52. On Hearing Mass

1. Fabritius entered the church, intending to seek a friend there because of a grave family business. He did not find the friend; but he found a priest beginning Mass at the altar. Seeing him, by a certain natural instinct, he stood there up to the end of the Mass.

2. Fridericus went to church in order to hear Mass, which was already beginning when he entered. But, since in a lateral part of the same church he saw some pilgrims piously making the Way of the Cross, he too at once joined himself to them and remained with them up to the end of the Mass and of the Way of the Cross.

3. Fidelis, assisting at Mass through the whole time of its celebration, looks at and admires the precious ornaments of the altar, the paintings, statues, columns, walls, and ceiling of the church; indeed, he considers them fixedly, on account of their perfection of art.

An officer of the police, charged with preserving order in a church on the occasion of a great solemnity, although by reason of his office to be exercised he had to stand outside the church, went to the open door of the church and, while standing outside, took care to hear Mass.

Q. What as to these cases?

R. To the first. Fabritius satisfied the precept. For although he did not enter the church with the intention of hearing Mass, nevertheless in fact he heard it. Moreover, the very fact that, although he did not find the friend, he nevertheless stood there from the beginning of the Mass up to its end, sufficiently proves the intention, at least then had, of hearing Mass. Otherwise, when he did not find the friend, he would have gone away.

To the second. Fridericus did not hear Mass, if the lateral part of the church where the Way of the Cross was being performed was wholly separated from the altar at which Mass was being celebrated. For then, since he was doing the Way of the Cross, at least externally, he was doing something else, pious indeed, but something else entirely, and not hearing Mass. But if that lateral part of the church was not separated from the altar, then Fridericus, while doing the Way of the Cross, could attend to the Mass externally and internally, and consequently hear Mass.

To the third. Fidelis, with his continuous and fixed view of the ornaments of the altar, the paintings, statues, columns, walls, and ceiling of the church, altogether lacks that internal and external attention which is required for hearing Mass, and is occupied with another thing, and consequently does not hear Mass.

To the fourth. The police officer, although he had to stand outside the church, nevertheless, when he had gone near to the open door of the church, he could there attend to the Mass which was being celebrated, and he did attend to it, since he procured this for himself by standing near the open door of the church, that is, in order that he might hear it. Therefore he truly heard Mass. For although he was materially outside the church, nevertheless, being very near to the place in which the Mass was being celebrated, he was, morally speaking, present in the church, or certainly present at the Mass. Besides, if someone hears Mass by standing in the window of his own house, from which the altar can be seen, and the public street does not lie too greatly interposed between the house and the church, so that by reason of the distance of the one hearing the Mass and of the too great distance of the place the moral presence required for satisfying the precept of the Church is not taken away, then certainly the police officer, in the case proposed, heard Mass. Cf. G. 39; Lig. 312; I. M. 642.

4. Antonia confesses that ten times she had come late to Mass on feast days. The confessor asks whether the Gospel had already been read when she came late. She responds: three times she came before the Offertory, the Gospel already having been read, and while the Creed was ending; twice she came after the Canon had already begun, but before the Consecration, and then she heard another Mass up to the Consecration exclusively; five times, finally, she came after the Gospel had been read, but before the Creed. But, she says, she always read the whole Mass in a prayer book. Moreover, she adds that she is disturbed with scruples concerning the time preceding the last confession. For she remembers that, on a certain feast day, she came late when the Consecration had already been completed in the last Mass, but she did not remain for the rest of the sacrifice. In fact, then she did not even read the Mass in the book. She remembers also that once she heard the Mass of a certain priest of an Oriental rite. The confessor, after hearing these things, says to her: Beware lest you do this again, because grave matter was present; nor were you excused from grave sin by the fact that you read the whole Mass; indeed, this can be omitted without any fault, provided that someone assists at the sacrifice and applies his mind to the actions of the priest, or to the mysteries signified, or to God in some other way. But since each one must hear Mass in his own rite, you certainly could not hear Mass in another rite.

Q. Did the confessor judge rightly?

R. To the first. He judged rightly concerning the omission of prayers, or that no obligation exists for reciting them. "The precept, as an affirmative precept, does not oblige to any other act of divine worship except that of the Mass. And therefore the faithful are not held to other prayers besides those which are contained in the Mass and are said by the priest or the minister.... And hence, if someone on a feast day is unable to hear Mass because he is justly impeded, he is not held to recite something in place of it or to exercise some other act of religion. Similarly, if someone omits Mass, justly or unjustly, he is not held to compensate for this on the same day by prayers or the next day by another Mass, etc." Suarez, De Religione, tom. 1, l. 2, c. 16, n. 1, 4, 16; I. M. 640.

To the second. The confessor was somewhat too severe concerning attention. For he requires precisely internal attention, by which someone adverts and applies the mind, either to the words and actions of the priest, or to the mysteries, or to God, praying or meditating. Practically it must indeed be counseled that internal attention is required. But for hearing Mass virtual and confused internal attention suffices, namely such that someone at the beginning at least had the intention of hearing Mass, and adverts, at least in some way, to what is being done, nor of his own accord is distracted from the Mass for a notable time, while fully adverting to his distraction from hearing Mass. But the opinion which holds external attention to suffice, namely that one does not place an external action which impedes the application of the mind to the sacrifice which is celebrated, such as writing, painting, etc., is not lacking true probability. Cf. St. Alph., H. A., tr. 6, n. 28; Op. Mor., l. 3, n. 313; I. M. 647, 648.

To the third. The confessor again was somewhat too severe when he asserted that there was grave sin in the remaining cases. First, indeed, many theologians think that he does not sin gravely who omits everything from the beginning up to the Gospel inclusively, even if the Creed also has been omitted. And St. Alphonsus does not think this opinion improbable, because Mass was once begun at the Offertory, according to St. Isidore, and because thus it is thought by Lugo, Palaus, Turr., Gobat, Granado, Leander, Pelliz. And Scavini says that this opinion is probable. And this same opinion, indeed, St. Alphonsus positively approves in Op. Mor., l. 6, n. 313, in which he says: "Who will deny that it is probable in this matter, which depends on human estimation, which is supported by so many and such great authors?" Cf. Laymann, l. 4, tr. 7, c. 4, n. 5; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 734.

Then, this is also a probable opinion: "He satisfies the precept who hears one Mass from one priest up to the Consecration exclusively, and another from another priest from the Consecration up to the end; because he then hears the essence of the Mass from one priest." Laymann, l. 4, tr. 7, c. 4, n. 6; Navarr., Sà, Sotus, etc., cited by La-Croix, l. c. Nevertheless, in this case, as in any case of hearing two half Masses, all admit that, because of the disorder, such a one cannot be excused at least from venial sin. And this opinion, at least extrinsically probable, is affirmed by St. Alphonsus, l. c., who says: "It is probable, at least extrinsically, that he satisfies the precept who hears two half parts of Mass, successively, from two priests, even if the first part is heard after the second part, and even if the space of an hour intervenes, according to Mazzotta." And he adds: "But if someone hears the first part from one priest up to the Consecration exclusively, and the second from another from the Consecration up to the end, then we call it most probable that he satisfies the precept." Cf. I. M., l. c.

Moreover, as St. Alphonsus, H. A., l. c., n. 39, openly asserts as something to be held, since it is also probable that the essence of the sacrifice consists in the consumption, if someone comes after the Consecration of the last Mass, he is held to hear the remaining part. Fr. Gury, however, teaches the opposite; but the opinion of St. Alphonsus seems altogether probable. For then, far more probably, the essence of the sacrifice has not yet passed, and therefore there is an obligation of assisting at the essence of the Mass. Cf. Op. Mor., l. c.; I. M., l. c. But if someone, coming after the Consecration of the last Mass, can still assist at a notable part, then again he is probably held to hear the remaining part. For even if someone were present at the essence of the sacrifice, but omitted a notable part, he would sin gravely. Therefore if someone can be present at a notable part, he is held to be present. A similar case is found in the recitation of the canonical hours. For, "if you cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the rest of the hours, you are held to recite them; nor can you excuse yourself because you cannot recite the whole office; for the whole is not so integral that, if one part cannot be fulfilled, the other part is to be omitted." La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1385; and cf. prop. 54, condemned by Innocent XI: "He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining hours, is held to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself."

To the fourth. The Propaganda Fide, on 11 Dec. 1838, to the question: "To satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and feast days, is it necessary that each one hear Mass in his own rite; or is it enough to hear any Mass whatsoever?" responded: "To the first, negatively; to the second, affirmatively." I. M., l. c.; Collectanea, n. 1597.

5. Augustinus has the privilege of a private Oratory, which he uses in the city, in which he usually dwells, and in the countryside, where he betakes himself each year and remains through the whole autumn. The chapel, however, in each place is nothing else than a large hall, divided by a silk cloth, one part of which is deputed for the chapel. The altar, however, is of marble, in an ample cabinet, as it were, constructed in a deep cavity of the wall like a small room, which, the Mass having been finished, is closed by a decorated wooden door. One time, while Augustinus is dwelling in the countryside, his own feast day is celebrated; his relatives and many noble friends are invited for some days. But all hear Mass in the aforesaid Oratory on the feast day. And, since there are many of them, through the whole day that same hall is occupied by his nephews, and all sleep there at night.

Q. 1. What is a public, semi-public, private Oratory? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. Enchiridion Morale, De Eucharistia, n. 640; I. M. 644.

To the second. First, Augustinus can use the privilege of a private Oratory not only in the city, but also in the countryside, so long as he dwells there, provided he does not use both private Oratories at the same time. For a privilege of this sort is a personal privilege, and it is no obstacle that he dwells in the countryside only through the autumn; for it is a dwelling for a longer time, which, for that season, can also be called his usual habitation. Ferraris, Orat. Privat., a. 1, n. 41; Lig. 358.

Then, as to the hall divided by a silk cloth and the altar placed in that small room, as it were, built in the cavity of the wall and closed by a wooden door, this also does not seem to disturb anything. "It is not necessary," says St. Alphonsus, "that the Oratory be so separated from other places that it be enclosed by four walls with a door; but it suffices if there are three walls and a fourth, as it were, of tapestry or cloth, or some other similar thing, so that it can be opened and closed." L. 6, n. 359. St. Alphonsus indeed says again, n. 360, ibid.: "Fr. Fortunatus Brixia thinks it is not enough that the altar be placed within an ample cabinet existing in a cavity of the wall, furnished on the lateral parts and able to be closed after Mass." And in fact, without doubt it is far more fitting that the altar be placed within a fixed place, whether with four walls or three, and in some separate room. But St. Alphonsus adds, ibid.: "I know that several Oratories of this sort exist in the city of Naples, and have been approved by the Archbishop. For Oratories of this sort do not seem to be forbidden by the indult; indeed, the aforesaid lateral tablets sufficiently stand in the place of walls." But, to establish this more firmly, St. Alphonsus observes, "as F. Fortunatus also says, it is necessary that the wooden altar not be movable, but fixed to the wall, according to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 Dec. 1661, and not have the appearance of a portable altar." But the Oratory of Augustinus is not really in an ample cabinet, constructed in a cavity of the wall, but in a deep cavity of the wall as in a small room constructed there with four walls.

Then, as to the occupation of the hall, and to the fact that at night the nephews and guests sleep there, no difficulty can arise either; because that is done rarely, namely once a year, on the feast day of Augustinus, and because of the necessity arising from the presence of many relatives and friends. "For in a case of necessity," says St. Alphonsus, "even churches can be used for eating, sleeping, holding assemblies, etc.; ... all the more, therefore, the Oratory, which is deputed to sacred use only by transitory deputation." L. 3, n. 460. Indeed, La-Croix thinks that "even if necessity does not excuse, this nevertheless does not exceed venial sin. For doctors say that, even in a consecrated church, the use of a profane use is not a mortal sin, unless it is used constantly and by habit as a profane place." L. 6, p. 2, n. 257. But in the case the hall itself properly is not the Oratory, since it is before the Oratory, which is constructed in the cavity of the wall and separated from the hall by the wooden door.

Finally, the relatives of Augustinus and noble friends, hearing Mass in that Oratory, satisfied the precept. For Augustinus was using his right. Moreover, by force of the indult, noble guests can be admitted, even "guests coming for only one day, and those invited to dinner, so that they participate in the privilege, provided that the privileged person is present." Lig., l. c., 361.