Not exactly. I don't mean to derail this thread, but the Divine Law of the 3rd Commandment is to keep the Sabbath day holy. When the Law was instituted and written, that day was on Saturday. The Catholic Church, using the Keys of Heaven given to Peter, changed that day to Sunday. Nonetheless, the Law is to keep the Sabbath day holy, not Sunday per se.

Yes, I was going to say the Sabbath Day, but for us, that day *is* Sunday. The point is, going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days are not Divine Law. The Church made it obligatory that we assist at Mass that day - and also Holy Days of Obligation.

The easiest way to know the difference between Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law is that the Church can change laws she has made, for example in this case, she can add or remove holy days or even remove the Sunday/Holy Day obligation temporarily for the scamdemic. But Divine Law she can never change because those laws are the laws given us by God which are found in Scripture, and also dogma. 

  

Ha ha.  You responded to me, and I was talking about Mass during persecution times, then you said you weren't talking about that.  Then why did you respond?  Confusing as usual.

Actually, you responded to me first when you responded to this post (note the bolded part where I very clearly express my focus):

Hmm.  What if this isn't a matter of persecution but a matter of scandal?  Doesn't attendance imply consent/cooperation with the state's immoral requirements (ie. taking down a person's name without their consent? wearing masks before communion, etc, etc)?  Where is the line drawn?  One must assist at a valid mass regardless of what goes on at the mass?

You're either lying or unable to admit you're wrong.

There is no contradiction between Divine Law and Church Law.  The Divine Law commands we offer sacrifice to God.  In the New Testament, such sacrifice is Holy Mass.  

But Pax, no one ever said there is a contradiction between Divine and Church Law. Divine Law commands we keep the Sabbath Day holy. This law can never be changed. The Church commanding that we go to Mass on that same day is in complete harmony with Divine Law.

The Church could change that law she made so that we have to attend Mass twice on Sunday, or both Saturday and Sunday or whatever. The Church's law makes it a sacrilege to receive communion more than once a day - yet she allows it twice in the same day for certain cases such as for Viaticuм. Her laws may be changed, Divine Laws can never be changed.

Anyway, that's the way I discern the difference between the two.

It is a mortal sin to miss Mass, whether Church or Divine Law makes no difference.  

The old law required an annual sacrifice for sin; similar to our annual requirement to go to confession once a year.  But could the Church get rid of this annual confession rule?  I would say ‘no’, because it has its roots in the Old Testament, which came from God (ie Divine Law).

The Church could change the rule to make confession twice or more a year, or once every 13 or 20 months or whatever. This would mean the Church's old law would have to be abrogated, so in that sense she could get rid of the annual confession rule.

In the same way, the weekly requirement for Sunday Mass is a Church Law, yes, but does that mean it ORIGINATED with St Peter?  In other words, is the Sunday Mass requirement a creation of the Church, which could be done away with entirely? No, it cannot.  The requirement for Sunday Mass would have to be considered part of Tradition, ie an order from Christ to the Apostles, so it is Divine Law, made know through the Church.  
.
Holy Days of obligation are strictly Church laws and almost all (except Christmas, which feast has been celebrated since Apostolic Times) could be, in theory, removed from the calendar.  

I do not know when Our Sunday Obligation originated, but other than to satisfy idle curiosity that is irrelevant because it is a law binding on all Catholics under pain of mortal sin, this is true in most cases, but there are exceptions.

We all know that there are many trads who have no access to Mass at all, or perhaps have access only once every third month on a Wednesday - in this instance they do not sin by missing Sunday Mass and are not bound to that law because it is the Church's Law. Although for their own good, they had better do whatever they possibly can to not miss that rare Mass on Wednesday when it happens.

Because it is the Church's law, it is up to the Church to provide the Mass for us to go to, or it is no sin. In such cases when there is no Mass on Sunday, it is therefore impossible to go to Mass on Sunday and we are not bound to Church Law, but we are still bound to the Divine Law and must do what we can do keep the day holy on our own.

Another exception for example is if the chapel makes your presence conditional, i.e. that you can participate in the Mass but only under certain conditions, such as you must first sign a paper, or if you must first give a verbal affirmation to the priest or chapel rep that you deny EENS, or admit there is no pope, or reject certain doctrines, or whatever - then you must not attend and in those instances are not bound by the law.    

It should be noted for poche and other unknowing lurkers that all of this pertains strictly to the True Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and most certainly does not apply to the NO's Sunday service.

The Church could change that law she made so that we have to attend Mass twice on Sunday, or both Saturday and Sunday or whatever.

Yes, the Church can always ADD requirements to religion, but never subtract from Divine Law.  If a practice is from Apostolic times (i.e. Sunday Mass is an obligation), then it's reasonable to assume (without doing research) that it came directly from Christ, who instructed the Apostles on the essentials of the Church, since it is Christ who came to "fulfill" the Old Law. 
.
For example, many ceremonies/prayers of the Mass were ADDED by the Church over the centuries.  But the essential form and structure of it is DIVINE, as 1) Christ taught the Apostles the prayers of the Offertory, Canon, Communion.  2) Secondly, as highlighted in the highly-detailed book "How Christ said the First Mass", it is explained that many of the prayers/ceremonies/rubrics of the mass come from the Old Law, and reflect Jєωιѕн Temple practices.  Again, the Mass is a "fulfillment" of Divine Law in the Old Testament.
.

The Church could change the rule to make confession twice or more a year, or once every 13 or 20 months or whatever.

Yes, the Church could ADD requirements, but I would argue She could not get rid of the basic, annual requirement.
.
Just as the "meatless friday penance" is of Apostolic origin, and V2 did not (i.e. could not) do away with this penance, so in the same way, there are basic parts of our religion that the Church cannot change or eliminate.
.

I do not know when Our Sunday Obligation originated, but other than to satisfy idle curiosity that is irrelevant because it is a law binding on all Catholics under pain of mortal sin, this is true in most cases, but there are exceptions.

But an exception only proves the value of the law; it doesn't nullify the law.  Exceptions are just common sense application of the law.  The Church (human organization) is meant to apply Divine Law (Christ's Sunday Mass requirement) for God's people.  Christ gave St Peter the power to "bind and loose" but there are limits.  The Church was created to help man gain heaven, and since God doesn't require the impossible, the Church's job is to explain exceptions that might need to exist.  But the general requirement still remains and doesn't change.

I agree.  And that's why it's been so difficult, and still is, to travel to a Mass location that doesn't offend.

What happens at a chapel, by the members, is different than what happens DURING A MASS.
.
These "scandals" of lists and of crazy chapel members do not affect the validity, morality, holiness or legality of the mass being offered.  Therefore, you must attend such a mass, if that's your only choice.  Being "offended" by people does not absolve you from your Sunday obligation, unless such "offense" takes place during mass, or affects the mass  (i.e. if a priest were to require all in attendance to accept that a state governor has authority over catholicism or something crazy like that).
.
The novus ordo is an offense against God because it mocks Holy Mass itself.  An indult mass is a lessor offense, but still affects the morality of the mass, because by attending, you are openly accepting the novus ordo as "catholic".
.
List taking, mask wearing or civil authority matters, even if anti-church, do not affect the Mass, but only the members of the chapel.