On the Eucharist

“Chapter 1. On the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.—In the first place, the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that, in the august Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually opposed: that our Savior Himself always sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to His natural manner of existing, and that, nevertheless, in many other places He is sacramentally present to us in His substance by that manner of existing which, although we can scarcely express it in words, we can nevertheless apprehend by thought illuminated by faith as possible to God, and which we ought most steadfastly to believe. For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ and discoursed concerning this most holy Sacrament, most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable Sacrament at the Last Supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified in express and clear words that He was giving them His own very Body and His Blood; and since those words, commemorated by the holy Evangelists and afterward repeated by St. Paul, bear that proper and most manifest meaning according to which they were understood by the Fathers, it is indeed a most unworthy crime that they are twisted by certain contentious and depraved men into fictitious and imaginary tropes, by which the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church. As the pillar and ground of truth, she has detested these fabrications devised by impious men as satanic, always acknowledging with a grateful and mindful spirit this most excellent benefit of Christ.

“Chapter 2. On the Reason for the Institution of This Most Holy Sacrament.—Therefore our Savior, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this Sacrament, in which He poured forth, as it were, the riches of His divine love toward men, making a remembrance of His wonderful works; and in its reception He commanded us to cherish His memory and to proclaim His death until He Himself comes to judge the world. Moreover, He willed this Sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of Him who said, He who eats me, he also shall live because of me, may be nourished and strengthened; and as an antidote by which we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins. Furthermore, He willed it to be a pledge of our future glory and perpetual felicity, and thus a symbol of that one body of which He Himself is the head, and to which He willed us to be bound, as members, by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, so that we all might say the same thing and there might be no schisms among us.

“Chapter 3. On the Excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist over the Other Sacraments.—This indeed is common to the Most Holy Eucharist with the other Sacraments: that it is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace. But this excellent and singular thing is found in it: that the other Sacraments first possess the power of sanctifying when someone uses them, whereas in the Eucharist the Author of sanctity is present before its use. For the Apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord when He nevertheless truly affirmed that what He was giving was His Body. And this faith has always been in the Church of God: that immediately after the consecration, the true Body of Our Lord and His true Blood exist under the species of bread and wine, together with His soul and divinity; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; and the Body itself under the species of wine, the Blood under the species of bread, and the soul under each, by the force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead, nevermore to die, are united with one another; and the Divinity, furthermore, by reason of its admirable hypostatic union with the Body and soul. Wherefore it is most true that just as much is contained under either species as under both. For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under every part of that species, and likewise whole under the species of wine and under its parts.

“Chapter 4. On Transubstantiation.—Since, however, Christ our Redeemer said that what He offered under the species of bread was truly His Body, it has therefore always been the persuasion of the Church of God—and this holy Synod now declares it anew—that, by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. This conversion has fittingly and properly been called transubstantiation by the holy Catholic Church.

“Chapter 5. On the Worship and Veneration to Be Shown to This Most Holy Sacrament.—Therefore no place for doubt is left that all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom always received in the Catholic Church, should in veneration render to this Most Holy Sacrament the worship of latria which is due to the true God. For it is not, on that account, to be less adored because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be received; for we believe that the same God is present in it whom the eternal Father, when bringing Him into the world, says: And let all the Angels of God adore Him; whom the Magi, falling down, adored; whom, finally, Scripture testifies to have been adored by the Apostles in Galilee. The holy Synod furthermore declares that this custom was most piously and religiously introduced into the Church of God: that each year, on a certain particular and festive day, this transcendent and venerable Sacrament should be celebrated with singular veneration and solemnity, and that it should be carried reverently and honorably through the streets and public places in processions. For it is most just that certain sacred days should have been established, on which all Christians, with a certain singular and uncommon manifestation, may testify their grateful and mindful spirits toward their common Lord and Redeemer for so ineffable and altogether divine a benefit, by which the victory and triumph of His death is represented. And thus indeed it was fitting that victorious truth should celebrate triumph over falsehood and heresy, so that its adversaries, placed in the sight of so great a splendor and amid so great a rejoicing of the universal Church, may either waste away, weakened and broken, or, affected with shame and confounded, may at length come to their senses.

“Chapter 6. On Reserving the Sacrament of the Sacred Eucharist and Carrying It to the Sick.—The custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist in the sacred repository is so ancient that even the age of the Council of Nicaea recognized it. Moreover, that the Sacred Eucharist itself should be carried to the sick and that this practice should be diligently preserved in the churches, besides being joined with the greatest equity and reason, is also found to have been commanded in many Councils and was observed by the most ancient custom of the Catholic Church. Therefore this holy Synod establishes that this salutary and necessary custom is wholly to be retained.

“Chapter 7. On the Preparation to Be Employed That One May Receive the Sacred Eucharist Worthily.—If it does not become anyone to approach any sacred functions unless holily, certainly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly Sacrament is known to a Christian man, the more diligently ought he take care not to approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of terror in the Apostle: He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. Wherefore, for one wishing to communicate, that precept of his is to be recalled to mind: Let a man prove himself. Ecclesiastical custom, however, declares that this proving is necessary: that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this is to be perpetually observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom it is incumbent by office to celebrate, provided that access to a confessor is not lacking to them. But if, with necessity pressing, a priest shall celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.

“Chapter 8. On the Use of This Admirable Sacrament.—As regards its use, however, our Fathers rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this Holy Sacrament. For they taught that some receive it sacramentally only, as sinners; others spiritually only, namely those who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by a living faith which works through charity perceive its fruit and usefulness; while the third receive it both sacramentally and spiritually. These, however, are those who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand that, clothed in the wedding garment, they approach this divine table. In sacramental reception, however, it was always the custom in the Church of God that the laity receive Communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves. This custom, as descending from Apostolic tradition, ought rightly and deservedly to be retained. Finally, with paternal affection the holy Synod admonishes, exhorts, asks, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that each and all who are reckoned by the Christian name should now at last unite and agree in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and, mindful of so great a majesty and of so excellent a love of Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave His beloved soul as the price of our salvation and His flesh for us to eat, that they should believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His Body and Blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, such devotion and piety of spirit, and such worship, that they may be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be for them truly the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind; so that, strengthened by its vigor, they may be able to pass from the journey of this miserable pilgrimage to the heavenly fatherland, there to eat without any veil the same Bread of Angels which they now eat beneath sacred veils.

“Since, however, it is not enough to state the truth unless errors are uncovered and refuted, it has pleased the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, so that all, the Catholic doctrine now having been recognized, may also understand what heresies must be guarded against and avoided by them.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall deny that, in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained, but shall say that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, only the species of bread and wine remaining—a conversion which the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall deny that, in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species and, separation having been made, under each single part of either species: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that, after the consecration has been completed, the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist except only in its use while it is being received, but not before or after, and that the true Body of the Lord does not remain in the consecrated hosts or particles which are reserved or remain after Communion: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say either that the principal fruit of the Most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins or that no other effects proceed from it: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that, in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, including external worship, and therefore is neither to be venerated with a particular festive celebration, nor solemnly carried about in processions according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the Holy Church, nor publicly set before the people that He may be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that it is not lawful for the Sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacred repository, but that immediately after consecration it must necessarily be distributed to those present; or that it is not lawful for it to be carried honorably to the sick: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that Christ set forth in the Eucharist is eaten only spiritually, and not also sacramentally and really: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall deny that each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound to communicate every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of Holy Mother Church: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that it is not lawful for a priest celebrating to communicate himself: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist: let him be anathema. And, lest so great a Sacrament be received unworthily and therefore unto death and condemnation, the holy Synod itself establishes and declares that those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may even think themselves, must necessarily make sacramental confession beforehand if access to a confessor is available. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately assert the contrary, or even to defend it in public disputation, let him by that very fact be excommunicated.”

“1. That if a consecrated host should fall or be cast into a sewer, mud, or some filthy place, then, while the species remain, beneath them it ceases to be the Body of Christ and the substance of bread returns.—2. That if a consecrated host should be gnawed by a mouse or consumed by a brute animal, then, while the said species remain, beneath them it ceases to be the Body of Christ and the substance of bread returns.—3. That if a consecrated host should be received by a just man or a sinner, then, while the species is being broken by the teeth, Christ is snatched up to heaven and does not pass into the stomach of man.”—Errors of John de Latone condemned by the Holy Office in the year 1371.

“By Apostolic authority We prohibit anyone henceforth from attempting to sacrifice with dried lees of wine or with crumbs of bread.” Decree of Alexander III from the Bull of the year 1263 to the Bishop of Uppsala.

“In this region ... a custom has arisen ... of making bread from grains that have been bruised and soaked in water for some hours, though not to the point of corruption. They press these grains with their hands and, from the white matter that comes forth, make breads with a hot iron in the manner customary in Europe.... Is the aforesaid manner of making bread lawful for the Mass?—Response. Affirmative; nevertheless, if it can be done, let the Apostolic Vicar take care that the wheat from which the Eucharistic bread is made not merely be crushed, but be reduced to flour by a suitable instrument, which is then to be thoroughly purified by a sieve, and that the bread be made from it in the manner employed in Europe. Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX approved the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers.” Holy Office, 25 June 1852, Apostolic Vicariate of Coimbatore.

“In this my Diocese of N. and in the neighboring dioceses, genuine fine flours have for many years been sold in large measure, which have often been used even in the formation of hosts for the Holy Mass. And many priests, in good faith or doubtful faith concerning the validity of the matter, celebrated the Divine Sacrifice with hosts made from such flours....

“Therefore I pray Your Most Reverend Eminence to be pleased to obtain for me from the Holy See a benign sanation for these my priests (also for Masses celebrated outside the diocese), and, subordinately, to obtain for them that they may discharge every burden of conscience by the celebration of a small number of Masses, which would be determined in a very mild proportion by the Ordinary in the individual cases.

“Response. The Most Holy One is to be supplicated that, insofar as there is need, he supply from the Treasury of the Church, with account taken, concerning the Masses to be celebrated, of those who celebrated in good faith and of those who celebrated in doubtful faith. The Most Holy One confirmed the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers and benignly granted the requested favor.” Holy Office, 27 January 1897.

“Whether wine made from dried grapes (commonly called zibibbo) can be employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—Response. Let the decree of Friday, 22 July 1706, be given, namely: ‘It is lawful, provided that the liquid to be extracted from zibibbo, or dried grapes, is recognized from color, odor, and taste to be true wine.’” Holy Office, 7 May 1879.

“It was set forth by a Bishop of France that, since the wine of that place has an acidic taste owing to an excess of tartaric acid, it is customarily sweetened with potassium tartrate, a salt which is extracted from the lees of wine and which forms, with the excess tartaric acid, potassium bitartrate, which precipitates to the bottom of the cask. It was therefore asked whether this wine, thus treated, was lawful for the Mass.—Response. It is not expedient.” Holy Office, 9 May 1892.

“To guard against the danger of the corruption of wine, two remedies are proposed: 1. Let a small quantity of brandy be added to natural wine. 2. Let the wine be heated to sixty-five degrees. Are these remedies lawful in wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and which is to be preferred?—Response. The wine as set forth in the second place is to be preferred.” Holy Office, 8 May 1887.

“In several parts of Gaul, ... the white wine which serves for the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is so weak and feeble that it cannot be preserved for long unless a certain quantity of spirit of wine (spirito, alcohol) is mixed with it.—1. Is a mixture of this kind lawful? 2. And, if affirmative, what quantity of foreign matter of this kind is permitted to be added to the wine? 3. In the affirmative case, is it required that the spirit of wine be extracted from pure wine, or from the fruit of the vine?—Response. Provided that the spirit (alcohol) was extracted from the fruit of the vine, that the added alcoholic quantity, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent, and that the mixture is made when the wine is very new, there is nothing to prevent the same wine from being employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Holy Office, 30 July 1890.

“The sweet wine which is customarily employed for the Sacrifice of the Mass in Spain naturally contains spirit beyond the proportion of twelve percent. It is asked: 1. Whether the mixture of ten parts of spirit per hundred, which, as experience establishes, is altogether necessary for the preservation of the sweet wine, can be continued. 2. Whether wine thus made can be employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—Response. Negative in relation to the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Holy Office, 15 April 1891.

“Since it is difficult to buy unmixed wine in Europe, ... already for many years it has seemed safer and easier to the missionaries of this Vicariate to make wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass in this very region. The grapes, however, which are found in the northern parts of the Chinese Empire contain an exceedingly small quantity of sugar; from this it comes about that the wine pressed from them for the Sacrifice of the Mass has only the smallest portion of alcohol and therefore can scarcely be preserved incorrupt, especially in view of the prolonged and intense heats of summer, which are most favorable to corruption. The inconvenience is removed and wine is obtained which can be safely preserved and is not disagreeable to sight, taste, or smell, if ten pounds of cane sugar (that is, from the grass-like plant botanically called Saccharum officinarum and commonly called in French canne à sucre) are added to one hundred pounds of grapes immediately after they have been crushed, and this mass is then fermented in the customary manner. When it has ceased to boil, from one hundred pounds of the mass (containing nine pounds of sugar according to what has been set forth), sixty-seven pounds of wine are obtained, which, as it is lawful to conjecture from chemical calculation, contain in practice at most four and a half pounds (that is, about one-fifteenth part of the total weight) of alcohol generated from the sugar. In other words, by the aforesaid operation true wine from the vine is obtained, one hundred parts of which have six or seven parts of heterogeneous alcohol—that is, alcohol not produced from the vine—mixed with them. We have retained this practice the more willingly as it becomes more impossible for us from day to day to obtain spirit of wine (alcohol) generated from the vine. But now, since a certain doubt has arisen, it is humbly asked: 1. Whether this practice is safe for obtaining wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass. If negative: 2. Whether it is valid. 3. What if wine of this kind was employed in Masses owed in justice?

“Response. Spirit or alcohol which was extracted from the fruit of the vine is rather to be added to wine for the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and its quantity, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, is not to exceed the proportion of twelve percent. A mixture of this kind is to be made when the so-called tumultuous fermentation has begun to subside; and according to the mind: The mind is that, if the missionaries are unable to procure spirit of wine, they should obtain it themselves by distilling the wine of the country, or they should mix dried grapes with the grapes of the country, causing them to ferment together.” Holy Office, 25 June 1891.

“In Brazil it is exceedingly difficult to make true wine for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass ... unless it be made in that very region. Now, the grape in these places is so weak and watery that, in order to obtain tolerable wine, some sugar from the plant which we commonly call canna de assugar must be mixed with the must; and wine is also made in this manner, which priests commonly use in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. But now, the response of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition issued on 25 June 1891 having become known, doubts and anxieties of conscience have arisen.... Whether wine thus made can or cannot safely be employed for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

“Response. In place of sugar extracted from the sugarcane, commonly called canna de assugar, spirit of alcohol is rather to be added, provided that it was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and that its quantity, added to that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent; a mixture of this kind is to be made when the tumultuous fermentation, as they say, has begun to subside.” Holy Office, 5 August 1896.

“The Archbishop of Tarragona in Spain sets forth that the sweet wines which are made in this region and are greatly desired by priests for the celebration of Mass already exceed twelve degrees of alcoholic strength after the first fermentation, which the wines of Marseilles do not reach even with the permitted addition of alcoholic liquid.—Nevertheless, in order that these generous and sweet wines, although endowed with greater strength than the wines of Marseilles, may safely be exported to foreign nations, they must possess eighteen degrees of alcoholic strength; otherwise, because of their very sweetness, they are liable to new fermentations and, during transport by sea, for the most part become sour. For this reason our wine merchants implore a favor similar to that which was granted to the petitions of the Bishop of Marseilles praised above, namely, the faculty of fortifying with spirit or alcohol extracted indeed from the fruit of the vine the wines, especially the sweet ones, so that those which naturally reach more or less fifteen degrees of alcoholic strength may rise to eighteen. For thus the corruption which they are accustomed to undergo from repeated fermentations is prevented, and they can be conveyed more safely to foreign nations which lack wine suitable for offering sacrifice becomingly.—Furthermore, as they say, in some regions of Spain there prevails a most ancient custom by which many priests make wine for themselves for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, either by first evaporating the must by fire or by drying the grapes in the rays of the sun; this custom seems to be warranted by the declaration of the Holy Office on 22 July 1706 concerning wine made from dried grapes. 1. Whether so much spirit or alcohol extracted from grapes may be added to the aforesaid wines, especially the sweet ones, for their preservation that they rise to about seventeen or eighteen degrees of alcoholic strength, without thereby ceasing to be suitable matter for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. 2. Whether it is lawful, for the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation was condensed by evaporation with fire.

“Response. To the first: In view of the newly adduced matters, provided that in the proposed case the spirit was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and that the alcoholic quantity to be added, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of seventeen or eighteen percent, and that the mixture is made when the tumultuous fermentation, as they say, has begun to subside, there is nothing to prevent the same wine from being employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—To the second: It is lawful, provided that a boiling of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and that the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally and is in fact obtained.” Holy Office, 5 August 1896.

“The Roman Church confects the Sacrament of the Eucharist from unleavened bread.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus.

“The Body of Christ is truly confected in either unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and priests ought to confect the Body of the Lord in the one or the other, namely each according to the custom of his own Church, whether Western or Eastern.” Council of Florence, Decree of Union with the Greeks, in the Bull of Eugene IV, Laetentur coeli; Profession of Faith for the Greeks prescribed by Gregory XIII; Profession of Faith for the Easterners prescribed by Urban VIII and by Benedict XIV.

“To all the faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Eastern, dwelling in places in which there is no church or priest of their own rite, the faculty is henceforth granted by the Holy See of receiving Holy Communion, not only at the point of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for the sake of devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided that it is Catholic.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 18 August 1893; A. S. S., vol. 27, p. 441. Cf. C. no. 1998 ff.

“...Those things which Benedict XIV, Our illustrious predecessor, wisely and providently decreed by the Constitution Demandatam, given in the form of a letter on 24 December 1743 to the Patriarch of Antioch of the Melkite Greeks and to all the Bishops of the same rite subject to that Patriarch, indeed remain ratified.... In carrying this out, We drew from it this as a principle: namely, that Latin priests are sent by the Apostolic See into those regions only for this purpose, that they may be an aid and relief to the Patriarchs and Bishops; care having been taken, therefore, lest, by using the faculties granted to them, they should inflict prejudice upon their jurisdiction and diminish the number of their subjects (Constitution Demandatam, no. 13). From this it is manifest by what laws the offices of those same Latins in relation to the Eastern hierarchy are to be regulated.

“Therefore, the heads of matters which follow have seemed to Us in the Lord to be prescribed and sanctioned, as We do, supported by Apostolic authority; declaring even now that We will and command that those same Benedictine decrees, which were originally given concerning the Melkite Greeks, should universally affect all the faithful of every rite in the East.

“I. Any Latin missionary, whether of the secular or regular clergy, who by counsel or assistance induces any Eastern person to the Latin rite, besides the suspension from divine things which he shall incur by the fact itself, and the other penalties inflicted by the same Constitution Demandatam, shall be deprived of and excluded from his office. That this prescription may remain certain and firm, We command that a copy of it be publicly displayed in the churches of the Latins.

“II. Where a priest of their own rite is lacking to whom the Eastern Patriarch may entrust the spiritual administration of his people, there let the Pastor of another rite undertake their care, employing for consecration the same species as they do, unleavened or leavened bread; those who employ them according to the Eastern rite are to be preferred.—The faithful, however, shall have the faculty of communicating according to either rite not only in those places in which no church or priest of their own proper rite is found, as was decreed by the Sacred Council for the Propagation of the Christian Name on 18 August 1893, but also where, because of the distance of their church, they cannot approach it except with grave inconvenience; judgment concerning this belongs to the Ordinaries. And let this remain fixed: one who has communicated according to another rite, even for a long time, is not for that reason to be considered to have changed rite, but in all other duties is to remain attached to his own Pastor.

“III. Latin religious societies which labor for the instruction of youth in the East, if in some college they number not a few students of the Eastern rite, shall, after consulting the Patriarch, have with them a priest of the same rite for the advantage of those students, to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, to impart Holy Communion and catechesis in the native language, and to explain the rites; or at least on Sundays and other feasts occurring by precept let them summon such a priest to perform those duties. For this reason, We declare that all privileges whatsoever, even those worthy of special mention, which those societies enjoy whereby students of the Eastern rite, so long as they remain in their colleges, follow the Latin rite, have all been taken away. As regards the ritual abstinences to be observed, however, let the superiors provide with religious equity. Provision is likewise to be made for day students, who must be sent or conducted to their own churches or curiae, unless it seems that they should be admitted together with the resident students to the offices of the same rite.

“IV. The same prescriptions are to be applied, insofar as it can be done, to societies of religious women devoted to educating girls in convents and schools. But if any modification should become opportune because of times and circumstances, let it not be made before the consent of the Patriarch and the permission of the Apostolic See have been obtained.

“V. No new colleges for youth or religious houses of either sex, of the Latin rite, are henceforth to be opened unless the Apostolic See has been petitioned and has consented.

“VI. It is lawful neither for Latin nor Eastern priests, either in churches of their own rite or of another rite, to absolve anyone from cases which are reserved to the respective Ordinaries of each, unless a faculty has been permitted by them. In this matter We wholly revoke every privilege, even one worthy of special mention.

“VII. Easterners who have assumed the Latin rite, even by a pontifical rescript, shall be permitted, after petitioning the Apostolic See, to return to their former rite.

“VIII. A woman of the Latin rite who has married a man of the Eastern rite, as likewise an Eastern woman who has married a Latin, shall be entirely free to pass to the rite of her husband upon entering or during the marriage; but when the marriage is dissolved, she shall have free power to resume her own rite.

“IX. Any Easterner dwelling outside patriarchal territory shall be under the administration of the Latin clergy, but shall nevertheless remain enrolled in his own rite, so that, no length of time or any other cause whatever availing, he falls again under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch as soon as he returns to his territory.

“X. It shall be lawful for no Order or religious Institute of the Latin rite, of either sex, to receive among its members any Easterner who has not first presented testimonial letters from his own Ordinary.

“XI. If any community, family, or person from among the dissidents should come to Catholic unity under a condition interposed as though necessary that it embrace the Latin rite, it shall indeed remain bound to this rite for a time, but it shall nevertheless be in its power at some time to return to its native Catholic rite. But if a condition of this kind was not interposed, and the community, family, or person itself is administered by Latin priests because Eastern priests are lacking, it must return to its own rite as soon as an Eastern priest is available.

“XII. Matrimonial and ecclesiastical causes, whatever they may be, concerning which an appeal is made to the Apostolic See, are by no means to be committed to Apostolic Delegates for decision unless it has expressly commanded this, but are wholly to be referred to the Sacred Council for the Propagation of the Christian Name.

“XIII. We grant to the Greek-Melkite Patriarch jurisdiction also over those faithful of the same rite who dwell within the borders of the Turkish Empire.” Leo XIII, Bull Orientalium dignitas, 30 November 1894.

“A pernicious abuse has grown up in your parts, namely, that a greater quantity of water than of wine is placed in the Sacrifice, whereas according to the reasonable custom of the universal Church more wine than water is to be placed in it. Therefore We command your Fraternity that you neither do this nor permit it to be done in your province.” Honorius III, chapter 13, On the Celebration of Masses.

“The Armenians coming into union with the Holy Roman Church are not to be permitted to perform the Sacrifice of the Mass with wine alone, for several reasons: 1. Because, although a mixture of this kind of water with wine is not of the necessity of the Sacrament but only from a precept of the Church, concerning which the Pope can dispense, nevertheless, because water is mixed with the wine to be consecrated from Apostolic tradition, and because Christ is believed from the testimonies of the Holy Fathers to have done this, in no way ought a rite of sacrificing of this kind to be tolerated or permitted to the Armenians. 2. Because a rite of this kind of the Armenians either involves the heresy of the Monophysites or at least is most suspect of it; for Nicephorus, in book 18 of his history, chapter 53, clearly said that the Armenians consecrate wine alone in order by this to show that there is only one nature in Christ the Lord. 3. Because the Holy Council of Florence, in the Instruction to the Armenians, by the word We decree, commands the united Armenians to mix a little water with the wine in the Sacrifice. 4. Because the Armenians always petitioned the Apostolic See that a rite of this kind be permitted to them, and nevertheless it was always denied to them; for Gregory VII, as in his first epistle of book 8, Alexander III, Callistus III, Eugene III, Eugene IV in the said Council of Florence, John XXII, Benedict XI, and finally Paul V, in his Apostolic Letters to Melchizedek, styled Catholicos, who consecrated this Archbishop of Lviv, expressly refused to permit a rite of this kind. 5. Because, finally, Luther approved a rite of this kind, and the Calvinists observe the same in their Supper; and if the aforesaid rite were permitted to the Armenians in the Kingdom of Poland, the Calvinists, who are found there in no small number, would calumniate the Roman Church, namely, that she had changed her judgment and agreed with them. And canon 24 of the Third Council of Carthage under Pope Siricius, and chapters 1, 2, and 3, On Consecration, distinction 2, agree with this resolution.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 January 1635; C. 797.

“You have asked whether the water together with the wine is converted into the Blood. On this matter, however, opinions vary among the scholastics. For it seems to some that, since from the side of Christ there flowed two principal Sacraments, that of redemption in the blood and that of regeneration in the water, the wine and water which are mingled in the chalice are changed into those two by divine power.... Others, however, hold that the water together with the wine is transubstantiated into the Blood, since it passes into the wine when mixed with the wine.... Furthermore, it can be said that the water does not pass into the Blood but remains surrounded by the accidents of the former wine.... It is, however, wicked to opine what some have presumed to say, namely, that the water is converted into phlegm.... But among the aforesaid opinions, that one is judged more probable which asserts that the water together with the wine is changed into the Blood.” Innocent III, chapter 6, On the Celebration of Masses.

“But because in the above-written Decree for the Armenians the form of words which the Most Holy Roman Church, strengthened by the teaching and authority of the Apostles, has always been accustomed to use in the consecration of the Body and Blood of the Lord was not explained, We have thought that it should be inserted in the present document. In the consecration of the Body she uses this form of words: For this is My Body; but of the Blood: For this is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins. As regards wheaten bread, in which the Sacrament is confected, it makes no difference whatever whether it was baked on that day or beforehand; for provided that the substance of bread remains, it is in no way to be doubted that, after the aforesaid words of the consecration of the Body have been pronounced by the priest with the intention of confecting, it is immediately transubstantiated into the true Body of Christ.” Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, or Bull of Eugene IV, Cantate Domino.

“29. The doctrine of the Synod, in that part in which, undertaking to hand down the doctrine of faith concerning the rite of consecration, with scholastic questions concerning the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist set aside—from which it exhorts Pastors exercising the office of teaching to abstain—proposes only these two things: 1. that Christ after the consecration is truly, really, and substantially under the species; 2. that then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, only the species remaining; but entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or of the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith—insofar as, through an ill-advised and suspicious omission of this kind, knowledge is withdrawn both of an article pertaining to the faith and of the word consecrated by the Church for safeguarding its profession against heresies, and thus tends to induce forgetfulness of it, as though it concerned a merely scholastic question—is pernicious, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth concerning the dogma of transubstantiation, and favorable to heretics.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“...In this Church Jesus Christ Himself is both Priest and Sacrifice, whose Body and Blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine, the bread having been transubstantiated into the Body and the wine into the Blood by divine power, so that, for perfecting the mystery of unity, we ourselves may receive from what is His that which He Himself received from what is ours. And assuredly no one can confect this Sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself granted to the Apostles and their successors.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, chapter 1, Definition against the Albigensians and other heretics.

“We firmly believe and confess that, however honorable, religious, holy, and prudent anyone may be, he cannot or ought not consecrate the Eucharist or confect the Sacrifice of the altar unless he is a priest regularly ordained by a visible and tangible Bishop. For this office three things, as we believe, are necessary: namely, a certain person, that is, a priest appointed by a Bishop, as we have said, properly to that office, and those solemn words which were expressed in the Canon by the Holy Fathers, and the faithful intention of the one pronouncing them. Therefore we firmly believe and confess that whoever, without a preceding episcopal ordination as we have said, believes and contends that he can offer the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is a heretic and a participant and associate in the perdition of Korah and his accomplices, and is to be separated from the whole Holy Roman Church.” Profession of faith prescribed to the Waldensians by Innocent III.

“Can a deacon who, by command of his Vicar, carries Sacred Viaticum to the sick make sprinklings of holy water, say the Misereatur and Indulgentiam, sign the sick person or himself, say Dominus vobiscum with the prayer, and bless the sick person and those assisting with the Most Holy Sacrament?—Response. If a priest is lacking and the permission of the Apostolic Vicar concurs, affirmative in all things.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 August 1858, Western Tonkin.

“In the administration of Holy Communion, the versicles and the prayer Deus qui nobis are of precept; but the blessing is always to be given, with the single exception of the case when it is given immediately before or after a Mass of the Dead, under the formula The blessing of God, etc.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 30 August 1892, Esztergom, response to 10.

“The prayers are to be said during the ablution and wiping of the fingers.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 January 1898.—In the administration of the Most Holy Eucharist during Easter time, before or after a Requiem Mass, the prayer and versicles of the season must be said, with the Alleluia omitted. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 November 1878, Siena.

“Whether the stole for administering the Most Holy Eucharist outside Mass must always be of the color agreeing with the Office of that day, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, or whether it may also be white, as being most fitting for the Sacred Eucharist, as many Doctors judge?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 March 1836, Trent, response to 12.

“A priest returning to the altar after the Communion of the faithful must genuflect before he covers the sacred ciborium, and must genuflect again before, after the ciborium has been replaced in the tabernacle, he closes the little door of the tabernacle itself.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 December 1862, Rome.

“The Superior General of the Order of St. John of God humbly petitioned the Sacred Congregation of Rites that it deign to resolve the following doubts concerning the manner, in force in the hospitals of his Order, of carrying Holy Communion within Mass to the sick, namely: 1. After the Confiteor, Misereatur, Ecce Agnus, and Domine non sum dignus have been recited at the altar, can it be permitted that the priest carry Holy Communion in the ciborium without a humeral veil to the sick, accompanied at least by two persons carrying candles, and with an umbrella also employed if it can be done, especially if the sick are distant from the altar? 2. Can Holy Communion be carried in the aforesaid manner not only throughout the whole hospital, or at the part behind the altar, but also in certain rooms from which, although the altar cannot be seen, the voice of the priest celebrating is nevertheless heard? 3. Can it be permitted that, in place of the priest carrying the Most Holy Eucharist to the sick, another person, even a layman, recite the prayers?—Response. To the first and second: There is nothing to prevent it, provided, however, that in carrying the Most Holy Sacrament an umbrella is employed without exception. To the third: There is nothing to prevent those present from reciting certain prayers while the Sacred Eucharist is being distributed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 February 1874, Order of St. John of God.

“Is it lawful for one celebrating in a private or religious house to carry Holy Communion before the purification, for the sake of devotion and not by way of Viaticum, to a sick person staying in the same house, although it is necessary to ascend to the upper part of the house and to pass through another corridor?—Response. It is not lawful, according to the decree in the case of Florence, 19 December 1829, response to 1; but if necessity presses, let it be done after Mass has been completed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 December 1844, Genoa.

“During the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the administration of Viaticum, especially in hospitals, is it lawful to withdraw from the altar as far as the bed of the sick, meanwhile reciting the psalm Miserere, as is customarily done outside Mass?—Response. Negative as regards the psalm Miserere. Moreover, it is to be noted that if the celebrant, for the administration of Viaticum within Mass, loses the altar from his sight, this administration is not lawful.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 December 1829, Florence, response to 1.

In carrying the Most Holy Sacrament, women cannot precede, carry the umbrella and torches, or ring the small bells. “If women wish to carry lights, let them follow the priest.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 December 1903.

“To the sick who are near death, of whatever condition they may be, even though they dwell in a sordid and vile place or hut, let the Viaticum of the Most Holy Eucharist be carried, since with God there is no acceptance of persons, and for our salvation He shrank neither from the stable nor from the ignominy of the Cross.” Alexander VII, Constitution Sacrosancti, 18 January 1658.

“...As soon as the Sacred Congregation learned that, in certain dioceses of that region, the custom, or rather abuse, had gained strength whereby priests carried the Most Holy Sacrament with them from morning until evening solely because they might perhaps encounter some sick person, it judged that the Metropolitans were to be written to, so that it might declare that custom to be wholly abhorrent to the practice of the Church.... Issue such decrees by which the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament is restricted only to urgent causes and to the actual exercise of priestly ministry....” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 25 February 1853.

“But where the violence and iniquity of the Turks prevails, let the priest always keep his stole covered by his own clothing; let him enclose the ciborium in a small bag or burse, suspend it from his neck by cords, and place it within his bosom; and let him never proceed alone, but be accompanied by at least one of the faithful if a cleric is lacking.” Benedict XIV, Constitution Inter omnigenas, 2 February 1744.

“Sacred Viaticum can be carried to the sick without a stole in a case of necessity.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 20 September 1739, for China.

“...1. Whether it can be lawful for the missionaries of these regions to administer the Most Holy Sacrament to the sick secretly and without a light and stole when it cannot be administered otherwise? ... 2. Whether the Apostolic Vicar can permit the missionaries to carry and administer the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to Christians ... detained in prisons? ... It could easily be administered to them without danger of contempt for the Most Holy Eucharist if it were lawful to administer it without surplice and stole.—Response. To the first: Affirmative, for it concerns a faculty already granted by the Supreme Pontiffs. To the second: Affirmative, and as regards those detained for a time, insofar as they request it, yet at the judgment and prudence of the Apostolic Vicar.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 9 December 1822 and 5 July 1854.

“Can it be permitted, in this time of persecution, that confessors of the faith condemned to death because of the faith, and to whom the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is brought in prison, may secretly receive it in their own hands and secretly communicate themselves, lest the priest communicating them in the ordinary manner be recognized and apprehended?—Response. Affirmative, provided that so great a Sacrament is exposed to no irreverence or other danger.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 July 1841.

“Whenever the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist can respectively be carried to the sick either publicly or secretly, it is to be carried. But if, either because of the prohibition of the magistrates or for another cause, danger of sacrilege and irreverence is feared, let celebration be permitted in a more nearly situated fitting place, and, if no fitting place is available, in the house of the sick person itself, provided that a fitting place is likewise available there.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 14 December 1668; C. 709, 718.

“A Pastor is not to be reproved who carries Holy Viaticum to a sick person on Friday in Parasceve, provided that privately and in a low, indeed in the lowest, voice he recites the customary psalms along the public ways, even if he says Gloria Patri, etc.; because in such a circumstance an action of this kind has nothing in common with the functions of the Church on this day. And it is to be considered that he carries it with a white stole and cope, when on the aforesaid Friday the color of the vestments is black for the functions of the Church. Therefore, if he carries it privately because of some necessity, he is not to be reproved if he dismisses the people without a blessing on Friday in Parasceve, because it ought not to be replaced in the public church.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 15 May 1745, Lucca.

“In carrying the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist for administering Sacred Viaticum publicly to the sick, but without a canopy, the abuse is not to be tolerated whereby the Pastor or minister proceeds along the way with his head covered, while the faithful nevertheless walk with heads uncovered.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1872, Toledo, response to 2.

“In view of the circumstances (the greatest difficulty of the places), the Sacred Congregation of Rites committed it to the Most Reverend Bishop that, according to his judgment and prudence, he may grant that the Pastor and administrators of this kind, in these circumstances, may carry Sacred Viaticum while riding and with the head covered by a hat, accompanied by at least one man, if it can be done, carrying a lighted lantern.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 May 1846, Bisignano.

“It is lawful to carry Viaticum without any pomp and in an almost private manner whenever it is to be administered to sick persons dwelling very far from the parish church and it is necessary to pass through pathless, distant, and inaccessible places; and let the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual be observed, and let the decree in the one case of Bisignano, 23 May 1846, be given.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 January 1878, Templen, response to 7.

“Whether the rule of the Parisian Ritual expressed thus can safely be followed: If, when Communion is to be given, a sufficient number of hosts has not been found, can some hosts be divided into several particles which are to be distributed to the individuals?—Response. Let the custom of dividing the consecrated hosts be observed if necessity is present.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 March 1833, Verona, response to 1.

“Let Bishops, Pastors, or confessors admonish that no one is to be given several Eucharistic forms or particles, nor larger ones, but only the customary ones.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 12 February 1679.

“The carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament outside a church is not permitted except on the solemn occasion of a procession on the feast and throughout the octave of Corpus Christi, and likewise on the occasion of the sick and of the Forty Hours’ Prayer according to the decrees of the sacred canons; and in the aforesaid cases the clergy with a cross must always take part.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 June 1638, Sulmona.

“Can a priest open the ciborium in order to communicate the faithful while vested in black vestments?”—Response. Affirmative, or, Holy Communion can be administered to the faithful in Masses of the Dead with black vestments, even from particles consecrated beforehand, by removing the ciborium from the tabernacle. Communion can likewise be administered in black vestments immediately after a Mass of the Dead and, given a reasonable cause, also immediately before the same Mass; nevertheless, in either case the blessing is to be omitted. Masses of the Dead are, however, to be celebrated wholly in black vestments, to such an extent that violet ones cannot be employed unless, on 2 November, the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is exposed for the public adoration of the faithful for the solemn Forty Hours’ Prayer, as was provided in the decree of this Sacred Congregation on 16 September 1801. And thus they decreed and commanded it to be observed everywhere.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 June 1868, General Decree.

A Bishop cannot by his own right grant the faculty of reserving the Most Holy Sacrament: 1. In churches or public chapels which do not, however, enjoy the parochial title, even if they serve the needs of the parish. 2. In public chapels of pious communities, that is, those whose door opens onto a public street or into a courtyard communicating with a public street, and which are open to all the inhabitants. 3. In interior chapels or oratories of pious communities when they do not have a public chapel or oratory in the sense explained, as occurs, for example, in seminaries.—An indult from the Holy See is to be implored in regard to all of these. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 8 March 1879, Nevers.

If in oratories in which the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved by Apostolic privilege Mass cannot be celebrated daily, an indult is to be sought from the Apostolic See, which is accustomed to prescribe that it be celebrated at least once in every week. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May 1889, Bayonne. It is likewise necessary in the same oratories that access be open for some hours of the day to the faithful who desire to visit the Most Holy Eucharist. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 15 November 1890, Compostela.

“The Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is to be reserved in only one place of any church in which it ought, can, or is accustomed to be kept.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 13 October 1620.

The sacred tabernacle in which the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved can be ornamented either entirely on the inside with white silk cloth, or with gilded plates only. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 June 1889, Calvi and Teano. It is to be blessed before the Holy Eucharist is placed in it. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 June 1899, no. 4035.

“1. Must the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Sacrament is kept be covered with a canopy, as the Ritual states? And insofar as affirmative: 2. Can this canopy be made from cloth woven of cotton, wool, or hemp? 3. Of what color ought it to be? Some, such as Baruffaldus, opine that the canopy ought to be white, as being fitting to the Most Holy Sacrament; but others, such as Gavantus, that it should be of the same color as the altar frontal and the other vestments, according to the character of the season and feast, except for black, which is changed to violet in the obsequies of the dead.—Response. As to the first question: Affirmative. As to the second: Likewise affirmative. As to the third: Either opinion can be put into practice, but especially the opinion of Gavantus, which has in its favor the usage of the churches of the City.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 July 1855, Saint-Brieuc, response to 10.

“It is not lawful for regulars, even in their own churches, to expose the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist for public adoration except for a public cause which has been approved by the Ordinary; but for a private cause they can, provided that the Most Holy Sacrament is not removed from the tabernacle and is veiled, so that the Sacred Host itself cannot be seen.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 17 August 1630; Decrees nos. 641, 753, 800, 882.

“Exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament is not to be made except for a public and grave cause; and for particular sick or afflicted persons, etc., who desire public prayers for their assistance, it is not to be exposed uncovered, but with the little door of the tabernacle open, or at most in a veiled ciborium with a fitting number of lights and the attendance of priests. And the Ordinaries shall take care that this be done not only in secular churches but also in those of regulars.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 1 September 1851.

“Whenever it should seem that the Most Holy Eucharist is to be exposed for a private cause, let it never be removed from the tabernacle, but, in a veiled ciborium, let it be placed at the open little door of the same tabernacle, with the attendance of some priest vested in stole and surplice, and with at least six wax lights. We command that the same be observed in the churches of seculars.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 9 December 1602; Benedict XIV, Institution 30, no. 21.

“1. Since, from certain responses of the Most Holy Roman Congregations, some think that the sacred ciborium can be exposed to the piety of the faithful with the little door of the tabernacle open but can by no means be removed from it, while others opine that it can be brought out only so that the people may be blessed with it, as is customarily done on certain days in several churches of regulars, it is asked whether a custom of this kind can be admitted? 2. And insofar as negative, can it, by force of custom, be permitted to those congregations or religious families which have also been accustomed to do so elsewhere? 3. Can this be granted, at the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, also to other congregations petitioning it?—Response. To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Provided for in the first. To the third: Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 January 1886, Palencia.

“When a priest blesses the people with the sacred ciborium, must he cover it entirely with the ends of the long humeral veil, just as the Roman Ritual commands in the carrying of Viaticum, though not after Viaticum but on a different occasion?—Response. In blessing the people with the sacred ciborium, he must cover it entirely with the ends of the long humeral veil.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 February 1839, Malta, response to 1.

“Can the practice of blessing the people with a ciborium covered by a small canopy, without the use of a humeral veil, be tolerated?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 July 1883, Conversano.

“Can and ought the Instruction for the Forty Hours’ Prayer, first published in Rome by command of Clement XI of happy memory, be observed also outside the City?—Response. The aforesaid Instruction does not bind outside the City; nevertheless, those who strive to conform themselves to it are to be praised, unless something else has been established by the Ordinaries of the places.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 July 1749, Padua.

“The key of the tabernacle is to be retained by Pastors, rectors, sacristans, or anyone else to whom custody of the tabernacle belongs, upon his person or in a safe place closed with a key. And this is also to be observed by regulars.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 9 February 1751.

“As regards the blessings desired by these faithful and customarily given by ancient custom in certain churches, either with a portable statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary on solemnities of the same Virgin Mother of God, or during novenas and other pious exercises instituted in her honor, as in the month called Marian, etc.; or likewise with a statue of the Infant Jesus, from the time of the Nativity of the Lord until Epiphany, We judge that there is nothing at all to prevent a custom of this kind from being tolerated by Your Lordship.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1 April 1854.

“Whether and when the ciborium, purificators, monstrances, or at least the lunula—which immediately serve the Sacrament more than other things that have in the Missal their own form of blessing—are to be blessed?—Response. The rubrics are to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 November 1649, Genoa, response to 5.

“1. Must the purificator be blessed? And insofar as affirmative: 2. What blessing is to be employed?—To the first: Negative. To the second: Provided for in the preceding case.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 September 1816, Todi.

“Can a ciborium or sacred pyx of gilded copper be permitted? Likewise a monstrance and lunula?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1867, San Ippolito, response to 6.

“Is it lawful, for exposing the Sacred Host in a monstrance, to use a lunula which consists of two small glass disks joined around and closed by a narrow rim or circle of gilded silver, so that the Sacred Host adheres underneath to the silver circle itself, but immediately touches the glass disks themselves in front and behind, and through them is held upright?—Response. As the case is set forth, it is unbecoming to enclose the Sacred Species between glass plates whose surfaces touch them immediately.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 February 1871, Apostolic Vicariate of Denmark, response to 4.

“In very many churches and oratories of Gaul, the practice has gained strength in these latter times of enclosing the Sacred Host which is to be exposed in the monstrance between two suitably joined crystals and replacing it in the tabernacle without any case or covering. Hence it was asked of the Sacred Congregation of Rites: Is a practice of this kind lawful?—Response. Affirmative, provided that the Sacred Host is well enclosed within the said crystals and does not touch the crystals, according to other decrees.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 January 1898, Doubt.

“In general olive oil is to be used; but where it cannot be had, it is to be remitted to the prudence of the Bishops that the lamps be fed from other oils, insofar as possible vegetable oils.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 July 1864, Several Dioceses.

“Can electric light be employed in churches?—Response. For worship: Negative. But for dispelling darkness and illuminating the churches more splendidly: Affirmative; care being taken, however, lest the manner present a theatrical appearance.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 June 1895, Decree.

“The renewal of the sacramental species together with the purification of the vessels is to be made every eighth day, on Sundays, and is not to be deferred for fifteen days. Constitution Sanctissimus of Clement VIII, 31 August 1595.” Diocesan Synod of Alba, part 2, article 4, no. 6.—From the Ceremonial of Bishops, book 1, chapter 6, no. 2: “The Eucharist is to be changed and renewed at least once in the week.”

“18. Likewise, whether he believes that the custom, observed by the universal Church and approved by the Holy Council of Constance, of communicating lay persons under the species of bread alone is to be observed in such a way that it is not lawful to reprove it or to change it at will without the authority of the Church. And that those who obstinately say the opposite of the foregoing are to be restrained and punished as heretics or those savoring of heresy.” Articles concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wyclif and Hus are to be questioned by mandate of Martin V in the Bull Inter cunctas.

“Since in certain parts of the world some rashly presume to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species of bread and wine, and commonly communicate the lay people not only under the species of bread but also under the species of wine, even after supper or otherwise not fasting, and obstinately assert that Communion must be given contrary to the laudable custom of the Church reasonably approved, which they damnably endeavor to reprove as sacrilegious: hence it is that this present Council ... declares, decrees, and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament after supper and administered it to His disciples under both species of bread and wine, nevertheless, notwithstanding this, the authority of the sacred canons and the laudable and approved custom of the Church has observed and observes that a Sacrament of this kind ought not to be confected after supper, nor received by the faithful when not fasting, except in a case of illness or of another necessity conceded or admitted by law or by the Church. And likewise, although in the primitive Church a Sacrament of this kind was received by the faithful under both species, nevertheless this custom has been reasonably introduced for avoiding certain dangers and scandals: that it be received by those confecting under both species, and by the laity only under the species of bread, since it is to be most firmly believed and in no way doubted that the entire Body and Blood of Christ are truly contained as much under the species of bread as under the species of wine, etc. Wherefore, to say that observing this custom or law is sacrilegious or unlawful is to be judged erroneous, and those obstinately asserting the opposite of the foregoing are to be restrained as heretics and gravely punished by the Diocesans of the places, or their officials, or the inquisitors of heretical depravity, etc.” Definition of the Council of Constance, Session 13, On Communion under Both Species, confirmed by Martin V through the Bull In eminentis, 22 February 1418.

“It seems advisable that the Church should establish in a general Council that the laity are to communicate under both species; nor are the Bohemians communicating under both species heretics, but schismatics.” Proposition 16 of the errors of Martin Luther, condemned by Leo X through the Bull Exsurge Domine, 16 May 1520.

“Chapter 1. Laymen and Clerics Not Confecting Are Not Bound by Divine Law to Communion under Both Species.—Therefore the holy Synod itself, instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and piety, and following the judgment and custom of the Church herself, declares and teaches that by no divine precept are the laity and clerics not confecting bound to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species; nor can it be doubted in any way, with faith preserved, that Communion under either species suffices for them unto salvation. For although Christ the Lord instituted this venerable Sacrament under the species of bread and wine at the Last Supper and delivered it to the Apostles, nevertheless that institution and delivery do not tend to this: that all the faithful of Christ are bound by a statute of the Lord to receive both species. Nor is it rightly gathered from that discourse in John 6 that Communion under both species was commanded by the Lord, however it may be understood according to the various interpretations of the Holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you, also said, If anyone shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever. And He who said, He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, also said, The bread which I shall give is My flesh for the life of the world. And finally, He who said, He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him, said nevertheless, He who eats this bread shall live forever.

“Chapter 2. The Power of the Church Concerning the Distribution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.—It furthermore declares that this power has perpetually been in the Church: that, in the distribution of the Sacraments, their substance being preserved, she might establish or change those things which she judged to be more expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the Sacraments themselves, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places. The Apostle, however, seems not obscurely to have intimated this when he says: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. And that he himself used this power is sufficiently established, both in many other things and in this very Sacrament, when, after he had ordained certain things concerning its use, he says: The rest I will set in order when I come. Wherefore, Holy Mother Church, recognizing this authority of hers in the administration of the Sacraments, although from the beginning of the Christian religion the use of both species had not been infrequent, nevertheless, that custom having already been most widely changed in the progress of time, led by grave and just causes, approved this custom of communicating under one species and decreed that it was to be held as law, which it is not lawful to reprove or to change at will without the authority of the Church herself.

“Chapter 3. The Whole and Entire Christ and a True Sacrament Are Received under Either Species.—It furthermore declares that, although our Redeemer, as was said before, instituted this Sacrament under two species at that Last Supper and delivered it to the Apostles, it must nevertheless be confessed that even under either species alone the whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament are received; and that therefore, as regards the fruit, those who receive one species alone are defrauded of no grace necessary for salvation.

“Chapter 4. Little Children Are Not Bound to Sacramental Communion.—Finally, the same holy Synod teaches that little children lacking the use of reason are bound by no necessity to the sacramental Communion of the Eucharist, since, regenerated through the laver of Baptism and incorporated into Christ, they cannot at that age lose the grace of the sons of God already attained. Antiquity, however, is not therefore to be condemned if it at one time observed that custom in certain places. For just as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause for their deed according to the consideration of their time, so certainly it is to be believed without controversy that they did it from no necessity of salvation.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that, by a precept of God or by necessity of salvation, each and all of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that the Holy Catholic Church was not led by just causes and reasons to communicate the laity, and also clerics not confecting, under the species of bread alone, or that she erred in this: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall deny that the whole and entire Christ, the font and author of all graces, is received under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received under both species according to the institution of Christ Himself: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that Eucharistic Communion is necessary for little children before they arrive at the years of discretion: let him be anathema.”—Cf. Session 22, Decree concerning the petition for the concession of the Chalice.

“It has been established by no canonical law that Communion not be administered to children before the twelfth year.... Let Pastors remember that they cannot any longer deny to children whom they find rightly disposed that supersubstantial bread which is the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 March 1851; A. S. S., vol. 22, p. 243.

“Whether the decrees of the Bishop of Annecy—by which the manner of admitting children to First Communion, the time at which this ought to take place, the age of twelve years, etc., were determined—are to be confirmed or invalidated in the case?—Response. In view of the circumstances of places and time, affirmative as to the first part, according to the qualification. The qualification is that the Bishop is not to prohibit Pastors from admitting to First Communion those children concerning whom it is certainly established that they have reached the age of discretion according to the decrees of the Fourth Lateran and Tridentine Councils. The Most Holy One, however, in the audience of 23 July, commanded it to be declared that the words to First Communion are to be understood to the exclusion of First Communion in solemn form.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 21 July 1888.—The Cardinal Prefect transmitted this explanation to the Bishop: “The Pastor can give Holy Communion to a youth whom he believes instructed and who says that he has the discretion to understand what he is doing, but privately, without any solemnity and publicity; but when it concerns administering Holy Communion in a public and solemn form, according to the custom of the churches of France, the episcopal decree must be observed.”

“Those who are habitual sinners, relapsed, heedless of salvation, abandoning the Sacraments for years, etc., when overtaken by illness summon a priest, giving certain signs which are indeed weak and very suspect; which Sacraments must be administered to them absolutely, and which denied, on the supposition of danger of death? What if such a sick person has not yet made his First Communion?

“Response. Let the missionary consult approved authors. Let him nevertheless remember that, at the point of death, any one of the faithful who gives signs of repentance can be absolved by any priest from any sins and censures, and no one is then to be repelled from participation in the Sacraments, namely Extreme Unction if they are ill, and the Most Holy Viaticum, unless, as regards Viaticum, there is opposed the custom by which it is denied to those who will soon be punished with the supreme penalty; concerning that custom, however, nothing is here pronounced.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 9 May 1821; C. 724.

“1. What is to be said of Christians or priests who, because of the faith, are condemned not only to perpetual or temporary imprisonment but also to undergo death by the noose or sword? Can the Most Holy Sacrament be carried to them on the preceding day or on the very day of their execution? And then ought it to be administered to them as Viaticum to the dying, or as ordinary Communion to those in good health?—2. What is to be said of Christians condemned to prison or even to death not because of the faith, but because of true crimes or crimes unjustly imputed to them—as happens not rarely? Can the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist be carried to them when they are attrite and sacramentally absolved, especially if they request it?—Response. To the first: Affirmative, and by way of Viaticum.—To the second: Affirmative, and according to the mind, which is that the Apostolic Vicar should take the greatest care that those condemned to death are refreshed by the heavenly bread.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 July 1841; C. 728.

“15. The error is great of those who approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this: that they have confessed, that they are not conscious to themselves of any mortal sin, and that they have sent their prayers and preparations before them; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will obtain grace there, this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“22. Those are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receive Communion before they have performed a worthy penance for their offenses.—23. Likewise, those in whom there is not yet the most pure love of God, free from every admixture, are to be restrained from Holy Communion.”—Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII. Cf. C. 719, 722.

“To a sick person near death who has been deemed worthy of absolution from sins, Holy Viaticum is also to be conceded.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 26 July 1845.

“Viaticum is not to be administered unless they at least distinguish spiritual food from corporeal food, recognizing and believing the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 10 April 1861.

“38. The command of Trent, made to a priest who sacrifices from necessity while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept.—39. That expression as soon as possible is understood as: when the priest shall confess at his own time.”—Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

“56. Frequent confession and Communion, even in those who live in a pagan manner, is a sign of predestination.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 12 February 1679, approved by Innocent XI.

“Although the frequent or daily use of the Most Holy Eucharist was always approved in the Church by the Holy Fathers, they nevertheless never established certain days in each month or week for receiving it or abstaining from it more often; neither did the Council of Trent prescribe them, but, as though taking human infirmity into consideration, commanding nothing, it merely indicated what it desired when it said: The Holy Synod would indeed desire that at each Mass the faithful present should communicate by the sacramental reception of the Eucharist. And not without reason: for the recesses of consciences are manifold, the distractions of spirit on account of business are various; on the other hand, many graces and gifts of God are granted to little ones. Since we cannot scrutinize these things with human eyes, certainly nothing can be established concerning the worthiness or integrity of each person, and consequently concerning the more frequent or daily eating of the living bread. Therefore, as regards businessmen themselves, frequent approach to receiving the sacred nourishment is to be left to the judgment of confessors who explore the secrets of the heart. From the purity of consciences, the fruit of frequency, and progress in piety, they must prescribe to lay businessmen and married persons that which they foresee will benefit their salvation. In married persons they shall take further notice of this: since the Blessed Apostle wills that they not defraud one another except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer, let them seriously admonish them that, all the more from reverence for the Most Holy Eucharist, they are to give themselves to continence and are to come to Communion at the heavenly banquet with a purer mind.

“Therefore, the diligence of Pastors will especially be watchful in this matter—not that some be deterred from the frequent or daily reception of Holy Communion by one formula of precept, or that days for receiving be generally established, but rather that they judge, either by themselves or through Pastors or confessors, what is to be permitted to each. And let them wholly provide that no one, whether he approaches frequently or daily, be repelled from the sacred banquet; and nevertheless let them take care that each person, worthily and according to the measure of his devotion and preparation, taste more rarely or more frequently the sweetness of the Lord’s Body.

“Likewise, nuns who petition daily Holy Communion are to be admonished that they communicate on the days established by the institution of their order; but if some shine with purity of mind and have become so ardent with fervor of spirit that they can be seen to be worthy of a more frequent or daily reception of the Most Holy Sacrament, let this be permitted to them by their superiors. It will also be profitable, besides the diligence of Pastors and confessors, to employ the work of preachers and to have it established with them that, when the faithful have approached the frequent reception of the Most Holy Sacrament—as they ought to do—they should immediately give a discourse concerning the great preparation for receiving it, and in general should show that those who are aroused by devout zeal to a more frequent or daily reception of the salutary food, whether lay businessmen, married persons, or any others, ought to recognize their infirmity, so that from the dignity of the Sacrament and fear of the divine judgment they may learn to revere the heavenly table at which Christ is present; and if at any time they perceive themselves to be less prepared, they are to abstain from it and gird themselves for greater preparation. Bishops, however, in whose dioceses devotion of this kind toward the Most Holy Sacrament flourishes, shall give thanks to God for it, and they themselves ought to foster it with the moderation of prudence and judgment employed. They shall be thoroughly persuaded that their office demands that no labor or diligence be spared, so that every suspicion of irreverence or scandal in the reception of the true and immaculate Lamb may be removed and virtues and gifts may be increased in those receiving. This will abundantly happen if those who, by the assistance of divine grace, are held by a devout zeal of this kind and desire to be refreshed more frequently by the Most Sacred Bread accustom themselves to examine their powers and to prove themselves with fear and charity.... Furthermore, let Bishops and Pastors or confessors reprove those who assert that daily Communion is of divine law.... Let them not permit confession of venial sins to be made to a simple priest not approved by the Bishop or Ordinary.”

Cf. On the Sixth Precept of the Church, no. 1571.

“Although the fast seems to be broken by the salt tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, there is nevertheless still no doubt that after receiving Baptism they can, indeed ought, be admitted to Holy Communion. Thus the Church wholly prescribes in the Roman Ritual, where it hands down the rite by which Baptism is to be conferred upon adults; for it is within her power to dispense in particular cases from the general law of the Eucharistic fast, introduced by her own authority for those who desire to receive Holy Communion outside danger of death.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 13 February 1806.

“Whether, for reason of scandal or wonder, it can ever be permitted to celebrate a second Mass after the first when the fast has already been broken.—Response. Negative.” Holy Office, 2 December 1874; C. 793.

“5. It is not founded in the Gospel that Christ ordained the Mass.” Proposition of John Wyclif condemned by the Council of Constance.

“45. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrifice in no other sense than that general one by which every work that is done so that man may adhere to God in holy fellowship is a sacrifice.” Proposition of Michael Baius condemned by St. Pius V.

“I profess that in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice is offered to God for the living and the dead.” Tridentine Profession of Faith. The same is contained in the same words in the Profession of Faith for Easterners prescribed by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

“Chapter 1. On the Institution of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.—Since under the former testament, as the Apostle Paul testifies, there was no consummation because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood, it was necessary, God the Father of mercies so ordaining, that another Priest according to the order of Melchizedek should arise, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who could consummate and bring to perfection all, however many, who were to be sanctified. Therefore, although He, our God and Lord, was once to offer Himself upon the altar of the Cross to God the Father, death intervening, so that He might there work eternal redemption, nevertheless, because His priesthood was not to be extinguished by death, at the Last Supper, on the night in which He was betrayed, in order that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible Sacrifice, as the nature of men requires, by which that bloody Sacrifice once to be accomplished upon the Cross might be represented, and its memory might remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary power might be applied for the remission of those sins which are daily committed by us—declaring Himself constituted a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek—He offered His Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father; and under the symbols of the same things He delivered them to the Apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament, that they might receive them; and by these words, Do this in commemoration of Me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer them, as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, after celebrating the old Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed in memory of the departure from Egypt, He instituted the new Passover: Himself to be immolated by the Church through priests under visible signs, in memory of His passage from this world to the Father, when by the shedding of His Blood He redeemed us, rescued us from the power of darkness, and transferred us into His kingdom. And this indeed is that clean oblation which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those offering; which the Lord foretold through Malachi would be offered clean in every place to His name, which was to be great among the nations; and which the Apostle Paul not obscurely indicates when, writing to the Corinthians, he says that those who have been defiled by participation in the table of demons cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, understanding by ‘table’ the altar in both places. Finally, this is that oblation which was prefigured by the various similitudes of sacrifices in the time of nature and of the Law, since it comprises all the good things signified by them, as the consummation and perfection of them all.

“Chapter 2. The Visible Sacrifice Is Propitiatory for the Living and the Dead.—And since in this divine Sacrifice which is performed in the Mass the same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered Himself in a bloody manner upon the altar of the Cross, the holy Synod teaches that this Sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that through it this comes to pass: that, if we approach God with a true heart and right faith, with fear and reverence, contrite and penitent, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For the Lord, appeased by its oblation and granting grace and the gift of penance, remits crimes and sins, even enormous ones. For the Victim is one and the same, the same now offering through the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner of offering alone being different. Indeed, the fruits of that bloody oblation are received most abundantly through this unbloody one; so far is it from derogating in any way from that one. Wherefore it is rightly offered not only for the sins, penalties, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful living, but also for those deceased in Christ who are not yet fully purified, according to the tradition of the Apostles.

“Chapter 3. On Masses in Honor of the Saints.—And although the Church has sometimes been accustomed to celebrate certain Masses in honor and memory of the Saints, she nevertheless does not teach that Sacrifice is offered to them, but to God alone, who crowned them. Hence the priest is not accustomed to say: ‘I offer Sacrifice to you, Peter or Paul,’ but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, so that those whose memory we celebrate on earth may deign to intercede for us in heaven.

“Chapter 4. On the Canon of the Mass.—And since it is fitting that holy things be administered holily, and since this is the holiest Sacrifice of all, the Catholic Church, so that it might be offered and received worthily and reverently, instituted the Sacred Canon many centuries ago, so pure from every error that nothing is contained in it which does not especially savor of holiness and a certain piety and raise the minds of those offering to God. For it consists both of the very words of the Lord and of the traditions of the Apostles and also of the pious institutions of holy Pontiffs.

“Chapter 5. On the Solemn Ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.—And since the nature of men is such that it cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things without external helps, Holy Mother Church has therefore instituted certain rites: namely, that some things in the Mass be pronounced in a low voice and others in a louder voice. She has likewise employed ceremonies such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind from Apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a Sacrifice might be commended and the minds of the faithful might be excited by these visible signs of religion and piety to the contemplation of the most sublime things which lie hidden in this Sacrifice.

“Chapter 6. On the Mass in Which the Priest Alone Communicates.—The Holy Synod would indeed desire that at each Mass the faithful present communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, so that a more abundant fruit of this Most Holy Sacrifice might come to them. Nevertheless, if this is not always done, it does not on that account condemn as private and unlawful those Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, but approves and even commends them, since those Masses also ought to be regarded as truly common: partly because in them the people communicate spiritually, and partly because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church not only for himself but for all the faithful who pertain to the Body of Christ.

“Chapter 7. On Mixing Water with the Wine to Be Offered in the Chalice.—The holy Synod next admonishes that it was commanded by the Church that priests mix water with the wine to be offered in the chalice, both because Christ the Lord is believed to have done so and because water together with blood came forth from His side, a Sacrament which is recalled by this mixture; and since waters in the Apocalypse of Blessed John are called peoples, the union of the faithful people with Christ their Head is represented.

“Chapter 8. On Not Celebrating Mass Everywhere in the Vernacular Language and on Explaining Its Mysteries to the People.—Although the Mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, it nevertheless did not seem expedient to the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular language. Wherefore, with the ancient rite of each Church retained everywhere, a rite approved by the Holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all Churches, the holy Synod, lest the sheep of Christ hunger and the little ones ask for bread and there be no one to break it for them, commands Pastors and each of those bearing the care of souls that, frequently during the celebration of Masses, either by themselves or through others, they expound something from those things which are read in the Mass, and that among other things they explain some mystery of this Most Holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and feast days.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that in the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice is not offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing other than Christ being given to us to eat: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that by those words, Do this in commemoration of Me, Christ did not institute the Apostles as priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His Body and Blood: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice accomplished on the Cross, but not propitiatory; or that it profits only the one receiving; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, penalties, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that blasphemy is inflicted upon the Most Holy Sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the Cross through the Sacrifice of the Mass, or that by it there is derogation from the former: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say that it is an imposture to celebrate Masses in honor of the Saints and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that the Canon of the Mass contains errors and therefore is to be abrogated: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that the ceremonies, vestments, and external signs which the Catholic Church employs in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety rather than duties of piety: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are unlawful and therefore to be abrogated: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall say that the rite of the Roman Church by which a part of the Canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low voice is to be condemned; or that water is not to be mixed with the wine to be offered in the chalice because this is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.”

Benedict XIV, Constitution Ex quo, 1 March 1756, speaking of the discipline of Easterners who make commemoration of the king in the Sacred Liturgy even though he is an unbeliever, has the following: “But if someone were to ask by what reason this can be tolerated where it is certainly established that those kings for whom they pray and whom they commemorate in the Liturgy are unbelievers, the Venerable Cardinal Bellarmine would respond to him—as in fact he did respond—that it is in no way forbidden by the nature of the matter, as theologians say, to pray in the Mass even for unbelievers, since the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered for all. And indeed St. Thomas, in book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 12, question 2, article 2, little question 2, response to 4, teaches that, although St. Augustine wrote in the book On the Origin of the Soul that the Sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, this opinion must nevertheless be understood so that it embraces all who either are already members of Christ or can become such. Wherefore the same Cardinal adds that the whole matter is to be measured by the prohibition of the Church: ‘It is certain from the nature of the matter, if there is no prohibition of the Church, that it is lawful to offer for persons of this kind’; he is speaking of unbelievers. And since a prohibition of this kind exists as regards excommunicated persons, and hence as regards heretics and schismatics, but not as regards unbelievers, who are not bound by excommunication, he says that this is sufficient so that commemoration of them can be made in the Mass and even the Sacrifice offered for them according to the manifest tradition concerning this matter and the Apostolic constitution. But someone will ask whether, if the king is an unbeliever, as in Greece where the Turk rules, and in India and Japan and among the Chinese where pagans reign, it is lawful for the priests who are there expressly to offer for the king. I respond: I judge it lawful, provided that the king is not excommunicated, as heretical kings are, but is pagan or heathen. For this tradition, and even constitution, is Apostolic, as we showed a little above. Nor does there exist, so far as I know, any manifest prohibition of the Church. To these things the text of Tertullian, To Scapula, chapter 2, occurs as not unprofitably to be added, where it is thus read: ‘We sacrifice for the safety of the Emperor, but to our God and his, and as God has commanded, with pure prayer; for God, the founder of the universe, has no need of anyone’s honor or blood.’ But leaving assertions of this kind in their own probability, etc.”

“But if the truly penitent depart in charity before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for things committed and omitted, their souls are purified after death by the punishments of Purgatory ... and for relieving punishments of this kind the suffrages of the living faithful profit them, namely the Sacrifices of Masses, prayers, almsgiving, and other offices of piety which, according to the institutions of the Church, the faithful have been accustomed to perform for other faithful.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus. The same is defined in the same words in the Council of Florence, Decree of Union, in the Bull of Eugene IV, Laetentur coeli.

“In the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ... nothing greater is accomplished by a good priest nor less by a bad priest, because it is effected not by the merit of the one consecrating but by the word of the Creator and in the power of the Holy Spirit.” Profession of faith prescribed to the Waldensians.

“1. Is it lawful for priests to use black vestments and celebrate a Requiem Mass in order to satisfy an obligation which they undertook to celebrate according to the intention of the person giving the alms, when they are wholly ignorant of what his intention is, whether for the dead or not? 2. Is it lawful for priests to use black vestments and celebrate a Requiem Mass in order to satisfy an obligation which they undertook to celebrate for the living?—Response. To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Affirmative, provided that the person who gave the alms did not prescribe otherwise.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 13 October 1856.

“Must a priest celebrating Mass while performing funeral rites, without having received a stipend, apply it for the deceased himself, or can he apply the Sacrifice for others who petition and offer alms?—Response. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 27 April 1895; M. E., vol. 9, part 1, p. 73.

“30. The doctrine of the Synod, which, while professing that it believes the oblation of the Sacrifice extends to all, yet in such a way that a special commemoration of some, both living and dead, can be made in the Liturgy by praying to God particularly for them, then immediately subjoins: ‘Not, however, because we believe that it is within the judgment of the priest to apply the fruits of the Sacrifice to whomever he wishes; indeed, we condemn this error as greatly offending the rights of God, who alone distributes the fruits of the Sacrifice to whom He wills and according to the measure which pleases Him.’ Hence it also consequently disparages as a false opinion introduced among the people that those who supply alms to a priest under the condition that he celebrate one Mass receive a special fruit from it; understood thus: that, besides the particular commemoration and prayer, the special oblation itself, or application of the Sacrifice, which is made by the priest, profits—other things being equal—those for whom it is applied no more than any others, as though no special fruit arose from the special application which the Church commends and commands to be made for determinate persons or classes of persons, especially by Pastors for their sheep; and this is expressly stated by the Holy Synod of Trent as descending, as it were, from a divine precept, Session 23, chapter 1, On Reformation; Benedict XIV, Constitution Cum semper oblatas, section 2. False, rash, pernicious, injurious to the Church, inducing into an error otherwise condemned in Wyclif.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“19. Special prayers applied to one person by prelates or religious profit that person no more than general prayers, other things being equal.” Article of John Wyclif condemned by the Council of Constance.

“8. A priest can lawfully accept a doubled stipend for the same Mass by applying to the petitioner even the most special part of the fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself, and this after the decree of Urban VIII.”—“10. It is not contrary to justice to accept a stipend for several Sacrifices and to offer one Sacrifice. Nor is it contrary to fidelity, even if I promise, by a promise confirmed even by oath, to the person giving the stipend that I shall offer for no other.” Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

“1. Can priests who are obliged by reason of a benefice, chaplaincy, legacy, or stipend to celebrate Mass daily by themselves sometimes cease from celebration? 2. When and how often can they cease from the said celebration? 3. On days of lawful cessation, can they celebrate Mass for themselves or for others besides the founders; and insofar as affirmative, 4. Can they, when celebrating for others, receive a stipend for a celebration of this kind? 5. On those days on which they lawfully cease from celebration, are they bound to have Mass celebrated by others according to the intention of the founders? 6. Can priests bound as above to celebrate Mass daily, but without the burden of celebrating by themselves, sometimes cease from celebration?

“Response. To the first and second: Affirmative, when some reasonable cause concurs.—To the third, fourth, and sixth: Negative. As to the fifth, it deferred the resolution.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 18 September 1683. And on 13 November 1683, it responded as regards the fifth doubt “that a resolution will be given in particular cases.” Cf. A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 179; Benedict XIV, Notification 56.

“Since several benefices have from their foundation the burden of applying Mass on all feast days, the doubt arises whether individual beneficiaries are bound to this even on feasts hitherto suppressed by the Apostolic See.—Response. According to resolutions issued elsewhere in similar matters, they are bound.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 December 1856.

Does the obligation exist of celebrating Mass in a particular church or at an altar, imposed only for feast days of precept, also on those days which, though days of precept at the time of the founder, were afterward suppressed?—Response. Negative, if namely that obligation was imposed only for the greater convenience of the people. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 1 March 1872. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 276.

Cf. no. 213.

“54. Likewise, it marks as a shameful abuse ever to claim alms for celebrating Masses and administering Sacraments, as also to receive any revenue called stole-right, and in general any stipend and honorarium whatsoever which is offered on the occasion of suffrages or of any parochial function—as though the ministers of the Church who, according to the received and approved custom and institution of the Church, use the right promulgated by the Apostle of receiving temporal things from those to whom spiritual things are ministered were to be marked with the charge of a shameful abuse. False, rash, injurious to ecclesiastical and pastoral right, insulting to the Church and her ministers.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

By the Constitution Nuper of Innocent XII, 25 December 1697, it is forbidden to undertake new burdens of Masses unless those already undertaken can be satisfied within a short time, or, if this cannot be done, unless the donors know and consent. The Sacred Congregation of the Council on 17 July 1655 defined a short time as one month. Hence, lest Mass stipends be accumulated excessively, several prescriptions are made in the same Constitution. Among other things, rectors of churches and superiors of regulars are commanded that a table describing in clear and intelligible letters the perpetual and temporary burdens be kept in a more open and conspicuous place. Likewise, they are to keep two books and note in the one the individual perpetual and temporary burdens, and in the other the manual Masses and their fulfillment, and they are to render an account to their prelates each year. Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 12, chapter 7, nos. 4-5; La-Croix, nos. 68, 98, 100, 106, 110, 111. Cf. M. E., vol. 5, part 2, p. 17; vol. 8, part 2, p. 25; C. 866.

“9. After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are entrusted can satisfy through another, a smaller stipend having been conferred upon him and another part of the stipend retained for himself.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

In benefices which are conferred as a title, the beneficiary is not bound to give a stipend in proportion to the revenues of the benefice; “but it is sufficient that the rector of the benefice, who can celebrate through another, give to the priest celebrating a fitting alms according to the custom of the city or province, unless something else was provided in the foundation of the benefice itself.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, approved by Urban VIII, Constitution Cum saepe, 21 June 1625. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 4, p. 39 ff., 537 ff.; C. 867.

“It is lawful for a removable chaplain to retain part of the stipend, provided that certain revenues have been established annually for the chaplaincy; but otherwise if a certain alms is given to a chaplain of this kind for each Mass to be celebrated.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 March 1745.

“Chaplains who are legitimately impeded on some day of any week and who satisfy the celebration of Masses through another priest are not bound to pay this priest the stipend established for the chaplains, but only a manual alms.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 14 April 1725.

“The entire alms is to be paid by a Pastor in manual Masses, unless it is established with moral certainty that the excess over the common alms was offered in view of the Pastor himself.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 25 July 1874. Cf. M. E., vol. 6, part 1, p. 169 ff.

A testator left 500 scudi to Church N., so that from the revenues each year as many Masses as could be celebrated would be celebrated, with alms of three libellae given for each. It is asked: Could the aforesaid church give one libella to the celebrant, retaining the other two for itself? The response was: “Only the customary alms is owed to the priest celebrating; the remainder, however, falls to the benefit of the church.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 3 August 1638; A. S. S., vol. 4, p. 41.

Catherine de Saccharo imposed upon her heirs the celebration in perpetuity of as many annual Masses, at an alms of three libellae for each, as could be celebrated from the fruits of the inheritance. A part of this inheritance fell to a seminary, which asked the Sacred Congregation whether it could give one libella for each Mass.—The response was affirmative. 18 July 1690. Cf. M. E., vol. 1, p. 479 ff.

“Can a Bishop reduce burdens of Masses not yet accepted without the good pleasure of the Apostolic See or of this Sacred Congregation whenever, because of the smallness of the legacy, he judges the reduction to be necessary from the fact that the pious place refuses to accept the legacy unless the burden is diminished?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 June 1682. Cf. the Decrees of the same Sacred Congregation issued by authority of Urban VIII, 21 June 1625 and 23 November 1697; Constitution Nuper of Innocent XII; La-Croix, no. 63 ff.; L. 331; On Privileges, no. 70; Lucidi, On Visitation, chapter 7, section 1, no. 78; Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 13, final chapter, no. 18; C. 866.

“Is it to be permitted to administrators of churches to retain some portion of the alms for the expenses of maintaining the church, altars, servers, vestments, lights, wine, hosts, and similar things?” The Sacred Congregation of the Council, by a decree approved by Urban VIII on 21 July 1625 and confirmed by Innocent XII on 23 November 1697, responded: “It is not to be permitted that churches and pious places, or their administrators, retain any portion, however small, from the alms for Masses to be celebrated by reason of the expenses which they undergo in the celebration of Masses, unless the churches and pious places have no other revenues which they can lawfully expend for the use of the same expenses. And then the portion which they retain ought in no way to exceed the value of the expenses which must necessarily be undergone only for the Sacrifice of the Mass itself. Nevertheless, even in that case care is to be taken that, from the monies which remain after the expenses have been deducted as above, absolutely as many Masses are celebrated as were prescribed by those offering the alms.” The aforesaid prohibition regards manual Masses, but by no means legacies and other perpetual foundations, from which it will be lawful to deduct the assessment for requisites, as the same Sacred Congregation of the Council has resolved several times in particular cases. A. S. S., vol. 21, p. 301 ff.; M. E., vol. 5, part 2, p. 147. Likewise, the same Sacred Congregation of the Council on 7 July 1726 established: “The Archpriest is not bound to supply the requisites in question—wine and hosts—to those who celebrate in his church from an obligation of benefice or chaplaincy, except those with whom he has particular agreements. But as regards occasional Masses, he is bound to the said supply insofar as he permits them to be celebrated in his church; nor is he bound to admit these occasional Masses unless the requisites are paid for by the celebrants.” A. S. S., vol. 12, p. 234 ff.; vol. 21, p. 301 ff.; Decree 96, response to 3.

“...They set forth: The Brief Quanta cura of 30 June 1741 had come to their notice.... Since in those regions of Holland under the yoke of heretics or unbelievers there are no ecclesiastical benefices or certain revenues for the support of life, ample Mass stipends and alms are customarily given by the pious faithful to Catholic Pastors and missionaries for the celebration of those Masses, so that from these stipends and alms they may receive support in default, as above, of benefices or certain ecclesiastical revenues. Sometimes, however, the same stipends and alms are given by reason of particular affection or gratitude toward those missionaries and Pastors, but not without regard to the aforesaid support. Many times also, especially at funerals, anniversaries, and greater feasts, the aforesaid Mass stipends and alms are given by way of one honorarium which the faithful from pious devotion are accustomed to confer on the occasion of the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion. Since these things are so, the Pastors and missionaries had no scruple about retaining for themselves part of the stipends and alms and entrusting the Masses to other needy priests who assist under the name of chaplains or coadjutors and take the place of those same missionaries and Pastors when they are absent or impeded by illness and in other similar necessities. But if the missionaries and Pastors were hereafter bound to hand over the whole alms received for the celebration of Masses to the substitute priest who offers the Sacrifice, either the missionaries themselves would be deprived of fitting support or, if they could not give part and a portion of the said stipend or alms to the priest celebrating—especially for the chaplains and coadjutors necessary as above—assistance of this kind would be lacking in those regions in which certain revenues and benefices for the support of the ministers of the Church are lacking.

“Therefore, these and other particular circumstances having been diligently considered, they most humbly supplicate Your Holiness for an opportune declaration.

“Response. Our Most Holy Lord Pope Benedict XIV benignly declared by an oracle of the living voice that the aforesaid cases are not comprehended in the prohibition contained in the above-mentioned Brief; and he further commanded that this declaration of his mind be signified through the office of the Sacred Penitentiary to the aforesaid petitioners and to others whom it shall concern....” Sacred Penitentiary, 6 April 1742.

“If the person giving the alms did not prescribe the number of Masses to be celebrated, then as many Masses must be celebrated as the Ordinary shall prescribe according to the custom of the city or province.” Innocent XII, Constitution Nuper; La-Croix, no. 90.

“The editor of a certain religious periodical asks the Sacred Penitentiary whether he can with a safe conscience give his periodical to priests on this condition: that they celebrate a number of Masses corresponding to the price which is paid by others for the periodical?—Response. Affirmative, provided that the Masses are celebrated.” Sacred Penitentiary, 6 October 1862. “1. Can a priest, under the pretext of distributing religious books, with a safe conscience buy them and afterward sell them at the current price among booksellers, so that he gains twenty, thirty, or forty percent? 2. Can he accept Mass stipends for books sold and offer to the buyer, without payment, books proportionate to the profit received? 3. Can the same priest sell the aforesaid books to other priests lacking Mass stipends, with the obligation of celebrating Masses corresponding to the price of these books, so that he himself obtains a profit of thirty, forty, or fifty percent?—Response. Every kind of business or commerce relative to Masses to be celebrated is prohibited to priests by canon law, and especially by the Constitution Apostolicae servitutis of Benedict XIV. But if any doubt remains for the aforesaid priest, let him set it forth to the Sacred Penitentiary.” Sacred Penitentiary, 19 November 1863.

“1. Does the manner of acting of those booksellers or merchants savor of shameful commerce, and therefore is it to be disapproved and, if necessary, restrained by the Bishops even with ecclesiastical penalties, who by employing public invitations and premiums, or in any other manner whatsoever, collect Mass alms and repay the priests to whom they entrust the celebration of them not with money but with books or other wares?

“2. Can this manner of acting therefore be rendered honorable, either because, without any diminution being made, as many Masses are entrusted for celebration by the aforesaid collectors as correspond to the alms collected, or because through it assistance is given to poor priests who lack Mass alms?

“3. Are collections and distributions of alms of this kind even then to be disapproved and restrained by the Bishops, as above, when the profit which is drawn from the exchange of wares for alms is spent not for the private advantage of those collecting, but for the use or increase of pious institutions and good works?

“4. Do those participate in shameful commerce, and therefore are they to be disapproved and even restrained as above, who hand over to booksellers, merchants, and other collectors the Mass alms received from the faithful or from pious places, whether or not they receive anything from the same persons by way of a reward?

“5. Do those participate in shameful commerce, and therefore are they to be disapproved as above, who receive from the said booksellers and merchants, for Masses to be celebrated, books or other wares at either a reduced or the full price?

“6. Do those act unlawfully who, for Masses celebrated, receive in place of a stipend books or other wares, every kind of business or shameful profit having been excluded?

“7. Is it lawful for Bishops, without special permission of the Holy See, to deduct something from the Mass alms which the faithful are accustomed to give to more celebrated shrines, so that provision may be made for their decor and ornament, especially when they lack revenues of their own?

“8. Whether and what is to be done by Bishops lest more Mass alms be accumulated at the same shrines than can be discharged there within the prescribed or short time?

“9. Whether and what is to be done by Bishops so that the Masses entrusted for celebration by the faithful, whether to individual priests or to churches and pious places, may be accurately and faithfully discharged?

“Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Negative.—To the third: Affirmative.—To the fourth: Affirmative.—To the fifth: Affirmative.—To the sixth: Negative.—To the seventh: Negative, unless with the consent of the donors.—To the eighth and the ninth: The Apostolic Constitutions and Decrees previously issued are to be followed.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 25 July 1874.

V. “Whether and in what manner the decree of the Bishop of Caltanissetta is to be upheld, which absolutely prohibits the priests of his diocese from receiving books or religious periodicals for Masses to be celebrated, in the case?”

Moreover, the aforesaid Bishop had asked the following concerning that prohibition, which he had established more strictly:

“1. Do those act unlawfully who are not booksellers, merchants, or otherwise seekers of Masses to be celebrated, but ecclesiastical men to whom Mass alms are voluntarily handed over by the faithful, and who offer those Masses for celebration to priests in order to disseminate good books or religious periodicals, so that the latter may thereby receive books or periodicals in place of a stipend?

“2. Do priests of this kind act unlawfully who either accept the Masses offered to them by the above-mentioned ecclesiastics, or themselves request them for celebration, so that they may thereby accept or request books or periodicals in place of the stipend for Masses already celebrated, when they otherwise know or persuade themselves that they would not obtain the same Masses to be celebrated for an actual alms?”

VI. “Whether and in what manner the directors or administrators of religious periodicals are to be disapproved who entrust Masses to priests for celebration, retaining from their alms a price corresponding to the periodicals themselves, in the case?”

The Sacred Congregation of the Council, on 24 April 1875, responded: “To V, the doubt having been reformulated: Whether and in what manner an answer is to be given to the Bishop of Caltanissetta in the case? Negative in all respects to both.”

“To VI. Negative, provided that nothing is taken away from the will of the founders or donors concerning the amount of the stipend and the place and time of the celebration of the Masses; every deliberate collection of Masses being excluded; and the person to whom it pertains by right being informed of the completed celebration of the Masses; after a report was made to the Holy Father.” Cf. A. S. S., vol. 8, p. 653.

“With vigilant zeal this Sacred Congregation has continually applied itself to removing and uprooting abuses concerning the celebration of Masses, and it has issued many decrees by which it willed that every damnable profit in this matter be removed, and commanded that the pious wills of testators and the faith pledged to benefactors be observed exactly and guarded religiously.

“Therefore, to restrain the depraved license of certain persons who used Masses in order more easily to exchange periodicals, books, and other merchandise with the clergy, it established several provisions and, with Pope Pius IX of happy memory approving, took care that they be published and made known to Ordinaries, so that they might be observed by all. For, among other things, the following doubts were proposed:

“1. Whether it savors of shameful commerce, etc. (These are doubts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 reported above, together with their respective responses.)

“But since in these most recent years it has become evident that salutary provisions of this kind have rather frequently been neglected through ignorance or malice, and that abuses in this matter have grown exceedingly strong and widespread, the Most Eminent Fathers of the Sacred Congregation, the interpreters and defenders of the Council of Trent, after all matters had been maturely considered in two general assemblies, judged it to be their duty once again to recall before all both the decree made long ago and its complete observance, and furthermore to strengthen it with an opportune sanction.

“Accordingly, by the present Decree they establish that henceforth, if anyone of the priestly order shall have offended against the decrees set forth, he shall be subject to suspension a divinis, reserved to the Holy See and incurred by the fact itself; a cleric not yet initiated into the priesthood, however, shall likewise be subject to the same suspension with respect to the orders he has received and, furthermore, shall become incapable of receiving higher orders; finally, lay persons shall be bound by a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to Bishops.

“Furthermore, since experience has taught that the evils which are deplored take their origin and strength chiefly from the fact that a greater number of Masses is gathered into the hands of certain private persons than just necessity demands, the same Most Eminent Fathers, adhering to the provisions previously issued by the Roman Pontiffs, and especially by Urban VIII and Innocent XII in the Constitution Cum saepe contingat, decree and command under a grave precept of obedience that henceforth each and every beneficed cleric and administrator of pious causes everywhere, or anyone bound in any manner whatsoever to fulfill burdens of Masses, whether ecclesiastics or lay persons, shall at the end of each year hand over to their own Ordinaries, according to the manner to be defined by them, the burdens of Masses which remain and which they have not yet discharged. The Ordinaries, however, shall first distribute the Mass intentions received, together with the attached stipend, among the priests subject to them whom they know to be in need of them; they shall then commit the others either to the Holy See or to other Ordinaries, or even, if they wish, to priests of other dioceses, provided these are known to them and above every exception, and issue legitimate documents within an appointed and suitable time by which exact satisfaction is established.

“Finally, all indults and privileges hitherto granted which are in any way contrary to the provisions of the present Decree having been revoked, the Sacred Congregation commits to the care and office of each Ordinary that they diligently make the present Decree known to all ecclesiastics subject to their jurisdiction and to others whom the foregoing prescriptions concern, lest anyone hereafter be able to allege ignorance or in any manner excuse himself from observance of this Decree; and furthermore that, whether in sacred visitation or outside it, they vigilantly watch lest abuses in this matter grow up again.

“A report concerning all these matters having been made to Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII through the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation, His Holiness ratified and confirmed this Decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and commanded it to be published, all things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Given at Rome, 25 May 1893.”

“A priest celebrating at a privileged altar, by reading a Mass of a semidouble or simple feast, a votive Mass, or the Mass of a feria which is not privileged, whether by reason of exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, the Station of the church, or another solemnity, enjoys the privilege as though he were reading a Requiem Mass permitted on that day by the Rubrics.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 11 April 1864, for the City and the World.

A priest having a personal privilege of a privileged altar satisfies an obligation he has undertaken to celebrate at a privileged altar, even though he celebrates at an altar which is not privileged. Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 16 February 1852.

“One who for any reason whatsoever does not gain the indulgence of a privileged altar cannot satisfy the obligation by applying another plenary indulgence to the deceased for whom he ought to have celebrated at a privileged altar.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 2 May 1852. Nevertheless, “one who on permitted days did not celebrate in vestments of black color at a privileged altar in order to acquire the plenary indulgence must gain a plenary indulgence for those deceased to whom he applied the fruit of the Mass, as many times as, on days not impeded, he did not use vestments of black color.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 22 February 1847. This decree is not opposed to the preceding one. For in this latter decree, “only to the priests on whose behalf inquiry was made concerning the manner in which they ought to compensate for the indulgence of the privileged altar which they were obliged to apply, and which, erring in good faith, they had not gained, did the Sacred Congregation grant that compensation be made by the application of another plenary indulgence as many times as they had not gained that of the privileged altar.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 24 July 1885; A. S. S., vol. 18, p. 94.

“The Sacred Congregation, so that the Rubrics of the Missal may be observed inviolably, strictly commands each and every priest ... that they in no way dare or presume to celebrate private Masses for the deceased, or Requiem Masses, on doubles. But if, according to the prescription of benefactors, Masses of this kind to be celebrated fall upon a double feast, then they are by no means to be transferred to another unimpeded day, lest delay be detrimental to the souls awaiting suffrages; rather, they are to be said of the occurring feast, with application of the Sacrifice according to the intention of those benefactors.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 August 1662, Decree.

“Whether a priest satisfies an obligation of celebrating Mass for a deceased person by observing the rite of the feria or of any Saint whatsoever, even if it is not a semidouble or double.—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 2 April 1840.

On Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, apart from the solemn Mass, it is not lawful to celebrate another. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 December 1654, Florence. Nor can a low Mass be celebrated in those churches in which the remaining functions are not performed. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1839, Third Order of St. Francis, response to 1.

A private or solemn Mass cannot be celebrated in a church in which the Most Holy Sacrament is neither reposed nor reserved at some altar or in another fitting place, commonly called il Sepolcro. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 March 1775, for the City, etc. A regular superior can celebrate Mass in a private oratory or, if that is lacking, in the church with the doors closed, so that he may communicate his subjects for the Paschal precept, provided that the customary functions of Holy Week are not performed among them. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1839, Third Order of St. Francis, response to 2.

“Is the custom prevailing in certain parishes, especially rural ones, to be tolerated, according to which the Pastor celebrates a low Mass on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper even though, because of a lack of clerics, the other functions of the Church prescribed for that feria and the following one cannot be performed?

“Response. Affirmative, and according to the mind. The mind is that, with regard to parishes in which at least three or four clerics can be had, the local Ordinaries should take care that the sacred functions be performed on Thursday and Friday and Saturday of Holy Week, according to the form of the small Ritual issued by command of Benedict XIII of holy memory in the year 1724; but with regard to other parishes which are destitute of clerics, they may grant, for the convenience of the people, that the Pastors, permission having been sought each year, may celebrate a low Mass on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper before the conventual Mass begins in the Cathedral or Mother Church. His Holiness approved and confirmed the response of the Sacred Congregation.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 July 1821, Resolution of Doubts, response to 1.

“The ancient custom of the Communion of the clergy in the solemn Mass of that day (Thursday of the Lord’s Supper), on which the Church recalls with the highest religious reverence the institution and memory of the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, hitherto observed, is in no way to be omitted.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 September 1716, General Decree; 23 September 1837, Modena, response to 1.

Private Masses are prohibited on Holy Saturday according to the ancient practice and doctrine of the Church. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 April 1692, Siena; 28 July 1821, Resolution of Doubts, response to 3.

“Whether the custom at Milan of reading Mass both on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper and on Holy Saturday in parish or subsidiary churches may be permitted?—Response. In view of the Rubrics of the Ambrosian Missal and the Memorial of Rites issued by Pope Benedict XIII on account of a lack of clergy, a low Mass could be permitted in the case in smaller churches.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 July 1902.

“The rite of offering a threefold Sacrifice by each priest on the birthday of Christ is most ancient and universally received in the Latin Church; but no trace of the aforesaid rite exists in the Eastern Church.” Benedict XIV, Constitution Allatae sunt, 25 March 1755.

“Is it lawful on the night of the Nativity, after the first Mass has been sung, immediately to celebrate the other two and to communicate the faithful?—Response. It is in no way lawful, but is altogether to be prohibited.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 April 1641, Pesaro; 7 December and 23 March 1686, Three Masses, etc.

“On the night of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is it lawful for any priest to celebrate a private Mass before dawn without an indult of the Apostolic See, in the case? And, insofar as the response is negative, is the contrary practice, where it might wish to be introduced or had already been introduced, to be declared an abuse and directly opposed to the laws of the Church, so that it is to be cut off by the Bishop?—Response. To the first: It is not lawful.—To the second: The contrary custom is an abuse, and the Bishop is to take care that it be cut off.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 September 1781, Arezzo.

“On the day of the Nativity of the Lord, can this priest celebrate three Masses of the Blessed Virgin?” namely, a priest “to whom, by reason of infirmity or another reasonable cause, the power of celebrating a votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin was granted by the Holy See.—Response. Negative, according to other decrees.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 April 1866, Nola, response to 6.

“Can a priest celebrate only two Masses on the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ?—Response. Affirmative, or, a priest may at his discretion celebrate only two Masses on the day of the Lord’s Nativity; and it so declared.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 June 1875, Lucera. “A priest who celebrates only one Mass shall read the Mass which approximately corresponds to the hour, according to the particular Rubrics of the same day. And it so rescripted and commanded to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 June 1875, Ordinary of Carthage.

In the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal, on the feast of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, it was granted to each priest dwelling there to celebrate three Masses, as is evident from the Constitution Quod expensis of Benedict XIV, 26 August 1748. But provision was made in that indult that the priests of Aragon could receive no alms whatsoever for the third Mass, and all the others of the other regions none for the second and third, even if voluntarily offered. Given these things, it was doubted: “Are priests comprehended in the Indult in question prohibited from receiving for the first Mass on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed an alms greater than that fixed by the synodal assessment or the custom of the place, even if voluntarily offered, in the case?” Amid a great contest among those holding diverse opinions, the Sacred Congregation rescripted: “Affirmative.” Almería, Mass Alms, 2 March 1861; Lucidi, vol. 1, p. 468, 3rd ed.

“Since by the Indult of Benedict XIV priests in Spain and Portugal can celebrate three Masses on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, provided that they accept a stipend only for the first, under penalty of suspension: which of the three Masses designated in the Indult—namely, 1. the Mass as on the day; 2. as on an anniversary; 3. as among daily Masses—must a priest in Spain and Portugal who wishes to celebrate one Mass say on the day of the Commemoration of the Departed, whether he applies it for one person or not? And insofar as he wishes to celebrate two, which two of the three is he bound to choose?—Response. As regards the first Mass, as on the day of the Commemoration; as regards the second, at discretion.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 February 1892, Calahorra, response to 27.

“1. The faculty of celebrating Mass twice in one day, with which the Holy See is accustomed to invest the Ordinaries of missions so that they in turn may communicate it to their missionaries, has raised not a few doubts which those same persons have proposed to this Sacred Congregation. The reason for doubts of this kind is drawn from the very rigor of the clauses which, by command of Alexander VII, were added to the article of the Formularies which treats of this faculty. Therefore, it has seemed opportune in this present Instruction to gather together the more common rules and principles which are to be kept before one’s eyes in the use of the aforesaid faculty.

“2. No one is ignorant that, according to the general rule under the prevailing discipline of the Church, priests are permitted to offer the Holy Sacrifice only once in a day. Thus Innocent III established: ‘We respond that, except on the day of the Lord’s Nativity, unless a cause of necessity counsels otherwise, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one Mass once in a day.’ Chapter Consuluisti, On the Celebration of Masses.

“3. Therefore, in a case of necessity, a repetition of Mass on the same day is permitted to priests. Yet this must be understood, as is recognized from the very words of the Formularies, of permission to celebrate only two Masses, even if grave causes should concur which counsel celebrating a greater number. The Prefect of the Capuchin mission at Tunis once asked whether, if necessity urged, he could celebrate more than two Masses on one and the same day, because all his missionaries had been cast into prison. And the general Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 7 August 1684 that by virtue of the faculties he could not celebrate more than two Masses. This had already long before been answered in the general Congregation held before the Holy Father on 17 February 1648; for, when the abuse which had grown up among priests held in captivity in Algeria of celebrating three Masses was set forth, ‘His Holiness ... commanded that, through the said Prefect of Algeria, the priests be ordered in the name of His Holiness ... that, since the Apostolic See in the faculties of missionaries had granted the power or permission of celebrating twice in a day where necessity required it, they should henceforth not celebrate more than two Masses.’ The same thing was repeated to the Apostolic Prefect of Tunis in the years 1818 and 1820.

“4. Necessity, therefore, is the sole title by which the faculty of saying two Masses is given to priests. Nevertheless, it is first useful to observe with Verricelli that ‘this necessity is not to be drawn from the side of the scarcity of priests, but from the side of the spiritual necessity of the people and the charity of priests.’ On Apostolic Missions, title IV, question 98, doubt 18, no. 201. Once this principle is established, it is easy to derive certain negative rules concerning the use of the faculty in question.

“5. First, it is evident that one would not think rightly who said that Mass could be repeated on suppressed feast days on which the people are not bound to hear Mass, as the Sacred Congregation admonished in the year 1837 in these words: ‘The matter having been maturely considered, it became sufficiently clear from the words of the Formula itself that the faculties cannot be extended to abrogated feasts. For since it is declared in the aforesaid Formula that the faculty has force if necessity urges, it follows that Mass cannot be celebrated twice by the same priest on the sole title that those days were formerly feast days.’

“6. Second. The repetition of Mass is likewise forbidden for the convenience of those who would wish to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in their private chapels. In the year 1842 the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg related the custom which had grown up in his Vicariate of permitting a repetition of Mass in the castles of magnates; but since he did not think that, in those circumstances, there existed the necessity which the Formularies require, he asked, both by reason of the custom and by reason of the moral utility which arose from it, that authority to permit this be granted to him. But the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition judged, according to the matters set forth, that it was not expedient. And when the Apostolic Vicar added that some continued the repetition of Mass by a faculty previously received from his predecessor, the Supreme Sacred Congregation decreed that the faculty was to be revoked insofar as the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg prudently judged that this could be done.

“7. Third. From resolutions of this kind it is inferred that custom is not a sufficient title for the same priest to be able to offer the Holy Sacrifice twice on one and the same day. This also agrees with what Benedict XIV taught in the Constitution Declarasti nobis, given on 16 March 1746 to the Bishop of Huesca in Aragon. ‘We ask only,’ says the Pontiff, ‘whether that custom has acquired for itself the character of prescription or presumption, and we judge each to be false and inapplicable.’ And as regards prescription, he says: ‘For if, according to the civil laws, sacred things cannot be acquired by prescription, it is absurd on every side to assert that something has been obtained or acquired by prescription which is opposed to the universal sanctions of the Church, the observance of which the Holy Council of Trent commands all priests in the celebration of Masses.’ But concerning presumption he adds: ‘But, other things having been passed over, We add that these things can be understood of those privileges which could have been obtained from the Apostolic See if someone had petitioned for them, but not of those which, when they are petitioned for, are altogether accustomed to be denied, lest presumption have greater strength and weight than truth.’ Hence it is that, when the Sacred Congregation learned that in some place the custom of repeating Mass without necessity had grown up, it did not fail to reprove a custom of this kind as an abuse, stirring up the zeal of the Bishops to eliminate it.

“8. Fourth. Nor is the poverty of priests sufficient to prove the repetition of Mass, as has been indicated from Verricelli in the place cited. A certain Archbishop of Ireland asked in the year 1688: ‘Whether, from the cause of poverty alone, regulars may celebrate two Masses on feast days in private houses, although all parishes and convents have their own churches and chapels?’ The response of the Sacred Congregation was negative. When it was reported in particular Congregations for the Propagation of the Faith, held both on 7 March 1743 and on 28 July 1750, that an abuse of this kind still flourished in Ireland, because many priests used the faculty of repeating Mass for no other reason than that they might receive richer and more plentiful alms and thereby support themselves more comfortably, the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: ‘Let the priests be gravely admonished not to abuse the faculty of celebrating twice in a day so that they may have a larger and richer stipend.’ And in the Constitution Apostolicum ministerium, 30 May 1753, § 11, Benedict XIV calls intolerable the abuse of granting to some priest the faculty of repeating Mass for the purpose that he might support himself more becomingly by a double alms. Only in order to provide in some manner for the poor religious of that kingdom, who had complained about a similar prohibition made by the Provincial Synod of Tuam in the year 1817 because of the loss arising therefrom—the alms which they had been accustomed to receive at the doors of the church on the occasion of Mass having been taken away from them, although they lived from the offerings of the faithful—the Sacred Congregation willed that the Bishops be admonished that, ‘in imparting, by Apostolic authority, permission to priests to celebrate two Masses on feast days of precept for causes of necessity approved by the Apostolic Constitutions, they should take account of regular priests, and especially of those who dwell in poor monasteries.’ Moreover, since the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that, ‘according to general practice, priests are not permitted to receive an alms for the second Mass, even if it concerns those who, endowed with the parochial office, therefore cannot obtain a stipend for the first Mass because they are bound to apply it for the people,’ as was notified to the Ordinaries of missions through the circular letters of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 15 October 1863, every pretext for the abuse of repeating Mass with a view to the stipend has now been removed. Nevertheless, account having been taken of the peculiar circumstances of certain missions, the Most Holy Father deigned to grant authority, as is evident from the said Circular Letters, to their Ordinaries to permit ‘that, when a just and grave cause intervenes, the priests subject to them may and can receive a stipend even for the second Mass to be celebrated on the same day.’

“9. Fifth. Finally, it is scarcely necessary to note that the repetition of Mass is forbidden to a priest whenever another priest can be had who is able to satisfy the necessity of the people, as Benedict XIV expressly teaches in the cited Constitution Declarasti nobis. Hence it is that, before a repetition of Mass is admitted, it must be seen whether some one of the remedies established by law is available for providing for the spiritual necessity of the people; and first of all the Pastor himself is bound to furnish a stipend to another priest; but, his inability being posited, the people are bound; and finally, if the people also could not be compelled to this because of poverty, the Ordinary would be bound to supply it. Benedict XIV, place cited; Opinion of Cardinal Zelada, Thesaurus of Resolutions, vol. 57, in the case of Tortosa, 26 August 1768.

“10. Thus far concerning the cases in which the repetition of Mass is prohibited. As regards the cases in which the necessity required for it concurs, these are found set forth in the Constitution Declarasti nobis. In this Constitution it is first considered, according to the unanimous consent of theologians, that repetition of Mass is permitted to a priest ‘who holds two parishes, or two peoples so separated that one of them can in no way be present with the Pastor celebrating on feast days because of the very great distance of the places.’ And this is the first and more common case. The other which is recounted there is ‘when there is only one church in which Mass is celebrated and to which the entire people cannot come together at the same time.’

“11. In these cases Mass can be repeated even by those who have not been granted the faculty through the Formularies customarily granted by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, since the common law itself grants it, yet always dependently upon the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to render judgment both concerning true necessity and concerning the possibility of applying the canonical remedies (§ 9). Indeed, after indicating remedies of this kind, Benedict XIV adds: ‘The things which have been said thus far also rest upon the general canonical sanctions.’ Indeed, the opinion of theologians is concordant, as Benedict XIV himself observes, that in the case of one Pastor with two parishes, ‘the Pastor not only can but is plainly bound to celebrate Mass twice on the same day.’ On the Diocesan Synod, book 6, chapter 8, no. 2. From these things it easily follows that the article of the Formularies, since it grants a faculty, extends also to other cases of necessity not considered in the common law; otherwise that article would become useless, at least for those places in which parishes have been canonically erected, since the common law itself provides for these parishes. This agrees with what Benedict XIV teaches in his work On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, book 3, chapter 5, no. 4, in which, after asserting that ‘the case which actually occurs is that in which a Pastor has two parishes,’ etc., he continues in these words: ‘Nevertheless, We do not will anything to be prejudged concerning the other cases which occur in missions, for which provision has been made by granting missionaries the faculty to celebrate Mass more than once on the same day; and likewise concerning other cases in which, either because of the distance of places, the scarcity of priests, or the persecution of unbelievers, it is necessary that two Masses be celebrated by priests lest the faithful be deprived of Mass.’ And the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith was indeed speaking in the year 1832 about causes of this kind which have place in missions and for which the faculty is given to the superiors of missions, when it gave an opportune admonition to a certain missionary of Philippopolis who did not repeat Masses although he presided over various Christian communities. Namely, when the repetition of Mass was enjoined upon him, also by command of the general Congregation, it was added: ‘But if you ask why those rigorous clauses are added to the faculty of repeating Mass in the Formula of the Indult, you will find the response in the Formula itself; for you will observe that the Indult is not restricted to the needs of the people on feast days, but, since it is contained in general terms, it also comprehends the other cases in question, such as the necessity of administering Viaticum to the sick in each parish, and that the prescribed precautions ought to have place in other cases of this kind.’

“12. And in these less frequent cases, Bishops and missionaries have repeatedly seemed to hesitate in the use of that faculty, doubting especially about the sufficiency of the causes which would be required according to the clauses added to the faculty. But so many and so various are the cases which can occur in missions in this matter that they cannot easily be foreseen, much less reduced to determinate rules; for judgment concerning them can vary according to the differing concurrent circumstances of places, times, and persons. This is the reason why the resolution of particular doubts which have been proposed concerning this matter has generally been remitted to the prudent judgment of the superior of the mission.

“13. First, a rule has rather frequently been sought concerning the number of the faithful which would be sufficient for Mass to be repeated. In the Constitution Apostolicum ministerium, issued for England, it is said that a faculty of this kind can be used ‘when the number of those who on feast days are bound to assist at the sacred rites presents such a necessity that, unless the power to celebrate two Masses on the same day is granted to some priest, many would not satisfy the command of the Church.’ Nevertheless, a general norm of this kind does not remove every doubt concerning the number necessary for repetition. The same can be said of a certain negative response given by the Sacred Inquisition in the year 1688 to Capuchin missionaries in Greece. They had asked: ‘Whether a missionary priest, dwelling alone in a place, can celebrate two Masses on Sundays and feast days for fifteen or twenty persons who, legitimately impeded, were unable to be present at the first Mass?’ And the Supreme Sacred Inquisition on 28 January of the same year decreed: It is not lawful. But if the number of twenty faithful is not deemed sufficient for Mass to be repeated, it can further be asked what minimum number is sufficient.

“14. But concerning a doubt of this kind, just as concerning those which regard distance, the Sacred Congregation was accustomed to hold that these matters were to be resolved by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries of missions, upon whom the faculty depends; for they themselves, in the places in which they dwell, can rightly estimate the circumstances concurring in individual cases. And indeed, as far back as the year 1688, the Prefect of the mission of Tunis in Mauretania asked in general that it be declared what the number of the faithful deprived of Mass ought to be for Mass to be repeated; and the General Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 16 November: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Prefect. Similarly, in the year 1828 the Bishop of St. Louis in the United States of America, having set forth his own fear and that of other Bishops of burdening their conscience because of the clauses of the Formularies, asked: ‘Whether, whenever thirty or fifty of the faithful are exposed to the danger of not hearing the Mass of precept, they may celebrate twice?’ But, by command of Leo XII, it was rescripted in letters given on 13 March: ‘You ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind and, without being disturbed by the rigor of the words, He—His Holiness—commits it to your conscience and prudence to judge in which cases, account having been taken of the circumstances of your diocese, grave causes are to be deemed present for imparting the faculty in question to priests. But where you have judged according to your conscience and prudence that these grave causes are present, His Holiness benignly declared that you can use that faculty without any doubt.’

“15. A similar response was also given in the year 1851 to the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg, who proposed the doubt concerning distance in this manner: ‘In this region, by ancient custom, permission to binate is sometimes granted because of moral necessity, although the nearer parish is not distant by more than the space of half a league; it is asked whether this is rightly done?’ The Sacred Congregation responded in letters of 31 July: ‘It being premised that it belongs to the office of Bishops to take care with all their powers that the use of this faculty not be necessary in order to succor the needs of the faithful, a general practice to be observed in individual cases cannot be assigned. Therefore, in particular cases as above, a supply of priests being lacking and all other circumstances having been maturely considered, it is to be determined by the prudent judgment of the superior whether, in that case, grave circumstances of affairs concur which the Doctors teach constitute a case of necessity—as the case proposed appears to be—in which there is room for dispensation from the universal precept concerning the same priest’s repeating the Sacrifice on the same day, and for granting the faculty of binating, which he plainly perceives from the very words of the Apostolic Indult that he ought to use altogether sparingly.’ And this instruction in the same words was sent to the Bishop of Trier in the year 1853, in whose name various doubts concerning the repetition of Mass had been proposed; for on 28 September it was rescripted to him that, his questions having been considered, the Sacred Congregation judged that the instruction was to be given which ... the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg received under date of 31 July 1851.

“16. Moreover, among the various responses which remit the measurement of the gravity of causes to the judgment of the superior, some deserve particular mention. Such are those which, while following the customary rule of remitting the estimation of causes to the judgment of the superior, at the same time indicate in some manner the kind or degree of necessity which the repetition of Mass requires, and repeatedly temper to some extent the fear and alleviate the excessive anxiety of mind which those clauses by which this faculty is restricted in the Formularies had created in Bishops and missionaries. One of the responses of this kind was given in the year 1848 to a Bishop in the United States of America; for in letters given on 9 May it was thus rescripted: ‘I come to your petition concerning the manner of interpreting the necessity which is required for the lawful use of the faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day.... Let Your Excellency therefore know that the necessity of this kind in question is understood as true indeed, but moral, and not absolute; judgment concerning it in individual cases therefore depends upon prudent judgment, the circumstances having been considered. Accordingly, you must beware of excessive anxiety in judging this matter, lest the aforesaid faculty appear to have been granted in vain or to be reduced to act in almost no case.’ More worthy of note is the declaration sent in the year 1828 to a certain Apostolic Prefect in the Antilles of America. For since he did not trust that he could tranquilly use the faculty in question because of the grave conditions by which it was constrained, he had implored from the Apostolic See a broader faculty of granting priests ... ‘that on Sundays and feasts of precept they may celebrate Mass twice, when necessity or the spiritual utility of the faithful demands it.’ A report of this matter having been made to the Supreme Pontiff on 13 April, the response was given in this manner: ‘Such is the esteem of your virtue and prudence that Our Most Holy Lord commanded that you ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind; and if you shall judge it necessary or exceedingly useful to the faithful that priests celebrate Mass twice on the same feast day, you ought not to be disturbed by the rigor of the words in which the rescript appears to be contained. Therefore, He commits it to the prudence and conscience of Your Lordship to judge concerning this necessity and the gravity of the causes, and His Holiness benignly declared that, in those circumstances, you have by the aforesaid rescript the faculty of granting priests permission to celebrate Mass twice.’

“17. The same rule of committing to the judgment or charity of the superiors of missions the application of general principles to practical cases was also observed when, in the cases themselves as they were set forth, there did not appear that force and gravity of causes—at least if these causes were considered in themselves and in the abstract—which the clauses of this faculty require. This indeed confirms that, in considering the causes which counsel the use of the faculty, great account must be taken of all the conditions and state of the faithful. An example of this matter is the response given by the Sacred Congregation in the year 1688 to the Vice-Prefect of the mission of Tripoli. Uncertain because of the clauses, he had asked ‘for precisely what number of slaves or free persons he could celebrate a second Mass, since the case sometimes occurred that, in the bath outside Tripoli, no more than ten or fifteen slaves were present at the Sacrifice ... and whether, in the absence of priests, a second Mass could be celebrated on feast days for these alone?’ Now, notwithstanding the resolution given in the same year by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition for a similar case, as was noted above in § 13, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 5 October: ‘Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Vice-Prefect.’ Nor ought it to seem strange that this Sacred Congregation admitted a more benign interpretation; for it concerned slaves who, because of their condition, deserved particular indulgence, since perhaps the Sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass was their sole consolation. Another argument of benignity of this kind, account having been taken of the circumstances, was furnished in the year 1860 by the Sacred Inquisition. For although on 20 June it responded to the Apostolic Vicar of a kingdom neighboring China that the desire of neophytes wishing to receive the Most Holy Eucharist two or three times in the year was not of itself a most urgent cause in the case in question—that is, for repeating Mass according to the faculty—it nevertheless added: ‘But, all the circumstances of places and persons having been weighed, it is to be left to the judgment of the Most Reverend Lord Apostolic Vicar.’ From these things it is gathered that those causes which are not grave in themselves and therefore in many places can become grave in other places because of the circumstances which accompany the case.

“18. These are the principles which have been kept before one’s eyes regarding the faculty of repeating Mass, and which certainly can render the Ordinaries of missions tranquil in the exercise of the same faculty. Although it is customary in this matter to defer to the wise judgment of the Ordinaries of missions, nevertheless, from what has been said thus far, it is evident with how much caution they ought to act, since their conscience always remains burdened in the legitimate exercise of an extraordinary faculty of this kind. Nevertheless, it will be helpful here that which the Sacred Congregation rescripted in the year 1832 to the Bishop of Nicopolis in Bulgaria: that the clauses employed in the Formularies are not to be understood with extreme rigor, the principle being kept before one’s eyes that the Apostolic See grants the said faculty for the spiritual good of the faithful, with the desire that all may easily fulfill the ecclesiastical precept.

“19. It now remains to speak of the rite, or of the manner in which Mass can be repeated. It was always prescribed to missionaries by the Sacred Congregation, and by Benedict XIV himself, that one who repeats Mass must not take the customary ablutions of the chalice because of the fast, so that ‘if in the first Mass, after receiving the Body and Blood, he has taken the washing, he ought not to celebrate a second Mass in the aforesaid cases’ (Council of Nemours, 1284, in Benedict XIV, On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, book 3, chapter 5, no. 4), that is, even in those cases in which the people would otherwise be deprived of the Sacrifice on feast days. And although in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the case of Ibiza on 16 September 1815 it was prescribed that there should be only one chalice which the one celebrating two Masses ought to use, nevertheless, since the execution of a Decree of this kind was subject to no slight difficulties when celebration had to take place in two churches distant from one another, the same Sacred Congregation, in general meetings held on 12 September 1857, rescripted by way of modification of the said Decree: the use of two chalices can be permitted in the case. The Instruction which is added here, composed by command of the same Sacred Congregation of Rites, concerns the manner of purifying the chalice which served for the first Mass.

“From the offices of the said Sacred Congregation, 24 May 1870.” A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 8 ff.; vol. 6, p. 345 ff.; Lucidi, chapter 3, § 2, no. 378 ff.

“When a priest must celebrate two Masses on the same day in distant places, in the first, while he receives the divine Blood, he shall drink it most carefully. Thereafter he shall place the chalice upon the corporal and cover it with the pall; and, with his hands joined at the middle of the altar, he shall say: Quod ore sumpsimus, etc.; and then, a vessel of water having been brought near, he shall wash his fingers, saying: Corpus tuum, and wipe them. When these things have been completed, he shall cover the chalice remaining upon the corporal, the pall still having been drawn down, as is customary: namely, first with the purificator, then with the paten and pall, and finally with the veil. After this he shall continue the Mass; and when the Last Gospel has been completed, he shall again stand at the middle of the altar and, having uncovered the chalice, shall inspect whether any of the divine Blood has settled at the bottom, as will generally happen. For although the sacred species were at first carefully consumed, nevertheless, while they are being received, since the particles which are around it are left clinging above on every side, they return to the bottom only after the chalice has been set down. Therefore, if any drop of the divine Blood still remains, it shall again be consumed carefully, and indeed from the same side from which it was first received. This is in no way to be omitted, because the Sacrifice morally continues and, while the species of wine still remain, must be completed by divine precept.

“Afterward the priest shall pour into the chalice itself at least as much water as he had previously put in of wine; and, having moved it around, he shall pour it from the same side from which he drank the Sacred Blood into a vessel prepared for this purpose. He shall then wipe the chalice itself with the purificator and finally cover it, as is otherwise done, and depart from the altar. After the sacred vestments have been laid aside and the thanksgiving completed, according to the circumstances the water poured out of the chalice shall either be kept until the following day, if, namely, the priest is to return there to celebrate Mass again, and be poured into the chalice at the second purification; or it shall be absorbed with cotton or tow and burned; or it shall be left to dry in the sacrarium, if there is one; or it shall be poured into the piscina.

“But since the chalice which the priest first used has now been purified, if he needs that same chalice for the other Mass, he shall carry it with him; otherwise, he can use a different chalice in the other Mass.”

Since the preceding instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites regards only the case in which a priest is to celebrate two Masses on the same day in distant places, it has seemed worthwhile to add here, from the commentaries of Bartholomew Gavanti and Cajetan Maria Merati, the rite to be observed by a priest when he must offer each Mass in the same church.

“In this case, therefore, after carefully consuming the Blood of the Lord in the first Mass, the customary purification having been omitted, the priest, covering the chalice with the paten and the paten with the pall and leaving it upon the corporal, shall say with joined hands: Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine, etc. Then he shall wash the fingers with which he touched the Most Holy Sacrament in some clean vessel prepared for this purpose on the altar, saying meanwhile: Corpus tuum, Domine, etc. After wiping his fingers with the purificator, he shall cover the chalice with the veil and place it veiled upon the spread corporal. When Mass has been completed, if there is no sacristy in the church, he shall leave the chalice in the same manner upon the altar; but if there is, he shall carry it into the sacristy and there place it upon a corporal or pall in some fitting and closed place until the second Mass. Since he must use the same chalice in that Mass, he shall carry it back with him to the altar and replace it upon the spread corporal. But when the priest has reached the Offertory in the second Mass, having removed the veil from the chalice, he shall place it somewhat toward the Epistle side, but not outside the corporal; and after making the offering of the host, he shall take care not to wipe the chalice with the purificator. Rather, leaving it within the corporal, he shall raise it slightly and carefully put the wine and water into it, lest any drops splash back upon the lips of the chalice; he shall then offer it in the customary manner without wiping it at all on the inside.”

“Can a priest celebrating Mass on the same day in two different churches carry with him the purification of the first Mass, carefully preserved in some clean vessel, so that he may consume it with the purification of the second Mass? “Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1893, Rome, response to 5.

“A twofold practice prevails for the washing of the fingers in the first and second Masses on the holy day of the Lord’s Nativity. Some, namely, in these two Masses wash their fingers in a clean, empty vessel, while the server pours in wine and water in the customary manner and they meanwhile say Corpus tuum, Domine, etc.; they consume this ablution in the third Mass together with the final ablution. Others, however, wash their fingers in a small vessel with water already prepared beforehand, as is done after the distribution of Holy Communion; they either consume this water with the final ablution in the third Mass or leave it to be poured into the piscina of the sacristy. It is asked: which of these practices, as being more conformable to the Rubrics, is to be followed?—Response. The second manner of purification is more expeditious and is conformable to universal practice.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 February 1892, no. 3764, response to 15.

“1. Is a Pastor who governs two parishes and has the faculty of celebrating twice in one day bound to apply its own Mass for each parish, even if the revenues are small? 2. Is a Pastor who by faculty celebrates twice on the same day in one and the same parish obliged to apply both Masses gratuitously for the people committed to him? 3. Are vicars and other priests who do not have the care of souls, if they sometimes by faculty celebrate twice in one day in a parish, hospital, etc., themselves also obliged to apply the second Mass gratuitously for the people committed to them? 4. Whether and in what manner is it to be granted to Pastors who celebrate twice on Sundays and other feast days that they may have the free application of one Mass and be able to receive a stipend for it?—Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Negative, with the prohibition against receiving an alms for the second Mass remaining firm.—To the third: Negative, insofar as they do not have the care of souls, the prohibition against receiving an alms for the second Mass always remaining firm.—To the fourth: Negative, and the Bishop is to provide according to the form of the Constitution Cum semper oblatas of Benedict XIV, § 8.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 25 September 1858; Lucidi, vol. 3, p. 380, 3rd ed.; A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 69 ff.

“1. Can a priest who, from the Statutes of the Sodality in which he enrolled, is bound to celebrate Mass for a deceased member, apply the second Mass on a day of bination in order to satisfy this burden, in the case?

“2. Can a Pastor who was unable to celebrate Mass on the day on which it was to be read for the people apply the second Mass to be celebrated by bination on the following feast in order to satisfy this burden, in the case?—Response. To the first: Affirmative; to the second: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 5 March 1887.

“In the case of a repeated celebration of Mass, some remuneration in view of the labor and inconvenience can be permitted at the prudent judgment of the Bishop, every alms for the application of the Mass being excluded.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 March 1861; A. S. S., vol. 24, p. 514.

A church is understood as that which is built chiefly for this end, that it may serve the public use of the faithful people. A public chapel, however, is one which, although it has an entrance onto a public road, nevertheless appears to be destined not so much for the free use of the faithful people as for the convenience of some family or college, or for a determinate class of persons, such as chapels or evening oratories for men. Finally, a semipublic chapel is one which, although it does not have an entrance onto a public road and is not open to all, nevertheless is not found in a private house, but either in an episcopal palace, a religious house, some pious place, a hospital, a prison, or another similar place in which some gathering of the Christian faithful is accustomed to assemble to hear Mass. Cf. no. 640.

Regular superiors cannot admit “to celebrate in their churches other members of their own or another religious order, wanderers or pilgrims, unless the letters of obedience or assignment of their superiors and the testimonial letters of promotion to the priesthood have been diligently examined; but as regards secular priests, unless testimonial letters signed by the Vicar General or Vicar Forane of the local Bishop have been seen.” Holy Office, 11 August 1649; Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 14 March 1879. Cf. Notification concerning the celebration of Mass in the churches of the City, A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 254.

Cf. On the Theological Virtues, no. 367.

A sleeping chamber cannot be located above a chapel in which Mass is celebrated. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 May 1641, Caiazzo.

“Can a Bishop, when a just cause intervenes, grant the faculty of celebrating in private oratories, in the case?—Response. Negative, unless great and urgent causes are present, and then only by way of an act.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 December 1855.

It was then asked whether the following could be held to be great and urgent causes: 1. When, because of the wretchedness of the times, husbands or fathers and even sons do not permit the Viaticum to be brought from the parish to their sick relatives, even to the point of allowing them to die without this Sacrament, and urgently ask for Holy Mass in their houses upon a portable altar fittingly set up, from which the Viaticum can be brought to the sick. 2. When priests suffering from chronic illnesses and unable to leave the house urgently ask to celebrate in a private oratory at least every month and on the great solemnities of the year, both in order to communicate and to gain the holy indulgences. 3. When there is an immemorial custom that, upon the death of a distinguished person, the Bishop grant permission to celebrate several Masses in the house of the deceased while the body is present, and especially when it would be very difficult to remove a custom of this kind without grave inconveniences. Therefore, the Sacred Congregation, after maturely considering the doubt, “Whether and in which of the cases set forth the Bishop can grant the faculty of celebrating in a private oratory,” responded on 6 September 1890: “Negative to the things proposed.” Cf. M. E., vol. 6, part 2, p. 193.

“When the Most Sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist is desired by sick Christians, it is asked: 1. Is it lawful for missionaries to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass in the houses of the aforesaid sick persons? 2. Does this hold even when danger of death urges, but the Viaticum can be carried, at least secretly? 3. Is it lawful at least when it cannot be carried even secretly?—Response. To the first: It is not lawful.—To the second: It is not lawful.—To the third: In such a case it is lawful, either in the house of the sick person or at least in a neighboring house, if the place is fitting, lest the sick person be deprived of Viaticum.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 14 December 1668.

“A Pastor knows that Holy Viaticum can be administered only with very great difficulty to a sick person near death. Can he carry the Most Holy Sacrament from a private oratory? And insofar as the response is affirmative, can he celebrate in such a case even when the holder of the indult is temporarily absent?—Response. Affirmative, even when the holder of the indult is absent.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, Verona, response to 7.

“By virtue solely of the faculty of celebrating Mass in any fitting place granted to missionaries, can the Sacrifice lawfully be celebrated by them, as it is celebrated by some of them on every Sunday and feast, upon the sea in ships lying near the shore, without the presence of another priest to hold the chalice firmly after the Consecration so as entirely to avoid the danger of spilling, as the Doctors holding that opinion require?—Response. It is in no way lawful for Capuchins or Observant Friars Minor or any others whatsoever to celebrate, command, or permit Mass to be celebrated in ships, because it is altogether prohibited.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 20 January 1667; C. 775.

“1. Can Bishops grant to priests of their diocese the faculty to celebrate Mass while navigating, upon an altar erected in a ship? 2. Can Bishops in whose diocese there are seaports grant this same faculty to all priests? 3. Can Apostolic missionaries by force of this title celebrate in a ship without permission of the Apostolic See? 4. Can priests who enjoy the privilege of celebrating anywhere, by force of this privilege, celebrate in a ship without a special Apostolic Indult? 5. Are the chapels of ships or the altars erected in the ships themselves for offering the sacred rites to be considered private or public oratories? 6. Can the Requiem Masses granted by Decrees 3903, Auch, 8 June 1896, responses to 2 and 3; and 3944, Rome, 12 January 1897, be celebrated at the aforesaid altars?

“Response. To the first, second, third, and fourth: Negative.—To the fifth: If the chapel has a fixed place in the ship, it is to be regarded as public for those navigating; otherwise it is neither public nor private, but is regarded as a portable altar.—To the sixth: Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 March 1901.

“The Sacred Congregation commands all missionaries enjoying a special indult of celebrating the Sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass at sea that, whenever they use that privilege ... they are to see whether the sea is so calm that there is no danger of the Sacred Species spilling from the chalice; they are to take care that another priest, if one is present, duly assist the celebrant; and, if the ship does not have a proper chapel or a fixed altar, they are altogether to take care that the place chosen for the celebration of Mass present nothing unbecoming or indecorous. This would certainly occur if the most august Mystery of the altar were celebrated in cabins destined for the private use of travelers.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1 March 1902.

“Celebration in cabins, however, is not absolutely prohibited when all the circumstances remove the dangers of irreverence.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith; M. E., vol. 15, p. 68.

“It has often been asked of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which oratories are to be regarded as semipublic. Now it is established that public oratories are those which, dedicated in perpetuity by authority of the Ordinary to the public worship of God and blessed, or even solemnly consecrated, have a door onto the road or open to all the faithful free entrance from the public road. Private oratories in the strict sense, on the contrary, are said to be those which have been erected by an Indult of the Holy See in private buildings for the convenience of some person or family. Those which occupy a middle place between these two, as the name itself indicates, are and are called semipublic oratories. But so that every ambiguity concerning these oratories may be removed, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, after consultation with the Sacred Congregation of Rites, established and declared that semipublic oratories are those which, although erected by authority of the Ordinary in a place which is in some manner private or not absolutely public, nevertheless serve for the convenience not of all the faithful, nor only of a private person or family, but of some community or gathering of persons. Just as the Most Sacred Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered in these by authority of the Ordinary, so those who are present at it can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass. Oratories of this kind are those which pertain to seminaries and ecclesiastical colleges; to pious institutes and societies of simple vows, and other communities under a rule or at least statutes approved by the Ordinary; to houses devoted to spiritual exercises; to boarding schools and hospices destined for instructing youth in letters, sciences, or arts; to hospitals and orphanages, as well as to fortresses and prisons; and similar oratories in which, by the institution, some gathering of the Christian faithful is accustomed to assemble to hear Mass. To these must be added chapels duly erected in a cemetery, provided that in the celebration of Mass access is open not only to those to whom they pertain but also to other faithful. His Holiness willed, however, that the rights and privileges of oratories enjoyed by the Most Eminent Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the Most Reverend sacred Prelates, and regular orders and congregations should remain sound and intact. And furthermore, he deigned to confirm the decree in the case of Nevers of 8 March 1879. All things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. 23 January 1899.”

“1. Can a Bishop by ordinary right grant permission for several Masses to be celebrated on any day: 1. in the public chapels or oratories of pious communities, even of those which do not have enclosure; 2. in the chapels or oratories of pious communities which, although they do not have an entrance onto a public road, nevertheless serve for the daily exercises of the entire community; 3. in chapels or oratories which indeed pertain to private persons but which are public or semipublic in the sense that they have an entrance onto a public road or near the public road, so that entrance is always permitted to anyone who wishes?

“2. Can a Bishop erect other oratories besides the chapel or principal oratory in pious communities, either on account of the number of priests dwelling there, so that Mass can be said by all, or for the benefit of the sick who cannot go to the chapel or principal oratory?

“3. Can a Bishop by his own right grant the faculty of reserving the Most Holy Sacrament: 1. in churches or public chapels which nevertheless do not enjoy a parochial title, although they serve the needs of the parish; 2. in public chapels of pious communities, that is, those whose door opens upon a public road or into a courtyard communicating with a public road, and which are open to all who live there; 3. in interior chapels or oratories of pious communities when they do not have a public chapel or oratory in the sense set forth, as happens, for example, in seminaries?

“4. Can a Bishop by his own right grant permission to one priest to celebrate a second Mass on Sundays or feast days of precept: 1. in oratories or chapels which have been approved by the Holy See or by force of an indult granted by it, when, because of their distance from the parish church, this second Mass can benefit the desire of parishioners who otherwise would not hear Mass, or at least only with very great difficulty; 2. in two churches existing in the same parish, when there is only one priest to serve each and yet Mass would be celebrated in only one not without detriment to religion; 3. in the same church, when otherwise a sufficiently notable part of the parishioners would not hear Mass; 4. when this second Mass is very useful, if not necessary, so that Communion may be received by the faithful more frequently with greater ease and edification?

“Response. To the first: The Bishop is to use his right in all the cases set forth.

“To the second: But if, from the condition of the pious communities, the erection of another oratory is necessary, a faculty for its erection will have to be obtained from the Holy See.

“To the third: An indult is to be implored from the Holy See with regard to all the things requested.

“To the fourth: On the supposition that the Bishop has already obtained from the Holy See the faculty of granting to priests of his diocese an indult to offer the sacred rites twice on a feast day, it will belong to his prudence to use this special faculty in a case of necessity for the good of the people; but if he himself is not furnished with a faculty of this kind, he can obtain it. And it so responded and declared. 8 March 1879.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 January 1899.

“The clause of the general Decree concerning semipublic oratories, no. 4007, of 23 January 1899, ‘and similar oratories in which, by the institution, some gathering of the Christian faithful is accustomed to assemble to hear Mass,’ can be understood of any of the faithful who, with the consent of the owner of the place and with the authority of the Ordinary intervening, approach the aforesaid oratories to hear Mass, even in fulfillment of the festal precept.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 August 1901.

“Is a consecrated church which served for military quarters and watches for two days to be deemed profaned and therefore to need the reconciliation prescribed by the Roman Pontifical?—Response. As a precaution, it is to be reconciled.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 February 1847, Tolentino.

“Is a polluted church said to be reconciled through the celebration of Mass in it?—Response. Negative, and therefore it must be reconciled according to the form prescribed in the Pontifical.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 August 1634, Oppido, response to 2.

“As regards the consecrations of churches, the fast prescribed in the Roman Pontifical is of strict obligation for the consecrating Bishop and only for those who petition that a church be consecrated for them; and the same fast is to be proclaimed on the day preceding the consecration according to the form of the Roman Pontifical.” Holy Office, 14 December 1898; Sacred Congregation of Rites, 29 July 1780, Mechelen, response to 1.

“1. Is a church in whose consecration the consecration of the altar was omitted to be regarded as validly consecrated? 2. Does a church remain consecrated or become exsecrated when the coating, commonly called intonaco, is removed from its walls either in part or in its entirety so that it may be renewed?—Response. To the first: Affirmative, namely, validly; but not licitly, unless an Apostolic dispensation is had, although some or all the altars may already be found consecrated; and therefore the order of rites of the Roman Pontifical is altogether to be observed so that the integrity of the consecration may be completed.—To the second: The church remains consecrated, although the plasterwork on its walls has been renewed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 May 1896, Decree, responses to 1 and 2.

“Do the chalice and paten lose their consecration through new gilding and thus need a new consecration?—Response. Affirmative: namely, they lose it and need a new consecration, according to the things set forth.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 June 1845, Liège.

It is an abuse that a priest should wish to exsecrate the aforesaid sacred vessels before he again hands them to the artisan to be repaired or recast. Therefore, if there is need, they must be handed to him without the priest attempting to exsecrate them either directly by hand or through the intervention of some instrument. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 April 1822, Doubts, response to 1.

“Can a chalice whose gilding alone is renewed be blessed simply, without anointing, by a priest not marked with the episcopal order, or must it in this case also be brought to a Bishop so that it may be blessed by him with anointing?—Response. As regards the first part: Negative; as regards the other part: Affirmative to both.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1857, Esztergom, response to 1.

“The consecration both of a stable altar stone and of a traveling or portable altar stone is altogether the same as regards the essential prayers, rites, and solemnities. Nevertheless, it differs in this: that a portable altar, or stone in the middle of which the sacred relics are enclosed, is anointed with the sacred unction only upon its surface; but in a fixed and nontransferable altar another sacred anointing is employed, by which the stone is joined at the corners and connected with the lower support or structure; and in this manner not one stone but the entire altar is deemed consecrated. Therefore a portable altar stone is exsecrated if it is either enormously fractured or the sepulcher of the relics is violated; but a fixed altar is exsecrated even without violation of the sepulcher if the stone alone is removed from the support. Thus Alexander III, chapter Ad haec, On the Consecration of a Church or Altar: ‘Furthermore, if the altar has been moved, or if only that stone placed beneath which contains the seal has been broken or enormously diminished, it must be consecrated again.’ And in chapter Quod, under the same title: ‘But an altar from which the table to which the blessing of consecration is applied by the pontifical ministry has been removed or enormously fractured ought deservedly to be consecrated again.’ And although there are not lacking those who think that a fixed altar loses its consecration even if the whole altar is transferred from the place in which it was constructed and anointed with the sacred ceremonies to another place, the common opinion nevertheless is that in this case a new consecration is not necessary. The reason is that, although a fixed altar seems to differ from a portable altar in this respect, that the latter is transferable from one place to another while the former is not, and consequently is called fixed and immovable, nevertheless this difference is merely extrinsic, accidental, and relative to the place itself rather than a difference between the altars themselves. For the formal reason by which a fixed altar intrinsically differs from a portable one properly consists in this: that a fixed altar has, and essentially imports, the conjunction of the table with its lower structure or base, to which the table must consequently be united; while, on the contrary, a portable altar of its nature imports being separated from the base. For it is portable for this reason, that of itself it has separation from the base; otherwise it would no longer be a portable altar but a fixed one. Hence the essence of a fixed altar truly and properly consists in the said conjunction, that is, in the mensa or table united with the base; and it imports fixation in such a place because the one who caused it to be constructed willed it there, which is consequently something extrinsic and accidental to the altar itself. For the same thing could have been constructed elsewhere. Therefore, since the altar is supposed to preserve the same conjunction, namely, that of the table with its base, notwithstanding its transfer from one place to another, it must be said that it still retains its being and, consequently, its consecration which had accrued to it; for it is fitting that the accessory, since it is founded upon the principal, follow the nature of the principal, from Rule 42, On the Rules of Law, in the Sext. Therefore, in order that the word ‘moved’ be verified, it is not necessary that the table have been transferred from one place to another; rather, it suffices that it have been separated from its base, and thus by this fact the altar needs a new consecration. Hence the Gloss, both on the canon Si motum and on chapter Ad haec, at the word altar; and Panormitanus in the same place, understand by ‘altar’ the table of the altar itself, which is joined with its lower structure; but by ‘moved’ they understand the supervening separation of the same table, or even of the consecrated stone, from the lower structure itself. Thus the meaning of that text, ‘If the altar has been moved,’ etc., is this: ‘If the table itself or the consecrated altar stone has been separated from its lower structure, the altar must be consecrated again.’ But if the table which we call the mensa, placed upon a stone and stable altar, although of such dimensions that it extends beyond or at least equals the structure beneath it, had nevertheless never been joined and united with the lower support and in some manner bound at the corners through the sacred anointing, it would not lose its consecration through removal and transfer from place to place; because in this case it would have no other character than that of a portable altar, which is exsecrated only through an enormous fracture or through violation of the sepulcher of the relics.” Note of Gardellini, no. 4562.

“His Holiness decreed and declared that, to constitute the quality of a fixed altar, it suffices that a consecrated stone, even a removable one, be placed in the middle of a stable and immovable altar, although the latter is not consecrated.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 26 March 1867.

“Can an altar be consecrated in a church which has only been blessed, without the church itself first being consecrated?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 September 1857, Molina, response to 15.

“Can portable altars upon which Mass is to be celebrated be made from slate, or lavagna, as it is called?—Response. They can be made.” Holy Office, 14 May 1681; C. 826.

They can likewise be made from hard schist stone, but by no means from gypsum. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 29 April 1887, Lamezia, responses to 2 and 3.

“Is it lawful for Latin priests to celebrate according to their rite, but without a portable stone altar, in the churches and upon the altars of the united Greeks, which are made of cloth consecrated by the Greek Bishop with anointings and relics, while the Greeks celebrate freely in the churches and upon the stone altars of the Latins?—Response. It is not lawful.” Holy Office, 7 June 1726; C. 827.

“4. Can the ancient custom of erecting a portable altar in churches or public oratories when certain solemnities occur and a great multitude of people gathers be tolerated? 6. In consecrated and not merely blessed churches in which no consecrated fixed altar exists, or, if one existed, it is regarded as exsecrated because of a substantial defect, can there remain only portable altars?

“Response. To the fourth: Let the Most Reverend petitioner acquiesce.—To the sixth: As soon as it can be done, a fixed altar, especially the high altar, is to be consecrated in the customary form according to the Roman Pontifical. But if a fixed altar was consecrated but lost its consecration through some substantial defect, then, provided that all the conditions required for a new consecration of the altar are present, this can by favor be completed through a short rite and formula according to the tenor of an instruction to be suitably handed down by the Sacred Congregation of Rites itself.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 February 1898, Belluno, responses to 4 and 6.

“A Bishop cannot delegate to a simple priest the faculty of blessing sacred vestments unless he has a special privilege of the Apostolic See for this; this privilege, however, is sometimes granted by it to persons established in dignity, provided that the sacred anointing or holy oil is not to be employed upon them, for these things are to be blessed, anointed, and consecrated only by the Bishop himself, ordained and consecrated....” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 28 November and 12 December 1733.

“Can Bishops, whether by ordinary right or by custom, delegate to priests of lower rank all the blessings described and reserved in the Roman Ritual in which no sacred anointing intervenes?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 April 1875, Limoges, response to 1.

“The Bishop of Blois obtained an Indult from the Sacred Congregation of Rites for the faculty of subdelegating his Vicars General, rectors of churches, etc., for the blessing of those sacred furnishings in which no sacred anointing is employed. But since no formula is found for the blessing of a priestly or Levitical vestment besides that which is found in the Pontifical and therefore appears to be reserved to Bishops, the subdelegated priests must have recourse to the blessing for priestly vestments in general added to the Missal. This blessing, however, does not appear altogether suitable in all circumstances, for example, for the blessing of a cincture. Hence the aforesaid Most Reverend petitioner most humbly petitioned the Sacred Congregation of Rites that priests subdelegated by him might use the formula given by the Pontifical for the blessing of any vestment, which is furthermore a less solemn formula.—Response. The subdelegated priests are to use the blessing which is read in the Roman Ritual.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 March 1876, Blois.

“When, in the Particular Sacred Congregation concerning Chinese affairs held on 2 October, it had been decreed that supplication was to be made to the Holy Father that he impart to the Apostolic Vicars of China, for a period of ten years, the necessary and opportune faculties so that in time of persecution they might grant permission to missionaries—not indiscriminately to all and by way of a rule, but after a prudent selection both of the circumstances concurring in the cases and of the persons whom they foresee will use it rightly, soberly, and holily—to celebrate Mass without the customary implements and without sacred vestments, or with only some of the more necessary ones when the others cannot be had, and this especially where the necessity of distributing the Eucharist to the people or the sick is urgent, His Holiness benignly approved this judgment of the Sacred Congregation in all respects and most lovingly granted the faculties in question.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 November 1828; C. 853.

“Can a pall covered on its upper side with silk fabric be used in the Sacrifice of the Mass?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 January 1701, Congregation of Monte Corona, response to 6.

“Is it lawful to use a pall covered on its upper side with silk cloth, or embroidered with gold or silver and with a needle?—Response. It can be permitted, provided that an underlying linen pall covers the chalice and that the upper cloth is not black in color and does not represent any signs of death.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 July 1894, Doubts, response to 4.

Because of the scarcity of linen cloth, an indult was granted to the missionaries of the East Indies to celebrate upon a corporal of cotton cloth, yet in such a manner that the corporals be made of genuinely cotton and not silk cloth. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 28 July 1760; C. 849.

“12. Must the purificator be blessed? And insofar as the response is affirmative, 13. What blessing is to be employed?—Response. To the twelfth: Negative.—To the thirteenth: Provided for in the preceding case.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 September 1816, Tudela.

“Can corporals, palls, or at least albs, amices, and altar cloths be made from the fabric or cloth commonly called Nipis?—Response. Negative to both parts.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 August 1895, Piacenza, response to 1.

Let every priest offer Sacrifice only in a gold or silver chalice, or at least one of tin. Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis for the Italo-Greeks.

An Indult was granted to missionaries in China and the neighboring kingdoms and in the East Indies, because of their poverty, to use chalices made of the metal commonly called cuivre blanc, or white copper. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 6 June 1847; 24 December 1849; C. 856, 858. Cf. no. 551.

A small cross with an image of the Crucified, placed above the tabernacle, is not sufficient while Mass is celebrated; rather, another cross must be placed in the middle of the candlesticks. But if a large statue of the Most Holy Crucified is present at the altar, it is sufficient and another cross is not needed. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 June 1662, Rossano, responses to 1 and 2. The abuse of placing a small cross scarcely visible either above the tabernacle or above some smaller panel situated in the middle of the altar, in place of the cross to be placed between the candlesticks as the Rubric prescribes, is to be reproved. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 September 1822, Doubts, response to 7.

“1. Are altar or processional crosses to be blessed by precept? 2. If they are not to be blessed by precept, can a simple priest bless them privately and not solemnly?—Response. To the first: Negative. To the second: Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 July 1704, Rome.

“Can sacred vestments of gold color serve for the colors white, green, and red?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 29 March 1851, Adria, response to 5.

“In the said vestments of the Canons, can gold cloth be admitted for the colors white, red, and green?—Response. In the case, gold cloth can be employed by reason of its preciousness.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 November 1885, Pavia, response to 2.

“Can vestments of yellow color, both of silk and woven of gold, be employed for white, green, red, and violet, especially in poorer churches which cannot make vestments of each of the colors prescribed by the Rubric?—Response. As regards vestments of yellow color: Negative; as regards vestments woven of gold: Affirmative, but with violet excluded.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 December 1868, Syros, response to 4.

“Can silver cloth be permitted for vestments of white color?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 November 1885, Pavia, response to 3.

“1. Can vestments of yellow color be employed for any color whatsoever, except black? 2. Can vestments made of silk and interwoven with other colors and flowers, so that the primary and predominant color is scarcely discerned, be used interchangeably, at least for white, red, and green? 3. Can chasubles, stoles, and maniples be made from linen cloth or cotton, commonly called percale, dyed or painted with the prescribed colors?—Response. To the first: Negative. To the second: Likewise negative. To the third: The Rubrics and the usage of all churches, which do not admit chasubles of this kind, are to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 September 1837, Modena, response to 5.

“Is it lawful to use the color yellow or blue in the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 March 1833, Verona, response to 4.

“Can the use of blue color in sacred vestments be permitted for white, as is customarily done in Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or rather for violet?—Response. Negative in all respects, and the use of blue color is to be eliminated as an abuse.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 February 1839, Congregation of the Oblates of the Blessed Virgin Mary, response to 2.

“The cincture can be used in the color of the vestments.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 8 June 1709, Braga, response to 3.

“Can it be tolerated that a colored ground be placed beneath lace fabric or embroidery on the sleeves and hems of albs, and also on the sleeves of the rochet?—Response. As regards the sleeves and hems of albs: Affirmative; but as regards the sleeves of rochets, the ground can be of the color of the cassock of the respective dignity.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 July 1892, Rome, response to 5.

“Although the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 15 March 1664 reproved the custom which had perhaps obtained somewhere of making amices, albs, altar cloths, as well as corporals and palls, from a certain fabric composed of linen and the finest cotton, nevertheless in most recent times the abuse has so prevailed that, the constant discipline of the Church having been set aside, in some churches no other furnishings are employed either for offering Sacrifice or for the use of altars except those made of simple cotton. The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals charged with safeguarding the sacred rites have directed their efforts to uprooting completely this corruption, which very many endeavor to dignify with the name of custom. Therefore, solicitous that what was introduced from the beginnings of the Church concerning sacred vestments and furnishings on account of real and mystical significations be retained, restored, and altogether observed hereafter, they declared and decreed that there is to be no departure from the ancient custom under any pretext, color, or title whatsoever, and that the same sacred vestments and furnishings are to be made of linen or hemp and not of any other material whatsoever, even if it rivals and equals linen or hemp in cleanliness, whiteness, and durability. Nevertheless, using some indulgence, they permitted that amices, albs, altar cloths, and small cloths, if any made of cotton are possessed, may meanwhile be used until they are worn out; but when furnishings of this kind must be renewed, they commanded that they be made of no material other than linen or hemp. They strictly ordered, however, that corporals, palls, and purificators, after the passage of one month from the publication of the present Decree, be altogether of linen or hemp, the use of others which were made of cotton being interdicted and prohibited. And they thus decreed and commanded that it be observed everywhere, if it should please Our Most Holy Lord. His Holiness approved and confirmed the Decree of the Sacred Congregation and commanded it to be published in print.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 May 1819, General Decree, no. 3779.

“Is it lawful to use for the celebration of Mass ornaments whose weave is of glass mixed with gold or silver?—Response. Negative, and therefore it is not lawful to use the aforesaid ornaments.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 September 1847, Arras.

A fabric woven from silk and mulberry fibers can lawfully be used for sacred vestments. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 April 1893, Ceneda.

“His Holiness, in view of the peculiar circumstances set forth and while they persist, by special favor benignly granted the petitions for using amices, albs, altar cloths, as well as corporals and palls made from the fabric commonly called Hiapou, which comes from the plant called Urtica nivea by experts in natural history and Ho-ma in the Chinese language, and which belongs to the flax family; dispensing from the law and usage of employing linen cloth, ratifying the custom prevailing in the aforesaid Apostolic Vicariate, and permitting it for the future; all things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 June 1898, Apostolic Vicariate of Southwestern Szechuan.

“Can cinctures of wool lawfully be employed in the celebration of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?—Response. Nothing prevents the cinctures mentioned in the petition from being employed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 December 1862, Order of Carthusians.

“Can priests use a silk cincture in the Sacrifice of the Mass?—Response. It is more fitting to use a linen cincture.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 January 1791, Congregation of Monte Corona, response to 7.

“In conservatories of girls, can one of the girls or nuns serve, outside the grille or farther from the altar, Masses celebrated by the chaplain, when another server is not easily found?—Response. Affirmative in the case and from necessity.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 March 1899, Alatri, response to 6; M. E., vol. 11, p. 61.

“Is it to be tolerated that the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation prohibiting two servers at a low Mass are not obeyed, under the pretext that these servers are introduced not by reason of the dignity of the celebrant but by reason of the solemnity or more numerous attendance, for example, if the Mass is parochial or of some community?—Response. The Decrees are indeed to be observed as regards strictly private Masses; but as regards parochial or similar Masses on more solemn days, and as regards Masses which are celebrated in place of a solemn and sung Mass on the occasion of a real and customary celebration and solemnity, two servers assisting at Mass can be tolerated, with the provisions of the Sacred Congregation in the case of Tudela, 7 September 1816, doubts 11 and 12, observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 September 1857, Molina, response to 7.

“11. At private Masses can the server be permitted to open the Missal and find the Mass? 12. At the same private Masses can the server, if he is a priest, deacon, or subdeacon, be permitted to prepare the chalice and wipe it at the end after the ablutions, as in a solemn Mass?—Response. To the eleventh: Negative, and the Rubrics are to be observed.—To the twelfth: As to the preceding.”

“The usage of dressing the boys who serve at the altar in a red or violet cassock can be tolerated, provided that at solemn Masses and other solemn functions they also wear the surplice.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 18 August 1881; C. 1982.

“The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith has sometimes granted by Apostolic permission that missionaries might use oil in place of wax in the celebration of Mass and, when even oil was lacking, celebrate without lights.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 September 1850; C. 840.

“His Holiness deigned benignly to grant to the Apostolic Vicar of Coimbatore that, in those places of the Vicariate in which it is impossible to procure candles fashioned by the labor of bees, or olive oil in their place, he may permit in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the use of candles which are formed from the oil or fat of the whale, after the necessary purification, and are commonly called spermaceti.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 13 December 1874; C. 841, 1968, 1970; Sacred Congregation of Rites, Authentic Decrees, no. 2865.

Candles made from tallow are prohibited. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 December 1857, Carolina.

“Besides candles of wax, can it be tolerated that lighting from gas also be had upon the altar, or must the aforesaid use be prohibited?—Response. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 8 March 1879.

“Since the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 8 March 1879 prohibited lighting by gas together with candles of wax upon the altar, by parity of reason and under the same circumstances can electric lighting also be deemed prohibited?—Response. Affirmative, according to the tenor of the Decrees of 8 March 1879 and 4 June 1895.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 May 1902.

“Are the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals, or the Most Reverend Bishops, and all who by an Apostolic Indult enjoy the use of the skullcap, when assisting at the sacred rites either separately or collegially, bound to uncover the head at the chanting of the Holy Gospel and while they are incensed?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Ceremonies, 20 May 1890.

It was granted to missionaries of the Society of Jesus in China that in the celebration of Mass they might have the head covered with a cap, but not a common and ordinary one. C. 799.

Apostolic Vicars, when there is a grave and urgent cause, can celebrate without a rochet, ring, and episcopal cross. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 22 March 1669; C. 843.

Canons cannot wear a ring at Mass, any custom whatsoever notwithstanding. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 February 1892; 9 March 1894.

“Can the custom existing in many churches be tolerated by which, before the conventual Mass, the priest proceeds through the church beginning from the Epistle side and returning by the Gospel side, meanwhile sprinkling the people with holy water?—Response. In the case, the custom is to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 March 1862, St. Paul of Minnesota, response to 2.

“On Sundays, must the sprinkling of holy water upon the people be done by the celebrant outside the choir, proceeding as far as the door of the church, or must the celebrant, turned from the choir, sprinkle the people according to the prescriptions both in the Ceremonial of Bishops and in three Decrees?—Response. On Sundays the sprinkling of the people with holy water is to be done at the rails of the sanctuary, according to other Decrees.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 September 1884, Santander, response to 4.

In the prayer A cunctis, at the letter N., the Patron or Titular of the church in which the celebration takes place is to be named. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 September 1837, Modena, response to 7. But if the celebration takes place in an oratory, whether private or public, which does not have a Patron or Titular, then the Patron of the city or place is to be named. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 September 1840, Bruges, response to 1. But from the Decree of Pius IX of 7 July 1871, the name of St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, must be added after the invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and before any other Holy Patrons, except the Angels and St. John the Baptist, by these words: with Blessed Joseph.

Regulars in the prayer A cunctis can name their own Holy Founder at the letter N., provided that the Titular, if he can be named, is not omitted; nevertheless, the order of dignity prescribed in the Rubrics is to be observed. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 December 1891, Decree.

On the Sundays of Advent and Lent, the commanded Collect is not to be omitted, except on Palm Sunday and on the fourth Sunday of Advent when it coincides with the Vigil of the Nativity, and likewise on the Vigil of Pentecost because of its dignity. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 April 1822, Crotone, response to 2.

If a third prayer ad libitum is prescribed and some Collect is prescribed by the Bishop, that which is ad libitum must not be omitted; rather, some prayer ad libitum is to be recited in the third place, and that which must be said by command of the Bishop in the fourth place. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 August 1709, Bergamo, response to 2.

“1. In a church of regulars and in other exempt churches, are the Collects prescribed by the local Ordinary to be recited? 2. Is it lawful for the clergy of those churches to cease reciting them at pleasure before the Ordinary has ordered it?—Response. To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 April 1821, General Decree.

“Can priests of the Chinese Missions, in view of the scarcity of wine in those regions, use water alone, not mixed with wine, for the purification of their hands and the chalice during the solemnities of Mass?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 13 January 1665; C. 798. But the Holy Office on 14 June 1707 responded: “Short of the greatest scarcity, the Rubrics of the Roman Missal are to be observed as far as possible, especially in the purification, or first ablution.”

“Each and every priest, both secular and regular, coming to a church or public oratory, shall altogether celebrate Masses of both Saints and Blesseds, even those proper to regulars, in conformity with the Office of the same church or oratory, whether those Masses are contained in the Roman Missal or in that of the regulars; nevertheless, the peculiar rites proper to the Orders are excluded.

“But if in the said church or oratory an Office of a rite lower than double is observed, each celebrant shall be free to offer a Requiem Mass, a votive Mass, or even the Mass of the occurring feria, except on those days on which the Rubrics of the Roman Missal or the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites prohibit the aforesaid Masses.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 July 1895, for the City and the World.

“After the general Decree issued on 9 December 1895 concerning a Mass conforming to the Office of the church or public oratory, must Masses which are celebrated in the chapels of Bishops, seminaries, colleges, pious communities, hospitals, and prisons correspond to the calendar of the place or to that of the celebrant?—Response. Provided that it concerns the principal chapel, which for the effect of the aforesaid Decree is to be regarded after the manner of a public oratory: Affirmative to the first; negative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 May 1896.

“1. In every chapel of a cemetery duly erected or to be erected, the Masses which are permitted to be celebrated there can be Requiem Masses on days not impeded by a double feast of the first or second class, by Sundays and other feasts of precept to be observed, and also by privileged ferias, vigils, and octaves. Likewise, 2. in any churches and oratories, both public and private, and in chapels pertaining to seminaries, colleges, and religious or pious communities of either sex, private Requiem Masses, with the body present, unburied or even buried for not more than two days, can be offered on the day or for the day of death or burial, under the clauses and conditions under which, according to the Rubrics and Decrees, a solemn Requiem Mass is sung in the same cases, and with doubles of the first class, Sundays, and other feasts of precept excepted. All things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 May 1896, Decree.

“Will private Requiem Masses which, under the express conditions, can be celebrated with the body present be lawful in any churches or oratories, whether public or private?—Response. Affirmative, provided that the body is physically or morally present; but if it concerns public churches and oratories, a funeral with the funeral Mass must also take place.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 January 1897, Rome, response to 3. By a Decree of 3 April 1900, the same Sacred Congregation responded: “In private oratories, the Masses which are permitted to be read there can be Requiem Masses when the body is present in the house, with the other clauses and conditions observed.”

“For a poor deceased person whose family is unable to pay the expenses of a sung funeral Mass, can this Mass be read under the same clauses and conditions under which the aforesaid sung Mass is granted?—Response. Affirmative, or, in the case, a low funeral Mass can be permitted in place of a sung Mass, provided that on Sundays and other feasts of precept the Mass corresponding to the Office of the occurring day is not omitted.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1899.

It is not necessary that a funeral with a sung funeral Mass be held in semipublic oratories in order that low or private Masses may be offered there on the day or for the day of death or burial. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 April 1902, response to 7, Ljubljana; A. S. S., vol. 35, p. 52.

“Private Requiem Masses of this kind cannot be celebrated without application for the deceased whose body is or is deemed present. Likewise, the same Masses cannot be celebrated on non-double days which nevertheless exclude double feasts of the first class, as, for example, Ash Wednesday.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 January 1897, responses to 4 and 5, no. 3944.

“On which days is a Requiem Mass permitted when the body is unburied but absent because of a civil prohibition or contagious disease?—Response. A body absent because of a civil prohibition or contagious disease, not only unburied but also interred, provided that not more than two days have passed since death, can be deemed as though it were physically present, so that in the case the funeral Mass can lawfully be sung whenever it is permitted with the body present.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 February 1892, Calahorra, response to 26.

“By Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites no. 3570, Córdoba, 27 January 1883, response to 1, it was established: ‘Funeral rites for the deceased, when the body is carried out, cannot be completed in churches on the more solemn days of the first class, and funerals of this kind are to be transferred to the following day, or at least to the afternoon hours after Vespers of the feast day which are not impeded by sacred functions, nevertheless abstaining from the funeral ringing of the bell.’

“And by the subsequent Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, no. 3946, in the case of Lleida, 15 January 1897, it was likewise declared that the prevailing custom of ringing bells for the funerals of the deceased when they take place on more solemn feasts cannot be tolerated, and that the Decrees are to be observed, especially that in the case of Córdoba, 27 January 1883, response to 1. Hence it is asked:

“1. Which days by name throughout the year, beginning from the first Vespers of the feast and continuing through the whole following day, are deemed to be comprehended in the above-mentioned Decree of Córdoba?

“2. Can any exception be made from this rule because of the circumstances, especially in those cases in which a moral necessity of performing ecclesiastical funeral rites with some solemnity should manifest itself, and to what may this exception extend?

“Response. To the first: All feasts which, according to part I of the Catalog of Feasts published by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 22 August 1898 with General Decree no. 3810, are celebrated as primary feasts under a double rite of the first class and as feasts of precept; and, if they are not of precept, those Sundays to which the solemnity of the aforesaid feasts is transferred.

“To the second: Negative, and the Most Reverend Bishop is prudently to provide that the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual and the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 8 January 1904.

Now the primary feasts under a double rite of the first class are: the Nativity of the Lord, the Epiphany of the Lord, the Pasch of the Resurrection, the Ascension of the Lord, Pentecost, the Feast of the Body of Christ, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, the Feast of St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the Feast of All Saints, the Dedication of one’s own church, and the principal Patron of the region, diocese, or place.

Is the usage of covering with branches and flowers the catafalques which are erected in churches on the occasion of funerals to be prohibited?—Response. It can be tolerated. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 June 1893, Goa, response to 6.

“Is it fitting to hang funeral wreaths on the walls of a church or public oratory so that they remain there?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 May 1896, Valva and Sulmona.

“Insofar as it concerns banners which display manifestly impious or perverse emblems: if they are raised in a funeral procession, the clergy are to withdraw from it; if they are introduced into the church by force, then, if Mass has not yet begun, the clergy are to withdraw; if it has begun, after it has been completed the ecclesiastical authority is to issue a solemn protest concerning the violated sanctity of the temple and of the sacred functions. Insofar as it concerns banners called national which display no emblem forbidden in itself, they can be tolerated in the funeral procession, provided that they follow the bier; but they are not to be tolerated in the church unless disturbances or dangers would otherwise be feared.” Holy Office, 24 November 1897.

“So that every doubt concerning the prayers and the sequence to be said in Masses of the Dead may be removed, the Sacred Congregation of Rites declares:

“I. Only one prayer is to be said in all Masses which are celebrated on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, on the day and for the day of death or burial, and also in sung or low Masses, when the rite permits, on the third, seventh, and thirtieth days and on the anniversary day, as well as whenever a Mass is solemnly celebrated for the deceased, namely, under a rite corresponding to a double, as in the Office which is recited after news of someone’s death has been received and in anniversaries broadly understood.

“II. In any daily Masses, whether low or with chant, several prayers are to be said. The first is to be for the deceased person or persons, certainly designated, for whom the Sacrifice is offered, from among those which are inscribed in the Missal; the second is at discretion; the last is for all the faithful departed.

“III. But if Mass is celebrated for the deceased in general, those prayers are to be said which appear in the Missal for daily Masses, and in the same order in which they are inscribed.

“IV. But if at the same daily Masses the celebrant should wish to add several prayers, as the Rubrics give the power to do, this can be done only in low Masses, an odd number being observed together with the other prescribed prayers, and the prayer for all the faithful departed being assigned the final place.

“V. Finally, as regards the sequence, it is always to be said in every sung Mass, as also in low Masses which are offered on the privileged days mentioned above. In the remaining Masses it can either be recited or omitted at the discretion of the celebrant, according to the Rubrics. All things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 30 June 1896, General Decree.

“While the Preface and the Lord’s Prayer are chanted, whenever Masses are sung, can the organ be played?—Response. The Ceremonial of Bishops, book I, chapter 28, no. 9, which is to be observed, stands in the way.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 January 1899.

“1. Is it lawful for the celebrating priest, before or after the Sacrifice of the Mass is completed, publicly to recite prayers or hymns in the vernacular language, for example, prayers of a novena of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of some Saint, before the Most Holy Sacrament publicly exposed? 2. Is it lawful for a priest publicly celebrating the devotion of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in a church, before the Most Holy Sacrament solemnly exposed, to recite acts or other prayers in honor of the same Most Sacred Heart in the vernacular language, within the hearing of the faithful people standing by, so that they may be able to respond to those prayers or acts? 3. Is it lawful generally for a choir of musicians, that is, of singers, before the Most Holy Sacrament solemnly exposed, to sing hymns in the vernacular language? “Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Affirmative, or provided for in the preceding.—To the third: It can be done, provided that it does not concern the hymn Te Deum or any other liturgical prayers whatsoever, which must be sung only in the Latin language.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 February 1882, Leavenworth.

“At the parish Mass, is it lawful after the Gospel in Latin to read the Gospel in another rite and in another language, and for the minister to recite aloud in the vernacular language the Gloria, Credo, etc.?—Response. It is not lawful, and according to the mind. The mind is that the Gospel alone, when an explanation or instruction is to be given, can be placed before it as part of the discourse, provided that the translation is approved or legitimately adopted.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 29 March 1824.

“Are hymns in the vernacular language to be tolerated even in Masses which are celebrated with chant, while the usage of chanting the Introit, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei always remains?—Response. Hymns in the vernacular language are not to be tolerated in liturgical functions and Offices, but are altogether to be prohibited; outside liturgical functions the custom is to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 June 1879, Apostolic Prefecture of Madagascar, response to 1.

“1. Any vernacular songs whatsoever are altogether prohibited in all Masses which are celebrated either solemnly or only with chant, so that it is lawful for no one to add or intermingle other songs with the melodies which the Rubrics prescribe in the liturgical language; and the contrary custom concerning this matter, if it has been introduced anywhere, is altogether to be eliminated as an abuse and corruption.—2. Those things which the choir of singers must execute alternately are never to be omitted; rather, they are either to be sung in their entirety, or, if the organ is joined with the voices, partly sung and partly read in a clear voice under the organ, as the Ceremonial of Bishops prescribes, except the Creed, which, if it occurs, must always be sung in its entirety.—3. While the Most Holy Sacrament is elevated, whether under one species or the other, the singers are altogether to be silent according to the Rubrics and are to adore the Sacrament with the others. But if, after the last elevation has been completed, which according to the Rubrics the Benedictus must immediately follow, they should wish to sing something up to the Lord’s Prayer, the Sacred Congregation of Rites permits it, provided that nothing of those things which are to be sung from the Liturgy is omitted, the celebrant is not impeded from continuing the Mass, and that which is sung pertains to the Sacrament.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 May 1894, General Decree.

“In the same parish church, can prayers or hymns composed in the vernacular language in honor of the Saint or mystery whose feast is being celebrated be sung by the faithful during Mass according to an ancient custom interrupted for some years?—Response. Affirmative, with the consent of the Ordinary, as regards a private Mass; negative as regards a solemn or sung Mass, according to articles seven and eight of the ordinance on sacred music and according to the Decree in the case of the Apostolic Prefecture of Madagascar, in the response to the first doubt, of 21 June 1879. And it commanded that it be so observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 January 1896, Bisarchio.

“Is it lawful to sing something in the vernacular language: 1. At a solemn Mass, while Holy Communion is distributed for a notable period? 2. In a solemn procession of the Most Holy Sacrament, alternately with liturgical hymns?—Response. Negative to both.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 January 1898, Paris, response to 5.

“1. Is it lawful to chant the Passion of the Lord on Friday in Parasceve in the vernacular language, namely, one akin to Slavonic, in the two aforesaid parishes, in view of immemorial custom? 2. Can the hymn Tantum ergo, the Genitori, and the litanies be sung in the vernacular language while the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed? 3. Can the vernacular language be employed in the administration of Communion outside Mass? 4. And in the administration of Baptism? 5. And finally in the prayers prescribed by the Supreme Pontiffs at the end of Mass?—Response. To the first: Negative, and according to the mind.—To the second: Negative, and Decrees no. 3496, Apostolic Prefecture of Madagascar, 21 June 1879, response to 1; no. 3530, Naples, 23 March 1881; and no. 3537, Leavenworth, 27 February 1882, response to 3, are to be observed.—To the third: Negative, according to Decree no. 3725, Order of Friars Minor Capuchin of the Province of Switzerland, 23 May 1835, response to 5.—To the fourth: Affirmative as regards the questions and responses of the godfather or godmother, if the same are first recited by the Pastor in the Latin language.—To the fifth: Affirmative, provided that the translation is faithful and approved by the Ordinary.—The mind is: The negative response regards both a low and a sung Mass, and the Most Reverend Lord Archbishop of Udine is prudently to take care to remove the abuse where it has prevailed and to prevent it from being introduced elsewhere.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 March 1904.

“From an ancient custom, the Bishop of Tricomia, the predecessor Apostolic Vicar, reported that it had arisen that daily prayers are even now recited alternately by men and women, both in church and outside it; and that some years ago a custom had prevailed that, while the priest celebrates Mass, three or four girls already of marriageable age recite or sing aloud pious meditations adapted to each part of the Mass. By this practice, said the Prelate, Christians are greatly helped to restrain wanderings of mind and to hear Mass piously and devoutly. Nevertheless, it is disapproved by many as contrary to the words of the Apostle saying: ‘Let women be silent in churches.’ Adhering to these words, the Sacred Congregation itself, in Instructions given to the Apostolic Vicar of Szechuan on 29 April 1784 and printed at the end of the Synod of Szechuan, prohibited ‘that in a public assembly of men, virgins presume to preach or teach the word of God, or in some manner proclaim it by reading openly or singing alone,’ which was confirmed in the year 1844. Notwithstanding this, the Prelate asked whether it seemed to the authority of the Sacred Congregation that this practice was to be entirely abolished, since perhaps not all were persuaded that this was expedient, especially in other missions; or rather that it was to be tolerated, or that it should be permitted that the said pious meditations be sung by boys or by some catechist, in order to forestall all disparagement. But after seriously weighing all the things which had been noted by the praised Prelate, the Most Eminent Fathers judged that this answer should be given to Your Excellency: ‘The alternate recitation or chant according to custom remaining firm, but with the Decrees of the years 1784 and 1844 observed, care is to be taken in the most prudent manner possible that this be done only by boys or schoolmasters.’” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 May 1856.

“Whether and how the chants of women in sacred functions are to be prohibited in England.—Response. Let it be earnestly commended to the Bishops that, insofar as it can be done, they strive to uproot an abuse of this kind.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 6 July 1874.

“Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X, by the Motu proprio of 22 November 1903 in the form of an Instruction on sacred music, happily restored the venerable Gregorian Chant according to the fidelity of the codices to the ancient usage of the Churches, and at the same time gathered into one body the principal prescriptions for promoting or restoring the sanctity and dignity of sacred music in churches, to which, as a juridical Code of sacred music, he willed by the plenitude of his Apostolic Power that the force of law for the universal Church be attached. Therefore, the same Our Most Holy Lord, through this Sacred Congregation of Rites, commands and prescribes that the aforesaid Instruction be received by all the Churches and most sacredly observed, notwithstanding any privileges and exemptions whatsoever, even those worthy of special mention, such as the privileges and exemptions granted by the Apostolic See to the Major Basilicas of the City and especially to the Most Sacred Lateran Church. Likewise revoking both the privileges and the recommendations by which any other more recent forms of liturgical chant were introduced by the Apostolic See and by this Sacred Congregation according to the circumstances of affairs and times, His Holiness deigned benignly to grant that the aforesaid more recent forms of liturgical chant may lawfully be retained and sung in those Churches in which they have already been introduced until the venerable Gregorian Chant according to the fidelity of the codices can be substituted in their place as soon as possible. All things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Concerning all these things Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X commanded this Sacred Congregation of Rites to issue the present Decree. 8 January 1904.” For the City and the World.

“Must the priest assisting at the first Mass of a newly ordained priest use the stole from the beginning of Mass until the end, as some are accustomed, or must he assume it from the beginning of the Canon until the Consummation only?—Response. The custom is to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 June 1880, Vigevano, response to 7.

“Can one who has not yet received the order of the subdiaconate perform the office of subdeacon at a solemn Mass?—Response. Affirmative, provided that he has been initiated at least by the clerical tonsure, does not wear the maniple, and a true necessity urges.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 July 1894, Doubts, response to 7.

“The Most Reverend Lord Bishop of Płock proposed a doubt concerning a minister who, according to Decree no. 3377, Bayonne, 25 September 1875, at Masses with chant without ministers turns the pages, uncovers and cleans the chalice, pours in the wine and water, covers and uncovers the same chalice with the pall during the Canon as appropriate, and also wipes it after Communion and equips it with its ornaments, namely: Must this minister be constituted in Sacred Orders?

“Response. Affirmative, if he must also wipe the chalice.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 December 1901.

“Are the prayers after Mass prescribed by the Holy Father Leo XIII still to be said after his death?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 September 1903.

In the recitation of the prayers, one may kneel at discretion either upon the predella or upon the lowest step of the altar. Decree no. 3637.

The prayers prescribed by the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII are to be recited immediately after the Last Gospel has been completed. Decree no. 3682.

A priest who celebrates three consecutive Masses on the day of the Nativity, or on 2 November where this is lawful, shall recite the prescribed prayers only at the end of the last Mass. Decrees nos. 3855 and 3936.

“15. Likewise, whether he believes that one who with deliberate intent contemns the rite of the Church, the ceremonies of exorcism and catechism, and consecrated baptismal water, sins mortally.” Article 39, concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wyclif and Hus are to be questioned by command of Martin V in the Bull Inter cunctas.

Clement XI, in the Encyclical Letter to all the Bishops of the world, 10 March 1703: “A Bishop must take care with diligence and zeal beyond expression that the Sacrifice of the Mass, than which nothing holier, nothing more divine can be conceived, be celebrated by priests alone, not only with that purity which befits those who each day offer to God the Father the heavenly holocaust of the Only-begotten Son who put on our mortality, but also that they diligently and piously observe the sacred ceremonies prescribed in the Rubrics. This also is necessarily required, lest the priest, placed between men and God to appease His anger, if he performs his office negligently and immodestly, provoke God all the more.”

Decree of St. Pius V: “Commanding and strictly enjoining each and every one ... by virtue of holy obedience, that, all other methods and rites from other Missals being hereafter entirely omitted, ... they chant and read Mass according to the rite, manner, and norm which is now handed down by Us through this Missal; nor are they to presume in the celebration of Mass to add or recite ceremonies or prayers other than those which are contained in this Missal.”

“Among the accusations against the priests of your Vicariate, it is also recounted that in the administration of sacred things, especially in the tremendous Sacrifice of the Mass, they neglect the rites established by the Church, add to and subtract from them at pleasure, and form a certain mixed liturgy from the statutes of the Church and other things devised by their own effort. No one fails to understand that this manner of acting is to be reproved exceedingly. For rites and ceremonies were introduced into the Church so that external worship toward God might be exercised with due veneration, so that the sacred Mysteries which are performed might be rendered more august, and so that they might be for the great edification of Christ’s faithful by arousing their piety toward God and the affection of devotion. Hence the Most Holy Council of Trent thus speaks to this matter, session 22, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, chapter 5: ‘And since the nature of men is such that it cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things without external helps, Holy Mother Church has therefore instituted certain rites, namely, that some things in the Mass be pronounced in a low voice and others in a louder voice. She has likewise employed ceremonies such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind from Apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a Sacrifice might be commended and the minds of the faithful might be excited by these visible signs of religion and piety to the contemplation of the most sublime things which lie hidden in this Sacrifice.’ Since ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies are such, it follows that they are of the right of the Church and that it pertains to her alone to establish them, just as it pertains to the ministers of the Church to observe them exactly, especially because there is contained, implicit in these rites of the Church, a profession of many Catholic dogmas. Hence also from the liturgies faith is drawn concerning the divinity of the Word and of the Holy Spirit, the truth of the humanity and divinity of Christ, the virginity of the Mother of God, the dignity of Bishops above priests, the necessity of the grace of Christ for works meritorious of eternal life, the diffusion of original sin to all men, the Sacrament of Confirmation, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass, the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, the marvelous transubstantiation which takes place therein, purgatory, the veneration and invocation of the Saints, and many other things; whence it has come about that theologians have recognized in the liturgies a theological source from which the doctrine of the Church is manifested to us. Since these things are so, the Council of Trent, cited just above, most rightly decreed as follows, Session 7, On the Sacraments in General, canon 13 [the original prints “canon 12”]: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily employed in the solemn administration of the sacraments may either be contemned, or omitted at pleasure by the ministers without sin, or changed into other new rites by any pastor of the Church whatsoever: let him be anathema.” These things sanctioned at the Council of Trent are to be set against violators, and perhaps even despisers, of the sacred rites of the Church; the authority of the Supreme Pontiffs Pius V, Clement VIII, and Urban VIII is to be set against them, who approved the Roman Missal together with its Rubrics for the universal Church by three issued Constitutions; and against the obstinate, an even stricter manner of proceeding will have to be employed, if that should appear consonant with the evangelical prudence from which those who rule and govern in the Church of Christ must never depart.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, August 1827.

“Can prelates, archbishops, and bishops be judges for declaring doubts concerning sacred rites and ceremonies?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 June 1605, Visen.

“The Ordinary of the place is strictly bound to provide by opportune remedies that the Rubrics and the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites be duly observed; if any doubt should occur, recourse is to be had to the same Sacred Congregation for a declaration.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 September 1822, On Doubts, response to 1.

“Can any inveterate custom to the contrary derogate from a law prescribed by Decrees of the Sacred Congregation?—Response. Negative, likewise according to the Decrees.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 August 1839, Trivento, response to 2.

“Only those books are to be employed, and only in those blessings, which are conformed to the Roman Ritual.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 April 1832, Rimini, response to 4.