Article First. On the Mode of Hearing Mass

Required conditions. Five things are required for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass: a. due intention; b. due attention; c. an entire Mass; d. presence of the body; e. a due place.

262. Due intention, which indeed ought not to be the intention of obtaining the end of the precept, nor the intention of satisfying the precept, but of positing the work prescribed by the Church, that is, of hearing Mass. Wherefore he does not satisfy the precept who goes to church merely to hear music; but he does satisfy who goes there only from fear of his parents.

263. Due attention. A twofold attention is distinguished: external and internal. The latter excludes internal distraction; the former, external distraction.

External attention consists negatively in the removal of an external action which cannot stand at the same time with internal attention, for example sleeping, conversing; positively it consists in a certain confused attention, by which one adverts that sacrifice is being offered on the altar (n. 139).

1. For satisfying the ecclesiastical precept, external attention is certainly required, without which assistance would not be a human nor a religious action; therefore he does not satisfy who during the time of Mass attentively reads profane books, or attentively considers pictures, reads inscriptions, etc.

From the law of nature, or from the virtue of religion, internal attention is required under light obligation, which the reverence owed to God demands while we worship Him.

2. From the precept of the Church internal attention is not required, but external suffices; wherefore he satisfies the precept of hearing Mass who during the whole time of Mass is distracted, whether involuntarily or voluntarily. And indeed prayer does not require internal attention; therefore a fortiori the hearing of Mass does not require it.

a. Since for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass there is no need to pray, because the Church commands nothing other than an act of divine worship, the whole question comes back to this, whether an act of divine worship can truly be furnished with the mind distracted. Now just as prayer, so also any other act of external divine worship as to its substance can be exhibited with the mind distracted (n. 139).

b. For practice, there is scarcely a distinction between each opinion, namely that affirming and that denying that internal attention is required: since the patrons of the affirmative opinion with St. Alphonsus (n. 313) demand so slight an internal attention that from defect of attention the hearing of Mass is invalid only when the distraction has been total and voluntary; but it is valid, provided there be an attention by which in some way one adverts that sacrifice is being offered; but this attention is present, provided external distraction is excluded.

c. Therefore he does not satisfy the precept who sleeps heavily through a notable part of Mass, so that he does not advert to what is being done at the altar; but he who only dozes, yet in such a way that he can confusedly discern what is being done at the altar, satisfies the precept, even if this happens through a notable part of Mass. - He satisfies the precept who sometimes converses with a companion, because this does not impede the confused attention which suffices for satisfying the precept. - Likewise organists, singers, and those collecting alms satisfy, even if they are occupied with this matter the whole time, because these actions do not impede attention to the Mass. For the same reason, those who are half-asleep or half-drunk satisfy if they are present at the sacrifice of the Mass.

Whether he satisfies the precept who confesses his sins during the time of Mass. - He would not satisfy insofar as confession impeded external attention; but confession, just as the hearing of confession, does not exclude external attention, which several authors hold not improbably.¹

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 773 ff.; Genicot, I, n. 431.

264. Hearing an entire Mass. 1. It does not suffice to assist at the essential and integral part of the sacrifice, but by the precept of the Church one must assist at the whole Mass, that is, at the entire liturgical function from the psalm Iudica up to and including the priestly blessing.¹ The Gospel of St. John does not seem to pertain to the integrity of the Mass.

2. He who cannot assist at an entire Mass is held to assist at least at the essential and integral part, that is, the consecration and communion, if he can; he who cannot assist even at these parts is not held to assist at the accidental parts, because he can no longer fulfill the precept even as to its substance.

Therefore he who comes before the consecration and cannot assist at another Mass is held to hear the remaining part; but he who comes after the consecration is not held to hear the remaining part, because he does not assist at the essence of the sacrifice, for which the consecration is certainly required. Hence in this case he cannot satisfy the precept as to substance; but the Church does not command us to assist at ceremonies alone without the sacrifice. Therefore in practice in this case the obligation cannot be urged.²

3. Therefore to omit a part of Mass is a sin, and indeed grave or light according as the part omitted is notable or slight. But the gravity of the omitted part must be established not only from duration, but especially from its dignity; wherefore a third part of the Mass is judged notable, and if it is from the more worthy parts, even a lesser part can constitute a notable part. Accordingly:

a. A slight part, the omission of which is a light sin: from the beginning up to and including the Creed, or up to the offertory exclusively; all things after communion; up to the epistle exclusively and at the same time those things which follow communion; the offertory alone; the preface alone.

b. A notable part: alpha. by reason of duration, from the beginning up to and including the offertory; all things before the Gospel and at the same time those things which follow communion; beta. by reason of dignity: from the preface exclusively up to the consecration; from the consecration up to the Pater noster; consecration and communion together, even if the intervening parts are heard; the consecration alone, yet not (at least probably) the communion alone. - He who goes out of the church before the consecration and, the consecration having been completed, immediately enters, in rigor does not satisfy the precept. Yet because the time in which he is absent is very brief, he need not necessarily be compelled to assist at another Mass, provided the consecration and communion are not omitted together.³

c. For determining the sin of those who come to church later, when Mass has already begun, attention must be given not so much to the part of the Mass omitted, but chiefly to the greater or lesser negligence in caring for the integrity of the Mass and to the foresight of the danger to which they voluntarily exposed themselves of not hearing an entire Mass.⁴ For he who thinks that he will omit only a slight part unless he dispatches himself more quickly sins lightly, even if he finally comes after the offertory; but he who doubts or thinks that he will omit a notable part unless he dispatches himself more quickly, and culpably neglects this, sins gravely, even if he comes at the Gloria.

Whether he satisfies the precept who hears two half Masses. - He certainly does not satisfy if he hears them at the same time, because a Mass by its nature consists of successive parts.⁵ If he hears them successively and the consecration and communion are had in the same Mass, he satisfies, because he hears one entire Mass; but if the consecration and communion are not had in the same Mass, he does not satisfy, because the parts do not constitute one and entire sacrifice; but the Church commands assistance at one and entire sacrifice.

4. From these things is gathered the obligation of supplying the defect in another Mass, where it can be done, if someone has omitted a part of the Mass at which he was present for the consecration and communion: for since anyone is held to hear an entire Mass, he who omitted a notable part is held under grave obligation to supply it, and he who omitted a slight part, under light obligation; yet a little is accounted as nothing, and a reasonable cause excuses from the obligation of supplying a light defect.

¹ C. Missas 64, De cons., d. 1.

² Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 781.

³ Suarez, De eucharistia, q. 88, sect. 2, n. 6.

⁴ Genicot, I, n. 339.

⁵ This proposition (53) was proscribed by Innocent XI: He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed four, at the same time from diverse celebrants.

265. Bodily presence, which must be at least moral; but he is judged morally present who a. is morally joined with the celebrant, and b. whether standing inside or outside the church, can see or hear the celebrant or at least can follow the Mass from signs of those assisting. Hence he satisfies:

a. He who is inside the church, even if he stands in the choir behind the altar, or behind a wall or column, or in some chapel where he cannot see or hear the priest, provided that either from the sound of the bell or from the signs of others who hear Mass, he discerns what is being done by the celebrant. Likewise he who in a great church is even very far (beyond thirty paces) distant from the altar at which Mass is being celebrated, provided he can advert to what the priest does, because he is morally joined with the celebrant.¹

b. He who is in the sacristy or in another place near the altar, from which he can see the priest; or even if, the door being closed, he cannot see the priest, provided he hears what is being done at the altar. Likewise those who withdraw from the church for a brief time to ring the bells or to bring wine, because they do not morally withdraw: for they cooperate with the sacrifice and withdraw from the intention of cooperating.

c. He who is outside the church but near the door, even if closed, provided he can follow the Mass by hearing. Likewise he who is at some distance from the church, which cannot hold the multitude of the faithful, provided he is joined to the multitude. Finally also he who from the window of a private house looks at the altar, even if a street is interposed, provided the house is not more than thirty paces distant from the church (as de Lugo has it). But he does not satisfy who is outside the church at a distance which exceeds about thirty paces, even if he can follow the Mass, because he is no longer morally joined with the celebrant.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 312.

266. Due place. 1. The faithful can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in any church or in any public or semi-public oratory.

a. The ancient law by which the faithful on Sundays and feasts were held to hear Mass in the parish church has long since been abrogated, both through privileges granted to mendicants¹ and through a contrary custom prevailing in the whole world. Therefore a bishop cannot command his faithful to hear Mass in the parish church, because he cannot abrogate a universal custom which has already put on the nature of common law.²

b. What from the common doctrine of authors has long since been brought into practice, namely that for satisfying the precept it suffices to hear Mass in a semi-public oratory, has recently been confirmed by an authentic declaration of the Holy See.³

2. With special privilege excluded, he who hears Mass in a private oratory does not fully satisfy the precept:⁴ for the precept is twofold, of hearing Mass and of hearing it in the due place; he satisfies the first, but not the other.

He who has an indult of a private oratory satisfies the precept by hearing Mass there. Yet in order that it be established who and when satisfy the precept by hearing Mass in a private oratory, the indults must be considered. Ordinarily these things are gathered from the indults:

a. Only one Mass can be celebrated on the same day.

b. On any day one Mass can be celebrated except on more solemn feasts. But these more solemn feasts which are excepted are: the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Thursday in the Lord's Supper, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost, Immaculate Conception, Annunciation and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the feast of St. Joseph, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of All Saints, the feast of the patron of the place.⁵

c. But when an indult of a private oratory is granted because of infirmity, no day is excepted; indeed, even on the day of the Nativity three Masses can be celebrated.

d. In order that it be lawful to celebrate in a private oratory, it is required that there be present at Mass someone from those to whom the indult has been principally granted; but the indult is understood to have been principally granted only to those to whom the brief of concession is directed, namely to those persons who are named by their proper name on the back of the same brief.

e. The following satisfy the precept: alpha. those to whom the indult has been principally granted; beta. their blood relatives and relations by affinity up to the fourth degree living in the same house; gamma. their guests; delta. their household members or servants whose service at the time of Mass is actually necessary, whether because they serve the Mass itself, or because they must accompany their masters.

3. He who has the privilege of a private oratory is not held to use the privilege for satisfying the precept if he cannot go to a church, even if he can conveniently have a priest. He is held to this neither by force of the privilege, because no one is held to use a privilege, nor by force of the precept, which does not obligate one to employ an extraordinary means so that the precept can be observed.

For the same reason a priest is not held to use the privilege of celebrating on a portable (movable) altar or in a private oratory for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass on a feast day.

¹ Const. of Pius V, Etsi mendicantium, 16 May 1567, Section 2, n. 8.

² Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 14, n. 10.

³ S. C. R., 23 Jan. 1899.

⁴ Oratories which are erected with the license of the Holy See in the villas of religious are merely private oratories, because villas of this kind are not religious houses, but profane houses. Therefore in them the precept of hearing Mass cannot be satisfied by those who do not belong to the religious, unless this has been granted by a special privilege, as was granted by Gregory XIII to the Society of Jesus.

⁵ S. C. R., 10 Apr. 1896, n. 3896.

ECCLESIASTICAL laws of the early Christian centuries show us that the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays dates from the earliest times. This obligation is grave, for Innocent XI condemned a proposition¹ which asserted the contrary, Besides hearing Mass it is a laudable thing to spend some time on Sundays in other acts of piety and prayer, as all good Catholics do. Still there is no other positive obligation besides that of hearing Mass which binds under sin. It is not a sin, then, to omit evening service or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament; and when it is impossible to hear Mass, there is no strict obligation to have private devotions instead.

In order to fulfil the precept of hearing Mass according to the mind of the Church, the whole of Mass must be heard, in the proper place, while bodily present where it is being celebrated, with devout attention. Something must be said on each of these points.

¹ Prop. 52.

The whole of Mass must be heard, so that at least a venial sin is committed if one be wilfully absent during any portion of it. The sin will not be grave unless a notable part of the Mass be missed. What is a notable part depends partly on its importance, partly on the length or quantity. Inasmuch as the essence of the Mass in all probability consists in the act of consecration, to be voluntarily absent during the consecration would be mortally sinful; one would not have heard Mass. Certainly it is a grave sin to be wilfully absent during both the consecration and the communion. Up to the offertory is called the Mass of the catechumens, and as this forms a kind of introduction to the Mass proper, to come in only at the offertory probably does not amount to more than a venial sin. We may take it as a general rule that a mortal sin is committed if a third part of Mass be missed, and less is sufficient for a grave sin when any action of special importance in the sacrifice is in the portion missed. In case of involuntary absence during a notable portion of Mass there will be an obligation of making it up by hearing that portion of another Mass if there be an opportunity of doing so on the same day. The consecration, however, and the communion must always be in the same Mass. There is no obligation to make up small portions of the Mass which have not been heard.

A proposition condemned by Innocent XI falsely asserted that one might satisfy the precept of hearing Mass by being present while two portions were being said by different priests.1

The Affirmative and Negative Parts of the First Precept.—The first precept of the Church has two parts, an affirmative (preceptive) part which commands the hearing of Mass, and a negative (prohibitive) part which forbids the doing of servile works. The law is therefore most salutary and simple, requiring that one take part in the greatest act of worship, the sacrifice which is a commemoration of Christ, and that one rest from the labors and cares of the week and be spiritually refreshed. In reference to the Mass, the precept requires that Mass itself be heard, and that it be an entire Mass and the same Mass.

(a) Thus, Mass itself must be heard, and hence one does not satisfy the Sunday obligation by attending other services that precede (e.g., the Asperges, blessing of palm), accompany (e.g., sermon), or follow (e.g., Vespers, Benediction) the celebration of Mass. Neither does this precept oblige one to attend other services on Sunday, although it is most suitable to do this, also to make internal acts of faith, hope and charity, and to read pious books and perform works of charity, and it is sometimes necessary as a natural obligation to attend the sermon or catechetical instruction (see 914 sqq.).

(b) A whole Mass must be heard, that is, all the ceremonies from the prayers at the foot of the altar until the blessing at the end, and it is irreverent to leave church without necessity before the priest has left the altar. He who can assist at only the essential and integral parts of the sacrifice (i.e., from the Consecration to the Communion), is obliged to so much; but he who arrives after the Consecration and cannot hear another Mass is not obliged according to one opinion to remain for the present Mass, since the Consecration, the essential part, is already past.

(c) The same Mass must be heard, and hence one cannot satisfy the obligation by hearing the first half of one Mass being said on one altar and the second half of another Mass being said simultaneously on another altar (see Denzinger, n. 1203), nor by hearing the Consecration in one Mass and the Communion in a previous or subsequent Mass, thus dividing the sacrifice. But if one may have heard from the Consecration to the end in one Mass, one may hear the omitted pre-Consecration parts, it seems, in another Mass that follows, and one should do this if possible.

How Mass Must Be Heard.—In reference to the person who hears Mass, the positive part of the precept calls for external assistance and internal devotion.

(a) Thus, the external or bodily assistance must be such that one can be said to take part in the divine worship. This happens when one is physically present, that is, when one is in the same building or place as the celebrant and can either see or hear him, or is morally present, that is, not in the same building but able to see or hear him naturally (e.g., by looking from the window of a neighboring house), or is unable to see or hear him but joined with the congregation (e.g., those who are outside the closed doors of the church but who can follow the bells and choir to some extent, those who are inside with the congregation but behind a pillar that shuts off the view). In a field Mass amplifiers can carry the voice far out to the edge of a vast crowd. But there does not seem to be a sufficient moral presence when Mass is “seen” by television or “heard” over the radio, since in these cases one is not present to the consecrated species or united to the worshippers.

(b) Internal or mental assistance requires the actual or virtual intention of the will to perform what the Church requires (see 2165), and the attention of the mind, external according to some, internal according to others (see 2166 sqq.). Thus, he who goes to church merely to hear the music or look at the pictures does not hear Mass for lack of intention; he who sleeps soundly all through the service does not hear Mass for lack of attention. One who knows what is going on before him, but whose thoughts are not on any religious matter, complies with the precept of the Church according to some, but he sins by irreverence and voluntary distraction. It suffices during Mass to think either on the Mass itself (which is the best attention), or to think on other pious subjects (e.g., to make an examination of conscience, to say the Rosary). Certain actions (e.g., those that are related to the Mass, such as ringing the bell, taking up the collection, playing the organ) do not exclude external attention, but others certainly exclude it (e.g., writing a letter), and others are doubtful (e.g., going to Confession).

Time and Place of Mass.—In reference to circumstances, the precept requires that Mass be heard at the proper place and the proper time.

(a) Place.—The precept may be complied with by attending Mass in any Catholic rite (Latin, Greek, etc.), and it makes no difference whether Mass is celebrated in the open air, in a church, or in a public or semi-public oratory (Canon 1249). But private chapels are for the benefit of the grantee alone.

(b) Time.—The precept must be complied with on the feast itself, that is, during the period of twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight. Sunday Mass cannot be anticipated on Saturday or put off till Monday. Likewise servile works are unlawful from midnight to midnight.

What is the third precept of the Decalogue? - The third precept of the Decalogue is: Remember that you sanctify the sabbath day ... you shall not do any work in it. Ex. 20:8, 10. Two things are contained in this precept: that man be free on the sabbath for divine things, and that he cease from every servile work. This precept is natural insofar as it commands that some time be dedicated to public divine worship; but insofar as in the Old Law it designates the sabbath, in the New Law Sunday by the determination of the Church, and other feast days, it is positive. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 4.

This precept, as determined by the Church, insofar as it is negative, chiefly prohibits servile works on a feast day. But insofar as it is affirmative, it commands under grave obligation to be present at Mass on Sundays and other feast days. And this is clear: 1. from various places of Canon Law, especially from C. Missas 64, de Consecr., D. 1, likewise from C. Omnes 63, de Consecr., D. 1; 2. from all Catechisms, by which the indubitable precept of hearing Mass on these days is declared; 3. from proposition 52 condemned by Innocent XI. But each, both to be present at Mass and to cease from servile works, is more truly from the precept of the Church; for this third precept of the Decalogue as to the sabbath day was ceremonial; and otherwise the Church could not dispense in these things, at least as to Sundays. S. Th. l. c. Besides this, however, it commands nothing else under grave obligation, or even under light obligation per se. The reason is that in fact nothing else is found prescribed in Law, or legitimately introduced by custom.

Hence it is clear: 1. That in reality there is no obligation from the force of this precept, insofar as it is natural or insofar as it is ecclesiastical, under grave or under light obligation, per se, of assisting at the evening office on Sundays and feast days, or of hearing a sermon. From the force of this precept; for perhaps someone could sin against other virtues and obligations of his state by omitting a sermon, catechesis, and other works of piety. 2. That he who hears a single Mass on the day of the Nativity of Jesus Christ satisfies this precept. 3. That there is no obligation of hearing Mass on Ash Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of greater week, nor on the days of Rogation, and on the day of all the faithful departed.

But this precept obliges all the baptized who have the use of reason, even priests not celebrating, but not infants before the completed seventh year, or catechumens. The first reason is because it is universal. The second reason is because then they are not yet regularly capable of observing it in a human manner. The third reason is because they are not subject to the Church.

Finally the obligation of a feast day begins from one midnight to another. For such is the present use of the Roman Church. Roman Catechism, n. 1 seqq.; L. 263-271, 308; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4; Struggl 12-14; Ithur., Cas. 20, nn. 1-4; E. M.

What is required for hearing Mass rightly? - For hearing Mass rightly it is required: 1. that the whole Mass be heard; 2. that it be heard in a due place; 3. with the body present; 4. with the mind attentive.

What sort is the obligation of hearing the whole Mass? - Mass must be heard entire under grave obligation; and consequently freely to omit a notable part of it is a mortal sin. This is proved: 1. from C. Missas, de Consecrat., D. 1; 2. from the common consent of theologians; 3. because in a thing of great moment and gravely prescribed, freely to omit a notable part is a grave sin. Now a notable part is a part pertaining to the essence of the sacrifice; half or even a third part of the whole Mass, pertaining to integrity, and it can even be a smaller part if the dignity of the omitted part compensates for duration. But there is no obligation of hearing Mass only in one's own rite. S. C. de P. F., 11 Dec. 1838; E. M. 642.

You will resolve: It is grave to omit together the consecration and Communion, because then the essential nature of the sacrifice is lacking; indeed even the consecration alone, because it is the most worthy part, in which at least chiefly it consists. Indeed, more probably, it is grave not to be present at even one consecration only, because the essence of the sacrifice more probably consists in both consecrations. L., H. A. 33: "Yet others, such as Lugo, Tamburini, Diana, Escobar, excuse from grave sin, even if the whole consecration is omitted, since it is not sufficiently established whether the essence of the sacrifice is truly in the consumption or consecration; and Elbel with Suarez, etc., think it probable, and Sporer, etc., strongly adhere... This opinion does not seem improbable." L. 110.

But whether to pass over only Communion is grave is controverted. The affirmative opinion is more probable to St. Alphonsus, who thinks that the essence of the sacrifice also consists in Communion. Yet the more common opinion places it essentially in the consecration alone. But Communion pertains to the integrity and fullness of the sacrifice.

Hence he does indeed satisfy the precept who successively hears two halves of Mass from different priests, if the consecration and Communion are found in the same part of the Mass, because then the integral nature of the sacrifice is had in the same part, although he hears them in reversed order, or with some interval of time interposed, but not beyond an hour, L. 311. But he by no means satisfies if the consecration and Communion are not in the same part, because he does not assist at a sacrifice substantially integral. L., H. A. 34. Successively; for if simultaneously, he does not satisfy, prop. 63 condemned by Innocent XI.

From this it also follows that he who arrives after the consecration is at least probably not bound to hear the rest, because the essence of the sacrifice is now lacking, and therefore the obligation of assisting at it ceases, since the precept cannot be fulfilled through this. Yet the opposite opinion also rests on a grave foundation, because assistance can be had at a notable part of the ceremony prescribed by the Church. After the consecration; for if he came before, "it must altogether be affirmed that he is bound, with Sanchez, the Salmanticenses, Lugo, Suarez, and the common opinion." And indeed then both a part altogether notable and the whole essence of the sacrifice are had. L. 310.

It is grave to omit all things up to the offertory inclusively, or all things before the gospel, and at the same time all things after Communion, because this is a notable part as to integrity. Likewise the omission of the canon from the Preface exclusively to the consecration, and from the consecration exclusively to the Pater exclusively, must be held grave, because it is a notable part by duration and dignity at the same time.

On the contrary, it is certainly light to omit all things up to the epistle exclusively, and more probably even inclusively; indeed probably even, according to St. Liguori, n. 310, up to the Gospel inclusively. Suarez, de Euch., d. 89, s. 3. Likewise it is light to omit all things which follow Communion; indeed to omit all things after Communion and all things before the epistle. The reason is that they do not constitute a notable part by reason of integrity, if attention is given: 1. that the Gospel of St. John at the end probably is not part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed through the blessing; 2. that one account is had of the Mass of the catechumens, another of the Mass of the faithful, which extends from the offertory to the consumption.

But to omit all things up to the epistle inclusively, and all things after the consumption, "Bauny and Llamas also excuse; but Palaus, Suarez, etc., more commonly cited by Croix, contradict." L. 310. As to the Creed, since it is not a regular part, St. Alphonsus, n. 310, judges with others that no account is to be had of it. As to the offertory, its omission is reputed light, and the same is thought about the Preface, for neither pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, nor is either a notable part by reason of integrity or dignity. L. 310; E. M.

Note: Whether he who omits a light part of Mass is bound to supply it if he can: some affirm, because he is bound to hear Mass entire. But others probably deny, "because the precept has already been fulfilled substantially... and that manner of supplying it is very imperfect, and not much conducing to the integrity of the Mass... and because moral things are not to be weighed so rigorously, especially when they are lighter." Suarez, de Euch., d. 88, s. 2; L. 310.

338. Principles. I. All the faithful having the use of reason are bound under grave obligation on each Sunday and feast day to be present at Mass, unless they are excused by a just cause. This is clear: 1. from various places of canon law, especially from c. Missas 64, De Consecrat., dist. 1; likewise from c. Omnes 63, De Consecrat., dist. 1; 2. from all catechisms, in which the undoubted precept concerning Mass to be heard on these days is declared.

I said under grave obligation; for the matter is grave both in itself and according to the common estimation of the faithful and the unanimous consent of theologians.

339. II. Besides this, the faithful are bound to furnish nothing else by force of the precept, at least under grave obligation. The reason is that nothing else is found certainly prescribed. This is the common doctrine of theologians.

I said at least under grave obligation. For most theologians add that not even under light obligation per se. For although servile works are prohibited for this reason, that the faithful may more easily be free for divine things, nevertheless these are prescribed by no law; but otherwise the end of the precept does not fall under the precept. - Thus Suarez, De Relig., tom. 1, lib. 2, c. 16, n. 4; Elbel, n. 385 and following, and many others, as even Concina confesses, who calls this opinion common.

Hence one excused on Sunday from Mass is not bound by reason of the precept to pay at home the prayers which he would have recited during the Mass, or which he is accustomed to recite. - Suarez, ibid.

III. Nevertheless by accident the faithful can be held to something else, not indeed by force of this precept, but because it can be necessary for fulfilling another obligation. For they are bound to assist at sermons or catechesis on feast days if the sermon is necessary for Christian instruction or the ordering of morals; because he who is held to the end is also held to the means necessary for this end. - Billuart, and others commonly. Besides, the faithful must be strongly induced to exercise other pious works besides Mass, to pour out more abundant prayers, etc.

340. Q. Whether, or of what sort, is the obligation of assisting at the evening Office, or Vespers, on Sundays and feast days?

Resp. 1. There is no obligation urging under grave obligation; for theologians commonly acknowledge that no other grave obligation is given besides hearing Mass and abstinence from servile works.

Resp. 2. Nor, more probably, under light obligation, per se and directly. For if there existed a certain obligation from a universal law of the Church, it could not be unknown to so many theologians who have examined questions of this sort. Recall the authors just cited, namely Suarez, Bonacina, etc.

In practice, however, the faithful must be carefully urged that they diligently take part in the evening Office or in other public exercises of divine worship.

474. • Holy mother Church enjoys the power of instituting feasts, and of commanding their sanctification under grave sin for all the faithful, inasmuch as she received from Christ every power in order to the spiritual good of her children. No controversy about this is agitated among Catholics.

The precept of celebrating feasts, if you regard the obligation by which we are sometimes held to venerate God by some worship, is certainly divine and natural; but as to what concerns the time and days to be consecrated to this worship, this in the old law is sanctioned by a ceremonial precept, in the new by an ecclesiastical one. - St. Lig., l. 3, n. 263. The Pope alone can appoint feasts for the universal Church, because he alone enjoys jurisdiction over the universal Church. Bishops also can institute feast days in their own diocese; for they have the faculty of making laws in their diocese. Nevertheless, according to the present discipline, lest feast days be multiplied beyond measure through too great facility of Ordinaries, Bishops are forbidden to establish feasts without consulting the Clergy and the faithful. - Thus commonly from c. Conquestus, de Festis. - St. Lig., n. 266. A vow of celebrating certain feasts of precept with vigil and procession, although confirmed by the Bishop, obliges only those vowing. - S. R. C., 19 Nov. 1650. - Gardellini.

Many feasts were formerly instituted which, in the course of time, when the fervor of the faithful had grown cold ¹, went into desuetude, or were abolished by Ecclesiastical authority itself.

¹ While the Author ascribes the diminution of feasts to the cooling of the charity of the faithful, perhaps he had especially before his eyes the most miserable condition of the Gallican regions, when the savage barbarity of certain men who had taken possession of public affairs had advanced to such madness and fury that it both enacted and took care that every worship of God be exterminated: and that a wholly noble nation might emerge from that mire, the wickedness, partly, and partly the sloth, of the times and of the men who seized or held the sceptre there, has not yet allowed.

But the Roman Pontiffs brought forward an entirely different cause for the diminished number of feasts. For Urban VIII (Const. Universa, § 1) says that he was moved because "the frequent cry of the poor has ascended to Us, complaining that the same multitude [of feast days], on account of the necessity of acquiring daily sustenance by their labors, is very harmful to them." And Pius VI (Const. Ex quo divina, 7 June 1780, § 5): "While we consult the consciences of the peoples, and provide for the need of those who eat bread in the sweat of their face," etc.

475. • Urban VIII, Const. Universa (13 Sept. 1642), suppressed many feasts, and established a new catalogue of feast days, as follows:

"By Apostolic authority we decree and declare that only the days written below are to be observed as feasts of precept... namely the Sundays of the whole year; - the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; - the Circumcision; - the Epiphany; - the Resurrection with the two following ferial days; - the Ascension; - Pentecost with the two following ferial days likewise; - the Most Holy Trinity; - the Solemnity of the Body of Christ, and the Invention of the Holy Cross; - and also the festivities of the Purification, - Annunciation, - Assumption, - and Nativity of the Virgin Mother of God; - the Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel; - the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; - Saints Peter and Paul, - St. Andrew, - St. James, - St. John, - St. Thomas, - Saints Philip and James, - St. Bartholomew, - St. Matthew, - Saints Simon and Jude, - and St. Matthias; - likewise St. Stephen Protomartyr; - the Holy Innocents; - St. Lawrence Martyr; - St. Sylvester Pope and Confessor; - also St. Joseph Confessor, - and St. Anne, mother of the Mother of God; - the Solemnity of all Saints; and one of the principal Patrons in any kingdom or province whatever, and likewise another more principal one in any city, town, or village, where it happens that these Patrons are held and venerated."

To this catalogue must be added the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which Clement XI wished to be held as of precept, through the Constitution Commissi Nobis (6 December 1708).

The Patron is in no way to be confused with the Titular. Therefore the feast of some Saint, indeed the Titular of some Church, is not to be observed as of precept, unless it is established that he has been canonically elected as Patron, all the prescriptions of Urban VIII concerning this matter having been observed.

Pius VI, on account of the calamity of the times, condoned for the Roman faithful the obligation of celebrating certain feasts. These, however, are the following, namely, the feasts of the Holy Apostles besides the solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul; the two ferial days which follow Easter and Pentecost; the Invention of the Holy Cross; the feasts of St. Anne, St. Lawrence, St. Stephen, the Holy Innocents, St. Sylvester, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, St. Michael, and St. Joseph; of which, however, the last three were afterwards restored. Moreover, as to other matters, nothing was changed by this as to the obligation imposed on Pastors of celebrating Mass for the people; and therefore one must still stand by the catalogue of Urban VIII. Thus it was solemnly declared by Pius IX through the Constitution Amantissimi, 3 May 1858.

But in France, after the Indult of Card. Caprara, 9 Apr. 1802, from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff Pius VII, only four feasts besides Sundays remain of precept for the faithful, namely: 1. the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord; 2. of His Ascension; 3. of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 4. the Feast of all Saints. From the same Indult, the feasts of the Epiphany of the Lord, of the Most Sacred Body of Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of the Holy Patrons of any diocese and parish are to be transferred to the nearest occurring Sunday. The remaining feasts, formerly prescribed, are now celebrated on the same days as before, but without any obligation for the faithful.

Concerning the things required for observing feast days, namely concerning hearing Mass, etc., see what we said above, where we treated the third precept of the Decalogue.

476. Questions. - Q. 1. Whether, besides the obligation of abstaining from servile works and also of hearing Mass, the liturgical solemnity of suppressed or transferred feasts was also taken away?

Resp. It is denied. For the Sacred Congregation of Rites has responded many times: "As to choir and the ecclesiastical functions customarily performed, absolutely nothing is to be innovated in relation to feasts on which the people is released from the precept of hearing the Holy Sacrifice." 18 Oct. 1818, in Alifana, in Aquilana, in Tarentina.

Q. 2. Whether the same decision is to be applied to France?

Resp. It is affirmed. For these words of the Cardinal Legate are clear: "He [Pius VII] nevertheless wished this law to have been added, that on the feast days and vigils which are decreed suppressed, in all Churches nothing be innovated concerning the accustomed order and rite of divine offices and sacred ceremonies, but that all things be performed in precisely that manner in which they had hitherto been accustomed."

Q. 3. Whether the same is to be said concerning feasts whose solemnity was transferred to the next following Sunday, for example, Epiphany, Corpus Christi, etc.?

Resp. It is affirmed. For the Sacred Congregation of Rites, to the question: "Whether on feasts whose solemnity is deferred to the nearest occurring Sunday, the public Office, both morning and evening, is to be performed as before the reduction?" - responded: "Affirmatively." - 23 May 1835, in Namurcen. - The same Sacred Congregation had decreed this in Cenomanen., 29 Nov. 1831.

b) To hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation is a strictly binding precept.²⁵

²⁵ Cfr. Vol. II of this Handbook, p. 133.

α) It implies assisting at a whole Mass. He who is unable to hear a whole Mass, should try to be present at least at the essential and integral parts of the Holy Sacrifice, i. e., consecration and communion. Should he be legitimately prevented from assisting at these essential portions, however, he is under no obligation to assist at the remaining ceremonies, which are merely accidental.²⁶

²⁶ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 278; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Theol. Mor., II, n. 781.

Wilfully to miss any part of the Mass on Sundays or holydays of obligation is a sin,—either grave or light, according to the nature and length of the part missed. The more important parts of the Mass which may not be missed without grave sin are: (1) from the point of view of duration (ratione durationis), the part extending from the psalm Iudica to the offertory, inclusive; (2) from the point of view of dignity (ratione dignitatis), the part from the preface, exclusively, to the consecration; the part from the consecration to the Pater noster; the consecration and communion taken together, and the consecration alone, though not (probabiliter) the communion alone. One who leaves the church before and returns immediately after consecration, does not, strictly speaking, satisfy the precept.²⁷

²⁷ Suarez, De Eucharistia, qu. 88, sect. 2, n. 6; Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 278 sq.

To determine the guilt of those who come late to Mass, says Noldin, we must look, not so much to the part missed, as to the degree of negligence of which they are guilty and their awareness of the danger of not hearing the whole Mass. He who fails to hurry to church because he thinks he will miss only a small part of Mass, commits a venial sin, even if he arrives after the offertory, whereas he who is in doubt, or anticipates that he will miss an important part of the holy Sacrifice, sins grievously, even if he should arrive in time for the Gloria.²⁸

²⁸ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 279.

Does one who hears one-half each of two different Masses comply with the law of the Church? If he hears the two halves simultaneously, he does not comply with his duty, because the Mass, by its very nature, consists of successive parts.²⁹ If he hears the two halves successively, one after the other, and the consecration and communion form part of the same Mass, he satisfies his obligation, because he hears one complete Mass; but if the consecration and communion do not form part of the same Mass, he does not satisfy his obligation because the parts at which he attends do not constitute an integral sacrifice.³⁰

²⁹ Innocent XI condemned the following proposition (n. 53): “He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed even four, at the same time from different celebrants.”

³⁰ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 279.

From what we have said it follows that if one has not heard a complete Mass, he is bound, if possible, to supply the defect (obligatio supplendi), under pain of mortal sin if the parts omitted were important, under pain of merely venial sin if they were small and unimportant.³¹

³¹ Ibid.

St. Alphonsus, III, n. 308; ed. G., I, p. 569; H. Ap., VI, n. 27 and 38 (where private oratories are treated); Lehmkuhl, I, n. 713; Van Gameren, de Oratoriis; Heiner, Kirchenrecht (1905), p. 342; Weiss, Apol. d. Christ., IV, p. 901; Villien, op. cit., c. 2.

670. The precept of hearing Mass on each Sunday and feast day obliges all the faithful having the use of reason; therefore also priests not celebrating, and all others not legitimately excused. This is established from what was said n. 653 and 656.

It remains here to be treated: 1. of the requisites for hearing Mass; 2. of the causes excusing from hearing it.

397. Principles. - I. All the faithful, having the use of reason, and who can morally advert to Mass, are bound under grave sin to be present at it on single Sundays and feast days, unless a just cause excuses them. This is established from various places of Canon Law.²

I said: under grave sin; for there is question of a thing grave both in itself and according to the common estimation of the faithful and the unanimous consent of theologians.

398. • II. Besides this, the faithful are bound by force of the precept to furnish nothing else, at least under grave sin. The reason is that nothing else is found certainly prescribed. This is the common doctrine of theologians.

I said: at least under grave sin. For most theologians add: nor under light sin of itself. For although servile works are prohibited for this reason, that the faithful may be able more easily to be vacant for divine things, nevertheless these are prescribed by no law. Moreover the end of the precept does not fall under the precept. - Thus Suarez,¹ Elbel,² and many others, as even Concina admits, who calls this opinion common.

Hence one excused from Mass on Sunday is not bound by reason of the precept to complete at home the prayers which he would have recited during the time of Mass, or is accustomed to recite. - Suarez.³

III. Yet per accidens the faithful can be bound to something else, not indeed by force of this precept, but because it can be necessary for fulfilling another obligation. For they are bound to be present at sermons or catechesis on feast days if the sermon is necessary for Christian instruction or for the ordering of morals; because he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means necessary for this end. - Billuart and others commonly. - For the rest, the faithful are earnestly to be induced to exercise other pious works besides Mass, to pour forth more abundant prayers, etc.

We must treat: 1° of those things which are required for hearing Mass rightly; 2° of causes excusing from it.

Three things are required: 1° presence of body; 2° attention of mind; 3° due place.

A moral and continuous presence of body is required.

399. • I. Moral, namely, one must be present where Mass is taking place, so that he can be said to be one from the number of those assisting and offering the Sacrifice; but for this it suffices that he be in a place from which he can follow Mass as to the principal parts, whether by seeing, or by hearing, or by attending to the signs of the others assisting.

II. Continuous, that is, persevering from the beginning to the end of Mass, so that he sins gravely who omits a notable part of it, and venially who omits a slight part, unless a just cause excuses him.

You will resolve. - 1° He validly assists at Mass who, although he neither sees the priest nor hears the words, distinguishes the parts of the Mass by the sound of the bell, by the chant of the choir, by the movements of those assisting, to whom he is morally joined, although he is outside the Church, in which he cannot be contained because of the crowd. Likewise he who stands behind the altar, behind a column, or behind a wall, provided he can advert to the principal parts of the Mass.

2° Likewise, not improbably, he who is in a neighboring house, from which through a window he sees the altar, although a road intervenes, provided that the space between the Church and the place in which he is be small. But otherwise if a great space intervenes, as is more commonly taught.

3° He who remains a great distance away does not assist at Mass, although he sees the church, the altar, the crowd, because in common use he cannot be said morally to hear and to be present. According to Lugo and others, a space of thirty paces from the crowd assisting does not seem so great that it impedes someone from being present at Mass; yet St. Alphonsus¹ does not admit this.

400. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What omission is to be reckoned grave or light in Mass?

Resp. It cannot easily be determined; for although according to all, a third part of Mass is notable, nevertheless it is not established what the third part is, since a notable part ought not to be judged only from duration. Yet according to the common opinion these things seem able to be established.

1° It is grave to omit everything up to the Offertory inclusively, or up to the oblation of the bread exclusively. But certainly it is light to omit everything up to the Epistle exclusively, and more probably even inclusively; indeed probably also, according to St. Alphonsus,² up to the Gospel inclusively, although the Holy Doctor holds the opposite opinion as more probable. The reason for these things is that what precedes does not properly pertain to the Sacrifice, but is only as it were preparation for it. - Lugo, etc.

2° According to all, it is grave to omit all things before the Gospel and at the same time all things after Communion; but not to omit only those things which follow Communion, indeed not even to omit all things before the Epistle and all things after Communion. - Lacroix,¹ St. Alphonsus.²

3° The omission of the Canon from the Consecration up to the Pater exclusively must be held grave, because it is a notable part in duration and dignity. But the omission of the Offertory, that is, of all things which are done from Dominus vobiscum after the Creed up to the Preface, is reckoned light; for in this broader sense³ the Offertory comes here; - likewise the omission of the Creed, because it is not a regular part of Mass.⁴ But the Gospel of St. John at the end more probably is not a part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing.

4° It is grave to omit the Consecration and Communion; indeed even the Consecration alone, because it is the most worthy part, in which, at least principally, the nature of the Sacrifice consists. Nay more, more probably and more commonly it is held that it is grave not to be present at even one Consecration or Communion alone, because the essence of the Sacrifice more probably consists in both the Consecration and in Communion, and St. Alphonsus practically adheres to this opinion.⁵

401. • Quaer. 2° Does he satisfy the precept who hears two half Masses from different priests, either simultaneously or successively?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if he hears them simultaneously. The reason is drawn from the interpretation of the common law, which is confirmed by Proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI (p. XVII).

Resp. 2° But affirmatively, probably, if successively, if the Consecration and Communion are found in the same Mass, after another Mass has previously been heard up to the Consecration. Yet that without a just cause is at least venial.

Quaer. 3° Must he hear the remaining things who arrives after the Consecration at the last part of Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively, very probably, because the opinion is also sufficiently probable that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the Consumption, and this opinion must be held in practice also for another reason, namely this, that a notable part of the ceremony prescribed by the Church can be heard.¹

Quaer. 4° Is he who omits a light part of Mass bound under light sin to supply it, if he can?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because he is bound to hear an entire Mass; except if there is question of a very slight part. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² the Salmanticenses against others. For the rest, a sufficiently light reason can exempt from this obligation of supplying.

402. • Attention to Mass is distinguished as twofold: 1° internal, by which someone actually adverts and applies his mind to those things which are being done by the priest; 2° external, which consists in avoiding any external action which impedes the application of the mind, for example to converse, paint, ... etc.

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

Principles. - I. For hearing Mass validly there is altogether required at least external attention; because in no way can he be said to be present at Mass who posits actions incompatible with internal attention; indeed he impudently mocks God and the Church. - Thus all.

II. Some internal attention is required besides, and at least the will of hearing Mass; because this is entirely required so that the hearing or presence may be human, moral, and religious from its object. - Suarez.⁴

III. But any internal attention from the three just explained suffices. The reason is that by any one of them the mind is sufficiently applied to the divine worship which is intended through the Sacrifice.

IV. No vocal prayer is absolutely required; because religious assistance honors God, and nothing else is prescribed.¹ - Yet in practice the faithful, especially the uninstructed, must be persuaded to recite some prayers, especially the customary prayers for the hearing of Mass, or the rosary of the most blessed Virgin, lest they be exposed to too many distractions.

403. Questions. - Quaer. 1° For fulfilling this precept, is internal attention required under grave sin?

Resp. The matter is very doubtful. The FIRST OPINION, from St. Alphonsus more common and more probable, affirms. For an act by which God is worshiped is prescribed by the Church; but God cannot be worshiped by mere physical presence; therefore.... Therefore the Church, by directly prescribing the external act of hearing Mass, seems to prescribe indirectly attention, at least some, as a condition without which the formal external act would not consist. - Thus St. Thomas, Billuart, Elbel, the Salmanticenses, and not a few others.

The SECOND OPINION denies. The reason is that assistance with voluntary attention, even merely external, is a sufficiently religious act, and it is not established that anything else is prescribed by the Church. - Thus Lugo, with many others, and St. Alphonsus² does not judge it improbable.

For the rest, in practice there does not appear so great a difference between each opinion. For according to the prior opinion, attention in a remiss degree altogether suffices, namely to the principal parts of Mass; but according to the later, there is required: 1° a pious movement of soul, or a true intention of honoring God; 2° such attention that the one assisting at Mass can render an account to himself that he is really assisting at Mass, and consequently that he adverts 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 in Mass, but rather are lovingly to be exhorted to direct the mind piously and diligently to the divine Mysteries. For, says St. Alphonsus,³ after Elbel, Sporer, and Tamburini, no one ought to be anxious because of a scruple of attention not furnished, because it suffices to have had the general intention of worshiping God.

404. • Quaer. 2° Does he satisfy the precept who confesses sins during the time of Mass?

Resp. Negatively, both because he posits an action which impedes internal attention, since one confessing cannot be a witness of those things which are being done; and because he does not assist as one exhibiting worship, but as a guilty person. Nevertheless he is excused if the Confession is either easy and brief, since this does not impede continuous presence, or necessary, lest he remain for some time in mortal sin; for if a grave temporal inconvenience excuses from this precept, a fortiori a spiritual one will excuse.¹

Quaer. 3° Does a cleric reciting the Breviary during the time of Mass satisfy the precept of the Church?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that recitation of the divine Office does not impede someone from being able to be present at the Sacrifice of Mass and to exhibit moral presence to it. - Thus commonly.² (See n. 134.)

405. You will resolve. - 1° Those ministering at Mass satisfy the precept; for they attend sufficiently by exhibiting their ministry, by which they actually cooperate with the Sacrifice. The same must 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 done at the altar.³

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

3° Those who examine conscience during the time of Mass, so that they may confess, fulfill sacramental penance, or even make a prayer owed by whatever title, satisfy; because by these the mind is directed to God, and from elsewhere two precepts can be satisfied at the same time, if the things prescribed can be furnished at the same time. - Thus commonly. - Likewise those who read some spiritual book, but not sacred histories with the mind of learning the style.⁵

4° Those also satisfy who are distracted involuntarily, 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 who sleep involuntarily through a notable part of Mass, although they are excused from sin. Thus commonly. But one dozing sometimes during Mass satisfies, or at least does not offend gravely, provided in some way he adverts to that which is being done.

5° Those also satisfy as to the substance, or are excused from grave fault, who voluntarily are distracted, even during the whole time of Mass, provided they at the same time attend; for this sometimes can happen if the distractions are not so vehement, since a man can think about several things at the same time. - Reuter.²

6° But they by no means satisfy who through a notable part of Mass converse about a serious thing (or even about a light thing, but in such a way that external attention is impeded), or attentively consider images, survey with their eyes the furnishings of the church, read inscriptions or other profane things, meditate on sciences, paint, or perform other similar things, unless these are done interruptedly, or in such a way that they do not altogether impede attention.³

406. • Omitting those things which theologians hand down concerning private oratories, it suffices to note these two things for these provinces.

1° The precept is satisfied wherever by force of the Faculties (n. 1329. q. 3°) it is licit to celebrate.

2° The priest who otherwise could not hear Mass is bound, on Sundays and feasts of precept, to use the privilege of celebrating on a portable altar which is customarily conceded to priests in these provinces, provided nevertheless that he is able reverently to undertake so great an office in those adjuncts of things in which it happens that he is placed. For the rest, if on a journey he is living alone among non-Catholics, he is not bound to celebrate, since the reverence due to the Sacrifice can scarcely be observed.⁴

407. • Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, or one which involves some notable inconvenience or damage in the goods of soul or body of oneself or one's neighbor. This is established from the common interpretation and custom, which is the best interpreter of laws. - Thus commonly.¹

408. You will resolve. - 1° The sick, the infirm, and convalescents are excused, whom either going out or being in church harms. (A) p. 474. Likewise those who must guard the sick.²

2° Travelers are excused, to whom no place occurs where they may be present at Mass, or who cannot interrupt the journey, because public drivers, or companions on the way, without whom the journey would not be without inconveniences or danger, refuse to stop.

3° Those are excused who guard the flock or house, or who must prepare food, or perform similar necessary things; yet if several Masses are held, all ought successively to hear Mass, insofar as it can be done.³

4° Mothers and nurses are excused who have no one to whom they can leave little children, nor can they lead them to the Church without great disturbance of those standing by. But if there are only two spouses, they will conveniently be able to be present at Mass by alternate turns.⁴

5° They are often excused who are distant far from the Church, so that they cannot go to it without great difficulty, especially in wintertime.

6° Those who dwell in the country and enjoy the supply of a priest once in a month in a church which is for them as if parochial, according to Kenrick,⁵ are not bound to make the journey elsewhere on feast days and Sundays on which the priest is absent, unless, I would except, they are distant less than three miles from some other church.

7° Those seem to be excused, for the sake of demonstrating affection toward parents and relatives, who sometimes betake themselves to places in which there will be no faculty of hearing Mass. For the rest, this must not be done often, nor lightly, nor for a long time.⁶

8° Those who, for the sake of health or of lawful recreation of mind, betake themselves elsewhere for some fixed weeks, as is the custom of many here, are excused from violation of the precept, even if the supply of hearing Mass will be lacking to them while making the journey; for that leisure and relief of mind is sometimes necessary and very often useful, nor are they compelled always to remain in a place in which there is a supply of Mass.⁷

9° In some rural places there is a custom that neighbors, especially non-Catholics, visit others in the morning of the Lord's Day, to remain with them the whole day, whereby Catholics are detained from hearing Mass. Whether in this case those are excused who remain at home lest they seem to be lacking in company and friendship must be defined from circumstances. Thus, if there is the faculty of going to church and returning to furnish the rights of hospitality, it is clear that Mass must be heard by most members of the family, although someone can remain at home for the sake of companionship; but scarcely do we judge, says Kenrick,¹ that all can ever remain at home, especially if guests have come by design, not once or twice, but rather often. - This must especially be said if Catholics visit Catholics. "For the rest," he adds, "we do not condemn him who, to avoid grave offense of others, sometimes remains at home with guests."

10° Innkeepers are not excused who on Sunday neglect Mass so that they may receive those going to the inn and are going to obtain great gain; for this is done with detriment of religion and great offense of all.²

11° Servants are excused if they cannot omit their service without grave detriment of the master, or if they are prohibited by him, nor can they easily find another master. Resolve the same concerning a wife and a son of the family, for whom grave indignation of the husband or parents is to be feared.³

12° Almost the same, proportion observed, resolve concerning those who accept or retain an office - for example in railroads - or are occupied with a trade - for example of a barber - by which ordinarily or very often they are impeded from Mass. Namely, they seem to be excused, provided: a) by leaving the office or trade they would suffer a grave inconvenience, or certainly would obtain a much worse or doubtful condition of life; b) from neglect of Mass they have not fallen or will not fall into indifferentism. Yet in every case they are to be exhorted to devote themselves to exercises of piety at home on that very day or on other days; but they are not easily to be admonished concerning a grave obligation of renouncing the office or trade, both because often this will be established only with difficulty, and because the admonition will often not be profitable.

409. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What distance excuses from Mass?

Resp. It cannot be assigned absolutely, but must be determined from the adjuncts of persons, places, and times. But regularly a distance of three miles, or a walking journey of one hour and a quarter, excuses, and even somewhat less, if it is raining or snowing, or another cause is present.¹

Yet Kenrick² judges that those who can be carried by horse or carriage are not always excused for this reason, that they are distant even ten miles from the church; "for a journey of this sort," he says, "they perform almost daily for the sake of their business; but generally," he adds, "six or seven miles are for an excuse for women, boys, and others who have not grown accustomed to a longer journey." I would add that attention must also be given to the condition of roads and of rainy or very cold weather, etc.

Quaer. 2° Is a sick person excused from Mass in doubt whether the inconvenience is sufficiently grave?

Resp. In this case one must stand by the counsel of a physician, Superior, Pastor, Confessor, or another prudent man. Indeed the sick person can also acquiesce in his own judgment if he judges thus prudently. But what if, counsel having been sought, he still remains doubtful? - Absolutely he is not bound to Mass, because while the danger of grave harm stands, one must judge that Mother Church does not obligate. - Thus very probably, says St. Alphonsus.³ - In practice it is better that dispensation be sought if it can easily be sought. Cf. n. 66. 2° and 67. c).

Quaer. 3° Does the occasion of making notable gain excuse?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably, because precepts of the Church do not obligate with very grave inconvenience, as is established from what was said n. 137. But a gain of this sort ought to be extraordinary (n. 417. 9°).⁴

Quaer. 4° Are the following excused: a) women not having clothes becoming to their state; b) girls dishonorably pregnant; c) those whose banns before marriage are being made; d) women after childbirth?

Resp. to a) Affirmatively, unless they can hear Mass very early in the morning, or in a church in which they are unknown.

Resp. to b) Affirmatively, unless they can be present at Mass secretly and without notice.

Resp. to c) Affirmatively, if either 1) they suffer notable shame because of them, or 2) somewhere there is a custom of this sort, unless nevertheless they can easily be present at Mass in which the proclamations are not made.

Resp. to d) Affirmatively, for the time determined by the custom of places,¹ unless they are already going out from the house to other places. (u) p. 474.

Question 2. What omission in Mass is to be regarded as grave or light?

Response. It cannot easily be determined; for although, according to all, a third part of the Mass is notable, nevertheless it is not clear what the third part is, since a notable part ought to be judged not only from duration, but also from dignity. Yet according to the common opinion these things can be established:

1st. It is certainly light to omit everything up to the Epistle exclusively, and more probably also inclusively, indeed probably also up to the Gospel inclusively, although St. Alphonsus regards the opposite opinion as more probable. And this must be said even if the Creed is omitted, because the Creed is not a regular part. Hence one present at Mass while the priest greets the people before he reads that little verse which formerly was called the antiphon, and now is called the offertory, can be excused from mortal sin. The reason is that the things which precede do not pertain to the sacrifice, but are remote preparation for it. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310.

2nd. It is grave, according to all, to omit everything before the Gospel and at the same time everything after communion; but not to omit only those things which follow communion, indeed not even to omit everything before the Epistle and everything after communion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310. - Lacroix, n. 666.

3rd. Grave is the omission of the canon from the consecration up to the Pater exclusively, because it is a notable part by duration and dignity. But the omission of the offertory is reputed light, taking this word according to its twofold acceptance, namely for the recitation of the little verse which in the Missal is placed after the Gospel, and for the oblation of bread and wine. But the Gospel of St. John at the end is probably not part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing.

4th. It is grave to omit the consecration and communion; indeed also one consecration alone, because it is the most dignified part, in which, at least principally, the nature of the sacrifice consists. Indeed it is more probably grave to be absent from one consecration only, because the essence of the sacrifice more probably consists in each consecration. - But whether to pass by communion alone is grave is controverted; the affirmative opinion is more probable to St. Alphonsus, because he judges that the essence of the sacrifice also consists in communion. But the more common and truer opinion places it in consecration alone. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 33.