When was Mass Attendance FORMALLY Required?

[ahs]

I saw this question today and am wondering if anyone knows the answer. *

“The OT and NT is silent on a “requirement” to assemble on Sabbath or Sunday.
On the authority of Jesus given in LUKE 10.16 & Matthew 18.18, The Church can make such declarations.
Specifically “WHEN” did The Church classify missing Mass as a mortal sin?”*

 

[Just_Lurking]

The first time the Catholic Church had a universal law (applicable to every Catholic) that required mass attendance every single week was the 1918 Code of Canon Law.

 

[Mintaka]

The martyrs of Abitina sure thought that they were obliged to come to Mass; they knew they were hunted and in danger, but they all showed up for Sunday Mass anyway. And when the Romans asked them why the heck they’d showed up, they said:

“We cannot live without Sunday.”

It’s always been a precept that you should go to Mass on Sunday. It was just phrased most of the time as a positive injunction, an “of course.”

For example, Acts 20:7 - *“And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread…” *

It’s like, “Of course that’s when we were assembled. Of course we would all show up.”

The Didache is a very early, basic how-to list of early Christian beliefs and practices. It says:

“On the Lord’s Day, come together and break bread. And give thanks [offer the Eucharist], after confessing your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure.”

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others talk about the importance of Mass and the Lord’s Day, aka the first day of the week or the eighth day of the week. (It also comes into discussions of the Book of Genesis and the week of Creation.)

The Council of Elvira in AD 300 said: “If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected.”

The Apostolic Constitutions later on say that one must hear Mass and take a Sabbath-like rest, and they assume it’s been the Church’s ancient custom since the Apostles. It just wasn’t written down, because it wasn’t a problem before.

In late Roman times, St. Caesarius of Arles started telling people that if you’re not a catechumen, you can’t leave church after the Gospel and still say you’ve been to Mass. Ah, ze French.

It used to be the rule that unless you were traveling, you had to hear Mass in your actual parish church for it to count (unless you were a monk with a monastery church, etc.). The Franciscan and Dominican friars got this rule relaxed back in the Middle Ages, so we can go to any Catholic church, even when we’re home.

And so on. Lots of unwritten assumptions that never got written down unless there was a problem.

 

[padrepio_2012]

It was decided waaaay before 1918, I assure you that. How about with Moses on mt. Sinai: “keep holy the sabbath”? That seems to say that we must attend mass every Sunday, no?

 

[pianistclare]

People had Masses in their homes during the priest hunting era in Ireland.
People have always desired to keep their religious obligation, and have risked much to do it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The first time the Catholic Church had a universal law (applicable to every Catholic) that required mass attendance every single week was the 1918 Code of Canon Law.

This is correct. Prior to 1918 the Church promulgated universal Canon Law through Ecumenical Councils. Canons are rules, not doctrines, so they are subject to change (for example, the 20th Canon of Nicaea forbade kneeling on Sunday).

Mass attendance is one of the five Precepts (rules) of the Church, but they were not taught by any Ecumenical Council, so they were never applied universally.

Canon Law was a complete train wreck by the Twentieth Century. The role of the canon lawyer advising Bishops was crucially important, but not even canon lawyers agreed about what Canon Law said. Canons (and authoratative interpretations) had been smeared across 2000 years of history.

In 1918, the Church finally threw in the towel and abolished (abrogated) every Canon of every Council and replaced the whole steaming mess with a single, authoritative set of rules (and, in 1983, the Church did it again, abolishing the entire 1918 Code and replacing it with the Second (and current) Edition of the Code of Canon Law).

The 1918 Code of Canon Law was the first time the Precepts of the Church had been codified universally.

Of course, they were not anything new in 1918. Precepts (in various forms) have been around for a very long time. In 1439, a great Dominican theologian wrote a book called Summa Theologica which enumerated ten precepts, including Sunday attendance (I’m talking about Antoninus of Florence. Who did you think I was talking about?)

Interestingly enough, the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1440) advised the Pope to attend a public Mass every Sunday. So the Pope got told before we did

 

[pianistclare]

This is correct. Prior to 1918 the Church promulgated universal Canon Law through Ecumenical Councils. Canons are rules, not doctrines, so they are subject to change (for example, the 20th Canon of Nicaea forbade kneeling on Sunday).

Mass attendance is one of the five Precepts (rules) of the Church, but they were not taught by any Ecumenical Council, so they were never applied universally.

Canon Law was a complete train wreck by the Twentieth Century. The role of the canon lawyer advising Bishops was crucially important, but not even canon lawyers agreed about what Canon Law said. Canons (and authoratative interpretations) had been smeared across 2000 years of history.

In 1918, the Church finally threw in the towel and abolished (abrogated) every Canon of every Council and replaced the whole steaming mess with a single, authoritative set of rules (and, in 1983, the Church did it again, abolishing the entire 1918 Code and replacing it with the Second (and current) Edition of the Code of Canon Law).

The 1918 Code of Canon Law was the first time the Precepts of the Church had been codified universally.

Of course, they were not anything new in 1918. Precepts (in various forms) have been around for a very long time. In 1439, a great Dominican theologian wrote a book called Summa Theologica which enumerated ten precepts, including Sunday attendance (I’m talking about Antoninus of Florence. Who did you think I was talking about?)

Interestingly enough, the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1440) advised the Pope to attend a public Mass every Sunday. So the Pope got told before we did

 

[agnes_therese]

Very informative, David. Thank you!

 

[ahs]

Thanks so much for the great responses and background guys and gals! This is wonderful.

Mr. Filmer, thanks for the in-depth history lesson…very much appreciated!

 

[dans0622]

…Canon Law was a complete train wreck by the Twentieth Century. The role of the canon lawyer advising Bishops was crucially important, but not even canon lawyers agreed about what Canon Law said. Canons (and authoratative interpretations) had been smeared across 2000 years of history.

In 1918, the Church finally threw in the towel and abolished (abrogated) every Canon of every Council and replaced the whole steaming mess with a single, authoritative set of rules (and, in 1983, the Church did it again, abolishing the entire 1918 Code and replacing it with the Second (and current) Edition of the Code of Canon Law).

The 1918 Code of Canon Law was the first time the Precepts of the Church had been codified universally.

…

Hello,

That’s a rather colorful account. I especially like the “not even canon lawyers agreed about what Canon Law said.” If only that was a relic of the past…

Anyway, while they were not as comprehensive, there were codifications prior to 1917/1918, in particular in the late 13th-early 14th centuries. Also, even with the “Code of Canon Law” we have today, there are still lots of laws (both for the entire Church and on the local level) not contained therein. So, it’s not as though there is the Code and no other legislation.

Dan

 

[DavidFilmer]

Also, even with the “Code of Canon Law” we have today, there are still lots of laws (both for the entire Church and on the local level) not contained therein. So, it’s not as though there is the Code and no other legislation.

Yes, this is also true. The Church still needs canon lawyers to figure this out. And it’s not like Canon Law has any “real” authority, since the ultimate arbiter of Canon Law for any particular jurisdiction is the local Ordinary (Bishop). Canon Law is whatever the local Bishop says it is (and it has always been this way, and it should be this way).

Canon Law is a tool. Authority rests with the Bishops.

 

[FrDavid96]

…And it’s not like Canon Law has any “real” authority, since the ultimate arbiter of Canon Law for any particular jurisdiction is the local Ordinary (Bishop). Canon Law is whatever the local Bishop says it is (and it has always been this way, and it should be this way).

Canon Law is a tool. Authority rests with the Bishops.

Not so.

It’s very much not true.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Not so.

It’s very much not true.

Canon 16
§1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator [typically the Ordinary] and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation [typically a judicial vicar].

Canon 27
Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 31
§1 Within the limits of their competence, those who have executive power can issue general executory decrees, that is, decrees which define more precisely the manner of applying a law, or which urge the observance of laws.

Canon 34
§1 Instructions, namely, which set out the provisions of a law and develop the manner in which it is to be put into effect, are given for the benefit of those whose duty it is to execute the law, and they bind them in executing the law. Those who have executive power may, within the limits of their competence, lawfully publish such instructions.

So, letsee, the Bishop interprets Canon Law, and he can dispense it, and he can set the terms of its implementation. And he can implement any additional rules he pleases.

Canon Law is a tool. It can be abolished (and it has been abolished - twice).

 

[padrepio_2012]

So, letsee, the Bishop interprets Canon Law, and he can dispense it, and he can set the terms of its implementation. And he can implement any additional rules he pleases.

Canon Law is a tool. It can be abolished (and it has been abolished - twice).

I think you are mistaken, sir, just like fr. David said. From the quotes of Canon Law that you posted, I never once read that bishops can abolish or change law, nor that it’s a tool. All it said was that those with executive power may choose how they implement it and enforce it, meaning that canon law must be enforced but bishops can determine how to do so. Correct me if I interpreted this wrong, but I don’t think that canon is just a tool.

 

[ProVobis]

So, letsee, the Bishop interprets Canon Law,

The Canon you referred to doesn’t say this in the authoritative Latin.

Can. 16 — § 1. Leges authentice interpretatur legislator et is cui potestas authentice interpretandi fuerit ab eodem commissa.

 

[ProVobis]

In 1918, the Church finally threw in the towel and abolished (abrogated) every Canon of every Council and replaced the whole steaming mess with a single, authoritative set of rules (and, in 1983, the Church did it again, abolishing the entire 1918 Code and replacing it with the Second (and current) Edition of the Code of Canon Law).

While the 1918 Code might have abolished the disciplinary anathemas, excommunications, etc, it did not abolish the underlying doctrine and dogma behind those penalties.

 

[FrDavid96]

So, letsee, the Bishop interprets Canon Law, and he can dispense it, and he can set the terms of its implementation. And he can implement any additional rules he pleases.

Canon Law is a tool. It can be abolished (and it has been abolished - twice).

All of those quotes contradict what you said.

c. 16
The legislator is the one who gives the law. That means, if it’s canon law, it’s the pope. If it’s diocesan law, it’s the diocesan bishop. It does not mean (as you say) that the local bishop can change what the actual Code of Canon Law requires them to do.

c. 27
refers to how the law has been implemented and interpreted by legitimate authority (legal precedent). It does not mean “that’s how we like to do things around here.”

c. 31
Those with executive power of governance can enforce the law. It doesn’t mean they can change it. Executive power means enforcement. Legislative means the power to make laws. You are confusing the two.

c. 34
Again speaks of executive power, not legislative. In fact it goes to disprove what you say because it says that a bishop can enforce canon law, but not change it.

The local bishops determine how to apply the Code of Canon Law. No local bishop can make any change to the Code of Canon Law unless the law itself expressly provides for that in particular cases.

Bishops/Ordinaries are the legislators for their own diocese, and have the power to both make (legislative) and enforce (executive) local legislation. As for the actual Code of Canon Law (CIC) all bishops are bound to obey it.

 

[dans0622]

Canon 16
§1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator [typically the Ordinary] and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation [typically a judicial vicar].

Hello,

Perhaps some definitions/citations will help. Diocesan Bishops are legislators (either individually or collectively). The Supreme authority in the Church can delegate legislative authority to another but no one else can delegate this power (c. 135.2). So, for example, the bishop of Bardstown cannot delegate his legislative authority to his Vicar General. In issuing laws/decrees/instructions, a lower legislator/executor is obliged to obey the laws issued by the higher authority (cf. ibid., c. 33.1, 34.2)

“Ordinary” is not equivalent to the diocesan bishop. I do hear, from time to time, people refer to a diocesan bishop as “the Ordinary of the diocese of such-and-such.” Well, a diocese has at least two “ordinaries”: the diocesan bishop and the vicar general (c. 134.1). Episcopal vicars are also “ordinaries.” A legislator, in a diocese, can never be a vicar general or episcopal vicar (see c. 391.2).

A judicial vicar is the one who acts as a Judge in place of the diocesan bishop. He handles trials (see cc. 13135.3, 1420). I suppose a bishop could tell his judicial vicar to also “interpret” diocesan law but that would not be done as judicial vicar. Interpretation of law is a matter of executive authority, not judicial.

Regarding “interpreting” canon law: a diocesan bishop is not entrusted with the authority to interpret the Code of Canon Law (c. 16). That function is entrusted to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (see Pastor bonus, art. 154ff). As mentioned, a bishop can certainly “interpret” the particular law of his own diocese, either personally or through another.

A diocesan bishop can dispense from universal, disciplinary laws (c. 87). The Code contains many laws which are not subject to dispensation by the bishop (penal law, procedural law, constitutive law…cc. 86, 87).

Bishops are certainly obliged to implement universal law and, where possible, specify how it is to be observed: in other words, bishops must obey the law (see c. 392).

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Regarding “interpreting” canon law: a diocesan bishop is not entrusted with the authority to interpret the Code of Canon Law (c. 16). That function is entrusted to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (see Pastor bonus, art. 154ff). As mentioned, a bishop can certainly “interpret” the particular law of his own diocese, either personally or through another.
.

Dan,

I think this depends upon exactly what one means by “interpreting” canon law.

Certainly, an authentic interpretation (one that is binding on all) would have to come from the Holy See.

On the other hand, I think that we can certainly say that a bishop is the primary interpreter of canon law for his diocese. I mean, after all, if I have a question about canon law and I address that question to my bishop, he will answer me, and I am bound to follow his interpretation. If I disagree, I can appeal to a higher authority. However if I phone the bishop with a question about canon law, he’s not very likely to say “let me write to the Pontifical Council and I’ll get back to you with their response,” unless it’s something complicated.

As I see it, if we’re talking about the bishop’s role to interpret in contrast to his (non-existent) role to change the Code of Canon Law, we can say that he interprets it.

Of course, I’ll also add that such an interpretation would not be a formal interpretation, (an “authentic interpretation” to use the translator’s words for canon 16) if it’s a matter of universal (not particular) law.

Thoughts?

 

[dans0622]

…

Of course, I’ll also add that such an interpretation would not be a formal interpretation, (an “authentic interpretation” to use the translator’s words for canon 16) if it’s a matter of universal (not particular) law.

Thoughts?

Hello,

I concur. Practically, the bishop (…the “office for canonical services” or whatever) is there to be a resource, helping all to know, understand and observe the universal law. I consider this to be a role identified in c. 391-392, not c. 16. So, I would (continue to) make a distinction between that role and the role of “authentic interpretation.” A bishop has no authority to “authentically interpret” the Code of Canon Law since he is not “the legislator” of it.

I think it also may be helpful to note that the way I understand “authentic” in this context (and the way I was taught to understand it) is that it means “authoritative” and not “genuine.” A bishop can certainly make a genuine or true or accurate interpretation of the Code but it is not authoritative and that’s what c. 16 is about: authoritative interpretation.

Diocesan law is a different matter, since the bishop does have the authority to authentically interpret it.

Dan