But if we would have a plainer acknowledgement hereof than is needful, we may have it from those who declare, that no Attention of mind is needful in worship, and these are the greatest part of their A •bours, which I find alleged in this question (taking none into the account neither, but those that are ancienter than the foundation of the Society). They determine without distinguishing that all attention is needless actual, or virtual. If the words are pronounced entire, and no external action admitted, to hinder that; it is no crime with them, if as nothing else; so neither the bare words be further minded, but the thoughts be quite dismissed from them. Sylvester the Master of the Sacred Apostolical Palace, and their prime Champion against Luther, in his Book Dedicated to Pope Leo the Tenth, determines expressly, (b)That to pray with attention in their Canonical hours, is not required by Gods Law. If he had said, the Church had not required it, he had spoke within compass; and said no more than many others before and after him: but he says that too, for having told us that Hostiensis, Antoninus, Summa rosellae, do all hold, that the Church enjoins not attentiveness, but only saying the service, he adds, (c)that they say true, as to this, that attention is not under the precept of the Church. Of the like persuasion are Durandus, Paludanus, Angelus ⟨p. 19⟩de Clavasio, and others. (d)For attention, as they say, is not a command of their Church, but a counsel only, which may be neglected without sin. Others, who make the best of it, deliver it thus. (e)The Church doth not command internal acts, no more than judge of them, therefore requires not attention in worship: the precept is fully accomplished without it, by the external act alone; the want of attention is no fault, unless upon the account of the natural precept; and in reference to that, it is no worse than venial. They are herein opposed by some later Casuists and Jesuits (however these come to be counted more licentious.) But the differing parties fully agree, in making it needless to worship God. For both hold, that they need not mind either God, or the matter, or the sense of the words in their service, either actually or virtually: and both conclude, that the words without the sense (and all else for which they can be considerable) need not be minded actually.
But if we would have a plainer acknowledgment hereof than is needfull, we may have it from those who declare, that no Attention of mind is needful in worship, and these are the greatest part of their A •bours, which I find alledged in this question (taking none into the account neither, but those that are ancienter than the foundation of the Society). They determine without distinguishing that all attention is needless actual, or vertual. If the words are pronounced intire, and no external action admitted, to hinder that; it is no crime with them, if as nothing else; so neither the bare words be further minded, but the thoughts be quite dismissed from them. Sylvester the Master of the Sacred Apostolical Palace, and their prime Champion against Luther, in his Book Dedicated to Pope Leo the Tenth, determines expresly, (b)That to pray with attention in their Canonical hours, is not required by Gods Law. If he had said, the Church had not required it, he had spoke within compass; and said no more than many others before and after him: but he sayes that too, for having told us that Hostiensis, Antoninus, Summa rosellae, do all hold, that the Church injoyns not attentiveness, but only saying the service, he adds, (c)that they say true, as to this, that attention is not under the precept of the Church. Of the like perswasion are Durandus, Paludanus, Angelus ⟨p. 19⟩de Clavasio, and others. (d)For attention, as they say, is not a command of their Church, but a counsel only, which may be neglected without sin. Others, who make the best of it, deliver it thus. (e)The Church doth not command internal acts, no more than judge of them, therefore requires not attention in worship: the precept is fully accomplished without it, by the external act alone; the want of attention is no fault, unless upon the account of the natural precept; and in reference to that, it is no worse than venial. They are herein opposed by some later Casuists and Jesuits (however these come to be counted more licentious.) But the differing parties fully agree, in making it needless to worship God. For both hold, that they need not mind either God, or the matter, or the sense of the words in their service, either actually or vertually: and both conclude, that the words without the sence (and all else for which they can be considerable) need not be minded actually.
- (b)Attente orare in horis Canonicis, non est de jure divino Sum. v. horae. n. 13.
- (c)Sed isti licet verum dicunt, quantum ad hoc quod attentio non est sub praecepto—Idem. ibid.
- (d)Clericum qui distracto animo, horas recitat non peccare mortifere aiunt Durandus, Paludanus, Angelus, Sylvester, & alij quidam non improbabiliter: quia attentio (in cap. dolentes de celebr. miss.) est in consilio. quia cum ecclesia internos •animé actus non paniat, mentis attentionem non videtur praecipere. Victorel. add. Toll. l. 3. c. 13▪ Glossa tenet quod sufficit dicere ore, licet non corde, & cum ea concurrunt multi Canonistae. Sum. Angel. v. Oratio. n. 9.Clericum qui distracto animo, horas recitat non peccare mortifere aiunt Durandus, Paludanus, Angelus, Sylvester, & alij quidam non improbabiliter: quia attentio (in cap. dolentes de celebr. miss.) est in consilio. quia cum ecclesia internos •animé actus non paniat, mentis attentionem non videtur praecipere. Victorel. add. Tol. l. 3. c. 13▪ Glossa tenet quod sufficit dicere ore, licet non corde, & cum ea concurrunt multi Canonistae. Sum. Angel. v. Oratio. n. 9.
- (e)Evagatio quae est advertentis & solum secundum actum interiorem, licet sit temeraria & gravis sorte: non tamen est mortale, nisi propter contemptum quoniam ecclesia non habet judicare de interioribus actibus mere. Propter quod Minister ecclesiae licet dicendo officium aliud cogitet, non videtur transgressor Praecepti ex natura facti. Angel. sum. v. horae: n. 27. Sic & Sylv. sum. v. hor. n. 13. Non tenetur autem quovis praecepto esse attentus, sed sine culpa mortali potest evagari, etiam a proposito Idem. ibid. n. 14. Non est peccatum mortale sine attention recitare etiamsi ex pura negligentia, & cum advertentia fiat (ita) Hostiensis Jo. Andr. Anchoranus, Antoninus citans Umbertum & alios. Rosell. Summa Pisana. Angelic. Durandus, Paludanus, Sylvest. Turrecremata, Medina in Suarez l. 4. de horis Can. c. 26. n. 1. &. 2. Qui officium divinum voluntary distractus recitat praecepto satisfacit. Joh. Valerus alleges for this Aquinas, Paludanus, and Twenty other Doctors, vid. Acacium de Velasco To. 2. res. mor. v. hora. res. 54.Evagatio quae est advertentis & solum secundum actum interiorem, licet sit temeraria & gravis sorte: non tamen est mortale, nisi propter contemptum quoniam ecclesia non habet judicare de interioribus actibus mere. Propter quod Minister ecclesiae licet dicendo officium aliud cogitet, non videtur transgressor Praecepti ex natura facti. Angel. sum. v. horae: n. 27. Sic & Sylv. sum. v. hor. n. 13. Non tenetur autem quovis praecepto esse attentus, sed sine culpa mortali potest evagari, etiam a proposito Idem. ibid. n. 14. Non est peccatum mortale sine attentione recitare etiamsi ex pura negligentia, & cum advertentia fiat (ita) Hostiensis Jo. Andr. Anchoranus, Antoninus citans Umbertum & alios. Rosell. Summa Pisana. Angelic. Durandus, Paludanus, Sylvest. Turrecremata, Medina in Suarez l. 4. de horis Can. c. 26. n. 1. &. 2. Qui officium divinum voluntarie distractus recitat praecepto satisfacit. Joh. Valerus alledges for this Aquinas, Paludanus, and Twenty other Doctors, vid. Acacium de Velasco To. 2. res. mor. v. hora. res. 54.
