THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA CANON LAW STUDIES No. 158 THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS A HISTORICAL CONSPECTUS AND COMMENTARY by John Joseph Gutntven, C.SS.R., J.CT. Priest of the Baltimore Province A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Canon Law THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS WASHINGTON, D. C. 1942 THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA CANON LAW STUDIES No. 158 THE PRECEPT OF HEARING $ÏASS Λ A HISTORICAL CONSPECTUS À^D COMMENTARY by John Joseph Guini^ï, C.SS.R., J.CX. Priest of the Baltimore Province A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Canon Law THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS WASHINGTON, D. C. 1942 βχ flBfl £ώ3 imprimi Çatest: Guuelmus T. McCarty, CSSJt-, Superior Provincialis. Brooklynii, die 1 iunü 1942. Nihil 00 bat at: Clemens V. Bastnagel, J.U.D., S.TX., Censor Deputatus. Waskingtona, D. C., die 29 maü 1942. imprimatur: i* Michael J. Curley, D.D., Archiepiscopus Baltimorensis. Baltimorae, Md., die 29 maü 1942. COPYRIGHT, 1942 THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS Printed by Thz Pacust Pazse New York, N Y <4^^ ®* TO THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER OUR MOTHER OF PERPETUAL HELP AND ST. ALPHONSUS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... xüi CHAPTER I JEWISH OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH AND FEASTDAYS ........................................................................ Article I. Relation of the Jewish to the Christian Observance ............................................. (a) Same Basic Reasons Underlying Both.. (b) Jewish Observance Foreshadowed Chris­ tian ........................................................ (c) Jewish Observance Adopted in Part by Christians ............................................. Article II. Origin and Development of Jewish Ob­ servance ................ (a) Origin in General..................................... (b) Sabbath Observance ............................... (c) Feastday Observance ............................... 1 1 1 2 4 5 5 6 7 CHAPTER II ADOPTION OF THE SUNDAY............................................. Article I. The Fact of the Adoption of the Sunday (a) Its Relation to the Sabbath ................... (b) Its Religious Significance ....................... Article II. The Manner of the Adoption of the Sunday ...................................................... (a) Manner of the Adoption......................... (b) Reasons for the Adoption....................... V 9 9 9 12 13 13 15 vi Contents CHAPTER III page EARLY OBLIGATION OF SUNDAY ASSISTANCE AT MASS ........................................................................... Article I. The Practice Among the Early Chris­ tians of Attending Sunday Mass. ... Article II. The Obligation of the Early Christians to Attend Sunday Mass. (a) Lack of Positive Written Law............... (b) Existence of Obligation Arising from Custom ................................................. 17 17 18 18 21 CHAPTER IV SUNDAY MASS OBLIGATION FROM SIXTH TO THIRTEENTH CENTURY............................................. Article I. Positive Legislation Prescribing Attend­ ance ....................... . (a) The First Written Law.......................... (b) Insistence Upon Hearing Entire Mass.. (c) Legislation on Other Relative Matters.. Article II. Enforcement of Precept by Sanction ... (a) Corporal Punishments ............................ (b) Fines ........................................................ 23 23 23 24 25 28 28 29 CHAPTER V THIRTEENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT DAY... Article I. Obligation to Fulfill Precept in Parish Church .................................................. (a) Observance Before the End of the Thir­ teenth Century .................................... (b) Struggle Between Seculars and Mendi­ cants .................................................... 30 30 31 31 vii Contents PACE (c) Conciliar Insistence on This Obligation. (d) Relaxation in Favor of Mendicants .... Article II. Total Relaxation of the Obligation to Attend Sunday Mass in the Parish Church .................. 35 (a) Complete Relaxation by Force of Custom (b) Final Emergence of Ecclesiastical Disci­ pline ....................................................... 32 34 35 36 CHAPTER VI CHURCH DISCIPLINE REGARDING MASS ON FEAST­ DAYS ..................................................................................... 40 Article I. Rise and Development of Feastdays.... 40 Article II. Power of Bishops and Its Curtailment .. 43 (a) Abuse Arising from Undue Multiplica­ tion of Feastdays................................. 43 (b) Obligation of Attending Mass on Feast­ days ........................................................ 44 (c) Correction of the Abuse by Pope Urban VIII ........................................................ 45 (d) Final LegislationConcerningFeastdays 48 (e) Feastdays andPrivateOratories.............. 49 CHAPTER VII BASIC LAW UNDERLYING PRECEPT OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE ............................................................ (a) Various Opinions on Source of Obligation of Sunday Observance......................... (b) More Probable Opinion: Merely Eccle­ siastical Law.......................................... (c) Obligation of Hearing Mass................... 52 53 54 56 viii Contents CHAPTER VIII page CODE LEGISLATION PERTAINING EXCLUSIVELY TO FEASTDAYS ............................................................... 58 Article I. Institution, Transfer and Abolition of Feastdays of Universal Law............. 58 (a) Exclusive Right of Church to Legislate on Religious Feastdays....................... 59 (b) Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority........... 59 (c) Notion of Institution, Transfer and Abo­ lition ..................................................... 60 Article II. Present Status of Feastdays of Univer­ sal Law.............. 61 (a) Catalog as Enumerated in Code............. 61 (b) Feastdays in Effect in theUnited States 64 (c) Abrogation of Motu Proprio “Supremi Disciplinae” ......................................... 65 Article III. Present Discipline Regarding Feastdays of Particular Law. 67 (a) Power of Local Ordinaries to Designate Feastdays ............................................ 67 (b) Conditions Placed on Its Legitimate Exercise ................................................ 68 Article IV. Subject of the Obligation Which Arises from Feastdays of Particular Law. . 71 (a) Incolae and Advenae.............................. 71 (b) Vagi and Peregrini .................. 73 CHAPTER IX PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS: ITS NATURE, GRAV­ ITY, MATTER ......................................................... Article I. Nature and Gravity of the Precept. ... 76 77 Contents ûc PAGE Article Π. Matter of the Precept of Hearing Mass (a) Obligation to Hear Entire Mass............... (b) Grave and Light Matter in Omissions.. Article III. Obligation to Supply Omitted Parts of Mass ........................ (a) Obligation When Grave Matter Is Omitted ................................................. (b) Obligation When Light Matter Is Omitted ................................................. (c) Obligation if Not All of the Mass Can be Heard............................................... 79 79 80 84 84 84 85 CHAPTER X THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS Article I. Subject of Obligation................................. (a) Subject in General................................... (b) Heretics and Schismatics ....................... (c) Excommunicates and the Interdicted... Article II. Requisites on Part of Subject for Ful­ fillment of Precept. (a) Moral Bodily Presence .............................. (b) Intention of Hearing Mass....................... (c) External Attention ...................................... (d) Confession .................................................... (e) Internal Attention ...................................... 87 87 87 89 95 103 103 105 106 107 108 CHAPTER XI REQUIRED PLACE FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PRECEPT .................................................................... 110 Contents X PAGE I. Ordinary Places Where Precept Can Be Fulfilled ............... (a) Fulfillment of the Precept in a Different Rite ....................................................... (b) Parish Church No Longer Obligatory... (c) Attendance at Public Oratories and Other OrdinaryPlaces ..................................... (d) Private Oratories ..................................... Article Π. “Sub Dio"......................................................... (a) Opinion That “Sub Dio” Means “Ubi­ cumque?’ ............................................. (b) Better Opinion That “Sub Dio” Means “In the Open Air” ............................. Article III. Extraordinary Places for Fulfillment of Precept............... (a) Mass Outside of Churches and Oratories. (b) Present Power of Bishops in This Regard (c) Fulfillment of Precept When Mass Is Permitted Outside of Church............... (d) “In an Extraordinary Case”.................. (e) “Per Modum Actuï’ .............................. Article 110 110 Ill 112 113 116 116 118 121 121 122 124 126 129 CHAPTER Nil EXCUSING CAUSES RELATIVE TO PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS............................................................. Article I. Ignorance as an ExcusingCause.............. (a) Invincible Ignorance .............................. (b) Vincible Ignorance.................................. Article II. Doubt as an Excusing Cause................... (a) Positive and Objective Doubt Regarding the Law..................................... 133 133 134 134 136 136 Contents xi PAGE (b) Positive and Objective Doubt Regarding the Fact ............................................... (c) Positive and Subjective Doubt Regarding the Law................................................. Article III. Physical Inability as an Excusing Cause (a) Kinds of Physical Inability ................... (b) Use of the Automobile ........................... Article IV. Moral Inability as an Excusing Cause .. (a) Kinds of Moral Inability......................... (b) Use of Privilege to Fulfill Precept........ Article V. Placing and Removal of Causes Impeding the Fulfillment of the Precept. ... (a) Lawfulness of Placing Such Causes........ (b) Obligation of Removing Such Causes... (c) Obligation When a Later Impeding Cause Is Foreseen........................................... 138 140 141 142 143 144 144 147 148 149 151 153 CHAPTER XIII DISPENSATION FROM THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS ..................................................................................... 154 Article I. Active Subject of the Power of Dis­ pensing .................. 154 Article II. Passive Subject of the Power of Dis­ pensing ..................... 156 Article III. Conditions Required for the Granting of a Dispensation .... 160 (a) “In Casibus Singularibus”....................... 160 (b) “lusta de Causa”...................................... 161 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 163 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................ 165 Contents VMM. ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... 173 ALPHABETICAL INDEX ....................................................... 175 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ........................................................... 179 CANON LAW STUDIES .............................. ;........................ 181 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is twofold: to trace the development of the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and Feastdays from its origin down to the adoption of the New Code of Canon Law, and to offer an interpretation of the ecclesiastical discipline regarding this precept as it exists today. The selection of this topic was prompted by the conviction that the precept of hearing Mass is of sufficient importance to merit special and exclusive consideration. Most of the works dealing with it consider it only as part of the more general precept of sanctifying Sundays and Feastdays, which includes the concomitant obligation of abstaining from servile work. Almost without exception these works devote more consideration to the latter negative aspect of Sunday and Feastday observance—a procedure necessitated no doubt by the confusion and uncertainty attending it. Furthermore, even those treatises which deal exclusively with the precept of attending Mass on Sundays and Feastdays leave much to be desired in the matter of a thorough investigation of the subject as extending from its origin down to and including the legislation of the New Code. The obligation incumbent upon Catholics to hear Mass consti­ tutes the more important aspect of their general obligation to sanc­ tify Sundays and Feastdays. The less important aspect, namely, the mere abstention from servile work and worldly pursuits, does not in itself offer much by way of contribution to the required sanctification of the days in question. It is rather a condition which makes it pos­ sible for the faithful to achieve the sanctification of these days by a fuller devotion of themselves to prayer and worship. Attendance at Mass, on the other hand, is the greatest act of worship which the faithful can offer to God, and the greatest source of blessings con­ tributing to their own personal sanctification. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the center around which Christian life revolves, and the most perfect expression of the worship which Christians, as members of the Mystical Body of Christ, owe their God and Creator. To quote Ellard, in his comparison of the Mass with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary: xiii xiv Introduction On the Cross, although acting on behalf of all mankind, Christ necessarily acted alone; in the Mass, while still acting on behalf of all men, Christ sacrifices with His whole Mystical Body. Nay, more: in the Mass Christ sacrifices only through His Mystical Body, only as conditioned by the Mystical Body. That is to say, unless the Mystical Body “does this in memory of Him,” the great High Priest Himself must remain inactive.1 Certainly then, the Sacrifice of the Mass is of supreme importance in the economy of Christian life. And the obligation imposed by the Church upon every Christian of assisting at stated times at this Sacrifice is consequently of sufficient importance to deserve the spe­ cial consideration which this study attempts to give it. A thorough investigation of this matter demands of necessity that the writer make lengthy excursions into the field of moral theology. It is his purpose, however, to provide a study of the precept of hear­ ing Mass under all its varied aspects, and therefore the considera­ tion of matters which pertain to moral theology rather than to Canon Law is not only justified but necessary. The writer is pleased to discharge a great debt of gratitude by expressing his thanks and appreciation to his Very Reverend Pro­ vincial, William T. McCarty, C.SS.R., for the opportunity to com­ plete his advanced studies in Canon Law; to the faculty of the School of Canon Law of the Catholic University for their profitable instruction and generous assistance, and especially to the Rev. Clement V. Bastnagel, J.U.D., for his painstaking and invaluable direction and help in the preparation of this dissertation. The writer expresses his gratitude also to his confreres for their interest and aid and encouragement; to the librarians of the Catholic University for their cheerful and capable co-operation; and finally, to those to whom this dissertation is dedicated, for help and encouragement without which this dissertation, and the course of advanced studies, would never have been completed. 1 Ellard, Christian Life and Worship (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Com­ pany, 1913), p. 186. Part One Historical Synopsis CHAPTER I JEWISH OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH AND FEASTDAYS Article I. Relation of the Jewish to Observance the Christian Before one traces the development of the Sunday and Feast­ day observance in the Catholic Church, it is fitting that one examine the corresponding observance in the Old Testament, namely, the Sabbath and Feastday observance of the Jewish religion. This pro­ cedure will be profitable because (a) the same basic reasons underlay the Jewish observance; (b) the Jewish observance foreshadowed the observance of the Catholic Church; (c) the Jewish observance was, in part, actually adopted by the Catholic Church. (a) Same Basic Reasons Underlying Both The Sabbath and Feastday observance of the Jews was twofold: namely, rest from work, and devotion to prayer and worship. The purpose of this twofold observance was to enable the Jews to turn away from themselves, and to devote themselves fully to God. This is indicated in the words of Isaias: If thou turn away . . . from doing thy own will in my holy day . . . and glorify Him, while thou dost not thy own ways . . . then shalt thou be delighted in the Lord. . . -1 1 Isaias Iviii. 13-14. 1 2 The Precept of Hearing Mass The Sabbath-rest was observed to commemorate the rest of God Himself on the seventh day of creation,2 and also, at a later period, to remind His people of their deliverance from Egypt, which, giving them as it did a new existence as a free people, was in a certain sense a new creation.3 This in turn lifted their minds toward the God Who had created them, and Who would sanctify them.4 The mere cessation from labor, the negative element of the ob­ servance, even though it was observed in commemoration of the rest of God the Creator, hardly served in a direct way to sanctify the Sabbath- And so it was the positive element, prayer and wor­ ship, which constituted the chief means of fulfilling the command of God to sanctify His holy day.5*7 This is expressed by the prayer contained in the so-called Apostolic Constitutions: “ . . . Thou didst command them, the Jews, to keep the Sabbath, not that it might be unto them an occasion of idleness, but a help unto godliness. . . . ” · (b) Jewish Observance Foreshadowed Christian The Old Testament abounds in types or figures which fore­ shadow persons, events or things of the New Dispensation. While the Sabbath and Feastdays of the Jews were not, in the strict sense of the word, types of the Sunday and Feastdays of the Christians, there exists nevertheless a striking resemblance between them. The Sabbath and Jewish Feastdays, characterized as they were by ab­ stention from work and by devotion to prayer and worship, mirror the Sunday and Feastdays of the Christian religion, which even to the present day are observed in a similar manner. The words of St. Paul bear out this statement: “Let no man therefore judge you ... in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sab­ baths, which are a shadow of things to come . . . ” T St. Caesarius 2 Exodus xxxL 17; Deuteronomy v. 14. * Deuteronomy v. 15. ♦ Exodus xxi. 13 ; Ezechiel xx. 12. 5 Deuteronomy v. 12; Exodus xvi. 23; Jeremias xvii. 22. • Funk, DidascaHa et Constitutiones Apostolorum (2 vols., Paderbornae, 1905), I, 435. 7 Colosâans ii. 16-17. Jewish Observance oj the Sabbath and Feastdays 3 of Arles expresses the same idea, when he says that the holy doctors of the Church wished all the glory of the Jewish sabbath to be trans­ ferred to Sunday, so that what the Jews celebrated in figure, we may celebrate in truth.8 So also the II Council of Macon (585) says that “Sunday is the perpetual day of rest foreshadowed in the seventh day and made known to us in the law and the Prophets.” 9 This resemblance is especially apparent in the sphere of worship generally,1011but extends also to the seriousness of the obligation, because among the Jews the violation of the observance, just as among the Christians, constituted a grave sin, and was punished by the most severe penalties.11 The gravity of this obligation, as that of the Christian, was based not on the fact that the violation was in itself anything serious, but because in that violation was implied a denial to God of the honor and recognition due to Him. It was a factual negation of what the Sabbath signified. Another point of similarity between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday, and between the respective Feastdays of the Jews and of the Christians lies in the fact that these days were regarded not as days of penance, but as days of joy. For the Jews this atti­ tude was commanded by God Himself, Who desired the Jews to “call the Sabbath delightful.” 1213 It is also indicated by the author of 1 Machabees who, in bemoaning the fate of the city of Jerusalem, says that “her festival days were turned into mourning, her sab­ baths into reproach.” 18 That the Jewish practices, like those of the Christians, reflected that spirit of joy can be deduced from the 8 Sermo CCLXXX—Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus (Series Latina, 221 vols., Parisiis, 1844-1864), XXXIX, 2274. Hereafter cited as MPL. 9 Canon 1—Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Antiquissima Collect io (S3 vols, in 59, Florentiae, Parisiis, Arnhem et Leipzig, 1901-1927), IX, 949950. Hereafter cited as Mansi. 10 Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its origin and evolution (translated from the 3. French ed., London, 1903), p. 46; McReavy, ‘‘Servile Work,"—The Clergy Review, IX (1935), 270. 11 Exodus xxxL 14; Numbers xv. 35. 12 Isaias Iviii. 13. 13 I Machabees i. 41. 4 The Precept of Hearing Mass fact that the Jews never fasted on the Sabbath or on Feastdays, that they wore beautiful clothes, and celebrated the days with festive meals.14 (c) Jewish Observance Adopted, in Part In the early days of the Catholic Church Jewish Christians con­ tinued to attend services in the synagogues. This they were free to do after the example of our Lord Himself and of the Apostles.15* However, they also took part in the exclusively Christian meetings, which were held chiefly on Sundays,15 and at which they could wor­ ship God in their own manner according to their belief in Jesus Christ. It was at these Christian meetings that the early Christians adopted part of the Jewish Sabbatical observance, because even though they were exclusively Christian, the services nevertheless followed the normal order of the Jewish synagogues. They were the Jewish synagogue services christianized both in form and in purpose.17 After the Church’s break with Judaism the synagogues were abandoned by the Christians, but the synagogue liturgy continued providentially to serve its purpose in the new Church.18 It contained no sacrifice, but provided a perfect setting for the new rite estab­ lished by Christ. The new Christian liturgy was in fact merely a continuation of the Jewish liturgy of the synagogues.19 In a word, the Christian Sunday, when substituted for the Sabbath in order to provide for a distinct form of perfect worship, assumed those of its obligations which were reconcilable with the law of the Gospel.20 14 Judith viii. 6; Welte, “Sabbat," Kircheidexikon, X, 1441; Luke xiv. 1; Esther ix. 17. 18 Luke iv. 15-16; vi. 6; John xviii. 20; Acts xiii. 14. “Acts xx. 7; 1 Corinthians xvi. 2. 17 Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (London: Long­ mans, Green & Co., Ltd., 1926), p. 3. 18 Joseph Husslein, The Mass of the Apostles (New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1929), p. 48. “ Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 46. “ViHien, A History of the Commandments of the Church (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1915), p. 26. Jewish Observance of the Sabbath and Feastdays Article II: Origin Development Observance and of the 5 Jewish (a) Origin in General It is impossible to determine exactly the precise time when the Sabbath as a day of special observance came into existence. The first reference made to it in the Old Testament is in Exodus xvi. 22-30. This reference, however, points to it not as a new institution, but as one with which the Jews were already familiar. From this it may be deduced that the third commandment of the decalog only sanctioned legally an already existing custom of the Jewish people, or perhaps even only restated an already existing law, as Exodus xvi. 28: “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments, and my law?” seems to indicate. It is certain that the observance of special days which were given over to rest from work and to devotion to prayer and worship was not peculiar to the Israelites. Traces, at least, of this have been found among heathen nations, such as the Babylonians and Assyr­ ians, who distinguished the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days of the month from the other days, and set them aside as days of rest and sacrifice.21 From this, however, it cannot be argued that the Jews borrowed the notion of the Sabbath from these or other nations. It is possible, though it cannot be proved, that this custom among widely separated nations can be traced back to primitive revelation. Friedrich Notscher asserts: “According to the account of creation the seven-day period is a basic law for the ordering of the world, which even God Himself observed in the creation, in blessing and sanctifying the seventh day.” 2223 The most that can be said with certainly is that the Sabbath is the oldest of the legally prescribed feasts of the Jews,2’ that it existed certainly before its observance was promulgated as a law by Moses, and that therefore it is of very ancient origin. 21 H. Schumacher, A Handbook of Scripture Study (2. ed., 3 vols., St. Louis: B. Herder, 1924-1926), I, 17S. 22 “Sabbath,” Lerikon fur Théologie und Kirche, IX (1937), 49-50. 23 Welte, “Sabbat,” Kirckenlexikon, X, 1438. 6 The Precept of Hearing Mass (b) Sabbath Observance As indicated above, the Jewish observance of the Sabbath and Feastdays was twofold: abstention from labor, and devotion to prayer and worship. Since this study is restricted to the Christian precept of hearing Mass, it is concerned only with the latter element, namely, the sanctification of the Sabbath and Feastdays by prayer and worship. At no time under the Old Dispensation was there any specific positive legislation commanding the Jews to devote the Sabbath to prayer and worship. There was, however, the command of God Himself that the Jews should sanctify the Sabbath,24 and it was in accordance with this command, no doubt, that the custom arose among the Jews of meeting on the Sabbath for public prayer and worship. The temple, of course, was the great center of Jewish worship, and this was the scene of special observance on the Sab­ bath day. The usual offerings which characterized the daily morning and evening sacrifices 25*were doubled,2· and the loaves of proposi­ tion were changed.22 A sacred assembly of the people on the Sab­ bath for solemn worship was also prescribed,28 but since the temple was not accessible to all the Jewish people, this prescription can hardly be interpreted as a general law binding all the Jews. It was precisely because of this inaccessibility of the temple that the Jews began to build synagogues and there held the Sabbath and Feastday services, which, as has been shown, foreshadowed and contributed so greatly to the Christian Sunday services. Outside of Jerusalem, where the temple was situated, the weekly meetings of the syna­ gogue became the highest expression of the collective religious life of the Jews.29 Just when the synagogues had their origin is disputed. Some hold that they were of post-exilic origin, but there are good reasons 24 Deuteronomy v. 12; Exodus xvi. 23; Jeremias xvii. 22. 23 Numbers xxviii. 3-8. 29 Numbers xxviii. 9-10. 2T Leviticus xv. 5-8. 28 Ezechiel xlvi. 3. 29 Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 46. Jewish Observance oj the Sabbath and Feastdays 7 to believe that they were in existence in much more ancient times, that is, before the captivity of Babylon, under the Judges and Kings. It is probable that the scribes and priests sent by Josaphat to the people in the different cities of Judea 30 taught the people in their synagogues. From the various references made in the Old Testament to a renowned place of worship in Maspha80 8182 it has been deduced that the first synagogue was located there, and existed be­ fore the time of Jephte and Samuel.32 It was probably after the exile that synagogues became common, and at these the Jews gathered every Sabbath for services.38 These services—christianized—later became part of the eucharistie Sunday services of the early Christians.34 (c) Feastday Observance Besides the Sabbath, the Jews also celebrated certain Feastdays, some instituted by God, others instituted by the Jews themselves. On these days servile works were prohibited, and each festival had certain ceremonies and called for certain offerings peculiar to itself.8384 * 85 Those of divine institution numbered eight, namely, the Sabbath; Neomenia; the Pasch; Pentecost; the Feast of the Trumpets; the Feast of Expiation; the Feast of the Tabernacles; and the Feast of the Assembly or Congregation.33 The feasts instituted by the Jews themselves numbered four: the Feast of Lots; the Feast of the Purification of the Temple; the Feast of the Day of the Given Fire; and the Feast in commemoration of the slaughter of Nicanor’s army.87 80 2 Paralipomenon xvii. 9. 81 Judges xi. 11; η, 1; 1 Kings vii. 5; 1 Machabees in. 46. 82 Betanus, Analogia Veteris ac Novi Testamenti, m qua primum status veteris, deinde consensus, proportio, et conspiratio illius cum novo explicatus (Louvain, 1775), p. 217. To be quoted hereafter as Analogia Veteris ac Novi Testamenti. 88 Acts XV. 21; xiii. 27. 84 Fortescue, The Mass, p. 70. 85 Becanus, Analogia Veteris ac Novi Testamenti, p. 285. 88 Leviticus xxiii. 1-37; Numbers xxviii. 11. 8T Esther ix. 17; 1 Machabees iv. 59; 2 Machabees i. 18; 1 Machabees vit 49. 8 The Precept of Hearing Mass Of the Jewish feasts Christianity adopted the Pasch (Easter) and the Feast of Pentecost, which became the first Feastdays of the New Dispensation.38 38 R. J. Sherry, De Temporibus Sacris (The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, Licentiate Dissertation [Typewritten Manuscript] Wash­ ington, D. C., 1923), p. 40. CHAPTER II ADOPTION OF THE SUNDAY Article I. The Fact of the Adoption of the Sunday (a) Its Relation to the Sabbath Under the Jewish religion the most important day of the week was the Sabbath. Christ Himself and the Apostles conformed to its religious observances,1 and so it is not surprising to find that the early Jewish Christians continued to regard it as a day of spe­ cial religious significance. As usual they frequented the Temple and attended the sabbatic meetings in the synagogues.1 2 From a very early period, however, they also adopted the Sun­ day.3 In doing so they were prompted not by a motive of hostility to the Sabbath or to Jewish customs, but simply by a desire to have45* for their exclusively Christian meetings a separate day on which they could adore unmolested the Messiah Whom the majority of their fellow Jews refused to recognize.® Consequently the Sunday was adopted not in opposition to the Sabbath, but side by side with it. There was no thought at first of substituting the Sunday for the Sabbath; its observance rather was at first merely supplemental to that of the Sabbath.® In the course of time, however, as the break between the Church and the synagogue widened, the Sabbath became less and less im­ 1 Luke iv. 15-16; vi. 6; John xviii. 20; Acts xiii. 14. 2 Acts in. 1 ; Luke xxiv. 52-53 ; Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church, p. 24. 3 Acts xx. 7; 1 Corinthians xvi. 2; Apocalypse L 10. 4 Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 247. 5 Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church, p. 25. 8 Dumaine, “Dimanche," Dictionnaire D’Archéologie Chrétienne et De Liturgie (Paris), IV, part I, p. 892; Duchesne, op. cii., p. 47. 9 10 The Precept of Hearing Mass portant, and eventually became entirely neglected. As a conse­ quence the Sunday alone became the day reserved for the special weekly religious observances of the Christians, and it assumed those sabbatic obligations which were reconcilable with the law of the Gospel/ St. Ignatius of Antioch (+ 107), in spurring the Magnesians to observe the Sunday, tells them they should conduct themselves “no longer observing the Sabbaths, but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s Day, on which our life also arose through Him. . . .”· Another important witness to the special observance of Sunday by the Christians is Pliny in his famous letter to Trajan (111-113), in which he says “they (the Christians) are accustomed to gather together on the stated day before dawn. ...” 7 89 It is commonly held among authors that stato die refers beyond doubt to the Sunday. The value of this testimony lies in the fact that even a pagan mind was so impressed by the distinctive character of the status dies that he wrote about it to the emperor. Therefore the observance of the Sunday at that time must have been markedly in contrast to the other days of the week. Dionysius of Corinth (175) in an epistle to the Romans writes to the effect that “today we have passed the Lord’s holy day in which we have read your epistle ...” 10 This testimony is of value for two reasons: it mentions the Sunday observance in a casual man­ ner, very much in the same way as we would speak of it today, thereby indicating that it was an accepted tradition in the Church at that time; the reference to the reading of the letter, which was no doubt a public reading, suggests a gathering of the faithful on Sunday, at which the letter was read. Tertullian (circa 200) exhorts the faithful to put aside worldly 7ViIlien, op. dt., p. 26. 8 Ignatius, Epistola ad Magnesios, 9, 1—Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: 1898), p. 145. ’Kirch. Enchiridion Fontium Historiae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae (4. ed., Friburgi Brisgoviae: Herder, 1923), p. 23, n. 30. 10 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. IV, cap. 23—Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus (Series Graeca, 161 vols., Parisiis, 1856-1866), XX, 390. Hereafter cited as MPG. Adoption of the Sunday 11 anxiety on Sunday and even to defer business lest they give place to the devil.11 Eusebius Pamphilus (+ 339), Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, testifies that an entire treatise on the Lord’s Day was written by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in the year 17O.11 12 This indicates that the Sunday, meriting a special treatise, must have been a day of special significance, and its observance an established practice in the mid­ dle of the second century. Civil legislation also bears witness to the fact that Sunday had become an established and recognized day of special religious ob­ servances among the Christians. The celebrated Edict of Con­ stantine (321) is the outstanding example on this point. In this edict the Emperor ordains that all those living in the cities shall rest from all worldly business on the venerable Day of the Sun. Only those living in the country were exempt from this edict, and that because of the danger of the loss of the crops unless they were cared for even on Sundays.13 That this legislation was ordained with the view to a religious observance is attested by Eusebius Pamphilus who says that Con­ stantine’s chief desire was that he might by degrees make all men worshippers of God. That Constantine had the Christians especially in mind is evident also from Eusebius, who continues: To those who had embraced the divinely inspired faith, he allowed time and leisure for a free exercise of themselves accord­ ing to the usage and order of God’s Church, to the end that they might without any impediment be present at the performance of the prayers.14 11 Tertullian, De Oratione, cap. 23—MPL, I, 1191. 12 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. IV, cap. 26—MPG, XX, 391. 13 Imp. Constantinus A. Helpidio: “Omnes iudices urbanaeque plebes et artium officia cunctarum venerabili die solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum culturae libere licenterque inserviant quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non alio aptius die frumenta sulcis aut vineae scrobibus commendentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas coelesti provisione concessa.” — C. (3.12) 2. 14 Eusebius Vita Constantini, Lib. IV, cap. 18—MPG, XX, 1166. 12 The Precept of Hearing Mass The Acts of the Martyrs also testify to the special religious ob­ servance of the Lord’s Day. For example, in the Acts of Saints Saturninus and Dativus (304) it is recorded that the martyrs, in answer to the questions of their persecutors, professed that they never omitted to assemble with their brethren to observe the Sun­ day.15 The Acts of these martyrs are undoubtedly genuine, and consequently offer a reliable testimony.18* From these testimonies it is evident that the Sunday was, from the earliest days of the Church, set aside as the chief religious day of the week for the Christians, and at a very early period prevailed over the Sabbath in this regard. (b) Its Religious Significance It may be mentioned also that from the earliest days of the Christian Church the Sunday was considered not as a day of pen­ ance or of sorrow, but as a day of joy. Barnabas in his epistle (9698) testifies to this when he says: “We celebrate the eighth day in joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead.” 17 In further corroboration of this statement can be adduced the fact that from the earliest times Christians were forbidden to fast on Sundays, as is indicated by various testimonies.18 On Sunday the Christians were forbidden also to pray kneeling, but were com­ manded rather to pray in a standing posture, which was an indica­ tion of the festive character of the Sunday.1’ St. Augustine, in one 18 Ruinart, Acta Martyrum (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1802), Pars Secunda, pp. 378-396. 18 Butler-Thurston, The Lives of the Saints (12 vols., New York: P. J. Kenedy 4 Sons, 1925-1936), Π, 167, footnote. 1T Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 261. 18 Tertullianus, De Corona Militis, Par. 3—MPL, Π, 79; Canones Petri Alexandrini (circa 303), c. 15—Mansi, I, 1283; Innocentius I (416), Epistola Ad Decentium Episcopum Eugubinum, cap. IV—Jaffe-Kaltenbrunner, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ad annum 1198, p. 47, η. 311. Hereafter dted as JK. Council of Gangra (circa 340), c. 18—Mansi, Π, 1108; Council of Saragossa (380), c. 2—Mansi, HI, 634; Canones Apostolorum (c. 400), canon 65—Mansi, I, 43. 18 TertuHian, loc. cit.; Canones Petri Alexandrini, loc. cit.; Council of Nicaea, canon 20—Mansi, Π, 684. Adoption of the Sunday 13 of his letters to Januarius, explicitly mentions this when he writes: (Sundays) which are already celebrated after the Resurrection of the Lord, in a spirit not of labor but of quiet and of joy, be­ cause of which the fast is relaxed and we pray standing, which is a sign of the resurrection.20 Article II. The Manner of the Adoption of the Sunday (a) Manner of the Adoption It is difficult to determine precisely how and on whose authority the early Christians chose Sunday as the day to substitute for the Jewish Sabbath. It has been maintained by some that the adoption of Sunday was based on a formal decree issued by the Apostles them­ selves. Thus the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutiones Apostolorum in Book VIII, chapter 33, assert: “Ego Petrus et ego Paulus consti­ tuimus, ut servi . . . dominico die vacent in ecclesia propter doc­ trinam religionis . - .21 and Caesarius, Bishop of Arles ( 503-542 ), makes the statement that the Apostles sanctioned that the Sunday be given over to religious solemnity.22 This opinion, however, supported as it is by no convincing proof, seems to be an unwarranted assumption. Certainly there is no evi­ dence whatsoever pointing to such an apostolic decree either in the Sacred Scriptures or in early Christian writings. The silence of the Sacred Scriptures on this point would not in itself be conclusive evidence against the existence of such a decree. But when this silence is considered in the light of a corresponding silence on the part of all the early Christian writers, it does become highly sig­ nificant. The early Christian writers, whenever possible, appealed to apostolic authority to support their doctrine. At the same time they took delight in showing forth the transitory observance of the Jews as types of the higher Christian observances which were not to pass away. And yet in the matter of the transfer of the Sabbath 20 St. Augustinus, Ep. LV (ad Januarium)—Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasti­ corum Latinorum (Vindobonae, 1866—), XXXIV’,2 202. Hereafter cited CSEL. 21 Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I, 539. 22 Sermo de Diversis, CCLXXX, par. 2—MPL, XXXIX, 2274. 14 The Precept of Hearing Mass to Sunday they make no mention whatsoever of a substitution by formal apostolic decree. As a matter of fact the Sunday, while it was sanctified in the early days of the Church in a distinctively Christian manner, never­ theless did not at first enjoy that completeness of sacred distinction from all other days which it universally enjoys among Christians today. It rather existed in the beginning on an equal basis with the Sabbath, which would hardly have been the case had the Apos­ tles by a special decree formally prescribed its observance in the nature of a Christian substitution for the Jewish Sabbath.28 The history of the celebrated Paschal controversy offers a very strong argument against the establishment of the Sunday by formal apostolic decree. If the Lord’s Day had been definitely stamped by the Apostles as the one great Christian festival, deriving its sacredness from the resurrection of our Lord, surely the Churches of Palestine and .Asia would have hesitated to hold the annual cele­ bration of the Feast of the Resurrection itself on any other day than Sunday. The fact that they did advocate its celebration on days other than Sunday indicates a less authoritative establishment of the Lord’s Day as the great Christian weekly Feastday. In view of these arguments the adoption of the Sunday seems rather to have been simply the natural result of circumstances and of the fitness of things. Quite probably, as Villien suggests, the adoption came about in this manner. The Jewish Christians gath­ ered together for the afternoon service of the synagogue,24 and after the meeting came apart from the other Jews to hold their own ex­ clusively Christian gathering “in memory” of Christ. Since, in the beginning, not every Christian community had its own apostle or priest, many of the Jewish Christians had to travel a longer dis­ tance than was allowed on the Sabbath in order to assist at the Christian meeting. Of necessity, then, their journey had to be made in the evening after the Sabbath was over, and the Christian meet» Cf. Smith-Chpptham, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (2 vols., London, 1880), “Lord's Day,” Π, 1043. î4 Cf. Schürer, Gesckichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeiialter Jesu Christi (2. ed., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1890), Π, 382. Adoption oj the Sunday 15 ing consequently began in the evening and lasted till daybreak of the following day, which was Sunday.25* When the Christians eventually abandoned the Sabbath and its observances, they continued to sanctify the Sunday, and through a gradual development it became the foremost Christian liturgical day.2® (b) Reasons for the Adoption Aside from the manner of its adoption, the important point for this study is that the Sunday, from the earliest days of the Church, has been regarded as the Christian day par excellence. Whether the first Christians did so intentionally or not, the fact is that they chose the day most fitted for the sacred distinction accorded to it. Various reasons have been adduced why the Sunday should be cele­ brated in a more solemn manner than any other day of the week. The chief of these is that the Sunday was the day on which Christ rose from the dead. For it was on the day of His Resurrection that Christ began to pour forth upon His Apostles and followers the grace which He merited by His death on the cross, and made mani­ fest in Himself and in them the first fruits of the redemption. “The resurrection of the Lord,” says St. Augustine (354-430), “has given us promise of the eternal day and has sanctified the day of the Lord.” 2T This allusion to the Sunday as celebrated in commemora­ tion of the resurrection is repeated constantly in Christian writings. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions ascribe this reason for the Sunday observance.28 Pope Innocent I (402-417) says that the Apostles and followers of Christ, overjoyed on the day of the resur­ rection, wished that not only the day of the resurrection itself should be most festive, but that it should be celebrated every week.29 25 Villien, History of Commandments of the Church, p. 25. 2e Cf. Smith-Cheetham, Christian Antiquities, Π, 1043. Cf. also St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Ila, Ilae, qu. 122, art. 4, ad 4. 2T Sermo CLXII, caput Π— CSEL, XXXIV,» 194. 28 Liber VIII, cap. 33—Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I, 539. 29 Innocentius I, Epistola ad Decentium Episcopum Eugubinum, c. IV— JK, p. 47, n. 311. 16 The Precept of Hearing Mass Other reasons adduced are that the Sunday was the day on which the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, and that the name “Sunday” reminded the later Christians of Christ as the “rising sun” of the faithful. In connection with the latter reason it is worth noting here that among the first Christians the first day of the week was seldom referred to as “Sunday,” i. e., dies solis. This was be­ cause the sun was looked upon by the Romans as a god, and the name dies solis naturally came to be associated with pagan worship. The Christians therefore called the first day of the week “the day of the Lord”—dominica dies. Justin (c. 167), the first Christian writer to employ the term dies solis, used this term because he was writing for pagans, and even in using the term he qualified it by the words “ut dicitur”—“as it is called.”30 When the Christians later began to refer to the Lord’s Day as dies solis they supplanted the pagan connotation with the Chris­ tian one indicated above. Finally, it has been suggested that just as Sunday was the first day of creation, when darkness was removed and light appeared, so also it is the first day of the new spiritual creation, when the darkness of paganism gave way to the eternal light of Christ.31 30 Justin Apologia, I, 67—Rauschen, Florilegium Patristicum (9 fasc., Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1904-1913), Π, 109. “ Council of Palestine under Victor I (c. 198)—Mansi, I, 712. CHAPTER III EARLY OBLIGATION OF SUNDAY ASSISTANCE AT MASS (First to the Sixth Century) Article I. The Practice Among the Early Christians Attending Sunday Mass of It has been shown how the early Christians, from the first days of the Church, held their own exclusively Christian meetings on Sundays. Since the purpose of these meetings was to honor God by prayer and worship, it is to be expected that these meetings centered around the supreme act of worship—the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Sacred Scriptures as well as other early writings bear wit­ ness to this fact. St. Luke relates: “And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them. . . . ”1 This text indicates that the very purpose of the assembly was “to break bread,” or in other words, to offer the Holy Sacrifice. In Jerusalem it was the custom to celebrate the “break­ ing of the bread” every day, and therefore it was celebrated on Sun­ day, very probably during the Christian gathering.1 2 The Didache (80-100) testifies to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist at the Sunday meetings: “Die autem dominica congregati frangite panem et gratias agite postquam confessi eritis peccata vestra, ut mundum sit sacrificium vestrum.” 3 Another important witness to the attendance on the part of the early Christians at Sunday Mass is St. Justin (+ circa 167) who says: 1 Acts xs. 7. 2 Acts ii. 46. 8 Funk, Pains Apostolici (2 vols., lubingae, 1901), I, 32. 17 18 The Precept of Hearing Mass Ac Solis, ut dicitur, die omnium sive urbes sive agros incolentium in eundem locum fit conventus. . . . Postea omnes simul con­ surgimus, et preces emittimus; atque ut jam diximus, ubi de­ siimus precari, panis affertur et vinum et aqua . . . et . . . distri­ butio fit et communicatio unicuique praesentium, et absentibus per diaconos mittitur.4 The Constitutions of the Apostles (c. 400), in describing the ordination of a bishop, mention that the bishop-elect and the people, together with the priests and other bishops, all gather together on Sunday. After the ordination the Holy Sacrifice is offered.5 In the light of the other testimonies relative to the Sunday gathering of the faithful for Mass, it seems not unwarranted to conclude that the people gathered not precisely for the ordination of the bishop, but rather that the ordination itself was assigned to Sunday because the presence of the faithful was already assured on that day. St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, also bears witness to this uni­ versal practice of the Sunday Eucharistic service in a letter to Janu­ arius. In bringing out the point that some observances among Christians vary with different localities, he mentions as an example that in some places no day passes without the offering of the Holy Sacrifice, in other places it is offered only on Saturday and Sunday, and in still other places it is offered only on Sunday.® From this it may be deduced that everywhere the eucharistie sacrifice was offered at least on Sundays, and naturally it took place at the usual Sunday gathering of the faithful. Article II. The Obligation of the Early Christians to Attend Sunday Mass (a) Lack of Positive Written Law From these and other testimonies it cannot be reasonably doubted that from the first days of the Church there existed among the ♦ Justin, Apologia, I, 67—Rauschen, Florilegium Patristicum, II. 109. 5 Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I, 473-521. «St. Augustinus. Epistola XIV XXXTV2, 159-160. (ad inquisitionem Januarii)—CSEL Early Obligation of Sunday Assistance at Mass 19 Christians the practice of attending Mass on Sundays. However, just when the first positive WRITTEN law imposing the obliga­ tion of this attendance appeared is disputed. Many authors, among them Villien/ propose canon 21 of the Council of Elvira (306) as the first written legislation on this point.8 Furthermore, to emphasize the enduring influence of this canon, Villien points out that Bishop Hosius, at the Council of Sardica almost a half century later (343), referred to it and used it as an argument against some other bishops.9 A study of canon 21 of the Council of Elvira, and also of canon 11 of the Council of Sardica (343) 10 which latter canon contains the above-mentioned reference of Bishop Hosius, leads to the con­ clusion that the enactment of the Council of Elvira was not directed specifically at Sunday Mass attendance, but rather at a broader obligation, namely, that of participating actively in the religious life of the church of that territory in which the particular Christian resided. Certainly the words of canon 21 of the Council of Elvira are in themselves vague. Implicitly, it is true, they may refer to the obli­ gation of attending Sunday Mass, but to interpret them as an ex­ plicit precept which imposed specifically that obligation is not war­ ranted by the wording. When this canon is considered in the light of canon 11 of the Council of Sardica the conclusion that there is a direct reference to the obligation of attending Sunday Mass becomes even less justified. Bishop Hosius is protesting against those bishops who leave their own territory and linger in the territory of other bishops, intruding themselves into the affairs of a church which is not their own. In attempting to correct this abuse, he cites the aforementioned canon of the Council of Elvira, and makes the point that if lay persons are not supposed to remain away from their own church for a period more than three weeks, then surely it is not fitting 1 History of Commandments of the Church, p. 28. 8 Canon 21: “Si quis in dvitate positus tres dominicas ad ecclesiam non accesserit, tanto tempore abstineat ut correptus esse videatur.”—Mansi, II, 9. 8 Op. dt., p. 28. Mansi, IU, 15. 20 The Precept of Hearing Mass or permissible for bishops to remain away from their own territories for a longer period. On the strength of this comment of Bishop Hosius, it can be safely concluded that canon 21 of the Council of Elvira was not specifically directed to imposing an obligation of Sunday Mass attendance, but rather to a more general obligation— that of taking active part in the spiritual life of one’s own parish. Consequently, so far as the prescription of this Spanish council was concerned, one could probably avoid the sanction imposed by it, by attending any meeting of his own particular church, even though that meeting were not specifically the Sunday celebration of Mass.11 Another fact which may be brought as an argument against the conclusion that the Council of Elvira legislated specifically on Sun­ day attendance at Mass is that, if this were true, it would be the only council of the first five centuries to do so, which would appear rather strange. It is true that Villien makes the statement that: “from the fourth century on the councils . . . had to multiply ad­ monitions and prescriptions” in this regard. However, if he means by this that the councils multiplied prescriptions bearing directly on Sunday Mass attendance as an obligation, then this statement too is unfounded. He fails to cite any of these multiplied prescrip­ tions, and an examination of conciliar legislation between the fourth and sixth centuries uncovers no prescription whatsoever bearing di­ rectly on this point. The most that can be discovered are various conciliar canons which are concerned with more general prescrip­ tions. Thus the First Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea (325) con­ fined itself to prescribing the posture to be assumed while praying on Sunday.12 The Synod of Syria (405) similarly ignored the ques­ tion of attendance at Mass on the part of the faithful, and simply defined that it was fitting that on every Sunday sacrifice be offered.18 u Dumaine, “Dimanche,” Dictionnaire D’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, Vol. IV, part I, col. 965; Dublanchy, “Dimanche,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Paris, 1903), Vol. IV, part Π, coL 1334. 12 Canon 20—Mansi, Π, 684. 11 Canon 12—Mansi, ΙΠ, 1170. Early Obligation of Sunday Assistance at Mass 21 The Council of Laodicaea (between 343-381) contented itself with simply prescribing that the Sunday be observed in a Christian man­ ner.14 In view of the questionable prescription of the Council of Elvira, which is really the only canon adduced as specifically imposing the obligation, and in view also of the lack of other conciliar prescrip­ tions on this point during the first five centuries, it seems safe to conclude that until the sixth century there was no positive written law imposing an obligation upon the faithful to assist at Mass on Sunday. (b) Existence of Obligation Arising from Custom However, it must not be concluded from this that there existed no obligation, and that the faithful were free to attend or stay away from Sunday Mass as they saw fit. While there may have been no written law enforcing their attendance, there was in all proba­ bility an unwritten law, imposed by tradition and by the custom of the people, · which the faithful could not neglect without somehow abandoning Christianity.15*17 That such an obligation, based on tradition and custom, must have existed may be deduced from various writings. Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, in the late fourth century stated in an edict that “mos et decorum a nobis exigit ut omnem diem domini­ cum honoremus, eumque celebremus.” 15 The Didascalia, in the first half of the third century, bears witness to the existence of this obligation, when it admonishes the faithful to put everything aside on Sunday and to gather in church, and asks what excuse he will offer to God who does not go to church on this day to hear the word of salvation and to be nourished by the Divine Food which endures forever.11 Similarly the Apostolic Constitutions offer testimony as to the 14 Canon 24—Mansi, II, 569. 15 Cf. Villien, History of Commandments of Church, p. 28. ie Edict of Theophilus of Alexandria—Mansi, HI, 1254. 17 Lib. II, cap. 59—Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I, 171-172. 22 The Precept of Hearing Mass existence of this obligation. In one instance, in prescribing that the faithful gather together very diligently on Sunday in order to give praise to God, they enumerate the order of the services to be held, namely, the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel and the offering of sacrifice.18 In another, in describing the order of the eucharistie service, they offer a prayer for those who are absent and who have a sufficient reason for their absence, thus indi­ cating that the faithful were obliged to be present unless they had an excusing cause for staying away.19 18 Liber VII, cap. 31—Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I, 421. 1B Liber VUI, cap. 12—Funk, op. àt., I, 515. CHAPTER IV SUNDAY MASS OBLIGATION FROM SIXTH TO THIRTEENTH CENTURY Article I. Positive Legislation Prescribing Attendance With the beginning of the sixth century the first written con­ ciliar law respecting obligatory Sunday Mass attendance made its appearance. The first council to legislate explicitly on this point was the Council of Agde (506) which stated: Missas die dominico a saecularibus totas teneri speciali ordina­ tione praecipimus: ita ut ante benedictionem sacerdotis egredi populus non praesumat. Qui si fecerint ab episcopo publice confundantur.1 (a) The First Written Law With respect to this canon, which was the first explicit prescrip­ tion on Sunday Mass itself, it may be asserted that even here Sunday Mass attendance itself was not prescribed, but rather taken for granted. However, in view of the fact that the canon commanded an entire Mass to be heard, it can certainly be said that it implicitly commanded the Mass attendance itself, so that thenceforth the ob­ ligation rested not only on custom and tradition, but also on written positive law. That the obligation was regarded as serious is evident from the fact that its neglect deserved a public reprimand of the bishop. The I Council of Orleans (511) repeated this legislation when it prescribed that when the faithful attended Mass they were not to leave until it was over.12 1 Council of Agde (506), canon 47—Mansi, VIII, 332. 2 I Council of Orleans (511) canon 26—Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio III, Concilia, 2 tomes and 1 supplement (ed. F. Maasen, A. Werminghoff, H. Bastgen, Hannoveriae et Lipsiae, 1883-1934), I, 8. Cited here­ after as MGH. 23 24 The Precept of Hearing Mass (b) Insistence Upon Hearing Entire Mass A characteristic feature of the legislation at the beginning of this period was its repeated insistence on the obligation of hearing Mass in its entirety. This was necessitated by the practice, which had sprung up among the people, of leaving the church after the read­ ing of the lessons. St. Caesarius of Arles (+542), one of the bishops present at the Council of Agde, indicated this in one of his sermons, when he said: With a moment’s reflection you will realize that Mass is cele­ brated not exactly at the time of the reading of the lessons, but when the offering and the consecration of the Body and the Blood of the Lord are made. You can read the books of the prophets, the writings of the Apostles, and even the Gospel at home, but the consecration you can only hear and see in the house of God. . . . Those of you who persist in their remissness will be condemned by the just judgment of God. Notify them, therefore, and tell them most explicitly that it is useless for them to listen to the readings if they leave before the end of Mass. (Writer’s own translation).’ He also insisted, in another sermon, on the gravity of the obligation of remaining for the entire Mass, when, in reprimanding his people for leaving before Mass was over, he said: I do not grieve, beloved brethren, when you leave the church, because you inflict any bodily injury on me, but rather because I know that you, whom I desire to be perfect, sin so gravely against God.* However, it is to be noted that St. Caesarius, while insisting on this obligation, nevertheless provided for those who had good rea­ son for leaving the church before the end of the Mass. He men­ tioned specifically as excusing causes serious sickness and public necessity.5 « Caesarius of Aries, Sermo CCLXXXI—MPL, XXXIX, 2276-2277. « Caesarius of Aries, Sermo CCLXXXII—MPL, XXXIX, 2279. 8 Caesarius of Aries, Sermo CCLXXXI—MPL, XXXIX, 2278. Sunday Mass Obligation from Sixth to Thirteenth Century 25 Finally, the same Saint, insistent as he was on the obligation of remaining for the entire Mass once the faithful were present, did not neglect to stress the obligation of coming to Mass on Sundays in the first place. He mentioned expressly that no one was to separate himself from the celebration of Mass on Sundays and remain at home idle while the others went to church.6 During the whole of the sixth century this insistence upon hear­ ing the entire Sunday Mass appeared at intervals in conciliar leg­ islation.7 (c) Legislation on Other Relative Matters An indication, however, that this obligation of attending Sunday Mass was incumbent only upon those who lived near the church was given by the II Council of Mâcon (585) which, in prescribing Sun­ day observance, stated that if the faithful live near a church they were to go there and give themselves over to prayers and tears. Just why the Council prescribed tears as part of the observance is difficult to understand, since it is evident from many testimonies that the Sunday was to be regarded as a day of joy.8 Unfortunately, the insistence of the councils and especially of St. Caesarius of Arles on the obligation of the faithful to remain in church till the end of Mass led the lukewarm into the alternative of neglecting the beginning of Mass instead. As a result, the coun­ cils were obliged to focus their attention on the obligation to arrive in time for the sermon and instruction.9 Other councils reminded employers of their obligation either to bring those subject to them, such as farm-hands, swine-herds, shep­ herds and other workers of the field and forest to Mass, or at least to see to it that they had the opportunity of going.10 • Caesarius of Aries, Sermo CCLXXX—MPL, XXXIX, 2275, par. 3. 7 ΙΠ Council of Orleans (538), canon 29—MGH, Legum Sect. Ill, Con­ cilia, I, 82; II Council of Mâcon (585), canon 4—MGH, ibidem, p. 166. 8 II Council of Mâcon (585), canon 4—MGH, ibidem, p. 166. 9 Π Council of Clovesho (747), canon 14—Mansi, ΧΠ, 399; Capitularies of Tkeodulph, Bishop of Orleans (797), c. XLVI—Mansi, ΧΙΠ. 1006. 10 Council of Rouen (650), canon 14—Mansi, X, 1202; VI Council of Paris (829), Liber I, canon 50—MGH, Legum Sect. Ill, Concilia, Π, pars Π, 643. 26 The Precept of Hearing Mass As a practical measure to secure the attendance of all parishion­ ers at Sunday Mass, the Council of Rouen (650) proposed that pastors appoint loyal and God-fearing men of each parish to urge the careless and negligent in this regard, and to report to the priests those who refused to comply.11 In general, it may be said of the seventh and eighth century legislation that only from time to time did it recall the general pre­ cept of hearing Mass, but it did concern itself more with the par­ ticular aspects of the obligation. This conclusion is based upon an investigation of the councils of that period. It is interesting to note that even civil legislation at this time prescribed the observance of Sunday by attendance at Mass. Charlemagne in one of his capitu­ laries (789) mentions it expressly.11 1213 The seventh and eighth century councils legislated but infre­ quently on the matter of Sunday Mass attendance. However, toward the end of the eighth century and at the beginning of the ninth the legislation once more began to insist repeatedly on this obligation. The Bishop of Orleans (797) in a capitulary stated that “Sun­ day is to be so observed that besides the prayers and Mass and the preparation of meals nothing else is to be done.” He further stated that if the faithful found it necessary to travel on Sunday, it was permissible so long as it was not done during the hours of Mass and prayers.1’ The II Council of Chalon-sur-Saône (813) mentioned explicitly the remissness of the faithful with regard to the Sunday observance, stating that it was gravely neglected. It then continued: “Unde oportet ut authentica constitutione illius venerandae diei observatio juxta imperium domini imperatoris statuatur.”14 11 Council of Rouen (650), canon 15—Mansi, X, 1202. 11 Capitularies of Charlemagne, cap. 80— MGH, Legum Sect. II, Capitu­ laria Regum Francorum (2 tomes in 5 vols., ed. A. Boretius et V. Krause, Hannoverae, 1883-1897), I, 61. 13 Capitularies of Tkeodulph, cap. XXIX—Mansi, XHI, 1000. 14 Canon 1—MGH, Legum Sect. Ill, Concilia, Π, pars I, 283. The coun­ cil here no doubt referred to the capitulary of Charlemagne cited above. Sunday Mass Obligation from Sixth to Thirteenth Century 27 In addition to these many other councils of the ninth century stressed this obligation.15 16 While the councils of the tenth century continued to insist on the matter of Sunday Mass attendance itself, they at the same time issued other prescriptions in order to facilitate compliance with this law and to eliminate matters which might be adduced as excuses for neglecting the Sunday Mass obligation. Thus the Council of Tribur (895) prescribed that it was not lawful to cite the faithful before the courts on Sundays, and imme­ diately stressed the obligation incumbent upon every Christian to attend Mass on that day.18 The Council of Erfurt in Saxony (932) issued the same prescription, stating that it did so in order to make it easier for the faithful to attend church.17 Other councils of the tenth century confined themselves simply to stating the obligation of attending Mass, and to reminding the faithful that other pursuits should not conflict with the fulfillment of this obligation.18 All these points of legislation were made the subject of inquiry by the bishops on the occasion of their episcopal visitation, as is evi­ denced by the formularies contained in the Libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis (c. 906) compiled by Regino of Priim (-{-915), who wrote expressly for this purpose. The clergy and faithful gathered together in the presence of the bishop in what were called “synodal” or “parochial” gatherings, and the bishop made inquiries to determine the spiritual condition of the parish. Among the questions asked were: If on Sundays and feast-days all assembled for Mass? If anyone was so perverse and estranged from 15 Cf. Council of Mainz (813), canon 37—MGH, ibidem, 270; VI Council of Paris (829), Liber I, canon 50—MGH, Legum Sect. Ill, Concilia, Π, pars II, 643; II Council of Aix-la-Chapelle (836), canon 22—MGH, Legum Sect. III, Concilia, Π, pars Π, 710; Synod of Rome (853), canon 30—Mansi. XIV, 1007. 18 Canon 25—MGH, Legum Sect. II, Cap. Regum Franc., Π, pars I, 233. 17 Canon 2—Mansi, XVIlla, 363. 18 Cf. Council of Ingelheim (948), canon 6—Mansi, XVUIa, 42; Council of Enham (end of 10th c.)—Mansi, XIX, 301; Liber Legum Ecclesiasticarum (994), canon 24—Mansi, XIX, 186. 28 The Precept of Hearing Mass God that he did not go to church at least on Sunday? If the swine­ herds and other workers went to church and heard Mass on Sundays? If there were promoters in each parish, loyal and God-fearing men, who admonished the others to come to church and to assist at Mass? 19 Article II. .Enforcement of Precept by Sanction The rest of this period is characterized by the Church’s use of another means to enforce obedience to the precept of Sunday Mass attendance, namely, the infliction of penalties on those who refused to comply. It is true that this incentive had been used before,20 but then it had been the exception. Now it became the rule. Even the secular arm was enlisted to enforce this obligation by means of penal sanctions. Thus St. Stephen, King of Hungary (997-1038), issued a precept that all were to come to church on Sun­ days, except those who tended the fires. Those who neglected to come were to be punished.21 (a) Corporal Punishments Sometimes these sanctions took the form of corporal punishment, as in the prescription of St. Stephen just cited, which ordered that the negligent Christian be handcuffed and have his head shaved. The Synod of Szabolcs (1092) ordered those who neglected to come to church on Sunday to be punished with stripes.2223The Synod of Strigonia (Gran or Esztergam) (1114) ordered that those who neg­ lected to observe the prescribed feasts were to be punished with a penance of forty days—or if their neglect was less culpable, with a penance of seven days.28 19 Regino of Priim, Libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesias­ ticis, Liber Π, cap. V, nn. 57, 63, 64, 68—MPL, CXXXII, 285. 20 Council of Pavia (855)—Mansi, XV, 19. n Collection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions in Hungary (1016), C. VII— Mansi, XIX, 371. 22 Canon 11—Mansi, XX, 763. 23 Cap. VIII—Mansi, XXL 102. Sunday Mass Obligation from Sixth to Thirteenth Century 29 (b) Fines Later on these corporal punishments gave way to monetary fines. Thus the Synod of Pamiers in southern France (1212) inflicted a fine on property-owners who neglected Sunday Mass without a rea­ sonable cause.24 This prescription did not have its desired effect, which no doubt was due to the influence of the Albigenses who then dominated southern France. As a result, other councils renewed this prescription in rapid succession.2526Finally, the Council of Albi (1254), which was held at the behest of King St. Louis and was attended by bishops from the provinces of Narbonne, Bourges and Bordeaux, inflicted a fine on those who neglected to attend Mass, or who left before Mass was over, but it excluded from this pecuniary sanction those who did not live in the city, or who were sick, or who had some other reasonable cause for absenting themselves.2’ 24 Canon 7—Mansi, XXII, 857. 25 Cf. Council near Toulouse (1220), canon 2—Mansi, XXII, 1135; Council of Toulouse (1229), canon 25—Mansi, XXIII, 200; Council of Beziers (1233), canon 5—Mansi, XXIII, 271. 26 Canon 30—Mansi, XXIII, 840. CHAPTER V THIRTEENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT DAY In the preceding chapter it has been shown how church legisla­ tion, adapting itself to the peculiar needs of the times, focused its attention upon the obligation of hearing Mass in its entirety on Sundays, and enforced the fulfillment of that obligation by the ap­ plication of civil and ecclesiastical penalties. By the middle of the thirteenth century ecclesiastical discipline with regard to attendance at Sunday Mass had become well defined. The exact limits of the precept as it existed at that time were dearly determined. It pre­ scribed attendance at Mass, the hearing of Mass in its entirety from the beginning to the priest’s blessing, and—an element which has not as yet been indicated in this study—the discharge of this obliga­ tion in the parish church. The period covering from the latter half of the thirteenth century down to the present day witnessed a repeated insistence on one aspect of the obligation, namely, that of attending Mass in the parish church. But it also witnessed the gradual relaxation of that obliga­ tion, and the final emergence of the precept into its present-day form. Article I. Obligation to Fulfill Precept in Parish Church The obligation of attending Mass in one’s own parish church was at the beginning of this period of history by no means a new one. As early as the time of the Synod of Nantes, which presumably was held in the year 658 or 660, it had already become an explicitly defined precept, and it was renewed at intervals by the councils of the succeeding centuries.1 In order to insure the fulfillment of this precept, there was a 1 Cf. ex. 1, 2—Mansi, XVIUa, 166-167 ; Capitularies of Tkeodulph, Bishop of Orleans (797), c. 46—Mansi. XIII, 1006; Synod of Szabolcs (1092), canon 11— Mansi, XX, 763. 30 Thirteenth Century to the Present Day 31 corresponding obligation on the part of the parish clergy not to induce or permit members of another parish to attend Sunday Mass in their church, unless they were on a journey or had permission from their pastor.2 (a) Observance Before the End of the Thirteenth Century However, up till the middle of the thirteenth century there was no need of constant insistence upon these points by the Church, because for the greater part the faithful abided by this prescription as a matter of course. During the middle ages it was taken for granted that the Sunday observance should be centered in the parish church, because from the viewpoint of the faithful the parish was to their spiritual life what the signorial castle was to their temporal. It was there that they paid their duties to God, just as it was at the castle that they rendered homage to their feudal lord. Therefore the normal Christian would no more think of affiliating himself with a church other than that of his own parish, than he would think of rendering homage to a feudal lord other than his own. As a result, attendance at the parish Mass on Sundays was a precept well observed, and it was only rarely that it was necessary for the Church to legislate in this regard.3 (b) Struggle Between Seculars and Mendicants So long as the fulfillment or neglect of the precept of attending the parish church for the hearing of the Sunday Mass involved only the rights of pastors, the situation was simple and difficulties in this regard were easily adjusted. In the course of the thirteenth century, however, a new situation arose. It became the source of great diffi­ culty and controversy respecting the traditional rights of pastors over their flocks. This was occasioned by the rise of the Mendicant 2 Synod of Nantes, cc. 1, 2—Mansi, XVIIIa, 166-167; Capitulary of Rudolf, Archbishop of Bourges (850), c. 15—Mansi, XIV’, 951; Precepts of Peter, Arch­ bishop of Rouen (1235)—Mansi, XXIII, 403. 8Cf. Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 45-46; Franz, Die Messe im deuischen Mittelalter (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1902), p. 15; Gasquet, Parish Life in Medieval England (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1906), p. 21. 32 The Precept of Hearing Mass Orders—especially the Dominicans, Franciscans and Carmelites— and their building of churches and oratories in the vicinity of estab­ lished secular parishes. It was not long before parishioners of the secular clergy began to fulfill their religious duties in the churches and oratories of the religious, with the result that the secular priests began to resent what they considered an unwarranted encroachment upon their parochial rights. The motive behind this resentment was not only jealousy and hostility toward the Mendicants, but in many cases a genuine con­ cern over the spiritual welfare of the faithful. Negligent Catholics when questioned as to the fulfillment of their Sunday obligation could very easily assert that they had discharged it in the church of the Mendicants, with the result that pastors were unable to keep their accustomed vigilance over the lives of the faithful. In addition to this, many Catholics manifested only too openly that they con­ sidered the monks to be more perfect and attended the religious oratories and churches out of contempt for their own secular pastors. But the chief motive was an economic one. Many of the secular pastors depended for their support chiefly upon the offerings of the faithful at parochial services, and they saw in the growing custom of frequenting the Mendicants’ churches a genuine threat to their own temporal well-being. As a result, a heated struggle began between the parish clergy and the Mendicant Orders. The secular priests began to accuse the Mendicants of trying to draw the people to their own churches, and firmly insisted upon the obligation of the faithful to attend Sunday Mass in the parish church, an obligation which they rightly held was still in force. On the other hand the Mendicants, who had obtained from the Pope permission for the faithful to attend Mass in their churches and oratories, interpreted this concession in its broadest sense and deduced from it the conclusion that anyone who attended Sunday Mass there fulfilled his Sunday obligation. (c) Conciliar Insistence on This Obligation As might be expected, it was not long before this struggle began to be reflected in the legislation of the times. Thus the Council of Aries (1260) strictly prohibited the religious from receiving lay Thirteenth Century to the Present Day 33 people into their churches and chapels on Sundays, and forbade them even to preach during the hours that Mass was being celebrated in the parish churches.4 The Council of Budapest (1279) was even more strict in this regard. It insisted that the faithful attend Mass in their own parish churches on Sundays, and asserted that they should not presume to go to the church of any religious order, even though that church were a parish church.5* The same council, in order to insure the ful­ fillment of its prescription, inflicted severe penalties both upon the faithful who acted contrary to it, and upon the priests who received such members of the faithful into their churches. The former were deprived of the sacraments, and the latter were suspended from the exercise of their orders.® During the course of the fourteenth century councils repeatedly returned to this point, asserted that its observance was badly neg­ lected, insisted on the reverence due to the parish church, and punished remissness in this duty with severe sanctions? The Coun­ cil of Benevento (1378) was perhaps the strongest in its prescrip­ tions. After reprimanding the faithful for condemning their parish church by going to other churches on Sundays for Mass, it com­ manded and prescribed and ordained that every priest was to ask before Mass if any parishioners of another parish were present. If there were, he was to eject them and refuse to start the service until they left. If they refused to leave he was to report them to the Bishop or his Vicar. Any priest neglecting this precept was to be severely punished.8 4 Canon 15—Mansi, XXIII, 1010. 5 Canon 33—Mansi, XXIV, 285. e Canon 33—Mansi, XXIV, 286. T Cf. Council of Trier (1310), canon 23—Mansi, XXV, 255; Council of Cologne (1310), canon 20—Mansi, XXV, 242; II Council of Ravenna (1311), Rubric IX—Mansi, XXV, 455; Council of Prague (1346)—Mansi, XXVI, 88; Provincial Synod of Dublin (1348), canon 4—Mansi, XXVI, 111; Council of Apt (1365), canon 12—Mansi, XXVI, 450; Council of Narbonne (1368), canon 84—Mansi, XXVI, 520. 8 Council of Benevento, canon 68—Mansi, XXVI, 653. 34 The Precept of Hearing Mass In spite of these numerous prescriptions, the situation became increasingly worse. Apparently the faithful were not to be deterred from frequenting the churches of the Mendicants, even by the most stringent ecclesiastical precepts. The ill feeling grew apace between the diocesan clergy and the religious. Eventually it reached a point at which the parish priests, in order to break down the resented influence of the Mendicants, even went so far as to accuse them of spreading heresy. Finally Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484), grieved by the scandalous state of affairs existing between the secular and religious clergy, intervened in an attempt to effect a compromise and to establish peace. He urged the secular clergy on the one hand to look upon the Mendicants as co-workers in the vineyard of the Lord, to recog­ nize the good work they were doing, and not to accuse them of heresy. On the other hand he forbade the Mendicant Friars to preach that parishioners were not bound to hear Mass on Sundays in their parish church, which they were obliged to do by law, unless they were excused by a reasonable cause. The Constitution “Vices IUlus” (1478) in which he made these prescriptions was addressed specifically to the Bishops and clergy, and to the Dominicans, Fran­ ciscans and Carmelites of Germany.9 However, even papal intervention failed to establish peace. The faithful, evidently determined to throw off parochial as well as tem­ poral feudalism, continued their custom of attending the churches of the religious even on Sundays. In the meantime the Mendicant Friars repeatedly applied to the Holy See for a privilege which would allow members of parishes to fulfill their Sunday obligation by hearing Mass in the churches of the religious. (d) Relaxation in Pavor of the Mendicants Finally, Pope Leo X (1513-1521), no doubt recognizing the futil­ ity of trying to discourage a practice which the faithful were so intent upon following, issued a decree which stated that anyone who on Sundays assisted at Mass in the churches of the Mendicant Friars • Sixtus IV: C. 2, de treuga et pace, I, 9, in Extravag. com. Thirteenth Century to the Present Day 35 satisfied his obligation and committed no sin, provided that his motive in attending was not one of contempt for his pastor.1011 Article II. Total Relaxation of the Obligation to Attend Sunday Mass in the Parish Church (a) Complete Relaxation by Force of Custom This decree, opposed as it was to the entire previous discipline, but confirmed later by Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572), marked the end of the long and bitter struggle between the parish clergy and the Mendicants, and relaxed the long established precept of attend­ ing Mass on Sundays in the parish church.11 This privilege was later extended on December 27, 1592, by Pope Clement VIII, who made it available with reference also to the churches of the Society of Jesus.12 As a result of these privileges the obligation to assist at Sunday Mass in the parochial church no longer obtained, provided that Mass was heard in a church either of the Mendicants or of the Jesuits. The difficulty, however, was not entirely solved, for there still remained the question whether the obligation could be fulfilled in other parish churches or in the churches of other religious organiza­ tions. In the course of time this problem also disappeared in view of the established custom of the people. It has been indicated that, even during the bitter conflict between the secular clergy and the Mendicant Friars, the faithful, on their own authority, were attend­ ing Mass in churches other than their own parish church. This usage grew, for the Sunday attendance at Mass outside of the paro­ chial churches was not restricted to the privileged churches of the religious. Toward the close of the sixteenth century it had endured 10 Leo X, litt. ap. ‘‘Intelleximus,” 13 nov. 1517—Codicis luris Canonici Fontes, η. 73. Hereafter cited as Fontes. 11 Pius V, const. “Etsi Mendicantium,” 16 mail 1567—Fontes, n. 121. Cf. C. Paulus, Welt- und Ordensklerus brim Aus gang des XIII. Jakrkunderts im Kampfe um die Pfarr-Reckte (Essen-Ruhr, 1900). 12 The decree embodying this privilege is not to be found in the Fontes or in the Bullarium. For its text cf. St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis (ed. Gaudé, 4 vols., 9. ed., Romae, 1905-1912), Eh. Ill, n. 322. 36 The Precept of Hearing Mass long enough, and had become strong enough, in many places to effect the abrogation of the common law which had demanded at­ tendance at the parish church. St. Antoninus (1389-1459), Archbishop of Florence (1444-1459), testifies to this when he says that in the territories wherein exists the custom of hearing Mass in any place whatsoever, he who attends Mass outside of his own parish church does not sin. In those dioceses, however, where it is demanded that Mass be heard in the parish church, the law in this regard must be obeyed.13 It is significant that the Council of Trent (1545-1563) tempered the severity of previous councils and synods in this regard, and confined itself to recommending that the clergy admonish the faith­ ful to go to the parish Church at least on Sundays and on the greater feasts.1* During the seventeenth century the custom of hearing Mass in other churches besides the parochial church became general, and finally abrogated entirely the common law in this regard. In sup­ port of this assertion the opinions of the moral theologians of the period can be adduced. Bonacina (c. 1585-1631) states that the precept of hearing Mass can be satisfied in any place whatsoever.15 Gobat (1600-1679) teaches the same thing when he states that there is no obligation to attend the parish Mass on Sundays and feast­ days.1· i h} Final Emergence of Ecclesiastical Discipline fact this custom of the people eventually effected :ould be fulfilled not only in other churches and it in any place whatsoever, as is indicated by the ia cited above. (1696-1787) in the eighteenth century also veriSummae Sacrae Theologiae, luris Pontificii et Caesarei (4 , Π, tit. 10, cap. X, p. 317. , sess. ΧΧΉ, Decretum de observandis et evitandis in cele- giae Compendium Absolutissimum (ed. De Laval, Londini, *· Experiment alis Theologia (Monachii, 1669), Tr. V, cas. 5, p. 339. Thirteenth Century to the Present Day 37 fies this when he states it as the common opinion of authors that the precept can be filled in any place whatsoever, even outside of churches.17 This unrestricted freedom of the faithful to choose any place whatsoever in which to fulfill the precept of hearing Mass was ap­ parently used by some even with regard to private oratories. This did not meet with the approval of the Holy See, which toward the end of the sixteenth century and during the seventeenth manifested its disapproval of this practice. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars in 1594 stated that only those servants who are necessary for the service of the persons to whom the Induit of a private oratory had been granted were freed from the obligation of going to church to hear Mass on Feastdays of precept.18 While this response does not state expressly that other servants could not fulfill the precept by attending Mass in the private ora­ tory, it certainly manifests the mind of the Holy See in this regard. In 1686 the Sacred Congregation of the Council manifested the mind of the Holy See more unmistakably when it stated expressly that servants and extems who are expressly excepted, or who are not mentioned in the Induit, cannot fulfill the precept on Feastdays by hearing Mass in a private oratory.19 Apparently these and other similar responses of the Holy See were not considered by authors to have the force of universal law, for in the light of what has been indicated above, the common teaching even at the time of St. Alphonsus was that the precept could be fulfilled in any place whatsoever, even in private oratories. Some authors took exception to this opinion on the score that private oratories could not be included. Thus St. Alphonsus, while admitting that the other opinion was certainly the common one, nevertheless recognized that the matter had become doubtful, both 17 St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. Ill, n. 318; also Benedict XIV, Opera Omnia (ed. novissima, Prati, 1842), XI, De Synodo Dioecesana, lib. XI, cap. 14, η. 8. 18 S. C. Ep. et Reg., Pientina, 15 mart. 1594, ad 4—Fontes, 1504. 18 S. C. C., Ampurien., 30 mart. 1686, ad 1—Fontes, n. 2889. ΓI 38 The Precept of Hearing Mass because of the opposition of respected authors, and also because of the wording which the Holy See used in granting induits regarding private oratories, and therefore adopted the opinion that extems could not fulfill the precept in a private oratory.20 Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) was of the same opinion, holding that the precept could be fulfilled everywhere and in any church, except in a private oratory.21 The Holy See then adopted the practice of always including certain restrictions in the Induit through which it granted the priv­ ilege of the use of a private oratory. Among these restrictions there was contained the following: Mass could not be celebrated unless one of the principally privileged persons, namely, one of those to whom the Induit was granted and whose names appeared therein, was present. Another restriction was implied in the fact that the precept of hearing Mass could be fulfilled only by the privileged per­ sons, and by those whose presence was necessary for the service of the priest or for the convenience of the privileged persons. Usually the Induit extended the right of thus fulfilling one’s obligation re­ garding the Sunday Mass not only to the principally privileged per­ sons, as explained above, but also to the simply privileged persons, that is, to their relatives (by consanguinity or affinity to the fourth degree inclusive) who lived with the principally privileged persons as members of the family. As a rule the Induit was extended also to the noble guests of the principally privileged persons.22 The Holy See, in excluding private oratories as places where the precept could be legitimately fulfilled by the faithful at large, made an exception with regard to the private oratories of bishops. As early as 1640 the Sacred Congregation of the Council stated in a response that all who attended Mass in the private oratory of a 20 St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. ΙΠ, n. 319. 21 Benedict XIV, De Synodo Dioecesana, lib. XI, cap. 14, n. 10. 22Cf. Gattico, De Oratoriis Domesticis (Romae, 1746), c. 25; Feldhaus, Oratories, The Catholic University cf America Canon Law Studies, n. 42 (Wash­ ington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America, 1927), p. 58; Benedict XIV, ep. encyd. "Μαςηο cum,” 2 iun. 1751—Fontes, n. 413; S. R. C., deer. 23 ian. 1899—Deer. Auik. S. R. C., n. 4007—Fontes, n. 6288. Thirteenth Century to the Present Day 39 bishop, whether the Mass was celebrated within his diocese, or outside of it, fulfilled the precept of hearing Mass.23 This special concession with regard to the private oratories of bishops was never abrogated. In fact, it was renewed on various occasions,2* and was still enjoyed at the time of the adoption of the Code. Apparently the Holy See made no further restrictions with regard to the place where the precept could be fulfilled, because authors of the nineteenth century still held the same opinion as that which had been held by St. Alphonsus, namely, that the precept could be fulfilled anywhere except in private oratories which were not those of Bishops.25* As far as the right of fulfilling the precept by hearing Mass which is said in a different rite than the one to which the person belongs is concerned, this seems never to have been denied. In response to certain questions asking whether it was necessary that the faithful hear Mass in their own proper rite in order to fulfill the precept, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith simply replied that the hearing of Mass sufficed.28 With these developments indicated, the Church discipline rela­ tive to the precept of hearing Mass has been traced to the status which it enjoyed at the time of the adoption of the Code. For the greater part it may be said to have been substantially the same as that which the Code has put into effect. For the full consideration of the historical background of the precept of hearing Mass, there remains, then, only an investigation of the former discipline regarding Feastdays. This investigation will be taken up in the next and final chapter of the historical portion of this study. 23 S. C. C., Nullius, 22 sept. 1640, ad 2—Fontes, n. 2621. 24 S. R. C., deer. 22 aug. 1818—Deer. Auth., n. 2585; 8 iun. 1896—n. 3906. 23 Panzuti, Theologia Moralis (3. ed., 4 vols., Neapoli, 1840), I, η. 160; Craisson, Manuale Totius luris Canonici (ed. 6., 4 vols., Pictavii: Oudin Fratres, 1880), ΙΠ, n. 4912; Konings, Theologia Moralis (Bostoniae, 1874), n. 406; Gasparri, De Sanctissima Eucharistia (2 vols., Parisiis, 1897), n. 963. 28 S. C. de Prop. Fide (C. G.) 11 dec. 1838, ad 14—Fontes, n. 4778; instr, (ad Deleg. Ap. Aegypti), 30 apr. 1862, n. 10—Fontes, n. 4857. CHAPTER VI CHURCH DISCIPLINE REGARDING MASS ON FEASTDAYS Article I. Rise and Development of Feastdays In the foregoing chapters the church legislation regarding at­ tendance at Mass on Sundays has been traced from its beginning down to the present day. It now remains to investigate the cor­ responding discipline with regard to Feastdays. However, since from the sixth century onward, at least, the Mass obligation of Feastdays of precept developed precisely in the same manner as that of the Sunday,1 it will not be necessary to trace the development of the law itself. The present chapter will be concerned rather with the rise and multiplication of Feastdays of precept in the Catholic Church, with the opposition they encountered on the part of the faithful when they became too numerous, and with their final re­ duction to the number now prescribed by the common law. It was shown in Chapter I (p. 10) of this study that under the Old Dispensation the Jews celebrated certain Feastdays in addition to the Sabbath. The Apostles and the first Christians who had been converted from Judaism continued to observe these festivals just as they continued to observe the Sabbath. However, when the final break between Judaism and Christianity occurred the Christians retained only two, to which they attached an exclusively Christian significance. These feasts—the first feasts of the Catholic Church— were Easter and Pentecost.12 As a matter of fact, these two Feasts remained the only uni­ versal Christian feasts down to the third century, as may be deduced from the testimony of Tertullian (+222) and Origen (185-255). Tertullian is the first Christian writer who enumerates the Feasts celebrated in the early days of the Church, and he mentions only 1 Cf. Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, p. 124. 2 Cf. Villien, op. di., p. 112. 40 Church Discipline Regarding Mass on Feastdays 41 Easter and Pentecost.3 The testimony of Origen, which affords the same information, is of even more value, because in his controversy with Celsus it was necessary for him to enumerate by name all the festivals celebrated by the Christians.4 Inasmuch as Tertullian and Origen are witnesses for the West and East respectively, it can be concluded that in the third century Feastdays in the Church had not as yet begun the rich development they were to reach in later cen­ turies.5* Even after the abandonment of Jewish practices by the early Christians, Saturday continued to have a special religious significance in the Church. However, this veneration in the West was short­ lived, for the Council of Elvira (c. 306) insisted that the faithful observe it as a day of fast, thereby indicating that it no longer enjoyed a festive character.® In the East, however, the observance of Saturday as a Feastday was of much longer duration, for in the fourth century it still enjoyed a preeminence almost equal to that of the Sunday. Traces of this preeminence linger in the Churches of the East even at the present time.78 * The fourth century witnessed the introduction of two other great Feasts—Christmas in the Western Church, and the Feast of the Epiphany in the Eastern. St. John Chrysostom (c. 354-407) tes­ tifies to the celebration of Christmas in the West before the close of the fourth century,’ and it is certain that the Feast of the Epiphany was universally celebrated in the Eastern Church during the course of the same century, although it is impossible to deter­ mine the exact date of its adoption.’ It is quite probable also that 3 De Baptismo, cap. 19—MPL, I, 1222. * Contra Celsum, 8, 22—MPG, XI, 1550. 5 Cf. Kellner, Heortology: A History of the Christian Festivals from their Origin to the Present Day (trans, from 2. German ed., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co., 1908), p. 17. e Canon 26—Mansi, I, 10. TCf. Constitutiones Apostolorum, Π, 59—Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I,*171; VIII, 33—I, 539; Kellner, Heortology, p. 12. 8 Homily on the Nativity of Jesus Christ—MPG, XLIX, 351. ’Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 259. 42 The Precept of Hearing Mass the Feast of the Ascension took its rise during this century, as St. Augustine testifies to it in one of his letters.1011 Since it is impractical for the purposes of this study to trace the origin of each individual feast, it will suffice to mention the Feasts observed at the end of the fourth century as enumerated by the first catalog of feasts contained in the so-called Constitutions of the Apostles. This catalog mentions Easter, Pentecost, the Ascension, Christmas, the Epiphany, the Feasts of the Apostles, the Feast of Stephen the first Martyr, and the Feasts of other holy martyrs.11 Since this study is concerned with the obligation of attending Mass, it will be necessary at this point to try to determine the precise nature of this obligation with regard to Feastdays as it existed in the first few centuries of the Church. Since early documents do not touch on the juridical nature of this precept, the status of this obligation must be deduced from the writings and practice of this period. Unfortunately, an examination of these leads only to the con­ clusion that the obligation as existing in the first four centuries was not considered as uniformly binding, and that different Feasts were celebrated with varying degrees of solemnity. It is certain that on the more solemn Feasts, such as the Epiphany and the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, the faithful gathered for the celebration of Mass just as they did on Sundays, as is evidenced by the sermons of St. Augustine, and by a letter of Pope Leo (445).12* From these testimonies, however, nothing can be deduced as to the existence of a real obligation to attend Mass on Feastdays during the first centuries. The most that can be said is that, as in the case of the Sunday, an obligation of attending Mass at least on the more solemn Feasts probably arose through the custom of the people. There was definitely no express legislation on the part of the Church in this regard.1’ 10 Epist. LTV (Januario, c. 400), cap. 1—MPL, ΧΧΧΙΠ, 200. 11 Constitutiones Apostolorum, \ΊΠ, 33—Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I, 539-541. 12 SL Augustinus, Sermo CCIÏ—MPL, XXXVIII, 1033 ; Sermo CCXCV1II —ibid., 1365; Leo L ep. XI, 2—Jaflé, Regesta, η. 60. 11 Cf. Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 117-121. Church Discipline Regarding Mass on Feastdays 43 The sixth century offered the first written legislation pertaining to Feastday observance. The Council of Agde (506) enumerated certain of the more solemn feasts, namely Easter, Pentecost, Christ­ mas and the Epiphany, and prescribed under penalty of excommuni­ cation that the faithful were to come to celebrate these feasts in the episcopal city. In order to enforce this precept it was forbidden on those days to celebrate Mass in the country chapels, and any priest who presumed to do so was excommunicated.14* This insistence upon the celebration of the more solemn feasts with the bishop found expression in many of the subsequent coun­ cils,18 and it constituted the only point of difference between Feast­ day and Sunday discipline with regard to the hearing of Mass. From this period onward practically all legislation concerning the precept of attending Mass was applied expressly to Feastdays as well as to Sundays. From the seventh century on the number of Feastdays gradually increased. The catalog of Feastdays contained in the Statutes of Sonnatius, Bishop of Rheims (600-c. 626), enumerated thirteen days to be observed as Holydays.18 The Statutes attributed to St. Boniface in the eighth century enumerated sixteen.17 While it is doubtful whether these statutes were actually issued by St. Boniface himself, it is nevertheless certain that they belong to his period.18 Article II. Power of Bishops and Its Curtailment (a) Abuse Arising From Undue Multiplication of Feastdays It is not to be concluded from these catalogs that the same num­ ber of Feasts was observed uniformly throughout the entire Church. Feastdays, both as to their number and nature, varied not only in 14 Cc. 63 and 21—Mansi, VIII, 332 and 327. 18 Cf. e. g., I Council of Orleans (Sil), canon 25—MGR, Legum Sect. Ill, Concilia, I, 8; Council of Clermont in Auvergne (c. S3S), canon 15—MGR, Legum Sect. Ill, Cone., I, 69; IV Council of Orleans (541), canon 3—MGR, Legum Sect. Ill, Cone., I, 88. 18 Sonnatius, Statuta, canon 20—MPL, LXXX, 446. 17 Statuta S. Bonifacii, arckiep. Mogunt. et Mart., canon 36—Mansi, XII, 386. 18 Cf. Kellner, Reortology, p. 22. 44 The Precept oj Hearing Mass different countries but even in the various dioceses. This diversity of observance is explained by the fact that from the very beginning bishops exercised the right of introducing new Feasts into their dioceses, and of excluding from their catalog Feastdays which they no longer wished to be observed. It is easily understood, then, that uniformity throughout the whole Church in the matter of Feastday observance was almost impossible. This explains, too, the tendency to multiply Feastdays which in the course of time resulted in an abuse that had to be corrected and remedied.18 It is not necessary for the purposes of this study to trace the progress of this abuse in the different countries. It will be sufficient to indicate the extremes to which it finally led. Thus in the twelfth century the Decree of Gratian enumerated forty-one Feasts to be observed, and among these are not included all the Feasts prescribed by particular bishops. The remaining Feasts of the year, the Decree continued, the faithful are not obliged to observe, but neither are they prohibited from observing them.2® The status of the discipline regarding Feastdays in the thirteenth century may be determined from the Decretals of Gregory IX (1234), which prescribed forty-five Feastdays in addition to the Sundays and particular Feasts of the various dioceses.21 With this prescription Church discipline regarding Feastdays for the universal Church almost reached the highest point in its development, for in the following centuries only a few Feasts were added for general observance. However, local Feastdays continued to multiply, and in some dioceses reached a point where, in addition to Sundays, over one hundred days were prescribed for special religious observance.22 (b) Obligation of Attending Mass on Feastdays It is important to determine here whether these Feasts, as enu­ merated in the Corpus luris Canonici, were Feastdays of precept as we understand them today, that is, feasts which carried an obligation x*Cf. Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris (Taurini: Marietti, 1922), p. 289; Kellner, Heortology, pp. 28-30. 20 C. 1, D. Ill, de cons. 21 C. S, X, de feriis, Π, 9. 22 Cf. Kellner, Heortology, p. 25. Church Discipline Regarding Mass on Feastdays 45 for the faithful to attend Mass. The decretals themselves make no explicit statement to that effect. They are rather concerned with imposing an obligation to abstain from work and proceedings in court, etc. Another decretal of Gregory IX obscures the issue by stating that Feastdays are to be observed according to the custom of each locality.2324 Since it is impossible to determine the individual practice of each diocese, or in fact even of each country, due to lack of evidence on this point, the most than can be done is to try to arrive at some con­ clusion through indirect arguments. A Synod of Strigonia (1114) inflicted a penance of 40 days (or 7 days if the fault was less culp­ able) on those who neglected to observe the prescribed Feasts.14 This indicates that Feastday observance was considered a serious obligation, and it is very unlikely that the obligation was restricted to the merely negative element of abstention from servile work. Another argument which may be adduced is the following. When Pope Urban VTII in 1642 reduced the number of Feastdays for the universal Church, he forbade to be observed as Feastdays of pre­ cept any other Feasts which were held in veneration in particular dioceses, thus indicating that until then they had been observed as such.25 Finally, it is significant that when subsequent relaxations were effected in the Feastday discipline as established by Urban VIII, only the obligation of abstention from servile work was lifted. The obliga­ tion of attending Mass remained in force.2® While these arguments lead to no absolutely certain conclusion, it may be deduced as very probable that Feastday observance did include the obligation of assisting at Mass. (c) Correction of the Abuse by Pope Urban VIII The excessive multiplication of Feastdays indicated above even­ tually gave rise to complaints on the part of the faithful. These com­ 23 C. 2, X, de ferns, Π, 9. 24 Canon 8—Mansi, XXI, 102. 25 Urbanus VIII, const. “Universa per orbem," 13 sept. 1642—Fontes, n. 226. 28 Cf. Footnote n. 28. 46 The Precept of Hearing Mass plaints were based chiefly on economic reasons. The poor, espe­ cially, claimed that because of the over-frequent recurrence of days on which they were forbidden to work they were unable to obtain a sufficient livelihood. Other difficulties too manifested themselves. Many of the faithful took occasion on these days to indulge in lazi­ ness, or to engage too unreasonably in the pursuit of pleasure. Added to this, the intermixture of universal and local Feastdays gave rise to great uncertainty as to which days were of common and which were of particular precept. Confronted with this disturbing state of affairs, Pope Urban VIII finally deemed it necessary to prescribe a uniform discipline for the entire Church in the matter of Feastdays, and to fix limits beyond which the local churches could not go. This he did on the 13th of September, 1642, in the important constitution “Universa per orbem" mentioned above. In this Constitution Pope Urban enumerated the following days to be observed as Feastdays of precept in the universal Church: Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, Easter with the two days fol­ lowing, Ascension, Pentecost with the two days following, Holy Trinity, Solemnity of Corpus Christi, Finding of the Holy Cross; also the Feasts of the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Nativ­ ity of the Blessed Virgin, Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel, Nativity of St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, St. Andrew, St. James, St. John, St. Thomas, SS. Philip and James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, SS. Simon and Jude and St. Matthias; St. Stephen, the first Martyr, Holy Innocents, St. Lawrence Martyr, St. Sylvester, St. Joseph, St. Anne, All Saints; one of the more important patrons in each kingdom or province, and finally, one of the more important patrons in each city, town, or village, if such patrons were locally venerated. In addition Pope Urban decreed and declared that by the authority of his Constitution any other Feasts, whether universal or particular, and whether observed through precept, or custom or devotion, should thenceforth and forever not be observed as Feast­ days of precept. The importance of this Constitution of Pope Urban VIII lies not in the fact that it reduced the number of Feastdays, because it is evident from the above list, which enumerates thirty-five days to be Church Discipline Regarding Mass on Feastdays 47 observed under precept, that this reduction was negligible. Its im­ portance lies rather in the fact that, besides creating a uniform dis­ cipline in the matter of Feastdays for the universal Church, it took measures to check the exercise of the power which local bishops en­ joyed to prescribe Feastdays of precept for their own localities. For in the same Constitution Pope Urban admonished the bishops that, lest Feastdays, due to the importunity of the faithful, be once again too easily multiplied, they should for all future time studiously abstain from establishing new Feasts of precept in their dioceses, in order that universal uniformity might be maintained. That this admonition of Urban VIII was tantamount to taking away entirely the power of bishops to establish Feastdays of precept in their dioceses other than those enumerated by the Constitution “Universa per orbem” is indicated by a response of the Sacred Con­ gregation of Rites. To the question whether bishops could institute such Feastdays of precept, the Congregation replied in the negative?7 The catalog of Feastdays of precept as drawn up by Pope Urban did not long enjoy full observance. In the following centuries various Popes issued many particular induits to different localities relaxing the discipline which Urban had prescribed.27 28 These induits, how­ ever, have no bearing on this particular study, for they relaxed the discipline only in so far as they lifted, on certain days, the prescribed abstention from servile work. The obligation to attend Mass on all the days enumerated by Urban VIII remained in force. In some few instances, however, even the obligation of attending Mass was abolished, due to the particular circumstances of the time and place to which the induits were granted. Thus, after the French Revolution, when the Christian method of reckoning the calendar had been supplanted with a new method, and months were divided into decades instead of weeks, it became very difficult to observe the Feastdays as prescribed by Urban VIII. Accordingly, on April 9. 1802, an ordinance was issued by Pope Pius VII through the Car­ dinal Legate Caprara, which freed the faithful of France from the 27 S. R. C., Concordiae, 23 iun. 1703, ad 2—Deer. Autk. S. R. C., n. 2113; Fontes, 5728. 28 Bull. Rom. (continuatio), cf. Index Materiarum under “festum,” “missa,” “festivitates in genere,” “imminutio festorum,” Vols. Π to VII. 48 The Precept of Hearing Mass obligation of attending Mass on all days of precept except four, namely, Christmas, the Ascension, the Assumption and the Feast of All Saints.29 The same Pope granted a reduction of Feastdays of precept to certain dioceses of Sicily, releasing them from the obliga­ tion of attending Mass.30 (d) Final Legislation Concerning Feastdays It is impossible to trace all the fluctuations of Feastday obser­ vance as they appeared and developed in different localities. It is enough to say that in the course of time great discrepancies existed even in the same countries. The United States offers an example of this.31 The Fathers of the II Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) lamented the fact that there was no uniformity among the dioceses of the United States with regard to the number of Feastdays of pre­ cept. Some localities observed seven or eight; others observed only four. However, they allowed the discrepancies to continue, deter­ mining that the Feastdays of precept as they existed in the different provinces should be retained. The Patronal Feast of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception alone they prescribed to be observed as a Feastday of precept in every province.32* The prescription concern­ ing the Feast of the Immaculate Conception was approved two years later by the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith.38 The III Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), wishing to estab­ lish uniformity among the various provinces and dioceses in the United States, saw fit to send a petition to the Holy See requesting that six days be retained throughout the country as days of precept, and that the rest be suppressed as far as the obligation to attend 29 Pius VII, Reductio festorum in dioecesibus Galliarum—Bull. Rom. Con- · tinuatio, VII, 282. “Pius VII, “Paternae Charitati,” 10 apr. 1818—Bull. Rom., VIII, 1748. n For a complete account of the status and fluctuation of Feastdays in the United States of America, cf. John Gilmary Shea, “The Church and Her Holydays,'* The American Catholic Quarterly Review, IX (1886), 462-475. 22 Condii Plenarii Baltimorensis II Acta et Decreta (ed. altera, Baltimorae, 1894), m. 381, 383, pp. 198, 199. 22 S. C. de Prop. Fide, deer. 24 ian. 1868—Acta et Decreta as above, p. fcedv. Not in Collectanea. L Church Discipline Regarding Mass on Feastdays 49 Mass was concerned.34 The six days selected to be retained were: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Christmas; the Circumcision; the Ascension; the Assumption and the Feast of All Saints. The petition was granted in a response from the Holy See the following year, so that uniformity was once more established throughout the entire United States.35 The final legislation on the subject of Feastdays of precept for the universal Church before the adoption of the new Code was con­ tained in a Motu Proprio of Pope Pius X in 1911. In the Motu Proprio “Supremi Disciplinae” Pope Pius decreed that eight days and only eight days were thenceforth to be observed as Feastdays of precept in the universal Church. These days he enumerated as follows: the Feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and All Saints. No other Feastdays were to be observed as days of precept in any locality. If any of the Feasts he enumerated had been legitimately abolished or transferred, as, for example, was the case in the United States, no innovation was to be made without consult­ ing the Holy See. And finally, if the bishops of any nation or region desired that any of the abrogated Feasts should continue to be ob­ served, they were to refer this matter also to the Holy See.3® (e) Feastdays and Private Oratories As a conclusion to this chapter it will be profitable to consider another aspect of Feastday observance which differs from that of the Sunday. It has been pointed out in the preceding chapter that the obligation of attending Sunday Mass could be fulfilled even in pri­ vate oratories by the persons so privileged through induit. This privilege did not obtain on certain Feastdays, because it has been the 34 Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii (Baldmorae: John Murphy, 1886), n. Ill, pp. 57-58. 35 S. C. de Prop. Fide, resp. 31 dec. 1885—cf. Acta et Decreta ΙΠ Balt., pp. cv-cvii. 38 Pius X, motu propr. "Supremi Disciplinae,” 2 iul. 1911, nn. I, ΠΙ, TV— A.45, ΠΙ (1911), 306. 50 The Precept of Hearing Mass constant discipline of the Church from the earliest centuries that on the more solemn Feasts Mass could not even be offered in private oratories. The Council of Agde (506), while it permitted Mass to be offered on other Feasts '‘propter fatigationem familiae” forbade it on Christmas, Easter, Epiphany, the Ascension, Pentecost, and the Nativity of John the Baptist, and on other feasts which were con­ sidered very great. This is probably the earliest law on the subject.37 Other early councils enacted similar laws, and prescribed that on Easter and Pentecost and all other particularly solemn Feastdays, all those living in villages had to celebrate the Feasts with the bishop in the city. This prescription was sanctioned by excommunication for those who neglected it.38 The same discipline was in effect during the Middle Ages. In fact, the prescription of the Council of Agde, as given above, was simply repeated, and its neglect was punished by excommunication.39 St. Alphonsus testifies to the existence of this discipline in the eighteenth century, enumerating the following feasts as among those on which Mass could not be said in private oratories: Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Thursday, Ascension, Annunciation, Assumption, SS. Peter and Paul and All Saints.40 Finally, the same legislation is found during the period immediately preceding the adoption of the new Code. However, the discipline was modified to this extent, that of the Feastdays enumerated above, only those which were at the same time Feast­ days of precept were included under the prohibition.41 Thus it is evident that from the earliest centuries down to the adoption of the new Code the obligation of attending Mass on certain of the greater Feastdays could not be fulfilled in a private oratory, by reason of •T Canon 21—Mansi, VIII, 328. 381 Council of Orleans (511), canon 25—MGH, Legum Sect. Ill, Cone. I, 8; Council of Clermont in Auvergne (535), canon 15—ibidem, I, 69. 38C. 35, D. 1, de cons.; Council of Aries (1260), canon 15—Mansi, ΧΧΧΙΠ, 1010; Council of Angers (1365), canon 33—Mansi, XXVI, 444. 40 St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, (ed. nova, Taurini, 1890), tract. 6, n. 37; Cf. also Benedictus XIV, ep. encyd. “Magno cum,” 2 iun. 1751—Fontes, n. 413. « S. R. C., deer. febr. 13, 1893, ad dub. XXIII—Deer. Autk. S. R. C., n. 3767; deer. 10 apr. 1896—Deer. Autk. S. R. C., n. 3896—Fontes, n. 6256. Church Discipline Regarding Mass on Feastdays 51 the fact that the celebration of Mass was not permitted on those days. If, by reason of some special concession, however, the celebra­ tion of Mass was permitted, those privileged to satisfy their obliga­ tion could do so even on the Feastdays in question. Part Two Canonical Commentary CHAPTER VII BASIC LAW UNDERLYING PRECEPT OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE Basic and indispensable to the proper consideration of the pre­ cept of Sunday and Feastday observance is the determination of the question: Upon what law does the obligation of hearing Mass rest? Is it the natural, the divine positive, or merely ecclesiastical law? It is the purpose of this chapter to investigate this question. The natural law prescribes that man in the course of his life should at times offer public external worship to God. This is the common teaching of theologians. For reason of itself manifests to man his utter dependence upon the Creator Who gave him being, and his consequent obligation of loving and honoring that Creator. Since man is composed of body and soul, and depends equally upon God for each, that honor which he is obliged to render must be external as well as internal. And finally, in view of the fact that man is a social being as well as an individual, and that society no less than the individual depends upon God for its existence, it fol­ lows that man should at times unite with his fellow men in offering public worship to God.1 1 Suarez, De Religione, tr. Π, lib. I, cap. I, nn. 12, 13; Herrmann, Institu­ tiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (6. ed., 2 vols., Lugdini: Emmanuel Vitte, 1926), I, nn. 47, 48; Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis (3. ed., 3 vols., Parisis: Desciêe de Brouwer, 1936-1939), II, n. 685; Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, n. 275; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome luris Canonici (3 vols., vols. Ι-Π, 5. ed., voL ΙΠ, 4. ed., Mechlinae: H. Dessain, 1931-1934), II, n. 558; Priimmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis (8. e