 |
TITLE VIII.—OFFICE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN FOR SATURDAY.
"In omnibus Sabbatis per annum entra Adventum et Quadragesimam, ac nisi Quatuor Tempora aut Vigiliae ocurrant," etc. In all Saturdays throughout the year, except on the Saturdays of Advent, Lent, Ember Days or occurring Vigils, or unless a feast of nine lessons has to be said on the Saturday, then it is laid down in the rubrics that the Office of the Blessed Virgin should always be said with the rite of a simple office. The rubrics of the New Psalter (Title I., sec. 6) direct, "In officio Sanctae Mariae in Sabbato et in festis simplicibus sic officium persolvendum est; ad matutinum, Invitatorium et hymnus dicuntur de eodem officio vel de iisdem Festis; Psalmi cum suis antiphonis et versu de Feria occurente I. et II. Lectis de Feria cum Responsoriis Propriis vel de Communi. III. vero lectio de officio vel Festo duabus lectionibus in unum junctis si quando duae pro Festo habeatur, ad reliquas autem Horas omnia dicuntur, prouti supra num. 5 in Festis Duplicibus expositum est." In the Office of the Blessed Virgin for Saturdays (Decree S.C.R., 26th January. 1916) the antiphons and Psalms at Matins, Lauds and small Hours are to be said from the Saturday and from the capitulum onwards all is to be taken from the office of the Blessed Virgin.
This office is not to be confounded with the officium parvum Beatae Mariae. The office de Sabbato is obligatory throughout the Church. The officium parvum was only for choir use, an addition to the office of the day. Saturday, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, is of great antiquity, as the mention of it in the works of St. Peter Damien, St. Bernard and Pope Benedict XIII. shows, but as to the time of its origin or a history of its growth, little seems to be known. At first the cult consisted in various and voluntary prayers and practices. About the middle of the fourteenth century an office was composed for recital on Saturdays as dedicated to the Mother of God. The office in our Breviaries was composed by St. Pius V, (1566-1572).
TITLE IX,—COMMEMORATIONS.
The rules laid down in the general rubrics of the Breviary for commemorations were never very simple, and when we read the changes brought about in De ratione Divini officii recitandi juxta novum Psalteri ordinem, Titles II., III., IV., V., VI., with' the decrees of the Congregation (January, 1912), and subsequently (Abhinc duos Annos) everyone must fear to tread the maze with certainty and must often fall back gratefully on the labours of the compilers of the Ordo which he follows. Or, perhaps, doubts may be dispelled by The New Psalter (Burton and Myers) published in 1912. The chapter on the Calendar in that book is worth study, but needs now additions and corrections, owing to the issue of more recent decrees.
In the study of commemorations and translations of feasts there are two words which have a special meaning and which, being often used in calendar working, deserve a special note. They are "occurrence" and "concurrence." Occurrence is the conjunction of two or more offices, which fall on the same day. It may be accidental when two movable feasts are concerned or when a movable feast falls on a day which has a fixed office; or it may be perpetual, when a fixed office falls on a day which already has a fixed office. The Church does not ask the recitation of a double or a triple office. She, by her fixed rules, prefers one out of the two of the "occurring" offices, transfers if possible the others, or at least commemorates them by an antiphon, versicle and prayer, and sometimes by a ninth lesson at Matins.
Concurrence is the conjunction of two offices, which succeed one another, so that a question arises as to which feast the Vespers belong to; whether to the feast of the day or to the feast of the following day, or whether the psalms should be of the feast and the remaining part of the Vespers should be as the Ordo so often notes (a cap. de seq.), from the capitulum the office is taken from the following feast.
The new rubrics contain five titles which make certain modifications in the rules hitherto observed. We thus obtain a ready made division of the subject:—
(1) Of the precedence of Feasts (Title II.). (2) Of the accidental occurrence of feasts and their translation (Title III.). (3) Of the perpetual occurrence of feasts and their transfer (Title V.). (4) Of the occurrence of feasts (Title V.). (5) Of the commemorations (Title VI.) (Myers and Burton, op. cit.).
The new rubrics without the aid of any commentator give pretty clear notions of the laws of precedence, occurrence and commemoration. For students in college these rules are expounded in detail with additions, changes, exceptions. But for priests, long past the student stage, it is difficult to undo the fixed liturgy lore of their student and early priest life; and the need of such a book as The New Psalter and its Uses is, for those interested, a necessity. Even since the publication of that book, changes have been made. For example, doubles, major or minor and semi-doubles, which were perpetually excluded on their own day were transferred to some fixed day. This is given in The New Psalter and its Uses. But this has now been changed. In the case of feasts of the universal Church, no translation is allowed now. But feasts proper to a nation, diocese, order, institute or particular church may still be transferred to a fixed day, if perpetually impeded on their own day. Another example of necessary changes in that excellent book is in the last paragraph of page 136 (see Decree S.C.R., June, 1912). The works of compilers and liturgists need constant revision to keep pace with new decisions and decrees.
In making commemorations, the order of the commemoration as laid down in the Ordo should be followed. Elements of a commemoration are the Antiphon of the Benedictus or the Magnificat with versicle and response. These antiphons are considered most excellent, preceding as they do the Gospel canticles (St. Luke I.). The antiphon, versicle and prayer of the commemoration at an hour should never be repetitions of others said in the same hour. Thus, if in the office of a confessor pontiff having the prayer Da quaesumus, another confessor pontiff's feast, commemorated in the same hour, should not have the same prayer. About the prayer, or, as it is called, the collect, the following should be noted: first, the commemoration is omitted if the prayer of the office which is being recited and the prayer of the feast to be commemorated have the same object. Thus, a feast of the Blessed Virgin, falling within the octave of the Assumption, should not be commemorated. Second, where a commemoration for a saint or saints of title similar to that of the saints whose office is being said, is to be made, the Congregation of Rites (5th May, 1736) arranged that not even the versicles and response be repeated and that the following order be observed:—
IN VESPERS—
1st Com. made by Antiphon and Versicle of Lauds. 2nd Com. made by Antiphon of second Vesper and Ver. of II. Nocturn. 3rd Com. made by Antiphon of I. Noct. and Vers. of III. Nocturn.
IN LAUDS—
1st Com. made by Antiphon and Vers. from first Vesp. 2nd Com. made by Antiphon I. Noct., and Ver., III. Noct. 3rd Com. made by Antiphon II. Vesp., Vers., II. Noct.
If it should happen in commemorating a day within an octave that the versicle from the common had already been taken for the office, then the rule is "Sumenda est in laudibus antiphona de secundis Vesperis; et pro secundis Vesperis antiphona de laudibus in utroque tamen casu cum v. de primis Vesperis" (S.C.R., 18th Dec., 1779). In the above given form of making commemorations it may be noted that the second commemoration in Lauds is made up from the versicles and response of Matins and not from second Vespers, so as to avoid repeating in Lauds what was said at Vespers (Cavalieri).
As regards prayers in the office the reminder that the same formula must not be repeated in the same hour may be supplemented. Because, prayers having all words identical, save one single word, are not considered in liturgy as different prayers (e.g., Accendamur exemplis; instruamur exemplis, Feast of St. Philip and St. James, Feasts of several martyrs). So, too, prayers which have the same form of petition (e.g., the prayers on feast of St. Joseph and on feast of St. Mathew), are not considered as different and must not be repeated in the same hour. But where the petition is different, even though all the remainder of the prayers are similar in wording, they may be repeated in the same hour.
But what is to be done in offices where a commemoration prayer and the prayer of the office is from the common? What must be done where the feast is the feast of a Doctor and a commemoration of a Doctor is to be made? What is to be done when the office of the feast is of a virgin not a martyr, and a commemoration of a virgin not a martyr is to be made? In the first case the prayer from the office of a confessor or Pontiff should be said, adding to it the title of Doctor. In the other case, the prayer Indulgentiam, omitting the word martyr, is to be said.
The origin of these commemorations was, that the Popes in removing the solemn celebrations of certain feasts of Apostles and Martyrs, which were formerly of precept, provided that their cultus should not be forgotten, and that their commemoration in the office should remind priests and the faithful of those servants of God, whom the Church wishes ever to honour. I have said the order given for commemoration in the Ordo should be followed; but not to follow this order does not exceed a venial sin. Even the deliberate omission of a commemoration in Lauds or Vespers is not a violation of a grave precept.
TITLE X.—THE TRANSLATION OF FEASTS.
When several offices fall on the same day, only one office, the one of highest rank or most important, is said. The others are transferred or commemorated. The last section dealt with commemorations, and now we come to the difficult question of the translation of feasts. Title X. of the general rubrics must be read in connection with the Apostolic Constitution, Divino Afflatu (1911) and with the Abhinc duos Annos (1913).
Translation of a feast may mean the removal of a feast from an impeded day to a day which is free. Thus a feast of higher rank may fall on a feast day of a saint whose feast is of lower rank; the latter may then be transferred. Transference is either perpetual or accidental and temporary. The former applies to feasts which are always impeded by the meeting with a feast of higher rite on their fixed days. A feast which would fall on 6th January would suffer perpetual translation. This translation bears different names in rubrics, decrees and liturgical writings—translatio ad diem, fixam, translatio ad diem assignatam, mutatio, etc. Accidental translation means occasional transference, a transfer in one year and not in another.
Title II., section i, of the Divino Afflatu gives the characters of preferential rank which are to be considered in occurrence, concurrence or translation of feasts, Ritus altior, ratio primarii aut secundarii, Dignitas Personalis, solemnitas externa.
Although in the General Rubrics of the Breviary, the title De Festorum praestantia is not found, the four principles, (1)gradation of rite, (2)classification as a primary or secondary feast, (3)personal dignity, (4)external solemnity, are mentioned in the sixth section of Title X., De Translatione Festorum, and the degrees of personal dignity are added in the second section of Title XL, de commemorationibus. Before 1897 precedence, and hence transference, was settled first by the rank of the rite (Double major, etc.); then, too, between two feasts of the same rite, transference was settled by dignity and finally by solemnity. But in 1897 the Sacred Congregation of Rites indicated two further notes to be observed in the weighing of claims for transference, (1)the classification into primary and secondary feasts, (2)the distinction between fixed and movable feasts. This latter distinction—between fixed and movable feasts—has been suppressed by the new legislation and some changes made in the others.
I. Gradation of Feasts makes a distinction between doubles, semi-doubles and simples, and distinguishes the various kinds of doubles. The order of procedure will be—(1)Doubles of the first class, (2)doubles of the second class, (3)greater doubles, (4)doubles, (5)semi-doubles, (6)simples. But as the section shows (Tit. II., sec. i) this is subject to the privileges of certain Sundays, ferias, and octave days or even days within an octave. And hence, an ordinary Sunday, though! only a semi-double, will take precedence of a double; and an octave day, though only a double, takes precedence of a greater double.
II. Classification as a primary or a secondary feast. Tables of classification are to be found in the prefatory part of the new Breviary, under the headings Tres Tabellae. They give a revised list of feasts with their rank and rites. Some feasts are reduced from primary to secondary rank (e.g., Feast of the Dolours); and the tables give a new division of primary and secondary doubles and semi-doubles.
III. Thirdly, the order of precedence among feasts will be determined by the dignity of the person who is the special object of the office that is to be recited. Hence, in the order set down in General Rubrics (Title XI, De Concurrentia officii, sec. 2) all feasts of our Lord, other things being equal, take precedence of the feasts of our Lady. And then, in order, come the festivals of the angels, of St. John the Baptist, of St. Joseph, of the Apostles and other saints. Amongst the saints who are honoured as martyrs, confessors or virgins there is no precedence as to personal dignity.
IV. Lastly, there is the note of "external solemnity," which may give precedence to one or two feasts, which are equal in the above-mentioned matters—i.e., in Gradation I., Classification II., Precedence III. But the main point is that only doubles of first and second class have the right, as a rule, of transference. Transference is now rather rare.
"From these rules it will be seen that in cases of concurrence, occurrence, perpetual transfer or translation, precedence between two feasts will first be decided by gradation of rite, a double of the first class being preferred to one of the second, and so on. If the feasts are of equal rank recourse must be had to the second test, the distinction between primary and secondary feasts. If both happen to be primary, or both are secondary, then precedence will be granted to the feast which has the greater personal dignity. And if both feasts should have the same dignity, then the fact of external solemnity would confer precedence" (The New Psalter and its Uses, p. 79). For practical help, a look at the first of the Duae Tabellae is a guide to find out which office is to be said, if more than one feast occur on the same day.
Before discussing new offices it may be well to remember that votive offices of all kinds, including the votive offices conceded by the decree of July, 1883, are abolished. These offices were drastic innovations, introduced to get rid of the very long psalm arrangement of the ferial office. The new distribution of the psalms got rid of the onus, and votive offices are no longer given in the Breviary.
TITLE XL—CONCURRENCE.
Concurrence is the conjunction of two offices which succeed each other, so that the question arises to which of the two are the Vespers of the day to be assigned. The origin of this conjunction of feasts was by some old writers traced to the Mosaic law in which the festivals, began in the evening, and they quote "from evening until evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths" (Leviticus, xxii. 32). The effect of concurrence may be that the whole vespers may belong to the feast of the day or may be said entirely from, the feast of the following day; or it may be that the psalms and antiphons belong to the preceding festival and the rest of the office be from the succeeding feast. The General Rubrics, Title XI, must be read now in conjunction with Titles IV., V., and VI. of the Additiones et Variationes ad norman Bullae "Divino Afflatu". The rules for concurrence are given in Table III. of the Tres Tabellae inserted in the new Breviary (S.C.R., 23 January, 1912). These tables supersede the tables given in the old editions of the Breviary. The first of these two tables shows which office is to be said, if more than one feast occur on the same day, whether perpetually or accidentally. The second table is a guide to concurrence—i.e., whether the first vespers of the following feast is to be said entirely without reference to the preceding feast, or if second vespers of the preceding feast is to be said entire, without reference to the following; or, again, first vespers of the following with commemoration of the preceding, or second vespers of the preceding with commemoration of the following, or vespers of the more noble feast with commemoration of the other—any of these may be the liturgical order to follow, and the Tabella makes things clear.
The "tables" are to be used thus:—Opening the Breviary at the I Tabella, "Si occurrat eodem die," first find the number marked in that square in which the two feasts in question meet, and then read the direction printed, in column on same page to left-hand side, bearing the same number. For example: the question is about the occurrence of a Sunday of the first class and a Double of the first class. Double of the first class stands first word of page, and Sunday of first class will be found in column beneath the rows of figures. Now the square in which straight lines drawn from double of first class and Sunday of first class meet bears the number 6, and reference to number 6 in column of directions found on same page gives the rule, "Officium de 2, Translatio de I," that is, the office must be of the Sunday of first class and the double of the first class must be transferred according to the rubrics. When in these brief directive notes, (1-8), mention is made of the "first or the preceding," the reference is made to feast or office printed in the upper part of the Table, e.g., Double of first class. Reference to "the second" or "following" refers to feast printed in the lower section of the Table. Where O stands in a square in the Tabella it signifies that there can be no occurrence or concurrence between feasts whose "lines" meet in that square. These two tables are very ingeniously arranged. The lists, given in the Breviary following these tables, give the lists of greater Sundays and Ferias, privileged vigils, doubles of first and second class and greater doubles, and tell whether feasts are primary or secondary.
TITLE XII.—THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE RUBRICS GIVEN ABOVE.
If any one wish from the rubrics given in the Breviary to arrange the office, he can see in the calendar and in the tables of movable feasts which office he is to say on the following day. And when he has found out the feast he determines, from the rules given, the vespers and the other hours.
If the office be the office of an excepted feast, the whole office is said from the feast as it is in the Proper or Common of saints; but the psalms of Lauds and the hours are taken from the Sunday psalms, as they stand in the new Psaltery, At Prime the psalm Deus in nomine is said in place of Confitemini. Compline is said from the Sunday psalms. If the office be the ordinary non-excepted office it is recited according to the rule laid down in the new rubrics. Tit. I., n. 5,:—
"Ad matut, invit. Hymnus, Lectiones II. et III. nocturni ac responsoria 2 et 3 nocturnorum propria vel de communi; antiphonae vero, psalmi et versus trium nocturnorum necnon Lestiones I. Nocturni cum suis Responsoriis de feria occurrente...."
"Ad Laudes et ad Vesperas ant. cum Psalm. de Feria; Capit. Hym. Vers. et Antiph. ad Benedictus vel ad magnificat cum oratione aut in Proprio aut de Communi ad Horas minores et Complet. aut cum Psalm semper dicitur de occurrente Feria. Ad Primam pro Lectione breve legitur capit. Nonae ex Proprio, vel de Communi. Ad Tertiam, sextam et Nonam, capit. Respons. breve et orat. pariter sumuntur vel ex Proprio vel de Communi."
(Matins and the other hours are treated of in another section.)
PART II.
RULES FROM MORAL AND ASCETIC THEOLOGY FOR THE RECITATION OF THE BREVIARY.
MORAL THEOLOGY GIVES THE RULES AND LAWS, WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED FOR THE VALID AND LICIT RECITATION OF THE HOURS. ASCETIC THEOLOGY EXPLAINS THE MEANS, WHICH ARE TO BE USED IN THEIR FERVENT RECITATION.
CHAPTER I.
MORAL AND ASCETIC THEOLOGY.
Q. Who are bound to recite the Divine Office?
R. 1. Religious, that is, all those who have made Religious Profession, in the Canonical sense, and who are bound to Choir recitation (Canon 610, Juris Canonici).
2. Clerics in Holy Orders (Canon 135, Codex).
3. Beneficed Clergy.
Who are Beneficed Clergy?
Beneficed Clergy are those who hold a Canonically erected benefice. Canon 1409 of the Codex Juris Canonici defines an ecclesiastical benefice to be a "Juridical entity constituted or erected by competent ecclesiastical authority, consisting of a sacred office and the right of receiving revenues from endowments attached to the office." Hence under this Canon, as previously three conditions are required for a benefice, first, a sacred office, second, the right of receiving revenues from endowment attached to that office, third, erection by ecclesiastical authority. There never was any doubt in the many discussions on this subject, that the work and care of a parish is a sacred office, and that parish priests hold such an office. But the second condition mentioned above received different interpretations. Some held that it implied a certain amount of ecclesiastical property set aside, from the revenues of which the holder of the benefice would derive his income. Hence the revenues of parish priests in these Kingdoms, arising from certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful, were not fixed revenues, did not fulfil the conditions of "endowment," and parishes must not be regarded as benefices. This opinion is no longer tenable. Canon 1410 says:—"The endowment of a Benefice is constituted either by property, the ownership of which pertains to the Juridical entity itself, or by certain and obligatory payments of any family or moral personality, or by certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful which appertain to the rector of the benefice, or, as they are called stole fees, within the limits of diocesan taxation or legitimate custom, or choral distributions, exclusive of a third part of the same, if all the revenues of the benefice consist of choral distributions."
This Canon seems to make it clear that the second condition is fulfilled in all the parishes of these Kingdoms, since to the sacred office is attached the right of receiving revenue from the certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful or from stole fees or from both.
The third condition, erection by ecclesiastical authority, is qualified by Canon 1418 which prescribes that benefices should be erected by a legitimate document defining the place of the benefice, its endowment and the duties and rights of the person appointed.
This law has not an invalidating clause, hence it is not now necessary nor ever was it necessary to have such a written document. A valid appointment was and can be made without any writing.
Where these three conditions are fulfilled there is a benefice, true, real, and canonical. Normally parishes are benefices. (See Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Vol. XIV., No. 623; and Irish Theological Quarterly, October, 1917, p. 209.)
Every cleric in holy orders is bound under pain of mortal sin to recite daily the Divine Office. No General Council, no Pope, has made such a law, but the old-established custom has grown, until it has the force of a law (Bened. XIV., Instructio Coptharum). Authors are not agreed as to the date of the first traces of this old custom. Billuart quotes the text of the fourth Council of Carthage to prove that it existed in the fourth century, Clericus, qui absque corpusculi sui inequalitate vigiliis deest, stipendiis privatus, excommunicatur. Gavantus can find traces of it only as late as the sixth century. Several decrees of provincial councils regarding this custom are quoted by writers on liturgy. However, the matter is clearly and definitely dealt with by the General Council of Lateran (1213) and by the Bulls, Quod a nobis and Ex proximo, of Pope Pius V. (1571). This Pope expressly states that wilful omission of the Divine Office is a grave sin—"grave peccatum intelligat se commissise."
The obligation of reciting the office binds those in Holy Orders, even though they may be excommunicated, suspended, degraded or imprisoned. The obligation binds for the first time when subdeaconship has been conferred. Subdeacons are bound to recite "the hour" in the office of the day, corresponding to the time of their ordination. If the ordination is finished before nine o'clock, the sub-deacon is bound to begin his recitation with Terce. If the ordination is held between nine o'clock and mid-day the recitation begins with Sext. The question is discussed by theologians if the recitation of Terce or Sext may be lawfully and validly made before the ordination. Some authors deny that it may be justly and lawfully done, while others, with some probability, affirm that before ordination the debt may be paid in advance.
Are priests bound to follow the Proper in their own diocese?
They are, if it has been approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (S.R.C., 4597-4746). But a priest travelling (peregrinus) should recite the office according to the calendar of the church to which he is attached regularly, but the obligation of following the calendar of his home church was not binding by a grave precept. A reply of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (Nov., 1831) arranged (1) that beneficed clergy are always bound to recite the office of their own proper church or diocese; (2) that simple priests may read either the office as arranged for the place they tarry in or travel in, or the office of their own home diocese; (3) for unattached priests (vagi) it is the wiser order to follow the office as laid down in their own diocese.
Must every holder of a benefice read the Divine Office?
Every holder is bound, under pain of mortal sin, to recite the Divine Office daily, if the benefice be an ecclesiastical benefice fulfilling the conditions named above. The omission of the recital of the Divine Office by a beneficed person is a grave sin against the virtue of religion and a grave sin against the virtue of justice. For the Church imposes on the beneficiary the duty of the Office recital, on condition that he may not take the fruits of his benefice if he do not recite the Office.
What sin is committed by the omission of a notable part of the daily office?
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 quantity 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., Sext, 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 assurance 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 repetition 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, substitute 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 substituting 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 assigned 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 substituted 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 circumstance 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 finishing 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 anticipation 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 anticipation of Matins and Lauds, so that no one should, through temerity or ignorance, begin the anticipation before the sun had passed half way in its course between mid-day and sunset. On January 20th the time to begin the anticipation of hours was 2.15 p.m., but on June 8th the anticipation was not to begin till 4 p.m.
Nowadays, the first opinion is held almost universally. The principal internal argument for this opinion is the teaching that the anticipation 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 anticipation 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 XXXVII., 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 anticipate 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 anticipation 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 anticipation 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 anticipation 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 (xxxii-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 Mass?
The first sentence of the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae in the Missal contains the clause "saltem Malutino cum 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 Mass. But theologians hold that there is no grave obligation for such prior-to-Mass 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 XXXI., n. 533) by Father M. Russell, S.J., is well worth reading. It is entitled "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 Mass. Terce and Sext may be said before mid-day, or Sext 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 instituted 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 ATTITUDE 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 attitude in harmony with the great work in which he is engaged, prayer to God. Hence, his attitude 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.—PRONUNCIATION OF THE WORDS.
What kind of pronunciation is to be attended to in the recitation of the Divine Office? The pronunciation 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 Romanus Pontifex; and Urban VIII., 1635, withdrew all privileges granted vivae vocis oraculo. The text of the document 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 God, 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 repetition or the non-fulfilled duty of complete recitation.
Pronunciation 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 quantity 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 repetition, as this fault or habit affects the very substance of recitation. Priests seldom are bound to such a repetition, 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.
Pronunciation 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 parishioner 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 Vobiscum 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 assigned for the beginning of Lauds.
A notable time may elapse between the nocturns of Matins without any excusing cause. In the early Church intervals occurred between each nocturn. Some authors state that an interval of three hours between two nocturns is quite lawful, even when there be no cause for the delay. With a reasonable cause the interval may last as long as the excusing cause requires.
ARTICLE VI.—INTENTION AND ATTENTION.
The valid recitation of the Divine Office requires that the priest should have in his mind an intention of praying, for the Divine Office is a true and real prayer, not a mere vocal exercise. Hence, a priest reading his office as a mere study or as a means of remembering the words of the psalms does not validly recite his office (St. Alph., n. 176). Now, what sort of intention is best and what sort of intention is necessary? An actual, explicit intention which states expressly when the Breviary is opened, "I intend to pray," is the best intention. The devout recital of the prayer "Aperi Domine" expresses well the best form of the actual, explicit intentions of those reciting the office. But such an express, actual intention is not necessary; a virtual intention, which finds expression in the opening of the Breviary to recite the office, suffices. The mere opening of the book, the finding out of the office, the arrangement of the book markers, are ample evidence of the existence of a virtual intention quite sufficient for the valid recitation of the office. St. Alphonsus writes, "Imo puto semper adesse exercite, intentionem actualem implendi officium" (n. 176). This question of intention gives great trouble to the timid and scrupulous, whose doubts and difficulties seem hard to solve. The common sense and common practice in everyday affairs seem to desert some people when they prepare to read the canonical hours. For, who has not seen the nervous, pious, anxious cleric, stupidly labouring to acquire even a sufficient intention before beginning his hours?
Attention in reading the hours is a much more discussed and much more difficult mental effort. It means the application of the mind to the thing in which we are engaged. When we listen to a conversation or when we write a letter the mind is fixed and attentive to the matter spoken or written. Intention is an act of the will; attention is an act of the understanding.
Attention may be either external or internal. External attention is attention of such a kind that it excludes every exterior action physically incompatible with the recitation of the office—e.g., to write or type a letter, to listen attentively to those conversing, are acts incompatible with the simultaneous recitation of the office. But walking, poking a fire, looking for the lessons, whilst reciting from memory all the time, are not incompatible with the external attention required in office recital; because such acts do not require mental effort which could count as a serious disturbing element. However, in this matter of external attention no rule can be formulated for all Breviary readers; for what may lightly disturb and distract one reader may have no effect on another, and yet may seriously disturb the recitation of another (St. Alph., n. 176). External attention is necessary for the valid recitation of the office.
Internal attention is application or advertence of the mind. Is such internal attention, such deliberate application or mental advertence necessary for the valid recitation of the office?
There are two opinions on this matter, two replies to the question. According to one opinion, and this is the more common and the more probable one, internal attention is required for the valid recitation of the Hours. 1. Because the Divine Office is a prayer, but there can be no true or real prayer without internal attention, for prayer is defined as an elevation of the soul to God, but if there be no internal attention, there is no elevation of the soul to God, and no prayer. 2. Our Lord complained of those who had external attention at prayer, but lacked internal attention or advertence, "This people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" (St. Matt. xv.). 3. The Church appears to demand internal attention at prayer, for although she has not given any positive precept dealing with this kind of attention, she does the same thing when she commands that the recitation of the Divine Office take the form of prayer for God's honour, and this recitation of words cannot be true prayer without internal attention. 4. The Council of Trent seems to exact this attention when it wishes that the Divine Office be said reverently, distinctly and devoutly, reverenter, distincte, devote. 5. If no internal attention be required in reciting the Hours, it is difficult to see how voluntary distractions are forbidden by Divine Law.
This is the opinion held by Cajetan (1496-1534), Sa (1530-1596), Azor (1539-1603), Sanchez (1550-1610), Roncaglai (1677-1737), Concina (1687-1756), and St. Alphonsus, the great Doctor of prayer (1696-1787).
According to the other opinion, external attention suffices always and ever to satisfy substantially the obligation of reading the office and for the avoidance of mortal sin which invalid recitation entails. For,
(1) To pray is to speak to God, to trust in Him, to manifest to Him the wishes and wants of the soul; but this can be done by a person who has voluntary distractions of mind, just as a man can read to his king an address, setting forth the thanks and requests of his subjects, although the reader's mind is far from dwelling on the words or the meaning of the sentences before his eyes. But he is careful to read all the words in a clear, intelligible manner. Now the theologians who maintain this opinion say that, a fortiori, this method of reading the Hours should be valid; for, in the reading the priest acts principally in the name of the Church, as her minister, and offers up prayers to God in her name, and they say that the irreverence of the servant does not render the prayer of the Church unpleasing to Him,
(2) He who makes a vow, and resolves to do a certain act, fulfils his vow, even when fulfilling it he acts with voluntary distractions; so, a pari, with the recitation of the office,
(3) The administration of the sacraments—even the administration of Extreme Unction, the form of which is a prayer—with full voluntary distractions is valid; so, too, should be the recital of Breviary prayers.
(4) In the other opinion it is hard to see how, if voluntary distractions destroy the substance of prayer, involuntary distractions do not produce similar effect, and hence, there can be no prayer if there be distraction of any kind.
This opinion was held by Lugo (1583-1660), Gobat (1600-1679), Sporer (1609-1683), St. Antonnius (1389-1459), and other eminent men. It is quoted by St. Alphonsus, as satis probabilis. Of it, Lehmkuhl writes, "Quae ad substantiam divini officii dicamus satis probabiliter sufficere cum intentione orandi observasse attentionem externam" (II. 635).
What are the divisions or kinds of internal attention?
I. Objectively they are (1) spiritual attention, (2) literal attention, (3) superficial or material attention. Spiritual attention is that advertence of soul which tends towards God, the Term of all prayer, when the soul meditates on the power, wisdom, goodness of God, on the Passion, on the Mother of God, on God's saints. Literal attention is that which strives to lay hold of the meaning of the words said in the office. Superficial attention is that advertence of soul which applies itself to the correct recitation of the words, avoiding errors of pronunciation, mutilation, transposition, etc., etc.
II. Subjectively, virtual attention suffices; habitual is divided into actual and interpretative. Actual attention is that which exists at the moment—e.g., the attention paid by a pupil to a question put by a teacher. Virtual attention is attention which was once actual, but is not such at the time spoken of, but which lives virtually. Habitual is attention which once was actual, which does not remain in act, but which was not retracted. Interpretative attention is that which never existed at all, but which would have existed if the agent had adverted.
Which kind of internal attention is required in the reading of the Office? I. Objectively, material, or superficial attention is necessary, since the Breviary is a vocal prayer, and therefore it is necessary to pronounce distinctly all the words of the day's office and to observe the rubrics. But this suffices; it is not necessary that a priest reciting his Hours should carefully notice each word, it is sufficient to have general and moral attention to recite every part well, and with the intention of praying, "Sed sufficere moralem et generalem qua quis curet bene omnia dicere cum intentione orandi" (St. Alphonsus).
Hence, objectively, neither attention, which is called spiritual, because it is not easy to attain, nor the literal attention, which religious who do not understand Latin strive after, is needed for valid recitation. By this, it is not meant to convey that spiritual attention is not very excellent and very commendable and praiseworthy.
Subjectively, virtual attention suffices; habitual does not suffice, neither does interpretative. Best of all is actual attention, but it is not necessary, because it is not always within the power of mortals.
This want of internal attention is called mental distraction. Theologians distinguish two kinds of distractions, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary distractions are thoughts which the mind freely and directly embraces to the exclusion of pious thoughts which should occupy it in prayer, of which the office is a high form; or they may be thoughts which arise from previous laziness, thoughtlessness, pre-occupation or some engrossing worldly affair. Involuntary distractions are those which come unbidden and unsought to the mind, are neither placed directly, nor by their causes, by the person at prayer.
Does a person reciting the Hours sin if he have distractions?
If the distractions be involuntary there is no sin. But if the distractions be voluntary there is sin, But, unless the mind be altogether filled with distractions, not thinking of God, of prayer, of the words or of the meaning, and unless the distractions are fully voluntary and reflective during a notable part of the office, there is no mortal sin. Hence, St. Alphonsus, the great Doctor of Prayer, wrote, "ut dicatur aliquis officio non satisfacere, non solum requiritur ut voluntarie se distrahat, sed etiam ut plene advertat se distrahi, nam alias iste, licet sponte se divertat non tamen sponte se divertit a recitatione" (St. Alphonsus, n. 177). Therefore, before a person accuse himself of not satisfying the precept of recitation, on account of inattention or distractions, he must be able to affirm positively (1)that he was wilfully distracted, (2)he must have noticed not only his distraction and mental occupation by vain thoughts, but he must have noticed also that he was distracted in his recitation; (3)he must be able to state positively that the intention, resolution or desire to recite piously, which he made at the beginning of his prayer, was revoked with full advertence and that it did not exist either actually or virtually during the time of distraction in his recitation. Seldom, indeed, are these conditions fulfilled, and seldom are there gravely sinful distractions.
This subject of attention in prayer, in the official prayer of the Church, is important. Long and learned disputes about its nature and requirements occupied great thinkers in times long gone by. To-day theologians argue on different sides; and anxiety, serious, painful and life-long, reigns in the souls of many who struggle to recite the office, digne, attente ac devote.
ARTICLE VII.-CAUSES WHICH EXCUSE FROM READING THE OFFICE.
Authors generally give six causes which excuse a person from saying the Hours: lawful dispensation, important work, grave illness, grave fear, blindness, want of a Breviary. They are recorded in the well-known lines:—
"Quem Papa dispenset multus labor opprimit aeger Qui timet aut occulus, officioque caret."
1. The obligation of reading the Office is imposed by the Church and the Pope can dispense in it even without cause. Bishops can give temporary dispensations.
2. A grave occupation excuses from the whole or from a part of the Office. Thus, missioners giving missions or parish retreats are excused from the whole Office; so, too, are priest combatants in the battle line; but when in rest camps they are bound to say the Hours. A priest engaged in saying his Office, if he receive an urgent call to a dying person may not have time to finish his Office before midnight. He is exempt from the part of the Office omitted and does not sin by the omission. The proposition claiming exemption from the Office for those engaged in great studies was condemned by Pope Alexander VII. The biographers of Lamennais trace the beginning of his downfall to his exemption from his daily Office.
A difficulty arises sometimes as regards the full or partial or non-exemption of those who foresee that serious occupation which cannot be neglected must arise to prevent the recitation of the Hours. In such cases priests are bound to recite the Office, or as much of it as possible, within the limits of the current day. In doing this they may anticipate the times fixed for the recitation of the small Hours, and they may anticipate Vespers and Compline by reciting them in the forenoon. If a priest foresees that he may not be able to recite Matins for next day he is not bound to anticipate, as there is no obligation to anticipation; the obligation is "recital between midnight and midnight." It is becoming to anticipate, if possible, so that the Office may be full and entire. If before midnight there be a cessation from necessary professional work (e.g., hearing confessions), a priest is bound to finish his Office for the day or to say as much of it as time allows. If, however, there be time merely to take a necessary meal before midnight (e.g., to prepare for a late Mass on next day, Sunday), and not time to eat and to recite, the obligation of saying the Hours ceases.
A grave illness exempts from the saying of the canonical Hours. Hence, those seriously ill, those who fear the saying of the Office may upset them in their weak state, and convalescents from a serious illness, are excused from saying the Hours. In this matter the advice of a spiritual or a medical adviser should be faithfully carried out by patients. St. Alphonsus teaches that invalids and convalescents may be allowed to say Mass and yet not be bound to say the Office, as the saying of Mass does not fatigue them so much as the saying of the Office (St. Alphonsus, n. 155).
A grave fear exempts from the saying of the Office. A priest amongst furious persecutors of the Church should be excused from any recitation of his Hours which he fears may draw on him cruel or severe punishments.
Blindness makes the recitation of the Office a physical impossibility. Even very defective sight, although not total blindness, exempts from the obligation of saying the Office. In all such cases a formal declaration of exemption should be sought. Some theologians hold that such priests, if they have committed to memory a notable part of the psalms, should repeat that part from memory. The new psaltery makes such memorising an extremely difficult feat and no obligation for such a repetition from memory can be imposed.
Want of a Breviary excuses from the recitation of the Office. For example, if a priest setting out on a long journey forgets to take his Breviary or leaves it in a railway carriage, and cannot procure another, or cannot procure another without, great inconvenience, he is exempt from the obligation of his Office; and the omission being involuntary is sinless. The wilful casting away of a Breviary, as an excuse for not being able to read the Office, is gravely sinful; and unless the sinful desire be retracted there may be question of many mortal sins of wilful omission to fulfil the obligation, as the omissions are then wilful in cause. Priests travelling are unable sometimes to recite the proper Office of the day, as their Breviaries lack something (e.g., the proper prayer or the lessons of the second nocturn). The Sacred Congregation of Rites (December, 1854) decided "Sacerdos peregre profectus cui molesti difficiliorque esset officii recitatio cui et pauca desunt in libro officii praesentis, nempe oratio et legenda, valet de communi absque obligatione propria deinde ad supplementum recitandi... atque ita servari mandavit." The psalms as arranged in the new psalter must always be said for a valid recitation of the Office (v. Divino Afflatu).
What is a priest bound to do, who from a grave cause cannot find time to recite the whole Office but only a part of it?
St. Alphonsus gives the rule, "If you can recite a part equivalent to a small Hour, you are bound to do so under pain of mortal sin. But if you cannot read or repeat a part equivalent to a small Hour, you are bound to nothing, as a part so small—less than a small Hour—taken separately, is considered inappreciable for the end the Church's law of recitation has in view."
ARTICLE VIII.—THE DIRECTION OF THE SCRUPULOUS.
Persons who are scrupulous about the recitation of the Hours should have help from their confessors, who should deal specifically with any of the scruples which arise in the daily task. Scruples generally concern the necessary intention, the necessary attention, pronunciation, and the time necessary for a good and faithful recitation of the canonical Hours. How should a confessor deal with scruples about intention? A confessor should tell a cleric, scrupulous in this point, that his fear is groundless and that by the very act of taking up his Breviary he expresses his intention of praying, of saying his Hours; that it is not necessary that such intention be actual or reflexive, it is sufficient if it be virtual, and that such an intention does exist every time one opens the Breviary to say his Hours. The saying slowly and deliberately the prayer "Aperi Domine" is a great aid to the scrupulous in forming a right intention and in dispelling their vain fears.
Clerics troubled about attention are helped and comforted by their confessor repeating to them what they well know themselves, about voluntary and involuntary distractions, and the telling of the anxious ones that this very anxiety and anguish show that their fear of losing attention in their prayer is a true and real sign of its existence. In dealing with scruples about vocal and integral pronunciation a confessor should advise that no stopping should be made in the saying of the psalms, etc., but that the recitation should be continued quietly, without restraining the voice, without impatience, and without scrutiny of the pronunciation of the part said, "God is a father, full of goodness, not an exacting taskmaster, and He is more honoured by moderate care than by a disturbing solicitude." Above all things, a confessor should remember that it is important to forbid scrupulous persons to repeat the whole or even the part of an Hour. An effort should be made by him to tranquilise the troubled soul with the principle that the precepts of the Church do not bind him to repeat the Hours with such inconvenience as leads to bodily and mental illness. The Church is our mother and does not wish her children to be troubled and solicitous, but to pray in peace.
CHAPTER IV.
SOME RULES OF ASCETIC THEOLOGY FOR THE PIOUS RECITATION OF THE BREVIARY.
There are many reasons why we should recite the Divine Office devoutly, for (1) the words which we read are holy; (2) He to Whom we speak is God; (3) we speak in the name of Holy Church; (4) we are the associates of thousands on earth and in heaven who sing God's praises; (5) the purpose of our prayer is sublime; (6) it gives glory to God and draws down His grace and mercy on His Church; (7) and, finally, the recitation of the Office brings help and strength to those who repeat it fervently.
And, firstly, let us see what are the words of the Office. They are the words of God or of His Church. In the psalms, scripture lessons, gospel extracts, responses and antiphons, we have God's inspired word. In the prayers, sermons, homilies, hymns, and often in the responses and antiphons, as the Church is guided and assisted by the Holy Ghost, it may be, in a sense, true to say that these her words are divine. For what is more worthy of respect than the word of God? St. Augustine says that it is no less worthy of respect than the body of Jesus Christ. Non minus est verbum Dei quam corpus Christi (Sermon 300). How very careful should we be to treat the word of God with respect, worthily, attentively, and devoutly (digne, attente ac devote).
(2) To whom do we speak in our daily service of prayer? We speak to our Master, Whose very special work we are doing in offering up the great prayer. His adorable eyes are fixed upon us at this sacred duty. He listens to us, He reads our thoughts. He judges our intentions, our efforts and their fulfilment. He is the King of kings, the Almighty God. Mindful of His presence and majesty should we not try earnestly to bless His Holy name and to free our hearts from vain, evil and wandering thoughts? We pray ad benedicendum nomen sanctum tuum; munda quoque cor meum ab omnibus vanis perversis et alienis cogitationibus.
(3) In whose name do we speak? It is a great honour to be an ambassador for a great king and a mighty kingdom, guarding the interests of the fatherland in a foreign land. The priest is always such an ambassador. "For Christ, we are ambassadors," says St. Paul. In this work of daily recitation of the Office, we are ambassadors, not of some petty king or tiny state, but we represent the entire Church, the well-beloved spouse of Christ, to whose prayer He ever hearkens. Sonet vox tua in auribus meis; vox enim tua dulcis est (Canticle of Canticles, ii. 14). And St. Bernard says "Sacerdos publica persona et totius Ecclesie os." Hence, every priest is the ambassador of Christ and of His Church, the guardian of His interests. And as it is the duty of ambassadors to study carefully, to watch and further the interests of the kings whom they represent, it is a priest's duty to study carefully and further the interests of Christ's Church by the devout fulfilment of the great daily duty, the recitation of the Divine Office. History brands as traitors those ambassadors who through ignorance of the language of the foreign court, or through want of vigilant attention, allow the interests of their royal masters to suffer. What a punishment awaits the days and years of ignorant, careless or inattentive fulfilment of the great official work of a priest—the Divine Office.
Who are a priest's associates in this work? They are the thousands of priests and religious throughout the world who say the Hours, and who send up daily and nightly the great prayer of praise and thanksgiving to God. Secundum nomen tuum, sic et laus tua in fines terrae (ps. 47, v. ii). Dies diei eructat verbum et nox nocti indicat scientiam (ps. 18, v. 3). In this holy work of reciting the Hours, we are united with the angels and saints in heaven in honouring our common Creator; for, the Church herself reminds us of this ineffable honour in the hymn for the dedication of the Church:—
"Sed ilia sedes Coelitum Semper resultat laudibus Dumque trinum el unicum Jugi canore jungimur Almae Sionis aemuli."
"That house on high—it ever rings With praises of the King of kings; For ever there, on harps divine, They hymn th' eternal One and Trine We, here below, the strain prolong;, And faintly echo Sion's song."
What are the ends for which the Office is said? (a) To glorify God, (b) to help holy Church, and (c) to sanctify ourselves.
(a) "To glorify God," that is, to adore His infinite majesty, to thank Him for his innumerable and constant blessings, to satisfy His justice in expiating the sins of the world and to beg His grace and mercy. The ends for which the Office are said are the same as those for which Mass is offered, for the Office is the supplement of the Mass (Tronson).
(b) "To help holy Church." The Church militant has many and great needs. It is her mission to extend the Kingdom of Christ, and to do this great work she needs freedom from hostile laws, strength and courage to withstand tyrants and persecution, unity and peace amongst her children and pastors, zeal in her ministers and recruits for her militant forces. To obtain these results the Church relies very much on the devout recitation of the Office. Doubtless, it is for these purposes that the Church has confided to the care of her chosen ministers this public official prayer and has laid no such obligation on the laity. St. Alphonsus did not hesitate to say that if priests and religious said the Office as they should say it, the Church should not be in the deplorable state that it then was in. This Doctor of the Church adds "that by devout saying of the Office many sinners could be drawn from the slavery of the devil and many souls would love God with more fervour." The wants of the Church are greater now than they were ever before. Each devoutly-said Hour draws down God's blessing on His Church. What a vast number of blessings come from a life of daily recitation offered worthily, attentively and devoutly (digne, attente, ac devote).
(c) "The benefit of the person who recites the Hours." The third end for which the canonical Hours are offered is for the benefit of the person who recites them. St. Alphonsus wrote, "If they said the Office as they ought, priests themselves should not be always the same, always imperfect, prone to anger, greedy, attached to self-interest and to vanities.... But if they recited the Office, not as they say it with distractions and irreverences, but with devotion and recollection, uniting the affections of the heart with so many petitions which they present to God, they should certainly not be so weak as they are, but would acquire fervour and strength to resist all temptations and to lead a life worthy of priests."
Another blessing springs from the attentive recitation of the Breviary—viz., the daily withdrawal from the world and its cares which must be banished from the soul which speaks with God. For, as St. Alphonsus writes, the saying of the Hours devoutly, gives occasion to pious souls to elicit many acts of virtue, acts of faith, of hope, of charity, of humility, etc. For one psalm, says the saint, moves all the powers of the soul and causes us to elicit a hundred acts. And in the Breviary are found the most beautiful formulae of adoration and praise, the psalms above all other parts of the Office being wonderfully rich in magnificent praise of God's attributes. Where can such sublime forms of prayer and praise be found as in Psalms, 8, 9, 17, 18, 21, 23, 28, 29, 33, 45, 46, 49, 54—to name but a few?
Finally, the attentive recitation of the Breviary is a source of light and of grace and of merit. How many lights in prayer spring from these divine words; how many maxims enter the soul, how many beautiful prayers are said, and if they be well said, they would obtain for priests treasures of grace, according to Christ's infallible promise, "Ask and you shall receive"? A person can merit several degrees of glory by one devout recitation of the Office, what an abundance of merit may be gained by the devout recitations in a life of twenty, thirty or forty years! And it was this thought of lost opportunities and of the great treasures within the reach of priests, which caused St. Alphonsus when an old man, to study the Breviary psalms and to write his well-known work.
Nor was St. Alphonsus alone in his opinion of the great means of sanctification which the Breviary affords to priests. St. Joseph of Cupertino (1603-1663) was asked by Monsignor Claver, Bishop of Potenza, to point out a means for the greater sanctification of the priests of his diocese. The saint replied, "Monsignor, if you wish to sanctify your priests strive to procure two things for them, that they say the Office piously and that they say Mass with fervour. Nothing more is necessary to ensure their salvation" (Life of St. Joseph Cupertino by Bernini). The words of the wonderful Franciscan, whose life was a marvel of piety, were repeated a century later by St. Leonard of Port Maurice (1671-1751) and are often quoted as his own.
In every age of the Church earnest souls drew great sweetness and consolation from reading the psalms or from reading the canonical Hours. Writers dealing with this part of priestly work quote the words of eminent servants of God, They quote St. Augustine, St. Gregory Nazianzan, St. Bernard, St. Catherine of Bologna, St. Philip Neri, St. Francis De Sales and St. Alphonsus. It would make this section of this book too long to quote the words of these saints. But the words of St. Francis De Sales seem to have a special force. "Sometimes I am so low-spirited," wrote the Saint, "by business and events, that I do not know where to turn nor at what end to begin: but during the Office nothing annoys me, I have not even distractions, I imagine that I am in heaven singing with the angels the praises of my Creator; and on leaving the choir I find often that the mighty problems which had given me trouble are cleared away and, solved in an Instant." Biographies of God's servants record many great favours bestowed on priests who recite the Breviary piously. Cardinal Bona, recording a vision vouchsafed to St. Bernard, tells how the saint saw an angel beside each choir monk, recording his disposition of soul. Some angels wrote in letters of gold, others in letters of silver, others in ink, others in water, and others held their pens but wrote nothing. Our Lord explained to the saint the meaning of the vision; the writing in gold typified charity and the fervour of the recitation; the writing in silver denoted devotion but little charity or fervour; the words in ink-writing signified careful attention to the full verbal recitation but to little else; the words written in water meant distraction and little attention to the meaning or to the words; and the angels who wrote nothing watched the insolence of those who were voluntarily distracted. The vision has furnished the theme of much pious writing and a theme for Christian painters. It shows how God watches over the daily work of priests, while His angels record in golden or silvern letters the work of pious recitation, or perhaps hold their pens at rest.
What means should be used to promote pious recitation?
ARTICLE II.—THE MEANS TO ADOPT FOR THE PIOUS RECITATION OF THE BREVIARY.
A.—THE MEANS TO ADOPT BEFORE THE RECITATION.
Preparation is necessary before beginning every prayer, for the Holy Ghost says, "Before prayer prepare thy soul, and be not as a man that tempteth God" (Ecclesias. 18. 23). This preparation necessary before other prayers is above all necessary before the recitation of the Divine Office, which is the greatest of all prayers. Two kinds of preparation are necessary, the remote and the proximate.
The remote preparation demands the removal of all obstacles which impede prayer, and the greatest of all prayers, the Church's official prayer. The chief or capital obstacles which impede or prevent a pious recitation of the Breviary are: sin, the passions, the absorbing thoughts of creatures and the ignorance of the Divine Office. And the means to remove these obstacles are to purify the conscience, science, to mortify the passions, to guard the sense and to have an intelligent knowledge of the duty and requirements of a proper fulfilment of the daily task of the saying of the Canonical Hours.
The first means is to purify the conscience from sin, for sin hinders prayer. But what effect has sin on the recitation of the Office? The Office is a prayer, an elevation of the soul to God, and as all writers on ascetics teach, sin is a chain that binds us to earth; it is, says St. Francis, as birdlime which impedes the soul in its flight upwards. Prayer is a conversation with God, but a soul loving sin cannot converse with God; "Peccatores Deus non audit" (St. John, ix. 31). Prayer is an intimate union with God, but a soul resting in sin can have no intimate union with God; there can be no intimate union between light and darkness, between sanctity and sin, between good and evil; in a word, between Christ and Belial. Quae participatio, quae societas lucis ad tenebras? Quae conventio Christi el Belial?
The second means of procuring fervent prayer is the mortification of the passions. It is not enough to secure fervour in prayer that our souls should be free from sin; we must struggle to master our passions. This point is important—for a soul upset by its passions, anger, pride, etc., cannot with fervour recite the Hours, for it cannot converse with God, it cannot elevate itself to God, it can have no true union with God. It cannot converse with God, for God will not converse with an unmortified soul for three reasons. First, He will not speak if there be no one to listen, for the Holy Ghost tells us "Where there is no hearing, pour not out words" (Eccli. xxxii. 6). God wishes a soul in converse with Him to be calm and still, for God is not in the earthquake (3 Kings, xix. ii.). Again, even if God speaks to an unmortified soul, it cannot hear Him as the passions fix its attention on worldly matters. And even when such a soul tries to listen and to understand, the passions surging and warring drown all sound and sense of holy things. For, "the animal man perceiveth not these things that are of the spirit of God, for it is foolishness to him and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined" (I. Cor. ii. 14). The human soul cannot truly unite itself to God if the passions are not conquered, because by their very nature they are opposed to God and hence inspire estrangement from, and disgust for, holy things.
Thirdly, the senses must be guarded. Our five senses can impede the recitation of the Office because they present to our souls images of the things which occupy them, and they can draw our will towards the pleasures which correspond with these objects. It is necessary for the worthy, attentive and devout saying of the Office that each sense be guarded. The sense of sight should be guarded from gazing at objects at hand, persons, books, landscape, etc. The sense of hearing should be guarded in flying from the company of evil speakers, calumniators, detractors, those who speak of worldly affairs or who give evil counsel. It is necessary, too, to guard the tongue from evil speech. "I have set a guard to my mouth, when the sinner stood against me" (Psalm 38, 2); and it is well to guard against too frequent or too long conversations, which fill the soul with thoughts disturbing to a prayerful disposition. The sense of touch should likewise be guarded, for St. Thomas says that the sense of touch is the maintenance of the other senses (1 P. q. 76, a. 75). And when the foundations of a house commence to fall asunder, the walls, the frame and the roof totter and fall. So it is with the senses; when the sense of touch is disturbed the other senses quickly complete the ruin.
What knowledge is needed for the valid and for the licit recitation of the Hours? Must the person know the meaning of the words read? No such knowledge is necessary, for God hears the prayer of the ignorant and illiterate and of the babes. To the chief priests and scribes, who hearing the children crying out the Saviour's praise in the temple, Christ said "Yea, have you not read 'Out of the mouths of infants and sucklings thou hast perfected praise'" (St. Matth. xxi. 15-16), St. Augustine defended from the sneers of the learned, those who prayed to God in rude and barbarous words, or words which they did not understand. "Noverint non esse vocem ad aures Dei nisi animi affectum" (De Catech. Rud. C.I.). The Church has bound religious, both men and women, to say the Office in choir, even though they may not understand Latin. Nevertheless, it is highly desirable that those who understand Latin should understand what they read daily in the Breviary. God, the Church, the practice of the saints, our own intelligence, our spiritual advantage, demand that every priest should read with knowledge so that with more certainty he may read attentively and devoutly.
For (1) the Holy Ghost warns us to sing wisely, Psallite sapienter (Ps. 46.8); (2) that priests may sing wisely, may say the daily Office piously is the reason and end of liturgical studies of the psalms and of the Breviary in theological colleges; (3) the saints who wrote so piously and so learnedly on the psalms and on psalmody are for ever impressing this matter of intelligent recitation. St. Augustine wrote, "Et quare dicta sunt, nisi ut sciantur? Quare sonuerunt nisi ut audiantur? Quare audita sunt nisi ut intelligantur" (Tract xxxi. in Joan). Again, commenting on psalm 146, he writes, "David teaches that we sing wisely; let us not seek the mere sound for the ear, but a light for the soul." St. Thomas Aquinas commenting on "For I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit" (I. Cor. xiv. 14) wrote "Constat quod plus lucratur qui orat. Nam, ille qui intelligit reficitur quantum ad intellectum et quantum ad affectum; sed mens ejus qui non intelligit est sine fructu refectionis." And (4) our own intellect tells us that the Breviary should be read intelligently and devoutly. One of the ends of the Church in imposing the Divine Office as an obligation is, that by honouring the holy mysteries, or the holy memories of the saints, we may raise our hearts and souls to God, as St. Paul wishes us, "May the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind towards one another according to Jesus Christ, that with one mind and one mouth you may glorify God" (Rom. xv. 5-6), an effect that cannot be produced by the recital of words which are not understood. It is almost impossible to avoid very grave distractions and to sustain attention if there be not a good knowledge of the matter and form of the Hours recited.
It seems irrational that, priests should spend daily more than an hour reading words that they understand not at all, or very imperfectly; and that the beautiful and sublime thought and language of the book of psalms, which are admired by all educated men, should be, to those who read them every day for years, nothing but a tinkling cymbal, vox et praeterea nihil. This is often the case even with priests who practise piously and methodically mental prayer. And yet nowhere are such beautiful acts of faith and confidence in God's power expressed as in the Psalms (e.g., 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 19, 25, 27, 30, 34, 43, 54, 55, 56, etc.); no more sublime expressions of praise exist than in the Psalms 8, 9, 17, 18, 20, 21, etc. Time spent in studying the history of the Breviary, the structure and the growth of the contents of each Hour, the meanings of the prayers and hymns, is time well spent. |
|
