Part 6 (1/2)
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).