Pronunciation of the words of the office should be integral.  That is, the words and syllables are to be repeated fully without mutilation or abbreviation.  Hence, if mutilation of the words occur to such an extent that the sense or meaning of the words is notably changed, mortal sin may be committed.  But if the mutilation be small in quantity there is only a venial sin committed, and often no sin at all may be committed, as the mutilation of words or syllables may be quite involuntary, or may be done inadvertently, or may arise from an inveterate habit very difficult to correct, and in the attempt to cure it time and patience may have been spent (St. Alph., 164-165).  This bad habit, if it extend over a large portion of the recitation and destroy notably the sense of the words, may bind sub gravi to repetition, as this fault or habit affects the very substance of recitation.  Priests seldom are bound to such a repetition, as the mutilation is not destructive to the sense of a notable part of the office and hence does not affect the substance of the obligation to vocal recital.  St. Alphonsus holds (n. 165), that the obligation is fulfilled as long as the meaning is not destroyed, quando servatur aliqua significatio verborum.

Pronunciation should be continuous.  That is, the recitation of each hour should be continuous, non-interrupted, and every notable stoppage or break in the recitation of a canonical hour is a venial sin, if there be no excusing cause for such an interruption.  Any reasonable cause for interruption (e.g., to obey a bell call, to see a parishioner who calls, to hear a confession) excuses from all fault (St. Alph., n. 168).

If the recital of the office for any canonical hour be interrupted, should the whole hour be repeated?  Some theologians say that it should be repeated.  But the more probable opinion denies that there is any such obligation; it holds that the union of the prayers prescribed by the Church is not broken, as each psalm, each lesson, each prayer, has a complete signification and they are united sufficiently in one round of prayer by the intention formed of continuing the Hour, or even by the actual continuation.  Gury states that a priest interrupting the office between the verses of a psalm is not bound to repeat the entire psalm on resuming the recitation, as he says each verse has its own signification.

May Matins be said separately from Lauds without any excusing cause?  Yes, for it was the practice of the early Church to say these parts of the liturgy at times separated by intervals.  But if Matins be said separately, without Lauds following immediately. Pater Noster with Dominus Vobiscum and the prayer of the day should be said at the end of the Te Deum, If Lauds follow Matins immediately the Pater and Ave should not be said, for the Congregation (same decree) says “Laudes incohandas ut in Psalterio,” but in the Psalter the Pater and Ave are not assigned for the beginning of Lauds.