118. Application of the Mass

1. "Whether a missionary can receive the alms of the Mass and apply it according to the mind or intention of a pagan offerer, who has as his purpose obtaining healing from illness, or liberation from prison and from the capital penalty which hangs over him?

R. "Affirmatively." S. C. de P. F. 11 March 1848., Cf. Enchirid. Moral. 368., I. M. 610.

2. In a certain religious community the father procurator was accustomed at the beginning of each month to distribute Mass intentions among the fathers dwelling in the same community. The same procurator received the stipends of these Masses abundantly, so that there were never lacking to him Masses to be distributed. Since at the beginning of some month a certain father forgot to go to the father procurator, and to ask from him new Masses to be celebrated, nevertheless he celebrated according to his intention. Hence the question was raised whether for that Mass the father procurator could retain a stipend from those already accepted, or whether a Mass had to be celebrated again.

R. It seems that the father procurator can retain the stipend for that Mass; nor does another seem to have to be celebrated. The reason is that that Mass was said for a certain and determinate intention. For that father knew both that the procurator had Masses with himself to be distributed, and that it was his will that they be said by the fathers dwelling in that community. There is added the authority of Francis Sylvius, Op. tom. 5. Orat. 11., which is the first on anticipated Masses, Concl. 2. He resolves almost the same case, and says: "He who celebrates in anticipation according to the intention of one who is accustomed to have Masses to be commended to others, that is, before he has either been requested by him or has himself reminded him, does not act badly, and can receive the stipend from him without scruple." And for this same opinion he cites Reginald, Rodriguez, Fagundez, and Aragonius, who writes thus concerning the preceding assertion: Therefore these things are certain, and I judge that no one can doubt concerning them; in which way Peter Navarra also speaks, apud Sylv. l. c. - Claude La Croix affirms the same, l. 6. n. 220: "I can," he says, "apply a Mass for him whom I know in fact wishes to ask a Mass from me, although he has not yet asked. Except if I knew that he wished to ask for some effect toward which the sacrifice would not yet help"; and he cites Pasq. and Sylvius. - And below, answering the question: "Whether he satisfies who celebrates for him whom God knows will first give the stipend," after bringing forward doctors on each side he says: "It must be said with the common opinion that such an application is always made illicitly, and often also invalidly." Illicitly indeed because of the special prohibition made by Clement VIII; often invalidly, because often at that time the intention of the petitioner does not yet exist; indeed, often neither does the motive or cause of asking. And he adds, n. 222: "All the opposite things are in the chaplain of whom Burgh speaks. Nevertheless Vasq., Rayn., and Avers. admit that Mass can be read for one actually dead, for whom afterward a Mass will first be requested, with a stipend offered, because thus it is usefully offered for that determinate person, already in need and capable of the whole fruit." - G. 337. 345. 346., I. M. 618.

3. Benignus the confessor, having been requested by his penitent concerning the celebration of Mass for the soul of his mother, who had died the preceding night, with a rich stipend offered to him, indeed promised his penitent that he would celebrate Mass, but he refused to accept the stipend from him, and left it to him, saying: I will say the Mass all the same. But afterward, thinking that he had not received the stipend, he omitted to celebrate the Mass without any scruple. Another time the same Benignus did almost the same thing on a similar occasion, when a pious woman offered him a stipend for the celebration of Mass. He renounced the stipend, promising the Mass, but afterward celebrated the Mass in a second intention, because, he says, the Mass is of infinite value. Likewise, on another occasion, a certain noble man offered Benignus a thousand lire for the celebration of ten Masses. Benignus indeed promised the Masses, but not on this occasion either did he accept the stipend, and he asked that man to be willing rather to give that considerable sum as alms to some poor family. He then celebrated the Masses, but again in a second intention. Finally, Benignus is called to a dying man, who asked him what would be better, and also what he could do more usefully and fruitfully: whether namely to leave his inheritance to the poor, or to destine it to building a public church and to the celebration of Masses for his soul after death. Without hesitation Benignus answered: There is no doubt that it is better to leave your whole inheritance to be distributed among the poor, who are the living temple of the Holy Spirit, who represent the very Person of Christ.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Benignus in the first Case undoubtedly sinned. For he undertook from justice an obligation of celebrating Mass; for he promised that he would celebrate Mass in exactly the same way as if he had accepted the stipend. Also in the second Case Benignus sinned. For, voluntarily renouncing the stipend offered and at the same time promising the Mass, he is certainly understood to promise the same Mass which was requested with the stipend offered, which indeed is not satisfied by a Mass in a second intention. And there can be no doubt that if the matter as it is were manifested to that pious woman, she would rightly and deservedly think herself gravely deceived. To apply Mass in a second intention is, besides the primary intention of the application of the Mass, to make another application of the same Mass, according to the opinion that Mass can be applied indefinitely; which opinion is altogether less probable, and, if perhaps it is false, that application is null. Likewise, to apply in a second intention can be explained through a conditional application in substitution for the first, if perhaps this has no place. Thirdly, finally, to apply in a second intention can be equivalent to a certain special Memento. Hence also in the third Case Benignus sinned. For certainly, if that noble man had known Benignus's manner of acting, he would have gone to another priest for the celebration of the Masses, since he altogether intended it, and therefore was offering a wholly extraordinary stipend. Who indeed would not say that Benignus deceived that noble man in a very grave matter? Finally, Benignus did not answer rightly; for there can be no doubt that a work of Religion, such as the construction of a church, which is destined for the worship of God and for the public good of souls, likewise the celebration of Masses or the Eucharistic sacrifice, whose fruit redounds to the whole Church, and whence there is such glory of God that greater cannot exist in this world, are works more excellent and more useful and more fruitful than a work of corporal mercy, namely alms given to the poor. These works likewise are also more useful and fruitful for the soul of the deceased after death; since both the prayers of the faithful in that church and the sacrifice of the Masses can certainly have more worth before God for the suffrage of his soul than alms given to the poor. Hence, when there is room for moderation of pious legacies, because, for example, the revenues no longer suffice for all the prescribed works, first other pious works are deleted, and meanwhile the number of Masses is left intact. And if the number of Masses also must be restrained, and some are to be celebrated with chant, one must begin from these, so that the number of Masses may be diminished as little as possible. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13. c. 25. n. 34.

4. Obligation of celebrating by reason of stipend - Lambertinus had accepted a stipend from Florimund for one hundred Masses to be celebrated. Since meanwhile other rich Mass stipends were offered to Lambertinus by others, Lambertinus accepted all these, and immediately celebrated the Masses. Hence he celebrated the aforesaid one hundred Masses over a space of six months.

Quaer. Whether Lambertinus celebrated the aforesaid one hundred Masses within the due space of time?

R. It seems that it must be affirmed, if Florimund indicated to Lambertinus no reason from which the aforesaid celebration would have to be urged more quickly, for example, if he had handed over a rich and extraordinary stipend, if it concerned a person very recently deceased, etc. A special reason of urgency being excluded, Lambertinus satisfied his obligation. For first, by celebrating one hundred Masses in the space of six months, he celebrates the accepted Masses almost continuously, for he celebrates them almost on alternate days. Nor does it seem that the one giving the alms can demand more in the Case. Moreover, if for the obligation of one Mass a space of two months is commonly assigned, a greater space is certainly required when it is a question of several Masses. Wherefore, if it is a question of sixty Masses to be celebrated, a space at least twice as great seems to be granted, unless the offerer expressly declares otherwise. M. E. v. 1. p. 480., I. M. 624.

5. Martianus, having accepted a stipend for celebrating on a privileged altar, celebrated on another altar. But in order to gain a plenary indulgence for the deceased for whom he celebrated, after Mass he recited the prayer, En ego, o bone, etc.

Quaer. Whether Martianus is bound to perform another Mass on a privileged altar?

R. "More probably, negatively. The reason is that he who gave the stipend can seek nothing else than the privilege of the altar, or the plenary indulgence, since he has already obtained the Mass. But that indulgence can be bestowed upon the deceased even outside Mass, namely if the priest devoutly tries to apply some plenary indulgence to this deceased person, for example by traversing the Way of the Cross, or by reciting after Mass the prayer which begins: En ego, o bone et dulcissime Iesu, etc., and at the same time praying according to the intention of the Pontiff, etc." Thus Fr. Gury 344.

But, as is clear from the Responses of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, speaking per se, Martianus could not thus satisfy his obligation by celebrating on another non-privileged altar, and then gaining a plenary indulgence by the aforesaid prayer; rather, he ought to have celebrated on a privileged altar. Cf. Enchir. Mor. 629., I. M. 1380.

6. In a certain church a box was publicly set out near the door with this inscription: Alms for Masses to be celebrated on the Altar of the Chapel of the miraculous image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hence alms were collected daily from the box, and on the following day one Mass was celebrated at that Altar by the rector of the church, who took those alms for himself, whether they were more or fewer, but they always exceeded daily the sum of fifty lire.

It is asked: Whether the aforesaid rector acted rightly?

R. Negatively. For, as is clear from the obvious sense of that inscription, as many Masses ought daily to be celebrated as could be celebrated, according to the diocesan tariff. But if so many Masses could not be celebrated, e.g., on account of a lack of priests, then the offerers are to be warned. This is confirmed from the following Case resolved by the S. C. C.: In very many States of North America the custom had prevailed that, for the single Mass which is sung on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, the faithful should contribute money. But the sum of money thus collected was ordinarily so great that it would easily equal the alms of several hundred Masses. It was asked whether the aforesaid custom, which in some way at least was already becoming known to those offering, was to be absolutely prohibited. Now the S. C. C., Jan. 27, 1877, replied: "Let nothing be innovated: only let a tablet be placed in the church, by which the faithful may be taught that with those very alms one Mass is sung on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed." For then without doubt the faithful would consent that one Mass be sung for all that money, and from mere liberality they would bestow the excess. A. S. S. vol. 10, p. 125.

7. The procurator general of a religious order received from a certain pious person 100 lire for 10 Masses. He put them away with all diligence in his desk; but on the following day he found nothing; and he could find nothing, because a household thief had stolen them. The same procurator at another time received 100 lire from another pious person, but one unknown to him, for 50 Masses. On the following day, when he wishes to exchange the received note of 100 lire for others of lesser value, he finds it to be false. Hence he now asks whether he is bound to the celebration of the aforesaid Masses.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. In the first Case the procurator is bound to the celebration of the Masses. The reason is that he, having accepted the stipend, undertook the obligation of celebrating, or causing to be celebrated, those 10 Masses; but the stipend, once accepted, he made his own, or rather the Convent's, namely by accepting it in the name of the Convent and for the Convent: whence he, or rather the Convent, ought patiently to sustain the loss of that stipend: for a thing perishes to its owner. Nor perhaps is it valid to object that those 100 lire were found enclosed in some paper with a superscription indicating that they were a stipend for Masses to be celebrated. For the thief who stole them certainly will not employ them for the celebration of Masses, and this surely cannot prudently be presumed.

But it does not seem that in the other Case he is bound to the celebration of the Masses. For in Masses to be celebrated for a stipend an unnamed contract intervenes: I give that you may do. But that pious person, although in good faith, in reality gave nothing. Therefore also Fr. Procurator is bound to do nothing. Nor indeed is it valid to object that that pious person acted in good faith, and therefore truly had the will of imposing the obligation of Masses to be celebrated, an obligation accepted by the procurator. For the will of the pious person obligating, and the will of the procurator accepting the obligation, essentially presupposed the stipend offered and accepted, which does not exist.

8. "Whether a priest, in anniversaries of the dead which are requested out of devotion, satisfies by celebrating the Mass of the Saint, when according to the rubrics the Requiem Mass cannot be celebrated?"

R. "Affirmatively." S. R. C., Apr. 23, 1875, ad 4, n. 2352; Aug. 5, 1662, n. 1238.

9. "Does a priest, to whom an alms is given for celebrating a Mass for one or more deceased persons, or a votive Mass in honor of some Mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of a Saint, satisfy his obligation by making the Mass conformable to the office, when otherwise the rite of the day does not permit the requested Mass, provided that he applies it according to the intention of the one giving the alms?"

R. It would seem that the proposed question should be answered negatively from the Decree of the S. R. C., Mar. 3, 1761, n. 2461: "On days on which private votive Masses or Masses of the dead can be said, a priest obliged to them by reason of a foundation or of an accepted manual stipend does not satisfy his own obligation by saying the Mass of the occurring day: for the express will of testators or petitioners, provided it be rational, must be fulfilled." The same negative response can be confirmed from another later Decree of the same S. R. C., Sept. 28, 1872, n. 3285.

Nevertheless, to the proposed question by a very recent Decree the S. R. C. itself replies: "Affirmatively; but it is more advisable that, as far as can be done, satisfaction be made to the intention of the one giving the alms by a Mass either of requiem or votive." S. R. C., June 13, 1899, n. 4031.

10. Retention of part of the stipend - Titius the priest, while making spiritual exercises, is very greatly troubled by three matters. a) To relieve the poverty of priests who, dwelling in a small town, very often lacked alms for Masses, by the help of a certain layman, a most industrious man, he collected many Masses with a stipend of two or three lire. But distributing these to the priests he retained whatever exceeded the synodal tariff of their diocese, assigning part of it to himself under the title of labor and industry employed, and granting part to the man out of gratitude. Aware of this matter, the priests of the small town were silent, giving thanks to Titius from the heart. b) Since a quantity of gold coin had been sent to him from France for Masses to be celebrated, he granted the whole stipend to the priests celebrating, but first exchanged the gold coin into another which is called paper money, and retained for himself whatever profit there was. c) From A., a nobleman to whom he had rendered a great favor, he received a stipend of one hundred lire for a Mass to be celebrated, yet he entrusted that celebration to another priest, giving an alms according to the synodal tariff.

Titius opens all these things in sacramental confession. The confessor remains uncertain, asking himself:

1. On what basis and how much can a priest receive as the stipend of a Mass? - 2. Whether it is licit to entrust a Mass to another to be celebrated, with part of the stipend retained? - 3. What is to be judged concerning the individual things in the Case?

Resp. to the 1st. In the first Question there are two questions. The first is: On what basis can a priest receive a stipend for the celebration of Mass? - To receive a stipend for the sacrifice of the Mass itself is certainly simony, and illicit. For simony consists in this, that a spiritual thing is given for a temporal thing. But if a stipend is received, not under a title intrinsic to the Mass itself, but under the extrinsic title of the support of the priest, simony ceases, and it is licit. Yet with this title, commonly admitted, there is difficulty in explaining how the stipend is owed from justice. Under the title of support alone, the stipend cannot be owed from justice. Otherwise a stipend would be owed from justice to anyone needing support, although he did nothing. By mere donation and alms that which is given and donated is ordinarily given for support. Therefore support is rather the extrinsic end than the intrinsic title of the stipend in the celebration of Masses. Now the stipend in this celebration of Masses is owed from justice. Therefore its intrinsic title is to be sought apart from every simony. Moreover there is the most grave difficulty: how, if a priest receives a stipend under the title of support alone, he can receive it even though he does not need support, because, e.g., he can already sufficiently support himself from a benefice. Therefore a title must be sought by force of which any priest can receive a stipend for the celebration of Masses. This title consists in this, that it is the wage of a work or of labor which someone performs. But labor is any inconvenience by which one is affected in carrying out the sacrifice of the Mass. Now that which is given on account of the work, or labor, is the wage of the work and labor, and therefore there is no simony; since on both sides there is something temporal; nor consequently is that which is given and received given and received as the price of a spiritual thing.

Indeed, as in all other matters there is a wage of work and labor, so also in the celebration of Masses. And as in all other matters one can bargain for that wage of labor, so also in the celebration of Masses; and therefore then the stipend is owed from justice, and the Mass will have to be celebrated. The contract which intervenes is certainly not of sale and purchase of the Mass; but it is an unnamed contract, I give that you may do. Hence in Luke 10:7 it is said: The laborer is worthy of his wage; and in 1 Cor. 9:7: Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Why is the laborer worthy of a wage, except by reason of the labor which he undergoes for the advantage of others? Why is the soldier worthy of a stipend, except because military service is laborious and very useful to others? It is indeed true that, in the celebration of Masses, as in other spiritual things, labor, as advantageous and useful to others, does not give a right to a wage, since advantage and usefulness of this kind is spiritual and unsalable. Yet, although that labor, by reason of the office performed, or as advantageous to another for whose sake it is done, cannot be sold, nor gives a right to a wage: nevertheless from this it does not follow that precisely as it is labor, bringing weariness and trouble, requiring time, and hindering one from other lucrative functions to which one could apply himself, it is not worthy of compensation and wage. And indeed every labor is estimable by price not only by reason of the help or office rendered, but also by reason of itself. And thus in the wage of labor, great account is often taken, and the wage increases, by reason of the greater weariness itself or the longer time, although the usefulness of that labor is less. Therefore one who asks a wage with regard to labor alone in the manner aforesaid commits no injustice and no simony in itself. In itself; for simony can then intervene only if, namely, a prohibition of the Church intervenes; and therefore simony then would be, not of divine law, but of merely ecclesiastical law. Hence the other proposed difficulty vanishes: for whether the priest is rich or poor he always has a right to the stipend of his labor, he is always worthy of his wage. But he who, with regard to his sacred action, or insofar as this is advantageous and useful to another, demands something, commits simony of divine law, because he sells the sanctity of his work.

As to the other question of the first Question: How much can a priest receive as the stipend of a Mass? at first sight it would seem necessary to say that he can and ought to receive as much as is required and suffices for his honest support. For to this the wage of labor is of itself ordered, namely that by his labor a man be honestly supported. But because not every labor which is placed in individual actions merits the whole support of that day, what has been received by usage and approved or established by prelates must be observed. Therefore a priest can receive as the stipend of a Mass the quantity established by diocesan law or custom. This, however, of itself does not prevent him also from being able to receive less or more. For as a priest can celebrate Mass altogether gratuitously, so also he can celebrate it for a lesser stipend. And nothing prohibits the faithful from offering also a richer stipend with liberal charity.

As regards the second Question, one can entrust to another the celebration of a Mass. For, speaking regularly, it makes no difference whether one celebrates by himself or through another. But if the Mass to be celebrated is entrusted to another, it is not licit to hand over to the same person a lesser stipend, even a just one, if the greater stipend was received under the title of celebration alone. Indeed then every title for retaining part of that stipend is lacking. And this is confirmed from prop. 9 condemned by Alexander VII, whence it is held that a priest acting thus by no means satisfies through another, a lesser stipend having been conferred on him. But if the greater stipend is accepted not under the title of celebration alone, but under another extrinsic title, and with regard not only to the Mass but also to the person, then it is licit to retain the excess of the stipend, and to hand over to the priest celebrating only the part of a just and ordinary stipend. For then a title for retaining that part is not lacking.

As to the third Question, Titius does not seem to have acted rightly in the first Case. For he assigned to himself part of the stipend under the title of labor and industry. But the labor and industry of Titius certainly do not appear estimable by price. For all the labor and all the industry of Titius consist in this, that he asks a friend who is willing to collect Masses and hand them over to him. Therefore the labor and industry is rather that of that layman, a most industrious man, who collected many Masses and handed them over to him. Titius likewise granted part of the stipend to the aforesaid man out of gratitude. If a concession of this kind was made to remunerate the labor and industry of that most industrious layman, Titius does not seem to be disturbed. For the aforesaid layman is called most industrious, and in reality he collected many alms, and those not ordinary. Therefore there is no doubt that he was worthy of an equitable remuneration of his labor. - Nor likewise did Titius act rightly in the other Case. For all know that the value of gold coin is different and greater. Therefore those who entrust a stipend in gold coin for Masses to be celebrated by that very fact give a greater stipend for the celebration of Masses. Therefore to change money of this kind, and to hand over the stipend to the priests celebrating, but to retain for himself whatever profit there may be from that change, in reality is nothing other than not to hand over to the aforesaid priests the whole stipend, by retaining part of it for himself, which is altogether prohibited. Finally, in the third Case Titius does not seem to be disturbed. For the greater stipend had been given to Titius not only under the title of the celebration of the Mass, but by another personal cause, namely on account of the great favor rendered to that nobleman.

11. "Titius gathers a great quantity of Masses in Portugal, receiving the stipend in Portuguese money, which he exchanges for Spanish money, obtaining a profit of 30 and even of 40 per 100. He has these Masses celebrated by Spanish priests, giving them the same stipend, retaining for himself the profit of the exchange. Is it licit for Titius to retain the profit of the exchange of Portuguese money with Spanish money? - R. Negatively." - S. C. C., Nov. 21, 1898.

12. Several bishops in France obtained an Apostolic indult, by force of which parish priests have the faculty, on certain days on which otherwise Mass would have to be said for the people, of celebrating the most holy sacrifice according to the intention of the one giving the stipend, yet under this law, that that stipend be sent to the bishops and be spent for diocesan pious works determined by the Holy See. Now, since the faithful very often offer for this Mass an alms richer than the ordinary stipend, not a few parish priests, after sending, as is proper, to the bishops the stipend taxed by the diocesan statutes, claim that it is licit for what exceeds to be kept by themselves, because there is present, they say, an extrinsic title for retaining this part of the alms, namely either extraordinary labor, if the Mass is with chant, or if some journey must be made, or especially liberality spontaneously and evidently imparted with regard only to the person.

It is asked: Whether parish priests, after sending to the bishop the stipend taxed by the diocesan statutes, are able to retain for themselves the excess of the alms of the Masses?

R. Negatively, unless it is established with moral certitude that the excess of the common alms was offered with regard to the person, or on account of greater labor or inconvenience. S. C. C., Jan. 31, 1880, A. S. S. vol. 13, p. 261. The reason is that the Apostolic indult granted to parish priests, namely of celebrating according to the intention of the one giving the stipend the holy sacrifice of the Mass which was to be applied for the people, was not given unconditionally and absolutely by the Supreme Pontiff, but on this condition, that the accepted stipend be sent to the bishops and be spent for diocesan pious works determined by the Holy See. Therefore, just as the accepted stipend must be handed over in its entirety to the one celebrating the Mass, so in the Case the aforesaid stipend must be applied in its entirety to those pious works. And this is confirmed from the fact that the Supreme Pontiff by that Apostolic privilege did not have regard to the condition of the parish priests, but intended to favor only those pious works. Now although an accepted stipend, however rich, must be handed over in its entirety to the priest celebrating the Mass, nevertheless part of it can be retained if it is established with moral certitude that the excess of the common stipend was given under a title extrinsic to the celebration itself of the Mass, namely with regard to extraordinary labor, because there is question, e.g., of a Mass with chant, or with regard to the person, that is, on account of his dignity, or office, or relationship, or poverty, or on account of gratitude owed to him. For in the Case the parish priests do not have to send to the bishops anything except the stipend of the Masses. Therefore they can retain that excess for themselves. - I. M. 624, 625.

13. Generosus, a very rich and very pious man, was accustomed to give several alms to the parish priest, who was also his confessor, and left them to the discretion of the same parish priest, so that he might dispose of them according to his own pleasure. Now, dying, Generosus left a legacy of twenty thousand lire to the same parish priest, namely that he himself should celebrate, or cause to be celebrated, a Mass for his soul daily for a year.

It is asked: 1. Whether the parish priest can, on Sundays and feast days, entrust to another the Mass to be celebrated for the people, so that he himself can celebrate the aforesaid Mass? 2. Whether the parish priest can entrust the Mass in the Case to another to be celebrated, handing over to him only the ordinary stipend? 3. Whether one who unduly retains part of the stipend is guilty of theft; and is bound to restitution, and to whom he ought to restore?

R. To the 1st. Negatively, speaking in itself. For the parish priest by force of his office and benefice is bound to celebrate Mass for the people on Sundays and feasts of precept. And this obligation is at the same time real and personal. Hence he cannot be excused from it, unless a canonical cause intervenes, which certainly is not the Mass to be celebrated for the deceased, a richer stipend having been given. Speaking in itself, because, if the parish priest is so poor that he does not have suitable fruits for support, he can, with the consent of the bishop, "even on feast days apply Mass for those offering alms, provided that within the same week he applies for the people the Masses omitted." S. Alph., l. 6, n. 325; I. M. 237, 238.

R. To the 2nd. Affirmatively. At first sight it could indeed seem that part of the stipend in the Case cannot be retained. For, if the parish priest himself celebrates the Mass, he holds himself as legatee; but if he entrusts the Mass to another to be celebrated, he is as executor. But from the circumstances of the Case it plainly appears that Generosus gave a richer stipend for Masses to be celebrated not under the title of the celebration of the Mass alone, but also with regard to the person. And this is confirmed from the fact that for each Mass to be celebrated Generosus by no means defined a stipend, but under the title of a legacy left a solid sum of twenty thousand lire to the parish priest, with the burden imposed on him of the daily celebration of Mass. And, since a legacy is a kind of donation, the matter is evident that Generosus wished wholly to gratify the parish priest as legatee, with the obligation imposed on him either of celebrating Mass daily for a year, or of seeing to it that Mass be celebrated by another. For Generosus well knew that the parish priest could not always celebrate Mass himself. I. M. 624, 625; S. Alph., l. 6, n. 321.

To the 3rd. Whoever subtracts anything from an accepted stipend of Masses, even a little, even for a pious use, is held guilty of sacrilege, unless the other has entirely spontaneously and liberally, and therefore without being asked, remitted the excess. But the question is difficult whether he who retains part of the stipend is also held guilty of theft. And it seems that it must be affirmed; for, from the intention of the one giving the stipend, whether it is small or rich, the whole is given to the one celebrating, since by hypothesis a stipend of this kind is given under the title of celebration alone, and not also in consideration of the person; although indeed it is not given as a stipend of the Mass, which would be simoniacal, but as an alms to the person, namely of the priest celebrating. Whence it follows that the part of the stipend subtracted must be restored to him. For it must be restored to him to whom it belongs; but it belongs to him to whom it is given, and it is given to the one celebrating. I. M. 124; S. Alph., l. 6, n. 322.

14. Obligation of celebrating by reason of a foundation - In a village of the Archdiocese C., in the year 1862, Peter, a farmer, established by testament: The remaining goods I leave to the parish church for the erection of a foundation of a morning Mass for Sundays and feast days, with the obligation in the said Mass of saying three Our Fathers for the benefactors of this church. That property is equal in price to 5,054 marks. The wife of the said testator Peter had the usufruct for the days of her life. When she had died, a question arose whether the parish priest, who was the only priest in that parish, and who had the faculty of bination, was to be obliged to apply the aforesaid founded Mass according to the mind of the founder or not.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. It has been received in Law that, in interpreting last wills, Rule 45 concerning the Rules of Law in the Sixth is especially to be kept before the eyes: In obscure matters we look to what is more probable. Now, as Benedict XIV says, de Sacrif. miss. c. 9, n. 2, it is more probable that he who has founded a benefice or chaplaincy, and has imposed the burden of celebrating Mass, but has added not even a word concerning its application for his own soul, wished the same also to be applied to himself. And this probability is such that the S. C. C. has most constantly followed this rule of interpreting foundations of this kind, as may be seen in the same Benedict XIV, l. c.

Nor indeed is there, in the Case, any contrary presumption. For that imposed burden of reciting three Our Fathers for the founders of the parish church by no means excludes the application of the Mass for the soul of the testator; indeed it rather suggests it. For if this other burden is imposed also for others, it is a sign that the testator reserved the application itself of the Mass to himself alone. Nor can the presumption of the free application of the Mass be drawn any more from the fact that by that foundation the testator wished to provide for the convenience of the parishioners. For this circumstance is not expressed in the aforesaid testamentary clause, and therefore it is not to be asserted to the prejudice of the testator himself. Nor, if it were expressed, would it avail anything unless it were further proved that the foundation had been made on account of the convenience alone of the parishioners. Cf. Lugo, d. 21, s. 1, n. 23. Hence the S. C. C. never declared the free application of a Mass established on account of the convenience of the hearers, except when such circumstances were present that it could rightly be presumed that the founder had exclusively regarded that convenience. Cf. Benedict XIV, Quaest. Can. q. 7. Finally, that the parish priest was alone in that parish, who by Indult had the faculty of bination, and who consequently could not by that founded morning Mass satisfy the imposed burden, does not prove that the Mass is not to be applied for the founder according to his mind in the aforesaid foundation; but this proves only that the Mass for him is to be applied on another day within the week, since that Mass cannot be applied.

And thus, the Doubt being proposed: "Whether the parish priest is to be bound to apply this founded Mass?" the S. C. C., May 20, 1882, replied: "Affirmatively; but if another priest is lacking, the application of the founded Mass is transferred to the first non-impeded day within the week, the matter having been presented to His Holiness." Cf. S. R. C., June 14, 1845, ad 1, n. 2892; A. S. S. vol. 15, p. 200.

15. Ludovicus Antonius by testament left a Chapel to be erected in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Sorrows, and in it one Mass to be celebrated on all feast days of the same Blessed Virgin Mary, for the suffrage of his soul.

It is asked: Whether the aforesaid Mass is to be celebrated only on all feast days of precept; or only on the seven principal feasts of the same Blessed Virgin Mary; or also on other lesser feasts, on which the commemoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is accustomed to be made during the year?

R. "The Masses are to be celebrated on all days on which the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary is made under the rite of double major or of a higher rite, whether in the universal Church or in the Diocese." S. R. C., Dec. 9, 1752, n. 2422; Sept. 13, 1760, n. 2460.

16. Reduction of Masses - A pious testatrix appointed her fellow citizen Titius executor of her testament, and left to him certain buildings, with the obligation of causing Mass to be celebrated daily, with payment of a determined alms, and of furnishing an annual legacy to the maidservant of the testatrix, so long as she should live. Titius has fulfilled the burdens up to now. But at present he wishes to suspend the celebration of Mass, because he must repair the buildings left to him, lest otherwise he be compelled, to his own loss, to spend his own money for restoring those buildings. This, he says, would certainly be contrary to the mind of the testatrix, who did not intend that the legacy would be a burden and loss to him.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Titius by his own authority can neither suspend the Masses to be celebrated nor reduce them to a smaller number. For the supreme wills of those dying are to be constantly observed, especially if there is question of the suffrages of Masses. Nor indeed does the reason of Titius avail. For the expenses now to be made, and which perhaps now exceed the revenues of the buildings themselves, are easily compensated by the perpetual ownership of the buildings themselves which he has, and by the cessation of the life annuity toward the maidservant. Likewise, once the buildings have now been restored, the revenues undoubtedly will be increased in the future. Therefore the legacy is truly to his advantage. Cf. A. S. S. vol. 2, p. 411 ff.

17. "D. Franciscus Bartomen in his testament commanded that the testamentary executors arrange the celebration of a daily Mass with an alms of two lire in suffrage for him; which Mass indeed is to be celebrated by the Rector of the parish of Tirvia (of the Diocese of Urgell) or by another priest at his command.

For the fulfillment of this mandate the testamentary executors handed over as many bonds of a railway company as would suffice, so that from the revenues the aforesaid daily Mass would be celebrated with an alms of two lire for each one; which bonds are kept in the diocesan chest.

But, in the course of time, since the Government had burdened both the capital and the annual revenues with a certain tax, though slight; and on account of this, as well as by reason of the small expenses which the custody and administration of the aforesaid capital carry with them, the present proceeds do not suffice for receiving the said alms for each daily Mass. Therefore, since there is no one who is bound to increase the capital (at least so the testamentary executors affirm), the petitioner humbly asks from the S. C. that it deign to furnish a response to the following doubts:

1. Whether the parish priest of Tirvia is bound to celebrate the daily Mass with a reduction of the alms; or rather to reduce the number of Masses to be celebrated with an alms of two lire.

2. What is to be done in the future, if from the Government or from another cause the annual revenue of the aforesaid bonds of the railway company, or of other equivalent titles (public securities), suffers detriment.

R. To the 1st. According to the things set forth, the heirs are bound to the supplement; but insofar as this cannot be had, to the proposed doubt, Negatively to the first part, Affirmatively to the second." S. C. C., June 16, 1894.

The reason of this Decision is evident, because the legacy established by the testator was not taxative of such funds, but demonstrative, defining the number of Masses with a determined alms to be given. Therefore the inheritance is burdened, and from it must be supplied what is further required for the celebration of the aforesaid Masses. But when the funds left for the celebration of Masses have been diminished, from Trent, sess. 25, c. 4, de R., the number of Masses can also be diminished in due proportion. I. M. 981.

18. Obligation of celebrating by reason of a benefice - Fulberius, a beneficed cleric, omits to celebrate Mass once in the week: for he says that the obligation of celebrating daily is understood morally, and therefore that he can abstain from the celebration of Mass at least once in the week. But at other times he omits the Mass, yet entrusts it to another to be celebrated, handing over to him not the whole stipend which he himself receives from the benefice, but only the ordinary alms according to the custom of the place.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Fulberius does not act rightly in the first Case. For grave doctors indeed admit that a beneficed cleric can cease from the celebration of Mass once in the week by reason of devotion and reverence toward the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, if, however, the will of the founder does not stand in the way. But they by no means simply admit that he can abstain once in the week from the celebration of Mass merely at will, from some right belonging to him. - In the other Case Fulberius can entrust the Mass to another to be celebrated, if in the foundation of his benefice it was not expressly established that he celebrate personally. But in such a Case he can give to another only the customary alms, and retain the excess for himself. Const. of Innocent XII, Nuper, n. 21, ad VIII; M. E. vol. 5, p. 1, p. 121; Gennari, Consult. Mor. Can. Lit., p. 2, Cons. 2, 26; I. M. 194, 624, 625.

19. In the Rubrics of the Breviary it is read: If on the following day, June 24, the solemnity of the Most Holy Body of Christ occurs, the aforesaid solemnity is to be treated; the feast of St. John the Baptist is then to be put back to the 25th day, as to its proper seat.

It is asked: Whether in the Case of the said translation parish priests are bound to the application of the Mass for the people on June 25?

R. Negatively. The reason is that the obligation of applying Mass for the people is held only on feast days. But that 25th day of June is in no way a feast day, but ferial. Hence, just as "when together with the solemnity the divine office shall have been transferred to the Lord's day, only one Mass is to be applied for the people," Pius IX, Const. Amantissimi; so, when the feast of St. John and of the Most Holy Body of Christ concur on the same feast day, one Mass for the people is to be applied on that day only. And thus it was also decided by the S. C. C., Apr. 28, 1888, A. S. S. vol. 21, p. 152. Nor indeed does the cited rubric stand in the way. For the aforesaid rubric treats only of the rite, office, and proper Mass of the day; it by no means affects, at least directly and in itself, the obligations which accompany feast days, i.e., the observance of the feast day and the burden of application for the people.

The preceding resolution can be confirmed from the following similar resolution: In the city of Trier, every year on the Wednesday of the third week after Easter, there is solemnly celebrated, and indeed of precept, the commemoration of the Most Holy Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is preserved in the Cathedral church of the same place, to the great edification of the people. This feast in the year 1871 occurred on May 3. Hence the feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ was transferred to the 11th day of the same month. Therefore it was asked whether parish priests were bound to celebrate Mass for the people on the said 11th day of May. Now the S. C. C., Apr. 24, 1875, replied: In the Case of which there is question, the parish priest is not bound. A. S. S. l. c.

20. In a certain village the feast of the Patron, St. Anthony of Padua, is celebrated of precept, from time immemorial. The parish priest of this place has never up to now applied Mass for the people on that day. For he says that this is a particular feast of that parish, which is celebrated as of precept neither in the universal Church, nor in the whole diocese; nor also has Mass for the people been applied on that day by his predecessors. There is added that he himself has only meager revenues, whence he himself is not to be burdened too much with this also extraordinary burden.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. The aforesaid parish priest is bound to celebrate Mass for the people. For from Benedict XIV, Const. Cum semper oblatas, § 6, that obligation urges on Sundays and other feast days of precept, no distinction being made between feast days for the whole Church, or for the whole diocese, and for a particular place only. Moreover, since in the Case St. Anthony of Padua is the Patron of the place, that feast day, by reason of this Patron, is counted in the Catalogue of feasts of Urban VIII, Const. Universa, E. M. 1551. Therefore again there is no doubt that on that day the parish priest ought to apply Mass for the people. Nor does it avail that up to now an inveterate custom has existed in that place, or that the aforesaid parish priest does not have suitable revenues. For Benedict XIV, Const. cit., § 5, says generally: "We decree and declare, that although parish priests, or others, as above, having the care of souls, are destitute of suitable prescribed revenues, and although an ancient or even immemorial custom has obtained in their dioceses or parishes, the same [Mass] nonetheless must by all means be applied in the future by them." I. M. 237, 238.

21. "Whether after the recent legitimate dedication of a parish church made also to the Most Holy Heart of Jesus, St. Mary Magdalene being retained as co-titular, the parish priest is bound to apply Mass for the people on both feasts; or only, as has been done up to now, on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene the Penitent?

R. If the feast of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus is not of precept, the parish priest, on that day, is not bound to apply Mass for the people." S. R. C., Nov. 20, 1885, n. 3645.

22. "Whether parish priests ought to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass for the people not only on the primary feast of the principal Patron of their own parish; but also on the primary feast of the chief Patron of the whole diocese?

R. "Affirmatively to the first part, and also to the second, if this other feast is celebrated with cessation from work at least by law." S. R. C., May 28, 1897, ad 2, n. 3957.

23. Gustavus the parish priest doubts whether on the day of the Nativity of the Lord he is bound to apply three Masses for the people; whether on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed he is bound specially to apply Mass for the deceased of the parish; whether, when he must celebrate a conventual Mass in the cathedral, in which he himself is at the same time a canon, he can then apply the aforesaid conventual Mass for the people. But if at any time Gustavus falls ill, then without any scruple he omits Mass for the people, thinking that no one is bound to the impossible.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. As to the first Case of Gustavus, Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. miss. l. 3, c. 9, n. 9, seems to adhere to the affirmative opinion; but he adds that nothing had been decided by the Church and Sacred Congregations as to the obligation of applying those three Masses for the people. Therefore on that day there is no obligation except of applying one Mass only for the people. - As regards the other Case, Gustavus is not bound specially to apply Mass for the deceased of the parish. For such an obligation is established by no positive document. Therefore to do this would certainly be a very fitting thing and one very commending the charity and zeal of the parish priest. - As to the third Case, a canonical cause is present why he should not celebrate Mass for the people personally. Nevertheless he can in no way apply for the people the aforesaid conventual Mass, which has its own special application. Therefore he can then and ought to apply Mass for the people through another. - Likewise as to the fourth Case, there is a cause of necessity why he should not celebrate Mass for the people personally; nevertheless he ought to apply it through another, and for that reason is not also excused from this obligation. For Mass for the people is not only personal, but also real.

24. Fee for utensils - From the liberality of a pious person a chaplaincy was legitimately erected in a chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in a certain church of Spain, with the burden of daily Mass, at the altar of the same chapel at the 9th hour. After the first month of the erection of this chaplaincy, the rector of that church at once asks the chaplain that he be willing to pay the fee for utensils, and the fee for the burden imposed on the church of daily Mass and at a determined hour.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. For the mere celebration of Mass in the aforesaid church nothing is to be paid, since for the church it is not a burden, but an immense convenience. Likewise for the daily celebration of Mass at a certain determined hour, and in the Case at the 9th hour, neither is anything to be paid: for this also is a great convenience for the church, namely to have daily and at a fixed hour a stable Mass. This the very fact of the erection of the chaplaincy in the aforesaid chapel also shows. For if this had been grave, in the Case, for the church, neither the rector of the church nor the bishop would have accepted the erection of such a chaplaincy, or at least with the added condition of daily celebration of Mass at such an hour. But as to utensils, the rector of the church can indeed demand something. For although where there is question of manual Masses nothing can be demanded for utensils, unless the church is poor and lacks sufficient means for providing the necessities for the sacrifice of the Mass; nevertheless it is otherwise as to founded Masses. Hence in Camerino, Dec. 17, 1740, in the S. C. C. it is read: "It indeed seems received by common reckoning that all and individual beneficed clerics, and others holding chaplaincies under a perpetual burden of Masses, and also the canons themselves, are bound to contribute for utensils to the sacristy of the church according to the practice of each church." A. S. S. vol. 21, p. 302; M. E. vol. 5, p. 2, p. 148; Benedict XIV, Instit. 56, n. 13; E. M. 624.