119. Rite of the Celebration of Mass

1. Ambrose, a regular, administers a secular church, committed to him precariously by the Ordinary together with the care of souls. Although the people had up to now been accustomed to the feasts of the diocesan calendar, Ambrose nevertheless performs all the sacred functions according to the calendar of his own Order. Hence he also omits to celebrate the feast of the Dedication of the church, of the Titular, and of the Patron of the place. - Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively. S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1898, ad 2, n. 3979. Ambrose errs still more as to the feast of the Dedication of the church, of the Titular, and of the Patron. For the feast of the Dedication of a church is more solemn and primary, so that it is to be preferred to others, according to the General Decree of the S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1896, n. 3881. The feast of the Titular is to be celebrated by the whole clergy of the church, or by the priest rector assigned to the church or public oratory, through the entire office, and in defect of any clergy by Masses alone. General Decree of the S. R. C., June 5, 1899, n. 4025. But the feast of the Patron of the place is also generally to be observed by regulars. General Decree of the S. R. C., July 9, 1895, n. 3863.

2. On Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament. - Onuphrius, a parish priest, without any scruple celebrates Mass, when occasion is given, at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, and at it distributes communion to the people. For he says that no difficulty can be present in this matter, since it is altogether fitting that the most holy sacrifice be offered at that altar on which the most holy Eucharist is exposed.

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

R. Onuphrius does not act rightly. For by several Decrees of the S. R. C. it is prohibited that Mass be celebrated at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed without necessity, or without grave cause, or without immemorial custom, or without a special indult. By the same Decrees it is also prohibited to distribute sacred communion at the aforesaid altar. But as regards the reason of Onuphrius, the contrary is found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 1, c. 12, n. 9: "It would be, not congruous, but most becoming, that at the altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is situated, Masses should not be celebrated, which seems to have been observed anciently." For the people, intent upon adoration, ought not to be distracted by other prayers and actions, though sacred, from Him to whom they are uniquely and principally intent. But there is an urgent necessity of celebrating Mass at an altar of this kind if other altars are lacking in the same church or in neighboring churches, especially where the precept of hearing Mass urges. But in order that sacred communion can be distributed to the people, the sacred Eucharist must be reserved at another altar.

The following things, moreover, are to be noted concerning Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament: The celebrant at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, whenever he is in the middle of the altar, must first kiss it and afterward genuflect; but when he comes from one side of the altar, he first genuflects, and afterward kisses the altar.

In solemn Masses which are celebrated at the altar of exposition, a commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament is always made; in private Masses, whether they are read at the altar of exposition or at another within the same church, the aforesaid commemoration is made at the pleasure of the priest, except on feasts of the 1st and 2nd class, on which it cannot be made. The commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament, on account of the identity of the Mystery, is to be omitted only on the feasts of the Passion, the Cross, the Most Holy Redeemer, the Most Holy Heart of Jesus, and the Most Precious Blood. S. R. C., July 3, 1896, ad 4, n. 3924.

In the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, whether for the Prayer of Forty Hours or for any other cause, the three altar cards are altogether to be removed from the altar of exposition, except during the time of Mass. S. R. C., Dec. 20, 1864, ad 3, n. 3129.

At the reposition of the Most Holy Sacrament the prayer Deus, qui nobis... must be concluded, Qui vivis et regnas in saecula saeculorum. S. R. C., Mar. 29, 1851, ad 6, n. 2986.

3. On Requiem Masses - Alexander, a noble man, having died, the principal hall of the house was at once turned into an oratory. Several altars were erected in it; and, many from the people coming together, several Masses were celebrated in the presence of the corpse, so that the soul of the deceased might be aided by stronger suffrages. Alexander and his family enjoyed no privilege of a private oratory; whence the faculty of celebrating Masses thus was given by the bishop. - Licitly?

R. Negatively, speaking in itself. For first, when a certain hall of a house is chosen and is transiently turned into an oratory, so that when that function has been completed it is soon turned back to its former use, there is question not of the erection of a private oratory, but of the erection of a portable altar. And cardinals, bishops, and certain missionaries only have this privilege, which is granted only by the Apostolic See. Moreover, although bishops can grant the faculty of celebrating in private oratories, if great and urgent reasons are present, and only by way of an act; yet in the Case there is question neither of a private oratory, nor are great and urgent reasons present. Finally, private Requiem Masses can indeed also be celebrated in the presence of the corpse, but only in churches and oratories, both public and private, and in chapels belonging to seminaries, colleges, and religious or pious communities of either sex. S. R. C., May 19, 1896, n. 3903. E. M. 639; I. M. 639.

Speaking in itself, namely prescinding from legitimate and approved custom and from a special indult. Very recently the S. R. C., Apr. 3, 1894, n. 3822, established: "that while the body of a deceased diocesan bishop, clothed in sacred vestments, lies publicly and solemnly exposed in the great hall of his own residence, Masses may be celebrated throughout the whole morning in suffrage for his soul, all those things being observed which are prescribed in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 2, c. 38, concerning the exposing of the body of a deceased bishop and the offering of suffrages. Which privilege granted to bishops in their own diocese is to be understood, for the same reason, as extended to vicars apostolic in their vicariates, and also to abbots and the other prelates of no diocese enjoying ordinary jurisdiction over the people when they departed from life, yet in their own territory. Finally, by special grace, the S. R. C. grants that deceased titular bishops also may be able to enjoy the same privilege; provided that their bodies are exposed in a suitable hall, and, if outside the City, have been clothed with pontifical ornaments (yet without the pastoral staff); but if in the City, only in prelatial habit." M. E. vol. 8, p. 2, p. 76.

4. Sempronius the priest, in Requiem Masses, always reads the prayers as they lie in the missal, and always omits the sequence. Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively. For from the General Decree of the S. R. C., June 30, 1896, n. 3920: "In daily Masses of every kind, whether read or with chant, several prayers are to be said, of which the first is to be for the deceased person or deceased persons certainly designated for whom the sacrifice is offered, from those which are inscribed in the missal, the second at pleasure, the last for all the faithful departed. But if Mass is celebrated for the dead in general, the prayers are to be said which stand in the missal for daily Masses, and in the same order in which they are there inscribed. But if in the same daily Masses it pleases the celebrant to add several prayers, as the rubrics grant the power, this can be done only in read Masses, with an odd number preserved along with the others prescribed, and with the prayer for all the faithful departed assigned to the last place." But the sequence from the same Decree is to be said in any sung Masses, as also in read Masses, on the Commemoration of all the faithful departed and on the day and for the day of death or burial. In the rest it can be recited or omitted at the pleasure of the celebrant. I. M. 657. Cf. also General Decree of the S. R. C., Commemorationis omnium Fidelium Defunctorum, July 9, 1895, n. 3864.

5. Onuphrius the parish priest, since the rite was semidouble, after celebrating a Requiem Mass for the soul of his parishioner Urban, deceased on the preceding day, deferred the absolution at the tomb to another day, on which the corpse was to be brought into the church. - Does he act rightly?

R. Affirmatively. For the absolution is to be made after the Requiem Mass, or without Mass when the corpse is brought to the church, and in its presence. S. C. de P. F., Mar. 21, 1851, Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 913. This is also clear from the Roman Ritual, title de Exequiis. For at the end it is said: "Mass, if the hour is suitable, in the rite for the dead as on the day of death, with the body present, is not to be omitted, unless a great solemnity of the day stands in the way, or some necessity advises otherwise."

6. On the invalid consecration of wine. - Paschal, a priest, at the taking of the Chalice, notices that water had been placed instead of wine. Having the aforesaid water already in his mouth, he remains very uncertain for some space of time whether he ought to throw it from his mouth back into the Chalice, so that, fasting, after the consecration has been made again, he may communicate, or whether rather he ought to swallow it. At last he does this latter thing, yet not without some fear.

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

R. Paschal acted rightly. For, this Case occurring, since in practice it is morally most difficult not to swallow the water, one can do this without scruple. Moreover, it seems to be a certain irreverence and indecency to throw the aforesaid drink from the mouth back into the Chalice. It can also be confirmed from the rubric of the missal, which, in the Case in which a particle of the consecrated host adheres to the Chalice while the Blood is being consumed, prescribes that the same either be brought with the finger to the lip of the Chalice, or be consumed after wine has been put into the Chalice, de Defect. tit. 10, n. 8; which latter mode is more approved, as Merati observes in the Notes to Gavantus. Cas. Bonon. Dioeces., year 1791, month of March, Case 3; Gavantus, tom. 1, part 3, tit. 4, n. 5; Merati, ib., tit. 10, n. 8; G. 361; Elbel 148.

But from the rubric of the missal de Defect. tit. 4 it is prescribed that also a new host, in the Case, be consecrated, if, scandal being excluded, it can be done; otherwise, that only wine be consecrated. Yet all things are not to be repeated again; but it will be enough to repeat only those things which pertain to the consecration itself, beginning for the former consecration from the words, Qui pridie quam pateretur; and for the other from the words, Simili modo. But before the first consecration the offering of the Host and Chalice must be made mentally. Rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 2, n. 5; tit. 4, n. 4, 5; Cas. Bonon. Dioec., year 1792, month of Apr., Case 3; G. 360, 361; I. M. 329 ff.

But if a consecrated particle of the host has remained in the chalice with part of the water, then before the new consecration the water is to be poured into a clean vessel, the particle of the consecrated host being retained in the chalice, or extracted from it and soon reverently consumed; but the water poured into that vessel is to be consumed after the ablution, or put into the sacrarium. But if only a little water has remained in the chalice, whether with or without a particle of the consecrated host, wine can be poured upon this, which is then consecrated. Elbel 148.

7. On the omitted consecration of the host - Marinus the priest, after the consecration of the chalice, notices that through distraction he omitted the consecration of the Host. Hence he remains uncertain, not knowing what he should do; for he fears to consecrate the Host after the wine. For thus the nature of the sacrifice seems to him no longer to be verified.

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

R. There is no doubt that what Marinus must do in the Case is to consecrate the host. This is clearly had in the rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 3, n. 4, 5, 6, where there is discussion of defect of the bread, and a fourfold case is distinguished: that someone notices the defect of the matter of bread before its consecration; after its consecration; after its consumption; after the consumption of the chalice. In the first Case, after a host has been supplied and a mental offering made, the priest is to continue from the place where he left off, and then the host is to be consecrated. In the second and third Case, after other matter likewise has been placed and a mental offering made, that matter also is to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie quam pateretur, etc.; and the other corrupt or non-wheaten host, if he has not consumed it, he is to consume after the consumption of the Body and Blood; or he is to hand it over to others to be consumed, or preserve it reverently somewhere. In the fourth Case new bread and wine with water must again be supplied, and, after a mental offering has first been made, both matters are to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie, and at once both are to be consumed, and the Mass continued. Hence it is clear that even after the consecration of the chalice and before its consumption, the host is to be consecrated, notwithstanding that inversion of order, that the wine was consecrated first, and afterward the host is consecrated. This is also clear from the same rubric, ib., in the following number, namely 7, where it is said: "If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, or by wind, or by miracle, or being taken by some animal, cannot be found, then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place, Qui pridie quam pateretur, its offering having first been made, as above." And hence it is clear that the order of consecrating first the bread and then the wine does not pertain to the substance of the sacrifice. Hence also from the defect of a change of order in consecrating, a sufficient foundation cannot be taken for doubting about the validity of the sacrifice. Suarez, d. 75, s. 6; d. 86, s. 1; Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1792, month of Febr., Case 3.

8. On the consecration of small hosts - Euphrasius always has to consecrate these small hosts; indeed he places them on the corporal, but by no means sees to it that they also are upon the altar stone. For he says that it suffices that the larger host and the chalice are upon the altar stone.

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

R. Euphrasius does not act rightly. For first, in rubric tit. 20 it is said: "The altar on which the most holy sacrifice of the Mass is to be celebrated must be of stone and consecrated by a bishop, or at least a stone altar-slab similarly consecrated by a bishop inserted in it, which is so large that it can contain the host and the greater part of the chalice." Therefore, as the larger host must be upon the altar stone, so also upon the same must be placed the other small hosts, which constitute part of one and the same sacrifice which is celebrated. Yet, as it suffices, if the altar stone is small, that the greater part of the chalice be upon it, so also it suffices that the greater part of the aforesaid hosts, which are taken by way of one matter, be upon the same altar stone, if it is so small that it cannot contain them all. - Moreover, in rubr. tit. 2 it is said: "If the priest is going to consecrate several hosts for communion to be given, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten, he places them on the corporal before the chalice, or puts them in some consecrated chalice or clean blessed vessel behind the chalice, and covers them with another paten or pall." Hence it is sufficiently understood that small hosts also are to be placed upon the altar stone, since they are to be placed near the chalice, and if on the altar stone there is space for the chalice and for the larger host, there consequently will also be space for the small hosts, unless that stone is very small, and the hosts are very many. Hence Merati in l. c. says: "When several particles are to be consecrated for the communion of the lay faithful and of others not celebrating, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten (for when the particles are few, such as five or six, they must be placed upon the paten and beneath the host, so as to offer them together with the host at the same time, and after the offering they are placed upon the corporal separated from the host; yet in such a way that they remain upon the altar stone, and at the left side of the celebrant, according to common usage; but before the chalice according to the higher rubric), the priest, while he prepares the chalice at the beginning of Mass, places them on the corporal; so that, as we have just said, they remain upon the altar stone and before the chalice, according to the higher rubric, and as Quarti, Bissus, Hippolytus a Porto also teach, or according to the more common usage on the side of the Gospel or at the left of the celebrant, as the Caeremoniale missae privatae teaches, cap. 11, de consecrat. particular. et commun. fidelium § 1, and also Gervasi above § Se poi."

And here, as to communion to be distributed to the people outside Mass, the following things are to be noted:

In the administration of most holy communion outside Mass, after the Most Holy Sacrament has been put back in the tabernacle, the priest must bless the people before he folds the corporal, or does something similar. This is inferred from the word then placed in the rubric.

In the blessing after communion outside Mass the priest does not kiss the altar. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833, ad 6, n. 2704.

During the whole Paschal season after the administration of the most holy Eucharist outside Mass, to the antiphon O sacrum... and the versicle Panem de coelo..., Alleluia is added, and the Prayer is said: Pour into us, O Lord, the Spirit of thy charity: that those whom thou hast satisfied with the paschal Sacraments, thou mayest make by thy piety to be of one accord. Through Christ our Lord. - Amen. Roman Ritual.

9. On communion to be given from the larger host - "A chaplain celebrating at an altar in which the Eucharist is not reserved, so that he might satisfy the devotion of a pious woman seeking communion in the Mass, gives to her a part of the consecrated (larger) host.

It is asked: Licitly?

R. Suarez, 3 p., d. 85, s. 2, with Paludanus, and Gavantus, in rubr. p. 3, tit. 10, n. 3, affirmed that this was licit, relying on the old custom of the Church, which seemed to have been abrogated by no law; and not undeservedly did they write thus in their own age. But now there exists a Decree of the S. C. C., Feb. 12, 1679, approved by Innocent XI, by which, the old custom having now been changed, it is prescribed that none are to be handed over except the customary forms, or particles, of the Eucharist. From this Cavalerius, tom. 4, c. 4, Decret. 2, n. 9, infers that it is not licit to give a part of the host to a layman, one exception being danger of death. And he confirms it from rubr. p. 3, tit. 10, n. 3, where it is established: If the priest celebrating becomes ill, or falls into syncope after the consecration, yet so that he can communicate, and there is not another consecrated host, the priest who supplies the Mass divides the host and gives one part to the sick man. Now, if only in defect of another host is part of the host of the sacrifice to be given in the Case to a priest already sacrificing, how much more will it be necessary to beware lest it be furnished to a layman outside the case of extreme necessity? Therefore it will not be licit for the chaplain, merely to satisfy the devotion of the woman, to assign to her part of the host." Casus Conscient. Bonon. Dioec., year 1778, month of May, Case III.

But that rigid resolution is not proved by the Documents adduced. For from that first cited Decree nothing else is held except this: that ordinarily and from the general rule it is not licit to give anything except the customary Eucharistic forms or particles. Likewise from the cited Rubric nothing else is held except what must be done if there is, or is not, another consecrated host. By no means, however, does it follow from this that only in a case of extreme necessity can a part of the larger host be given. For fittingly, if another consecrated host is present, this is given to the former sick priest, and the other larger host, lest it be divided, is consumed whole by the other priest, since he then supplies and completes the Mass; rubr. l. c. And thus it is already the common opinion that this can licitly be done even outside the case of extreme necessity, when another just and proportionate necessity exists. For here there is not question of any most grave and graver, or even of any grave precept. And thus La-Croix, l. 6, p. 1, n. 498: "When is it licit for a priest to give to a layman part of his larger host? R. When there is a reasonable cause. Graff., Zanard., Zambran. indeed think that it is not licit outside necessity; but S. Anton., Sylv., Sa, Angel., Io. Sanch., Bon., Barb., Marchant., Possev., Dian., Dic., Aversa, Tamb., Gob., Verj. better contradict this, because Christ Himself did this, nor is it now prohibited, nor is there also any irreverence or indecency in this; but the contrary custom or non-use does not oblige under sin, but arises from this, that ordinarily smaller hosts are also had, which if they do not suffice for the number of those communicating can also be divided into several particles, of which individual particles are given to individual persons. The cited authors say that reasonable causes are present if someone has great devotion toward communicating and it is not convenient for him to wait; if a grave or noble person wishes then to communicate, so that afterward he may in good time dispatch himself to business; if servants cannot easily wait without loss to their duties; if the priest would have to wait a long time that a small host might be brought before the offering, etc." And St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 217: "But if," he says, "only one remained (without communion), Gobat advises rather that there be given to him part of the large host, which can now licitly be done, as Croix says with S. Anton., etc. And it suffices for a cause if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time for communion." And at n. 245 the same holy Doctor says: "If this is done without cause it is not licit, but it does not exceed venial, as Tournely rightly says with Poss. But it suffices to excuse it if the one to be communicated is sick, a noble man, a servant, or another who could not wait without inconvenience, even if he communicates only from devotion, as the same Tournely and Conc., Salm. with Dic., Diana, Gran. and Elbel with S. Anton., Sylvest. and Bon. commonly say." And Scavini, l. 3, n. 133, ed. Milan 1874: "To no one," he says, "are several particles to be handed, nor larger ones, but the customary ones. S. R. C., Feb. 12, 1679, General Decree approved by Innocent XI. When the particles do not suffice, the custom of dividing consecrated particles is to be preserved, if necessity is present. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833. Benedict XIV advises, if there is one to be communicated and particles are lacking, to give him part of the large host, if namely the one to be communicated would have to wait a long time."

Therefore to the proposed Case it must be said that the chaplain indeed acted illicitly if he did that so as to satisfy the importunate devotion of a woman who desired to receive communion from the great host of the priest himself. But the chaplain by no means acted illicitly if he did that lest the woman, e.g., a mother of a family, be deprived of communion, or lest she wait a long time with grave inconvenience to herself and her family. - I. M. 536.

10. Mass without a Minister - On a Sunday, about to celebrate Mass in a certain public oratory, into which many had come together to hear it, the chaplain finds no one who knows how to serve Mass, nor is it easy then to find someone suitable for this; for the oratory is distant from the parish, and it is near midday.

It is asked: What must the Chaplain do?

R. In a Case of this kind the chaplain must employ some man who may offer him wine and water in the ministry of the Mass. But as regards the prayers which must be recited either alternately by the priest and the minister, or by this latter alone, the celebrant alone will be able to recite them by himself, and to respond to himself. For in a case of necessity, such as the proposed Case is, the doctors commonly agree that this is licit. And certainly, if the rubric of the missal in the rite to be observed in the celebration of Mass, tit. 4, concerning the Kyrie eleison, expressly warns at n. 2 at the end: If the minister, or those who are present, do not respond to the celebrant, he alone says it nine times; and tit. 7, n. 7 likewise warns that, if by the minister or by the bystanders at the Orate fratres there is no response, May the Lord receive the sacrifice from thy hands, the priest himself by himself says: May the Lord receive the sacrifice from my hands, etc., up to the end; why could not the celebrant also say by himself the remaining things to be said in the Mass with the minister, or by this latter only, if the minister does not know how to respond? For indeed it is forbidden to celebrate Mass entirely without a minister, as is had in the rubric de Defectibus, tit. 10, n. 1, where it is said: If there is not present a cleric, or another serving in the Mass, or there is present one who ought not to serve, as a woman: but it is not forbidden in a case of necessity to employ a minister who does not know how to respond, provided however that he can furnish wine and water in the ministry itself, especially for washing the fingers, both before the consecration and after the consummation. Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1766, month of Aug., Case 3; I. M. 653.

11. On prayers before and after Mass - A certain priest, while vested he goes to the altar to offer the sacred rite, is accustomed on the way to recite in a low voice the psalm Miserere, which, if he cannot complete it before he reaches the altar, he continues to the end while he unfolds the corporal and opens and arranges the missal; and sometimes, if the way from the sacristy to the altar was very short, he remains a little while in the middle of the altar, so that he may finish that psalm before he descends to begin Mass.

It is asked: Whether all that is contrary to the rite prescribed by the rubric?

R. All that, if not against the rite positively, since it is not expressly prohibited by the rubric, certainly must be said to be beside it, because it is in no way prescribed by the rubric. P. Merati, asking in his additions to Gavantus, part 2, tit. 2, n. 6, whether it is licit for a priest proceeding to the altar to recite in a low voice some psalm, e.g., the Miserere, or something else, says that the doctors do not agree, since some affirm, others deny; then he adds: I would believe that the negative opinion is to be adhered to; because nothing to be recited in the approach to the altar is commanded in the rubric, as it ought to have commanded, and as in fact it commands in the departure. For the rest, if the recitation of some psalm or canticle, or of another prayer, helps the priest to gather his mind in God when he goes to the altar, he could perform it by mind alone without vocal pronunciation, and choose one which would not bring delay in the celebration of Mass after he has entered the altar. Cas. Bonon. Dioec., year 1767, month of June, Case 3; I. M. 657.

12. A priest, Mass having been finished, returning to the sacristy, instead of the canticle Benedicite omnia opera Domini, etc., and the psalm Laudate Dominum in Sanctis eius, with the other prayers which are found in the missal after the rubrics for thanksgiving, recites on the way the hymn Te Deum laudamus.

It is asked: Whether he does this according to the rite?

R. Negatively. For this is manifestly against the rite prescribed in the missal, as is to be seen in the Ritus celebrandi missam, tit. 12, n. 6, where concerning the priest who has finished Mass it is said: "In the manner in which he had come, he returns to the sacristy, meanwhile saying the antiphon, Trium puerorum, and the canticle, Benedicite, etc." I. M. 657.

13. On Mass in another's church - Euphemius, a priest, on the occasion of preaching, often celebrates in another's church. When he does not depart from his own diocese, he himself always celebrates the Mass corresponding to the office according to his own Calendar. But when he departs from the diocese, he follows the Calendar of the church in which he celebrates; yet he omits the prayers prescribed by the Ordinary of the place, and likewise the name of the Patron in the prayer A cunctis, and the name of the Ordinary in the Canon.

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

R. The twofold rule which Euphemius follows as to the rite of the Mass is false, and therefore, generally and speaking in itself, he does not act rightly. Likewise Euphemius does not act rightly as to the prescribed prayers, as to the name of the Patron, and as to the name of the Ordinary. - Formerly there were several Decrees as to the conformity of the Mass with the office. At present, however, the following General Decree is had. S. R. C., July 9, 1895, n. 3862: "All and individual priests, both seculars and regulars, coming together to a church, or to a public oratory, shall altogether celebrate Masses, whether of Saints or of Blessed, even those proper to regulars, conforming to the office of the same church or oratory, whether they are contained in the Roman missal or in the missal of regulars; with the peculiar rites proper to orders, however, excluded. - But if in the said church or oratory the office of an inferior double rite is being held, it is free to each of the celebrants to perform a Requiem Mass or a votive Mass, or even one of the occurring feria; yet with those days excepted on which the rubrics of the Roman missal or Decrees of the S. R. C. prohibit the aforesaid Masses." In seminaries and other pious communities the principal chapel is held as public for the effect of the aforesaid Decree. S. R. C., May 22, 1896, n. 3910. Moreover all regulars, although having a special privilege in this matter, are bound by the same General Decree. S. R. C., Feb. 1896, n. 3883.

But in a private oratory the Mass must always agree with the office, although the office is of a Blessed concerning whom it is not celebrated in that place. S. R. C., Nov. 12, 1831, ad 31; Apr. 16, 1853, ad 14.

A visiting priest who in some place acquires a quasi-domicile, since he is bound by the laws of the place, is also bound to follow, as to office and Mass, the Calendar of the place. But those who remain somewhere as quasi-travelers for some short time are bound, speaking in itself, to follow their own Calendar; otherwise the whole order of offices would already be overturned. Yet they can follow the Calendar of the place where they are staying. - Hence also on a journey one is bound, again speaking in itself, to follow one's own Calendar. S. R. C., May 14, 1672; July 10, 1677, ad 3; Nov. 12, 1831, ad 50; May 7, 1846, ad 8; Aug. 31, 1839, ad 1; Sept. 25, 1852; Sept. 18, 1877, ad 3.

As to collects, there seems no doubt that they are to be said also by traveling priests. For since collects prescribed by the Ordinary of the place are to be recited even in churches of regulars and other exempt churches, S. R. C., Mar. 31, 1821, ad 1, n. 2613, it follows that they are recited indiscriminately by all celebrating Mass in that diocese. Common practice and custom also prove this. - The same must be said as to the prayer A cunctis, at the letter N.; namely, in it the Titular or Patron of the church is to be named, and, if the Titular or Patron of the church is lacking, or if it is celebrated in a private oratory, the Patron of the place can be named, if there is a custom of making his commemoration in the office; otherwise the words ac Beato are to be omitted. S. R. C., Feb. 15, 1873. Therefore all who celebrate Mass, whoever they may be, must name the aforesaid Titular or Patron in that prayer. - The same also holds as to the name of the Ordinary. For in the canon and collects mention of the bishop must altogether be made, even by exempt persons. S. R. C., Sept. 25, 1649, ad 6, n. 924.

14. The bishop's traveling altar - Timothy the bishop doubts whether, while he is outside his own diocese, during the time conceded by the sacred canons, whether in the house of his own family, or in another's house, or in a public inn, he enjoys as to Mass the same rights as in the oratory of his episcopal residence, so that any priest can celebrate, and the faithful can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on feast days.

R. Affirmatively. For very recently, on the 8th day of June in the year 1896, Leo XIII granted "that henceforth all bishops, whether diocesan or titular, be adorned with the same privilege by which the cardinal fathers enjoy; namely, that not only they themselves in the oratory of their own dwelling, or upon a portable altar, wherever they may dwell, can offer Mass and permit another in their own convenience; but also all the faithful hearing either one of the same Masses, as often as there is need, fulfill the precept of the Church, all things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding." S. R. C., May 19, 1896, n. 3906.

15. "Whether a bishop enjoying, as is customary, the privilege of a portable altar can licitly, if perhaps at some time he is impeded by illness, command that some one of the priests well-disposed toward him perform the sacred rites upon the same portable altar, decently placed near his bedroom, for the solace of devotion? And insofar as negatively, the same bishop earnestly begs for an indult of this kind.

R. Affirmatively to the first part; to the second, he does not need an indult." S. R. C., Mar. 12, 1836, Tarvisina.

16. On the blessing of sacred vestments - "Whether Abbots, Priors, Guardians, Rectors of the Society of Jesus, and any other Regular Superiors, who by privilege can bless sacred vestments, reconcile cemeteries, and similar things, can perform these things not only for their own Monasteries and Churches, but also for others promiscuously and indistinctly?

R. Abbots, Priors, Guardians, Rectors of the Society of Jesus, and any others whatsoever having the privilege of blessing sacred vestments, reconciling cemeteries and similar things, cannot use the said privilege except in those things in which sacred unction is not employed, and for the service only of their own Monasteries and Churches." S. R. C., Mar. 13, 1632, n. 587. And this at other times was decided several times in altogether the same manner by the same S. C.