis, 9, De aetate et qualitate ordinandorum (I, 11): "Let the impious blush and understand by the judgment of the Holy Spirit that those who have been placed in sacred orders, presbyterate, diaconate, subdiaconate, if they have not lived chastely, are to be excluded from all dignity of the same grades." Decree of Urban II: "Let no one be permitted to approach sacred order unless he be either a virgin or of proved chastity." Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, c. 13, Ref.: "Let subdeacons and deacons be ordained, having good testimony and proved in minor orders... who hope, with God as author, that they can contain themselves." Perfect conversion from morals is inculcated by the very exhortation of the Roman Pontifical to subdeacons: "If until now you have been drunk, from now on be sober; if until now unchaste, from now on chaste."

III. On Confessors. 1. By way of corollary, this rule can be proposed, not as universal but as general: that before sacred ordination sufficient proof of virtue be required, and therefore that purposes of virtue be confirmed by an acquired habit of chastity.

For since from the beginning one must live chastely in sacred order, and the common sense of men generally finds no other demonstration of capacity than experience, he who lacks an acquired habit of chastity could only rashly profess perfect chastity, which is wrong. Cf. the Dissertation of St. Alphonsus, Whether absolution is to be denied to a cleric habituated in occult sins of lust, who wishes to ascend to sacred orders, without a preceding experiment of continence. "That changes of this sort from a bad habit into the contrary good ordinarily happen not immediately, but gradually, after many struggles, unless an extraordinary change of heart by a peculiar grace of God should happen, experience itself, as we have already admonished, sufficiently shows; and he who knows the proneness of the human heart to evil does not doubt about this matter. For although man is free, nevertheless this is his ordinary way of acting, that he freely chooses what pleases him more; and although the least grace of itself is able to resist any temptation, the habituated man is not accustomed always and thoroughly to follow attracting grace; nor is God accustomed to amend men of this sort immediately, but gradually by degrees." Thus to the matter Ballerini-Palmieri, t. 2, tr. 9, n. 231; whom nevertheless we approve less when, with St. Alphonsus and not a few others, they allege the dangers of many sins which would be graver, and exclusion from marriage or from the state which brings the remedy of concupiscence. For those dangers and sins are compensated by not a few spiritual advantages of the better state. Cf. Lugo, Resp. mor., l. 1, dub. 18. Nor are all helped by marriage. But the requisites of the state must be invoked directly.

Nor, as is clear, do we appeal to some special law by which the Church would require previous probation. For such a law does not exist. The cited words themselves of the Pontifical suppose that it can happen that someone ascend immediately from a sinful life to sacred orders. But we rely on the natural obligation which follows the requisites for the clerical state.

The greater the danger of relapse and scandal is; the less the remaining aptitude and quality of the candidate is; the more easily he can withdraw from embracing the priestly state, the more firmly the preceding rule must be held.

Now a propensity to sodomy creates a graver danger of relapse and scandal than a propensity to fornication; and this is more dangerous than solitary lapse; but he can withdraw more easily who has not yet put on clerical dress, who possesses other means of support, than he who studies theology, who is close to sacred ordination, or has already received sacred order, or is poor: since all these outside the clerical state are almost destitute of counsel.

On the contrary, extraordinary signs of penitence and conversion, especially when secular life is first put aside, can give sufficient security even without previous experience. Cf. St. Alphonsus, cited dissertation.

When, on account of a native or acquired propensity, future lapses are foreseen from fragility, although outside a properly so-called habit, clerical life is regularly to be dissuaded. For that maimed and interrupted chastity in no way agrees with the desires of the Church; in him who has made a vow and embraced a more noble state it is accustomed to depress the soul: whence the man is rendered less strong for action; for a priest it easily prepares occasions of fatal sacrileges or of Masses celebrated without sacramental reconciliation with God: which diminishes reverence and esteem for the Most Holy Eucharist. Is it not better to be a fervent layman than a languid priest?
From these principles prudently weighed, the Confessor will adapt his manner of acting to individual cases. But already Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. XI, c. 2, n. 18, taught that "no general rule is available which can be used by him, the Director, in cases of this kind. Wherefore we judge that no other counsel can be given to him than that he diligently inspect and maturely weigh all the circumstances of person, things, and cases; that he also remember that the parts not only of judge but also of physician have been imposed on him."

The confessor will forbid ascent to sacred orders, even with absolution denied, to him who joins a lukewarm life with a true habit of sin, or who is probably foreseen as about to sin scandalously. If accidental non-scandalous faults are foreseen, he generally will not advise ascent, although then he cannot strictly prohibit it. Indeed, unless the faults seem likely to be altogether rare and to be redeemed by the gifts of the priest, he will rather turn the penitent away from ascent. Nor should he trust too much even an experience of several months, if after entrance into the seminary the habit was not broken. For it happens that from the desire of proximate ordination the soul makes extraordinary efforts which after ordination it will not long bear, so that the bad habit afterward revives.

In his counsels let the confessor recall these things: a) that he easily becomes cruel toward the Church who in this matter shows himself too benign toward a private man; b) that the fruit of greater experience leads most to incline more toward severity.

But a practical near-perplexity is accustomed to beget itself: a) the often temporally wretched and spiritually dangerous lot to which the youth is exposed outside the seminary; b) the imminent reception of sacred order, especially priesthood, so that the candidate who then changes his plan can scarcely escape some mark.

Yet to him who desires more definite indications, these seem able to be handed down concerning the way in which the Confessor in a Seminary can fulfill his office. But, as Lehmkuhl, II, 760, rightly observes, "of most grave moment in the seminary is the office both of director and of confessor, that they direct the pupils in due time, form their souls, and disclose defect of aptitude."

Therefore: a) with a lay youth let him see what the purpose of priestly life effects. If little, let him turn the habituated one away from entrance into the seminary. He can more easily favor entrance into religion, if the vocation otherwise appears serious and the libidinous propensity is not rooted in the very temperament of the body. For there are those who are moved to embrace religious life by the very plan of breaking off sins. A good hope of amendment is founded upon such a thought; b) let the habitual confessor of a seminarian first propose remedies, admonish concerning consequences, threaten; in the second or at most third year, unless the habit is shown to have been conquered, let him require departure; c) to a religious, after medicine has been tried in vain, already before theology, let the confessor clearly manifest the difficulty which will stand in the way of receiving sacred orders, so that he himself, with prudent men, such as the moderator of spirit or religious Superior, may maturely deliberate what is better to be established concerning his lot: whether faith and morals seem sufficiently safe in secular life that this is honestly to be desired, or whether to remain in religion without sacred orders is more expedient for him. With a religious in theology one must act as with a seminarian.

Let an extraordinary confessor urge departure of a penitent on the threshold of diaconate or priesthood: let him not require it, unless the propensity was toward sins more than weekly, or toward scandalous sins.

N.B. - The habit of solitary vice among some suddenly and fully ceases on some occasion; among others it is, as it were, gradually killed. Therefore it can sometimes be the fruit of patience that it lead by degrees to moral health.

Corollary. The prudent selection of seminarians is seen to be of the greatest moment. The seminary ought to be open to no one whose entrance has not been fully free, truly supported by supernatural motives; whose temperament seems too prone to venereal things.

Therefore these things must be diligently examined in candidates. Supernatural motives will be known from questioning. That the election of state is entirely free will be seen partly from questioning, partly from the circumstances. Two things can obstruct this liberty: if parents of slight condition have greatly desired that the son embrace the ecclesiastical state, especially if they have lived laboriously and sparingly so that they might make a supply of humanities studies for the son; if the son has been educated by another's money or in an ecclesiastical college, an apostolic school, a small novitiate, gratuitously. Wherefore, although certain ones can abuse this facility, with all things weighed, I would consider it opportune that the directors of a college of this kind help those who are seen to be little fervent to procure for themselves an honest secular state. Surely religion will receive less detriment from the fiction and fraud of some than from the morally coerced entrance of those who enter the seminary or novitiate because they know every other way is cut off from them. Finally, a libidinous propensity can be diagnosed by expert physicians. For which reason, if from the physical appearance of the candidate or from his origin some such thing is feared, a medical examination should be requested. And what prevents the adolescent from being asked, indeed ordered, to disclose secretly to some most approved priest if he experiences any difficulties in preserving chastity? The utility is common to the candidate and the diocese; there is no danger of infamy. And he who is unwilling to disclose the matter has the option of not petitioning entrance.

n. 33.

II. On the Canonical Hours

— Appendix I belongs to this section. I. Preliminary Notions. The divine office is called the complex of chants, prayers, and readings by which public or liturgical worship is daily rendered to God in the Church. Cf. what has been said elsewhere concerning the nature and modes of liturgical worship. Cursus was also the name both of the whole office and of the individual hours.

Choral celebration is distinguished, whether solemn or not solemn, and private celebration by one or by several. The matter and order of each celebration are the same; but the rubrics of the office are rightly understood only from choral celebration. If Terce is excepted, when it is connected with a pontifical Mass, the lesser hours and Compline are never solemnly celebrated.

II. Historical Evolution of the Office. Cf. Appendix I.

n. 34.

— III. The Obligation of the Office. 1. In c. 135 we have the first written law which formally imposes the daily recitation of the canonical hours upon clerics of major orders.

The progress of this obligation can be described approximately in this way. The obligation of the office was first, in some measure, that of all the faithful. The necessity, for clerics, of ministering at the hours at which the faithful assisted created for them a proper title of obligation, arising from custom and sanctioned by various decrees of councils or synods. Therefore the obligation was first restricted to daily Vespers and Lauds, and affected clerics both of major and minor orders whose ministry was necessary. After the faithful deserted the daily offices, the obligation nevertheless remained for clerics and was extended also to the other offices, so that a cleric impeded from choir was obliged by private recitation. Finally the principle of the obligation, which previously was the office of ministering, became sacred order itself.

Monks at the beginning seem to have been bound by no special obligation. But since they professed the most perfect observance of the Christian life, they were assiduous in common prayer; afterward, however, when, with the cenobitic life, a proper institute of prayer arose among monks and was confirmed by their own rules, they were admitted by the Church into a part of the public ministry of prayer, especially in its very head, or in the city of Rome.

The obligation of beneficiaries is recalled and sanctioned in c. 1475.
The choral obligation of a chapter is promulgated in cc. 413 and 414.
The obligation either of choir or of the divine office is no longer recalled among the common obligations of religious. But what religions in which there is an obligation of choir must perform is explained in c. 610.

Lest we have to go over the argument again, we shall set forth together the obligations of clerics who are in sacred orders, of canons, and of many religious. First we shall treat of the private and solitary recitation of the hours, then of recitation with a companion and of the obligation of choir.

n. 35.

A. On the Private and Solitary Recitation of the Canonical Hours

— The persons obliged are:

All clerics constituted in major orders, unless they have been legitimately reduced to the lay state. The immediate title of the obligation is sacred order; wherefore the beginning of the obligation is from the moment of received subdiaconate, so that the cleric must recite the hours corresponding to that moment, but not those which are prior in time. Now Prime corresponds to the sixth hour of the morning; Terce to the ninth hour; Sext to midday.

Can the one to be ordained satisfy the law by reciting, before ordination, the part which, after sacred order has been received, he will have to recite? This seems to be answered affirmatively, because, although he does not yet recite the office in the name of the Church, which the patrons of the stricter, probable opinion object, the one to be ordained offers an anticipated payment which the Church is judged to accept, especially since ordination is often so prolonged that the delayed hour cannot be recited in its own time.

Today, where the private recitation of the office is much more separated from the choral, the opinion of La Croix, Theol. mor., l. 4, n. 1187, no longer seems probable, which obliged one ordained subdeacon to recite the hour which then had to be said in choir. Wherefore, if one was ordained at the eleventh hour, he himself obliged him only to Vespers, since at the eleventh hour all the little hours usually had already been paid in choir. Already St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 140, called the opinion which we have set forth above the truer one;

All beneficiaries, not legitimately impeded. These are bound from the day of accepted possession of the benefice, if they perceive or will perceive the fruits. Wherefore they must recite the entire office of the day.

He who has not satisfied that obligation does not make the fruits his own in proportion to the omission, "and let him hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan seminary, or distribute them among the poor" (c. 1475, §2).

Therefore the Church obliges from justice⁽¹⁾ the beneficiary who with grave fault has omitted the canonical hours to restore the fruits in proportion. A threefold mode of restitution is permitted to him. By the Constitution Ex proximo, September 22, 1571, St. Pius V so declared that "in proportion to the omission," that one who on one day has omitted the entire office must restore all the fruits corresponding to that day, that is, the 365th part of the annual revenue; but one who has omitted only Matins with Lauds, half the fruits of one day; one who has omitted the remaining hours, also half; and one who has omitted one of those, the twelfth part of the same sum. Cf. Epitome I. C., II, 800.

From the very words of the Constitution Supernae dispositionis of Leo X, in the Lateran Council, §38, and from the received interpretation, the fruits perceived in the first semester are condoned. And although he has sinned gravely, a beneficiary who on the next day supplies the omitted office is probably excused from restitution (the Salmanticenses and others).

Moreover, according to the common opinion, he who perceives the fruits of a benefice also on account of other burdens does not owe all the fruits. Wherefore, on account of the whole office omitted, bishops and pastors are not judged to have to restore beyond the third or fourth, indeed probably the fifth, part of the fruits; canons, not beyond half, indeed the fourth part; chaplains, not beyond half or the third part. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 673; l. 4, n. 415; Epitome I. C., II, 800.

Finally, since today even benefices with care of souls are accustomed to be so slight that they scarcely suffice for the support of the beneficiary, and since the negligent beneficiary is not prohibited from keeping as a poor man what as blameworthy he has lost, almost never today will there be place for this penalty. Cf. Palmieri, Op. th., t. 4, tr. 9, n. 342.

⁽¹⁾ D'Annibale, however, III, 65, thinks that this restitution is owed by way of a conventional penalty rather than from justice.

Those solemnly professed in religions in which there is an obligation of choir (c. 610).

By these clear words: 1. on account of the many more recent institutes which have been approved without choir, there is no longer any common obligation of the divine office for religious; 2. those solemnly professed in religions in which there is an obligation of choir are held to private recitation of the office if, being destined for choir, they have been absent from choir. Therefore a question can no longer be raised today about their grave obligation. On the controversy before the Code, cf. Palmieri, Op. theolog., t. 2, tr. 9, nn. 333-334; 3. those simply professed, or nuns who now do not have solemn vows, are not held, unless perhaps from their own Constitutions, although they belong to institutes with solemn vows. Cf. response of the Sacred Penitentiary, November 24, 1852.

And even where they have solemn vows, nuns of the Visitation, and any others who must recite only the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, are judged to be held by only a light obligation.

The professed are held from the moment of profession, just as the ordained are held from ordination.

n. 36.

— By one recitation of the breviary he satisfies this obligation, both he who has several benefices and he who is held by several titles, for example as subdeacon and professed. And the omission of that office is judged to be one single sin against religion. Yet the beneficiary who is unwilling to restore the fruits, when he owes them, must also accuse a sin against justice. Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 355.

n. 37.

— The substance of the obligation is this: that the canonical hours be recited entire daily "according to the proper and approved liturgical books" (c. 135).

Approved liturgical books are the Roman Breviary, reformed by St. Pius V, with the new order of the psalter introduced by Pius X and prescribed for validity, Constitution Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911 (A. A. S., 3, 633; Per., t. 6, p. 125).

Yet churches or religions which in 1568 were using another breviary approved by custom of at least two hundred years were able to preserve that one. Yet if they use the faculty of taking the Roman breviary, they are then prohibited from returning to their former one.

The obligation of reciting the breviary includes the obligation of having it such as it has been imposed, and therefore of acquiring for oneself new approved offices. Yet the mind of the Holy See is not to oblige clerics who recite the breviary according to an already existing edition to assume new or reformed lessons of the office (S. R. C., December 14, 1883).

The proper liturgical books must be used. Wherefore he will not have satisfied who, alone or with a companion, has recited the office of another breviary too different from his own. Cf. S. R. C., January 27, 1899; Decr. auth., n. 4011. Yet others think otherwise (St. Alphonsus, n. 161; Ferreres, II, n. 85).

n. 38.

— Besides the customary office, the litanies of All Saints must be recited, even privately, on the very feast of St. Mark and on the three Rogation days. Those litanies cannot be anticipated on the previous day. Today this obligation of private recitation is certain; but the gravity of that obligation is less certain, on account of the less severe words of the rubric: "Let them say those litanies privately." Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 382.

Before the reform of Pius X, the Office of the Dead, which now is the proper office of that day, had to be added on the day of the commemoration of all the faithful departed to the office of the octave of All Saints.

n. 39.

— The Mode of Recitation. There is prescribed:

Vocal recitation. It pertains to the substance that words be formed, which supposes at least some breath, however slight: voice of itself is audible. But he who is conscious to himself that through the proper organs, the tongue and lips, he forms syllables, and does not merely produce some motion in the throat or deliberately suppress the breath, effects vocal recitation. Wherefore the question whether or not it is required that someone be able of himself to hear himself can be omitted, and is better omitted, as being scrupulous. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 394-396.
Entire recitation, "without syncopation and abbreviation of words and syllables," and without precipitation.

A defect in this matter, since it is accustomed to affect the final syllables of words, will generally be venial; for this does not take away every signification. Someone can be excused by stammering, and even by a custom which, reprehensible in the beginning, has actually become invincible, provided efforts are applied to laying it aside. And because anxiety itself can impede correct pronunciation, it is sometimes better to obtain a dispensation until healing has been obtained with peace;

Devout recitation. Therefore an intention of worshiping God by the recitation is required. For an act of religion is prescribed, to which such an intention is essential. But that intention demands the use of no formula; and it is present in reality as soon as you take up the breviary to pay the accustomed task.

All also require attention which they call external, and which looks to this: that exterior actions be excluded which cannot be composed with interior attention. This is required by c. Dolentes, 9, De celebratione missarum (III, 41).

Sufficient diligence also is of itself required so that an accurate recitation be made.

Attention which they call internal they distinguish into superficial, or to correct pronunciation; literal, or to the signification of the words; spiritual, or to God or divine things. And although this notion, which belongs to acts of the will, is little suited to acts of the intellect, nevertheless they distinguish further formal attention, which is truly present, and virtual attention, which in moral estimation is judged to be present because the will of attending has not been retracted.

There have been not a few controversies concerning the necessity of so-called interior attention.

But if the matter is considered more closely, just as external attention is defined by the exclusion of exterior actions which would occupy the mind, so internal attention is defined by the exclusion of wandering of the mind morally diverting it elsewhere.

Now, when we intend to pray expressly, the reverence due to God demands that morally we place ourselves wholly present to God. Wherefore voluntary distraction of mind is at least lightly sinful. Yet that irreverence does not take away the essence of prayer: for this it is enough that, from the intention of worshiping God, you use words containing His praise or beseeching Him. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 22, n. 15 ff. But no argument proves that more is prescribed by the Church. Indeed now, since c. 135, adding nothing, prescribes merely the entire recitation of the canonical hours, the very probability now seems to us to be absent from the stricter opinion.

Nor is the substance of the obligation necessarily lacking in him who recites the hours in the state of mortal sin; indeed, even with actual complacency in sin or with the will of sinning. For the will of praying and praising God can stand together with a present affection toward a sin of another kind. Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 429. Yet venial irreverence is committed in the latter case;

Continued recitation, at least so that the individual hours be recited in one morally continuous course, unless a just cause prevents it. Yet a culpable interruption does not exceed venial fault, and what has been said does not have to be repeated; for the individual verses of the psalms have a complete signification and through the intention of completing the hour are sufficiently joined together among themselves. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 168.

Matins, however, can be separated from Lauds; nor does he seem to sin who interposes three hours between the individual nocturns, since several say, although undeservedly, that this was the ancient custom.

Just causes for interrupting an hour or psalm are furnished by every utility, one's own or another's, which would be inconveniently delayed: civility, devotion, obedience to be furnished, etc. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 168.

A pious priest, as is clear, will strive to avoid the very occasions of interruptions;

Ordered recitation, so that you recite in their order: a. the individual offices; b. the individual hours; c. the individual parts of the hours. Nevertheless:

As to a. The substitution of another office from the Roman Breviary is of itself venial; and for a reasonable cause, for example to recite with a companion of the same rite, or on account of making a journey, the change will be lawful.

Yet it would be grave to choose an office which would at the same time be notably shorter and of a plainly different rite, as if on Palm Sunday you recited the office of Easter. Cf. proposition 34 among those reproved at least as scandalous by Alexander VII, Denzinger, n. 1134. Likewise the deformity, and therefore the fault, would be grave if for the whole year you recited the same office at will.

He who through error has recited one office for another satisfies the obligation. But if it was notably shorter, an equitable compensation from the psalms of the omitted office is to be advised; yet it cannot be imposed strictly, since in that addition the form of the breviary is not preserved. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. 4, tr. 9, nn. 283-290.

If while praying you notice the error, you have the option either of continuing, in order to preserve unity, or of changing, so that you may accord more with the precept of the Church. This reason seems the stronger, so that it is better to use the principle: "An error is corrected where it is discovered."

Likewise, if you have recited concerning a Saint before the day, it will be better, when the day arrives, to recite again concerning the same Saint than to restore the omitted office.

These conclusions bring this corollary with themselves: that for him to whom the proper office of some saint is lacking, the common office of saints of the same class is to be recited; and if this is lacking, another office must be taken which you have from your own breviary, not from the breviary of another rite.

As to b. A change of order among the hours is venial; and it is excused by a lighter cause than a change of office.

But he who has recited the same hour twice is excused from reciting no other hour, because, by acting otherwise, he would corrupt the prescribed form.

Right order also demands that, unless a just cause excuses, you complete the office of the day before you begin the office of the following day. Wherefore the most recent formulae of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide grant anticipation in this way: "That, when the divine office of the day has been completed, with a legitimate cause concurring, Matins with Lauds of the following day may be recited privately immediately after noon."

Yet he who, after anticipated recitation of Matins, from devotion, so that the recitation may agree more with the nature of that hour, defers Compline of the day to the evening time, seems in no way to be reprehended. In this opinion we have been confirmed by the opinion of officials of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

As to c. Nor is it judged grave of itself that in the same hour you invert the order of the parts; as, for example, if delay would be inconvenient, you recite all the psalms of the morning hour, and then the lessons which were not at hand. Yet here one must beware lest he change the form too much. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 170, and Palmieri, l. c., n. 404.

Timely recitation. Here it is useful to distinguish the primary, secondary, and privileged determination of time. The primary is to be observed under grave obligation, and it holds even if the secondary cannot be observed, almost as the obligation of annual Communion remains for him who is impeded from communicating in Paschal time. By that primary determination, the office of one day is to be recited within the twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight, or it is the burden of the day. The secondary determination induces a light obligation which ceases on account of a reasonable cause. By this determination, Matins with Lauds and the first two little hours are to be recited before noon; Sext and None can be paid before or after noon; the afternoon time is assigned to Vespers and Compline. Yet within Lent, that is, from the Saturday before the first Sunday, with Sunday excepted, Vespers, from a rubric which does not oblige under sin, are recited before the meal, from about the eleventh hour. Therefore he who has foreseen that he will be impeded after the meal can and must recite Vespers and Compline in the morning and as in their own time. Cf. Arendt: "Whether the opinion is probable which frees a cleric in sacred orders from the obligation of anticipating in the morning the evening canonical hours when he foresees that he will be absolutely impeded from reciting them in the afternoon" (Monitore, 1916, fasc. VI-VII). Yet the extrinsic probability of the more benign opinion, which then excuses from the obligation of anticipating, is not to be denied. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., n. 370; Lehmkuhl, II, 795 f.

Finally, by the determination of time which is called privileged, Matins, Lauds included, can be anticipated on the preceding day.

This, contrary to what Palmieri thought, Op. theol., t. IV, tr. 9, in the note added under number 415, is in no way to be attributed to the regular recitation of the two parts of Matins in the first watches of the night. For all Matins, even when it comprised eighteen psalms, had regularly to be recited after midnight, so that Lauds, which properly were called the morning hour, would be completed at sunrise. The very Invitatory of Lent testifies this to us: "Let it not be vain for you to rise before light." The matter seems to us to be explained in this other way.

In the ancient age, since they opposed day rather to night, they were not accustomed to derive the beginning of the day from midnight. Wherefore night could be ascribed rather indifferently to either of the days between which it was placed. The Jews, however, reckoned the Sabbath to have begun from the evening of Friday. Therefore, since Matins had to be recited in the night time, rather than rise before light, it seemed more convenient, and therefore was sufficiently natural, to satisfy the obligation of chanting Matins in the same night time but before lying down. Moreover, on feasts of a double office, one was paid in the evening, the other before light. Add that, on account of preachings, all the hours, except Compline, were anticipated. Thus the custom of anticipating Matins gained strength, and it persevered even after midnight was judged to be the beginning of the day of twenty-four hours. Lauds, moreover, were anticipated with Matins, which they had been accustomed immediately to follow.

By successive enlargements it came to this, that, the long controversy having been removed by the response of May 12, 1905, in the Placentina,⁽¹⁾ it was simply lawful for all to begin Matins from the second hour. Thereafter the Sacred Congregation of Rites quite easily grants the faculty of beginning from the first hour; indeed, anticipation from the first hour is permitted after the manner of a privilege to priests of various associations; from the twelfth hour it can be granted by Legates of the Roman Pontiff to individual clerics and religious; the same is contained in the faculties of Propaganda Fide.

But the foresight of an impediment compels no one to use the faculty of anticipating Matins on the preceding day. At least the most approved usage has interpreted the faculty thus. For, after the whole Sabbath was separated from Sunday, anticipation made on the preceding day could now be nothing but a privilege which each one could use, but no one had to use.

As has already been said elsewhere (Theol. fund., n. 371), from the express concession of c. 33, in the private recitation of the hours the option is given of local time, true or mean, and of legal time, whether regional or extraordinary.

Matins with Lauds, by the rubric, must be recited before the sacred rite. The night of the Nativity of the Lord is excepted, in which Lauds after the first Mass are recited even in choir. Although some urge this rubric under grave sin and others under light sin, the obligation under sin is not established. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 405-406. And since today the private office is joined with Mass by a lesser connection, for so often a priest must read a Mass differing from the office, that obligation seems to be denied by a stronger argument.

⁽¹⁾ In the year 1905, to doubt 1, "Whether in private recitation Matins for the following day can begin at the second afternoon hour, or whether the table of the diocesan directory must be followed at all times?" the Sacred Congregation of Rites had responded: "Let approved authors be consulted." Cf. Per., 3, 107. But in the authentic edition, n. 4158, the response was rendered in these other words: affirmative to the first part, negative to the second. Cf. Per., 7, 80. On the controversy concerning the second hour, see Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 407-416.

n. 40.

— Gravity of the Obligation. The obligation of reciting the canonical hours, by the consent of all, is grave.

The opinion, not indeed of all,⁽¹⁾ but very common and confirmed by the authority of St. Alphonsus, judges grave the omission of any hour, even a little hour, and, in a longer hour, of a quantity somewhat greater. And even after the reform of the Psalter carried out by Pius X, by which most of the little hours were abbreviated, we know that this strict opinion alone is approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

That gravity is gathered especially from the common estimation of experts and the usage of the timorous: these are among the signs by which a grave obligation is discerned.⁽²⁾ "For an intrinsic argument, I think, is difficult to find." Thus Palmieri, Opus Theol., t. IV, tr. 9, n. 357. Yet he himself adds this: by the omission even of one little hour, the intention of the Church is gravely injured, namely that all the hours of day and night, and thus all time, be dedicated to God through the service of certain prayers. But a grave injury to that intention effects a grave deformity.

Since lessons are not properly prayers, they say that the quantity required for grave sin must be increased. Wherefore the omission of three lessons with responsories is judged light.

And what is admitted concerning petty thefts holds here also. If you take away something from the individual hours, the grave quantity must be increased. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., n. 358.

The office of one day falls under one precept. Wherefore, unless the acts of will are multiplied from elsewhere, by cessation or interruption, he who has omitted the office of one day commits one sin.

But he who by one act of will removes from himself the availability of the breviary is more truly, according to the principles concerning the numerical distinction of sins, guilty of one sin. Cf. I, n. 437.

On the contrary, if he has determined that he will omit the breviary for several days, but has preserved the availability of reciting it, they wish there to be as many sins as there are days on which the breviary is omitted. We have tried to give the difficult reason for this opinion in Theol. fund., l. c.

⁽¹⁾ Cf. Dominic Soto, De Iust., l. 10, q. 5, art. c., conclusion 4, e.

⁽²⁾ Theol. mor., I, 233, p. 214.

n. 41.

— Causes Excusing from the Recitation of the Breviary are:

Impotence from lack of the breviary, blindness, etc. Yet except notable parts which, morally as a whole and according to the obligatory form, you already hold from memory. There is no obligation of learning the Hours by memory. A notable part would be some hour, even a little hour, of which you are ignorant only of the prayer, chapter, or hymn; an entire nocturn of Matins. Indeed more probably, though the probability of the contrary opinion is not denied, if you are ignorant only of the lessons, but can recite several psalms in the order of the Breviary, you are held to these.

But he who, being obliged to the Roman Breviary, has available only the Benedictine or Ambrosian is not held to recite this. For the obligation is of reciting from one's own liturgical book;

Grave inconvenience, which, for example, dim eyes, great scruples, grave illness, or even light illness joined with notable heaviness of the head, weariness of strength, or probable danger or fear of great inconvenience of this kind, produce.

In doubt concerning sufficient infirmity, one can stand by the judgment of a physician or prudent man, especially of a Superior, who then, by dispensing, can remove every scruple. If the doubt perseveres after inquiry, there is no obligation of reciting. And lest he be disturbed by troublesome anxieties, an infirm person who is certain that he cannot recite the whole office, and doubts about a part, is probably held to nothing. Convalescents also, for some days, are excused by the judgment of prudent persons, even if meanwhile they celebrate Mass or have conversations. Nor if someone, for the sake of recreation, can read for several hours, must he now certainly recite the office. For, according to the disposition of the convalescent, the one perhaps first refreshes, while the other can be troublesome and very laborious.

Grave inconvenience can also arise from external danger, for example during a raging persecution, or from dishonor of the ecclesiastical order, as if, in prison for an infamous cause, a cleric in sacred orders would betray himself.

He who can easily have a companion and recite with him must use such a means, which is very consonant with the primitive institution. But a companion is not to be sought with difficulty; nor is he to be hired for a price: the use of a companion would then be an extraordinary means;

A graver occupation, especially a sudden one, such as of preparing a lesson or sermon; works of charity to be furnished, which you cannot combine with reciting the breviary, as if you are morally occupied the whole day with confessions, are called toward night to one dying, etc. Sudden, I say, and accidental occupation; for the recitation of the Breviary must be combined with ordinary duties, unless you prefer to dismiss certain labors or petition a dispensation;
Dispensation, which only the Supreme Pontiff validly concedes without cause. The Ordinary of the place cannot dispense from common law, but universal custom, by which one can stand, permits that for a brief time, for a just cause, he dispense, unless he has obtained a greater faculty. D'Annibale, III, 153. He can provide for an urgent case from the Code itself. A Legate of the Roman Pontiff can commute the obligation.

And regulars have their own privileges.

n. 42.

— What Office Is To Be Recited? Each one, in reciting the office, must follow his own calendar.

A bishop, even a regular, must recite the office of the Church over which he is placed. If he governs two dioceses, he recites the office of the diocese in which he habitually resides, or even in which he is actually staying. S. R. C., June 11, 1605; January 17, 1880; May 28, 1898, Decrees nn. 181, 3508, 3993 ad 1.

Priests recite the office of the church to which they are attached, even as vicars. S. R. C., February 4, 1898, Decree n. 3979 ad 7.

Outside their proper domicile, bishops and beneficiaries must always recite the office of their proper church.

Concerning an absent bishop who governs two dioceses, nothing has been defined. Let him recite his habitual office; or, if it varies according to the diocese in which he actually resides, he seems to have the option of either office. Simple priests can conform themselves to the office of the place where they are staying.

In transit through various places, it is more advisable that they use the calendar of their proper diocese. S. R. C., November 12, 1781, Decree n. 2680. But if, for example as seminarians, they have acquired quasi-domicile in some place, they more probably must recite the office of that place rather than the office of their domicile.

Regulars who are obliged to choir, in another house, must follow the calendar of that house, at least in choir. Otherwise, those who are staying for a brief time, as below a month, in another house should keep the order of their own house. S. R. C., September 25, 1852; June 27, 1896 ad XIII, Decrees nn. 3001 and 3919. In a longer stay they can follow the calendar of the house in which they are staying. On a journey let them keep the calendar of their own house. But if they live for a longer time outside monasteries, for example Lenten preachers, let them follow the common calendar of the Province, without attending to the proper offices of houses. S. C. R., August 31, 1839, Decree n. 1801.

In foreign missions, sometimes there is no calendar except that of the religious who labor there. If a twofold calendar is had, the bishop recites the office of the diocese; regular pastors, which we think holds concerning religious, keep the proper calendar of their religion, with the exception of the offices of the Titulars of the Churches over which they preside. S. C. R., May 13, 1892, Decree n. 3772 ad 1 and 2.

n. 43.

— What in Doubt Concerning the Recited Office or a Part of It? In negative doubt, the office must be paid. But in positive or probable doubt, the Church, in accordance with her humanity, is not judged to oblige one perhaps to recite twice.⁽¹⁾ Various presumptions can confer this probability: as if you remember that you began, and, without voluntary interruption, find yourself at the end of a psalm, lesson, or hour. And in these matters it is often expedient not to repeat, in order to avoid habitual anxieties and scruples by which the task of the Divine Office gradually becomes an unbearable burden, rather than spiritually feeding and refreshing the soul.

The scrupulous, however, must be prohibited from repeating anything, in doubt whether they have recited or satisfied. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 175, 1.

⁽¹⁾ There are those who wish to appeal here to the principle of probabilism. But they sin by confusion of doubt of law and doubt of fact. Cf. Theol. mor., I, 365 and 369.

n. 44.

— N.B. The rite by which the breviary must be recited is defined for all by the Sacred Congregation of Rites; but the very force of the precept is declared and urged by the Sacred Congregation of the Council for secular clergy and by the Sacred Congregation of Religious for religious. Dispensations also are conceded by each of the latter Congregations according to the secular or religious quality of the person.

n. 45.

— Counsels. Although the breviary is recited validly in a place where noise is made by others, a pious priest nevertheless will try to recite the canonical hours in that place where the recitation can be devout and edifies those standing by. Therefore public ways seem to be excluded, at least in inhabited places, and, if another option is had, public carriages which, on account of noise or conversations, are inconvenient, while the most fitting place is a church or chapel where the Most Holy is reserved. Let a fitting time also be chosen, anticipating rather than delaying: he gives twice who gives quickly, and he also gives more willingly who gives early. But so that the breviary may be recited more sweetly, let all scrupulosity be avoided, and let a sincere will of praying as the Church prescribes be fostered, so that the task may be offered to God as if spontaneously.

n. 46.

B. On Choral Recitation and Recitation with a Companion

— Object of the Choral Obligation. 1. From c. 413, §2, the Divine Office to which the chapter of a cathedral or collegiate church is bound "comprehends the psalmody of the canonical hours and the celebration with chant of the conventual Mass, besides other Masses to be celebrated either according to the rubrics of the Missal or from pious foundations." And from c. 414, "All and each who obtain a choral benefice are bound to pay the divine offices in the choir itself on individual days, unless service by turn has been granted by the Apostolic See or by the laws of the foundation."

These things are from common law. But in mission places and also elsewhere, from various indults, that obligation is sufficiently moderated.

From c. 610, in religions which have choir, "where there are at least four obliged to choir," therefore not novices or lay brothers, "and actually not legitimately impeded," by infirmity or occupations, "and even fewer if the constitutions so bear, the divine office must be paid in common daily according to the norm of the constitutions. A Mass also corresponding to the office of the day must be celebrated daily according to the rubrics in religions of men and also, insofar as can be done, in religions of women."

That obligation is grave in religious Orders. In other religions the constitutions must be considered.

Yet the omission of one little hour in choir is not judged grave by many. Palmieri, Op. theol., l. c., n. 335.

A notable inversion of order is held by some as lethal; but the matter is not demonstrated.

But the time must be reckoned according to the common usage of the place (c. 33, §1).

The grave obligation of taking care that choir be had rightly presses Superiors, that is, bishops with respect to canons and domestic Superiors with respect to religious. In religions the obligation of choir can also be satisfied through novices.

n. 47.

— Mode of Recitation. One reciting with a companion or in choir:

Must himself, if he is the one held, recite his proper part suitably. Moreover, even if they are more than two, they must arrange themselves for the psalms in only two choirs, equal or unequal in number, so that all recite alternate verses. This is established from the usage of the Church. A greater option is permitted for lessons, responsories, chapters, antiphons, and prayers, which can either be distributed among all so that each has his own part to be recited, or all be said by one, so that the rest merely hear. Indeed, from St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 162, he probably satisfies who alone recites the psalms and hears the lessons from another; but he would not satisfy who merely recited the lessons;
Must try so that he himself attends to those things which are recited by the companion or in choir, and this so that in the part which he does not recite he may formally communicate. Yet the precept is human. Wherefore only he is judged not to have satisfied who has had a reflexively voluntary distraction for a notable time; that is, who not only has been voluntarily distracted but has also noticed that he is being wholly carried away in mind and yet has not collected himself. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 806.

Similarly, one who does not perceive distinctly, but only confusedly, whether because he is somewhat deaf, or on account of noise, or on account of a defect of choir or of a companion who nevertheless recites substantially well, is judged to have satisfied, especially if with his eyes he reviews what he does not recite. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 163.

There is greater doubt concerning a deaf man who chants his parts in choir. More probably he indeed gains distributions (Suarez, l. c., l. 4, c. 28, nn. 17-18), but he does not fulfill the task of the office unless he recites in a low voice those things which he does not chant. Yet some respond more benignly. Thus d'Annibale, II, 51 (38).

On the contrary, he who in choir recites his own part in a low voice and hears the other probably satisfies the obligation of the office, because through the others with whom he is joined he sufficiently communicates with the other part; yet a canon does not gain distributions unless he sings, or chants like the others.

n. 48.

— I. On the Part of the Companion:

No quality of person, or obligation to the office, or attention is required.
It suffices that the companion substantially pronounce his own part, by taking up the other. For the things which he inserts into the recitation of the other are virtually reputed omitted, so that if they were many, they must be repeated by the other.

II. You do not have to repeat what in choir you neither recited nor heard while you were occupied in incensing at the Magnificat or Benedictus, or in carrying around necessary books, or in foreseeing the lesson soon to be sung, or in performing other things necessary in choir, because the whole choir supplies these things and recites or sings these not only in its own name but also in the name of the ministers. Cf. Laymann, 4.1, 5, 7.

But that he who for the whole time merely plays the organ can satisfy, not a few have affirmed; St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 143, denies it. And unless custom interprets the matter thus, we judge that the response must be made with St. Alphonsus. Palmieri, however, l. c., n. 335, inclines to the more benign side.

Vol. III, Bk. III, Tr. II, Appendices, To n. 33. - Appendix I. Historical-Liturgical Appendix on the Canonical Hours

I. Historical Evolution of the Office

The Jews contemporary with Christ and the Apostles were accustomed twice, or even three times each day, to pour forth certain prayers and to sing certain psalms; indeed, for this purpose, at the time of the morning and evening sacrifice which was offered in the temple, they were accustomed to assemble in the synagogues. The first Christians seem to have deputed the same hours to prayer; whether they intended thus to continue the usage of the Jews is not clear. In the sole document of the end of the first century which we have, i.e., the Teaching of the Apostles, the Lord's Prayer recited three times each day is commended.

Then in the third century, Tertullian testifies to us the custom of praying each day at certain definite hours: first in the morning, as night began, and during the day at the third, sixth, and ninth hour. He calls only the two former lawful, as if commanded by law. But the prayer was made at home and privately (De oratione, c. 25).

Hitherto liturgical worship, certainly not in its whole structure and essential parts, but in its accidental parts, had been very uncertain and varied. But in the fourth century, having obtained a more stable form even in these things, it was divided into a few types, of which some were proper to the Eastern churches, others to the Western churches. Thus there were born the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Edessene, Neocaesarean, Armenian, and Constantinopolitan liturgies in the East; in the West, however, the Roman, Milanese, Gallican, and a little later the Mozarabic; to these certain of the principal doctors of the Church added authority.

By the work of St. Ambrose there was introduced into the Milanese church the antiphonal chant of psalms, sprung from Syria, by which the faithful people is divided into two choirs which sing alternate verses. The same Saint also introduced the custom of singing in church poetic hymns composed by himself, which afterwards from his name were called "Ambrosian." From this church both usages were diffused through the whole West.

In Gaul the faithful, assembled in church, "began and closed the day with morning and evening hymns." Whether at Rome, besides the customary vigils celebrated on the night of Easter and on the anniversaries of martyrs at their relics, definite times of praying were to be observed publicly is doubted. Eusebius of Caesarea certainly asserts the universal usage of morning and evening celebration in churches in his Commentary on the Psalms, which he wrote after the year 350 (In Psalm. 64, vv. 10, 11).

In the many monasteries multiplied at that time, some order of praying must at least by custom have been defined, which could not differ much from the order of the Egyptian and especially Syrian monks, and therefore, besides the morning and evening office and the three hours of the day, contained the nocturnal office or vigils. That office differed from the diurnal offices only in time; but since it was performed each night after necessary sleep had been taken, it differed from the ancient vigils, which were sacred watches drawn out through the whole night but celebrated only at certain times.

In the three following centuries, the fifth, sixth, and seventh, what the order of praying and singing was in the many monasteries then founded elsewhere and at Rome we know well enough from rules and similar documents. The most celebrated is the course according to the rule of St. Benedict. All those orders have the nocturnal office; most also have lessons in the individual hours. But the ecclesiastical office of the Gallican, Celtic, and Mozarabic liturgy is rather often declared by various decrees of councils in its public parts, i.e., in Mass, Matins, and Vespers. But the whole order of that age is set forth by writers. Thus St. Isidore of Seville hands down the Mozarabic order (De off. eccles. 1, 3 ff.), and St. Gregory of Tours the Gallican order.

But concerning the Ambrosian course almost no documents exist. As regards the order of the Suburbicarian Churches, the daily office of vigils is named, which on ordinary nights consisted of three or four psalms and as many lessons and responsories, at least from the seventh century, while on Sunday it always had nine psalms, lessons, and responsories (Liber diurnus, ed. Sickel, p. 77).

But as regards the City itself, in the fifth, sixth, and especially the seventh centuries, monasteries had been attached by the Pontiffs to certain Roman basilicas, whose monks discharged the office of the hours in those churches; and this already from the beginning consisted both of the nocturnal, morning, and evening office, and of the threefold diurnal office. Soon there were added the hour of Prime and Compline, which nevertheless were sung by the monks in the dormitory itself. St. Benedict seems to have used this office, such as already existed in the sixth century and which was called Roman, in composing his own course; for this is not dissimilar to the Roman course of the eighth century; it differs from it especially in Vespers, which have only four psalms, in the third nocturn of Sunday, in which three canticles are sung in place of psalms, in the division of the Psalter, etc.

Already at the beginning of the eighth century, by the splendor of ceremonies, the perfection of rites, the harmonious composition of parts, and the sweetness and nobility of chant, the Roman course so excelled that it was introduced and diffused into very many monasteries of England, into very many churches of Gaul and Germany, and soon, by royal decrees, into the whole empire of the Franks. Thus Amalarius, bishop of Metz, used the Roman antiphonary and responsory corrected by Hadrian I in order to restore the usages of his own church, which had once been introduced there from Rome but had been deformed, to their native purity. Yet because he retained not a few things from the usages of his own church, the office which thence arose was called Roman "Gallicanized." Diffused through all Gaul, it was afterwards partly received into the Roman church itself. But the ancient liturgies, slowly and imperceptibly, yielded place almost everywhere to the Roman (Liber de Ordine Antiphonasii, P.L. 165, 1293).

The Roman course of this age consists of three kinds of offices: offices of Sundays and ferias through the year, offices of solemn feasts or of the season, and offices of Saints. Documents describe the almost entire structure of each. It is enough to indicate briefly those things in which they are especially like or unlike modern offices.

As regards the Sunday and ferial office through the year, the division of the Psalter among the various days of the week and the hours of each day was altogether the same as in the modern office, i.e., before the reform of Pius X. The whole Psalter was divided into two parts, of which the first (ps. 1-108) was distributed among the seven nocturnal offices, the other (109-150) among Vespers, with the numerical order always observed; except, however, for twenty-five psalms which, with the numerical order disregarded, were each placed in its own place according to the sense which it bore, either in Matins (Lauds), or in the Hours, or in Compline. At Rome the "Roman Psalter," i.e., the ancient version of the psalms corrected by St. Jerome in the year 383, was used; but in Gaul the "Gallican Psalter," or the second Hieronymian correction of the same version (a. 392), was used. The individual Hours had their beginning at once from the verse Deus in adiutorium. In each, except Prime and Compline, a lesson was made; in none, however, did hymns have a place. To terminate the Hours, except in Sunday and festive Matins and Vespers, and, as it seems, in Prime and Compline, in place of the verse Dominus vobiscum and the prayer (collect), Kyrie eleison and the Lord's Prayer were said. After this prayer there were recited "chapters of prayers" (preces nostrae), but not in Prime and Compline. Only Vespers and Lauds, and the second and third Sunday nocturn, had antiphons; but these were sung not only before and after the psalms, but besides after individual verses (up to the ninth century). Compline consisted only of four psalms with the canticle Nunc dimittis and a prayer. This Hour was preceded by a spiritual reading held in the refectory or another place, almost as we shall soon say of Prime. In the daily nocturns, after the sung verse Domine labia mea aperies and Psalm 94 with its invitatory, twelve psalms were sung (with the doxology Gloria Patri added after every fourth psalm), then, after a verse had been said and a blessing given to the lector, three lessons were recited, each of which was followed by the conclusion Tu autem Domine. Deo gratias and the chant of its own responsory. (The responsories seem first to have been born at Rome, and there long before the sixth century.) The lessons were taken both from Sacred Scripture and from the treatises and homilies of the holy Fathers. (Hence the homiliaries of Alanus, abbot of Farfa, and others.) In the Sunday nocturns twice three psalms were added, of which the first were sung with an antiphon, the others with alleluia. Each series of psalms was likewise followed by three lessons with their responsories; the former of these were taken from the treatises of the Fathers, the latter from the Pauline epistles; soon the Gospel of the Sunday with a homily was joined beneath. Te Deum (a symbol written in the fifth century) was customarily sung only on the birthdays of the Roman Pontiffs, after the last responsory. We have already spoken summarily above of the psalms sung at Matins. But at this Hour besides, the same canticles as today in Lauds of the second schema were to be sung, and were divided in the same order among the days of the week. In its other parts Matins was altogether similar to Vespers, except that the canticle Benedictus took the place of the canticle Magnificat. But to Prime, or even sometimes to Terce, the exercise of Chapter was joined: after the general confession and absolution of all (Confiteor and the rest), and after Psalm Miserere had been sung, some spiritual reading was made; then the president noted the things to be corrected and ordered the things to be done, and, after the threefold invocation Deus in adiutorium had been sung and the verses Respice (the last of Psalm 89) had been said, he gave the prayer: Dirige Domine corda. In the ninth century there were introduced among the exercises of chapter the reading of the martyrology, accusations concerning faults committed ("culpa"), and the final blessing.

The offices of Saints, first celebrated only in the places of burial or of title, and merely juxtaposed to the ferial offices of basilicas, were in the eighth century finally admitted among those offices by an indivisible bond. Those feasts were divided into greater and lesser: the lesser, besides the lessons of the nocturn, brought scarcely any change in the Sunday or ferial office; but the greater had proper Vespers and Matins, and the whole nocturnal office. Indeed, in certain principal feasts, the first nocturnal office was celebrated immediately after Vespers, but on the following night another office was made from the Common of Saints or from the Sunday or feria.

Solemnities of the season had altogether proper offices, already very similar to those of today; on the night of Easter there were only three psalms, because on it the office of vigils had already to be celebrated, which lasted almost until dawn. Of the other solemnities, certain had a double nocturnal office, as we have said of certain feasts of Saints; in this usage there seems to us to appear a vestige of the ancient distinction between vigils properly so called and the nocturnal office. From that usage besides it is probable that the name of double feasts arose.

From the end of the eighth century to the beginning of the twelfth century, the office of the hours at Rome remained almost unchanged, especially since Gregory VII preserved it immune from imprudent changes and abbreviations. But after this age, at least outside the City, it underwent several changes. Antiphons were no longer repeated after individual verses; lessons were always more compressed; "Ambrosian" hymns (from the Benedictine office) were introduced into the individual Hours; the symbol Quicumque was added to Prime, and common commemorations of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all Saints to Vespers and Lauds; indeed, besides the office of the day itself, not only the whole office of the Blessed Virgin Mary but also the office of the dead (Vespers, Nocturns, and Lauds) had to be sung almost daily. But even at Rome, in the twelfth century, the office of the basilicas, except the Lateran, underwent certain changes. Only the stational liturgy seems to have remained intact in them.

Therefore in the same twelfth century a peculiar office was formed in the pontifical Curia, very similar to the office described above. At the beginning of the thirteenth century this was conceded to the Friars Minor, accommodated by them to their own utility, and by their work diffused through the universal Church; it finally returned to Rome, and there, having again been assumed into the use of the Curia, a short time afterwards it was imposed by Pope Nicholas IV on all Roman churches.

The modern office, entangled with too many additions, enriched with too many feasts of Saints and dishonored by spurious lessons, indeed by manifest fables, was first reformed by St. Pius V; but other Pontiffs took care to perfect this reform, especially as regards the legends of Saints and the composition of hymns. Yet no reform up to this point had been sufficient.

Indeed soon, with the Pian reform in this part deserted, many feasts had been established or restored to the detriment of the other offices. Therefore in the eighteenth century Benedict XIV created a new commission; this, undertaking a reform of the whole work, submitted it to the Pontiff. He, not much approving the proposed plan of reform, himself set himself to the work, when he was overtaken by death.

And thus it has come down to the present process of reform initiated by Pius X a few years ago; among the others this is the most radical. What has already been done up to this point for restoring somewhat the offices of the season is sufficiently known; but as regards the division of the Psalter, the new law can be expressed summarily thus: not only must all the psalms be recited through the week, but each once. Among the further labors of reform will be both the correction of the text of the Psalter, which will follow the new edition of the Vulgate, and the more perfect cleansing of the legends of martyrs and Saints.

Bk. III, Diss. VI, Chapter I — The condemned propositions are recounted · Bk. III, Diss. VI, Chapter II — Lax propositions of certain Authors · Bk. III, Diss. VI, Chapter III — On the number and definition of the Canonical Hours · Bk. III, Diss. VI, Chapter VII — On the restitution owed by Beneficiaries on account of the omission of the divine office

II. Parts and Books of the Office

The various parts of the office can be referred to four heads: prayers, chants, lessons, and brief formulas of salutation and other things of that kind.

The eight Hours, one nocturnal and seven diurnal, are better distinguished than seven Hours in all; for the latter cannot be done unless Matins and Lauds are joined into one Hour. For the former division responds better to tradition and to the true composition of the office, and it observes the law of the psalmist: Septies in die, laudem dixi tibi et media nocte surgebam ad confitendum tibi (Ps. 118).

For a rather long time the diverse parts of the office (psalms, antiphons and responsories, hymns, lessons) were presented in separate books. Then they were joined, according to the order of the composition of the office, in several tomes, of which the former (libri matutinales) handed down the nocturnal office, the last (liber diurnalis) the diurnal office.

Indeed, especially for the convenience of travelers, the whole office was enclosed in one book, which, with chant suppressed, besides the lessons noted only the beginnings of antiphons and of other chants, because clerics were thought to know all the rest by memory. The lessons themselves had been compressed to very few verses. These books had the name of breviaries. The more frequent use of these did not a little bring it about that even the choral office itself was abbreviated; indeed, today the office of the breviary and the office of the choir are one and the same.

I. M. H., S.I.^†

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 11 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XI, Sect. II, Q. I, Ch. II, Art. II, § 5. On the Canonical Hours and Certain Other Prayers

n. 360.

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.

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).
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.

n. 361.

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:

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.
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
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.

n. 362.

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

all clerics constituted in major orders;¹⁹³
all beneficiaries, even those not constituted in major orders;
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."

n. 363.

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.

n. 364.

364. The obligation of beneficiary clerics.

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.
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.

n. 365.

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.

n. 366.

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.

n. 367.

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.

n. 368.

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:

if someone changes the rite by using a breviary other than the one prescribed;
if someone recites the Office in a language other than Latin;
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.

n. 369.

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:

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.
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.

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).

n. 370.

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

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.
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.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 43 passages

Vol. I, TREATISE ON PARTICULAR STA…, PART SECOND: ON THE STATE …, Ch. I, BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, Art. I, § IV. On the Recitation of the Canonical Hours or of the Divine Office

n. ¶1089.

- Canonical Hours are called: the collection of prayers and readings to be recited by persons deputed to this, at certain hours, on individual days. Hence the Hours are also called 1° the Divine Office, which is recited in honor of God; 2° the Ecclesiastical Office, which is paid in the name of the Church; 3° the Canonical Office, which must be recited according to the rules of the Canons; 4° the Breviary, because that Office is a compendium of the Old and New Testament, and also of the sentences of the Fathers and the life of the Saints.

The origin of the Divine Office as to substance seems to have to be traced back from the very times of the Apostles, as is gathered from various places of the Acts of the Apostles, from the testimonies of the Fathers, and from various documents.

In the course of times the form and quantity of the Breviary were various. The Council of Trent¹ commanded that a new reform of the Roman Breviary be made. St. Pius V corrected it, increased it with some additions, and by the Bull Quod a Nobis, July 7, 1568, prohibited all other Breviaries which did not exceed 200 years by institution or legitimate custom.

The whole Divine Office is divided into seven Hours, namely Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline.

It must be treated 1° concerning the obligation of the Breviary; 2° concerning the time established for the recitation of the Hours; 3° concerning the mode of reciting them; 4° concerning the causes excusing from recitation.

Point I. On the obligation of reciting.

n. ¶1090.

Principles. - I. The following are obliged to recite the canonical Hours daily:² 1° All Clerics constituted in Sacred Orders, even those censured and deposed. This is clear from various places of Canon Law; from the Lateran Council, year 1215, from the Bull of St. Pius V Quod a Nobis. - 2° All beneficed persons who have a right in the thing and full dominion of the benefice. It is drawn from the Lateran Council under Leo X, and also from the Bull of Pius V: Ex proximo. - 3° All Religious of each sex professed in an Order approved by the Church, or in which solemn vows are emitted, and destined for choir. It is clear from custom, and also from the Decree of Gregory X, etc. Cf. n. 1205. q. 2°.

II. All these sin gravely if they omit the whole Office or a notable part of it without legitimate cause. The reason is clear; for they violate the law of the Church in a grave matter. - St. Alphonsus,¹ 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, from the mind of the Church, ceases with the day assigned to it, and for this reason is usually called the burden of the day.

n. ¶1091.

Questions. - Query 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 equivalent at least to the quantity of one little Hour, is matter of mortal sin; but that the omission of a lesser part does not exceed venial sin.²

n. ¶1092.

- Query 2° Whether it is grave to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, because the matter is very slight both in itself and in respect to the whole Office.³

n. ¶1093.

- Query 3° Whether he commits one or multiple grave sins who omits the whole Office?

Resp. He seems to commit one grave sin only. - Thus commonly Theologians with St. Alphonsus after St. Antoninus, 3rd part tit. 13. c. 4.; because the whole Office of the day falls under one precept. Yet several sins could be committed from an evil will interrupted and resumed several times, for example if someone intends to omit the Office or some hour, afterwards proposes to say it, and again is turned away from the good purpose.⁴

n. ¶1094.

- Query 4° Whether if someone doubts whether he has omitted something in the Office, he is held to recite it?

Resp. Negatively, if either there is present a solitary probability or presumption for the Office having been paid, or it is a question of a scrupulous person; otherwise affirmatively. Cf. things said n. 67. b).

Hence (they say) you are well excused from repeating the Office if you do not remember having said something, and you have a just conjecture of believing that you said it: for example, if you remember that you began some Psalm, or Reading, or Hour, and afterwards, distracted, you have come to the end of the Psalm, Reading, 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 come to some Hour, for example Sext, and you doubt whether you recited the preceding one, you can hold the same decision, because you are not accustomed to recite a later Hour unless you have recited the prior one first, and therefore you can prudently believe that you omitted nothing.¹

n. ¶1095.

- Query 5° Whether Religious who for just cause do not come to choir are held under grave obligation to recite the Office privately?

Resp. Affirmatively. 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 undertook 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 bound under grave obligation to reciting the Office privately. But universal custom, which has been constantly observed by Religious and Nuns with great inconvenience, furnishes a sufficient argument concerning the grave obligation undertaken. Whence the opinion of some is not probable, who say that the obligation of the Office does not urge a Religious outside choir. Yet both the Constitutions and the legitimate customs of each Order must be consulted.² Those professed of simple vows, concerning whom n. 1187 will be treated, are not held to private recitation; yet they must be present at choir as solemnly professed. Bizzarri, Collect.

n. ¶1096.

- Query 6° Whether a Religious sins gravely who recites the Office privately, while he can easily be present at choir?

Resp. Negatively. For the obligation of choir, although it is grave for the Community, nevertheless is held as light for individual private persons, provided the choir is not altogether taken away. But four free persons, or persons valid for sustaining the choir, suffice for choir. But if Religious are fewer, they are in no way obliged to recite the Office in choir; yet they are not exempted from private recitation, as has just been said.⁴

- Query 7° Whether those obliged to the Office are held to supply those things which they omit in choir on account of the functions of choir, for example by ringing bells or playing organs, or by looking for the Psalms, and other similar things?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is that omission in choir, provided it is not excessive, is supplied by the companions. Thus he satisfies who coughs while others are reciting, etc., and probably even if an entire Psalm is said in the meantime. But he does not satisfy who, while the Office is sung, answers the choir alternately by playing the organ, without uttering the versicles of his own part. A fortiori he is not held to repeat who did not hear some things of the opposite part, even if it is a question of a notable part, provided he sufficiently attended.¹

n. ¶1097.

- Query 8° What Breviary must be used?

Resp. By common law the Breviary reformed by St. Pius V alone must be used; this is clear from the Bull of the same St. Pius V, Quod a Nobis, given July 7, 1568. In this Bull the Pontiff takes away and abolishes all other Breviaries which from institution or legitimate custom do not exceed two hundred years. Yet he permits that even those older than two hundred years can be changed into the Roman Breviary, if the Bishop and the whole Chapter consent. But he commands that this Breviary be observed throughout the whole world, with only the exception just related. 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.

n. ¶1098.

- Query 9° Is there still given an obligation of reciting the gradual Psalms, the little Office of the B. V. M., and the Office of the dead?

Resp. 1° Negatively as to Clerics who recite the Office privately.

Resp. 2° Negatively also for those reciting the Office in choir, unless where there is present a custom of reciting the aforesaid Offices from the time of St. Pius V. - Thus the S. Congregation of Rites declared several times. Yet this obligation, where it exists from custom, does not affect individual private persons outside choir.²

Query 10° Whether those obliged to the Office must under grave obligation recite the Office of the dead on the day of the Commemoration of all the deceased, and also the Litanies on the feast-day of St. Mark and on the three days of Rogations?

Resp. to 1st Affirmatively, according to all. But this Office consists only of Vespers, Matins, and Lauds.¹

Resp. to 2nd Affirmatively, according to the common opinion. The reason is that in the Rubric after Monday of the fifth Sunday after Easter it is said thus: "Those who are not present at the procession of Rogations shall privately after Lauds say the Litanies with their prayers and orations." But the word "shall say" imports a grave precept when the matter is grave, such as certainly is the matter of the Litanies. Besides, everywhere the custom of reciting the Litanies on these days prevails. But custom is the best interpreter of laws. Yet some deny the grave obligation, saying that the precept is not clear, especially not the grave precept. - "I do not dare to call the second opinion improbable, but the first pleases me more." (f) p. 483.

n. ¶1099.

- 1° The time prescribed for fulfilling the entire recitation of the Office begins from midnight and is ended 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 duty. The reason is that, as to substance, one satisfies by reciting the whole Office on the natural day. Indeed Matins and Lauds, by a privilege granted by the Church, can be recited on the preceding day in the evening.

2° 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 Preparat. 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. See below, q. 2 and 3, n. 1100.

3° All the little Hours can be recited in the morning time; and indeed the two earlier ones must be recited before midday; but the two later ones can be said during the whole time both morning and evening. Vespers and Compline are recited from midday up to midnight. Yet in Lent from the first Sunday Vespers can be recited before dinner on account of the ancient discipline, according to which the fast was not broken before the recitation of Vespers. But 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 in the morning, Sext at midday, None at the third hour in the afternoon, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the twilight of night. Hence a cleric ordained subdeacon is held only to reciting the Hours corresponding to the time of ordination. Therefore if the ordination is made before the ninth hour in the morning, he will be held to reciting Terce, but not to the preceding Hours. But more probably he does not satisfy if he recites the part of the Office to which he is held before ordination; yet the opposite opinion is also probable to St. Alphonsus. See the arguments of each opinion in the same author.²

n. ¶1100.

Questions. - Query 1° Whether the little Hours can be recited even before dawn without any cause?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that since the ancient custom of reciting those Hours at a determined time has been taken away, no other law or new custom has 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. Alphonsus.³

Query 2° Whether the obligation of reciting Matins and Lauds before Mass urges under grave obligation?

Resp. Negatively, 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 to be a disposition for celebrating, since a priest can also dispose himself piously for the Sacred rite by praying otherwise; nor does a grave obligation appear from the Rubric related above, and generally it is apprehended not under grave obligation, but under light. - Thus commonly, with St. Alphonsus³ and Benedict XIV.⁴ Otherwise, according to the truer opinion, if it is a question of recitation in choir before the conventual Mass to be celebrated in chant.

Query 3° What cause can excuse from that obligation?

Resp. Any moderate reasonable cause will excuse, 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, requires this; if some unexpected business has arisen; if some penitent must be heard first; and similar things.¹

n. ¶1101.

- Query 4° At what hour is it permitted to begin the recitation of Matins in the evening of the preceding day, according to the privilege related above?

Resp. From the common opinion of Theologians it is permitted to begin at the hour of Vespers, which is had when the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and setting; for then, according to all, the ecclesiastical day begins, since first Vespers are accustomed to be chanted. This is confirmed by universal custom. Hence in various places tables are usually prepared determining this hour at the diverse times of the year.² Yet our Bishops can communicate to "ecclesiastical men, whether secular or regular, the faculty which they have," of privately reciting, with a legitimate cause concurring, Matins with Lauds of the following day immediately after two hours have elapsed after midday. See p. LXXII, Faculty 1 among Extra. C.

Query 5° Whether the recitation of Matins must be repeated if it was had before the aforesaid time?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that the Breviary is the burden of the day; therefore it must be recited on the day itself assigned; but if the aforesaid anticipation is made, now the Office is recited outside the day, just as if the little Hours of the following day were recited before midnight.³ It is confirmed from the declaration apud Muhlbauer.⁴

Addendum and Corrigendum. - I confirm the sentence of St. Alphonsus, according to which more probably the recitation of Matins must be repeated if it was had before that time at which the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and setting, from the declaration which is read apud Muhlbauer. But it was asked whether this declaration is to be understood in such a way that he would not satisfy his obligation who recited Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day before the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and setting. The S. C. responded on 13 July 1883: "Approved Authors are to be consulted." Among the approved authors who have written on this question, that St. Alphonsus is second to none is not something I need say.

n. ¶1102.

- Query 6° Whether the Matins of the Office of the dead and the Litanies for the feast of St. Mark and the days of Rogations can be recited on the previous evening?

Resp. to 1st Affirmatively, more probably. It is clear from universal custom, and also from the Rubrics, which read thus: "The Benedicamus Domino having been said, the Matins of the dead begins absolutely." Therefore since the Matins of the Octave of the feast of All Saints is accustomed, or certainly is able, to be anticipated, consequently the Matins of the dead also can be anticipated.

Some deny this with Lacroix, relying on a Decree of the S. Congregation of Rites, Sept. 1, 1607. But that Decree, according to St. Alphonsus,¹ seems to regard only recitation in choir; concerning which matter indeed there cannot be doubt after the Response of the S. R. C., Sept. 4, 1745 in Ratisbon (apud Gardellini n. 4177).

Resp. to 2nd Negatively. 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 assistance at the procession, which is altogether affixed to the day. Furthermore 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.²

n. ¶1103.

- Query 7° Whether one foreseeing an impediment to reciting the Office is held to anticipate the time of the Hours?

Resp. Negatively, probably, if it is a question of Matins and Lauds to be recited the day before, because the time of the precept is not yet running, but only of the privilege. Affirmatively, if the day of precept has already begun, because the Office is prescribed to be recited within the breadth of the whole day, and he who, the precept now urging, is going to be impeded, is held to prevent it. L. V. 155. Cf. above n. 548. q. 3°. n. 550. q. 1°.

n. ¶1104.

- Query 8° At what hour can the recitation of Vespers begin in the morning during Lent?

Resp. The Salmanticenses say³ that Vespers in Lent can be recited from the eleventh hour, or one hour before midday.

But as to the hour of reciting any part whatever of the Office, that must not be passed over which St. Alphonsus has:⁴ "That someone may licitly anticipate or postpone the due time of the Hours, any useful or honest 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 held to use. But Compline does not enjoy the aforesaid privilege; whence also during Lent it is to be recited after midday.

n. ¶1105.

- 1° As to place. The Office of choir must be recited in the place itself 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, whether at home, whether in the country, or even in the road while walking, or while making a journey, provided the place is fitting for the attention required and devotion.

2° As to posture. The Office can privately be recited in every decent posture, whether on bended knees, whether standing, whether sitting, whether walking. Thus universal practice, with which all Theologians agree.

n. ¶1106.

Questions. - Query 1° Whether it is permitted to recite the Office lying down in bed?

Resp. Negatively, a reasonable cause being excluded; for such a posture often has some irreverence. The same also must be said of any other posture redolent of softness. Yet this irreverence never exceeds venial sin. - Thus Concina and Viva apud St. Alphonsus.² But any moderate cause whatever will excuse from every fault, for example sickness or any infirmity, headache, weariness, or if someone cannot sleep at night, he could recite the Office without being held to rise.

Query 2° Whether it is permitted to recite the Office in a carriage or on horseback?

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

n. ¶1107.

- Query 3° Whether it is fault not to observe the rubric according to which certain prayers are to be recited on bended knees?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if it is a question of recitation outside choir; for by custom and common interpretation this rubric regards choir alone. These things indeed laudably are done in private recitation, but are omitted without fault. - St. Alphonsus³ and others commonly. Say the same of the Sign of the Cross, and of other signs used in choir.

Resp. 2° If it is a question of recitation in choir, it is disputed. More probably it seems to be affirmed, because a rubric prescribing something imposes a precept. Yet such omission can never exceed venial fault.

Query 4° Whether it is a sin to recite the Breviary in an indecent place?

Resp. More probably it seems to have to be denied of itself, unless the place were an obstacle to due attention, for example on account of a crowd of people, noise, etc.; otherwise it would be indecent to pray in an indecent place, which is false, since, because God is everywhere, He can also be prayed to and adored everywhere, as is clear from the Apostle:² I will men to pray in every place. - St. Alphonsus³ and others, against some who said that there is venial sin, because this is not without some irreverence.

n. ¶1108.

- A double order must be observed in the recitation of the Breviary, namely the order of Offices and the order of Hours. 1° The order of Offices is described in the calendar of feasts and in the rubrics for their translation, where several occur at once. From the Declarations of the S. R. C.: a) In doubt the Diocesan Directory must be followed, even if to someone it seemed certain that it errs. b) Simple priests, or those who are neither beneficiaries nor, according to St. Alphonsus,⁴ Religious, can conform themselves to the office of the place in which they are staying.⁵ 2° The order of Hours is that which is set forth in the Breviary, namely that Matins with Lauds be recited in the first place, then the little Hours be added, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and finally Vespers with Compline follow.

n. ¶1109.

Questions. - Query 1° Whether he satisfies the precept of reciting the Hours who by error or inadvertence recites another Office for the Office of the day?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that the Church is not presumed to wish to oblige someone twice to this burden on one day, and because the substance of the recitation has been sufficiently preserved. Hence the common axiom which is held as a rule in these circumstances: Office is valid for Office. Therefore there is no obligation, the recitation having been completed, of reciting another Office. - Thus commonly.¹ - The same also must be said of any part of the Office according to the axiom: An error is corrected where it is discovered.

Yet it is a counsel, says Laymann with others, not an obligation, to add the proper things 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.²

n. ¶1110.

- Query 2° If someone by error has recited only some part of an undue Office, and notices the error, whether he can continue the begun Office, or whether he is held to recite the remaining things from the Office of the day?

Resp. According to the common opinion of Theologians, freedom is given. Therefore he can either continue, or recite the remaining things from the due Office, yet with the Psalm or prayer finished. But it is better to change the Office according to many who establish this rule: "An error is corrected where it is discovered." But this is from mere counsel, not from precept.³

n. ¶1111.

- Query 3° Whether, when you have already said one Office for another, you can recite the omitted Office on the day on which the Office already recited by you will occur?

Resp. Negatively. But the Office recited must be recited again. The reason is that the Church then only prescribes an Office to be transferred when it is impeded by a Sunday or a greater Office; besides, there is present the obligation of conforming oneself with the common rite of the Church. - Thus Lugo.⁴ St. Alphonsus says this more probably,⁵ and it must be held as morally certain from the Decree of the S. R. C., June 17, 1673, apud Gardellini.⁶

n. ¶1112.

- Query 4° Whether or how he sins who knowingly recites another Office for the Office of the day?

Resp. 1° He commits no sin if he does this for a reasonable cause, for example if he cannot easily have the proper Office, or if for the sake of charity he recites with a companion saying a different Office, provided that Office has been approved by the Holy See and is equal or nearly equal; indeed the mere reason of companionship appears sufficiently reasonable, says St. Alphonsus.¹

Resp. 2° The reason being excluded, it will indeed be a sin, but venial only, if the Office is changed into an equal or almost equal one, because the obligation is satisfied as to substance, provided nevertheless (which seems more equitable to St. Alphonsus,² although he holds as sufficiently probable the opinion which does not admit that restriction) that it happen rarely. - St. Alphonsus² against others who say that it is always mortal.

Resp. 3° 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. See p. XIV.

n. ¶1113.

- Query 5° What kind of sin is it to invert the order in the recitation of the Hours?

Resp. 1° In private recitation it never exceeds venial sin, because such inversion of order does not contain grave deformity; for the order to be observed is only under a secondary precept and as a circumstance of lesser moment. But if from some just cause you change the order, for example to recite with a companion who has already proceeded further in the recitation, you will be wholly without fault. Some say that inversion of order is a mortal sin if it happens frequently; but this is more probably to be denied with St. Alphonsus.³

Resp. 2° 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. Each opinion is probable; but the negative is more probable, because a grave precept is not clear. - Thus St. Alphonsus, apud whom the reasons of each opinion may be seen.⁴

n. ¶1114.

- Query 6° What is a cause for inverting the order of the Hours?

Resp. Any reasonable cause excuses. But the following can be assigned, namely: 1° if you are invited by a friend to recite some Hour with him, and you have not yet recited the preceding Hour or Hours; 2° if in the morning you do not have a Breviary at hand, and cannot conveniently wait, then from a Diurnal which you have you could recite the day Hours, afterwards to recite Matins; 3° if you do not have the Readings at hand, you can recite the Psalms of Matins and Lauds, indeed also the remaining things, the Readings being postponed; 4° if you come to choir when the Hour has already begun, you can go on with the others and afterwards 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 afterwards supply the earlier. - Thus St. Alphonsus¹ and others commonly.

n. ¶1115.

- Query 7° Whether it is 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,² but venial only, if it is done without cause. But neither is it clear that it is venial, since the Office of one day seems to have no order with the Office of another day. But according to the opinion which holds that it is a venial sin, a sufficient cause of 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 Matins of the following day with him; and generally every cause sufficient for inversion of order among the Hours of the same day would suffice also in the present case.

Query 8° Whether he sins who does not recite the commemorations according to the order assigned by the rubric?

Resp. Several deny it, because that rubric, if it is a question of private recitation, seems merely directive, just as those things which regard posture of the body or signs of the Cross.

n. ¶1116.

- Pronunciation must be vocal, entire, continued.

1° Vocal. The Office must be recited by voice, and indeed by a distinct one; but it does not suffice that it be read by the mind alone, or only run through by 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 done with distinct voice. - Thus all.

2° Entire. The Office must be recited entirely: but to integrity belong the Pater, Ave, Credo, at the beginning and end of the Hours, as is noted in the rubrics. Yet the prayers Aperi, Domine and Sacrosanctae do not belong to the integrity of the Office; but are recited only from counsel. The privilege of the prayer Sacrosanctae is not obtained by those who recite it outside the case of infirmity, not on bended knees. S. C. Ind., July 26, 1855.¹

3° Continued. Whatever notable interruption within one Hour, if it is made without any cause, is not without fault; but it does not exceed venial sin.²

n. ¶1117.

Questions. - Query 1° Whether one reciting the Office must hear himself in order to satisfy?

Resp. Negatively, more probably. The reason is that hearing is not prescribed, but only recitation, that is, pronunciation of words, which is called vocal: therefore it suffices if he who recites is conscious to himself that he is pronouncing the words; and St. Alphonsus says this is sufficiently probable,³ against others.

n. ¶1118.

- Query 2° What are just causes for interrupting the Office?

Resp. Any reasonable cause suffices for interrupting any Hour whatever; but especially the following causes are numbered: 1° any utility of one's own or another's which cannot be deferred without some inconvenience; 2° reason of civility or charity, or reason of executing the commands of Superiors; 3° if the Confession of someone must be heard who would not willingly wait; 4° if you wish to do or note something in order to remove a distraction or solicitude, for example lest you forget, etc., provided nevertheless that this not be done frequently; because frequent interruption on account of this cause is not without some irreverence; 5° some brief prayer, or some pious affection of the heart, can also licitly be inserted into the recitation. Yet it would not be permitted for the sake of meditating to linger long and frequently in these things, because the character of recitation or of vocal prayer would not be sufficiently preserved; likewise if a longer vocal prayer and one not at all pertaining to the Office were said: for a notable part would be added to the Hours, which would be venial, as being against the prescribed form. - St. Alphonsus⁴ and others commonly.

n. ¶1119.

- Query 3° Whether Matins can be separated from Lauds?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion.⁵ But then, Matins having been finished, the Pater noster must be said, as must be done after any Hour whatever.

Addendum and Corrigendum. - Add the Response of the S. C. R., 18 May 1883, in the Marionopolitana. "Doubt IV. If it happens in private recitation that Matins is separated from Lauds, it is asked how Matins is to be concluded: ... and how Lauds are to be begun?" The response was: "In the case, Matins is to be concluded with the prayer of the Office of the day; Lauds are to be begun as in the Psalter."

n. ¶1120.

- Query 4° Whether the Nocturns can be separated without cause?

Resp. Affirmatively. It is clear from universal custom, to which no law can be opposed. Indeed formerly they were separated from the practice of the Church, since they were accustomed to be 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 interposed among the individual Nocturns. But if a just cause is present, by reason of which the Nocturns must be separated, that interval can also be extended in proportion to that cause. - Thus Busembaum, Bonacina, the Salmanticenses, Viva, whose opinion St. Alphonsus rightly calls probable.¹

n. ¶1121.

- Query 5° Whether or how that man sins who, one or another Nocturn having been recited on the vigil, recites the remaining part of Matins with the whole night having intervened?

Resp. 1° He is always to be exempted from mortal sin, because he satisfies the substance of the precept. For from the general rule handed down by St. Alphonsus² and by others commonly, the substance of the precept is satisfied whenever the Office is recited entirely on the natural or ecclesiastical day, so that then venial sin is never exceeded, however great an interruption, even without cause, intervenes. Therefore the present case must not be excluded.

Resp. 2° He also will be excused from venial sin who does this from a reasonable cause, for example if the Office is very long, as the Sunday Office, and after the first Nocturn has been recited, he is very wearied or overcome by sleep, etc. The reason follows from what has been said; since any interruption whatever from a just cause is licit.

n. ¶1122.

- Query 6° Whether or to what extent some Hour is to be repeated on account of a notable interruption interposed?

Resp. 1° The whole Hour is never to be repeated, even if the interruption had been interposed without just cause. The reason is clear from what has just been said. Besides, individual Psalms, and individual Readings or Orations, have their complete signification, and they are sufficiently united by the intention of continuing.

Resp. 2° Indeed, speaking per se, nothing is necessarily to be repeated, even if the interruption happens in the middle of a Psalm, provided it is not in the middle of a versicle or in the middle of an oration, because even individual versicles have their particular signification. - St. Alphonsus¹ and others commonly, against some.

Query 7° Whether in the recitation of the Office it is permitted to mix in or append something from devotion?

Resp. Negatively, because in the Offices nothing is to be added or changed unless it has been conceded by the Apostolic See.²

n. ¶1123.

- Query 8° To what is one reciting the Hours with a companion or with choir held by reason of pronunciation?

Resp. To satisfying the obligation it is required: 1° that recitation be made by alternate verses. But if more than two recite, a double choir having been made, it must be recited alternately, because this mode is admitted by the custom of the Church; 2° that the verses be said successively, and not simultaneously; nor should one resume before the other has completed his own; 3° that to those things which are said by one, the others sufficiently attend, so that they communicate, and one moral prayer is made. Yet it is not necessary that those hearing pronounce in a low voice the part of the others, and it is sufficiently probable that they satisfy even if they do not hear the part of the others on account of a defect of these in pronouncing. - Thus most commonly.³ 4° The Confiteor and Misereatur at Prime and Compline can be recited alternately, but they must not be,⁴ outside choir. 5° Outside choir the antiphon of the B. V. M. is not to be added by precept except at the end of Lauds and Compline.⁵

Query 9° Whether you satisfy if you recite the Hours with a layman, or another not obliged, or with one distracted or not attentive?

Resp. Affirmatively 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 another does not change your recitation nor vitiate it. 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.⁶

n. ¶1124.

- Query 10° Whether you are held to repeat those things which you recited with imperfect or mutilated pronunciation?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, if the mutilation is very notable, so that the sense of the words is corrupted and destroyed; and this holds, even if you did this involuntarily, because the defect affects the substance of the recitation; except unless impossibility stands in the way, for example stammering; for then the one reciting did what he could.

Resp. 2° Negatively, if you so mutilate the syllables that the sense of the words is not corrupted, or if you mutilate in a 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 on account of inadvertence, or stammering, or an inveterate custom which can be overcome with difficulty, provided suitable effort is applied to correcting this custom. Nor are you held to repeat if you recite with a companion, unless it is certain to you that the companion by mutilating omitted a notable part. But he is not excused from venial sin who voluntarily associates himself with such a one, unless perhaps a reasonable cause is present, for example because a grave person invited him to this, etc.¹

Query 11° Whether the oration must be said after Matins when Lauds are separated?

Resp. Negatively, probably, but it suffices after Matins to recite the Pater noster. The reason is that probably Matins and Lauds morally make one Hour, and otherwise the oration is prescribed only on the night of the Nativity of the Lord.²

Query 12° Whether before Lauds separated from Matins the Pater and Ave must be said, as before the other Hours?

Resp. Some affirm absolutely, because then Lauds are an Hour distinct from Matins. Others deny more probably, because this is nowhere prescribed. Nor does the reason avail, 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. - Lacroix.⁴

n. ¶1125.

- 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 he ever sins gravely will soon be said in the Questions.

But voluntary distractions are not only those which are intended, but also those which are willed in their cause, namely those which proceed from negligence, levity, excessive preoccupation with business to be done, from curiosity by looking about at external objects, from circumstances of place or time not opportune, unless some reason excuses this.

n. ¶1126.

Questions. - Query 1° How many kinds of attention are distinguished?

Resp. Twofold: internal, namely, 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 talking, writing, etc.

Again internal attention is threefold, namely 1° spiritual, which is to God Himself as the term of prayer; 2° literal, or to the sense of the words and the signification of things; 3° material, which is directed to the words only, namely to pronouncing them rightly. - See n. 402.

Query 2° Whether internal attention is required under grave obligation?

Resp. There is a double opinion among Theologians.

The first opinion, the more common, affirms. The reason is, 1° because prayer without internal attention is not prayer. For prayer is the elevation of the mind to God; but, internal attention being removed, there is no elevation of the mind to God. Therefore... Besides, for paying the Hours there is required at least some intention of worshiping God; but this intention cannot be had without some internal attention. Therefore... 2° Because it must not be believed that the Church intended to prescribe external attention only in paying 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. 3° 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 second opinion denies it, and says that, for satisfying the substance of the recitation and removing mortal sin, external attention absolutely suffices. The reason is that, if internal attention were required, one who recited the Hours involuntarily distracted would not satisfy his obligation; for when the essence of a thing has been destroyed, although inculpably, the thing itself remains destroyed: yet not even the adversaries admit this. But St. Alphonsus concludes thus: "The first opinion seems more probable, at least on account of extrinsic authority, and altogether as safer is to be counseled; but the second, both on account of the authority of Doctors, which is not to be contemned, and on account of the reasons, founded on no light foundations, appears sufficiently probable." - Recall the things said concerning Mass, n. 403.

n. ¶1127.

- Query 3° What internal attention is required according to the first opinion?

Resp. Any attention whatever 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 is required, nor literal, 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. - Thus St. Alphonsus.²

n. ¶1128.

- I. Impossibility, whether physical or moral, which consists in grave difficulty of reciting the Office. Hence he is excused:

1° Who does not have a Breviary, because, for example, when undertaking a journey he forgot it, or on the journey lost it, with inability to procure another. Yet if he forgot, lost, or threw it away by his own grave fault, he sinned gravely, and the omission of the Hours is imputable to him.

2° Who labors under grave illness, for example fever, pain of the intestines or of the head; or who justly fears lest from the recitation grave inconvenience follow, etc. Whence he is sufficiently excused who prudently believes or fears lest on account of the recitation of the Office there arise for him notable heaviness of the head, or crudity of the stomach, or exhaustion of strength, or another grave inconvenience.¹

3° One recovering from grave illness can be excused for some days according to the judgment of a prudent man, until his strength is restored. And this can be admitted even if the sick man already celebrates Mass.²

4° He is also excused who in time of persecution fears lest he be betrayed by the recitation of the Breviary; likewise he who labors gravely in the eyes, etc. - St. Alphonsus³ and others commonly.

II. Charity toward one's neighbor, that is, grave occupation which cannot be omitted without scandal or notable detriment of the neighbor. Such occupation excuses from the recitation of the Office, because the natural precept of charity prevails over ecclesiastical law. Hence you are excused from recitation of the Hours either totally or partially:

1° If at night, about to recite the Office, for example Vespers, you are called at once to a dying person, and neither time nor convenience is available to you for paying the obligation of the Office.

2° If you are occupied the whole day in hearing Confessions which on account of peculiar circumstances cannot be deferred, for example in sacred missions, and especially near their end, when you are about to depart, etc.

3° If you could not omit a sermon without scandal or detriment of reputation, and yet time for preparing it would not be available if the Office had to be recited.

4° If you are occupied the whole day in quieting quarrels, or assisting the sick, for example at the time of contagious disease, etc. - St. Alphonsus⁴ and others.

…and 3 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 19 passages

Vol. II, Pt. IV, Tr. II, Ch. I, Art. I, § 3. On The Canonical Hours

n. ¶2203.

- The CANONICAL HOURS are vocal prayers instituted by the Church and, from her precept, to be paid to God by persons deputed to this.

They are customarily called by various names. They are called the Breviary, either because they briefly commemorate the oracles of the Scriptures, the sayings of the Fathers, and the deeds of the Saints; or because they are a compendium of the longer prayers which in ancient times had to be recited. - They are also called: the ecclesiastical Office, because they are paid in the name of the Church; the canonical Office, because they must be paid according to the rules of the canons; the divine Office, because they have been instituted for the honor and worship of God.

The canonical Hours are numbered SEVEN, namely: Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. - Matins with Lauds and Vespers are called the MAJOR HOURS, the others MINOR or little HOURS.

The canonical Hours, as regards substance, repeat their ORIGIN from the very times of the Apostles, as is established from Acts of the Apostles 2:42, and more manifestly from the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. 8, can. 34, where these things prescribed to Clerics are read: "Make prayers in the morning, at the third hour, sixth, and ninth, and in the evening and at cockcrow."¹³ But as regards the FORM in which they are recited today, it must be said that the canonical Hours are the work of the Roman Pontiffs: first (in the fourth century), St. Damasus, using for this the work of St. Jerome; then (in the fifth century), Gelasius in the Roman Council; then (in the sixth century), St. Gregory the Great; then (in the thirteenth century), Gregory IX, who reduced them into a briefer form; afterward (in the sixteenth century), St. Pius V; then (in the seventeenth century), Clement VIII and Urban VIII;¹⁴ and finally (in our times), Leo XIII.¹⁵

With these things having been premised, there must be explained: 1. what is the obligation (whether for Clerics, or also for Religious) of reciting the canonical Hours; 2. in what form and manner they must be recited; 3. what are the causes excusing from recitation.

n. ¶2204.

- Principles. I. The OBLIGATION of reciting the canonical Hours arises FROM A THREEFOLD title, namely: from the title of sacred Order, from the title of ecclesiastical Benefice, and from the title of Religion bound to choir. Thus all.

From the title of ORDER, Clerics constituted in Sacred Orders are bound, even those suspended and excommunicated. "For," says Benedict XIV,¹⁶ "the daily task of the canonical Hours coheres with sacred Order; and the more common opinion of theologians teaches that it was received by ancient tradition and placed in custom by immemorial usage."

This obligation begins from the Hour corresponding to the hour at which the subdiaconate was conferred; whence, if the Order is conferred at the eleventh hour in the morning, the obligation begins from Sext.¹⁷

From the title of BENEFICE, all beneficiaries are bound, even if only tonsured, provided they have a right in the thing or full possession of the benefice: which must not be too slight (i.e. which reaches at least a third part of support), and from which they receive or will receive fruits.¹⁸ Thus from the decree of the Fifth Lateran Council, declaring: "We establish that anyone having a benefice, if after six months, the benefice having been obtained, he has not said the divine Office, does not make the fruits his own, in proportion to the omission." But he who, after admonition, continues to omit the recitation of the Office can also be deprived of the benefice. - St. Pius V decreed besides, in the Constitution Ex proximo, that he who omits Matins restore half the part of the fruits corresponding to that day; he who omits the other Hours, the other half; but he who omits only one of the little Hours, a sixth part. - And the same must be said if someone, through several light omissions during the Office of the day, reaches grave matter. - Nor is one omitting the Office on one day excused from restitution if he supplies on another.¹⁹

But this restitution must be made before every sentence; because recitation is absolutely necessary for gaining the fruits. - Further, it must be made to the poor, or to the fabric of the church, or to the house of the benefice, or for increasing its fields. Similarly, it can be applied to Masses for the dead; because souls in purgatory are truly poor.²⁰ Nor can it be supplied by any alms which the beneficiary previously made from the fruits of his benefice, as is established from proposition 33 condemned by Alexander VII. But if someone after the omission has given alms, being either forgetful or perhaps ignorant of the restitution to be made, he can probably compute them.²¹

It is said in the decree: after six months; from which it follows that a beneficiary who neglects the Office during the first six months indeed sins gravely against religion, but not against justice, and therefore is not held to restitution.²²

Will you ASK whether a beneficiary ought to restore ALL THE FRUITS according to the Offices which he omitted? - R. A simple beneficiary, who has only the burden of wearing the habit and tonsure, must restore all the fruits. But other beneficiaries are held to restore only those fruits which correspond to the burden of the Office. "The reason is both because the bull of St. PIUS V has been received thus and has been explained thus by usage, as being more conformable to natural equity; and because it seems harsh that Bishops, pastors, and chaplains, who bear other burdens, should be obliged in the same manner as simple beneficiaries. Therefore they say that a Bishop or pastor is held to restore a third or a fourth (or, as others think, a fifth) part of the fruits, retaining the others for the other burdens which they satisfy; - Canons, half the part (and, according to some, only a fourth); those having a chaplaincy, half or a third part (for a chaplain is held to the Office, since any chaplaincy to be conferred by a Bishop, and erected by his authority, is truly a benefice, even if it is removable at will; otherwise, if it is not erected by authority of the Bishop, although it is conferred by him). The reason is that all these receive fruits not only for the Office, but also for other burdens."²³

From the title of RELIGION assigned to choir, all Regulars solemnly professed who come under the name of Choristers, although they have not been promoted to Orders nor are to be promoted to them, are bound under grave sin to the canonical Hours, whether publicly in choir or privately.

This obligation arises from custom already prescribed and having the force of law among Regulars assigned to choir. But the obligatory force of this custom is established both from the fact that it has been constantly observed by Regulars and by Nuns and with great inconvenience, and from the fact that Prelates have always gravely reprehended transgressors. But if, says St. Alphonsus, in some Religion it were established that there is no such custom, such an obligation would not be in it.²⁴

It was asked: "Whether Professed of simple vows, which must be premised to the profession of solemn vows according to the encyclical letters given on 19 March 1857, are held to the divine Office?" And the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, at the command of Pius IX, responded, on 6 August 1858: "that they are not held to private recitation, but nevertheless must be present at Choir as those solemnly Professed."²⁵

n. ¶2205.

- St. Alphonsus further adverts:²⁶ 1. "No individual Religious or Nun is held under grave sin to say the Hours in choir, provided, however, that the choir is not taken away.... But paucity of religious excuses the whole Community from choir. Therefore, unless there are present at least four available ones (i.e. neither sick nor legitimately occupied), there is no obligation of choir."

Prelates sin gravely if from negligence they permit a notable part of the Office to be omitted in choir; because they are bound to protect and preserve regular observance.²⁷
Religious dwelling with permission outside the cloisters are held to the Office; likewise, if they are fugitives, or imprisoned. - But otherwise, if they have been ejected, or condemned to the galleys.¹
Lay brothers ought, from the prescription of the Rule, to recite certain prayers, but not under grave obligation.

n. ¶2206.

- II. The obligation of reciting the canonical Hours is so GRAVE that everyone upon whom this duty is incumbent sins gravely if, without legitimate cause, he omits the whole Office of one day, or a notable part of it. The reason is because he violates a precept in grave matter, namely in matter which pertains to the most excellent virtue of religion. - Yet this omission, according to the truer opinion, is not a sevenfold sin, but only one. "But if someone omitted several Hours from intentions morally interrupted, then he would commit several sins."² (cf. n. 328, Rule 32; n. 331, 3).

Furthermore, in assigning what is that notable part whose omission would be a mortal sin, there is not one opinion of all theologians. - As far as St. Alphonsus is concerned, having rejected as improbable the opinion of those who affirm that the omission of one whole little Hour is light matter, he embraces the opinion of Sanchez, who says that the matter is light whenever it does not reach the quantity of one entire little Hour. Hence it is probable that he does not sin gravely who omits all Vespers of Holy Saturday. But he sins gravely who omits one entire Nocturn, or even three Lessons with the responsories, if they are such that they equal a little Hour. - But neither would he be excused from mortal sin who recited only very little from a little Hour.³

n. ¶2207.

- Two things here come TO BE NOTED: 1. There is a grave obligation of reciting the Office of the Dead on the day of the Commemoration of all the dead; likewise, of reciting the Litanies on the feast-day of St. Mark and during the three days of Rogations.⁴ - 2. Today there is no obligation to recite, on the days assigned in any month, the little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Office of the Dead, the penitential Psalms, or the Gradual Psalms. Except if a custom of reciting them flourishes somewhere: which, however, does not oblige the individuals outside choir, but only the Community. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 January 1609.⁵

It is ASKED. What in DOUBT whether something from the Office has been OMITTED?

Resp. 1. In a STRICT doubt (i.e. negative, or positive and probable on both sides) the part about which you doubt certainly must be recited. Except if an equitable interpretation of the law, or a circumstance of fact, furnishes a legitimate excuse. Thus "the scrupulous are not to be obliged to repeat, because in these persons, for the most part, doubts are not true doubts, but empty apprehensions."

Resp. 2. In a BROAD doubt, i.e. if you have either a unique probability, as often happens, or another founded presumption that you have omitted nothing, you are not held to repeat. "Whence the Authors teach that you are well excused from repeating if you do not remember that you said something, and you have a just conjecture for believing that you said it; for example, if you remember that you began a psalm, a lesson, or an Hour, and afterward, not distracted on purpose, or not interrupted, you find yourself at the end of the Hour, reading or reciting by memory those things in which ordinarily you are not accustomed to err." - Likewise, "if ordinarily you are not accustomed to say a later Hour except after the prior one, you can prudently believe that you have omitted nothing"⁶ (cf. n. 50 and 98, 2).

n. ¶2208.

- The canonical Hours must be RECITED: 1. according to the prescribed form; 2. according to the due order; 3. at a suitable time and place; 4. vocally, integrally, and continuously; 5. attentively and devoutly.

Now concerning each, several things.

I. The canonical Hours must be recited ACCORDING TO THE FORM PRESCRIBED by the Church; whence:

The GENERAL FORM must be observed by all, according to the Constitution Quod a nobis of St. PIUS V, given on 7 July 1568, by which the Roman Breviary is prescribed for the whole Latin Church, and all other Breviaries are abolished, unless by institution or legitimate custom they precede by 200 years. Indeed, in the other Constitution Ex proximo, the Pontiff declares that those obliged to the Hours will not satisfy their duty if they use another Breviary, and therefore that Beneficiaries do not make their fruits their own. (Except if a legitimate dispensation is added.)⁷
The SPECIAL FORM of one's own Calendar or Directory must be observed, so that the Office is recited on any given day as it is prescribed there, even if the error seemed manifest, e.g. as regards the transfer of some Feast: according to the decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 May 1835,⁸ in Namurcen.

But in composing the proper Calendars of dioceses, the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites approved by URBAN VIII must absolutely be observed: where the Ordinaries of places, both secular and Regular, are forbidden, by their own authority, to change the rite placed in the Roman Calendar or Rubrics of the Breviary into a higher rite, or to extend Offices conceded for one place to another place.⁹ - Likewise, proper Offices approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites for some diocese or for a religious Order obtain the force of law, although they have the character of a privilege. Moreover, particular Offices granted only in a permissive manner become obligatory if they have once been received by use (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 May 1801).

n. ¶2209.

- Note. 1. Regulars dwelling outside the monastery are held to the Breviary of their Order; but if they are assigned to choir and are staying in another Convent of their Order, they ought to follow the Office of that Convent; "because everywhere they are held to be present in choir."¹⁰ - 2. Canons and Beneficiaries are held to the Office of their own Church, even if they are absent from it. Likewise Masters and students dwelling in a Seminary are held to the Office of the Church attached to the Seminary, although they celebrate Mass elsewhere.¹¹ - 3. Clerics who are not beneficiaries, if they are absent from their own diocese, can conform themselves to the Office of the place where they are newcomers; but they are by no means held to this. Indeed, it is also preferable that one's own Office be retained, lest confusion arise. (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsorum, to 50.)¹²

n. ¶2210.

- II. The canonical Hours must be recited both according to the order of OFFICES and according to the order of HOURS.

A) The ORDER OF OFFICES is found either in the Calendar of Feasts of each diocese or Religion, or in the Rubrics for their transfer, where several concur at the same time. He who knowingly and without reasonable cause changes this order, by reciting for the Office of the day another Office, sins, according to the diversity of Offices, either gravely or lightly: he sins gravely if he recites a notably shorter Office, as is established from proposition 34 condemned by Alexander VII: "On Palm Sunday one reciting the paschal Office satisfies the precept"; but he sins lightly if he changes the Office into an equal or almost equal one; because he satisfies the obligation as to substance; provided, St. Alphonsus adds, that this is done rarely.¹³

But the exchange is devoid of every sin if it is made on account of a reasonable cause, for example if someone cannot easily have the proper Office, or if he recites another approved Office with a companion; "because the very association excuses, provided the Office is not notably shorter."¹⁴ And thus Chaplains and table-companions of Cardinals or Bishops can conform themselves to them in the Office. The same must be said of those who undergo spiritual exercises among Religious. But otherwise, concerning the Chaplain of Nuns, from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 March 1795.¹⁵

It is ASKED. What ought he to do who notices that he has ERRED in the Office?

Resp. 1. If he notices the error after the complete recitation, he is not held to repeat; because the Church is not presumed to wish to oblige someone on one day twice to this burden. - Hence the common axiom: Office for Office. Nevertheless, if the Office had been notably shorter, he ought to supply the defect: e.g. if in place of the Office of a Sunday he had recited the Office of a Saint, he ought to add nine Psalms, taking them from the first Nocturn.

Resp. 2. If he notices the error after a recitation not complete, e.g. after Matins has been recited, he can either continue, or recite the rest from the prescribed Office. This latter is to be preferred, according to that: An error is corrected where it is detected.¹⁶

Resp. 3. He who has erred cannot, on the day on which the Office already recited occurs, say the omitted Office; but he ought to recite again the one recited, so that thus he may conform himself to others. Nor can one who has omitted an Office transfer it to another day, even one not impeded. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 June 1673.¹⁷

n. ¶2211.

- B) The ORDER OF HOURS is that which is indicated in the Breviary, prescribing namely that first Matins with Lauds be recited, then the little Hours, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, and None, and finally Vespers with Compline. Nor ought Matins of the following day to be recited before the Office of the present day has been completed.

Inversion of this order: 1. OUTSIDE CHOIR and contempt having been set aside, is only venial, even if it is done frequently; because the substance of the precept remains preserved. - Indeed, it is devoid of every fault if it is done from a reasonable cause, e.g. so that you may conform yourself to the choir, or to a friend, etc. 2. IN CHOIR, it is controverted whether it is a grave sin (and the same controversy exists concerning a change of the time of the Hours). The affirmative opinion is probable, but the negative is more probable; because there is no certainty about a grave precept.¹⁸

n. ¶2212.

- III. The Hours must be recited at a suitable TIME and PLACE. - For these two complete the order.

A) As regards TIME, thus formerly the Hours were recited: Matins after midnight, Lauds at dawn, Prime after sunrise, Terce in the morning at the ninth hour, Sext at midday, None at the third hour in the afternoon, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the twilight of night.¹⁹

But according to present discipline: the legitimate TIME, within the limits of which the precept obliges under grave sin, is from midnight of one day until midnight of the following day, so that before the aforesaid first limit no one is held to begin, and after the second no one can satisfy his obligation.²⁰ But each one is free in this to follow either true time, which a sundial indicates, or mean time, which public clocks signify. Thus from the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 18 June 1873.²¹ But the suitable TIME, which of itself obliges under light sin, unless a reasonable cause prevents it, is determined in the following manner:

The time of Matins, outside choir, from privilege or already prescribed custom, begins from the hour of Vespers of the preceding day (i.e. as soon as the sun becomes nearer to its setting than to midday), and lasts until the following midday. - And this likewise holds for the Office of the Dead outside choir; but not for the Litanies, which must be recited on the very day assigned.²²

But whether one satisfies by saying Matins at the SECOND HOUR after midday? - Some with the Salmanticenses affirm, saying that an anticipation of this sort, by force of a custom already introduced, is licit; but it must more truly be denied, both because there is no certainty about the aforesaid custom, and the tables which are customarily composed in various places are opposed to it; and because (if northern regions in the month of December are excepted) it is not yet the proper hour of Vespers, and therefore the ecclesiastical day has not yet begun.²³ The Holy See is indeed accustomed frequently to grant the privilege of beginning the recitation of Matins at the second hour after midday, and indeed at every time of the year; but it is accustomed to add this clause: "a reasonable cause being added."²⁴ Therefore, if a reasonable cause is lacking, if one endowed with the privilege anticipates the Office, he indeed satisfies his obligation, but he sins venially.

The time of the little Hours extends from dawn until midday. Yet they are licitly recited already from midnight; but None (and according to many also Sext) can be recited after midday without cause.²⁵
The time of Vespers and Compline (outside choir) runs from midday to midnight. But on Lenten ferias, from the first Sunday, Vespers (not Compline) can (and in choir must) be recited before the meal: in memory of the ancient discipline according to which the fast was not broken before the recitation of Vespers.²⁶

It was said above: unless a reasonable cause prevents it. But what cause must be judged REASONABLE, St. Alphonsus explains thus:²⁷ "That someone may licitly anticipate or postpone the due time of the Hours, any useful or honorable cause suffices, namely a sermon to be prepared or heard, danger of a supervening occupation or labor, greater devotion or rest, a more suitable time for studying,

and the like. Yet deservedly Concina says that mere greater convenience, without another honorable motive, does not suffice for excusing."

n. ¶2213.

- B) As regards PLACE, the divine Office in Cathedrals, in Collegiate churches, and in the churches of Regulars assigned to choir, must be recited publicly, in the place destined for this, or in choir. - But privately it can be recited in every place, provided the recitation is made without contempt, and provided the place is not incompatible with attention and intention.¹

It is ASKED. What concerning the POSTURE OF THE BODY in reciting?

Resp. 1. Not to observe, in choir, the posture prescribed by the Rubrics, e.g. by not standing, not genuflecting, etc., is a light irreverence, which does not exceed venial fault. - 2. Outside choir, to omit it is devoid of every fault, although it is laudable to observe it. - "Yet the Doctors think that he is not excused from venial sin who without cause would recite the Office lying in bed"; for such a posture is not free from irreverence. Otherwise, if someone recited thus because he is kept in bed by infirmity or weariness, or because he passes a sleepless night.²

n. ¶2214.

- IV. The canonical Hours ought to be recited WORTHILY, i.e. vocally, integrally, and continuously. And indeed by these words is expressed the DUTY OF THE MOUTH which, according to the Fourth Lateran Council, Cap. Dolentes, must be carefully fulfilled.

We said: 1. VOCALLY, and indeed distinctly: because the Office is a vocal prayer, and not purely mental. - Hence, it does not suffice to read only with the mind, or to run through with the eyes alone. Nor is it enough to recite in the throat, or between the teeth, or by syncopating, or with a stammering tongue, voluntarily abbreviating, or rushing. Yet according to the more probable opinion, it is not required that the one reciting hear himself; for, as Sylvius teaches, such an obligation is proved by no law.³

Therefore, if someone recites the Office with a companion, both ought to use such a voice that one hears the other, and the recitation ought to proceed so distinctly that neither begins his own verse until the other has completed his; for a companion cannot morally make his own what he does not hear, and accordingly he does not recite the Breviary integrally: which nevertheless is required. - Whence a deaf man, who in choir utters the versicles of his own part, but does not hear the versicles of the other part, ought to supply, by reciting softly what the others sing. - On the contrary, those who, while others are reciting, perform certain things necessary for the choir, even through an entire psalm, are not held to supply what was omitted; "for then through the companions that is supplied which perhaps they themselves do not sufficiently perceive, provided the omission is not too prolonged. - The same must be said of the organist, if he himself utters the versicles of his part."⁴

If you recite the Office with a companion who cuts off syllables, but in such a way that the sense is not notably changed: it is probable that you are not held to repeat, unless it is clear to you that the companion omitted a notable part. "Yet I would think," St. Alphonsus adds, "that you are not excused from venial sin if of your own accord you recite with such a mutilating companion, unless some cause is present, namely if you are invited by a Superior or a very grave person, or for a similar cause."⁵

We said 2. INTEGRALLY. Now to integrity belong the Pater, Ave, and Credo, at the beginning and end of the Hours, as is noted in the Rubrics. Outside choir, the antiphon of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not to be added by precept, except at the end of Lauds and Compline. - Likewise, the Confiteor and Misereatur at Prime and Compline can be recited alternately with a companion, but they ought not to be, except in choir (S. R. C., 12 November 1831 in Marsorum to 42).⁶ Nor do the prayers Aperi and Sacrosanctae belong to the integrity of the Office, though they are laudably and most usefully recited.⁷

We said 3. CONTINUOUSLY, i.e. without interruption in the same Hour, unless a reasonable cause excuses. Yet the common opinion teaches that Lauds can be separated from Matins even without any cause. But when they are separated, Matins having been finished, the Pater noster must be said (which moreover ought to be done after any Hour whatever) with the prayer of the Office of the day; but Lauds are to be begun as in the Psalter.⁸ The Nocturns can probably be separated from one another, at least for three hours, according to the ancient rite, or even for a longer time, with cause.⁹

It must be noted: 1. Among the JUST CAUSES of interrupting the Office, especially if it is long, as the Office of Sunday, St. Alphonsus counts the following: one's own or another's utility, courtesy, devotion, execution of the commands of Superiors, the hearing of the confession of someone who would not willingly wait. - You can similarly interrupt if something suddenly seems to you to need to be done or noted down, so that you may remove distraction, or so that you may not forget the matter; and a fortiori it is licit to interrupt, in order to elicit some pious affection of the heart or some little prayer. We said little prayer; for long prayers would be mixed inopportunely with the recitation of the Office.¹⁰

The interruption of some Hour made without reasonable cause, and prolonged for a notable time, cannot be excused from venial sin. - Yet the whole Hour is not to be repeated, although a great interval, for example a whole night, is interposed; because the individual psalms, indeed the individual verses, have a complete signification, and are sufficiently united either through the intention of continuing, or through the subsequent recitation.¹¹

n. ¶2215.

- V. The canonical Hours ought to be recited with ATTENTION AND DEVOTION: in which two things is contained the duty of the mind and heart.

A) As regards ATTENTION, it is certain that some attention is required in the recitation of the Office. A DOUBLE attention can be had, namely external and internal. 1. EXTERNAL attention consists in this, that nothing be done which is incompatible with the recitation: as it would be to chat, write, attentively listen to others speaking, and other things of this kind; but not to walk, wash oneself, gather herbs, flowers, set the fire, make the bed, comb the head, look at a hill, a river, etc., since such actions, of themselves, do not exclude attention to other things. Thus commonly with Navarro, Suarez, etc. "But Bonacina rightly adverts that some actions, with respect to one person, perhaps are distractive, but with respect to another are not."¹²

INTERNAL attention is placed in the application of the mind to that which is being done; and this can be threefold, namely: to the words only, that they may be duly pronounced; to the sense of the words, that they may be rightly understood; and finally to God or to divine things, so that the mind and thought of the one reciting are fixed either upon God himself, or upon his attributes, or upon the mysteries of the Lord's Passion, or upon the deeds of the Virgin Mother of God or of the Saints.¹³

With these things having been premised, THREE things are to be established as certain: 1. He who, while reciting the divine Office, does not have at least external attention, does not satisfy his obligation: whence, a Beneficiary voluntarily distracted in this way is held to restitution; because he certainly does not make his fruits his own. Thus all.¹⁴ - 2. He who cares nothing about internal attention sins at least venially; because he acts irreverently toward God¹⁵ (cf. n. 372, 6). - 3. Attention to the words suffices, with the general intention of worshipping God.¹⁶

n. ¶2216.

- It is ASKED. Whether INTERNAL attention is required under grave obligation?

Resp. 1. Very many indeed deny it with St. Antoninus and St. Thomas, teaching that it is true prayer which is made with the intention of praying and external attention. - The reason is both because prayer, according to St. Damascene, is a petition of fitting things from God: but it is not repugnant that our petitions can be represented by us to God even with an actual wandering of the mind; and because, if internal attention were of the essence of prayer, not even one involuntarily distracted would satisfy his obligation; for once the essence of a thing has been destroyed, although inculpably, the thing itself is destroyed. This opinion appears sufficiently probable, so that a Beneficiary, relying upon it, is not held to restore fruits received in good faith.

Resp. 2. But the more common and more probable opinion affirms it; because without internal attention prayer cannot consist, which is generally defined: the elevation of the mind to God; whence, by the very fact that the Church prescribes prayer, she also prescribes internal attention. And with this opinion there seem to harmonize both the words of the Lord, complaining about the Jews (Matt. 15:8): "This people honors me with lips: but their heart is far from me"; and the words of Trent, prescribing (sess. 24, cap. 12) that: "All (namely Canons) be compelled to perform the divine Offices... and in choir... reverently, distinctly, and devoutly to praise the name of God with hymns and canticles."¹⁷

But St. Alphonsus NOTES that even if this latter opinion is held, two things nevertheless are required in order that someone be said not to satisfy the Office: namely, that he distract himself voluntarily, and then that he fully notice his distraction. - It is said that he fully notice it; for the Doctors commonly hold that one reciting does not sin in any way if, when he notices the distraction, he uses moderate diligence for attending to the recitation. But if he half-fully notices the distraction, and does not retract it, he indeed sins venially; but he substantially satisfies the Office, since the first will of attending always perseveres, as long as it has not been revoked with full advertence.¹⁸

n. ¶2217.

- B) As regards PIETY or devotion, at least that is required and prescribed by which the recitation of the Office becomes an act of religion. - Hence he would not satisfy the precept who read the Hours in order to acquire knowledge for himself, to accommodate himself to a friend, etc.; for the intention of praying is necessary, not indeed actual and explicit, but virtual and implicit: which then is already had when, according to custom, the breviary is taken up so that the precept may be fulfilled¹⁹ (cf. n. 213).

The things we have said are valid concerning the bare observation of the PRECEPT. - But St. Alphonsus earnestly commends this to all, that they pay the divine Office with the greatest ardor of piety, extolling its EXCELLENCE with these praises: "A hundred private prayers cannot have so great a price as one prayer of the divine Office includes; because this is offered to the Lord in the name of the whole Church, with the words of God himself.... Let us firmly persuade ourselves that, after the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no more precious treasure is found in the Church than the divine Office, from which daily we can draw rivers of graces."²⁰

But that this desirable piety, and due attention, may always accompany the recitation of the Office, the COUNSELS which the holy Doctor supplies in these words will help not a little: "1. At the beginning to form the intention of praising God; - 2. to renew the intention at the Gloria Patri, or at the beginning of each psalm; - 3. to represent to oneself some mystery of the Passion; - 4. carefully to guard the senses, and other things of this sort."²¹

n. ¶2218.

- The principal causes which EXCUSE from the recitation of the divine Office are the following THREE: 1. impotence, 2. charity toward the neighbor, 3. dispensation.²²

I. IMPOTENCE, whether physical or moral, excuses, because no one is held to the impossible. He who can recite a part is held to perform that; indeed, if the part is as great as a little Hour, he is held under grave obligation; for the obligation is divisible, as is established from proposition 54 condemned by Innocent XI (cf. n. 224). - But if the part which you can recite does not reach the matter of a little Hour, "not even under venial sin are you obliged to recite anything; because such a slight part, taken separately, is not judged appreciable for the end intended by the law."²³

Hence: 1. Those laboring under grave illness are excused; likewise, those convalescing from grave illness (for some days, at the judgment of a prudent man) until their strength is restored; and this must be admitted even if they celebrated Mass, or read some book of recreation. - He who is certain that, on account of infirmity, he cannot recite the whole Office, and doubts whether he can recite a part, is excused from the whole Office, lest namely he be distressed by scruples, not knowing how far he can and is held to recite. The reason is because, in doubts of this sort, the natural law of preserving health prevails, and fear of grave harm is already a grave cause (cf. n. 223).²⁴

He is excused who in a time of persecution fears lest, from the recitation of the Breviary, he be betrayed.²⁵
He is not excused who lacks the Roman Breviary, and has another at hand, for example Benedictine or the like; because by either one the substance of the precept can be fulfilled. And this, St. Alphonsus says, is the more pious, reasonable, and to-be-followed opinion. - Likewise, if, having the common Office and not the proper Office of that day, you are held to say the Hours from the common, as Croix with others more truly thinks.²⁶
A blind man is not excused who knows by memory either the whole Office, or a notable part of it; but he is not held to commit to memory what he does not know, because this would be a means extrinsic to the precept. - On the contrary, one not able to recite alone is held to use a companion, if he can use him without his own grave inconvenience; because the use of a companion, in such a case, is judged an ordinary means of fulfilling the precept. - We said without his own grave inconvenience; because if a companion who would recite with you does not readily occur, or if you ought to pay him a stipend, you are not held to a means of this sort, extraordinary, unless you are a Beneficiary and wish to make your fruits certain.²⁷

n. ¶2219.

- II. CHARITY excuses, that is, a grave occupation which cannot be omitted without scandal or notable detriment of the neighbor. The reason is because the natural precept of charity prevails over ecclesiastical law (cf. n. 682).

Hence a priest is EXCUSED, either totally or partially: 1. if through the whole day he receives confessions which he cannot defer; - 2. if unexpectedly he is summoned to a dying person, and afterward no time remains which he might spend on recitation; - 3. if he is held to prepare hastily a sacred sermon which he cannot omit without scandal or reproach; - 4. if he is occupied the whole day in settling quarrels or assisting the sick, e.g. in time of plague.²⁸

n. ¶2220.

- III. DISPENSATION granted by legitimate power excuses. The reason is because what is of ecclesiastical law can be taken away by ecclesiastical power.²⁹ Furthermore, dispensation is validly granted: 1. by the Supreme Pontiff in every case, even without cause; 2. by the Bishop

(or by a Regular Prelate, with respect to his own subjects); but only from a just cause, with someone in particular, and for a brief time. But a cause of dispensing exists when there is doubt about moral impotence, when recourse to the Pope is difficult, when dispensation is sought on account of a motive which recurs frequently, e.g. on account of infirmity. And the Vicar General himself can do this, provided he has received a special mandate from the Bishop.¹

In Germany, and in distant regions, Bishops generally possess a more ample power. For there, by force of quinquennial faculties, they can grant to clerics that, in place of the divine Office, they recite the Rosary or other prayers, in the case in which they would not be able to carry the Breviary with them, or would be impeded by another cause.

n. ¶2221.

- Questions. ASK 1. Whether he who foresees an impediment is held to ANTICIPATE the recitation?

Resp. 1. If he foresees it on the preceding day, he is not held to anticipate Matins with Lauds; because the obligation of the precept has not yet begun, whence he is not held to use a privilege. - 2. If he foresees it on the day itself of the obligation, and can anticipate without great difficulty, he is held to this; because the precept presses for the whole day, and for any part of it; and therefore, within the latitude of the whole day, it must be fulfilled, namely at the time at which it can be done.²

ASK 2. What IN DOUBT, whether the cause of exemption is sufficient or not?

Resp. 1. In doubt whether the recitation will bring grave inconvenience upon you, you are not held to recite, as we have already said (n. 2218. Hence 1). - 2. In doubt whether you are excused in another way, e.g. by reason of labor, journey, charity to be exercised, etc., you are held to recite, unless a uniquely probable reason, or probable judgment, stands in your favor. But in this case it is better to remit the matter to the judgment of a prudent man, and especially to the judgment of the Superior, who can dispense in doubt.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 1 passage (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. I, Tr. X, Pt. II, Ch. I, Article I. On the Positive Obligations of Clerics

n. 583.

I say 1st. Impossibility, whether physical or moral, which consists in grave difficulty, excuses from the obligation of reciting the Office, and the reason is that no one is held to the impossible. - Hence he is excused: 1st. who does not have a Breviary, for example, he forgot it when undertaking a journey, or lost it on the journey, with inability to procure another; 2nd. who labors under grave illness, or who justly fears lest a grave illness follow from recitation; 3rd. who in a time of persecution fears lest he be betrayed by recitation of the Breviary; 4th. who labors gravely in his eyes, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 154 et seq.

I say 2nd. Charity toward the neighbor, that is, a grave occupation which cannot be omitted without scandal or notable detriment of the neighbor, excuses from recitation of the Breviary; and the reason is that the natural precept of charity prevails over ecclesiastical law. - Hence you are excused from recitation of the Hours, either totally or partially: 1st. if, by night, when you are about to recite the Office, for example Vespers, you are called at once to a dying person, and neither time nor convenience is available to you for discharging the obligation of the Office; 2nd. if you are occupied the whole day in receiving confessions which, on account of peculiar circumstances, cannot be deferred, for example, in sacred missions, and especially toward their end when you are going to depart, etc.; 3rd. if you could not omit a sermon without scandal or detriment to reputation, and yet time for preparing it would not be available if the Office had to be recited; 4th. if you are occupied the whole day in settling quarrels or assisting the sick, for example, in a time of contagious disease, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 156.

I say 3rd. Legitimate dispensation, or one conceded by a legitimate superior, disobliges from saying the Breviary. The reason is that, with legitimate relaxation of the law supposed, the force of binding cannot remain. But this dispensation can be conceded: 1st. by the Pope validly in every case, even without cause; but licitly from a reasonable cause; 2nd. by the Bishop, but not validly without sufficient cause, and only with someone in particular for a time. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 159.

Yet note that in this region some Bishops, by force of an Apostolic Indult, are accustomed to dispense priests from Matins and Lauds of the following day as often as they receive sacramental confessions for five hours in one day, with a shorter other prayer enjoined, to be recited in place of the stated Office.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 34 passages

Bk. III, Diss. VI, Chapter I — The condemned propositions are recounted

Alexander VII, proposition 34: One reciting the office of Palm Sunday satisfies the paschal precept. The same, proposition 35: With a single office one can satisfy a twofold precept, for the present day and the next. Restitution imposed by Pius V on Beneficiaries not reciting the office is not owed in conscience before the declaratory sentence of the judge, since it is a penalty. Proposition 20: One having a collative Chaplaincy, or any other ecclesiastical benefice, if he devotes himself to the study of letters, satisfies his obligation if he has the office recited by another. Proposition 21: Restitution of fruits for the omission of the Hours can be supplied by whatever alms the Beneficiary has previously made from the fruits of his benefice. Proposition 33: 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. Proposition 54, Innocent XI.

Bk. III, Diss. VI, Chapter II — Lax propositions of certain Authors

n. I.

I. Fr. Tommaso Tamburini, book 1 on the Decalogue, chapter 3, number 10: "We shall say below, book 2, that a Beneficiary possessing a slender benefice is not obliged, according to a probable opinion, to pay the canonical Hours. What, then, will happen, if, all things weighed, it is doubted whether a benefice is slender or not? Answer: I think it probable, with Vasquez, that he is obliged; and equally probable, with Caramuel, that he is not obliged. Wherefore it is lawful to embrace whichever of these opinions pleases you."

n. II.

II. The same Tamburini, book 2, method of celebrating Mass, chapter 6, number 5: "Thus he who, while hearing Mass by precept, or paying the divine office, should voluntarily turn over in his mind a philosophical question, or think about his own affairs, provided he kept an external attention — that is, provided he did not set up external distractions of the kind we spoke of at number 1 — would, according to the probable opinion stated, sufficiently fulfill the precept."

n. III.

III. Fr. Georges Gobat, treatise 5, number 821: "It is far more probable that the essence of prayer consists with perpetual distractions, or wanderings of mind. So Cardinal de Lugo from principle. Tamburini, book 4 on the Decalogue, chapter 2, § 1."

n. IV.

IV. Juan Caramuel, in Theologia Fundamentalis, number 442: "I am a man, more fragile than myself, endowed with a keen and fiery temperament. In one moment I turn over the heavens, in the next I descend to the underworld. No fly moves in the Oratory which is not an impediment to me. I desire to attend to the reading, and I attend so far as I can; but I do not avoid distractions — involuntary a thousand times, sometimes even voluntary; and nevertheless I am tortured by no scruple, troubled by no doubt: because I prudently suppose that I am not bound to the internal act; that to have it is a good thing, and that to lack it is not even a light fault; that I am bound only to the reading and to external attention: that I have recited all that the Rubrics command I know so certainly that I could swear it: therefore that I have not sinned even venially in this matter I know so certainly, and so certainly that I could swear it."

n. V.

V. Leander of the Most Holy Sacrament, treatise 8, disputation 5, question 37: "I answer, secondly, that it is also more probable that even the daily Preacher, who preaches daily in Lent only voluntarily, or even for a wage, is excused from saying the daily Hours, if he cannot conveniently recite them. And surely if this our opinion were not probable, and safe in practice, woe, woe to the Lenten Preachers: a thousand times woe to them."

n. VI.

VI. The same Leander, place cited, question 45: "One can excellently exercise and occupy himself in the contemplation of divine things, even if from it he be so carried away into ecstasy that afterward he can by no means recite — either because he is rapt for the whole day, or because from it he remains so fatigued and worn out that he cannot easily do so."

n. VII.

VII. Gobat, treatise 5, disputation 11, number 842: "It is more probable that one is bound to no restitution who has recited all the Hours with voluntary and perpetual distractions."

Bk. III, Diss. VI, Chapter III — On the number and definition of the Canonical Hours

n. I.

I. Question I. How many are the Canonical Hours? Answer. Some contend that there are eight, because they distinguish Lauds from Matins; but the common opinion restricts them to seven, and they are: Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. Fitting reasons are assigned for this number seven. David, Psalm 118, says: Seven times a day I have given praise to thee. Likewise there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, and seven petitions of the Lord's prayer, seven mortal sins, seven demons, and seven wickednesses, seven trumpets by whose sound the city of Jericho fell, seven candlesticks of the Church, which foreshadow the seven Canonical Hours. Several other figures are commonly adduced, which seem in some way to indicate such seven Canonical Hours.

n. II.

II. Question II. What is the definition of the Canonical Hours? Answer. The divine office is a certain manner of publicly praising God, with mind and voice together, instituted by the authority of the Prelates of the Church. It is called a certain manner, because it is prescribed by the Church with designated psalms, hymns, and prayers. There is added publicly, since the divine office is paid publicly, in the name of the whole Church, for the common good, by public ministers. There is added of praising and beseeching God, which shows that the divine office is to be paid to God alone, since in every office, whether of the Saints, or of the season, or for the dead, God is praised. The last words declare that the divine office must be recited with mind and voice together, because the Church has prescribed this form in several Councils.

n. IV.

IV. Question IV. What are the major and minor parts of the divine office, and at what time were they anciently celebrated? Answer. The major parts are Nocturns, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline. The minor: psalms, hymns, lessons, canticles, antiphons, responsories, chapters, collects. As to the time, anciently among the Jews time was divided into twelve nocturnal and as many diurnal hours. The nocturnal hours were divided into four watches, of which the first began at sunset and ended at the third hour of the night; the second ran from the third to the sixth; the third flowed from the sixth into the ninth; the fourth, finally, which was properly called the morning watch, began at the ninth hour and ended at the twelfth. Of these watches the Evangelists make mention. To the four nocturnal watches correspond four hours of the day, namely the third, sixth, ninth, and the evening.

n. V.

V. Question V. Is it a sin to separate Matins from Lauds? Answer. This separation includes no sin, but is altogether licit: since from the earliest institution this separation was always permitted, and no reason occurs why it should not be permitted, especially outside choir. Nay, it is better that those who recite the nocturnal Hours at the beginning of the night, or toward evening, defer the recitation of Lauds until the dawn of the following day.

of dawn, that the hymns may be recited at the opportune time according to their meaning. The method must nevertheless be observed in this separation, namely that the Collect be recited at the end of the Nocturns.

n. VI.

VI. Question VI. Is the custom of reciting the Canonical Hours in choir ancient? Answer. By the name of ecclesiastical choir is understood the assembly of Religious who come together to pour out prayers to God according to the form prescribed by the Church. That this manner of praying took its origin from the Apostles themselves is certain, the substance of the matter being regarded. Of the first Christians it is read, Acts 1: They were persevering with one mind in prayer.

n. VII.

VII. The Waldensians, the Wycliffites, and other more recent Heretics have raved against this rite of the Church, and have carped at ecclesiastical chant. But the holy Scriptures stop their mouths. For in Moses' time the custom prevailed of singing sacred canticles. The Davidic psalms were recited with the harp and with song. Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew, says of Christ the Lord: He sang a hymn, that we too might do likewise. Isidore, Basil, and the other Fathers describe the usefulness of this chant.

n. VIII.

VIII. Question VII. Are musical instruments to be used in ecclesiastical chant? Answer. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 91, art. 2, ad 4, answers in these words: As the Philosopher says in the eighth book of the Politics, neither pipes are to be brought in for teaching, nor any other artificial instrument, such as a harp, or anything else of that kind; but whatever things make good hearers. For musical instruments of this kind move the soul more to delight than they form within it a good disposition. But in the Old Testament there was a use of such instruments, both because the people were more hard and carnal, whence they had to be roused by instruments of this kind, just as by earthly promises; and also because instruments of this kind, being corporeal, figured something. Cajetan observes, in his commentary on this passage, that in St. Thomas's time the use of organs did not prevail in the Church, just as the Roman Church did not use organs before the supreme Pontiff. But Cajetan adds this: And if we have meditated more attentively the reason brought forward in the text from the eighth book of the Politics, it will appear that in the ecclesiastical office, to which we come together for the sake of receiving divine interior discipline, according to that word, "The sacrifice of praise shall honor me, and there is the way by which I will show him the salvation of God," musical instruments are not to be admitted. And they are to be excluded all the more, in that the interior divine discipline is more excellent than all human disciplines that reject instruments of this kind. And although this be true, speaking of itself, yet the now widespread custom of organs can, per accidens, be tolerated, on account of the excessive alienation of men from divine worship, that being thus enticed at least they may attend the divine offices.

n. IX.

IX. The custom, now universally introduced, renders the use of organs and of musical chant licit, provided such chant be of a kind by which the hearers can perceive, beyond the sound of the voice, the divine praises that are being recited. Fr. Suárez teaches that harmonic concert alone sometimes excites more devotion than the psalms and hymns themselves. Sensible things, he says, move us more. Assuredly the senses are moved more, and more carnal pleasure is brought about. But that musical instruments excite the mind and soul to God more efficaciously than the psalms dictated by the breath of God, seems false to me. Nor do I dare to approve musical instruments. Benedict XIV, happily reigning, has prohibited many things. What if effeminate men, exercising a theatrical profession, should pass from the theaters to singing in the Churches? What if they should sing the divine psalms and hymns in theatrical fashion, with gesture and modulation? What then? Will you dare to disapprove such a custom? Or shall I approve it? Far from it. I shall rather bewail with bitter tears what I cannot abrogate. Hear what Cajetan writes on this matter, in the Summa, under the word Organ: Nor are they excused by the fact that sound is abstracted from all matter, and any melody of sound can be applied to sacred words: both because, according to the truth of the matter, these sounds are made to be accommodated to the delight of the hearers, who know them only as the sounds of profane or shameful words — a sign of which is that hearers, from that sound, are aroused to those profane or shameful things, as experience attests, so that there is no room for denial; and also because chant too is abstracted from all matter, and yet the Church has forbidden profane chants in the Church, such as theatrical chants, as is plain from distinction 92, chapter "Cantantes." Remember here the apostolic sentence: Be not deceived; God is not mocked, nor deceived. And there are involved in the same crime not only those who play, but those who hire, and consent to those who play these things, so that the Scripture may be fulfilled: They that hated thee have gloried in the midst of thy solemnity.

n. X.

X. As often as more evil than good follows in the exercise of any art, that art must be taken away, teach Plato, St. Thomas, and common sense itself. Let us hear St. Augustine, who, book 10 of the Confessions, chapter 33, writes this: The pleasures of the ears had more tenaciously entangled and subjugated me. But thou didst loosen and free me. Now in the sounds which thy words animate, when they are sung with a sweet and skillful voice, I confess I rest a little — not indeed that I remain there, but that I rise, when I wish ... But the delight of my flesh, to which the mind ought not to be given over to be enervated, often deceives me, when the sense of feeling does not so accompany reason as to follow it patiently; but, because for its sake it deserved to be admitted, it strives even to run ahead and to lead. Thus in these things I sin without perceiving it, and afterward I perceive it. But sometimes, guarding too immoderately against this very deception, I err with too much severity — so much so, at times, that I would wish all the melody of the sweet chants with which the Davidic Psalter is commonly sung to be removed from my ears, and that of the Church itself; and it seems safer to me what I remember was often told me of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who made the reader of the psalm sound it with so slight an inflection of voice that he was nearer to one pronouncing than to one singing. Nevertheless, when I remember the tears I shed at the chants of thy Church in the first days of my recovered faith, and now, when I am moved not by the chant, but by the things that are chanted, when they are chanted with a clear voice and the most fitting modulation, I again acknowledge the great usefulness of this institution. Thus I waver between the danger of pleasure and the experience of its wholesomeness, and I am led rather — not indeed pronouncing an irrevocable sentence — to approve the custom of singing in the Church, that through the delights of the ears a weaker soul may rise to an affection of piety. Yet when it happens to me that the chant moves me more than the thing that is sung, I confess that I sin penally; and then I would rather not hear the singer.

n. XI.

XI. Fr. Suárez, book 4, chapter 8, number 2, answers that the sin which Augustine recognized in himself was either penal or venial. Be it either. What follows from this? Augustine's doctrine always stands, namely, that that chant which by its immoderate harmony and inflection of voice impedes the perception of the sense of the words and of the divine praises is illicit. Read more in Tome 2 on the Decalogue, book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 4.

n. XII.

XII. The Fathers, the Councils, and the graver Theologians disapprove and detest that the divine praises be celebrated with theatrical chant by effeminate men. Whether the musical concerts with which the greater Solemnities are today commonly celebrated are just so many profanations of temples and treadings-down of divine worship, let others judge. To this end men gather, and the vainest women, adorned with the enticements and illusions of the world and of the devil, that they may see and be seen, and they show no less impudence than if they were sitting in a theater. Who will purge from crime this depraved abuse and sacrilegious corruption?

n. XIII.

XIII. There must be kept, then, an ecclesiastical chant grave and simple, and a use of organs approved by the custom of the Church; but measure and manner must be applied. A general rule cannot be prescribed. Those who preside over Churches and choirs will render an account to God, unless they hinder, so far as lies in their power, their profanation.

Bk. III, Diss. VI, Chapter VII — On the restitution owed by Beneficiaries on account of the omission of the divine office

n. I.

I. Question I. Does a Beneficiary who omits the divine office in the first six months sin mortally with the burden of restitution? Answer. He who omits the Canonical Hours after six months have elapsed is bound, according to all, to restore the fruits corresponding to the omissions of those days on which the office was omitted — either wholly, or in part, for a proportionate share. If Matins with Lauds are omitted, half the fruits of that day; if all the other Hours, the other half; and for each single Hour, a sixth part; and for the whole office omitted, all the fruits of that day must be restored, as St. Pius V declared. This is to be understood of culpable omission, legitimate impediment being absent.

n. II.

II. Of omission within the first six months, Soto, Suárez, Medina, Grassi, and several others defend that the Beneficiary sins mortally, and is bound to restitution. On the contrary, Navarrus, Toletus, Lessius, Castropalao, the Salmanticenses, and others concede indeed that this Beneficiary sins mortally, but deny that he is bound to restitution. Because, they say, the Lateran Council and St. Pius V define that he who omits the office within the first six months indeed sins mortally, but make no mention of restitution. Formerly I openly showed myself inclined to this second opinion. Yet in the same place I observed that the restitution of fruits proceeds from commutative justice. For ecclesiastical law declares that to which divine law binds Beneficiaries, who, omitting to discharge their own duties, sin against God and against the Christian people. Although the Council and St. Pius V make no mention of restitution for the first six months, it cannot for that reason be evidently inferred that Beneficiaries omitting the office within this interval are exempt from the burden of restitution, which arises from divine law. Wherefore, since the matter is doubtful, the safer part must be chosen, and, with the former opinion, it must be said that this Beneficiary is subject to restitution. For what is to be presumed of such a Beneficiary, who profanes even the very beginnings of his benefice with shameful deeds? Just as he sins more gravely, so he must be more severely punished, and struck with the penalty of restitution.

n. III.

III. Question II. A Beneficiary who, six months having elapsed, omits to recite the office without fault — is he bound to restitution? Answer. In corporal matters, the obligation of restitution arises not only from unjust acquisition, but chiefly from the thing acquired. But in restitution arising from spiritual law this title has no place. Wherefore he who omits the office without fault is free from restitution. And this is gathered from the very constitution of St. Pius V, in which the Beneficiary is obliged to restitution who, legitimate impediment being absent, has not said, etc.

n. IV.

IV. Some teach that a Beneficiary who should omit the office for one or another day is not bound to restitution; nay, some of them extend the omission to eight days. But this opinion is altogether without probability, since it is evidently contrary to the constitution of St. Pius V, saying: "Whoever shall have omitted all the Canonical Hours for one or several days." A Beneficiary who omits one entire Hour is bound to restitution, as is established from the cited Pian constitution. Nay, one who should neglect a notable part of an Hour, since he would sin mortally and would not have recited the Hour, would have to restore the fruits corresponding to that entire Hour.

n. V.

V. Question III. A Beneficiary who should omit a light part in each Hour — would he be subject to restitution? Answer. The Salmanticenses deny it, even though such light omissions taken together would constitute a grave sin. But this opinion is false to me. As often as a Beneficiary omits such a part of the office as suffices for a mortal sin, so often is he bound to restore the part corresponding to the omission.

n. VI.

VI. Question IV. One who today omits the office, and tomorrow recites a double office — is he bound to restitution? Answer. The Salmanticenses and others deny it. Because, they say, just as a Chaplain omitting Mass today satisfies if he afterwards celebrates two, so too if he afterwards recites the omitted office. The Beneficiary sinned, they say, against the precept of daily recitation, but not against the precept of restitution, since he compensates the omitted office with another office. This opinion is false to me: since the Church commands the restitution of fruits, and has declared that one who today omits the office does not make the fruits his own. If he does not make the fruits his own, he is bound to restore them. He who has acquired the gross income of a Canonry, as they call it, or certain revenues, if he omits the office, is bound to restitution, whatever the Salmanticenses say to the contrary. Because although a Canon acquires, and by right possesses, the revenues, yet this acquisition and possession is burdened with the duty of restitution, if the recitation of the office is omitted. For it makes no difference whether these fruits are received before or after the recitation. For these fruits are always burdened with the debt of reciting the office. Therefore, when the debt of the office is not paid, restitution must be made.

n. VII.

VII. Question V. Must the aforesaid restitution be made before the judge's sentence? Answer. The Theologians, even the more benign, commonly affirm it. The reason is evident. Those who omit the office do not make the fruits their own, as the law of the Church has defined. But no one can rightly retain what is not his own. Wherefore Alexander VII deservedly proscribed the following thesis: Restitution imposed by Pius V on Beneficiaries not reciting the office is not owed in conscience before the declaratory sentence of the judge, since it is a penalty. These Beneficiaries, then, are bound to restore the fruits unjustly received.

n. VIII.

VIII. Question VI. A Beneficiary reciting the office without any attention — is he bound to restore? Answer. Some deny it. But the opposite opinion, and the more common, is more probable. For he who deliberately recites the Canonical Hours with a distracted mind does not fulfill the precept of recitation, just as the precept of annual confession is not fulfilled by a sacrilegious confession: therefore the precept of restitution presses, just as if the office had been omitted. But those who, stained with mortal sin, recite with an attentive mind, fulfill the precept, and are bound to restore nothing.

n. IX.

IX. Question VII. A Beneficiary with cure of souls who omits the Canonical Hours — is he bound to restore all the fruits of the benefice, or only the fruits corresponding to the omitted recitation? Answer. Several patrons of a more benign Ethics defend that only the part of the fruits corresponding to the omitted Hours must be restored. But the graver Theologians defend the affirming opinion, relying on the Pian constitution which says: Whoever shall have omitted all the Canonical Hours for one or several days shall forfeit all the fruits of the benefice or benefices which correspond to that day or those days. Let us suppose the hypothesis that St. Pius V wished to declare that the Beneficiary must restore all the fruits of the benefice — could he have used clearer words? Therefore these are bound to restore all the fruits of the benefice or benefices, both those corresponding to the recitation and those corresponding to other ministries. There is added that restitution would be too arbitrary, according to the authors of the opposite opinion, if it were left to the discretion of each Parish priest and Beneficiary. For if each Beneficiary had to separate out and retain those fruits that correspond to other ministries, and restore only the rest, restitution corresponding to the omitted recitation would scarcely ever occur, and would come to nothing. Wherefore, all things weighed in an equal balance, this second opinion is more probable.

n. X.

X. Question VIII. One who recites one office in place of another — is he bound to restitution? Answer. He who voluntarily recites one office in place of another — for instance, of a Saint when it should be of the Feria — does not fulfill the precept, because this precept must be fulfilled according to the form prescribed by the Church. Now he who does not fulfill the precept is subject to restitution. The opposite opinion is included, in my easy judgment, in the condemned proposition which said that one office avails in place of another.

n. XI.

XI. Question IX. To whom must restitution be made — to the fabric fund, or to the poor? Answer. The answer is plain from the Pian constitution commanding that Beneficiaries must lay out these unjustly received fruits either upon the fabric of their own benefices, or upon alms for the poor. It is in the liberty of the Beneficiary omitting the office, then, to restore the unjustly received fruits either to the fabric fund or to the poor. Under the name of fabric come the house, the fields, the revenues of the benefice, or the Church itself to be repaired — but not the churches of another benefice. Of the poor the constitution decides nothing. Yet natural reason dictates that the poor of the Locality be preferred to poor strangers. The circumstances of greater poverty must nevertheless be regarded. If the Beneficiary who must restore is himself truly poor, he can, in good faith, apply some part of the fruits to himself as a poor man. In this matter, however, the Beneficiary ought to consult a pious and prudent man, because avaricious cupidity, innate in all, easily feigns poverty where it does not exist. The Beneficiary must also apply to himself only a part of the fruits, in proportion to his greater or lesser poverty, as one truly poor — not that he may become richer or more comfortable, but only that he may succor his own poverty; otherwise he deceives himself. False to me is the opinion of those who teach that this Beneficiary can apply the fruits to be restored to sisters, to brothers, to a mother, not only if they are beggars, but even if they lack what is necessary for the decency of their person or state. This doctrine being admitted, scarcely will a case be given in which either the fabric of benefices or the poor receive anything: for the decency of a mother, sisters, and brothers scarcely admits of limits. The Theologians teach, besides, that fruits of this kind can be laid out in suffrage for the dead. I say that the fruits must be laid out upon the poor on this condition: that they pour out prayers for the souls of Purgatory. By this arrangement the law is more securely observed.

n. XII.

XII. Some dispute whether a Beneficiary can retain fruits given to him by the poor, before he has conferred such fruits upon them. The Beneficiary has promised the fruits to be restored to this or that poor person; before the poor receive the fruits, they give them to the Beneficiary. If the gift is made before the delivery of the fruits, they do not dare to assert that the retention is licit; but if it is made after the delivery of the fruits, then some assert it is valid. These are questions unknown to the ancient Fathers. If the poor are truly such, how can they give away the subsidy which they themselves need? This question is futile.

n. XIII.

XIII. Question X. Can the restitution of fruits be supplied by alms made by the Beneficiary before he omitted the Canonical prayers? Answer. Leander affirms it, and for this his opinion cites Suárez, Pellizzari, Pasqualigo, Laymann, and Busembaum. This opinion is contained in this thesis condemned by Alexander VII: Restitution of fruits for the omission of the Hours can be supplied by whatever alms the Beneficiary has previously made from the fruits of his benefice. Fr. Viva, in his commentaries on this proposition, number 9, strives to defend Fr. Suárez's doctrine from the condemned thesis. With what happy success he achieves this, let others judge. Fr. Viva teaches several other things there which seem lax to me, because they take out of the way the precept of the Lateran constitution and of St. Pius V. Read Tome 2 on the Decalogue, book 2, chapter 8, question 16, number 29. A Beneficiary who, with no regard to his debt of restitution, bestows alms, gives liberally. But by a liberal and gratuitous donation what is owed from justice is not paid.

n. XIV.

XIV. Question XI. Is a pensioner bound to restore the fruits of his pension proportionately, if he omits to recite the office? Answer. All affirm it. If the Beneficiary omits to pay the pension, the pensioner must urge him to pay — not that he may retain these fruits for himself when the Beneficiary omits the office, but that he may lay them out upon the creditors, namely the poor, or upon the fabric of the benefice. Nor can the Beneficiary absolutely refuse payment of the pension to the pensioner who does not recite: since the Beneficiary is a debtor, not a judge.

Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V

Gaudentius Bontempi of Brescia, O.F.M. Cap. — 18 passages

Tr. III, Disputation III: On Prayer, Question XI: On praying the Canonical Hours

Most abundantly does Fr. Zacharias Boverius write on the public praises sung in the Choir of singers, Tom. 1 of the Annals.

There were some heretics even truly most ancient who censured the Canonical Hours, and the Sacred Hymnody, by which the Church consoles herself in this exile, as the most saintly Urban VIII says at the beginning of the renewed Breviary, and attacked them with sarcasms. Among these was Vigilantius, of whom St. Jerome speaks in the epistle to Riparius the Bishop. And other heretics are found in Isidore book 1 on the office of clerics, chapter 22.

But the usage of the Canonical Hours was altogether condemned by the Waldensian heretics, as Aeneas Sylvius testifies, in the book on the origin of the Bohemians, chapter 35, and Wycliffe, as in Thomas Waldensis, tome 3, chapter 21, the Hussites, and finally Luther, in the book on the form of celebrating Mass, where imprudently he dares to say, the reading of the Hours is a feigned worship of God. The herds of the Sectaries follow this arch-heretic.

This most holy manner of praying is therefore proved from the Holy Doctor, who for that reason observes it as prescribed to us by St. Francis the Father, in the rule, chapter 3, by the custom of the universal Church, which it is the most insolent madness to condemn, as D. August. cries, epistle 118. This, says the Holy Doctor, the Holy Spirit intended in composing the Psalms; therefore Psalm 45: The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me. And D. Gregory, in Ezech., homily 1: The voice of Psalmody, when it is carried out with intention of heart, by it a way to the heart is prepared for omnipotent God, that there may be poured into the devout mind either the mystery of prophecy, or the grace of compunction. He pursues this at length, Holy Doctor, in the opuscule on the Progress of the Religious, book 2, chapter 72.

The Holy Doctor proves this on Psalm 50 from the most ancient custom of David himself, who said, Psalm 118: Seven times a day I said praise to thee, and at midnight I rose to confess to thee, where the Canonical Hours are enumerated.

Therefore, on that Psalm, chapter 11, verse 4, he observes that in the seven canonical hours here enumerated is expressed the perfect servitude and worship owed to God, whence, cleansed from the seven vices, adorned with the seven virtues, confirmed with the corresponding gifts and charisms, we shall fly to immortality, which closes the septenary of times. Hence we too are warned: if he sin against thee seven times in a day; if seven times in a day he be converted to thee, etc., Luke 17.

And chapter 4, verse 14, on those words: At midnight I rose to confess to thee, he observes that this time was reserved for the divine praises. Therefore Act. 16: At midnight, Paul and Silas, praying, praised the Lord.

For the divine praises the choir of singers was therefore instituted and deputed, with Asaph, 1 Paral. 16, and at the dedication of the temple they sang the Psalms which David had made: Praise the Lord, for he is good, etc. And Psal. 121: The tribes of the Lord went up to confess the name of the Lord. He pursues all this as a figure of the sacred canticles of the Church. So Daniel prayed three times a day, as D. Bonav. notes, in the Bibliotheca pauperum, chapter 21.

n. 9.

This rite, moreover, as I said, the Holy Doctor proves from the most ancient usage of the Church. It is attested in Acts 3, when Peter and John went up into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth, which St. Basil explains at length in his rules, to interrog. 37, and Ephes. 5: Be filled with the spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and psalming in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always in all things, etc. Where Haymo admirably understands the Hymns in use in the Church, which Ambrose, Gregory, Hilary, and other Fathers composed. But Bede reports that this usage took root in the Church of Jerusalem, book 2 on Luke.

This rite is described by St. Clement Pope, disciple of St. Peter, book 8 of the Apostolic constitutions, chapter 34; Tertullian, in the Apology, chapter 2; St. Cyprian, in the exposition of the Lord's prayer. Likewise St. Ambrose composed certain hymns, as D. August. reports, book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 21. The Canonical Hours are mentioned by St. Jerome, epistle 22 to Eustoch. on the custody of Virgins, chapter 16, and epistle 27 in the epitaph of Paula, chapter 10. St. August., in rule 3 (taken from epistle 109), chapters 7 and 8, and sermon 201 de tempore, and book 22 de civit., chapter 8. D. Isidore, in the book on the Ecclesiastical office. Bede, on chapter 18 of Luke.

Finally, nothing is contained in these but the divine praises, graces, etc., which are paid to God justly and piously. Nor am I moved by the fact that certain hymns were composed by men in the Church; they are not on that account to be despised. For hence the Fourth Council of Toledo, canon 12, casts the penalty of excommunication upon those who reject the ecclesiastical hymns because they were composed by human industry.

n. 12.

But priests are held to recite the Divine Office, C. Presbyter de celebr. missarum; deacons and subdeacons, C. Dolentes, under the same title, and C. Finali, distinction 32; but not those initiated in minor orders, as the Doctors commonly hold on the said chapter Presbyteri. Those also are held who hold some ecclesiastical benefice or prebend under a clerical title, as the Doctors expound those words cap. finali, and all who are deputed to a church, namely prebendaries, are held to the divine office, as was declared by Pius V.

n. 13.

All Religious deputed to the Choir are also held, even if not initiated in sacred orders, not by the common law, but by their own particular law or custom. So the Friars Minor, chapter 3 of the Rule, have a precept on this, as all expound with D. Bonavent. there, where prayers are imposed also upon the Laity. Novices, however, are not held, as Valencia and others note.

n. 14.

Moreover, the Breviary, already established by the most holy Pontiff Pius V, and now at last reformed by the most holy Pope Urban VIII, is to be observed.

n. 15.

But whether it be lawful to say another office in place of the current one, without mortal sin: Cajetan asserts it, in summa on the word Horae canonicae, Sylvester, on the word hora, numbers 2 and 15, Valencia, dispute 6, question 2, point 10, § Quid recitandum, nor does Sotus dare to cry out against it, book 10 on justice, question 5, article 4. But Tannerus, dispute 5, question 1, dub. 5, says that to do so without cause is at least venial. Of this, doubt 2, there has been treatment. Azor brings forward Sylvester, Cajetan, and Sotus above, chapter 10, question 2, and Lessius, chapter 37, number 77. But he says others assert it to be mortal, as Toledo, book 2, chapter 13, and says that Valencia also inclines to that view.

n. 16.

But the Clergy are commanded, in cap. Dolentes, Divine office, to celebrate it diligently as well as devoutly, as far as God shall grant. Therefore by force of this precept there is imposed a manner of reciting with distinct voice, as D. Thom. teaches, here, article 12, and D. Bonaventure. There is, moreover, a threefold attention, as the Holy Doctor often teaches in the places cited, questions 5 and 10: either to the words, or to the thing signified, or to the end, God. See the Holy Doctor, book 2 on the progress of religious, at the place cited.

n. 17.

As to the time for reciting the office, it is from first Vespers until midnight of the following day inclusive, provided, however, that at first Vespers no other hours be said than Vespers and Compline, and afterward Matins. But Prime, Terce, and the following Hours ought to be recited on the following day.

n. 18.

Concerning these many questions are disputed, especially by Diana, pt. 2, Tract. 2, of which I shall touch upon some.

Slater, Cases I

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 13 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Slater, Cases I, Laws, Case 3. Not Excused from Observing the Law

Titius, a confessor, remains doubtful whether certain drunkards who belong to his mission sin or not by omitting Mass on Sunday. The circumstances of the case are as follows. Every Saturday afternoon these men receive their wages for the week’s labor. Having received the money, they immediately go to the tavern and drink until they are drunk. They return home at about eleven o’clock at night, when the tavern closes, and on the following day suffer the effects of drunkenness in bed. Titius doubts whether they are guilty not only of drunkenness but also of the Mass omitted on Sunday, for they are drunk before the law begins to urge, and when it urges they are incapable of fulfilling the law. Hence it is asked:

What causes exempt from a law, and what causes excuse from a law?

Is it lawful voluntarily to posit either kind?

Is someone bound, if he can, to remove an excusing cause in order to fulfill the law?

What is to be said concerning the case?

Vol. II, Case X: Anticipating the Office · Vol. III, Case V: Anticipating Matins and Lauds at Two O’clock · Vol. III, Case IX: What Office Must a Subdeacon Say on the Day of his Ordination? · Vol. III, Case XXXV: The Office of the First Mass

Solution

What are causes exempting from a law and causes excusing from a law?

n. ¶7.

Causes exempting remove a subject from the jurisdiction, as does departure from the territory within which the law binds. Causes excusing relieve him of the obligation of obeying the law though he remains subject to it.¹

1 Bucceroni, vol. i, no. 216.

n. ¶8.

Is it lawful to put both causes exempting and causes excusing voluntarily?

n. ¶9.

A subject may put causes exempting voluntarily, for a law does not compel a man to remain subject to it; it only obliges him to act in conformity with it as long as he remains subject. By special law, however, one who has incurred a reserved case in one diocese can not be absolved from it if he go to another diocese with the intention of getting absolution there.

n. ¶10.

While remaining under the jurisdiction of the law, a subject may not do anything with the intention of avoiding the obligation of complying with it. But for a sufficiently grave reason he may do something, although he foresees that the doing of it will make it impossible for him to comply with a positive law.

n. ¶11.

Is one bound to remove an excusing cause if he can, so as to be able to comply with a law?

n. ¶12.

Much depends on the nature of the law in question, for some laws bind more strictly than do others. Thus Lehmkuhl says: “Nor do they judge that anyone is bound by force of the law of hearing Mass to procure release from a censure, liberation from prison, etc., if, being imprisoned, he cannot assist at Mass, unless perhaps for a long time, or through design lest he be present at the sacred rite, he neglects these things. Nevertheless, they hold that someone is bound to remove those bonds or impediments by reason of the precept of Easter Communion; for which precept, even several days before the time of the law becomes urgent, it is not lawful to place an impediment, unless a sufficiently grave cause is present.”²

2 Theol. Mor., vol. i, n. 158.

n. ¶13.

The case. Titius, a confessor, doubts whether some drunkards in his parish commit sin by omitting Mass on Sundays. Every week these men get their week’s wage after mid-day on Saturday. They go straight to the public-house and get drunk, returning home about 11 p.m. when the public-house closes. Next day they sleep off the effects of drink in bed. Although they certainly sin against temperance, Titius doubts whether they commit sin by not hearing Mass, for they are drunk before the time when the law of hearing Mass begins to be urgent, and when Sunday comes they are too ill to get up. If there were question of putting some honest excusing cause, the doubt of Titius would be well founded. Thus Gury says: “It would be lawful, from mere pleasure, to enter upon a journey which would impede attendance at Mass throughout the whole of Saturday, up to one or another hour before Sunday.”¹ This, however, can not be applied to our case. For in this matter much depends on the intention of the legislator. He does not intend to restrict the liberty of his subjects so far as to compel them to forego honest recreation on Saturday, though this will prevent them hearing Mass on Sunday. But the legislator does not use the same indulgence in favor of drunkards, who get drunk on Saturday afternoon, foreseeing that they will not be in a fit state to hear Mass on Sunday. They sin, then, not only against temperance, but also against the obligation of Sunday Mass.

1 Gury, in Génicot, vol. i, no. 116.

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 32 passages

Vol. II, Case X: Anticipating the Office

X. has been in the habit of anticipating his office every day at two o'clock P. M. He has no special faculty from his Bishop or from the Holy See to do this. He finds it extremely convenient, however, although there are many days when he could wait a few hours longer before anticipating for the next day.

Was his anticipation of the office at two o’clock on those days when he might have waited a few hours longer, valid, and if valid was it also lawful?

ANSWER:

According to the opinion of many approved theologians, and which opinion is therefore certainly probable, the office may be anticipated every day from two o’clock in the afternoon, in all cases validly and for a slight reason at least, licitly, without any special indult or faculty from the Holy See. We are aware that this is not the more generally received opinion of the theologians, either ancient or modern, but still it is supported by theologians of such great authority that it can be said to enjoy both internal and external probability.

St. Alphonsus, in the first edition of his Moral Theology, called this opinion most probable, probablissima, In the later editions, however, of his work, he retracted these words, and expressed his belief that the truer opinion was that it was not allowed, without a special permission from the Holy See, to anticipate the office at two P. M. But Sabetti, Bucceroni, Ballerini-Palmieri, Genicot, Noldin, etc., as well as the Salmanticenses, Sanchez, Viva, etc., all agree in saying that the opinion is solidly probable, that holds that a priest may anticipate his office every day at two o’clock in the afternoon without any special authorization from the Holy See. They reach this conclusion in this way. In the beginning, matins and lauds were recited during the night time. Gradually, however, the practice grew up of anticipating the next day’s office the evening before, after sunset. In the course of time this was improved on, by reciting matins and lauds when the evening began to fall, that is to say, when the sun was half way between the zenith and the horizon. Because, when the sun reached this point, the tempus vespertinum began. Finally the custom grew of anticipating the next day’s matins and lauds, from the beginning of the tempus vespertinum not of the natural day, but of the ecclesiastical day. Now, the tempus vespertinum of the ecclesiastical day began at two o’clock. That is to say, the evening of the ecclesiastical day began when vespers were recited in the choir. Vespers were recited in choir when the sun was half way between the zenith and the horizon in the afternoon. Now, however, vespers are recited in choir at two o’clock P. M., so that two o’clock P. M. is now the beginning of the ecclesiastical evening. As soon, therefore, as vespers have been said in the choir, i. e., about two P. M., the next day is, figuratively speaking, beginning, and the office of the next day may be begun. St. Thomas says: “As regards the ecclesiastical office, the day begins from Vespers; hence, if anyone after the said Vespers and Compline recites Matins, this now pertains to the following day” (Quodlib. v, a. 28).

In 1876 the Congregation of Rites was asked: “At what hour is it lawful to begin the private recitation of Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day?” To which the Congregation made reply: “The private recitation of Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day may begin when the sun holds the midpoint of its course between noon and sunset.” Again, a few years later, the same congregation was asked: “Whether the aforesaid response is to be understood so that one who had recited Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day before the sun held the midpoint of its course between noon and sunset would not satisfy his obligation?” To which was answered: “Let approved authors be consulted.” From these two answers of the Congregation of Rites we gather, first, that if the opinion which allows anticipation of matins and lauds from two o’clock P. M. were wrong, the congregation would have condemned it; and secondly, since the congregation refers us to approved authors, and since many of the most eminent among these allow a priest to anticipate matins and lauds from two o’clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, it follows that the Holy See gives countenance, constructively, to the practice of anticipating matins and lauds at two o'clock of the preceding day, without a special dispensation.

n. ¶7.

Therefore, we say, whoever anticipates his office at two o'clock the preceding afternoon, does so validly, that is, he is not bound under pain of mortal sin to repeat it later, either on that day or on the next; and if he have a “tenuis ratio” for so anticipating, he does so lawfully. Now, in the case before us, X. has a sufficient reason on some days for anticipating at two o’clock, but then on other days he has no special reason, and could just as well put it off until later. However, on such days as he has no special reason for beginning the next day’s office at two o’clock the very convenience that it affords him is a sufficient reason. It lends regularity to his recitation of the office, and strengthens a very excellent practice, and is of itself ample reason for anticipating every day at two o'clock P. M. It would be difficult to convince us that not every secular priest in this country has sufficient reason to anticipate his office at two o’clock P. M. every day, without any special dispensation or faculty to do so. But when one considers the weight of theological authority which justifies one in so doing, he were a very scrupulous and unreasonable man, indeed, who would give up so — laudable a practice for so poor a scruple.

Vol. III, Case V: Anticipating Matins and Lauds at Two O’clock

Among the faculties of the diocese, granted to all the clergy, is one permitting them to anticipate matins and lauds of the morrow’s office, at two o’clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, legitima concurrente causa. By virtue of this faculty, Fr. X. has formed the habit of anticipating matins and lauds every day at two o’clock, whether he has a sufficient reason or not. Generally speaking, he has a sufficient reason; however, there are days when he does not seem to have any other reason than the mere habit. Now, is the habit alone, independent of any other reason, a legitimate excuse for anticipating the recitation of matins and lauds at two o'clock in the afternoon of the preceding day? And if it is not, and if there is no other legitimate reason for anticipating the office at two o’clock, would the recitation of matins and lauds at that hour be, nevertheless, valid, even though illicit, or does the law of the Church require in such a case that the matins and lauds be repeated?

Answer.—The universal custom prevailing in the Church to-day, and which has the sanction of law, permits the recitation of matins and lauds of the next day’s office, on the afternoon of the preceding day, quando sol medium cursum tenet inter meridiem et occasum; that is to say, when the sun is half way between the meridian and the western horizon. As this time varies according to the different seasons of the year, a calendar is found in the breviary, indicating the precise hour at which the matins and lauds may be anticipated for every month of the year. Thus while in the month of December matins and lauds for the following day may be anticipated at two o'clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, in the month of June they may not be anticipated before four o’clock, because the course of the sun between the meridian and the horizon for Italy and Western Europe, where the custom originated, is four hours shorter in the month of December than in the month of June.

But many and grave theologians maintain that nowadays matins and lauds may be anticipated at two o’clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, every day in the year, apart from any special privilege or faculty, and that the anticipated recitation of matins and lauds at that hour is always and under all circumstances valid, i. e., need not be repeated, even though recited without a legitimate reason, and if there be a legitimate reason, the recitation will also be licit. This opinion is conceded by all to be at least probable, both by reason of the arguments advanced in its support, as well as by the weight of the authorities who support it. Among those who maintain it we find such names as Salmanticenses, Sanchez, Viva, Ballerini-Palmieri, D’Annibale, Sabetti, Bucceroni, Genicot, Noldin, etc., etc. Moreover, as often as the Holy See has been petitioned to give an authoritative answer to this question, it has steadfastly refused to settle the difficulty and invariably refers the petitioner ad probatos auctores. Now as many of these approved authors, to whom we are referred by the Holy See, maintain that it is lawful to anticipate matins and lauds at two o’clock in the afternoon, every day in the year, it follows that it is lawful to do so as long as the Holy See does not expressly condemn it, because the Holy See is perfectly cognizant that many and grave theologians hold that it is lawful to anticipate the office at two o’clock, every day in the year, without any special permission. It may be remarked in passing, that permission is sometimes given by the Holy See to anticipate matins and lauds at one o’clock in the afternoon, and the priests of St. John of God have the special privilege of anticipating the office even at noon of the preceding day.

If we examine more closely the reasons which induce these theologians to maintain that the office may be anticipated every day in the year at two o'clock in the afternoon, we find them to be somewhat as follows: At first, we know, matins and lauds were recited during the night preceding the day on which the rest of the office was to be said. The first nocturn was said at nine o’clock at night, the second at midnight, and the third at three o’clock in the morning, followed by lauds toward the dawn. The night was divided into vigils, as the day was divided into hours, and each vigil and each hour had its own prayer. (Cf. Cath. Encycl. art. Breviary.) By degrees, however, the custom grew up of reciting the matins and lauds of the next day’s office after sunset on the preceding day, i. e., at the end of the evening or eventide, or at nightfall. Gradually, however, even this time was anticipated and the custom grew of reciting matins and lauds of the next day’s office, not at the end of the evening, but at its beginning; that is, when, the sun was half way between the meridian and the western horizon.

Finally, the last stage in the development of this custom of anticipating matins and lauds was reached when, instead of reckoning the evening according to the divisions of the natural day, the clergy began to compute the evening according to the ecclesiastical day, and as the evening of the ecclesiastical day began at the hour when it was customary to recite vespers in choir, it became customary to anticipate matins and lauds of the next day’s office as soon as vespers were recited in choir. As the hour for reciting vespers in choir was advanced, the hour also of anticipating matins and lauds was advanced. And, as at the present time it is the custom throughout the Latin Church to recite vespers in choir at two o'clock in the afternoon, so also it is the custom to recite matins and lauds at about the same hour. Because, according to the method or system of computing time in this matter, as adopted by the Church, as soon as vespers are over in choir the day is ended and the time following vespers belongs to the next day, and matins and lauds of the next day’s office may be recited. St. Thomas says:

“As regards the ecclesiastical office, the day begins at Vespers; hence, if anyone says Matins after the said Vespers and Compline, this now belongs to the following day” ((Quodlib v, art. 28).

n. ¶7.

Of course there are many theologians who deny that a priest satisfies the obligation of the office, if he anticipates matins and lauds every day in the year at two o'clock, without a special permission from the Holy See. In fact, St. Alphonsus calls their opinion the more common opinion of theologians, and the one, in his estimation, nearer the truth. Nevertheless, with the array of theologians we have already cited in favor of the opposite opinion, and in view of the arguments they advance in its support, it can not be denied that this opinion is solidly probable, both internally and externally, and may be followed in practise by any priest, tuta conscientia.

n. ¶8.

This position seems also to be supported by the answers of the Congregation of Rites. That Sacred Congregation, when asked:

n. ¶9.

“Quanam hora liceat incipere privatam recitationem matutini cum laudibus vespcre diet praecedentis?” returned the following answer, March 16, 1876:

n. ¶10.

“Privatam recitationem matutini cum laudibus vespere diei praecedentis incipi posse, quando sol medium cursum tenet inter meridiem et occasum.””

n. ¶11.

Asked again: “Ufrum in privata recitatione matutini pro insequente die incipi possit hora secunda pomeridiana, aut standum sit tabellae directorii dioecesani omni tempore?” the Sacred Congregation, on May 12, 1905, returned the following reply: “Consulantur probati auctores.”

n. ¶12.

From these two replies of the Congregation of Rites we gather: first, that if the opinion which permits the anticipation of matins and lauds at two o’clock on the preceding day were devoid of all probability, the Holy See would long since have condemned it; and secondly, since the Congregation of Rites refers us to approved authors to determine whether it be lawful to anticipate the office at two o’clock of the preceding day, and since many of these approved authors maintain that it is permitted to anticipate, without any special permission, at two o’clock in the afternoon of the preceding day, the matins and lauds of the following day’s office, we logically conclude that the Holy See approves the practise.

n. ¶13.

As regards Fr. X.’s practise of anticipating matins and lauds every day at two o'clock, we do not see how it can be condemned. Sometimes, he says, he has a sufficient reason and sometimes he has no reason but the habit. In that case the habit is a legitimate reason. It must be kept in mind that, in the private recitation of the office, the observance of the canonical time or hour binds only sub levi. Therefore, a levis ratio will excuse from all sin. But the convenience that arises from the habit of anticipating the office at two o’clock is a levis ratio, and, therefore, justifies the anticipation at that hour. Under no circumstances would Fr. X. be bound sub gravi to repeat matins and lauds, said at two o’clock without any reason whatsoever.

Vol. III, Case IX: What Office Must a Subdeacon Say on the Day of his Ordination?

Several young men are ordained subdeacons between eight and nine o’clock in the morning, on the feast of St. Mark, the evangelist. They are not certain as to how much of the office they are obliged to say on that day. Some recited all the little hours that morning, before their ordination to the subdeaconate, as they did not know how else to employ their time. Others said Prime, Tierce and Sext, before receiving subdeaconate, while others thought themselves obliged to say the whole office for that day, from Matins on. Were those, who recited all four little hours before their ordination to the subdeaconate, obliged to repeat any or all of them afterward, and, if obliged to repeat, where must they begin? Is there any reason for believing that the whole office for the day is obligatory on subdeacons, on the day that they receive subdeaconship? Incidentally, how would you interpret the penance, nocturnum talis diet, imposed on subdeacons?

Answer.—The divine office is obligatory on subdeacons from the moment they receive the subdeaconate. Only that part of it, however, is obligatory for them on the day of their subdeaconate, which corresponds to the canonical hour at which they were ordained. Hence a subdeacon is bound to recite, on the day of his ordination to the subdeaconate, that part of the office which is recited in choir by those who are obliged to say the office in choir. La Croix thinks that if a subdeacon received his subdeaconate at eleven A. M. he would be bound to say only the vespers and compline of that day, as the little hours will already have been recited in choir by that time. St. Alphonsus, however, differs with La Croix on this point, maintaining that the subdeacon is bound to recite that part of the office which corresponds to the canonical hour of Sext; therefore, from Sext on. And this seems to be the better opinion, and the one generally followed. In the case of the young men ordained on St. Mark’s feast, their obligation began before nine o’clock A.M., therefore they are obliged to recite Tierce, as that is the part of the Breviary that corresponds to the hour of nine o’clock in the morning. Originally the office was recited as follows: Matins were said immediately after midnight; Lauds were said at the dawn; Prime after sunrise; Tierce at nine o’clock in the morning; Sext at noon; None at three o’clock in the afternoon; Vespers at sunset, and Compline at dusk. If the subdeaconate were not conferred until ten A.M. the office would be obligatory from Sext on. As regards the question as to whether the young men who recited all four little hours before receiving the subdeaconate, there exists a difference of opinion among theologians. Some theologians, as Tournely, Bonacina, La Croix, etc., maintain that the young men did not satisfy their obligation by reciting the little hours before ordination, because an obligation can not be satisfied before it is contracted. Now, these young men, at the time when they recited the little hours, were under no obligation to recite them. Afterward, from nine o’clock A. M. on, they are under an obligation to recite that part of the office that corresponds to that canonical hour of the day, namely, Tierce, which obligation has not yet been satisfied. To this, Lugo, Tamburini, etc., make reply, that a debt may be paid by anticipation, when it is morally certain that it is going to be contracted. Both these opinions are probable, in the estimation of St. Liguori (lib. 5, c. 2, v. 140).

Again it is urged that the subdeacon is obliged to recite the office ia the name of the Church, but a young man, before his deaconship, can not recite the office in the name of the Church, and, therefore, by such recitation, he does not satisfy the obligation that is laid upon him later in the day.

But to this it may be replied, says St. Liguori, that an excommunicated priest does not and can not pray in the name of the Church, and yet he is bound to say his office, and, by saying his office, he satisfies his obligation in this regard. Therefore, to satisfy the obligation of reciting the office, it is not necessary that it be recited in the name of the Church. And this opinion the holy doctor calls probable. These young men, therefore, who recited the little hours in the morning before their ordination to the subdeaconate, can not, strictly speaking, be required to repeat any one of them, although they received subdeaconship about nine A. M. However, in practise, it is more adviseable to have them say, after their ordination, the hours of the Breviary that correspond to the hour of their ordination. Such a practise removes all scruples on this score, and quiets the conscience at a time when young men are apt to be worried by many false fears.

There is no ground whatever for thinking that a newly ordained subdeacon is bound to recite the whole office of the day on which he receives subdeaconship. There may be subdeacons who, through overanxiety, reason themselves into such an obligation; but, as a matter of fact, the obligation does not exist, neither in law nor in fact. The reason is indicated above.

The words, nocturnum talis diet, indicating the penance imposed on the newly ordained subdeacon by the ordaining prelate, in gratitude for the order received, mean either the nocturn of the ferial office, or the first nocturn of the feast, or the first nocturn of the dominical office, accordingly as the ordination takes place, either on a feria, a feast day, or a Sunday. The Congregation of Rites August 11, 1860, answered: “Understand the words of the Roman Pontifical, the nocturn of such a day, as referring to the single ferial nocturn, or to the first nocturn of Sunday, as in the Psalter, that is, twelve Psalms with their antiphons from the season; the ordaining Bishop can designate either that of the very day on which he holds the ordination, or that of another day, at his discretion. But when the Bishop expresses nothing other than what the words of the Pontifical state, it must be said to mean the nocturn of the feria which corresponds to the day on which the ordination took place.” That is to say, it is the ordaining prelate’s privilege to determine the nocturn which the newly ordained subdeacon is to say as a penance. But if the bishop simply repeats the words of the pontifical, nocturnum talis diei, he is to be understood as meaning the nocturn of the ferial office corresponding to the day of the ordination. For instance, if the ordination took place on a Thursday, on which the feast of an Apostle was celebrated,the nocturn would be the nocturn of the ferial office feriae quintae. This nocturn does not include the Pater, Ave, or Credo; nor does it include the invitatorium and hymn, or the lessons. It includes only the twelve psalms, with their proper antiphons. In the case submitted, the nocturn would be the first nocturn of the Dominical office for the second Sunday after Easter, as the feast of St. Mark fell on that Sunday this year.

Vol. III, Case XXXV: The Office of the First Mass

The questions are asked: (1) Is a newly ordained priest allowed to take for his first Mass a votive office (with corresponding color) if his first Mass is celebrated on a Sunday per annum, on which the office is de ea and the green color is prescribed? Or must he take the Mass of the day, with vestments of green color, or, if such are not available for those assisting, vestments of gold cloth? (2) If a votive Mass is allowable, which one should the newly ordained priest choose?

Ad. 1. A first Mass is not privileged as regards the office or the rite. It offers no sufficient reason for the celebration of a Missa votiva solemnis (pro re gravi, vel publica ecclesiae causa), which would even require assignment or permission by the bishop in the individual case. The newly ordained may, therefore, take a votive only on a day which admits of a Missa votiva privata, for which the celebration of a first Mass would be a rationabilis causa. In this case, however, the ritus Missae votivae privatae must be completely employed, whether the Mass be read or sung, and whether celebrated with or without assistance, therefore sine Gloria (unless the votive Mass as such has it, as S. Maria in Sabb., Ss. Angeli), sine Credo, cum tribus saltem Orationibus, and the chant in tono Missae ferialis, which for a solemn first Mass cum magno apparatu et concursu populi would hardly be desirable. The color of the vestments must, of course, correspond to the Mass sive de die sive votivae. It is regarded as permissible to take vestments of gold cloth, in place of white, red or green, ex auro contexta, but on no account ex tela serica aut alia flavi coloris materia confecta (Cf. de Herdt, S. Liturg. Praxis, tom. I., n. 147).

This decides the first question, and under all circumstances the newly ordained has to take the Missa de Dominica occurenti, with all orations prescribed by rubrics and ordinary; if the ordo permits 3. Oratio ad libitum; then the Oratio pro seipso Sacerdote (n. 20, inter Orationes diversas) recommends itself for use. The vestments should be of green color, but may be replaced by such of gold cloth (ex auro contexta).

Ad. 2. This question is therefore dropped in our case. If, however, a newly ordained priest celebrates first Mass on a day that permits of a Missa Votiva privata, and he would say a votive Mass (at all events ritu Missae votivae privatae) rather than the Mass of the day, then he has the choice of any votive Mass. To be recommended in such case are the Missa de Ss. Trinitate, addita Oratione Deus cujus misericordiae, or, de Spiritu St., or, de S. S. Corde Jesus, or, de B. Maria V.

The newly ordained priest will, however, do best to begin with his first holy Mass a strict adherence to the ecclesiastical precepts respecting the office of the day, and avoid everything unusual.