Divine Office times.
The idea that the hours of the breviary cease to be liturgical prayer if they are not recited strictly within certain blocks of hours cannot be found in the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours.
While the Instruction strongly emphasizes the appropriateness of the Office to certain hours, it also emphasizes, for instance, the cardinal importance of such hours as Lauds and Vespers. Saying Lauds at 11:00 a.m. if one were quite impeded from an earlier recitation does not render Lauds un-liturgical. After all, Lauds and Vespers are primary hours, while Terce-Sext-None are "Little Hours", 2 of which are regularly omitted licitly. A priest I knew who for a while was impeded from early morning Lauds while on hospital duty would recite Lauds at 11 and then None at 3 for his daytime prayer.
Finally, the sunrise-sunset issue is mentioned in the General Instruction, when the rubrics mention the association of Lauds and Vespers with sunrise and sunset. Nowhere in the General Instruction are specific hours delineated. Many churches change their summer schedule to reflect the difference between 6:00 p.m. in December and 6:00 p.m. in July.
QUESTION from Lee on June 1, 2004
ANSWER by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM on June 1, 2004
|
Dear Mr. Lee: I am sorry but the liturgical law and Canon Law has determined that we are to say the particular hours as close as possible to the "canonical" hours. To say Lauds at 11am is an abuse of liturgical law and because of that inexcusable. Such a thing makes moot the whole purpose of morning prayer. The Offices are not to be said just to be saying them. They are to sanctify the hour of the day for which they were intended. Lauds is to sanctify the morning hours, not mid-day hours. As with ALL liturgy, the liturgy must be said according to the liturgical law including the INTENT of the law. The fact of the matter is that the reform of the Divine Office included the motivation of ending the typical abuses that you describe with this priest who said Lauds at 11am. That fact of the matter is that if one is not able to say Lauds at the proper times, then you miss Lauds. I remember this question coming up with a guest sister on Mother Angelica Live. She said the exact same thing that I have said. Besides, if one can say Lauds whenever they please to suit their schedule then why not say Lauds at 5pm? There was a famous case in pre-Vatican II days of a priest praying the entire Divine Office around 11pm each night and did not pray any office the rest of the following day. Discernment on these issues cannot be determined by priests or religious who abuse the liturgical law. I could care less what this or that priest does. There are some priest who think abortion is okay. To refer to this or that priest's practice is hardly proof of anything. There is only one issue: what does the Church say in its legislation. Canon Law 1175: In carrying out the liturgy of the hours, the true time for each hour is to be observed insofar as possible. Here is the GILH on the issue of Morning Prayer:
38. As is clear from many of the elements that make it up, morning prayer is intended and arranged to sanctify the morning. St. Basil the Great gives an excellent description of this character in these words: "It is said in the morning in order that the first stirrings of our mind and will may be consecrated to God and that we may take nothing in hand until we have been gladdened by the thought of God, as it is written: 'I was mindful of God and was glad' (Ps 77:4 [Jerome's translation from Hebrew]), or set our bodies to any task before we do what has been said: 'I will pray to you, Lord, you will hear my voice in the morning; I will stand before you in the morning and gaze on you' (Ps 5:4-5)." I see nothing here that even pretends to allow morning prayer at 11am, nor have I read any interpretation by Church authorities that would say that 11am is "the light of a new day is dawning". To put it bluntly, to interpret that "morning prayer", that is suppose to be said in early morning as permissible at 11am can only be justified by immature rationalization. A common example of such immaturity of rationalization is to say the law does not specifically prevent it so we can do it. That is like saying the law does not specifically prevent doing jumping-jacks during the Consecration so it is okay to do jumping-jacks. Such thinking is disingenuous childishness. A mature person does not have to be forced to so the right thing by a law specifically accounting for the action. No law can think of every possible perceived or contrived loophole to which spiritually immature people may cling. The Church expects us to have come maturity. This issue is the central issue of the liberal and ultra-traditionalist nonsense - an immature conscience and ego and childish loophole hunting. If one wishes to make such rationalizations, that is their business, but when I stand before God I do not want to have to explain why I did not do what is obviously the right thing to do. I do not believe God accepts rationalizations.
God Bless, P.S. The General Instruction does not say anything about sunrise or sunset, but it does mention the dawning day..... is 11am the dawn of the day? |