The Third Commandment

260. Origin of the precept. The precept of sanctifying feast days is partly natural, partly divine, partly ecclesiastical: natural, insofar as it commands that some time be assigned to divine worship, not only private but also public; divine, insofar as it commands that on one day of each week, in praise of the Creator, there be cessation from every work; but ecclesiastical, insofar as it determines certain days and the mode of worshiping God. Therefore the Church in this matter has determined natural and divine right more accurately.

a. The precept of sanctifying feast days, as it is now observed in the Church, contains several elements: alpha. that one day of each week must be sanctified; beta. that this day is not, as in the Old Testament, the last day of the week, the sabbath, but ought to be the first, the Lord's day; gamma. that the day is to be understood as a space of twenty-four hours and that it is to be computed from midnight to midnight; delta. that on feast days certain acts of religion are prescribed for the worship of God, but certain works, as contrary to religious rest, are prohibited.

b. Concerning the ecclesiastical origin of this precept, so far as the third and fourth element are concerned, there is no doubt; concerning the origin of the precept as to the first and second element, some teach that each, namely both that one day in any week must be sanctified and that the Lord's day must be sanctified in place of the sabbath, is of divine law;¹ others, on the contrary, teach that by ecclesiastical law not only was the Lord's day substituted for the sabbath, but also by the same law one day in the week is to be sanctified;² finally others teach that one day of each week is to be sanctified by divine law, but that the Lord's day was destined for this end by ecclesiastical or rather apostolic law.³ And indeed God Himself instituted the division of time into weeks and commanded that the seventh day of each week be assigned to divine worship.⁴ Christ the Lord did not abrogate this precept, but willed it renewed for the whole Christian age, power having been granted to the apostles of substituting the Lord's day for the sabbath and of determining the mode by which that day was to be sanctified in praise of the Creator and Savior.

c. From these things it is inferred how far the power extends which belongs to the Church of dispensing in this precept, namely that she can change it and dispense in it insofar as it is ecclesiastical; but that she cannot establish that no day be deputed to divine worship, nor that the division of time into weeks and the sanctification of one day of each week be abrogated, nor finally that those works be licit which, by the common judgment of men, would destroy the end of the precept, namely religious rest.

¹ Sporer-Bierbaum, tract. 3, n. 484.

² Suarez, De religione, tract. 2, l. 2, c. 4, n. 5.

³ Fr. Schmid, Worin grundet die Pflicht der Sonntagsruhe? (Quartalschrift. Linz, 1900), p. 12 ff.; Die Gewalt der Kirche uber die Sonntagsruhe (Zeitschrift fur kath. Theologie XXV [1901]), p. 436 ff.

⁴ Gen. 2:2-3, compared with Ex. 20:8-11.

261. On the precept itself. 1. The precept of sanctifying feasts obligates under grave obligation¹ all the faithful in possession of reason, therefore after the completion of the seventh year: for the matter and end of the precept are grave; therefore also by the universal use of the Church it is held as grave; yet it admits smallness of matter.

a. Feast days which are to be sanctified must be computed from midnight to midnight, as the use of the Roman Church bears.

b. Feasts formerly to be observed by common law from the constitution Universa of Urban VIII,² besides Sundays, were thirty-six;³ but today several of them (in diverse regions in diverse number) have been abrogated, so that, for example, in France and Belgium, besides those which are fixed to Sunday, only four are celebrated, and in North America only six.

2. On Sundays and feasts the Church obligates the faithful to two things: a. to hearing Mass, because God as the first principle of all things is to be worshiped by sacrifice; but all sacrifices in the new law have been reduced to the sacrifice of the Mass; b. to abstaining from servile works, because the principal end of this precept is that man attend to divine things; but servile works plainly impede application to divine things.

a. This precept is not intimated in canon law, but is supposed;⁴ but it is established from universal custom, which Christian doctrine everywhere declares in catechisms.

b. Priests satisfy the precept by celebration; but those who do not celebrate are held to hear Mass.

3. Beyond these two things, nothing else is expressly commanded by the ecclesiastical precept of sanctifying feasts, nor has anything else been introduced by legitimate custom. Wherefore:

a. The faithful are not held to hear a sermon or catechesis, unless the natural precept obligates them to this, namely if someone is not sufficiently instructed in those things which he must explicitly know and believe, and either does not wish or is not able to employ another means of learning them.

Nor from the fact that parish priests, by precept of the Church, are held to preach on Sundays and feasts,⁵ does it follow that the faithful are obligated to hear the sermon: for parish priests are held to furnish the occasion so that the faithful, for whom this is necessary or useful, can be instructed in Christian doctrine. But hearing a sermon is so salutary and profitable that the fathers of the Council of Trent (loc. cit.) said that the faithful are held, if they conveniently can, to hearing the word of God.

b. They are not held to assist at vespers or evening devotions, not even under light obligation, unless accidentally scandal arises from the omission.

c. They are not held to worship God by certain internal acts, such as acts of faith, hope, and charity: for not internal but external worship of God is enjoined upon us by this precept; moreover, the sanctification of the soul is the end of the precept, which does not fall under the precept.

¹ Cf. proposition 52 condemned by Innocent XI: The precept of observing feasts does not obligate under mortal sin, scandal being set aside, if contempt is absent.

² Const. Universa of Urban VIII, 13 Sept. 1642.

³ Cf. De sacramentis^9, n. 181.

⁴ C. Omnes 62, De consecr., d. 1; C. Missas 64, De consecr., d. 1.

⁵ Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 4, De reform.

The Third Commandment is: ‘“‘ Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.”¹ This precept of the Old Law is partly ceremonial, and in so far it has been abrogated by the preaching of the Gospel, and partly it belongs to the law of nature, which binds at all times and in all places. The sabbath, the day of rest, was the last day of the week under the Old Dispensation, and the manner of observing it was strictly regulated. The natural law prescribes that we should occasionally offer to God an external and public worship, inasmuch as he is the Creator of body and soul and the Author of human society. The necessity, too, of keeping up within us a lively sense of God’s existence and of our dependence on him compels us to give outward expression to our religious instincts, otherwise they will quickly evaporate. The Christian Church, using the power given to her by her divine Founder, and asserting her independence of the yoke of Jewish legalism, determined the natural law in this matter by assigning a definite time and mode for its observance. Instead of the last day of the week she chose the first, the day on which Christ rose from the dead, and the day on which the Holy Spirit came down on the Apostles. ‘This she called the Lord’s Day, and commanded her children to keep it holy by hearing Mass and resting from servile work.

¹ Exod. xx 8.

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

In order to satisfy the precept, Mass must be heard in + Proposs. the proper place. By a decree S.R.C. (January 23, 1899) the faithful may satisfy the precept by hearing Mass in any public church or public or semi-public oratory. A semi-public oratory is there defined as one which by the authority of the ‘Ordinary is erected in a place which is not absolutely public, but more or less private, for the use not of all the faithful, nor of a particular person or family, but of a community or society of persons. No one besides those who are mentioned in the indult can satisfy the precept by hearing Mass in a strictly private oratory, which by an indult of the Holy See is erected in a private house for the use of a particular person or family (Can. 1249). As Benedict XIV teaches,¹ Bishops cannot compel the faithful to hear Mass in their parish churches; they have no power to abrogate a universal law and custom of the Church or a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The liberty, however, of hearing Mass in any place of worship except strictly private oratories, does not exempt the faithful from contributing to the support of their own pastors according to their means.”

¹ De Synodo, xi, c. 14.

One would not hear Mass so as to satisfy the precept if he were stationed apart at a considerable distance from the place where it was being celebrated, even though he might be able to see and hear what was being done. He must be morally present so as to form one of those who are together hearing and offering up the Holy Sacrifice. It is not necessary that he should be able to see the priest or the altar, nor even to hear what is said. It will be sufficient if he follows the principal parts of the Mass. So that a person could hear Mass if he were stationed in a side chapel of a great cathedral while Mass was being said at the high altar, though he might not be able to hear or see anything that was going on. Similarly, if Mass is being said for a large army or crowd of people, those on the outskirts of the multitude may hear Mass, though they are at a great distance from the altar. If the church is full and large numbers cannot get inside, still these latter may hear Mass being celebrated inside. On the other hand, if while Mass is being said in a church, someone were posted on the opposite side of a wide street or square, he could not hear the Mass so as to satisfy the precept, though he *-1 West., d. 235: 5. might be able.to see what was going on through the open door,

It is necessary to have the intention of hearing Mass, and it must be done with the requisite attention. The Church prescribes a human action to be performed in the service of God, and so there must be the necessary constituents of a human act. The act, then, must be voluntary; there must be the wish or the intention to hear Mass. was) forced to be present So that one who against his will, or who came to church merely as a companion to another, or to hear the music, would not hear Mass.

Attention is an act of the mind by which we advert to what is going on. This is attention in the proper sense of the term, and is called internal to distinguish it from external attention, which is the avoidance of any external action which is incompatible with internal attention. Thus if one is distracted during Mass and thinking of other things, but does no external action which is incompatible with hearing Mass, he has external, but not internal attention. If during Mass he engages in a prolonged conversation with a neighbour, or reads a profane book, or paints, he has not even external attention.

The Church commands at least external attention while Mass is being said, otherwise the precept will not be fulfilled. All, too, admit that voluntary distractions during Mass are venially sinful, just as they are during ordinary prayer. It is a disputed point among theologians whether internal attention is also necessary for the observance of the Church’s law. The more common opinion holds that it is. The contrary, however, is probable, for actual attention does not seem to be an essential element of prayer; the form of Extreme Unction, which is a prayer, is certainly valid even if said by a priest without internal attention. The Church’s law, therefore, which directly provides for external decorum in the service of God, would seem to be fulfilled, provided that there is at least external attention while hearing Mass. This opinion does not foster the careless hearing of Mass, but it does serve to relieve the scrupulous conscience from needless anxieties.

5. We have here to do with a positive precept, and any serious inconvenience or loss, spiritual or temporal, affecting one’s self or one’s neighbour, which would follow from hearing Mass, will excuse the faithful from fulfilling the obligation.

So that the sick, the convalescent who could not venture out of doors without danger, those who have to take care of the sick, mothers of families who have little children to attend to, those who live at such a distance that it would take them more than an hour to walk to church, all these are excused from hearing Mass regularly.

IN order that all, and especially the poor, may have the opportunity of fulfilling their religious duties, the Church has forbidden servile work to be done on Sunday. Servile work is the rougher and harder sort of manual labour which is done by common workmen and labourers, and which used to be done by slaves. It comprises ploughing, digging, building, sewing, and similar occupations. It is distinguished from liberal and from mixed work. Liberal work is done mainly by the intellect, and comprises writing, studying, painting, and so forth. Mixed work comprises a class of occupations which are neither exclusively liberal nor servile, but which are done indifferently by all conditions of men. In this class are hunting, fishing, travelling, and similar occupations. Of these only servile work is forbidden on Sundays, and in determining what is servile work, and therefore forbidden, we must consider not only the nature of the work itself, but also the way in which it is done, the light in which it is commonly regarded, and other circumstances. Thus it is usually held that although the rougher work of the sculptor is servile and unlawful, the more delicate is liberal and may be done on a Sunday. Similarly, fishing with rod and line is not unlawful, but going out to sea with a fishing-smack and plying the trade in the ordinary working-day way is forbidden. In the same way one who lives by photography should not ply his trade on a Sunday, but it would not be wrong for an amateur to do the same work on that day by way of recreation and amusement.

This part of the precept of keeping the Sunday holy also binds under pain of grave sin. If, however, the matter be light, the doing of a little servile work on a Sunday will be only a venial sin, and none at all if there be good reason for it. According to the common opinion, it would be necessary to work for well over two hours at something which is forbidden in order to commit a grave sin. Still longer time would be required for a mortal sin in doing servile work of a lighter kind, which had for it some sort of excuse on the ground that it helps on the cause of religion and charity. Making rosary beads or scapulars belongs to this category.

Public trading is also forbidden on Sundays, as well as judicial proceedings in the exercise of contentious jurisdiction, and the solemn and public taking of oaths (Can. 1248).

English municipal law goes farther than the law of the Church in its provisions for the due observance of the Lord’s Day. Thus not only is Sunday a dies non for the sitting of courts or the meeting of public bodies, but contracts such as are within the ordinary calling of tradesmen, workmen, labourers, or other persons of the same sort, made and completed on Sunday, are void, and abstention from work and even from play is required by a series of statutes.¹ Although these provisions of the civil authority do not impose an obligation in conscience under pain of sin, yet indirectly they have caused the Sunday to be observed among us with greater strictness than is absolutely required by ecclesiastical law.

¹ Encyclopedia of Laws, s.v. Sunday.

As we saw with regard to the hearing of Mass, so in this matter too, if the precept cannot be observed without serious inconvenience, it ceases to bind. And so, work in foundries or in agriculture which cannot be stopped without grave inconvenience and loss may be done on Sundays. Work, too, in the direct service of religion, or necessary works of charity connected with the care and nursing of the sick, or the burying of the dead, are not forbidden. Custom permits of the sweeping of the house and the cooking of meals, and certain other more or less necessary occupations on Sunday. Finally, ecclesiastical authority can, for good reason, dispense in the observance of this law. Not only Bishops, but priests who have the cure of souls, have discretionary power to give dispensations in particular cases.” 2-7 West., d. 23, n. 13 Can. 1245; sec. I.

(St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, bk. III, nn. 263-332; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 6.)

It is a natural precept that some time be appointed for divine worship. "The precept concerning the sanctification of the Sabbath... is moral indeed as to this: that man should appoint some time of his life for being free for divine things; for there is in man a natural inclination to this, that some time be appointed to each necessary thing, as to bodily refreshment, sleep, and other things of this kind; whence also for spiritual refreshment, by which man's mind is refreshed in God, according to the dictate of natural reason man appoints some time; and thus to have some time appointed for being free for divine things falls under a moral precept" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4, ad 1; St. Alphonsus, III, 263).¹

But the determination both of the time and of the manner was and is of positive law (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4, ad 1 and ad 4; St. Alphonsus, III, 263, 265). Now divine positive law in the Old Testament had dedicated the Sabbath day to divine worship, and on that day had commanded cessation from servile work. Now, with ecclesiastical positive law considered, these things have force:

I. The supreme ecclesiastical authority alone can establish, transfer, or abolish feast days common to the universal Church. Ordinaries of places can prescribe special feast days for their dioceses or places, but only for an individual act (can. 1244).

II. The common feast days established by the supreme authority are: all and each of the Sundays, the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and the Most Holy Body of Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, the gracious Mother of God, St. Joseph her spouse, Saints Peter and Paul the Apostles, and finally All Saints (can. 1247, § 1). Understand these things in this way:

1. Feasts not enumerated in the cited canon, by that very fact and by the law itself, are no longer of precept anywhere, even if in some nation, diocese, or place they previously had been of precept by particular law or custom, even centenary custom of the place, or by special concession of the Holy See.²

2. If anywhere some feast from those enumerated has legitimately been abolished or transferred, nothing is to be innovated without consulting the Apostolic See (can. 1247, § 3). As is drawn from the word if anywhere (that is, if in some place), the discussion concerns particular feasts, not however the feasts of Corpus Christi and St. Joseph, which were abolished by Pius X by the Motu Proprio Supremae disciplinae;³ these feasts have again been introduced by force of the Code itself.

3. Feast days of Patrons, as follows from what has been said, are not subject to ecclesiastical precept; but Ordinaries of places can transfer the external solemnity to the next following Sunday (can. 1247, § 2).

III. The reckoning of a feast day is to be made from midnight to midnight, saving the prescription of can. 923⁴ (can. 1246), and with the hours computed according to the common usage of the place; this seems to be drawn from can. 33, § 1, which does not count this law among laws in the observance of which an option of time is granted, and this, as it seems, both so that there may be uniformity in this law, and so that scandals easily arising may be forestalled.

IV. On feast days of precept, Mass must be heard, and one must abstain from servile works, forensic acts, and likewise, unless legitimate customs or particular indults provide otherwise, from public market, fairs, and other public purchases and sales (can. 1248). Several other things are counselled, especially that the faithful be present at the sermon and exercises to be instituted after noon (cf. cann. 1345 and 1348). With these things noted, we shall speak first of hearing Mass, then of cessation from certain works.

¹ Roman Catechism, part 3, chapter 4, on the third precept.

² Pontifical Commission, February 17, 1918 (Acta Sanctae Sedis 1918, p. 170).

³ July 2, 1911.

⁴ Canon 923 establishes: To gain an indulgence attached to some day, if a visit to a church or oratory is required, this can be made from noon of the preceding day up to the midnight which closes the appointed day.

"Is it necessary to obligate under sin the faithful of the Vicariate of Chausy, who cannot hear Mass because of the lack of priests, to assist on feast days, in place of Mass, at pious assemblies of the faithful? - Resp. The faithful who, in the proposed case, cannot hear Mass on feast days are not on that account released from the obligation of sanctifying the Feast through prayers or other pious works; and therefore they are greatly to be exhorted, but nevertheless not obligated under guilt of sin, as though disobedient to a precept of the Church, to strive to be present at those pious assemblies, in which they can be instructed and nourished with the food of the word of God and other exercises of religion, and, joined in prayers in the spirit of charity, can more efficaciously implore Divine aid." S. C. de P. F. 4 Jan. 1798.

“52. The precept of observing feast days does not oblige under mortal sin, scandal being set aside, if contempt is absent.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“Is it necessary to oblige under sin the faithful of the Vicariate of Chan-si, who cannot hear Mass because of a lack of priests, to assist on feast days, in place of Mass, at pious gatherings of the faithful? — Resp. The faithful who in the proposed case cannot hear Mass on feast days are not thereby freed from the obligation of sanctifying the feast through prayers or other pious works. They are therefore greatly to be exhorted, but not bound under guilt of sin—as though disobedient to a precept of the Church—to endeavor to be present at those pious gatherings in which they can be instructed and nourished by the food of the word of God and by other exercises of religion, and, united in prayer in the spirit of charity, can more efficaciously implore divine assistance.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 4 Jan. 1798; C. 2199.

“The doubt was proposed concerning the sense to be given to the formula relating to the faculty of dispensing poor Catholics, enabling them to work on feast days…. The formula is to be revised so that it reads: after, however, hearing Holy Mass, if it can be heard; but if it cannot, after supplementary prayers have been recited. Meanwhile, this Sacred Congregation can write to that Apostolic Vicar, making him understand that the supplementary prayers, naturally to be determined according to his prudent judgment, must be recited by the dispensed faithful under grave obligation, since they are substituted for the precept of Mass and, moreover, it is of divine law that the feast must in some manner be sanctified by prayers and pious works.” Holy Office, 12 March 1875; C. 2042.

“89. The fourteenth degree of the conversion of a sinner is that, when he has now been reconciled, he has the right of assisting at the sacrifice of the Church.” Proposition of Paschasius Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“53. He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed four, simultaneously from different celebrants.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“We cannot approve the plan of compelling the faithful to attend the Mass and instruction of the pastor on feast days, other churches or oratories being interdicted under reservation. For although We are persuaded what and how great assistance toward eternal life Christ’s flock would receive from frequenting that same salutary food of the word of God, it is nevertheless known to Your Amplitude that it was never the intention of the Apostolic See that this be commanded under precept and the bond of sin. Hence We judge that the faithful are instead to be persuaded by paternal and repeated admonitions to provide more advantageously for their souls by these means.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 June 1845.

“Whether, in order to satisfy the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass on Sundays and feast days, it is necessary that each person hear Mass in his own rite, or whether it suffices to hear Mass. — Resp. In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 Dec. 1838.

“Since a fixed chapel on ships has recently been declared public for voyagers, and since it not rarely happens that, while ships are found in port, the families of voyagers and officers and other persons approach them for various reasons, the present chief chaplain of the Transatlantic Society of Barcelona set forth a doubt to the Sacred Congregation of Rites: Whether all who are present at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the said chapel can hear it in fulfillment of the precept concerning hearing Mass on feast days. — Resp. In the affirmative according to the Decree Vicen. of 4 March 1901, without a special indult.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 May 1901. Cf. On Laws, n. 262; On the Eucharist, n. 640.

“Which truly are the more solemn days on which, for all who do not have a particular Indult, Masses are forbidden in private oratories? — Resp. Those are of themselves the more solemn days in the case which are described in the Ceremonial of Bishops, bk. II, c. XXXIV, n. 2, and are observed by precept.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 April 1896.

The Ceremonial of Bishops, loc. cit., has the following: “Therefore, unless he shall have been lawfully impeded, the Bishop can celebrate on the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; on the feast of the Epiphany of the Lord; on Thursday in the Lord’s Supper; on the Sunday of the Resurrection; on the day of the Ascension; on Pentecost Sunday; on the festivities of the Immaculate Conception, Annunciation, and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; on the feast of St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary; on the feast of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul; on the feast of All Saints; on the feast day of the Titular of the church and of the Patron; on the anniversary day of the dedication of the cathedral church; or even, according to his judgment, on other festivities throughout the year, whenever it shall please him, with the ceremonies and solemnities which were explained above in chapter VIII of this book II, On Solemn Mass When the Bishop Celebrates.”

“That at the elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ they ought not to rise, nor to exhibit reverence to It, asserting that it would be an imperfection for them if they descended so far from the purity and sublimity of their contemplation that they should think anything concerning the ministry or Sacrament of the Eucharist, or concerning the Passion of the Humanity of Christ.” Error of the Beguards and Beguines condemned by Clement, Ad nostrum, 3, On Heretics.

“The law by which servile works are prohibited on certain days for the sake of divine worship is to be abolished.” Proposition condemned by Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanta cura.

337. The third precept of the Decalogue is natural insofar as it commands that some time be dedicated to public divine worship; but insofar as it determinately designates the Sabbath day, it is ceremonial, and abrogated in the new law, since in place of the Sabbath day the Church has substituted the Lord's day, in memory of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Besides Sunday, the Church instituted other feast days for recalling the benefits of our redemption, or the merits and examples of the Saints, and commands that they, no otherwise than Sunday, be sanctified.

This precept, insofar as it is affirmative, prescribes certain works, and insofar as it is negative, prohibits certain other things ¹; hence a twofold chapter.

¹ To the question whether this precept is affirmative or negative, St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 264), after the Salamancans (tr. 23, c. 1, n. 14-15), responds that it is affirmative, since it does not oblige always and for always. Suarez, Sanchez, Palaus, Leander, Fagnanus with the Salamancans, n. 15, against Cajetan and Filiucci, etc., who maintain that it is negative, since in it nothing positive was prescribed to the Jews; but this is denied. See Roman Catechism, n. 11.

But in this doctrine the Salamancans thrust forward three things sufficiently incongruous. The first is in the reason for defining an affirmative precept, because it does not oblige for always, or, as they say, because many causes are given which excuse from this precept. But even negative precepts admit excusing causes, for example the precept of abstinence.

The second is that they mingle those things which the doctors disputed concerning this precept as it belonged to the Jews, and from this oppose doctors to doctors who can easily be reconciled. Thus they oppose Cajetan to Suarez, when Suarez alleges him on his own behalf and reconciles him excellently by saying (De Relig., tr. 1, lib. 2, c. 1, n. 7): "Formally nothing is prescribed there except a certain dedication of that time to the worship of God, which is called sanctification of it... But this dedication is made formally by cessation from work, which pertains to external worship declared by a negative sign."

The third is that to doctors affirming that this precept, insofar as it was proposed to the Jews, is negative, they oppose the Roman Catechism, where it speaks of the faithful of Christ.

1006. Historical exposition.² In reality God Himself, under the old law, selected the seventh day of any week as to be dedicated to divine worship: "Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. Six days shalt thou labor, and shalt do all thy works. But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou, and thy son and thy daughter, thy manservant and thy maidservant, thy beast, and the stranger who is within thy gates."³ The reason assigned is chiefly twofold: one, on the part of God: for He rested on the seventh day, and blessed it, and sanctified it, or separated it from profane uses; wherefore we also ought to rest on the same day, for testifying our dependence upon God: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and sanctified it"⁴... "See that you keep my sabbath: because it is a sign between me and you in your generations: that you may know that I am the Lord, who sanctify you."⁵ - But the other reason stands on the part of man, namely that the Jews and their servants may enjoy necessary rest: "Thou shalt not do any work therein, thou nor thy son... that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest, even as thyself. Remember that thou also didst serve in Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out from thence with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore He commanded thee that thou shouldst observe the sabbath day."⁶ - The violation of this precept was punished by the penalty of death.⁷

² J. Gilfillan, The Sabbath viewed in the light of reason, revelation and history, Edinburgh, 1867; A. Villien, Hist. des Commandements de l'Eglise, first Commandment, in Rev. du clerge francais, t. XLI, 1905, p. 563-584; and t. XLIII, p. 339-366.

³ Exod. 20:8-10. - That the sabbath day was observed by the Patriarchs before Moses is very probable. Sayce, Hibbert's Lectures, p. 76-77, hands down that among the Assyrians there were certain sabbath days, or days of rest from work. Cf. M. d'Hulst, Careme 1893, p. 281-283.

⁴ Exod. 20:11.

⁵ Exod. 31:13.

⁶ Deut. 5:14-15.

⁷ Num. 15:32-36.

On the sabbath day not only was rest observed, but sacrifices were offered to God: "And this holocaust shall the prince offer to the Lord: on the sabbath day six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish."⁸ On the same day the loaves of proposition were renewed; besides, the Jews were accustomed to assemble in synagogues, to pray and to hear the word of God:⁹ "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath."

⁸ Ezek. 46:4.

⁹ Acts 15:21; cf. 13:27.

1007. 2. Through the new law the ceremonial part of sabbath observances has been abrogated. For Christ declared that the Father is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth,¹⁰ and, to root out Pharisaic interpretations, taught that the sabbath was made for man, but not man for the sabbath.¹¹ Wherefore Paul reproved the Galatians, who, after conversion to the Christian faith, observed days and months and times and years,¹² according to the Mosaic law; and he admonishes the Colossians that the obligation of observing new moons and sabbaths is no longer in force.¹³ Yet Christ often inculcated the necessity of glorifying God not only interiorly, but also exteriorly; and to promote this worship He instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice, which, since it is the renewal of the sacrifice of the cross, is much more excellent than all ancient oblations.¹⁴ He Himself indeed did not determine the special day and manner by which God was to be worshiped, but left to the Church the power of establishing all these things.

¹⁰ John 4:23.

¹¹ Mark 2:27.

¹² Gal. 4:10.

¹³ Col. 2:16.

¹⁴ Cf. Treatise on the Eucharist, n. 157 sq.

1008. The Apostles and the first Christians for some time, together with the Jews, assembled on the sabbath day to praise the Lord.¹⁵ But soon they had special assemblies, and there they prayed and celebrated the Eucharistic supper;¹⁶ and the custom prevailed that they assemble in this manner on the day following the sabbath, or on the first day of the week, which afterward was called the Lord's day.¹⁷ In reality, already in the second century, from various documents it is clear that this practice was universal.¹⁸ And so by apostolic authority and universal custom of the Church it came about that Sunday was substituted for the sabbath. Hence the Apostolic Constitutions (fourth century) attribute the institution of the Lord's day to the Apostles Peter and Paul: "I Peter and I Paul decree that servants work for five days, but on the sabbath and the Lord's day be free in church on account of the doctrine of religion."¹⁹ In the same place it is asserted that the Lord's day was selected in commemoration of the day of Christ's resurrection. "On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, which we call the Lord's day, assemble without any interruption for giving thanks to God, and for professing the benefits with which God has affected us through Christ... so that your sacrifice may be without blame."²⁰

¹⁵ Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:12; 21:26.

¹⁶ Acts 2:42.

¹⁷ Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Apoc. 1:10. - According to Nicephorus Callistus, H.E., l. VII, c. 46, the emperor Constantine willed that this day be called the Lord's day.

¹⁸ You will find the testimonies in A. Villien, l.c., p. 565-566.

¹⁹ Constit. Apost., l. VIII, c. 33, Mansi, t. I, 579.

²⁰ Ibid., l. VII, c. 31, Mansi, 506.

1009. From the testimonies cited, and many others, it is clear that Sunday was consecrated to God not only by cessation from work, but also by prayers, preaching of the word, and especially by the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass. Already at the beginning of the fourth century, the Council of Elvira imposed canonical penalties on those who neglected to assist at Mass for three Sundays: "If anyone placed in a city shall not have gone to church for three Sundays, let him abstain for a short time (from Communion), so that he may seem to have been corrected."²¹ - In the sixth century, Caesarius of Arles exhorts the faithful to sanctify the whole day, and commands that they assist at the sacred rite: "Therefore let him to whom it is possible come to the evening and nightly celebration, and let him pray there in the assembly of the Church to God for his sins. But he who cannot do this, let him at least pray in his own house, and not neglect to pay his vow to God and render the payment of servitude: but during the day let no one separate himself from the sacred celebration of Masses, nor let anyone remain idle at home."²² And elsewhere he adds that the omission of any prayer and reading on Sunday is a grave sin: "If on the whole Lord's day we neglect to attend to reading and to supplicate God, we sin against God not lightly."²³ At the same time the Council of Agde (a. 506) prescribed "that Masses on the Lord's day be held whole by laymen... so that the people not presume to go out before the blessing of the priest."²⁴

²¹ Elvira, c. 21, in Mansi, t. II, 9.

²² Serm. 280, among the works of Augustine, P.L., XXXIX, 2275.

²³ Serm. 281, ibid., 2270.

²⁴ Council of Agde, c. 47, Mansi, t. VIII, 322.

1010. Besides Sunday, certain feasts in the course of the centuries were instituted by the Church, and celebrated in the same manner. Since Bishops were able to institute feast days of precept, the discipline of various churches in this matter was diverse.

By common law, from the Constitution Universa of Urban VIII, Sept. 13, 1642, thirty-six days besides Sundays were to be observed by precept.²⁵ But Pius X retained only eight days,²⁶ namely the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mary Mother of God, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of All Saints.²⁷

²⁵ The Nativity of the Lord, Circumcision, Epiphany, Monday and Tuesday after Easter, Ascension, Monday and Tuesday after Pentecost, the Feast of Corpus Christi, the Finding of the Holy Cross; Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, (the Immaculate Conception, added to the catalogue by Clement XI), Saints Peter and Paul, St. Andrew, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, Saints Simon and Jude, St. Matthias, St. Stephen Protomartyr, the Holy Innocents, St. Lawrence Martyr, St. Sylvester Pope, St. Joseph, St. Anne, the Feast of All Saints; one of the more principal patrons in any kingdom or province; another more principal patron in any city, town, or village.

²⁶ Motu proprio Supremi disciplina, July 2, 1911, A.A.S., III, p. 305.

²⁷ Feast days of patrons are not subject to ecclesiastical precept. But local Ordinaries can transfer the exterior solemnity to the nearest following Sunday.

From the Code, c. 1247, two feasts must be added to these, namely that of the most holy Body of Christ and of Saint Joseph (March 19).

By particular law, in France and other regions, from the concession of Cardinal Caprara on Apr. 9, 1802, the feasts to be celebrated outside Sundays were reduced to four: the Nativity and Ascension of the Lord, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the feast of All Saints. The solemnity of certain principal feasts is transferred to the following Sunday.

In Great Britain, the feasts to be observed by precept remain seven: the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, Saints Peter and Paul, Assumption, and the feast of All Saints.

For the Federated States of America, there are likewise six feasts of precept: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Nativity of the Lord; Circumcision; Ascension; Assumption; the feast of All Saints. The feast of Saints Peter and Paul is transferred, as to solemnity, to the following Sunday.

1011. Conclusion. The law which prescribes the hearing of Mass and cessation from servile work on Sundays and feast days rests indeed on divine law, but has received its determination from ecclesiastical law.²⁸

²⁸ This conclusion differs little from that which St. Thomas hands down, II-II, q. 122, a. 4, ad 1: "The precept concerning the sanctification of the sabbath, understood literally, is partly moral, but partly ceremonial. It is moral indeed as to this, that man assign some time of his life for attending to divine things... But insofar as in this precept a special time is determined as a sign of the creation of the world, thus it is a ceremonial precept. Similarly it is ceremonial according to its allegorical signification, insofar as it was a sign of the rest of Christ in the sepulcher, which was on the seventh day." And he adds in the same place, ad 4: "The observance of Sunday in the new law succeeds to the observance of the sabbath, not by force of a precept of the law, but from the constitution of the Church and the custom of the Christian people." Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 263.

(A) Certain theologians thought that not only the institution of the sabbath, but also the substitution of Sunday in place of the sabbath, is of divine law.²⁹ But it is commonly held that this substitution is of ecclesiastical law, as is clear from what was said above, n. 1008. (B) Others said that the sanctification of Sunday is only from ecclesiastical law,³⁰ since through the new law the precept of sanctifying the sabbath was abrogated, and only from the authority of the Church was Sunday substituted for the sabbath.

²⁹ Sporer-Bierbaum, tract. III, n. 485.

³⁰ Suarez, de relig., tr. II, l. II, c. 1-4.

(C) Nevertheless we think, with certain others,³¹ that the matter must be distinguished thus: (a) the sanctification of one day per week seems to be from divine law; for God Himself instituted the division of time into weeks, and commanded that the seventh day be devoted to divine worship; the ceremonial part of this precept, namely the choice of the sabbath, was abrogated; but nothing proves that the precept was altogether deleted as regards the obligation of specially sanctifying one day per week. (b) But the selection of Sunday in place of the sabbath, as well as the mode of sanctifying this day by hearing Mass and cessation from servile work, proceeds from the authority of the Church. It was indeed very fitting that, once the institution of the Eucharistic sacrifice was posited, the faithful be held sometimes to hear Mass, especially on Sundays; but sound exegesis does not permit one certainly to infer this from the text³² "Do this in commemoration of Me." Likewise, that God may be better worshiped on this day, it is altogether expedient that men abstain from works which turn the mind away from divine things; but what these works are, how many hours one must cease from them, was defined only by ecclesiastical law.

³¹ Fr. Schmid, Worin grundet die Pflicht der Sonntagsruhe, Quartalschrift Linz, 1900, p. 12 ff.; Noldin, n. 261.

³² Luke 22:19.

1012. From this it follows that the universal abrogation of this law is not to be expected. This even the defenders of the second opinion admit, among whom is Lehmkuhl, n. 546: "The universal abrogation of this law cannot therefore be made, because a sufficient reason can scarcely be conceived; and this law is to be conserved all the more holily, because it is traced back to apostolic institution, indeed in some way to the very origin of things, and precedes every institution of the old law." - But particular dispensations both from the hearing of Mass and from cessation from work can be granted, and in fact are granted not only to individual citizens, but also to communities.

These things having been set forth, we shall speak: 1. of the social utility of the sanctification of Sunday; 2. of the precept of hearing Mass; 3. of the precept of abstaining from servile works.

1013. Thesis: The sanctification of Sunday, although it is not prescribed by natural law, but by positive law, is nevertheless most fitting both on the part of God and on the part of man.

It is explained. Natural law indeed prescribes that God be worshiped by man, from what was said above, n. 856, but it determines neither the mode nor the time in which worship is to be rendered. Likewise experience establishes that man needs rest, so that he may be able to work better, and perfect and develop his faculties: yet nothing is defined by natural law as regards the duration of this rest. Nevertheless, from the almost unanimous consent of Christian peoples, and also from long experience, it is established that sabbatic or Sunday rest, with the pious exercises which are celebrated on this day, bears before it very great social utility.

1014. It is proved: 1. On the part of God. (A) For although God can and ought to be adored daily, it is altogether expedient, indeed morally necessary, that certain times be determined in which special worship is rendered to Him. For man, oppressed by continual labors for sustaining himself and his own, often distracted by various cares and solicitudes, and allured by many pleasures, by no means rarely forgets his Creator and Lord; if at some time the thought of honoring God occurs, many put off this duty until tomorrow, because other duties, as they think, urge immediate fulfillment; thus first the exercise of religion is deferred, then soon altogether neglected; thus man, forgetful of God and of his last end, thinks only of temporal things, of increasing wealth, of pleasures; he scarcely cares for the moral law and the practice of virtues, and little by little declines toward animal life. - But, on the contrary, if on any week a certain day is prefixed, on which we are held to cease from work and pay praises to God, divine worship already becomes easier. For when servile work ceases, the mind soon ascends to the Lord, becomes solicitous concerning the last end and the means of attaining it, and pays due praises to the supreme Creator and Governor of all. Sacred sermons, which devout Christians hear, pious readings of the Scriptures, prayers recited in church, and especially the celebration of Mass, which vividly commemorates the Passion of Christ and the benefits of Redemption, surely contribute much to this; also the works of charity or beneficence which on these days we perform more solicitously.

1015. (B) Besides, not only internal and private worship is owed to God, but also social worship, n. 859. Now, unless certain days are assigned on which Christians may pray together, social worship becomes impossible: for each one, either alone, or with parents, relatives, and a few friends, will pay praises to God privately. But if on any week, on a prefixed day, all Christians are gathered into churches, and there through Christ, and with Him, and in Him, pour forth prayers with one accord and glorify God; if they devoutly assist at the same sacrifice in which the Most Holy Trinity, in the name of the whole Church, is adored, praised, and receives thanksgiving, all easily understand that they are members of the same body, sons of the same heavenly Father; and they pay social worship to God not only as private men, but as members of the human family.

1016. 2. On the part of man. The celebration of Sunday confers many advantages upon man: bodily, moral, and religious.

(A) Bodily advantages: the physical powers of man, as limited, are easily diminished by continual labor; and unless they are restored by weekly rest, they are soon thoroughly exhausted.¹ This indeed is more true whenever labor becomes more intense, and demands greater application of mind and tension of nerves, as the matter stands today in most industrial workshops. But unless a certain day of rest is assigned, it will scarcely be possible for workers to cease from work. For by force of the unavoidable competition which prevails everywhere, masters do not wish machines, acquired at great expense, to remain unproductive on any day, and therefore often demand from workers that they labor daily; not a few, whether from hope of greater gain or from fear that they be thrown out of the workshop, in reality perform this, and soon, broken in strength, contract long-lasting diseases, or must abstain from work for a long time, not without great detriment to the family. Therefore it is necessary that on certain days servile works be prohibited, with the exception of those which are necessary for the public good. Experience likewise establishes that on any week one day of rest is morally necessary;² and it is altogether fitting that this day be Sunday, since it has already been observed for many centuries among Christian nations.

¹ To the point Heyl de Herrnsheim, in the international congress held at Berlin concerning Sunday rest, in the year 1890 (p. 48, official Paris edition): "For thousands of years, the seventh day has been a day of rest. At all times, it has been recognized as necessary that man periodically interrupt his work in order to repair his strength. If he does not do this, his body wears out rapidly, his strength and his power of work diminish gradually and end by being prematurely annihilated. It is therefore in the interest of humanity to prescribe one day of rest per week. As for the choice of this day, Germany is of the opinion that it ought to fall for each person on Sunday, which, moreover, by tradition is already consecrated to rest; and, following the example given by England, Austria, and Switzerland, the German authority proposes to extend to adults, by legislative means, the obligation which already exists for minors of interrupting all industrial work on Sunday, except in case of absolute necessity." - In reality, in most cultivated nations, laws have been passed concerning Sunday rest; A. Morel, Le repos dominical, Paris, p. 15-32, exhibits a summary of them; and in France a law concerning this matter will soon be promulgated, which the socialists themselves earnestly demand.

² At the time of the French Revolution, it was established by law that on every tenth day the people should cease from labor; but the experiment had an unhappy outcome, and soon it was necessary to return to the observance of Sunday.

1017. (B) Moral advantages. For man lives not by bread alone, but ought to cultivate his intellectual and moral faculties; otherwise, in the manner of acting, he scarcely differs from brute animals. But, once the necessity of laboring daily for sustaining the body is posited, most men would hardly find any opportune time for investigating truth and the moral law, unless on certain days they were held to abstain from servile work: for they would consume all time in temporal affairs, and would postpone the study of truth indefinitely. - But given the opportunity of ceasing from manual labor, man can raise his eyes and mind to higher things, think of the last end, of moral matters, of duties to be fulfilled. He can hear sermons, read the best books, cultivate the higher faculties, and thus become more humane.³ In reality, wherever Sunday is honestly and Christianly sanctified, a greater culture of minds flourishes, more refined manners are formed, and the moral law is observed more perfectly.

³ M. d'Hulst, Careme 1893, p. 189-190, explains this excellently: "The day of God frees the worker. It is not for him the day of inaction; it is the glorious day on which the rest of his members sets free the activity of his soul. To shake off the yoke which weighed upon it, to take its flight toward the heights, his thought has no need of the initiations of science: religion has prepared for it a better initiation, higher and more elementary all at once. It is not through the long deductions of reasoning which gropes and seeks; it is by the straight avenues of adoration that it makes its way toward the sublime Ideal. And when it has found Him, it communicates in Him with the thought of the scholar, the philosopher, and the artist; it attains Truth in its source, Good in its substance, Beauty in the hearth from which it radiates; it bathes in a divine atmosphere, and there renews the forces of courage and hope, of resignation and love." - Cf. Gilfillan, op. cit., p. 192-202; 225-236.

Thus also the domestic life of families can be kept intact. The various members of a family often are occupied in different works during the week; especially in industrial workshops, spouses are separated from one another, children from parents, and when in the evening hours they are united, generally, broken in strength, they can scarcely enjoy the consolations of domestic life. But if all cease from manual labor on Sunday, they can come together in the paternal home, converse together, enjoy the society of parents, relatives, and friends, and all the consolations which are found in the family.⁴

⁴ Cheysson explained this splendidly, in an address delivered at Paris, Mar. 9, 1898 (in Morel, op. cit., p. 51-52): "Without Sunday there is no possible family. It is only on that day and in that blessed center of the domestic hearth, of the home, that, together with the tired muscles of the father of the family, his brain, his heart, and his soul relax. It is only on that day that his wife and children possess him, that the family affirms itself and unfolds itself in its moral beauty and beneficent healthfulness, that the worker, bent for six days over his trade and enslaved to the panting work of production, rises upright; that he lays aside cares with his work clothes; that instead of belonging to the workshop, to the employer, he belongs to himself, and he belongs to his dear surroundings; that he becomes again father, husband, finally man, in the magnificent acceptance of this word." Cf. Gilfillan, op. cit., p. 236-249.

1018. (C) Religious advantages. For experience establishes that religion flourishes the more perfectly according as Sunday is more perfectly observed. This is easily understood if the psychological dispositions of each one are inspected. For those who are occupied about material things the whole time, and cling to them unceasingly, easily omit all other things: they think of temporal things, of acquiring wealth, of business, of pleasures, of honors, and thus become earthly and care by no means for heavenly things. Prayers, which from infancy they had been accustomed to recite, duties of religion which they previously paid to God, first indeed are shortened, and soon omitted. But since the virtue of religion, like the other virtues, is little by little diminished and at length thoroughly extinguished unless it is frequently exercised, it is necessary that a certain day be established for cultivating religion especially. Among Christians, this day is Sunday: on this day they can devote themselves to the study of religion, think of God and eternal things, pour forth prayers more abundantly, fulfill religious duties; but if they have performed this, on the other days also they will not be altogether forgetful of God, nor of Christian virtues; but, before they begin the day's work, they will raise their eyes rather easily to God, and will keep in mind that the acquiring of riches and the attainment of temporal things profit little, unless they use these as means for attaining the last end.

1019. Practical corollary. Therefore it must be attempted with all strength that Sunday be sanctified more and more. Two principal means greatly help toward this: (a) private associations, in which those who sincerely promise that they will promote Sunday rest are joined in a friendly league, whether at home and among neighbors, or even among merchants, for example by favoring those who sell nothing on Sunday. It is well enough known that certain societies of this kind have already been instituted in various regions.⁵ Sometimes congresses are held, whether national or international, and often indeed with a happy outcome: for in these practical means are devised and commended for promoting the universal observance of Sunday. (b) The intervention of the State: for since, especially in great industrial and commercial undertakings, it is morally impossible to cease from labor, on account of the competition prevailing everywhere, unless the same law be imposed on all, it is necessary that by an opportune law the day of rest be determined. This has already been performed in many regions, and soon, with all Christians and honorable men favoring it, it will be performed in every region.

⁵ Thus, in France, the societies which are called: L'oeuvre dominicale de France, - L'association pour l'observation du repos du dimanche, - La ligue populaire pour le repos du dimanche en France, etc. - Concerning the practical means hitherto employed for promoting Sunday rest, cf. A. Morel, op. cit., p. 94-116; F. Gibon, La croisade du Dimanche.

Man, being dependent upon God every moment of his life, and constantly enjoying His blessings, naturally owes Him supreme worship and adoration always. The devout Catholic must, therefore, make his whole life, as it were, an act of uninterrupted divine service. But since it is impossible for him to worship His Maker actually at every moment, without interruption, the divine and the ecclesiastical law has set aside certain seasons in which he is bound to serve God more assiduously and to worship Him in a special manner.

“By this [the third] precept of the Law,” says the Roman Catechism, “‘is prescribed in due order that external worship which is due by us to God; for this is as it were a fruit of the preceding precept. Led by the faith and hope that we repose in Him, to worship Him piously in our inmost souls, we cannot but adore Him with external worship and thanksgiving. And as this is a duty which cannot be easily discharged by those who are detained by the occupations of human affairs, a fixed time has been appointed, when it may.be conveniently performed.”¹

¹ Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 1: “By this [third] precept of the law that external worship which is owed by us to God is rightly and orderly prescribed; for it is, as it were, a certain fruit of the preceding precept, since we cannot but venerate with external worship and give thanks to Him whom we piously worship in our inmost affections, moved by faith and by the hope which we have placed in Him. And since these things cannot easily be performed by those who are occupied with human affairs, a certain time has been established in which they may conveniently be accomplished.”

The sanctification of the days and seasons thus appointed by the Church constitutes an essential part of divine worship. “To this it will materially conduce,” says the same authority, “if the people be given to understand and see clearly, how just and reasonable it is that we have some certain days which we should devote entirely to the divine worship, and on which we should acknowledge, adore, and venerate our Lord, from whom we have received supreme and innumerable blessings.”²

² Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 26: “It is of very great value that the people should understand and plainly perceive how just and consonant with reason it is that we should have certain days which we devote wholly to divine worship, and that we should acknowledge, worship, and venerate our Lord, from whom we have received the greatest and innumerable benefits.”

And again: “The worship of God and the practice of religion, which are expressed in this precept, exist in the law of nature, since it is ordained by nature that we should spend some hours in those things that belong to the worship of God, a proof of which is that we find among all nations certain fixed public festivals, which were consecrated to the performance of sacred and divine things.”³

³ Ibid., qu. 6: “The worship of God and religion which is expressed by this [third] precept has its origin in the law of nature, since nature has arranged that we should occupy some hours in those things which pertain to the worship of God. As proof of this, we see that among all nations there have been certain fixed and public feast days which were consecrated to sacred and divine things.”

1. Under the New Dispensation Sunday takes the place of the ancient Jewish Sabbath. The commandment which bade men to keep holy the Sabbath day was partly moral and partly ceremonial. It was moral in so far as man is obliged by the moral law of nature to devote some time exclusively to the worship of God; it was purely ceremonial in so far as it fixed the time to be devoted to this service. As a ceremonial precept, the law was susceptible of being changed, and was actually changed for prudent reasons by the Apostles.⁴ Whereas the Jewish observance of the Sabbath served as a reminder of the creation of the world, which was the first creative act of God, the celebration of the Christian Sunday is intended to remind us of the second or higher creation, namely, the redemption of the human race by the Son of God, more especially His Resurrection and the sending of the Holy Ghost, the seal and assurance of redemption. The true meaning of the commandment is that man shall set aside a certain period of time during which he refrains from bodily labor and devotes himself to divine worship.⁵

⁴ Acts XX, 7; 1 Cor. XVI, 2; Apoc. I, 10.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 122, art. 4, ad 4: “The observance of the Lord’s day in the New Law succeeds the observance of the Sabbath, not by force of the precept of the law, but by the institution of the Church and the custom of the Christian people.”—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 18.

⁵ Gen. II, 3; Ex. XX, 8–11; XXXI, 17; Deut. V, 12 sqq.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 103, art. 3, ad 4: “The Sabbath, which signified the first creation, is changed into the Lord’s day, on which the new creation begun in the resurrection of Christ is commemorated.”—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 1: “The true and proper sense of this precept tends to this, that man should apply both mind and body to this care: that, at a certain appointed time, free from business and bodily labors, he piously worship and venerate God.”—J. Winkler, Der Sonntag, Lucerne 1847, pp. 46 sqq.; G. Müller, Sabbat und Sonntag, Bremen 1898; J. Hehn, Der Israelitische Sabbat, Münster 1909.

2. Besides Sunday, the Church has set aside certain festival days, known as holydays of obligation. This was done with a twofold purpose, first, to recall to the faithful particular mysteries of the Redemption and to induce them to venerate the Saints,—men and women in whom the grace of Jesus Christ has proved itself extraordinarily effective; secondly, to spur them on to insure their own sanctification by following the example of Christ and His Saints. The feasts of the Saints are in the last analysis, feasts of our Lord Himself, who has given them the grace to conquer sin, death, and the world. These feasts should serve primarily to glorify God, through whom the Saints were able to practice virtue; secondarily, to thank Him, the Giver of all good things, for the graces and favors by means of which He has chosen them for His fa- vorite children and made them co-heirs of Heaven. These festivals should, moreover, serve to remind us of our own helplessness. Being unworthy sinners, who have no right to be heard by God, we ask the Saints to intercede for us at the throne of mercy.⁶

⁶ 1 Cor. XV, 57; 1 John V, 4.—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 19: “Other feast days, however, were instituted from the beginning of the Church and then in subsequent times by the apostles and our holy Fathers, so that we might piously and holily cultivate the memory of God’s benefits. Among them those days are held most celebrated which are consecrated by religion because of the mysteries of our redemption; then those which are dedicated to the most holy Virgin Mary, then to the apostles and martyrs and the other saints reigning with Christ, in whose victory the goodness and power of God are praised, due honors are paid to them, and the faithful people are incited to their imitation.”—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 13, art. 1, ad 2: “God is praised in His saints insofar as the works which God effects in the saints are praised.”—On the relation of the Old Testament holydays to those of the New Testament see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 103, art. 3, ad 4.

Holydays of obligation must be kept in the same way as Sundays.

The commandment to keep holy the Sundays and holydays of obligation involves a twofold duty, namely, to abstain from servile work and to participate in certain prescribed acts of worship.

1. Abstaining from servile labor and attending religious services are integral constituents of the one and eternal idea that has found expression in the Decalogue, and can no more be separated than body and soul in man. The body honors God by resting, the soul by participating in divine worship. In both respects the sanctification of the Sunday corresponds to a necessity of human nature and is to be regarded as part of the natural law, which has merely been determined in a more precise way by positive law.⁷

⁷ F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 370 sq.

The ethical, economic, and hygienic importance of the Christian observance of Sundays and holydays is now pretty generally acknowledged, and there is hardly a civilized State that does not consider it part of its duty to enforce Sunday rest and the observance of such additional holidays as it officially recognizes.⁸

⁸ G. Uhlhorn, Ueber die Sonntagsfrage in ihrer sozialen Bedeutung, Leipsic 1870; P. Niemeyer, Die Sonntagsruhe vom Standpunkte der Gesundheitslehre, Berlin 1876; R. Engelbert, Der Sonntag, Leipsic 1898; P. Engelmann, Le Repos du Dimanche dans l’Industrie, Paris 1899; Jos. Husslein, S.J., The World Problem, New York 1918, p. 82.

2. Sunday is not only a day of prayer, it is also a day of rest. As man requires a certain number of hours daily for sleep, so he needs a periodical respite from work. That the observance of Sunday as a day of rest corresponds to a deep-seated need of human nature is evident from the venerable age of this institution, as well as from the fact that, when the French government, at the time of the Revolution, attempted to substitute the tenth for the traditional seventh day, the people refused to accept the change.

The universal experience of mankind shows that servile work on Sunday is unhygienic and economically unprofitable. Sunday observance increases the laboring man’s capacity for work and tends to lengthen his life.⁹

⁹ Cfr. P. Barth, Schlaf und Sonntag, Basle 1899.

3. Sunday is also a day of recreation and innocent amusement, by which men may recuperate from their labors and regain some of the lost joy of life.

“The prospect of one day of rest frequently intervening,” says Andrew Carnegie, “gives a toiler something bright to look forward to, without which his life must stretch before him as one unceasing, unvarying drag. In this one blessed day his slavery ceases, the shackles fall. He is no longer a brute—fed and clothed solely because of his physical powers, his capacity to bear burdens—but a higher being, with tastes, pleasures, friends. Life becomes worth living. The man puts on his best clothes—and there is much in this—the woman gives her cottage an extra brushing up. Something extra is prepared for dinner—there is a great deal in this, too—and, in short, the day is marked by a hundred little differences from those of labor—a stroll in the fields, a visit to relatives, or a meeting with neighbors at church, all in their best; and then the swelling organ and the choir—these things lie closely at the root of all improvements; and if ever the race is to be lifted to a higher platform—and who shall dare doubt it?—the weekly day of rest will prove itself an agency in the good work.... The best mode of improving its most precious hours for the toiling masses is therefore a question of infinite moment, apart altogether from the question of its divine character, and viewed only as a human enactment of the highest wisdom. It would seem clear that to make this only respite from manual labor a day exclu- sively set apart for the mournful duty of bemoaning our manifold shortcomings—which must at best give rise to gloomy thoughts—would defeat the purposes I have indicated. I want a compromise—church service in the morning, with a sermon ‘leaning to the side of mercy,’ as Sidney Smith suggested, which meant that it should not exceed twenty minutes, for, as one wit says, ‘a minister who can’t strike ile [oil] in twenty minutes should quit boring’—and then the fields and streams for the toilers who are cooped up in factories and workshops all the week long, or a visit to picture galleries, or to musical concerts of a high order,... to anything that would tend to brighten their existence. I am now convinced that there is an important change to be made in the mode of keeping our Sundays—the cessation of labor as far as it is possible, to remain a cardinal point, but better facilities to be provided for cultivating the higher tastes of our poor workers, that the day may be to them indeed ‘the golden jewel which clasps the circle of the week.’”¹⁰

¹⁰ Andrew Carnegie, Round the World, New York 1884, pp. 326 sq.

“The old privileges,” says Bishop von Keppler, “which came from no over-lord, but were due simply to God and the sun, were called ‘sun-rights.’ In the same sense, Sunday may be called the people’s ‘sun-right.’ What rights and what joys are lacking in the individual life when Sunday counts as nothing, when servile work burdens the Lord’s Day or debauchery dishonors it! The day is made a day of real joy through a wonderful combination of the natural and supernatural pleasures contributed by godly rest, the loosening of labor’s yoke, the united worship of God, the sermon at high mass, the outing in the fields and woods, and the hours of quiet enjoyment at the family hearth. In the Hymelstras¹¹ Brother Stephen gives a charming description of the father of a family taking ‘his little folk’ to the sermon and afterwards asking them what they have heard, supplementing their observations with his own. Then he gets his little drink and sings his good little song, and ‘thus he and his little flock were happy in the Lord.’”¹²

¹¹ Published at Augsburg, Germany, in 1484.

¹² P. W. von Keppler, More Joy, tr. by Jos. McSorley, C.S.P., St. Louis 1914, p. 93.

In his Book of Childhood, Bogumil Goltz has described the fascination of Sunday for the child mind: “Ah! on this day nothing was the same as on school days and work days. We felt the difference in the air we breathed and the soil we trod; we drank it in with the very water. The sunbeams flashed it into the soul; the sparrows twittered it among the notes of the church organ; the trees told it to one another with rustling leaves. Before sunrise, in the grey dawn, the coming hours of happiness were borne on the wings of the morning wind to this chosen day. O Lord, my God, in very truth it was Sunday, —Sunday in every hour and minute, in every twinkling of an eye, in every flash of a sunbeam, in every throb of the pulse, in every drop of blood, in all the body and all the soul. One could hear and see nothing, be aware of nothing, will nothing, think nothing, but just that it was Sunday, the sacred day. All that one looked at or experienced, was different from that on other days,—the same and yet not the same, for it was illumined, hallowed, and invested with the mysterious radiance of Sunday.”¹³

¹³ Quoted by Keppler, op. cit., pp. 93 sq.

3. In regard to Sunday rest the Church forbids:

a) Servile labor (opera servilia), i. e., the rough and harder sort of manual work which is ordinarily done by common workmen and which used to be done by slaves. This prohibition is based on the very object for which the Sunday observance was instituted. The day could not be devoted to the service of God were men to engage in their usual pursuits.¹⁴

¹⁴ Lev. XXIII, 25; Ex. XX, 8 sqq.—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 21: “By these words we are first instructed altogether to avoid whatever things can hinder divine worship. For it can easily be perceived that every kind of servile work is prohibited, not indeed because it is shameful or evil in its own nature, but because it draws our mind away from divine worship, which is the end of the precept.”

Any work that is in itself servile, retains this characteristic even if performed for pleasure or to while away the time.’ Contrariwise, any occupation that is not in itself servile, does not become such if performed for material gain or accompanied by bodily fatigue, for the intention of the doer does not change the nature of the work.¹⁵

¹⁵ H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., l. III, tr. 3, c. 1, dub. 1, resp. I, n. 1: “Whether it is done for profit or recreation, with this or that intention—pious, vain, or shameful—is irrelevant to the nature of servile work.”—Ibid., n. 2: “It is likewise irrelevant whether it is done with fatigue and labor or not, whether for a short or a long time, etc., because none of these things changes the nature of the work.”

Opposed to servile labor, and consequently permitted on Sundays, are (1) the so-called opera liberalia or artes liberales, i. e., all work predominantly intellectual and aiming at the development of the mind, such as reading, writing, instructing others, etc.; (2) the so-called opera media sive communia, mixed work which serves both the bodily and the spiritual interests of man, such as traveling, fishing, hunting, etc.; (3) do- mestic labors (opera domestica) that cannot be postponed or performed in advance, such as cooking food, feeding cattle, and so forth.

Among the causes which excuse a man from the observance of the law forbidding servile labor on Sundays and holydays of obligation are: dispensation, legitimate custom, necessity, charity (nursing the sick, burying the dead, etc.), piety (the erection of altars, decoration of streets and houses for religious ceremonies, etc.), and the public welfare or security (postal service, running the railroads, etc.).

In determining what is servile work and therefore forbidden, says Fr. Slater, “we must consider not only the nature of the work itself, but also the way in which it is done, the light in which it is commonly regarded, and other circumstances. Thus it is usually held that although the rougher work of the sculptor is servile and unlawful, the more delicate is liberal and may be done on a Sunday. Similarly, fishing with rod and line is not unlawful, but going out to sea with a fishing smack and plying the trade in the ordinary working-day way is forbidden. In the same way one who lives by photography should not ply his trade on a Sunday, but it would not be wrong for an amateur to do the same work on that day by way of recreation and amusement.”¹⁶

¹⁶ A Manual of Moral Theology, I, 264 sq.

The exercise of the barber’s trade is generally regarded as licit on Sunday because it appertains to the necessary care of the body. Barbers are not, however, on that account dispensed from hearing Mass. One compelled to stay away from Mass would be bound in conscience to look for another position and meanwhile would be excused from hearing Mass only in case obedience to the law of the Church would be likely to cost him his job.

It is to be regretted that so many men are now-a-days compelled to work on Sunday, often under conditions which make it impossible for them to go to church. Thus the Lord’s Day is withdrawn from its sublime purpose and degraded to profane and worldly uses.

The inhabitants of large cities should by all means be given an opportunity to get out into the open and enjoy nature, and the farmer has the right occasionally to visit the city on Sunday without incurring loss of time or money. Traveling is a biological necessity that does not, in itself, contravene the commandment of keeping holy the Sabbath day.

b) The Church further forbids business and court proceedings (opera forensia), such as public sales, the hearing of witnesses, etc., in so far as they disturb the public peace and are thus opposed to the sanctification of the Lord’s Day. Annual fairs that are customarily held upon a holyday of obligation had better be transferred to another day. Theatrical performances, baseball games, and similar entertainments may be permitted on Sundays and holydays of obligation for the reason that, as St. Alphonsus says, “such dem- onstrations of joy are morally necessary to the common weal.”¹⁷

¹⁷ Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 304: “The reason is that such signs of joy are morally necessary to the commonwealth and are therefore permitted by custom.” (Ed. Gaudé, I, 567).

The prohibition of servile labor and of business and court proceedings obliges, generally speaking, under pain of mortal sin, but admits of parvitas materiae (operis seu temporis). According to a more probable opinion, now held by most theologians, it is not a mortal sin to work, say, two or two and one-half hours on Sunday, provided the work engaged in is not extremely servile in character and does not exhaust the body. Scandal or disturbance of the peace may render even a shorter period mortally sinful. In regard to opera forensia the determining factor is not the duration of the proceedings (quantitas temporis), but the nature or character of the work done (qualitas operis).

4. The religious observance of Sundays and holydays of obligation implies: a) The performance of works of piety and charity, e.g., praying, listening to the word of God, spiritual reading, reception of the Sacraments, visiting the sick, etc. The main purpose for which we are commanded to abstain from bodily labor and business on Sundays and holydays of obligation, is that we may be able to devote ourselves more freely to the worship of God and to works of mercy. “We observe the Sabbath fully and perfectly,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “when we render to God the duties of piety and religion; and this is evidently the ‘Sabbath’ which Isaias¹⁸ calls ‘delightful,’ for festivals are, as it were, the delight of God and of pious men. If, then, to this religious and holy observance of the Sabbath are added works of mercy, the rewards proposed to us in the same chapter are indeed very great and numerous.”¹⁹

¹⁸ Is. LVIII, 13.

¹⁹ Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 10; cfr. qu. 25–28.

To hear the word of God on Sundays and holydays of obligation is not contained in the letter, but is certainly demanded by the spirit of the commandment with which we are dealing. The Church, by compelling her ministers to preach on Sundays and holydays²⁰ clearly expects that the faithful will listen with fervor and devotion. Attendance at the sermon is demanded, first, by the reverence we owe to the word of God, and, secondly, by the duty we have of informing ourselves about the truths of our holy religion.²¹ To miss the sermon purposely and habitually indicates lukewarmness and dislike of God.²²

²⁰ Conc. Trid., Sess. V, De Ref., c. 2; Sess. XXII, De Sacrif. Missae, c. 8; Sess. XXIV, De Ref., c. 4.

²¹ Cfr. Matt. XXVIII, 19 sq.; Luke X, 16; Acts II, 37–41; IV, 4; VIII, 5 sq.; Rom. X, 14, 17.

²² Cfr. H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., l. III, tr. 3, c. 1, dub. 3: “Attendance at a sermon is commanded, but not under mortal sin, except insofar as each person is bound to learn the things necessary for salvation. I said, except insofar, etc., because more uneducated men who are ignorant of the principal mysteries of faith, especially those which it has been said they are bound to know under grave obligation, are bound by the law of charity (if otherwise they cannot conveniently learn them) under grave sin to attend a sermon, or rather catechesis. Bonacina adds that in that case even a sermon is to be preferred to Mass.”—Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 308 (ed. Gaudé, I, 569).—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 25: “The sacred sermon must be heard attentively and diligently by the faithful; for nothing is less tolerable or so truly unworthy as to despise the words of Christ or to hear them negligently.”

The word of God should be listened to earnestly, rever- ently, and with an ardent desire to utilize it for the good of the soul.²³

²³ Matt. XIII, 1 sqq.; Luke VIII, 4 sqq.

It has been asserted that towards the end of the Middle Ages the sermon ceased to constitute an integral part of divine service. This is an error. The medieval confession books, issued for the instruction of the faithful, inculcate the hearing of the sermon on Sundays and holydays as a strict duty, neglect of which is on a level with failure to hear Mass. Bernardine of Busti, an Italian Franciscan, who died in the year 1500, in a sermon declares that every Catholic is obliged under pain of sin to hear the word of God and that those who are uninstructed in the fundamental truths of salvation commit a mortal sin if they neglect to hear an occasional sermon. To the question what would be more meritorious,—to attend Mass or to hear the word of God, he replies that on week-days it is better to hear a sermon, whereas a distinction should be made in regard to Sundays and holydays of obligation: he who is familiar with the truths necessary for salvation must attend Mass in order not to violate the express commandment of the Church; but he who is not well instructed in these truths, must hear the sermon rather than attend Mass, because the latter is enjoined by a precept of the Church only, whereas the former is commanded by a positive law of God.²⁴

²⁴ Cfr. Der Katholik, Mayence 1899, I, 95 sq.

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.

β) The duty of hearing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation implies a bodily presence which is both moral and continuous (praesentia moralis et continua). A person is morally present at Mass, (1) if he is morally united with the celebrant, (2) if he kneels, stands or sits somewhere within the church or near it in a place from which he is able either to see or hear the celebrant, or at least to follow the sacred rite by watching those who can see or hear the priest at the altar.

Therefore Mass may be lawfully attended anywhere within the church, including the choir, even behind the organ, or in some side chapel, from which the celebrant can be neither seen nor heard, provided the hearer can follow the sacred ceremony by attending to the ringing of the bells or watching others who are able to see what is going on.

Mass may be lawfully heard also in the sacristy or some other place near the altar, from which the celebrant can be seen or, if the door is closed, can at least be heard.

465. The observance of Sunday and feast days is deservedly numbered among the principal external acts of the virtue of religion. Now the precept of sanctifying Sundays and feast days is partly of natural law, partly of positive divine law, and partly of ecclesiastical law.

a) The precept is indeed of natural law insofar as it commands that some time be allotted to divine worship, and not only to private worship, but also to public and social worship. For there is in man a natural inclination to allot some time to every necessary thing, just as a determined time is allotted, for example, to bodily refreshment and sleep.⁶²⁷ Internal and external, private and public divine worship is altogether necessary for man, as was said above in n. 327. Therefore natural law itself demands that a determined time be allotted to divine worship. Hence there has never been any nation so uncultivated or so barbarous that it did not consecrate feast days to its gods.⁶²⁸

b) The precept of observing Sunday is of positive divine law insofar as it commands that on one day of each week there be cessation from every servile work in praise of the Creator.⁶²⁹

c) Finally, this precept is of ecclesiastical law insofar as it has been determined by the Church alone on which fixed days and in what ways God is to be worshiped. Hence St. Thomas⁶³⁰ says: "The observance of Sunday in the New Law succeeds the observance of the sabbath, not by force of a precept of the law, but from the constitution of the Church and the custom of the Christian people."

It cannot be proved that Sunday was instituted by divine law (Sporer-Bierbaum⁶³¹ almost alone teaches this). In the earliest times the apostles seem to have assembled in the temple to praise God not on Sunday but on the sabbath;⁶³² this indeed is a most manifest sign that the sanctification of Sunday was not instituted by Christ Himself; for otherwise the apostles would certainly have obeyed the command of their Lord. But when Sunday first began to be sanctified in place of the sabbath is not so certainly established. Several authors teach that the apostles themselves introduced this practice. Thus St. John says: "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day."⁶³³ St. Luke relates:⁶³⁴ "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread," that is, according to the meaning of this phrase: on the first day after the sabbath, or our Sunday. Hence St. Augustine already says of this text:⁶³⁵ "The first day of the week is called the day which is now called the Lord's day." By the second century the sanctification of Sunday seems already to have been universal.⁶³⁶ The reasons why Sunday was sanctified in place of the sabbath are indicated in this manner by St. Leo I:⁶³⁷ "On this day the world took its beginning. On this day, through the Resurrection of Christ, death received its destruction and life its beginning. On this day the apostles receive from the Lord the trumpet of the Gospel to be preached to all nations, and receive the sacrament of regeneration to be brought into the whole world.... On this day, finally, the Holy Spirit promised by the Lord came."

⁶²⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 1.

⁶²⁸ Cf. Catech. Rom. P. 3, c. 4, q. 6.

⁶²⁹ Thus rightly Fr. Schmid in Linzer Theol.-prakt. Quartalschrift 1900, 12-26; Noldin, De praeceptis n. 260; Tanquerey, De virt. relig. n. 1011; Göpfert, Moraltheol. I, 338. For God Himself selected every seventh day as assigned to divine worship: "Six days shalt thou work, and shalt do all thy works. But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou and thy son and thy daughter, thy manservant and thy maidservant, thy beast and the stranger who is within thy gates" (Ex. 20:9ff.). If it had not been established by divine law that on every seventh day there be cessation from servile work in honor of God, then, absolutely speaking, the Church could define that throughout the world Sunday rest be had every tenth or twentieth day; this, however, is not commonly admitted.

⁶³⁰ L.c., ad 4.

⁶³¹ Theol. mor. tract. 3, n. 484.

⁶³² Cf. Acts 3:1; 5:12.

⁶³³ Apoc. 1:10.

⁶³⁴ Acts 20:7.

⁶³⁵ Ep. 55 (al. 119), in Migne, Patr. lat. 33, 212.

⁶³⁶ St. Ignatius admonishes: "Let us no longer sabbatize in the Jewish manner.... But after the sabbath let every lover of Christ celebrate the Lord's day" (Ep. ad Magnes., in Migne, Patr. graec. 5, 768ff.). Cf. also Didache c. 14.

⁶³⁷ Ep. ad Diosc. (Migne, Patr. lat. 54, 626).

466. Corollary. From what has been said it follows in what sense the sanctification of Sunday and feast days pertains to the third precept of the Decalogue, and in what sense it pertains to the first precept of the Church. For the precept of worshiping God on fixed days by cessation from servile work is prescribed by divine-natural law, and consequently by the Decalogue. Probably it is also contained in the precept of the Decalogue that on every week some day of rest be observed in honor of God. But the selection of Sunday in place of the sabbath, as well as the special manner of sanctifying Sunday by hearing Mass, the sanctification of other feast days, and the determined manner of ceasing from servile work: all these things pertain to the first precept of the Church. For the sake of brevity and also of clarity, the observance of Sunday and feast days according to both natural-divine law and ecclesiastical law is treated together here, as we have already said above.

467. The scope of the precept of sanctifying Sundays and feast days is discerned by considering 1. the persons obligated, 2. the days to be sanctified, and 3. the works to be performed.

1. What persons are obligated by this precept?

This precept binds under grave sin all baptized persons possessing the use of reason after the first seven years of age. Hence the proposition (52) was condemned by Innocent XI: "The precept of observing feast days does not bind under mortal sin, scandal being set aside, provided contempt is absent."⁶³⁸ But since this precept binds all baptized Christians possessing the use of reason after the first seven years of age, it also binds Protestants and other heretics, since they are subjects of the precepts of the Church. Nevertheless, it may rightly be supposed that our pious Mother the Church does not wish to urge this obligation for them with exact rigor; and consequently, when heretics return to the bosom of the Church, they are not to be accused of as many mortal sins as the times they applied themselves to servile labors on Sundays and feast days, provided, however, that they satisfied the precept of natural law to worship God externally at some time.

2. What days are to be sanctified?

⁶³⁸ Denz. n. 1202.

468. Besides Sunday, the Church commanded several other days to be celebrated during the course of the year; the list of these presented by Urban VIII was afterward increased by one feast by Clement XI.⁶³⁹

According to the discipline now in force, however, feast days under precept in the universal Church are only: each and every Sunday, and in addition ten feasts, namely, the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and the Most Holy Body of Christ; the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mary, Mother of God; St. Joseph, her Spouse; the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul; and, finally, All Saints. "Wherever any feast among those enumerated has been legitimately abolished or transferred, let nothing be changed without consultation with the Holy Apostolic See."⁶⁴⁰ "But if in any nation or region the bishops judge that any one of the abrogated feasts ought to be retained, let them refer the matter to the Holy See."⁶⁴¹ Therefore those statutes concerning the celebration of feasts which were made for certain regions remain in use, for example, for France, where the feasts (apart from Sundays) have been reduced to four, namely, the Nativity and Ascension of the Lord, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the feast of All Saints. Particular statutes are also had for England, Ireland, and North America. Pius X expressly declared that the suppression of feasts concerns the faithful only as regards the obligation of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile works; on the contrary, the obligation of applying Mass for the people and solemnly celebrating the Offices in church according to the former discipline remains.⁶⁴²

3. What is to be performed on feast days?

⁶³⁹ Const. Universa, 13 Sept. 1642.

⁶⁴⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 1247, §§ 1 and 3.

⁶⁴¹ Motu proprio of Pius X Supremi, 2 July 1911 (cf. Acta Ap. Sedis III, 305ff.).

⁶⁴² Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 3 May 1912 (Acta Ap. Sedis IV, 340).

469. On all Sundays and non-suppressed feast days the faithful are bound to two things: a) to hear Mass, because the Sacrifice of the Mass is the most excellent of all acts of worshiping God; b) to abstain from servile and forensic works, because these works are accustomed to hinder a man from applying his mind perfectly to divine worship.

The precept of hearing Mass seems to have been in force from the beginning of the Church, as is indicated not obscurely by the celebrated text in Didache c. 14: "But on the Lord's day, having assembled, break bread and give thanks, after you have confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be clean." The so-called Canons of the Apostles and the Council of Agde presuppose the existence of this precept. In canon 10 it is had: "Let all the faithful who assemble in church for the sacred solemnities hear both the Scriptures of the apostles and the Gospel. But those who do not persevere in prayer until Mass is completed, nor receive Holy Communion, ought to be deprived of communion as persons causing disturbances in the Church."⁶⁴³ The Council of Agde (a. 506) speaks still more clearly:⁶⁴⁴ "By a special ordinance we command secular persons to hear the whole Mass on Sunday, so that the people do not presume to depart before the priest's blessing." The precept of abstaining from servile works on Sunday likewise seems always to have been in force in the Church. The Emperor Constantine sanctioned Sunday rest also by civil penalties.⁶⁴⁵

⁶⁴³ Thus c. 61, D. 1 de consecr.

⁶⁴⁴ Thus c. 64, D. 1 de consecr.

⁶⁴⁵ Cf., for a historical exposition, Tanquerey, De virt. relig. n. 1006ff., and Theod. Zahn, Geschichte des Sonntags vornehmlich in der alten Kirche (1894), 196-240.

470. Besides hearing Mass and abstaining from servile and forensic works, the faithful are bound to nothing else by strict ecclesiastical law. Therefore there is no obligation of ecclesiastical law to hear a sermon or catechetical instruction, to assist at Vespers and other devotions, and much less to assist at the sermon and other Offices in the parish church. Nevertheless, an obligation of natural law to assist at a sermon, catechetical instruction, and other religious exercises can easily be present, for example, for the sake of fostering the interior spirit of devotion, acquiring and preserving sufficient knowledge of matters of faith and morals, and avoiding scandal. Wherefore the faithful are to be earnestly exhorted not to be content with hearing a private Mass, but also to assist on Sundays and feast days at a sermon or catechetical instruction and other religious exercises. Certain authors wished to prove the existence of an ecclesiastical precept of hearing a sermon in the parish church from the fact that the Council of Trent⁶⁴⁶ ordered pastors to exercise the office of preaching on Sundays and feast days. For if pastors are bound to preach, parishioners must hear their preaching. Other authors, however, most commonly teach that the Tridentine precept contains nothing other than that pastors are bound to provide parishioners an opportunity to hear the word of God in the parish church. But the parishioners are not strictly bound to assist at this preaching.

⁶⁴⁶ Sess. 24, c. 4 de reform.

Remember that thou sanctify the day of the Sabbath.
(Exod., 20, 8).

651. The impediments of true religion having been removed through the first and second precept, and various services of reverence and fidelity which are owed to God having been assigned, there now comes the third precept, directly affirmative, which prescribes external worship as a corollary of the preceding precepts.

No one does not see that this divine worship is the foundation of morality, and therefore of Christian society. Therefore the noble and chief office of princes and rulers of societies will always be, in ordering and imposing worship, to assist the presidents of the Church by their authority, and to command the people to obey the precepts of priests (Catech. Rom., de 3 Praec., n. 2).

We shall treat: 1. of feasts to be sanctified in general; 2. of the obligation of abstaining from servile works; 3. of the obligation of hearing Mass.

St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 122; St. Alphonsus, III, 263; ed. G., I, p. 545; Suarez, de Relig., t. II, l. 2; Salmant., tr. 23; Aertnys, l. III, n. 113; Lehmkuhl, I, n. 701; Tanquerey, I, n. 1006; Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol., 1913, p. 563; Koch, Moraltheol., § 117; Vermeersch, Quaest. de Virt. Relig. et Piet. (1912), q. 1, c. 3, n. 108; Villien, Hist. des command. de l'Eglise, ch. 4.

Four things must be investigated: 1. By what law the sanctification of feasts is prescribed. 2. Whom this law obliges. 3. On what days the law urges. 4. To what this law obliges.

652. PRINCIPLES. I. The precept of sanctifying certain days, insofar as it wills that some time be spent on divine worship, is natural; but insofar as it determines the time and manner of worshiping God, it is ecclesiastical. Thus commonly with the Roman Catechism (l. c., n. 4) and St. Thomas (l. c., a. 4 ad 1).

It is said, 1. It is natural, or moral, as St. Thomas explains: "It is moral indeed," he says, "as regards this, that man deputes some time of his life for being free for divine things. For there is in man a natural inclination to this, that some time be deputed to each necessary thing: as to bodily refreshment, sleep, and other things of this sort. Whence also to spiritual refreshment, by which the mind of man is refreshed in God, according to the dictate of natural reason, man deputes some time. And thus to have some time deputed for being free for divine things falls under the moral precept": by which reason it is placed among the precepts of the Decalogue.

2. It is ecclesiastical, etc. Concerning this there seems no need to doubt, and we follow D. Thomas (2.2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 4), St. Antoninus (P. 2, tit. 9, c. 7, v. Succedit), St. Bonaventure (in 3, D. 37), and others whose names can be seen apud St. Alphonsus (III, n. 265; ed. G., I, p. 547). The reason: sanctification of the Lord's day succeeded to the ceremonial law of the Sabbath, which, although instituted by divine law, nevertheless, insofar as it was positive, was abrogated. Therefore the Roman Catechism rightly attributes the institution of the Lord's day to ecclesiastical right (de 3 Praec., n. 18). See Lehmkuhl, I, n. 702. Cf. what Preseren holds concerning this matter (Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol., 1913, p. 563 ff.); Vermeersch, l. c., n. 112.

Some moderns defend another opinion, which sounds thus: It is a natural precept that some time be deputed to divine worship; it is of divine law that one day out of seven be sanctified; it is of ecclesiastical law that God be worshiped on such a day and in such a manner. Thus Schmid, Linz. Quart. Schr., 1900, p. 12; Noldin, II, n. 260; Ami du Cl., General Table, 1899-1908, p. 266. - It cannot be denied that the text Gen., II, 2 ff.; Exod., XVI, 23; XX, 8-11 supports this opinion. Cf. Cornelius a Lapide in Exod., XII, 16; Mgr. Pie, Oeuvres, III, p. 352. Yet these arguments cannot weaken the reasons proposed above; for the question is whether the rest of the seventh day is more than an exemplar of order in the week. Practically we do not adhere to this opinion, because in a straight path it will oblige all those who could not sanctify the Lord's day by reason of necessary labor, to sanctify a ferial day, and thus satisfy divine law. But no one will admit this as certain. See St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 297; ed. G., III, p. 274.

From these things it is inferred: a) They sin against the law of nature who spend no time through the year on divine things.

b) The Pope cannot dispense that there be no festive day deputed to divine worship: for thus the fulfillment of the natural precept among private persons would be exposed to danger, and especially the public worship necessarily to be exhibited to God by any society whatsoever would cease.

c) Speaking absolutely, the Pope could decree that observance of the Lord's day should endure only for some hours, and that servile works should be licit. But sufficient reason that such a general dispensation become licit is scarcely given. - For the rest, history teaches that the rest of one day after six days of labor is necessary both for mind and body, and that from the origin of the world all things were ordered thus. The Legislator must attend to these things (Tanquerey, II, p. 583).

Note. Although the precept of sanctifying feasts is ecclesiastical, it does not follow from this that Bishops can institute feasts at will. Urban VIII commends to them (Const. Universa, Sept. 13, 1642, § 3), on account of many inconveniences which are perhaps accustomed to arise, that they abstain from introducing new feasts. If they wish to introduce any, let them be of Saints, not of Blessed; if any must be perpetual, let the consent of the clergy and people accede (III, 266; ed. G., I, p. 547).

653. II. The precept of sanctifying feasts obliges, under grave matter, all the faithful possessed of reason, at least after the seventh year. This is evident both from the nature of the thing and from the 52nd proposition condemned by Innocent XI: "The precept of observing feasts does not oblige under mortal sin, scandal being set aside, if contempt is absent."

From this you will conclude: 1. It is not licit to impose labors on heretics on a feast day; for they are faithful, and here it is a question of an ecclesiastical law which protects the exercise of social religion. Heretics, of themselves, would be held to assist at Mass. Yet recall what we said above n. 198.

2. The non-baptized, the perpetually insane, do not sin if they do not observe ecclesiastical law. Therefore it is licit to burden non-baptized persons with servile works, whatever some say. Cf. St. Alphonsus, III, n. 271; ed. G., I, p. 551; Ami du Cl., vol. 18, p. 1026. Yet the master would sin who imposed so great labors on them that no time would be available for worshiping God (Lehmkuhl, I, n. 702).

654. III. The precept of sanctifying certain days extends to the Lord's day and all feast days. It is most certain from many documents and the perpetual tradition of the Church. For it pleased the Church of God that the worship and celebration of the Sabbath day be transferred to the Lord's day: a) because on that day Christ the Lord, our light and life, rose from the dead; whence the Apostles wished it to be called the Lord's day; b) because on the same day the creation of the world had its beginning, and the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples; c) lest Christians communicate with Jews in the time of feasts (Catech. Rom., l. c., n. 18).

As regards feast days now to be observed, hold the following:

1. All feasts which in some kingdom were established by special convention with the Holy See still remain obligatory in those regions. Benedict XIII promulgated particular indults for Spain, Benedict XIV for Sicily and Austria, Clement XIV for Bavaria, Pius VI for the dioceses of Prussia and Poland, Pius VII for France and Belgium, Leo XIII for North America.

2. Urban VIII, besides Lord's days, had instituted thirty-six feast days, to which Clement XI added one in honor of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. - But now, for the whole Christian world, after the Constitution of Pius X, Supremae Disciplinae (A. A. S., III, p. 306), only the following days are to be considered as festive days: the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Circumcision, Epiphany, and Ascension; the Immaculate Conception and Assumption; the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul and of All Saints. Therefore on these days the third precept is in force, just as on Lord's days. Other feasts which have been suppressed are to be celebrated without cessation from work¹ (A. A. S., III, p. 351; IV, p. 340).

3. By force of the newest law, feasts sanctioned from vow or from an established ordinance confirmed even by ecclesiastical authority have been struck from the number of feasts with obligation of hearing Mass. S. C. Conc., Aug. 8, 1911 (A. A. S., III, p. 391).

4. If in some region, at the petition of the Bishops of the place, the Holy See has conceded that ancient feasts be preserved, so that they oblige in each forum, one must stand by this law.² Likewise, if in some region, for example in Holland, there are feasts of one precept only, by which only assistance at Mass obliges. Cf. Sweens, Theol. mor. fund., p. 276, note.

5. If the feasts mentioned above fall on a day on which fasting or abstinence would have to be observed, the obligation of fasting or abstinence is removed. The same is extended to feasts of patrons which would be celebrated solemnly with the concourse of the people, although the ecclesiastical precept as regards them has been abolished by the new law (A. A. S., ibid.). Indeed, the faculty is conceded to Bishops of dispensing from fasting and abstinence occurring on a suppressed feast, but solemnly celebrated (A. A. S., IV, p. 341). Dispensation conceded by Apostolic indult is extended to Religious, but not as regards the obligations of their own rule (A. A. S., IV, p. 627). Cf. n. 1243, q. 1.

655. Feasts suppressed from the former catalogue are the following: The two ferias after the Resurrection and Pentecost, the Solemnity of the Body of Christ, the Finding of the Holy Cross, the Purification, Annunciation, Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the feasts of St. John the Baptist and St. Joseph, March 19, the Dedication of St. Michael, the feasts of the twelve Apostles, of St. Stephen, the Holy Innocents, St. Lawrence Martyr, St. Sylvester, and St. Anne, finally the feasts of the Holy Patrons in regions and city. Of these, certain ones were until now to be transferred to the following Lord's day, but by a recent decree, Oct. 23, 1913, it is established: no feast, not even of the Lord, can be celebrated on the Lord's day, except the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, from the first day to the fifth day of January. Feasts of the Dedication of one's own church are to be celebrated on the day assigned by the Ordinary (A. A. S., V, p. 450 and 458). Religious institutes enjoying their own Calendar are held only to local offices of the Dedication and Title of the cathedral church, and also to the more solemn feasts of the principal Patrons (A. A. S., VI, p. 118 and 382).

656. IV. The precept of sanctifying feast days obliges under grave matter to two things: to abstaining from servile works, and to hearing Mass.³ It is established both from c. 1, Licet de Feriis, and can. 64, Missas, dist. 1, de Consecr., and especially from the use and practice of the faithful; because the canons do not promulgate a new law, but rather suppose a law already in force. The reason for these things is that, on the one hand, man abstaining from labor furnishes an oblation from earthly goods, and by his rest fosters recollection of mind; but on the other, the Christian hearing Mass fulfills in a perfect manner the obligation of adoration and of his own sanctification.

Whence it is evident that all these things were rightly imposed under grave matter, and that this law is to be fulfilled by all.

Note. Priests satisfy by celebration in a due place. If they do not celebrate, they must hear Mass. - Nevertheless, on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, only one Mass must be heard. The time of fulfilling the obligation extends, according to ancient custom, from midnight to midnight.

657. Corollary. By force of the precept of the Church, the faithful, on feast days, are held to nothing else; and thus both the opinion of the Doctors and the persuasion of the timorous hold. Nevertheless, they will try to celebrate the Sabbath day, which Isaiah, 58, 13, calls delightful, in a perfect manner (Catech. Rom., de 3 Praec., n. 10).

Hence: 1. The faithful are not held to be present at a sermon. - Bishops and parish priests indeed must feed the people with salutary words (Conc. Trid., Sess. 24, c. 4, de Reform.); but from this it does not follow that all and individual faithful are held to hear a sermon. Yet the faithful often sin by not hearing a sermon or catechesis, whether by reason of scandal or contempt, or especially by reason of ignorance, with which many labor to their great spiritual detriment (III, 269).

2. There is, of itself, no obligation of assisting at vespers or evening benediction.¹ Nevertheless, the faithful are greatly to be exhorted that they assist; because otherwise that time is spent in offense of God, and the spiritual fervor of the people is diminished.

3. There is likewise, of itself, no obligation of internally worshiping God by acts of faith, hope, charity, etc.; for the end of the law, that is, sanctification of the soul, does not fall under precept, nor are we compelled to internal worship, but we are moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus the Angelic Doctor (2.2, q. 122, a. 4).

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.

S. Th. II-II, q. 122, a. 4.

685. From what law and to what does the precept of the observance of feasts oblige. - From the law of nature there is a precept of assigning some time to the external worship of God: for there is in man a natural inclination to this, that some time be deputed to every necessary thing, such as bodily refreshment, sleep, and other things of this sort; hence also to divine worship, by which the mind is spiritually refreshed. But positive law establishes the determination of this time and the mode of externally worshiping God: in the Old Testament, indeed, the divine Mosaic law established the observance of the sabbath, but this determination, as being purely ceremonial, ceased when the New Law came, along with the other ceremonies of the Old Law, so that it was not changed into another but was totally abrogated; but in the New Testament, from the time of the Apostles, a custom was introduced and gradually made obligatory, establishing the observance of the first day of the week. To this day the Church has still joined several other feasts, which today are those of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and most holy Body of Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, the gracious Mother of God, St. Joseph her Spouse, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and finally All Saints (can. 1247).

But in certain regions, as in France and Belgium, by territorial privilege they have been reduced to four: the Nativity and Ascension of the Lord, the Assumption of the B. M. V., and the Feast of All Saints. Hence if a Frenchman or Belgian is staying outside his fatherland in a place where the other feasts have not been abolished, he is bound to observe them.

Moreover, the precept of observing feasts includes a twofold part: the one negative, of abstaining from one midnight to the next from servile and forensic works (can. 1248), which are especially apt to draw the faithful away from divine worship; - the other positive, of assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass, concerning which it will be said where sacrifice is treated.

Remember that thou sanctify the Sabbath day. - Exod. xx, 8.

The third precept of the Decalogue is natural, insofar as it commands that some time be dedicated to public divine worship; but insofar as it determinately designates the Sabbath day, it is divine and to be counted among ceremonial things, but abrogated in the new law; since in place of the Sabbath day the Church substituted the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Besides the Lord's Day, however, the Church instituted other feast days for recollecting the benefits of our Redemption, or the merits and examples of the Saints, and commands that they, no otherwise than Sundays, be sanctified.

This precept, insofar as it is affirmative, commands certain works, and insofar as it is negative, prohibits certain others.

Sacred times are feast days; and to these are added days of abstinence and fast (Can. 1243).

On feast days of precept Mass must be heard; and one must abstain from servile works, forensic acts, and likewise, unless legitimate customs or peculiar indults bear otherwise, from public markets, fairs, and other public buyings and sellings (Can. 1248).

§ 1. Not only Ordinaries of places, but also pastors, in singular cases and for a just cause, can dispense subjects individually committed to them, individual faithful or individual families, even outside the territory, and in their territory also pilgrims, from the common law concerning the observance of feasts and likewise concerning the observance of abstinence and fast, or also both.

§ 2. Ordinaries, from a peculiar cause of great concourse of the people or of public health, can dispense a whole diocese or place from fast and abstinence or also from both laws at once.

§ 3. In an exempt clerical religion the Superiors have the same power of dispensing in the manner of a pastor, as regards persons mentioned in can. 514, § 1 (Can. 1245).

These persons are professed, novices, or others living day and night in a religious house by reason of service or education or hospitality or infirm health. - Cf. Can. 514, § 1.

The reckoning of a feast day, and likewise of a day of abstinence and fast, is to be made from midnight to midnight, with the prescription of can. 923 saved (Can. 1246).

As God is immense, so He bound His worship to certain places, namely temples, so that it is unlawful without sin to perform anything profane in them: so too, though He is Eternal, He commanded that certain days be kept free for Him and rested from every servile work. But just as God ordained many other things in the law of grace so as to leave their execution to His Church according to place and time, so too the sanctification of the feast day, though it has a Divine origin, nevertheless has its determination of time from the Church, as will appear from what follows immediately.

The observance of the feast day is called the sanctification of that time to the honor and worship of God and the veneration of the saints. So Scripture speaks, Exodi 20.: Remember that you sanctify the Sabbath day. Therefore it adds: you shall not do any work in it, because this consecration is made through cessation from servile works. So S. Bonavent. 3. dist. 37. dub. 3. litt. and in serm. 4. de decem praeceptis, D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. ad 3. Suarez Tom. 1. de Relig. lib. 2. de diebus festis, cap. 2. Azor Tom. 2. cap. 1. Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 3. Since therefore the feast day is ordered to the worship and sanctification of God, the question arises: whether mortal sin is prohibited by this precept, in such a way that to sin lethally on that day be called a transgression of the feast.

The first opinion is affirmative. So expressly D. Thom. loco cit. Ales. 3. part. quaest. 32. memb. 3. art. 2. ad ult. and memb. 5. art. 2. Albertus memb. 3. dist. 37. D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 9. cap. 7. §. 3. and 5. part. tit. 14. cap. 19. §. 7. and tit. 17. cap. 17. §. 4. and 5. where Lyranus cap. 20. Exodi, where the same is taught by Abulensis quaest. 11. and 12. Medina Cod. de oratione, quaest. 10. and 19. Maior 4. dist. 14. quaest. 4. Angelus V. feria, num. 36. and V. Interrogationes circa tertium praeceptum. and V. Praeceptum, Rosella V. confessio, 2. num. 7. Catherinus lib. 5. contra Caietanum, Corduba lib. 1. quaest. 6. who says the opposite opinion is not safe, and he brings forward many.

The same hold Scotus, and Gabriel. 3. dist. 15. and the same Gabriel in 4. dist. 17. quaest. 1. conclusione 4. Angestus in moral. cap. 8. Nidet in 3. praecepto, cap. 1. and cap. 9. The same seems to be the sense of D. Ambrosius on Lucae 13. as at D. Thom. D. Augustinus epist. 119. and lib. de decem chordis, cap. 5. and cap. consideret. initio de poenit. dist. 15. v. In tempore, and V. orationi conflicto: And it seems to be the approved opinion in the Council of Cologne, convoked in the year of the Lord 1536. In the Tractate on exterior penance, fol. 180. where it teaches that he sins twice who spends the Lord's day with harlots and quarrels, fistfights, and obscenities. Fagundez says it is probable lib. 1. cap. 9. bringing forward also D. Bonaventuram in 3. dist. 37. dub. 3. litt. and in speculo animae, cap. 1. Add also serm. 4. de decem praeceptis. Therefore if the Seraphic Doctor is led to it, all the ancient and illustrious Theologians have it as patrons.

The second opinion, on the contrary, denies that the precept of the observance of the feast day specially forbids all mortal sins. So Suarez Tom. 1. de relig. lib. 2. de diebus festis, cap. 18. Azor tom. 2. cap. 28. quaestio 10. Caietanus prima secundae, quaest. 7. art. 1. and 2. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. and in summa v. festorum violatio, and in opuscul. quaest. 27. quod, 10. Sotus in 4. dist. 18. quaest. 2. art. 4. lib. 2. de Iustitia, quaest. 4. art. 4. Victoria in summa, de sacram. tit. de confess. num. 195. Abulensis in 4. dist. 17. quaest. 1. Sylvester V. Dominica, quaest. 8. dist. 4. and in Rosa aurea casu 65. where he says the most learned men of his order commonly hold thus. Navarras in cap. consideret, num. 22. and Manuali Lat. cap. 6. num. 9. Fumus V. Fevia, num. 12. Tabiens ibi, num. 47. Angles in floribus, quaest. 9. de confess. pag. 288. Couar. in cap. Alma mater, part. 1. §. 5. num. 3. and lib. 3. var. cap. 19. Guttierr. lib. 1. can. qq. cap. 31. Fagundez num. 1. who brings forward also D. Thom. 4. dist. 32. art. 5. quaest. 1. and in 3. dist. 37. art. 5. quaest. 2. ad 2. Bonacina puncto 2. Bassaeus 1. num. 3.

AS TO D. Bonaventure, he indeed seems clearly for the first opinion. Yet if it be thoroughly considered, he asserts indeed that the end of this Precept is the sanctification of the soul through good works, so that for that reason he wills that abstention be made from servile and worldly labors, that we may be free in quiet for the service of God; and so to act against the end intended by God is to yield, for he indeed does not labor in servile physical works, but only in works of sins, which indeed are metaphorically servile, and therefore he says that he does worse who applies himself to sins, frequenting theaters, luxury, drunkenness, than he who labors on the feast, because such a one, although he esteems one mean of being free for God from distracting servile works, yet operates other means contrary to the end, and more diametrically opposed to the Divine law, as overturning the end; and therefore in the places cited, and serm. 2. Sabbathi sancti, he complains with D. Augustinus that thus the Sabbath is not observed to the end intended by God; nevertheless he does not seem to impose anything except that we be free from physical servile works, and so he alleges the precept of the Divine law Exodi 20. and 35. and Levit. 23. and in 3. dist. 37. he says that cessation from servile works is imposed, and to signify that one must abstain from the servile works of sin, and as such it was significative, not only moral, and wittily for the full impletion of the other morals. And he says that especially by this precept servile works are forbidden, especially those directed to gains. Nor only these, but indeed more and more diligently carnal works, drunkenness, luxury, etc. and he adds the testimony of D. Augustinus saying: Not to keep the feast day according to the mind of God, in which manner the Jews observe it with carnal idleness; for they will to observe it for their trifles and luxuries; and therefore it would be a lesser evil on feasts, if they labored, than to dance all day impudically at the neomeniae. And explaining the testimony of D. Augustinus, he says: But he says this, not because one must cease on solemn days from the business of exterior acts; but because the Prelates of the Church, whose it is to institute these feasts, and to determine how and in what manner one must cease from exterior work, must rather call back from those things which offer a greater occasion of sinning. Whence to avoid idleness, or unfit solace, Augustine says that they ought rather to exercise themselves in works of piety than to apply to disordered and lascivious businesses: On which account on those days they ought to frequent the Churches, hear Masses, etc.

HENCE I gather quite soundly, that that precept of sanctifying the feast by abstaining from sins is indeed not the end of the precept, but only imposes a means of abstaining from servile works; and of applying oneself to some work of Religion, which is deputed in the Mass; Moreover it falls more to the Prelates to call the peoples back from sins.

He says in serm. 4. cited that this is truly the perfect vacation, which has joined to it a good operation, and forbids the servile one. Where he seems to intend the perfection indeed of the vacation of the feast, but not to constitute its essence in good works and the turning aside from sins. Therefore it is not so clearly for the first opinion. Which more, in the third argument, I will show from his words, with which he seems to me to embrace the second.

I ASSERT first, that the former opinion can be defended with probability, namely that mortal sins committed on the feast add a circumstance of malice.

It is PROVED by the authorities brought for it. First indeed by D. Bonav. from D. Augustino epist. 119. and lib. de decem chordis: The Jew would do better on the Sabbath something useful in his field; than if he were seditious in the theater. And their women would do better to work wool on the Sabbath day, than to dance all day impudically at the neomeniae.

Yet it can be answered that the S. Father intends only that the works of mortal sin against the law of nature are more against the end intended by God in the sanctification of feasts, than servile labors against the human precept of the feast day.

It is PROVED second from cap. Consideret. initio 15 de poenit. dist. 1. §. under the word In tempore, and the word orationi constituto, where it is prescribed that we confess the circumstance of the feast time in mortal sin.

Yet it can be answered with Navarro ibi num. 32. Guttierr. lib. 1. de qq. can. cap. 31. Suarez loco cit. num. 17. Fagundez n. 7. that this is a counsel, not a decree commanding, as appears from the tenor of the words.

The Council of Cologne above is also brought forward, but it was Provincial, not confirmed by the Apostolic See, and erring even in the matter of justification, as Fagundez notes num. 12. with Guttier. num. 36.

It is PROVED third by D. Bonavent. serm. 2. de Sabbatho sancto, and other places from Levit. cap. 16. It is the Sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls, and you shall be cleansed from all your sins, and cap. 23. You shall afflict your souls, etc. You shall do no servile work on this day; every soul that shall not be afflicted on this day shall perish from its people, that the Lord may be propitious to you.

Guttierr. num. 33. Cano, and Couarruvias answer, to whom Fagundez subserves himself num. 12. from D. Bonavent. sermone 4. cited, where he says: But if we understand, as the Jews, who say that a universal cessation must be made from every servile work, so it is insinuated to the Christian that he must abstain from every sin, and so it is figurale. If we understand, that we must abstain from certain things, so it is moral, not as in the precept, and as in the bene esse, and it remained as in the Ecclesiastical institution it is a precept: I say servile works, mechanical works, etc. These things S. Bonaventure, by which he shows that there the sermon was about propitiation, or ceremonial sanctification; but that to abstain from sin is indeed signified by the precept of vacation from servile works, not commanded: For sin is servitude only metaphorically, as Suarez notes num. 7. Fagundez num. 3.

Moreover, that servile work which is forbidden by this precept is mechanical, as D. Bonav. says here, D. Thom. and others at Fagundez. From which you have that the Seraphic Doctor seems to be for the first opinion.

It is PROVED fourth by S. Thomas in the places cited, and D. Thom. loco cit. by the argument which the others use: the end of the law is the soul of the law: But the end of the law of sanctifying the feast is the application of man to the service of God. To this mortal sins are more repugnant than manual mechanical works. If therefore by these the feast day is violated, much more is it violated by mortal sins.

It is ANSWERED, that not only by this precept is the end of the law, which is Charitas, not commanded, but neither every means; but only that which is properly expressed, which is to be free from servile labor, by which we are distracted; but sins are sufficiently forbidden always by the individual precepts. But if by this precept all impediments were forbidden, we would now be bound to be free the whole day for prayer and other pious works; to avoid walks, conversations, etc.

I ASSERT second, that the second, negating opinion is more probable.

It is PROVED first from D. Bonavent. in the cited sermon, in the words brought, by the reason which is the chief foundation, as Fagundez says num. 2. for that precept forbids only truly servile works, for Exodi 20. it is thus had: Remember that you sanctify the Sabbath day. Six days shall you labor, and shall do all your work. But on the seventh day you shall not do all your work, you, and your son, and your daughter, your manservant, and your maidservant, your beast of burden, and the stranger that is within your gates; for in six days God made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, and on the seventh day He rested. Therefore He blessed and sanctified it. Scripture has similar things cap. 12. 16. and 23. where under the name of servile work mechanical works are explained.

From these words S. Thomas draws that the work forbidden by this precept is that which is with the middle labor of the seven days of the week, with the aid of servants, maidservants, or beasts of burden; but this is not sin, but they are mechanical works, which he enumerates as seven, and they are referred to the following quaest.

It is CONFIRMED; for that rest is to commemorate the work of the making of the world. Therefore S. Thomas proves it deeply from the law itself.

S. Thomas DEDUCES moreover at the end, that one is bound to abstain from servile works, not only the lord himself, but to bring it about that also those abstain who are under his power, as sons, wife, maidservants, servants, and beasts of burden. But he intersperses some excellent Mystical things, which see there.

It is confirmed, because the work of sin, as sin, is not a servile work, as I showed.

It is PROVED second from D. Bonavent. in the places cited. The extrinsic end of the precept is not precepted, but only the expressed means, as they teach commonly with D. Thom. 1. 2. quaest. 100. art. 9. and 1. 2. q. 44. art. 1.

It is CONFIRMED, for neither was it ever understood by the Jews that by this precept all sins were forbidden, since they are sufficiently forbidden by their own precepts: Therefore much less to the Church, for to it many things are conceded which were not lawful to the Jews, as to walk, etc. as D. Bonavent. notes in 3. loco cit.

Corduba strives to overturn these most solid foundations.

They ASSERT that it is not, Alens. 3. part. quaest. 32. m. 5. art. 2. ad 4. Sotus in 3. d. 27. §. Quantum ad 2. Angel. V. feriae, num. 36. and V. Interrogationis, num. 6. and V. Praeceptum, num. 5. Rosella V. Confessio, 2. num. 7. D. Antonin. 2. part. tit. 9. cap. 7. §. 3. and 2. part. in 13. cap. 1. §. 1. Lyra Exodi 20. and it seems to D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. ad 3. and D. Bonavent. 12. 3. d. 37. dub. 3. litt. et serm. 4. in Decal. thus it is reported by Fagundez on the first precept of the Church, cap. 4. num. 29. but already in quaest. 3. I explained the meaning of D. Bonaventure.

To the NEGATIVE opinion have followed all those who in quaest. 3. deny that it is a special sin, not only to rest, but even to commit mortal sins.

I judge this opinion the more probable, which seems to me more according to the mind of our Holy Doctor. Fagundez refers to them again in cap. 14. num. 30.

It is PROVED, because the precept of feasts only enjoins rest from servile works, and the hearing of Mass: Therefore it obliges to nothing else, even if the intention of the lawgiver directs to the end of keeping holiday for God. The consequence is proved, because the law is not violated even if the end of the lawgiver is not attained, provided the substance of the law be kept, as D. Thomas teaches, prima secundae, quaest. 100. art. 9. ad 2.

The ARGUMENTS on either side were examined in question 3.

Concerning the Precept of hearing the holy Sacrifice, I shall defer it to the 3. part, Treatise on Mass, disp. 12.

A certain bishop permitted a certain congregation of nuns to establish a new convent in a certain city; but, lest the faithful be absent from the one parish church, he did not wish to permit lay people to be admitted to hear Mass in the convent chapel. Sometimes, however, it would be much more convenient if guests and friends of the convent who remained for a time either within the convent itself or in a neighboring house could satisfy the precept within the convent, since the church was more than a thousand paces distant. The superioress did not wish to refer the matter to the bishop, but asked Paul, the priest who was giving the annual exercises to the nuns, what it was lawful to do in the case. He, however, asks:

1. What conditions must be fulfilled in order that the precept of hearing Mass on feast days may be satisfied?

2. What are public, semi-public, and private oratories?

3. Can bishops derogate from the common law of the Church?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What are the conditions to be complied with in order to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on days of obligation ?

The whole of Mass must be heard, in the proper place, with bodily presence, and with attention.¹

1 See Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 258.

2. What are public, semi-public, and private oratories?

An authentic answer to this question was given by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Jan. 23, 1899: “Moreover, it is established that public oratories are those which, by authority of the Ordinary, have been perpetually dedicated to the public worship of God, blessed or even solemnly consecrated, and have a door on the street, or from a public street open a free entrance to the faithful universally. Private oratories, on the contrary, in the strict sense are said to be those which have been erected in private houses for the convenience of some person or family by an indult of the Holy See. Those which hold a middle place between these two, as the name itself indicates, are and are called semi-public oratories.”

3. Can bishops derogate from the common law of the Church?

No; Benedict XIV gives expression to this principle of canon law in several places of his well-known work De Synodo Dioecesana: “It is known to everyone that a bishop cannot relax a law enacted by a superior, nor impart to another that permission which he cannot grant to himself.”² “The common laws, rites, and customs of the Church received everywhere can be removed or changed only by the authority of him to whom belongs authority and power over the universal Church; otherwise an immense disturbance of ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchy would arise.”³ “Today a bishop cannot command his subjects to present themselves at the parish Mass, because he cannot abolish a custom which, since it is in force throughout the whole world, has now assumed the nature of common law.”⁴

2 Book xi, chapter 9, no. 5.

3 Book xiii, chapter 18, no. 11.

4 Book xi, chapter 14, no. 10.

4. The case. A certain bishop allowed a Congregation of nuns to found a convent with a chapel in a certain town, but he forbade them to admit lay people to hear Mass of obligation in their chapel so that the only church in the place might not be deprived of its worshipers. Sometimes the nuns had guests and friends staying either in the convent itself, or in a house in the neighborhood, and as the church is over a mile distant it would be convenient if they could hear Mass in the convent so as to satisfy the precept. The Superioress did not like to refer the matter to the bishop, but she asked the advice of Paul, a priest who was giving a retreat to the nuns, about what was lawful in the circumstances. Paul will know that inasmuch as the common law of the Church allows the faithful to satisfy their obligation of hearing Mass on Sundays and holidays in public and semi-public oratories they can validly fulfil the precept of the Church by hearing Mass in the convent chapel, as it is a semi-public oratory. However, the bishop had a perfect right to make the regulation which is mentioned in the case, and the Superioress should loyally observe it. She may presume that the bishop had no intention of making the guests within the convent go outside to the church to hear Mass, so they may be admitted to hear it in the convent chapel. Friends outside should go to the church, unless there be reason for making an exception in a particular case, and then the Superioress might avoid difficulties by arranging with the parish priest.

Caius, a young Catholic who seeks a livelihood for himself by the photographic art, asks a confessor, a missionary priest in England, whether it is lawful for him to develop and finish on Sundays photographs taken on days during the week. The confessor judges that the work is servile, but, because of the young man’s poverty, judges that there is cause for dispensing; he doubts, however, since he himself is only an assistant missionary, whether he is able to grant the necessary dispensation or not. Hence it is asked:

1. What kinds of works are prohibited on feast days?

2. What causes excuse from that law?

3. Who are able to dispense from the said law?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of work is forbidden on days of obligation?

Servile work, or that which used to be done by slaves, and which is now done by servants and laborers, and which chiefly employs strength of body, is forbidden on days of obligation. Common estimation and custom also have weight in deciding what is servile work. Mental or artistic work, usually done by a higher class of society, is not forbidden. Nor are occupations forbidden which are common to all ranks of society, such as traveling. But besides servile work, public buying and selling, taking oaths, and giving sentence in courts of justice, are also prohibited.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 264.

2. What is sufficient to excuse from that law?

Dispensation granted for just cause by a competent authority, custom, the service of God, charity, necessity, and some utility of importance.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 266.

3. Who can grant a dispensation from this law ?

The Pope can dispense any or all of the faithful from this law; bishops can dispense their subjects in particular cases, as also can parish priests. This power of dispensing their parishioners in particular cases which custom gives to parish priests may be extended to such priests in England and the United States as have the cure of souls.²

2 The same work, p. 267.

4. The case. Caius, a young Catholic, made his living by photography. He asked his confessor whether he could develop on Sundays the photographs taken during the week. His confessor thought that this would be servile work, but he also thought that the young man should be dispensed from the law on account of his poverty. He doubted, however, whether he had power to dispense him, as he was only a curate or assistant priest on a mission.

The confessor judged rightly that developing photographs in the way of business is servile work, and forbidden on Sundays and holidays. However, if the young man belongs to the mission which he serves, the confessor may dispense him, as necessity is a sufficient cause. If the necessity were grave, it would excuse him from the law without a dispensation. ‘

Caius, a priest destined by his superiors for a mission in South Africa, obtains a special privilege of celebrating Mass on a ship during the voyage. He would like, however, to become more certain whether he himself is bound on Sundays to celebrate Mass in order to satisfy the ecclesiastical precept, whether he is bound to notify other Catholics who may happen to be sailing with him that Mass will be celebrated, and whether they are bound to seize the opportunity and hear Mass. Hence it is asked:

1. Under what conditions is it lawful to celebrate Mass on a ship?

2. Is there an obligation of using a privilege?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. On what conditions may Mass be said on board ship?

Mass may not be said on board ship without an Apostolic indult, which is granted only on the following conditions: “(a) That the vessel be safe and be far distant from shore; (b) that the sea be calm; (c) that there also be present with the celebrant another person, either a priest or a deacon, who, if any motion should arise from which there would be danger that the Chalice might be overturned, can rescue the Chalice from a danger of this kind with his hand.” The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith brought these conditions to the notice of priests dependent on its authority in an instruction issued March 1, 1902, and added: “If on the ship there is no proper chapel or fixed altar, let the missionaries take every care that the place chosen for the celebration of Mass present nothing indecent or unbecoming; which would certainly occur if the most august mystery of the Altar were celebrated in cabins destined for the private uses of travelers.” This, however, must not be understood too literally, as the same Congregation explained to a certain bishop, Aug. 13, 1902: “The decree regards abuses only; the celebration in cabins, however, is not absolutely prohibited when all the circumstances remove dangers of irreverence.”¹

1 Mocchegiani, Jurisprudentia Eccles., tom. ii, n. 810 f.

2. Is there an obligation to use a privilege?

We must distinguish between privileges which are granted to a whole body, like the privilege of the forum granted to clerics, and the privilege of exemption granted to regulars, and privileges granted to individuals, like that of a private oratory. No privileged person is at liberty to forego the first; merely personal privileges of the second kind may be used or not, at the option of the privileged person, unless charity, or some other extrinsic reason, requires their use.

3. The case. Caius, a priest, was going out to the South African missions, and obtained the privilege of saying Mass on board ship. He wanted to know whether he himself was bound to use this privilege on Sundays if he could do so, whether he was bound to tell other Catholics on board that Mass was to be said on Sundays, and whether these were bound to take the opportunity offered of satisfying the precept of hearing Mass. St. Alphonsus (III, no. 319) teaches that one who has the privilege of a private oratory is bound to use the privilege if he can not go to Church, because he is bound to hear Mass on Sundays, if he can do so without serious inconvenience. Other theologians, however, with Gury-Ballerini (I, no. 348) deny this, and apply the principle, “No one is bound to use a privilege, as it would then become a burden.” The faithful, however, can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass wherever it is said, except in a private oratory, strictly so called, and on a portable altar by special privilege. If there is room in the place where Mass will be said for the Catholics on board, Caius should tell them, though he is not under a strict obligation to do so, as he has not the cure of their souls. Those who know of the opportunity will do well to make use of it if they can do so without serious inconvenience, but they are not under a strict obligation in the matter.