Who is bound to say the office, and how gravely

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

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

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

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

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

The following are bound to the recitation of the breviary:

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

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

1. He does not make the fruits his own. Therefore he does not acquire ownership of the fruits, and so before the sentence of a judge (cf. can. 2232) and, as it seems, by justice, he is bound to restitution, although d'Annibale¹ thinks that restitution is imposed after the manner of a conventional penalty.

2. In proportion to the omission, that is, according to the Constitution of Pius V Ex proximo:² One who has omitted the whole office on one day is bound to restore all the fruits corresponding to that day, or the 365th part of the annual revenue; one who has omitted either Matins with Lauds or the remaining hours, half the fruits of one day; one who has omitted one of the said remaining hours, a twelfth part. Moreover one who receives the fruits of a benefice on account of other burdens also is bound only to that extent to restore the fruits insofar as they correspond to the burden of the canonical hours. "Wherefore they say that a bishop or pastor is bound to restore a third or fourth part of the fruits, retaining the others for the other burdens which they satisfy; canons, half; those having a chaplaincy, half or a third part" (St. Alphonsus III, 673). Finally, from the Constitution of Leo X Supernae dispositionis, the fruits received in the first six months are remitted.

3. He should hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan Seminary, or distribute them among the poor. "By the name of the poor, however, are understood the poor of any place whatsoever; and the deceased themselves are also understood. - And also the cleric himself can apply the said fruits to himself, if he is truly poor" (St. Alphonsus III, 672). Besides, if someone ignorant or forgetful of the debt has distributed alms, he can quite probably reckon these for restitution (St. Alphonsus III, 700, question 2). But proposition 33 was condemned by Alexander VII:³ "Restitution of fruits on account of omission of the hours can be supplied by any alms whatsoever which the beneficiary had previously made from the fruits of his benefice."

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

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

¹ Summula Theologiae Moralis III, 65.

² 20 September 1571.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1133.

⁴ Cf. Sacred Penitentiary, 24 November 1852.

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?

1071. The recitation of the divine office is one of the most efficacious means for preserving continence; and therefore it was enjoined upon sacred ministers already for a long time. It is called the divine office, because it was instituted by the Church for praising God; it also received the name canonical hours, because through the sacred canons it was prescribed for certain hours. Today seven different canonical hours are numbered: Matins with Lauds, or the nocturnal office; Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline, which constitute the diurnal office.

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

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

I. On The Obligation Of Reciting The Divine Office.

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

1. Existence Of This Obligation.

1072. Principle: Every cleric constituted in sacred orders or beneficed is held to recite the divine office daily. This obligation indeed did not flourish from the beginning, but was gradually introduced, and was more precisely determined by the practice of the Church, as will be clear from the following: -

1073. (A) The historical evolution of this obligation is outlined. (a) The part of the divine office which first was in use is Matins, which was sung at first light. First indeed on the Vigil of Easter, but afterward on the vigils of Sundays, of certain feasts and stations (which had place on the fourth and sixth ferias), the clergy and people were accustomed to sing psalms, hymns, and prayers in certain designated basilicas; and in some places vigils of this sort became daily, because of the greater devotion of the faithful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1074. (e) As Lehmkuhl, n. 624, deservedly observes, the Pontiffs and Councils rather suppose that this obligation of reciting the office is present than properly impose it. Yet it is useful to relate certain texts, as being more explicit; first as to presbyters: "Let the priest, the matutinal office having been completed in the morning, discharge the task of his service, namely Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers."⁴ Afterward, various abuses flourishing in reciting the office having been enumerated, it is added: "Therefore these and similar things we utterly prohibit under penalty of suspension, strictly commanding in virtue of obedience that they celebrate the nocturnal and likewise the diurnal divine office, as much as God shall give them, studiously and also devoutly."⁵ - The Council of Basel admonishes concerning the right recitation of the office not only priests, but "any beneficed persons whatever, or those constituted in sacred orders, since they are held to the canonical hours."⁶

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

⁵ Ibid., cap. 9, Dolentes.

⁶ In Roskovany, t. V, p. 117.

1075. (B) From the practice and custom of the Church this obligation is more precisely determined. This is, among other things, an eminent and apodictically concluding argument. For from those things which have been said above, it is not always plainly clear whether there is question of beneficed clerics only, or also of non-beneficed clerics without distinction; nor whether there is question only of the divine office to be fulfilled in church, or also of the office imposed privately upon each one. But custom, the best interpreter of laws, for a long time now clearly and absolutely imposes upon each cleric constituted in sacred orders the personal obligation of reciting the divine office, even privately, and outside assemblies of the church.

1076. The witnesses and proof of this custom are the following facts: (a) The doctrine of all Moralists and Canonists, from whom not even one today will be found teaching that the daily recitation of the Breviary is not obligatory for Major Clerics. (b) The manner of acting of Bishops who, although by customary law they can dispense in such a law, in fact dispense very rarely and only in a transitory manner. (c) The sense of all, whether Presbyters, or Deacons, or Subdeacons, who, even when they are less given to piety and perfection, think that they are so bound to this obligation that they judge notable omissions to be grave faults.

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

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

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

2. On The Gravity Of This Obligation.

1077. Principle. The obligation of reciting the divine office is of itself grave, because its end is something of the greatest moment, namely worship to be rendered to God in the name of the Church; yet it admits smallness of matter, because the omission of some brief prayer is not judged morally to inflict grave injury upon God. Hence: -

1078. (A) One who deliberately, without sufficient cause, omits the whole office of one day, or a notable part of it, sins gravely. But an integral hour, even a brief one, such as Terce or Compline,¹ is judged a notable part, because, from the common judgment of prudent persons, the omission of one hour is something grave in relation to the whole office. - Therefore one sins lightly who omits an hour not integrally, but only in part, for example, the lessons of one nocturn. If something is omitted from several hours, greater matter is required for mortal sin, because one continuous omission is judged graver than several separate omissions. - One who omits the whole office of one day more probably commits only one sin, yet graver than if he neglected only one hour; the reason is that the office of one day is enjoined by the Church by one precept.

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

1079. (B) Beneficed clerics, for example, canons or parish priests, who, after six months have elapsed from the benefice obtained, have culpably omitted the divine office, ought to restore to pious works the fruits of the benefice in proportion to the omitted hours. Thus from the law brought by Lateran V, more accurately declared by Pius V, and related in the Code, c. 1475.

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

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

1080. (C) The obligation of reciting the divine office begins on the day and hour on which the subdiaconate is received. Thus one who is ordained in the morning, before the ninth hour, ought to begin from Terce; one who is ordained at the tenth hour will begin from Sext. One who before ordination recites hours to which he is held only after the order has been received probably satisfies his obligation, on account of the moral union which exists between these two moments.

3. On Causes Excusing From This Obligation.

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

1089. • Canonical Hours are called: the collection of prayers and readings to be recited by persons deputed to this, at certain hours, on individual days. Hence the Hours are also called 1° the Divine Office, which is recited in honor of God; 2° the Ecclesiastical Office, which is paid in the name of the Church; 3° the Canonical Office, which must be recited according to the rules of the Canons; 4° the Breviary, because that Office is a compendium of the Old and New Testament, and also of the sentences of the Fathers and the life of the Saints.

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

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

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

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

Point I. On the obligation of reciting.

1090. Principles. - I. The following are obliged to recite the canonical Hours daily:² 1° All Clerics constituted in Sacred Orders, even those censured and deposed. This is clear from various places of Canon Law; from the Lateran Council, year 1215, from the Bull of St. Pius V Quod a Nobis. - 2° All beneficed persons who have a right in the thing and full dominion of the benefice. It is drawn from the Lateran Council under Leo X, and also from the Bull of Pius V: Ex proximo. - 3° All Religious of each sex professed in an Order approved by the Church, or in which solemn vows are emitted, and destined for choir. It is clear from custom, and also from the Decree of Gregory X, etc. Cf. n. 1205. q. 2°.

II. All these sin gravely if they omit the whole Office or a notable part of it without legitimate cause. The reason is clear; for they violate the law of the Church in a grave matter. - St. Alphonsus,¹ and others most commonly.

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

1091. Questions. - Query 1° What is grave matter in the omission of the Office?

Resp. Theologians most commonly agree that the omission of one little Hour or of Compline, or of a part of the Nocturns equivalent at least to the quantity of one little Hour, is matter of mortal sin; but that the omission of a lesser part does not exceed venial sin.²

1092. • Query 2° Whether it is grave to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday?

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

1093. • Query 3° Whether he commits one or multiple grave sins who omits the whole Office?

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

1094. • Query 4° Whether if someone doubts whether he has omitted something in the Office, he is held to recite it?

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

Hence (they say) you are well excused from repeating the Office if you do not remember having said something, and you have a just conjecture of believing that you said it: for example, if you remember that you began some Psalm, or Reading, or Hour, and afterwards, distracted, you have come to the end of the Psalm, Reading, Hour, without remembering whether you recited the whole; for presumption favors you, because you are accustomed to recite integrally those things whose recitation you began. Likewise if you have come to some Hour, for example Sext, and you doubt whether you recited the preceding one, you can hold the same decision, because you are not accustomed to recite a later Hour unless you have recited the prior one first, and therefore you can prudently believe that you omitted nothing.¹

1095. • Query 5° Whether Religious who for just cause do not come to choir are held under grave obligation to recite the Office privately?

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

1096. • Query 6° Whether a Religious sins gravely who recites the Office privately, while he can easily be present at choir?

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

1096. • Query 7° Whether those obliged to the Office are held to supply those things which they omit in choir on account of the functions of choir, for example by ringing bells or playing organs, or by looking for the Psalms, and other similar things?

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

2204. • Principles. I. The OBLIGATION of reciting the canonical Hours arises FROM A THREEFOLD title, namely: from the title of sacred Order, from the title of ecclesiastical Benefice, and from the title of Religion bound to choir. Thus all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2205. • St. Alphonsus further adverts:²⁶ 1. "No individual Religious or Nun is held under grave sin to say the Hours in choir, provided, however, that the choir is not taken away.... But paucity of religious excuses the whole Community from choir. Therefore, unless there are present at least four available ones (i.e. neither sick nor legitimately occupied), there is no obligation of choir."

2. Prelates sin gravely if from negligence they permit a notable part of the Office to be omitted in choir; because they are bound to protect and preserve regular observance.²⁷

3. Religious dwelling with permission outside the cloisters are held to the Office; likewise, if they are fugitives, or imprisoned. - But otherwise, if they have been ejected, or condemned to the galleys.¹

4. Lay brothers ought, from the prescription of the Rule, to recite certain prayers, but not under grave obligation.

2206. • II. The obligation of reciting the canonical Hours is so GRAVE that everyone upon whom this duty is incumbent sins gravely if, without legitimate cause, he omits the whole Office of one day, or a notable part of it. The reason is because he violates a precept in grave matter, namely in matter which pertains to the most excellent virtue of religion. - Yet this omission, according to the truer opinion, is not a sevenfold sin, but only one. "But if someone omitted several Hours from intentions morally interrupted, then he would commit several sins."² (cf. n. 328, Rule 32; n. 331, 3).

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

2207. • Two things here come TO BE NOTED: 1. There is a grave obligation of reciting the Office of the Dead on the day of the Commemoration of all the dead; likewise, of reciting the Litanies on the feast-day of St. Mark and during the three days of Rogations.⁴ - 2. Today there is no obligation to recite, on the days assigned in any month, the little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Office of the Dead, the penitential Psalms, or the Gradual Psalms. Except if a custom of reciting them flourishes somewhere: which, however, does not oblige the individuals outside choir, but only the Community. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 January 1609.⁵

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

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

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

I. Question I. Are Clerics established in minor orders bound to recite the Canonical Hours, or any prayers? Answer. All commonly deny that these Clerics are bound either to the Canonical Hours or to other prayers, unless in some Church a custom prevailed which bound Clerics, on account of alms received, to recite the office of the Blessed Virgin. Nor can Bishops absolutely compel Clerics to any task of prayers: since Clerics are subject to Bishops in those things that regard their own state, but not otherwise in things beyond their state.

II. Clerics who have been initiated into sacred orders are bound to pay the divine office, at least by force of a general custom gravely obliging. Nay, even if, through fear unjustly inflicted, they had received the sacred Orders, they would be bound to this burden, because fear extrinsically inflicted does not take away the voluntary. By a stronger right they would be bound, if the fear had been justly inflicted.

III. A Subdeacon who receives Orders, and a Cleric who either receives a Benefice or makes profession, on the day on which he is initiated into sacred orders, or receives profession or the Benefice, is bound to recite that part of the office which remains to be recited — whatever anyone too laxly fables to the contrary. A Bishop, for a grave cause, can dispense private Clerics from the recitation of the office, as from other precepts. Those about to be initiated into sacred Orders, or about to receive a Benefice, ought to have the Breviary ready, and know the manner of reciting it: otherwise they would expose themselves to the danger of violating the precept.

IV. Question II. Are Religious not yet in sacred orders, and Nuns who have made profession, bound under grave fault to recite the Hours privately outside choir? Answer. That Novices before profession are exempt from this burden, the common and true opinion teaches. Bordoni, Caramuel, Marchant, Lessius, Martín de San José — whom Diana cites — deny that professed Religious, before the reception of sacred Orders, are bound under grave fault to pay the Canonical Hours. But this opinion is false: since all Regulars, and Nuns professing choir, after profession has been made, are bound, by force of a perennial custom and by force of their own constitutions, to pay the divine praises privately outside choir.

V. The authors cited object that a custom introduced by those who lack the power of introducing it has no force. Now the custom of reciting the office was introduced by Nuns and by Youths, who possess no faculty for introducing it. Therefore it is null. These are trifles. For this custom flows from the authority of the holy Fathers and from the Patriarchs of the sacred Orders. Wherefore a professed Religious chorister not yet initiated into sacred orders, dispensed to remain outside the cloister, is bound to recite the Canonical Hours. A fugitive professed Religious, before the reception of the sacred Orders, is bound to pay the Canonical Hours. The same must be said of Religious choristers ejected from the Monastery by sentence of a judge. What of Religious condemned to the galleys, and initiated into sacred orders? Several Theologians affirm that they are bound to pay the Canonical Hours. But the more probable opinion to me is that these unhappy men, whether or not they are initiated into sacred orders, are exempt from this burden — both on account of continual impediments, and because, since the Pontiff subjects them to so great a punishment, he seems tacitly to dispense them from the burden, lest the religious state be exposed to opprobrium.

VI. I had indicated a privilege in Tome 2 of the Christian Theology, book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 7, § 2, number 18, question 7, page 404, granted to professed Benedictines, by which they are exempted from reciting the Canonical Hours until they have been initiated into sacred orders. But I have now discovered that this privilege is not sufficiently authentic. Wherefore I retract what I wrote in the place cited concerning this privilege.

I. Question I. Is one who holds a benefice, whether simple or with cure of souls, bound under grave fault to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. Ecclesiastical benefices are Episcopates, Canonries, Plebanates, Rectorships, Provostships, Dignities, Prestimonies, and a Chaplaincy erected by the Bishop's authority. That all these beneficiaries are bound to pay the divine office was defined in the Lateran Council under Leo X, session 9, "We ordain"; and rightly, because he who freely takes upon himself some benefice ought to undergo its burdens: but the benefice is conferred with the burden of reciting the Canonical Hours; therefore he is bound to pay them. Wherefore a Beneficiary omitting the divine office, if he be initiated into sacred orders, perpetrates a twofold crime, one against Religion, the other against Justice. If he takes the benefice under compulsion of fear, and receives its fruits, he is bound to recite the Canonical Hours; if he is unwilling to receive the fruits, he comes off free from reciting the office.

II. He who holds a benefice reduced to commendam, until it be given to another, or a manual or regular one, is bound to recite the office: because it is a benefice, and he receives its fruits. For it does not matter that it can be revoked at will. For the burden lasts as long as the advantage lasts. If a benefice is given to someone that he play the organ, he ought to recite the office. If only the fruits of the benefice are conferred as a wage, then there is no duty of reciting the office.

III. Question II. Is one who receives prestimonies bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. Some deny it; but the more probable and more common opinion affirms it, because these prestimonies are portions deducted from the revenues of a benefice, and so true benefices, as St. Pius V declared by motu proprio. If they are reckoned among benefices, they are subject to the burdens of a benefice. Similarly, those who have obtained a Chaplaincy erected by the Bishop's authority, and conferred by him, are bound to pay the Canonical Hours. But if it is neither erected by the Bishop nor conferred by him, he who holds it is free from the burden of paying the office. But if, by its institution, it is not collative, and afterwards is conferred once or twice by the Bishop, it does not thereby become collative, and so the holder is not subject to the recitation of the Hours. On the contrary, if Prelates frequently confer it — that is, at a fitting time for prescription — then those retaining it would be bound to the Canonical Hours, because through this frequent conferral it puts on the character of an ecclesiastical benefice.

IV. He who, before the legitimate age, obtains a collative Chaplaincy by dispensation of the Pontiff, is bound to recite the Canonical Hours; but he must have Masses celebrated by others.

V. Question III. Are pensioners bound to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. If the pension is altogether lay, and is conferred by the title of a wage for service rendered to the Church, there is no obligation of reciting the office; on the contrary, if it is conferred on a Cleric as Cleric, and some order or tonsure is necessary in the recipient, then the recipient is bound not to the Canonical Hours, but to the little office of the Blessed Virgin, since St. Pius V so decreed, under the burden of restoring the fruits of the pension. But he is exempt from reciting the little office of the Blessed Virgin in whose person the pension is reserved for another's advantage: because only he who enjoys the advantage ought to undergo the burden of reciting the office.

VI. He who obtained a pension by clerical title, if he afterwards contracts marriage, is bound to recite the office of the Blessed Virgin, since it is an ecclesiastical pension, which requires clerical title in the recipient; and the same must be said of one who, after contracting marriage, obtains a pension by clerical title. He who resigns the whole pension is bound to nothing; if he resigns only part of the pension, he remains subject to the burden of reciting the office. A beneficiary Cleric, if he obtains a pension, is not bound to recite the Marian office, provided he recites the Canonical Hours. For the mind of St. Pius V is that one or the other office be recited, but not both.

VII. Question IV. Are Bishops and Cardinals bound to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. Of Bishops there is no disagreement, but all affirm that they are bound. Of Cardinals Fr. Diana remains undecided, and suspends his judgment. But all the Theologians affirm that Cardinals are bound to pay the divine office, since the Cardinalate is a very great and eminent benefice. If all Beneficiaries are subject to the burden of reciting the office, Cardinals are bound by a stricter right, and undergo this burden on the day on which they receive the red biretta.

VIII. Question V. Are coadjutors of benefices bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. A coadjutorship is not a benefice, even while some suitable stipend is assigned, because the benefice remains with the titular holder, nor can it be in two persons at once. But if some fruits are assigned to coadjutors, not as a stipend, but by way of a pension, then, like other pensioners, they are bound to recite the little office of the Blessed Virgin. If a coadjutor is given to an absent or sick Parish priest, to hold his place, he is then bound to discharge all the duties of the Parish priest. Finally, if coadjutors have expressly bound themselves, and have entered into a pact with the titular holder, the Pontiff dispensing, then they are bound to the Canonical Hours.

IX. Question VI. Is one who holds a benefice without fruits bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. If he lacks the fruits by his own fault, he is bound, because he ought not to gather fruit from his own iniquity. That if the benefice lacks any fruit whatever, even then he is bound to the Canonical Hours, Medina, Paludanus, and Torquemada defend: because he who spontaneously accepts a benefice destitute of fruits also spontaneously and freely takes upon himself its burdens. Others deny it. I would say to the Beneficiary: either give up the benefice, or recite the office.

X. If a Beneficiary, against the order of law, does not reside, he is bound to the Canonical Hours. But if, the order of law being kept, he does not reside for a just cause, that even then he is bound to the Canonical Hours, Paludanus, Soto, Torquemada, Ledesma, Navarrus, and Córdoba teach. Leander, however, denies it. If the cause of absence is for the common good of the Church, then perhaps he could be said to be exempt. But if he is absent for his own peculiar advantage, even though an honorable one — for instance for the sake of studies, that he may become a Doctor or Master — he is nonetheless bound to recite the Canonical Hours. Nor may you object that study and the acquisition of knowledge redound to the honor and advantage of the Church: for these evasions are vain. Only in the case of defending the Church, or of protecting her rights, could it be disputed whether the Beneficiary were exempt. And even then, if he could recite the Canonical Hours, I see no solid reason why he should not. If a Beneficiary resigns the fruits to friends or blood-relations, he is beyond doubt subject to the recitation of the divine office. Similarly a Beneficiary who, on account of excommunication, does not receive the fruits, is bound to recite the divine office. But he who unjustly holds a benefice — as through simony, or because he is excommunicated, irregular, or lacking the legitimate age — is not bound to recite the Canonical Hours; but he must give up the benefice and restore the fruits. But he who, having legitimately obtained a benefice, is deprived of it by a judge's sentence for a year or a longer interval, is bound throughout that whole time to pay the Canonical Hours: since he ought not to gather advantage from his own fault.

XI. He who accepts a slender benefice is subject to the obligation of reciting the Canonical Hours, as the common and true opinion teaches. For this burden arises not from the revenues, but from the benefice. Therefore he who wills the benefice, wills by that very fact the burdens of the benefice. If the burden displeases him, let him give up the benefice.

XII. A Beneficiary who, having taken possession of the benefice, is impeded for some time from receiving the fruits, is bound to recite the Canonical Hours. For he who is deprived for some time of receiving the fruits, and probably hopes that he will receive them in due time, has the benefice, and the right of receiving the fruits. Those Beneficiaries are bound to recite the Canonical prayers whose first-year fruits, by statute of the Church or by custom, are distributed among their seniors: both because they voluntarily subject themselves to this burden, and because they have a right to receive the fruits. Yet the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 14, and St. Pius V, in the constitution Dudum of the year 1570, disapproved this custom as depraved. But when a Beneficiary is impeded by force and fraud from receiving the fruits, without hope of receiving them, he is exempt from the burden of the divine office, and can give up the benefice. If, however, the impediment were not perpetual, nor for a very long time, and the Beneficiary wished to retain the benefice, then he would be bound to the Canonical Hours: because he both possesses the benefice and has hope of receiving the fruits.

XIII. A Beneficiary who, after the benefice has been conferred, is impeded by a lawsuit brought against him from taking possession of the benefice, is not bound to the Canonical Hours. For the burden of reciting the Canonical Hours arises not from the conferral alone, but from the peaceful possession of the benefice. From conferral a right is born, but a mutilated and imperfect one; it is perfected, however, by possession. From this absolute title the burden of the Canonical Hours arises. When, therefore, the beneficiary is in no way the cause why he is impeded from possession, but by a lawsuit brought against him is in very deed impeded from possessing the benefice, he is exempt from the burden, until he attains possession. For so long as possession is under litigation, the benefice, together with its fruits, is a contingent matter; and from a contingent matter a certain debt cannot flow.

XIV. If, on the contrary, a Beneficiary has obtained possession of the benefice and the administration of the fruits, and is afterwards sued in a lawsuit, then he is bound to the Canonical Hours: because then he enjoys the title, the possession, and the administration of the benefice. And this is the common opinion.

XV. Question VII. One who is in doubt about the slenderness of a benefice — is he bound to pay the burden of the Canonical Hours? Answer. Several of the Probabilists deny it. Fr. Tamburini, book 1 on the Decalogue, chapter 3, § 7, verse Beneficiarius, writes this: "We shall say below that a Beneficiary possessing a slender benefice is not obliged, according to a probable opinion, to pay the Canonical Hours. What, then, will happen, if, all things weighed, it is doubted whether a benefice is slender or not? I answer: I think it probable that he is obliged, and equally probable that he is not obliged. Wherefore it is lawful to embrace whichever of these opinions pleases you." It is worthwhile to set before the eyes of readers, even in this very Compendium, the sweetest fruits of Probabilism. "To embrace whichever of these opinions pleases you." If one is true, the other must needs be false. It is lawful for you, then, most sweetly to sip the poison of falsehood according to your inclination. But these things must be bewailed with tears rather than served up for mockery. Hence let the reader gather how true is what I said above: namely, that Probabilism is — saving a better judgment — antievangelical, because it establishes as a system that the use of falsity is licit, which must needs be found in one or the other of contrary propositions. The most benign Probabilist Leander follows Tamburini's doctrine. He who has two benefices, each of which is so slender that it does not suffice, but both together suffice for an honorable sustenance, is bound to the Canonical Hours, as all affirm. But those who have several rich benefices are bound to pay not two, but a single divine office. If, however, a Beneficiary unjustly holds several benefices, then several Theologians teach that he must recite several divine offices. I myself would say that such a Beneficiary must retain one benefice, and give up the rest. If a Beneficiary is a Priest, and has several benefices, does he perpetrate several sins if he omits the office? Not a few Theologians affirm it. But it is more probable to me that he commits only one sin against Justice, and another against Religion.