The Divine Office Part 6

He who wilfully omits a notable part of the daily Divine Office commits a mortal sin. A notable part of the Divine Office for any day is held by some theologians to be the omission of one psalm in one of the small hours, or a corresponding quant.i.ty of matter in lessons, responses, etc.

They hold that such wilful omission is a grave sin. Other theologians hold--and their opinion is the more common and the more probable one--that, although one psalm is a notable part of a small hour, in relation to the whole office it is not a notable part, and its omission is not a grave matter. These theologians hold that the wilful omission of an entire small hour or equivalent matter (e.g., s.e.xt, or the third nocturn of Matins) is an omission of a notable part and cannot be excused from grave sin.

The omission of the entire office of a day, the seven canonical hours, is held by some theologians to carry the guilt of seven mortal sins.

Because, there is a different precept for each hour and the omission of each hour violates a precept. The Salamenticenses think this opinion probable. The more common and the more correct opinion is that by such omission only one sin is committed. And the theologians who hold this opinion say that the recitation of the canonical hours is imposed under one precept only, and hence there is only one obligation embracing the seven hours. This is the opinion of St. Alphonsus (n. 148) who quotes several authors (including Lessius, Sanchez and St. Antoninus) in support. If a person in Holy Orders omit several hours with a retractation, or a moral interruption in his sinful intentions, he may commit several mortal sins, because all the omissions, which in themselves are grave matter, may become independent of each other by the interruption and renewal of the intention (St. Alphonsus, n. 148).

What must a person do who has a doubt that he has omitted something in his recitation of the office? Is he bound to make a.s.surance doubly sure by reciting the part of which he doubts?

If the doubt be a positive doubt, that is, if he have good reason to believe that he has recited it, he is not bound to anything further regarding the part in question. For instance, if a priest remembers having started the recitation of a lesson, and in a short time finds himself at the end of it, and cannot be sure if he have recited it, the presumption is in favour of the priest and of the recitation, because it is his custom to recite completely whatever part he commences. He has, thus, moral certainty that he has satisfied the precept, and it is not necessary to repeat it; if the necessity for repet.i.tion be admitted in such a case, a fruitful source of scruples is opened up.

On the other hand, if the doubt be negative--that is to say, if a person has no reasonable motive for believing that he has recited the full office or the full hour, he is bound to recite the part omitted, because in such a doubt, the precept of recitation is, as the theologians say, "in possession." (St. Alphonsus, n. 150).

It is not allowed to change anything nor to add anything to the daily office without permission. The Sacred Congregation of Rites (10 June, 1690, n. 3222) replied to a query, that in saints' offices nothing is to be added and nothing is to be changed, and this reply applies to all sorts of offices, old and new.

THE ORDER TO BE OBSERVED IN RECITING THE DIVINE OFFICE.

In reciting the Divine Office two points of order are to be noted: (1) the order or arrangement of offices, (2) the order or arrangement of Hours. The order of offices indicates which office is to be said on each day as laid down in the calendar. The order of the Hours points out which of the seven hours should be recited, firstly, secondly, etc., Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, etc. It is of obligation to observe both orders. But is it a sin to change wilfully the order of the office? It is not, if there be a reasonable cause for the change. For instance, if a priest cannot say the office proper to his diocese on a certain day, but says some other approved office, the change is not a sin. But if a priest, _ex industria_, subst.i.tute one office for another, it is _per se_ a venial sin; but if an office be said which is very much shorter than the calendar office, or if this changing or subst.i.tuting be so frequent as to disturb gravely the good order of the year's offices, the sin may be (and, according to some authors, is) a mortal sin.

It is asked whether a person fulfils his debt to the Church if he has recited by mistake an office other than the one a.s.signed in the calendar of the day. Theologians teach that such a recitation fulfils the debt.

The Church does not wish to impose a second recitation, and her axiom "_officium pro officio valet_" holds, provided always that the order of the psalms as laid down in the new psaltery is followed. This order is necessary always for validity. However, if the subst.i.tuted office be very much shorter than the omitted office, it is advised to equalise them by reciting the psalms of Matins, This is a counsel and was not laid down by theologians as an obligation.

An office thus omitted is not to be transferred to another day (S.C.R., June 17th, 1673). The office may be omitted altogether for that year. If there be leisure the omitted office should be recited. This practice is in conformity with the spirit of the liturgy and with the right order of the calendar. The Sacred Congregation of Rites, questioned on this matter, replied _sic debere fieri_, such should be done. If a priest recites by mistake one day's office for another (e.g., the Tuesday office on a Monday) he is bound to recite Tuesday's office on Tuesday (St. Alphonsus). If, however, after a portion of the office has been read, it is noticed that a mistake has been made in reading the calendar or the _Ordo_, and that the office partly recited is not the office of the current day, what is to be done? If the priest has without fault made the mistake of reciting some office not ascribed to the current day, he is not bound to repeat the part already recited (e.g., Matins); it is sufficient, valid and lawful to follow the correct office in the following Hours. The priest reciting is not bound to repeat even part of an hour, if he finds out his mistake during the recitation of even a small hour. And he may finish the psalm or hymn or prayer which he was reciting when he discovered his mistake, and he may then take up the correct office at the part or hour at which he leaves off, or he may finish the Hour at which he was engaged. The former solution of the difficulty seems the better, as it more accurately agrees with the maxim, _error corrigatur ubi apprehenditur_. If the error in the selecting of the office has been wilful, say, through gross carelessness, and is the fault of the priest who changes a notable part of a canonical Hour, he is obliged--the more probable opinion teaches--to repeat the full Hour, and this obligation binds under pain of venial sin--_i.e._, the obligation to recite the office in the prescribed manner.

What is a person bound to do who forgets part of an Hour--is he obliged to repeat the full Hour?

He is bound to recite the part forgotten only, unless the mistake be made through gross carelessness, and unless it be a considerable part (e.g., two nocturns); in that case he is bound under pain of venial sin to repeat the full Hour. If a person say the same Hour (e.g., Terce) twice, may he compensate for extra labour by the omission of an equivalent part (e.g., None)? Such omission is unlawful; he must recite all the Hours without omission (Scavini, 391).

Is there an obligation to repeat the Hours in the order fixed in the Breviary? Yes, there is such an obligation. And a person may sin venially by the inversion of the Hours, The obligation binds _sub veniali_ only. The inversion does not mean any grave breach of order, which is fixed by a secondary precept and as a circ.u.mstance of light importance. If the whole office be recited, the substance of the office--which is the main and primary matter--is safeguarded. Several authors argued that any inversion of the Canonical Hours, if frequent, is a mortal sin, but the opinion which says that the inversion of the Hours is only a venial sin is the more probable (St. Alph. 169; Gury, 77; Lehmkuhl II., 621).

Which causes justify an inversion of the Hours? Any reasonable cause justifies this inversion. Thus, if a friend invite a priest to joint recitation of an Hour, and the priest have not the preceding canonical Hours recited, he is justified in accepting the invitation and in inverting the order of the Hours. Or if a person have a Diurnal only at hand, he may read the day Hours, although he have not Matins for the day read. Again, a priest may not have the lessons for Matins at hand, but he may recite the psalms for Matins, Lauds, and add the lessons at Matins when they are to hand (Gury, n. 78; St. Alph., n. 170).

Is it a sin to say Matins for following day before finis.h.i.+ng office of current day? Some theologians answer affirmatively, because the office of the current day should be complete before another office is begun.

Others hold that such recitation is both valid and licit, as the office of one day and its obligation have no bond with the office of another day, and that any reasonable cause exempts from all sin or fault (Gury, n. 79). Not to recite the commemorations in the prescribed order set out in the _Ordo_ is held by some theologians to be a venial sin, as they hold that the rubric is preceptive; others hold that it is not any sin, as they say that the rubric is directive.

ARTICLE III.--TIME OF RECITATION.

The time fixed for the recitation of the entire office of the day is from midnight to the midnight following, and anyone bound to recite the Divine Office does not sin gravely if he has recited carefully the entire office of the day between these limits of time; because, within these limits, the substance of the obligation binding to time is fulfilled. Of course, it is lawful in virtue of a privilege granted by the Church to recite on the previous evening Matins and Lauds for the following day. In the recitation the times fixed by the Church for each hour should be observed. But the non-recital at those fixed times is never a mortal sin and is rarely a venial sin, unless their postponement or antic.i.p.ation is without cause.

When may a priest begin the recitation of Matins and Lauds for the following day? There were two different replies given to this question.

One opinion stated that it was lawful to begin Matins and Lauds after 2 o'clock, p.m., and this could be lawfully done every day in the year, and in every land. Another opinion--and St. Alphonsus calls it _sententia verior_--denies that such a course is lawful. The old French Breviaries gave a _horarium_ arranging the hour of antic.i.p.ation of Matins and Lauds, so that no one should, through temerity or ignorance, begin the antic.i.p.ation before the sun had pa.s.sed half way in its course between mid-day and sunset. On January 20th the time to begin the antic.i.p.ation of hours was 2.15 p.m., but on June 8th the antic.i.p.ation was not to begin till 4 p.m.

Nowadays, the first opinion is held almost universally. The princ.i.p.al _internal_ argument for this opinion is the teaching that the antic.i.p.ation may begin from the public hour of first vespers, and these may be recited publicly according to present-day custom at 2 p.m.

Therefore, this time, 2 o'clock p.m., is the beginning of the ecclesiastical day, and can be taken as the time for private antic.i.p.ation of Matins and Lauds. The _external_ argument in favour of this opinion is the authority of theologians. In 1905, the Sacred Congregation of Rites was asked the question "_Utrum in privata recitatione Matutinum sequentis diei incipi possit, 2da pomeriddiane_?".

The reply was, "_Consulantur probati auctores_" (_Acta Sanctae Sedis_ x.x.xVII., p. 712). Now many approved authors (e.g., Lehmkuhl, II., 793; Ballerini-Palmieri, IV. 515; Slater I., p. 609) hold that it is lawful, privately, to antic.i.p.ate Matins and Lauds at 2 o'clock, p.m. Lehmkuhl, who previously favoured a stricter view, was compelled, in the latest editions of his _Moral Theology_, to say of this opinion which allows antic.i.p.ation to begin at 2 o'clock, p.m.: "_Quae sententia hodie a multis usque gravissimis viris tenetur et observatur, ut, spectata consuetudine, extrinseca saltem probabilitas negari nequit_." We conclude, accordingly, that always and everywhere the private antic.i.p.ation of Matins and Lauds may begin at 2 p.m. (_cf. Irish Ecclesiastical Record_, Fifth Series, Vol. I., No. 541).

Doubts have arisen in connection with time changes made by various States in Europe. The various schemes of new time, of daylight saving, of co-ordinations of time, uniformity of time all through certain States, have given rise to doubts and queries regarding the time for fulfilling the precept of the office and also regarding the time for lawful antic.i.p.ation of Matins and Lauds. These doubts were solved several years ago, and now there is no longer any difficulty or anxiety over "true time," "new time," "legal time," in relation to matters ecclesiastical. In reply to queries, Dr. M. J. O'Donnell, in the _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_ (Vol. III., p. 582), explains clearly this time difficulty and its solution by the Congregation of the Council on 22nd July, 1893. The Bishop of Trier explained to the Congregation of the Council that owing to the State legislation in the German Empire all public clocks should register the same time, and that this meant that in his diocese the legal computation differs by half an hour from the mean time. "May clerics follow the legal time in reciting the Divine Office?"

was the bishop's question. The Congregation of the Council answered by a simple affirmative. In 1892, Greenwich time was introduced for State purposes into all railway, postal, and Government offices in Holland.

The query was put to the Congregation of the Inquisition if the clergy and people might, for the purpose of fast and other ecclesiastical obligations, follow the new time, or were they obliged to retain the true time? The reply was "_affirmative ad primam: negative ad secundam partem_." "In a word, the constant Roman answer has been 'Do as you please'; so far as the approval of the legal time is concerned it confirms the conclusion of the editor of the _Acta_ (x.x.xii-251) that in computing time the Church follows the rule that regulates all business concerns in different localities....

"In the meantime, taking into account the conventional character of 'time' and the liberal principles of Rome in the past, we have no doubt that everyone, priest or layman, is fully justified in following the new time if he feels so inclined." (See _Codex Juris. Canon._, Can. 33).

Are priests bound to recite Matins and Lauds before Ma.s.s?

The first sentence of the _Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae_ in the Missal contains the clause "_saltem Malutino c.u.m Laudibus absoluto_," The word _saltem_ indicates that the Church notifies the minimum and expects a further hour, Prime or even others of the small hours, to be finished before Ma.s.s. But theologians hold that there is no grave obligation for such prior-to-Ma.s.s recital, and that any reasonable cause excuses from the obligation (Lehmkuhl II., 628). In connection with this matter a very instructive and devotional essay in the _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_ (Fourth Series x.x.xI., n. 533) by Father M.

Russell, S.J., is well worth reading. It is ent.i.tled "A Neglected Adverb"; the adverb being _saltem_, from the clause quoted.

At what times should the small hours be recited? Prime may be, and, probably with more appropriateness, should be used as morning prayer and said before Ma.s.s. Terce and s.e.xt may be said before mid-day, or s.e.xt and None may be said after mid-day. Vespers should be said after mid-day.

Compline was the night prayer of the monks, who probably inst.i.tuted the hour. It should be borne in mind that the substance of the law of recitation is fulfilled if the whole office of the day be recited before midnight, and that the obligation for entire and complete recitation is grave; while the recitation of the hours at set hours of the day is a light obligation.

ARTICLE IV.-OF THE PLACE OF RECITATION AND THE ATt.i.tUDE IN RECITING THE OFFICE.

Where should the Divine Office be recited? The Divine Office should be recited in the place intended and set apart by the Church for that purpose--viz., in the choir or in the Church (Con. Trid., sess. 24).

Canons and religious are bound to recite their office in choir; of course, this refers to Canons in residence at a cathedral for daily service, and to religious in the strict application of the term. The Divine Office may be recited by priests anywhere, in the church, in a dwelling-house, walking, in the fields, etc.

In reciting the office a priest should observe an att.i.tude in harmony with the great work in which he is engaged, prayer to G.o.d. Hence, his att.i.tude should be becoming, on his knees, standing, sitting, walking, but not sprawling or lying. The rubrics which prescribe kneeling, sitting, standing, apply to choir recitation only. But writers recommend that in private recitation these directions should not be altogether omitted, and they say that the practice of these rubrics of kneeling, bowing, standing, etc., is laudable and an aid to devout recital.

ARTICLE V.--p.r.o.nUNCIATION OF THE WORDS.

What kind of p.r.o.nunciation is to be attended to in the recitation of the Divine Office? The p.r.o.nunciation should be vocal--that is, there should be some sound, _aliquis sonitus verborum_, as St. Alphonsus writes (n.

162). Hence, to read the Breviary merely mentally or with the eyes only, does not satisfy the obligation.[A] Although the reader may not hear the sound produced, he must be careful to form with his lips every syllable.

This must be done, not necessarily in a throaty way. The formation of the words clearly with the lips suffices. But writers on this point emphasise the importance of audible recitation as a preventive of slurred, mutilated Latinity, which often leads to careless, or even invalid recitation. They note, too, that the reading with the eye merely, is a habit which readers bring from the reading of other books to their reading of the Breviary. German authors dwell at length on the fact that many priests, very early in their career, contract the habit of faulty vocalisation of liturgy, and that they never seem to notice their fault, or at least never seem to attempt an amendment. These authors attribute the defect to sub-voce recitation and recommend audible recitation, long and frequent audible recitation, to all priests reading their hours.

[Footnote A: The privilege of mental recitation was granted to the Friar Minor by Pope Leo X. and Pius V., but it is probable that the privilege was withdrawn by Pope Gregory XV. in 1622, in his letter _Roma.n.u.s Pontifex_; and Urban VIII., 1635, withdrew all privileges granted _vivae vocis oraculo_. The text of the doc.u.ment granting the privilege is obscurely worded. Still, several theologians of repute maintain that the privilege still exists and extends to the whole office. This is taught by the Salaraenticenses, _De hor. can. cap._ 3, n. 55; Tamburini, Rodriguez, etc., others opposed this view of the privilege existing after Pope Urban's letter _Alias_. This privilege extends to secular priests who are Franciscan tertiaries, if it exists at all.]

Can a priest fulfil his obligation by reciting the office with a companion? Yes, he can, for such recitation is the Church's ideal; and the priest who says his part (alternate verses, etc.), as in choir, fulfils his obligation, even when his companion is a layman or an inattentive person. In such recitation a priest should be careful (1) that his recitation be of alternate verses, (2) that the verse recitation be successive and not simultaneous, (3) that the verses, etc., chanted by one companion (or by one choir) be heard by the other companion or choir. There is no necessity for a priest at such recitation to say one verse in a loud voice and to say his companion's verses in a low, inaudible voice. Some priests do this with distressing results. Imperfect vocal recitation often leads to doubts and scruples in old age when remedies either cannot be applied or prove useless.

Those who recite the office in choir are bound by the rubrics concerning kneeling, sitting, standing, etc. Secondly, they are bound to observe the rules of the liturgy, especially the rule as to the stop in each verse at the asterisk mark. Thirdly, they are bound to recite clearly and distinctly; but even if they cannot hear distinctly the alternate choir, or even if they recite in a low voice, they fulfil the obligation of recitation; and canons are bound at Cathedral offices to sing and chant or to lose their manual distributions and the fruits of their prebends. If a person reciting his office with a companion or in a choir does not understand the words recited by his companion or by the choir, he is not bound at the end to repeat the part which he did not understand, because such a person has the intention of offering prayer and praise to G.o.d, and that intention suffices. Moreover, the Church's precept of reciting the office should he interpreted benignly, otherwise it must give rise to many scruples; for, companions in recitation, then, always, should be anxious as to the duty of repet.i.tion or the non-fulfilled duty of complete recitation.

p.r.o.nunciation of the words of the office should be _integral_. That is, the words and syllables are to be repeated fully without mutilation or abbreviation. Hence, if mutilation of the words occur to such an extent that the sense or meaning of the words is notably changed, mortal sin may be committed. But if the mutilation be small in quant.i.ty there is only a venial sin committed, and often no sin at all may be committed, as the mutilation of words or syllables may be quite involuntary, or may be done inadvertently, or may arise from an inveterate habit very difficult to correct, and in the attempt to cure it time and patience may have been spent (St. Alph., 164-165). This bad habit, if it extend over a large portion of the recitation and destroy notably the sense of the words, may bind _sub gravi_ to repet.i.tion, as this fault or habit affects the very substance of recitation. Priests seldom are bound to such a repet.i.tion, as the mutilation is not destructive to the sense of a notable part of the office and hence does not affect the substance of the obligation to vocal recital. St. Alphonsus holds (n. 165), that the obligation is fulfilled as long as the meaning is not destroyed, _quando servatur aliqua significatio verborum_.

p.r.o.nunciation should be _continuous_. That is, the recitation of each hour should be continuous, non-interrupted, and every notable stoppage or break in the recitation of a canonical hour is a venial sin, if there be no excusing cause for such an interruption. Any reasonable cause for interruption (e.g., to obey a bell call, to see a paris.h.i.+oner who calls, to hear a confession) excuses from all fault (St. Alph., n. 168).

If the recital of the office for any canonical hour be interrupted, should the whole hour be repeated? Some theologians say that it should be repeated. But the more probable opinion denies that there is any such obligation; it holds that the union of the prayers prescribed by the Church is not broken, as each psalm, each lesson, each prayer, has a complete signification and they are united sufficiently in one round of prayer by the intention formed of continuing the Hour, or even by the actual continuation. Gury states that a priest interrupting the office between the verses of a psalm is not bound to repeat the entire psalm on resuming the recitation, as he says each verse has its own signification.

May Matins be said separately from Lauds without any excusing cause?

Yes, for it was the practice of the early Church to say these parts of the liturgy at times separated by intervals. But if Matins be said separately, without Lauds following immediately. _Pater Noster_ with Dominus Vobisc.u.m and the prayer of the day should be said at the end of the _Te Deum_, If Lauds follow Matins immediately the _Pater_ and _Ave_ should not be said, for the Congregation (same decree) says "_Laudes incohandas ut in Psalterio_," but in the Psalter the _Pater_ and _Ave_ are not a.s.signed for the beginning of Lauds.