The Divine Office - Rev. E. J. Quigley
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).