On Holy Orders

“Chapter 1. On the Institution of the Priesthood of the New Law.—Sacrifice and priesthood are so joined together by the ordinance of God that both have existed in every law. Since, therefore, in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the institution of the Lord the holy visible Sacrifice of the Eucharist, it must also be confessed that in it there is a new, visible, and external priesthood into which the old has been translated. Sacred Scripture shows, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Savior, and that to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood was handed down the power of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood, and also of remitting and retaining sins.

“Chapter 2. On the Seven Orders.—But since the ministry of so holy a priesthood is a divine thing, it was fitting, so that it might be exercised more worthily and with greater veneration, that in the most orderly arrangement of the Church there should be several and diverse orders of ministers who would serve the priesthood by virtue of their office, so distributed that those already marked with the clerical tonsure would ascend through the minor to the major orders. For Sacred Scripture makes open mention not only of priests but also of deacons, and teaches in the gravest words the things which are especially to be attended to in their ordination. And from the very beginning of the Church the names of the following Orders, and the proper ministries of each of them—namely, subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter—are known to have been in use, although not in equal degree. For the subdiaconate is numbered among the major orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, in which we also read very frequently of the other inferior orders.

“Chapter 3. That Holy Orders Is Truly a Sacrament.—Since it is clear from the testimony of Scripture, Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers that grace is conferred through sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Holy Orders is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. For the Apostle says: ‘I admonish you to stir up the grace of God which is in you through the imposition of my hands; for God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and love and sobriety.’

“Chapter 4. On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Ordination.—But since in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, as also in Baptism and Confirmation, a character is imprinted which can neither be effaced nor taken away, the holy Synod rightly condemns the opinion of those who assert that the priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power, and that those once rightly ordained can again be made laymen if they do not exercise the ministry of the word of God. But if anyone affirms that all Christians indiscriminately are priests of the New Testament, or that all are endowed with equal spiritual power among themselves, he appears to do nothing other than confound the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is ‘as an army set in array,’ just as if, contrary to the doctrine of blessed Paul, all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all teachers. Therefore, the sacred and holy Synod declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical grades, the bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles, belong principally to this hierarchical order; that they have been placed, as the same Apostle says, by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God; and that they are superior to priests and can confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, ordain the ministers of the Church, and perform many other things, of whose functions the others of inferior order have no power. The sacred and holy Synod teaches, moreover, that in the ordination of bishops, priests, and the other orders, neither the consent nor the authority of the people or of any secular power or magistrate is so required that without it the ordination is invalid. Rather, it decrees that those who, called and instituted only by the people or by a secular power and magistrate, ascend to exercise these ministries, and those who take them upon themselves by their own temerity, are all to be regarded not as ministers of the Church but as thieves and robbers who have not entered by the door. These are the things which it has seemed good to the sacred Synod to teach the faithful of Christ in general concerning the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But it has determined to condemn the contrary doctrines by certain and proper canons, in the manner which follows, so that all, with the aid of Christ, using the rule of faith, may more easily recognize and retain Catholic truth amid the darkness of so many errors.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord and of remitting and retaining sins, but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel; or that those who do not preach are not priests at all: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that, besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both major and minor, through which, as by certain steps, one advances toward the priesthood: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that Holy Orders, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or that it is a certain human invention devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical affairs; or that it is only a certain rite of choosing ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that through sacred ordination the Holy Spirit is not given, and that therefore the bishops say in vain, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’; or that through it a character is not imprinted; or that one who has once been a priest can become a layman again: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say that the sacred anointing which the Church uses in holy ordination is not only not required, but is to be contemned and is pernicious; and likewise the other ceremonies of Holy Orders: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that in the Catholic Church there is no hierarchy instituted by divine ordinance, which consists of bishops, priests, and ministers: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that bishops are not superior to priests; or that they do not have the power of confirming and ordaining; or that the power which they have is common to them with priests; or that orders conferred by them without the consent or calling of the people or of the secular power are invalid; or that those who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that bishops who are assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff are not lawful and true bishops, but a human invention: let him be anathema.”

“Canon 2. When a bishop is ordained, let two bishops place and hold the book of the Gospels over his head and neck; and while one pours the blessing over him, let all the remaining bishops who are present touch his head with their hands.

“Canon 3. When a priest is ordained, while the bishop blesses him and holds his hand over his head, let all the priests who are present also hold their hands beside the hand of the bishop over his head.

“Canon 4. When a deacon is ordained, let the bishop alone who blesses him place his hand over his head, because he is consecrated not to the priesthood but to the ministry.

“Canon 5. When a subdeacon is ordained, since he does not receive the imposition of the hand, let him receive an empty paten and an empty chalice from the hand of the bishop. But from the hand of the archdeacon let him receive a cruet with water, a linen cloth, and a hand towel.

“Canon 6. When an acolyte is ordained, let him indeed be taught by the bishop how he ought to conduct himself in his office. But let him receive from the archdeacon a candlestick with a candle, so that he may know that he is assigned to lighting the lamps of the church; “and let him also receive an empty cruet for supplying wine for the Eucharist of the Blood of Christ.

“Canon 7. When an exorcist is ordained, he receives from the hand of the bishop a book in which the exorcisms are written, the bishop saying to him: ‘Receive and commit these to memory, and have the power of imposing hands upon one possessed, whether baptized or a catechumen.’

“Canon 8. When a lector is ordained, let the bishop address the people concerning him, indicating his faith, life, and character. After this, while the people look on, let him hand him the book from which he is to read, saying to him: ‘Receive and be a reader of the word of God, destined, if you fulfill your office faithfully and profitably, to have a portion with those who have ministered the word of God.’

“Canon 9. When a porter is ordained, after he has been instructed by the archdeacon how he ought to conduct himself in the house of God, at the direction of the archdeacon let the bishop hand him the keys of the church from the altar, saying: ‘Act in such a way as one who will render an account to God for those things which are unlocked by these keys.’

“Canon 10. A psalmist, that is, a cantor, can, without the knowledge of the bishop and by the command of a priest alone, undertake the office of singing, the priest saying to him: ‘See that what you sing with your mouth you believe in your heart, and what you believe in your heart you prove by your works.’”

Alexander VII, Brief Onerosa Pastoralis, 4 February 1664, confers the faculty of consecrating a bishop without the assistance of two bishops. Clement X grants the same in the Brief Personam tuam, 30 March 1675.

“According to the Roman Pontifical, in episcopal consecration, ‘the Consecrator, having received the book of the Gospels, with the assisting bishops helping him, places it open, saying nothing, upon the neck and shoulders of the elect.’ This rite, however, must be performed before the imposition of the bishops’ hands and the pronouncement of the words, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ so that when the bishops impose hands and pronounce the cited words, the book of the Gospels is already upon the shoulders of the elect.

“But in the consecration of Titius, this rite of placing the book of the Gospels upon the shoulders of the elect was performed later, namely, after the cantors began the hymn Veni Creator, but before the anointing of the head. For only then, when the master of ceremonies noticed the defect, did the consecrating bishop place the open book of the Gospels upon the shoulders of the elect and proceed to the remaining things, namely, the anointing of the head, etc. Hence, when the three bishops imposed hands, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ the book of the Gospels was not upon the shoulders of the elect.—Response. Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 30 July 1901; M. E., vol. 13, p. 486.

“The Sacred Congregation ... does not intend to call into doubt the validity of a sacred ordination because in it the ordaining bishop did not keep his hands extended also during the interval which comes between the first and second imposition of hands.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 June 1873, Syren.

“The doubt proposed by you concerning the validity of ordinations conferred upon certain priests by the bishop of that diocese, with his hands no longer extended over their heads—namely, the second imposition of hands was not entirely omitted, but merely was not continued—while he pronounced the prayer Let us pray ..., as prescribed in the Roman Ritual, was recalled for examination by the Most Eminent Fathers, together with me, the Inquisitors General; as regards the ordinations already performed in the aforesaid manner, they decreed: ‘They are to be left undisturbed.’” Holy Office, 12 September 1877. “When the priest N. N. was ordained a priest, the bishop did not hold his hand raised over the ordinands while he said the words Let us pray, dearest brethren, etc.; but when he was warned of this he raised it and held it raised for some time. He did this, however, when the said prayer had already been completed, and it is not known whether, during the time he held his hand raised, he repeated the sacramental words in a low voice.—Response. Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 14 December 1898.

“In the ordination of priests, Bishop N. N. omitted the extension of his right hand over the head of the ordinands when he began the prayer Let us pray, dearest brethren, etc., as contained in the Pontifical.

“When reminded by the assisting subdeacon, he afterwards extended his hand. The petitioner bishop does not know, however, whether he began the aforesaid prayer anew or merely completed the prayer already begun.

“It seems probable to him that he began the prayer anew, because the petitioner declares himself to be very anxious; nevertheless, the assisting deacon and subdeacon cannot give certain testimony about this matter.—Response. Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 30 November 1898.

“In the first months of my episcopal ministry, I held the first ordination of four priests of my diocese. During the sacred rite, after making with the presbyterate the first imposition of hands upon those being ordained to the priesthood, I continued the prayer Let us pray, dearest brethren, without further extending my right hand, as is prescribed, and this through inadvertence. I humbly ask for a declaration whether I must repeat the ordination conditionally, or whether it is to be left undisturbed.

“Response. If, after physically touching the heads of the ordinands, the bishop had his hand extended over the ordinands, at least immediately before the recitation of Let us pray, etc., the ordination is certainly valid, as in the Decree of the Holy Office of Wednesday, 12 September 1877. But if that extension of the hand was not made even immediately before the recitation of Let us pray, etc., the ordination is to be repeated secretly and conditionally, on any day, after consultation with His Holiness, so that, as a precaution, he may also supply from the treasury of the Church for the Masses celebrated up to the present.” Holy Office, 30 November 1898.

“The Most Illustrious Bishop N., in the priestly ordination of Titius and Caius, performed all the rites, both essential and accidental, altogether correctly, with perhaps one exception. For none of those present, nor the ordaining bishop himself, remembers whether he performed the second imposition of hands, namely, that which accompanies the words Let us pray, dearest brethren, etc., and which is to be performed together with all the priests assisting at the same time. One of the aforesaid priests certainly did this, but the others, I know not by what circumstance, certainly omitted it; and very probably—indeed almost certainly—the bishop himself did also; he omitted, namely, the second imposition of the hand altogether. It is established, however, that the bishop performed the first imposition, namely, by touching the head of each ordinand, and afterwards pronounced the words Let us pray, dearest brethren and duly performed all the other things. Titius and Caius appear to have no doubt concerning the validity of their ordination; but their Superior is troubled by scruples in a matter of such importance, and humbly asks: 1. Is the ordination of Titius and Caius to be regarded as valid, and is anything to be supplied?—2. If it is to be repeated, whether the whole or only a part; whether by the same bishop or by any Catholic bishop; whether publicly or secretly?

“Response. The Sacred Penitentiary, having maturely considered the things set forth, first declares that the ordination thus received by each petitioner is to be repeated conditionally and secretly. Therefore, the same Sacred Penitentiary grants to you, the confessor beloved in Christ respectively chosen by the petitioners, the faculty, if matters are thus, after hearing their sacramental confessions, by Apostolic authority on this occasion to absolve the petitioners in the customary form of the Church from censures and ecclesiastical penalties, if they incurred any on account of the foregoing, and from the faults committed thereby; and mercifully, by the same Apostolic authority, to dispense them from irregularity, if they contracted any from violation of the said censures and from the foregoing, so that, notwithstanding that and the other things aforesaid, they may lawfully minister in their orders, even in the ministry of the altar, but only after they have received anew the sacred order of the priesthood from any Catholic prelate by virtue of the Letters of the annexed Brief, and not otherwise; and kindly, by express Apostolic authority, to remit to them the Masses hitherto celebrated in this manner, the Sacred Penitentiary itself supplying their defect from the treasury of the Church. A suitable salutary penance is to be enjoined upon them, as also that in the meantime they abstain from celebrating until the ordination has been repeated as above, and the other things required by law are to be enjoined. For the forum of conscience and in sacramental confession only. Given at Rome in the Sacred Penitentiary, 31 March 1888.”

“After the ordaining bishop had imposed both hands upon each of the ordinands, through an involuntary distraction he did not then extend his right hand over all the ordinands—or at most extended it somewhat for a moment, as one of those ordained affirmed he had seen, though he now does not remember with certainty. Rather, he immediately arranged the Pontifical book with his right hand; and while reciting the exhortation Let us pray, brethren, etc., he held the same book with both hands, so that, although materially he had his arms and hands extended, he in no way had the appearance of a man extending his right hand over them. Several noticed this defect, yet no one warned the bishop about it.—Response. Since it is not established that the hands were extended even for a moment, the sacred ordination is to be repeated privately and conditionally, even outside the appointed times; and His Holiness is to be consulted, that he may deign to heal and supply from the treasury of the Church for the acts perhaps invalidly performed, and especially for the defect of the Masses, all things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.” Holy Office, 19 July 1899.

“In the ordination of the priest B., through mere forgetfulness, the imposition of hands by the assisting priests was omitted. Moreover, the bishop does not remember—and neither do the others present—whether he held his hands raised over the head of the ordinand during the second imposition, when the prayer Let us pray, dearest brethren, etc., was recited.—Response. Let the priest B. be ordained secretly and conditionally on any day, even a ferial day, after the faculty has been obtained from His Holiness.” Holy Office, 17 March 1897.

“1. In the ordination of a priest, must both the Pontiff and the priests who are present first impose both hands upon the head of each ordinand and, after this imposition has been completed by all, then raise their right hands and hold them extended over the ordinands while the Pontiff, standing with the miter, alone says the prayer, as some explain the prescription of the Roman Pontifical concerning this matter? Or rather, as is done at Rome in the Lateran Archbasilica, immediately after the imposition of both hands, do both the Pontiff and the priests present at once extend their right hands and hold them thus extended until the bishop “has completed the prayer?—2. In giving Communion to the newly ordained priests, must the formula The Body, etc., be employed, or rather must it be omitted?—Response. To the first: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.—To the second: As in the preceding, that is, negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1872, Siren.

“When a priest and a deacon are ordained, they receive the imposition of hands with physical contact, according to the rite introduced by the Apostles. But if this has been omitted, the ordination is not to be repeated in any respect; rather, at the appointed time for conferring orders of this kind, what was omitted through error is cautiously to be supplied. The suspension of the hands, however, ought to be made when the prayer is poured forth over the head of the ordinand.” Chapter Presbyter, final chapter, On Sacraments Not to Be Repeated.

“In the ordination of a priest, the first imposition of hands was performed, but without physical contact upon the head of the ordinand by the bishop and the assisting priests.—Response. The ordination is to be repeated in its entirety, conditionally and secretly, on any day, after consultation with His Holiness, so that, insofar as there is need, he may supply from the treasury of the Church for the Masses celebrated.” Holy Office, 4 July 1900.

“According to canon law, in the ordination of a priest and a deacon, the imposition of hands must be made with physical contact. If this had been omitted, that which had been omitted through error would have to be cautiously supplied. But it is doubted: 1. If the imposition of hands was made without physical contact, must the imposition of hands with physical contact be supplied?—2. Insofar as the response is affirmative, would public rumor and the bad reputation which would thereby arise for the ordaining bishop, especially in these regions, be sufficient reason for abstaining from a repeated imposition of hands with physical contact?—3. If physical contact must be supplied, must the words which are pronounced by the bishop together with the imposition of hands also be repeated, especially in the ordination of a deacon, in which the words Receive the Holy Spirit, etc., seem to many to be the form of the sacrament?—4. Can that physical contact be supplied privately when orders of this kind are not being conferred?—Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Negative.—To the third: Affirmative.—To the fourth: Affirmative, and secretly in the course of Mass, and even outside the times of a general ordination.” Holy Office, 19 August 1851, Apostolic Vicariate of Western Cochinchina.

“In the ordination of 9 June 1900, in which Titius was promoted to the priesthood, both the first and the second imposition of hands were omitted by the ordaining bishop and the assisting priests, although the prayer Let us pray, dearest brethren, etc., had been recited. Then, when the Communicantes of the Canon of the Mass was reached, the master of ceremonies noticed the omission; and the bishop, having been advised of it, judged it opportune to defer the aforesaid impositions until after Communion. Then, precisely before the words of the Pontifical I shall no longer call you servants, etc., both impositions of hands were supplied by the ordaining bishop and by the assisting priests, while at the same time the whole and only the prayer Let us pray, dearest brethren, etc., was repeated. After this, the rite was resumed at the words I shall no longer call you servants and continued to the end.—Response. The ordination is to be repeated in its entirety, conditionally and secretly, on any day, after consultation with His Holiness, so that, insofar as there is need, he may supply from the treasury of the Church for the Masses celebrated in the case.” Holy Office, 22 August 1900.

“About four months ago, in the ordination of a certain priest, Bishop N. N. through inadvertence omitted to impose both hands upon the head of the ordinand and to hold his right hand extended while he read the exhortation Let us pray, dearest brethren. He afterwards supplied all these things, as did the priests present, together with repetition of the exhortation. But now he doubts whether he did this before the prayer Hear us and the Preface had been completed. The assisting priest affirms, though with some doubt, that the petitioner did all these things after Let us bend our knees had been said and before the prayer Hear us.—Response. Provided that, in the case proposed, the repetition of the form and the double imposition of hands were performed before the handing over of the instruments, let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 3 May 1899.

“While the doubts presented in the name of Your Excellency were being weighed in the Sacred Congregation of Rites ... concerning the validity of the ordination of a certain priest, in which the form for conferring the power of remitting or retaining sins was inadvertently corrupted, certain notice arrived from the General Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition that, on 27 May 1840, a very similar case had been discussed and decided.... Therefore, communicating word for word to Your Excellency the resolution then issued, it is as follows, namely:

“Wednesday, 17 May 1840 ..., the petitions of the Dominicans of Bologna having been proposed, in which they explained that, while their religious N. N. was receiving ordination to the priesthood from the Most Reverend Lord Bishop, it was reported that he had corrupted the form annexed to the final imposition of hands by saying: ‘Whose sins you shall forgive are retained, and whose sins you shall retain are forgiven’; ... the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords said: Conditionally, in a private oratory, at any time of the year, let the third imposition of hands and the respective form, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ be supplied by any bishop vested in the customary manner, without, however, repeating the accidental ceremonies previously employed.

“By virtue of the faculties specially granted to Us by the same Most Holy Lord, Our Pope Gregory XVI, We grant that those things which are lacking or were corrupted in the stated ordination be supplied altogether, according to the tenor of the aforesaid Decree of the Sacred Universal Inquisition, on any day of the year, by any bishop vested in the customary manner as for ordination and celebrating the sacred rite in his private oratory, while the stated priest stands by, likewise vested in priestly vestments; and thus let the third imposition of hands and the respective form, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ be supplied, without the accidental ceremonies which were previously employed having to be repeated.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 May 1841, Viviers.

The bishop, in the ordination of a priest, pronounced the form at the third imposition of hands in this manner: “Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive are retained for them, and whose sins you shall retain are retained.” What is to be done?—Response. “Secretly and conditionally, at any time of the year, as a precaution let the third imposition of hands and the respective form, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ etc., be supplied by any bishop in communion with the Holy See, vested in the customary manner; as regards the past, let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 4 March 1874.

“The bishop inadvertently corrupted the formula in this way, saying: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall retain are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain are retained.’—Response. Secretly and conditionally, at any time of the year, as a precaution let the third imposition of hands and the respective form, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ etc., be supplied by any bishop in communion with the Holy See, vested in the customary manner; and as regards the past, let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 9 December 1897.

“... Fully assenting to all the Decrees of Our Predecessor Pontiffs in this same cause, confirming them most fully and, as it were, renewing them, by Our authority, of Our own motion and with certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely invalid and utterly void.” Leo XIII, Bull Apostolicae curae, 8 September 1896; A. S. S., vol. 29, p. 202.

“To the scruple of Brother Ephrem Chasteau, namely, that he had not physically touched the chalice in his ordination to the priesthood, the Sacred Congregation responded: He can continue the celebration of the Most Holy Sacrifice without any scruple and with an altogether safe conscience.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 December 1661, France.

“Your Most Reverend Paternity implored the judgment of the Holy See concerning the validity of the priestly ordination of Brother Titius, who doubted that he had touched the chalice.—Response. According to the things set forth, let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 1895; M. E., vol. 9, part 1, p. 91.

“The priest N. N. remembers that, according to the direction of the master of ceremonies, he rightly placed his fingers so as to touch the instruments in his ordination to the priesthood; but in the act by which he withdrew his hand from the instruments, he doubted, or at least did not remember, whether he had immediately touched the paten while the form was being pronounced by the bishop.—Response. Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 14 December 1898.

“The priest N. N. doubts the validity of his ordination for the following reasons:

“1. While the ordaining bishop handed the chalice with the paten, wine, and host to the ordinands and pronounced the form of the Roman Pontifical, perhaps he did not himself touch the instruments, although the candidates, kneeling before him, touched them in the meantime, while a cleric in some manner supported them.

“2. The same N. N., after the first imposition of hands, withdrew from the altar so that the other six ordinands might approach two by two to receive an imposition of this kind. He remained kneeling, leaning upon a bench in the presbytery, at a distance of about three meters, perhaps separated from the other ordinands who were nearer the altar; nor did he approach the altar when the bishop and the priests performed the second imposition of the right hand, which is of the essence of ordination.—Response. To both: Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 2 December 1896.

“The priest Titius, in his priestly ordination, even before the bishop began the formula prescribed for the touching of the instruments, having noticed that he was not touching the host, attempted to reach it; but since he had to strain to do this, he removed his hand from the chalice throughout the whole formula, while still not managing to reach the host. Moreover, because of the aforesaid exertion of his hand, he also lifted the paten from the chalice, in such a way that he probably compelled the ordaining bishop likewise to lift the paten on his part, so that there was not one moral composite of the paten and chalice, thus totally separated from one another.—Response. Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 17 January 1900.

“The priest N. N. sets forth that in his priestly ordination, when he was about to receive the instruments, he approached the bishop with the others while the bishop held them in his hand; but he doubts whether he managed to touch the chalice together with the paten, and it seems to him that he did not touch the latter. He therefore asks for directions for the tranquility of his conscience.—Response. Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 7 September 1897.

“It happened that a chalice without wine was handed to the priests being ordained together with the paten and host. What is to be done in practice?—Response. The ordination is to be repeated in its entirety, conditionally and secretly, on any day, after consultation with His Holiness, so that, insofar as there is need, he may supply from the treasury of the Church for the Masses celebrated by the priests ordained in the case.” Holy Office, 11 January 1899.

“On the occasion of a certain sacred ordination, it was discovered that the ministers had poured so much water with the wine into the chalice used for the ordination of priests that it is believed the water slightly exceeded a fifth part.—1. Can the aforesaid ordination be judged valid?—2. Insofar as the response is negative, what is to be done?—Response. Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 11 March 1903.

“The priest N. N. sets forth that, when he was ordained, he saw without any doubt that the host was lacking upon the paten in the ordination itself. What is to be done in practice?—Response. The ordination is to be repeated in its entirety, conditionally and secretly, on any day and by any Catholic bishop, after consultation with His Holiness, so that, insofar as there is need, he may supply from the treasury of the Church for the Masses celebrated by the priests in the case.” Holy Office, 17 January 1900.

A priest “touched only the paten placed upon the chalice, but not the chalice itself.” The bishop consulted the Sacred Congregation of the Council, which responded on 28 May 1796: According to the mind, namely: “After the things set forth have been verified by examination of the petitioner and of the master of ceremonies who was present at the same ordination, insofar as he can be had, let the bishop proceed to repeat the ordination in its entirety, conditionally and secretly, after an oath to preserve secrecy has nevertheless been taken by all who necessarily take part in the aforesaid ordination. But in order to have an ordination of this kind outside the appointed times, the Sacred Congregation judged that the Most Holy Father was to be approached through the undersigned secretary; and after the report had been made, he benignly dispensed solely in the case under consideration.” M. E., vol. 9, part 1, p. 91; part 2, p. 217.

“Caius, a priest, in the handing over of the instruments touched only the paten together with the host placed upon the chalice, but not the chalice, although he strove to reach it with his finger.—Response. Let the petitioner be at peace.” Holy Office, 17 March 1897.

“Are ordinations valid in which the handing over of the instruments was performed in common and not successively, as in the Rubric of the Roman Pontifical?—Response. No doubt can arise concerning the validity of the ordinations conferred, provided, however, that it is certain that all the ordinands touched the instruments handed over.” Holy Office, 23 January 1874; M. E., vol. 9, part 1, p. 90.

“Sempronius ..., in touching the instruments, did not use the index and middle fingers, but the index fingers and thumbs. He first touched the cup of the chalice, but afterwards, while the bishop pronounced the form, he touched only the paten with the host placed upon the chalice.... What is to be said concerning the validity of his ordination?—Response. Let the petitioner be at peace.” Holy Office, 17 March 1897.

“Gaspar ..., there being four or five ordinands and all crowding together to touch the instruments ..., remembers having touched them first; but while the formula was being pronounced, although he hastened to touch them again, he did not succeed in doing so, because he was prevented by the hands of the others.—Response. Let the petitioner be at peace.” Holy Office, 17 March 1897.

“... We have received Your Excellency’s letter ... concerning the omission of handing over the book of the Gospels, which inadvertently occurred at the most recent general ordination ... in promoting certain subdeacons to the order of the diaconate.... Therefore, the Congregation responds, according to its own judgment and that of the consultors, that if Your Excellency prudently judges that the interval of time which elapsed between the ordination of these subdeacons as deacons and the supplying of the defect was not so great that the moral conjunction of the form with the handing over of the matter is rightly judged to have been broken, you can leave those ordained in their good faith as regards the past and declare them absolved from any suspension for the future, insofar as they may freely exercise the office of their order publicly with a safe conscience, according to their state, if no other impediment stands in the way. But if you doubt that the interval of time and the interruption and variety of the different operations were so great that this gap between the ordination and the supplying of the defect cannot be joined by any interpretation of approved authors, then again, if together with the handing over of the previously omitted book of the Gospels you simultaneously pronounced the form, know that you can be at peace and can likewise dismiss those ordained, at peace in the exercise of their orders. But if you handed over only the partial matter of the book of the Gospels without the form, it will be safer if, at a suitable time, you cautiously and secretly supply the defect for those thus ordained by repeating the handing over of the matter together with the pronouncement of its form. In this case, if the time of the next future ordination established by the canon for a supplying of this kind—that is, ‘at the appointed time for conferring orders,’ from chapter Presbyter, On Sacraments Not to Be Repeated—cannot be awaited, either because of danger of scandal or because of other causes and circumstances of no slight importance which Your Excellency will know well, and no other impediment stands in the way, you will be able to dispense from the interstices and prudently and secretly supply the aforesaid defect even on the next feast. As regards the secular clerics concerning whom, as is set forth in the case, it is doubted whether the same omission occurred, Your Excellency will be able, according to your prudence, to take care that those thus ordained are identified. This does not seem so difficult if you examine the catalog which you will certainly have with you of the subdeacons advanced to the diaconate in that ordination, and cause those upon whom a suspicion of this kind can fall to be cautiously and secretly questioned concerning this doubt. If, therefore, you find any to whom the same omission occurred, you will do the same as was said above concerning the two religious; and if you find that they have hitherto exercised the order of the diaconate in good faith, absolve them from censures, insofar as there is need, if “nothing else stands in the way, and declare them safe in conscience for exercising the ministry and office of the same order in the future, insofar as there is need—that is, for ministering piously and faithfully in the office of the diaconate received.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 June 1837, Turin.

“Brother F. of this Order ... approached the Bishop of Senigallia to receive the sacred order of the subdiaconate. In the act of its conferral he indeed touched the chalice and paten, but not the book of Epistles, through the inadvertence of the assistant....—Response. It is to be supplied by the bishop, even privately.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 10 June 1711, Order of Capuchins.

In the ordination of a deacon or subdeacon, a Missal can be handed to them. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 September 1873, Erien., response to 7.

“Can the instrument called a bugia, bearing a candle and used by bishops at the book, be the matter of the order of acolytes in place of the candlestick or candle-bearer?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 8 June 1709, Braga, response to 4.

“1. In the ordination of a porter, the Pontifical prescribes that the archdeacon hand the ordinands the bell ropes, causing them to ring the bells. It is asked whether the plurality of bells is insisted upon, or whether one bell suffices where several are not possessed. 2. Some churches, such as my cathedral, do not have a tower joined to the church itself, but one situated several paces away from it. It is asked whether newly ordained porters ought to go outside the church and proceed through the open air to the tower to ring the bells hanging there, or whether it suffices to shake the altar bells at the doors of the church. 3. What is to be done if no bell is present in the case of the aforesaid ordination? Do small bells suffice? 4. In the ordination of a lector, the Pontifical commands that the Pontiff hand to all the book from which they are to read. It is asked what is understood by the book: a volume of Sacred Scripture, a Missal, or a Ritual? 5. In the same ordination of a lector, the exhortation of the Pontiff, a little after the beginning, contains these words: ‘For a lector ought to read those things which he—or, to him who—preaches.’ It is asked whether the particle or, written in red, and the two words to him who following it are also to be pronounced.

“Response. To the first: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second. To the second: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second. To the third: Affirmative. To the fourth: In the case, the book is a Missal, Breviary, or volume of Sacred Scripture. To the fifth: In the case the bishop can say either, ‘For a lector ought to read those things which he preaches,’ or, ‘For a lector ought to read to him who preaches.’” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 September 1873, Erien.

“You ought to know that in the ordination of clerics to the office of porter keys are indeed to be employed, though they need not be the keys of a church, so that you can use any key whatsoever.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 March 1844, to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina.

“In the ordination the Pontiff hands the keys of the church to the porters.—1. In an oratory or church which has only one key, is this one key sufficient as the remote matter of the order of porter? 2. Must the porters each touch the keys successively? Does it suffice for them to touch at the same time rather than successively, and to pronounce the form of ordination over two, three, or four touching the matter at the same time? “Response. To the first: Although one key can be sufficient matter for the ordination of a porter, nevertheless the Rubric which prescribes that keys are to be handed over must be observed. Whether they are silver, iron, or wooden, provided that they are suitable for opening, they constitute the remote matter of this order. To the second: Affirmative to both parts, provided that the porters ordained at the same time touch the keys with the right hand while the bishop pronounces the formula.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 March 1820; Canon 1189.

“When the porter, accompanied by the archdeacon, closes and opens the doors of the church, must he also close and open them with a key, especially if there is no lock in the doors of the oratory where the order is conferred?—Response. It is not strictly necessary.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsorum, response to 5.

For receiving first Tonsure, it suffices that the hair clipped was not from the head but from a wig. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 25 September 1846, Roman English College.

In the conferral of first Tonsure, the words The Lord is my portion, etc., are also to be pronounced by the bishop according to the general custom. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsor., response to 3.

“In the ordination of two priests, oil of holy chrism was presented to the bishop to be used in place of the oil of catechumens. Since the repetition of the anointing cannot be done without very notable astonishment and, as it were, a certain scandal, is the anointing to be repeated, or can it be omitted?—Response. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.” Holy Office, 22 July 1874.

“Wednesday, 1 August 1697. His Holiness approved in all things the opinion of the Lord Consultors. The opinion is as follows: The Lord Consultors were of the opinion that, in the case under consideration, it would be safer for the conferrals of sacred orders to be repeated conditionally. Therefore, a rescript is to be sent to Archbishop B. that those who received the orders of subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood from Bishop A., without the matter of the said orders having been presented by him, be ordained again conditionally and individually to the said orders, with the form prescribed in the Roman Pontifical being observed. This may be done even outside the appointed times and without observing the interstices, on three Sundays or holy days of obligation, and even on one and the same day as regards those having the care of souls, according as urgent necessity shall require in the judgment of the ordaining bishop; and the same archbishop is to be given the faculty to grant permission, as regards those who dwell outside his diocese and that of the said Bishop A., that they can be ordained again under the said condition by any Catholic bishop having the grace and communion of the Holy Apostolic See, outside the appointed times, without observing the interstices, and otherwise as above. The same Most Eminent Archbishop is moreover to be granted the faculty of convalidating the conferrals of benefices, even those with the cure of souls, made to those thus ordained; of remitting to them the fruits received from the benefices; of convalidating any offices, even regular offices; of confirming any acts whatsoever; and also of absolving. “But as regards the doubt of fact concerning those who were ordained before and including the year 1688, to whom the said Bishop A. believes he himself presented the matter, while those ordained still doubt whether the matter was presented to them by him, they were of the opinion that those thus doubting or expressly denying it are to be admitted, without another oath, to a new ordination under the aforesaid condition, as above. But those who were ordained from the year 1688 onward, to whom it is presumed from the facts that the matter was not handed over by the bishop, are all without distinction to be ordained again under the said condition.” Holy Office, 1 August 1697.

“A certain Italian bishop humbly sets forth to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office that about four years ago, when he wished to confer the order of the diaconate upon an excellent subdeacon of his diocese, in performing that ordination he indeed held his right hand suspended over the subdeacon’s head and at a very slight distance, without, however, physically touching the said head. Since immediately afterwards this defect seemed nonessential to the said bishop and to other ecclesiastical men consulted by him, not long thereafter he promoted the same cleric to the priestly order, which that cleric has now exercised laudably for three years. But the recollection of that defect now brings the same bishop great anxiety and doubt concerning the validity of the aforesaid diaconal ordination. Therefore, he reverently proposes these two doubts, namely: 1. In order to repair the aforesaid defect of ordination, must the whole ordination of the diaconate be conditionally repeated for that priest? And insofar as the response is affirmative: 2. Can this conditional repetition of the ordination be performed by any Catholic bishop, secretly, at any time of the year, even in a private chapel, as was answered in a certain Rescript of the Congregation of the Holy Office on 28 January 1835 for repairing a certain defect in the imposition of hands which had crept into the ordination of a certain priest?—Response. To both: Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 20 January 1875.

“51. The doctrine of the Synod which declares that, in promoting persons to Orders, according to the custom and institution of the ancient discipline, this method was customarily observed: that if any cleric was distinguished by holiness of life and judged worthy to ascend to sacred Orders, he was customarily promoted to the diaconate or priesthood even if he had not received the inferior Orders; and that such an ordination was not then called per saltum, as it was called afterwards.

“52. Likewise, the doctrine which intimates that there was no other title of Ordinations than deputation to some special ministry, such as was prescribed in the Council of Chalcedon; adding that so long as the Church conformed herself to these principles in the selection of sacred ministers, the ecclesiastical order flourished, but that those blessed days passed away and new principles were afterwards introduced by which discipline in the selection of ministers of the sanctuary was corrupted.

“53. Likewise, that which numbers among these very principles of corruption the departure from the ancient institution by which, as it says, the Church, following in the footsteps of the Apostle, had established that no one was to be admitted to the priesthood unless he had preserved baptismal innocence;

“Insofar as it intimates that discipline was corrupted through decrees and institutions:

“1. Either those by which ordinations per saltum were prohibited;

“2. Or those by which, for the necessity and advantage of the churches, ordinations without the title of a special office were approved, such as especially ordination to the title of patrimony by the Council of Trent, without prejudice to the obedience by which those so ordained must serve the necessities of the churches by discharging those offices to which they have been assigned by the bishop according to place and time, just as was customarily done from Apostolic times in the primitive Church;

“3. Or those by which a distinction was made in canon law among crimes which render offenders irregular, as though by this distinction the Church had departed from the spirit of the Apostle by not excluding generally and indiscriminately from ecclesiastical ministry all those whatsoever who had not preserved baptismal innocence;

“A doctrine false in each and every one of its parts, rash, disruptive of the order introduced for the necessity and advantage of the churches, and injurious to the discipline approved by the canons and especially by the Decrees of Trent.” Propositions of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“We decree and declare that it is lawful for no bishop or Ordinary of any place, even if he shines with the honor of the cardinalate, to promote to clerical tonsure an outsider who is not his subject as a result of origin or of domicile legitimately contracted according to the manner to be declared below, under the pretext of conferring upon him, immediately after he has been marked with such tonsure, any ecclesiastical benefice, or one to which he has already been presented or nominated by patrons, even if it is established that the aforesaid benefice was newly founded with this law expressly added, that someone be instituted to it immediately after receiving the clerical character. We further decree and declare that a cleric who has already been lawfully promoted by his own bishop to the same clerical tonsure or even to minor orders cannot be promoted to further orders by another bishop by reason and title of any benefice obtained in the latter’s diocese, unless, before receiving them, he shall have obtained testimonial letters granted to him by his own bishop both of origin and of domicile concerning his birth, age, morals, and life, and shall have exhibited them to the ordaining bishop to be preserved in the acts of his curia. Although a cleric is said, by reason of any benefice obtained in another diocese, to be subjected to the jurisdiction of the bishop in whose diocese such a benefice is situated, nevertheless We will that henceforth this rule be unshakably observed in this matter: that no one be judged to acquire subjection to that bishop for the purpose of receiving orders unless the revenue of the aforesaid benefice is sufficient by itself for a suitable sustenance of life, whether according to the synodal assessment or, if that is lacking, according to the custom of the region for those to be promoted to sacred orders, after burdens have been deducted, and unless it is peacefully possessed by the ordinand. Any faculty of supplying what is lacking from the fruits of the same benefice by the addition even of a rich patrimony which the ordinand might possess in the same or any other diocese is removed. And the bishop so ordaining must make mention both of the aforesaid testimonial letters and of the revenue of such benefice in the customary attestation of the orders conferred.

“Moreover, only he is and is to be understood as a subject by reason of origin who was naturally born in that diocese in which he desires to be promoted to orders, provided, however, that he was not born there accidentally, “namely, on the occasion of a journey, office, legation, commerce, or any other temporary delay or residence of his father in that place. In this case, no account at all is to be taken of an accidental birth of this kind, but only of the true and natural origin of the father. But if anyone has remained for so long a period in the place in which he was born accidentally, as stated above, that he could there have become entangled in some canonical impediment, then he is also bound to obtain testimonial letters, as above, from the Ordinary of that place and to present them to the ordaining bishop, who is likewise to mention them in the attestation of the Orders conferred. But if the father remained in the other place where his son was born for so long and with such an intention that he truly contracted a domicile there according to law, then not the father’s origin but the domicile legitimately contracted by the father, as aforesaid, ought to be considered for the ordination of the same son.

“Only he is to be considered a subject by reason of domicile for the purpose of receiving orders who, although born elsewhere, has nevertheless established it so permanently in some place that, either by dwelling there for at least ten years, or by transferring the greater part of his property and goods, with a furnished house, to a place of this kind and furthermore residing there for some considerable time, he has sufficiently and more than sufficiently demonstrated his intention of remaining there permanently; and who nevertheless further affirms under oath, in either case, that he truly and really has such an intention. But if anyone left the place of his origin at an age at which he could have become subject to some canonical impediment, he must also bring testimonial letters, as above, from the Ordinary of his origin, and express mention of them is likewise to be made in the letters of the orders received.

“Moreover, no bishop is to presume to promote or ordain to any sacred or minor orders, or even to first tonsure, his own familiar who is a subject of another diocese, without the testimonial letters, as above, of his own prelate—that is, of origin or domicile—and unless, according to the prescription of the aforesaid Council of Trent, Session 23, chapter 9, On Reformation, he has kept the aforesaid familiar with him in his actual service for a full and complete three years and maintained him at his own expense. He must, moreover, without any fraud, actually confer upon him at once—that is, at least within one month from the day the ordination was performed—a benefice sufficient for sustaining his life according to the manner defined above; and in the attestation of an ordination of this kind he is likewise bound to make express mention of the familiarity and of the aforesaid letters.

“Furthermore, that every avenue to fraud may be altogether closed, We will and by Apostolic authority establish and decree that any bishop can examine as regards knowledge any of his clerical subjects by reason of origin or domicile who have been promoted by other bishops under any authority whatsoever, even with his own commendatory letters, not only according to the form of the aforesaid Council of Trent, Session 14, chapter 3, On Reformation, but can also examine, gratis, the testimonial letters of the orders conferred upon them and diligently inquire whether the form and disposition of the present Constitution has been fulfilled in their regard. He is to assign to those thus promoted a suitable period, as shall seem best to him, to prove fulfillment of this kind; so that, if after that period has elapsed he finds that they have not provided such proof, he can suspend them from the exercise of the orders received, if and for as long as it shall seem expedient to him, and forbid them to minister at the altar or in any order.”

“A certain Prior of the Cistercian Order, a Titular Abbot, conferred tonsure and minor Orders upon a certain brother dwelling in his monastery, an appropriate delegation having been obtained in the case from the petitioner Archbishop. But now it has become known to him that a Titular Abbot cannot enjoy the aforesaid faculty, and therefore he implores a benign sanation.—Response. In the case, the ordination is to be repeated in its entirety, beginning inclusively with the conferral of sacred Tonsure.” Holy Office, 15 July 1903.

“From the first centuries of the Church, several Councils decreed—and Trent more recently confirmed in chapter 8, Session 23, On Reformation—that no one can be ordained except by his own bishop.

“But according to the things first defined by Boniface VIII in the Sixth Book of Decretals, chapter Cum nullus, On the Time of Ordination, one’s own bishop ‘is understood in this case to be the bishop of the diocese from which the one who desires to be promoted to orders originates, or in whose diocese he possesses an ecclesiastical benefice, or has a domicile in it, although he was born elsewhere.’ Then, when the custom became prevalent for bishops to initiate their own familiars into sacred orders even though they belonged to another diocese, and the holy Synod of Trent approved this under certain conditions in chapter 9, Session 23, On Reformation, it came about that to the first three titles—origin, domicile, and benefice—by which a bishop acquired the right of promoting someone to orders, a fourth was also added, namely, familiarity. But when there was controversy concerning titles of this kind, Innocent XII, in the Apostolic Letter beginning Speculatores, given on 4 November 1694, determined and established the sense and extent in which they were to be understood for the purpose that someone should become the proper subject of a bishop by whom he could lawfully be ordained. This Constitution was thereafter regarded as the supreme law, and with it as guide all questions were settled.

“But in our times frequent occasion for a new controversy has presented itself. For in many places a usage has been adopted whereby clerics who desired to depart from their diocese and establish their residence in another sought from their Ordinary what they call excardination—that is, a full and perpetual dismissal—and, relying upon it, sought incardination or enrollment in another diocese. Once this was obtained, they were by that very fact admitted to receive further orders as proper subjects of the new bishop. Where this manner of proceeding was employed cautiously and prudently, it proceeded without complaints; but in some places, where the necessary caution was lacking, it very often opened the way to controversies and abuses.

“Therefore, the Most Eminent Fathers of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, having maturely weighed all matters, judged that the following things were to be established by the present general Decree:

“1. Excardination may be made only for just causes and does not attain its effect in every respect unless incardination in another diocese has been put into execution.

“2. Incardination is to be made by the bishop not orally but in writing, absolutely and in perpetuity—that is, subject to no limitations, whether express or tacit—so that the cleric is assigned wholly to the new diocese, after he has taken for this purpose an oath like that which the Constitution Speculatores prescribes for acquiring domicile.

“3. This incardination cannot be undertaken unless it has first been established from a lawful document that the outside cleric was dismissed from his diocese “in perpetuity, and unless appropriate testimonials concerning his birth, life, morals, and studies have moreover been obtained from the dismissing bishop, under secrecy if necessary.

“4. Those enrolled in this manner can indeed be promoted to orders. Nevertheless, since hands are not to be imposed quickly upon anyone, let the bishops know that it is their duty, in individual cases and all things having been considered, to weigh whether an enrolled cleric is such that he can safely be ordained without further trial, or whether instead he ought to be tested for a longer time. And let them remember that, just as ‘no one ought to be ordained who, in the judgment of his bishop, is not useful or necessary to his churches,’ as Trent established in chapter 16, Session 23, On Reformation, so likewise no new cleric is to be enrolled except for the necessity or advantage of the diocese.

“5. As regards clerics of a different language and nation, bishops must proceed more cautiously and severely in admitting them, and never receive them unless they have first requested from their respective Ordinary, and obtained, secret and favorable information concerning their life and morals, the consciences of the bishops being gravely burdened concerning this.

“6. Finally, as regards laymen, or even clerics who cannot or do not wish to make use of the benefit of excardination, the provisions of the Constitution Speculatores are to be observed; these must always remain ratified and firm, notwithstanding the present Decree.

“A report concerning all these things having been made to Our Most Holy Lord by the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, His Holiness benignly deigned to approve and confirm the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers, all things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Given at Rome, from the offices of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, on 20 July 1898.”

“Can Bishop O. confer first tonsure upon Hyacinth, with the consent of the Ordinary of origin but without testimonial letters in the case?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 11 June 1881; A. S. S., vol. 14, p. 397; vol. 6, p. 498 ff.

“Testimonial letters are to be required from the respective Ordinaries of the place,” even if the ordinands have stayed in the seminary, completed their studies there, and possess a testimonial from the superiors of that seminary. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 14 July 1894; M. E., vol. 8, part 2, p. 169.

“Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord, since grave inconveniences have had to be deplored, especially in these recent times, in the United States of North America because of the bad manner of acting of certain priests who, although foreigners and frequently of Polish origin, were ordained in Italy and afterwards migrated to America, sometimes furnished even with commendatory letters from some Italian bishop, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII commanded that, through this Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, the Ordinaries of Italy be admonished not to admit foreign young men, especially Poles, to sacred Orders without authentic testimonial letters from their own Ordinary, and still less to recommend them to the bishops of America without the prior permission of the aforesaid Sacred Congregation.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 2 May 1898.

“For clerics to be ordained who have already been assigned to military service, under the penalty threatened by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, testimonial letters are required from the Ordinary in whose diocese they have resided for three months; and insofar as the Ordinary’s letters do not furnish full testimony, let the bishop, having obtained a faculty for this from the Apostolic See, make provision by means of a supplementary oath.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 26 January 1895.

With regard to sacred orders to be conferred upon those clerics who have been compelled to complete military service and, during that military service, have had to wander from place to place, “testimonial letters are necessary whenever the person to be promoted has stayed in any diocese for at least three months.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 September 1893.

“Regular superiors to whom this pertains can grant such professed members (of simple vows in Orders in which solemn vows are emitted) dimissorial letters only for first tonsure and minor orders, while nevertheless observing those things which must be observed by law, and especially those things which have been prescribed by the Apostolic See concerning the ordinations of regulars.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 12 June 1858.

“Can novices, after simple vows have been emitted but before the emission of solemn vows, be promoted to sacred orders under the title of poverty, notwithstanding the Constitution of St. Pius V of 12 November 1568?—Response. Negative as regards sacred orders.” The same Sacred Congregation, 20 January 1860; Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 859, ed. 1885.

“If professed members of simple vows have been released from the vows emitted, whether by dismissal from the Order or by Apostolic dispensation, let the bishop conduct himself toward them as he ought to conduct himself toward his other diocesans.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 2 January 1860.

Professed members of simple vows who have been duly dismissed are subject to the Ordinary of origin. Thus from the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 27 February 1871.

“1. Whether and in what manner the Bishop of Treviso can admit the alumni of the Institute of Priests of Charity (who have simple vows) upon the assurance of the superior of the house declaring that the same alumni are enrolled in that house, or whether instead dimissorial and testimonial letters from the bishop of origin or of domicile are necessary, according to the form of the Constitution of Innocent XII which begins Speculatores. 2. Whether and in what manner the same thing must be said with regard to alumni already promoted to tonsure or to some order. 3. Whether and in what manner, notwithstanding the promise of obedience made to the bishop in sacred ordination, the superiors of the Institute may transfer the same alumni into another province without permission being sought from the said bishop. 4. Whether, in the case of departure from the Institute by dismissal or dispensation, the same alumni are subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese in which is situated the house in which they are enrolled, or rather to that bishop to whom they were subject before they were enrolled in the Institute.

“Response. To the first: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second. To the second: Affirmative in all respects. To the third: The Provincial Superior can freely use the faculty of transferring the alumni of the province according to the Constitutions approved by the Holy See. To the fourth: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 6 May 1864; Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 706 ff., ed. 1885.

“The question was raised whether those who are to be promoted to minor or sacred orders, and who present no document or testimony of Baptism conferred upon them, whether because of the lack of books, or because of the frailty of memory, or because their parents, godparents, etc., have died, are to be rebaptized conditionally; or whether a doubt should arise whether they were validly baptized by less-instructed catechists or other Christians. Concerning this matter, as regards the first part of the doubt, namely the lack of testimony, it is well that Your Lordship know that both this Sacred Congregation and the Supreme Inquisition, whenever questions of this kind have been proposed, have consistently issued a negative rescript, adducing the common opinion—namely, that those who were born of Christian parents and were educated by them in the Christian manner are altogether to be presumed to have been baptized. It is likewise lawful to adhere to a presumption of this kind in the second case also, namely, when there is doubt concerning the sufficient instruction, for administering the sacrament, of the catechists or Christians who baptized the cleric. “For unless the reason for doubting is very strong, such that it produces moral certitude in this or that particular case, the validity of the Baptism must be upheld; nor is adherence to be given to a chance suspicion by which either the faithful—in a matter so familiar in China—or much more the catechists, whose appointment is undertaken so cautiously by the Apostolic Vicars, might be judged less instructed. Otherwise, if negative doubts are admitted, occasion would be given for ambiguities in every case and without end.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 September 1848, to the Apostolic Vicar of Western Cochinchina.

“Those to be promoted to minor orders are to have a good testimonial from the parish priest and from the master of the school in which they are educated. But those who are to be assumed to each of the major orders are to approach the bishop one month before ordination; he is to commission the parish priest, or another whom he judges more expedient, diligently to inquire from trustworthy persons concerning the birth, age, morals, and life of the ordinands themselves, after the names and desire of those who wish to be promoted have been publicly proposed in the church; and he is to transmit as soon as possible to the bishop himself testimonial letters containing the fact that this inquiry was made.” Council of Trent, Session 23, chapter 5, On Reformation.

by those to be promoted to orders in the City of Rome.—Cf. A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 510 ff.

Cf. no. 277.

“Whether alumni of pontifical colleges who either have been converted from heresy or are children of heretics, and are therefore irregular, and who, without this irregularity having been removed, as appears, had been and are being promoted even to sacred orders, were and are rightly and canonically promoted; whether they truly needed and need dispensation from the aforesaid irregularity.—Response. The aforesaid alumni needed, and in the future need, dispensation as regards the aforesaid irregularity. But for the petitioners, the suspension is to be relaxed.” Holy Office, 28 November 1668.

“As regards the practice of admitting priests and deacons returning from schism to the Catholic Church to the exercise of their orders after they have embraced the Catholic faith, the following things are to be observed. If a priest says absolutely that he was ordained with the imposition of hands and the pronouncement of the words, and nothing else stands in the way, the missionary, after he has dispensed him from the irregularity and absolved him from excommunication, can admit him to the exercise of his orders according to the approved and purged rite in which he was ordained. “But if this priest candidly confesses that he does not remember the matter and form of his ordination, or that he doubts one or the other, he cannot be admitted to the exercise of his orders until he has been reordained conditionally. Finally, if he asserts absolutely that either the imposition of hands or the pronouncement of the form, or both, was omitted, he is to be reordained absolutely before he is admitted to the exercise of his orders.” Holy Office, 19 April 1704.

“N. N. ..., doubting whether or not he was fit for the priesthood, on the one hand wished to remove the intention of being a priest, while on the other he wished to place it. Finally he said this: ‘I place that intention which I shall certainly determine at some point of the ordination.’ Always doubtful, he received the first and second imposition of hands; and only when the consecration of the hands was reached did he resolve to be a priest.—Response. Let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 26 January 1898.

“Titius sets forth the following doubt concerning the validity of his ordination:

“During the ceremonies of ordination I revoked the intention of receiving the sacrament of order; nevertheless, before the words at the end of the ceremonies, Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, etc., I renewed the intention of receiving the order under this condition: that, if the prior part of the ordination is valid, I also wish to receive this last part validly.

“At the present time I am no longer certainly conscious at what moment I made this suspension of intention; I cannot state with certainty whether I did this after the anointing of the hands or after the presentation of the chalice and paten. For a long time has elapsed since the ordination (in the year 1875), and the disturbance of mind arising from scruples was great. Nevertheless, I believe that the suspension of intention occurred only after the joining of the hands.

“The reason why I suspended the intention is that, according to my judgment at that moment, I had not participated in the ceremonies in a sufficient manner. My mind was disturbed concerning this matter, and the thought occurred to me that I could not receive the remaining part of the ordination validly. I withdrew the intention lest, as I thought, I should perpetrate sacrilege.

“The insufficiency of participation which I believed to be present, insofar as I remember, consisted either in the fact that, at the anointing of the hands, I did not pronounce at the proper time the word Amen, which the ordinand ought to answer, or in the fact that, at the presentation of the chalice and paten, I could not touch the chalice; or both defects occurred.—Response. Since this concerns a mere scruple, let him be at peace.” Holy Office, 30 November 1898.

“A very good priest, but one tormented by scruples, doubting his own faith at the time of priestly ordination, refused his consent to each part of the ordination, proposing thus: ‘So that later I may have no doubt whatsoever about the invalidity of this ordination of mine, I declare that I do not wish to be ordained: my ordination will take place another time; not daring to leave the church, I shall now merely cause it to seem to my companions that I am being ordained.’

“Consistently with this intention, he did not pronounce the words of the consecration, believing them essential to the validity of the ordination; he did not intend to receive the power of remitting sins, having submitted only to the material imposition of the hands of the ordaining Bishop; neither did he intend to promise obedience to the Bishop, wishing to do so another time, when he would be ordained anew.

“Meanwhile, from trustworthy information it is known that he maintained most praiseworthy conduct during the whole time spent in the seminary and ardently desired the priesthood; that on the day of the ordination he went to it of his own full will; and that on the day following the ordination, having been encouraged by his confessor to despise the scruple, he celebrated his first Mass.

“Response. The ordination is to be repeated in its entirety, conditionally and secretly, on any day, after consultation with His Holiness, so that, insofar as there is need, he may supply from the treasury of the Church for the Masses celebrated in the case.” Holy Office, 28 November 1900.

“The decree [of the Synod of Meath in Ireland] by which it is enacted that henceforth no one, whether secular or regular, is to be promoted in this diocese to sacred orders without the interstices having been observed and without a diligent examination by the Ordinary, unless the advantage or necessity of the Church persuades the bishop otherwise; and that this judgment, even as regards regulars, pertains not to the regular superiors but to the Ordinary, is to be reformed with regard to those who possess a contrary privilege granted after the Council; and in the other respects the decrees of the following tenor are to be given and observed:

“I. Nullius, on 30 June 1597. The Sacred Congregation, etc., [declared that] the remission of interstices, even as regards regulars, to be made only for the causes expressed by the [Council of Trent], pertains to the ordaining bishop; nevertheless, as regards the causes, he ought in this matter to defer to the judgment and attestation of the regular superior of the ordinand.

“II. On 30 September 1609. The Sacred Congregation, etc., has often declared that the remission of interstices for the causes expressed by the Council pertains to the ordaining bishop, even as regards regulars receiving orders from him, but not to regular superiors; nevertheless, the bishop himself is bound, concerning the causes for the remission, to place trust in and defer to the testimony of the regular superior.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 24 August 1686.

Can a bishop who is given the faculty of ordaining on feast days confer major orders on feasts of the Apostles and on other abrogated feasts? And minor orders also?—Response. Affirmative to the first and affirmative to the second, but only in the morning. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsorum, response to 1.

“Since diverse opinions are being circulated in the Council of Clermont concerning these words of the Roman Pontifical: ‘Minor orders can be conferred on Sundays and double feasts,’ humble petitions were presented to the Sacred Congregation of Rites that, in order to establish a certain law on the matter, it would deign to declare its judgment.—Response. Minor orders can be conferred on feasts of precept, or on double feasts which were feasts of precept before the reduction.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 March 1833, Clermont.

“With regard to ordinations, it suffices to observe the fasts of the Ember Days; for there is no obligation of fasting for ordinations outside the Ember Days.” Holy Office, 14 December 1898.

“In the quinquennial faculties of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, under Form III, no. 13, the faculty is granted ‘of dispensing from a defect of one year of age, on account of a scarcity of laborers, so that they can be promoted to the priesthood, if they are otherwise suitable.’ It is asked whether this faculty also extends to Regulars.—Response. Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.” Holy Office, 29 January 1896.

“1. Since it is wholly unbecoming and altogether foreign to the dignity of clerics who are constituted in sacred Orders that they should be compelled to procure for themselves the things necessary for sustenance either from begged assistance or from sordid gain, no one is ignorant that, from the most ancient times, provision was made that anyone to be promoted to sacred Orders in the Church of God should be furnished with suitable and perpetual support. Formerly, indeed, no one was ordained unless he was assigned to a certain church to which he was perpetually attached, so that from it he might have the means to support his life honorably (Council of Chalcedon, canon 6). In later times, however, the title of Ordination was introduced, by which provision might be sufficiently made for the sustenance of clerics. Its necessity was first sanctioned for the ordination of deacons and priests and was then extended by Innocent III to subdeacons also (Third Lateran Council, canon 5); moreover, the things which the Council of Trent (Session 21, On Reformation, chapter 2) established on this matter are known to all. But in the course of time its most salutary prescriptions were neglected in some places, and Innocent XI, of holy memory, most gravely commanded that they be observed, by encyclical letters sent through the Sacred Congregation of the Council to all bishops on 13 May 1679.

“2. Furthermore, a twofold title is distinguished: namely, ecclesiastical and patrimonial. The latter, for which Alexander III seems to have furnished the occasion (chapter 4, On Prebends; Thomassin, On the Old and New Discipline of the Church, part 2, book 1, chapter 9, no. 2), and which began to come into use near the end of the twelfth century, obtains when the ordinand is furnished with such certain, stable, and productive goods, arising from a source other than the Church, as are judged sufficient for his suitable support in the judgment of the bishop. To the aforesaid is added the title of a pension, which must not only suffice for the suitable maintenance of the cleric but must also be perpetual. And these two titles are to be judged extraordinary and are admitted as though by dispensation, if, namely, the bishop judges that someone is to be ordained in this way for the necessity or advantage of the Church (Council of Trent, loc. cit.; and Benedict XIV, Ecclesiastical Institutions, 26, nos. 1, 3).

“3. The ecclesiastical title, however, is subdivided into that of a benefice and that of poverty, to which certain other species are to be added as subsidiary and extraordinary: namely, the titles of the common table, of the service of a church, of mission, of sufficiency, and of a college. The title of a benefice is a perpetual right to receive the fruits from the goods of the Church on account of some spiritual office constituted by ecclesiastical authority; and this must be called the ordinary and principal title of sacred ordination (Fagnanus, on chapter 4, On Prebends, no. 24).

“4. The title of poverty, however, is situated in religious profession, by virtue of which those who have emitted solemn vows in an approved religious institute have all things in common which they need for sustaining life, from the revenues of goods, if the religious institute itself possesses any, or from the pious largesse of the faithful. “What is called the title of the common table, however, pertains to those clerics who, dwelling after the manner of religious in a common discipline of life, either pronounce no vows or only simple vows, and who are therefore permitted to leave or be dismissed from the religious house and to return to the world. For the title of poverty does not pertain to them, as is deduced from the Constitution Romanus Pontifex of St. Pius V (14 October 1568). Yet of these clerics, only those whose Congregations or Institutes have been furnished by the Apostolic See with a special privilege for this can be promoted to sacred Orders under the title of the common table.

“5. The title of the service of a church, which was formerly ordinary, as was noted above, and afterwards became extraordinary, is sometimes granted to those who lack an ecclesiastical benefice or pension, or do not possess patrimonial or other goods, and who are ordained under the condition that they be bound to some church, from the service of which and from alms to be bestowed by the pious faithful they can be supported; and that they can never be removed from the same church, nor can they themselves withdraw, unless provision has otherwise been made for them. It is known that Sixtus V, of holy memory, granted to the Patriarch of Venice that he might confer sacred Orders upon his clerics under this title (Campanile, Diverse Matters of Canon Law, rubric 8, chapter 4, no. 14; and García, On Benefices, part 2, chapter 16, no. 96).

“6. Finally, the title of mission, which is chiefly under discussion here—passing over the titles of sufficiency and of a college, which it will suffice merely to have mentioned, since they occur rarely—is customarily employed when another lawful title is not available for those who desire to be initiated into major orders so that they may devote themselves to the service of the Apostolic missions. This often occurs in missionary regions, in which the condition of affairs is such that the common law of the Church cannot be observed exactly with regard to those things which concern the title prerequisite for sacred Ordination. Those who have been ordained under a title of this kind obtain from the apostolic ministry in the mission to which they have been attached the necessities for sustenance.

“7. But it is certain that Ordinaries cannot impart the gifts of sacred Orders to clerics under the title of mission unless they have been furnished with a special indult of the Holy See; for this concerns an extraordinary title employed beyond the common law. This indult is customarily granted to the superiors of missions or colleges or Congregations which serve the missions, either for a definite time or for a prescribed number of cases. Let the superiors remember, however, that they must use it sparingly; nor are all who seem disposed to enter upon a missionary course to be initiated into sacred Orders without discrimination under the title of mission. For if, according to the admonition of St. Paul, hands are to be imposed quickly upon no one, this holds especially when there is question of those who are assumed to the arduous work of the apostolic ministry. Therefore, this title is to be employed only in favor of those who, by disposition and docility of soul, rectitude of intention, aptitude of intellect, progress in sacred studies, integrity of morals, and contempt of worldly things, give hope that they will become strenuous heralds of the Gospel; concerning this the conscience of their superiors is strictly burdened.

“8. No less than the alumni of pontifical colleges, all those who desire to be enrolled among the sacred ministers under the title of mission are bound first to emit an oath by which they promise that they will render perpetual service to the mission to which they have been or shall be destined. The Holy See has constantly been accustomed to require this from those who wish to enjoy this title, so that it might provide for the service of the missions at whose expense they are supported. “To this instruction is appended the Formula of that oath, long since approved and received by use; and, so that uniformity may be preserved in this matter, the Sacred Congregation strictly commands that it be used by all.

“9. It is not necessary that one who is to be raised to sacred orders under this title actually be situated in a mission; it suffices that he be prepared to undertake missions when and in the manner in which his superiors judge that he should be sent and command him to go.

“10. By force of the oath taken, those who have been ordained under this title are forbidden to enter a religious institute without the permission of the Holy See; for it is reserved to its judgment, after a report by the Ordinary concerned, to judge whether the necessity of the missions to whose service they are attached permits this. Evidently, the public good must take precedence over the private good, by the same reasoning according to which it has been conceded to certain Orders that their religious may not pass to a stricter Order without the permission of their own superiors.

“11. Just as other titles, so also this title now under discussion can be lost according to canonical sanctions and can be taken away by Ordinaries, but with the consent of the Sacred Congregation, to which it belongs to release those so ordained from the bond of the oath taken. But if, when a title in general or even the title of mission has been lost, another is not substituted for it, the priest does not on that account remain suspended; the Ordinaries, however, are bound to compel those ordained to substitute another title, as is provided by the sacred canons. This Sacred Congregation declared this in the general meeting of 1 September 1856.

“12. Likewise, regular priests who have pronounced solemn vows and are permitted by Apostolic indulgence to live in the world, or who have emitted simple vows and have departed from their Congregations or Institutes, are to be obliged to provide themselves with a canonical title, lest they be compelled to beg to the dishonor of their proper rank; in missionary regions, however, they are at least bound to prove that they possess the means by which, as is fitting, they may provide for their own support.

“13. Those who have ascended to ecclesiastical orders under the title of some definite mission undoubtedly lose their title when they leave the office of missionary and must provide another for themselves. But if they are deputed to the service of another mission, a new grant of the Holy See will be necessary in order that they may assume the title of this mission; for the faculty, if any, which the Ordinary of that mission has obtained to ordain clerics under the aforesaid title does not avail them.

“14. Let Ordinaries in missionary regions also make use of the work of those priests who were admitted to sacred orders under other titles, those things which must be observed by law being observed; for they cannot constrain them to substitute the title of mission. Indeed, the Sacred Congregation exhorts the Ordinaries that, insofar as can be done, other lawful titles also be introduced for sacred ordination.

“15. Finally, the Sacred Congregation, observing that it can greatly conduce to the increase of the Missions if those who have been educated in colleges or seminaries of either clergy soon to become heralds of the Gospel, or who have been promoted to orders under the title of mission, repeatedly call to mind the oath by which they bound themselves to cooperate with God for the salvation of souls, exhorts them to take care to repeat it each year on the anniversary day of the oath taken, seriously meditating upon the divine goodness toward themselves, which constituted them ministers of the word to announce the wonders of His might and power; what an unfading crown of glory is prepared for them in heaven if they fulfill their office holily; and, on the contrary, what a strict judgment awaits them if, through their negligence or sloth—which God forbid—it should happen that anyone perish. But that they may perform this more promptly and eagerly, let them know that Pius VI, of holy memory, in the audience of 7 May 1775, granted to each of them a plenary indulgence, applicable also to the souls detained in Purgatory and to remain valid in perpetuity, not only when they first emit the aforesaid oath, but also when they renew it on the appointed day, provided that in both cases they do not omit to cleanse their conscience by the sacrament of Penance and receive Eucharistic Communion, or celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 27 April 1871; A. S. S., vol. 4, p. 554 ff.; vol. 5, p. 113 ff.; vol. 15, p. 569 ff.

“I, N., son of N., of the Diocese or Vicariate of N., promise and swear that, after I have been promoted to sacred orders, I shall enter no religious institute, society, or regular congregation without the special permission of the Apostolic See or of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, nor shall I emit profession in any one of them.

“Likewise I vow and swear that, in this Diocese or Vicariate—or (according to this alternative manner those must swear who have not yet been attached to any mission) in the mission to which it may please the Holy See or the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to destine me—I shall perpetually expend my labor and work in the administration of divine things for the salvation of souls, under the complete direction and jurisdiction of the Right Reverend Lord who is Ordinary at the time; this I shall perform even if, with the permission of the aforesaid Apostolic See, I enter a religious institute, society, or regular congregation and emit profession in any one of them.

“I likewise vow and swear that I understand the aforesaid oath and its obligation, and that I shall observe it. So help me God, and these holy Gospels of God.”—C. 363.

“The Sacred Congregation placed over regular discipline, ever intent upon the good of religious communities, cannot neglect the young men who are their fairest hopes; therefore, authorized by the Holy Father, it confirms the Apostolic Constitutions which have developed in times past as a norm for their ordinary state, and imparts to the superiors general the following special prescriptions for subjects liable to military conscription.

“1. For those who belong to the first category and cannot be certain of being exempted as unfit, solemn Profession and admission to sacred Orders must be delayed until after they have completed their respective active service of one year, or such other period as is necessary.

“2. It is useful to favor one-year voluntary service, even by subsidizing needy young men, in part or in whole, according to the means which each Order can dispose of, so that they may be enabled to meet the tax required by the government and the other expenses during the service; but it is understood that such assistance shall be given only to promising young men who are docile and obedient.

“3. It is expedient that, before undertaking voluntary service or longer service, they should have applied themselves to a course of spiritual exercises for at least ten days, and should have completed a part of their theological studies (the regular course of the other studies having first been completed), so that they may be more firmly grounded in religious ideas and in religious formation.

“4. In order that the young men may more easily preserve their vocation and correspond to it by their conduct, in addition to salutary admonitions, the greatest frequency of the sacraments possible, and the reading of good books, it shall be enjoined upon them to have recourse to the ecclesiastics designated by the Ordinaries of the places for their spiritual formation; and these ecclesiastics shall not fail to render their profitable work on behalf of the conscripts in the best manner possible and according to the circumstances. Then, to facilitate such work, the superiors general shall order the provincials to give an account of their subjects to the aforesaid Ordinaries, indicating the residence of the same and commending them to their vigilance. The Ordinaries, on their part, shall indicate to the provincials the priests to whom the young conscripts must have recourse.

“At every change of station the young men are obliged to give corresponding information to the father provincial and to report to him, insofar as possible, the course of their life. If during the service they have a leave of some weeks, they must apply themselves to spiritual exercises for at least three days. It need scarcely be said, moreover, that in cities where there are houses of the religious institute, the provincials can depute some religious of their own to the spiritual care of the said conscripts; but the obligation of informing the Ordinary of the place concerning young men who are going to complete military service in his diocese always remains firm.

“5. Those who, after completing military service of one year or of a longer period, persevere in the holy vocation and are found to have maintained good conduct shall be readmitted into the Order, where, as their first act, they shall make a course of spiritual exercises; and they shall not be promoted to solemn Profession or to sacred Orders until after a sufficient period, not less than one year, so that in the meantime they may give proof of the stability of their vocation, resume sacred studies, and, remaining during this period either in the house of the professed or in some other place of strict observance under the direction of a religious of mature age and grave character deputed for this purpose, give proof of their virtue.

“The greatest caution must be employed toward those who, instead of voluntary service, have performed the ordinary service of longer duration.

“Testimonial letters from the diocesan Ordinaries in whose territory they have resided for at least three months shall be necessary for all. And the prescriptions of the sacred Canons always remain firm with respect to those who exhibit defects inducing irregularity, for whom a Pontifical dispensation must be implored in each individual case.

“6. The precautionary measures indicated in no. 4 shall also be observed with regard to those who, after profession and sacred orders, should be recalled to military service for a notable period.

“7. Finally, if exceptional and unforeseen cases occur, the superiors general of the Orders must have recourse to this Sacred Congregation for corresponding instructions and derogations.

“Rome, 27 November 1892.”—Cf. no. 174.

Cf. no. 279.

“According to the Roman Pontifical, after the ordination of priests the bishop enjoins upon them the obligation of celebrating, after their first Mass, one Mass of the Holy Spirit, another of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and a third for the Dead; so that this obligation may be fulfilled more easily, can the said Masses be celebrated on lesser double days?—Response. Negative, but on days permitted by the Rubric.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 April 1840, Barcelona, response to 4.

“The Sacred Congregation of Rites, on 11 August 1860, response to 14, declared: ‘The words of the Roman Pontifical, the Nocturn of such a day, are understood of the single Nocturn on a ferial day, or of the first Nocturn of Sunday as in the Psalter—that is, twelve Psalms with their proper antiphons of the season—which the ordaining bishop can designate either from the very day on which he holds the ordination or from another day at his discretion. But when the bishop expresses nothing other than that which the words of the Pontifical state, the Nocturn of the feria which corresponds to that day on which the ordination was held is to be said.’ Furthermore, from decree no. 4042 of the same Sacred Congregation, Urbis, 27 June 1899, response to 1: ‘By the Nocturn of such a day is understood the ferial Nocturn, or the first Nocturn of a feast or Sunday in the Psalter, according as the Ordination was held on a feria, feast, or Sunday. But now another question has arisen and was proposed for an appropriate solution, namely: Whether the Psalm Come, let us exult, the Hymn, and the Lessons are also to be added to this Nocturn, or whether rather the Psalms with the respective Antiphons pertaining to such a Nocturn suffice?—Response. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.’” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 July 1903 [printed: 1093].