Question I: On the origin of feast days

The observance of feasts is enjoined by the third precept of the Decalogue. And indeed, insofar as it assigns the Sabbath day, it is a ceremonial precept, which pertained to the Jews, not to us; but insofar as it assigns some day or time in which one is to be free for sacred things, it is moral, pertaining also to Christians. So D. Thom. prima secundae, quaest. 100. art. 3. ad 3. and 2. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. Tannerus Tom. 2. disp. 5. q. 1. dub. 2. etc. Tom. 3. disp. 5. q. 5. dub. 1. and others after D. Bonav. serm. 4. in decem praecepta, and in 3. dist. 37. dub. 3. where he adds a certain mixture of the moral and the ceremonial.

For first it commands sanctification at some time, and indeed so that at that time we be free from servile works; for to sanctify the Lord is moral, of which first Peter 3. Sanctify the Lord in your hearts: but to cease from works at that time is moral, insofar as one is freed from those works that stand in the way of the worship of God; but it is also figurative, insofar as we are given to understand that we must abstain from every sin, which is a foul servile work.

Moreover, the keeping of the Sabbath day was ceremonial, to signify God's rest from the works of six days, and the future rest of Christ in the sepulchre, to call men back from death. See S. Thomas.

From this you will easily draw out by what right the institution of the Lord's day for sanctifying God was made.

There were those who said it was introduced by Divine right. So the Author of the supplement to the summa Pisana, v. Dominica, Sylvester there quaest. 1. where he adds also the Nativity of the Lord, Easter, Pentecost, Ascension, Epiphany, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and others, Abbas on cap. Licet de feriis, and nearly Angelus V. feria. Whence they infer that it cannot be taken away by any custom.

The true opinion, however, is that not only the other feasts, but also the Lord's day, were introduced by Ecclesiastical law. So D. Bonavent. serm. 4. in decem praecepta, and in 3. dist. 37. around the text, D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. ad 4. Caietanus there, Antonin. 2. part. tract. 9. cap. 7. Sotus lib. 2. de Iustitia, quaest. 4. and others at Bassaeum here, and at Fagundez de praeceptis Ecclesiae, lib. 1. cap. 2. Suarez Tom. primo de Relig. lib. 2. cap. 4. Tannerus loco citato. So also D. Augustinus serm. 151. de tempore, and Catech. Rom. on the third precept of the Decalogue.

I assert with this opinion, that the institution of feast days is of Ecclesiastical law.

It is proved by D. Bonaventure, because on this there is only Ecclesiastical institution. For all other things, besides the Sacraments and the Sacrifice and faith, were left to the disposal of the Pastors, as Fagundez also notes n. 3. and it is commonly held. It seems indeed to have been handed down by the Apostles, as many Fathers teach, and afterwards confirmed by Canonical law, cap. Primo, c. Sabbatho de consecr. dist. 3. cap. Quoniam, and cap. licet, and cap. conquestus de feriis; and the Emperors confirmed it, as appears under the title de feriis, especially l. 2. and l. omnes dies.

Eusebius also lib. 4. de vita Constantini, cap. 18. and 19. reports that Constantine, embracing the great Apostolic tradition, religiously observed this day and commanded it to be observed.

D. Ignatius epist. 3. ad Magnesianos: In place of the Sabbath every Christian is to celebrate the feast of the Lord's Day, the Royal, and the eminent above all days, of the Resurrection. And D. Clemens libro 7. Const. cap. 71. says: On the day of the resurrection, which we call the Lord's, assemble without any interruption of the assembly for giving thanks to God, and for professing the benefits with which God has favored us through Christ. These indicate human law.

You will object. It would follow that it can be changed by the Church; but it has never yet been changed, which the Doctors commonly teach to be an indication of Divine right, ad cap. licet, and ad cap. conquestus, de feriis.

It is answered, that it can be changed by the supreme Pontiff; nevertheless it has not been changed, because the reason was not present, and besides, the observance is so ancient and perpetual that it would have to be denied even to the guilty, that the Sabbath was instituted by Divine right as a moral precept, for then it would be immutable by the Church. But say that, as to the time, it is now left to the Church, since the ceremonial signification has been fulfilled. See Suarez and Fagundez.

For the reasons of this perpetual and so firm observance of the Lord's day you have many in D. Bonavent. in 3. dist. 37. art. 3. and serm. 4. de decem praeceptis, and serm. 2. Sabbati sancti, Suarez Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Azorio Tom. 2. Institut. moral. lib. 1. cap. 2. quaest. 4. Sayro lib. 7. cap. 1. Fagundez loco citato, num. 8. The sixth Synodus Constantinopol. cap 8. comprehends them excellently, and they are reduced to seven. First, because on it God created light. Second, because on it He rained manna on the Hebrew people in the desert. Third, because on it Christ was born, adored by the Magi, baptized by John, on it He rose, and on the same day the Holy Spirit was sent upon the Apostles; Therefore the holy Synod concludes: So great must be the observance of the Lord's day, that besides the prayers and the solemn Masses, and those things which pertain to eating, nothing else be done. You will find nearly these reasons in D. Leone epist. 81. S. Augustino serm. 54. de tempore. S. Thomas adds, that the worship directed to God, which was exhibited on this first day alone, was consecrated to Him by the Pagans. If the feast of the Lord's day is of human law, much more the others, as the Doctors cited above teach.