Where and how the precept is satisfied

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

Vol. I, Treatise On the Precepts o…, On the Third Precept of th…, Ch. I, Art. II, § I, Point I. Presence of Body

Moral and continuous presence of the body is required.

I. Moral, namely a person must be so present where Mass is being celebrated that he can be called one of the number of those assisting and offering the Sacrifice; for this it is enough that he be in a place from which he can follow the Mass with respect to its principal parts, whether by seeing, or by hearing, or by attending to the signs of the other assistants.

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

Resolves. 1. He validly assists at Mass who, although he does not see the priest nor hear the words, distinguishes the parts of the Mass by the sound of the bell, the singing of the choir, or the movements of the assistants, to whom he is morally joined, although he is outside the church, in which the crowd cannot be contained. Likewise he who stands behind the altar, behind a column, or behind a wall, provided he can advert to the principal parts of the Mass.

Likewise, more probably, he who is in a nearby house, from which through a window or door he sees the altar or the assistants, or distinguishes the parts of the Mass, provided there is a small space between the church and the place in which he is. It is otherwise if a great space or a street intervenes, as is more commonly taught. - St. Alphonsus, n. 312.

He does not assist at Mass who remains far away, even if he sees the church, the altar, and the crowd, because in common usage he cannot be said to hear and to be morally present. According to Lugo and others, a space of thirty paces from the crowd of assistants does not seem so great that it prevents someone from being present at Mass ¹.

¹ Understand this resolution, like the preceding one, concerning one who looks out from a house, etc., but with a long space, for example of a street, interposed. For if someone in the corner or chapel of an immense basilica can advert to what the priest celebrating in the opposite part, however distant, is doing, he certainly satisfies; for whoever is within the church is sufficiently present at Mass.

** Concerning the opinion of Cardinal de Lugo about a distance of thirty paces, St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 312) writes that Tamburini in Croix (lib. 3, p. 1, n. 643) does not admit it. But Tamburini (Decal., lib. 4, c. 2, §1, n. 14) has it thus: "I infer secondly that from the window of your house, if there is a small distance to the altar of the church, you can satisfy the precept by hearing Mass from there, even if a public way is between. Thus de Lugo, De Euch., disp. 22, n. 21, because in this way you are truly morally present at the Mass. It will be otherwise at a great distance according to the judgment of a prudent person, on account of the opposite reason." Now de Lugo does not indicate there generically a small distance, but only one which extends to thirty paces. Thus he says (l.c.): "It can happen that a window is so near the altar that it does not impede moral presence; as in fact in this our Roman College we have a private chapel whose altar is no more than thirty paces distant from the windows of the opposite house, and for that reason Mass can be heard or perceived from that window, although a public way intervenes." Therefore Tamburini plainly embraces the opinion of de Lugo.

Questions. Q. 1. What omission is to be regarded as grave or light in Mass?

Resp. It cannot easily be determined ²; for although according to all a third part of Mass is notable, nevertheless it is not clear what the third part is, since a notable part must not be judged only from duration. Yet the following things seem able to be established according to the common opinion.

² As regards the judgment whether the penitent sinned gravely or lightly by these omissions, this question is scarcely of any use. For these omissions generally happen by chance and involuntarily, or from a certain negligence. But in sins of negligence, as Suarez appropriately observes in this matter (De Euch., disp. 88, sect. 2), the gravity is not to be measured by the event or effect, but by the foresight of these things. Therefore the question serves almost only for this, that it be defined when someone, by force of the precept, is bound again to hear another Mass if he omitted part of one; or whether, when some part has been omitted, whether culpably or inculpably, someone is bound by force of the precept to assist at the part which remains and at which alone he can be present.

Moreover, although by force of the precept we are bound to be present at the whole Mass in such a way that no voluntary omission per se lacks some fault, nevertheless, since not all parts have the same dignity, and since the character of the Mass of the catechumens is one thing and that of the Mass of the faithful another, which extends from the Offertory to the consumption, indeed since in this itself some parts are essential to the Sacrifice, while others have more or less proximity and necessity to the substance of the Sacrifice, hence the reason is clear why the gravity of omission or satisfaction of the precept as to substance must be defined now by the material measure of time, and now by the dignity of the parts.

It is grave to omit everything up to and including the Offertory. But it is certainly light to omit everything up to, but excluding, the Epistle, and more probably also including it; indeed probably even, according to St. Alphonsus, n. 310, up to and including the Gospel, although the holy Doctor holds the opposite opinion as more probable. The reason for these things is that the things which precede do not properly pertain to the Sacrifice, but are only, as it were, preparation for it. - Lugo, etc.

According to all, it is grave to omit everything before the Gospel and at the same time everything after Communion; but not to omit only those things which follow Communion, indeed not even to omit everything before the Epistle and everything after Communion. - St. Alphonsus, n. 310. - Lacroix, n. 666.

The omission of the Canon from the Consecration up to, but excluding, the Pater must be held grave; because it is a notable part by duration and dignity. But the omission of the Offertory is regarded as light; likewise the omission of the Creed ³ and of the Preface, even if they are sung, because these do not pertain to the essence of the Mass. - St. Alphonsus, ibid. - The Gospel of St. John at the end probably is not a part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing.

³ St. Alphonsus judges with others that the Creed, whether it is sung or recited, as being a non-regular part, is not to be considered, lib. 3, n. 310.

It is grave to omit the Consecration and Communion; indeed also the Consecration alone, because it is the most dignified part, in which, at least chiefly, the notion of Sacrifice consists. Indeed, more probably, it is grave not to be present at even one Consecration alone, because the essence of the Sacrifice more probably consists in each Consecration. - St. Alphonsus, Homo apostolicus, n. 33.

But whether to pass over Communion alone is grave is disputed; the affirmative opinion is more probable to St. Alphonsus, because he judges that the essence of the Sacrifice consists also in Communion. Nevertheless the more common opinion places it in the Consecration alone.

Q. 2. Whether one who hears two half Masses from different priests, either simultaneously or successively, satisfies the precept?

Resp. 1. No, if he hears them simultaneously. The reason is drawn from the common interpretation of the law, which is confirmed by proposition 53, condemned by Innocent XI, and reads thus: "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two of its parts, indeed four, simultaneously from diverse celebrants."

Resp. 2. But if successively, distinguish. 1. No, if the Consecration and Communion are not in the same part. The reason is that the Church commands the faithful to be present at an integral and perfect Sacrifice. But that is not had unless both the Consecration and Communion come together in the same Mass. - St. Alphonsus, Homo apostolicus, n. 34. - 2. But it is affirmed, probably, if the Consecration and Communion are found in the same Mass; because then the integral notion of the Sacrifice is had in the same part. - St. Alphonsus, n. 311. - Lugo, Azor, against others.

Q. 3. Whether he ought to hear the remaining parts who arrives after the Consecration?

Resp. Probably no, because the essence of the Sacrifice is now lacking; and therefore the obligation of assisting at it ceases, since the precept cannot be fulfilled by this. - Mazzotta, St. Alphonsus, n. 310, and others ⁴.

⁴ Here the VV. (p. 920) object the words of St. Alphonsus (Hom. Ap., tr. 6, n. 33): "We say that the opposite must be held with Continuator Tournely and Fr. Zacharia in Croix. The reason is that, since it is sufficiently probable that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the consumption, we say that he is indeed obligated." - Resp. 1. It must be held as sufficiently probable that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the consumption, I deny, or let it pass. It must be held that a foundation which is merely sufficiently probable suffices for inducing an obligation, I deny. - Resp. 2. Collet relies on a reason which, as the same St. Alphonsus says, does not persuade; but Croix (not Zacharia, who does not have even a word about this matter), when he is induced to prefer such an opinion as more probable, is induced by that same reason which St. Alphonsus rejects in Collet. You may conclude that neither Collet nor Croix adds even the smallest weight to that opinion.

The VV. add (l.c.) these other words of St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 310): "This affirmative opinion is very probable, and in practice must be held, as Fr. Zacharia," that is, Croix, "says from another reason, namely that a notable part of the ceremony prescribed by the Church can be heard." - Resp. 1. The Church prescribes that the faithful be present at the Sacrifice and the ceremonies connected with the Sacrifice, I concede. She prescribes that they be present at the ceremonies alone without the Sacrifice, indeed even only at some part of the ceremonies, I deny. - Resp. 2. This affirmative opinion is very probable, let it pass; therefore in practice it must be held, I distinguish: as a matter of good counsel, I concede; as a matter of precept, I deny. St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 132, in the letter to Rev. Abbot Bartholomew De Marco) inculcates that saying (c. Cum iure 32, De Offic. et Potest. iudic. deleg.): "Unless you shall have been certain of the mandate, you will not be compelled to execute what is mandated." And a little after, the same St. Alphonsus says: "Hence Benedict XIV, most wisely, in his work On the Synod, in many chapters warns bishops of nothing else than never to condemn as grave sin those opinions which doctors of each side defend as probable."

Q. 4. Whether he who omits a light part of Mass is bound to supply it, if he can?

Resp. It is affirmed more probably, because he is bound to hear a whole Mass; except unless the matter concerns a very slight part. - Thus St. Alphonsus, n. 310. - The Salamancans against others ⁵. Besides, a sufficiently light reason can exempt from this obligation of supplying. - See Cases, n. 345 and following.

⁵ And those others indeed, as is easy to understand, judged their own opinion more probable. Of these, Suarez (De Euch., disp. 88, sect. 2) excuses from supplying the omitted part, whether the defect was involuntary or voluntary; because, he says, "the precept has already been fulfilled substantially... and that mode of supplying it is very imperfect, and does not contribute much to the integrity of the Mass... and because moral matters are not to be weighed so rigorously, especially when they are lighter."

But it is worthwhile here to remember that obligations are proposed or urged in vain whenever the matter is contained within the limits of probability. For a probable, or even more probable, obligation is not an obligation, nor can it lawfully be imposed as a true obligation, when non-obligation is probable, as was handed down above in the tract on conscience. Therefore mention of probable obligations of this sort will perhaps be able to serve for some erudition, but for practice and for prescribing duties it can contribute nothing.

Vol. I, Treatise On the Precepts o…, On the Third Precept of th…, Ch. I, Art. II, § I, Point II. Attention of Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…and 13 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 10 passages

Vol. II, On the Virtue of Religion …, Chapter III: On the Sanctification of Sunday

n. 1021.

1. Concerning Bodily Presence.

Since those who assist at the sacred rite, together with the celebrant, in some way offer the sacrifice, that presence is required and suffices which is necessary so that they can be said to be morally united to the priest celebrating, and to follow his actions, during the whole time in which Mass is celebrated.

(A) Presence of this kind is moral, namely that which, according to the estimation of prudent men, suffices so that those assisting are judged to be present at the sacred rite which is offered.

Therefore they satisfy the precept: (a) who are within the church, even if they stand behind the altar, a wall, or a column, - or in a chapel where they can neither see nor hear the priest, provided that from the movements of those assisting, the sound of the little bell, or other external signs, they can notice what is being done by the priest; this holds even if, in a large church, they are very far distant from the altar. (b) Likewise those who are in the sacristy, or in another place from which they can see or hear the priest; and also those who for a short time withdraw from the church to ring the bells or to perform something else connected with the sacred rite. (c) Indeed those who, outside the church, stand near the door, so that they are judged joined with the others assisting; indeed, those who are in a nearby house, from which through a window or door they can see the ceremonies of Mass, provided nevertheless that the house is not far distant from the church.²

² "Not beyond thirty paces," says Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. XXII, n. 21. But the matter cannot be determined mathematically; moreover here one cannot be permitted without a reasonable cause.

n. 1022.

(B) Presence ought to be continuous during the whole time of the Mass, that is, from the psalm Judica up to and including the priestly blessing. Therefore they sin who, without cause, omit a part of Mass, and indeed gravely or lightly according as the part omitted is notable or small. Moreover, the gravity of the part omitted ought to be judged not only from duration, but especially from its dignity. Generally a third part of the Mass is judged notable, but if there is question of an essential action, a smaller part is held as grave.

n. 1023.

The omission of those things which precede the offertory, - the omission of the offertory alone, or of the preface, or of those things which follow Communion, is judged a light sin.

But it is grave to omit all things up to and including the offertory, - the whole canon, or from the consecration up to the Pater noster, because it is an essential part, - indeed even the consecration alone, which pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, - Communion alone, according to those who think that it pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, - to omit at the same time all those things which precede the Gospel and those which follow Communion.

He does not satisfy the precept who hears two or more parts of Mass from different priests celebrating at the same time, for example, the beginning of Mass up to the Canon from one priest, and at the same time the rest from another priest celebrating at a nearby altar. This is clear from the condemnation of this proposition 53 by Innocent XI: "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing the sacred rite who hears two of its parts, indeed four, at the same time from different celebrants."³ - But if someone hears these parts successively, yet so that he is present at the consecration and Communion of the same Mass, he strictly satisfies the precept, because he hears one whole Mass as regards the essentials, and supplies the rest; but otherwise, if he is present at the consecration of one Mass and the Communion of another, because he is not present at one and the same whole sacrifice.

³ Denzinger, n. 1070; Viva on this proposition.

From these things it is gathered that he who cannot assist at an entire Mass is held to assist at least at the essential and integral part, that is, the consecration and Communion, if he can. But if he can assist only at accessory parts, for example, the prayers which precede the Gospel or follow Communion, he is not strictly held to this. - He who was present at the essential and integral part of Mass, and omitted the rest, is held to supply these things, if he can, by assisting at another sacred rite.

n. 1024.

Things to be noted for practice. For judging the sin of those who come to church when Mass has already begun, attention must be paid not only to the aforesaid rules, but also to their mind, namely to the greater or lesser negligence of which they are conscious, and to the more or less clear foresight of the danger of not hearing the whole Mass.

Where many Masses are celebrated, those who have come late are altogether to be exhorted to hear the whole following Mass, if they easily can: Christian piety and the abundance of fruits which are derived from this surely advise it.

n. 1025.

2. Concerning Religious Assistance.

It is not enough to be corporally present at the sacred rite; but the assistance ought to be religious, since the sacrifice is an act of religion. This involves two things: intention and attention.

(A) On the part of intention, there is required and suffices at least the implicit intention of worshiping God. Therefore he does not satisfy the precept who goes to church for this end alone, that there he may wait for a friend, or hear music, without any respect to divine worship; - but he who is present there from fear of parents or from another human motive, but at the same time wills to worship God, satisfies the precept.

n. 1026.

(B) Some attention of mind is likewise required, the notion of which we declared above, n. 870. (a) For satisfying the precept, at least external attention is certainly required, by which every action incompatible by its nature with internal attention is excluded; wherefore he does not satisfy the precept who, during Mass, attentively reads profane books, or writes or paints, plays, converses, attentively considers images or pictures, without religious affection.

(b) As regards internal attention, it is controverted: according to Lugo⁴ and others, it is not strictly required, because an act of divine worship can be performed even by those distracted in mind: for to this it suffices that at the beginning of the action there be the intention of worshiping God, and at the same time attention to the action which is placed, and that both virtually persevere; this can happen provided external attention is had. According to St. Alphonsus (n. 313) and others, more probably, internal attention is required, at least remiss, extending to the principal parts of Mass: for the Church prescribes an act by which God is worshiped; but God is not worshiped by merely external attention, internal attention having been voluntarily omitted. But according to St. Alphonsus, virtual attention suffices, that is, the intention of attending had at the beginning and not retracted; wherefore if someone is even voluntarily distracted, without nevertheless noticing that he is being distracted from Mass, he satisfies the precept of the Church, although he commits a venial sin. - In practice, serious effort must be made that the mind be occupied with pious thoughts and prayers; but he who has a general intention of worshiping God and strives with common diligence to turn his mind to prayers, or mysteries, or God Himself, ought not be anxious.

⁴ Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. XXII, n. 27-41.

n. 1027.

Those sufficiently satisfy the precept who, during Mass, recite the breviary or rosary; read a pious book; perform an examination of conscience; doze a little, provided they notice the principal parts of Mass; indeed probably, according to some, those confessing their sins: this can be admitted if the confession is brief, or cannot be deferred to another time without grave inconvenience.

So that more abundant fruits may be gathered from the sacred rite, the faithful are to be exhorted to unite themselves to the priest, and especially to Christ Himself the high priest, and to pour forth prayers with Him, especially those which are found in the missal; or to think piously of the mysteries of the Passion; or to perform acts corresponding to the four ends of the sacrifice, according to the method of St. Leonard of Port Maurice.

n. 1028.

3. Concerning the Due Place.

Although formerly, for several centuries, in many dioceses it was prescribed to hear Mass in the parish church,⁵ today the faithful can satisfy the precept in any church, and in any public or semi-public oratory, and in private cemetery chapels erected by families or private persons for their own burial; and also in the erected oratories of Cardinals and of residential or titular Bishops.⁶ - Nevertheless assistance at parish Mass is altogether to be recommended, so that the sheep may know their pastor and hear the word of God.

⁵ A. Villien, l.c., pp. 575, 578. - From this law there was first derogation through privileges granted to the mendicants (Pius V, Const. Etsi mendicantium, May 16, 1567, § 2; n. 8); afterward through contrary custom now in force in the whole world.

⁶ According to the Code, can. 1188, § 2, an oratory is: "1. Public, if it has been erected chiefly for the convenience of some college or even of private persons, yet so that all the faithful, at least during the time of divine offices, have a legitimately approved right of going to it; 2. Semi-public, if it has been erected for the convenience of some community or gathering of the faithful coming together there, and it is not free for everyone to approach it; 3. Private or domestic, if it has been erected in private houses for the convenience of some family only or private person." Moreover, from can. 1189-1190, "Oratories of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and of Bishops, whether residential or titular, although private, nevertheless enjoy all the rights and privileges by which semi-public oratories rejoice. - Chapels in a cemetery erected by families or private persons for their own burial are private oratories."

n. 1029.

But, excluding a special privilege, they do not fully satisfy the precept who hear Mass in merely private oratories, except those who are expressed in the concession itself of the indult; wherefore the tenor of the indult must be carefully inspected.

Generally, in order that it be licit to celebrate in a private oratory, it is required that one of the persons to whom the indult was principally granted, or to whom the brief is directed, be present at Mass. Moreover, only one Mass can be celebrated on the same day; indeed, unless the indult was granted by reason of infirmity, the celebration of Mass is prohibited on the more solemn feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Easter Sunday, Pentecost, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, Ascension, Immaculate Conception, Annunciation, Assumption, St. Joseph, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, All Saints, and the feast of the patron of the place.⁷ - In these oratories, the following satisfy the precept: those to whom the indult was principally granted; - their blood relatives and relatives by marriage up to the fourth degree, when they live with the privileged master in the same house; - guests who lodge with the master; - servants and household members who at the time of Mass are necessary for serving the masters.

⁷ S.C. Rit., Apr. 10, 1896, n. 3896, new edition.

n. 1030.

Disputed question. When those who enjoy the privilege of a private oratory cannot go to church, it is asked whether they are held to use the privilege, if they can conveniently have a priest. (a) Some deny this, because no one is held to use a privilege, and besides the precept does not oblige one to employ an extraordinary means. (b) Others, with St. Alphonsus (n. 319), affirm this, and indeed more reasonably, as we think: for the privileged are held not by force of the privilege, but by force of the precept, which obliges all who are able to fulfill it without grave inconvenience to hear Mass.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 13 passages

Vol. IV, Pt. III, Chapter II: The Observance of Sundays and Holydays of Obligation

n. ¶38.

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.

n. ¶39.

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.

n. ¶40.

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.

n. ¶41.

Those who leave the church for a brief space to ring the bells or fetch the wine, remain morally present because they are participating in the sacrifice and their withdrawal from it is but temporary and for the purpose of co-operation.

n. ¶42.

One may also hear Mass outside the church, near the door, even though it is closed, provided the ceremonies can be followed by means of the sense of hearing.

n. ¶43.

The same is true of one who stands some distance away from the church and cannot approach closer because of the attending multitude.³²

³² Ibid., p. 280.

n. ¶44.

The precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation may be satisfied in any church, in any public or semi-public oratory, and also in private chapels on cemeteries, but not in other private chapels, unless a privilege to this effect has been expressly granted by the Holy See.³³

³³ C. I. C., can. 1249; cfr. can. 1190.

n. ¶45.

Does one satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass if he goes to confession while the Holy Sacrifice is being of- fered? Since going to confession does not exclude a certain degree of external attention, Ballerini-Palmieri, Génicot, Noldin, and other authors hold that one who goes to confession in the course of one Mass need not assist at another in order to comply with his Sunday duty.³⁴

³⁴ Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Theol. Mor., 2nd ed., II, n. 773; Génicot, Theol. Mor. Inst., 7th ed., Bruxelles 1909, Vol. I, n. 431; Noldin, op. cit., II, p. 278.

n. ¶46.

γ) Mass must be heard with a right intention and with due attention.

n. ¶47.

(1) One need not have the formal intention of complying with the commandment of the Church; it is sufficient to attend religiously, i. e., with a view to worship. Therefore, one who would go to church merely to hear the singing would not comply with his obligation, whereas a boy who went to Mass because he was compelled to go by his parents, would satisfy the ecclesiastical precept.

n. ¶48.

(2) Attention is internal or external, according as it excludes distraction from within or from without. External attention negatively consists in avoiding every outward activity incompatible with internal attention; positively, in a certain vague consciousness that one is assisting at the holy Sacrifice. External attention at least is necessary to hear Mass, because without external attention the act would be neither human nor religious. Therefore one does not satisfy his obligation if he reads profane books or attentively studies paintings or inscriptions while assisting at Mass. The moral law of nature and the virtue of religion furthermore require that internal attention which is part of the reverence man owes to God. The ecclesiastical precept does not demand internal attention, and, consequently, one would satisfy his obligation under the law even if he were (either voluntarily or involuntarily) distracted during Mass.

n. ¶49.

As the Church merely requires assistance at Mass, but does not prescribe any particular prayers to be recited during the ceremony, the question what kind of attention is necessary to satisfy the obligation resolves itself into this: whether an act of divine worship can be performed with a distracted mind. Opinions differ on this head; but, as Noldin points out, the opposing groups are not so far apart as it may seem, since those authors who insist on the necessity of internal attention require such a small degree thereof³⁵ that it really does not amount to much more than what the authors of the opposing group mean when they speak of purely external attention.³⁶ Therefore, he says, a man does not satisfy his obligation if he sleeps during a considerable portion of the Mass and is thus unable to realize what is going on upon the altar. But he who dozes so lightly as to be aware, at least in a confused manner, of what is going on, even though he nods during a considerable part of the Mass, satisfies his obligation. The same is true of one who gossips with another, because this act does not preclude that confused kind of attention which is sufficient to satisfy the law.

³⁵ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 313.

³⁶ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, p. 277.

n. ¶50.

Those who play the organ, sing, take up the collection, serve as ushers, and so forth, satisfy their obligation even though they are occupied throughout the whole Mass, because the acts they perform do not exclude the required attention. For the same reason one who would assist at the holy Sacrifice in a half-wake or semi-drunk condition would satisfy at least the letter of the law.³⁷

³⁷ Noldin, op. cit., p. 277.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 17 passages

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. III, Ch. III, ARTICLE I: On the Requisites for Hearing Mass

Those who assist at the sacred rite are judged to sacrifice together with the celebrant; whence there are required: presence of body, religious assistance, and due place; in other words: material and formal assistance in a due place is required.

n. ¶2.

The hearing of Mass is imposed primarily; the due place only secondarily. Therefore he who could not hear Mass except in a private oratory would certainly be held to this, as is established from the doctrine set forth in n. 224 and 634. Whence the S. C. de Prop. Fid., on 17 Aug. 1914, for the Greek-Ruthenians in America, established these things: "The Ruthenian faithful are held to frequent their own churches ...; nevertheless in regions where churches and priests of their own rite are lacking, and where because of the distance of their church they cannot go to it without grave inconvenience, it is necessary for them to hear Mass in a Catholic church of another rite" (A. A. S., VI, p. 461).

n. ¶3.

1. Presence of Body

n. ¶671.

Principles. I. Presence or assistance must be human and moral. This is considered to be had if someone: a) is in such a place where the sacred rite is performed that he can be said to be joined to those who are in sight of the altar; b) or from external signs can gather what is being done by the priest, even if by accident he sees or hears nothing.

Hence: 1. Deaf-mutes, if they are also blind, are not obliged to hear Mass, unless, which happens very rarely, they are sufficiently instructed and admonished (III, 271).

He satisfies the precept who stands in the choir, behind the altar, behind a column or wall of the church, or at a window which opens into the church, even if he does not see the priest: provided that from the signs of those assisting, the sound of the little bell, etc., he can advert to what is being done by the celebrant. Likewise, he who is in the sacristy with the door open,¹ or outside the church, provided he is united with the people who are within it, although a greater distance is present.
Nor improbably does he satisfy who is in a neighboring house, from which through a window or door he sees the altar, although a road intervenes, provided the distance is small. Lugo (disp. 22, n. 21) with others judges a distance of 30 paces to be small. Yet this opinion does not please St. Alphonsus (III, 312).

Note. Attend to this, that for absolution St. Alphonsus requires (VI, n. 429; ed. G., III, p. 423) a distance at most of about 20 paces. There he adds: a lesser distance is required in confession than for a sermon and Mass.

n. ¶672.

II. Presence must be continuous, that is, through the entire Mass; so that he sins gravely who omits a part of it notable either by duration or by dignity. For the Church commands assistance not only at those parts in which the essence of the sacrifice consists, but at the whole sacred ceremony (III, 310, q. 2).

Hence: 1. It is grave to omit everything from the beginning up to the offertory inclusively. Likewise, to omit the canon from the consecration up to the Pater noster exclusively; because it is a notable part by duration and dignity. Likewise, to omit the consecration and communion, indeed even the consecration alone; because it is an altogether essential part. And the same is more probably to be said of communion alone; because either it itself more probably pertains to the essence of the sacrifice (cf. n. 1589), or at least it is a part notable by dignity and inseparable from the sacrifice. He also sins gravely who at the same time omits both the things which precede the Gospel and the things which follow communion; for he omits a part notable by duration (H. Ap., VI, 33).

But it would be a light sin to omit the offertory alone, or the Creed alone, or the preface alone, or a small part of the canon, or everything before the epistle, or everything after communion, or even, more probably, these last two together. Nor is it improbable that one coming before the offertory sins only lightly; because formerly, as St. Isidore testifies, only then did Mass begin. But the Gospel of St. John at the end probably is not a part of the Mass; because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing (cf. H. Ap., l. c.; Inst. Cat., P. I, c. 3).

n. ¶673.

Note. Since assistance must last through the entire Mass, authors resolve particular cases thus:

He who hears two halved Masses simultaneously does not satisfy the precept. This is established from the 53rd proposition condemned by Innocent XI.
He who hears two halved Masses successively, so that he hears the Mass of one priest up to the consecration exclusively, but the rest in the Mass of another, although he sins venially if he does this without cause, nevertheless probably satisfies. The reason: all things essentially required for the sacrifice were heard in one Mass. But he would not satisfy if he behaved otherwise, namely by assisting in one Mass up to the consecration inclusively, but at the other parts in another.
He who arrives when the consecration has already been made is held to assist at the other parts of the Mass, because, whatever authors hold concerning the essence of the sacrifice of Mass, a notable part of the public worship prescribed by the Church must be heard. - For the rest, it is by no means improbable that communion pertains to the essence of the Mass, with consecration. Therefore he who comes after the consecration is held to assist up to the end: for the precept here possesses (H. Ap., VI, 33).
He who omits a small part of the Mass, more probably, according to some, is held under light obligation to supply it; except if some reason excuses (cf. Salmant., tr. 5, c. 6, n. 15). - Others think that he is held to nothing, because the precept was fulfilled in the greater and substantial part. Nevertheless he is altogether held to supply who omits a part notable by dignity, for example the consecration, although this does not happen from his fault (III, 310, q. 3). The contrary opinion, namely that of Suarez (de Euch., q. 88, s. 2, n. 6), would be reasonable if someone from sudden necessity were forced to withdraw; for then union with those standing by would still morally endure.

n. ¶4.

2. Religious Assistance

This is placed in the intention of hearing Mass, and at the same time in attention of mind.

n. ¶674.

Principles. I. There is required an intention, at least implicit, of worshiping God. For the Church commands a human act of religion, by participating in the sacrifice, which cannot even be conceived without the will of worshiping God.

Hence, he who should be present at Mass for this sole end, that he might observe the beauty of the church, or that he might wait for a friend, or because he was violently detained there, would not satisfy the precept. Nevertheless he would satisfy if he were present because of fear alone of father, mother, or master; although from another head he would sin, namely from the depraved will of omitting the sacred rite, if he could. But the intention of satisfying the precept is not required, as is already established from what was said (n. 212, 213). Cf. St. Alph., I, 163; H. Ap., VI, 27.

n. ¶675.

II. Attention of mind is required. Attention in general is defined: Application of the mind to that which is being done. It is a) EXTERNAL, when no action is posited which is incompatible with the intention of worshiping God, as to chat, to write, to cast one's eyes here and there, etc.; b) INTERNAL, when attention is given either to the words and actions of the celebrant, or to the mysteries signified by the words and actions of the celebrant, especially to the mysteries of the Passion and death of Christ, or, generally, to God Himself, to be praised and prayed to through prayers, meditations, and pious affections (III, 313; IV, 177).

These things having been premised: 1. It is certain that external attention is required for hearing Mass, according to the precept of the Church; because the defect of it would be a mockery of God and of the Church.

Hence, he does not satisfy who during the time of Mass writes, paints, reads profane books, or sacred ones indeed, but for the sole cause of erudition, curiosity, or study. Nor does he satisfy who for a notable time converses, attentively considers images, reads inscriptions, etc. (H. Ap., VI, 28).

It is certain, from the virtue of religion, that some internal attention is required, at least under venial sin. For the reverence which we owe to God and to the sacred mysteries requires attention of this kind.

But whether this internal attention is required under grave obligation for fulfilling the precept of the Church is disputed. Some deny it, led chiefly by this reason, that an act of religion, as regards its substance, can subsist without internal attention; nor is it established from another source that anything else is prescribed by the Church. - But others, more commonly, affirm it, and although they do not require actual or intense attention, nevertheless they require internal attention which is remiss, and which extends to the principal parts of the Mass. The reason of these is that the Church commands an act by which God is worshiped; but God is not worshiped if someone is only physically present at the sacred rite, internal attention having been omitted. "I think," says St. Alphonsus, "this second opinion to be more probable and indeed to be advised. But I do not judge the contrary improbable; at least, with the authority standing of so many doctors who defend it, the matter is rendered very doubtful, whether there is present this law of the Church obliging the faithful to assistance at Mass with internal attention" (H. Ap., l. c.).

Therefore after the fact resolve thus: It suffices that someone had the general intention of worshiping God, and so conducted himself that he could have been a witness of those things which were done at the altar. Cf. Vermeersch, o. c., n. 113.

n. ¶676.

From these things conclude with St. Alphonsus (III, n. 315 seq.; ed. G., p. 579):

Those satisfy the precept who, within Mass, recite the breviary or rosary; musicians, organists, those collecting alms;¹ those meditating, reading some spiritual book, examining their conscience; provided that from the beginning they had the due intention and did not revoke it, and in some way advert to the rite of the Mass.
More probably also he satisfies who suffers ecstasy; for ecstasy does not take away free choice; indeed, during ecstasy attention to God is present in a more perfect way than in others.
Similarly he satisfies, or at least does not sin gravely, who sometimes dozes during the time of the sacred rite, provided he in some way adverts to the words and action of the priest.
All those satisfy who have distractions which do not impede them from following the action of the priest with the mind of worshiping God.

Otherwise, those who are so distracted that they in no way attend to Mass. Otherwise also the drunk, or those given over to sleep through the whole Mass.

Finally, those satisfy who confess their sins, provided the confession is easy and brief, and is not made during the time of consecration. For in a long and difficult confession, on the part of the penitent, the required external attention to the oblation would be lacking (III, 314). Croix with Lessius wishes servants who are in need of confessing at this time to be held excused (III, l. c.). Cf. Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 11. The reason is the presumed connivance of the Church.

Indeed the holy Doctor (III, 332) concedes with Lessius (in Auct., v. Mass, cas. 2) and others that those are excused who omit Mass so that they may confess, lest they remain for some time in the state of mortal sin. The reason is an immense gain of the soul, which otherwise would be lost. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1913, p. 689.

n. ¶5.

3. Due Place

n. ¶677.

Principle. By common law, Mass can be heard in any public church or in any public or semi-public oratory, for fulfilling the ecclesiastical law. The precept formerly in force of assisting at parochial Mass has been abrogated by contrary custom. But recently Leo XIII, in the Decree of the S. R. C., 23 Jan. 1899 (n. 4007), discussing semi-public oratories, declared: "In these, as by authority of the Ordinary the most holy sacrifice of Mass can be offered, so all who are present at the same can satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite." From which declaration it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently manifest that the Bishop cannot command his subjects to present themselves at parochial Mass.² Nevertheless the faithful are to be induced that on Sundays and feasts they be present at this Mass, because, besides the fact that such assistance is of good example, Mass is applied for the parishioners, and therefore a richer fruit is perceived from it (III, 322; VI, 424).

We have said: by common law; for, by privilege, all the faithful satisfy the precept who assist at the Mass which Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or Bishops, whether diocesan or titular, celebrate in any place, or cause to be celebrated for their convenience (S. R. C., 8 Jun. 1896, n. 3906). Likewise those who enjoy the Indult of a private oratory, as we shall see below. As regards Regulars, if it is a question of the principal oratory, the question must be solved from common law; if of other secondary oratories, cf. n. 680, q. 1.

But what public, semi-public, and private oratories are, the Decree of 23 Jan. 1899 authentically defines.

n. ¶6.

I. On Public and Semi-Public Oratories

n. ¶678.

1. PUBLIC oratories are those "which, by authority of the Ordinary, dedicated perpetually to the public worship of God, blessed, or even solemnly consecrated, have a door on the road, or from the public road open free entrance to the faithful universally." Therefore it matters nothing whether the oratory has been built in the houses of private persons or in the midst of fields, provided that from the public road an altogether free access lies open to it, through the court of the house or through an area.

SEMI-PUBLIC oratories are those "which, although in some manner in a private place, or in one not absolutely public, have been erected by authority of the Ordinary; nevertheless they serve the convenience not of all the faithful nor of only a private person or family, but of some community or group of persons. In these, as by authority of the Ordinary the most holy sacrifice of Mass can be offered, so all who are present at the same can satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite. Of this kind are the oratories which pertain to Seminaries and Ecclesiastical Colleges; to pious Institutes and Societies of simple vows, and other Communities under a rule or statutes at least approved by the Ordinary; to Houses devoted to spiritual exercises; to boarding-houses and hospices destined for youth to be instructed in letters, sciences, or arts; to Hospitals, Orphanages, and also to Fortresses and Prisons; and similar oratories, in which by institution some group of the Christian faithful is accustomed to convene for hearing Mass. To these must be joined Chapels duly erected in a Cemetery, provided that in the celebration of Mass access lies open not only to those to whom they pertain, but also to other faithful." A semi-public oratory therefore serves primarily for the uses of the Community, secondarily for the convenience of outsiders.

Noldin (III, n. 198) notes the following: An oratory does not become public precisely from this, that it has a door on the road, but because the faithful possess a strict right that free access not be impeded. That right imposes on the owner the burden of preserving free access. If the owner is not pressed by that burden, the oratory, whatever may be the case about the door, will remain semi-public. Thus also clearly Many, de Locis sacr., tit. 2, n. 65 seqq., where there are old responses of the Sacred Congregations; and Wernz, Jus Decr., III, n. 449, indicates the same.

n. ¶7.

II. On Private Oratories

n. ¶679.

PRIVATE oratories in the strict sense are called those "which in private buildings have been erected for the convenience of some person, or family, from an Indult of the Holy See," for sacrificing there.³ The Ordinary, beforehand, can and must visit it, so that he may inspect whether all things have been duly ordered; not likewise afterward, unless something against the reverence of the place should occur. His license is needed so that baptism, penance, and matrimony can be administered in it. But the reception of the Holy Eucharist, from the declaration of the S. R. C., 8 May 1907 (A. S. S., vol. 40, p. 589), is always included in the concession of a private oratory, saving parochial rights. Therefore Easter communion, as also viaticum, are excepted. For the rest, the privilege of a private oratory is regularly personal, and therefore to be interpreted strictly, as derogating from common law; and when the one to whom it was granted has died, it vanishes by the law itself. For some religious families there is given a privilege of a private oratory which is rather local; whence also secular priests can there celebrate duly, and the faithful can satisfy the precept of Mass (Angelus a SS. Corde Jesu, Man. Reg., II, n. 919).

The PRIVILEGE of hearing Mass of precept in private oratories, from the customary tenor of the pontifical Indult, is granted "to the lord, his children and domestics, or blood-relatives and relatives by affinity living with him, servants actually devoted to his service, and noble guests, that is, in whatever way noble and more worthy." - But those who are not of the household, and domestics not actually necessary, are excluded by force of the customary clause: "But we will that domestics of your service who at the said time, namely of Mass, are not actually necessary, being present there at Mass of this kind, are by no means to be judged free from the obligation of hearing Mass in a church on feast days of precept." Nor does the minister satisfy who assists the celebrant, unless he himself is necessary, that is, unless another is lacking who can and wishes to serve (Ferraris, v. Oratory, n. 64).
The CONDITIONS and EXCEPTIONS of the Indult must be observed, for example: a) that on individual days only one Mass be celebrated; b) that it not be celebrated except in the presence of the principally privileged person, namely to whom the Brief was directed; c) that the days of Easter, Pentecost, the Nativity of the Lord, and other more solemn feasts be excepted, namely Epiphany, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the feasts of the Ascension, Assumption, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints. See other things below, n. 1627.

Nevertheless the privileged person is not bound by these exceptions if the Indult was granted by reason of infirmity (III, n. 319, claus. 8; ed. G., I, p. 584; VI, n. 359; ed. G., III, p. 349). Cf. Decree of 2 Apr. 1913, S. C. de Sacr. (A. A. S., V, p. 183), in which it is said that on the feasts of St. Joseph (solemn Commemoration), the Annunciation, Corpus Christi, the Most Holy Trinity, St. John the Baptist, and the Patron of the place, Mass can be celebrated in private oratories.

He who has received an ordinary Indult, in which namely the mentioned exceptions are indicated, in the case where difficulties arise, should approach the Bishop so that the private oratory may be erected as semi-public. For the right of erecting semi-public oratories, so that, at least on days of obligation, they may be open to all, has not been diminished for the Ordinary. Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 111.

n. ¶680.

Questions. QUES. 1. Whether secondary oratories, sometimes erected in houses of Regulars, are to be held as private or semi-public?

Resp. 1. We call secondary oratories those which, from an Indult or privilege of the Holy See, are erected besides the principal oratory, whether on account of the number of priests so that Mass can be said by all, or in favor of the sick, who cannot go to the chapel or principal oratory. S. R. C., 8 Mar. 1879, n. 3484, ad 2.

It can be disputed; for, strictly speaking, the definition of an oratory strictly private, nor the definition of a semi-public one, agrees with those oratories (Genicot, I, 342). Private letters of a certain Most Reverend Consultor of the S. R. C., sent to us long ago, affirm the mind of the Sacred Congregation to be that they are equated with private ones, and therefore that only Members, but not other faithful, satisfy the precept of Mass in these oratories. The matter needs an authentic declaration. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1914, p. 590, and the things we noted above n. 679.

QUES. 2. Whether an Indultary is held to use the privilege, if he cannot go to a church?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, according to St. Alphonsus, III, 324, if he can have a priest gratis or with a light stipend. And both the lord himself and his household are held to this, not indeed by force of the privilege, because no one is held to a privilege as such; but by force of the precept, which obliges all those to hearing Mass who are able to fulfill it without grave inconvenience (cf. also III, 319, dub. 3).

Lehmkuhl, Noldin, and others contradict. But let it be weighed whether the axiom praised by all has more weight: he who is held to the law is held to the easy means by which he can observe the law. Cf. what was said n. 670, fin.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 3 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XI, Sect. II, Q. I, Ch. II, Art. VII, § 3. On the Precept of Hearing Mass

n. 479.

479. Casuists are accustomed to ask here whether one satisfies the precept who, from two Masses, hears those parts which, joined together, constitute a whole Mass. For example, Peter arrives at church when Mass has already proceeded as far as the Canon; he assists at this Mass until the end; then from another Mass he hears everything through the Canon. Authors commonly teach: If the consecration and Communion are had in the same Mass, the precept is satisfied in this way; but not if the consecration and Communion do not pertain to the same Mass. The reason is that the consecration and Communion constitute the essence of the Mass.⁶⁶⁰ Therefore, if someone heard these parts in the same Mass, he had the essence of the Sacrifice; but if he heard the consecration and Communion from different Masses, he had the essence from neither Mass. Certainly, however, one does not satisfy the precept of hearing Mass who hears two or more parts of Masses celebrated simultaneously by different priests. This is established from proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI: "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two of its parts, or indeed four, simultaneously from different celebrants."⁶⁶¹

From what has been said, certain practical resolutions follow:

You will resolve: a) Peter arrives after the Gospel has already been said. He is bound under light sin afterward to supply from another Mass the part of the Mass already said. Even a light inconvenience excuses from this supplementation.

b) Peter arrives at church after the Offertory has already been completed. He is bound either to remain until the end of this Mass and then hear from another Mass everything through the Offertory inclusively, or, having left the first Mass, to hear another whole Mass. This obligation is grave, and only a grave inconvenience excuses from it.

c) Peter arrives after the consecration. He is bound to hear another entire Mass; if he cannot do this, he is bound at least to remain at this Mass until the end, as was said above from St. Alphonsus.

Things to be noted for practice. In order to render a correct judgment concerning the gravity of the sin of those who approach the church after Mass has already begun, or who depart before Mass has been finished, attention is to be given not only to the material part omitted, but especially to their negligence and perverse will, namely, whether this was done without any sufficient reason, whether with great or slight negligence, and whether they could have heard another entire Mass. When there was grave negligence and a notable part was omitted, there is also a grave sin. If either of these is absent, grave sin also is absent.

⁶⁶⁰ Thus also St. Alphonsus (l.c., n. 311), who adduces and refutes several other opinions on this matter. There are several authors who reject the proposed opinion, especially Concina (De praec. Eccl. l. 1, diss. 3, c. 2, n. 6), citing Suárez and Azor for his opinion.

⁶⁶¹ Denz. n. 1203. Diana, Bonacina, Busembaum, etc., held this proposition at least as probable; cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c. 3, n. 311.

n. 480.

480. 3. Religious assistance is commanded. Merely physical presence during Mass does not suffice; otherwise one who slept deeply throughout the whole Mass would also satisfy the precept, which certainly no one will say. For a truly religious act is prescribed, which cannot be had without at least some religious intention and attention.

a) First of all, a due intention is required, namely, of worshiping God or hearing Mass.⁶⁶² Wherefore one does not satisfy the precept who, for example, approaches the church solely to hear the music or to accompany another. But I say: solely for that or another profane end; for if, besides the end, although principal, the true worship of God is still intended, the precept is satisfied. Hence a young man who approaches Mass principally from fear of his parents or from the motive of seeing a girl, but at the same time wishes to satisfy the precept, truly satisfies it, although he sins because of the perverse principal motive. Thus the common opinion.⁶⁶³

b) Next, due attention is required. Those things which were said above in n. 354 concerning the diverse modes of attention are to be recalled. To satisfy the precept of hearing Mass, external attention is certainly required, that is, the omission of an external work incompatible with internal attention. Thus all teach. Wherefore one does not satisfy the precept who during a notable part of Mass attentively reads profane books for the sake of study or recreation, who writes, who converses during almost the whole Mass, who sleeps during a notable part of Mass, etc. But one who merely dozes sleepily satisfies the precept, because he has at least imperfect attention. According to several followers of Lugo,⁶⁶⁴ no internal attention is required by the precept of the Church, but external attention suffices, so that even one who is voluntarily distracted during the whole Mass and thinks about very sinful things nevertheless satisfies the precept.⁶⁶⁵ Their reason is that nothing other than the worship of God is commanded by the Church. But the worship of God can subsist even with voluntary distraction. Therefore someone can satisfy the ecclesiastical precept even if he is voluntarily distracted. Moreover, they say, prayer itself does not necessarily require anything other than external attention. Therefore, a fortiori, external attention suffices for hearing Mass. According to St. Alphonsus,⁶⁶⁶ however, and many other authors, it is more probable that, in addition to external attention, at least some imperfect internal attention to the essential parts of Mass is required. And in truth, both arguments of the opposite opinion seem to be futile. For above in n. 355 we already proved that true moral prayer is impossible with voluntary distraction. Indeed, to will to elevate the mind to God through prayer, and at the same time directly to will to direct the mind to something altogether disparate, seems to be impossible and to imply a contradiction. Next, the true worship of God does not seem able to coexist with wholly voluntary distraction during Mass. For every rightly instructed Christian knows that wholly voluntary distractions during Mass are sinful, especially if the thoughts concern unlawful objects. How, then, can one and the same man will to worship God and at the same time explicitly will to be distracted and consequently to offend God? Therefore I think that voluntary distraction destroys the very intention of worshiping God. Nevertheless, in practice so great a difference does not exist between the two opinions; for it is scarcely possible that someone should will to hear Mass and nevertheless also will to be distracted throughout the whole Mass. Therefore, by force of the initial intention, some internal attention already seems to be present. Now the second opinion teaches that any, even the least, internal attention suffices for satisfying the precept.

Since prayer properly so called is not required for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass, but the worship of God and religious assistance suffice, those sufficiently satisfy the precept who during Mass read a pious book, perform an examination of conscience, sing, play the organ, collect alms, etc., provided that from intention they attend in some manner to the rite of the Mass.

⁶⁶² Cf. I, n. 223.

⁶⁶³ Concina teaches the contrary (De praec. Eccl. l. 1, c. 4, n. 2), who does not seem rightly to allege St. Antoninus for his opinion, since the latter speaks of those who assist at Mass solely for a perverse end, "who otherwise would not hear it." Cf. what was said above in I, n. 122 concerning the influence of the end upon the morality of an act.

⁶⁶⁴ De euchar. disp. 22, nn. 27-31.

⁶⁶⁵ Cf. Noldin, De praeceptis n. 263.

⁶⁶⁶ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 313.

n. 481.

481. It is asked especially: whether one who confesses his sins during the whole time of Mass or during a notable part of it satisfies the precept? Several authors, such as Ballerini,⁶⁶⁷ Génicot,⁶⁶⁸ Noldin,⁶⁶⁹ Göpfert,⁶⁷⁰ and Tanquerey,⁶⁷¹ think that confession probably does not impede external attention and consequently that the one confessing satisfies the precept. This opinion can be admitted only with difficulty in theory.⁶⁷² For if conversation, as the cited authors themselves agree, impedes external attention and consequently the satisfaction of the precept, the same must be said of confession, which is speech requiring very serious and intense attention on the part of the penitent. In practice, however, confessions during Mass can be permitted for the following reasons: a) because almost always penitents of this kind cannot conveniently receive the Sacrament of Penance at another time, either because of the multitude of their own labors or because of the scarcity of confessors, and therefore Holy Mother Church is presumed in these cases to interpret the precept of hearing Mass benignly; b) because such confessions often last only through a small part of Mass, and then they certainly do not impede the satisfaction of the Sunday precept. But if they last for a longer time, let the confessor command the penitent to remain silent for a short time and attend to the Mass, at least during the consecration and Communion, so that he may thus satisfy the precept at least according to its substance. Thus also runs the practice of confessors.⁶⁷³

⁶⁶⁷ In the notes to Gury, Comp. theol. mor. I, n. 346.

⁶⁶⁸ Cas. consc. I, 341.

⁶⁶⁹ L.c.

⁶⁷⁰ Moraltheol. I, n. 345.

⁶⁷¹ De virt. relig. n. 1027.

⁶⁷² St. Alphonsus says of it (l.c., n. 314): "It does not seem altogether destitute of probability; and I myself formerly judged it probable. But because I later observed that it was rejected by several grave doctors, I now do not dare to call it probable."

⁶⁷³ Cf. Göpfert, l.c.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 12 passages

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. I, Art. II, § I. On Those Things Which Are Required For Hearing Mass Rightly