False and superfluous worship

God may be wrongly worshipped either by false worship or by superfluous worship being paid him. Worship of God is false when its meaning is not in accordance with fact, or when the falsehood is in the person who performs the act of worship, as when a layman performs the duties of a priest, or when someone tries to gain credence for false miracles or false relics. The ceremonies and practices of the Jewish religion signified that the Messiah was to come, and so now, after the coming of our Lord, they could not be employed without superstition. Inasmuch as falsehood in religion is a grave injury to God, this species of superstition is mortally sinful.

Anything in the worship of God which does not tend to his honour and glory, or which is against the ordinances and practice of the Church, to whom the regulation of religious worship exclusively belongs, is superfluous worship and superstition. This sin is committed by attributing an infallible effect to a fixed number of prayers or acts of piety, or to the mere material wearing of scapulars or medals, or by unwarrantably acting against the rubrics while saying Mass or administering the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church. The intention of the Church is that scapulars, medals, and other pious objects should be used by the faithful with confidence in the goodness and power of God, whose aid is invoked on the wearers by the blessing of the Church. Ordinarily, however, this kind of superstition will not be more than a venial sin.

1. Renatus, a parish priest, from devotion toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, and to promote it more and more, often speaks to his parishioners about the Heart of Jesus doing penance for us, and counsels them this special devotion, namely toward the Penitent Heart of Jesus, and this frequent invocation: Penitent Heart of Jesus for us, have mercy on us.

2. Nicolinus, a parish priest, likewise to promote devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, propagates among his parishioners certain new emblems of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist. For he asserts that worship toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist is more perfect than simple worship toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, since it embraces the Sacrament of the Eucharist itself, which is the Sacrament of love.

3. Nicolaus, a parish priest, propagates a special cult toward the adorable Face of the Divine Redeemer, and one diverse from that usual one, up to now attributed to the image of the Holy Face.

4. Lucianus, a parish priest, from devotion toward St. Joseph, propagates a special cult of this Saint under the title: of St. Joseph, friend of the Sacred Heart. But from devotion toward the Most Holy Virgin he preaches that she is to be worshipped under the title of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and distributes among his parishioners images of that Virgin which represent her standing with hands spread out, and the child Jesus standing likewise before her knees.

5. Lucas, with every effort, from devotion and love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, propagates devotion toward the Most Holy Soul of Jesus Christ, makes an image representing it, and institutes Confraternities in its honor. He likewise propagates devotion toward the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary; he also makes an image, and institutes a Congregation of nuns. Finally, among the faithful he propagates a certain formula of prayer "for obtaining that all men may recognize the supreme dominion of Christ and of Mary Immaculate over all creatures."

Q. What is to be held concerning these various cults?

R. Renatus does not act rightly, nor can he persevere in that practice. For the Holy Office, 15 July 1893, prohibited and condemned the titles: Penitent Heart of Jesus, Penitent Heart of Jesus for us, Penitent Jesus, Penitent Jesus for us. M. E., v. 8, p. 1, p. 175.

Nicolinus likewise does not act rightly, nor can he persevere in his practice. For by the Holy Office, 3 June 1891, it was decided: "The new emblems of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist are not to be approved by the Apostolic See. For fostering the piety of the faithful, the images of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus already used and approved in the Church are sufficient; because the cult toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist is not more perfect than the cult toward the Eucharist itself, nor another from the cult toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus." Monit. Eccles., v. 7, p. 1, p. 101. But when doubts had been proposed: "1. Whether the images of the Sacred Heart representing the Heart alone without the rest of the body can safely be distributed? 2. Whether they are approved at Rome? 3. Whether they must be withdrawn from the houses of the faithful, where they are an object of veneration?" The Holy Office, 26 Aug. 1891, responded: "To the first, second, and third: The image of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, concerning which there is question, is permitted from private devotion, provided it is not exposed on altars to be worshipped with public veneration." M. E., v. 9, p. 1, p. 32.

Nicolaus likewise must abstain from the propagation of the aforesaid special cult, and one diverse from the usual one, toward the adorable Face of the Divine Redeemer. For, when the doubt had been proposed concerning approving or at least permitting a cult of this sort, the Holy Office declared: It is not expedient. Therefore Nicolaus may indeed propagate the cult toward the image of the Face of the Divine Redeemer, or copies of that image, but as it was already usual from ancient times, namely so that in the minds of the faithful, from veneration and contemplation of the aforesaid image, the memory of the sufferings of Christ may grow more day by day, and in their hearts sorrow for faults and an ardent desire of repairing the injuries inflicted on the divine Majesty may be increased. M. E., v. 7, p. 2, p. 221.

As regards Lucianus, concerning the cult of St. Joseph under the title Friend of the Sacred Heart, the Fathers of the S. I. C. "decreed, with the approval of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, that there is not to be an interlocution concerning the matter proposed. Besides, they ordered that the Sacred Congregation of Rites be warned lest in the future decrees, rescripts, etc., be issued in which the new title mentioned above is approved in any way, or even in which mention simply is made of it." M. E., v. 7, p. 2, p. 220. But as regards that title and image of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same S. I. C., 3 Apr. 1895, decreed "that the title indeed can be admitted, but the images are not approved and are to be removed from public veneration."

As regards Lucas, although that prior cult contains nothing false, nor even anything incongruous, nevertheless it is a new cult, as it is proposed, and is not to be propagated publicly without the approval of the Church. "The Most Holy One.... commanded... that the writers are to be warned who sharpen their talents over.... arguments which savor of novelty, and, under the appearance of piety, strive to promote unaccustomed titles of cult even through journals, that they desist from their plan, and weigh the danger which lies beneath of drawing the faithful into error even concerning dogmas of faith, and of giving an occasion to haters of Religion for disparaging the purity of faith, Catholic doctrine, and true piety." Holy Office, 15 July 1893, M. E., v. 8, p. 1, p. 175. And this especially, in this cult of the Soul of Christ, is to be noted: that in it the whole Humanity of Christ and Christ the Redeemer appear less clearly than in the cult of the Most Sacred Heart, the Most Precious Blood, the Five Wounds, and the other mysteries of the life and Passion of Jesus Christ; whence surely the cult seems less suitable to be spread among the people.

But concerning the other cult toward the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the following doubts were proposed: "1. Whether and how it is fitting to approve the title of the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which the new Institute of the Sisters A. of M. of the diocese of P. assumes? 2. Whether, the aforesaid title being admitted, it is fitting also to admit among the other feasts of the aforesaid Institute that of the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary?" The Holy Office, 13 Dec. 1893, responded: "To both, negatively." But as regards that prayer, the Holy Office, 12 June 1895, decreed: "the prayer concerning which there is question is not to be approved, nor propagated among the faithful, nor enriched with indulgences."

Division. This vicious worship is such either because it is of false signification, or because it is exhibited in that mode which violates the custom and prescriptions of the Church: this worship is called superfluous.

I. He commits the superstition of false signification:.

1. Who wishes to honor God through the ceremonies of the old law, for example circumcision: for these signify Christ as about to come.

But circumcision performed for health or cleanliness is not forbidden; or, what missionaries must well attend to, as a gentile custom, or as a profane sign of adhesion to some nation or class. Where such a custom exists, it will be better, if it can be done, to advise that it be done soon after birth rather than that puberty be awaited.

2. A layman who acts as a public minister of the Church; a private person who, by his own authority, proposes certain things to be done, as if they were ordered by the Church to the worship of God.

3. He who proposes false relics, exhibits an image as falsely portentous; he who simulates that he has been enriched with revelations.

4. He who, in order to move the people, lies that some miracle has been done, or feigns that a history is found in Sacred Scripture.

These things of themselves are mortal, because they are injurious to the First Truth, and found religion upon lies. Yet ignorance or simplicity and the lightness of the matter itself can excuse from grave sin, as if, in confirming a true doctrine, some circumstance not explored is exhibited as certain.

Counsels of prudence. Besides the honor to be reserved to Truth, modern studies of the sciences demand that we positively foster no worship of an image or of relics whose authenticity is not morally established.

Yet the prudence by which we ought to avoid the scandal of the little ones at the same time demands that we not rashly attack things which by the very long duration of use have acquired a title of veneration, although perhaps one distinct from that which is vulgarly assigned to those things. For pious places and things can become sacred from pious devotion to the saints.

Wherefore cc. 1283-1285 provide for the authenticity of relics; but at the same time c. 1286 decrees these things: "Let local Ordinaries not permit, especially in sacred sermons, books, newspapers, or periodicals destined for fostering piety, questions concerning the authenticity of sacred relics to be agitated from mere conjectures, from merely probable arguments or prejudiced opinions, especially in words savoring of ridicule or contempt" ¹.

¹ In these matters it is especially useful to distinguish a twofold "critical" ratio: one irritating, which scandalously disturbs simple persons; the other learned and prudent, which gradually unteaches errors: this serves truth, solid piety, and removes obstacles or prejudices to the conversion of the learned.

II. He commits the superstition of superfluous worship. who mixes with true worship some vain, foolish, unsuitable circumstance: for example, if he adds certain things to or subtracts certain things from the ceremonies of Mass; if he places force in a definite number of candles, in the name by which the priest is called; if he trusts in the very number, as such, of prayers; if with certain and firm hope he recites prayers to which special favors or immunities are promised, etc.; if he studiously chooses principal feasts for fasting, and this not so that there may be greater mortification or sins may be expiated, but by placing hope in the day itself. Although the devotion itself of fasting on more solemn days has a savor of singularity which of itself seems little to be commended.

Therefore c. 1261 wisely orders these things: §1 "Let local Ordinaries watch that the prescriptions of the sacred canons concerning divine worship be diligently observed, and especially that no superstitious practice be introduced into divine worship, whether public or private, or into the daily life of the faithful, or that anything alien from the faith or discordant from ecclesiastical tradition or presenting the appearance of base gain be admitted." Moreover, exempt religious also must observe the laws which the local Ordinary has made in this matter for his territory, and their churches or public oratories can be visited for this end (c. 1261 §2).

Those superstitions, since they betray more a weak judgment than a bad will, and since the matter, unless it has been evil, does not gravely dishonor God, will generally be venial in themselves. Yet conscious authors of such superstitions cannot be excused from grave sin. It is also plain that he sins gravely objectively who, in order to honor a Saint, violates prescribed abstinence; and that he will be blasphemous who employs a dishonorable action for divine worship, or makes a vow to complete a crime (something else must be said if, in order to avoid a hangman, he promises by vow something honorable).

The rude are to be well instructed concerning the right use of sacred things: a) that they not add superfluous things to means in themselves good and approved; b) that they apply things used in the Church, for example wax, blessed water, etc., together with humble deprecation and confidence in the goodness of God, but not so that they expect from these things, as if by the work worked, an infallible effect. Cf. Voit, II, 425. Superstitious security prepares difficulties against true faith.

S. Th. II-II, q. 93.

771. Undue worship of the true God (ongeschikte eeredienst) is twofold, either because it is false or because it is superfluous. - For not only every falsity in divine worship imports a certain irreverence toward God, but also whatever superfluity, vanity, or uselessness does nothing toward the end of worship.

772. False or pernicious worship is that through which something false is signified and which contains a pernicious lie:

a) Either on the part of the thing signified, when an act assumed for divine worship signifies something false which does not agree with the signification of worship, for example, if someone uses ceremonies of the Old Law which signify Christ as about to come; if someone proposes false miracles, revelations, prophecies as true; one who proposes false relics to be venerated, or exhibits an image falsely portentous (can. 1283-86, and 2326); one who invents miracles or stories to be found in the Scriptures.

b) Or only on the part of the person worshiping, when someone, acting as a member of the Church, worships God contrary to the mode established by God or the Church, for example, if a faithful person deliberately fasted on the day of Easter, with other days excluded. This happens chiefly in public worship, when someone worships God in the name of the Church who is not a minister of the Church or not deputed to such an act, for example, if a layman or a priest excommunicated by name were to celebrate Mass in the name of the Church, or if a minister performs ceremonies, administers sacraments, by a rite contrary to the will and ordinance of the Church, or by private authority proposes things as if they were ordered by the Church to the worship of God: for he is a falsifier who in the name of another proposes certain things for which he is not deputed (a. 1).

It is a sin from its genus and ordinarily mortal: a pernicious lie in a very grave matter.

Nevertheless Noldin notes, Th. M. II, n. 149, 2: "It is said for the most part, because it seems that it must be conceded that the superstition of false worship is sometimes a venial sin on account of smallness of matter: thus if a preacher in a miraculous story otherwise true added a false circumstance (or one not investigated), or invented an entire story (not miraculous) to move the people more, this could be a venial sin, both because falsity is not employed immediately for worshiping God, and because this does not always greatly prejudice true religion."

773. Superfluous worship is that which does not have falsity in its signification, but is not proportioned to the end of divine worship. For the end is that man give glory to God and subject himself to Him in mind and body. But if something, so far as concerns itself, does not pertain to the glory of God, nor subjects the mind or body of man to God according to the institution and common custom of God and the Church, but is beyond it, this is vain and superfluous in divine worship (a. 2).

It is accustomed to be committed concerning number, color, position, time, etc., for example, a ceremony of hearing Mass before sunrise, with a certain number, position, order of candles, by a priest who is called John, or who has the stature of Christ; in Mass to kiss the foot of the chalice after the elevation; to form more crosses, or to say alleluia more times than has been instituted by the Church; to add or remove the Gloria, Creed, or ceremony besides the rubrics; strange devotions prohibited by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (can. 1261, 1385, 1388, 1399).

It is a sin from its genus venial; per accidens it can be mortal from contempt, scandal, a dishonest ceremony, a grave prohibition of the Church, as if someone were to violate a precept of the Church in order to honor a saint.