How the office must be said

766. On recitation with a companion or in choir. 1. It is lawful to recite the divine office with a companion, even if he is not held to the office.

Recitation with a companion must imitate recitation in choir; therefore a. it is required that they recite by alternate turns, not by threefold turns, that is, that on one side there be one or more and on the other likewise one or more; but it is not lawful so to recite that one says the first verse, another the second, a third the third; b. the antiphons and verses of the psalms must be said alternately, as order demands; c. all the lessons can be read by one while the rest listen, or also alternately; d. the chapters and prayers are said by one who performs, as it were, the office of the officiant.

2. It is required that they hear one another distinctly: for in order that anyone satisfy the obligation, he must either recite himself or hear one reciting. If the companion is not held to the office, it is indeed required that he who is not held be heard by the other; but it is not required that he himself hear the other reciting.

a. Therefore a deaf man who hears nothing cannot validly recite the office with a companion; and he who, although he could, nevertheless does not hear the companion reciting does not satisfy his obligation, whatever be the cause on account of which he does not hear the companion, whether noise or deafness. Therefore he is held to repeat the office, or at least to supply the part not perceived.

b. He who does not perceive only some things (one or another verse or lesson) satisfies the obligation and is not held to supply anything, provided he tries to hear the other, because, says St. Alphonsus (n. 163), through the companionship and at the same time through that application of his own, he is judged morally to communicate in the prayer, so that the prayer which the other pours forth is also his own.

Hence one reciting in choir, who while others are reciting must prepare something in choir, is not held to repeat what he did not perceive, even if he had not heard an entire psalm.

c. In order that a deaf man who is obliged to choir satisfy the obligation of reciting the office, he must afterward supply the omitted part, namely that which he did not perceive, or better, while it is being sung by the other side, recite it in a low voice.

d. He who plays the organ while the divine office is sung in choir does not satisfy the obligation unless he at least recites or sings the verse of one part. And where the office is so sung that to the verse which the whole choir sings only the organ responds alternately, the whole choir does not satisfy the obligation unless someone from the choir pronounces or sings in a clear voice that which is to be answered by the organ.¹

3. Recitation must be so arranged that one does not begin his verse unless the other has completed his: for the prayer prescribed by the Church is by its nature successive.

a. Therefore if those things which are uttered at the same time constitute a notable part, grave sin is committed, unless the whole office is repeated or at least an equivalent part is supplied.

b. One reciting the office with a companion who clips the final syllables, yet without the sense being notably corrupted, satisfies the obligation and is not held to repeat, although he sins venially; but if the clipping is great, so that the sense in a notable quantity is corrupted, it is a grave sin and either the part viciously pronounced or an equivalent part must be repeated, if that part by itself does not yield a sense.

4. Recitation by a companion that is too swift and headlong, but especially singing in choir that is too hurried, so that the others cannot distinctly perceive everything, is ordinarily a venial sin, because he who perceives only some things does satisfy the obligation as to substance.

¹ Caerem. ep. l. 1, c. 28, n. 6.

767. The due intention is the intention of reciting the prescribed office, or of praising and praying to God through recitation of the office; and this intention is had by the very fact that one deliberately takes up the breviary in order to recite the office.

Although the actual intention of praying, elicited at least implicitly at the beginning and then virtually persevering through the course of the prayer, is altogether necessary in order that the recitation of the office be prayer and not reading, nevertheless there is no need to doubt the existence of the due intention, provided the recitation is not explicitly ordered to another end.

768. The attention required is external attention: for neither from the nature of the matter nor from the precept of the Church is a more perfect attention required than external attention, or the exclusion of any external action impeding internal attention.¹

a. There are external actions which gravely or notably impede internal attention, and others which impede it only lightly. The former must be excluded under grave obligation during recitation of the divine office, the latter under light obligation; but from a just cause actions lightly impeding attention can licitly be admitted. Actions of the former kind are: painting, writing, listening with great attention to others speaking, reading attentively, attentively considering images or statues, etc. Actions of the latter kind are: putting on or taking off clothes, washing the hands, looking at the countryside, fields, meadows, mountains, buildings, tending the fire, etc. Yet if one knew by experience that he is not gravely distracted by actions of the former kind, he would not be held to avoid them under grave obligation, scandal being excluded; and in like manner, if one knew by experience that he is notably distracted by actions of the latter kind, he would be held to avoid them under grave obligation.

b. Since prayer without internal attention can exist as to substance, the obligation of internal attention would have to arise from a grave precept of the Church. Those who affirm this obligation in fact appeal to the Lateran Council under Innocent III, which commands clerics in virtue of obedience to "celebrate the divine office zealously and devoutly alike."² But to one reading the cited chapter it will at once be evident that the supreme pontiff commands nothing other than devotion or external attention against those who, while reciting in choir, were chatting with secular persons.³

¹ Cf. n. 139.

² C. Dolentes 9, De celebr. miss. (III. 41).

³ Cf. Lehmkuhl II, n. 633. Burghaber, Casuum conscientiae centuriae tres, cent. I, n. 21.

769. Integrally. In order that the office be recited integrally, two things are required: a. that the whole office be recited, with no part of it omitted; b. that the individual words be pronounced without mutilation or truncation.

a. To the integrity of the office belong the Pater, Ave, and Credo at the beginning and end of the office; but the prayer Aperi and Sacrosanctae do not belong to it, although these prayers are nevertheless piously and usefully added.

b. Therefore he who omits a notable part sins gravely; he who omits a non-notable part sins lightly. What part is judged notable has been defined above (757).

c. If the truncation of words is so great that the sense is changed, and this in a notable part, grave fault is committed and the part not recited integrally must be repeated; yet truncation of words rarely involves grave fault. But it is free from all fault if it happens from a natural defect of a stammering mouth or a hurrying tongue, or if it happens from inveterate custom.

770. Continuously, that is, without interruption. A twofold interruption must be distinguished, one between one hour and another hour, the other between the parts of the same hour. No interruption, however great, is a grave sin, provided the whole office is recited within the space of the same day, because even a notable interruption does not prevent satisfaction being made for the substance of the obligation. Yet a notable interruption which is made without cause between certain parts of the office is a venial sin; but an interruption which is made from a just cause, even if notable and in the same hour, is free from all fault, nor must the earlier parts be repeated in this case, because individual psalms and verses have a complete signification and are sufficiently united by the intention of continuing.

a. Therefore there is no obligation after an interruption to repeat the psalm or lesson from its beginning, even if the interruption had been made without cause, for a long time, or with the intention of repeating the earlier parts; but the recitation can be continued where it had been interrupted, provided the verse or an entire proposition had been completed before the interruption.

b. Since recitation of the hours must be continuous, it is not of itself lawful to begin an hour with foreseen future interruption: for an interruption of this kind would be voluntary in its cause. Yet since a reasonable cause excuses from this precept, confessors do not sin who recite part of an hour in the confessional while they are waiting for a penitent, in order to spare time.

1. Lauds can be separated from Matins even without cause and for a longer time.

a. Therefore nothing prevents Matins from being separated from Lauds even by an entire night: for although Matins and Lauds constitute one hour, nevertheless custom has made it lawful that between Lauds and Matins (but not between the individual nocturns) the whole space of the night can intervene even without cause. The reason seems to be that Lauds in a more perfect way constitutes a part complete in itself than the individual nocturns do, and therefore there is a greater connection among these than between Matins and Lauds.

b. From the prescription of the rubric, the Pater must be added as often as, after an hour has been completed, one ceases from recitation. But if Matins is separated from Lauds, Matins must be concluded in the way in which, from the prescription of the rubric, it is concluded on the night of the Nativity of the Lord, on which Mass is celebrated immediately after Matins, namely after the prayer of the day there is added: Dominus vobiscum, Benedicamus, Fidelium.¹ But it is not necessary that before Lauds separated from Matins the Pater and Ave be said.

2. The nocturns can be separated from one another without cause at least by the space of three hours, because in ancient times they used to be separated in this way, and now no law exists which prohibits this. And indeed any nocturn constitutes a part of the office complete in itself after the manner of a little hour, of which one can licitly be separated from another. From a reasonable cause a nocturn can be separated from a nocturn for even a longer time, for example, for an entire night.

3. The little hours can be separated from one another even without cause and for a longer time, because each of them constitutes a part complete in itself.

According to St. Alphonsus (n. 168), just causes of interrupting an hour or psalm are: one's own or another's utility, courtesy, devotion, execution of a superior's commands, hearing of confession, etc. Therefore the office can licitly be interrupted in order to note something down, so that the cause of distractions may be removed, or to elicit a pious affection of heart, or to recite a short (but not a longer) prayer.

¹ S.C.R., Feb. 1, 1886, n. 3653.

771. In order, that is, without inversion of the prescribed order. A twofold order is to be observed in the recitation of the office: the order of offices already explained above, which the calendar describes, and the order of the hours. The prescribed order of the hours is that first Matins and Lauds be recited, then Prime, Terce, Sext, and None, and finally Vespers and Compline.

1. This precept does not oblige under grave obligation, because it does not refer to the substance of the office, but only to an accidental circumstance. Therefore inversion of order among the several hours of the same office, indeed even inversion of order among the parts of the same hour, is only venial; and if it happens from a reasonable cause, it is no sin.

A reasonable cause of this kind is judged to be present: a. if someone who does not have the breviary at hand recites the hours before Matins; b. if someone who does not have the lessons at hand meanwhile recites the psalms of Matins and Lauds, or indeed even the little hours, and postpones the lessons; c. if someone is invited by another to recite the hours when he has not yet recited Matins; d. if someone comes late to choir, when one hour has already been entirely finished or already begun. In this case he licitly, indeed laudably, continues to sing psalms with the others in choir, afterward reciting the omitted hour or part of an hour.¹

2. To recite Matins of the following day when Vespers of the present day have not yet been discharged, according to the opinion of some, is venial, and if it happens from a reasonable cause, is no sin; but according to the opinion of others it is never a sin, because the office of one day has no order with the office of another day.

3. Not to recite commemorations in the order designated by the rubric is not a sin, because this rubric is not preceptive but directive.

¹ De Herdt, Prax. pontif. t. 1, n. 242.

772. In the due place and posture. 1. Public recitation of the office must be done in choir; but for private recitation no determinate place is prescribed by the Church; therefore any place can be chosen which is judged apt for the due recitation of the office, although a sacred place is more fitting than others.

Therefore he is not free from venial fault who without a just cause recites the office in a place which, on account of the crowd of people, noise, or other circumstances, impedes due attention.

2. Likewise no bodily posture is prescribed by the Church for private recitation of the office. Therefore it is not required that the office be recited on bended knees, but it can be recited standing, sitting, walking, or even, when a reasonable cause exists, lying in bed. Therefore not only a sick person, but also a healthy person who passes a sleepless night can recite the office while lying in bed. The rubrics which prescribe certain bodily postures refer to recitation of the office in choir. The same must be said of the rubrics which prescribe other signs, such as inclinations, genuflections, the sign of the cross, etc. Although therefore there is no obligation of observing these in private recitation, nevertheless they are laudably observed even outside choir.

773. At the fixed time, which is determined either by written law or by custom.

1. He satisfies the precept as to substance who recites the whole office within the space of one natural day, that is, from midnight of one day until midnight of the following day. When this time has elapsed, no one can any longer satisfy his obligation: for the office is the burden of the day, whose obligation begins and ends with the natural day.

According to the mind of the Church, in recitation of the office each one at his own discretion can follow either true solar time or the time of his own place, whether it is mean time or legal time.¹ Since, therefore, legal time, which has been introduced almost everywhere, in some regions follows true time by half an hour and more, there at least half an hour before the second legal hour it is lawful to anticipate Matins.

2. To the individual parts of the office time has been assigned in such a way that Matins with Lauds, Prime, and Terce must be recited before midday, Vespers and Compline after midday; but Sext and None can be recited both before and after midday. Yet this designation of time, since it does not belong to the substance of the office, does not oblige under grave obligation; wherefore from a reasonable cause recitation can licitly either forestall this time or be deferred to a later time.

a. In Lent (except the first three days and Sundays), in choir Vespers, but not Compline, must be said before midday in memory of the ancient discipline according to which the fast was not broken before the recitation of Vespers. But in private recitation they can be recited at pleasure either before or after midday. But if they are recited before midday, there is no reason for affirming that they must be recited before the eleventh hour. Certainly they can be recited at the time at which they are accustomed to be recited in choir, that is, after the conventual Mass, which nevertheless is not celebrated everywhere at the same time. Indeed nothing prevents them from being recited privately already in the morning before Mass.

b. The individual hours were formerly recited at this time: Matins after midnight, Lauds at dawn, Prime after sunrise, Terce in the morning at the ninth hour, Sext at midday, None after the third hour in the afternoon, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the twilight of night.²

c. Therefore he who without cause defers Matins or Prime or Terce to the afternoon, or without cause recites Vespers and Compline before midday, sins venially. A reasonable cause of either forestalling or deferring recitation is the danger of an occupation about to supervene, greater devotion, a time more apt for studies, indeed even greater convenience; therefore the whole office can be deferred to the afternoon if the forenoon is more apt for continuing studies.

3. Matins with Lauds privately, from legitimate custom, can be anticipated, that is, recited on the preceding day; but it is not lawful for it to be anticipated publicly in choir. But if it is recited before the time assigned for anticipation, it must be repeated, because the precept cannot be satisfied before it obliges.

a. The faculty of anticipating the office is a privilege, and since of itself no one is held to use a privilege, he who foresees that on the following day he will be impeded from reciting the office is not held to anticipate Matins with Lauds.

b. In order that Matins can be habitually anticipated in choir, an indult of the Holy See is required, which has been granted to many churches; the bishop can only permit that it be anticipated for a time from a just cause.

4. From the rubric of the missal, Matins with Lauds must be recited before Mass.³

Some teach that this rubric obliges under grave obligation (St. Antoninus), others under light obligation (St. Alphonsus), others judge that it is not preceptive but merely directive, because Matins does not contain a necessary disposition for the celebration of Mass, and because the connection between Matins and Mass (which St. Alphonsus thinks to be none) is not so great that Matins must be said before Mass (Ballerini). Although the rubrics urge this matter twice, nevertheless, since there is not sufficient certainty about a true precept, in practice this is not to be established.

¹ S. Poenitent., Nov. 29, 1882; S.C.C., July 23, 1893.

² Cf. Baeumer, l.c., p. 180.

³ Missale rom., Rit. serv. I, n. 1; De def. X, n. 1.

774. At what hour Matins can be anticipated. 1. With all agreeing, Matins with Lauds can be anticipated from legitimate custom when the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and sunset. And since this time varies, tables are usually drawn up (inserted in the directory) by which the suitable time for anticipating the office at different times of the year is indicated. This time is placed between the second hour (in the month of December) and the fourth hour (in the month of June) in the afternoon.

2. From the probable opinion of many doctors, validly and at least from a reasonable cause also licitly, Matins with Lauds can be recited privately at any time of year at the second hour in the afternoon, even without privilege.¹ This opinion is confirmed from the responses of the Holy See, which, when often questioned concerning this matter, has so far been unwilling to settle the question, but has referred it to approved authors, of whom many hold this opinion. Therefore at any time of year it can be anticipated at the second hour, until the Holy See shall determine otherwise.

a. The authors assign the internal reason of this opinion in this way. In the course of time it came about that Matins with Lauds, which at the beginning used to be recited at night, was already recited on the preceding day, and indeed in the evening or after sunset. Gradually, however, the custom prevailed of anticipating the office not when evening time ends but when it begins, that is, when the sun, having the middle of its course between midday and sunset, begins to incline toward sunset. Finally custom brought it about that Matins was recited when the evening time began, not of the natural day but of the ecclesiastical day; but the evening time of the ecclesiastical day begins at the hour at which Vespers are customarily recited in choir. But now in choir Vespers are customarily recited, or at least can be recited, about the second hour in the afternoon; therefore according to ecclesiastical reckoning, the time which runs after Vespers have been recited in choir, or after the second hour, already belongs to the following day, on which Matins with Lauds can indeed be validly anticipated privately and also licitly, if a reasonable cause is present. St. Thomas is a witness of this custom, writing: "As regards the ecclesiastical office, the day begins from Vespers; hence if someone after Vespers and Compline have been said says Matins, now this belongs to the following day."²

b. It cannot be denied that among older and recent authors the more common opinion is the one which denies that he satisfies his obligation who, without a special privilege, recites Matins with Lauds at the second hour at any time of year. St. Alphonsus in the first edition of his moral theology had called the contrary affirmative opinion most probable; but afterward he retracted this and called the negative opinion truer. Yet since so many and such great authors, both older ones such as Sanchez, Viva, the Salmanticenses, and recent ones such as Ballerini-Palmieri, D'Annibale, Frasinetti, Sabetti, Bucceroni, and Genicot, hold the affirmative opinion, probability, both internal and external, cannot be denied to it.

c. The manner of acting of S.C.R. is added. For to the question: "At what hour is it lawful to begin the private recitation of Matins with Lauds in the evening of the preceding day?" it responded: "The private recitation of Matins with Lauds can be begun in the evening of the preceding day when the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and sunset."³ And to the question: "Whether in private recitation Matins for the following day can be begun at the second hour in the afternoon, or whether the table of the diocesan directory must be followed at every time," it responded: "Let approved authors be consulted."⁴ From these responses two things can be gathered: first, indeed, that if the affirmative opinion lacked all probability, the Holy See would have rejected it long ago; and then, since the sacred congregation refers the matter to approved authors, and many of these say that recitation at the second hour is lawful, with the Holy See itself approving, it is lawful to anticipate at the second hour in the afternoon.

¹ Not rarely a privilege is granted of anticipating Matins with Lauds at the first hour after midday; indeed to priests of the order of St. John of God on June 12, 1899, the privilege was granted of anticipating immediately after midday.

² Quodlib. V, a. 28, ad 1.

³ S.C.R., March 16, 1876, n. 3391.

⁴ S.C.R., May 12, 1905.

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.

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:

1. 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

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).

3. The Litanies for the feast of St. Mark and the days of Rogation cannot be recited on the preceding evening.⁵

4. 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.

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

1. 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).

2. 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).

II. Obligation of the precept. 1. The Bishop, if there is question of canons, or the Superior, if there is question of religious, sins gravely if through negligence he permits the office or a notable part of the office to be omitted; but a notable part, as in private recitation (n. 1193), is that which reaches the quantity of a little hour (St. Alphonsus IV, 143).

2. Even a notable inversion in the order of the hours is quite probably only venial, because it touches an accident rather than the substance (St. Alphonsus IV, 171).

III. Time for satisfying the precept. 1. The useful time both for the valid fulfillment of the precept and for satisfying the grave obligation is from midnight to midnight, yet in such a way that Matins and Lauds can be anticipated on the preceding day from the hour of Vespers. For satisfying the light obligation, attending to law alone, Matins must be recited at midnight, Lauds at the beginning of dawn, or Matins with Lauds from dawn until sunrise, Prime at sunrise, Terce in the middle of the morning time, Sext at midday, None in the middle of the afternoon, Vespers before sunset, and Compline after sunset. I said attending to law alone, because a reasonable received custom can be observed. This obligation is only light, because there is question only of an accidental circumstance of the precept.

2. In computing the hours of the day, one must stand by the common use of the place (can. 33, § 1).

IV. The place for satisfying the precept is the church; nevertheless for a just cause the hours can sometimes be recited in the sacristy (St. Alphonsus III, 675; IV, 143).

V. Manner of satisfying the precept. 1. For the psalms the choir must be divided into only two parts, whether there are more on one side or fewer, so that individuals recite alternate verses; for thus the use and practice of the Church has it. Readings, etc., can either be distributed among several persons or said by one (St. Alphonsus IV, 162). One who omits certain things from his own part, whether because he came somewhat late, or because of distraction,¹ or because he is occupied in the office of choir, for example by playing the organ for some moments or transferring books - he, I say, who thus omits certain things, is not bound to supply them, because the choir has supplied them. The same must be said of one "who while others are reciting coughs or spits, even if an entire psalm is said in the meantime," ... likewise of one "who in choir reads through a lesson beforehand, lest he err, when otherwise he would err" (St. Alphonsus IV, 143, note 3), or who, while the others are chanting, prepares himself for this end, that he may complete the lesson with sufficient readiness. The contrary must be said of one who for a long time is occupied by some other business alone, for example merely playing the organ. Likewise, quite probably, one satisfies the office who recites his own part softly and hears the other. Nevertheless canons do not acquire the distributions and fruits of the prebend if they do not sing or chant as the others do; in order to acquire them, they must come together for chanting the office (St. Alphonsus IV, 163, question 1; III, 675, doubts 3 and 4).²

2. One who assists at choir must attend to the things which are recited by the others, because by attending to them he must communicate in them. But he satisfies well who does not distinctly perceive the things recited by the others, whether because he is somewhat deaf, or because of the noise of others, or because of the fault of the choir (St. Alphonsus IV, 163, questions 2 and 3). But one who is deaf and recites his own part indeed gains the distributions, but does not seem to satisfy the obligation of the office unless he recites quietly the things which are said by the other side (St. Alphonsus IV, 163, question 3).

¹ Cf. chapter Dolentes 9, De celebratione missarum.

² Constitution of Benedict XIV Cum semper oblatas, 19 August 1744; Brief of Benedict XIV Dilecte Fili, 19 January 1748.

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.

62. • 1º The time prescribed for fulfilling the entire recitation of the Office begins from midnight and ends at the following midnight, so that whoever recites the whole Office within this time is always to be exempted from grave sin, at whatever hour he satisfies such a duty. The reason is that he satisfies as to substance by reciting the whole Office on the natural day. Indeed Matins and Lauds, from a privilege conceded by the Church, can be recited on the preceding evening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resp. No, at least more probably. The reason is that there is no connection between the Office and Mass, and therefore the recitation of Matins does not seem a disposition for celebrating, since a Priest can also otherwise by praying dispose himself piously for the Sacrifice; nor does a grave obligation appear from the Rubric reported above, nor is it generally apprehended under grave obligation. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, On the Eucharist, n. 347 ², and Benedict XIV in the work On the Sacrifice of the Mass, bk. 3, ch. 13, against Antoine and a few others, who contend that, a cause excusing being excluded, it is grave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hours are to be recited 1º in the prescribed order; 2º with due pronunciation and devotion.

72. • A twofold order must be observed in the recitation of the Breviary, namely the order of Offices and the order of Hours. 1º The order of Offices is described in the calendar of feasts and in the rubrics for their translation, where several occur at the same time. 2º The order of Hours is that which is set out in the Breviary, namely that Matins with Lauds be recited in the first place, then the little Hours be subjoined, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and finally Vespers with Compline follow.

73. Questions. - 1º Does one satisfy the precept of reciting the Hours who from error or inadvertence recites another Office for the Office of the day?

Resp. Yes ¹. The reason is that the Church is not presumed to will to oblige someone twice on one day to this burden, and because the substance of the recitation has been sufficiently preserved. Hence the common axiom which is held as a rule in these circumstances: Officium pro Officio valet, "Office counts for Office." Therefore, when the recitation has been completed, there is no obligation to recite another Office. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, n. 161, q. 3. - Lacroix, n. 1351. - The same must also be said about any part of the Office according to the axiom: "Error is corrected where it is detected."

¹ Thus you would say rather that one erring is excused from paying the task twice, than that he has satisfied.

Nevertheless it is counsel, says Laymann with others, but not obligation, to subjoin the propers of the omitted Office. But when the Office would be notably shorter, for example, the Office of some Saint for the Office of Sunday, compensation must be made by reciting nine Psalms from the first Nocturn. - St. Ligorius, ibid. ².

² St. Alphonsus (Bk. 4, n. 161, q. 3) does not define the matter so absolutely, but merely has these words: "Tournely with Laymann, Bonacina, etc., reasonably notes that if the Office said was notably shorter, suppose the Office of a Saint in place of Sunday, compensation must be made by reciting nine Psalms from the first Nocturn." Therefore St. Alphonsus only reports the opinion of certain ones as reasonable. But neither is this opinion perfectly reported there. For Laymann, by merely opining, hints at it (Bk. 4, tr. 1, ch. 5, n. 5), saying: "You would seem to be obliged to make some compensation." Nor otherwise Suarez (On Religion, tr. 4, bk. 4, ch. 25, n. 15): "Although it seems necessary to make some compensation, if he can, within the same day." Add that Laymann (l.c.) affirmed this especially about culpable error.

74. • QUESTION 2º. If someone from error has recited only some part of an undue Office, and notices the error, can he proceed with the Office begun, or is he bound to recite the remaining parts from the Office of the day?

Resp. According to the common opinion of theologians, liberty is given. Therefore he can either proceed, or recite the remaining parts from the due Office, after the Psalm or prayer has been finished. Yet it is better to change the Office according to many, who establish this rule: "Error is corrected where it is detected." But this is from mere counsel, not from precept. - St. Ligorius, n. 161, q. 5. - Lacroix, n. 1255. - Tamburinus, etc.

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."

1096. 2. 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.

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.

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.

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.

In order to satisfy fully the ecclesiastical precept, the Divine Office must be recited: 1. in the due order, place, posture, and time; 2. integrally; 3. continuously; 4. vocally; 5. with attention and intention.

371. 1. The due order must be observed not only among the different Offices, as the calendar determines it, but also within the same Office, as the Rubrics prescribe. Nevertheless, the inversion of the first order is more prohibited than that of the second. According to the Rubrics, the order of the Hours is the following: first Matins with Lauds is to be recited, and then Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. Inversion of this order never becomes a mortal sin, since it does not injure the substance of the Office; indeed, it is not even a venial sin if there exists a cause, even one only slightly impelling. Thus, e.g., it is lawful to say the Little Hours first and then Matins and Lauds if someone does not have a breviary at hand but only a diurnal; if someone cannot read the lessons well but can more easily say the psalms and antiphons, it is lawful for him now to omit the lessons and afterwards to say them separately; if someone arrives in choir when an Hour has already begun, he laudably continues by singing psalms with the others in choir, but afterwards he will complete privately those things which have not yet been said. Some say that it is entirely lawful not to recite the commemorations in the order designated by the Rubrics, since these Rubrics are not preceptive but directive.²⁴⁸

To invert the order of the Hours in choral recitation is at least a venial sin, since the Rubrics for this recitation are customarily much more gravely obligatory than for private recitation.²⁴⁹

²⁴⁸ Cf. Noldin, l.c., n. 171.

²⁴⁹ Some authors, such as the Salmanticenses, Suarez, Dominic Soto, Concina, etc., think that a notable inversion made without legitimate cause is a grave sin; but the opposite opinion is more probable. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 171.

372. Place and posture are indeed very accurately prescribed for the choral recitation of the Divine Office, but in private recitation great liberty is conceded. Hence the Office can be recited privately in any place and posture, provided, however, that the necessary attention is possible. The Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary granted a plenary indulgence to all who recite the entire Office before the Most Blessed Sacrament.²⁵⁰ By common law, all the Rubrics which prescribe certain genuflections, inclinations, signs of the cross, etc., refer to choral recitation, and do not oblige in private recitation. In certain religious orders some genuflections and inclinations are prescribed even for private recitation. The prayer Sacrosanctae, to be recited after the Office, must be said on bended knees if someone wishes to gain the favors attached to it. The sick alone are not bound to this genuflection.²⁵¹

²⁵⁰ Decree of 23 Oct. 1930 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXII, 493), decree of 5 Dec. 1930 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXIII, 23), and decree of 7 Nov. 1932 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXIV, 411).

²⁵¹ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 12 June 1855 and 7 Jan. 1856.

373. The time formerly assigned for reciting the Hours was this: Matins around midnight; Lauds at dawn; Prime after sunrise; Terce at the ninth hour; Sext at noon; None at the third hour after noon; Vespers at sunset; Compline at the twilight of night. Nevertheless, the same customs in this matter did not prevail in all churches. According to the present discipline, legitimate particular statutes are to be observed in choral recitation, yet in such a way that Matins and Lauds are always said before the conventual Mass corresponding to the Office. But as regards private recitation, there exists only one grave obligation, namely, to complete the whole Office within the natural day, or a space of twenty-four hours.²⁵² This time of twenty-four hours determined by law is, as they say, for terminating the obligation, but not for urging it. Therefore, he who by midnight has not yet completed the Divine Office of the present day is no longer bound to complete it in the hour immediately following, although he can do so. The reason is that the Office is considered as the burden of the day. On 23 July 1893 the Sacred Congregation of the Council permitted each person, as regards the recitation of the Hours and the Eucharistic fast, freely to observe either natural solar time or so-called legal time.²⁵³ Since, therefore, this legal time in some regions is half an hour later than solar time, there it is lawful, e.g., already at half past one in the afternoon to anticipate Matins and Lauds. Under venial sin, unless, however, a legitimate excusing cause is present, it is prescribed that Matins, Lauds, Prime, and Terce be recited before noon, but Vespers and Compline after noon. It is free to recite Sext and None either before or after noon. During Lent, except on the first three days and on Sundays, Vespers are to be said before noon, either at the eleventh hour or at any other morning hour. Nevertheless, a sufficient cause for saying the entire Office privately at any hour of the day is easily present, e.g., study to be done, a sermon to be prepared, confessions to be heard, greater devotion, etc.

The Rubric of the Missal²⁵⁴ prescribes that Matins and Lauds be recited by the priest before the celebration of Mass. Although some²⁵⁵ have thought that this Rubric obliges gravely, nevertheless the more common and more probable opinion admits only a light obligation.²⁵⁶ The reason is that there is not so close a connection between the Mass and the Office, since today the Mass not rarely does not correspond to the Office said (e.g., when Mass is said in another church or a Requiem Mass is said). Moreover, the recitation of Matins does not seem to be a necessary preparation for celebrating, since a priest can sufficiently dispose himself for celebrating Mass by praying in another manner. Nevertheless, there is a true moral obligation to recite Matins and Lauds before celebrating Mass, both because all the Rubrics of the Missal are more probably preceptive, and because failure to perform this recitation is numbered among the defects of the Mass. But for the recitation of Matins lawfully to be postponed until after Mass has been celebrated, a reasonable cause is required, e.g., lack of time, inconveniences otherwise arising, etc. It would, however, be a grave disorder if the conventual Mass corresponding to the Divine Office were celebrated without an urgent cause before Matins and Lauds had been recited in choir. Thus the truer and more common opinion.²⁵⁷

On the anticipation of Matins and Lauds. Matins and Lauds may be anticipated, i.e., recited on the preceding day, from that hour at which the sun holds the midpoint of its course between noon and sunset, according to the table inserted at the beginning of the breviary. By a special privilege this anticipation is sometimes conceded from one o'clock in the afternoon; indeed, to priests of the Order of St. John of God on 12 June 1899 and to all who possess the Bull of the Crusade, the privilege of anticipating immediately after noon was conceded. According to the discipline now in force, even apart from a special privilege, anticipation may always be made in private recitation from two o'clock in the afternoon, as the Sacred Congregation of Rites manifestly declared on 12 May 1905.²⁵⁸ The other Hours (and also the Pretiosa) cannot be anticipated on the preceding day.

²⁵² Cf., however, below concerning the anticipation of Matins and Lauds.

²⁵³ The Sacred Congregation of Rites established the same on 12 May 1905, ad 3 (Decr. auth. n. 4158).

²⁵⁴ Rit. serv. in Miss. I, n. 1; De defect. X, n. 1.

²⁵⁵ St. Antoninus (S. theol. P. 3, tit. 13, c. 4, § 4 and c. 6, § 6), Ledesma, Antoine, etc.; cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 347.

²⁵⁶ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., and Concina, In Decal. l. 2, diss. 2, c. 9, § 8, n. 11.

²⁵⁷ Benedict XIV, St. Alphonsus, Soto, and many others cited by St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 348, hold it. If several conventual Masses are to be said on some day, it suffices that Matins and Lauds have been recited before the principal Mass.

²⁵⁸ The following responses of the Sacred Congregation of Rites were issued concerning this matter: 1. "Whether in private recitation Matins for the following day can be begun at two o'clock in the afternoon, or whether the table of the diocesan directory is to be followed at all times? — Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second." 2. "Whether also in public or choral recitation the Office can be begun at two o'clock in the afternoon? — Negative." 3. "Whether the hour for reciting Matins can be reckoned indiscriminately from the local meridian circle or from the official meridian circle, called Greenwich, which indeed anticipates the hour of the local circle (at Piacenza) by approximately a third of an hour? — At will" (Decr. auth. n. 4158). In some periodicals and authors, "Approved authors are to be consulted" is read as the response to the first question, but the text as it is found in the authentic Decrees is to be followed.

374. 2. That the Office is to be recited integrally each day is certain. Hence he is guilty of mortal sin who culpably omits a notable part of it, whether that notable part is continuous or composed of many separate small parts. One Little Hour, or another equivalent part, is considered a notable part, as was already said above in n. 362. If someone pronounces the individual words of the Office with notable truncation or, as it were, swallows very many syllables of words, he indeed sins against the integrity of the Office; but Billuart,²⁵⁹ with other authors, rightly observes that in these cases a mortal sin is rarely present unless the truncation is truly enormous. The reason is that in moral matters we ought so to speak that no entrance is given to infinite scruples; but this would happen if, because of certain slight mutilations which so easily creep in, grave matter of sin were finally constituted at the end of the Office.

The integrity of the Office is in no way injured if someone sings psalms alternately in choir; indeed, if someone occupied with necessary duties of the choir, e.g., playing the organ, does not recite alternately some verses or even an entire psalm. For then, as they say, the choir supplies.²⁶⁰ He who plays the organ while the Office is sung in choir does not satisfy his obligation unless he intelligibly pronounces the alternate verses with one part of the choir and responds with the choir to those things which are customarily said by one person.²⁶¹ Even in private recitation it is lawful to recite the Office alternately with a companion, as it is celebrated in choir. The companion called in can be a layman, indeed even a woman.²⁶² It is required, however, that the one who is obliged to the Office and thus sings psalms alternately hear his companion singing psalms,²⁶³ whence a deaf person cannot say the Office in this manner. Nothing, however, prevents the companion called in from being deaf and hearing nothing of the recitation of the Office, provided nevertheless that he himself intelligibly pronounces the alternate verses and is heard by the one who is obliged to the Office. Alternate private recitation is customarily of no small assistance to devotion, and therefore is to be counseled if it can conveniently be done.

²⁵⁹ De orat. diss. 2, a. 8, § 7.

²⁶⁰ The Sacred Congregation of the Council determined on 12 Apr. 1919, 16 Apr. and 19 July 1921, that a bishop about to celebrate a pontifical Mass satisfies the obligation of the canonical Hour (Terce and None) by reciting the prayers prescribed by the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Act. Ap. Sed. XIII, 480).

²⁶¹ Thus the common opinion; cf. Concina, In Decal. l. 2, diss. 2, c. 5, q. 13.

²⁶² Cf. Billuart, De orat. diss. 2, a. 8, § 7.

²⁶³ Authors rather commonly agree that a deaf cleric cannot recite the Office alternately with a private companion. Some, however, are more benign if the deaf person assists in choir.

375. 3. Continuously, i.e., without interruption, the individual Hours are to be said. Nevertheless, with all theologians agreeing, any interruption, even one made without a reasonable cause, never constitutes a mortal sin. For the sole grave obligation is the recitation of the entire Office within the space of one day. Yet a notable interruption which is made without cause between parts of the same Hour seems to be a venial sin, since irreverence in prayer arises from it. Thus, e.g., if someone were to say one psalm of Prime in the morning and recite the other two psalms of this Hour in the evening, and were to do this without reasonable cause, he would sin venially. If the interruption of the Hour is only brief, a sufficient cause excusing from all fault is easily present. Thus, e.g., a confessor sitting in the confessional and awaiting penitents can recite the Office, even though he foresees several interruptions from the arrival of some confessing persons. It is also lawful briefly to interrupt the recitation of the Breviary in order to greet a friend encountered or to give a brief answer. Although Matins and Lauds constitute one Hour, nevertheless it is lawful, even without a reason, to separate Matins from Lauds in private recitation (but not in choir). Then, however, by the general prescription of the Rubric, after Matins let there be said: Dominus vobiscum, the prayer of the day, Benedicamus, Fidelium. But it is necessary that afterwards, before Lauds thus separated from Matins, the Pater noster and Ave be said.²⁶⁴ In Matins each Nocturn can be separated from the others by a space of three hours, because even in antiquity the individual Nocturns were separated from one another by such a space. According to St. Alphonsus,²⁶⁵ a just cause for interrupting the Office is "any advantage of one's own or another's which would inconveniently be deferred. Likewise civility or devotion, as to execute the commands of a superior; if you wish to do or note something so that you may remove a distraction or solicitude, lest you forget, provided this is not done frequently." It is also lawful to interpose some brief ejaculatory prayer in order to increase devotion. For the maxim is valid: One prayer is not interrupted by another.

²⁶⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 May 1883 and 1 Feb. 1886 (Decr. auth. n. 3574, dub. II, and n. 3653).

²⁶⁵ Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 168.

376. 4. By the mouth or vocally the Office must be recited, since by its nature it is a public prayer, which must always be vocal. Therefore the individual words must be formed with the mouth, lips, and tongue even in private recitation. Moreover, they must be so pronounced that the one praying is conscious that he is truly uttering words, even though in fact he does not hear them.²⁶⁶ It is not required, however, that the uttered words be capable of being heard by those standing nearby. Indeed, it is a hardly praiseworthy custom so to utter, or rather hiss, the words of the Office in private recitation that those standing nearby suffer annoyance from it. A cleric merely reading the Office mentally or running through it with the eyes alone does not satisfy his obligation, at least if he does not have a special privilege. Leo X is said to have conceded to the Friars Minor (and through communication of privileges to all regulars) the privilege that, both in the canonical Hours and in the Mass, they are not bound to utter the words vocally, but satisfy the obligation by saying mentally those things which in the Ordinary are commanded to be said secretly. St. Alphonsus,²⁶⁷ citing several authors, writes concerning this matter: "The Salmanticenses rightly argue: private recitation, in which nothing is said in order that it may be understood by others, can by this privilege be made entirely mentally." In our times Victorius ab Appeltern, O. Cap.,²⁶⁸ and Il Monitore Ecclesiastico²⁶⁹ defend the same doctrine as safe in practice. Because of the authority of St. Alphonsus, whose opinions any confessor can follow in practice unless the Roman Curia has expressly established otherwise, I indeed would not dare to declare guilty of mortal sin a regular cleric who had said the entire Office only mentally; but not a few authors teach that this privilege conceded by Leo X no longer exists today.²⁷⁰ In choral recitation each chorister must recite or sing the Office alternately in a loud voice. It is not required, however, that he himself be heard by the opposite choir; it suffices that he can be heard by those standing near. For the essence of choral recitation seems to consist in this: that each chorister suitably assists with his voice so that one part of the choir may worthily understand the other part.²⁷¹

²⁶⁶ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 163.

²⁶⁷ Ib., n. 63.

²⁶⁸ Corp. iur. regul. q. 2-7.

²⁶⁹ Vol. 14, p. 80ff.

²⁷⁰ E.g., Noldin, De praeceptis n. 765; Ferraris, Prompta Bibl., s.v. "Divinum Officium," n. 100.

²⁷¹ Cf. Concina, In Decalog. l. 2, diss. 2, c. 5, q. 18.

377. 5. With due intention and attention the Office must be recited. The required intention is the intention of praying, or of honoring and worshiping God. It is not required that this intention be explicit and express, but it suffices that the cleric say the Office for the sake of satisfying his obligation. This good intention is most excellently expressed in the words of the beautiful short prayer to be placed before the Hours: "Lord, in union with that divine intention with which Thou Thyself didst render praises to God upon earth, I render these Hours unto Thee."

Concerning the required attention, enough has already been said above in n. 354. According to all theologians, external attention is certainly required; whether, in addition, at least some internal attention is required for satisfying the obligation is disputed among authors. See above, n. 355ff.

Several remedies for repelling distractions are counseled: 1. at the beginning of the Office to form a vigorous and explicit intention of praising God; 2. to renew this intention at the Gloria Patri or at the beginning of each psalm; 3. to represent to oneself some mystery of the Passion during the recitation of the Office; 4. diligently to guard the senses; 5. to conduct oneself composedly and reverently by external gestures of the body; hence it is preferable to say the Office on bended knees or before the Most Holy Eucharist, but not sitting or lying down unless a reasonable cause is present; 7. to study the right understanding of the psalms and of the other things which occur in the Office. For not rarely distractions arise from the fact that a cleric does not perceive and has never understood the true sense of the sentences which he recites.

378. On causes excusing from the recitation of the Office. Three causes excusing from the recitation of the Hours are customarily enumerated: 1. physical inability; 2. moral inability; 3. legitimate dispensation. The first two causes excuse because no one is bound to the impossible and because a positive law does not oblige with great inconvenience; the third cause excuses because the recitation of the Office is prescribed not by natural or divine law but by ecclesiastical law alone. But the obligation of an ecclesiastical law ceases through legitimate dispensation. A few things are to be explained concerning the individual excusing causes.

1. Physical inability is a physical obstacle impeding the recitation of the Office. Obstacles of this sort are: lack of a breviary (if someone does not know how to recite the Office from memory), blindness, grave illness, etc. For both physical and moral inability the following general rule is valid: He who cannot recite the entire Office, but can recite a notable part, such as a Little Hour is considered to be, is bound gravely to recite this part. This rule is confirmed because the contrary was condemned by Innocent XI (prop. 54).²⁷² But he who cannot recite even a Little Hour is now bound to nothing, since so small a part does not notably conduce to the end intended by the law prescribing the recitation of the Office.²⁷³ He who cannot recite the Office alone is bound to employ a companion gratuitously, if this is possible without great inconvenience. The reason is that any precept which can be fulfilled by ordinary means must be fulfilled. But to employ a gratuitous companion for reciting the Office is considered by St. Alphonsus²⁷⁴ and several other authors to be an ordinary means. Authors do not agree whether a beneficiary who is unable to recite the Office alone is bound to hire a companion for the recitation of the Office from the revenues of the benefice. Some answer affirmatively, but others negatively. St. Alphonsus²⁷⁵ calls both opinions probable. In practice, a dispensation or interpretation from the competent authority is then better sought.

He who is legitimately excused from the recitation of the Office because of physical (or moral) inability is not bound to say other prayers in place of the Office, because such a commutation is prescribed nowhere. Nevertheless, a cleric impeded from saying the Office laudably recites other prayers; for in this way he shows his good will to satisfy the precept of praying specially imposed upon him by the Church.

²⁷² Cf. above, n. 360.

²⁷³ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 158.

²⁷⁴ Ib.

²⁷⁵ Ib.

379. 2. Moral inability is a grave inconvenience which would arise from the recitation of the Office. Such an inconvenience can arise especially a) from illness, b) from grave necessary labors. "By reason of infirmity, not only those who labor under grave illness are excused from the Office, but also those who cannot recite it except with grave inconvenience or probable danger of such inconvenience. Hence those are sufficiently excused who prudently believe or fear that from the recitation of the Office there will come upon them a notable heaviness of the head, indigestion of the stomach, or weariness of strength; or if they believe that a fever will be slower to remit." Thus St. Alphonsus,²⁷⁶ with several other authors. The same holy Doctor rightly asserts that this also holds even if the sick person were to read some book to console his mind. For reading of this sort, which holds still more for reading newspapers and illustrated periodicals, does not weary but rather relieves, whereas the recitation of the Office is customarily the cause of rather great weariness. He who doubts whether some infirmity sufficiently excuses from recitation of the Office can stand by the judgment of his superior, confessor, physician, or another prudent man.

It is certain and admitted by all that a grave occupation undertaken from duty or charity sometimes constitutes moral inability to recite the Office. The following can be held as a general rule: An occupation excuses from the recitation of the Office when it is prescribed by a greater precept than that which enjoins the recitation of the Office, and it cannot be deferred to another time. This rule is founded upon the principle admitted by all: In a conflict of two laws, the stronger law prevails. Hence there follow some practical applications:

Solutions. a) He who, when about to recite the Office, is suddenly called to administer the sacraments to a dying person ought first to administer the sacraments, even if in this manner he cannot recite the Office. For in this case the precept of charity prevails over the ecclesiastical precept of reciting the Office.

b) He who is occupied in hearing confessions which cannot be deferred to another day without notable inconvenience (e.g., during the time of a Mission), in such a way that he cannot recite the Office except at an unseasonable hour of the night or with enormous weariness, is legitimately excused from the Office. The reason is that in this case three precepts, namely, the precept of charity toward one's neighbor (the salvation of souls), the precept of fulfilling the office of confessor, and the precept of not ruining one's health, prevail over the ecclesiastical precept of reciting the canonical Hours. Casuists, however, dispute uselessly concerning the precise duration of time for which confessions must be heard in order that a confessor be excused from recitation of the Office, some excusing a confessor who hears confessions for seven hours in a day, others requiring a space of ten hours. The practical solution depends upon the bodily condition of the confessor. If after seven hours spent in the confessional he is so weary that he is no longer able to recite the canonical Hours without great weariness, he is legitimately excused; but if some confessor is so robust that even after ten hours spent in the confessional he is still easily able to recite the Divine Office, he is not excused. In practice it is better that, in these or similar cases, either a dispensation be conceded by the legitimate superior, or what must be done be determined.

c) He who needs the whole time for preparing a sermon which he cannot omit or defer without great inconvenience; he who must spend the whole day making a necessary journey on which he cannot recite the breviary, are legitimately excused. The reason is that even in these cases the law of reciting the Office ought to yield to the stronger law.

²⁷⁶ Ib., n. 154.

380. 3. Legitimate dispensation can suspend the obligation of reciting the Office or even remove it entirely. For this whole obligation arises from ecclesiastical law alone, which is dispensable. But since this ecclesiastical law is universal and obliges so gravely, no one except the Supreme Pontiff can dispense from it by his own authority. In an urgent case, however, bishops and Regular prelates can for a just cause dispense their subjects for a time. In present times bishops, by force of special faculties, can not rarely concede to their subject clerics that in place of the Divine Office they may recite the Rosary or other prayers. Clement VII²⁷⁷ conceded to superiors of Regulars that they may dispense from recitation of the Divine Office their subjects occupied in preaching the word of God, hearing confessions, lecturing on Sacred Theology or the Sacred Canons, or applying themselves to study or to the salvation of souls. In place of the Office, these superiors must then prescribe seven or six psalms, the Pater noster seven times, and the Apostles' Creed twice. Such a faculty of dispensing seems still to exist in our days.²⁷⁸

²⁷⁷ Const. Dudum, § 2.

²⁷⁸ Cf. our Man. iur. can. q. 237.

381. Scholion. On certain other prayers. Besides the canonical Hours, the Church employs several other prayers in exercises of worship; these prayers are found in various liturgical books. The Litanies are especially of frequent use. According to the present discipline, only the following five Litanies are permitted in properly liturgical offices: 1. the Litany of All Saints, which for centuries has already been in use in many ecclesiastical ceremonies, e.g., during the three Rogation days, on the feast of St. Mark, in the conferral of major orders, etc.; 2. the Litany of Loreto, which was recited from the twelfth century onward, but was approved by Sixtus V on 11 July 1587 and afterwards enlarged by certain additions;²⁷⁹ 3. the Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, approved by Pius IX on 21 Oct. 1862; 4. the Litany of the Most Sacred Heart, approved on 2 Apr. 1899; 5. the Litany in honor of St. Joseph, approved on 18 Mar. 1909. Besides these Litanies there exist very many others which, however, have not been approved by the Apostolic See and cannot lawfully be employed in properly liturgical offices, such as Mass, Vespers, and all devotions before the Most Blessed Sacrament solemnly exposed. Nothing, however, prevents these unapproved Litanies from being employed in private devotions, if otherwise they contain nothing worthy of reprehension. A bishop cannot approve new Litanies to be recited publicly.²⁸⁰

²⁷⁹ Cf. Sauren, Die Lauretanische Litanei nach Ursprung, Geschichte und Inhalt, Kempten 1895, or De Santi, Le Litanie Lauretane, Rome 1897.

²⁸⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 1259, § 2.

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

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

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.

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

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°.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Hours must be recited 1° in the prescribed order; 2° with due pronunciation; 3° with sufficient attention and devotion.

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

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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:

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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."

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

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

2. 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

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

2. 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

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

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

I. By the name of choir is understood not only the material place in which the divine praises are sung, but also, nay chiefly, the assembly of Religious who sing such Hours. These are indeed bound by precept to sing the Canonical Hours in choir — a precept denied by no Theologian, and which binds all cathedral, collegiate, and Regular Churches.

II. Question I. Are all cathedral, collegiate, parochial, and regular Churches bound under grave fault to recite the Canonical Hours in choir? Answer. The rigor of the law being regarded, all are bound. But custom being considered, which has tempered the precept, some are subject to this burden only on Sundays or feast days; others are altogether exempt, as the Theologians commonly teach, and usage makes plain.

III. The Orders of Regulars who frequent choir are bound under grave fault to recite the Canonical Hours in choir. This obligation is founded on the common Law, from which there has never been derogation. This precept regards the whole Community, whose head is the Prelate, who by force of his office is bound under grave fault to see to it that the divine praises be celebrated in choir. He can dispense his subjects, as shall seem expedient for the common good.

IV. Question II. How many Religious are required that the precept of reciting the Canonical Hours in choir be fulfilled? Answer. Tamburini, with others, says it is probable that a Community is excused from choir if it consists of only four or five. This opinion is false and lax. That four Religious, not to say five, suffice for fulfilling the precept of choir, the common opinion teaches. Some teach that three suffice, so that they be bound to choir for some not-lengthy time. For it is too burdensome that three or four alone should sustain the yoke of choir for a long time. Wherefore, in this case, the Religious ought to urge the Prelate to increase the number.

V. Question III. Can Novices alone fulfill the precept of choir? Answer. The Salmanticenses, Pellizzari, Tamburini, and others affirm it: because, they say, in favorable matters Novices, though not yet professed, enjoy the privileges of the professed. This opinion does not seem true to me. For this precept affects the Community of Religious. Novices, before profession, are not part of the Community, nor are they bound by precept to recite the office. If, therefore, professed Religious are present in the Monastery, at least some of them ought to be present in choir.

VI. Question IV. At what time must the Canonical Hours be recited in choir? Answer. In the Clementine constitutions On the celebration of Mass it is commanded that the Canonical Hours be paid devoutly in the Churches at their due hours. The fitting times at which, the ancient law being regarded, the Canonical Hours must be celebrated, are these. Matins about midnight, as is gathered from chapter 1, On the celebration of Mass — a time always designated by the ancient Fathers Athanasius, Basil, and others, and indicated by David: At midnight I arose to give praise to thee. This custom has varied with the passage of time. Let each Church keep its own approved custom.

VII. In the four Mendicant Orders of Regulars a very ancient custom has prevailed of reciting Matins about midnight. This time not only suits the state of Regulars, which is one of penitence and perfection, but also brings the advantage of applying oneself to the study of letters, since more time remains free for it. This point of time moderates all the other hours of regular discipline. Religious who must rise for Matins are compelled to go to sleep at the due hour, and thus superfluous conversations are prevented.

VIII. Question V. Is it a grave obligation to recite the divine praises at fixed and definite hours? Answer. Cajetan, Bonacina, Laymann, Diana, Caramuel, and others deny it, because the circumstance of time is extraneous to the divine office. The opposite opinion, which Navarrus, Suárez, Soto, Tamburini, Castropalao, and others defend, is more probable. This time is not indivisible, but admits latitude. The Prelate can, for a legitimate cause, anticipate or postpone the recitation of these Hours. Parvity of matter is also given both with respect to time and with respect to one or another Hour. These things being established, a Prelate who, without legitimate cause, and from mere caprice or negligence, notably anticipated or deferred the recitation of the divine office, would sin gravely. For not only do the sacred canons command that the divine office be recited in choir, but also at fixed hours and times. Doubtless the circumstance of time is extraneous to the recitation of the office, but this circumstance has been prescribed by the sacred canons.

IX. A disturbance of the order of reciting the Canonical Hours, if it happen for an urgent cause, is free of fault; if it happen without cause and from caprice, it is nevertheless, in choir, a grave fault, as the Theologians cited defend.

X. The place for reciting the Canonical Hours is the Church, or the choir, which is a part of the Church. The Salmanticenses defend that those who celebrate the divine office in the Sacristy or the Chapter room sin gravely. But if the Sacristy be adjacent to the Church, and custom prevails, as in very deed it does prevail in some places, as it seems to me, no fault occurs. Those who come to choir after the office has begun are bound to supply the part of the office recited before their arrival. If those who serve in choir should omit a notable part of the office — for instance one or another psalm — they would have to supply it. The choir must recite in a subdued voice the verses that are played on the organ.

XI. Question VI. Is it a grave sin to omit in choir the office of the dead, and the little office of the Blessed Virgin? Answer. St. Pius V declared that those who recite the Roman Breviary do not sin mortally if they omit the aforesaid offices in choir, as is plain from the Bull prefixed at the beginning of the Breviary. But those who follow a rite other than the Roman Breviary the Pontiff does not exempt from the obligation by which they are bound either by force of their constitutions or by force of custom. The precept of reciting the aforesaid offices affects the Community and the choir, but not private persons, unless there be a peculiar law commanding this — as there is in the Order of Preachers, in which the general Chapter celebrated at Bologna under Master Cloche declared that individuals outside choir are bound to recite this office of the Blessed Virgin. On the second day of November all are bound under grave fault to recite the office of the dead. This office, however, cannot be recited on the feast of All Saints after Vespers in choir, unless the Bishop be present, or custom favor it on account of the concourse of the people; but Matins with Lauds must be recited on the 2nd of November, as the Rubrics and the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation declare. But the private recitation of the office of the dead, for their general commemoration, can licitly be discharged after the evening hours of the feast of All Saints, as the Sacred Congregation of Rites answered on September 4, 1745, in the case of Ratisbon. Those who follow the Roman rite are bound to recite the Litanies on the feast of St. Mark and on the three Rogation days, as the more common and more probable opinion holds.

XII. When the divine office is recited in choir, one part of the choir ought to listen attentively to the other, because each one is bound to recite the whole office; but he who neither pronounces nor hears half the office in no way recites it. If one part of the choir should recite the office so confusedly and in so subdued a voice that it could not be heard by the other, then the precept would not be fulfilled. For then there would be no communication between these two parts. Each part is bound to recite its verses so clearly and distinctly that it can be heard by the other part of the choir. But it does not matter if one or another individual pronounces in so subdued a voice that he cannot be heard by the other part, provided he pronounces clearly and distinctly.

it be pronounced. For it suffices that the whole part be heard by the other part, even though individuals do not hear individuals.

XIII. Question VII. What rite must those who recite the Breviary keep? Answer. All ecclesiastics, both secular and regular, must pay the divine praises according to the form of the Roman Breviary published by order of Pius V — those alone excepted who enjoy a peculiar privilege. The Churches of Milan and of Laodicea, and others, have a peculiar rite, as do also the Benedictine and Dominican Orders. Those who should change this rite would sin gravely, necessity being absent. For he who lacked the Roman Breviary, and had in his hands the Dominican Breviary, or the contrary, would have to use it. Now the precept of reciting the office prevails over the precept of reciting according to this or that rite. And although there were but one precept, the principal part must be kept, such as the recitation of the divine praises — whatever the Salmanticenses, with certain others, say to the contrary. I likewise reckon false the other opinion of the Salmanticenses, who teach that private Religious of some Order — for instance Dominican or Benedictine — who have their own Breviary, can use the Roman Breviary. Orders can indeed renounce their own privilege; but so long as the privilege stands, and the rite is commonly kept, all and each must keep such a rite, even while dwelling at Rome. Otherwise great confusion and deformity would follow. Wherefore neither can the Benedictines use the Breviary of the Dominicans, nor conversely. A Religious made a Bishop must use the Breviary of his own Church, of which he is the head, the rite of his own Order being left aside. A Bishop of several Churches, which use different Breviaries, ought to keep the rite of that Church in which he resides. Read St. Thomas, Quodlibet I, article 13, where he distinguishes several points. No one can recite the Breviary before the appointed time with a companion having the privilege of so reciting it, nor more briefly than usual, because the privilege of one does not extend to another — whatever Leander says to the contrary, with others. A Cleric attached to a Church, and initiated with a patrimony into sacred orders, cannot choose a Breviary, but is bound to use the Roman by the precept of St. Pius V. Nor can a Bishop dispense Clerics to embrace a rite other than their own. Those would also sin who altered the rite of the Roman Breviary, and those who, in the Latin Church, should pay the office in Greek, or Hebrew, or the Vernacular tongue, because they would violate the rite prescribed by St. Pius V.

I. Question I. What attention is required for the recitation of the divine office? Answer. A twofold attention: exterior and interior. Exterior attention is prescribed in the chapter Dolentes. Of interior attention the Theologians dispute on both sides. Diana, Machado, Tamburini, Coninck, Cardinal de Lugo, Gobat, and many others, whom Fr. La-Croix cites, deny it. The affirming opinion is defended by Cajetan, Navarrus, Vasquez, Valentia, Suárez, Genet, Van Roy, Henri de Saint-Ignace, Natalis Alexander, Antoine, and very many others.

II. The Salmanticenses report both opinions, and contend that the Theologians of each opinion hold the same view. They distinguish a threefold attention: 1. that by which one attends to the words; 2. that by which one meditates the sense of the words; 3. that which regards God, and is the most perfect of all, because it joins the mind to God. All confess that one of these three suffices. In place of a principle these Theologians establish that a voluntary distraction is not opposed to attention to the words, which attention suffices for due recitation. For only the will, by which one deliberately determines that he expressly does not wish to attend to the words, retracts the prior attention. They contend that the human mind can attend at once to disparate things, and therefore that voluntary distractions do not interrupt the prior attention. Only in this case, they say, is the prior attention to the words interrupted and retracted: when someone says within himself, "I do not wish to attend," or through exterior acts of chatting, writing, reading, etc., in very deed interrupts virtual attention.

III. This doctrine, by which it is asserted that virtual attention — which they themselves admit — is not interrupted by voluntary distractions, is false to me. For he who with deliberate mind distracts his attention elsewhere interrupts whatever attention, both formal and virtual. Most vain is the invention which the adversaries establish in place of a principle — namely, that the human mind can at the same time deliberately meditate contrary and disparate things at once. And since they oppose experience to us, I call the case back to this test. Apply your mind, seriously and with deliberate intent, to some question or business while you recite the psalms, and you will straightway experience that your tongue stammers, that the mind suffers a strain, that the eyes wander, and that you yourself appear, to the bystanders, as it were carried off elsewhere. When we suffer involuntary distractions, our intellect, by a most hidden inclination and a certain natural weight, is carried away into those objects toward which it more inclines; and since no contrary act then fights against it, the tongue for that reason pronounces the words without impediment. But let it meditate a disparate question or business, and continually, even outwardly, in the countenance, the internal struggle appears. It is evident, then, and established by experience itself, that a man cannot at the same moment, with deliberate mind, meditate contrary things.

IV. From these things it is inferred that the opinion of the Salmanticenses is false and lax; nevertheless the most recent Compiler of these same Salmanticenses has transcribed it, and inserted it into his recent Marrow.

V. To the question proposed, then, I answer that there is a precept of reciting the Canonical Hours with internal attention. This precept includes two things: a purpose of attending, and that this purpose not be revoked either by a contrary act, or by a voluntary distraction, or by an external action which by its own nature carries the mind elsewhere. This opinion the graver Theologians commonly defend. Several of these contend that this interior intention has been commanded by the Church. Whether or not the Church can command interior acts, I now pass over; this seems more likely to me — that in this matter she has not commanded, at least directly, this interior attention: this obligation of reciting the divine office attentively and devoutly proceeds from elsewhere than from a human positive precept. I say, then, that this intention has been prescribed by natural and divine law. And this is drawn from the holy Scriptures. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 14, says: He that speaketh in a tongue, let him pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit; I will pray also with the understanding: I will sing with the spirit; I will sing also with the understanding. Christ the Lord, Matthew 15, rebukes the Pharisees: Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoreth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. Again, John chapter 4: The true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father also seeketh such to adore him. The testimonies of the Fathers, that I not be long, I pass over.

VI. The weights of the reasons are obvious. Prayer is an act of the virtue of Religion; but any act of virtue must be performed with due circumstances. Now the chief circumstance that must accompany prayer is attention. The virtue of Religion, whose act is prayer, regards God as the end to which it offers its worship. This worship, or adoration, shown to God, must be made in spirit and in truth: otherwise, if it were done with the body alone, it would be hypocrisy and a mask of adoration. What of the fact that prayer itself is defined as an elevation of the mind to God, and a petition of the things we need? These cannot be rendered without an elevation of the mind. There is added that, according to all, an intention of praying, at least virtual, is necessary. This virtual intention cannot consist without at least virtual attention. For it then ceases to consist even virtually, when a man, knowing and adverting that he is thinking of other things and not attending to what he pronounces, neglects to recall his mind to himself. For in this state he in very deed wills not to pray, but, after the manner of a blackbird, a parrot, or a magpie, to produce the sound of words, not to honor God in a human manner.

VII. That virtual attention to the words of the prayers suffices has been said. This virtual attention, which is the fruit of the first purpose by which we resolve to apply our mind to what we are about to pray, perseveres so long as it is not retracted by a deliberate choice. Now this retraction can occur in two ways. First, if, while discharging the burden of the Hours, you occupy yourself with some other business which by its nature is opposed to attentive prayer — as if you should paint, write, read, or do something similar. For if for a brief time you dress, wash, or look at some objects, you do not violate the precept of praying attentively, provided you do these things in passing. Secondly, the prior intention of attending is retracted when someone praying perceives that he is distracted toward other things, and does not restrain his mind, but voluntarily persists in the distraction. Nor is it required that he say "I do not wish to attend," as the Salmanticenses contend; but it suffices that, in very deed perceiving and willing, he persist distracted.

VIII. The Adversaries are wont to heap up many arguments to prove that prayer consists without attention, and that voluntary distractions do not stand in the way of fulfilling the precept of praying. But I have refuted all these things at length, Tome 2 on the Decalogue, book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 9, § 1. For the sake of brevity I now pass them over. For they are so lax that a reader illumined by natural light alone would detest them. Hear what Fr. Gobat writes, treatise 5, number 821: "It is far more probable that the essence of vocal prayer consists with perpetual voluntary distractions, or wanderings of the mind. So Cardinal de Lugo, from principle. Tamburini, book 4 on the Decalogue, chapter 2, § 1. Cotton, and all who, granting that the recitation of the Breviary is commanded by the Church by way of prayer, excuse from mortal sin [those who recite it with distractions], teach: It is more probable that one is bound to no restitution who has recited all the Hours, or one, with voluntary and perpetual distractions, provided he does so entire, and with the intention of praying." Very many other things I pass over. It suffices, one after another, to indicate the fruits of Probabilism, inventing perpetual distractions, at number 843, that readers may become more cautious in reading these books. For who is not moved when he reads such paradoxes? Imbued with these lax opinions, which are published not only as probable but even as more probable, so many wretched Priests do not celebrate the Breviary and the Mass, but babble and mutter through them.

IX. Question II. Does habitual attention suffice for fulfilling the precept? Answer. All who defend the necessity of interior attention deny it. When you read in St. Thomas that habitual attention suffices, know that by "habitual attention" he means virtual attention, as is clear from very many testimonies.

X. Question III. Does it suffice, for fulfilling the precept, to meditate on the mysteries of Christ's passion, or on the acts of the Saints or of the Blessed Virgin? Answer. The more common and more probable opinion affirms it. For of the three attentions — to the words, to the sense, to God — this third is the most perfect of all, as has been said elsewhere. Now when someone meditates on the mysteries of Christ's passion, or the acts of the Saints, which express a relation to God, he has his mind elevated to God.

XI. Question IV. Do Christians sin who recite prayers with a distracted mind? Answer. When the precept of prayer presses, as it presses on feast days, then attention is necessary by precept. Wherefore the doctrine of certain men, which establishes that the Faithful hearing Mass on a feast day are not bound to apply attention, must be rejected as enormously lax. This doctrine being admitted, Christians, like animals, subject to God only the body, but not the soul. Unless, at the time when the precept of assisting at the unbloody Sacrifice presses, Christians elevate their mind to God, when will they render this? And unless they meditate on God and on the mysteries of Christ, what difference is there between them and brute beasts? In the other prayers which the Faithful recite from devotion, distractions do not exceed venial fault. Prayer can be omitted without fault; but it cannot be recited with a distracted mind without some fault. You are not bound to address the supreme Pontiff; but, supposing that you wish to address him, you must observe those things that befit the pontifical Majesty. Prayer without attention is a mere simulacrum of prayer. Yet this fault is light, especially since distraction is rarely altogether deliberate. For those who pray from devotion omit prayer when they desire to attend to other things.

XII. Question V. What exterior actions impede interior attention in one reciting the Canonical Hours? Answer. Exterior devotion is directly commanded by the chapter Dolentes, as has been said. Wherefore all affirm that one must abstain from exterior actions while the divine office is recited. The difficulty is to designate those actions which impede interior attention. All affirm that to write, to paint, to read or hear something else, fight against interior attention. Those who recite part of the office while dressing or washing satisfy the precept of attention. For the more common opinion, and the more probable, teaches that actions of this kind do not fight against internal attention. For such works are so easy and familiar that they require no attention beyond habitual practice. Understand this, however, of familiar and customary dress. For if the discourse were of exquisite and elegant adornment, the precept would in no way be fulfilled. I say nothing now of vain adornment, and of the artificial arrangement of pomps, because it is certain that all these things fight against the elevation of the mind to God necessary in the recitation of prayer. We speak, then, of Christians and Religious who, rising from bed, sign themselves with the sign of the cross, and recite prayers while dressing. The very Rubrics of the Roman Missal prescribe certain prayers to be recited by Priests while they wash their hands and put on the sacred vestments.

XIII. Question VI. Is it licit to recite prayers amid the labors of the hands? Answer. All things are clean to the clean, and holy things to the holy. If Christians, from a fervor of devotion, offer their manual and bodily labors to God, and pray to God, and sing sacred hymns, who will disapprove of this pious custom? But if Clerics and Religious, dedicated by a peculiar rite, who have leisure time in which to be free for God, should mix the divine praises with their fatigues, necessity being absent, they would doubtless sin, and would do injury to their own state, which is set apart from earthly cares. The circumstances and the principles from which these prayers flow, then, must be regarded.

XIV. Question VII. Does one who at the same time hears Mass by precept satisfy the precept of reciting the Canonical Hours? Answer. The more common opinion affirms it. For hearing Mass has nothing peculiar which fights against the recitation of the divine office. Rather, both precepts conspire to the same end, and regard the same purpose, namely the worship of God. For if Mass is heard from devotion, can one not recite the divine office imposed by precept? The hearing of Mass, then, does not fight against the recitation of the Office. It is nevertheless wiser to fulfill the distinct precepts at different times.

XV. Question VIII. What must be said of one who in choir is troubled by sleep? Answer. It is certain that he does not satisfy the precept who sleeps through a notable part of the office. He who in choir is troubled by sleep, yet recites all the verses and strives to shake off sleep, though he should omit some verse through inadvertence, is not to be obliged to repeat the office. For such a repetition would be too heavy a burden, and would give occasion for abstaining from choir. He who outside choir is troubled by sleep should defer the recitation to a more opportune time. Those who are subject to sleep, and defer the recitation of the divine office to near midnight with a foreknowledge, founded on past experience, that they will succumb to sleep, sin deadly, as the Theologians commonly teach.

XVI. Question IX. Is an intention necessary for reciting the Canonical Hours? Answer. All affirm it. There is a twofold intention: one formal and express, when someone elicits this act: "I wish to fulfill the precept of reciting the Canonical Hours"; the other implicit and virtual, which is contained in the very deliberate will of executing the work commanded. All affirm that a virtual and implicit intention suffices. This, however, is had by this very fact, that you take up the Breviary to recite the said Hours. Wherefore the opinion of those must be rejected who say that one who begins to recite the divine office with the express intention of not satisfying the precept is not bound to repeat the office. For he who recites the office with the express will of not satisfying does not in very deed satisfy — just as, if you owe a hundred gold pieces to Paul, and you give him another hundred with the express will of not paying the debt, would you thereby pay the debt? The same must be said in our case.

XVII. Question X. Does it suffice to recite the Canonical Hours with the mind alone, without exterior voice? And do Regulars enjoy the privilege of reciting the divine office mentally, while they pay it privately outside choir? Answer. All teach that the divine office must be recited vocally, and this has been commanded in several Councils, and in the chapter Dolentes. Yet some cited by Leander defend that, the common law being regarded, it is probable that the Canonical Hours can be recited with the mind alone. This opinion Leander does not reject; nay, he laments that Fr. Suárez declares it improbable — an opinion, however, which is not only improbable, but even utterly false and most ridiculous.

XVIII. As to Regulars, Leander himself answers that it is more probable that they enjoy the privilege of reciting the Breviary mentally; and for this opinion he cites Tamburini, Hurtado, Juan de la Cruz.

XIX. The Salmanticenses, treatise 16, chapter 3, point 8, number 51, reckon this opinion more probable, not merely probable, and report a privilege of Leo X, confirmed, they say, by St. Pius V; and they conclude that Regulars can, in very deed, by force of this privilege, pay the office mentally.

XX. This opinion is false to me, resting on a fictitious privilege. I have said that this privilege is fictitious in the sense alleged by the authors cited. For, as Pejerinus himself, who reports this privilege, testifies, the Pontiff grants only that scrupulous brothers may recite mentally certain things which are recited secretly in choir, the condition being added, if they experience greater devotion. See Tome 2 on the Decalogue, book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 9, § 5, where several other privileges reported by the Salmanticenses are refuted.

XXI. Question XI. Does he sin deadly who omits a single one of the little Hours? Answer. Several deny it, whose opinion is false to me, and the Theologians commonly teach the contrary. Some dispute whether they would sin mortally who omitted either half, or a third, of an Hour — for instance of Sext or None; and each affirms or denies according to his pleasure. These petty questions are superfluous. For who, unless he be out of his mind, will recite half a Canonical Hour — for instance of Prime or None — and omit the other half or third? Caramuel defends that he does not sin mortally who omits one Nocturn at Matins with Lauds. The Theologians commonly disapprove this opinion as manifestly false. For the omission of a single Nocturn is indeed grave. Leander, Sanchez, Diana teach that he does not sin mortally who at the Matins of a feria, or of the simple office of some Saint, should voluntarily omit three lessons with three responsories, because this is a small matter. Francisco Pellizzari defends that he does not sin gravely who omits the Vespers of Holy Saturday. All these opinions the graver Theologians reject as false.

XXII. Question XII. Do those who recite a shorter office in place of a longer sin mortally? Answer. Caramuel, Antonio of the Holy Spirit, Leander, Vasquez, Azor, the Salmanticenses, and others defend that those do not sin mortally who, without cause and from mere desire of dispatching themselves more quickly, change the divine office at their pleasure, and choose a shorter in place of a longer — for instance, of a Saint, when it should be of the feria or of the Sunday.

XXIII. The opinion just recounted is false, and, unless everything deceives me, is contained in this thesis condemned by Alexander VII: One reciting the office of Palm Sunday satisfies the paschal precept...

satisfies the paschal precept. Not only does the precept of reciting the divine office press, but there is also present the precept of reciting it according to the form prescribed by the Church. The junior writers cited reply that St. Pius V did not impose a precept, but only prescribed an exhortation; or that the precept is in a light matter. Is a matter to be called lighter which moderates the rite of reciting the divine praises? It is a precept, and indeed in a grave matter.

XXIV. Would you condemn of grave fault one who in good faith recited the office, thinking that it truly was the office of that day, if he were unwilling to repeat it? I would not dare to assert that this man, unwilling to repeat the office of the same day, is guilty of mortal sin. I myself, however, would repeat it. Those who through error omit a double office, and above, ought to recite it on the first free day, if they recite privately outside choir; not so those who recite in choir. In practice, let each see what befits order, what is farthest from confusion. He who today recites the divine office which through error should be recited tomorrow must recite it tomorrow, because a private error ought not to pervert the order prescribed by the Church. He who omits the whole office commits one sin, not several.

XXV. Question XIII. What continuation and order must be kept in reciting the Canonical Hours? Answer. The Salmanticenses defend that one never sins gravely who recites the divine office within the natural day, even though a very great interruption occur — even though the interruption happen in the middle of one psalm, or one lesson. You begin in the morning to recite one psalm; in the middle of the psalm, or the lesson, you take up some business; at noon, or at Vespers, you resume the other half of the psalm or the lesson: if you do this without cause, you sin venially, but never mortally, say the cited Fathers, and for this opinion they cite Leander, Bonacina, Lessius, Diana, Laymann, and others. This opinion is not approved by me, because it takes away the continuity of prayer, and savors of the greatest deformity. Wherefore the graver Theologians condemn so enormous an interruption as a grave fault. But in practice these things scarcely occur. For who would join a psalm which he recited in the morning with a psalm to be recited at sunset, or the half of one lesson recited in the morning with the other half to be recited in the evening? A light interruption without cause is venial; with cause, no fault at all.

XXVI. The order to be kept is that first Matins and Lauds, then Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline be recited. That this order does not fall under precept the common opinion teaches; so that he who should recite Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline before Matins would not sin mortally, but only venially, a just cause being absent. For if a just cause be present, no fault at all is committed. Yet he who should from custom disturb this order could scarcely be excused of contempt for the order prescribed by the Church. Wherefore I do not approve the opinion of the Salmanticenses, who say that the disturbance of this order never reaches to mortal fault. Mortal fault never occurs, because in practice this habitual disturbance scarcely, or not even scarcely, occurs. For who is so stupid as to wish, without cause, from mere custom, to pervert this order? In choir this disturbance would be too deformed, and would occasion scandal; and if it happened frequently, I would not excuse it from grave fault.

XXVII. Question XIV. At what time must the Canonical Hours be recited? Answer. The whole office must be recited each day. The day begins, by custom, after the hour of Vespers of the preceding day, for reciting Matins with Lauds of the following day. But the time for reciting Prime and the other Hours takes its beginning from the point of midnight of the preceding day, and ends at the point of midnight of the following day. Some defend that it is licit to recite, after the evening hour, not only Matins with Lauds but all the other Hours of the following day as well. But this opinion seems false, because by laudable custom only Matins with Lauds is licitly recited at the aforesaid hour. The other Hours, however, must be recited on the following day. He who anticipates or postpones the Canonical Hours excessively, without cause, sins venially; yet it is a lesser evil to anticipate than to postpone. A just cause of anticipating is public reading, a sermon, study, the danger of an impending occupation, manual labor, and other things of that kind; and then no fault is committed, not even a venial one.

The FIRST opinion is affirmative. Thus almost all the more recent authors: Fernandez in Exam. Theol. part 3, chapter 15, § 6; Villalob. Tom. 1, tract. 24, dub. 15; Sotus book 10, question 5, article 5, conclusion 7; Caietan. 2. 2, question 83, article 13; Navar. on prayer, chapter 13, number 18; Vasquez prima secundae, Tom. 2, dispute 160, number 30; Medina in summa, book 1, chapter 4, § 11; Nattat. on restitution, book 2, chapter 2, number 140; Lopez Instruct. Tom. 2, chapter 103, § on the words Horae canonicae, number 19; Pesantius number 2, q. 62, art. 1, disp. 3; Zerola in the practice of bishops, part 1, on the words Horae canonicae, § Beia in resp. part 2, case 33; Comitol. in resol. moral. book 1, question 6; Malderus 2. 2, tract. 10, chapter 2, dispute 2; Moneta de distrib. part 2, question 2; Carolus Macigni de Hor. can. chapter 86, number 16; Molfesius in summa, tom. 1, tract. 4, chapter 2, number 8; Sylvius 2. 2, question 83, article 13, conclusion 4; Homobon de exam. Ecclesiae, part 1, tract 4, chapter 5, question 40; Viguer. Instit. Theol. chapter 5, § 5; Gavantus com. on the rubric of the missal, Tract. 3, sect. 1, chapter 6, title 4; Bellot in praxis on reserved cases, part 2, question 15; Contadus in resp. of cases of conscience, part 7, question 144; Rodriquez tract. 1, chapter 143; Vega in summa Tom. 2, chapter 128, case 20; Valentia Tom. 3, dispute 6, question 2, point 10; Azor part 1, book 10, chapter 16, question 6; Ledisma in summa, tom. 2, tract. 9, chapter 4; Squillante de oblig. cleric. part 1, dub. 20; Suarez de Relig. tract. 2, book 4, chapter 26, and on censures, dispute 4, sect. 2; Aragon 2. 2, question 83, article 13; Sayrus on censures, book 3, chapter 4; Salas on laws, dispute 9, sect. 9; Lorca in prima secundae, Tom. 1, on the Laws, dispute 16, member 2; Raphael de la torre, part 2, on the Canonical Hours, commonit. 9; Antonius Caramuel, on the Rule of St. Ben. 1575 and seq.; Lugo de Euch. dispute 22, sect. 2; Tambur. Tom. 2, dispute 10, question 2; Antonius Ragaucius on the canonical office in choir, question 19, and others with those cited, whom Diana adduces, pt. 2 on the Hours, and part 7, tom. 11, 30. This seems to be the opinion of D. Bonavent., part 2 of the Mirror for Novices, chapter 1, and in the opuscule on the six wings of the Seraph, chapter 8. Tanner. subscribes, 2. 2, dispute 5, question 1, number 154, with others there.

MANY, however, not undistinguished Theologians, teach that satisfaction is made without attention, provided meanwhile they do not do anything incompatible with the office. So Durandus, in 4, dist. 15, question 12; Sylvester, on the words Horae Can.; Medina, in the Codex on prayer, question 14; Angel., on the word Horae; D. Antonin., 3rd part, title 13, chapter 4, § 8; Rosella, on the word Horae; Palud., 4, dist. 25, question 5, article 2; Coninch., on the sacraments, in 3rd part, question 83, article 6, number 291; Ioan. Valderus, in the differences of both forums, on the words Horae can., difference 1. And Diana affirms it as probable, with Lessius, book 2, chapter 37, dub. 2; Henriquez, book 9, chapter 25, in the Gloss, letter P; Victorello, in summa, following Toledo book 2, chapter 13; Layman, book 4, tract. 1, chapter 5; Fulientis, book 4 de Inst., chapter 2, who says it is the view of many grave and pious men; Bassaeus, V. Horae, citing others.

I ASSERT the former opinion, which is that of D. Bonavent., in the places adduced, and on the perfection of life to the sisters, chapter 5, as Bonacina reports, on the Hours, dispute 1, question 3, point 2.

I proved this at length, in the Treatise on the Laws, dispute 5, question 3, where I adduced many authorities and arguments.

It is proved from cap. Dolentes, where it is prescribed. See what I said there.

It is proved from Suarez, book 3 on vocal prayer, chapter 4, by the argument of D. Bonaventure, whom he cites in the book cited: Where one thing is uttered by the mouth and another is meditated by the heart, there is no true prayer; but while one does not attend to what is uttered by the mouth, one meditates another thing in the heart, as is evident; therefore. He adds that such prayer is never heard by God, on account of the Gloss saying on Psalm 118: A divided heart obtains not what it asks; but he divides his heart who has one half in heaven and one half on earth.

Next, prayer is a kind of adoration; but this ought to be made in spirit and truth; but things said with the attention distracted elsewhere do not cohere with truth; whence there follows irreverence, substantially opposed to the end and effect of prayer, at least when it becomes known to him to whom the prayer is made; but God is the searcher of hearts, nor can he be ignorant of the undue manner in which, without attention, bare words are directed to him.

Finally, where the definition of prayer is not preserved, prayer without doubt cannot subsist there substantially; but while attention is absent, the definition of prayer does not stand, which is the ascent of the mind to God; but for the mind to ascend to God, the mere outward utterance of words cannot suffice. It is confirmed by a likeness: he who merely bends his knees, in no way attending to inward adoration, is not said to adore; therefore. The consequence is evident, because as vocal prayer is made to testify to the inward devotion of the mind, so genuflection is made to manifest the inward submission of the mind in acknowledging the Divine majesty. So Suarez, at the place cited, number 5.

From these things it follows that a beneficed cleric reciting the divine office distractedly does not make satisfaction and is bound to restitution. So Valencia, Aragon, Tannerus and others.

No one blames disjoining the Lauds from Matins, even for a light cause, since they can be said in the manner of two hours; nor is it culpable to separate one nocturn from another with a moderate interruption, since the sense can be completed and concluded in each nocturn. But the question concerns the interruption of the psalms, chapters, and lessons of the same hour, in which there may intervene either the exercise of another action incompatible with the office, or conversation with someone; but whichever occurs, if the interruption is moral and notable, it is guilty of mortal sin, according to the thirteen Doctors whom Diana cites, part one, tract. 12, resol. 4.

The REASON is, because the unity of each office belongs to the solemn rite of the office instituted by the Church; but this is often destroyed by such a notable interruption: and in consequence the precept is not satisfied; and while for the physical destruction of unity a grave interpolation of time is required, from which the unity of the action is mostly derived, nevertheless sin is not thereby committed unless such interpolation be moral and free.

Suarez, however, remits the measure for discerning a notable interruption to the judgment of a prudent man; who ought to weigh the quantity of each hour, which, the smaller it is, the more is it violated by the lesser delay of time also; wherefore that time which is judged slight in Matins will not be judged so slight in a briefer hour; nor ought the same delay of time be reckoned for the recitation of one psalm as of two.

In another way the office is interrupted, when, having begun, it is lightly set aside, with the intention of resuming it again; which Suarez condemns as culpable, since such a one behaves irreverently toward God; yet he does not sin mortally, provided he completes the interrupted office again.

Suarez adds further: if the office be interrupted even gravely, to do or say something that serves the office itself; for instance, consulting a companion about the manner in which such an office, in which some new difficulty occurs, should be said, or removing some cause of distraction; then there will be no sin: it would nevertheless be more prudent, if the hour be short, to repeat it from the beginning, at least if it were interrupted in the middle of a Psalm. But indecorous words, or even indecent actions, in the Divine office are gravely prohibited, Caput nullus, de consecr. dist. 5, and cap. Dolentes, de celebr. miss.

Twelve Doctors sustain the opinion contrary to the former, in Diana, at the place cited. So that they condemn a notable interruption of the office as venial only; to whom I add Tannerus, dispute 5, question 1, dub. 4, number 156, Peltanus, book 3 on good works, with whom Diana himself subscribes, with Bassaeus, V. hora, number 16.

S. BONAVENTURA, part 2 of the Speculum disciplinae ad Novitios, cap. 1, seems altogether to require that those who sing in Choir be heard. That he does not satisfy is taught by Beia resp. part 1. cap. 55; Sotus de Iustitia, lib. 10, quaest. 5, art. 4; Navar. de oratione c. p. 13. num. 17; Graff. lib. 2. decis. cap. 51. num. 12, and cap. 52. num. 22, and cap. 53. num. 45; Convar. resol. lib. 2. cap. 13; Columna de redditibus Ecclesiae, part. 3. cap. 34; Pinell. in lib. 1. Cod. de bon. mater. part. 3. num. 16; Rodriquez sum. Tom. 1. cap. 43; Zech. summa part. 2. cap. 83; Summa Coronae part. 1. cap. 2; and others cited by Moneta de distrib. quot. part 2. quaest. 2. num. 31, and by Garzia Tract. de benefic. Tom. 1. part. 3. cap. 2. n. 513. And lest this opinion be harsh, Comitolus lib. 1. quaest. 62 holds it, supposing that the most eminent Sacred Congregation of Cardinals so declared.

IT IS PROVED also from the Councils of Basel sess. 21. §. 3, and of Aachen cap. 131, where it is said: The Canons shall stand in Choir most religiously when the psalm is sung.

FINALLY the Council of Trent sess. 24. cap. 12 says: All are compelled to perform the Divine offices in person, and not through substitutes, and, assembled in Choir for the singing of psalms, to praise the name of God reverently, distinctly, and devoutly with hymns and songs.

NOTWITHSTANDING these, very many say they do satisfy. So Lessius lib. 2. cap. 34. dub. 31. num. 185; Raphael de la Torre 2. 2. tract. 1. quaest. 83. de Horis Can. controv. 10. disp. 7; Petrus Navar. lib. 2. restit. cap. 2. num. 217; Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 83. art. 12. dub. ult.; Garzia de benef. Tom. 1. part. 3. cap. 7. num. 517; Cenedo quaest. 2; Rivius tom. 2. resp. 362; Ioan de Cruz in direct. praecepto 3. art. 3. dub. 7; Petrus Ledesma tom. 2. tract. 9. cap. 3. concl. 31. See also Gavantus in coment. ad reg. missalis, tom. 2. tract. 1. cap. 5. tit. 5; Diana resol. 6; Tannet. disp. 5. quaest. 1. num. 159, citing Valentia and Aragonius. So also Bassaeus, but he adds that such men do not satisfy the Choir.

TO the authority of the Cardinals it is answered that it is not certain it exists. So Comitol.

TO the Councils of Basel and Aachen, Cenedo num. 16 and Diana say that it is not a precept but a counsel. For the Fathers use the word debent [must], which seems to mark a counsel; and if it is a precept, they say it has already been abrogated by custom.

TO the Council of Trent they answer that Praelates are indeed commanded to induce the Canons to sing in Choir, but not the Canons to sing. So Lessius num. 186.

THESE things, however, are slight, for the decree of the Sacred Congregation is reported by Comitolus himself. And those two first Councils use the word debent, and I would like to know in what Dictionary that word signifies counsel and not debt [duty]. As to custom, none is found.

AGAINST Lessius's answer I argue: Whenever an ecumenical Council commands that Superiors compel others to the observance of something, it is rightly a sign that the matter is of precept; otherwise why is it commanded that they compel to the execution of that work? But the Council of Trent commands that the Canons be compelled to sing aloud in Choir: Therefore. It is confirmed; for the end of the law is the soul of the law; but the end of the institution of the Choir and of chant is that it be sung aloud, and on that account the fruits are given: Therefore. Diana saw this argument. Therefore he answers that this precept has been abrogated by custom while it endured.

But against this: the custom was before the Council, as he himself declares in his decrees [i.e. the Council derogated from it], and so it is not a prescriptive custom but mere non-observance.

One recites the office privately who says it outside the Choir and outside chant, whether alone or with another; if he recites it with a companion, no one doubts that he must pronounce with such clarity of voice that he can be heard by him: But if he is alone, Reginaldus asserts in praxi tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 12. disp. 5. quaest. 174., and Suarez de Religione, tract. 2. lib. 4. cap. 7., that he is bound to pronounce in such a way that he is heard by himself.

Suarez proves this by reason, because this prayer is vocal; therefore it ought to be audible, at least by the one praying: the consequence is proved; because, setting aside impediments, which are accidental, there is no voice so faint that it does not sound in the ears of the speaker; otherwise the voice is not to be considered a voice.

He says this is evident from the Council of Basel sess. 21., which says that the voice ought to be formed in such a way that the words are not formed in the throat or between the teeth; and between that pronunciation which is made between the teeth and that which is audible, a middle cannot morally be given.

Further, the Canonical office must be performed in such a way that each one is morally certain that he has satisfied his debt; but how will he be certain that he has prayed vocally who has heard himself in no other way than mentally? For unless the mind attended to such pronunciation, it is established that a man knows he has spoken just as if he had not spoken.

For the opposite opinion stands Azorius parte 1. lib. 10. cap. 11. quaesito 4. His reason is that that pronunciation of the office satisfies the precept of the Church which is contradistinguished from mental pronunciation; and such is that which is made with the lips alone moved, even if it is heard by no one; because, as Navar. says de orat. cap. 20. num. 14., it suffices that the cleric so utter the words that he perceives that he has uttered them.

Yet this reason is not proved valid to me, because he perceives mentally only that he has uttered the words, either mentally or vocally; if the first, it is just as if he had said them mentally; if the second, therefore he heard his voice; and so we are back with the first opinion.

In the other way also the reason of this second opinion can be attacked; because such is not the tenor of the Ecclesiastical precept, that we pray not only mentally and in heart, but that some other contradistinguished mode should suffice; as is clear from the Council of Basel cited above; otherwise it would suffice to mumble between the teeth or in the throat, which is there reproved.

Be that as it may, Filliucius admits this opinion only for the Scrupulous tom. 2. tract. 23. cap. 3. num. 117., and Diana resolut. 11. But Bassaeus num. 15., Caramuel in Reg. S. Bened. l. 380., Tamburin. tom. 2. disp. 10. quaest. 9. absolutely will that the second opinion stand, saying that the precept is given of saying the office, not of hearing it.

Clerics are gravely reproved in clement. 1. de celebr. Missarum, because by running through and syncopating they finished the Canonical Hours; So Innocent III also took notice of them in the Lateran Council cap. Dolentes; as Azorius has it, ubi supra, cap. 7. num. 1., citing the manner which the Council of Basel, cited above, prescribes to those reciting the office outside the Choir in these words: This Holy Synod admonishes all Beneficiaries elsewhere also, or those constituted in sacred orders, since they are bound to the Canonical Hours, that if they wish their prayers to be acceptable to God, they perform the Divine and nocturnal office reverently with distinct words, whether alone or joined with others — not in the throat or between the teeth, or by swallowing, or by syncopating syllables or words.

¶ WHEREFORE the Holy Doctor gravely upbraids this manner of reciting the office, in the places alleged, dubit. 1. et 4.; yet Filliucius tom. 2. tract. 23. cap. 7. num. 242., Azor. cit., Villalobos summa tom. 1. tract. 24. disp. 10. num. 7., Diana resol. 32. hold that the precept is nevertheless satisfied, provided the whole office is not so cut through with syncopations that its substance seems to perish.

Azorius proves this by a similar case; for the obligation to pronounce the form of baptism distinctly and integrally is greater than that for the Canonical Hours; yet if one so syncopated that form, he would neither sin gravely nor be bound to rebaptize; as is clear ex cap. retulerunt, de consecr. dist. 4., where the Pontiff answers that a man thus baptizing, from a slip of the tongue or ignorance of the Latin language, acted validly; moreover in leg. debet, ff. de manumiss. it is said that he who by testament gave liberty to his slave, naming him Crarinus who was however called Crastistus, validly made his testament, though he did so with syllables cut off.

For my part, however, I would rather bring forward arguments of this kind for Nuns, or for those ignorant of the Latin tongue; and if truly the parity stands, it is supposed for them, as is clear from the alleged examples, where that ignorance intervened; wherefore, since very many clerics bound to the divine services and offices are held to learn the Latin tongue as far as is fitting, I would not say that they are immune from fault, or from the obligation of repeating the hours, unless the smallness of the matter, or a natural stammering of the tongue, or a precipitous stuttering, presented them as excused. So Sylvius thinks quaestio 83. num. 13., Caramuel 1583, Bassaeus num. 7.

¶ COMMONLY Doctors assert that one who thus performs the office with the intention of not satisfying, whether in part or in whole, satisfies the precept, and is bound to nothing further; So many, as reported by Diana resolut. 37.

The REASON is, because the law obliges only to execution, not to intention; and he who thus recites the office fulfills all that is commanded. It is confirmed by Suarez cap. 16. num. 8.; for he who from devotion completes the hourly task, intending to say it again in order to satisfy the Church, is no longer pressed by such a precept, which only enjoins on him to recite the hours once in the day; but this he has already done: Therefore. Say the same of Hearing Mass, or the execution of another human precept: I say human, because if it is a natural or divine precept, whose imposition depends on your will, as in a vow, it must be said otherwise, as I shall note below. This is clear from the example cited in Suarez; for he who in good faith on the Vigil of the holy Virgin, when he was bound by precept to fast, wished rather to fast from devotion, intending to satisfy the precept on the next following day — who would say he was bound that day to the precept, which was extinguished with its own day? Moreover, he who with whatever intention would say the office, or a notable part of it, the intention of satisfying being excluded, would incur no excommunication or censure; therefore it is a sign that the precept has been satisfied.

I SAY the same of other crimes on account of which censures are incurred; for he who would so wound a man that, all hope being removed, he would be dying, if nevertheless he were saved by a miracle, would contract no censure.