The Obligation of the Precept

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

1. The omission of one hour, even a little hour, seems to be grave; both because there is question of worship to be offered in the name of the Church, and therefore of a matter of greater moment, so that in this case a smaller quantity than in other cases seems to suffice for gravity; and because the deformity of the act seems notable if, in the prayer which the Church wished to be distributed into parts, one whole part among seven is omitted. Likewise he sins gravely who would recite only too little of a little hour, because morally speaking he omits it. Nevertheless the contrary must be said concerning one who would omit the Vespers of Holy Saturday, because the quantity seems too small (St. Alphonsus IV, 147). Moreover, separated parts coalesce.

2. Where a whole hour is not omitted, a greater quantity from different hours seems to be required, because the deformity does not appear so great.

3. Those who mutilate the office, by syncopating, truncating words, or swallowing syllables, also sin according to the quantity of the matter; but in these things, unless the excess is enormous, there is not a grave sin.

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

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

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

1. He sins gravely who recites an office either notably different from his own office,¹ or notably less than his own office;² likewise one who rather often, for example five times or more in a year, recites an office different from the office of the day. The reason is that "although any variation taken separately is venial by reason of smallness of matter, nevertheless all within the year coalesce, and gravely disturb the order of the breviary precept for the Offices of the whole year, which taken together make one complex whole" (St. Alphonsus IV, 161, question 3). Outside the enumerated cases it is quite probable that one sins only lightly, and if a just cause is present, not at all. A just cause is, for example, that you recite with a companion; if the possibility of reciting the office is lacking and by reciting later you will be too much wearied or impeded from another useful labor (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). But "the office of the breviary is not to be abandoned for an office of devotion."³

2. "One who through inadvertence says one office for another is bound to repeat nothing.... The reason is that the Church is not presumed to wish someone to be obliged twice in one day to so great a burden...; but if the office said was notably shorter... compensation must be made" from the omitted office (St. Alphonsus IV, 161, question 3). But the omitted office should rather be entirely omitted than recited on another day, lest you err twice.⁴ (St. Alphonsus IV, 161, question 5.) "If you notice that you have erred after you have advanced much in the undue Office, for example if you have said Matins, then you can either continue, or recite the remainder from the due Office; ... but I think ... it is better to recite from the proper one, lest you continue the error.... But if you have forgotten some part of an Hour, it is enough to recite that part without repeating anything else" (St. Alphonsus IV, 161).

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

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

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

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

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

50. Principles. - I. There are obliged to recite the canonical Hours daily: 1º all clerics constituted in sacred Orders, even those suspended and excommunicated. This is clear from various places of Canon Law, from the Lateran Council, year 1215, and from the Bull of St. Pius V, Quod a Nobis. - 2º All beneficed persons who have a right in the thing and full dominion of the benefice. This is drawn from the Lateran Council under Leo X, and also from the Bull of Pius V, Ex proximo. - 3º All religious of each sex professed in an Order approved by the Church and destined for choir. This is plain from custom, and also from the Decree of Gregory X, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 140 and following.

II. All these sin gravely if they omit the whole Office or a notable part of it without legitimate cause. The reason is plain: for they violate a law of the Church in a grave matter. - St. Ligorius, n. 146, and others most commonly.

III. The obligation of reciting the Hours is affixed to the day, so that it can in no way be satisfied on another day; therefore the obligation according to the mind of the Church ceases with the day assigned to it, and accordingly it is usually called the burden of the day.

51. Questions. - QUESTION 1. What is grave matter in the omission of the Office?

Resp. Theologians most commonly agree that the omission of one little Hour, or of Compline, or of a part of the Nocturns at least equivalent to the quantity of one little Hour, is the matter of mortal sin ¹; but the omission of a smaller part does not exceed venial sin. - St. Ligorius, n. 147, etc.

¹ Certain ones use this argument, that one omitting even one of the little Hours is bound to restitution of fruits by apostolic definition. But this argument does not seem sufficiently firm. For someone can be bound to restitution lightly and because of a light fault.

Some have written that it is mortal sin even to omit a third part of a little Hour, because such a part with respect to that Hour is already notable matter; but more probably this must be denied. The reason is that although that part is notable with respect to a little Hour, it is nevertheless light in itself and with respect to the whole Office. Hence concerning smallness of matter one must regard the quantity of the whole Office, but not of each Hour. Therefore if someone does not omit altogether a whole Hour, he can be excused from grave sin, because more probably it is light to omit less than an entire Hour. - St. Ligorius, n. 147; Elbel, n. 367; Lacroix, n. 1200, etc.

52. • QUESTION 2º. Is it grave to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday?

Resp. No, at least more probably, because the matter is very slight both in itself and with respect to the whole Office. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others commonly.

Nevertheless some have judged this matter grave, not indeed in itself materially, nor with respect to the whole Office, but by reason of the special signification which the individual Hours seem to have ².

² The opinion is anomalous and of no use.

QUESTION 3º. Does he who omits the entire Office commit one grave sin or multiple grave sins?

Resp. He seems to commit only one grave sin. - Thus commonly the theologians with St. Ligorius, n. 148, after St. Antoninus, part 3, tit. 13, ch. 4, where he says: “He who omits all the Hours of one day does not on that account commit seven mortal sins, but one, and so much the graver as he omits more of the Office; because the whole Office of the day falls under one precept.” - St. Ligorius, ibid.

53. • QUESTION 4º. If someone doubts whether he omitted something in the Office, is he bound to recite it?

Resp. No, if the doubt is positive, that is, if he probably judges that he has satisfied. Thus St. Ligorius, n. 150 ³, who says that this is the most common opinion, with Sanchez, Lacroix, Azor, Navarrus, Tamburini, etc.

³ In this place you have St. Alphonsus proving and calling most common that doctrine which establishes that probable satisfaction of the law suffices; nevertheless certain ones wished to ascribe the opposite of this to the Holy Doctor. See vol. 1, n. 80, with note.

** But the Vindicators (p. 987, n. 80) bring these things from the questions reformed by St. Alphonsus: “If someone probably judges that he has fulfilled the canonical Hours, is he bound to satisfy if it is still probable or doubtful that he has not fulfilled? Several Authors deny; but the opposite must be held.”

Resp. The Holy Doctor, as we said above, confessed that the opinion which denies the obligation of reciting in this case is most common. Therefore, with reverence due to the Holy Doctor preserved, the faculty must be denied to no one that according to theological canons he may prefer the most common opinion and follow it with a safe conscience.

Hence, they say, you are rightly excused from repeating the Office if you do not remember that you said something, and you have a just conjecture for believing that you said it; suppose, if you remember that you began a Psalm, or some Lesson, or an Hour, and afterward, distracted, you arrived at the end of the Psalm, Lesson, or Hour, without remembering whether you recited the whole; for presumption favors you, because you are accustomed to recite integrally those things whose recitation you began. Likewise if you have arrived at some Hour, for example Sext, and doubt whether you recited the preceding one, you can hold the same decision, because you are not accustomed to recite the later Hour unless you have sent the former ahead, and therefore you can prudently believe that you have omitted nothing. - St. Ligorius, n. 150; Lacroix, etc.

54. • QUESTION 5º. Are Religious who, for a just cause, do not attend choir bound under grave obligation to recite the Office privately?

Resp. Yes. The reason is that the principal obligation for a Religious does not fall on choir, but on the recitation of the Office by reason of the Religion, which has undertaken that burden from its institute. This obligation is clear from the universal sense and custom of Religious, who, when they cannot be present at choir, believe themselves obliged under grave obligation to recite the Office privately. But a universal custom which has been constantly observed with great inconvenience by Religious and Nuns furnishes a sufficient argument concerning a grave obligation undertaken. Hence the opinion of some, who say that the obligation of the Office does not urge a Religious outside choir, is not probable. - St. Ligorius, n. 142, and others commonly.

55. • QUESTION 6º. Does a Religious sin gravely who recites the Office privately while he could easily be present at choir?

Resp. No. For the obligation of choir, although it is grave for the Community, is nevertheless held light for individual private persons, provided that choir is not altogether removed. But for choir four who are free, or able to sustain choir, suffice. But if there are fewer Religious, they are in no way obliged to recite the Office in choir; nevertheless they are not exempt from private recitation, as was just said. - St. Ligorius, n. 143, and others commonly.

QUESTION 7º. Are those obliged to the Office bound to supply those things which they omit in choir because of the functions of choir, for example, by ringing the bells or the organ, or by searching out Psalms, and other similar things?

Resp. No. The reason is that the omission in choir, provided it is not excessive, is supplied by the companions. Thus one satisfies who coughs while others are reciting, etc., and probably also if a whole Psalm is said meanwhile. A fortiori he who did not hear some things of the alternate part is not bound to repeat ⁴. - St. Ligorius, n. 443, and others commonly.

⁴ These things ought to have force also in the private recitation of several together.

56. • QUESTION 8º. Which Breviary must be used?

Resp. By common law only the Breviary reformed by St. Pius V must be used; this is clear from the Bull of the same St. Pius V, Quod a Nobis, given on 7 July 1568. In this Bull the Pontiff removes and abolishes all other Breviaries which from institution or legitimate custom do not surpass two hundred years. Nevertheless he permits that even those more ancient than two hundred years can be changed into the Roman Breviary if the Bishop and the whole Chapter consent. But he commands this Breviary to be observed in the whole world ⁵, with the sole exception just reported. Indeed, in another Constitution which begins Ex proximo, he declares that all obliged to the Hours will not satisfy their duty if they use another Breviary, and therefore that beneficed persons do not make the fruits their own.

⁵ Understand here the whole world as the Church using the Latin rite. Nevertheless the law about not introducing changes pertains to any rites already approved.

57. • QUESTION 9º. What is to be thought about those who recite another Breviary preserved from the custom of the place?

Resp. 1º There is no difficulty for places where the Breviary had already prevailed for two hundred years before the Bull of St. Pius V, if nevertheless Breviaries still exist which have remained unchanged. This is clear from the Decree cited above.

Resp. 2º As to Breviaries reprobated by the Supreme Pontiff, whether they existed before the Bull or were introduced afterward, they are materially opposed to law, as is evidently clear from the aforesaid Constitution, unless they have been confirmed by the approval, either express or at least implicit, of the Supreme Pontiff. This is confirmed from the following response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites directed to a Canon of Le Mans.

1º Whether in the years 1748 and 1749 the innovation of the Breviary and Missal of Le Mans, altogether alien from the Roman rite, was licit, after the old Breviary and Missal corrected to the Roman form had first been removed, done or approved by the authority of the Bishop alone and the Chapter of the Church of Le Mans, and without the Apostolic See having been consulted?

2º Insofar as negative, whether at least this Liturgy of this sort, by force of prescription or century-old custom, has been made legitimate, so that today any Priest of Le Mans can observe it with a safe conscience? 3º Insofar as again negative, whether any Priest of Le Mans, even a Canon and Pastor, is at once bound in conscience both to pay the canonical Hours and to celebrate Mass according to the Roman rite, namely when he recites and celebrates privately?

To the 1st: Negative.

To the 2nd: Negative.

To the 3rd: Let him consult jointly both Constitutions of St. Pius V, namely that which begins Quod a Nobis, 7 Ides of July 1568, and the other which begins Ex proximo, 12 Kalends of October 1571 ⁶.

⁶ ** The Constitution Quod a nobis (§ 7) establishes that he who recites another breviary than the one prescribed does not satisfy, as if he had not recited in any way. But the Constitution Ex proximo declares that the same person is bound to restitution, and does not make the fruits his own.

Moreover from a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 15 March 1608, apud D. Bouix, On Liturgical Law, Churches which formerly could use the benefit of the exception made by St. Pius V, so that they might retain their proper breviary, can no longer return to the old liturgy, if once they have cast this aside in favor of the Roman Breviary. Likewise Churches have lost that privilege of exception if they have introduced into their liturgy any additions or changes whatsoever, as is clear from several declarations of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and very recently from the Response of the Holy See to the Archbishop of Besançon on 28 Aug. 1856.

58. • But although all the Bishops of France desire to return to the Roman rite, so that they may comply with the Holy See, nevertheless they cannot at once remove all difficulties from the midst; whence Cardinal Gousset (n. 698) concludes that private Priests meanwhile can recite the Breviary of the diocese.

59. • QUESTION 10º. Does a Priest need the permission of the Bishop to recite the Roman Breviary in places where another is tolerated?

Resp. No. This is clear from the response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, to which this question was recently proposed. For the most eminent Cardinals, having weighed the question, responded negatively by unanimous consent.

60. • QUESTION 11º. Are clerics obliged to the Breviary bound to use the Proper of the diocese?

Resp. Yes, provided that that Proper has been recognized and approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The reason is that although this concession of proper Offices has the character of a privilege, nevertheless all private persons are bound to use a privilege conceded to the whole community. - Except if private persons, by virtue of an apostolic indult, can not use the Proper of the diocese.

QUESTION 12º. Is there still an obligation of reciting the GRADUAL Psalms, the little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Office of the Dead?

Resp. 1º No, with regard to clerics who recite the Office privately.

Resp. 2º No also for those reciting the Office in choir, unless where there is a custom of reciting the aforesaid Offices from the time of St. Pius V. - Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites has declared several times.

61. • QUESTION 13º. Are those obliged to the Office bound under grave obligation to recite the Office of the Dead on the day of Commemoration of All the Dead, and also the Litanies on the feast of St. Mark and the three days of Rogations?

By several sins we here understand those that are consummated by external omission; for if the will, merely internally, have determined itself concerning each individual hour to omit them, no one doubts that there are as many sins as there are repeated acts of will; since even thus one could sin several times about the same hour numerically, intending by a moral interruption to omit it altogether.

Some think and maintain that there are as many sins as there are hours omitted, in the same way as if you omitted some hour for ten consecutive days, or neglected the fast for one entire week of Lent; thus Lessius, book 2, chapter 37, dub. 9; Tabiena, v. hora, question 18; Frascus, on Justice, book 1, chapter 20, number 19; and it seems the view of Toledo, book 2, chapter 12.

They maintain this on a single argument which they suppose: because there are as many precepts of praying as hours omitted; and sins are multiplied by the multiplication of the precept.

Nevertheless fifteen Doctors maintain the opposite, in Diana, resol. 5, to whom add Tannerus, dispute 2, question 1, number 145; and Suarez confesses this to be the more common and sounder opinion, book 4 on the canonical hours, chapter 25, number 18.

There is one argument for all: because they are all parts of one office, and there is a single precept to recite them all as one total office; but the opposite argument is solved by this one, because the diverse parts of the same office, in relation to diverse days, cannot make one thing; a sign of which is that an hour habitually said today cannot, absolutely, be said tomorrow while preserving the precept; and yet each hour of the same day can be said validly and licitly at any time of that day.

Yet in relation to God it is just the same as if there were one sin or seven, since the malice is as great in seven as in one alone, they being equivalent; nevertheless Suarez urges that in confession the number of omitted hours be disclosed on account of the very aggravating circumstances.

There are, however, some, whom Suarez does not approve, who admit indeed that to omit several hours is one sin if it is done by a continuous, not a discrete, action, so that after Prime he omits Terce, and after this, the next following one; but that it is otherwise if after Prime he says Terce, and after this omits None, etc., in nearly the same way as it is one sin to maim a man now, and then, after some time, another sin to kill him.

But this reasoning, with respect to the office, is defective, since there is but one omission, even if in discrete parts; because an office is not said to be altogether omitted until the time prescribed for it has wholly passed; wherefore he who would determine in the morning hours not to say Prime, and afterward would say it, even after the other hours, up to the last point of the prescribed time, would not be said to omit Prime, although intending it he would have sinned, because no hour is omitted so precisely that it is not said in its time; since the inversion of hours can be done without sin, but because the will, in the very instant when the necessary time for saying them pressed upon him, persisted in the resolve to omit them.

Hence you have that it is one thing to omit certain hours in effect, another to omit them in fact; and this, I think, is to be noted on account of the censures impending over those who do not recite the hours; for he who would resolve in his heart to pass over some part of the office, as to the sin, which I call the effect of omission, has already omitted it, yet he would not undergo the censures until the last instant of time had passed, because up to that point he could have recalled the intended omission, and so avoided the censures.

Hence also you have that one censure would punish him who omitted all those hours in one day, because it is one sin; but otherwise if it should happen on diverse days.

Diana reports many opinions resol. 41. Navarrus cap. 10. de oratione, numero 44., with Squillante de oblig. cleric. part. 1. disp. 33. num. 99., say that a notable part of one Hour, namely the whole beginning with a psalm, is grave matter.

D. Antoninus, cited by Azor. part. 1. lib. 10. cap. 7. quaest. 3., Macrignus de Horis can. cap. 16. num. 20., Malderus 2. 2. tract. 10. cap. 2. disp. 3., and others say that a third part of Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Compline is a grave part.

Diana refutes this opinion with Angelus, verb. Horae, num. 18., and Lessius lib. 2. cap. 37. dub. 9. numero 32.: If a third part of an Hour is grave matter: therefore also a third part of a Psalm. But this reason is frivolous; for if I admit that a third part is grave matter, it is because compared to the whole it is still a grave part; not so a third part of a Psalm.

Diana answers with Fernandez part. 3. cap. 13. §. 7., Belloch. in Praxi de casibus refer. part. 2. quaest. 15. num. 49., Vega tom. 1. cap. 128. casu 15., Pet. Ledisma tom. 2. tract. 9. cap. 10. conclusione 14., Reginaldo Tom. 2. lib. 18. cap. 12. num. 143., that in the brief Hours, the half is a grave part. He also refers to Lorca Tom. 2. disp. 16. memb. 2. de legibus.

As to the other greater Hours, Sanchez Tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 18. num. 8. says that to omit nine lessons is grave matter in Matins.

Gavantus ad rubr. missalis, tom. 2. sect. 1. cap. 5. tit. 1. num. 4. and Suarez de Relig. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 15. num. 16. say it is necessary that no part of any hour be omitted which is equivalent to one small hour; but if they do not reach this, it is not mortal.

Antonius Ragucius tract. de officio Canonicorum in Choro, quaest. 13. num. 4. says that in the greater Hours, namely Matins, Lauds, and Vespers, a notable part is a fourth.

The reason, however, why a greater part is required in a greater Hour is, because it ought to be a part compared to a whole still greater and grave: Tannerus disp. 5. quaest. 1. num. 145., with Sà verb. Horae, says a notable part is one Hour of the seven, or the half of each Hour, even the least; and he says this is the common opinion.

You will ask: whether one is bound to recite the Litanies on the days of Rogations outside the Choir, and the public supplications. Tannerus asserts so 2. 2. disp. 5. quaest. 1. dub. 5. num. 148., with Gavant. in comment. ad Rubr. missalis, Tom. 2. sect. 6. cap. 16., Suarez de Relig. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 15., Bonacina de Horis, can. disput. 1. quaest. 3. part. 1.

Macign. denies it de Horis, can. cap. 29., with Vazquez opusc. de benefic. cap. 4. §. 1. art. 2. disp. 1., Molfesius Tom. 1. tract. 5. cap. 1. num. 56., Diana resol. 42.

The Holy Doctor notes also, on Psalm 94, that the Invitatory Psalm is omitted at the beginning of the office of Epiphany, because that office concerns the calling of the nations, while the Jews remain in their obstinacy. But at length in the sixth place it is sung, because in the sixth age even they lick the traces of Christ.

The Holy Doctor notes, on Psalm. 23. et 118., in those words: See my humility, that in holy week, in the three days of darkness, the beginning of the office is omitted: O God, come to my assistance, and also the end of the prayers, because then Christ was taken away, who is Alpha and Omega; that is, the beginning and the end.

Moreover, the Holy Doctor examines the effect of prayer in its figures in Dieta, tit. 2. cap. 5.

He compares it to incense Psalm. 104. suaveolenti. Second, to a shield; sap. 18. it is said of Aaron proferens scutum orationis, restitit irae [bringing forth the shield of prayer, he withstood the wrath]. Third, he compares it to tribute, which we are bound to pay to the Divine majesty.

The praying man is compared to a man carrying an encomium [gift] to the Prince. So the Angel says, cap. 12. Tobiae, de orationibus eius.

Therefore he exhorts us to cry out to the Lord like little ones who want the breasts, like a whelp when it feels blows, and like a people seeing dangers.

Likewise we ought (he says) to open the mouth like one afflicted with rheum, or like a little chick hastening to its mother coming; and like a tiny infant to its nurse.

Let us rise then vigorously to the divine praises in the manner of the cock at song, nor be driven by sleep; for thus, not repeating the office which you sang while sleeping, you are guilty of a lethal fault, as Bassaeus warns num. 23., with Marchino de sacr. Ordinis, tract. 2. part. 6. diff. 2. cap. 12. Though I would grant gratis — which I deny to Rodericus sum. part. 1. cap. 140. — that the Choir is satisfied if one strives to shake off sleep. Nor, I constantly assert, is the Choir satisfied while it is sung with musical chant, if you are willingly distracted, against Zach. Pasqualigo decis. 408., if you are bound to recite that part.