The Catholic Sunday by John S. Wightman

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 30, 1906

The Catholic Sunday

By John S. Wightman

JOHN S. WIGHTMAN

“The Catholic Sunday” is the significant heading to an interesting article that appeared in a recent edition of The Catholic Union and Times, Buffalo, N. Y., in which the Union essays to correct “the usually accurate” Daily Commercial and a trenchant editorial on sundry changes in Canada’s “admirable” Lord’s Day bill, and particularly the statement: “These met the objections raised by all members from Quebec, where horse-racing after mass, with a nominal admission fee, is a popular Sunday amusement.” According to the Union it is nothing short of scandalous to thus mix the “sublime sacrifice of the mass” with the “most disgraceful desecration of the Sabbath;” and after ironical reference to horse-racers as being very poor representatives of the Catholic Church if they are Catholics at all, the editor pertinently states:—

“What are the facts? When we want expert medical advice, we do not repair to the den of a corrupt quack. If we want to know Catholic truth, we may not expect to get it in the betting-ring. The correct way to discover this truth is by inquiring of representative Catholics.”

The Union then goes on to say that Archbishop Bruchesi, of Canada, is a representative Catholic, and as to the stand taken by him upon the Lord’s Day bill and the attitude of the church upon the compulsory observance of the first day of the week, refers to Rev. Robert Johnson, pastor of the American Presbyterian Church, Montreal, who said:—

“Archbishop Bruchesi represents the real spirit of French Canada, and he is the strongest force to-day for moral reform in the city of Montreal, and certainly one of the strongest in the whole Dominion. His sympathy with the provisions of the bill and the thoughtful French element for which he stands is well known.”

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the premier of Canada, is a Catholic, and of him and his concern in the Lord’s Day bill the same Mr. Johnson says:—

“I know very well that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has sacrificed the friendship of some of his life-long admirers, because of his stand on the bill. Yet I believe that his position will be strengthened, not only in the other provinces, but in Quebec as well. It is well understood that the passage of the bill could never have been secured had it not been for his broad-minded and generous support of it.”

Commenting upon numerous quotations given as candid expressions in regard to the much discussed measure, and on the greater question of which it is an outcome, the Union says:—

“This everlasting contention that Catholics believe ‘a few minutes at mass’ on Sunday is sufficient for the soul’s salvation is intensely wearisome. It exposes ignorance as well. From time immemorial the church has scrupulously guarded the sanctity of the Sabbath. One needs but to read the edicts of the various councils and the writings of the fathers to discover this. The Council of Compiègne, as far back as 833, decreed: ‘We declare that all Sundays be celebrated with the most religious veneration from the foregoing evening to the evening of the day, and that all servile work be laid aside.’ By the Councils of Meaux in 845 and Tours in 1673, hunting on Sunday was strictly forbidden. Saint Charles Borromeo condemned all shows, concerts, and dances on the Lord’s day. It was said in the early days that those who employ Sunday in ‘sensual diversions, sports, or conversation, or in surfeiting, sotting, or wanton sonnets, make it a sabbath of Satan, the devil’s holiday.’ Theodosius the Elder, in 306, forbade even pagans to be gratified on the Lord’s day with any ‘gymnastic exercise of gladiators in the theaters, any public sports, any stage play, any horse-race, or hunting or fighting of wild beasts.’ Saint Gregory the Great gave out this emphatic edict: ‘We are bound to refrain from all work on the Lord’s day, and to give ourselves up entirely to holy prayer, that if we have sinned by negligence in any part of the six days, this may be expiated on the day of our Lord’s resurrection.’

“And so it goes from the beginning down to our day. Only a short time ago Bishop Colton said on this subject of Sabbath observance, in his column in this paper:—

“‘The church, mindful of her divine commission, constantly tells her children, ‘Remember, keep holy the Sabbath day.’ Her ministers in every land proclaim this admonition, and the faithful ones give heed to the call and attend to the honoring of God. “‘Let us always remember the sacredness of the day, its importance in the eyes of God, its necessity and utility for man.’”

The Sacred Heart Review, another Catholic journal, in commenting upon an editorial that recently appeared in the London Saturday Review, apropos of the question of Sunday observance and the oft-repeated “covert pharisaism about Protestant championship of the Sunday,” congratulates the Review on an extensive and manly rebuke thus given to “Protestant pharisaism,” and takes occasion to remark:—

“It may not, however, be known to our London contemporary, or to Protestants generally, but it is nevertheless true, that the present laxity in Sunday observance is largely due to the spirit of unrest and rebellion introduced into Christendom by Protestantism.”

The Montreal True Witness is a Catholic journal, and its editor a vigorous champion of Sabbath observance. He thus fairly epitomizes his views upon the Lord’s Day bill:—

“We yearn for the day when the Sunday observance bill will be brought into force, thereby compelling the man who refuses to keep the third commandment by principle to do so by legislation.”

The reader will bear in mind that “the third commandment” thus referred to is that of “the ten commandments” of the Douay version of the Bible, reading as follows: “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.”

Taking these recent editorials altogether, and considering the respective sources, two things become painfully apparent,—that Protestantism is responsible for this “unrest and rebellion” introduced “into Christendom,” by which laxity in the keeping of the third commandment for the observance of Sunday obtains; and that Sunday-keeping according to real Catholic notions and under Catholic guidance may, both civilly and religiously, become severely strict enough

to suit the tastes of the most ardent National Reformer or “pharisaical” Sunday sabbath agitator.

And it may be found, in the end that it is far from the matter of attending mass only “upon the Sunday.” A “puritanical sabbath” even may not be so far in the future as it is in the past! And it may, by a turn of fortune favorable to ecclesiasticism, rapidly become a matter of reality instead of a matter simply of history. In this connection it may be well to remember the words of M. Long’s letter published in the Catholic Press, of Australia, August 25, 1900:—

“If any Sabbatarian wants to know the proper method of spending the Sunday, the Catholic Church is the natural source to apply to for information. Under her direction the Sunday supplanted the Jewish sabbath, and she is therefore best suited to settle any dispute as to its claims. . . . She forbids all servile work, and requires the day to be devoted to public prayer and worship and hearing the word of God.”

Pope Leo XIII, in his now famous encyclical to the world on church unity, said:—

“The fathers of the church are unanimous in considering as outside the Catholic communion any one who in the least degree deviates from even one point of the doctrine proposed by the authoritative magisterium of the church.”

We may feel well assured that, inasmuch as “the unrest and rebellion” in our world has, according to Catholic doctrine, resulted from the introduction of Protestantism, and as “unrest and rebellion” is, in the Catholic mind, synonymous with “Protestantism,” we shall find the observance of “the third commandment”—the Catholic Sunday—when directed by a world-church controlling the civil powers entirely strict enough to suit the mind of the most exacting, “pharisaical” Protestant sabbath reformer living, and its observance, in the last analysis, to mean more than the most ardent colaborer and co-operator with Rome could at this time well comprehend.

When Rome declares that “the Sunday” should “be devoted to public prayer and worship,” and forbids all servile work on that day, she means “public prayer and worship” that is in every sense of the word Catholic public prayer and Catholic public worship, and no other; and when she “forbids all servile work” on that day, she means anything and everything of a secular nature that would “in the least degree deviate from even one point of the doctrine proposed by the authoritative magisterium of the church.”

Anent the whole question, it may be well to review the Sabbath question, which can not be otherwise than related to the matter of its compulsory legal observance, and it makes no difference whether it be the right or the wrong day of the week that is under consideration and the object of proposed legal enactments. At the creation of the world the Sabbath was made; the seventh day and not the first was appointed, sanctified, and set apart for a holy use and purpose. To all generations it was to be a day of rest and remembrance of the works of the Creator. There has been no repeal of the law requiring the seventh day to be observed, no change whatever in the divine institution.

For the first day of the week—the Sunday sabbath—there is no authority, divine or apostolic. It is the Roman Catholic Church, and she alone, that presents to the world the first-day “sabbath.” Sunday was anciently a pagan day, associated with sun-worship and dedicated to the sun-god, until the Catholic Church “changed the [Sabbath] day from Saturday to Sunday,” and thus clothed the day that had been “the wild solar holiday of pagan times” with a religious garb. This was at as late a time as A. D. 325; and the church frankly admits not only the making of the change, but that for the work, “there is no Scriptural authority.” “Sunday,” as a Christian institution, “is purely a creation of the Roman Catholic Church,” and as such, should neither demand nor expect recognition upon the part of genuine Protestants. Sadly enough, Protestants are being “gulled” into receiving the Catholic command, “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day,” and unwittingly, as well, lending a powerful influence for securing the aid of secular powers in the interest of an institution and a day altogether pagan and papal, and wholly unchristian, and without warrant of divine precept or Scriptural injunction.

The Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the commandment for Protestants to obey, demands the observance of the seventh day, and not the first; and that command remains the same in this twentieth century as it was in the first—as it was in the days of Adam! It was Christ who declared to the Jewish Pharisees, “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” And it is as vain to-day to “teach” and to receive the “commandments of men” as it was then.

It was Neander who well said: “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles . . . and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.” “Always only a human ordinance”! Then why render obedience to an institution that is only human and in no sense divine, or of divine origin? The Catholic Union and Times certainly used an appropriate heading for its article on Canada’s Lord’s Day bill and compulsory Sabbath observance, “The Catholic Sunday.” Such it is, in fact, nor can it ever be anything else. Can Protestants afford to give it any further weight or influence or help either in Canada, in the United States, or anywhere else? Is it not time, rather, to protest?

Bath, N. Y.