Point II. Attention of Mind

344. Attention to Mass is distinguished as twofold: 1. internal, by which someone actually adverts and applies his mind to those things which are performed by the priest; 2. external, which consists in avoiding any external action which impedes application of the mind, for example conversing, painting, etc.

But internal attention is threefold: 1. one kind to the words and actions of the priest; 2. another to the meaning of the words and mysteries; 3. another to God Himself through prayers or pious meditations.

Principles. I. For hearing Mass validly, attention at least external is altogether required; because he who places actions incompatible with internal attention cannot in any way be said to be present at the Mass; indeed, such a person impudently mocks God and the Church. - Thus all.

II. Some internal attention is also required, and at least the will of hearing Mass; because this is wholly required, so that the hearing or presence may be human, moral, and religious from its object. - Suarez, De Euch., disp. 88, sect. 3.

III. But any one of the three internal kinds just set forth suffices, namely whether it is to the words, or to the meaning, or in any way to God. The reason is that by any of them the mind is sufficiently applied to the divine worship which is intended by the Sacrifice.

IV. No vocal prayer is absolutely required; because religious assistance honors God, and nothing else is prescribed. - St. Alphonsus, n. 313. - In practice, however, the faithful, especially the uneducated, are to be advised to recite some prayers, especially the prayers customary for hearing Mass, or the rosary of the Most Blessed Virgin, lest they be exposed to excessive distractions.

345. Questions. Q. 1. Whether internal attention is required under grave obligation to fulfill this precept?

Resp. It is disputed. The first opinion, according to St. Alphonsus the more common and more probable, affirms it. For the Church prescribes an act by which God is worshiped; but God cannot be worshiped by physical presence alone; therefore... Therefore, by directly prescribing the external act of hearing Mass, the Church seems indirectly to prescribe attention, at least some attention, as a condition without which the formal external act would not consist. - Thus St. Thomas, Billuart, Elbel, the Salamancans, and not a few others.

The second opinion denies it. The reason is that assistance with voluntary attention, even if merely external, is a sufficiently religious act, nor is it clear that anything else is prescribed by the Church. - Thus Lugo, with many others; and St. Alphonsus, n. 313, says this is probable, to whom Gousset assents, n. 555 ¹.

¹ St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 313): "The first opinion," which is here placed second, "which Croix (lib. 4, n. 1341) calls more probable when the reason is considered, and (lib. 3, p. 1, n. 658) calls common, cannot be denied to be sufficiently probable... And a fortiori with respect to hearing Mass, for which it suffices to furnish moral assistance, as the cited authors say..., without prayer being expressly required. At least," I say, "given the authority of so many and such great doctors maintaining this opinion, the law supposed by the contrary authors, which would also oblige hearers to internal attention and to prayer, seems sufficiently doubtful, since several grave doctors, such as Lessius, Suarez, Medina, etc., teach that for hearing Mass it is not necessary to pray, but only to intend to worship God."

Besides, in practice there does not appear such great difference between each opinion. For according to the former opinion, attention in a remiss degree is altogether sufficient, namely to the principal parts of the Mass; but according to the latter there is required: 1. a pious movement of the soul, or a true intention of honoring God; 2. such attention that the one assisting at Mass can give an account to himself that he is truly assisting at Mass, and consequently that he advert at least confusedly to its principal parts. Hence the faithful are not easily to be accused of grave fault because of defect of sufficient attention at Mass, but rather are to be lovingly exhorted that they direct their mind piously and carefully to the divine Mysteries. For, St. Alphonsus says, n. 313, after Elbel, Sporer, and Tamburini, no one ought to be anxious on account of a scruple of attention not furnished, because it suffices to have had the general intention of worshiping God.

346. Q. 2. Whether he satisfies the precept who confesses sins during the time of Mass?

Resp. Many deny it. But the affirmative opinion is not lacking its probability, and many doctors admit it ². In general, the faithful do not seem to be disturbed on this matter, nor should a scruple be cast into them, when in some way they attend to the Mass.

² See some authors in St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 314), who nevertheless concludes thus: "This second opinion does not seem entirely destitute of probability, and I myself formerly judged it probable; but because afterward I observed that it is rejected by grave doctors, I now do not dare to call it probable."

But it scarcely appears where there is an excess of external probability for the negative, since for the affirmative also St. Alphonsus himself indicates doctors neither fewer nor less grave, especially because some are brought forward for the negative entirely without relation to the matter, such as, for example, Suarez and Azor, who in reality have nothing on this question, and merely contend that Mass is generally omitted unlawfully so that someone may confess, just as someone would unlawfully omit Mass in order to hear a sermon.

Add that not even St. Alphonsus himself finds any decisive argument for the negative opinion; indeed, he himself observes that the patrons of that opinion, in bringing forward a reason, do not cohere with one another, but that different reasons are brought by different authors; which is an indication that some solid and manifest reason is plainly lacking.

The VV. attack the three things which are indicated in this little note through sixteen columns (pp. 275-283). But many words are not needed to satisfy them.

The first is that in the Note it is said that St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 314) brings forward doctors neither fewer nor less grave for the affirmative opinion than for his opposite negative. But whoever has eyes sees this in the holy Doctor (l.c.); for is any grave author seen to be alleged there by the holy Doctor besides Lugo? And since St. Alphonsus rightly judges invalid the reason by which Bonacina says he was moved to change his opinion, does not even his vote collapse in itself? But even the VV. themselves finally produce only two on their side whom they dare call grave doctors, namely Suarez and Lugo; and in reality they would with sufficient difficulty sell as grave doctors Collet, Pontas, Holzmann, Antoine, and certain other writers of some compendium, who by their vote of itself perhaps contribute nothing even to increasing the number of those voting for some opinion. Now since Suarez, as we shall soon say, is wrongly invoked for the negative opinion, therefore one grave doctor remains, Lugo. But opposed to him in St. Alphonsus (l.c.) you will see Lessius, Palaus, and Reginald. But, as can be seen in the catalogue of writers prefixed to this volume, St. Alphonsus, according to the testimony of the very distinguished Fr. Haringer, holds Palaus as an altogether grave author, but Lessius and Reginald as classic authors. Therefore not undeservedly was it said in the Note that St. Alphonsus brings forward doctors neither fewer nor less grave for the affirmative opinion than for his opposite opinion. But as regards the number of writers of whatever sort, if someone wishes to see more even for the affirmative opinion besides St. Alphonsus, let him go to Pellizzarius (Man. Regul., tr. 5, c. 4, sect. 2, n. 50).

Let us come to the second point: whether rightly or wrongly it is said in the Note that Suarez and Azor are brought forward without relation to the matter for the negative opinion. So that the matter may appear briefly and clearly, let two questions be distinguished with Pasqualigo. One is (quest. 1319): Whether he satisfies the precept who, hearing Mass, at the same time confesses his sins; and this is the question of which we are treating at present. The other is (quest. 1343): Whether greater spiritual utility excuses from hearing Mass; and this, as is clear, is very diverse and has nothing in common with the preceding question. But both Azor and Suarez treat of this latter question, not of the first. And indeed, to persuade of this, the titles of the chapters where they propose the question are sufficient. For in Azor it is (part 1, lib. 7, c. 7): "On the causes by which those are excused who do not hear Mass." And in Suarez (In 3 Part., disp. 88, sect. 6): "By what modes someone can be excused from hearing Mass on a day on which it is prescribed." Therefore their question is not concerning him who stands present at Mass, yet in such a way that it is doubted whether he assists rightly and validly, but concerning him who for some cause omits Mass, or does not assist at Mass. Accordingly Suarez adds other examples of one omitting Mass, both in him who omits Mass for the sake of hearing a sermon, and in him who omits Mass so that he may be free in his room for contemplation of God. Therefore it is no wonder that Pellizzarius (l.c.) warns that neither Suarez nor Azor is opposed to the author's opinion; and concerning the opposite opinion Leander (De Audit. Miss., tr. 2, disp. 1, q. 71) wrote: "These authors cite Suarez and Azor for this side; but certainly badly"; likewise Escobar (lib. 42, c. 9, dub. 35, n. 182): "Suarez and Azor are cited for this opinion; but undeservedly." - The VV. seize for themselves those words of Suarez: "He who during the time of Mass confesses his sins." Very fine indeed! But when Suarez wishes to bring forward an example of one who is excused from hearing Mass because of greater spiritual utility or necessity, could he have proposed the hypothesis of a confession which could be made either before or after the celebration of Mass, so that someone could conveniently furnish each, namely both hear Mass and then confess sins? But this can deservedly displease more: that where Suarez (l.c.) writes that the work of the precept, namely Mass, must not be omitted on account of voluntary works of this sort, even if they are imagined to be more useful, the VV., in order to bend the opinion of Suarez to themselves, almost feign these words for him: "not to be excused from transgression of the precept." Nowhere is it to be found that St. Alphonsus ever used arts of this sort.

The third thing said in the Note is this: that St. Alphonsus did not find a decisive argument for his opinion, indeed that he himself observed that the patrons of that opinion are not in agreement in bringing forward a reason. Against this the VV. (p. 281) oppose that the reasons on which the negative opinion of St. Alphonsus rests are most solid. - But plainly even the judgment of St. Alphonsus stands in the way of these things. For after weighing the reasons, he himself had judged each opinion probable. But if afterward he said that he did not dare to call the affirmative opinion probable, he indeed confesses that he was moved to this by some external authority, of what sort we saw above, but not by force of reasons, which he brings forward in the final edition entirely the same as he had brought forward in the first, and which the VV. finally gathered for him from other authors. Therefore, with St. Alphonsus as judge, that immense weight of reasons is sought in vain, unless perhaps the VV. wish to hold the holy Doctor as less sharp-sighted.

And to inspect these reasons a little: Collet, with Cabassut and Pontas, whom St. Alphonsus added in later editions to those first alleged, uses (tom. 3, n. 351) the reason that attention ought to be by way of prayer, which is not present in examining faults and their circumstances. But St. Alphonsus (l.c.) thus judges concerning this reason: "Bonacina and Bassaeus deny it, because he would not pray; but this is opposed by what Suarez, Lessius, etc., teach, that it suffices to hear Mass by worshiping God, for which worship prayer is not absolutely necessary." Do the VV. acquiesce in this judgment of the holy Doctor? Therefore that reason is not very valid.

The holy Doctor brings forth another reason, into which also the reason alleged by Lugo falls back, namely because the one confessing would then be present as the accused, not now as offering the Sacrifice with the priest. But what is the reason that St. Alphonsus does not reject those who say, with the more common or with the common opinion, that the priest satisfies the precept of hearing Mass while he receives confessions? Does the person of judge fit more with the person of one co-offering the Sacrifice than the person of the accused? Or does the confessor exhibit greater external attention than the penitent? Or can the one have less internal attention or virtual intention, as they say, than the other? Why will he satisfy the precept, as they concede, who, kneeling at the grate of the confessional while he waits for the priest, is wholly engaged in examining faults and their circumstances and number, and in fixing these in memory in order, but will not satisfy when confessing these to God in the person of the minister? Why does he sufficiently hear Mass, as they concede, who, suffering ecstasy, exhibits scarcely material presence, or also a priest who hears the Mass of another while he himself celebrates Mass? Where do you find, apart from virtual intention, the moral presence or the attention, internal or external, which they require? What is the reason that most also who stand for the negative opinion concede that one confessing sacramentally can satisfy the precept if in some way he can also attend to the Mass? Where has the argument taken from the necessity of moral presence, by which he is shown as offering with the priest, now gone?

Let us conclude: where very valid reasons are present, there is not usually labor in finding them nor disagreement among approved authors in estimating and employing them; and again, where reasons are very valid, it does not happen that in very similar cases they now have force and now do not have force. But it is clear, from the things said, more than enough, that these two things happen with respect to the reasons drawn out for the negative opinion. Therefore.

Q. 3. Whether a cleric reciting the Breviary during the time of Mass satisfies the precept of the Church?

Resp. It is affirmed. The reason is that recitation of the divine Office does not prevent someone from being able to be present at the Sacrifice of the Mass and to exhibit moral presence to it. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus, n. 309. - See On Laws, 106.

347. Resolves. 1. Those serving Mass satisfy the precept; for they attend sufficiently by exhibiting their ministry, by which they actually cooperate with the Sacrifice. The same is to be said of sacristans, musicians, organists, drummers, etc.; because their acts are referred to the worship of God and do not impede the necessary attention to those things which are performed at the altar. - St. Alphonsus, n. 317 ³.

³ When St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 309) agrees that those serving Mass satisfy the precept, even if they depart for bringing the necessary things, he limits it thus: "Thus must be held with Elbel, Palaus, and Bonacina, if it is for a short time, OR one does not go out of the church" (but in the edition of the year 1748: "if it is for a short time AND one does not go out of the church") against Dic., Leander, and Diana in the Salamancans. But the alleged authors do not have it thus. For Bonacina (De Sacr., disp. 4, q. ult., p. 11, n. 18), and Palaus (tr. 22, disp. un., p. 16, n. 7), and Elbel (conf. 12, in 3 Praec., n. 356) say: "Provided you have not withdrawn from the church, except for a short time," as the Salamancans (tr. 5, c. 6, n. 21), alleged by St. Alphonsus, also report.

2. Those who collect alms satisfy, provided at least they attend confusedly. - St. Alphonsus, ibid. ⁴; but if they foresee that they cannot furnish this attention, let them hear another Mass, if they conveniently can.

⁴ Truly, says St. Alphonsus, n. 317, such distraction does not seem to be incompatible, namely with attention which is sufficient.

3. They satisfy who, during the time of Mass, examine their conscience in order to confess, perform a sacramental penance, or even make a prayer owed by any title; because by these things the mind is directed to God, and on the other hand satisfaction can be made to two precepts at the same time, if the things prescribed can be performed at the same time. - Thus commonly. - Likewise those who read some spiritual book, but not sacred histories with the mind of learning style. - St. Alphonsus, n. 314.

4. They satisfy also who are involuntarily distracted, even during the whole time of the Sacrifice, unless they are so carried away by alien thoughts that they in no way attend; for then they satisfy no more than those involuntarily sleeping through a notable part of Mass, although they are excused from sin. Thus commonly. But one dozing sometimes during the Sacrifice satisfies, or at least does not gravely offend, provided he in some way adverts to that which is being done. - St. Alphonsus, n. 316.

5. They satisfy, also as to the substance, or are excused from grave fault, who are voluntarily distracted even during the whole time of the Sacrifice, provided they attend at the same time; for this can sometimes happen, if the distractions are not so vehement, since a man can think of several things at the same time. - Reuter, n. 284. ⁵.

⁵ This precept requires nothing else except that someone begin to hear Mass "with the intention of attending," or, insofar as lies in him, "of being free for God, and that this mind not be changed to the contrary... Hence as often as the aforesaid person does not deliberately turn his mind away from the said intention, although while hearing the Sacrifice he is distracted, he satisfies the precept... And, what is more, and is especially to be noted for removing the scruples of many, although one who began to hear Mass in the aforesaid manner... afterward, while he hears it, of his own accord and advertently wanders in mind about other things, if he does not advert that by this he is distracted from Mass..., he satisfies the said precept, because here he is not voluntarily distracted from Mass, and therefore the first attention remains virtually." Thus the Salamancans, with many authorities alleged (De Sacrif. Missae, cap. 6, n. 41-42).

6. But they by no means satisfy who converse about a serious matter through a notable part of Mass, or attentively consider images, scan with their eyes the furnishings of the church, read inscriptions or other profane things, meditate on the sciences, paint, or perform other similar things, unless these are done intermittently, or in such a way that they do not altogether impede attention ⁶. - St. Alphonsus, n. 317. - See Cases, n. 345 and following.

⁶ Yet attention of this sort, which is sufficient, is not easily accustomed to be impeded by conversation; because, as the Author notes in the preceding resolution, a man can attend to several things at the same time, though somewhat more remissly. Hence the Salamancans (De Sacrif. Missae, cap. 6, n. 50) excuse from mortal sin if the conversation is discontinuous and through a small part of Mass, or is not about a serious matter, but about a light one, which does not impede necessary attention but only makes it more remiss; whence they conclude that in this way one indeed sins by irreverence, but satisfies the precept.

It must be noted besides, as Suarez has (De Eucharist., disp. 88, sect. 3), namely that a depraved intention joined to the will of hearing Mass is not contrary to the fulfillment of this precept, if on the other hand it does not exclude sufficient attention. And so, although someone goes to church from a lustful intention of seeing a woman, or even if he assists at the office of Mass with the same intention, nevertheless, if he does not exclude the will of fulfilling this ecclesiastical precept, and is sufficiently attentive, he fulfills it. You have the same in Lugo (De Euch., disp. 22, n. 23).