Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 96

Vatican website translation:

96. Clerics not bound to office in choir, if they are in major orders, are bound to pray the entire office every day, either in common or individually, as laid down in Art. 89.

Latin original:

96. Clerici choro non obligati, si sunt in Ordinibus maioribus constituti, cotidie, sive in communi, sive soli, obligatione tenentur totum Officium persolvendi, ad normam art. 89.

Slavishly literal translation:

96. Clerics not obligated to [pray the Office] in choir, if they have been established in major Orders, are held by obligation to completely praying the entire Office, whether in common or alone, according to the norm [found in] art. 89.

Having discussed the obligations for praying the Divine Office by orders of canons, monks and nuns, other members of religious communities, and Cathedral chapters and colleges, the Council Fathers now turn their attention to those bound to praying the Liturgy of the Hours by reason of their clerical status. (At the time of the Council this would include bishops, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons.) Certain โ€œactiveโ€ orders, most notably the Jesuits, had not been bound to the choral singing or recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours, but clerics in these orders (as well as secular clerics) have been obliged individually to the daily complete recitation (or singing) of the Divine Office, a practice which is here confirmed.

Pray Tell readers might want to discuss the tension between praying the Divine Office as a genuine โ€œsanctification of timeโ€ and the kinds of spiritual exercises/religious reading that might fit into an active clericโ€™s life of pastoral care (i.e., not praying the entire daily Office between ca. 11:00 PM and midnight to โ€œget it inโ€ or breaking off from spiritual direction or other forms of pastoral care in order to recite Mid-morning Prayer). We will see in the treatment of art. 97 that the Council Fathers themselves were aware of such tensions.

Michael Joncas

Ordained in 1980 as a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN, Fr. (Jan) Michael Joncas holds degrees in English from the (then) College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, and in liturgical studies from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN and the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico of the Ateneo S. Anselmo in Rome. He has served as a parochial vicar, a campus minister, and a parochial administrator (pastor). He is the author of six books and more than two hundred fifty articles and reviews in journals such as Worship, Ecclesia Orans, and Questions Liturgiques. He has composed and arranged more than 300 pieces of liturgical music. He has recently retired as a faculty member in the Theology and Catholic Studies departments and as Artist in Residence and Research Fellow in Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

5 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 96”

  1. Jordan Zarembo

    Interestingly, in 1961 Pope St. John XXIII effectively suppressed (made ad libitum) the requirement that a parish priest recite Lauds before offering his first Mass of the day.

    Father Joncas, I do not see here the admonition that an incomplete recitation of the Office would incur mortal sin. Did SC remove this admonition tacitly, or simply presume that the admonition would remain in place?

    1. Earle Luscombe

      @Jordan Zarembo – comment #1:
      I think, Jordan, a quick reading of article 97, will answer your question. I remember a few years ago a permanent deacon telling me that in that diocese, for a permanent deacon recitation of the Office was not mandatory, but “highly recommended,” and that priests were only obligated to recite Morning and Evening Prayer.

  2. James B Smith

    How far can this go…absurd…

    1. Jordan Zarembo

      @James B Smith – comment #2:

      I only ask about the pain of sin since Cardinal Richelieu would recite a few days back-to-back if he would not be able to recite the Office while on affairs of state.

  3. I know one diocese where permanent deacons are given the faculty to dispense themselves from the obligation of the office for work or family commitments. Practical, makes canonical sense, and respects their multi-faced vocations.

    I seem to remember reading that priests need only just cause to skip an hour other than MP or EP, but grave cause to skip those. I can see how that might get explained to people as what Earle said.


by

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading